16-09-2016, 04:33 PM
Hi Andy B!
You're not getting that well-earned break...
I appreciate your commitment to your roles BTW...
Why should an 'inactive/relatively inactive' player be chosen? You might equally ask "why not pick the best team?"
I think there are two questions here, one of degree and the other of competing priorities. If it takes 10 years for an inactive player's strength to degrade to the point where the bottom board overtakes him then advocates of the 'strongest team' would want him picked until that time. On the other hand, when there is a small grading difference between candidates a year of inactivity might be decisive.
As there are competing priorities, it might be best to determine the level of support for either/each before devising fixes. While I'm sure many members would like the strongest team selected, others would be keen to make value judgements on players' attitudes (despite this being problematic, as Alan has discovered) or simply want to select active players, or players competing in Scotland for that matter as opposed to elsewhere.
" what is an acceptable level of commitment to the game for selection? "
It's a good question but again I don't think absolutes work best here, in any case the player's level of commitment isn't known and can't be reliably inferred for the bare stats. I do think selectors could and should take inactivity into account. That's why I think a careful weighting process is needed, but as a guide for selectors as opposed to a rigid formula.
"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."
As ID and team captain your views carry considerable weight, and I'm not disagreeing with them - but there are other views, especially as additional measures have to be funded. I think any wider measures (including criteria for selection, on which I agree with Alan that they should be mostly clear, something which I think is probably not happening) shouldn't use absolutes for subjective factors, and need to include taking on board the views of the membership who, collectively, are the ones being 'represented', (in theory, at least).
Cheers
You're not getting that well-earned break...
I appreciate your commitment to your roles BTW...Why should an 'inactive/relatively inactive' player be chosen? You might equally ask "why not pick the best team?"
I think there are two questions here, one of degree and the other of competing priorities. If it takes 10 years for an inactive player's strength to degrade to the point where the bottom board overtakes him then advocates of the 'strongest team' would want him picked until that time. On the other hand, when there is a small grading difference between candidates a year of inactivity might be decisive.
As there are competing priorities, it might be best to determine the level of support for either/each before devising fixes. While I'm sure many members would like the strongest team selected, others would be keen to make value judgements on players' attitudes (despite this being problematic, as Alan has discovered) or simply want to select active players, or players competing in Scotland for that matter as opposed to elsewhere.
" what is an acceptable level of commitment to the game for selection? "
It's a good question but again I don't think absolutes work best here, in any case the player's level of commitment isn't known and can't be reliably inferred for the bare stats. I do think selectors could and should take inactivity into account. That's why I think a careful weighting process is needed, but as a guide for selectors as opposed to a rigid formula.
"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."
As ID and team captain your views carry considerable weight, and I'm not disagreeing with them - but there are other views, especially as additional measures have to be funded. I think any wider measures (including criteria for selection, on which I agree with Alan that they should be mostly clear, something which I think is probably not happening) shouldn't use absolutes for subjective factors, and need to include taking on board the views of the membership who, collectively, are the ones being 'represented', (in theory, at least).
Cheers