Nancy Elder Tournament

[Ianbrownlee]

please post any comments and thoughts on the Nancy Elder tournament here

[Jonathan Livingstone]

It is an absolute disaster of an event, with low interest. I have fed back my views to Keith before. The rules are not fit for purpose in my opinion. Like the MacIsacc it is clearly on borrowed time. After the MacIsacc being dropped, the next things on the list are 1. Elder, 2. Spens. Two from my club entered Elder last season to try it out. One myself (never played their game for reasons I don't wish to go into). The other person doesn't want to enter again as not for him. 50% of the players if I recall came from the Dundee area also, great turnout of course but we surely can't rely on Dundee to bump the numbers up and keep it viable.

You could make the event 'free entry for all' or even offer a £5 payment to individuals who wish to enter, and it would not do well or see enough support.

[Keith Rose]

Jonathan, I've asked this before but I'll do so again - how can you possibly describe this as a 'disaster'?
For a number of years there were only a few entries - in 2012-13 there were three or four as I recall. In the last two seasons there were 24 and 24 (before the one withdrawal).

Perhaps if a few more entries came from areas other than Dundee the number of regional qualifying areas could be increased, thus reducing travel at least.

Just for info at this point Castlehill will have nine entries, possibly more.

[PShafi]

Having entered the last few years and watched my son play I've certainly not found it an "absolute disaster of an event" (I mean, get a grip) or that the "rules are not fit for purpose."

Hey, if you don't like, why don't you suggest some new rules and ideas instead of being all mysterious?

Is anyone else starting to loathe the phrase "not fit for purpose" - it's like it's now beyond a cliché.

[StevieHilton]

As one of the players who has supported this tournament since the 1980's!! and also having won it 5 times
I will play in this event once again this season

[Jonathan Livingstone]

Well the default 2.5hrs each, so a potential 5hr game on a weeknight, involving travel is simply unworkable. Thats a good place to start with a rule change.

From memory, I think it is correct to say two of the countries biggest clubs from the capital city had 1 member each playing in the event last season. My own little seaside town club made up about 10% of last years entrants with 2 players. There is little spread of players as mentioned. I have fed back ideas and feedback from members at our club on the various competitions Keith managed as it happens.

Iain did ask for thoughts and comments so I did so. Slightly regretting doing so now. However, a balanced and representative view could be seen as better than simply having an entirely pro-Elder view?

[Keith Rose]

Well the default 2.5hrs each, so a potential 5hr game on a weeknight, involving travel is simply unworkable.

The default time control - which has been in place for some time (tho' with quickplay element previously) gives the chance of a longer game than is often available. A number of games have been played at weekends to take advantage. It is a national event after all, so a longer time control is quite appropriate imo. Richardson, Spens and MacIsaac (when it was running) are all 5 hour games. And being a national event some travel should be expected.

Thats a good place to start with a rule change.

That change was in place for last season:

In order to facilitate midweek arrangements this may be reduced by mutual agreement to not less than 1 hour 30 minutes each player to play all moves.

The rules might not suit you and your clubmate but if they have suited 22 others then there can't be too much wrong with them.

All the same, that's not to say there are no improvements to be made so I'm sure Ian will welcome any suggestions. Perhaps a few thoughts from others who took part?