20-01-2013, 03:06 PM
Yesterday's match was, as Andy Muir says, played in good spirits (despite the online equivalent of a 'stairheid rammy' in the days before it!) - fair play to Hamilton. The eagerly anticipated game between myself and Andy was a damp squib however...
[pgn]1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Bg5 e6 7.Bb5 Bd7 8.Bxc6 Bxc6 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.e5 dxe5 11.Qf3 e4 12.Nxe4 Qa5+ 13.c3 Nxe4 14.Qxe4 Qd5 15.Qxd5 cxd5 16.Ke2 Bc5 17.Be3 Rc8[/pgn]
With regard to a couple of points made by Craig and Joe, Craig firstly: 1) I don't recall the 80 point rule being specifically accepted as a discretionary rule in the past, but there may have been matches where both teams agreed to some version of it?! I have played in a lot of Richardson matches over the last 20 years, but obviously one of the directors/arbiters would be better placed to answer that as you say.
2) Having an '80 point rule' on its own really ought to be a non-starter. Whatever arguments there may be for allowing closely-grade team members to have a chance to play up a board or two (Hamilton's general argument over the past few years) has to be outweighed by the fact that the rule is intrinsically unfair (not a good thing in the world of rules!)
As a specific example, in yesterdays match Alan Tate could have been playing Steve Mannion/ Andy Muir/ Pat Coffey or Joe Redpath. Whoever Hamilton chose for board 1 could reasonably predict they would be playing Alan. On board 2 Hamilton could again have at least 4 players, possibly 5 whereas Dragons only have 2 (myself or Nicol Bathie). The extent to which this matters is arguable (preparation is important to some, not at all to others) but it certainly cannot be said it's fair.
Hugh and others (Adam, myself, etc) find a more suitable idea might be to publish the team lists the evening before a match. This balances out some of the advantage/disadvantage and is a compromise solution I personally would be happy enough with. However, as our captain Elliot asked me yesterday, what happens with late withdrawals? It would seem harsh to penalise a genuine call-off, but there might be some who would take advantage of this (and I don't mean Hamilton! Just that in general it could be open to abuse).
It would be interesting to know (since the 4NCL has been mentioned a lot in this and earlier debates) how the '80 point rule' would be perceived by players there if there were no exchange of team lists the evening/morning before matches?
Coming to Joe's point about last years final/board order irregularities/lack of complaints at the time - well, I have already explained the position regarding my own game (unacceptable according to Joe and he has a point to an extent). As for the other boards, I genuinely don't know (or at least I can't recall) what happened.
Perhaps others who were there might be able to clarify this? Did we use live gradings? (Looks unlikely). Did we agree to some version of the 80 point rule? (Sounds unlikely, however...) I do know that there has been distrust/unease/feeling of unfairness about Hamilton's use of the board order switching in the past. The final round of the National League between Ed. West and Hamilton with the title at stake is a case in point. I have only heard my brother's version of this (he was playing for Ed. West), so if Joe or another Hamilton member or Donald Wilson (who I believe made the final decision that grading order be used?!) wants to give their side I'd be curious to hear it (although I don't really want to stir up a hornet's nest of acusations and ill-feeling!)
If we do decide on some version of the '80 point rule' for the future, it should be either be Live or Published CS gradings, unless we introduce FIDE rating for the Richardson in which case FIDE ratings should probably be used.
[pgn]1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Bg5 e6 7.Bb5 Bd7 8.Bxc6 Bxc6 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.e5 dxe5 11.Qf3 e4 12.Nxe4 Qa5+ 13.c3 Nxe4 14.Qxe4 Qd5 15.Qxd5 cxd5 16.Ke2 Bc5 17.Be3 Rc8[/pgn]
With regard to a couple of points made by Craig and Joe, Craig firstly: 1) I don't recall the 80 point rule being specifically accepted as a discretionary rule in the past, but there may have been matches where both teams agreed to some version of it?! I have played in a lot of Richardson matches over the last 20 years, but obviously one of the directors/arbiters would be better placed to answer that as you say.
2) Having an '80 point rule' on its own really ought to be a non-starter. Whatever arguments there may be for allowing closely-grade team members to have a chance to play up a board or two (Hamilton's general argument over the past few years) has to be outweighed by the fact that the rule is intrinsically unfair (not a good thing in the world of rules!)
As a specific example, in yesterdays match Alan Tate could have been playing Steve Mannion/ Andy Muir/ Pat Coffey or Joe Redpath. Whoever Hamilton chose for board 1 could reasonably predict they would be playing Alan. On board 2 Hamilton could again have at least 4 players, possibly 5 whereas Dragons only have 2 (myself or Nicol Bathie). The extent to which this matters is arguable (preparation is important to some, not at all to others) but it certainly cannot be said it's fair.
Hugh and others (Adam, myself, etc) find a more suitable idea might be to publish the team lists the evening before a match. This balances out some of the advantage/disadvantage and is a compromise solution I personally would be happy enough with. However, as our captain Elliot asked me yesterday, what happens with late withdrawals? It would seem harsh to penalise a genuine call-off, but there might be some who would take advantage of this (and I don't mean Hamilton! Just that in general it could be open to abuse).
It would be interesting to know (since the 4NCL has been mentioned a lot in this and earlier debates) how the '80 point rule' would be perceived by players there if there were no exchange of team lists the evening/morning before matches?
Coming to Joe's point about last years final/board order irregularities/lack of complaints at the time - well, I have already explained the position regarding my own game (unacceptable according to Joe and he has a point to an extent). As for the other boards, I genuinely don't know (or at least I can't recall) what happened.
Perhaps others who were there might be able to clarify this? Did we use live gradings? (Looks unlikely). Did we agree to some version of the 80 point rule? (Sounds unlikely, however...) I do know that there has been distrust/unease/feeling of unfairness about Hamilton's use of the board order switching in the past. The final round of the National League between Ed. West and Hamilton with the title at stake is a case in point. I have only heard my brother's version of this (he was playing for Ed. West), so if Joe or another Hamilton member or Donald Wilson (who I believe made the final decision that grading order be used?!) wants to give their side I'd be curious to hear it (although I don't really want to stir up a hornet's nest of acusations and ill-feeling!)
If we do decide on some version of the '80 point rule' for the future, it should be either be Live or Published CS gradings, unless we introduce FIDE rating for the Richardson in which case FIDE ratings should probably be used.