Chess Scotland Noticeboard A place for chess nuts to boast over an open forum    FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in  English Deregister Non-Members Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next          Chess Scotland Noticeboard Forum Index -> General Chess Chat View previous topic :: View next topic   Author Message AMcHarg King Joined: 19 Nov 2008 Posts: 623 Location: Livingston, Scotland Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 9:40 pm    Post subject: David Deary wrote: Could we revise the administration of the grading system does it need to be one person could additional people do it? In it's current form this would not be practical. To completely overhaul the whole system would cost lots of money and years of time, or even more money if done in a relatively short time. The resources don't currently exist to do this, and quite frankly nor does a requirement. The costs associated with changing it would far outweigh any apparent inefficiencies with it at the moment. David Deary wrote: Do we need to have a magazine in print what about going electronic? Too easy to pirate, and this wouldn't remove any of the costs associated with the design work and research that goes into producing it, therefore not much of a saving (if any) - because we might lose some mag subscribers because they'd rather get it from their club mate via an email for free. David Deary wrote: Can the membership system be automated? Not unless you know R2D2. If you saw what Dick Heathwood does then you'd know what I mean; it's something that has to be seen to be believed, and Dick does it all with a smile and a good sense of humour; not something that R2D2 is likely to do. Hope this answers some of your questions. Back to top admin Site Admin Joined: 09 Jan 2007 Posts: 1386 Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 9:42 pm    Post subject: David Deary wrote: Duncan Grassie wrote: David Deary wrote: Typically instead of debating the point with fact ie the number of hours people work and the exact figures. David - Andy has given you a figure of "less than £10000" for all the infrastructure you see before you now: internet presence, grading, magazine, membership, grand prix, etc. Assuming you had £10000 to spend and none of the above how would you spend the money and how would chess be better? I have replied to Duncan by personal message. If anyone would like to debate points with me directly feel free to email me or send me a pm. I think I have hijacked this thread enough for now! David, Why not answer the question publicly here. You may be sitting on an really good idea Back to top David Deary Queen Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 98 Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 9:44 pm    Post subject: admin wrote: David, Why not answer the question publicly here. You may be sitting on an really good idea I'm afraid my view on one of the three items would not prove popular and would cause this thread to implode even more... I appreciate both Andy's feedback but without a more intimate knowledge of the systems used it is difficult to know if things could be done more efficiently or not. Also as was highlighted by many this was not the topic of this thread. We can start a new one if anyone would like too. Its also getting late and I get more cranky when I am tired! _________________ Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional! Back to top AMcHarg King Joined: 19 Nov 2008 Posts: 623 Location: Livingston, Scotland Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 9:45 pm    Post subject: David Deary wrote: I'm afraid my view on one of the three items would not prove popular and would cause this thread to implode even more... Please post a new topic. It would be good to hear what your thoughts are. Who cares about controversy? People can either agree or disagree, and no harm is done. Keeping stuff to yourself is never going to change anything! Back to top admin Site Admin Joined: 09 Jan 2007 Posts: 1386 Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 9:47 pm    Post subject: Actually I agree with Andy. The only thing I can think of that would cause an implosion is going the same way as the ECF Back to top HughBrechin King Joined: 31 Jan 2007 Posts: 201 Location: The moral high ground. Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:02 pm    Post subject: If the magazine went electronic, it would still need edited and compiled. Quite nice having something tangible though. Back to top Andy McCulloch King Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Posts: 280 Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 11:24 pm    Post subject: David, you accuse others of being 'techy' when challenged. Does this accusation not apply to you in Spades? Most, if not all, of your posts start from a position where you have an opinion without any knowledge or understanding of what is actually going on. Your position is too flexible, changing to suit your latest perceived gripe. What massive contribution, other than simply playing, have you personally made to either CS or chess in Scotland generally? Back to top Matthew Turner Pawn Joined: 07 Jul 2011 Posts: 4 Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 7:32 am    Post subject: The discussion seem to have gone off in various diverse directions, but hopefully I can clarify a couple of issues on my own situation. 1. Compensation Fee There are three possibilities here, a) The ECF waive it b) I pay it c) I don't transfer to Scotland I certainly hope this will be a) Whatever happens Chess Scotland would not be out of pocket. 