15-09-2017, 09:44 AM
(14-09-2017, 05:28 PM)WBuchanan Wrote: Hi AndyB
Here is my suggestion that aims to take account of player inactivity without tying selectors hands.
Noting that almost all of those expressing objections or reservations have agreed with the aim of having activity as a factor, I suggest the following:
1) Agree on a working formula (obtained from past data) that estimates the effect of the length of a period of inactivity in terms of difference in rating points.
Eg, I recall Dougie Bryson suggesting once that from the data the average rate of decline seemed to be about 10 points per inactive year.
Hi Walter,
I appreciate the thought which has gone into your post...but...inactivity will not result in international honours! To be honest, and without wishing to offend you or anyone else, I don't even know where the idea of such a thing comes from :/ If someone is inactive, they don't get a spot. If they want to represent Scotland, put in a bit of effort and hit the targets. If that's not possible or desirable, aim for next time.
2) Factor this adjustment for inactivity into discussions of ratings and playing strength, and into guidelines.
Please see above!
3) If a minimum number of games is still required to improve performance, set it low so as not to exclude top players unnecessarily.
I don't think many would object to even a fixed minimum, if it was five or six games.
The new criteria don't unnecessarily exclude anyone - the main idea is actually that fairly radical change is a necessity! If we took a practical example using your proposed formula and criteria, our highest-rated player could play 1 weekender a year in this scenario and be in the team for the next 20 years, or not play at all if there was no minimum.
With the advantage conferred by greater activity, only players with a clear margin over the others will be able to benefit from the minimum level being low, after taking account of the estimated effect on playing strength .
I'm not following this point somehow Walter? The advantage conferred by greater activity is what exactly, as regards the selection criteria? Selectors choosing those who play more regularly? Sorry, I'm a bit confused here.
Note that the adjustment would be objective but having made it selectors would still be free to apply their usual methods of judgement.
4) Some players might make the team while inactive (for a while) but they would need to have a clear enough margin. If paying strength is not to be the only criterion for selection, you could deduct (for example) a further five percent from the inactive player's notional rating for reasons of encouragement/performance/greater good - so for selection purposes a player 'loses' 10-15 points per year for inactivity.
Those numbers can obviously be changed to reflect views (some might argue for a harsher 'penalty'), but the idea allows selectors to use their experience while still taking account of the views of yourself as ID and other competitors (also like yourself
I kind of get what you're saying here, but the whole point is that not playing = not playing! It's of absolutely no use to Scottish chess or Scottish team performances to have someone not playing/hardly playing and then being sent to an Olympiad ahead of those who are actively participating and giving themselves and the team a better chance of doing well. The selectors will still have decisions to make based on all the other points/factors.
What do you think?
Errr, I disagree with almost everything. Sorry Walter :/ Does anyone else have thoughts on Walter's idea? Maybe it's just me, but it seems to be an arcane way of not making any progress and still 'rewarding' players for not playing - I just don't see how this helps Scottish chess or our international progress.
I would much rather see a very strong player who can't meet the activity criteria but wants to go to the Olympiad offer their services as a coach/captain - where their experience and knowledge and presence would be hugely helpful.
Cheers
Walter