Posts: 208
Threads: 18
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation:
1
Personally I don't like this motion as I can't see anything wrong with the existing eligibility rules for winning the Scottish championship title based on birth (or Scottish parentage) or residency for a suitable length of time in Scotland.
As these rules predate the FIDE rating system, it doesn't seem to upset them by adding a third, "or SCO by FIDE recognition through the FIDE rating system", although I can't see why that should be either necessary or add in anything of value.
I would have more sympathy for the motion, which essentially abolishes the residency principle entirely (and should surely be framed that way), if other comparable countries (say Germany, France, Spain, Netherlans, Belgium or other members of the ECU) did not permit non-national residents to compete in their national championships.
What is the position on that last point? I think other ECU members mainly do permit non-national residents to compete, subject to a reasonably lengthy period of residency. But I don't actually know. I do, however, think that the motion's proposers ought to know this or SCO could be in danger of doing something that is seriously out of line with the wider FIDE community without realising it.
Posts: 989
Threads: 93
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation:
2
If I replace ELO by FIDE then everyone has only one affiliation.
Unrateds can win titles unless affiliated to another nation.
The Olympiad criteria should be the same as Scottish criteria.
Jacob, Vlad Barnaure, Angus Dunnington, Andrew Greet - see you all in the Olympiad team 2014
Tough luck John, Alan & Colin
JR you are GM 2586 SCO affiliated , please play too
Maybe we wont finish 83rd again
Posts: 208
Threads: 18
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation:
1
I still don't like the idea of making a switch to SCO FIDE rating the main determinant of entitlement to win the Scot Ch title rather than residency (or birth/parentage).
Moreover no one has yet bothered to answer my Q about equivalence or otherwise on the part of other FIDE (principally ECU) member countries in regard to what is (in my view) not just an eminently sensible common sense but also an eminently enlightened CS rule that allows bona fide Scottish residents to win the title. Proposers of the motion - what do others do, what is the answer to this and how does it tie in with support for your proposed change?
Interestingly, no less an eminent, very many times former Scottish Champion, than the late Dr JM Aitken used the term "laudable" about the CS residency rule in regard to Danny Kopec's participation in the 1977 championship. See the recent link to Dr Aitken's article on the championship in the old CS magazine that has has just been provided by CS historian Alan McGowan at the CS history pages [link at CS homepage newsbox a few days ago]
I'm definitely with the good old "doc" on this one!
Posts: 208
Threads: 18
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation:
1
I'm still uneasy about making FIDE "national" badging a requirement for properly CS recognised "residents" to win the Scot ch title.
1. As I understand it, the existence of FIDE national bandings was never intended to take away the discretion of any member country to decide who should qualify to win their national championships. FIDE's sole purpose in using these is merely to bring order to the management of the rating system and to regulate the "nationality" of participants in "national" teams playing in FIDE events.
2. To take the Danny Kopec case (as it's been raised and is quite a good one):
(a) FIDE would certainly nowadays bar such a USA banded player from playing in FIDE events for Scotland and they probably did in 1980 too (in my view quite rightly).
(b) Yet there remains a very strong case for member countries, if they so wish, to allow players such as Danny to play for their national championship title (if he/she meets whatever is the current definition by a member country of residency).
© Danny Kopec actually lived for about 5-6 years in Scotland and contributed immensely to Scottish chess at the time. His case in fact actually raises an interesting Q as to whether the motion should not really be about rationalising the aptness of the current definitions "permanent" and "transitory" residence. These perhaps really ought to be rationalised and replaced by a straightforwardly objective "period" of residency - of however many years lived in Scotland (and perhaps proportions of years to catch any truly "transitory" person).
(d) Since how can you assess, in particular, "permanent"? Say someone from another FIDE member country gets a job in Scotland, relocates to Scotland with a view to a "permanent" life stay, but then gets made suddenly redundant after whatever period is set for "residency" and shifts back out of Scotland.
(e) It would in that case seem bizarre to have disallowed someone like Danny Kopec from winning the 1980 Scot champ title (after some 3-4 years residence in Scotland) yet to have allowed this other person that right, simply because he / she wasn't deemed "transitory" ar even, heaven forbid, a "student".
3. Apart from that, I also agree with Alex and Douglas that any link to the FIDE banding raises many other tricky management Qs, not least costs for transfers and considerable scope for admin disputes.
4. And, to answer Andrew's point, I can't for the life of me see why someone like Jacob Aagaard should not be able to choose to retain his DEN classification and decide not to play for SCO yet because of his very long-term residence and obvious chess activity in SCO not also be able to play for the Scot Champ title.
Posts: 989
Threads: 93
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation:
2
It's not just about Jacob. I opposed the Andrew Greet win in 2007 too at the time.
It should not be about whether someone has done a lot for Scottish chess either.
Being the Scottish champion is about beating other Scots. It is racist I suppose, though a non-Scot can transfer. I disagree with people being champion of 2 countries.
The discussion should not get bogged down in the legal definitions.
I would like the principle of the idea to be voted on. If that is agreed the wording can be amended to be fair.