Council meeting

[Jacqui Thomas]

Secondly, why you? It was you, it wasn't anyone else. And it is always you. I've lost count of the amount of people you've fallen out with by directly attacking/criticising them. Considering you've shown blatant disdain towards Chess Scotland by withdrawing your membership, I'm amazed you find the will to come on the board and complain about things such as this.

Reading your last post Calum it is obvious you just want to make something out of nothing by being challenging. One thing we wont do is back off without defending ourselves if you quote the facts wrong.

Both Phil & I did not withdraw membership. We didn't renew. There is a difference. Cant go into details without revealing information that some quarters would feel is confidential.

I'm amazed you find the will to come on the board and complain about things such as this.

Be amazed then, as so long as there are matters that may be detrimental to some juniors which may or may not include our own son we will challenge. In fact if you look at posts that I have done, where I have challenged, it has always been in my opinion for the good of the juniors. i will not sit back quiet whilst parents get a raw deal, which leads me on to your next quote.

If you don't want to help Chess Scotland move on as an organisation then leave the volunteers who are giving plenty of their time and effort to help. If you do, get a membership and say something positive about something for once. We recently had your wife ranting about how an extra £5 per head was bad value despite the new digs for the Liverpool tournament didn't have a tramp staying there and the beds had that added bonus of not being laced with the previous visitor's public hair. Trying to criticise everything is just a terrible policy and one we cannot have in a community that is trying to pull together to get the grant back

Giving their time & help? I doubt if there are more than a few in the volunteer chess community that give more volunteer hours than us. Last weekend at the Primary Individual was from 2pm Friday until 8pm Sunday when we got home - that is a Chess Scotland event by the way. We have also helped run the joint branded tournaments for Chess Scotland/SJC. We are not like many that like to say on this noticeboard, & elsewhere, how things should be run but don't actually do anything themselves.

If we criticise, there is a reason. As for the grant that is not our fault. I have personally tried various channels trying to get sponsorship for not only Juniors but the Scottish Championships & Commonwealth. As well as both of us sourcing important venues in the past.

As for your quote regarding Liverpool you have omitted part of the facts. Paul booked the new central hostel in 2011 in good faith & therefore like anywhere including Premier Inns you have no control over other guests that may stay there. So yes, the new venue was quoted as being better but it came at a cost. It wasn't 'just £5', that may have been the difference to the cost to one junior - see below

Quote : - Liverpool Quadrangular
by Jacqui Thomas » Tue Dec 11, 2012 12:11 am

Its good to know everyone had such a good time, produced some good results & very well organised by David & his helpers.

robin moore wrote:
I am hearing some really good things about Liverpool particularly regarding the accommodation and meals arrangements compared to previous years.
Robin.

If you are making comparisons you should also point out that for parent & child it was £218 this year where as last year, current managements first year it was £160 & prior to that £130. So on that basis one might expect it was better.

Jacqui Thomas


I wouldn't say my post was a rant or recent & cannot see how on earth it has anything to do with Phil so why are you now attacking me out of the blue.

Just as a little post script, do you not think it's deeply, deeply inappropriate to bring up this example considering the email that recently went around. The one you clearly know about considering the only person to be CC'ed into the original email was your wife?

How can you say that meeting motions cannot be debated. Shouldn't be a motion if that is the case. By the way I was one of many on that email distribution list (not cc'd as you state) & you may find it surprising but all our our emails go into the same inbox.

Finally, 'wife', I have a name, I wouldn't want you to get accused of attacking anonymous persons on the board.

Jacqui

[Patrick McGovern]

“O, wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion.”

=)

[Andy McCulloch]

Here and Junior Chess Chat.

Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels.

Targets are no longer anonymous.

[Andy Howie]

We have gone sufficiently off topic that I am close to locking the thread. Can I please ask everyone to take a breath and calm down.

[David Deary]

How can you say that meeting motions cannot be debated. Shouldn't be a motion if that is the case. By the way I was one of many on that email distribution list (not cc'd as you state) & you may find it surprising but all our our emails go into the same inbox.

I believe Calum would be referring to the email that was forwarded below the massive email that went out. You were copied on that one. In fact, you were the only person copied on that one. I've just checked.

Having watched this unfold I think the best post I saw in that time was Mike's and it is worth having a long hard think about... I think it should come up before anyone even posts on this forum. I'm posting it here as the other topic is blocked so I cannot commend it in there.

