Forums

Jim Webster Wrote:amuir wrote:Q. Is it a conflict of interest for me to be director, selector, player + captain ? Which post(s) should I resign from to remove this conflict ?Selector - there is a conflict of interest if you are a candidate for playing.Captain - this is an appointment and not a right as a Director. This is a post that is selected on a "by team" basis, so not sure how you resign from a position you may not hold, and you certainly cannot be Captain before team selection takes place.Any person seeking selection or captaincy must disallow him/her self from that part of the decision-making process.

Just agreeing with Jim here. On a personal note i would actually go further but it a purely personal use so I wont state it here. I will say however that anyone wishing selection should have no part in the selection process at all, especially with directing or chairing any meetings linked with the selection process.

WBuchanan Wrote:Andy Burnett asked

"I just noticed it today and was wondering why there had been a discussion about 'grandparent eligibility re: international selection' on this thread at all :/ There isn't one in place, there isn't one proposed, so...?"

Hi Andy. I read it differently. The proposal is:

16.Eligibility
16.1. To be eligible to compete for any Scottish individual national championship title (including open to all, gender or age-related championship tournaments) a person must be a member of Chess Scotland and meet at least one of the following requirements:
16.1.1. born in Scotland, or have at least one parent or grandparent born in Scotland, or
16.1.2. permanently resident in Scotland for at least two years immediately prior to the commencement of the competition, or
16.1.3. currently registered as Scottish (‘SCO’) with the World Chess Federation (‘FIDE’). In the case of Juniors aged 18 and under, the residence qualification period as at
16.1.2 above shall be reduced to one year immediately prior to the commencement of the competition.
16.2. To be eligible to represent Scotland in any international competition , a person must be:
16.2.1. a member of Chess Scotland currently registered as Scottish (‘SCO’) with the World Chess Federation (‘FIDE’), and 16.2.2.
Able to satisfy any other criteria (including age and rating limits) set by the organisers of the tournament corefusedncerned.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.chessscotland.com/Files/2015/Constitution2015.pdf">http://www.chessscotland.com/Files/2015 ... on2015.pdf</a><!-- m -->

As none of the requirements specified for championship eligibility are mentioned in the section concerning eligibility for international selection, doesn't this mean that the only requirements for the latter are the ones set by FIDE?

Looking at it the other way, on what grounds could a player with a Scottish grandparent and a high enough rating and who has registered as SCO with FIDE rating be refused international selection? A refusal would be unconstitutional.

The appearance of the grandparent rule in Championship eligibility suggests which way the drafters of the constitution are minded.

I could have this wrong...but anyway my view is that the issue of 'Scottishness' on the international scene should be decided by the Scottish members and not weakened through vague changes in rules that are nonetheless binding.

Cheers

Hi Walter,

I can't actually see where we are disagreeing here?! :-\

Cheers,
Andy

Hi Andy - perhaps my lack of clarity, as usual. I thought you were asking why there is a discussion on the grandparent issue, when no-one has proposed a Scotish grandparent as a sufficient criterion for international selection eligibility.

My reading is that the wording IS such a proposal - as only a FIDE 'SCO' registration would necessary to define the Scottish connection for international selection. There isn't anything about being born in Scotland, playing there or having a Scottsih parent.

I'm not au fait with the FIDE requirements (or even if they even need a grandparent connection) but I think the requirements for a 'Scottish connection' criteria should be defined by Scottish members - unlike the Championship eligibilty, it seems to be missing.

Cheers
Walter

WBuchanan Wrote:Hi Andy - perhaps my lack of clarity, as usual. I thought you were asking why there is a discussion on the grandparent issue, when no-one has proposed a Scotish grandparent as a sufficient criterion for international selection eligibility.

My reading is that the wording IS such a proposal - as only a FIDE 'SCO' registration would necessary to define the Scottish connection for international selection. There isn't anything about being born in Scotland, playing there or having a Scottsih parent.

I'm not au fait with the FIDE requirements (or even if they even need a grandparent connection) but I think the requirements for a 'Scottish connection' criteria should be defined by Scottish members - unlike the Championship eligibilty, it seems to be missing.

Cheers
Walter

Cheers Walter but I'm still not getting it!

At present there is no FIDE requirement for any kind of connection to a country except for SCO

There is nothing I have found in the current constitution which relates to this at all, and the only relevant part of the new Constitution is ...

16.2. To be eligible to represent Scotland in any international competition, a person must be:
16.2.1. a member of Chess Scotland currently registered as Scottish (‘SCO’) with the World Chess Federation (‘FIDE’), and
16.2.2. Able to satisfy any other criteria (including age and rating limits) set by the organisers of the tournament concerned.
Selection of individuals and/or teams who will represent Scotland in international competition is the sole responsibility of the appropriate board of selectors. Qualification according to the above criteria is no guarantee of being considered for selection.

