(12-09-2017, 07:20 PM)KMcGeoch Wrote: [ -> ]Here's an issue that could apply. Some leagues update results at end of the season for grading meaning that in the middle of the season all of your games may not be up for grading. Thus would it be sensible to have criteria being 15 games (8 FIDE) in 6 months or 30 games (16 FIDE) in 12 months and if any of the two apply they're classed as active
I don't think any leagues do that now (one for Dougie). Only one I am not sure about is Borders League
(12-09-2017, 01:12 PM)Matthew Turner Wrote: [ -> ]For the record, I don't think the Scottish Champion should have an automatic place. The selectors should have the flexibility to select somebody, but they also need the flexibility to not select somebody.
I agree with this sentiment, not just in respect of the Scottish Champion, but generally. I appreciate what Andy is trying to do (i.e. making 'activity' a specific criteria for selection and thereby perhaps increase the activity of the top players generally). But I don't think the selectors should be put in a straightjacket by making specific quantified rules which cannot be broken under any circumstances. To represent Scotland, you firstly need to be eligible and willing to play, and then you need to be selected. It is the job of the selectors to choose the best possible teams from those who are eligible and willing, taking into account the specific parameters of the tournament concerned, and all other possible criteria, including proven playing strength, current activity, and any other factors they may consider relevant.
Domestic league or club games are not date stamped so it is not possible to know exactly when a game was played from the grading data alone. Although most leagues submit data regularly throughout the season there are a couple which continue to have only one or two submissions per season.
For FIDE games you can view how many games were processed in a month by viewing the archive here
https://www.chessscotland.com/documents/...rchive.htm
However the month is a processing date rather than when the game was played eg British Championship 2017 started in late July but was not processed until September 1 list so the figure of 9 games would appear as a September total - not when the games were actually played.
FIDE data is included within the domestic system (for members only) and the data is tagged with the tournament end date so the British shows as August 6. That suggests that for any selection candidate on the edge of the activity tallies further manual investigation of the exact date of the games may be required.
For players based outside Scotland all FIDE data is automatically submitted to CS by FIDE. However if they play in non FIDE rated domestic leagues or clubs these games are not known to the CS system unless the player personally submits the data. This assumes that the proposal is referring to 15 games played anywhere rather than within CS jurisdiction.
(12-09-2017, 06:53 PM)andyburnett Wrote: [ -> ]@Matt
There are a huge number of countries who use a set 'minimum game' criteria for selection, so this is not some random idea with no basis behind it. The selectors will still have a free hand to compare and discuss and decide from those players who have met the criteria - just as they do at the moment.
Andy, I have never said that having a minimum games criteria is a random idea. I, and I think everyone else, supports what you are trying to achieve. You've argued very persuasively why the numbers that you decided upon are correct. If a situation arose where, for example, Keti had failed to play the requisite number of games then I would be perfectly OK with her not being selected. So, we agree on everything - well not quite. There is a selection committee and you as ID are effectively a first among equals. Put in place your guidelines and selection criteria and put your case for who you think should be selected, by putting in place an absolute rule you are preventing alternative points of views. I don't believe that is sensible, necessary or desirable.
(14-09-2017, 12:19 PM)Matthew Turner Wrote: [ -> ] (12-09-2017, 06:53 PM)andyburnett Wrote: [ -> ]@Matt
There are a huge number of countries who use a set 'minimum game' criteria for selection, so this is not some random idea with no basis behind it. The selectors will still have a free hand to compare and discuss and decide from those players who have met the criteria - just as they do at the moment.
Andy, I have never said that having a minimum games criteria is a random idea. I, and I think everyone else, supports what you are trying to achieve. You've argued very persuasively why the numbers that you decided upon are correct. If a situation arose where, for example, Keti had failed to play the requisite number of games then I would be perfectly OK with her not being selected. So, we agree on everything - well not quite. There is a selection committee and you as ID are effectively a first among equals. Put in place your guidelines and selection criteria and put your case for who you think should be selected, by putting in place an absolute rule you are preventing alternative points of views. I don't believe that is sensible, necessary or desirable.
