18-09-2016, 10:52 AM
Hmmm… Is this discussion correctly focussed? All in all, it seems too aspirational, hinging on “what’s in it for me?”
However much we may admire and respect them, top players are not the be-all and end-all of Chess Scotland.
The Chess Scotland Adult Selection Policy September 2007 contains this statement: “There may be occasions when not sending an individual or a team to a representative event is in the best interests of Chess Scotland”. I can readily understand and endorse omitting an individual. But, not send a team? How could this be? The only practical hurdle I can imagine might be too few candidates to make up a Ladies Team, but not send an Open or Men’s Team? Surely not! No funds? Unavailability of top players? Representing Scotland is such an honour, there would be a queue of candidates prepared to fund their own way if necessary. The selectors’ job would be to winnow them down. Resulting team would be too weak to do us “justice”?
The fundamental point of taking part in an Olympiad is to be there. To represent Scotland. That is the objective to focus on. Everything after that is ancillary. Of course, we want “our boys” and “girls” to do their best and fly our flag high. But, first and foremost, take up our place alongside other FIDE member states.
“… nobody has really answered Alan's original question. Chess Scotland puts significant funding into the Olympiad. Why? Where is the value?
With respect, I think Alan Tate and Clement Sreeves are missing the (pragmatic) point and edging into idealism. “Value” is such an open-ended and subjective concept that it is difficult to pin down.
On the whole, I think our selectors do a good job albeit a thankless one. The inference - if that is what it is - that they form a self-serving, introspective ring is wide of the mark. The very existence of this thread attests to that.
However much we may admire and respect them, top players are not the be-all and end-all of Chess Scotland.
The Chess Scotland Adult Selection Policy September 2007 contains this statement: “There may be occasions when not sending an individual or a team to a representative event is in the best interests of Chess Scotland”. I can readily understand and endorse omitting an individual. But, not send a team? How could this be? The only practical hurdle I can imagine might be too few candidates to make up a Ladies Team, but not send an Open or Men’s Team? Surely not! No funds? Unavailability of top players? Representing Scotland is such an honour, there would be a queue of candidates prepared to fund their own way if necessary. The selectors’ job would be to winnow them down. Resulting team would be too weak to do us “justice”?
The fundamental point of taking part in an Olympiad is to be there. To represent Scotland. That is the objective to focus on. Everything after that is ancillary. Of course, we want “our boys” and “girls” to do their best and fly our flag high. But, first and foremost, take up our place alongside other FIDE member states.
“… nobody has really answered Alan's original question. Chess Scotland puts significant funding into the Olympiad. Why? Where is the value?
With respect, I think Alan Tate and Clement Sreeves are missing the (pragmatic) point and edging into idealism. “Value” is such an open-ended and subjective concept that it is difficult to pin down.
On the whole, I think our selectors do a good job albeit a thankless one. The inference - if that is what it is - that they form a self-serving, introspective ring is wide of the mark. The very existence of this thread attests to that.