16-09-2016, 01:29 PM
WBuchanan Wrote:Andy B: "I believe there should be a number, but the goal is to get players into shape, not sideline them"
It would be better if this number were not fixed, as this could lead to dropping a player who should be picked on strength even after taking account of inactivity. Rather, a big gap down to the next candidate should count more than a small gap!? An adjustment for inactivity could be made on agreed basis so the gap to the next player can be assessed.
Just for example, I think I remember Douglas Bryson saying that a returning inactive player loses about ten rating points on average for each inactive year. This could be adjusted to take account of the number of games played, and form the basis of a tweak to the ratings.
Walter, the part I've put in bold begs the question: Why should an 'inactive/relatively inactive' player be chosen?
Using the example of Jonathan Rowson from my previous post: he decides he wants to play the Olympiad, has played 2 games in a year, and is expected to perform at his level immediately? I'd love our best players to represent Scotland again in Olympiads, but it does a disservice not only to our team if they are not ready to play at their best, but also to those who are fighting all year to make the team.
This then begs the question: what is an acceptable level of commitment to the game for selection? Should selectors be left to decide if 2 games, or zero, or 8 or whatever is the number? Views vary - as other have stated - so why not have a minimum level in place?
The tweaking of the ratings due to inactivity doesn't deal with this. Jonathan would have to be inactive for 10 or 15 years before he reaches the rest of our guys!!
What I want are players committed to playing chess, and ready and able to give it their best when they reach the biggest team tournaments. There are several factors which can be taken into account here and I firmly believe that 'activity' is one of the really important ones.