Chess Scotland Adult Selection Criteria

[andyburnett]

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 would prevent this.
 
Cheers
Walter

Hi Walter,

The first part relates to your post entirely! You are proposing a system of 'deductions for inactivity' and I responded with 'inactivity will not result in international honours' - I'm not sure how much clearer I can be about that :/ I am not tying the selectors hands at all - I am stating the criteria required for selection - the selectors then decide the team from those available, in much the same way as they do now.

I have no problem with someone inactive for years coming back to the game, playing the required number of games, being selected and then representing Scotland. If they take the place of the player who has failed to reach the target, even if they have been (much) more active in general over the years', then where is the problem? It's the same in almost every other field or sport. 

I'm sorry if it appears I am dismissing your ideas out of hand Walter - I'm really not. I simply don't agree with them at a very basic level. There are those who disagree with me and those who do agree and those who are in between somewhere- which is why I took the decision in the first place.

All the best,
Andy