2014 Junior International Events

[Keith Ruxton]

Hi everybody,

I'm not entering the debate on funding (would I dare!) but would be grateful if someone could clarify what is meant by 'age group' in the above discussion (i.e. from the tournament host's point of view when offering free places). Maybe my question is best asked using our three favourite players A B and C. Suppose that in a competition where there are U14 and U16 sections we have players...

A is 13 with ELO 1800
B is 13 with ELO 1750
C is 15 with ELO 1700

My question is: who is the best player in the U16 section? In other words, does U16 really mean everyone under 16 (in which case A is the winner) or, because there is an U14 section, U16 really means 14 and 15 year olds (in which case C is the answer).

Please no-one tell me it is B - my head will explode!

Apologies if this is self evident to everyone else but you should know by now I'm a bit slow...

Wait, I need a smiley, but which is most appropriate...

(~~)

Cheers,
Keith

[hamish olson]

C unless A &/or B are so good that they would be likely to win either section in which case the organiser might let someone move up an age group - otherwise they never do.

[Phil Thomas]

Has to be C.

Although regulations at these events tend not to ban a 13 year old from playing under 16 section such an action would not be looked on favourably. If it is clear that playing up a section is being done merely to save money I would expect the hosts to refuse the entry.

This would be easy for the hosts to spot because money transfer is (usually) a single electronic transfer from national organisations bank account to hosts bank account. At that time players full details - most notably date of birth and section are with the hosts.

And yes the host nation will have time to check. Once regulations are published on the FIDE site they will maintain an office just to deals with admin workload of multiple enquiries. Good news for CS is that the preferred language for comunication is (usually) English.

On that theme I once got congratulated by a TD on my fluency in German - I did the decent thing and forwarded that mail onto Siegrun. :ymblushing: and confessed to the host - I had composed only one of the German language mails. :ymblushing: :ymblushing:

[Mike Scott]

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.

[hamish olson]

Think mikes last post really hits the nail on the head, particularly if you make the qualifications seedings you would have been in the previous years event - that way Jacqui's (very pertinent) concern is dealt with. My post earlier has been misinterpreted a little, which serves me right for its length, I am not opposing Sean's proposals at all, it's just until Mikes post I could not see how it could possibly work. (That seems to be the gist of Jacqui's last couple posts too, correct me if I'm wrong.
You would need to make it so that if you were top of your age group you automatically fulfilled the lower set of criteria.

[Alex McFarlane]

There are three potential sources of funding when a junior (or adult) goes abroad.

The first is the accommodation provided by the host. This is issued to one representative in each prize category. It cannot be transferred in whole or in part without breaking the conditions of award.
The second would be a contribution towards costs from the national body. As this would come from Chess Scotland it could be allocated as we wish.
The third would be funding found by the parent. This would only apply to that child.

It has been mentioned earlier that a parent could volunteer that part of the first could be allocated to another child. I would reject this proposal for two reasons. (a) it puts an unfair burden on that parent to decide if they should agree to that and (b) more importantly, it could leave Scotland with an additional bill if the player making the donation had to withdraw just before the event. The 'free' place would fall with the withdrawal leaving CS to pick up the full bill for the other child who had been promised a significant contribution.

It may seem unfair that a weaker player can be selected for a subsidised place purely on age but that happens in other areas eg exams where a pass mark is modified to ensure a minimum pass rate (any norm referenced rather than criteria referenced system).

It has been suggested that a player can benefit from being in a weak age group but this does not happen often. Most events have age groups in two year bands. So a weak player doesn't get selected one year because of someone a year older and fails again the next year because of someone a year younger.

I'm also concerned about how you judge potential. I have known an 8 year old who was better than a 10 year old but the main reason for this was that the 8 year old had been playing for 4 years and the 10 year old for less than a year but both were top of their age group. Potential implies continuation to reach the predicted level. How do we know who will be playing in 5 years time?

When I was involved in selection in the past maturity was considered as well as ability. You avoided sending a very young player if the experience could put them off chess. When there was more than one promising player it was common practice to alternate the invitations with the weaker going to the World event and the stronger to the European (which had less of a tail to gain points against).

Anyway, for confirmation, the Commonwealth is awarding one place per championship category.

[Derek Howie]

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.

Surely the rules should be established first, as everything else could be a waste of everyone's time and energy if it's not?

[Clement Sreeves]

Surely the rules should be established first, as everything else could be a waste of everyone's time and energy if it's not?

This.

[Mike Scott]

Derek

Surely the rules should be established first, as everything else could be a waste of everyone's time and energy if it's not?

Not knowing the rules (or facts) has never stopped anyone 'wasting' their own energy in a debate!

I would assume that the directors will check that whatever they propose is FIDE legal.

I do think there is a debate to be had over whether it is fair or good for Scottish Chess about how these free place subsidies are spent but my feeling is that it should come after one decides the selection policy and the role these events play (if any) in the development of scottish juniors.

At one extreme, if qualification standards are set high and one gets only 1 or 2 non-No1 players attending and they are universally acknowledged to be strong players that is quite different than if the standard is set low and there are 2 or 3 players per age group.

[Phil Thomas]

Derek

Surely the rules should be established first, as everything else could be a waste of everyone's time and energy if it's not?

Not knowing the rules (or facts) has never stopped anyone 'wasting' their own energy in a debate!

I would assume that the directors will check that whatever they propose is FIDE legal.

Mike as you know its never safe to assume anything.

From Alex McFarlane's post last night it is apparent that he, as tournament director of a big international tournament in Glasgow this summer was not approached for his views.

The simple fact is that for both the Commonwealth and the Euroyouth and Worldyouth events the hosts/Fide set the rules for free board and accommodation places. Entrants have to abide by those rules.

I did a dangerous thing myself in the week. I assumed that no one from CS had approached the Euroyouth organisers directly to ask the question. Therefore I did so myself.
I did my best to avoid asking a loaded leading question.

The answer came back to me the same evening

Your view is very interesting and partly I share it.
But there are rules and we should act according to the rules.

It seems my wording was so neutral that the tournament director actually thought that I was asking for this CS policy to be applied.


A fraction of an evening's work ledto a clear and concise refusal to allow the free places to be used other than one per section.

Yet we are told recently on this notice board that

The method used has been well thought through having been deliberated by the selection committee for over a year. The impact of the change on FIDE, the tournament organiser, the players and the parents have all been considered.


It is wholly inadequate to consider the response of people at great length - you have to communicate with them.

Shambles

:bash:
Shambles
:bash:
Shambles

:bash: