Of course there will be a selection criteria. They can't send off a team without putting up some sort of criteria. But criteria after the fact is manipulation. Say I want someone to have a shot. Say if I want a bargaining chip to be able to pass to someone and say see I have given you a shot; then they will want criteria after the fact. If my horse wins, no problem. NM goes. If he is top 5, I will say top 6 for playoff etc.
And so politics enters chess. Now do you know why you are not Chief Arbiter Najib? Ref: Here. Or would you need more information?
Mere speculation or competitor analysis and profiling? What have we learnt from chess? We cannot see into the minds of the opponent so we need to learn to reason. We need some basis to predict what our opponents response to our opening will be. We need to "guess" what strategy he will employ. We need to know if there is a plan behind a seemingly harmless move.
The better your profiling, your competitor analysis, the more predictive it is.
So are all these moves because the "player" is dumb or is it because of a deeper plan? Does the plan benefit the chess players or is it only to secure the place of certain officials? That is the question isn't it?
To see the plan, if any, one needs to understand a little about the coming AGM and the new COS (Commisioner of Sports) regulations. I will tell you what I know after this posting. But in the meantime have a look at this. Here. This is one version.
After understanding COS, you will also understand why Greg supported the SEA games selection by telling all and sundry about what happened at the last Olympiad. Think about it. How would I know what to write about unless I was told by someone who was there? And you will also understand why he doesn't want a strong team for the coming Olympiad. Their performance is irrelevant. What is good for the players and the Country is not relevant.
Premeditation? Are we all just pawns in their political game? What happened to the quality of chess?
Coming post. MCF, the iron rice bowl.