29-09-2017, 04:47 PM
The Adult Selection Criteria thread prompted me to post thoughts about our premier tournament, the Scottish Championship.
Context
I am a long-term supporter of the event - I started in the “Boys”, graduated to the “Open” and subsequently played in 23 “Championships”. I have seen the best and worst – having played in 27 and attended a further 2 – of the last 34 years and believe it is worth having a debate on future direction. The Championship was run as a closed event (sometimes an all-play-all, sometimes a swiss for between 10 and 20 players) from well before I started competing until 2007. There were minimum entry requirements and the majority of the games were tough encounters as a consequence. In 2004 nearly all the main contenders played but after 3 years of more mixed entries across the wider event the organisers decided to reform. We’ve had 10 years, since 2008, when the Championship amalgamated with the Open to reflect on the format, what it has achieved and what it hasn’t.
State of play
The current format is an FIDE rated nine round International Open held in July with a small number of invited titled players to provide norm opportunities. The Open allows a wide spread of abilities to enter although there are side events as well. The Scottish Champion is the highest placed Scot within the Open with a performance tiebreak. Equipment used is generally good quality wooden sets and digital clocks with live transmission an increasing feature. An experienced and committed team of arbiters mean that the event, once on-site, typically runs smoothly. Venues move from town to town around Scotland. For many years seaside towns were preferred although recently Edinburgh and Glasgow have featured heavily.
Strategy
“What is the point of the Scottish Championship?” You might think the easy answer – and mine - would be “To determine the strongest Scottish player”. However, there are aspects of the current format that mean, whether intentionally or not, this is not how things are set up. Indeed I hope the thread will result in an articulation of current CS strategy and provoke debate on what it should be.
My perceptions
Using the three criteria of tournament attractiveness for top players I set out in the selection criteria thread i.e. a) Financial; b) Strength of Opposition and c) Achievements (titles etc):
A) Financial – there are two aspects i.e. “conditions” for titled players (money and/or accommodation/travel) and prize fund. Pros/Semi-Pros have a living to make so need to work out their range of potential returns and consider the two in conjunction. Hence organisers shape strategy and the type of tournament with the spending choices they make.
In recent events, both the prize fund and conditions were set up in a way that favoured invited foreign players. CS effectively outsourced to pros from countries where the £ goes further and English pros with low expenses. As these pros were typically higher rated the expected return for Scots was low. In addition the prizes reserved for Scots only are a low 1st prize and nothing for 2nd! These factors have combined to take money out of the Scottish chess economy and disincentivise top Scots. At the same time I see little evidence that it has increased level of competition or achievement for Scottish players so I conclude the financial approach is flawed.
B) Strength of Opposition – This is about assessing the likely profile of opposition, best expressed as average rating, and also if the best players are going to be there. Additionally In rough terms, IM norm seekers are looking for 2250+ and GM norm seekers are looking for 2400+.
C) Achievements (titles etc) – Participants can only fight against those who enter. Winning the Scottish title means more when there is high representation of our highest rated players and they play each other. Experience of the new format shows that a random element for becoming Scottish champion was introduced with higher rated foreign players and the tiebreak. A successful strategy is to be in contention (not necessarily in the lead) going into the last two rounds and hope you get favourable pairings and play well. A number of favourites have stumbled in round 8 against a visitor and seen their chances disappear.
The format as outlined above means that many top Scots and norm seekers didn’t even come to the start line. Ostensibly foreign invited players are there to provide norms by attracting players between 2050 and 2400. As mentioned above the average rating of opposition is very important. If the right profile - a solid base of norm chasing players as a reasonable proportion of the total entry - isn’t achieved and too often it wasn’t then norms become statistically unlikely and this suggests a poor use of finances.
The future
I’d like to congratulate the Dundee 150 Committee for showing what is possible by running a strong closed event in Scotland. It was well organised on many different levels with Jean quick to highlight the teamwork and different skill sets that contributed to such a successful event. Key points are that it is possible to market and find money for chess in Scotland but this requires quite a different skill set to day to day running.
Alex has run the Scottish, almost singlehandedly at times, for a long period and he does many things extremely well. He plays to his strengths (not fundraising and marketing) so the strategy for the Championship is less defined and more pragmatic.
I’m fully aware that CS is facing challenging financial times which makes defining a strategy more pressing. As noted on the selection criteria thread I believe that a pyramid structure is required if chess in Scotland is to flourish. As part of that, I would like to see a strategy for the Championship that has determining the strongest Scottish player at its core, ensures high level of participation of top Scottish players and focuses its funding on Scottish players.
Context
I am a long-term supporter of the event - I started in the “Boys”, graduated to the “Open” and subsequently played in 23 “Championships”. I have seen the best and worst – having played in 27 and attended a further 2 – of the last 34 years and believe it is worth having a debate on future direction. The Championship was run as a closed event (sometimes an all-play-all, sometimes a swiss for between 10 and 20 players) from well before I started competing until 2007. There were minimum entry requirements and the majority of the games were tough encounters as a consequence. In 2004 nearly all the main contenders played but after 3 years of more mixed entries across the wider event the organisers decided to reform. We’ve had 10 years, since 2008, when the Championship amalgamated with the Open to reflect on the format, what it has achieved and what it hasn’t.
