Turner - Gormally

[Alan Tate]

But if you can't make norms then what's the point in inviting players? I'm not complaining either. Enjoyed the tournament also and learnt a lot.

[Alex McFarlane]

As Matthew has implied, the amount spent on conditions for titled players was much reduced this year and was considerably less than the first prize. Several foreign applications were rejected.

Two players met enough titled players to potentially gain norms but did not score enough. A third was on target at the two thirds point but a couple of losses meant that he dropped down the field.

In terms of achieving norms the problem was the shortage of 21-2200 players which meant that norm seekers had to achieve a higher score.

The most annoying thing was the transport situation. Three potential players in the above category were in touch to apologise for not taking part because of transport. I would imagine that the loss in numbers to the event was probably about 20-30.

On that, I would like to thank those from Edinburgh and the east who made the effort to commute daily - what should have been a short train trip became a frustrating journey as bus after bus drove past full.

Effort is being made to enhance the event in future but I have a plan C to put in place if things do not materialise.

[Matthew Turner]

Alex and Alan,
Ultimately, I think we have to ask the question - how many Scottish players are actually capable of getting norms? I think the lack of norms at the Scottish in recent years is in large part down to the fact that there aren't many 'realistic' norm seekers. Impacting that doesn't have much to do with the Scottish Championships per se, but how do we support and develop Murad, Declan, Lennart, Kai et al throughout the whole year. Not easy at all with very limited resources.

[Alex McFarlane]

Tate, Burnett and Shreeves I would think can be considered norm-seekers.

I agree that those mentioned by Matt are among the ones needing support to progress but if the Scottish didn't provide the chance for them to see an array of titled players and hopefully think they could emulate that achievement then, regrettably, no other event in Scotland does.

The benefactor provided funds for that very reason. It should not be forgotten that we had four really strong events because of that generosity. I feel I owe it to that person to try to continue providing events of that quality.

Matt's comments lead to the real question. "How do we progress chess in Scotland?"

The current Directors seem to have good ideas on this but without the finances plans are in jeopardy. There was considerable brainstorming during the event and some ideas are now on the table for discussion.

[andyburnett]

Tate, Burnett and Shreeves I would think can be considered norm-seekers.

I agree that those mentioned by Matt are among the ones needing support to progress but if the Scottish didn't provide the chance for them to see an array of titled players and hopefully think they could emulate that achievement then, regrettably, no other event in Scotland does.

The benefactor provided funds for that very reason. It should not be forgotten that we had four really strong events because of that generosity. I feel I owe it to that person to try to continue providing events of that quality.

Matt's comments lead to the real question. "How do we progress chess in Scotland?"

The current Directors seem to have good ideas on this but without the finances plans are in jeopardy. There was considerable brainstorming during the event and some ideas are now on the table for discussion.

Shreeves? Shurely shome mishtake Mish Moneypenny

The perennial problem is that even players such as myself are big fish in a small pond. Once you reach a certain level you generally have to play outwith Scotland (Uk) for opportunities to progress, and you tend to coach rather than be coached (this is actually a huge issue compared to many countries!).

Myself, Alan, Calum, Hamish, Andrew Green and others could have been seriously vying for titles if strong coaching was available along with enough tournaments to justify the expenditure (time, money, etc).

As Alex states, if it weren't for the Scottish then NO opportunities nationally would be available for up-and-coming players to see and compete with much stronger players - it needs to be kept as strong as possible, although a rating floor (2 separate events?!) would also help - though perhaps not manageable?!

Money, as always, is the crux of the problem - in the meantime we all do what we can...but there are no real or easy solutions to this one.

[Alan Tate]

The lack of norms at the Scottish could also be the fact that it's not strong enough at the lower end (this year in the middle as well), and Scottish players are bad value for that purpose in terms of relative strength to rating. One option as Andy B says is to have a cut-off, say >2100 at the least. I'm no mathematician but if you face a 1900 in round 1 or when you lose or draw then it's an uphill struggle from there. Hard to see how this could be workable though.
I most certainly am not a norm-seeker. The phrase makes me cringe. Personally, winning tournaments is a much more interesting and clear goal and the Scottish provides that in its present format ; ).
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a stronger Scottish for the purposes of norms but some tweaking of the format could be considered. (I'd love to see a round robin alongside the open. That way you get full value for the expenses paid to the invited players as they play everyone, but no doubt this is not financially viable).

[Alan Tate]

(or maybe it's just the public transport situation)