Declining entries

[Alex McFarlane]

I have some sympathy with Andy's view and have said so in the past. (I also think it is to the detriment of Scottish chess and the junior players in particular.)
However I must disagree with "get the GMs, the IMs follow, then the 2200s etc etc and everyone joins in."
Look at the British tournaments which have GMs and IMs (and FMs) but there is still a shortage of 2100s and 2200s competing. It is the absence of these players which make norm chances difficult in a 9 round event or exaggerate the swing effect (easy opponent-tough opponent) in any tournament.

I'm afraid that protecting grades and ratings harms chess. Andy's (and others) greatest service to Scottish chess would be to be selfless and play tournaments to allow others to progress. This could also have the benefit of improving his own performances in the future as more players come through. And just in case I'm seen as attacking the oldies, I also think that youngsters can think too much of their grades/ratings and are not prepared to experiment with new openings etc to improve further.

[Andrew Greet]

In no particular order, here are a few of my thoughts on this general topic, speaking as someone with a 2450+ rating who loves playing weekend congresses:

1) I have little sympathy for the 'I must protect my rating' mindset. My experience of weekend congresses (as well as the SNCL) has been that I'll drop points here and there, but I'll win other events with 100%. The rating balances out over time, and I enjoy competing and learning along the way.

2) Balancing out entry fees and prize money is always going to be tough, and I respect the fact that event organisers face a difficult challenge in costing an event while trying to appeal to as many players as possible. That said, I find it much harder to get excited about events where outright first prize in the Open will not be enough to cover expenses. This is especially true when the prize structure is such that the winner of, say, the <1500 section gets the same reward as the winner of the Open, without any financial recognition of the gulf between the respective skill levels.

3) When it comes to selection for Olympiads and other team events, activity should certainly be taken into consideration when two or more players are of similar playing strength. However, making participation in weekend congresses an essential requirement is going way too far. It wouldn't affect me personally as I always manage to play at least one or two weekenders each year, but it makes no sense to disqualify someone like Colin McNab based on this kind of technicality.

4) Lastly, and I find it surprising that no one has mentioned this so far in the discussion: several weekend events have rating caps in the top section! If we're going to think of ways to encourage more players (and especially stronger players) to participate, then actually allowing them to enter would be a good way to start!

For example, I was looking at the calendar a few months ago and wondered about playing in Inverness; I knew the prize money wouldn't be much, but I thought it could be worth taking a financial hit in order to visit a nice place and possibly pick up a few rating points. But no - it turns out that players rated over 2200 were not welcome. Today I checked again and noticed Kirkcaldy. The top section for this one is limited to players rated under 2000, which rules out the top 83 Scottish players on the latest FIDE list. I guess organisers have their reasons for doing this, but it sure makes it harder for the stronger players to participate when so many events are set up in a way that excludes us from the outset.

[Jim Webster]

Perhaps we should consider the top level players a bit more.....

I wonder how many of the top 83 players would be interested in a 2000+ only weekend congress.  

What sort of prize money would make such an event attractive?  You would need to bear in mind that there would be no terms offered and may well attract imports from outside Scotland

It would need sponsorship of course and a minimum entry field - and I'm not offering Chess Scotland to take this on. This is purely a personal view.

Basic costs - a good venue, FIDE rating costs, FIDE Arbiters, prize fund.
Entry fees would not be cheap either, maybe GM//WGM/IM/WIM free but draw the line there

It is only an idea but is it worth researching and doing a feasibility study on?

I'm not personally volunteering by the way, just putting the idea out there.


This is NOT a Chess Scotland proposal - these are personal thoughts (I am allowed them I think!)

[Adam Bremner]

Perhaps we should consider the top level players a bit more.....

I wonder how many of the top 83 players would be interested in a 2000+ only weekend congress.  

What sort of prize money would make such an event attractive?  You would need to bear in mind that there would be no terms offered and may well attract imports from outside Scotland

It would need sponsorship of course and a minimum entry field - and I'm not offering Chess Scotland to take this on. This is purely a personal view.

