11-09-2017, 08:44 PM
'to be considered ... a player must have completed a minimum of 15 (standard length) graded games over the 6 months prior to the selection deadline date'
I do not like the proposed changes, especially the above.
First, the existing selection criteria, which have been extant a very long time and as I recall resulted from a painstaking process that invited views from many parties, have functioned very well - read them. Haven't they actually worked quite well? At any rate I do not recall many serious complaints about selection in the past; in particular who, if any one, has managed to walk into a place without some sort of serious assessment that they are strong and indeed recently active enough? Selectors need to be able to exercise reasonable discretion and it's written in carefully to the existing criteria as they stand.
Second, if there is a need to spell out the activity criteria, I agree with others who argue that there should be 'wiggle room'. In other words the abrupt 'must' statement above should be phrased in some more reasonable way, such as 'ordinarily will be expected to but not necessarily required'. I used to be a selector. I wouldn't want to be constrained by something like the headline statement in bold above and might well resign.
Thirdly, the requirement itself, if something like it really needs to be spelled out in such specific terms (which I doubt), is far too constraining. On this I also agree with many others that the requirement needs at least to be drawn more broadly. Why 6 months and a mere 15 games? When 12 months and 30 rated games actually gives you a properly statistical sample to draw from that at the same time allows prospective selectees, the great majority of whom work full-time, a better chance to decide when to enter the necessary events through the year to qualify.
Fourthly, on an extension of that point, why specify FIDE rating points? If you play against a player with a FIDE rating of say 2300-2400 in an event that isn't FIDE rated but CS rated, why ignore the latter if by its exclusion that player is one game short of the curiously sacrosanct 'FIDE' requirement? By the way, the existing draft selection criteria cover this very point already in a most sensible way.
Fifthly, why shouldn't rated rapid games count? Increasingly some of the most competitive chess out there resides in some of these events (e.g. more than a few Scots are heading to the extremely strong English Rapidplay championships, Liverpool 23-24 September). For the aspiring player who truly seeks to improve his or her game, these provide not just excellent competition but also allow many more games to be played in a short period and at lower cost than always having to play in Opens.
I could go on and I agree with many other points made about the difficulties and potential contradictions involved in writing selection criteria in ways that do not allow selectors sufficient discretion to do their job well. In my experience, the CS selectors are usually not just well-qualified to exercise the discretion that goes with that job but have on the whole done that job well ... there may occasionally be problems at the margin (and I always found filling a final place in a Scottish team difficult when there were more than one player, who all had frankly excellent claims to that place) but tough decisions do indeed sometimes have to be made.
Finally is this a fait accompli? I hope not.
I do not like the proposed changes, especially the above.
First, the existing selection criteria, which have been extant a very long time and as I recall resulted from a painstaking process that invited views from many parties, have functioned very well - read them. Haven't they actually worked quite well? At any rate I do not recall many serious complaints about selection in the past; in particular who, if any one, has managed to walk into a place without some sort of serious assessment that they are strong and indeed recently active enough? Selectors need to be able to exercise reasonable discretion and it's written in carefully to the existing criteria as they stand.
Second, if there is a need to spell out the activity criteria, I agree with others who argue that there should be 'wiggle room'. In other words the abrupt 'must' statement above should be phrased in some more reasonable way, such as 'ordinarily will be expected to but not necessarily required'. I used to be a selector. I wouldn't want to be constrained by something like the headline statement in bold above and might well resign.
Thirdly, the requirement itself, if something like it really needs to be spelled out in such specific terms (which I doubt), is far too constraining. On this I also agree with many others that the requirement needs at least to be drawn more broadly. Why 6 months and a mere 15 games? When 12 months and 30 rated games actually gives you a properly statistical sample to draw from that at the same time allows prospective selectees, the great majority of whom work full-time, a better chance to decide when to enter the necessary events through the year to qualify.
Fourthly, on an extension of that point, why specify FIDE rating points? If you play against a player with a FIDE rating of say 2300-2400 in an event that isn't FIDE rated but CS rated, why ignore the latter if by its exclusion that player is one game short of the curiously sacrosanct 'FIDE' requirement? By the way, the existing draft selection criteria cover this very point already in a most sensible way.
Fifthly, why shouldn't rated rapid games count? Increasingly some of the most competitive chess out there resides in some of these events (e.g. more than a few Scots are heading to the extremely strong English Rapidplay championships, Liverpool 23-24 September). For the aspiring player who truly seeks to improve his or her game, these provide not just excellent competition but also allow many more games to be played in a short period and at lower cost than always having to play in Opens.
I could go on and I agree with many other points made about the difficulties and potential contradictions involved in writing selection criteria in ways that do not allow selectors sufficient discretion to do their job well. In my experience, the CS selectors are usually not just well-qualified to exercise the discretion that goes with that job but have on the whole done that job well ... there may occasionally be problems at the margin (and I always found filling a final place in a Scottish team difficult when there were more than one player, who all had frankly excellent claims to that place) but tough decisions do indeed sometimes have to be made.
Finally is this a fait accompli? I hope not.