AGM Motion 5

[David G Congalton]

Why bother having national championships at all?

Speaking only personally, the Scottish and the British graded events, give me something to work towards and look forward to during the year. They are both opportunities, on home soil, to play one game a day events, with longer time controls and prepare for opponents round by round.

I enjoy weekend congresses a lot but the Scottish and British are just a bit special. I am no phychologist or phychiatrist so I don't know why I was so much more disappointed to lose in the last round of the Scottish Under 1500, when within touching distance of first prize, than I was when I lost the last game at the Glasgow Congress, when a win there would have given me the top spot.

[Alex McFarlane]

Ignoring the fact regarding the fact that the indicated seconder says that he didn't, the motion is suspect on a number of grounds.

If a player has an ELO-rating with a country other than SCO then they are not eligible
to be Scottish Champion.

1) An ELO rating is different from a FIDE rating. Many countries offer ELO ratings. If this motion is accepted then it will prevent SCO players from either competing in France for example or winning the Scottish Championship if they do. Paul Motwani probably has an Elo rating in Belgium.
2) It also means that the possibility exists for an unrated player to win the Scottish and to use his nine games to become registered for another federation but still win the title and for this to have been known in advance.
3) Players with partials would be allowed to win the title even if these are not for SCO.
4) Many players appear on the list under the federation in which their first rating event was held. Why should red tape prevent such a player from winning the Championship.

The intention of the motion may have some merit but its wording makes it a legal and ethical minefield. As such it would be difficult to support regardless of ones sympathies.

[StevieHilton]

"If a player has an ELO-rating with a country other than SCO then they are not eligible
to be Scottish Champion."

I have an elo rating in the Netherlands as well. Does this mean I cannot be elible for the Scottish under this proposal?

[andyburnett]

Ignoring the fact regarding the fact that the indicated seconder says that he didn't, the motion is suspect on a number of grounds.

Sorry Alex, I have absolutely no idea what this means

As mentioned earlier in the thread, the wording needs to be changed/tightened to avoid the problems you've outlined. I was hoping Andy Muir as proposer would have sorted this already - I will contact him to see if this can be done.

It is obvious what the intention of the motion is - the title of Scottish champion should go to someone who does or can represent Scotland. Why anyone would want to be Scottish champion when they don't want to or can't represent Scotland is a mystery to me. A title of Scottish Open champion for the winner of the actual event should be enough.

4) Many players appear on the list under the federation in which their first rating event was held. Why should red tape prevent such a player from winning the Championship.

Is this really a big problem? I can't think of anyone in this category, but surely they can have their FIDE registration changed to SCO if they wish?

[Alex McFarlane]

I was initially only discussing this on the forum - the actual motion being raised with myself as seconder came as a surprise ( abit of communication would not go amiss!).

There is at least an implication in this that you did not second the actual motion.

Is this really a big problem? I can't think of anyone in this category, but surely they can have their FIDE registration changed to SCO if they wish?

Yes they can and probably at no cost but anyone who got a rating a month before in some event could easily appear under that country - many English events have been guilty of just putting any unknown players down as ENG - and not have time to change. I accept that such a player is unlikely to win the Championship anyway but that should not be the point.

The wording of the motion does not say what it means. It is so far removed from what it actually means that I doubt if it can be amended constitutionally. Not only is it badly worded but it is badly thought out too in that it has made no attempt to take care of the oddities that can arise.

I can understand a feeling that only people with SCO can win the title but on another thread I was proposing that we should hold more FIDE rated and norm events. These are only financially possible if we can find non-SCO to take part. It seems short sighted trying to force people to become SCO if it is going to damage the chances of norm events. If the motion was to say that people had to be members of CS for x years or SCO with 1 years membership then I would have a lot more sympathy for it.

[Douglas Bryson]

2) It also means that the possibility exists for an unrated player to win the Scottish and to use his nine games to become registered for another federation but still win the title and for this to have been known in advance.
3) Players with partials would be allowed to win the title even if these are not for SCO.
4) Many players appear on the list under the federation in which their first rating event was held. Why should red tape prevent such a player from winning the Championship.

