Chess Scotland Adult Selection Criteria

[WBuchanan]

Thought we might as well also look at 'activity' criteria a bit closer to home
 
--------------------------------------
Ireland https://www.icu.ie/icu/eligibility_criteria
 
30 rated games over the previous two years, 18 of which must be played in Ireland, or
24 rated games if one of the two recent Irish Championships is included.
 
Games actually played at the representative international tournaments don't count towards the tally.
 
Wales http://www.welshchessunion.uk/wp-content...010.12.doc
 
Must actively associate with Welsh chess, as judged by determined by committee. "As well as being current members of the WCU,  players are expected to have shown a willingness to involve themselves in Welsh Chess in the two years prior to the Selection Committee meeting".  
 
There is no hard or fast rule they say, but if you fail to make this judgement, you're not in the team. But degrees of active association will not be used for making marginal decisions. They cite national championship participation as important.
 
Sympathy to Matthew's point takes a more concrete form: "To that extent temporary inactivity as a result, for example, of domestic or career crises will not rule a player out of consideration."
-------------------------------

Both place high value on appearance in national Championships. 

Hope useful
Cheers

[andyburnett]

An interesting range of approaches, many of which I had looked at previously - the English language ones being the easiest of course: google translate has problems with even basic stuff let alone 'regulation-type' translations.

I'd like to somehow include the Scottish in our criteria somewhere, but as I mentioned previously, the dates are very awkward - either very dated or too close to the team events in question.

The 'minimum' rating floor is also something I have strongly considered, and may be a way of offering hope to those haven't reached a target of games played? Say, 2300 base for the Open team in Olympiad - if there is not enough interest from those over 2300 who have reached the games threshold, places could be offered to others starting from the highest-rated down, for example. For the women's team, say, 1700 as a floor rating.

Yes, yes, of course me mentioning this is just fuel for the 'but you said...' gang. Knock yourselves out

---

Jim,

I think you will find that it was Andy M that digressed with his news that he will be selecting the Glorney team and asking if his hands would be tied in selecting it.

i have had a quick look at the grading lists to see possible team changes under andy b scenario:            
olympiad- mcnab & shaw replaced by tate & mannion
women - arakhamia & bamber replaced by smith & durno
senior - pritchett & jamieson replaced by mckerracher & webster
european - muir & morrison replaced by burnett & grant
given lower grades of replacements we might finish above seedings for a change and the object will be achieved.
my glorney comments look like wishful thinking.

I really wanted to ignore this but...teams are seeded based on ratings. So...   Also, where did you pull those 'changes' from? Keti who played 24 games between October and April last year, and 45 in total? Should I even bother checking the others?

Honestly Andy, I have a lot of patience with people, but you're pushing things to the limit. Personal attacks, completely random statements and stats, nonsensical comments, ignoring questions asked of you to support your statements- you seriously need to have a long, hard look at yourself and ask if you are really helping chess in Scotland or just pandering to your own ridiculous whims.

[WBuchanan]

An interesting range of approaches, many of which I had looked at previously - the English language ones being the easiest of course: google translate has problems with even basic stuff let alone 'regulation-type' translations.

I'd like to somehow include the Scottish in our criteria somewhere, but as I mentioned previously, the dates are very awkward - either very dated or too close to the team events in question.

The 'minimum' rating floor is also something I have strongly considered, and may be a way of offering hope to those haven't reached a target of games played? Say, 2300 base for the Open team in Olympiad - if there is not enough interest from those over 2300 who have reached the games threshold, places could be offered to others starting from the highest-rated down, for example. For the women's team, say, 1700 as a floor rating.

Yes, yes, of course me mentioning this is just fuel for the 'but you said...' gang. Knock yourselves out

AndyB, If you already are applying an 'activity' floor, would applying a 'ratings floor' as well not create a fault line?
 
Eg - does that mean that in the situation where no-one higher rated with enough games had accepted, a 2320 with no games in the previous six months would be eligible automatically in front of a 2280 with 20 games - who would presumably not be considered?
 
Cheers

[andyburnett]

An interesting range of approaches, many of which I had looked at previously - the English language ones being the easiest of course: google translate has problems with even basic stuff let alone 'regulation-type' translations.

I'd like to somehow include the Scottish in our criteria somewhere, but as I mentioned previously, the dates are very awkward - either very dated or too close to the team events in question.

