Eligibility Votes - March 2022

[Douglas Bryson]

Let's guess only about 30 people a year are seriously considered for selection to represent Scotland, the vast majority will have life-long eligibility through birth or parentage.....

On the last Olympiad perhaps half the 10 players were resident-only qualifiers for a Scotland registration. If they leave Scotland to work or live should their eligibility to represent Scotland be curtailed?

[WBuchanan]

There seems to be three main questions here.  I think we should be trying to focus on these.
a) Should qualification for being Scottish be in the Constitution or just a Rule?
b) Should those with temporary residence be allowed to be considered Scottish?
c) Should Matt Turner have full Scottish status.

a) I think that this is important enough to be a constitutional matter.  If it had been in the constitution then there should have been no way Matt should have been accepted.  (I don't think he should have been anyway.)
b) The difficulty here is in defining temporary residence and considering the effects.  Here is a hypothetical situation based on a real life example.  Z arrives in  Scotland aged 6 months.  He remains in Scotland until 17.  I think everyone would be happy for that person to be registered as SCO.  However, he (or she) now goes to University in England.  Should he still be SCO or should he be forced to change?  Probably to soon to decide.  He graduates and gets a job in England.  At what point would he stop being regarded as Scottish?  Remember for titled players it can be an expensive process to change federations for titled players.  In addition, who keeps these records?
Personally I would find it difficult to accept someone arriving in Scotland to attend University or on a short term work contract as SCO.  But I would also find it difficult to draw up watertight rules.  Eg adult arrives on rolling contract, no former federation. It is not unreasonable to say they cannot be SCO.  But is it right to say they cannot become SCO when we accept someone on a full time contract after 24 months even if the leave after 25 months.
c) I believe Matt Turner should not have been accepted as SCO.  However an AGM accepted him.  Is it fair to now cast him adrift?  I do not believe so.  Like many errors, once they are made you need to learn to live with them.  Where the second motion is not satisfactory in my opinion is that it should include details of the compensation required to Matt to overturn his SCO status, a not insignificant amount for a GM.  It should also state that Chess Scotland will not require compensation from the receiving federation.

So my opinion
a) Yes, it minimises the risk of a repeat of this fiasco
b) In theory yes but too difficult to administer in practice therefore NO.
c) We accept him as a full member.  Given the history, it is unfair to do otherwise.

--------------------------------------------------------------
The Alex questions
 
a) I would agree in principle - but this fiasco was not caused by MT not being eligible, and can be avoided by what Willie called good governance. Rules in place, whatever they are; checking the current rules. Everything not left to Alex Championship Director, and a modicum of oversight. Etc.

But nothing should be in the constitution that has been sprung on, or otherwise concealed from, the membership. That is not a reasonable request to make - asking the members to tie their hands, while misleading them as to why.
 
c) The 2011 AGM did not accept MT's eligibility. It was an AOCB item - these should not have full status as items put to the membership in the proper way.
The status doesn't matter that much if there is no real body of opinion wanting to dispute Matthew having the code, as proposed to that AGM -i.e., in order to allow him to have a 'state' for FIDE tournaments.
But it matters if another body of opinion try to use it to build upon to push through something that wasn't put to that AGM. In that case, its status should be a stumbling block.
 
There is no sense in which MT would be 'cast adrift' should Motion 2 be rejected. Motion 2 states he will retain his SCO code, which is what he was given in the first place - and he himself says he has not asked for eligibility.

What Alex is talking about - Matthew changing federations himself - would apply to any GM changing federations.
I realize it's tempting to couch this relative to the viewpoint of Matthew being a Scottish representative and then that being denied, but that isn't the correct baseline.
 
Having said that, while I don't see any compensation is owed to MT unless his SCO code was taken from him (I wouldn't want that), certain expectations have been created, even going by what was said publicly in meetings. He has served Scotland in ways other than residency.
Informal obligations of a goodwill nature could possibly be fulfilled, or raised. Perhaps Alex is raising a delicate subject - I suggest any formal obligations would need to be disclosed to the membership before that could be thrown in as part of the calculus of the eligibility vote. (That's the only reason I'm mentioning it)

Meanwhile in a correct universe, we can dicuss that Matthew is a strong GM (there aren't any weak ones, but you know what I mean) who would strengthen any team, and an asset in many respects; and that is to be weighed against the rights - and contributions - of our Scots wannabees and nearlies, who are strong players who have themselves contributed a lot to the Scottish chess scene over a long period, and whose eligibility rights are not disputed.