These points are not serious criticisms of the motion. OK the wording is poor and should say something like "Eligibility for the title of Scottish Champion is restricted to players with a FIDE affiliation to Scotland" rather than terms like ELO.

Point 2 and 3 about unrated players. The registration procedure for all FIDE rated events in Scotland takes great trouble to ask all FIDE unrateds to which country do they want to be registered - regardless of their country of residence. They will already have the relevant parent or residency status before we will permit them to choose Scotland. (It may be grandparent too if we can ever resolve that particular point).

Point 4. It is beyond belief that a genuine Scot who has been registered incorrectly under a different country - say when playing their first FIDE event outside this country will at no point prior to their shock win of the title have ever checked their FIDE online record. The Scottish Championships entries secretary will have listed all participating players online with their FIDE country of affiliation as happened this year. That misidentified player has a host of chances to point out to CS he has been registered incorrectly.

[Alex McFarlane]

It is beyond belief that a genuine Scot who has been registered incorrectly under a different country - say when playing their first FIDE event outside this country will at no point prior to their shock win of the title have ever checked their FIDE online record. The Scottish Championships entries secretary will have listed all participating players online with their FIDE country of affiliation as happened this year. That misidentified player has a host of chances to point out to CS he has been registered incorrectly

I cannot argue that it is very unlikely that a player will have come from nowhere to win the Scottish. However, I have to deal regularly with players who have been assigned the wrong nationality. Indeed I had to confirm one players nationality at the British this year. He wanted to be registered as Isle of Man. But settled for ENG instead of his country of birth.

FIDE now has monthly lists. The Scottish is at the beginning of the month. It is totally feasible that someone who plays their first FIDE rated event in June could end up with the wrong nationality. It doesn't really matter that they have no chance of winning, it is the fact that they would be prevented from winning that is the problem. I have no problem that in Scotland nationality is checked. This is not the case abroad. Indeed, anyone from the UK is often assumed to be ENG!

I don't mind a debate on this at the AGM but I would be horrified if such a bady worded motion was accepted. It is not simply a case of changing ELO to FIDE as many would assume. I have tried to give examples which need to be considered.

It is not so long ago that someone living in Germany appeared on the FIDE list as SCO and was not (readily?) known here.
We have had players appear on the FIDE list twice (and on at least one occasion either didn't notice or preferred not to notice as the new rating was higher!) if the second was as ENG and with a slight variation on the name it may not be noticed for some time. The wording of the motion could prevent that person from being eligible.

And remember it is possible for someone to be SCO and still not able to represent Scotland in international competition.

I've tried to keep individuals out of this but will for one last question which I pose without further comment other than I know both players reasonably well. Is Matt Turner any more or less Scottish than Jacob Aagaard?

[amuir]

the motion can be worded slightly differently but a Scottish Champion should WANT to play for Scotland. If he does not, it's wrong.
Simple as that.
I also dont believe in a dual champion - you cant be champion of two countries.

[amuir]

possible wording change : a player with an ELO rating, to be Scottish Champion, must be listed as SCO.

thus if Paul Motwani is SCO & BEL he can win
If he changes to BEL only he cannot win
Jacob DEN only and Andrew Greet ENG only cannot win
Matthew Turner SCO only can win
Donald Holmes SCO only can win
Jacob changes back from DEN to SCO again he can win
Magnus Carlsen lives in Scotland for a year stays NOR cannot win
Magnus Carlsen lives in Scotland for a year bur changes to SCO can win

Does that cover everything ?

[Alex McFarlane]

Tell that to Jonathan Rowson - Scottish and British Champion!

I think the wording of your motion, Andy, is so poor that it cannot legitimately be amended to anything sensible. I know what you are getting at but as the ECF case against FIDE should show, and echoed by the Blackpool Congress Small Claims Court case, you don't want to get involved in legal action. I believe your motion is so full of loopholes that it could leave CS open to legal action.

Andy, ELO is totally the wrong term to use. Almost every 4 figure rating is an ELO rating. A FIDE rating is something quite different. Please try to stick to the term FIDE rating for what you want.