26-09-2017, 01:54 PM
I created the current Chess Scotland Adult Selection Policy in September 2007. https://www.chessscotland.com/documents/...adults.htm
My key principles were:
1. Current playing strength is the key factor for selection
2. Selection is a privilege not a right
3. Players are responsible for the accuracy of data held on them by Chess Scotland
It is right that Andy B reviews the policy as the environment 10 years on is quite different. My understanding is that Andy's proposed rule focuses on defining how current playing strength can be assessed. We are aligned (I believe!) that this remains a key principle. I would also like to see consideration of the other two principles set out.
Implementation is another matter. The proposed ruling has the implication of saying "Selectors can't assess your current playing strength because you haven't played enough games recently. This means you won't be put in front of the selectors for consideration." Really? A number of players, generally internationally experienced, have expressed concerns in the thread because it seems unfair to individuals and self-defeating to the squad. I'd observe that short periods of inactivity don't appear to make much difference to stronger players (think Dougie B confirmed this is borne out statistically). This suggests to me it is worth considering whether i) the level of prescription goes too far as an initial step or in the short term (by which I mean before the 2018 Olympiad); and ii) prescription is flawed as a concept.
In my view, the main considerations for the ID in 2017 in setting selection policy are a) the size of the current pool to choose from; b) how to grow and improve the future pool; c) how does available CS finances impact sending the best team; and d) how does lack of funding impact on individual players' participation. This will help set short and long term strategies which, I believe, need to be different. Policy should not be set in isolation to other CS activities and spending.
My opinion is that competitive activities (I'll not get into the discussion of whether chess is a sport) prosper when there is an effective pyramid structure which moves players through the ranks from junior elite to elite. Support at different levels (financial, training etc) is required and especially at the top level. A lack of funding has led to reduced activity at elite level and promising players reducing their ambitions in their teens and 20s. Too many are giving up!
To round up on the rule as proposed:
Prescription puts more emphasis on activity than ability. With less than a year to go to the 2018 Olympiad it is reasonable to expect the top players to already have a schedule - so rule change appears unfair in short term at least. Forcing players to play in events that they didn't intend to play just to achieve a participation level is a further obstacle alongside the lack of finance to getting the best team. Selectors can already use activity levels as a factor. I welcome further discussion on selection policy, as part of a wider strategy piece, for implementation to apply to selection not earlier than 2019.
My key principles were:
1. Current playing strength is the key factor for selection
2. Selection is a privilege not a right
3. Players are responsible for the accuracy of data held on them by Chess Scotland
It is right that Andy B reviews the policy as the environment 10 years on is quite different. My understanding is that Andy's proposed rule focuses on defining how current playing strength can be assessed. We are aligned (I believe!) that this remains a key principle. I would also like to see consideration of the other two principles set out.
Implementation is another matter. The proposed ruling has the implication of saying "Selectors can't assess your current playing strength because you haven't played enough games recently. This means you won't be put in front of the selectors for consideration." Really? A number of players, generally internationally experienced, have expressed concerns in the thread because it seems unfair to individuals and self-defeating to the squad. I'd observe that short periods of inactivity don't appear to make much difference to stronger players (think Dougie B confirmed this is borne out statistically). This suggests to me it is worth considering whether i) the level of prescription goes too far as an initial step or in the short term (by which I mean before the 2018 Olympiad); and ii) prescription is flawed as a concept.
In my view, the main considerations for the ID in 2017 in setting selection policy are a) the size of the current pool to choose from; b) how to grow and improve the future pool; c) how does available CS finances impact sending the best team; and d) how does lack of funding impact on individual players' participation. This will help set short and long term strategies which, I believe, need to be different. Policy should not be set in isolation to other CS activities and spending.
My opinion is that competitive activities (I'll not get into the discussion of whether chess is a sport) prosper when there is an effective pyramid structure which moves players through the ranks from junior elite to elite. Support at different levels (financial, training etc) is required and especially at the top level. A lack of funding has led to reduced activity at elite level and promising players reducing their ambitions in their teens and 20s. Too many are giving up!
To round up on the rule as proposed:
Prescription puts more emphasis on activity than ability. With less than a year to go to the 2018 Olympiad it is reasonable to expect the top players to already have a schedule - so rule change appears unfair in short term at least. Forcing players to play in events that they didn't intend to play just to achieve a participation level is a further obstacle alongside the lack of finance to getting the best team. Selectors can already use activity levels as a factor. I welcome further discussion on selection policy, as part of a wider strategy piece, for implementation to apply to selection not earlier than 2019.