Scottish Championships 2019

[WBuchanan]

I feel sorry for Matt in all this. He doesn't deserve to be the subject of this thread. Congratulations on your win btw!

As for the eligibility criteria it is archaic by comparison to other sports. Grandparentage is the norm for criteria now and it should be the same for chess. I'm quite sure if this was put to the membership it would pass. I'm happy to propose it for the next AGM. Any seconders?

Talk of taking back the trophy is frankly crass and unbecoming! The optics of that would be a PR disaster. Even more so than this thread!

Hi David. Matt isn't the subject, in fact several aspects of the decision/policy are being discussed.
I proposed a motion to change to the Grandparent criterion myself in 2015, it was defeated by 19-10.
But it isn't one of the criteria at present, in any case.
Cheers
(Can we please try to keep this civil, this discussion has been on-topic so far)

[Alan Tate]

The grandparent/parent rule is completely absurd in chess. We could have an entire squad of players who don't live here. Shankland, Trump...

[Matthew Turner]

I have this evening submitted the following motion to the Chess Scotland AGM

"Motion: Chess Scotland awards, exceptionally in 2019, the title of Scottish Champion jointly to GMs Matthew Turner and Colin McNab.

The motion is proposed by me and jointly seconded by Alan Tate and Jonathan Grant.
I hope the AGM will be supplied with an extensive context written by Jonathan.

 I will tomorrow be offering some positive reflections on the Scottish Intenational Open, but I am not intending to say anything more publicly about the Scottish Championship.  I would hope that the above motion has a very broad range of support, but if you have any comments then please feel free to pm me.

All the very best,
Matt

[amuir]

I personally do not like the idea of shared titles. One of the motions I had previously was to amend the tie-break rules to prevent this.

An appeals committee was surely set up before the championship. Have they been consulted on this ?

Previously we had the situation where Jacob was resident but DEN registered. We didn't like this for eligibility so changed it to residency + SCO registered. But Matt is not resident, not born in Scotland either. 

Either Matt meets the qualification rules or he does not. There can't be a half-way house.

Is SCO registered  + grandparent enough to meet the eligibility rules ?    That is the question for the appeals committee + AGM to answer.

[Craig Pritchett]

The current rules to be eligible to be Scottish Champion are set out in Section A of “Scottish Champion Entry Rules”: An additional sentence shall be added: To be eligible to be Scottish Champion or Scottish Senior Champion a player must also be FIDE registered as Scotland with a SCO code. Proposed: Andy Muir – Seconded: George Neave

Andy Muir noted this in a post above and George Neave has since commented (also above), indicating no little confusion.

Can a current CS official please urgently reveal the above-mentioned "Section A of Scottish Champion Entry Rules" (updated to include the additional words that were passed at the 2016 AGM, as in the above successful motion), so that this discussion can proceed in a properly constitutionally and incontrovertibly factually based way?

Or, at least, please provide the relevant link to the whereabouts of these Championship Entry Rules (as currently stated), which I and apparently others can't find at the CS website.

I am somewhat surprised that no CS official has yet done this and fear that this indicates that there may indeed be some unfortunate interpretative confusion (albeit, I feel certain, wholly innocent and entirely inadvertent) that calls for the kind of Solomon-like motion advanced by Matthew Turner for this year's Championship. This may indeed require a quite separate motion at 2019 AGM to sort the whole thing out properly for the future.

To repeat on an upnote: the 2019 was, of course, a great event all round. Thanks to all the players, who play hard and in the best sporting spirit, and to all the organisers, to whom we owe a considerable and continuing debt for the very existence of an amazingly long-lived championship infrastructure in Scotland. 

We all love chess but we should sort this out for the future (as Jim Webster suggests in an earlier post) and move on … in accord and clarity!

Have a great day!

[WBuchanan]

Yes - this shows the criteria should be visible (great word from Alastair earlier!)

Just to clarify any possible confusion that may arise from reading this 2016 motion in the present context:

The little word 'also' here is easy to miss The above motion, which refers to the Scottish Champion Entry Rules for eligibility, doesn't mean that the SCO code became the eligibility criterion. The SCO code was an additional criterion, to be added to the existing criteria (which are, unfortunately,  a bit tricky to locate!).  Constitutionally, these nationality criteria (birth, residence OR parent) are still in vogue until changed by a formal process.

The reason for the motion (as explained by the movers, but worth repeating) was that some players could qualify for the Championship on (eg) Scottish residence but actually play for another  Federation. This used to be normal enough 'back in the day', but in the competitive FIDE era, more players believe you can only have one chess nationality.

Andy - yes technically Matthew is either eligible or not, especially with regard to the future and the wider context of International Selection.
But the present situation is now tricky and Matthew's suggested compromise (provided it is not used as a determinant of eligibility in the future, but his motion does say 'exceptionally') does offer a likely reduction in the strength of feeling of affected parties.  

Craig I couldn't find a comment by Jim Webster. It would be useful if officials would confirm the eligibility criteria haven't been lost! Cheers

[Jim Webster]

Andy Muir wrote
– An appeals committee was surely set up before the championship. Have they been consulted on this ?

