11-01-2014, 04:45 PM
Hi,
It's clearly an emotive topic, so I won't labour it - the concept of what constituents "fair" is one people have disagreed on for millennia on a variety of topics. On such things, my view is that the best course is to be as objective as possible based on *data* - and I say that without knowing what the data would tell us (hence I'd be happy to accept whatever it shows).
So, for example, it could be considered "fair" that such things rotate around regions automatically. Or, it could be considered "fair" to minimise the travel for the younger cohorts. *Or*, it could be considered "fair" to simply minimise the overall travel for the bulk of likely attendees. My sympathies lean toward the last two approaches, which I suspect is likely to push things toward major population centres - and no, I don't live in or particularly near one. Edinburgh is a good 1/5hrs for me and Glasgow rarely less than an hour, but I accept the logic of many events being held there "for the greater good" - and I would not push the case for an Ayr venue if it turned out that this inconvenienced a large proportion of (particularly young) potential attendees.
Kynes had a point about facts - ultimately all I am saying is lets look objectively at the facts/data and base decisions on that (especially for juniors). If the conclusions is then that Skye be the logical location, then so be it. In fact, surely such an approach would actually encourage regional chess by recognising and rewarding local achievement/activity - all they'd have to do is produce a quantity of competing players at that level. Given the low numbers involved overall, that's a viable motivation/strategy for all of them(including Ayr).
It's clearly an emotive topic, so I won't labour it - the concept of what constituents "fair" is one people have disagreed on for millennia on a variety of topics. On such things, my view is that the best course is to be as objective as possible based on *data* - and I say that without knowing what the data would tell us (hence I'd be happy to accept whatever it shows).
So, for example, it could be considered "fair" that such things rotate around regions automatically. Or, it could be considered "fair" to minimise the travel for the younger cohorts. *Or*, it could be considered "fair" to simply minimise the overall travel for the bulk of likely attendees. My sympathies lean toward the last two approaches, which I suspect is likely to push things toward major population centres - and no, I don't live in or particularly near one. Edinburgh is a good 1/5hrs for me and Glasgow rarely less than an hour, but I accept the logic of many events being held there "for the greater good" - and I would not push the case for an Ayr venue if it turned out that this inconvenienced a large proportion of (particularly young) potential attendees.
Kynes had a point about facts - ultimately all I am saying is lets look objectively at the facts/data and base decisions on that (especially for juniors). If the conclusions is then that Skye be the logical location, then so be it. In fact, surely such an approach would actually encourage regional chess by recognising and rewarding local achievement/activity - all they'd have to do is produce a quantity of competing players at that level. Given the low numbers involved overall, that's a viable motivation/strategy for all of them(including Ayr).