(13-04-2022, 10:13 AM)Andy Howie Wrote: [ -> ]Walter,
I am at work, hence why I will be doing it tonight when I am back in front of my own computer. I don't work 24/7 for Chess Scotland (although it does feel like it sometimes!)
Thanks Andy.
Where's my coffee.
I appreciate all that you do, and wasn't suggesting otherwise; you have released the results, just suggesting a different or additional direction for that communication
Walter,
I would say that getting people to help out at Glasgow congress is a challenge, but I am not sure it is the big issue here. As you quite rightly point out organising an event like this is a year long project and that is what takes the real effort. It is very unlikely that an individual will step forward and organise a big event like this; Most likely four or five people will get together, throw around thoughts and suddenly the kernel of an idea will emerge. Essentially, it is just chance, or so it would appear!
The more people we have involved in events, the more of these chance meetings will occur and dramatically increase the possibility of an new events forming. Of course once one event starts, this will provide a knowledge base and hopefully provide an impetus to others.
In general, I think when people think about organising an event they often tend to think big, it all proves too daunting and it doesn't come to fruition. So I am asking people to think small and get some momentum going.
Andy H
Presumably you can tell us how many votes were cast?
(12-04-2022, 10:22 PM)Matthew Turner Wrote: [ -> ]I decided that as these votes draw to a close, I would post some thoughts before the results were announced.
Firstly, in the overall scheme of things these votes are not very important, but I think the discussion and this forum more generally demonstrate some of the challenges facing Scottish Chess.
Since last time I visited Scotland, I have played many events in Ireland, some designed to get norms for aspiring Irish talents (even those born outside the Emerald Isle), some with lavish sponsorship, all organised with passion and enthusiasm. Only last week, I was talking to a senior Irish official about plans for a major project in 2024.
I have also been involved (albeit in a fairly small way) in innovative plans for junior development in England.
This isn’t because I am somehow less committed to Scottish Chess, but like everyone else I have limited time and I want my efforts to have an impact.
I work with Andy Howie on a fairly regular basis for the benefit of chess in general, but not particularly Scottish Chess. Back in 2011 there were a bunch of young Scottish chess players coming through organizing events and developing innovative ideas for chess development – where are they now.
We have to recognize that the situation that exists in Scottish Chess at the moment in not conducive to developing our game and those with drive and enthusiasm to fuel our game going forward are pushed to look elsewhere.
I abstained on motion 1. I want to back CS management and move on, but fundamentally I think it is wrong to put eligibility criteria in the constitution. We have tied ourself in knots here and this risks hobbling a future organization. Good luck dealing with our first trans competitors.
I voted yes on motion 2. This is primarily for three reasons
1. Irrespective of the merits of this case, it sets a tone that we are an inclusive, welcoming organization
2. It is not the case that I will deprive a hard working Scottish player of a place in the team. That is simply not the reality; In the modern world it is difficult to take two and a half weeks out of your life to play an Olympiad (I have already ruled myself out of competing this year). It is more a case of the International Director searching for players than players battling for places! Yes, it true that there would be an issue about what is best for Scottish Chess if there was a choice between myself and Freddie Gordon, but there would also be an issue if there was a choice between Andy Muir and Freddie Gordon. To my mind that is a selection issue not one of eligibility.
3. I have enjoyed competing at the (Open) Scottish Championships and I feel that has been beneficial for Scottish Chess. If one day the Championships became closed, it seems both wrong and detrimental to Scottish Chess that I be excluded.
If you have got this far, you have obviously committed a fair amount of time to reading this! So, I would request that you spend a little more time thinking about what you can do to help Scottish Chess to move forward. It is little use reflecting on where things have gone wrong; I hope we can now move to thinking about how thing can improve. The key is we need a lot of people doing a bit!
Can you make your chess club’s Christmas blitz a fundraiser to help a local junior get coaching before they compete in a major championship?
Can you organize a rota so that someone takes a couple of boards to a local park each Saturday?
Do you know someone in the council you can ask about buying chess boards and books for the local library?
Can you get the best player in the club to do a simultaneous display at the local shopping centre?
If you have other ideas, please post them on the forum and hopefully other will take up the challenge.
Best wishes.
Matt.
Hi Matt. I was a little surprised by the items in your post, especially 2). Unless there is a shortage of players able and willing to play, it is self-evident that adding one player in some sense removes another player in the same sense.
