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


Re: AGM Motion 5 - Alex McFarlane - 13-08-2012

amuir Wrote:Does that cover everything ?

No. Although it is unlikely, you are stopping any unrated player from gaining the title. More importantly, you are stopping them from being able to say they competed for the Scottish Championship. I strongly believe that all titles should be played for under the same qualification rules. THe Scottish Boys' and Girls title should have the same qualification as should the women's if reinstated. Under your definition, Joy Malarky, who has represented Scotland (ignore her WFM title here) would not be able to win the Scottish Wmen's title because she is unrated. That is the silly part of your motion and MUST be taken care of.


Re: AGM Motion 5 - Craig Pritchett - 13-08-2012

Personally I don't like this motion as I can't see anything wrong with the existing eligibility rules for winning the Scottish championship title based on birth (or Scottish parentage) or residency for a suitable length of time in Scotland.

As these rules predate the FIDE rating system, it doesn't seem to upset them by adding a third, "or SCO by FIDE recognition through the FIDE rating system", although I can't see why that should be either necessary or add in anything of value.

I would have more sympathy for the motion, which essentially abolishes the residency principle entirely (and should surely be framed that way), if other comparable countries (say Germany, France, Spain, Netherlans, Belgium or other members of the ECU) did not permit non-national residents to compete in their national championships.

What is the position on that last point? I think other ECU members mainly do permit non-national residents to compete, subject to a reasonably lengthy period of residency. But I don't actually know. I do, however, think that the motion's proposers ought to know this or SCO could be in danger of doing something that is seriously out of line with the wider FIDE community without realising it.


Re: AGM Motion 5 - amuir - 14-08-2012

If I replace ELO by FIDE then everyone has only one affiliation.
Unrateds can win titles unless affiliated to another nation.
The Olympiad criteria should be the same as Scottish criteria.
Jacob, Vlad Barnaure, Angus Dunnington, Andrew Greet - see you all in the Olympiad team 2014
Tough luck John, Alan & Colin
JR you are GM 2586 SCO affiliated , please play too
Maybe we wont finish 83rd again


Re: AGM Motion 5 - Douglas Bryson - 15-08-2012

Craig Pritchett Wrote:...would have more sympathy for the motion, which essentially abolishes the residency principle entirely (and should surely be framed that way),

The motion, if Andy M ever manages to create a form of words that capture his intention clearly, does not abolish the residency principle. It amends it.

A non Scot who is resident in this country can, after a period of time indicated by CS rules, apply to be given a SCO code in the FIDE rating system. It doesn't matter whether they are an existing FIDE rated player or an unrated new player.

If the player gets a SCO code they are eligible for the Scottish title.

If a player does not wish to be listed with a SCO code or to switch from their existing country then they are not eligible for the title.

BTW: of course the timing of this motion is poor immediately after Jacob wins. He has done more in his 8 years than many "ordinarily resident" SCO players.

In that case maybe one of the other issues Jacob mentions in his blog should be addressed. The tie break system for the Scottish Championships favours lower rated players.
In fact since Alex is keen to have systems which cover the miracle of an unrated winning the title - how would you deal with such a player under the existing Actual - Expected tie-break when they wont have any expected.


Re: AGM Motion 5 - Alex McFarlane - 15-08-2012

Douglas Bryson Wrote:In fact since Alex is keen to have systems which cover the miracle of an unrated winning the title - how would you deal with such a player under the existing Actual - Expected tie-break when they wont have any expected.

Obviously such a player would win the title outright and no tie-break would be needed.

But seriously, I thought I had clarified that I was more concerned about them being ELIGIBLE to win. It could certainly apply to other national titles or is it only to apply to the main title.

I was not in favour of any tie-break. Council decided on performance (probably the least bad). How you determine performance is a problem but whichever way will usually favour the lower rated. My personal preference would be for a maximum of 2 or 3 sharing the title and tie-break only coming in if more than that finish first equal.


Re: AGM Motion 5 - Craig Pritchett - 15-08-2012

I still don't like the idea of making a switch to SCO FIDE rating the main determinant of entitlement to win the Scot Ch title rather than residency (or birth/parentage).

Moreover no one has yet bothered to answer my Q about equivalence or otherwise on the part of other FIDE (principally ECU) member countries in regard to what is (in my view) not just an eminently sensible common sense but also an eminently enlightened CS rule that allows bona fide Scottish residents to win the title. Proposers of the motion - what do others do, what is the answer to this and how does it tie in with support for your proposed change?

Interestingly, no less an eminent, very many times former Scottish Champion, than the late Dr JM Aitken used the term "laudable" about the CS residency rule in regard to Danny Kopec's participation in the 1977 championship. See the recent link to Dr Aitken's article on the championship in the old CS magazine that has has just been provided by CS historian Alan McGowan at the CS history pages [link at CS homepage newsbox a few days ago]

I'm definitely with the good old "doc" on this one!


