Criteria used to select players for special awards must be scrupulously and transparently fair.
They must not be formulated in a way that could favour one candidate over another. For this reason it seems to DR and other concerned persons that the rules governing the nomination of players for First Citizens Bank Sports Foundation’s Junior Male Player of the Year Award need to be independently reviewed and readjusted to meet the demands of justice and fair play.
How indequate the selection criteria are in this respect may now be seen in the nomination of 16-year-old FM Joshua Johnson over eight-year-old CM Rayden Rampersad for this significant award based on their 2015 performances.
Let us first consider the major reason given by Keevin James, chairman of the three-member Independent Committee assigned the task of nominating a candidate for the FCB Award.
In reply to a query from Rayden’s father over the nomination, James observed that “though Rayden’s performances were exemplary and his achievements merit recognition, you will appreciate that he must be compared to others who have done well.
The attempt is to be as objective as possible, hence the criteria.”
Later, James noted that Rayden’s results, particularly in the first category of the criteria (which weighted the heaviest) were not good enough.
To illustrate, he pointed out that Joshua placed a close second in the national championships. “This is the culmination of a process especially designed to determine who is the best player in the country and he was the runner up. And this is playing against all the best players in the country, not just juniors. I think particularly in this section the rubric produced the right result.”
Sadly, however, it appears that James and his committee employed a rubric that, instead of producing the right result, seems rather unfair to young Rampersad.
The fact is they used the result of a senior tournament as the major criterion by which to decide on their candidate for the Junior Male Player of the Year Award.
As one commentator observed: “This alone is disadvantageous to Rayden as he is only eight years old and could not be expected to compete effectively against senior players.” Given the same circumstances and the same criteria, it would seem that the chances of a young player such as Rayden gaining the nomination for the FCB junior award would be slim indeed.
Already, the deck seems stacked against him.
By comparison, Rayden’s achievements have made indelible chess history. Apart from his successes in tournaments at home and abroad, including the Under-8 Absolute National Youth Championship, Rayden became the youngest player in the country to earn a FIDE rating (1448).
Later, at the CAC Youth Chess Festival, he gained the FIDE title of Candidate Master and the Silver Medal for placing second. Again, he was the youngest TT player to earn such a distinction.
The eight-year-old chess star, in fact, has become an inspiration for the younger generaion of players.
The apparent lack of transparency in this Independent Committee’s decision is another worrying matter for Rayden’s supporters.. Not content with this outcome, David Martin, Rayden’s coach and head of the GMPS Chess Club, requested from the T&T Chess Association the full calculation used to arrive at the nomination. “We were presented with an unsatisfactory answer via Bhisham Soondarsingh,” Martin recalled.
He believes that in a matter such as this, where players are being selected for prestigious awards, the process should not only be transparent but also accountable to all the parties concerned.
Other questions have been asked about this nomination process which, in DR’s view, need to be properly aired in the interest of correction and improvement.
Why, for example, were the criteria for selection not brought before a TTCA general meeting for discussion and formal approval? Why was Naresh Bhola, a member of the Association’s management committee, appointed as the third member of the “Independent Selection Committee”? Is the country’s chess community so lacking in individual unattached members of experience and proven integrity?
“Justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done”. This principle is valid not only in legal matters.