Emmanuel Lasker, as champion, proposed that a challenger should have to win by two clear points. I can't remember his reasoning, I expect it was something quasi-statistical such as a one point victory could be accidental.
Your compatriot Amos Burn drily observed that it would be interesting to hear Dr Lasker's explanation of the difference between his proposal and a two-point start.
Lasker was expert in mathematics and his promotion of dubious logic can be attributed to lack of objectivity in his situation.
I have sympathy for Andy Burnett's view as a player potentially affected. I also felt that all those altruistic reasons for voting for your own eligibility were a little unnecessary.
There isn't a reason to link this issue with all the things you say we should be doing instead - because if you're being altruistic, you could have avoided this problem for us yourself - rather than couch the problem in terms of our lack of 'inclusiveness', short-sightedness, lack of ideas or wrong arithmetic. I imagine that's what's grating on Andy B (though I do imagine lots of things )
Cheers.
Willy,
Andy Burnett worked very hard on his chess and got up to a high level fighting for a place in the Scottish team. To echo Andy Muir's repeated point he was only able to do this playing almost exclusively outside of Scotland.
As things stand
https://ratings.fide.com/profile/2400855/chart if Andy gets into the Olympiad team it will be because players are unavailable and younger players haven't progressed as they should/could have done. Is that really what we want for the Scottish team? I would say no, and I think Andy would agree with me, it actually diminishes the achievements that he made 2010-2104
Yes, as I have said I would love to play for Scotland one day, but that doesn't mean that I want to be an automatic choice for board 1 in 2032. I hope there is a new generation taking the spots by then.
I don't believe that the vote on my eligibility will change much either way, but those who think that a vote for my eligibility will somehow prevent a new player coming through are frankly deluding themselves.
(13-04-2022, 01:08 PM)Matthew Turner Wrote: [ -> ]Willy,
Andy Burnett worked very hard on his chess and got up to a high level fighting for a place in the Scottish team. To echo Andy Muir's repeated point he was only able to do this playing almost exclusively outside of Scotland.
As things stand https://ratings.fide.com/profile/2400855/chart if Andy gets into the Olympiad team it will be because players are unavailable and younger players haven't progressed as they should/could have done. Is that really what we want for the Scottish team? I would say no, and I think Andy would agree with me, it actually diminishes the achievements that he made 2010-2104
Yes, as I have said I would love to play for Scotland one day, but that doesn't mean that I want to be an automatic choice for board 1 in 2032. I hope there is a new generation taking the spots by then.
I don't believe that the vote on my eligibility will change much either way, but those who think that a vote for my eligibility will somehow prevent a new player coming through are frankly deluding themselves.
It won't prevent anyone from coming through; it would deprive
someone of 5th spot. It was you raised the issue; I wouldn't have said this but for your assertion to the contrary.
Probably the effect on the players in the competitive zone insofar as getting in the team - eg, significantly higher than me and significantly lower than you
- has been under-considered. The management focus has tended to be on examining your status vis-a-vis the rules and claiming it is unfair on you.
Willy de Walter
(13-04-2022, 01:08 PM)Matthew Turner Wrote: [ -> ]Willy,
Andy Burnett worked very hard on his chess and got up to a high level fighting for a place in the Scottish team. To echo Andy Muir's repeated point he was only able to do this playing almost exclusively outside of Scotland.
As things stand https://ratings.fide.com/profile/2400855/chart if Andy gets into the Olympiad team it will be because players are unavailable and younger players haven't progressed as they should/could have done. Is that really what we want for the Scottish team? I would say no, and I think Andy would agree with me, it actually diminishes the achievements that he made 2010-2104
Yes, as I have said I would love to play for Scotland one day, but that doesn't mean that I want to be an automatic choice for board 1 in 2032. I hope there is a new generation taking the spots by then.
I don't believe that the vote on my eligibility will change much either way, but those who think that a vote for my eligibility will somehow prevent a new player coming through are frankly deluding themselves.
Hi Matt,
I'll reply to this one first because I have been named and shamed
I have never expected and (despite a new lease of life) never really do expect to be a serious contender for Olympiad selection. However, you are either completely unaware of how selection works, or deliberately misrepresenting the situation (hopefully not) if you think your eligibility status won't affect selection...
The Chennai Olympiad 2022 teams are being chosen and if you had been available/eligible you would be an easy choice to put in the team based on rating, experience, current form, basically every factor used. What that would do, effectively, is force a choice between our most promising players, or leave out a stronger player and you would be the least affected by far in almost every scenario.
