Chess Scotland Noticeboard

Phil Thomas · King Joined: 26 Mar 2007 Posts: 758

Proposal 4 on the list of agm motions has been published today.

The three junior directors consider this long complex motion to be a vote of no confidence in our activities over the previous 12 months. If motion 4 was passed we would have no choice but to step down, 2 at the agm and myself following Euroyouth 2009 - if successfuly elected at the agm

In my dual role as chair of SJC a conflict of interests also arises. I will not allow SJC to run a national competition in which one region of the country (the Lothians) does not have to pay the entry fee --based upon the logic of return to a long standing practice.

Which means that if proposal 4 is passed then SJC will run a nationwide primary team competition which will be in no way a joint venture with Chess Scotland.

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

Phil,
The Lothian teams have not had free entry into the national team, either this last season or in earlier seasons. Indeed our P5under (which came second in the final) had to enter twice (and pay twice) to ensure qualification.

This motion is not an attack on the three directors - it’s a suggestion that there were issues with the way the team event was organised last year and the motion is a suggested way forward. Just because we believe there is room for improvement in some areas does not imply any lack of respect for the incredible amount of time and effort you have all put in.

I believe that by formalising an engagement with ALL the junior organisers - and not just the SJC - will improve communication and exchange of ideas and help to prevent some of the problems that arose last year.

As you know one of our concerns in the Lothians was that qualification to the finals was not a level playing field. There appeared to be teams in the finals that had not had to qualify (though in the event of a strong team in remote area without any other entrants that would be reasonable) or if they had qualified had done so from very very weak events.

Lynsey · Rook Joined: 26 Feb 2007 Posts: 77

I'm confused.

SJC - CS ... are they not pretty much the same characters these days? (or soon will be from the AGM).

If so, then why the need for CS and SJC, why not just one?
Or is the plan that SJC will intergrate into CS and SJC will cease?
Or will the new CS officials again outsource stuff to the SJC?
If events are outsourced to SJC yet really they are supposed to be CS events etc by CS directors who are managing CS why would they outsource to SJC (themselves) really?
Does that mean the directors do or do not support CS?

Surely otherwise there could potentially be conflicts of interest, undermining of an organisation or divided opinions or even double the work for those involved?

My understanding of all the prosals is that everyone wants some type of management restructure. Perhaps an SGM should be called with pitches from members on what could work best with a timed Q&A seeing as there is unrest in the structure?

admin · Site Admin Joined: 09 Jan 2007 Posts: 1386

Lynsey · Rook Joined: 26 Feb 2007 Posts: 77

Thanks Andy, I did not.

Jacqui Thomas · King Joined: 01 May 2007 Posts: 340

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

I am sorry but if you had four teams then only 1 could qualifed yet where there were just two teams (Kirkhill and Bishopton; Georgetown A&B) BOTH get direct entry.

Did the Dreghorn teams come through a qualifier?

Yes Lothians did have a second qualifier but the confusion over whether it was being run or not resulted in both Sciennes and South Morningside not being able to attend. Which was fortunate for Gillespies.

Given issues with having resources/time to run qualifies it seems daft that in fact there was a second Lothian qualifier - why was there no consultation with the lothian organisers at the start of the season to run just the one qualifier?

My point is that there should be some recognition that there is a big difference in strength between the different qualifier events (even between the two Lothian qualifiers). Some mechanism should be enabled - NOT specific to Lothians - that would allow additional qualifiers from stronger qualifier events to be invited. So perhaps the teams that finish just outside a qualification slot are ranked on grade, and the top 2 or 3 teams qualify to the final as best runner ups.

Angus McDonald · King Joined: 08 Apr 2009 Posts: 162

I can't see a problem with motion 4.

It addresses problems to do with selection and regional representation which do need to be considered for the future of junior chess and indeed all chess in Scotland.
It will be much healthier to see all those involved in junior chess and putting their money and effort into junior chess as stakeholders. I also stongly support motion 1 as I think things would have been better for all coming into junior chess in the last 10 years if such a committee had already been in place. In the 21st century feudalism just won't work and quite rightly so. The future of Chess means involving all those who wish to be involved who are enthusiastic and committed to the sport/game.

We are very fortunate that so many still offer their services in a public spirit with very little interest in self promotion.

Jacqui Thomas · King Joined: 01 May 2007 Posts: 340

Mike
I have broken your points down & answered -

Angus McDonald · King Joined: 08 Apr 2009 Posts: 162

Motion 4 takes us all nearer to what the Chess Scotland Constitution states. Constitution as of August 2007.

11.2.1 Junior Board - Home Chess Director (Junior), Schools Development Director, Representatives of the junior leagues, regional organisations or junior sections of Open leagues which are affiliated to Chess Scotland, Event organisers and other personnel appointed by the Home Chess Director (Junior) and Schools Development Director, and at least two young people appointed as decided by the Junior Board

This formation of the 'Junior Board' is far more democratic than what we currently have and would allow for regional representation and for representation of young chess players themselves.

I personally would like to see the 2 junior positions go to juniors who have served their country well and who have graduated the International Junior set up. Also perhaps positions given to older juniors who have organised tournaments and given much of their time whilst youngsters to chess.

I say inclusiveness will increase participation and help all go upwards and forward and note that the Chess Scotland Constitution does indeed allow for just that.

Also! I appreciate Mike's comments about finding a way that International participation won't be dependant on how big your parents bank balance is. Our situation is that our children were encouraged into Chess through a project supported by Public money. Unfortunately there isn't funding for the young talent that came through from that project. It may well be that we won't be able to continue to support our children's participation and I know of other parents in a similar position.

There needs to be support for talent and achievement from GM right down to junior level. In my opinion a country which doesn't support achievement won't achieve that much. Achievement in a mind sport/game is at least comparable to that in a more physical pursuit. imho.

Don't think I have much more to say about things other than that.

So best wishes to all for the upcoming Euros and Oh, Yes! in connection to planning. I think a plan for junior Chess is something 'WE' as parents who put up thousands to support our children 'represent' their country should be involved in and it shouldn't be just the plan of 1 person or 1 set of parents or that much of people who arn't or don't have children involved in the junior international set up.

Ultimately a goal of the plan could be results orientated and that we all support each other to see if 1 or more of the juniors could challenge for a top 10 place in the Euros or Worlds within the next 5 years.

That's truly all for now.

regards,

Angus