Scottish Championship

[Alex McFarlane]

Resignation Statement – Alex McFarlane


It is with considerable regret that I confirm that I have stepped down from my position as Director of the Scottish Championships.

This is as a direct result of the Chess Scotland AGM’s decision that the title should be shared between players on different scores.  I cannot accept that such a decision makes any sense whatsoever.  Had the decision been to withdraw the title from Matthew Turner and award it to Colin McNab due to a misinterpretation of the qualification regulations on my part then at least that result would have had some logic attached. 

It probably would not have affected my decision if that had been the motion passed, however, as there is a second matter which has to be taken into account.

I was asked by two players to confirm that Mr Turner was eligible for the title.  I replied that he was.  As the AGM has now ruled that I was in error in this respect I therefore misdirected these players. This erroneously given 'confirmation' may have deprived them of the opportunity of becoming Scottish Champion.  That reason alone is a sufficient cause for my resignation.

This decision was not taken lightly.  It was considered over a period of some weeks and it had been intimated to the President before the meeting took place that if it was passed then so too would be my time running the Scottish Championships.

I am proud and privileged to have run the event and to have been an arbiter at it for the number of years I have.  I wish the Championships and my successors as Director and Chief Arbiter well for the future.

[amuir]

Sorry to hear about this.
I wish I had been able to attend the AGM and the discussion.
I am confused as to why the motion to share the title was passed given the report stated otherwise.
I thought the reason to share the title was to protect the decisions of overworked, underpaid arbiters but the opposite seems to have happened.
Could someone who voted to share the title please explain the advantages of doing this ?
PS what is happening to the ID role + Olympiad ? As Matt is now joint Scottish Champion, should be entitled to a place in team ?

[hamish olson]

Sorry to hear this Alex, you did a fantastic job over the years. My first Scottish championships was a very important milestone for me in my chess career and I really took off because of that event.

[Gerald Lobley]

At the AGM a few of us were asked to produce a short draft that could be included within the Minutes and that dealt with the key points raised about the issue of the Scottish Championship award. The text is to aimed to show how the meeting tried to find an equable solution to an almost intractable problem and was keen to move forward in a positive manner to avoid such confusion in the future.
Please recognise that this is a provisional  minute and is not official until ratified by the next AGM (2020)
 
FINAL DRAFT:
The proposal was discussed at the AGM and there was a strong feeling that the problems had arisen due to a series of failures/inadequacies of communication and that consequently no blame should be attached to any one individual for this. The AGM indicated their heartfelt sympathy for the near-impossible situation that Alex found himself in during the 2019 Championship.  Based on the information he had available his decision to award the title to Matt Turner was correct.

Unfortunately, the information on which that decision was made was incorrect. Due to a series of communication errors and mistranslation of the original SCO motion in 2016, SCO registration was taken as an alternative source of eligibility rather than an additional requirement (e.g. birth plus SCO, parent plus SCO, residency plus SCO). Had this information been available to Alex his decision would probably have been different. 

The problem has lain undetected for 3 years and in that period many of us could (and should) have identified the misinterpretation of the 2016 AGM decision and, as such, we must all take collective responsibility for the situation.  It is unfortunate that lack of action on our part led to one of Chess Scotland's most loyal and respected contributors being placed in such a quandary. The AGM expressed wholehearted support and thanks to Alex McFarlane for his continuing outstanding work over many years in organising and running the Scottish Championships.

The proposal to share the title was seen by its supporters as a way to find a compromise. It was recognised that this is not ideal but was judged to be the least worst of the various options available. This was certainly not a unanimous view but after the subsequent vote the motion was passed by a majority of  30 to  22 with 12 abstentions.
The most important decision is to ensure such a problem does not arise again and place individuals such as the Scottish Championship Director and International Director in such difficult situations.  The problem has been transferred to an Eligibility Working Party and the AGM was keen to have Alex as a member of this WP as his input as his knowledge of Chess Scotland procedures and his experience of the international situation would be invaluable (and indeed necessary). The AGM hopes Alex will be able to help steer CS into calmer waters.
END DRAFT

Since this original post (above) Alex has identified an error within my draft and requested that the following statement should be appended (November 11th, 2019):

             "It has now become clear that Alex McFarlane was aware of the problems that the Muir motion would produce prior to its discussion and had informed two senior Chess Scotland officials of this.  Although uncertain of how this was achieved, Alex is convinced that he was informed of a resolution which resulted in the changes to the Championship entry form."

