Chris Hampton
Unregistered
I've heard, through the loud beating of jungle drums, that the IJD is being a hard time over his board's selection, this year, for Liverpool. Does anyone on the board have any comment to make or do we have to treat silence as implied assent to recent criticism whether it is fair or not? There is a truly ugly rumour going around that a commercial interest has to some level dictated the choice of players this year. Personally, I find such an allegation insulting and barely credible! It would, nevertheless, be very helpful to be reassured, as a member of Chess Scotland, of the complete probity of the selectors. I fully appreciate that they often have hard decisions to make and can never please all of us all of the time. It is surely inevitable, on occasion, that some child will be passed over in favour of another with closely similar claim to selection. At the end of the day, there are only a limited number of places. All the more reason, then, that procedures are seen by everyone to be as equitable as human judgement allows them to be. I am personally unhappy with the idea of considering only those Juniors whose parents make their interest known. Why, for example, is an invitation based on merit considered to be such 'old hat'? I look at a potential situation where definite interest has been expressed on-line but the offer is subsequently declined. I ask myself how I would, as a parent, feel about that refusal. I would now want to be told very authoritatively that the guidance offered as to selection procedure by Chess Scotland has been conscientiously adhered to. A couple of fairly recent resignations from the Board leave me with the unhappy impression that all is not well and that, perhaps, a greater level of transparency is now, as always, required. =| ? All my best wishes and good luck, BTW, to our 'squad' in Slovenia-they'll certainly need it! =) Chris L
Posts: 1,120
Threads: 70
Joined: Aug 2011
Chris,
The intention is to reply to this as a board of selectors in the future. May I just point out you are not listed as a member of ChessScotland. I assume your membership has simply lapsed recently.
Robin.
Posts: 667
Threads: 70
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
0
Chris Laidlaw Wrote:There is a truly ugly rumour going around that a commercial interest has to some level dictated the choice of players this year.
Chris I am not aware of any such commercial interest dictating player choice.
I am not a selector but I am dealing with all the financial aspects of the Liverpool event, in addition to my duties as Finance Director and I was certainly not advised that a payment was forthcoming from any commercial interest in relation to the selection of a player.
If you or anyone else has more actual facts than I seem to have then please e-mail them to me and I will discuss them with the executive board.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.scotchesstour.co.uk">http://www.scotchesstour.co.uk</a><!-- m -->
Posts: 576
Threads: 14
Joined: Aug 2011
robin moore Wrote:Chris,
The intention is to reply to this as a board of selectors in the future. May I just point out you are not listed as a member of ChessScotland. I assume your membership has simply lapsed recently.
Robin.
Correction
Hampton, Chris
pnum 4243
Full membership
Chess Scotland Renewal Due 01/01/2013
Posts: 576
Threads: 14
Joined: Aug 2011
Yes Andrew,
Chris Laidlaw and Chris Hampton are the same person.
Posts: 289
Threads: 7
Joined: Aug 2011
I'd like to start by saying that, knowing several of them, I have absolute faith in the integrity and probity of Chess Scotland's selectors. Could somebody please substantiate exactly what charges are being laid against them? If there are reasons - legal, personal or whatever - why these charges should not be disclosed to the public at this time, then I don't think this thread should exist either - or at least it should have a higher facts-to-vague-references ratio.
Posts: 1,120
Threads: 70
Joined: Aug 2011
Andrew,
I don't want to sidetrack the initial post here but I am not happy about the poster's id. Why is he able to post under an "assumed" name claiming to be a member? Chris x could effectively be anybody although you must have his log on details.
For transparency we really need to all be using our real names.
Robin.
Posts: 170
Threads: 6
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
0
Perhaps the clue lies in the fact that he identifies himself as an Agent Provocateur in his mid-70's, whose interest is 'provoking complacent idiots'?
I must say this revelation came as a surprise, since he has always struck me as a well-meaning chap, who goes out of his way to help others. His other posts mostly focus on imparting information.
Since David Congalton has registered the main point of the original post, perhaps this thread can safely be removed? What other purpose does it serve?
