Andy B you say
"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."
How does any of this relate to my post?
Having received many constructive suggestions from experienced selectors (and players), you expressed worry about the lack of detailed responses. My post was meant to address this - as many had asked for selectors hands not to be tied by fixed thresholds.
If you just look a little more closely, inactivity IS addressed in the framework I suggested. For example, you could even adjust inactive players downwards by 50 points per inactive year (five times the average level of deterioration, if the figure attributed to Dougie Bryson is reasonable) and it wouldn't be long before a top inactive player was out-they would probably only get in once before being overtaken by the more active players.
[I admit my "with the advantage conferred by greater activity " was open to other interpretations - sorry, I just meant "without the disadvantage conferred by inactivity"].
You also say
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'm a bit disappointed that you are so quick to dismiss the detail you asked for, Andy. How do you arrive at the conclusion that in the framework I suggested, players are rewarded by not playing? When in fact I've suggested a deduction (for deterioration) plus a penalty (to 'benefit' Scottish Chess) and indicated you can increase both!
Perhaps you could read it again in the light of my further explanation above? To repeat, simply increasing the percentage deduction for inactivity increases the extent to which that inactivity drags down the (estimate of) the player's effective playing strength. This framework will certainly edge them out of the team in time, leaving the parameters to be determined.
The advantage of a percentage deduction over your proposed blanket scenario is that the process of choosing the number allows it to be reasoned to reflect stated or unstated objectives.
Here is one illustration. In your scenario, a player could be completely inactive for five years and then play for 6 months and get in the team, to the exclusion of an equally strong player who has been very active the whole time but just fell short of the high target in recent games. Any sensible deduction for inactivity should prevent this.
Cheers
Walter
Not really, Matthew. What I am trying to do is suggest a framework within which selectors have wiggle room but the Director's views on inactivity are also represented. My initial choices of the parameter (a deduction of 10-15% of the rating per year for inactivity) did reflect a less harsh view than AndyB's on inactivity, but I did make it clear (or I thought I did!) that this number could be strengthened.
It is a good question though, what is the purpose of any change. It is a frequent complaint that relatively inactive players with a high enough rating make the team. AndyB's proposal addresses this but if the levels of activity are as they appear to be from the top 100, it would seem to be using quite a large and stiff brush.
Perhaps this should have been the debate first - do members want the strongest team (the purpose of this presumably being obvious), or should it meet other objectives, and if so what are they?
Cheers
"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."
How does any of this relate to my post?
Having received many constructive suggestions from experienced selectors (and players), you expressed worry about the lack of detailed responses. My post was meant to address this - as many had asked for selectors hands not to be tied by fixed thresholds.
If you just look a little more closely, inactivity IS addressed in the framework I suggested. For example, you could even adjust inactive players downwards by 50 points per inactive year (five times the average level of deterioration, if the figure attributed to Dougie Bryson is reasonable) and it wouldn't be long before a top inactive player was out-they would probably only get in once before being overtaken by the more active players.
[I admit my "with the advantage conferred by greater activity " was open to other interpretations - sorry, I just meant "without the disadvantage conferred by inactivity"].
You also say
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'm a bit disappointed that you are so quick to dismiss the detail you asked for, Andy. How do you arrive at the conclusion that in the framework I suggested, players are rewarded by not playing? When in fact I've suggested a deduction (for deterioration) plus a penalty (to 'benefit' Scottish Chess) and indicated you can increase both!
Perhaps you could read it again in the light of my further explanation above? To repeat, simply increasing the percentage deduction for inactivity increases the extent to which that inactivity drags down the (estimate of) the player's effective playing strength. This framework will certainly edge them out of the team in time, leaving the parameters to be determined.
The advantage of a percentage deduction over your proposed blanket scenario is that the process of choosing the number allows it to be reasoned to reflect stated or unstated objectives.
Here is one illustration. In your scenario, a player could be completely inactive for five years and then play for 6 months and get in the team, to the exclusion of an equally strong player who has been very active the whole time but just fell short of the high target in recent games. Any sensible deduction for inactivity should prevent this.
Cheers
Walter
(15-09-2017, 10:07 AM)Matthew Turner Wrote: Andy,
I think this is relatively simple. Walter is trying to get the strongest possible team to represent Scotland at the next Olympiad. You are effectively trying to get the strongest possible team in ten years time. I think it is important that people recognise that distinction and understand that those noble aims are often in conflict. I hope people see the sense in your argument.
Not really, Matthew. What I am trying to do is suggest a framework within which selectors have wiggle room but the Director's views on inactivity are also represented. My initial choices of the parameter (a deduction of 10-15% of the rating per year for inactivity) did reflect a less harsh view than AndyB's on inactivity, but I did make it clear (or I thought I did!) that this number could be strengthened.
It is a good question though, what is the purpose of any change. It is a frequent complaint that relatively inactive players with a high enough rating make the team. AndyB's proposal addresses this but if the levels of activity are as they appear to be from the top 100, it would seem to be using quite a large and stiff brush.
Perhaps this should have been the debate first - do members want the strongest team (the purpose of this presumably being obvious), or should it meet other objectives, and if so what are they?
Cheers