Just to point out, and as a former ID I know how this works, if you are eligible and want to play, you could only really be left out if you were deemed "not Scottish enough" - which is clearly not a thing if it was decided that you were indeed Scottish" enough. There are no other criteria you would fail on.
Your inclusion would most definitely affect someone, and quite possibly that someone will be a new/relatively new player "coming through", or else someone else otherwise "deserving" of a spot.
Also, your notion that the ID is always scrambling around to fill a team is so far from the truth it needs knocking on the head immediately. There are usually have 8-12 candidates fighting for 5 spots in Olympiad/Euro teams, and usually most or all of them have a more than reasonable case for selection.
If you still think I am deluded, feel free to refute the above.
Andy B
Lets take a look at European Team Championship in Slovenia
Excluding myself (from the rating list) the players are now the 16th, 37th, 41st, 58th highest rated Scottish players along with Freddie Gordon. Clearly then there are many many factors that contribute to the make up of the team.
I believe that we should be aspiring to send close to the top 5 players, so that mean many current potential 5th boarders missing out. That would be tough on some players, but you know what it should be tough to get into the Scottish team. Wouldn't it be great if we could say to the Glorney team you should aspire to play in the Olympiad in 2032, but you'll need to be GM standard to make the team.
(13-04-2022, 01:52 PM)Matthew Turner Wrote: [ -> ]Lets take a look at European Team Championship in Slovenia
Excluding myself (from the rating list) the players are now the 16th, 37th, 41st, 58th highest rated Scottish players along with Freddie Gordon. Clearly then there are many many factors that contribute to the make up of the team.
I believe that we should be aspiring to send close to the top 5 players, so that mean many current potential 5th boarders missing out. That would be tough on some players, but you know what it should be tough to get into the Scottish team. Wouldn't it be great if we could say to the Glorney team you should aspire to play in the Olympiad in 2032, but you'll need to be GM standard to make the team.
Matt, You can cherry-pick a Euro Team Champs during a pandemic and use inactive players in your counts and ignore the fact that several players called off after being selected...but these omissions don't really help your argument.
I would love to see a team of strong and active players represent Scotland: Rowson, Aagaard, Shaw, Motwani...yourself among them perhaps...but those days are long gone. The vast majority of Scotland's strongest players simply don't want to play Olympiad or Euro teams anymore. If you were instead to rank those who do want to play, you'll get more or less the teams that get picked...let's say 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th on rating, and a slightly random board 5 for various reasons.
It is what it is...having a strong player, say a 2476-rated GM, regularly playing in Scotland would be great, giving players coming through a visible target, in the way IM Andrew Greet is at tournaments for example. Maybe things will improve again. I hope they do, and there are people trying their best with hee-haw in the way of resources to do that. Hopefully you can find a way to fit yourself into that picture of growth. But it won't be done by belittling the efforts of those who try and making spurious claims about the effects of eligibility votes.
I was hardly cherry-picking by simply referencing the previous team event to refute your claims as you requested.
I just don't think you can say it would be nice if the top players wanted to represent Scotland, but they don't so that is that. Similarly, we've had some talented players, but they are inactive now so we don't need to worry about them. We need to ask why is this the case and what can we do about it going forward.
There are some difficult questions and not so many easy answers, but if you think these eligibility votes will have a big impact, then I think you are very wrong.
(13-04-2022, 03:34 PM)Matthew Turner Wrote: [ -> ]I was hardly cherry-picking by simply referencing the previous team event to refute your claims as you requested.
I just don't think you can say it would be nice if the top players wanted to represent Scotland, but they don't so that is that. Similarly, we've had some talented players, but they are inactive now so we don't need to worry about them. We need to ask why is this the case and what can we do about it going forward.
There are some difficult questions and not so many easy answers, but if you think these eligibility votes will have a big impact, then I think you are very wrong.
Matt, You were talking about Olympiad places and then chose a Euro teams to highlight your point and conveniently failed to answer the other points I made that rendered your point weak. Anyway, the Olympiad selection has traditionally attracted stronger players, and if you think the eligibility will have little impact, I'd say the impact could be about, say, 20% - you automatically bump someone from the team, (almost) end of story.
Now, that is what it is, and if you are deemed eligible for Scotland then that's all there is to say - but stop pretending the vote/you won't have a significant impact. If you want to argue that having you in the team is actually a good thing, then please do so, but again, that's a different point from that you've been trying to make.