Hi Matt, Sorry, I never meant to imply that you considered it a random idea - my bad! I guess I just used your post to counter the argument that concrete 'games played' criteria was somehow bizarre or outrageous, which I know wasn't your point of view - though perhaps others'.
To your second point, any set/strict criteria prevents 'alternate points of view' - this isn't the only one. This flexibility has caused some problems in the past and is seen by many as unnecessary and not producing the results which allow Scottish international chess to progress/grow. As ID, I have to implement what I feel are positive steps to redress this, and this one has a lot of support both publicly and in private. Some people don't like to post on the forum, but I hope to convince them that it is preferable to having their voice heard only by me, or by their friends.
I asked earlier for tweaks to the new criteria without changing the basic idea of 'set minimum number of games played', and have yet to hear anything much back from people, certainly nothing detailed. It's not 'all or nothing' from my point of view, but I'm becoming worried that it is from some others :/
It seems as though (with the exception of a few possible minor tweaks) the decision has been made, so as far as I'm concerned it's time to move on and see how it all plays out. Here are my final thoughts about the whole business:
- As an individual, it will make no difference to me as I tend to play in as many events as possible (within the confines of annual leave, sensible travelling distance and so on) regardless of whether team qualification is at stake. 4NCL, SNCL and possibly Perth weekender in February (if the top section is actually an Open tournament) should provide enough FIDE-rated games, and local league games will easily put my total above 15 if the other events haven't already.
- Without naming individuals, it's my opinion that the 2014 and 2016 Olympiad squads (the only two so far in which I've represented Scotland) could, collectively, have benefited from a higher level of 'match fitness'; so I'm happy to acknowledge that this new rule should have a positive effect in that area.
- I maintain that there should be some scope for selectors to relax the 8/15-game requirement in special circumstances, namely if a player has, for one reason or another, failed to play the requisite number of games but there's still reason to think they will be of exceptional value to the team. This seems to be the main area of disagreement between Andy B (and other supporters of the ruling) and those who think as I do. I would like for selectors to be able to say something like, "Hey, I see that Player X has only played this number of games in the period, but their rating is way up here and there's every chance that they'll still outperform most of the other prospective team members. Do we really want to exclude this person because [for example] a few of their opponents in this period haven't been FIDE-rated?" Other selectors might not share the same view - but at least they could discuss that specific case on its merits and decide what's in the best interests of the team.
Hi AndyB
Here is my suggestion that aims to take account of player inactivity without tying selectors hands.
Noting that almost all of those expressing objections or reservations have agreed with the aim of having activity as a factor, I suggest the following:
1) Agree on a working formula (obtained from past data) that estimates the effect of the length of a period of inactivity in terms of difference in rating points.
Eg, I recall Dougie Bryson suggesting once that from the data the average rate of decline seemed to be about 10 points per inactive year.
2) Factor this adjustment for inactivity into discussions of ratings and playing strength, and into guidelines.
3) If a minimum number of games is still required to improve performance, set it low so as not to exclude top players unnecessarily.
I don't think many would object to even a fixed minimum, if it was five or six games.
With the advantage conferred by greater activity, only players with a clear margin over the others will be able to benefit from the minimum level being low, after taking account of the estimated effect on playing strength .
Note that the adjustment would be objective but having made it selectors would still be free to apply their usual methods of judgement.
4) Some players might make the team while inactive (for a while) but they would need to have a clear enough margin. If paying strength is not to be the only criterion for selection, you could deduct (for example) a further five percent from the inactive player's notional rating for reasons of encouragement/performance/greater good - so for selection purposes a player 'loses' 10-15 points per year for inactivity.
Those numbers can obviously be changed to reflect views (some might argue for a harsher 'penalty'), but the idea allows selectors to use their experience while still taking account of the views of yourself as ID and other competitors (also like yourself
) who contribute a lot to the chess scene and so arguably deserve a better chance for their efforts.
What do you think?
Cheers
Walter
Andy,
I think this is relatively simple. Walter is trying to get the strongest possible team to represent Scotland at the next Olympiad. You are effectively trying to get the strongest possible team in ten years time. I think it is important that people recognise that distinction and understand that those noble aims are often in conflict. I hope people see the sense in your argument.