[Alex McFarlane]

Hi Willie,
With regard to being selected for Scotland, that is only a small part of the problem. To be able to play in a FIDE rated event of any description you need to be given a FIN (FIDE Identification Number). This is issued by your 'own' national federation. For Douglas to establish which category a player satisfies would be time consuming. Tournament organisers would need to be educated in the problems that a late attempt at registration can cause. A player without a FIN means that the tournament cannot be submitted to FIDE for rating. Some federations can be slow to issue FINs, especially if they do not know who the player is. This becomes a real problem with players who currently satisfy residency but may lose that right in the future so prefer to seek a more permanent solution.
Imagine the admin that will be required for a junior rapidplay to be FIDE rated. For a small tournament in Edinburgh this weekend I know of 6 juniors who have not provided sufficient evidence to be registered under the current arrangements!

With regard to proposal 2, I agree totally EXCEPT our own rules have already been broken. I argue that there should be a 'statute of limitations' on when this can be corrected and that any reasonable time to do so has been exceeded.
If England refuses to accept Matt back then he faces a €50 per year fee from FIDE to be registered as FID which I feel, morally, Chess Scotland should pay. In addition he will no longer be invited to title norm events as FID (which would be his designation) does not satisfy the nationality requirements for opponents' title norms.
If we do reject Matt shouldn't we also be doing the same for anyone who used residency but no longer qualifies? It is a minefield that I for one don't want to enter.

If we leave Matt as SCO but strip him of the rights associated with that, then we are clearly discriminating against him. There were no restrictions put on him initially by Chess Scotland.

[WBuchanan]

Not sure what you're on about Alex, in this paragraph

"If England refuses to accept Matt back then he faces a €50 per year fee from FIDE to be registered as FID which I feel, morally, Chess Scotland should pay. In addition he will no longer be invited to title norm events as FID (which would be his designation) does not satisfy the nationality requirements for opponents' title norms."

From Motion 2 notes

"If members vote No they disagree then Matthew Turner would retain his Scotland registration but would only qualify for full SCO rights if he completed a two year period of residency."

Nobody is going to be forcing Matt to 'go back' to England!

[Willie Rutherford]

Let's guess only about 30 people a year are seriously considered for selection to represent Scotland, the vast majority will have life-long eligibility through birth or parentage.....

On the last Olympiad perhaps half the 10 players were resident-only qualifiers for a Scotland registration. If they leave Scotland to work or live should their eligibility to represent Scotland be curtailed?

Why not? If residence was your only connection to Scotland and you are no longer resident why should you still be eligible?
Of course, there is a discussion to be had about exact criteria to make sensible allowance for short-term periods of non-residency e.g. your eligibility based on residency expires if you have not been resident in Scotland for at least 6 months in the last 5 years (top of head example)

---

Hi Willie,
With regard to being selected for Scotland, that is only a small part of the problem.  To be able to play in a FIDE rated event of any description you need to be given a FIN (FIDE Identification Number).  This is issued by your 'own' national federation.  For Douglas to establish which category a player satisfies would be time consuming.  Tournament organisers would need to be educated in the problems that a late attempt at registration can cause.  A player without a FIN means that the tournament cannot be submitted to FIDE for rating.  Some federations can be slow to issue FINs, especially if they do not know who the player is.  This becomes a real problem with players who currently satisfy residency but may lose that right in the future so prefer to seek a more permanent solution.
Imagine the admin that will be required for a junior rapidplay to be FIDE rated.  For a small tournament in Edinburgh this weekend I know of 6 juniors who have not provided sufficient evidence to be registered under the current arrangements!  

