Richardson & Spens

[Ianbrownlee]

and we wont... If you to wish put a motion for change bring it up at the AGM or at least offer practical suggestions as to how to make it work Alan. I genuinely dont see a practical solution unless we agree to publish the player registration forms and play in a strict CS grading order (which I am happy to do).

[Alan Tate]

Andy B and in particular Adam already outlined what needs to be done.

[andyburnett]

and we wont... If you to wish put a motion for change bring it up at the AGM or at least offer practical suggestions as to how to make it work Alan. I genuinely dont see a practical solution unless we agree to publish the player registration forms and play in a strict CS grading order (which I am happy to do).

This to my mind is the simplest solution Ian. I can't recall anyone (on here at least) arguing that such a change isn't necessary/good/workable/etc and unless they do I suggest we make changes for next season.

I'm happy to do the basics of team registrations/updates/whatever is required if it's made simple enough and then liaise with you. Unpaid extra workloads aren't exactly fun for anyone within CS, but I don't think it should be too onerous

All the best,
Andy

[Ianbrownlee]

I'm happy to do the basics of team registrations/updates/whatever is required if it's made simple enough and then liaise with you. Unpaid extra workloads aren't exactly fun for anyone within CS, but I don't think it should be too onerous

we already have the player registration forms in place Andy so there is no more work needed. Douglas Bryson and myself put countless hours designing a form and putting it in place for this years events. I have a complete copy of the player registration form and all the rules have been added to put it in place. It was decided to keep this form confidential and if I get a majority vote at the AGM should a motion arise I will publicise the document for next. I think a couple of points should be made here

1. As home director I control the domestic events and I require support and help (which I gratefully get from my fellow directors including the President and grading director).

2. At the end of the day I must respect the wishes of CS members which in my view are best represented at the AGM. I am not convinced that those wishes are best voiced on the forum (or are a majority representation of CS members) although I do respect the opinions of forum members and I do consider them carefully.

[Ianbrownlee]

Andy B and in particular Adam already outlined what needs to be done.

well here is where we disagree i've already stated what needs to "done" in that a motion (or discussion ) needs to be proposed i.e a discussion or motion at the AGM attended by CS members ( who also vote on who is the home director ) . If you asking my opinion, then the status quo is my preferred option. It's been stated here that the rules favour one club. If we change the rules then the rules would favour players who have more time to prepare than others and I'm sorry if that sounds pedantic but we cant please everyone. Again give me a practical solution and I will consider it

[Kevin Mayo]

I can't see why this is being made so difficult. It really isn't.

First of all, is there a problem? Well, yes there is. It has been voiced from many disparate, respectable sources that there isn't a level playing field when it comes to the Richardson pairings. Let's therefore take that as a considered and reasonable starting position. Consequently a rule change has to be made in order to make this unfair competition fair.
There are 2 possible and reasonable solutions which have been mooted.
The first one (publish team sheets 2 hours before etc.) has been rejected on many practical grounds and an increase in administrative burden. With a long procession of willing volunteers, this option might work. In the real world, and the absence of that queue of volunteers, then no.
That leaves the other option (strict published grading order) as your only solution. As far as I have seen no-one has objected to this. Quite the opposite.

Implement this simple, practical solution. Solve your problem, and make the competition fair.

[Adam Bremner]

Just to solve a couple of practical points to my earlier suggestions. The published pairings could just be released on a public forum post, or on the CS page. Penalty for not submitting team list the night before is -2 board points. That covers penalties, how to release pairings simultaneously, and the other points I hopefully addressed in my previous post. The extra admin would just be 3 times a year, cutting and pasting in names submitted.

I am also interested what others think on the away team gets white idea?

The team pool idea is a good middle ground and if you want to take away even more admin, make a form for captains to submit that can just be copy and pasted onto a page (excel template for example).

Ian, nobody is suggesting making these changes mid season, that would be wrong as you say, but there has been interest for the past few years in making changes. You also asked for a practical solution, and I gave one, but you ignored it. I genuinely would like your feedback on its' practicality.

The problem with only discussing it at the AGM is the vast majority of people at the AGM are not Richardson players (I looked back through the minutes at the atendees), and while they will vote with best intentions and have every right to do so, it is not representative of the people affected. This is why I think the topic needs to be discussed in advance and openly, to gather a good sample of what people want. I appreciate your offer of emailing you personally or phoning, but discussing things in private is not helpful. I would much prefer other people to see views and get involved to get a representative view. What is most popular can then be proposed at an AGM if you so desire, but it will have background, and solid reasons/numbers behind it. As you say, you want to act in the best interests of the members as a whole, which is only done by involving as many people as possible in the discussion. 30 people at an AGM is not doing this. Not everyone can make the AGM due to family commitments, travel issues, other circumstances, and they should not be ignored for that, so it should not be the only place it is discussed. If it has to be the only place it can be implemented formally then fine.

[Ianbrownlee]

You also asked for a practical solution, and I gave one, but you ignored it

actually i didnt ignore it . I considered it just like all the other suggestions.

There are a few practical options which I will consider

The problem with only discussing it at the AGM is the vast majority of people at the AGM are not Richardson players (I looked back through the minutes at the atendees), and while they will vote with best intentions and have every right to do so, it is not representative of the people affected.

The problem with that comment is that the Richardson and other CS events are just that CS events, therefore changes have to be via the CS membership which is represented best by the AGM.

That leaves the other option (strict published grading order) as your only solution. As far as I have seen no-one has objected to this. Quite the opposite.

The only issues with this are team colours and lack of certainty on your opponent. Make no mistake the admin involved in these changes is significant but not insurmountable.

My main issue is that I'm not convinced the overwheming majority want such a change. Should we also impose these changes to the Spens Cup? , the Rose bowl?

This will bt my second season in running these tournaments and will pass my report and recommendations in my yearly report to the AGM.

[Adam Bremner]

The problem with that comment is that the Richardson and other CS events are just that CS events, therefore changes have to be via the CS membership which is represented best by the AGM.

OK, but my comment says it isn't the only place you can have discussion. I also further say that if it needs to be formally implemented at an AGM then fine. My point is get discussion in advance, get reccomendations, then pass or reject it formally at an AGM if needs be. Leaving the majority of the discussion to the AGM is clearly not the best solution.

[George Neave]

So many words! As many have pointed out it is just nonsense that this should need to go to AGM. All that is required is a bit of will power on the part of the event controller. More and more of the players most personally invested in chess who live in Scotland are playing more and more abroad. When you scan this thread it is no surprise.