Posts: 944
Threads: 127
Joined: May 2012
Reputation:
4
Hi Guys
I have been in contact with a few woodpushers and we're in active discussion with a view of setting up a Scottish National Online Chess league this year (SNOCL), probably on chess.com If any chess clubs or Leagues are interested please contact me on either ian.brownlee@systemsit.co.uk or admindirector@chessscotland.com , or even phone me on 07899 832770. It will probably be a much shorter time control than the SNCL. This is not a replacement for the SNCL but a stopgap until OTB chess is up and running. We also looking at setting up teams of four or five depending on the wishes of who wishes to play. Some games may also be played on LiChess as well but as you guess this would complicate things a bit.
Posts: 294
Threads: 8
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation:
1
Bon Accord may be interested, will wait more details on format before can confirm as we are already participating in quite a lot.
Posts: 145
Threads: 7
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation:
0
Sounds good, Edinburgh would be interested.
Posts: 944
Threads: 127
Joined: May 2012
Reputation:
4
thanks guys i'll include you on the email trail, i'm starting to get feedback from tafca and ayrshire and lothians in general
Posts: 944
Threads: 127
Joined: May 2012
Reputation:
4
Hi Guys
I'm getting a lot of positive feedback on this and i will list some of this below
1. Time controls I've had suggestions of both 10 + 5 and 45 + 5. I was also thinking of 20 + 5. Can you guys suggest your preferences.
2. Do you want your games played on a Sunday or played during the week?
3. I'm also thinking teams of 5 a la SNCL as well. This will allow more teams as a consequence.
4. If a disconnection then its a loss for that board.
5. Everyone I've spoken to , except 1 IM , has categorically stated games should not be sent to CS for screening or grading, only grading for that platform.
6. Possible a small entry fee per tem either £10 or £20. Monies to go straight to Chess Scotland as income to CS are restricted.
7. Small keepsake trophies for the winners of each division. It looks as if we are going to have a strong division and a weaker division at least.
Please guys, contribute to what you are thinking. I am setting up a group email for everyone who said yes thus far. Please send any comments to ian.brownlee@systemsit.co.uk and/or publish your thoughts on the forum
Ian
Posts: 333
Threads: 22
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation:
3
There is simply no rationale for not sending the games to CS (Ken Regan) for screening, not least that it gives a player a line of defence if they are accusing of getting external assistance by the platform.
Posts: 400
Threads: 9
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
1
(15-10-2020, 05:46 PM)Matthew Turner Wrote: There is simply no rationale for not sending the games to CS (Ken Regan) for screening, not least that it gives a player a line of defence if they are accusing of getting external assistance by the platform.
100% this.
Otherwise it sounds like a free pass for cheaters to me which I would imagine would put people off entering. I'm hoping its a case of word salad from Ian there.
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional!
Posts: 247
Threads: 6
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
0
As an absolute minimum, games should be screened, although even that by itself wouldn't give me enough comfort to play online rapid/long play. I know of people during lockdown who are able to get round these checks by being smart - I'm not going to say publicly how this works incase I give people ideas, but if anyone at CS is interested in these concerns, please drop me a line and I will be happy to explain - I even have the maths to back it up! I would suggest also having an independent panel to review "suspicious" games, of a sufficient strength to understand what is likely human and likely assisted. Relying on platforms is not enough here - as we do not have enough oversight of how this is done in terms of how much human interaction there is and how many factors are considered (although some platforms are better than others on this).