With regard to proposal 2, I agree totally EXCEPT our own rules have already been broken.  I argue that there should be a 'statute of limitations' on when this can be corrected and that any reasonable time to do so has been exceeded.
If England refuses to accept Matt back then he faces a €50 per year fee from FIDE to be registered as FID which I feel, morally, Chess Scotland should pay.  In addition he will no longer be invited to title norm events as FID (which would be his designation) does not satisfy the nationality requirements for opponents' title norms.
If we do reject Matt shouldn't we also be doing the same for anyone who used residency but no longer qualifies?  It is a minefield that I for one don't want to enter.

If we leave Matt as SCO but strip him of the rights associated with that, then we are clearly discriminating against him.  There were no restrictions put on him initially by Chess Scotland.

Thanks Alex but like others have said, eligibility for an SCO code at FIDE and eligibility to represent Scotland or be declared Scottish Champion are surely 2 entirely different things. I am not sure I care who has an SCO code, the more the merrier. Re MT I see no problem with the status quo of him retaining his SCO code but being ineligible to represent Scotland. The only "discrimination against" him would be the perfectly valid one of not allowing him to represent Scotland because he doesn't meet the criteria. The same "discrimination" that applies to everyone else. I agree it is important that where relevant the individuals should be helped to understand the implications of having an SCO code if they hope to represent some other country. It seems maybe this didn't happen with MT (as to why...let's not go through all that again, please!) so as stated before, if MT is unhappy with the status quo I would be sympathetic to CS supporting him financially to move, within reason. I hope he would choose not to.

[Alex McFarlane]

But FIDE doesn't differentiate, everyone down as SCO is Scottish.  
THey are therefore seen as representing Scotland in any FIDE rated event.  If Matt plays at Hastings for example he is considered as Scottish and representing Scotland for player norms.
If he won the British, he would be classed as Scottish not English.
In addition CS pays FIDE €1 per year for each active SCO player.  I cannot see an argument that we are not paying for him as he is not really Scottish getting anywhere with FIDE!

We cannot use the designation as we choose.  As long as he is registered with FIDE as SCO that's it.  We can decide which team events he is selected for but have no say in many individual events.  This point seems to be missed, possibly because we currently don't have anyone performing at a high enough level.

Would we be trying to stop Matt playing in the Candidates if he was good enough because he was the wrong type of SCO?

There seems to be a total lack of understanding in the way FIDE works but, more importantly, in the amount of work which would be required to ensure that those no longer resident were disenfranchised (which would be required by some suggestions).

[WBuchanan]

I was chairman of the Eligibility Working Panel (EWP) panel set up to examine CS eligibility rules and to try and find resolution of the difficulties of the 2019 Scottish Championship.

The majority EWP report recommends that Motion 1 is placed in the Constitution. This is our best judgement of a set of Eligibility requirements within the administrative capabilities of CS which provide guidance on what constitutes the rights to win Scottish Championship titles, represent Scotland in international play and to be registered as Scottish with FIDE, the world chess federation. 

If the Eligibility section is within the Constitution it will minimise divergence from established rules and the potential problems that may bring. Whether the rules are in the Constitution or not they can still be adjusted in future by members securing the consent of the membership by way of AGM motions - the only difference is a Constitution change will require a 2/3rd vote to secure change rather than a simple 50% majority. 

***

With regard to the issue of the FIDE registration of students and other temporary residents mentioned by various posters the majority EWP view was that the stipulation of a minimum period of two years is sufficient. In the allocation of FIDE IDs we simply ask players if they meet at least one of the criteria 1) Born here 2) parent born here 3) Residency of two years - any one of the three is considered sufficient. CS do not seek information on the future work and location choices of players and no record is kept of how any player meets the eligibility requirements. Therefore we do not currently know who are "residency only" players.

If a player has eligibility for more than one federation then they should consider possible future financial penalties before choosing Scotland. If the intention is to move outwith Scotland there will be transfer fee costs if they wish to re-register in the new location. There may also be particular federation registration requirements to play in certain events (in the same way SCO would be a requirement in any closed Scottish Championship). It would not be sensible for a player intending to continue with serious chessplay to register with Scotland if their intention was to leave the country a short time later.

