Posts: 403
Threads: 57
Joined: Feb 2012
I am against coupling up with congresses. We need to keep Richardson as a flagship event and, as Andy says, this discourages them from playing both. It's not as if we are short of free weekends. We could extend Richardson to have more rounds using the weekends freed up as result of no Grangemouth, Glenrothes and Perth congresses for example.
I do quite like the idea of multiple matches happening on published dates in same venue (not all rounds would need to be at the same venue, we could move it around).
I also think it's essential we keep it to 1 game with slow time control to maximize turnout of our strongest resident players.
Posts: 207
Threads: 12
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation:
1
[quote="andyburnett"][quote="Alex Gillies"]Suggested change to format
Hi Andy
I actually have the same views on byes and always avoid them if I can : but many players use byes and you can still win the event : it should also increase entries to congress and knockout.
Trouble is you cant please all the people all the time.
Although George is suggesting spare weekends now - its the central venue, fixed date, time, organising and costs that I was thinking of piggy backing on. That said perhaps we use it to restart/boost one of these dying congresses - Perth, Grangemouth etc (I still have the challengers trophy from last time it was played)
Alternatively-if it was 8 teams you could do it over a Saturday and Sunday at a central venue
I am sure others have suggestions - something has got to be worth trying
Posts: 576
Threads: 14
Joined: Aug 2011
George, Alex, (& others)
The events calendar has the following entry.
I don't know whose running Perth next year but ....
good luck somebody!!
February
Perth Chess Congress
19/02/2016
Further details coming soon
Posts: 354
Threads: 29
Joined: Jul 2013
Couldn't a portion of the Richardson/Spens entry fees go towards the costs of a "central venue"?
Keep using the SNCL in this discussion only as it is a good model - presumably a good chunk of a teams SNCL £100 entry fee is used for funding venue. Why can't Richardsons, Spens do the same?
Posts: 247
Threads: 6
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
0
Has anyone actually tried asking the clubs not currently in it? It is all very well making suggestions, but everyone posting here already has a team competing under the current regulations, so why not send an email out to all clubs asking what is putting them off entering as things stand? What would it take to get Oban back, for Inverness to enter a team etc?
I would really hope the Richardson just sticks to its guns of 1 game a day, long time control, at a venue appropriate to the teams taking part in that match. UNLESS there would be some feedback from clubs not already in it, that entries would substantially rise with a few changes. Also, please please not a "central" venue.
Posts: 899
Threads: 124
Joined: May 2012
Reputation:
4
Ok let me put this out there. I know of players whose clubs do not enter into so-called club competitions because the clubs don't see the value of entering into these competitions, but still due to the current rules these orphaned players cannot enter these team competitions because they are club affiliated. Add to that players who don't join clubs or are in the country as students and haven't located their local club. Perhaps the time has come either to divorce clubs from the competitions or be more flexible in their rules.
Adam is right in that we should be actively canvassing non-participating clubs why they don't enter. I'll think you'll find falling membership and increased participating costs ( not just entry fees but travelling etc ) being a major factor. Being positive for a moment it amazes me the increasing number of online players in Scotland which continues to rise in my opinion. Perhaps we should consider trying out online tournaments which would be cheaper and easier to run, using sites such as chess.com. You would find a new niche there and if chess Scotland took the lead and organised this , I'm sure it would be a success.
There is not just one solution to this. I also think support from our stronger players to non-participating clubs may also be an idea in both engaging these clubs and raising much needed funds
Posts: 354
Threads: 29
Joined: Jul 2013
I'm on the same page as Adam. Suggested same thing about club feedback etc last season to KR, find out why clubs are not entering, what the issues are. It sounds like a lot of work to me and would surely need a dedicated volunteer to take this up. Is almost an obvious step, yet unlikely to happen.
There are multiple reasons my club Dunbar did not re-enter this season after our maiden voyage last season. To summarise:- (a) the burden of co-ordinating venue arrangements was a put-off, (b) the general uncertainty over where we might have to travel put of some players, along with many players need advance notice of dates re childcare/work etc, © we struggle for volunteers for organising as it is and a central venue would make Spens/Richardsons more attractive.
Also respect Adam's view on the "central venue" not being a good idea, and can appreciate Bon Accord are important to Scottish Chess and are somewhat disadvantaged on the location aspect. Different clubs have different challenges, transport arrangements are generally not an issue at our club, but volunteers and organising are an issue so we have a different perspective.
Posts: 403
Threads: 57
Joined: Feb 2012
Phil Thomas Wrote:George, Alex, (& others)
The events calendar has the following entry.
I don't know whose running Perth next year but ....
good luck somebody!!
February
Perth Chess Congress
19/02/2016
Further details coming soon
Great news!
Posts: 1,920
Threads: 261
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
5
I do, same people that will be organising the Glasgow Congress next season...
"How sad to see, what used to be, a model of decorum and tranquility become like any other sport, a battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee"
