17-04-2014, 04:38 PM
Here we go again.... I'm not particularly interested in your views unless you have cast a deciding vote Andy. I would, however, like the arbiters who have been asked their opinions to make these decisions public so we can all understand what's what. Then if rules need changing/tightening/relaxing/whatever we are discussing it from a point of more complete knowledge.
Here's the story so far (or as far as I know)...
I was made aware of a rumour that Jonathan Rowson playing for Bon Accord in the final was a possibility. I informally contacted Hamish Olson and match arbiter Alistair Maxwell about the bona fide status of Jonathan representing BA, simply because I wouldn't want it to become a problem this Saturday (or beyond).
I also contacted my team captain, and also our highest-rated player. Neither of them have any problem with Jonathan (if indeed it is he) playing for BA, as I mentioned up-thread.
I can only surmise that this 'arbiters voting' idea was as a result of a BA player looking for clarification.
Personally, I am 50-50 on someone playing for a team they haven't represented since last century. If they still meet the requirements of the rules, then fine. If they don't, then tough.
However, it seems to me recently that certain people within the chess scene in Scotland feel that they can do whatever they please, so long as they don't blatantly contravene the 'laws'.
-Gamesmanship? Fine. BA can field whoever they want, or bluff, or take a running jump.
-Decisions made out of self-interest? Fine. Make yourself captain and go on a jolly jaunt to Norway where half the team don't respect you.
-Make the rules up as you go along? Fine. Decide that an invisible '80 points grading order' rule exists.
Personally I am sick and tired of it - it's pathetic, inexcusable and not what I am looking for in a 'national chess culture'. All this talk of bringing more and more juniors into chess - why not try to give them a chess culture worth being part of?
Here's the story so far (or as far as I know)...
I was made aware of a rumour that Jonathan Rowson playing for Bon Accord in the final was a possibility. I informally contacted Hamish Olson and match arbiter Alistair Maxwell about the bona fide status of Jonathan representing BA, simply because I wouldn't want it to become a problem this Saturday (or beyond).
I also contacted my team captain, and also our highest-rated player. Neither of them have any problem with Jonathan (if indeed it is he) playing for BA, as I mentioned up-thread.
I can only surmise that this 'arbiters voting' idea was as a result of a BA player looking for clarification.
Personally, I am 50-50 on someone playing for a team they haven't represented since last century. If they still meet the requirements of the rules, then fine. If they don't, then tough.
However, it seems to me recently that certain people within the chess scene in Scotland feel that they can do whatever they please, so long as they don't blatantly contravene the 'laws'.
-Gamesmanship? Fine. BA can field whoever they want, or bluff, or take a running jump.
-Decisions made out of self-interest? Fine. Make yourself captain and go on a jolly jaunt to Norway where half the team don't respect you.
-Make the rules up as you go along? Fine. Decide that an invisible '80 points grading order' rule exists.
Personally I am sick and tired of it - it's pathetic, inexcusable and not what I am looking for in a 'national chess culture'. All this talk of bringing more and more juniors into chess - why not try to give them a chess culture worth being part of?