+- Forums (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Members Only (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-16.html)
+--- Forum: General Chess Chat (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 (/thread-831.html)
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - robin moore - 30-01-2014
Folks,
I feel it's best to move Phil's congress topic to another post. We don't want to sideline or deflect the original thread. Phil has posted important data and thoughts regarding congresses, a topic worthy of discussion in it's own rights. His post has a related connection to the discussion in hand but let's not move away from the thread in hand.
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - StevieHilton - 30-01-2014
Matthew,
My observations are based on reality. I was speaking about this topic as an individual freely expressing an opinion. This, I will continue to do, based on objective observation. They are based on watching the numbers at both congresses and CS tournaments over a number of years. In 1988, The Spens Cup had at least 32 team participating, now barely a third of that, The Elder Trophy: When I won this for the first time in 1991 !!
, there were again 32 entrants, where as last year there were only 2 entrants for this event and I was 1 of them!!Maybe remote play may help restore numbers to a degree, but costs for this have to be taken into account I actually agree, but they would have to be considered when the guidelines for play with the disabled take effect, and I do think that this might be a step forward. The reality is a lot of places even in 2014, are not disabled friendly, therefore a tournament organiser would have to find alternative supervised accommodation, thereby forcing costs up.They will have to comply with the new guidelines. That is the reality Mr Turner, not pie in the sky.
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - Phil Thomas - 30-01-2014
robin moore Wrote:Folks,
I feel it's best to move Phil's congress topic to another post. We don't want to sideline or deflect the original thread. Phil has posted important data and thoughts regarding congresses, a topic worthy of discussion in it's own rights. His post has a related connection to the discussion in hand but let's not move away from the thread in hand.
Folks,
I consider my post to be in the right thread. This thread had digressed away and among other deviations was perpetuating an urban myth - that the number of congresses is reducing drastically. It seemed a good idea to introduce some numbers into the debate.
Transferring my post to another thread would not (IMHO) be appropriate. If I had wanted it to be in a separate thread then I would have started a separate thread. I suggest (IMO) that we leave moderating to the moderators.
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - Matthew Turner - 30-01-2014
Steve,
You can make any observations you wish. What I don't understand is your linking of declining numbers at OTB chess and remote play. Sean has said that there might be 2 or 3 remote boards and that they would have a minimal impact on congress chess. If you think that remote play is going to have a significant impact on declining numbers, then you must surely have a 'bigger' vision for remote chess. Perhaps you could explain what it is?
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - robin moore - 30-01-2014
Ok Phil, but I am struggling to see why you feel the number of congresses over the last decade has relevance regarding the motion.
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - Jonathan Livingstone - 30-01-2014
Re the interesting stats post by Phil, is there anyway to further extend that to tournament entry numbers, year by year? That would be a more accurate measure. We have some small tournaments on the current circuit, such as Inverness/Oban for example. Grangemouth in particular was a big loss, I seem to remember that being quite a big congress. If there is no historical records of combined congress attendance figures, we can always start recording this data to effeciently monitor trends.
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - Phil Thomas - 30-01-2014
Jonathan Livingstone Wrote:Re the interesting stats post by Phil, is there anyway to further extend that to tournament entry numbers, year by year? That would be a more accurate measure. We have some small tournaments on the current circuit, such as Inverness/Oban for example. Grangemouth in particular was a big loss, I seem to remember that being quite a big congress. If there is no historical records of combined congress attendance figures, we can always start recording this data to effeciently monitor trends.
Plenty of data on the grading section to analyse. Results of a quick look at one congress during half a lunch hour follow. Congress selected Glenrothes because its the next long established event coming up on the calendar.
Total entrants in the adults events at Glenrothes in the years when there were 3 adult sections have been.
2013: 98
2012: 94
2011: 99
2009: 101
2008: 84
2007: 101
2006: 90
2005: 129
Once again 2005 was a bumper year.
Once again I see no significant drift upwards or downwards since then.
Does anyone with spare time want to do the same summary for other long established congresses?
They might of course give different conclusions.
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - StevieHilton - 30-01-2014
Matthew,
Matthew Turner Wrote:Steve,
You can make any observations you wish. What I don't understand is your linking of declining numbers at OTB chess and remote play. Sean has said that there might be 2 or 3 remote boards and that they would have a minimal impact on congress chess. If you think that remote play is going to have a significant impact on declining numbers, then you must surely have a 'bigger' vision for remote chess. Perhaps you could explain what it is?
I don't have a vision for remote chess. I am simply considering potential solutions to the problem of declining numbers. Remoteness is not just a geographical term, being disabled is a form of remoteness as well and shouldn't tournaments do all that they can to encourage disabled people to play in events. I have outlined the fact that there are new guidelines coming in from FIDE in regards to play with the disabled. One of the points is that a disabled player cannot be denied entry to a tournament. That means if the tournament hall is not suitable for disabled players, then the onus is on the organisers to provide alternative supervised accommodation, if that is not possible, then play by remote is an alternative worth considering. I have already outlined the difficulties that are faced by disabled people in regards to transport even in this day and age.
I would add that all federations do have a responsibility to help disabled players as well
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - Andy Howie - 30-01-2014
Unfortunately the numbers don't reflect the people running them.
David C is running 3. I am running 2/3 (2 with GCL). ECL run 3, Steve Clark is running 2. Just off of the top of my head
in the past you had lots of people running them...
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - Matthew Turner - 30-01-2014
Phil,
I think your last point possibly slightly misses the point (or at least the one I was trying to make). How 'big' were the congresses that have been lost since 2006/7 and how big are their replacements. Whilst the total number of congresses may have stayed the same, it may mask changes in the size of those events.
I always had the impression that Scottish Congresses had very good prize money compared to their English counterparts. I don't get that same impression today. Of course people might perceive that to only be of interest to a small minority of players, but I think it maybe flags up other trends. 'Local' organisers with contacts may have been better at securing sponsorship. Perhaps this ties into Andy Howie's observation.