Basic costs - a good venue, FIDE rating costs, FIDE Arbiters, prize fund.
Entry fees would not be cheap either, maybe GM//WGM/IM/WIM free but draw the line there

It is only an idea but is it worth researching and doing a feasibility study on?

I'm not personally volunteering by the way, just putting the idea out there.


This is NOT a Chess Scotland proposal - these are personal thoughts (I am allowed them I think!)

I would play it 100% if it was FIDE rated. I would also happily pay a much larger entry fee than normal to help attract the top players. I'm not interested in winning any money, it's just a much more economical option than the 4NCL for getting those games.

[George Neave]

Andrew Greet wrote; "Today I checked again and noticed Kirkcaldy. The top section for this one is limited to players rated under 2000, which rules out the top 83 Scottish players on the latest FIDE list."

Not correct, there is a "Masters" section open to all but offering no prize money at all. The prize is a free place in a future event in Largs (saving the £45 entry fee). As I have written elsewhere, I doubt there are many (any?) who would see that as an incentive to play. When I pointed it out to the organiser, the response was  "if you don't like it, don't play" Hmm...I guess he's not bothered to attract players like me, then, so I will pass.

Personally, unless I have a conflict, I would play most weekenders as long as there is at least some presence of a few 1900+ players and there is a prize to play for.  Like Andrew, I object in principle to events not giving the highest prize to the winner of the top event. Even though I object, I would probably wave my objection if the prize was at least on a parity with lower sections and there was some competitive chess to be had. Personally, I have no concern about FIDE ratings and would play any time control on offer.

As a broader observation, I feel CS and tournament organisers are overly focussed on junior chess. It feels to me that anyone with a degree of talent and who puts in hard work will find ample opportunity to participate up to the age of 18 at which point the game drops off a cliff and you need to be willing to play overseas or 4NCL to progress further. The Scottish Championship is the sole exception to this but does require a 9 day commitment which many cannot give if they have family and work commitments. Personally I would love to see more events over a weekend or single day that could attract similar entrants to the Scottish. The Scottish Blitz a few year ago was fantastic in this respect and it's a shame it has not kept going. Andrew also points out, some events actually will exclude people who are likely to play. After all you do not get to 2000+ without some hard work and commitment which probably means your interested to play some chess. The idea that anyone would run events that exclude you because of you have worked hard and had some success is just perverse (but somehow quite Scottish I think).

[Andrew Greet]

Andrew Greet wrote; "Today I checked again and noticed Kirkcaldy. The top section for this one is limited to players rated under 2000, which rules out the top 83 Scottish players on the latest FIDE list."

Not correct, there is a "Masters" section open to all but offering no prize money at all. The prize is a free place in a future event in Largs (saving the £45 entry fee). As I have written elsewhere, I doubt there are many (any?) who would see that as an incentive to play. When I pointed it out to the organiser, the response was  "if you don't like it, don't play" Hmm...I guess he's not bothered to attract players like me, then, so I will pass.

I stand corrected; I was looking at page 3 of the entry form, where there is a list of sections with U2000 at the top - but I now see the Masters section mentioned elsewhere. 
Still, if I understand it correctly, this congress offers a minimum £250 for the winner of each of the grade-restricted sections, which go all the way down to U1400, whereas for the top (Masters) section, there's a £45 entry fee and no prizes whatsoever, aside from qualification to the Largs event. Not exactly Christmas for the stronger players, is it?

[mclarke]

As a broader observation, I feel CS and tournament organisers are overly focussed on junior chess. It feels to me that anyone with a degree of talent and who puts in hard work will find ample opportunity to participate up to the age of 18 at which point the game drops off a cliff and you need to be willing to play overseas or 4NCL to progress further. 

George, as someone in the trenches of junior chess, I disagree with the idea that CS and tournament organisers are overly focussed on junior chess. It may well be a by-product that for most juniors there is sufficient challenge in playing adults at congresses - but I wouldn't say thats because CS or tournament organisers are focussed on junior chess.

Its the junior orgs (completely volunteer run) who are organising events in their own area; running or helping to run CS events. Last season there were three CS junior events last year - one of which was run by NEJCA (Girls Champs), one of which (Schools Team) LJC staffed (David C and John McNicoll ran); and another (Primary Individual) which had various volunteers from LJC, NEJCA and other adults step up - or it wouldn't have run.