***

https://www.chessscotland.com/wp-content...b_2022.pdf

5. Transfer Fees
If a player wishes to transfer away from Scotland to a different federation, they should be aware that FIDE will impose an administration fee. The current (Jan 2022) minimum fee is 50 euros with significantly higher costs for strong titled players. If a player is eligible for more than one federation, they should consider the potential cost of changing later to a different federation before they request an initial Scotland registration. Players wishing to transfer to Scotland should contact the Chess Scotland International Rating Officer for advice.

6. Temporary residents
The provisions on residency are intended to apply to those who are normally resident in Scotland rather than those who are only here on a temporary basis. In addition to the section on possible fees associated with changing federation it should also be considered that the rules of a domestic competition in a player’s normal country of residence may require a FIDE registration transfer to the home country. So this may create problems for a player if they have already been allocated a SCO registration.

7. Longevity
Once granted the SCO registration remains unless the player wishes to transfer to another federation or commits a serious breach of Chess Scotland rules of conduct.

***

Presumably the concern is that a temporary resident will claim a place in a Scotland international team or contest the Scottish Championship. Just how strong will an 18-20 year-old be if they are applying for an initial FIDE registration? There is no example of any such gaming the system among the 1000+ SCO players currently FIDE registered.

With almost 20% of the Scottish population not born in this country there will be many players who are "resident only" qualifiers for a Scotland badge. For the bulk of players this assists with their ability to play FIDE rated games. For those players strong enough to represent Scotland in Olympiads or contest the Championship should there be restrictions placed on "resident only" Scotland players if they later re-locate to an address outside Scotland? 

The majority EWP conclusion was that as far as FIDE is concerned any player holding a SCO registration is considered as Scottish regardless of their geographic location. Any player ruled ineligible from representing Scotland under a CS residency check would be unable to play for any other federation until they had transferred away from Scotland. Should CS place restrictions on players who have already demonstrated a connection to the Scotland chess community now or at some time in the past?

Prior to the 2016 AGM ruling (restricting eligibility to SCO players only) players already FIDE registered with a country other than Scotland were eligible to win the Scottish Championship title if deemed ordinarily resident. Title contenders would be already strong players (in contrast to new fide-registrants) and the rules were required to protect the title against strong players considered as making only a temporary stay.

Players are entitled to transfer to Scotland from other federations provided they meet eligibility requirements and the financial costs of transfer. There have been no examples of players deliberately seeking transfer to use Scotland as a flag of convenience in order to play in international teams or contest the Championship. 

The issue of residency was one of the main topics of debate among the EWP https://www.chessscotland.com/wp-content...Topics.pdf 

***

Motion 2: The EWP would like to establish member views on what should be the rights of GM Matthew Turner with regard to his Scotland registration. It is unfortunate that MT is the subject of this debate from a situation which arises outwith his control due to the lack of any documented guidance from officials on how they thought the 2016 "SCO only" rule change was to be interpreted and why it warranted a change in status. 

As it now stands the current circumstance is MT has held a Scotland registration for over a decade established by a vote at the 2011 AGM plus a share of the 2019 Championship title. The EWP declined to make any unilateral ruling on future rights and would prefer if members indicated how CS should proceed. Once the vote is concluded it will assist both the player and CS by providing a member-backed ruling on future rights.

Hi again Douglas. This is another reply to your earlier post #134. This has the effect of copying it all again, sorry.

You write:

"With regard to the issue of the FIDE registration of students and other temporary residents mentioned by various posters the majority EWP view was that the stipulation of a minimum period of two years is sufficient. In the allocation of FIDE IDs we simply ask players if they meet at least one of the criteria 1) Born here 2) parent born here 3) Residency of two years - any one of the three is considered sufficient. CS do not seek information on the future work and location choices of players and no record is kept of how any player meets the eligibility requirements. Therefore we do not currently know who are "residency only" players."
 
I'm puzzled by this line of argument, and by the last statement.
 
