21-07-2015, 10:34 AM
The future of Senior Titles will be looked at.
Some years ago the age for a senior at the Scottish was 50. In view of the aging population and the standard of some of more senior players I started to increase that age with the agreement of the AGM. It was to be raised to 60 over a period of 10 years.
FIDE then made a decision on its Senior events and I halted the age increase at 55. The FIDE ages of 50 and 65 seem to be with us now and accepted (if not approved) by most. There is therefore some logic in 'falling in line'.
However, there is no compulsion to do so. We could return to just one title, we could have a 50-64 title (though I don't see that getting much support), we could even introduce a Veteran title for over 75s.
The decision is for the appropriate Director to make or for Council or the AGM to decide. I will certainly be looking at it in the next few weeks.
I am puzzled by the claim that this is an arbiters decision. Why would it be so? Arbiters are there to enforce the rules in place. It is up to the Directors to ensure that the proper procedures are there. I will not comment publicly on the blunderbuss approach adopted by one of the other posters (for clarity, obviously not Craig) but have asked him privately to explain his position.
I again thank Craig for his understanding in this matter, which hopefully has not distracted too much from what appears to have been a successful and much enjoyed event.
Some years ago the age for a senior at the Scottish was 50. In view of the aging population and the standard of some of more senior players I started to increase that age with the agreement of the AGM. It was to be raised to 60 over a period of 10 years.
FIDE then made a decision on its Senior events and I halted the age increase at 55. The FIDE ages of 50 and 65 seem to be with us now and accepted (if not approved) by most. There is therefore some logic in 'falling in line'.
However, there is no compulsion to do so. We could return to just one title, we could have a 50-64 title (though I don't see that getting much support), we could even introduce a Veteran title for over 75s.
The decision is for the appropriate Director to make or for Council or the AGM to decide. I will certainly be looking at it in the next few weeks.
I am puzzled by the claim that this is an arbiters decision. Why would it be so? Arbiters are there to enforce the rules in place. It is up to the Directors to ensure that the proper procedures are there. I will not comment publicly on the blunderbuss approach adopted by one of the other posters (for clarity, obviously not Craig) but have asked him privately to explain his position.
I again thank Craig for his understanding in this matter, which hopefully has not distracted too much from what appears to have been a successful and much enjoyed event.