Olympiad Goals

[Alan Tate]

I don't really believe in players helping to run events, Adam. Players should play. But if you could ask around to gauge interest that would be good. Also format is critical. I don't particularly like double round events but it would be more cost effective and might be the only option to fit in with players' plans. Will probably open up a new thread.

[Alan Tate]

It's clear from the noticeboard interest that junior events are more popular Robin, but that doesn't mean that funding within CS is distributed fairly or unfairly. Why don't you make a poll?

[andyburnett]

Dougie kindly pointed me in the direction of the Chess Scotland Adult Selection Policy
September 2007 (I knew this already of course )

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.chessscotland.com/international/selection_adults.htm">http://www.chessscotland.com/internatio ... adults.htm</a><!-- m -->

Here it is in full so it's on the board and no-one can say they didn't see it!

"The international Director will seek to ensure that all selections are made in the best interests of Chess Scotland. Where required, a selection committee will establish the composition of team(s) and select individuals to represent Chess Scotland. Rather than set rules or algorithms for the selection of players, as in the recent past, principle based selection is introduced to give guidance to the selection committee whilst allowing it reasonable flexibility to choose the best team(s). Selection committees will act on the best information available to them at the time of selection.

Principles for selection are:
-Current playing strength is the key factor for selection

The selection committee may consider a number of indicators of strength in reaching decisions. These may include but are not limited to:

-Known grades, primarily FIDE and Scottish;

-Recent trends in results;

-Achievements, such as winning titles or championships and achieving norms, which stand out from a player's other results;

-Activity, both domestic and international;

-Level of opposition faced;


However establishing current strength is not an exact science and the weightings given to any factor are at the discretion of the committee. It is expected that the selection committee will exercise fairness and best judgement in making decisions.

Selection is a privilege not a right

Players seeking representative honours for Scotland are expected to uphold high standards of behaviour and to promote Scottish chess in a positive light. Team composition will be considered as more than simply a sum of the individual parts. There may be occasions when not sending an individual or a team to a representative event is in the best interests of Chess Scotland. The selection committee may therefore consider other factors when making final decisions on representative selection.
Players are responsible for the accuracy of data held on them by Chess Scotland

Players who wish to be considered for selection are responsible for ensuring:

-That their membership to Chess Scotland is up to date at all times (all players who represent Chess Scotland should be members);

-That contact details (address, telephone, email) are current (please inform the membership secretary of changes);

-That all outside Scotland rating results are submitted each season and that he reviews and advises the Chief Grader of any inaccuracies in either his Scottish or FIDE grades.

[Alan Tate]

This may look like I'm attacking the Scotland squad (again) but for me this is a necessary evil in order for things to change. I have respect for all players but the bigger picture will always be more important than any player. Clearly these and previous comments will not help my future prospects but it's just so wrong that I can't not say anything.

So... I'm immediately drawn to this:

Principles for selection are:
-Current playing strength is the key factor for selection

Can someone tell me how it's possible to select 3 players based on 6 games per player in as many months? Unless some games were not reported to CS for grading? (one player did play Cappelle but registered a 2200 odd performance. Really didn't want to mention this but had to for the sake of accuracy).

And these:

Recent trend in results: N/A

Activity: ???

[WBuchanan]

"Can someone tell me how it's possible to select 3 players based on 6 games per player in as many months?"

They don’t select based on 6 games though do they, Alan - the ratings provide estimates of general strength and the question in that case is what difference the period of inactivity makes. As noted, inactive players don’t get worse so quickly that they should be dropped automatically if the sole criteria is strength. Selectors use their judgement on this issue - based on the gap between players, the length of the period of inactivity/number of games. It's subjective but better than an inflexible rule IMO. Cheers

[Alan Tate]

Inactive players don't necessarily get worse, but they stop playing thereby removing themselves from the selection process.

So what you and the selectors are saying is that 1 game a month on average is an acceptable number of games and/or that the gap is so huge between the 'elite' and the rest of the players that 2400+ is automatic selection?

[WBuchanan]

"So what you and the selectors are saying is that 1 game a month on average is an acceptable number of games and/or that the gap is so huge between the 'elite' and the rest of the players that 2400+ is automatic selection?"

I wasn’t saying either of those Alan. I wasn’t referring to the present selections. I’m just giving my own opinion not speaking for selectors.

I don’t think an ‘acceptable’ number of games has been defined, inactivity is just a factor to be considered. If the rating gap between 2 candidates happens to be huge, then adjusting for a bit of inactivity wouldn’t close it. It might still be ‘unacceptable’ for the inactive player to be selected using other criteria like ‘commitment’, but how do you define that?

If the gap is small then the inactivity would matter more in terms of the strength.

Also, who should define what is acceptable? I think this places too high a burden on selectors, who should only be asked to apply their judgement and common sense within an existing, agreed framework, not to make up absolute thresholds. The parameters would be best set in an open way, after consulting the members on issues like inactive players. After that there wouldn’t be so much room for argument, and players would know where they stand.

Only my opinion about the process..but I hope this clarifies my post above. It's good you raised the issues as I think getting the process right is more important than a couple of particular selections. Cheers

[andyburnett]

I find it very hard to accept that inactivity, or relative inactivity, doesn't impact on a player's ability to produce their best when asked to play at a high level (or any level).

This is not just a simple selection criteria issue - it directly impacts on the actual results of the teams when they do play. If somebody of 2500 strength performs at 2450 because of their inactivity, is that 'acceptable' compared to a 2300 able to perform at 2350? All other things being equal of course.

Is this what we are looking for? 2450 is still better than 2350 in absolute terms - but I am not convinced this is what we should be aiming for! Convince me - because at the moment all I am reading (Alan excepted) are 'status quo' arguments.

[andyburnett]

Also, who should define what is acceptable? I think this places too high a burden on selectors, who should only be asked to apply their judgement and common sense within an existing, agreed framework, not to make up absolute thresholds.

The parameters would be best set in an open way, after consulting the members on issues like inactive players. After that there wouldn’t be so much room for argument, and players would know where they stand.

I'm not sure I get this Walter - the selectors have criteria to follow at the moment; they are not being asked to make up absolute thresholds.

The whole point of my argument - and your own second paragraph above - is that parameters covering inactivity have not been set at all, but should be. This seems to go against almost everything you have argued for in recent posts :/ Maybe I've misunderstood you!

[WBuchanan]

Hi Andy. If a level of inactivity in itself is unacceptable (so that the active 2300 in your example gets the nod over the inactive 2500) does that not mean an absolute threshold – maybe I’ve misunderstood you.

No status quo from me – yes, I am saying the parameters covering inactivity should be set. I personally doubt a 200 point gap should be ignored due to inactivity (except in the case of 10-20 years inactivity or something like that), but that would be for a committee to determine (sorry to bore everybody, but I also think that finding out the views of the CS members on the priorities and criteria would be a good idea).

Whatever parameters were set, it would be better to set them than not – it would be more open, selectors wouldn’t be so readily criticized and players would know where they stand. It would also be suggestive of the notion of ‘commitment’ without singling out individuals.

Cheers