18-09-2016, 12:13 PM
Some very good posts recently from Walter, Craig and George but I'm going to start by answering Clement's question...
Value is not something easily quantifiable as George stated. The reason we fund Olympiad (and Euro) teams is that Scotland simply has to be represented on the international stage. There are a number of reasons for this, not least that we are an independent body from the UK when it comes to chess (and other sports) and need to ensure it stays that way.
If we were to rely solely on outside funding to ensure our teams can play, we would struggle to be 100% sure of participation. However...I plan to do my best to find sponsorship for our national adult teams, which would release CS adult funds for other objectives (helping norm seekers, senior participation, training seminars for adults, etc).
With regard to the selection process, I simply do not believe that anyone should just be able walk into a national team having not played since the previous season or longer. There are many reasons for not playing/not being able to play - but Olympiad spots should be earned, just like the 2300+ player has to earn their right to join the stronger players in that team. Play, improve (or try to!), show some form of dedication and then be rewarded by representing your country - which other sport or game wouldn't take this approach??
For those who have been inactive, the 'Canadian approach' would give them an opportunity to gain a spot:
-National champion
-3 spots chosen by selectors based rating/activity/whatever scale if we decide on one
-one wildcard chosen by selectors (which, if an inactive player, should also include a commitment to playing seriously before the event)
On this wildcard point, a little story. The Czech federation chose a young IM as their 5th board for Baku, and there was a lot of resentment/argument about this choice (the Czechs have dozens of strong GM players to choose from). He decided to prove his worth by playing a few weeks before Baku, scoring a GM norm in the process - and then went on to score a 2651 performance in Baku!
This is the kind of commitment I would like to see from our selected players (within reason of course - Czech has many tournaments to offer, but also the player in question is a student not a professional).
If 'improvement' of our teams' performances required 10 extra 'steps', selection/selection criteria would only be one of them, and perhaps( or probably) not the most important,
Pre-tournament training sessions, for example. On here and in private conversations I am being told players prefer their own methods. Fine, but are they working? Well, our teams performed well recently in Baku - but again, we are looking to improve are we not? Perhaps we need such sessions to focus on these big events - to give our players an edge when they get there, to improve the individuals training approach?
Such things need not cost the earth, and if private sponsorship of Olympiad costs can be found then there would be money in the kitty for such sessions, even training matches.
Ok, time for me to do some proper work (if writing about poker can be deemed work
) but please do keep the discussion alive - and as friendly as possible. Nobody here wants anything other than Scotland's teams and players to do the best they can. We did this in Baku, but let's see if we can find a way to make things even better!
Quote:Chess Scotland puts significant funding into the Olympiad. Why? Where is the value?
Value is not something easily quantifiable as George stated. The reason we fund Olympiad (and Euro) teams is that Scotland simply has to be represented on the international stage. There are a number of reasons for this, not least that we are an independent body from the UK when it comes to chess (and other sports) and need to ensure it stays that way.
If we were to rely solely on outside funding to ensure our teams can play, we would struggle to be 100% sure of participation. However...I plan to do my best to find sponsorship for our national adult teams, which would release CS adult funds for other objectives (helping norm seekers, senior participation, training seminars for adults, etc).
With regard to the selection process, I simply do not believe that anyone should just be able walk into a national team having not played since the previous season or longer. There are many reasons for not playing/not being able to play - but Olympiad spots should be earned, just like the 2300+ player has to earn their right to join the stronger players in that team. Play, improve (or try to!), show some form of dedication and then be rewarded by representing your country - which other sport or game wouldn't take this approach??
For those who have been inactive, the 'Canadian approach' would give them an opportunity to gain a spot:
-National champion
-3 spots chosen by selectors based rating/activity/whatever scale if we decide on one
-one wildcard chosen by selectors (which, if an inactive player, should also include a commitment to playing seriously before the event)
On this wildcard point, a little story. The Czech federation chose a young IM as their 5th board for Baku, and there was a lot of resentment/argument about this choice (the Czechs have dozens of strong GM players to choose from). He decided to prove his worth by playing a few weeks before Baku, scoring a GM norm in the process - and then went on to score a 2651 performance in Baku!
This is the kind of commitment I would like to see from our selected players (within reason of course - Czech has many tournaments to offer, but also the player in question is a student not a professional).
If 'improvement' of our teams' performances required 10 extra 'steps', selection/selection criteria would only be one of them, and perhaps( or probably) not the most important,
Pre-tournament training sessions, for example. On here and in private conversations I am being told players prefer their own methods. Fine, but are they working? Well, our teams performed well recently in Baku - but again, we are looking to improve are we not? Perhaps we need such sessions to focus on these big events - to give our players an edge when they get there, to improve the individuals training approach?
Such things need not cost the earth, and if private sponsorship of Olympiad costs can be found then there would be money in the kitty for such sessions, even training matches.
Ok, time for me to do some proper work (if writing about poker can be deemed work
) but please do keep the discussion alive - and as friendly as possible. Nobody here wants anything other than Scotland's teams and players to do the best they can. We did this in Baku, but let's see if we can find a way to make things even better!