[Alex McFarlane]

Thanks Gerald.
For clarity, I identified the problems before the motion was even presented to the AGM and had expected it to be declared incompetent as it (a) confused matters and (b) did not address at all the 5 year rule for non-SCOs.
As an example of how badly the motion was worded, if Mark Orr stayed in Edinburgh he could not win a Scottish title but if he moved to Dublin (or anywhere outside of Scotland) he would have still been eligible for a Scottish title under one of the criteria but prevented under another. 
Catch 22 doesn't have a look-in.

[Alan Tate]

It seems like communication is a problem for chess players. Like even if you want to withdraw from a tournament for example, it's impossible because some organisers do not read their emails.

This whole thing has been blown out of proportion.

[WBuchanan]

The 2016 motion stated it was an additional criterion, to be added. An additional over-riding criterion would not in itself be a problem to implement.

The five-year rule maintaining continuity of eligibility was a problem already in existence - this would affect any new restriction on eligibility. It was clearly intended that by the movers the motion submitted (that basically you can't have two countries to choose from) should over-ride this. This does not seem to be incompetent, as submitted.

Members submitting a motion simply to correct a perceived anomaly aren't expected to re-write the rules.
Also, there was confusion about  the existing criteria which at best were not very visible.

Perhaps most relevantly, the 2016 motion was subject to an amendment from the AGM floor, as noted in the minutes (and cited by the Championship report of this year). However though this was noted at the time as a 'minor amendment', it changed the motion fundamentally.

It's worth remembering that there were only 12 at the meeting, but 30 votes recorded, most presumably proxy voters, who would not have known what they were ultimately going to vote for.
However despite all this, the 2016 motion can not be the main issue - there is no reason why a simple motion aimed at only reducing eligibility should logically result in the creation of a new category of eligibility.

I hope this is helpful

[George Neave]

The 2016 motion stated it was an additional criterion, to be added. An additional over-riding criterion would not in itself be a problem to implement.

The five-year rule maintaining continuity of eligibility was a problem already in existence - this would affect any new restriction on eligibility. It was clearly intended that by the movers the motion submitted (that basically you can't have two countries to choose from) should over-ride this. This does not seem to be incompetent, as submitted.

Members submitting a motion simply to correct a perceived anomaly aren't expected to re-write the rules.
Also, there was confusion about  the existing criteria which at best were not very visible.

Perhaps most relevantly, the 2016 motion was subject to an amendment from the AGM floor, as noted in the minutes (and cited by the Championship report of this year). However though this was noted at the time as a 'minor amendment', it changed the motion fundamentally.

It's worth remembering that there were only 12 at the meeting, but 30 votes recorded, most presumably proxy voters, who would not have known what they were ultimately going to vote for.
However despite all this, the 2016 motion can not be the main issue - there is no reason why a simple motion aimed at only reducing eligibility should logically result in the creation of a new category of eligibility.

I hope this is helpful

It is helpful Walter. There was nothing incompetent about the motion, it was quite clear and worded as follows (I have put in bold the very key point):

The current rules to be eligible to be Scottish Champion are set out in Section A of “Scottish Champion Entry Rules”: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.chessscotland.com/csinfo/Rul">http://www.chessscotland.com/csinfo/Rul</a><!-- m --> ... les_14.pdf .

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."

[Andy Howie]

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."

SCO code is 24. That would mean for example, Andrew Greet could not be Scottish Champion. He has SCO designation but has a 40 code (ENG)

[WBuchanan]

I don't think that's the meaning of 'SCO Code' that's been in use in all the discussions, Andy!?
According to your use of the term, GM Matthew Turner also has an English 'code'. But it's always been discussed that Matthew was given a SCO code. However, he does not have the 24 (Scottish) code, he has the 40 for English.

Example here of the use of the term "SCO codes", where Mathew has SCO: https://www.chessscotland.com/documents/...#whitelist

 I understand the 'code' you refer to is a first registration country and doesn't change if you transfer!? I imagine the 'code' generally discussed determines current affiliation, or federation.
Perhaps there is some ambiguity over the definition of terms (if so please help clear it up!), but it was surely this 'code' - the one that was in general use here -  that the movers of the 2016 motion intended to insist on an eligible player having, so that a transferred player wouldn't have the choice of countries to represent.

But if there was any doubt over the meaning of the terms of the motion I'm sure it would have been a headache.
Cheers