Scottish Championships 2019

[WBuchanan]

(It is my reply to Jim Webster that is deleted)

Ian

I have not attached blame, and I have been very careful with my tone. As ever - I've never had a post deleted on any forum.
If you object to my questions, please be good enough to say which ones you object to, rather than casting false aspersions while you remove questions and ironically insinuate personal attacks. That is not a proper use of your powers as moderator.

Also, I am happy to clarify anything that you claim is speculation.

[John Watkins]

The FIDE rulebook on player registration under a federation can be found here:
https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?...ew=article

Chess Scotland grading rules follow this:
https://www.chessscotland.com/grading/in...procedure/

Chess Scotland Scottish Championship Entry Rules can be found here:
https://www.chessscotland.com/information/rules/

Unfortunately there is no click through and the detail is hidden to all.

It seems the lack of clarification on who qualified impacted on some games over several rounds as at least one person has said they would have gone all out to have a shot at the title in the final round. Most unfortunate.

[amuir]

I am not on the review committee but my solution if Matt is found to be ineligible to win the Championship is to strip him of the title but pick him for the 2020 Olympiad team as a consolation for messing him about , and I don't see any reason why he is ineligible for that.

[andybburnett]

I am not on the review committee but my solution if Matt is found to be ineligible to win the Championship is to strip him of the title but pick him for the 2020 Olympiad team as a consolation for messing him about , and I don't see any reason why he is ineligible for that.

I won't be ID much longer, but this certainly isn't the way to choose players for an Olympiad team, regardless of eligibility.

I'm not sure what has gone wrong exactly (I was as surprised as anyone that Matt was considered eligible for the Scottish title) but hopefully it can be resolved in some amicable and reasonable way.

My own opinion? Too few people doing way too much within CS - mistakes are bound to happen, even with experienced people at the helm.

One other point - I feel Walter Buchanan's posts (in particular) are a much-needed balance/check on what we do in CS. (Edit: That being said, not keen on the overly-personal go at Jim W. - no need for that)

[WBuchanan]

Thanks for the kind words Andy B ... but where did I make any personal remarks about Jim W - I did ask a question relating to how one person selecting a panel in secret can guarantee objectivity.

The post was deleted and I have no copy. Perhaps you could indicate what you are referring to?
Cheers

[andybburnett]

Thanks for the kind words Andy B ... but where did I make any personal remarks about Jim W - I did ask a question relating to how one person selecting a panel in secret can guarantee objectivity.

The post was deleted and I have no copy. Perhaps you could indicate what you are referring to?
Cheers

HI Walter,

I can hardly repeat what you wrote here, because it would be deleted as well!

But let's say you are head of an organisation, and something happens that you are ultimately 'responsible' for, without really being 'involved' in what went wrong. The 'leader's' role is to get to the bottom of it.

It's unfair for someone to say that person might be more interested in the investigation supporting their own views or outcomes (whatever they may be, and if they even exist?) rather than actually finding out what went wrong and then fixing it/ensuring it doesn't happen again. It smacks a bit too much of 'conspiracy' and is pretty offensive to the person investing time and energy to keeping the organisation running/improving.

Unless there is any 'previous', a more charitable view might be 'I'm glad our leader is taking this seriously and is ensuring nobody, by accident or design, tries to influence the outcome'. As ID, for example, I choose a selection panel - these names are not made public, and for good reason - let them do their job without harassment/recriminations!

Anyway, this whole situation is very unfortunate, but I suggest waiting to see what the investigation brings out. Questions have been asked, and rightly so, and I'm certain we'll get some answers.

[WBuchanan]

The thing is Andy, you are commenting ON the deleted post - you are telling me and the world (OK, that's a slight exaggeration of the level of world interest) what you think it means, when I'm saying it didn't mean that.

If you can make these comments (which are technically adverse, given the complaint), then the post or at least the little piece in question should be visible too.; otherwise it's prejudicial to any investigation of the complaint.

I see your comment linking me to making a personal go at Jim Webster was an edit, made eight hours after your original comment (which praised my posts), and after the formal complaint went in.

So - have you even seen the whole post?
The context is relevant . The piece in question wasn't actually personal at all. None of it was.

Cheers

[George Neave]

...I have set up an independent panel to investigate all aspects of this topic and report back when the investigation is complete

 
Hi Jim
When do you expect this investigation to complete and report back to the members? I hope we can expect to hear soon.
Thanks

[amuir]

The Appeals Panel or VAR should have decided this on the spot with the crowd watching. We should not be waiting weeks/months for the final result. No wonder chess is not on tv and has small crowds.

[George Neave]

The Appeals Panel or VAR should have decided this on the spot with the crowd watching. We should not be waiting weeks/months for the final result. No wonder chess is not on tv and has small crowds.

It is over 2 months now since the Scottish Championship and we still don't know the winner. A month ago I requested an update. That post was ignored. Personally I have always felt when someone makes an honest mistake, the best thing is do is sort it out quickly. I simply cannot think why it has taken so long to sort this out. At the very least a statement explaining would be most welcome. So I ask again, what's happening and when do we expect the outcome to be known?