Olympiad head of delegation - call for expressions of interest

[MOZ]

OLYMPIAD HEAD OF DELEGATION - CALL FOR EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST

The ACF is calling for expressions of interest from people interested in being appointed to the position of Head of Delegation for Australia for the Baku Olympiad (1-14 September 2016).

Applicants must have prior experience in this or a similar management role for Australian chess teams overseas or ongoing involvement in Australian chess administration.

The duties of the Head of Delegation are administrative supervision of the teams and liaison with the organisers and tournament director, and any other similar roles agreed prior to appointment.

In practice the Head of Delegation often deals with log.istics for the teams (including solving billing and accommodation problems with the organisers or attending meetings on the team’s behalf) in order to leave the teams and captains as free to concentrate on chess as possible.


FIDE and the organisers have stated that Heads of Delegation will receive full board at this Olympiad.


http://www.fide.com/component/content/article/1-fide-news/9635-baku-olympiad-announcement-heads-of-delegation.html

We have watched locally, and at times parochially, the appointments/selections of:

• players,
• Arbiters, and then
• Team Captains for the forthcoming Baku event.

We were chuffed when one (and more) of our local Arbiters got a gig. Thanks to Brian Jones' initiative many years back there are many IAs in Victoria as they have gone through the various training courses and subsequent Examinations to become titled.

This is a good development of chess administration in the past decade. No excuse now not have a qualified IA at every senior event in Victoria.

But of course this has introduced a competitive element in respect to appointments to plum events.
For some, Baku looks like a plum event.

So, what are the qualifications to be appointed to OLYMPIAD HEAD OF DELEGATION?

By my reading of the ACF notice, a necessary but not sufficient qualification is for an applicant to have an IO title.
That shortlists the race for plums a bit.

[Axiom]

So who has an IO (International Organiser) title in Oz?

[MOZ]

So who has an IO (International Organiser) title in Oz?

Hmm, good question.
I guess it is on a list somewhere.
Perhaps the ACF web-site; but maybe not because that is being rebuilt.
I will check FIDE first.

[MOZ]

Ahh. The FIDE website has a nice little search function.

IDcode
Name
T
WT
Oth. T.
Fed
Rtg
Rpd
Blz
B-Year
S
F

 3209768
 Anderson-Smith, William


 IO
AUS
1750


1944
M
i

 3215156
 Burgess, Shane


 IO
AUS



1972
M


 3211487
 Gardiner, Graeme


 FA,IO
AUS



1948
M


 3205460
 Greenwood, Norman


 IO
AUS
1611
 1683
 1598
1932
M


 3216322
 Hartland, Gerrit


 IO
AUS



1930
M


 3200663
 Jones, Brian
 FM

 FA,IO
AUS
2009

 2019
1947
M


 3201805
 Sandler, Leonid
 IM

 FA,IO
AUS
2228
 2294
 2199
1962
M

[HydraTED]

By my reading of the ACF notice, a necessary but not sufficient qualification is for an applicant to have an IO title.

What a load of utter nonsense, even by the standards of this site or lack thereof. An IO title is a FIDE title for organising tournaments. It has nothing to do with running a delegation. It is neither a necessary nor a sufficient qualification and arguably not even a relevant one. The necessary qualifications are clearly stated in the notice. It is beyond stupid and a new extension of even your bizarre approach to logic to go ignoring the stated necessary qualifications and making a new one up. But I think I know why you are doing it.

The Head of Delegation for Tromso was not an IO (though she is an IA).

[MOZ]

What a load of utter nonsense, even by the standards of this site or lack thereof. An IO title is a FIDE title for organising tournaments. It has nothing to do with running a delegation. It is neither a necessary nor a sufficient qualification and arguably not even a relevant one. The necessary qualifications are clearly stated in the notice. It is beyond stupid and a new extension of even your bizarre approach to logic to go ignoring the stated necessary qualifications and making a new one up. But I think I know why you are doing it.

The Head of Delegation for Tromso was not an IO (though she is an IA).

A credential such as:

• an International Arbiter title
• an International Master title
• an International Organiser title

when achieved, indicates the holder has reached a skill set as measured by an Examination and demonstrated Experience.
Three titles in this list, and probably some ovelap in the three skill sets.
Using credentials as one of selection criteria between applicants for team-roles is a step forward from selection procedures that rely solely on lobbying.

There is no credential for Head of Delegation at the moment, I presume.
But an evaluation of the qualifications requested for the Australian Head of Delegation shows the nearest matching skill set is the IO credential, in my view.
I am surprised you take the debating position that there is no relevance in the IO skill set to the Head of Delegation duties.

[HydraTED]

A credential such as:

• an International Arbiter title
• an International Master title
• an International Organiser title

when achieved, indicates the holder has reached a skill set as measured by an Examination and demonstrated Experience.

Actually in the case of the listed IOs you are wrong about that. The examination requirement was introduced with effect from Jan 2012 but since its introduction there have been no fresh Australian applications for the IO title. All the listed IOs plus the late Peter Parr received the title by applying prior to the cutoff. This simply required having organised five FIDE-rated tournaments of at least two types and receiving suitable recommendations from Chief Arbiters or other appropriate persons.

