21-01-2013, 09:45 AM
Just a brief comment.
The current rule states that players should be in order of strength. There is no mention of grade or rating.
I believe this is historical and dates from a time when there was only one list per year. It would have therefore been common for an improving player to be underrated by the later rounds of the event.
There is nothing in the rules about 80 points but I would say that it would be more difficult to show conclusively that players were in the wrong order if their grading difference is within this limit.
If team list were to be published in advance colours would need to be decided too. Substitutes would need to come in on the vacant board to minimise disruption.
I hope that Andy Muir was making a joke when comparing his potential to prepare to that of Alan Tate. Isn't he aware that Alan will have to prepare his own meal, clean his house, do the weekly wash, shop, etc. As a married man Andy obviously has a clear advantage.
The current rule states that players should be in order of strength. There is no mention of grade or rating.
I believe this is historical and dates from a time when there was only one list per year. It would have therefore been common for an improving player to be underrated by the later rounds of the event.
There is nothing in the rules about 80 points but I would say that it would be more difficult to show conclusively that players were in the wrong order if their grading difference is within this limit.
If team list were to be published in advance colours would need to be decided too. Substitutes would need to come in on the vacant board to minimise disruption.
I hope that Andy Muir was making a joke when comparing his potential to prepare to that of Alan Tate. Isn't he aware that Alan will have to prepare his own meal, clean his house, do the weekly wash, shop, etc. As a married man Andy obviously has a clear advantage.