17-09-2016, 08:49 AM
There is no perfection!
No perfect 'absolute numbers/indicators', not even ratings, which are all based on systemic assumptions that are in the end fundamentally limited by that (and often incorporate significant statistical margins of error that no one ever seems to wish to acknowledge in chess). Assumptions, even between FIDE and CS rating systems (both 'good' statistically), also often differ, sometimes subtly, not infrequently quite starkly. Eg FIDE / CS are both based, each a little differently, on forecasting a view of possible outcome in a player's next outing NOT on a primary view of performance in a player's recent (and past) outings. We are NOT (purely definable by) 'numbers'!!
Equally no perfect judgements ... by any selector. Judgement requires great skill. It is also completely unavoidable.
I am broadly status quo. I do not think that the current selection system or selectors have let anyone down in any serious fashion ... but there are always difficult and contestable decisions at the margins (the less/more active player, ratings close debates, age discrimination for the young or old and so on). They won't ever disappear.
Our selection criteria really are, in my view, very difficult to argue against. Interestingly it has become increasingly difficult to find selectors willing to come forward to do this job. Could it be connected with the fact that in the modern age they get lambasted more quickly than praised ... even when they are doing a good job, essentially selflessly and acknowledging / dealing properly with conflicts of interest (also unavoidable at times)?
I also definitely don't like this 'top-down', near autocratic approach to a top player's training regime. Everyone's different. Some 'need' to prepare by playing lots (eg and famously, Tony Miles); others prefer quiet study. Life generally, not least work and family, most certainly complicate, what is already a complicated and personally highly sensitive area.
I don't think I have ever known any player selected to play for Scotland who hasn't attempted to prepare himself / herself as well as possible, with their own balance of play, practice, study before an event. There is no one size fits all for this and attempts to impose excessively in this regard are only ever likely to fail, possibly even causing understandable player resentment, which is in no one's interest at all.
There are vastly more important areas to try to improve in Scottish chess than marginal tweaks in the selection process. Seeking 'real' sponsorship for Olympiad (and other Scottish selections) is certainly one of these. We have even more significant youth development issues, especially in the teenage years, perhaps a subject for elsewhere.
Oh and very well done our Olympiad women. Our Open team also battled hard and didn't actually do so badly ... especially AND fundamentally learning a heck of a lot for the future of their game and the wider Scottish game.
No perfect 'absolute numbers/indicators', not even ratings, which are all based on systemic assumptions that are in the end fundamentally limited by that (and often incorporate significant statistical margins of error that no one ever seems to wish to acknowledge in chess). Assumptions, even between FIDE and CS rating systems (both 'good' statistically), also often differ, sometimes subtly, not infrequently quite starkly. Eg FIDE / CS are both based, each a little differently, on forecasting a view of possible outcome in a player's next outing NOT on a primary view of performance in a player's recent (and past) outings. We are NOT (purely definable by) 'numbers'!!
Equally no perfect judgements ... by any selector. Judgement requires great skill. It is also completely unavoidable.
I am broadly status quo. I do not think that the current selection system or selectors have let anyone down in any serious fashion ... but there are always difficult and contestable decisions at the margins (the less/more active player, ratings close debates, age discrimination for the young or old and so on). They won't ever disappear.
Our selection criteria really are, in my view, very difficult to argue against. Interestingly it has become increasingly difficult to find selectors willing to come forward to do this job. Could it be connected with the fact that in the modern age they get lambasted more quickly than praised ... even when they are doing a good job, essentially selflessly and acknowledging / dealing properly with conflicts of interest (also unavoidable at times)?
I also definitely don't like this 'top-down', near autocratic approach to a top player's training regime. Everyone's different. Some 'need' to prepare by playing lots (eg and famously, Tony Miles); others prefer quiet study. Life generally, not least work and family, most certainly complicate, what is already a complicated and personally highly sensitive area.
I don't think I have ever known any player selected to play for Scotland who hasn't attempted to prepare himself / herself as well as possible, with their own balance of play, practice, study before an event. There is no one size fits all for this and attempts to impose excessively in this regard are only ever likely to fail, possibly even causing understandable player resentment, which is in no one's interest at all.
There are vastly more important areas to try to improve in Scottish chess than marginal tweaks in the selection process. Seeking 'real' sponsorship for Olympiad (and other Scottish selections) is certainly one of these. We have even more significant youth development issues, especially in the teenage years, perhaps a subject for elsewhere.
Oh and very well done our Olympiad women. Our Open team also battled hard and didn't actually do so badly ... especially AND fundamentally learning a heck of a lot for the future of their game and the wider Scottish game.