07-05-2014, 02:00 PM
In swimming there are two standards that are specified for events for those aiming to take part in an event and these are a consideration time and a qualifying time. Those that are faster than the latter get in automatically whereas those that meet the former get in subject to places available.
By analogy I would set two standards - the toughest set deliberately hard such that only the very best of our players would meet. These players, at most 1 or 2 per squad, are automatically selected and get the free place for their age group.
Those that meet the second qualifying standard are then subject to a selection debate that we consider factors other than just grade: quality/style of play, work ethic, theoretical knowledge etc
I think that all those then selected against the lower standard share the costs as a squad.
I think it is unfair on the parents of a child who qualifies on ability but happens to be no2 in a strong age group, and potentially significantly stronger (for their age) than a No 1 player in a weaker age group, to have to pay the full cost of the trip. If you are hoping to use these events to help encourage players to develop their skills it seems counter productive to impose the full costs on that second player. Also where a qualifying standard has been met then I think it is unfair to transfer the whole of the weaker players subsidy to another.
I do not want to get drawn in to the legality debate of sharing the costs but I do think that CS has a role to play in determining, within the rules, what best suits Scottish Chess.
By analogy I would set two standards - the toughest set deliberately hard such that only the very best of our players would meet. These players, at most 1 or 2 per squad, are automatically selected and get the free place for their age group.
Those that meet the second qualifying standard are then subject to a selection debate that we consider factors other than just grade: quality/style of play, work ethic, theoretical knowledge etc
I think that all those then selected against the lower standard share the costs as a squad.
I think it is unfair on the parents of a child who qualifies on ability but happens to be no2 in a strong age group, and potentially significantly stronger (for their age) than a No 1 player in a weaker age group, to have to pay the full cost of the trip. If you are hoping to use these events to help encourage players to develop their skills it seems counter productive to impose the full costs on that second player. Also where a qualifying standard has been met then I think it is unfair to transfer the whole of the weaker players subsidy to another.
I do not want to get drawn in to the legality debate of sharing the costs but I do think that CS has a role to play in determining, within the rules, what best suits Scottish Chess.