As with any event, the appeals committee is automatically disbanded at the conclusion of the event. It has no powers once the event is over.  Any matters arising after the event need to be addressed to Chess Scotland Management.
 
AGM Motion
The Chess Scotland AGM, in accordance with the Constitution is held in November.
12.1.    There shall be an Annual General Meeting of the members of Chess Scotland the date of which shall be fixed each year by COUNCIL, but which shall not be later than the last day in November.

Any motion submitted for the AGM must be assessed by the Management Board before it can be accepted for inclusion at the AGM.
14.2.    All motions declared as proper by the MANAGEMENT BOARD shall be proposed and seconded by members entitled to vote at the meeting before they can be considered for inclusion on the meeting Agenda. For General, COUNCIL and MANAGEMENT BOARD meetings, the President, Executive Director and Finance Director will act as a Standing Orders Committee regarding suitability of motions for inclusion.

Craig Pritchett  wrote : - (as Jim Webster suggests in an earlier post)
I can only make an assumption here, but I think Craig is referring to the post by Tim Wall Post #25 on this thread

---

The Chess Scotland Management Board are monitoring this Forum thread but we will refrain from commenting at this time.

I have set up an independent panel to investigate all aspects of this topic and report back when the investigation is complete. To prevent any undue influences being imposed the names of the panel members are being withheld and are known only to myself.

Chess Scotland Management do not wish to add forum comments that can be misconstrued or give undue expectations of the outcome.

For as long as this thread remains active we shall monitor all posts and the views contained therein.

[David Deary]

Are the criteria for eligibility to represent Scotland internationally and to be Scottish Champion one and the same? 

I’m not convinced they are, if they were, they would be in the same place on the website. Admittedly, navigating the website is not the easiest at the best of times!

Is the criteria for Scottish Champion within the gift of the Championship Organisers? If so, from the entry form if you have the SCO FIDE designation you were eligible? I suspect (without any knowledge) this is the premise that is being examined by the independent panel.

[WBuchanan]

Are the criteria for eligibility to represent Scotland internationally and to be Scottish Champion one and the same? 

I’m not convinced they are, if they were, they would be in the same place on the website. Admittedly, navigating the website is not the easiest at the best of times!

Is the criteria for Scottish Champion within the gift of the Championship Organisers? If so, from the entry form if you have the SCO FIDE designation you were eligible? I suspect (without any knowledge) this is the premise that is being examined by the independent panel.

I think your questions are at the root of the matter David (some discussed already in post 31, also 16 and 23).

From the entry form pdf, which is still there on the Championships link:

"Is the criteria for Scottish Champion within the gift of the Championship Organisers?"

I think it's not; It's never been the case before.

"Titles will only be awarded to those satisfying Scottish nationality(SCO)who are also members of Chess Scotland;"
http://www.scottishchesschamp.co.uk./documents/entryForm19b.pdf

Your point:

"If so, from the entry form if you have the SCO FIDE designation you were eligible?"

I don't think this can have been the intention, as the presence of the '(SCO)' is necessary, in line with the 2016 motion (eg see Craig Pritchett's post on this page) which was specifically to stop people who are registered to play for another federation from winning the Scottish title, as they could still meet one of the nationality criteria.
One would have to assume that is why the '(SCO)' is there - otherwise that anomaly would not have been corrected.
So it being there for one clear purpose I don't think another purpose can be inferred.
Also, this would mean that the organizer of one tournament has not just the 'gift' of the Championship but the power to change the rules on nationality!

I understand that Alex wrongly believed that Matthew was eligible anyway; so he may have thought it didn't make any difference in practice.
The main reason for this belief was the 2011 AGM when Matthew was given the SCO code. It was wrongly believed (with some morphing of the memory, I presume!?) that the membership had at some point accepted Matthew as being eligible at an AGM. In fact the AGM just conferred the SCO code needed for FIDE admin purposes. It is clear from discussions (especially before the 2014 Olympiad) that some in management aimed to make Matthew eligible later by the Grandparent criterion. This was a second strand to Alex's mistaken belief in Matthew's eligibility-he thought the Grandparent criterion had existed at some point where Matthew was made eligible for selection. In fact this Grandparent criterion attempt failed two votes - one vote at the 2014 Council meeting and also when I proposed it at the 2015 AGM.
(The 2011 vote was an AOCB item, so wasn't put to the membership anyway, may not even have been competent - but I think most chess players would accept that the admin is the administrators' business!)

When it was queried, I think Alex should have asked some players and not just senior management. Half an hour before the prizegiving must be quite stressful though. One lesson is that eligibility questions need careful thought and should not be left to one person who has a lot of other duties! It hasn't helped that the eligibility criteria have become almost invisible.

Hope helpful.
Cheers

[Ianbrownlee]

Guys I wish to make a couple of comments here

As admin director and being a member of the executive and management committees I will not comment on this post until after the investigative panel has concluded its findings nor will I speculate. I did intend to refrain from comment but I felt this post was becoming personal in some parts.

As forum moderator I would like to remind everyone about the tone and content of this post in particular. Its good that we have a healthy discussion but keep the blame culture in check. Personal attacks will not be tolerated and unwarranted speculation will not help. Having said that I do not mind discussions in general but please do not venture or comment about any possible bias or anything related to that