Winter Butterfly  -  18b    2/2/03

From Mark Adams

Re the Selction Debate

Hi!,

having just come out of the selection meeting, I thought I'd reply to a few of these emails. I must say that the vast majority of letters received have been very constructive and helpful. However, others have been, shall we say, not so helpful.

The meeting, last Thursday, was difficult and heated and was adjourned unfinished. A follow up meeting has been arranged for early February. It is clear we are not going to please everybody. However, as some of the views on the committee, just like the correspondance received, were diametrically opposed, we will be proposing a number of options to the AGM and will let the members decide. For example, regarding the spouse rule, we will put three proposals, whether to keep the current rule, remove it completely or a third compromise rule to replace the existing one. When we have some concrete proposals I'm going to ask the committee if we can pre publish them in order to get some feedback to see if we're on the right track (for what it is worth, my view on the spouse rule is that it should be scrapped completely. Why should a player who has married a person who just happens to be Welsh (surely out of love and not just to play chess for Wales!!??), and in some cases, not even living in Wales, qualify to play for a country other than their own. If they want to play in an Olympiad, they should use their own county's system of qualification).

My responses to Peter's e-mail are in italics.

 Peter Varley <pacv@design-perception.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

Since everyone else is having a say ...

Most of the previous contributions to this debate have been
fairly long, and I think there's a risk that the obvious could
be overlooked.

The WCU exists to promote chess in Wales. It says so in its
constitution.

The WCU sends teams and individuals to international events
because its members think this encourages chess in Wales. There
are two good reasons for thinking this:

. people like to follow the fortunes of players known to them
competing in international events

. players know that, if they play well enough, they will be
selected for international events, so they have an incentive
to play more to improve their standard of play

There's a third possible reason:

. successes by players representing Wales might encourage
other people in Wales to take up chess

Personally, I don't find this one all that convincing, as chess
doesn't attract much media attention. However, it's a valid
viewpoint, and people who hold it will probably come to very
different conclusions from mine.

Agreed!


As to my own opinions:


Eligibility.
-----------

Ideally, only people active in the Welsh chess scene should be
eligible to represent Wales. These will be the people who are
known to chess-players in Wales, and also it's important that
players close to being selected get the chance to play players
previously selected.

Tentative agreement as it is difficult to judge on one meeting between a fringe player and a selected one (e.g. I was a piece up and about to queen against a top player but my flag fell fractionally before his) and therefore would not be a great aid to selection. Personally my view is that if the player is Welsh and is actively playing enough chess no matter where, then that's fine - but I take the point of James Cobb that playing in the Welsh should influence selection. I suspect however that we will be using the Welsh for some form of selection criteria.

In practice, many people who are part of the Welsh chess scene
will find it necessary, sooner or later, to take employment in
England. It would be unreasonable to disqualify them from
selection on the first day they start work, so some sort of
compromise is needed. This is where the "associated with Welsh
chess" criterion comes from.

Agreed!

Back in the early 1980s, when this was discussed at a WCU AGM, I
suggested that a good guideline as to whether someone retained
an association with Welsh chess was whether he had a current WCU
rating. At the time, that required a minimum of 16 games in
Wales each year. Most people at the meeting thought it
reasonable that anyone wanting to represent Wales should show up
for (at least) either (a) the Easter Congress and two other
weekend tournaments or (b) three weekend tournaments and a
county match. In any case, no-one came up with a better
suggestion, so it was agreed.

This was a guideline, not a hard-and-fast rule, so the selectors
were entitled to make exceptions in exceptional cases. Also,
it was a test of whether someone who used to be part of the
Welsh chess scene is still making an effort to stay in touch,
not a way in for people who have never been part of Welsh chess.

Somehow, this got watered down over the years, but I haven't
seen anything suggested since which I think improves on it. I
certainly don't think much of the idea of trading off playing
strength against different degrees of qualification. A player is
either eligible or he isn't.

My personal opinion is that the selectors have been overly
generous in interpreting "continued association with Welsh
chess" and have allowed rather too many exceptions in cases
which weren't all that exceptional. However, I'd rather put up
with overly generous selectors than restrict them by introducing
rigid rules. If we don't think that our selectors act in the
best interests of Welsh chess as they see them, we shouldn't
appoint them.

I have been on nearly every selection meeting for the last 15 years and we certainly haven't be over generous in the way that you suggest but I accept the reason for your  point if it is based on perception. We are weak at informing the membership why we select a particular squad.

