05-04-2022, 08:03 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-04-2022, 08:11 AM by hamish olson.
Edit Reason: Grammar mistake
)
Andy H, Ian, Walter.
We are all on the same side here. I firmly believe everyone here wants what is best for Scottish chess and has the very best of intentions.
I do not think anyone is motivated by "xenophobia" - other than arguably one comment that Willie and I called out already.
I also don't think the management's behaviour has been improper - a bit ill-tempered on occasion in this thread but not improper.
It is a perfectly reasonable position to take that no-one should be above the three non-SCO eligibility criteria, regardless of contribution to Scottish chess or other details.
It is also perfectly reasonable to take the opposite view, that 11 years of SCO registration + a substantial contribution to Scottish chess (that I paid tribute to on page 1, post 2) is a good enough reason.
However I do think Walter's gist that there is a longstanding agenda to grant Matthew eligibility is probably correct. As I say, I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting that, but personally I would prefer if people had been a bit more open about it , and their motivations. I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect that from our governing body, who I think has generally been handling things extremely well in really trying times the past few years.
I dislike that motion 1 has been presented as a fait accompli, and that none of the associated documentation highlights that it is making students eligible - even our President was confused. How can ordinary members be expected to notice (especially now this thread has grown so massive)? Why aren't we getting a vote on it?
Andy H, I don't agree with your core assertion on motion 2, that Matthew would be almost unique "worldwide" if he wasn't eligible to represent Scotland and be Scottish champion despite having a SCO code.
Prior to motion 1 being enacted (reminder: we are just voting on whether to include it in the constitution) there were numerous examples of university students being given SCO codes. They were not eligible for Scottish Champion (see Walter's quoted 2017 and 2015 forms). They were not eligible to represent Scotland (see Jim Webster's 2018 eligibility document that he thought was the same rules as the proposed one). They were still being given SCO.
I am happy to name a couple of examples privately - not the product of a lot of research, just two of the first three names I searched on the FIDE website.
Another counterexample would be the likes of Donald Heron, and in particular I would quote Alex McFarlane earlier in the thread on this:
"Regardless of their 'real' nationality the ECF will register anyone playing in an English event as ENG regardless of nationality. (This happened to Donald Heron without his knowledge. If you look at his FIN it has and English format.)"
[my emphasis in bold]
So as you can see, Matthew's situation should motion 2 be rejected would have been far from unique even in Scotland prior to motion 1 being enacted. Even now, Matthew would be far from unique in our tiny corner of the world, the UK. So I find your statement about "worldwide" uniqueness a bit hard to swallow and suggest you retract it.
In general I think the whole SCO code justification for motion two is being given by people who are getting too caught up in all the FIDE admin (understandably - they do this voluntarily as a thankless task, to our great benefit).
The SCO code is an admin thing, and our neighbour to the south even gives ENG automatically to anyone playing in English tournaments - not something to stake a whole argument on like the CS management have.
Eligibility is about more than paperwork and FIDE codes and past mistakes, and the core thrust of management's argument so far here completely forgets that.
As an addendum, Andy H I enjoyed seeing a clip of you and Wesley So on the FIDE website. It's fantastic to see Scotland getting represented at that high level!
Final addendum, here is the Andy H quote I refer to above where he makes the argument that as I understand things is the main thrust of the CS management's case:
"I disagree with many things that have been said here but that is my personal view. If Matthew has been afforded SCO status (and has done so now for 11 years), I think it is disingenuous for him to be practically the only player worldwide that cannot represent his country (other than those who are under sanction for one reason or another).
Back to my day job and another fun filled Semi Final match!"
Reasonable people may decide that alternative arguments, e.g. longstanding contribution to Scottish chess are sufficient reason to vote for Motion 2, but this whole SCO code doesn't add up in my opinion, and I'm a bit baffled why it's the only argument put forward so far.
We are all on the same side here. I firmly believe everyone here wants what is best for Scottish chess and has the very best of intentions.
I do not think anyone is motivated by "xenophobia" - other than arguably one comment that Willie and I called out already.
I also don't think the management's behaviour has been improper - a bit ill-tempered on occasion in this thread but not improper.
It is a perfectly reasonable position to take that no-one should be above the three non-SCO eligibility criteria, regardless of contribution to Scottish chess or other details.
It is also perfectly reasonable to take the opposite view, that 11 years of SCO registration + a substantial contribution to Scottish chess (that I paid tribute to on page 1, post 2) is a good enough reason.
However I do think Walter's gist that there is a longstanding agenda to grant Matthew eligibility is probably correct. As I say, I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting that, but personally I would prefer if people had been a bit more open about it , and their motivations. I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect that from our governing body, who I think has generally been handling things extremely well in really trying times the past few years.
I dislike that motion 1 has been presented as a fait accompli, and that none of the associated documentation highlights that it is making students eligible - even our President was confused. How can ordinary members be expected to notice (especially now this thread has grown so massive)? Why aren't we getting a vote on it?
Andy H, I don't agree with your core assertion on motion 2, that Matthew would be almost unique "worldwide" if he wasn't eligible to represent Scotland and be Scottish champion despite having a SCO code.
Prior to motion 1 being enacted (reminder: we are just voting on whether to include it in the constitution) there were numerous examples of university students being given SCO codes. They were not eligible for Scottish Champion (see Walter's quoted 2017 and 2015 forms). They were not eligible to represent Scotland (see Jim Webster's 2018 eligibility document that he thought was the same rules as the proposed one). They were still being given SCO.
I am happy to name a couple of examples privately - not the product of a lot of research, just two of the first three names I searched on the FIDE website.
Another counterexample would be the likes of Donald Heron, and in particular I would quote Alex McFarlane earlier in the thread on this:
"Regardless of their 'real' nationality the ECF will register anyone playing in an English event as ENG regardless of nationality. (This happened to Donald Heron without his knowledge. If you look at his FIN it has and English format.)"
[my emphasis in bold]
So as you can see, Matthew's situation should motion 2 be rejected would have been far from unique even in Scotland prior to motion 1 being enacted. Even now, Matthew would be far from unique in our tiny corner of the world, the UK. So I find your statement about "worldwide" uniqueness a bit hard to swallow and suggest you retract it.
In general I think the whole SCO code justification for motion two is being given by people who are getting too caught up in all the FIDE admin (understandably - they do this voluntarily as a thankless task, to our great benefit).
The SCO code is an admin thing, and our neighbour to the south even gives ENG automatically to anyone playing in English tournaments - not something to stake a whole argument on like the CS management have.
Eligibility is about more than paperwork and FIDE codes and past mistakes, and the core thrust of management's argument so far here completely forgets that.
As an addendum, Andy H I enjoyed seeing a clip of you and Wesley So on the FIDE website. It's fantastic to see Scotland getting represented at that high level!
Final addendum, here is the Andy H quote I refer to above where he makes the argument that as I understand things is the main thrust of the CS management's case:
"I disagree with many things that have been said here but that is my personal view. If Matthew has been afforded SCO status (and has done so now for 11 years), I think it is disingenuous for him to be practically the only player worldwide that cannot represent his country (other than those who are under sanction for one reason or another).
Back to my day job and another fun filled Semi Final match!"
Reasonable people may decide that alternative arguments, e.g. longstanding contribution to Scottish chess are sufficient reason to vote for Motion 2, but this whole SCO code doesn't add up in my opinion, and I'm a bit baffled why it's the only argument put forward so far.