Re: AGM Motion 5 - andyburnett - 15-08-2012

I wrote this in a previous post and no-one has deemed it worthy of comment or argument! Sad

Quote:It is obvious what the intention of the motion is - the title of Scottish champion should go to someone who does or can represent Scotland. Why anyone would want to be Scottish champion when they don't want to or can't represent Scotland is a mystery to me. A title of Scottish Open champion for the winner of the actual event should be enough
.

Craig wrote:
Quote:Moreover no one has yet bothered to answer my Q about equivalence or otherwise on the part of other FIDE (principally ECU) member countries in regard to what is (in my view) not just an eminently sensible common sense but also an eminently enlightened CS rule that allows bona fide Scottish residents to win the title. Proposers of the motion - what do others do, what is the answer to this and how does it tie in with support for your proposed change?

I don't know the answer to this and despite a bit of trying today am no closer to one! What I would say is that I cannot recall seeing anyone from the ECU countries winning or playing in national championships who were not registered as representing that nation through FIDE (doesn't mean it hasn't happened of course, but I am on the ChessBase every day of my life and they cover a lot of these events). Eligibility rules of those nations might require someone with superior linguitic skills than my own to detect.


Re: AGM Motion 5 - Douglas Bryson - 16-08-2012

Craig Pritchett Wrote:I still don't like the idea of making a switch to SCO FIDE rating the main determinant of entitlement to win the Scot Ch title rather than residency (or birth/parentage).

Birth/parentage and residency is the main determinant of eligibility to win the title. The fact that FIDE is being mentioned at all here is simply as a repository of the information on which chess nationality you hold. The point of the motion is to ensure you are badged as SCO if you want to be eligible.

There are other issues which would have to be addressed before any such requirement is brought in. Who pays any switching fees - the player or the federation?



With regard to Kopec's participation in the Championship. The rules which are currently in place specifically stop foreign students winning the title.

The term “permanently resident” does not include university students or other such residence of a transitory nature. <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.chessscotland.com/membership/EntryForms/120707Scottish.pdf">http://www.chessscotland.com/membership ... ottish.pdf</a><!-- m -->

Was that only brought in after Danny won in 1980? I seem to recall at the time he wanted to play in the Scotland Olympiad team but his application was declined.


Re: AGM Motion 5 - Craig Pritchett - 16-08-2012

I'm still uneasy about making FIDE "national" badging a requirement for properly CS recognised "residents" to win the Scot ch title.

1. As I understand it, the existence of FIDE national bandings was never intended to take away the discretion of any member country to decide who should qualify to win their national championships. FIDE's sole purpose in using these is merely to bring order to the management of the rating system and to regulate the "nationality" of participants in "national" teams playing in FIDE events.

2. To take the Danny Kopec case (as it's been raised and is quite a good one):

(a) FIDE would certainly nowadays bar such a USA banded player from playing in FIDE events for Scotland and they probably did in 1980 too (in my view quite rightly).

(b) Yet there remains a very strong case for member countries, if they so wish, to allow players such as Danny to play for their national championship title (if he/she meets whatever is the current definition by a member country of residency).

© Danny Kopec actually lived for about 5-6 years in Scotland and contributed immensely to Scottish chess at the time. His case in fact actually raises an interesting Q as to whether the motion should not really be about rationalising the aptness of the current definitions "permanent" and "transitory" residence. These perhaps really ought to be rationalised and replaced by a straightforwardly objective "period" of residency - of however many years lived in Scotland (and perhaps proportions of years to catch any truly "transitory" person).

(d) Since how can you assess, in particular, "permanent"? Say someone from another FIDE member country gets a job in Scotland, relocates to Scotland with a view to a "permanent" life stay, but then gets made suddenly redundant after whatever period is set for "residency" and shifts back out of Scotland.

(e) It would in that case seem bizarre to have disallowed someone like Danny Kopec from winning the 1980 Scot champ title (after some 3-4 years residence in Scotland) yet to have allowed this other person that right, simply because he / she wasn't deemed "transitory" ar even, heaven forbid, a "student".

3. Apart from that, I also agree with Alex and Douglas that any link to the FIDE banding raises many other tricky management Qs, not least costs for transfers and considerable scope for admin disputes.

4. And, to answer Andrew's point, I can't for the life of me see why someone like Jacob Aagaard should not be able to choose to retain his DEN classification and decide not to play for SCO yet because of his very long-term residence and obvious chess activity in SCO not also be able to play for the Scot Champ title.


Re: AGM Motion 5 - amuir - 16-08-2012

It's not just about Jacob. I opposed the Andrew Greet win in 2007 too at the time.
It should not be about whether someone has done a lot for Scottish chess either.
Being the Scottish champion is about beating other Scots. It is racist I suppose, though a non-Scot can transfer. I disagree with people being champion of 2 countries.
The discussion should not get bogged down in the legal definitions.
I would like the principle of the idea to be voted on. If that is agreed the wording can be amended to be fair.