07-05-2014, 04:19 PM
There are three potential sources of funding when a junior (or adult) goes abroad.
The first is the accommodation provided by the host. This is issued to one representative in each prize category. It cannot be transferred in whole or in part without breaking the conditions of award.
The second would be a contribution towards costs from the national body. As this would come from Chess Scotland it could be allocated as we wish.
The third would be funding found by the parent. This would only apply to that child.
It has been mentioned earlier that a parent could volunteer that part of the first could be allocated to another child. I would reject this proposal for two reasons. (a) it puts an unfair burden on that parent to decide if they should agree to that and (b) more importantly, it could leave Scotland with an additional bill if the player making the donation had to withdraw just before the event. The 'free' place would fall with the withdrawal leaving CS to pick up the full bill for the other child who had been promised a significant contribution.
It may seem unfair that a weaker player can be selected for a subsidised place purely on age but that happens in other areas eg exams where a pass mark is modified to ensure a minimum pass rate (any norm referenced rather than criteria referenced system).
It has been suggested that a player can benefit from being in a weak age group but this does not happen often. Most events have age groups in two year bands. So a weak player doesn't get selected one year because of someone a year older and fails again the next year because of someone a year younger.
I'm also concerned about how you judge potential. I have known an 8 year old who was better than a 10 year old but the main reason for this was that the 8 year old had been playing for 4 years and the 10 year old for less than a year but both were top of their age group. Potential implies continuation to reach the predicted level. How do we know who will be playing in 5 years time?
When I was involved in selection in the past maturity was considered as well as ability. You avoided sending a very young player if the experience could put them off chess. When there was more than one promising player it was common practice to alternate the invitations with the weaker going to the World event and the stronger to the European (which had less of a tail to gain points against).
Anyway, for confirmation, the Commonwealth is awarding one place per championship category.
The first is the accommodation provided by the host. This is issued to one representative in each prize category. It cannot be transferred in whole or in part without breaking the conditions of award.
The second would be a contribution towards costs from the national body. As this would come from Chess Scotland it could be allocated as we wish.
The third would be funding found by the parent. This would only apply to that child.
It has been mentioned earlier that a parent could volunteer that part of the first could be allocated to another child. I would reject this proposal for two reasons. (a) it puts an unfair burden on that parent to decide if they should agree to that and (b) more importantly, it could leave Scotland with an additional bill if the player making the donation had to withdraw just before the event. The 'free' place would fall with the withdrawal leaving CS to pick up the full bill for the other child who had been promised a significant contribution.
It may seem unfair that a weaker player can be selected for a subsidised place purely on age but that happens in other areas eg exams where a pass mark is modified to ensure a minimum pass rate (any norm referenced rather than criteria referenced system).
It has been suggested that a player can benefit from being in a weak age group but this does not happen often. Most events have age groups in two year bands. So a weak player doesn't get selected one year because of someone a year older and fails again the next year because of someone a year younger.
I'm also concerned about how you judge potential. I have known an 8 year old who was better than a 10 year old but the main reason for this was that the 8 year old had been playing for 4 years and the 10 year old for less than a year but both were top of their age group. Potential implies continuation to reach the predicted level. How do we know who will be playing in 5 years time?
When I was involved in selection in the past maturity was considered as well as ability. You avoided sending a very young player if the experience could put them off chess. When there was more than one promising player it was common practice to alternate the invitations with the weaker going to the World event and the stronger to the European (which had less of a tail to gain points against).
Anyway, for confirmation, the Commonwealth is awarding one place per championship category.