Richardson and Spens 2013-14

[andyburnett]

Andy B should be part of the community. That means playing in the Richardson and then going to the AGM, put his name down for Cappelle, Warsaw etc. Then he can have more say.

@Andy M,
Your randomness knows no bounds.

I AM part of the chess community in Scotland, I've played in the Richardson every year since about 1901 and if I was able to play other events such as Cappelle or Warsaw (why this is important or relevant I have no idea) then I would.

I don't want MORE say - I have my say already as a member of CS, just like every other member.

@Joe,
As with almost every other supporter of the 50/80 points rule, you seem to have no desire to answer the basic question I have been asking for a year now. Why should we have a RULE which allows one team to do something that another can't?

I don't care if it is Dragons or Hamilton or the Dingly Dell 'D' team. I don't care whether you want to swap with Pat, or if Andy M is too highly rated this year. That is totally irrelevant to the point in question.

Show me one other rule that allows for such inequity? You might not care about preparation, I might, others also. The fact is that closely-rated squads are given, by the RULES, an advantage over those more spread out in grading.

@Walter B.
I don't think 50 points is too high. I think (without a proviso such as Hamish's) that its existence is just wrong.
I do understand 'democracy' Walter If Craig was representing the club's views, then fine. As it stands I think an abstention is fair.
But let's say that, for example, in Castlehill Chess Club the only person to reply is Keith Rose...and his vote is counted...and he might also be required to give a casting vote if it is tied? You can see what problems this might lead to, particularly if it were on a matter more important than grading/board order issues.