So far, the only discussion seems to have been around whether the grandparent rule is agreeable or not for international selection, when in fact it doesn't exist, hasn't (apparently) existed and isn't being proposed?! Whether it should exist or be proposed and debated (re: the Constitution) is a slightly different issue from what I've seen on this thread. #:-s

From the proposed new constitution...

16. Eligibility
16.1. To be eligible to compete for any Scottish individual national championship title
(including open to all, gender or age-related championship tournaments) a person must be a
member of Chess Scotland and meet at least one of the following requirements:
16.1.1. born in Scotland, or have at least one parent or grandparent born in Scotland, or
16.1.2. permanently resident in Scotland for at least two years immediately prior to the
commencement of the competition, or
16.1.3. currently registered as Scottish (‘SCO’) with the World Chess Federation (‘FIDE’).
In the case of Juniors aged 18 and under, the residence qualification period as at 16.1.2 above shall
be reduced to one year immediately prior to the commencement of the competition.
16.2. To be eligible to represent Scotland in any international competition, a person must be:
16.2.1. a member of Chess Scotland currently registered as Scottish (‘SCO’) with the World
Chess Federation (‘FIDE’), and
16.2.2. Able to satisfy any other criteria (including age and rating limits) set by the organisers of
the tournament concerned.

From the summary of changes on the CS homepage...

Section 16
Please note section covering Eligibility is an addition to the existing Constitution.
a) The rules covering the title of any Scottish champion require the winner to have satisfied
one of the following requirements: either birth in Scotland OR either parent of Scottish
nationality OR a grandparent of Scottish Nationality OR appropriate residence time in
Scotland
b) eligibility to represent Scotland at either junior or adult level require a current registration
as Scottish (‘SCO’) with FIDE and be a member of Chess Scotland.

Please also note that eligibility to be registered as SCO is the same as the eligibility for the title of
Scottish Champion. Anyone who qualifies as 'SCO' has full rights in terms of title and international
selection. This means that 'SCO' affiliation is a single-tier system.



The first couple of times I read through the summary of changes on the home page, it suggested to me that under the proposed new constitution you could qualify to represent Scotland at international level if you had a Scottish grandparent.
However, when you read the proposed new constitution the wording suggests that you only need to be registered as SCO with FIDE. There does not seem to be any requirement on residence or "Scottishness".

Have I interpreted this correctly?

On behalf of the Constitutional Working Party I will try to clarify some of the issues here:

Q. (Walter Buchanan and others) “As none of the requirements specified for championship eligibility are mentioned in the section concerning eligibility for international selection, doesn't this mean that the only requirements for the latter are the ones set by FIDE?”

A. Yes, to a certain extent that is true. Doing otherwise would put us at a disadvantage as compared with other nations. But we do insist (as does FIDE) that in order to be eligible, a player must first be registered as ‘SCO’. For this to happen, certain procedures must be followed. These are relatively straightforward for someone not previously registered and playing in Scotland, but in the case of a possible ‘transfer’ from another federation the rules are very strict and require the agreement of both federations and in some cases the payment of a not insubstantial fee. Since Chess Scotland effectively controls who is eligible to be registered as ‘SCO’ then the operating procedures for that process can effectively define who is eligible and who isn't. The fine detail of these can be debated (and already has!) but putting these 'guidelines' in the constitution would create inflexibility, meaning a change to the constitution every time we wished to alter them. The correct place for them is in the 'operating procedures' for whoever applies for registrations (currently the grading officer).

And then there is the additional safeguard that being ‘eligible’ is not enough. You still have to be selected. On this point Walter stated: “Looking at it the other way, on what grounds could a player with a Scottish grandparent and a high enough rating and who has registered as SCO with FIDE rating be refused international selection? A refusal would be unconstitutional.”

I don’t understand that argument. The constitution as drafted clearly states: “Selection of individuals and/or teams who will represent Scotland in international competition is the sole responsibility of the appropriate board of selectors. Qualification according to the above criteria is no guarantee of being considered for selection. “ So why would it be unconstitutional?

Then: “The appearance of the grandparent rule in Championship eligibility suggests which way the drafters of the constitution are minded.”

Nothing could be further from the truth. Can I refer you back to the original response which stated: “The current proposal is the 'grandparent' rule which fits with some other sports but not others. This was included to ensure that we would have a constructive debate on the issue to which all members could contribute. In fact the CWP would propose that the membership should also consider an alternative Section 16.1.1 with similar wording but with 'or grandparent' removed. Effectively this would then introduce a 'parent' rule in terms of future 'SCO' registration. So a straight choice vote for 'parentage' or 'grandparentage' to determine 'SCO' in the future.”