State of play
The current format is an FIDE rated nine round International Open held in July with a small number of invited titled players to provide norm opportunities. The Open allows a wide spread of abilities to enter although there are side events as well. The Scottish Champion is the highest placed Scot within the Open with a performance tiebreak. Equipment used is generally good quality wooden sets and digital clocks with live transmission an increasing feature. An experienced and committed team of arbiters mean that the event, once on-site, typically runs smoothly. Venues move from town to town around Scotland. For many years seaside towns were preferred although recently Edinburgh and Glasgow have featured heavily.
Strategy
“What is the point of the Scottish Championship?” You might think the easy answer – and mine - would be “To determine the strongest Scottish player”. However, there are aspects of the current format that mean, whether intentionally or not, this is not how things are set up. Indeed I hope the thread will result in an articulation of current CS strategy and provoke debate on what it should be.
My perceptions
Using the three criteria of tournament attractiveness for top players I set out in the selection criteria thread i.e. a) Financial; b) Strength of Opposition and c) Achievements (titles etc):
A) Financial – there are two aspects i.e. “conditions” for titled players (money and/or accommodation/travel) and prize fund. Pros/Semi-Pros have a living to make so need to work out their range of potential returns and consider the two in conjunction. Hence organisers shape strategy and the type of tournament with the spending choices they make.
In recent events, both the prize fund and conditions were set up in a way that favoured invited foreign players. CS effectively outsourced to pros from countries where the £ goes further and English pros with low expenses. As these pros were typically higher rated the expected return for Scots was low. In addition the prizes reserved for Scots only are a low 1st prize and nothing for 2nd! These factors have combined to take money out of the Scottish chess economy and disincentivise top Scots. At the same time I see little evidence that it has increased level of competition or achievement for Scottish players so I conclude the financial approach is flawed.
B) Strength of Opposition – This is about assessing the likely profile of opposition, best expressed as average rating, and also if the best players are going to be there. Additionally In rough terms, IM norm seekers are looking for 2250+ and GM norm seekers are looking for 2400+.
Closed – a key advantage of a closed is average strength of opposition, known exactly for APA and within narrow parameters for small swisses, which is helpful to know and not just for norm seekers. In the closed format I normally expected to meet an average of 2250 – 2300 whether I was on form or not. This made these tournaments a challenge for all involved.
Open – Ambitious 2100+ players generally look for tournaments likely to give at least 2250+ opposition. A large field skewed towards lower rated players make this very unlikely. I have placed 2nd/2nd= in the race for the Scottish title in 4 of the last 5 Opens I played and my highest average opposition was just over 2100. Right down the tournament you see many mismatches and I’m unconvinced this leads to good competition and higher standards.
On my travels I have spoken with organisers of the world’s successful tournaments, not just the strongest. Each has the same approach to marketing their tournament - secure participation of key players a minimum of 9-12 months in advance and publicise it on the website. This gives a tournament its “buzz” and allows others to assess whether they it meets their needs, especially for norm seekers. Every year the CS noticeboard sees a number of requests for information about venue and invited players from aspiring players. Late notification meant events sometimes fell far short of what they could achieve.
C) Achievements (titles etc) – Participants can only fight against those who enter. Winning the Scottish title means more when there is high representation of our highest rated players and they play each other. Experience of the new format shows that a random element for becoming Scottish champion was introduced with higher rated foreign players and the tiebreak. A successful strategy is to be in contention (not necessarily in the lead) going into the last two rounds and hope you get favourable pairings and play well. A number of favourites have stumbled in round 8 against a visitor and seen their chances disappear.
The format as outlined above means that many top Scots and norm seekers didn’t even come to the start line. Ostensibly foreign invited players are there to provide norms by attracting players between 2050 and 2400. As mentioned above the average rating of opposition is very important. If the right profile - a solid base of norm chasing players as a reasonable proportion of the total entry - isn’t achieved and too often it wasn’t then norms become statistically unlikely and this suggests a poor use of finances.
The future
I’d like to congratulate the Dundee 150 Committee for showing what is possible by running a strong closed event in Scotland. It was well organised on many different levels with Jean quick to highlight the teamwork and different skill sets that contributed to such a successful event. Key points are that it is possible to market and find money for chess in Scotland but this requires quite a different skill set to day to day running.
Alex has run the Scottish, almost singlehandedly at times, for a long period and he does many things extremely well. He plays to his strengths (not fundraising and marketing) so the strategy for the Championship is less defined and more pragmatic.
I’m fully aware that CS is facing challenging financial times which makes defining a strategy more pressing. As noted on the selection criteria thread I believe that a pyramid structure is required if chess in Scotland is to flourish. As part of that, I would like to see a strategy for the Championship that has determining the strongest Scottish player at its core, ensures high level of participation of top Scottish players and focuses its funding on Scottish players.