As far as appointing selectors - bear in mind the selection committee is not a quango. Most selectors are elected at zonal meetings and AGM's There can be a different representative every time there is a selection meeting so consistency is a problem. Voters must take responsibility for the people they elect to the committee.


Playing Strength.
----------------

Playing strength isn't as important as other contributors have
suggested. For the lower boards in the Olympiads, and for junior
international tournaments, it doesn't matter all that much who
is selected. It makes very little difference to placings in a
Swiss tournament.

In any case, selectors aren't always going to make the best
selections, just as players aren't always going to make the best
moves.

What is important is that the selection procedure is seen to be
fair. This is something else which follows from the duty to
encourage chess in Wales. Blatantly unfair selection procedures
would be discouraging.

That said, selection on grading is a bad idea. One of the
problems we have already is that selections are made on the
basis of who was playing well a year or more ago, not on the
basis of who is likely to be playing well six months in the
future. Using gradings in the selection procedure won't change
this and may even make it worse.

Naturally I disagree with this. If you look at my grading proposal it takes a weighted average over the last 3 published grades, national and International. The most current grade has the greatest weighting and this current grade is NOT the most recently published grade but a recalculation of all games played up to the selection meeting. After this we produce a graph to show a projected rating making a best estimate of what the players rating could be at the time of the competition in question (admittedly not 100% accurate, but applied across the board it should be good enough). A junior's curve on the graph will probably be much steeper than an established player and could, in theory, 'get in' ahead of a higher rated established player. This method has already be used at junior selection meetings.

Besides which, there is other information which doesn't
necessarily show up in the numbers but which selectors ought to
take account of. For example, what board order do people play in
for clubs and counties? If a junior is working his way up
through his club team's board order, it's possible that his club
captain knows something that the selectors don't.

Good idea in theory, but in practical terms it would be difficult to collate and analyse this information. For example, every one who wishes to be considered for Wales HAS to send their results in to me. This shows selectors that they wish to be considered. Only 3 players ever do this regularly.

Concerning juniors, I don't agree that there's a good case for
giving preference to under-18 (or under-21) juniors for senior
events. In practice, most of them go to university in England
and are never seen again. (Absolutely)  Also, for a selection procedure to be
seen to be fair, it should consider performances over a number
of years (ruling out all but a few under-18s) rather than just
one or two good results just before the selection meeting.

My grading proposal covers this although the weightings are less the further back you go.

On the other hand, I think there's a good case for giving
preference to players under 35, other things being roughly
equal. Chess players are supposed to peak between 35 and 40, and
when selecting a team for six months in the future, it makes
sense to allow something for continued improvement. Also, I
agree with the point others have made that younger players are,
on average, fitter and likely to stand the strains of foreign
travel and a long tournament better.

True - but taking juniors to an Olympiad is a BIG responsibility for the managers and the squad. Even at the last Olympiad, in my view, the behaviour of some of the 'adults' left something to be desired (btw our junior player was impeccably behaved here). In fact, I would go as far to say that some players brought Welsh Chess in to disrepute. However, most Olympiad players and managers would agree that the actual make-up of the squad, the personalities involved, the team spirit i.e. the ability to get on with everyone, are also vital considerations when selecting.


Visibility.
----------

I think the biggest problem is visibility. Behind closed doors,
the selection procedures may actually be fair, but to the
outside world they aren't seen to be fair. Quite often, the
selectors themselves aren't seen at all. I don't recall seeing
any selectors taking notes at tournaments, and I haven't heard
that selectors regularly consult county or club captains about
who is playing well and who is improving.

Agreed to a certain degree. You cannot rely on selectors to do this. It just won't happen.This must be a two way effort with players sending their results AND games in regularly. Although, saying that, it is not easy for the 'lower graded' selectors to arrive at selection conclusions based on game scores. Perhaps the chairman of selectors should be at least 2200 and should be responsible for this?

I realise that selectors are volunteers, usually busy people
with several other jobs. So are players. It's reasonable, in my
mind, that if a player is making the effort to get a place in
international team, the selectors should also make some effort
to find out whether he deserves it, and should be seen doing so.

Can you suggest how a selector can be 'seen' to be doing this?

Thanks for the comments Pete. They will certainly be taking into consideration at the next meeting.


Best wishes to all,

Peter Varley