Eligibility Votes - March 2022

[WBuchanan]

Andy H
Presumably you can tell us how many votes were cast?

---

I decided that as these votes draw to a close, I would post some thoughts before the results were announced.

Firstly, in the overall scheme of things these votes are not very important, but I think the discussion and this forum more generally demonstrate some of the challenges facing Scottish Chess.

Since last time I visited Scotland, I have played many events in Ireland, some designed to get norms for aspiring Irish talents (even those born outside the Emerald Isle), some with lavish sponsorship, all organised with passion and enthusiasm.  Only last week, I was talking to a senior Irish official about plans for a major project in 2024.

I have also been involved (albeit in a fairly small way) in innovative plans for junior development in England.

This isn’t because I am somehow less committed to Scottish Chess, but like everyone else I have limited time and I want my efforts to have an impact.

I work with Andy Howie on a fairly regular basis for the benefit of chess in general, but not particularly Scottish Chess.  Back in 2011 there were a bunch of young Scottish chess players coming through organizing events and developing innovative ideas for chess development – where are they now.  

We have to recognize that the situation that exists in Scottish Chess at the moment in not conducive to developing our game and those with drive and enthusiasm to fuel our game going forward are pushed to look elsewhere.

I abstained on motion 1.  I want to back CS management and move on, but fundamentally I think it is wrong to put eligibility criteria in the constitution.  We have tied ourself in knots here and this risks hobbling a future organization.  Good luck dealing with our first trans competitors.

I voted yes on motion 2.  This is primarily for three reasons
1. Irrespective of the merits of this case, it sets a tone that we are an inclusive, welcoming organization  
2. It is not the case that I will deprive a hard working Scottish player of a place in the team.  That is simply not the reality; In the modern world it is difficult to take two and a half weeks out of your life to play an Olympiad (I have already ruled myself out of competing this year). It is more a case of the International Director searching for players than players battling for places!  Yes, it true that there would be an issue about what is best for Scottish Chess if there was a choice between myself and Freddie Gordon, but there would also be an issue if there was a choice between Andy Muir and Freddie Gordon.  To my mind that is a selection issue not one of eligibility.
3. I have enjoyed competing at the (Open) Scottish Championships and I feel that has been beneficial for Scottish Chess.  If one day the Championships became closed, it seems both wrong and detrimental to Scottish Chess that I be excluded.

If you have got this far, you have obviously committed a fair amount of time to reading this!  So, I would request that you spend a little more time thinking about what you can do to help Scottish Chess to move forward.  It is little use reflecting on where things have gone wrong;  I hope we can now move to thinking about how thing can improve.  The key is we need a lot of people doing a bit!

Can you make your chess club’s Christmas blitz a fundraiser to help a local junior get coaching before they compete in a major championship?

Can you organize a rota so that someone takes a couple of boards to a local park each Saturday?

Do you know someone in the council you can ask about buying chess boards and books for the local library?

Can you get the best player in the club to do a simultaneous display at the local shopping centre?

If you have other ideas, please post them on the forum and hopefully other will take up the challenge.

Best wishes.

Matt.

Hi Matt. I was a little surprised by the items in your post, especially 2). Unless there is a shortage of players able and willing to play, it is self-evident that adding one player in some sense removes another player in the same sense.
Emmanuel Lasker, as champion, proposed that a challenger should have to win by two clear points. I can't remember his reasoning, I expect it was something quasi-statistical such as a one point victory could be accidental.
Your compatriot Amos Burn drily observed that it would be interesting to hear Dr Lasker's explanation of the difference between his proposal and a two-point start.
Lasker was expert in mathematics and his promotion of dubious logic can be attributed to lack of objectivity in his situation.
 
I have sympathy for Andy Burnett's view as a player potentially affected. I also felt that all those altruistic reasons for voting for your own eligibility were a little unnecessary.
There isn't a reason to link this issue with all the things you say we should be doing instead - because if you're being altruistic, you could have avoided this problem for us yourself - rather than couch the problem in terms of our lack of 'inclusiveness', short-sightedness, lack of ideas or wrong arithmetic. I imagine that's what's grating on Andy B (though I do imagine lots of things ) 
Cheers.