Or am I missing the point? I've been reading some of the attacks on Greg with some interest. It feels a little like the experience I went through. Look here. The official I referred to is not Greg.
What do I see in the Jimmy, Najib and Greg discourse? I see a desire to be open about the selection criteria for the Women Masters. Is the criteria perfect? Probably not. But it's a step in the right direction. There is engagement at least.
In my case (above); prior to me wanting to set up criteria it was all the President's choice. Mark was missed out on a few occasions. No explanations given.
Question. Was it as open before Greg? Were any criteria published before him? I heard it was a lot worse. Have I been mislead or is it that we have short memories? Shouldn't this new openness be encouraged?
I had a discussion with Greg a few weeks before the Women Masters when he met my sponsor. One thing we discussed was conflict of interest. I told him that there is nothing wrong for him to be in the selection committee but he must abstain from voting when it comes to his students.
I note Najib's point that the selection criteria must be established before the players are selected and not the other way round. As chess people we know the significance of move order.
So was this done? Is there a selection committee or was the decision solely his? Was the selection process done without conflict of interest? I don't think these points are properly established.
So in the absence of this confirmation, I can only tentatively conclude that, this is a step for the better and the virulent attacks are not justified.
My suggestion to Greg, is to examine the points raised by Jimmy Liew and Najib and come up with firm criteria for the next Women Masters and post it up early so everyone knows what to gun for next year.
But I can't shake the feeling that there is a hidden malevolent hand somewhere.
ps: Greg, the selection committee members should also be named.