+- Forums (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Members Only (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-16.html)
+--- Forum: General Chess Chat (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 (/thread-831.html)
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - Matthew Turner - 27-01-2014
This is what Sean Milton wrote on page 15
"The Working Party appointed by the AGM to investigate remote participation at CS events are:
Sean Milton, Ian Brownlee, Steve Hilton, Gilbert Alomenu, David Congalton, Andy Mcculoch and Andy Howie.
To date we have created a discussion document to structure the investigation and are presently focusing on the method and technology to be used to enable remote play.
My intention is to post regular updates on progress on a dedicated thread to keep members informed of the working party progress and to invite feedback. The input already received on this forum has been captured in the discussion document and is already included in the decision process. The new thread will start once the basic framework of the remote play model has been formed."
I read it as
1. We have taken account of the views expressed on this forum
2. We are investigating if remote play is technologically feasible
3. If it is, then we will invite more formal submissions
That seems perfectly reasonable to me.
I also tend to agree with George Neave
"Better spend the time and energy running few more congresses e.g. Grangemouth, Perth, Hawick, Aberdeen, East of Scotland/West of Scotland - where are they? Live chess events commutable from the capital have all but vanished in past couple of years. Surely this is the top issue of the day?"
The issue of remote play is I think important, but I don't think we should get worked up about it right now. Let see what the working party has to say first. They might say remote chess is the key to reinvigorating Scottish tournament Chess and over the next ten years 50% of players in congresses could be playing remotely. If that happens then Ian and I will be together in opposing it!
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - David Deary - 27-01-2014
Matthew Turner Wrote:I read it as
1. We have taken account of the views expressed on this forum
2. We are investigating if remote play is technologically feasible
3. If it is, then we will invite more formal submissions
That seems perfectly reasonable to me.
^My sentiments exactly, I don't see what the issue is with this approach at all.
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - Andy Howie - 27-01-2014
Matthew Turner Wrote:I also tend to agree with George Neave
"Better spend the time and energy running few more congresses e.g. Grangemouth, Perth, Hawick, Aberdeen, East of Scotland/West of Scotland - where are they? Live chess events commutable from the capital have all but vanished in past couple of years. Surely this is the top issue of the day?"
Well the hordes of tournament organizers dying to show off their skills coupled with the increasing costs of hiring a venue might be behind that one
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - Matthew Turner - 27-01-2014
Cost of venues is a huge issue, coupled with, and connected to, health and safety and risk assessment regulations. That makes it more difficult to run events at what you might describe as 'traditional' venues eg. schools, sports halls, churches. However, there are perhaps other venues that are increasingly amenable to chess events, eg conference facilities not used much at weekends, hotels hit by the economic downturn.
Finding organisers, wanting to/able to put in a huge amount of time to organise events, that's another issue. That is a tough one.
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - Andrew McHarg - 27-01-2014
From a tournament organiser's point of view, I don't really see how remote play is going to save any money. If anything it would probably cost more money.
It's hard to see how you'd be able to have significantly smaller premises to run an event if there were lots of people playing remotely. Each remote player would still have an opponent who was present, so there would still need to be a board set up. And there would need to be someone there to make the moves on behalf of the remote player, who would also need to be seated at the board. If anything, there would be less space, because screens/computers/cables etc would need to be positioned somewhere.
Furthermore, the person making the moves on behalf of the remote player would - I presume - be a volunteer. If they weren't, then the cost of paying them would render it pointless from a financial point of view for most people, irrespective of who paid it. If they were volunteers, then it's hard to see where they are all going to come from?
For these reasons, and probably quite a few more that I haven't yet thought of, I do not see how it's feasible to have remote play as a general option for any entrant. And quite frankly, very few people would want that anyway - as most players do actually enjoy attending an event and soaking up the atmosphere.
However, for some exceptional cases I think remote play can and should be offered. It's possible on a smaller scale (e.g. on only a few boards), and would make Chess even more inclusive than it already is. To fund it (or at least help) perhaps such players could pay a higher entry fee or opt out of being eligible to win a prize?
Just a few thoughts. I reserve the right to change my mind on any or all of them without notice. ;P But in any case, there cannot be any harm whatsoever in the WP looking into this. And I hope they find ways to overcome lots of the practical (and otherwise) problems that will inevitably crop up. I look forward to seeing what they have to say.
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - Jonathan Livingstone - 27-01-2014
It appears to me sometimes that despite the wide disagreement we often see, that everyone more or less agrees on the same thing, which is we need to improve Chess in Scotland in general. Be it youth chess, tournament circuits, national events, international performance, membership numbers, inclusion and involvement of all, and many more aspects. These things are all the ultimate measuremunt of a successful chess nation.
Looking to the future, maybe we need to be going back to the beginning. Perhaps we should be looking to other small countries in Europe of similar size to Scotland which have a successful model with their home chess structure. I don't know which countries that would be, but if one or two are identified, it could be a good long term investment to fund someone suitable to go off on a fact finding trip and link up with the right country. The aim would be to learn from and perhaps replicate the right chess model where appropriate. Or perhaps even better would be to get someone in from a small but successful chess country (headhunt that right person if you like), then either use them as a consultant, or employ them to restructure everything in our game from bottom up and take Chess in Scotland to the next level.
Grassroots are unquestionably crucial and needs investment of resources, but so is everything that follows the grassroots. Maybe it is complete overhaul that is needed, 1 step back, but 2 steps forward (eventually).
Not really wishing to distract from our topic of chess and go into politics, however this is exactly what the SNP wishes to do with Scotland as a nation. Should we reach independance, they have made it clear they will be looking to copy a Scandanavian country type of model with Scotland's future development. That is a bit of an "if" and "but" scenario right now, but a quite possible one and with the national environment changing we should perhaps be looking to keep up with it, and fit into it at the same time, or we could get left behind and see our chess status worsen.
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - Andrew McHarg - 27-01-2014
I agree with the sentiment Jonathan. However, it's about more than just knowing what's needed to make CS better. I think we lack the political backing to be as successful as other countries, as politicians here don't see Chess as do others from other nations. It might be prudent to try to win the attention of our politicians before embarking on trying to replicate another nation's success. Simply because one of the major things that a fact-finding mission would undoubtedly come back with would be that there is far more support for Chess in other countries; politically, financially, and in terms of people's general perceptions of the game.
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - Jonathan Livingstone - 27-01-2014
Andrew McHarg Wrote:I think we lack the political backing to be as successful as other countries, as politicians here don't see Chess as do others from other nations. It might be prudent to try to win the attention of our politicians before embarking on trying to replicate another nation's success.
I don't disagree Andrew. But what you say is not so much an obstacle, just a step in that process. Chess is full of barriers, it is just a case of doing what needs to be done to get passed those barriers. We should be having dialogue with Sturgeon, Salmond or whomever will listen. Even if it is lower down the political food chain, thats a start. The benefits of a strong chess nation need to be explained, i.e. how it helps everyday people, or even better demonstrated. Lets get politicians along and in the door, dishing out a prize at a congress, giving a speech at the Scottish Championships.
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - Andy Howie - 27-01-2014
Like we have been!
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - Jonathan Livingstone - 27-01-2014
Excellent Andy! How about getting Sean Connery or some other SNP friendly celebrity to open the Scottish Commie C/S? That should get Scottish Chess on the right side of the SNP.