In fact there was no unanimity among the drafters that a ‘grandparent’ rule should be included at all. But it was felt that since there has been much debate about such rules when defining ‘Scottishness’ (both within Chess Scotland and elsewhere) then it should be considered, at least. If a suitable amendment were to be adopted without the wording and voted upon then that will decide it. I for one can see arguments both ways and would be happy to accept the democratic wishes of the full membership on the matter.

I hope this is helpful.

-posted before I read Alastair's contribution -

Well, now some of the arguments make sense! I had read the 'changes' section previously, but used the 'new' and old Constitutions for my more recent posts, so missed/forgot this section of the changes.

Is the 'Please also note that eligibility to be registered as SCO is the same as the eligibility for the title of Scottish Champion. Anyone who qualifies as 'SCO' has full rights in terms of title and international
selection. This means that 'SCO' affiliation is a single-tier system.' to be found anywhere in the Constitution or elsewhere?

I'm not sure it's a good idea for it not to be clearly outlined in the new Constitution, but then mentioned as a change/addition with extra 'baggage'. Why not simply state in 16.2 'Please also note that eligibility to be registered as SCO is the same as the eligibility for the title of Scottish Champion. Anyone who qualifies as 'SCO' has full rights in terms of title and international selection. This means that 'SCO' affiliation is a single-tier system.??

Thanks Robin and Andy, now we all have everything

From the ‘summary of changes’ (see Robin's post):

“Please also note that eligibility to be registered as SCO is the same as the eligibility for the title of Scottish Champion. Anyone who qualifies as 'SCO' has full rights in terms of title and international selection. This means that 'SCO' affiliation is a single-tier system”.

Also from ‘the changes’ - only one of the requirements for championship eligibility need be met…including a Scottish parent or grandparent.

Ergo, a Scottish grandparent provides eligibility according to the explanatory notes.

The constitution itself says differently, with none of the ‘Scottishness’ requirements referred to. ‘The changes’ is an explanatory document and could not override what the constitution says. A player could be accepted by selectors as eligible on any basis whatsoever. The ‘not insubstantial sum’ to pay FIDE that Alastair alludes to would be irrelevant if (s)he could afford it.

Thanks Alastair for your response.

To the question “so the only requirements for the latter (i.e. eligibility for international selection) are the ones set by FIDE?” you say

“Yes, to a certain extent that is true. Doing otherwise would put us at a disadvantage as compared with other nations”.

I expect that many CS members would prefer to be at the 'disadvatage' of not having non-Scottish players in the team.

You also explain

“Since Chess Scotland effectively controls who is eligible to be registered as ‘SCO’ then the operating procedures for that process can effectively define who is eligible and who isn't. The fine detail of these can be debated (and already has!) but putting these 'guidelines' in the constitution would create inflexibility, meaning a change to the constitution every time we wished to alter them. The correct place for them is in the 'operating procedures' for whoever applies for registrations (currently the grading officer).”

Isn’t this the same as saying the selectors will decide the Scottish eligibility issue for themselves?
Do the members want selectors to have the flexibility to decide on Scottishness? On such an important question, shouldn’t they be asked explicitly?

On which way the CWP is ‘minded’, you also say

“Nothing could be further from the truth. Can I refer you back to the original response which stated: “The current proposal is the 'grandparent' rule which fits with some other sports but not others. This was included to ensure that we would have a constructive debate on the issue to which all members could contribute. In fact the CWP would propose that the membership should also consider an alternative Section 16.1.1 with similar wording but with 'or grandparent' removed. Effectively this would then introduce a 'parent' rule in terms of future 'SCO' registration. So a straight choice vote for 'parentage' or 'grandparentage' to determine 'SCO' in the future.”

There are two differing versions in the constitution/explanation and many people didn’t realize the grandparent criterion was being voted on– surely this is not best way to ‘start a debate’ on such a simple question?

And the ‘straight choice’ didn’t make its way on to the latest version of the constitution that we are discussing. That the CWP has moved from a position of ‘wanting to start a debate’ on the choice to a position of not offering the choice at all does suggest a certain leaning.

But really it doesn’t matter which way the present officials are ‘minded’ (my word, I know!). Surely the question of the Scottish connection should be established by obtaining the explicit view of the members?

Cheers

I have to say I agree with everything Walter has said here. Such an important issue demands a lot more clarity than we have seen so far :-s

I think the lack of clarity is down to the point, as I read it, that paragraph (a) of Section 16 of the summary of changes would appear to be missing the all-important
"OR currently registered as Scottish (‘SCO’) with the World Chess Federation (‘FIDE’)."
(as implied by rule 16.1.3).
I am assuming that the constitution is "official" and the summary is guidance.

Is that correct?