2014 Junior International Events

[Clement Sreeves]

Derek raises an important point: when does it become a moral hazard to begin inviting juniors, who are relatively weaker for their age, to provide funding for others?

Players are only invited if they fulfill a certain minimum standard.

[Hugh Brechin]

Do you end up just inviting kids along who will pay their way so that their free place can be given to someone else as that's how it will appear? The free place can only be given if you can get someone else to cough up for it.

As for your Fischer and Carlsen example, the only way that they could both get a free place is if you managed to find a parent from another age group willing to fund it, and presumably if it was hidden from FIDE. Nobody is saying that you have to pick the under 18 graded 100, but if they are the only 3 people mentioned in your example, you would need to pick the under 18 anyway and hope that they go and agree to pay up or else you can't give both under 12s a free place.

Well, I'd word it rather differently, but I don't really see the problem with this. I'd see this as less 'coughing up' and more as a collaborative thing. Here's a hypothetical scenario. Players A and B are in the same age group and have achieved CS's 'A' qualifying standard, or whatever (say we're talking about two under-14s rated in the 1900 ballpark). Only one funded place is available for the section. Player C is Scotland's strongest player in the under-16 age group, and has a rating of around 1750. I don't see the problem with a course of action which gives at least some of Player C's funding towards ensuring that both players A and B can participate. Obviously this would depend on everyone being able to agree, but I'd like to hope that should be possible. As long as the selection guidelines are clear and transparent to everyone well in advance, I don't see what the problem would be here.

Incidentally, I'd bet a decent amount of money that FIDE don't give a toss about what happens to the money, as long as they get more people playing in their competitions, which this would achieve. (Has anyone actually read the rules about this or are we all just guessing? I freely admit I am, so if everyone else is working from more knowledge than me, I do apologise.)

[Derek Howie]

Here's a hypothetical scenario. Players A and B are in the same age group and have achieved CS's 'A' qualifying standard, or whatever (say we're talking about two under-14s rated in the 1900 ballpark). Only one funded place is available for the section. Player C is Scotland's strongest player in the under-16 age group, and has a rating of around 1750.

What happens in your scenario where the selectors want to give the place to the 2 u14s and ask the u16 to pay, but the u16 says "no, I'm not going to pay for an u14's place" and doesn't go. Do the selectors then have to try and find someone else to go and pay or else the u16 doesn't get his or her free place? Will people end up thinking that their kid is only being selected so that they can pay for the u14?

[Derek Howie]

I share your frustration of you and others not having a clear understanding of the selection method. My main aim has always been to move to a more fair and transparent selection process. I believe a fair selection model has been created but the transparency element is proving harder to meet. I can assure you that I am progressing one step at a time, seeking all relevant engagement and with the utmost due diligence. Unfortunately by ensuring, all parties fully understand and full consensus is achieved, there has been numerous revisiting of previously agreed elements of the selection criteria. Once full understanding and consensus has been achieved at committee level I will be happy to roll it out to parents and players. In the mean time I would ask that everyone shows a little patience and wait for the facts before debating on perceived selection methods.

Surely it is Calum's responsibility to do this as IJD? He was the one elected to set policy.

Given the radical and controversial approach being proposed and the risk that FIDE could look unfavourably on it, would it not be more appropriate for it to be referred to Council?

[Jacqui Thomas]

Well, I'd word it rather differently, but I don't really see the problem with this. I'd see this as less 'coughing up' and more as a collaborative thing. Here's a hypothetical scenario. Players A and B are in the same age group and have achieved CS's 'A' qualifying standard, or whatever (say we're talking about two under-14s rated in the 1900 ballpark). Only one funded place is available for the section. Player C is Scotland's strongest player in the under-16 age group, and has a rating of around 1750. I don't see the problem with a course of action which gives at least some of Player C's funding towards ensuring that both players A and B can participate. Obviously this would depend on everyone being able to agree, but I'd like to hope that should be possible. As long as the selection guidelines are clear and transparent to everyone well in advance, I don't see what the problem would be here.

Incidentally, I'd bet a decent amount of money that FIDE don't give a toss about what happens to the money, as long as they get more people playing in their competitions, which this would achieve. (Has anyone actually read the rules about this or are we all just guessing? I freely admit I am, so if everyone else is working from more knowledge than me, I do apologise.)

First of all there seems to be confusion as lots of you are quoting the funding as coming from FIDE. It's not, it's free accommodation from the host of the tournament. The host would not allow what is being proposed as they want the extra business from additional players in the various age groups to also attend.

Why can't anyone see that it would be wrong to take any of funding from your scenario C player. If they are top in their age group they deserve the place. If A & B are in same age group & so close in grade then they either split the funding 50/50 or one goes to one event & the other gets to go to a different tournament. I mentioned all this in this thread on 25 April also Phil quoted from the rules on 25 April from the upcoming Euroyouth in Georgia.

Where as I believe parents will be more understanding in splitting funding if in an age group there are two players of similar rating, I do not believe they would be so obliging if they thought they would be few hundred pounds out of pocket to allow an extra player go in a different age group. That's taking any host rules & deceipt out of the equation.

Earlier in this page it was suggested more funding is needed to encourage & develop chess in schools. Yes agreed. It was then suggested instead of raising funds for this years Glorney would be put to better use if used for development. Yes agreed. But also wouldn't it make sense to try & raise funds for the additional players in some age groups where it was felt a place is deserved as well as the top in the group.

