14-09-2017, 04:22 PM
It seems as though (with the exception of a few possible minor tweaks) the decision has been made, so as far as I'm concerned it's time to move on and see how it all plays out. Here are my final thoughts about the whole business:
- As an individual, it will make no difference to me as I tend to play in as many events as possible (within the confines of annual leave, sensible travelling distance and so on) regardless of whether team qualification is at stake. 4NCL, SNCL and possibly Perth weekender in February (if the top section is actually an Open tournament) should provide enough FIDE-rated games, and local league games will easily put my total above 15 if the other events haven't already.
- Without naming individuals, it's my opinion that the 2014 and 2016 Olympiad squads (the only two so far in which I've represented Scotland) could, collectively, have benefited from a higher level of 'match fitness'; so I'm happy to acknowledge that this new rule should have a positive effect in that area.
- I maintain that there should be some scope for selectors to relax the 8/15-game requirement in special circumstances, namely if a player has, for one reason or another, failed to play the requisite number of games but there's still reason to think they will be of exceptional value to the team. This seems to be the main area of disagreement between Andy B (and other supporters of the ruling) and those who think as I do. I would like for selectors to be able to say something like, "Hey, I see that Player X has only played this number of games in the period, but their rating is way up here and there's every chance that they'll still outperform most of the other prospective team members. Do we really want to exclude this person because [for example] a few of their opponents in this period haven't been FIDE-rated?" Other selectors might not share the same view - but at least they could discuss that specific case on its merits and decide what's in the best interests of the team.
- As an individual, it will make no difference to me as I tend to play in as many events as possible (within the confines of annual leave, sensible travelling distance and so on) regardless of whether team qualification is at stake. 4NCL, SNCL and possibly Perth weekender in February (if the top section is actually an Open tournament) should provide enough FIDE-rated games, and local league games will easily put my total above 15 if the other events haven't already.
- Without naming individuals, it's my opinion that the 2014 and 2016 Olympiad squads (the only two so far in which I've represented Scotland) could, collectively, have benefited from a higher level of 'match fitness'; so I'm happy to acknowledge that this new rule should have a positive effect in that area.
- I maintain that there should be some scope for selectors to relax the 8/15-game requirement in special circumstances, namely if a player has, for one reason or another, failed to play the requisite number of games but there's still reason to think they will be of exceptional value to the team. This seems to be the main area of disagreement between Andy B (and other supporters of the ruling) and those who think as I do. I would like for selectors to be able to say something like, "Hey, I see that Player X has only played this number of games in the period, but their rating is way up here and there's every chance that they'll still outperform most of the other prospective team members. Do we really want to exclude this person because [for example] a few of their opponents in this period haven't been FIDE-rated?" Other selectors might not share the same view - but at least they could discuss that specific case on its merits and decide what's in the best interests of the team.