The 'minimum' rating floor is also something I have strongly considered, and may be a way of offering hope to those haven't reached a target of games played? Say, 2300 base for the Open team in Olympiad - if there is not enough interest from those over 2300 who have reached the games threshold, places could be offered to others starting from the highest-rated down, for example. For the women's team, say, 1700 as a floor rating.

Yes, yes, of course me mentioning this is just fuel for the 'but you said...' gang. Knock yourselves out

AndyB, If you already are applying an 'activity' floor, would applying a 'ratings floor' as well not create a fault line?
 
Eg - does that mean that in the situation where no-one higher rated with enough games had accepted, a 2320 with no games in the previous six months would be eligible automatically in front of a 2280 with 20 games - who would presumably not be considered?
 
Cheers

Hi Walter,

Yes, that is exactly the problem with combining the two. I don't know how prevalent 'rating floors' are in team selections, and I don't think Scotland has enough players at this players to make it a workable idea anyway, although Singapore seems to have quite a similar distribution to Scotland ratings-wise.

I mentioned the Olympiad in the scenario above, but it was actually the Euro Team Championships that brought the possibility to mind - it is a ridiculously strong event (at least, it was in Iceland 2 years ago and likely to be so again in Crete this year) and Scotland are struggling to be competitive - even putting out our highest-rated-possible team would leave us languishing in the very lowest reaches of the event seedings-wise.

On the other hand, I feel it is important for us to be represented at such team tournaments and it also offers excellent experience and opportunities to our players.

Cheers,
Andy B

PS Can someone PLEASE make the forum posts more visible/readable? Quoted posts in colour or something? Andy McH - check your emails!!

[andyburnett]

Hi all,

As I have been pulled up by a moderator for one of my previous posts I will no longer be commenting on this issue on the forum (in my capacity as ID).

As has been the case in the past here, public attacks on those trying to do things to help chess in Scotland have only served to put people off replying/responding to legitimate questions. If anyone wants to discuss this in private I am happy to respond to emails/PM's here on FB. Certain people, however, will not receive a reply.

Regards
Andy Burnett

[PeterReidSmith]

I'd honestly suggest keeping this stuff as simple as possible: F(activity, rating, eligibility) with as few discretionary constraints as possible and without getting too specific about activity or particular tournaments etc. Chess is an objective game, it comes with a reliable rating system - other than that, we just need to know that we can trust it due to a reasonable degree of pertinent activity (i.e. not out of date).
The KISS principle is a good one.

[Clement Sreeves]

I think this is a great rule.

[JonathanIMGrant]

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.

[Matthew Turner]

Jonathan,
I think you are slightly missing the point here. We all know that a 2400 who doesn't play for six months will still be stronger than a 2100 who plays a lot. Indeed, they will almost certainly be stronger if they don't play for a decade. Andy's reform isn't about getting the strongest team in 2018, it is about creating a culture where the top players play more to the benefit of everyone so that Scotland will have the strongest possible team in 2028.

[JonathanIMGrant]

Matt,

Anyone can miss the point if the strategy isn't explicitly stated. Andy's strategy can only be partially inferred from his subsequent posts. My post sought to get clarity on strategy as well as the main points of the selection policy.

"We all know that a 2400 who doesn't play for six months will still be stronger than a 2100 who plays a lot. Indeed, they will almost certainly be stronger if they don't play for a decade." - Agreed.

"Andy's reform isn't about getting the strongest team in 2018" - If true, this would be a divisive short term strategy that punishes current players for recent short term inactivity, especially because of the short lead time to rule implementation. I called for a wider discussion on strategy because I believe prescription is a blunt tool and it is more positive to find the right motivation.

"It is about creating a culture where the top players play more to the benefit of everyone so that Scotland will have the strongest possible team in 2028." I fully agree that reform is needed to ensure Scotland has the strongest possible team in 2028.

If the point is to get top Scottish players to play in Scotland to provide strong opposition for young players to hone their skills - and this is desirable - then make that a core plank of the strategy and work with organisers to achieve it. Note the rule as written doesn't require this. Also that it would have implications for Scots living in England and beyond. As I understand it, top Scottish players primarily assess participation a) financially, b) strength of opposition and c) potential achievement (titles etc). Non-participation suggests that current Scottish events are unattractive for them. So rather than try to resolve that issue the rule says "play in unattractive events within this window or you won't be eligible for selection". There must be a better way!