12-09-2017, 12:56 AM
Andy B – you may prefer to dodge the ‘what if’ scenario concerning, say, Keti; but the purpose of it is to flag up a possible situation in which you will have boxed yourself in to making a team selection which could at best be described as insane. (I say this with absolutely no disrespect towards any of our other women players; it’s just a simple fact that Keti’s playing strength is vastly superior, and I don’t think anyone would dispute this.)
This isn’t a red herring – this is what we need to do when deciding whether or not to introduce some drastic change to the way things have previously been done. There might be advantages to the change; but we also need to ask, “Are there any potential situations in which this new way of doing things could f**k things up for us?”
I’ll break the argument down into three statements. Tell me which one(s) you disagree with, because I can’t see how any of them can be sensibly disputed.
1) If Keti ends up being excluded from selection for the next women's Olympiad team (in her native Georgia, no less) in favour of someone around the 1700 level who has played a few more recent games, it would be an act of lunacy: truly a f**k-up of galactic proportions for Scottish chess.
2) Your rule has the potential to cause exactly the above outcome.
3) Therefore the rule should be amended, toned down, or modified in some way.
Playing a decent amount of chess is important, for sure. By all means, set your proposed numbers as an expected minimum standard. But please leave a bit of room for selectors to look at the overall picture without having their hands tied by one overly rigid rule. In other words, set some clear guidelines regarding activity, but allow the selectors to exercise good judgement and generally avoid f**king up one or both of our Olympiad teams.
This isn’t a red herring – this is what we need to do when deciding whether or not to introduce some drastic change to the way things have previously been done. There might be advantages to the change; but we also need to ask, “Are there any potential situations in which this new way of doing things could f**k things up for us?”
I’ll break the argument down into three statements. Tell me which one(s) you disagree with, because I can’t see how any of them can be sensibly disputed.
1) If Keti ends up being excluded from selection for the next women's Olympiad team (in her native Georgia, no less) in favour of someone around the 1700 level who has played a few more recent games, it would be an act of lunacy: truly a f**k-up of galactic proportions for Scottish chess.
2) Your rule has the potential to cause exactly the above outcome.
3) Therefore the rule should be amended, toned down, or modified in some way.
Playing a decent amount of chess is important, for sure. By all means, set your proposed numbers as an expected minimum standard. But please leave a bit of room for selectors to look at the overall picture without having their hands tied by one overly rigid rule. In other words, set some clear guidelines regarding activity, but allow the selectors to exercise good judgement and generally avoid f**king up one or both of our Olympiad teams.