Also the players themselves should be encouraged to take a more proactive approach in trying to raise funding for themselves. Duke of Edinburgh award does that in schools. I have previously sent the stationary & posters out to parents for them or their child to request to run a mufti day (dress as you please) in black & white (chess pieces) in their school. Depending on the size of school a lot of money could be raised this way just asking for £1 & it also gets the school & peers to support the player in more than a financial capacity. Actual give the player some recognition of playing for their country. I do know that P.Sanders raised all his funding in Dumfries for all the international events he attended. More need to do the same instead of the proposals being put forward.

[Clement Sreeves]

Why can't anyone see that it would be wrong to take any of funding from your scenario C player. If they are top in their age group they deserve the place.

Why are they more deserving of a wholly funded place than the U14s?

[Clement Sreeves]

I would call being top of their age group in that scenario 'lucky' rather than 'deserving'. This is why the fair way is to give the funding to the top players RELATIVE to their age, so that everyone is on the same playing field.

Actually a funny thought occurred to me while I was typing this. The players receiving funded places are also 'lucky' in a way to be Scottish, rather than for example French where they might not be good enough with the same rating. Maybe we should get in touch with France and give them all our funded places!




Disclaimer: I am not saying any past, current or future players selected for Scotland got lucky to be where they are, I am using the word loosely to try and make a point.

[Hugh Brechin]

What happens in your scenario where the selectors want to give the place to the 2 u14s and ask the u16 to pay, but the u16 says "no, I'm not going to pay for an u14's place" and doesn't go. Do the selectors then have to try and find someone else to go and pay or else the u16 doesn't get his or her free place? Will people end up thinking that their kid is only being selected so that they can pay for the u14?

From my reading, this is a fair point. As I see the rules, any arrangement like this would have to be entirely voluntary. The sign-up process for these events (and admittedly I'm generalising from a sample size of the one event for which I was HOD here) involves registering as a nominated player (one per age-group) or an additional player, so (again in my understanding!) any arrangement whereby funding was transferred from one player to another would require the co-operation of that player's parents/guardians. I don't think that need be an insuperable obstacle, especially not if it becomes seen as 'the way things work'.

We're clearly talking about a fairly big shift in international policy here. It's one I absolutely agree with, but I'd like to see it implemented as a transparent code of practice which the CS membership as a whole could endorse at the AGM. I know that there's a detailed and robust framework being worked out, and I'd like to see it discussed carefully - there are certainly points on both sides. (For the 'where is Calum' questions - I think he's on a sabbatical having left his job recently, I'm sure he'll be weighing in here soon.) I would certainly hope that nobody involved would even consider bringing legal action if they're unhappy about a selector's decision - that wouldn't exactly scream 'helpful to Scottish juniors'.

For your last question, see Clement's post. Nobody will be selected who doesn't meet the required standard. (So that 100-rated 18-year-old is going to have to stay at home, as is Bobby Fischer if they're our only three juniors and his folks aren't going to pay the full whack.) (Can we play Magnus up an age-group? I don't know the rules there either.) If someone was only being taken so someone else's trip would be cheaper, that would certainly be morally wrong.

This is obviously a debate with a lot of different sides, and there are a lot of things to consider. I don't think the rules problem need be as much of an obstacle as it's being made out to be, however. Fundamentally, the two points that I believe to be central are the following:

As Mike posted earlier, our focus and that of Scottish juniors should at least in part be on succeeding at the Worlds and Europeans, rather than simply on participating. Getting into the squad should be seen as a step (and as a terrific achievement towards which to work), not as the finish line in itself. That means - among lots of other things - doing as much as we can to help the players with the best chance of scoring highly to take part.

And as I said before, I strongly believe that whether a player receives international recognition should be determined by how good they are, not by how good other people who happen to be born in the same year are.

[Jacqui Thomas]

Why can't anyone see that it would be wrong to take any of funding from your scenario C player. If they are top in their age group they deserve the place.

Why are they more deserving of a wholly funded place than the U14s?

Because that's the deal from the host.... End of.

It might not be what would be liked & I see the argument that's being put forward if the player in another age group is well below the Scottish average. So no the U18 at 100 grade would never be considered. But the deal isn't send your strongest only. What legal mess could be achieved if CS were to go down the route of the girls aren't strong enough so we will send boys in their place.

.

I would call being top of their age group in that scenario 'lucky' rather than 'deserving'. This is why the fair way is to give the funding to the top players RELATIVE to their age, so that everyone is on the same playing field.

. :bash:

It's not the deal being offered & that is what some of us are trying very hard to get across. CS can't make up their own rules.

Actually a funny thought occurred to me while I was typing this. The players receiving funded places are also 'lucky' in a way to be Scottish, rather than for example French where they might not be good enough .

True

[Alan Jelfs]

The problem with Hugh's suggestion that I see is this: If, say, we had 2 U-14s judged strong enough to go to the Euro champs and wanted to send both, the parents of the other team members would be asked to contribute to sending a second U-14, whether their child is "strong enough" or not - so you could end up with a child denied a place purely on financial, not Chess, reasons.

I also think the Glorney should be supported financially -surely this ( and the Liverpool Quadrangular ) are the events where those who aren't strong enough for the Euro-youth can gain "international" experience?

I get the "lucky to be the right age" thing - I happened to be born in the same year and the same County as a certain K Arkell.