Chess Scotland Adult Selection Criteria

[WBuchanan]

Andy B you say

"I appreciate the thought which has gone into your post...but...inactivity will not result in international honours! To be honest, and without wishing to offend you or anyone else, I don't even know where the idea of such a thing comes from :/
 
If someone is inactive, they don't get a spot. If they want to represent Scotland, put in a bit of effort and hit the targets. If that's not possible or desirable, aim for next time."

How does any of this relate to my post?  
 
Having received many constructive suggestions from experienced selectors (and players), you expressed worry about the lack of detailed responses. My post was meant to address this - as many had asked for selectors hands not to be tied by fixed thresholds.
 
If you just look a little more closely, inactivity IS addressed in the framework I suggested. For example, you could even adjust inactive players downwards by 50 points per inactive year (five times the average level of deterioration, if the figure attributed to Dougie Bryson is reasonable) and it wouldn't be long before a top inactive player was out-they would probably only get in once before being overtaken by the more active players.
 
[I admit my "with the advantage conferred by greater activity " was open to other interpretations - sorry, I just meant "without the disadvantage conferred by inactivity"].

You also say

Errr, I disagree with almost everything. Sorry Walter :/ Does anyone else have thoughts on Walter's idea? Maybe it's just me, but it seems to be an arcane way of not making any progress and still 'rewarding' players for not playing - I just don't see how this helps Scottish chess or our international progress.

I'm a bit disappointed that you are so quick to dismiss the detail you asked for, Andy. How do you arrive at the conclusion that in the framework I suggested, players are rewarded by not playing? When in fact I've suggested a deduction (for deterioration) plus a penalty (to 'benefit' Scottish Chess) and indicated you can increase both!
 
Perhaps you could read it again in the light of my further explanation above? To repeat, simply increasing the percentage deduction for inactivity increases the extent to which that inactivity drags down the (estimate of) the player's effective playing strength. This framework will certainly edge them out of the team in time, leaving the parameters to be determined.
 
The advantage of a percentage deduction over your proposed blanket scenario is that the process of choosing the number allows it to be reasoned to reflect stated or unstated objectives.
 
Here is one illustration. In your scenario, a player could be completely inactive for five years and then play for 6 months and get in the team, to the exclusion of an equally strong player who has been very active the whole time but just fell short of the high target in recent games. Any sensible deduction for inactivity should prevent this.
 
Cheers
Walter

---

Andy, 
I think this is relatively simple.  Walter is trying to get the strongest possible team to represent Scotland at the next Olympiad.  You are effectively trying to get the strongest possible team in ten years time.  I think it is important that people recognise that distinction and understand that those noble aims are often in conflict.  I hope people see the sense in your argument.

Not really, Matthew. What I am trying to do is suggest a framework within which selectors have wiggle room but the Director's views on inactivity are also represented. My initial choices of the parameter (a deduction of 10-15% of the rating per year for inactivity) did reflect a less harsh view than AndyB's on inactivity, but I did make it clear (or I thought I did!) that this number could be strengthened.
 
It is a good question though, what is the purpose of any change. It is a frequent complaint that relatively inactive players with a high enough rating make the team. AndyB's proposal addresses this but if the levels of activity are as they appear to be from the top 100, it would seem to be using quite a large and stiff brush.
 
Perhaps this should have been the debate first - do members want the strongest team (the purpose of this presumably being obvious), or should it meet other objectives, and if so what are they?
 
Cheers

[andyburnett]

Andy B you say

"I appreciate the thought which has gone into your post...but...inactivity will not result in international honours! To be honest, and without wishing to offend you or anyone else, I don't even know where the idea of such a thing comes from :/
 
If someone is inactive, they don't get a spot. If they want to represent Scotland, put in a bit of effort and hit the targets. If that's not possible or desirable, aim for next time."

How does any of this relate to my post?  
 
Having received many constructive suggestions from experienced selectors (and players), you expressed worry about the lack of detailed responses. My post was meant to address this - as many had asked for selectors hands not to be tied by fixed thresholds.
 
If you just look a little more closely, inactivity IS addressed in the framework I suggested. For example, you could even adjust inactive players downwards by 50 points per inactive year (five times the average level of deterioration, if the figure attributed to Dougie Bryson is reasonable) and it wouldn't be long before a top inactive player was out-they would probably only get in once before being overtaken by the more active players.
 
[I admit my "with the advantage conferred by greater activity " was open to other interpretations - sorry, I just meant "without the disadvantage conferred by inactivity"].

You also say

Errr, I disagree with almost everything. Sorry Walter :/ Does anyone else have thoughts on Walter's idea? Maybe it's just me, but it seems to be an arcane way of not making any progress and still 'rewarding' players for not playing - I just don't see how this helps Scottish chess or our international progress.

I'm a bit disappointed that you are so quick to dismiss the detail you asked for, Andy. How do you arrive at the conclusion that in the framework I suggested, players are rewarded by not playing? When in fact I've suggested a deduction (for deterioration) plus a penalty (to 'benefit' Scottish Chess) and indicated you can increase both!
 
Perhaps you could read it again in the light of my further explanation above? To repeat, simply increasing the percentage deduction for inactivity increases the extent to which that inactivity drags down the (estimate of) the player's effective playing strength. This framework will certainly edge them out of the team in time, leaving the parameters to be determined.
 
