26-01-2017, 01:49 PM
Hi Guys
I've taken a half day off to study my probable opponents games so I can be properly prepared for tonights game against Cathcart.....
I'll try and honestly answer your points....
1) A genuine oversight on my part at the time. However we are trying to adopt the principle of using this time in the month to factor in any problems we encounter in submitting the results to FIDE and for the team captains to check the results we have posted. For example there were several errors in the results we had to sort out and one team didnt submit any PNUMS at all. Considering only the home captain submits the results this only increases the margin of error. Overall three players played who werent player registered and one player wasnt FIDE registered ( and will probably register for a foreign chess federation) This all adds to the administration both to myself and especially to the FIDE grader. WE also picked this week as a standard (with the February date being used as a spare) in a bide to avoid both the SNCL and also to avoid other venues) In our eagerness to avoid congress I missed Irvine. Sorry but in future we are limited to what date which can use.
In answer to your other query I can only say that the next round draw will be made by the executive director (Andy Howie) and the membership secretary (Karen Howie) this coming Sunday at the Hamilton Junior Congress at St Margaret's Hall, Airdrie. Andy will forward the draws for the Richardson Cup, Spens Cup, and Campbell Rose bowl to me and they will both be forwarded on and published on the CS website. That will give all teams five to six weeks to agree on a venue and events. If a team genuinely gant play before then I will consider postponing the game for one week if both teams agree to terms such as immediately sending the results that evening and they double check they are fielding eligible players before the match. Remember that date is a guide for the final date that has to be played. If one team insists on playing on that date I need to know ASAP before I consider my ruling in which I may consult the arbiters committee for advice. At the end of the day I may have to rule according to the rules which are explicit
2. This part has been raised before. I agree with Jim Webster that to make serious headway it should be discussed at the AGM as Jim suggests. I personally am not in favour of it and not all teams are in favour of it either. If we are to swap team lists in the manner it would limit who would play that day. If team lists were given one hour before a match it would put an onus on teams submitting lists either by email and/or on site which would mean the home team booking the venue at least for one extra hour and the away having to arrive at least one hour earlier to give and receive. the lists There would also have to be rules changes including penalties for those who havent complied. I just think its one administrative burden too many. If both teams want to swap their teams voluntarily and it isnt binding, who am I to stop that?
3. The problem is this is twofold: mainly some clubs still do not have digital clocks and to impose a penalty for those who do, it should be a qualified FIDE arbiter who knows how to alter the time controls. I see three types of digital clock in circulation and they all operate differently. Moreover I would bet if any time control is changed it would be easy particularly in a time scramble. For this to work we would require a central venue (more cost to chess scotland) and/or more FIDE arbiters. At the moment we are too thin on the ground to accomplish this practically. In summary I am not averse to this if we have more resources and more qualified people available to administer the clocks
the poll was on the forum and not canvassed to CS members and CS membership clubs. I agree with Jim 100% it should be discussed at the CS AGM and published on the agenda. I just dont think its practical and its too easy to go wrong unless either teams turn up an hour early ( at cost to both teams), the home teams give away teams boards to prepare and the tournament director both given authority to penalize
I'm actually in favour of a strict CS grading policy with CS published list. I've never been in favour of live grades anyway. If the published grade is out of date when why cant we have the pushed grades every six months instead of a year (sorry Dougie)
I've taken a half day off to study my probable opponents games so I can be properly prepared for tonights game against Cathcart.....
I'll try and honestly answer your points....
SBMannion Wrote:1) Next Round of the Richardson is to be played by Sunday 19th March 2017. That weekend we have the Irvine congress. If one team insists on playing that weekend and the other says No, what happens? The team saying they must play, may make the excuse that they can't raise a team (even if they can) in order to weaken the other team who may want to play at Irvine. I can't work out why a clash like this is in the calendar.
