Forums
AGM Motion 5 - Printable Version

+- Forums (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Members Only (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=16)
+--- Forum: General Chess Chat (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Thread: AGM Motion 5 (/showthread.php?tid=345)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5


AGM Motion 5 - Ian Jamieson - 10-08-2012

Motion 5

If a player has an ELO-rating with a country other than SCO then they are not eligible
to be Scottish Champion.

Proposer Andrew Muir
Seconder Andrew Burnett

Am I the only one who is slightly uneasy about this motion?

I can understand why some people do not think Jacob should be eligible to be Scottish champion after his decision to switch back to being Danish registered but there may be other people in the future who will be hit by this who probably should be eligible to be Scottish champion e.g. was Keti registered as SCO when she won in 2003?

Also I am not sure it makes sense for Jacob not to be eligible living in Bearsden but Matthew Turner to be eligible living in Somerset. To my mind either both should be eligible or neither.

If the intention is just to stop Jacob being eligible then I think people need to be more exact about why they don't think he should be eligible and any motion should reflect this.

(To be pedantic I think the motion should also refer to FIDE rating rather than ELO rating. FIDE ratings are an example of ELO ratings but you can have ELO ratings which are not FIDe ratings. CS grades are arguably just adjusted ELO ratings.)


Re: AGM Motion 5 - David G Congalton - 10-08-2012

I'll vote against this. Jacob lives here and has done for a good while. That should be more than enough but he also greatly contributes to the Scottish game and the reputation of Scottish Chess in many ways, including the Quality Chess publishing firm, which is a supporter of Chess Scotland and numerous events throughout the calendar.


Re: AGM Motion 5 - Mike Scott - 10-08-2012

Well said David.
Why not just ban everyone who might win?


Re: AGM Motion 5 - AndrewGreen - 10-08-2012

Just get better at chess.


Re: AGM Motion 5 - Douglas Bryson - 10-08-2012

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/blog/?p=1106">http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/blog/?p=1106</a><!-- m -->

Jacob's opinion on the issue on July 25:

"...I do think a proposal of the “Scottish Champion have to be a member of FIDE through the Scottish Federation” makes sense. I do take it personally that it is proposed a week after I win the title, even though it is certainly not intended to be so. I do like the mind such an insular policy fits the narrow mindedness I have often found on the Scottish Federations noticeboard. But more importantly it simply does not make sense that the Scottish Champion does not represent Scotland."


Re: AGM Motion 5 - andyburnett - 10-08-2012

I was initially only discussing this on the forum - the actual motion being raised with myself as seconder came as a surprise ( abit of communication would not go amiss!). However, I think the motion itself deserves to be looked at, discussed and put to a vote.

I agree that Jacob has done a lot of good (even great!) work during hs time here in Scotland, but the fact is he also has 'used' (I don't mean this in a bad way) the system to work for his own benefit.

He doesn't represent Scotland anymore, he represents Denmark, so I don't think he should be Scottish champion - quite simple and this would be my view for anyone, not just Jacob, and in any sport not just chess. Jacob himself appears to agree with this - well, the first part.

Mike and Andrew's comments aren't particularly relevant - although Ian raises legitimate questions which need to be discussed. I would hope David also follows any debate before voting.

Personally I believe that the title of Scottish champion should entitle the winner to an automatic Olympiad team place, and this would naturally require the winner to be SCO registered. A different argument admittedly (hopefully one which will be raised and discussed at the next AGM) , but this motion is a necessary precursor in my opinion, notwithstanding its own merits.


Re: AGM Motion 5 - David G Congalton - 10-08-2012

Having read Jacob's article and Andy's post I'm currently re-evaluating my position.

Andy - I like to think I am open to being persuaded by informed discussion, that my view may be wrong.


Re: AGM Motion 5 - andyburnett - 10-08-2012

[quote="David G Congalton"]Having read Jacob's article and Andy's post I'm currently re-evaluating my position.

Andy - I like to think I am open to being persuaded by informed discussion, that my view may be wrong.[/quote]

That's good to hear David - hopefully I am the same!


Re: AGM Motion 5 - Douglas Bryson - 10-08-2012

A quick scan through the Scottish Champions list <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://chessscotland.com/archiveresults/scocham.htm">http://chessscotland.com/archiveresults/scocham.htm</a><!-- m --> suggest the following would not have had a SCO affiliation at the time of their win: (Historian Alan McGowan may be able to mention others)

2012: Jacob Aagaard
2010: Andrew Greet
2003: Keti Grant
1980: Danny Kopec
1968: *David Levy? - not sure if London born Levy was just a student at this time or "ordinarily resident"
1939: *Max Pavey - an American student
1932: **W A Fairhurst


*These players may have been ineligible on the current residency rule pertaining to students regardless of the SCO issue.
"The term "permanently resident" does not include university students or other such residence of a transitory nature."

** Cheshire born Fairhurst only came to Glasgow in 1931 so wouldn't have fulfilled the minimum residency period which was to be changed to one year prior to Andrew Greet's 2010 win. Presumably back then such conditions didn't apply.

Since the first official FIDE list was only in July 1971 then I guess there could not have been country codes officially associated with players by the world federation. Was it just a free for all and anyone could play for any country?


Re: AGM Motion 5 - Alan Tate - 11-08-2012

Why bother having national championships at all? Yes I think the champion should be registered as SCO. This is not about Jacob - as he himself says he is retiring from tournament chess. He shouldn't really take it personally either - the motion is being proposed after the event. No one is going to take away previous non-SCO's titles.

However, I suggest that Jacob be given an honorary exemption from this rule for services to Scottish chess and therefore be eligible for the title if he decides to come back.