Back when I was a junior, the weekend congresses all had one day junior sections - I don't think any of them do anymore. 

The real issue is trying to keep kids involved as they transition through primary to secondary, and then from secondary to adult life. It's not unique to Scotland, when I've been speaking to people in the ECF, they've got the exact same challenge - but they have a much bigger pool of kids so are feeling the pain less acutely than Scottish chess. 

In Lothians, we've got c. 175 kids coming to our events - IMHO an enterprising organiser could try and tap into giving that audience opportunities - because very few of them are playing outside our events on a regular basis.

[George Neave]

As a broader observation, I feel CS and tournament organisers are overly focussed on junior chess. It feels to me that anyone with a degree of talent and who puts in hard work will find ample opportunity to participate up to the age of 18 at which point the game drops off a cliff and you need to be willing to play overseas or 4NCL to progress further. 

George, as someone in the trenches of junior chess, I disagree with the idea that CS and tournament organisers are overly focussed on junior chess. It may well be a by-product that for most juniors there is sufficient challenge in playing adults at congresses - but I wouldn't say thats because CS or tournament organisers are focussed on junior chess.

Its the junior orgs (completely volunteer run) who are organising events in their own area; running or helping to run CS events. Last season there were three CS junior events last year - one of which was run by NEJCA (Girls Champs), one of which (Schools Team) LJC staffed (David C and John McNicoll ran); and another (Primary Individual) which had various volunteers from LJC, NEJCA and other adults step up - or it wouldn't have run.

Back when I was a junior, the weekend congresses all had one day junior sections - I don't think any of them do anymore. 

The real issue is trying to keep kids involved as they transition through primary to secondary, and then from secondary to adult life. It's not unique to Scotland, when I've been speaking to people in the ECF, they've got the exact same challenge - but they have a much bigger pool of kids so are feeling the pain less acutely than Scottish chess. 

In Lothians, we've got c. 175 kids coming to our events - IMHO an enterprising organiser could try and tap into giving that audience opportunities - because very few of them are playing outside our events on a regular basis.

I don't mean to criticise the good work that folks are doing with juniors. My point was intended to be more about what happens when you reach 18 and what's on offer in the adult game. In a healthy sport one expects to see promotion from junior to senior as offering more opportunity and not less. It's a point for debate really - nothing more.

[mclarke]

I don't mean to criticise the good work that folks are doing with juniors. My point was intended to be more about what happens when you reach 18 and what's on offer in the adult game. In a healthy sport one expects to see promotion from junior to senior as offering more opportunity and not less. It's a point for debate really - nothing more.

Sorry George, I wasn't taking that part as criticism and I didn't mean to come over as defensive as I think I did - sorry about that. I guess my comment is more the part about CS and tournament organisers focusing on juniors - I just don't think that aligns with what those of us in junior circles think - many of us would think the opposite - that the top players are looked after, but the juniors aren't. Some irony there perhaps.

Having run junior tournaments for about two years now, our economics are a lot simpler than a full weekend congress - we can reallocate medals and trophies if we're short of entries or have too many. It must be difficult for adult events when the prize money adds a huge fixed cost to your event. One other thing that is very common in junior chess - is the use of a venue multiple times a season (we play out of the same venue 6 times a year) - so it offers a bit of predictability for our players in terms of travel and what the event is going to be like, and quite a bit of predictability for organisers too. SNCL, David and John's FIDE Blitz also have this element too them - I wonder if that model of reusing a venue multiple times a season is a way forward of driving entries upwards.

[David Clayton]

Just a quick reply to explain why the Inverness Chess Congress restricts entries to U2200.

In order to hold a FIDE rated tournament within a 3 hour playing session, we have to restrict the entries to U2200. It is part of the FIDE Rate of Play Regulations.

We would have to go to 4hr playing sessions to allow above 2200 players to participate, which is impossible to fit in due to the time constraints of the venue.

The other Scottish Chess Tour events do not have this restriction.

I hope this explains why the Inverness Chess Congress operates this restriction.