2. Olympiad eligibility I would like to represent Scotland at the Olympiad. I hope 99% of people contibuting to this forum would say the same. BUT a) Chess Scotland's eligibilty rules prevent me playing. I completely accept these rules, I have never sought to change them, I am not seeking to change them and I will not in future seek to change them. b) If the eligibility rules changed, I would not to able to play at the Olympiad because of work commitments. c) If the rules changed and my work commitments changed I would only play at an Olympiad with the approval of the rest of the team and potential team members. Hope that helps. Back to top Ian Jamieson Knight Joined: 08 Mar 2007 Posts: 18 Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:18 am    Post subject: Donald, The hypothetical situation you describe should not arise. The organiser of a FIDE rated tournament in England is required by ECF to ensure that all ENG players are members of the ECF. If the organiser let ENG players who are not members of the ECF play you could argue that any problem with games not being rated is the fault of the organiser not ECF. I'm also not sure that the games would not be rated anyway - it may just be that the (new) grade is not published. FIDE rules give federations the right to delist players. I'm aware that the rule requiring players to be a member of a national federation is ambiguous at best but I'm not aware of anyone querying the right to delist players with FIDE. Maybe if someone queried it it would turn out to be equally ambiguous. Ian Back to top Mike Scott King Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Posts: 676 Location: Edinburgh Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:47 am    Post subject: David said Quote: CS isn't massive and I have never suggested otherwise nor did I suggest there are full time employees but the equivalent of one third of the block grant is spent on salaries and expenses. No you have not explicitly said it but it would appear from your your posts, where you ask why they have not done this and that , that you believe that it does not have limited resources and those people behind it are not volunteers with limited free time. Indeed at one point you asked whether ECF was even more bloated than CS - clearly implying that CS is 'bloated' in your view. CS is not some faceless monolithic organisation rather it is made up of chess players willing to give up their spare time. Quite a few of the positions within are not filled and I have no doubt it would welcome new blood, whatever their views. Indeed an injection of fresh blood with new ideas would I am sure be positively welcomed. Back to top Craig Pritchett Queen Joined: 19 Mar 2007 Posts: 114 Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 9:35 am    Post subject: A Muir wrote: Suggested wording: "A new category of Chess Scotland member shall be created. Members of this category will be entitled to have the code SCO in the FIDE rating list and to use the Scottish flag. They will not be entitled to play for Scottish teams and not be entitled to obtain the title of Scottish champion. Members shall come under this category at the discretion of the management board. Matthew Turner will come under this category" The above is the actual Andrew Muir proposal for change as posted above and it's worth coming back to this: 1. Strictly, in fact, there is no obvious need for this "new" category of "membership". If you read the existing membership application detail at the homepage, membership ALREADY promises that ANY member can be registered as SCO for FIDE rating purposes - all you need do is provide the membership secy with your DOB (FIDE's only apparent requirement). 2. Maybe our member secy could help here ... it must of course be right to invite ANYBODY in the world, no matter how "Scottish", to join CS (why not), but can we also offer them, as CS currently does, registration for FIDE rating purposes under SCO? Maybe we can, in which case problem solved and Matthew can be rated under SCO, without any further action at all!! 3. In fact, I have a very strong hunch that this may indeed be the case and fully acceptable to FIDE. It would, however, be advisable to revise the membership application details at the homepage to suggest that only members who are "citizens" of the UK (FIDE would like this) and who have also, in the judgement of the CS management board, demonstrated a high level of continuous support for the promotion and advancement of chess in Scotland, can obtain this (single) FIDE rating benefit under SCO (this allows in bona fide Scotland "sympathisers" but allows CS to keep out any mere "carpet-baggers". 4. The "National" eligibility rules for SCO representation in FIDE events is an entirely separate matter. Indeed, Andrew's proposal clearly tries to steer around this. I am not sure whether there is a real CS majority for extending this to include having a Scottish "grandparent" or not. But if there is, I feel fairly sure that it too would probably be acceptable to FIDE. Notwithstanding, I think that this would be a much bigger step for CS to take; it should probably not be taken in haste but only after considerable thought and widespread consultation within the CS membership. The next AGM seems much too quick for this. 5. The same goes for eligibility to play in the Scottish Championship. And this brings us back again to the existing list of "promises" made in the membership application detail, where there is a third problem!! "Members", it says, can play in the Scottish Championships. This should surely be corrected to ensure that the promise is restricted to whatever CS has judged the existing eligibility rules (linked to nationality and / or residency) to play in the Scottish to be at any point in time - as this reflects the actual historic and current state of affairs. 