The Operating Procedures for selection state that players who wish to be considered for selection are already responsible for ensuring their addresses and contact details are kept up to date:
https://www.chessscotland.com/wp-content...b_2022.pdf
 
Players wishing to be considered eligible, already registered and that are under your existing radar regarding birth/parent, could simply be asked.
You know when players have left Scotland from their address details.
There would be some i's to be dotted and t's to be crossed.
 
For most eligible players a single once-only item of data would suffice as birth/parent status are permanent, lifelong categories and could be marked as such?
 
For players you register in the future there would be no extra admin requirement to speak of. They can be marked as Birth/Parent or Not Permanent.
Problem when they leave Scotland? They'll have non Scottish addresses, which  the OPs say they are responsible for keeping up to date.
 
More i's and t's, and rather you than me - but isn't this the nature of Admin. There shouldn't be hoards of them seeking eligibility surely?
Why will the sky fall above Scotland, if people aren't given lifelong eligibility? The sky's fine above Wales and Ireland!


I meant to ask you about this as well:

"The majority EWP conclusion was that as far as FIDE is concerned any player holding a SCO registration is considered as Scottish regardless of their geographic location. Any player ruled ineligible from representing Scotland under a CS residency check would be unable to play for any other federation until they had transferred away from Scotland. Should CS place restrictions on players who have already demonstrated a connection to the Scotland chess community now or at some time in the past?"
 
It may be an editing creation, but there is no EWP view expressed there; FIDE's official view isn't an EWP matter.
Anyway, don't players who live and play here for years, decades even, demonstrate a stronger connection?
I think what you said about them being warned about a future penalty should they transfer is sufficient.
50 euros isn't much amongst chess expenses for competitive players.
And as it's FIDE that charge it, it's not really CS responsibility and you did warn them.
For this we should freely give away lifelong eligibility?
 
Cheers

[Willie Rutherford]

But FIDE doesn't differentiate, everyone down as SCO is Scottish.  
THey are therefore seen as representing Scotland in any FIDE rated event.  If Matt plays at Hastings for example he is considered as Scottish and representing Scotland for player norms.
If he won the British, he would be classed as Scottish not English.
In addition CS pays FIDE €1 per year for each active SCO player.  I cannot see an argument that we are not paying for him as he is not really Scottish getting anywhere with FIDE!

We cannot use the designation as we choose.  As long as he is registered with FIDE as SCO that's it.  We can decide which team events he is selected for but have no say in many individual events.  This point seems to be missed, possibly because we currently don't have anyone performing at a high enough level.

Would we be trying to stop Matt playing in the Candidates if he was good enough because he was the wrong type of SCO?

There seems to be a total lack of understanding in the way FIDE works but, more importantly, in the amount of work which would be required to ensure that those no longer resident were disenfranchised (which would be required by some suggestions).

Thanks Alex. That does help me understand where you are coming from. I have been indeed focussing on Scottish Champion eligibility and eligibility to be selected to represent Scotland, which as you say, is up to CS not FIDE. But the status quo has allowed MT to "represent" Scotland in individual events up to now with no problem. So just let that continue. Where's the harm? The whole debate was, I thought, about giving him "full eligibility". 

Similarly, those losing their "full eligibility" due to no longer being resident can just keep their SCO codes if they want. CS having to pay €1 for each SCO registered player doesn't seem important on the basis that most, but obviously not all, SCO players are contributing to CS funds through membership and/or grading fees. 

As for MT being SCO in the candidates etc - good luck to him!

[hamish olson]

I think it is implicit in the motion that the type of representing Scotland discussed is "selected to represent" rather than the more everyday playing in tournaments under as SCO code kind - it explicitly states he will keep his SCO code either way.
I can understand the confusion though - perhaps the motion should enumerate what the rights being proposed are.

---

I agree with your three questions Alex, and respect your logic on all points but think this begs the follow up question of:

(d) Why aren't we (the membership) getting to answer question (b), which you and I have highlighted as a core issue? It is being presented to us with no discussion or choice other than which level of acceptance, in a very subtle "blink-and-you-missed-it" way that non-forum members are likely to be oblivious to, as are many people, including at least one senior CS official posting in this thread.

