04-04-2012, 12:10 PM
Quote:It has to be said that Andy Muir seems to be receiving little thanks and maybe some unjustified criticism for volunteering his time organising this event!
See my post above Pat - it's always good to have volunteers, but that doesn't make it THEIR tournament to do with as they please in every respect.
Quote:1pm or 2pm start. Not a matter for me to comment on (did not know about until Andy B's post) other than that if both team captains agree on 1pm then will be fine for all.
Well that's the problem - another team is objecting to it and now there is a plan to have different boards starting at different times with different time controls which is farcical.
Quote:FIDE rating. Not an issue for me either way but I do know that a number of titled players do not like such events being FIDE rated e.g. some will not play SNCL D1 because of FIDE rating (which I understand has now been dropped for next season so we will see!). Andy Muir's decision to drop is his call and hardly unreasonable.
SNCL and Richardson are completely different as you well know so I don't understand your point here? Andy Muir was one of the main objectors to SNCL being FIDE-rated as there are 2 games per day (fine, valid objection) so why then object to a one-game-per-day/5 hour session being FIDE-rated? Because it's a team event and you might have to take one for the team? Think Olympiad/ European team/ European Club Cup/ 4NCL etc. Are none of these FIDE-rated?
Anyway, I have already admitted i didn't know about the FIDE-rating discussion/decision from last year in an earlier post so am perfectly wiling to accept that if I want that to change I will have to propose it and find backing.
Quote:Board Order. I agree with Ken that the rule as stated is fine.
At the SNCL the rule which was voted on is 50 points (plus same board order for both matches on the day). 4NCL use 80 points (I am told). I do not know if there is debate/dissention at the 4NCL about this? Andy has played in the 4NCL which is a mature league and one game per day so his giving guidance at 80points is again hardly unreasonable whether everyone agrees with it or not!
The rule as stated is fine, I agree. It's simply not being adhered to! It has been altered by Andy to fit whatever his personal preference is (his 'guidance'). Show me how 50/80 points can be read into the Richardson rule and I will shut up. I have also played in the 4NCL so my point is at least as valid as his.
Quote:Andy B seems to be driving at another point which is whether teams with a group of players at the same level should be able to vary....making it more difficult to do specific preparation as less certainty about the actual opponent....but being himself vulnerable to the opponents preparations!
OK... I think most people will see the issue here but I suspect that opinions will vary. If I were playing for another club and B1 in every game then it just would not bother me....I could always just go 1.b4 or 1...b5 if I wanted something different. However If I were on B4 at the SNCL for every match (even if only 1 rating pt less than B3!) then there is less incentive to play every game as the grading differences can be quite large.
For me Andy B's views do not give enough regard to giving team members a balance of fully competitive games (Andy-at the SNCL B1 is much tougher than B4 but if I could go B1 in every game -and in GD1 and Richardson-I would do so but the fact is that there is also Andy M , Joe and Steven and these are team events).
As you know Pat this has been an issue specific to your Hamilton team for years now. I don't want to play 1.b4/...b5 just because I don't know if I will be playing you, Joe, Stephen or Andy! Why on earth should I? Why should your team (or any team) be given an advantage like this (whether you use it or not)? I seem to recall your team being all upset about being asked to play in grading order against Ed. West in the SNCL a few years back? Why so upset if it doesn't matter to you?
I understand your 'less incentive' point, but the main incentive should be for your team to win shouldn't it? That's why I have played TAFCA league matches whenever I am resident in Fife despite outgrading many opponent's by hundreds of points.
Another incentive might be to get your grading higher than your team-mates to get stronger opponent's - that is what is firing me when I play Edinburgh League matches.
Quote:Whatever opinions on movement within teams (50 or 80 points) I feel that its hardly fair to criticise Andy Muir on this!
It is perfectly fair to criticise him on these points as he has been unable/unwilling to clarify how this fits the rules as they stand, instead telling me to propose a change!
I will enjoy the finals whatever happens, but volunteer or not, one person should not have the power to run long-standing CS tournaments in ANY way he sees fit. See last year's discussion (linked by Dougie in an earlier post) and you will see similar coments to this by others.
Regards,
Andy Burnett