Olympiad Goals

[andyburnett]

I personally don't see performance-related pay as being an important issue or even a remote possibility at this point.

I do, however, see representing Scotland as being something which shouldn't leave players out of pocket - which is why I will be looking to gain some form of sponsorship for the Olympiad and hopefully the Europeans also.

The spur of playing for Scotland should be motivation enough - if it isn't then there are those who do have that passion and desire to work hard when given the opportunity.

[Alan Tate]

Robin, my motivation is to motivate our best players as I find the slow decline painful to watch. Players need targets to find the motivation to train and study. It's understandable once you get to GM, you have a good job.. chess doesn't pay at all, that motivation to improve or even maintain your level will suffer.

Increasing membership is not the only option. I don't know much about Kickstarter and similar but there are alternatives.

Edited: Andrew B is right that playing for Scotland should be enough. Is it my imagination that there is a lack of motivation? John Shaw said that 99% of his motivation disappeared when he got GM. It would be nice to hear the views of our Olympians but unfortunately they tend not to post on here (respect to Iain for that).

[WBuchanan]

Performance related pay - surely it would be irresponsible to risk getting our top players into debt.

(Only joking, couldn't resist...)

[WBuchanan]

Hi Andy B!

You're not getting that well-earned break... I appreciate your commitment to your roles BTW...

Why should an 'inactive/relatively inactive' player be chosen? You might equally ask "why not pick the best team?"

I think there are two questions here, one of degree and the other of competing priorities. If it takes 10 years for an inactive player's strength to degrade to the point where the bottom board overtakes him then advocates of the 'strongest team' would want him picked until that time. On the other hand, when there is a small grading difference between candidates a year of inactivity might be decisive.

As there are competing priorities, it might be best to determine the level of support for either/each before devising fixes. While I'm sure many members would like the strongest team selected, others would be keen to make value judgements on players' attitudes (despite this being problematic, as Alan has discovered) or simply want to select active players, or players competing in Scotland for that matter as opposed to elsewhere.

" what is an acceptable level of commitment to the game for selection? "

It's a good question but again I don't think absolutes work best here, in any case the player's level of commitment isn't known and can't be reliably inferred for the bare stats. I do think selectors could and should take inactivity into account. That's why I think a careful weighting process is needed, but as a guide for selectors as opposed to a rigid formula.

"What I want are players committed to playing chess, and ready and able to give it their best when they reach the biggest team tournaments. There are several factors which can be taken into account here and I firmly believe that 'activity' is one of the really important ones."

As ID and team captain your views carry considerable weight, and I'm not disagreeing with them - but there are other views, especially as additional measures have to be funded. I think any wider measures (including criteria for selection, on which I agree with Alan that they should be mostly clear, something which I think is probably not happening) shouldn't use absolutes for subjective factors, and need to include taking on board the views of the membership who, collectively, are the ones being 'represented', (in theory, at least).

Cheers

[Jim Webster]

An extra £1 increased to the membership fee would cover this and more. Anyone who is insulted by this needs an ego check.

I don't think that this would come close to satisfy any needs.

Some numbers (from memory)
520 members, approx. 90 are Life members = £430 into a bonus pot
Split 5 ways = £86 per player. Hardly an incentive.

That only includes the Open team - I for one would not like to exclude/discriminate against the Women's team. That would take a far braver person than me.

and...

Any junior/family members would rather see their extra £1 go to junior development I would guess

[Alan Tate]

Quite right Jim. Sorry for that. I mentioned the idea to someone (I forget who) and they gave me a larger figure and I didn't check it. Juniors already have a lot of support compared to everyone else. Of course the women could have similar targets - in these days of (sometimes useful) positive discrimination, it's important to push our best players and not let them feel too burdened by special treatment.

So we'd be talking a more sizeable increase in membership. As I've said numerous times already, there are other ways to generate funds from the public. Personally I like the idea of everyone donating a small amount and you get a large amount.. simple really.

Anyway this is just one idea, I have lots of ideas and don't expect them all to be good, although I've not really heard any kind of reason why it is a bad one apart from some subjective opinions.

[robin moore]

"Juniors already have a lot of support compared to everyone else."

Is that so?


If ChessScotland members were asked to increase their subscription fee in order to...

a/ pay a performance bonus to adult Olympiad players whose flights (by CS) and full board accommodation (by Olympiad organisers) are already paid for

OR

b/ contribute toward the flight costs of the Worldyouth, Euroyouth or Under 16 Olympiad for our junior players (currently no contribution from CS)

I wonder which one they would choose?

[Adam Bremner]

As I've said a few times before I want to run round robins in the future, preferably when I stop playing, but might consider having a go at an IM tournament this winter if there is enough interest and would depend on Edinburgh CC being available. My motivation tends to fluctuate though so there would have to be clear interest. It also depends how time and energy consuming it's going to be.

Pretty please? Even if I'm too bad to get in to it, id love to have a 9 rounder available to play in over Christmas time. I'd even offer to help out where I could.

[Matthew Turner]

Matthew, That would involve giving a lot of responsibility to the selectors. Do you even know who they are? I don't. I know that there are only 3 of them which is open to abuse as all it takes is for 2 to have a mate and they're in.

The selectors are listed as

Andy Muir
Dougie Bryson
Colin McNab

It is not 100% clear from the website but I think, Andy Burnett heads the committee.

It seems to me that is a reasonable committee. I have faith in Andy Burnett. I assume that Dougie has ruled himself out of selection, so he seems an excellent person to have a grasp of the Maths/statistical aspects of selection. Colin is a very strong player who I assume is an automatic choice, he can assess form and ability and the like. I am not sure I would have Andy Muir on the committee simply because he is often going to be on the edge of the team, so is going to have to recuse himself on the tricky decisions.

[andyburnett]

Matthew, That would involve giving a lot of responsibility to the selectors. Do you even know who they are? I don't. I know that there are only 3 of them which is open to abuse as all it takes is for 2 to have a mate and they're in.

The selectors are listed as

Andy Muir
Dougie Bryson
Colin McNab

It is not 100% clear from the website but I think, Andy Burnett heads the committee.

It seems to me that is a reasonable committee. I have faith in Andy Burnett. I assume that Dougie has ruled himself out of selection, so he seems an excellent person to have a grasp of the Maths/statistical aspects of selection. Colin is a very strong player who I assume is an automatic choice, he can assess form and ability and the like. I am not sure I would have Andy Muir on the committee simply because he is often going to be on the edge of the team, so is going to have to recuse himself on the tricky decisions.

Hi Matt,

Thanks, the selection board is indeed under my wing - but it was changed, necessarily, for the Olympiad because almost everyone (and their dog?) was up for selection. This year it was Dougie and 2 others.

However, I don't think Colin (or anyone else for that matter) should be an automatic choice for anything - if he wants to play he can't be a selector..and his selection as a player has to be on the same merits as everyone else. Perhaps I've misunderstood you here though?!

I'm pleased so many people are taking the time to constructively debate this issue. However, some people seem to be essentially arguing for the status quo - are we not agreed that the status quo is not sustainable/maintainable or in other ways not what we should be aiming for/happy with?