These comments are simply my thoughts on some of the issues that have been aired recently on this noticeboard. The arguments are spread over several threads, which makes following them (or, if that is any reader’s wish, avoiding them) a bit of a chore. So I’ve put my views in this separate heading – so much easier to find, ignore or delete. I don’t claim to have greater wisdom or more knowledge than anyone else, but I’ve been around for a long time; I haven’t done much in my life, but I’ve seen a lot, and I’ve read a lot. I hope therefore that these remarks may achieve some good.

A lot of heat appears to have been generated by an incident involving a Scottish junior and a Chess Scotland official at an international tournament in Slovenia last autumn. From what I have heard or read of the incident, the official’s action was totally unjustified and totally unacceptable. The official himself knows that, and acknowledges it. But it also appears to be the case that no physical harm was done – and that the official had no intention of doing harm and no desire to do harm. The matter was subsequently referred to Chess Scotland’s Standards Committee, whose eventual decision was that the official should be removed from the list of registered coaches, but should be allowed to apply for reinstatement after six months (note: not “reinstated” but “allowed to apply for reinstatement”; there is no suggestion that reinstatement will be in any way automatic or a mere formality – and unlike at least one person who has posted on this board I rather suspect that considerably more than the six months will elapse before any such application is made).

The “sentence” or, more properly, ruling by the Standards Committee may or may not have been appropriate, but unless there is hard evidence to the contrary (which nobody has produced) we should accept that the Committee examined the case placed before them and came to their decision in good faith without interference from outside.

This was the first big case handled by the Standards Committee, and nobody should be the least bit surprised that it exposed gaps and weaknesses in the Committee’s workings. (No new construct, from jet engines to computer programs, works perfectly first time; testing, failing, tweaking, retesting, reworking – it’s a constant process, and sometimes it seems to go on forever; but that process does not invalidate the original idea.) Flaws have been identified and are being addressed, and we can hope that the system will work more smoothly the next time it is called into action. At any rate, it is absurd for anybody to assume that because the “sentence” wasn’t as severe as they wanted there must be corruption or other dirty tricks involved – and not just absurd, but probably libellous as well if such accusations are made in print (as they have been).

I’m quite sure I don’t know the full facts of what happened in Slovenia, nor do I know what evidence and testimony was presented to the Standards Committee, and therefore I cannot presume to claim that their decision was wrong. And I strongly suspect that the people who are up in arms about that decision also do not know everything – but then, who has ever needed knowledge of the facts to justify a witch hunt?

(I have no doubt that the current attempts to get the Committee’s decision changed, i.e. made far more severe, are driven more by personal animosity than by any desire to see a just outcome or to protect children – there was open animosity long before the incident; and I don’t recall any mention in the first six months after the incident of alcohol playing any part in it, but now, in some people’s view, that’s the big issue that requires a reopening of the case.)

The word “assault” has been used (not, I believe, in any post visible on this board, but certainly in a widely circulated email) as a description of the action of the CS official involved in the incident. There is a case to be made for the use of that word, but it should be remembered that assault is a crime – on this occasion, an alleged crime which has not been reported to the police, and for which nobody has been charged, tried or convicted. In short, anybody who says in writing that the official carried out an assault is leaving himself wide open to legal action. Only a court of law can determine whether the official assaulted the junior – “innocent until proved guilty” applies.

A recent post on this board referred to the junior as a victim – although that term is often misused, I have no doubt that it is a legitimate term to use on this occasion. However, the writer then goes on to say that the junior’s mother, who was present, was also a victim. I’m sure that she was, at the very least, alarmed, offended, angered and deeply upset by what happened. But does that make her a victim? I understand the reasoning behind that assertion, but the logic is dangerous: there is a clear line that can be drawn between persons on whom hands are laid and persons on whom they are not, but there is no clear line that can be drawn between close observers, not-so-close observers, distant observers, and ultimately people who aren’t present but hear about the incident. Are we to consider that people who like or admire the junior in question (and I count myself in both categories) and who were dismayed to learn of the incident (again, that applies to me) were also victims of the official’s act? And if they were, why should that matter? If I were to kill somebody who had no friends, would that be any less of a crime than to kill somebody who had many friends?

Finally, there has been a lot of talk about censorship and freedom of speech. Now I’m opposed to censorship, and strongly in favour of freedom of speech – without it, most of us would be slaves toiling in the fields for a political/religious elite. But freedom is inseparable from responsibility – in the case of freedom of speech, that’s the responsibility not to tell lies, especially about other people. If we believe that so-and-so is a liar or a tyrant, of course we must be willing to say so – but we must also present our evidence, and if that evidence turns out to be false we must be ready to accept the possible consequences.

