Chess Scotland Adult Selection Criteria

[WBuchanan]

Walter,
There is a selection committee to select the team.  They can use their judgement on what is important, hopefully they will not just select the highest rated players, otherwise there is really no point having a selection committee.  One would hope that the selectors would factor in how active a player had been and inactivity would count against candidates.  Therefore, what you are suggesting already happens.  Do selectors penalise inactivity more or less than you are suggesting? I simply don't know.

Matthew, what AndyB is suggesting does not already happen, and has met opposition here from selectors and experienced other people. He expressly asked for acceptable tweaks. What I am suggesting puts common ground between selectors and AndyB, unless his true position is that he is going ahead with the absolute requirements regardless of views - in which case it's this discussion that is pointless!
Cheers

Walter, Unless I'm much mistaken Matt is saying that what YOU are proposing already happens to some extent - not what I am proposing!

I asked for tweaks, not a completely separate set of rules. For example, is 8/15 FIDE-rated games sensible? Too many? Not enough? Should it be 15 games and let the selectors decide which are more important, FIDE or CS or whatever? These are 'tweaks'

And just to reiterate, I have had plenty of support from 'experienced other people' - only 1 former selector, Craig, has commented on this specifically so far, admittedly strongly against my plans.

Hi AndyB
 
Yes, what I am proposing does already happen in part - as noted, my suggestion was intended to include your proposal too and make it less 'straighjacketing' on selectors as some had suggested. It also avoids some obvious anomalies that arise from the definition being is too rigid (as opposed to being set at a harsh level or not).
 
Thanks for replying. I was busy trying to answer this:
 
"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."
 
So, 15 games, 8 Fide, 'stated' and selectors expected to work within it?
 
Now you are saying this:
 
"I asked for tweaks, not a completely separate set of rules. For example, is 8/15 FIDE-rated games sensible? Too many? Not enough? Should it be 15 games and let the selectors decide which are more important, FIDE or CS or whatever? These are 'tweaks' [img=32x17]file:///C:\Users\tosh\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image002.gif[/img]"
 
Should it be 15 games...up for discussion and tweaking.
 
Which is it? For most of the discussion it's seemed you were open to suggestions of a lower minimum.
 
I don't mind which, but it would be good to clear it up.
 
I don't understand how if it's the latter (ie a lower minimum than 15 games might be set), you don't consider my suggestion is a tweak - you asked for details! A predetermined percentage reduction is not difficult!

Cheers
Walter