2) I agree with Alan Tate. To have a serious Fide Rated event, you should know at least one hour before the game starts so you can prepare. The recent Cathcart - Hamilton match favoured Hamilton as Cathcart did not know which players they may play, whereas I managed to prepare for Alan Grant on board 2, with the right colour! Alan Grant was disadvantaged as he knew that I would have something ready, or instead as he did, play something that is not his regular, meaning he was on the back foot before he started.
From Alan Tate posting it sounds like he encountered the same problem.
3) Should increments be introduced to avoid Roddy McKay losing on time in the quick play finish(his opponent had 7 seconds). Roddy had Queen vs Queen + Pawn
1) A genuine oversight on my part at the time. However we are trying to adopt the principle of using this time in the month to factor in any problems we encounter in submitting the results to FIDE and for the team captains to check the results we have posted. For example there were several errors in the results we had to sort out and one team didnt submit any PNUMS at all. Considering only the home captain submits the results this only increases the margin of error. Overall three players played who werent player registered and one player wasnt FIDE registered ( and will probably register for a foreign chess federation) This all adds to the administration both to myself and especially to the FIDE grader. WE also picked this week as a standard (with the February date being used as a spare) in a bide to avoid both the SNCL and also to avoid other venues) In our eagerness to avoid congress I missed Irvine. Sorry but in future we are limited to what date which can use.
In answer to your other query I can only say that the next round draw will be made by the executive director (Andy Howie) and the membership secretary (Karen Howie) this coming Sunday at the Hamilton Junior Congress at St Margaret's Hall, Airdrie. Andy will forward the draws for the Richardson Cup, Spens Cup, and Campbell Rose bowl to me and they will both be forwarded on and published on the CS website. That will give all teams five to six weeks to agree on a venue and events. If a team genuinely gant play before then I will consider postponing the game for one week if both teams agree to terms such as immediately sending the results that evening and they double check they are fielding eligible players before the match. Remember that date is a guide for the final date that has to be played. If one team insists on playing on that date I need to know ASAP before I consider my ruling in which I may consult the arbiters committee for advice. At the end of the day I may have to rule according to the rules which are explicit
2. This part has been raised before. I agree with Jim Webster that to make serious headway it should be discussed at the AGM as Jim suggests. I personally am not in favour of it and not all teams are in favour of it either. If we are to swap team lists in the manner it would limit who would play that day. If team lists were given one hour before a match it would put an onus on teams submitting lists either by email and/or on site which would mean the home team booking the venue at least for one extra hour and the away having to arrive at least one hour earlier to give and receive. the lists There would also have to be rules changes including penalties for those who havent complied. I just think its one administrative burden too many. If both teams want to swap their teams voluntarily and it isnt binding, who am I to stop that?
3. The problem is this is twofold: mainly some clubs still do not have digital clocks and to impose a penalty for those who do, it should be a qualified FIDE arbiter who knows how to alter the time controls. I see three types of digital clock in circulation and they all operate differently. Moreover I would bet if any time control is changed it would be easy particularly in a time scramble. For this to work we would require a central venue (more cost to chess scotland) and/or more FIDE arbiters. At the moment we are too thin on the ground to accomplish this practically. In summary I am not averse to this if we have more resources and more qualified people available to administer the clocks
George Neave Wrote:he point about published teams lists in advance has been made over and over. There was even a poll where it won support. Organisers seems happy to talk about it but do nothing. As Alan and Adam and Steve all say, it is wrong and should be changed.
the poll was on the forum and not canvassed to CS members and CS membership clubs. I agree with Jim 100% it should be discussed at the CS AGM and published on the agenda. I just dont think its practical and its too easy to go wrong unless either teams turn up an hour early ( at cost to both teams), the home teams give away teams boards to prepare and the tournament director both given authority to penalize
Adam Bremner Wrote:Or just strict grading order maybe? It isn't a level playing field atm, which is not good, especially with it being FIDE rated.and give also given a copy of each team
Top
I'm actually in favour of a strict CS grading policy with CS published list. I've never been in favour of live grades anyway. If the published grade is out of date when why cant we have the pushed grades every six months instead of a year (sorry Dougie)