Footnote:
I have been working on this posting for a large part of the past two days, and was contemplating what I was going to say for a good few days before I started writing. I have read over the paragraphs above repeatedly, and changed them more than once to try to ensure that they express my intent as clearly and unambiguously as possible. I would ask readers to read (and maybe even re-read) them with similar care, and not to find more there than I have written.
I have not named names, because my intent is not to attack or defend individual people, but to oppose or support ideas and opinions.
If I have an ulterior aim, it is to see peace and harmony within the chess community in Scotland – our limited energies should be directed to promoting chess and supporting each other in achieving that goal, not in fighting among ourselves.

Due to a change of server, the Glasgow Chess League website and the East Kilbride website have moved. The domain names still work but if you have favourites marked you may need to do them again if they point to pages on the old sites. Use the following links:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.glasgowchess.com">http://www.glasgowchess.com</a><!-- m --> and <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.ekchess.org.uk/">http://www.ekchess.org.uk/</a><!-- m -->

Both the GCL and the Dunbartonshire League <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.ddca.org.uk/">http://www.ddca.org.uk/</a><!-- m --> now have Club Entry Forms for the coming season available on their "Downloads" pages. These should be filled in by Club Secretaries intimating how many teams are entering which divisions, the names and telephone numbers of Captains etc. and then returned.

The GCL Fixtures Meeting is on Wednesday 11 September at 7.30 in the Polish Club (Phones), 4/5 Parkgrove Terrace, Glasgow G3 7SD and the entry form MUST be returned by the Friday before, 06/09/13.

The DL Fixtures Meeting is on Wednesday 18 September at 7.30 in the Larkfield Centre, 39 Inglefield Street, Glasgow G42 7AY and the entry form MUST be returned by the Saturday before, 14/09/13.

The Lanarkshire League usually schedules their Fixture Meeting for the week after, Wednesday 25 September.

This year's European Youth Chess Championships takes place in Budva, Montenegro from the 28th of September until the 9th of October. The Scotland squad is now registered with the organisers and listed on the website.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.budva2013.org">http://www.budva2013.org</a><!-- m -->

Our friends in Montenegro have been superb to deal with so far and have assisted us greatly. If the help and support we have received so far is anything to go by, then the Euroyouth Championships are going to be a spectacular success.

Hi Guys
I'm due to play Phil Thomas as Black in the 3rd round of the Lanark open Does anyone know what he plays as Black especially against 1.d4

I had the pleasure of witnessing many junior players playing at this weekends Marymas tournament. Their manners and chess etiquette were first class. The chess ability was of a very high standard and their maturity over the board was astonishing. I saw some wonderful games and win, lose or draw there were no tantrums or huffs
Congratulations to their parents and coaches for the wonderful job they are doing with their boys and girls.

Special mention to masters Howie and Stewart, I watched some of their games, they are certainly going to be very special players.

Submissions for proxy votes closed at midnight last night. Only posted votes that are postmarked before today will now be accepted.

This will take me a bit of time to sort through as I have received 146 proxy votes this year! Next job is to contact all the holders and check lists for mistakes and confirm people are members.

See you next year!!!

The position of Chief Grader (CG), Membership Secretary, Webmaster and Magazine Editor are not up for formal election at the AGM – they are classed as appointments. However in the absence of detailed up to date job descriptions it might be useful to explain who does what in the organisation. The manifesto for CG would be to continue with the tasks.

The CG is responsible for all aspects of grading and along with membership are the two functions where players are most likely to have direct contact with CS.

The CG liaises with around 50 area graders round the country to assist with the operation of the grading program, the importing of result data and maintaining the accuracy of the results and player database. CG deals with the upload of results and the maintenance of the FIDE database of Scotland players.

CG is in regular contact with the membership secretary to import the weekly update of current CS members to create the valid list of people able to consult the online system. CG liaises with tournament organisers and entries secretaries to identify newcomers and visitors and assign appropriate grades. CG liaises with the programmers in relation to the online system and the programs created to import and upload data. CG liaises with treasurer to issues invoices for grading fees and maintain a database of outstanding bills. CG creates the year end printed grading list and arranges printing.