...As a CS member, I am frankly sick of this public wrangling. We are struggling for financial support yet folk prefer to pursue their individual agendas and bash heads rather than tackle the reasons for the game's decline in Scotland...

[Patrick McGovern]

We have gone sufficiently off topic that I am close to locking the thread. Can I please ask everyone to take a breath and calm down

Why?

there is nothing offensive here surely? Or perhaps someone has complained? Or maybe overzealous moderation? Please elucidate. =)

[Patrick McGovern]

Why are reasoned posts/threads from all parties being either locked down or deleted? Messers McQueen/Thomas/Deary/Muir et al are making salient points, so why deny debate? If any of the gentlemen or lady wish it to stop then I'm sure that they have the wherewithal to request it. Moderators need to let debate flourish. I dont see any malicious comment being made so leave things as they are, unless of course if someone complains.

[Mike Scott]

time was Mike's

Not me - far too sensible. But agree.

Can I drag it back onto topic?

One of the problems I see in selecting purely on an average, especially a statistically biased one based on a selected sub-set of results, is that players have different results profiles: some will will have great wins against highly rated opponents combined with poor results against lower rated opponents while others are inherently more consistent. They beat those they should beat and loose to those they should loose to if you like. To know who is the better player you need to understand the reasons for the differences. For example it may be that the first player gets more motivated against the better players and genuinely plays better the harder the event. But perhaps the losses are an indication of some weakness in their technique and the number of good wins is less significant?

The alternative to selecting players based on their five best results, selected with hind sight, the selectors could nominate at the start of the season a selection of events for players in the squad to play at least five from to be considered for selection and their performances at these events becomes a major selection criteran.

This not only tests their chess ability but their ability to turn up at a specific event and perform on the day - as they will have to for the event they are hoping to be selected for.

At these events selectors would attended and observe the players and provide coaching after the games and if practical before. This would both help the selectors get to know the players but gets the players partly used to the routine involved in major events.

It is only appropriate for players above a certain age or ability but it is something they do in swimming and it seems to work.

[Ianbrownlee]

[quote="Patrick McGovern"]Why are reasoned posts/threads from all parties being either locked down or deleted?

cos its now turning into a vicious slanging match I'm with Andy Howie on this

[Andrew McHarg]

One of the problems I see in selecting purely on an average, especially a statistically biased one based on a selected sub-set of results, is that players have different results profiles: some will will have great wins against highly rated opponents combined with poor results against lower rated opponents while others are inherently more consistent. They beat those they should beat and loose to those they should loose to if you like. To know who is the better player you need to understand the reasons for the differences.

I agree that players with similar grades may have radically different journeys to getting those grades, but I'm not sure I agree that we can assert one to be stronger than the other purely on preference of one of those records over another. I mean, are we saying here that we prefer a player who consistently plays at a particular level over a player who can occassionally beat very much higher rated players but who also loses to much lower rated players in equal measure? I'd say the pros and cons of each roughly equal each other. We could say that consistency is a valuable quality, and it surely is, but so is the ability to put in an inspired performance. In fact, I'd say the latter probably shows more potential than the former, but does that make this player any stronger at the moment (?); there's probably not much in it. Therefore I'd have to conclude that the only fair way of assessing their relative strengths would be to assume they are roughly equal.

I think a good idea would be to look at which player has improved the most in the last 12 months (i.e. grade rise). It's maybe more credible to suggest that a player who has risen 120 points in the last 12 months is playing better Chess than someone who has only risen by 10 points; if their live grades after subsequently equal. Maybe that could be suggestive of "form"? It would be interesting to analyse the statistics on the grading database to see if the performances of high risers outweight the performances of low risers (or droppers) of equal grade in x games immediately following such a rise/drop.

The alternative to selecting players based on their five best results, selected with hind sight, the selectors could nominate at the start of the season a selection of events for players in the squad to play at least five from to be considered for selection and their performances at these events becomes a major selection criteran.

This not only tests their chess ability but their ability to turn up at a specific event and perform on the day - as they will have to for the event they are hoping to be selected for.

At these events selectors would attended and observe the players and provide coaching after the games and if practical before. This would both help the selectors get to know the players but gets the players partly used to the routine involved in major events.

It is only appropriate for players above a certain age or ability but it is something they do in swimming and it seems to work.

This is a really good idea I think. It sort of combines the selection process with training for the big event. Therefore, it may actually assess who can best handle the pressures of performing when it counts?