17-08-2013, 12:28 PM
I could be from but from what I can gather there are two main aspects to Chess Scotland
1. Administering Chess - This is basically day to day running of things like grading, accounts, membership lists etc. If I understand correctly there are purely administrative tasks that should in theory have no personal bias/input whatsoever since person running it is simply following procedures. For example if a match result is submitted grader enters correct result and when organisor of tournament gets an invoice he is billed for amount depending on games. There is nothing controversial about this (I hope!).
2. Promoting Chess - This from my understanding is basically two fold. Firstly it's about improving image of chess in media and getting message out to encourage new people to take up chess. Secondly it's also about allowing players to improve and progress in their chess. I suspect it's this one that is causing problems. Now question I would ask is if two people want to promote chess in different ways does allowing one method automatically exclude the other? If not then I would suggest that Chess Scotland can provide general guidelines and then leave it to individuals running it to find implementation they consider most appropriate as in all likelyhood they will complement each other. If different paradigms exist then just let both of them operate and compare results. Ideally both can learn from each other and improve. I'm unsure what constraints apply that could potentially cause friction although if things like funding is a problem allocating it on a regional level could be an idea. If looking for rough regions I would suggest 10 leagues we currently have in Scotland could be a start. If it's about selection choices I would say just to decide it at the chessboard since if juniors want to represent their country surely an event in a central location that would be an opportunity for them to play head to head to decide entrants.
Having written all this I'm a bit baffled how we've ended up in this situation although I think what I've written makes sense!
1. Administering Chess - This is basically day to day running of things like grading, accounts, membership lists etc. If I understand correctly there are purely administrative tasks that should in theory have no personal bias/input whatsoever since person running it is simply following procedures. For example if a match result is submitted grader enters correct result and when organisor of tournament gets an invoice he is billed for amount depending on games. There is nothing controversial about this (I hope!).
2. Promoting Chess - This from my understanding is basically two fold. Firstly it's about improving image of chess in media and getting message out to encourage new people to take up chess. Secondly it's also about allowing players to improve and progress in their chess. I suspect it's this one that is causing problems. Now question I would ask is if two people want to promote chess in different ways does allowing one method automatically exclude the other? If not then I would suggest that Chess Scotland can provide general guidelines and then leave it to individuals running it to find implementation they consider most appropriate as in all likelyhood they will complement each other. If different paradigms exist then just let both of them operate and compare results. Ideally both can learn from each other and improve. I'm unsure what constraints apply that could potentially cause friction although if things like funding is a problem allocating it on a regional level could be an idea. If looking for rough regions I would suggest 10 leagues we currently have in Scotland could be a start. If it's about selection choices I would say just to decide it at the chessboard since if juniors want to represent their country surely an event in a central location that would be an opportunity for them to play head to head to decide entrants.
Having written all this I'm a bit baffled how we've ended up in this situation although I think what I've written makes sense!