Chess Scotland Noticeboard

HughBrechin · Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 1:23 pm Post subject:

On a side note, to be fair to our much-maligned 'other GMs', four of the five strongest Scotland-based players have spent much of the last few years working extremely hard to set up what has become arguably the most well-respected chess publishing house in the world, which has to count for at least as much as entering the Grangemouth Congress.

AMcHarg · Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 1:48 pm Post subject:

HughBrechin · Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 2:07 pm Post subject:

Doesn't do the reputation of chess in Scotland any harm, and provides what I imagine is a relatively disproportionate number of Scottish players with higher-quality books which they can use to improve their play. I agree it's not quite public service, but I think it's probably pretty useful.

Mike Scott · King Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Posts: 676 Location: Edinburgh

My main concern would be simply that whatever is done is done in a manner that allows for a consistent approach. I would certainly applaud Mr Turners involvement in helping our juniors, but I am not sure whether that qualifies him as an honorary SCO and if so for how long.

I think it has to be thought through - for example would it be for life or would it need to be reviewed every year to confirm that he is still worthy?

Personally would prefer to see the existing criteria extended to include grandparents - seems less likely to cause future problems.

The idea of having an honorary SCO is not without precedent - e.g. Hong Kong citizens have a sort of honorary British Citizenship that does not give them right to live in the UK.

Ian Jamieson · Knight Joined: 08 Mar 2007 Posts: 18

I am not currently a CS member ( I live in Stoke ). My federation is SCO for FIDE purposes. My dad was born in Scotland and I lived in Scotland from the age of 7 in 1972 to 1996. My chess education was therefore in Scotland as they say in ice hockey.

The following are therefore only suggestions / comments

Background

I cannot and do not speak for Matthew or the other 79 ENG players who chose to be delisted rather than join ECF.

Some people view the ECF as having been / being inefficient, wasteful, bureaucratic, slow to respond to players' wishes etc.

Some people have tried to change ECF from within and given up in frustration

The issue of ECF requiring ENG players to be ECF members is more complicated than set out previously in this thread. ECF, and CS, clearly have the right to require ENG players to be ECF members and to delist them if they choose not to be. ECF however have said that this is a FIDE requirement. Initially this may have been in good faith. ECF however have continued to say that it is a FIDE requirement even after it has been pointed out to them that it is not a FIDE requirement. Some people do not like feeling they are being lied to. In my view a lot of the animosity this has caused could be reduced if ECF apologised and admitted it was an ECF requirement.

Some English players also identify more with their county or even union than ECF. ECF is a federation of unions which in turn are a union of counties. It is not that long since ECF was BCF.

Ian Jamieson · Knight Joined: 08 Mar 2007 Posts: 18

Proposal

Some posters on this board seem to want a "Fischer" transfer where Matthew is given eligibility after ECF "revoked" his eligibility against the wishes of ECF and FIDE without any transfer / compensation fee paid

Matthew / CS could apply to FIDE to have any transfer / compensation fee waived but I don't think FIDE would agree. It could also be time consuming.

I would prefer a "Bosman" (football) transfer where Matthew is given eligibility with the acceptance if not agreement of ECF and FIDE and transfer / compensation fees paid if necessary.

I agree with Craig that the current proposal could be challenged by ECF or FIDE.

I suggest changing the eligibility rules as follows

- replace four eligibility considerations with five eligibility considerations

- add a fifth eligibility consideration

"Is the player a British citizen with a close connection with Scotland e.g. previously resident for at least two years or a grandparent born in Scotland?"

If desired add "This shall be at the discretion of the management board"

- replace four questions with five questions.

FIDE and ECF should accept this change. FIDE may accept a clause which simply asked "is the player a British citizen". Guernsey and, I understand, Jersey have already had similar clauses accepted. My suggestion above is based on Guernsey's

Olympiad

I understand that some FIDE tournaments have their own federation qualification rules, for example the Olympiad has eligibility rules that go beyond the domestic eligibility rules.

The current CS eligibility rules may be based on the Olympiad rules rather than what FIDE would allow.

Matthew may therefore not qualify to play in the Olympiad anyway.

Scottish Champion

I suggest we follow the example of some FIDE tournaments and if desired, change the rules of the Scottish Championships so that no player granted eligibility at the discretion of the management board is allowed to be Scottish champion.

Thank you to Fred Hamperl, Guernsey for his information on what Guernsay have done.

Ian Jamieson · Knight Joined: 08 Mar 2007 Posts: 18

Money

I sympathize with Matthew's position.

Matthew however has asked to transfer. CS has not asked Matthew to transfer.

In my opinion Matthew should therefore pay any fees involved. The management board may make a contribution (50%?) to the fees if they desire in view of his previous contribution to Scottish chess but if approved, he is already however getting to transfer in view of his previous contribution.

This may be the idea behind Alex's rumour / joke that ECF will ask for an amount equal to the membership fees payable since Matthew was last a member. This way some people in the ECF have the last laugh and force Matthew to pay the membership fees if he wants to transfer. Personally I think ECF should waive any compensation fee. Part of me however would not be surprised if ECF asked for the full amount given their current financial situation although they may (should?) be wary of possible legal action (restraint of trade?)

Timing

If eligibility is at the discretion of the management board I suggest that the eligibility rules are changed at the AGM but that any decision on whether Matthew is eligible is delayed until ECF decide how much compensation they want.

If eligibility is not at the discretion of the management board it may be safer to wait until ECF decide how much compensation they want.

AMcHarg · Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 3:57 pm Post subject:

The AGM could have a proposal agreed with conditions, thus not hampering things whilst simultaneously not rushing anything through without due care and attention to the potential (financial) consequences.

Ian, I don't think it would be in anyone's best interests for the ECF to demand the maximum level of compensation (if any compensation), irrespective of their financial situation. It's not like Chess Scotland is owned by the Sultan of Brunai, and the ECF well know that they are unlikely to get a substantial amount of money from us. I therefore imagine that they will not demand any compensation.