27-01-2014, 09:21 AM
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!
"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!