Using credentials as one of selection criteria between applicants for team-roles is a step forward from selection procedures that rely solely on lobbying.

I am not quite sure which part of "Applicants must have prior experience in this or a similar management role for Australian chess teams overseas or ongoing involvement in Australian chess administration. " you were unable to read. "selection proceudres that rely solely on lobbying" is your straw-man, and you can continue matching it against FIDE credentials as much as you like but the fact is that the ACF has applied an approach that is superior to both. That said, we have mainly done so to discourage applications that have no chance of success, in particular from overseas junket-seekers.

But an evaluation of the qualifications requested for the Australian Head of Delegation shows the nearest matching skill set is the IO credential, in my view.

Your view is based on a false understanding of how the IO credential was acquired, but even if that were not the case your view would be irrelevant wibble anyway. Having done this sort of job or a similar job well before is obviously a more relevant factor than ability to organise tournaments.

[Axiom]

Maybe we need an IHoD qualification certificate.

[MOZ]

Maybe we need an IHoD qualification certificate.

Even on this thread, variously called
qualification
title
credential
qualification certificate.

If Australia is going to define differently the roles and requirements of the position we would want to be sure that our hosts are getting what they expect and pay for.

We are obliged to take a lead from the official FIDE invitation to attend:
https://www.fide.com/component/content/article/1-fide-news/9635-baku-olympiad-announcement-heads-of-delegation.html

[HydraTED]

If Australia is going to define differently the roles and requirements of the position we would want to be sure that our hosts are getting what they expect and pay for.

And this is another clueless beatup from you since our definition of the roles is in fact sourced more or less exactly from the FIDE handbook, quite aside from being entirely consistent with the summary given by the organisers.

Look, I get entirely what you are really saying here. You are saying that an open and fair merit-based public application process is unwelcome because it might obstruct the chances of someone who happens to be from Victoria gaining the inside running. You are saying we should not have publicly advertised the position at all, and to punish us for doing so you are engaging in a beatup comprised largely of unadulterated bulldust, but in reality not even that good because it has also had some of your silly word games included in the mix.

[MOZ]

.... and to punish us ...

?

Us?
Have you looked at the bottom of the thread to see who reads here?

drukka, Ax and yourself!

[HydraTED]

?

Us?
Have you looked at the bottom of the thread to see who reads here?

drukka, Ax and yourself!

And two cravens, one of them presumably you: "Members who have read this thread : 5". An extremely pathetic number I agree, but people can read as guest. In any case, it's entirely obvious from #1 that your agenda is to push the barrow for Victorians irrespective of merit, and therefore that you will come up with any whimsical and irrational bulldust to serve as a paltry veneer of justification for your "parochialism" along the way.

[MOZ]

And two cravens, one of them presumably you: "Members who have read this thread : 5". An extremely pathetic number I agree, but people can read as guest. In any case, it's entirely obvious from #1 that your agenda is to push the barrow for Victorians irrespective of merit, and therefore that you will come up with any whimsical and irrational bulldust to serve as a paltry veneer of justification for your "parochialism" along the way.

While you persist with the view that the achievement of an International Organiser title is irrelevant (see post #5) as an indicator of capability to be a Head of Delegation, and without merit(see post #12) as an indicator of capability to be a Head of Delegation, I can only hope the Selection Panel is less blinkered and not swayed by learnings that appeal to 'the school of hard knocks'.

[HydraTED]

While you persist with the view that the achievement of an International Organiser title is irrelevant (see post #5) as an indicator of capability to be a Head of Delegation, and without merit(see post #12) as an indicator of capability to be a Head of Delegation, I can only hope the Selection Panel is less blinkered and not swayed by learnings that appeal to 'the school of hard knocks'.

Ah, so you hope the Selection Panel (ie the ACF Council) ignores evidence of past experience in the role being considered, but you think it should very strongly consider evidence of past experience in different roles.

You are engaging in paraphrasing, which you have frequently claimed to oppose in the past. I of course do not oppose paraphrasing automatically; rather, I believe that it should be left to those who are good at it. Anyone can see that I said "arguably not even a relevant" rather than "irrelevant" in #5 and also that my comment about indifference to merit pertained to your original motivation rather than whatever you randomly offered up in the process. You however have no defence to the charge that you are banging the drum for the big V, because you already confessed to it. I suppose if confronted with a hypothetical in which two applicants were identical in all regards save that one was an IO and the other was not, I would consider it an acceptable tiebreaker, just a long way down the list.

The funny thing is that in the Australian chess community it seems to be only certain Victorians (and a very small minority) who carry on like this. No-one from any other state (except perhaps for antichrist when trolling) seems so desirous to impress upon us all that they are in the centre of the universe.

[Just2Good]

If Australia is going to define differently the roles and requirements of the position we would want to be sure that our hosts are getting what they expect and pay for.

That's a good point MOZ. Wouldn't consistency with FIDE titles be best for everyone?