6. At present, Vishy Anand or Magnus Carlsen can certainly join CS (wish they would!!). But they wouldn't be eligible to play in the Scottish as they don't meet the criteria laid down to do so, either on "nationality" or "residency". Fascinating! Back to top admin Site Admin Joined: 09 Jan 2007 Posts: 1386 Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 9:52 am    Post subject: Craig, The Scottish is an Open event. Anyone can play in it. There are strict guidelines as to who can be Scottish Champion Back to top David Deary Queen Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 98 Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:10 am    Post subject: Andy said: Quote: David, you accuse others of being 'techy' when challenged. Does this accusation not apply to you in Spades? Most, if not all, of your posts start from a position where you have an opinion without any knowledge or understanding of what is actually going on. Your position is too flexible, changing to suit your latest perceived gripe. What massive contribution, other than simply playing, have you personally made to either CS or chess in Scotland generally? Andy, I am pretty tetchy and techy. It’s a character flaw and I wont try to deny it. Generally speaking if you do not know the answer to a question is it not better to ask people to answer it? That is what I am doing but to suggest I have no knowledge or understanding is simply untrue. (I could have accepted limited but no knowledge come on... ) My position may seem flexible but in my view there is a lot to gripe about and often I change focus especially when I am losing. On my own contribution to CS. I simply play nothing more, nothing less… If time would afford I would try to do more but my job and social/family commitments make it extremely difficult to do so. However, if something were to change in the future I would have no compunction about putting myself forward if I believed I could do things better. That said, I don’t think I have ever held myself on a podium as an example to all so I'm not sure how asking me to explain this helps. It actually surprises me that some officials in CS dedicate over 30hrs a week to CS and I tip my hat to them. However, this does not translate into being beyond accountability to members. Mike said: Quote: No you have not explicitly said it but it would appear from your your posts, where you ask why they have not done this and that , that you believe that it does not have limited resources and those people behind it are not volunteers with limited free time. Indeed at one point you asked whether ECF was even more bloated than CS - clearly implying that CS is 'bloated' in your view. CS is not some faceless monolithic organisation rather it is made up of chess players willing to give up their spare time. Quite a few of the positions within are not filled and I have no doubt it would welcome new blood, whatever their views. Indeed an injection of fresh blood with new ideas would I am sure be positively welcomed. Mike, Lots of organizations have limited resources and quite often those involved directly cannot see the wood for the trees as it were and where resources could me moved or redirected. It is more a cycle of we have to spend this on A,B & C because we do it every year. I am not suggesting CS is like this but I am only asking the question. In highlighting areas where I believe ‘savings’ can be generated I am not criticising anyone and also in areas where I believe CS has mismanaged or not communicated adequately to members. I fully appreciate we have limited bodies and finances but if there is scope for improvement lets explore it if resources don’t allow lets plan to do it in the future. Personally, I think it is better to stimulate debate and discussion on this noticeboard and there are a few instances where I post some things simply to noise some people up and get debate ebbing and flowing. In my view it works… _________________ Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional! Back to top Geoff Chandler The King of Posters Joined: 17 Feb 2007 Posts: 756 Location: Edinburgh Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 12:10 pm    Post subject: The solution is simple. We swap a Scottish player for Mathew. I put forward Dave Archibald. (the English think he's English anyway.) Get Dougie to knock up David's grade 5 pts higher than Mathews and they will simply snap at it. That lot are absolutely grade barmy. They won't see past the numbers. Playing for Scotland. Mathew is already a member of CS (Member No. 13234) along with 18 other players called Turner. Change his membership number with Martin Turner (member 7044) making it appear Mathew has been a member of CS for ages. Sorted. PS: Adams and McShane are Scottish names. Has anybody thought about seeing if these chaps would like to play for Scotland? Back to top Mike Scott King Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Posts: 676 Location: Edinburgh Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:43 pm    Post subject: David, You seem to have done a body swerve - my comment was to address your previous suggestions that CS was 'bloated' and the general impression given in a number of posts that you believed that CS was some monolithic body with deep pockets with the financial and time resources to do much more than it already does. It is not. I stress this point I think the points about efficiency are very important but they do require an initial investment of time etc which can be hard to find when the few volunteers are already fully occupied. I think also it is often best initiated by some-one coming in and asking questions and suggesting alternatives. Could you be the man? What the few have managed is quite impressive - just look at the web site the grading system the number of things happening for the juniors (the time put in by Phil & Jacqi is unbelieveable!). Back to top Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First         Chess Scotland Noticeboard Forum Index -> General Chess Chat All times are GMT Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next Page 7 of 8   Jump to: Select a forum Public Area----------------General Chess ChatJunior Chess ChatAnnouncementsMembership NewsInternational TournamentsTournament ChatThe Games ZoneAsk the GraderThe Arbiters JotterSwap ShopWhy don't you??? Members Only----------------Archive  You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group. Hosted by phpBB.BizHat.com