Other issues:
Web news: CG updates some of the news stories on the website along with Dick Heathwood and Andy Howie. The range of people posting information in the news list was meant to expand so that directors could have control over the frequency and content of the news and web reports on their area of responsibility – this now looks to be a likely welcome development with the issue specifically mentioned in some manifesto descriptions.
100 Club: CG liaises with treasurer and membership secretary to maintain database of subscribers and select winners.
Grand Prix: CG arranges current sponsorship and liaises with Home director, Junior Home and the programmers on the operation of the competition.

Background: CS grader for over 20 years. SCM editor in the 1990s. Started CS website in 1997.

Guys
I've thought long and hard on thisI think we may be missing a trick here to stop the bickering and other such negativity. Insteading of putting this on the president or executive commitee, couldnt we have a director, e.g the customer services director try to handle these minor grievances informally (as a primary remit for him/her) and then have the grievance escalated (possibly to the executive committee) if the grievance is unresolved. This would allow the president and others to perform his/her duties more effectively and not worry about accusations of bias etc and would hopefully reduce the vitriol on the forums. Members on all sides are obviously not happy with the present setup and feel they do not have a voice. Moderators having to step down in this environment is just not good enough. Within Chess Scotland we have a wide wealth of talent at our disposal, so let's use it productivity. We all love chess to the point sometimes it blinkers our rationale =)

We have an accommodation option that will directly benefit Congress funds. It is a four-bedroom (all doubles) apartment in the City Quay area that has been ‘loaned’ to us in lieu of cash sponsorship. If we can let the rooms – which we will do as individual units – all receipts, less cleaning & laundry costs, will go to our funds.

Full details, photos and a video can be viewed at http://www.dundee-congress.co.uk/cityQuay.htm. We are offering the rooms for the two days of Friday and Saturday (no single nights):

Ground floor bedroom - £60
One en-suite bedroom (2nd floor) - £80
Each of two bedrooms (2nd floor) - £70

For comparison, Travel Inn and Travelodge City Centre hotels are on offer (at 15th Aug) for £136 and £81 for the two nights.

Contact me directly if you are interested – <!-- e --><a href="mailto:director@dundee-congress.co.uk">director@dundee-congress.co.uk</a><!-- e --> or 01382 534863 or 07957 761653

Keith Rose

Manifesto of Calum MacQueen for IJD

Apologies to David Deary for stealing his structure 

Aims/Objectives

I have a few ideas of what the role of IJD entails. I feel the major responsibilities are

• Improve the strength of our juniors
• Send competitive squads to international tournaments including “home” internationals such as the Glourney

Only two overall objectives but I think most ideas I have fall under these two categories.

I have many plans with regards to helping our juniors reach their potential. Firstly, over the past few years we’ve seen the introduction of an online coaching set up where players up and down the country can receive good quality coaching from some of Scotland’s strongest and most motivated players. I really believe this is helping and I would like this scheme to continue to go from strength to strength. For this, I’ve enlisted the help of Andrew Green as it was his idea. He’s got some big plans moving forward and I have total confidence that he’ll keep up his good work.
Training days are also important and I’m looking into organising regular ones. I’ve been in contact with some GMs who said they’d be interested but would need some firm details before making a decision and obviously I can’t promise that just now. Online group coaching is potentially an option as well, I did some a couple of years ago for the team who went to Brazil and I think it worked well.

Selections are always a controversial policy and that’s just the nature of the beast. I’m very confident in the selectors we’ve got currently and I am in favour of allowing them as much access to information as possible which is why I’m in favour of the new selection criteria.

Experience

I’ve just “graduated” after many years as a Scottish junior after starting to play when I was 6 years old and I have seen first-hand where I think there are weaknesses in the international junior scene. I’m very passionate about junior chess and currently have 6 students online and worked in 4 schools while at university.
I totally accept that I’m a bit light in this area but I’ve got great support from some of Scotland’s old hands so I don’t think that can be a serious problem.

Why I am running?

I find some of the most satisfying moments in my chess career are ones where my students or other young Scots have done well. It’s with this in mind that I believe I’ve got the drive and ability to make a difference in the lives of young chess players.
I was delighted to hear David Deary and June Underwood were also running for their respective posts: two people I have spoken to about junior chess who have similar goals and I think we’ll make a great team taking things forward.

Cheers
Calum


Ps. Maybe my manifesto is a bit light but I’m very wary of stepping on the toes of David and June. Let me say that I fully support David’s manifesto and will help in any way that I’m needed.