Tromso Olympiad

[Alex Gillies]

+1
Fund raiser like the glorney appeal/ and dare I suggest crowd funding

Think of all the millions left to dogs and cats - I like animals myself but can some of the surplus not come CS's way - £100k would do it!

[HLang]

I think one of the biggest differences nowadays is that you play lots of players under 2100 in tournaments. Looking for example at the tournaments Colin McNab played 20 years ago, there were very few players of that level.

Bear in mind that the floor of the men's FIDE rating list only dropped below 2200 in 1992, so back in the day these players would nearly all have been unrated. (If I'm being pedantic, some "under 2100" players did exist - the floor of the women's list was 2000, and had been 1900 before every female player except Susan Polgar had their rating boosted by 100 points in 1984.)

[Clement Sreeves]

Yeah I had taken it into account.

Compare for example the BCF championships of 1980, 40 players, 10 of which were unrated (including Colin, who came 11th).

This year's British had 59 participants, 37 of which were under 2200.

[Adam Bremner]

This year's British had 59 participants, 37 of which were under 2200.

This remind me of a funny video where Ben Finegold has a rant about it. <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGSYFXKm4Wk#t=38m30s">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGSYFXKm4Wk#t=38m30s</a><!-- m -->

It is why the Winter Chess was so important for Scotland last year. 9 games against good opposition, for not too much money. Although none of us threatened the norms, I picked up my first half point against a 2500+ player which I feel was a good milestone (I only had the chance to play 1 previously). The opportunity to play good opponents can't be undersold. The more access players get to matches of this level, the more titled players we will create from the 2100+ guys.

[amuir]

My u-30 teams would have been seeded
Open : 105= with Syria
Women's : 103 below Uganda

This shows the significant level of improvement required by our young players to compete successfully at the world level

[Jonathan Livingstone]

A while back in another thread about tournament numbers and the decline of chess in Scotland, we tangented off in to discussion about why the titled players weren't entering our w/e congresses. Many of us want to see more titled players on the tournament circuit, but as is the norm there was good debate but nothing seems to have come out of that discussion. I.e. how to resolve that situation, or an action plan. It seems most relevant to bring it up again and is perhaps even the 1st step in improving our high level competition available?

[Keith Ruxton]

Just thinking aloud here, but perhaps one possibility to give the young guns more games against our titled players would be privately arranged matches? I'm imagining some 2200-2300 improver against some 2300+ "experienced" player (note the diplomatic description). Not sure if anyone would be willing of course but it may have advantages over trying to get the stronger players along to congresses, for example:

1. The improver will get a guaranteed number of games against a strong player. In a congress, even with a number of strong players they are only likely to get a maximum of 1 or 2 games against such opposition.

2. The match could be arranged at convenient location and times for both parties so that a precious weekend is not used up. e.g. could be played one game per week over a number of weeks. After writing this I realised I am truly "experienced" (=old) as obviously this could simply be played online...d'uh

3. From a purely chess point of view I could see this as being more attractive to the stronger player than a congress as they will also get consistent level of opposition (though they would be sacrificing the enormous riches available on the weekend circuit of course)

Just an idea. No matter how you cut and dice it, it always involves the stronger players donating their time in some way or other.

Of course if we had sponsorship then we could emulate the 'rising stars' type of team international event which would be even better...

Cheers,
Keith

[Kevin Mayo]

My u-30 teams would have been seeded
Open : 105= with Syria
Women's : 103 below Uganda

This shows the significant level of improvement required by our young players to compete successfully at the world level

How terribly constructive.

OK then, let's play,
Your selected team, seeded 66, finished 83rd
Behind The Faroe Isles. Behind Yemen. Behind a group of players who couldn't even see the board.

Quote me on this...
This shows the significant level of improvement required by our older players to compete successfully at the world level.

See where I'm coming from?

[Kevin Mayo]

I have been having this discussion separately with a large brained ex-noticeboard member.

Similar to Keith's ideas he has suggested that Chess Scotland take the lead, and with a defined set of plans and goals, guide two of our budding younger players to the IM title in the space of 2 years.
This could include coaching, both at home and potentially abroad.
It could include subsidising their training and travel to International tournaments.
There is more to add, but that is the basic premise.
It would be measurable and tangible.
No-one suggests it is guaranteed to succeed. Not much in life is.
If it did succeed it would surely be a massive positive for all involved.

Do Chess Scotland have any strategic short-term or long-term goals?

[amuir]

Kevin
Becoming an IM costs money. That is what we need to raise.
I got my title by spending money travelling abroad/to England to play in tournaments from 1989-1991.
I never got any norms or beat any GMs in Scotland.
If there was money available this could be spent on coaching and tournaments.