To be clear, my answer to (b) is more or less identical to yours, with the same reasoning, but we aren't getting asked (b), just (a) and ( c ) which I don't like on principle.

I would honestly just settle for it being highlighted as a change so that people actually know the new status quo doesn't include students etc. any more, if voting is a step too far for a small change.

As things stand, people familiar with the past rules will think that residency excludes students. People unfamiliar will assume it includes. A recipe for confusion.

A bit indulgent to quote myself, but I have realised that I misread Alex's post that I was replying to.
I was meaning to say that my answer to (b) is that I do in fact support motion 1 as a simplifying change - I just wish the associated communication was a bit better.

Alex, did you perhaps misspeak your answer to (b) - the way I was reading your statement, particularly the part about "too difficult to administer in practice" was that you supported motion 1 too - as that is the most simple way to administer, at least compared with the status quo.

---

Let's guess only about 30 people a year are seriously considered for selection to represent Scotland, the vast majority will have life-long eligibility through birth or parentage.....

On the last Olympiad perhaps half the 10 players were resident-only qualifiers for a Scotland registration. If they leave Scotland to work or live should their eligibility to represent Scotland be curtailed?

Why not? If residence was your only connection to Scotland and you are no longer resident why should you still be eligible?
Of course, there is a discussion to be had about exact criteria to make sensible allowance for short-term periods of non-residency e.g. your eligibility based on residency expires if you have not been resident in Scotland for at least 6 months in the last 5 years (top of head example)

---

Hi Willie,  I think that what you are proposing here is a bit harsh. 

I think if someone has lived here for a prolonged period of time then they should have permanent eligibility. To be honest I personally couldn't care less whether someone was born here or not, or if someone has Scottish parents or not. I'm not sure I'd even include either of those in the eligibility criteria at all if this was all starting from scratch (which I know it is not) - I would just have residency.

Are you really saying if someone has been living here since say two years old, then moves to Newcastle in their twenties or thirties then they should lose their eligibility?

I suspect you were thinking of people who had moved here as adults and momentarily forgot about other cases. 

It would be possible to have a whole heap of conditional rules to make that work, but I actually think motion 1 strikes a sensible balance - we can't even seem to keep track of decisions at AGMs reliably - can we really keep track of complicated and inevitably evolving eligibility criteria?

I would have some sympathy for say 2 years residency for initial registration and eligibility, and 5-10 years to make it permanent, with no middle ground, but think one criteria is even simpler and halves the amount of checking.

[WBuchanan]

Sensible thoughts, both.

Just a comment from the inside of the washing machine...  
To clip this part off:
 
"I suspect you were thinking of people who had moved here as adults and momentarily forgot about other cases.
 
It would be possible to have a whole heap of conditional rules to make that work, but I actually think motion 1 strikes a sensible balance - we can't even seem to keep track of decisions at AGMs reliably - can we really keep track of complicated and inevitably evolving eligibility criteria?
 
I would have some sympathy for say 2 years residency for initial registration and eligibility, and 5-10 years to make it permanent, with no middle ground, but think one criteria is even simpler and halves the amount of checking. "
 
The claim that Motion 1 is firming up existing rules has been widely made, but is untrue.
So if there was no Motion 1, and this caused the admin burden to be heavy, it would have to be heavy already.
 
Isn't the checking burden being used as a Trojan horse?
 
Motion 1 is 2015 SGM proposal (which wanted SCO code => eligibility) on steroids (now wants, and insists on getting, lifelong eligibility from temporary residence, as well), which was defeated, by pulling the whole eligibility item and giving it to a committee.
There was another eligibility motion on the table at the time, which was closer to firming up existing procedures, had that been the aim.
 
Despite appearances, there was obviously no REAL rush - then, and now.

It wouldn't have been hard to devise (imperfect, no doubt) scales to take into account things like you are discussing. How long people stayed here, and how long that should give them. Sliding scales and a few parameters.
 
Supposed time constraints and the induced 'rush job' thinking reduce head space and prevent reasoned thought and planning.
Now we are throwing out anything that might cause a bit of checking - without even thinking about it.
 
Just a thought as we dive out of the way of the horse's wheels!