+- Forums (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Members Only (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-16.html)
+--- Forum: Tournaments and Events (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-9.html)
+--- Thread: Richardson 2012-13 (/thread-371.html)
Re: Richardson 2012-13 - andyburnett - 18-01-2013
Jim Webster Wrote:Quote:From the rules
12 In the event of an appeal against a decision by the Arbiter, the case shall be referred to the Arbiters' Committee whose decision shall be final. The club's claim must be accompanied by a £20 fee, refundable at the discretion of the committee. The Director of Home Chess shall have the power to alter or modify the foregoing rules in such manner as he may think necessary.
Andy Burnett may not like the little bit hidden away in rule 12, but equally it is the Home Director who is empowered make rule changes - and isn't that post currently vacant? So no-one is currently able to change the rules, I think!
Why would I not like it Jim? I'm not following you there - it is Andy Muir who would like the rules to be completely different to what they are.
Re: Richardson 2012-13 - David Deary - 18-01-2013
You're right enough Jim. That is odd... the only bit that refers to it is under Marketing Director where the minutes state: "Stephen had also offered to cover the Home Director role if there was no one available.". I'm guessing there was no-one else available but I can't remember if we voted on it or not. It looks like we didn't :\
If it is Steve, I believe he delegates responsibility for running the tournaments to whoever organises it and for the Richardson I think that is Andy Muir.
Re: Richardson 2012-13 - Jim Webster - 18-01-2013
Andy
I only meant that you may not like the idea that a director, even the Home Director, has the power to change the rules without constraint.
I agree that Mr Muir may particularly not like this rule as it makes his attempts to implement an interpretation invalid.
As a matter of interest - I feel that part should be taken out completely and no rule changes be implemented in any current season, with changes only being effective for following seasons. Equally once even 1 entry has been accepted no rule changes be allowed for remainder of that season.
Re: Richardson 2012-13 - Jim Webster - 18-01-2013
Quote:If it is Steve, I believe he delegates responsibility for running the tournaments to whoever organises it and for the Richardson I think that is Andy Muir.
That's fair enough, but surely it would have to be publically documented somewhere to be legitimate and have any acceptable credence.
Re: Richardson 2012-13 - David Deary - 18-01-2013
Jim Webster Wrote:That's fair enough, but surely it would have to be publically documented somewhere to be legitimate and have any acceptable credence.
Completely agree.
I am just giving what my understanding is, I could be talking utter tripe. Its been known... :U
Hopefully Steve will post and provide some clarity.
Re: Richardson 2012-13 - Adam Bremner - 19-01-2013
There is a really easy way around this, just publish your team lists the night before a game. Each captain can email Andy and get it posted on here.
I don't like this 80 points rule, just because it appears to be a tad convenient, but OK people playing out of published order to a certain extent is fine. If the reason for doing this is to put out a team that is your strongest on current form, or just simply to rotate who gets the higher people then there should be no objection. All it does is stop one team gaining a prep advantage over another. Also as there has been a comparison to 4NCL, then it is worth pointing out they follow this idea, and both team lists for the following day are put up online.
So, would teams be happy to do this (and I'm looking at the two Andy's in particular here), and if not, why not? Because as it stands I can't see any reason to avoid doing this unless you feel you are losing an "advantage" from it, BUT importantly, it becomes equal, and all down to the chess.
Re: Richardson 2012-13 - andyburnett - 19-01-2013
Hi Adam,
I would be happy with this solution as a compromise - I actually proposed something similar in an internal club e-mail yesterday morning...
Quote:P.S. One possible solution (with my non-angry head on) is that both teams e-mail their board order to Andy Howie (for example) by 9pm tonight who then swaps them to the opposing captain.
...but I guess things deteriorated before it got an airing
Of course the 80 point rule is simply unfair on its own. Our board one Alan Tate could be playing one of 4 players whereas he has no option other than to play top board.
Re: Richardson 2012-13 - Adam Bremner - 19-01-2013
andyburnett Wrote:Our board one Alan Tate could be playing one of 4 players whereas he has no option other than to play top board.
I think you have missed a trick there. Surely you should have put: "Our board 1 Ivanchuk, who has recently paid club fees and flown to Scotland, could be playing one of 4 players whereas he has no option other than to play top board."
Re: Richardson 2012-13 - andyburnett - 19-01-2013
Adam Bremner Wrote:andyburnett Wrote:Our board one Alan Tate could be playing one of 4 players whereas he has no option other than to play top board.
I think you have missed a trick there. Surely you should have put: "Our board 1 Ivanchuk, who has recently paid club fees and flown to Scotland, could be playing one of 4 players whereas he has no option other than to play top board."
Adam,
You have just given the game away - now I'll have to get Carlsen at short notice! (Or maybe that Borislav Ivanov geezer - he's a decent player
)
Re: Richardson 2012-13 - amuir - 20-01-2013
DRAWS
W Dragons v Oban/Edinburgh
Castlehill/Dundee v Ed West
Kilmarnock/Ed Civil Service v Troon/Phones
Irvine/Hamilton v Kilmarnock Burns
E Kilbride v Edinburgh B
Kilmarnock/Ed Civil Service v Irvine/Hamilton
Troon/Phones v E Kilbride/Edinburgh B
Edinburgh West 4 - 4 Polytechnic
1. (b) Keti Arakhamia-Grant (GM - 2347) ½ - ½ Colin McNab (GM - 2448)
2. (w) Craig Pritchett (IM - 2380) ½ - ½ Vitalijs Samolins (IM -2396)
3. (b) Jonathan Grant (2173) ½ - ½ Iain Swan (2241)
4. (w) Neil Farrell (2097) 1-0 Eddie Davis (2175)
5. (b) George Neave (2051) ½ - ½ Larry Kirk (2074)
6. (w) Walter Buchanan (2112) ½ - ½ Algirdas Tiuninas (2062)
7. (b) Alan Bell (1946) ½ - ½ Joseff Thomas (2043)
8. (w) Duncan Walker (1884) 0-1 Daniel Abrahams (2006)
Edinburgh West won on board count.
W.Dragons 4.5 -3.5 Hamilton
A Tate (B) 0.5 S Burns-Mannion
A Burnett 0.5 A Muir
A Minnican 1-0 P Coffey
M Orr 0.5 J Redpath
H Olsen 0.5 S Tweedie
R Kynoch 0.5 P Jamieson
E Sloan 1-0 C Tweedie
E Campbell 0-1 T Donohue
E Kilbride 0 Kilmarnock Burns 6 (default)
The Dragons/Hamilton match was played in good spirits.
The draws were made on thursday at the Glasgow League match: Hamilton v Phones
I shall be asking Richardson captains to make proposals for rule changes e.g. board order , FIDE rating in May and votes will be taken. I don't like the position of being controller and player in the same match so rule clarifications would be helpful.