19-09-2013, 12:22 PM
Keith Rose Wrote:Hi Andy
Firstly an apology to you and everyone else, I misunderstood the information I got re the voting - it wasn't at the AGM, it was a captain's vote. I'm not sure how it was carried out but I'm not going to look back, it's time to move on. I don't think, though, that it really changes anything.
Frankly, I'm not convinced either that there is any benefit to this variation rule. I suspect that it all comes down to swings and roundabouts, what might be gained on one board might be lost on another. Perhaps the reasons for it are subtler than that.
I didn't go for the change out of support for its concept, but only to see something change. Keep arguing, at the end of the season I'll be asking for views about all the changes that have been introduced over the four tournaments. Perhaps by then your view will have prevailed.
No, it won't be FIDE rated, it does seem that it would be complicated and costly though I haven't looked too closely. Again, something to mull over during the season. Here's a question for you - what is the difference between a five hour game played against another strong player in a non-FIDE-rated tournament and a five hour game played against another strong player in a FIDE-rated tournament? I'm not being funny here, I really don't know, but maybe that's because I don't have a FIDE grade and don't care if I never get one. The Richardson certainly won't be an elite event if its strongest players don't take part so I do hope you reconsider.
Actually, I don't read your posts as negative, quite the reverse. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts - it's the way to remodel an event on what people really want.
I shall continue to soak up other people's ideas.
Keith
If you want to get a title like FM/IM/GM - as I suspect andy (and quite a lot of other ambitious players who work hard on their chess) would quite like too seeing as he's 50 points off it and it would save him lots of entry fees- then you need to play fide rated tournaments. Foreign/English tournaments are expensive. Richardson is not. (Could equally well sub in SNCL in place of richardson). Have zero sympathy for the players with high grades chickening out and making it harder for ambitious players to work their way up the fide system - if you're not good enough to maintain your grade then you're not as good as your grade says you are and you shouldn't be trying to hide from the fact, you don't see 1800s refuse to play in challengers etc. and I find it hard to understand how concern for a trivial number can make someone decline to play chess (which should be about enjoyment and challenging yourself) unless it is the attention/respect that to some extent comes from being high graded that they are craving. Apologies if this sounds awfully aggressive, I have at least one friend who I have known and respected for a number of years who is guilty of grade protectionism (for want of a better term) to at least some extent. Am not expecting you to change the rules again this season just because of this post as that would just cause confusion, just wanting to explain why I and a lot of others feel the event should be fide rated in future
Re board order, it definitely favours teams with a large amount of players all roughly the same grade. For example when dragons played hamilton there were 5 different players that I could have been facing (that all turned up). Impossible to prepare for, whereas with other teams then it is much easier (and more of a level playing field). (I am a captain of a team in the north east league and have played in a lot of team events so I have a fair amount of sympathy for teams that switch their orders a bit as I have one player who refuses point blank to play above me in board order, and literally wouldn't play if he weren't the board below me but last season he was higher graded than me. Also have sympathy for players who would be stuck on a low board playing players much lower rated than them every game just because they're 10 points lower than a teammate).
My preferred solution to this is to have some flexibility in the board order but to have the teams published at least a couple of days (ideally a week) before, with any last minute withdrawals + replacements to have to be explained to the Tournament Organizer (with the default penalty being the boards affected being defaulted unless good reason given). This way everyone is happy - players idiosyncrasies can be accommodated and people don't have to be stuck on low boards all the time.
Tiny detail I have noticed about the nancy/macisaac tournaments is that the way the rules have been worded it seems (to me anyways!) that juniors between 1775 and 1850 aren't allowed to play in the nancy and are too low graded to qualify for the macisaac, which I'm pretty sure isn't what is intended!
On a more positive note I like how you are being very transparent and fair minded with you're decision making process, and also that you are encouraging discussion rather than treating it as dissent. (edited to make note and I two words rather than one...)