The advantage of a percentage deduction over your proposed blanket scenario is that the process of choosing the number allows it to be reasoned to reflect stated or unstated objectives.
 
Here is one illustration. In your scenario, a player could be completely inactive for five years and then play for 6 months and get in the team, to the exclusion of an equally strong player who has been very active the whole time but just fell short of the high target in recent games. Any sensible deduction for inactivity would prevent this.
 
Cheers
Walter

Hi Walter,

The first part relates to your post entirely! 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.

I have no problem with someone inactive for years coming back to the game, playing the required number of games, being selected and then representing Scotland. If they take the place of the player who has failed to reach the target, even if they have been (much) more active in general over the years', then where is the problem? It's the same in almost every other field or sport. 

I'm sorry if it appears I am dismissing your ideas out of hand Walter - I'm really not. I simply don't agree with them at a very basic level. There are those who disagree with me and those who do agree and those who are in between somewhere- which is why I took the decision in the first place.

All the best,
Andy

[Matthew Turner]

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.

[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

[andyburnett]

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.

[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

[Craig Pritchett]

[quote pid='18310' dateline='1505486041']
only 1 former selector, Craig, has commented on this specifically so far, admittedly strongly against my plans.
[/quote]

Since my name has again been mentioned rather a long way on in this discussion since my last post, perhaps I might be permitted to clarify.

My issue is mainly one of principle: I do not particularly mind any attempt to spell out and incorporate in the selection criteria a reasonable 'activity' limitation on selection (though I'm not yet persuaded that the existing guidelines prevent selectors from weighing 'activity' wisely as they stand) but I would prefer such a guideline not just to be reasonable but also framed in a way that allows it simply to be that; i.e. simply one of many spelled out 'guidelines' in the existing criteria (as they stand) and not necessarily an absolute, limiting factor.

The 8/15 rated games in the last 6 months isn't 'unreasonable', as a guideline. Actually if you wish to have such a guideline, I think it's perhaps a bit too tame. Will it really affect anyone? As a selector, I never had qualms about considering the claims of a seriously inactive player for selection over those of even a much lower-rated player (say up to around 50 or even more ELO points) to require exceptional justification. Activity is obviously one of the key factors in selection (not just the only one).

Hence I cannot get excited about trying to work on tweaks of the kind that AndyB is asking for. At least until perhaps whatever the eventual tweak, it were ultimately couched, even in such strong and especially clearly justified language as, say 'Selectors will ordinarily expect selectees to have maintained a reasonable level of activity in the previous X months, such as (whatever, if you want to spell it out) and give much more weight to activity than historic rating ... The reasons for this are (whatever they may be)'

Anyway, well done Murad Abdulla on winning Player of the Year and for Scot Champ win! Let's stay upbeat!

[andyburnett]

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

HI Walter

I think you are misreading this... 'For example, is 8/15 FIDE-rated games sensible?' 8/15 means 8 out of 15,  so ' is 8 FIDE-rated games out of the 15 games total sensible - maybe I could have written it more clearly.

So, I didn't mean anything about changing the 15 games at all, merely asking if it might be better to change the number of FIDE-rated games included in the 15 to something lower (higher? ) and then allow the selectors to give whatever weight they see fit to the differences between, say, 2 candidates choice of events. This is tweaking things - the underlying basis of my plan is the same, and the selectors still have work to do.

A reason why this might be a good idea? Because perhaps ( I really don't know) a player living in London/the South has more access to FIDE-rated events than one living in, say, Inverness (to be topical!) In the Czech Republic pretty much everything is FIDE-rated.

[WBuchanan]

Thanks for clarifying AndyB. OK that makes sense in terms of your recent responses - though it means your stated position has hardened since the beginning when I asked you if it was invariable and if a top player with 14 games would not be considered. Several of your other responses also suggested 'nothing was set in stone', etc.
 
You seem to have now made up your mind, but one additional point.
 
Player A. Zero games in five years then 15 games in six months
Player B. 20 or 30 games a year for five years, but 14 games in the last year (perhaps even all Fide rated)
 
Under your proposal (over which the stone seems to be setting) player A MUST be selected because player B is 'inactive' and selectors may not consider them eligible.
 
The additional point is that pllayer B might even be much higher rated!
 
Under any nuanced or thoughtful definition of 'inactivity' this could not happen! I think that's extreme and can be rectified by nuanced definition of inactivity. Or by selectors having a bit of wiggle-room - but that's where we came in..
 
Cheers
Walter

[amuir]

https://www.chessscotland.com/international/
Adult selectors – IM Andrew Muir, GM Colin McNab, IM Douglas Bryson. (Update Dec 2013)
Adult selectors (Seniors) – IM Andrew Muir, GM Colin McNab. (Update March 2016)
By this sleight of hand Andy B takes over the role of all three adult selectors.
It's too late to apply to the 2018 Olympiad since players who work may have used up their holidays playing in the summer and have none left for the critical months of October 2017- March 2018.
Perhaps it should be tried in Senior Chess first to see if works rather than the most important tournament. How about starting with European Senior Team 2019 and see if it improves position?
I have also been asked to select Glorney team. Are my hands tied on that too ?