Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
AGM Motion 5
Ignoring the fact regarding the fact that the indicated seconder says that he didn't, the motion is suspect on a number of grounds.
Quote:If a player has an ELO-rating with a country other than SCO then they are not eligible
to be Scottish Champion.
1) An ELO rating is different from a FIDE rating. Many countries offer ELO ratings. If this motion is accepted then it will prevent SCO players from either competing in France for example or winning the Scottish Championship if they do. Paul Motwani probably has an Elo rating in Belgium.
2) It also means that the possibility exists for an unrated player to win the Scottish and to use his nine games to become registered for another federation but still win the title and for this to have been known in advance.
3) Players with partials would be allowed to win the title even if these are not for SCO.
4) Many players appear on the list under the federation in which their first rating event was held. Why should red tape prevent such a player from winning the Championship.

The intention of the motion may have some merit but its wording makes it a legal and ethical minefield. As such it would be difficult to support regardless of ones sympathies.

Messages In This Thread

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)