15-07-2013, 07:43 PM
First, can I say how much I enjoyed this year's championship in Helensburgh, despite my results worsening in the second half of the week. A big thank you to all involved, including the canteen staff for supplying us with nice hot soup to keep the chill out.
Now, on to the matter of the pairings, particularly round 3, when the accelerated pairings "unwound".
After round 2, there were 11 players on 1.5, 6 from the top half of the draw, 5 from the lower half. So surely it should have been the middle-rated player Lawrence Trent, not David Oswald, who got the down-float to face some-one from the group on 1.0 ?
Overall, there were 55 players in the draw, with a grading spread of over 900 points between top and bottom, so some mismatches are inevitable.
There were only 3 other players graded between 2190 and 2360, for example, which completely explains why Alan Tate didn't play many opponents around his own strength.
At any stage, for any given group of players with the same score, there is going to be a big grading spread.
So what to do? Well, you could have a grading floor for the championship of, say, 2100, so norm chances aren't ruined by playing a lower-graded player. And run 7-day "Major Open" and u-1600(?) sections alongside. [This is a suggestion - not an AGM motion]
The downside would be even fewer Scottish players for the eventual Scottish Champion to compete against, and fewer "rabbits" contributing their carrots to the prize fund.
Kind Regards,
Thumper
PS. Share the title if there's a tie.
Now, on to the matter of the pairings, particularly round 3, when the accelerated pairings "unwound".
After round 2, there were 11 players on 1.5, 6 from the top half of the draw, 5 from the lower half. So surely it should have been the middle-rated player Lawrence Trent, not David Oswald, who got the down-float to face some-one from the group on 1.0 ?
Overall, there were 55 players in the draw, with a grading spread of over 900 points between top and bottom, so some mismatches are inevitable.
There were only 3 other players graded between 2190 and 2360, for example, which completely explains why Alan Tate didn't play many opponents around his own strength.
At any stage, for any given group of players with the same score, there is going to be a big grading spread.
So what to do? Well, you could have a grading floor for the championship of, say, 2100, so norm chances aren't ruined by playing a lower-graded player. And run 7-day "Major Open" and u-1600(?) sections alongside. [This is a suggestion - not an AGM motion]
The downside would be even fewer Scottish players for the eventual Scottish Champion to compete against, and fewer "rabbits" contributing their carrots to the prize fund.
Kind Regards,
Thumper
PS. Share the title if there's a tie.
I get my kicks above the waistline, sunshine