Richardson & Spens

[Adam Bremner]

Thanks Ian for replying to the points. I just want to make a few suggestions on how I think it could work, although obviously there is room for improvement:

1. Team lists submitted before midnight the night before play, swapped to opposing captain.

I know the issue of people pulling out has been raised, but how many teams ever have people pulling out between midnight and 10am the next day and then find strong replacements? Just allow replacements to be found anyway, but on the board that pulls out only (even if that puts the team out of grading order). The probability is these replacements won't be as strong as the intended player, so the opposing team won't mind too much. Or even better, like in 4NCL have nominated reserves, who can step in on any board should problems arise, again out of grading order. Swapping 1hr before play or whatever would cause problems with any team needing to travel, so just make it midnight, or 10pm the previous day, like a FIDE tournament gets drawn.

2. Away team gets white on odd boards.

I don't really see why this isn't a thing? Every other team event from SNCL, local league, 4NCL, whatever knows the colours in advance. The home and away sides are random anyway, so why further randomise who gets what colour? It immediately halves the stuff people need to worry about.

--

Playing in strict order is better than nothing, but team lists in advance is better still. Further if it is a FIDE event, surely it should be in FIDE order? Of course, these sort of steps do favour people wanting to prepare, but surely we should be moving towards a more level playing field if the event is to be a serious FIDE rated one? I can see that not wanting board colours made in advance is a way to randomise who gets what, take away any preparation, but then if that is what people want, it is not a serious FIDE event, and shouldn't be graded as one.

[Ianbrownlee]

In view of my oversight round 2 of the Spens and Richardson should now be completed by Sunday March 12th. However if both teams in a particular tie tie wish to play a week later then I will allow that. If one teams fails to agree a date then that tie must be played by March 12th. Apologies to all for any inconvenience

[John Watkins]

In view of my oversight round 2 of the Spens and Richardson should now be completed by Sunday March 12th. However if both teams in a particular tie tie wish to play a week later then I will allow that. If one teams fails to agree a date then that tie must be played by March 12th. Apologies to all for any inconvenience

Who decided the change of date for the semi finals without any consultation with the teams? It is hard enough to get a team together at the best of times when dates have been in the Chess Scotland calendar for many months ahead, which allows people to plan holidays, etc (see previous posts with the surprise that the finals being on Easter weekend and lots of people potentially being on holiday with no prospect of that date being moved). I had put my team on notice for a 18/3/2017 semi final match date, whoever that may be against.

The above diktat is totally unacceptable. [-x

[Ianbrownlee]

Who decided the change of date for the semi finals without any consultation with the teams? It is hard enough to get a team together at the best of times when dates have been in the Chess Scotland calendar for many months ahead, which allows people to plan holidays, etc (see previous posts with the surprise that the finals being on Easter weekend and lots of people potentially being on holiday with no prospect of that date being moved). I had put my team on notice for a 18/3/2017 semi final match date, whoever that may be against.

I did since another congress is also scheduled on that weekend. I am trying my best here. If the team you play against also agrees to that weekend (March 19th) then I have no problem with you playing on that date. The easter date is immovable as the venue had to be booked and yet again I moved that date to avoid a clash with a new congress being launched. Remember that the date is a play by date. I'm sure once the draw is made you will ample time to agree a date with your opponent

[Alan Tate]

Ian, I know you are trying your best but in the time it took you to write that long post on 26th Jan, you could probably have changed the rule! You mention lots of problems that don't really exist... Anyway, I struggle to see how much extra admin would be needed from publishing team lists 90 minutes before (I would suggest longer to allow for those teams that have further to travel).

The problem I had against Poly was not that I was raring to get some preparation in against a specific opponent, but that it's obvious who is Dragons board 1 and that Poly could be John or Colin, or indeed what happened in that they had a new(?) recruit in Andrew. I'm fairly sure Andrew didn't prepare but I wasted time and energy for nothing.

Does it really have to go through the AGM? If it does then that's ridiculous - give the tournament director more leeway and get rid of pointless red tape.

Ok, here it is. Unless team lists or something similar are introduced for next season then I won't play the Richardson. Perhaps this will make no difference to anyone, but seeing as the general competition and the number of teams is declining it might be worth listening to players a bit more.

[Jim Webster]

.

Ian, I know you are trying your best but in the time it took you to write that long post on 26th Jan, you could probably have changed the rule!

It is not quite that simple, we don't change rules mid season - any rule change needs to be submitted to the Rules & Arbiters committee before being implemented, and will not take effect until the start of the next season, especially since rounds have already been played under the current rules. The updated rules also require to be published for all to see.

Does it really have to go through the AGM? If it does then that's ridiculous - give the tournament director more leeway and get rid of pointless red tape.

No it doesn't have to go to an AGM. The rules are at the discretion of the Home Director and available on the CS website. The AGM is a last resort, and you would need much wider support from the membership, to recommend a rule change.

I don't think that

Ok, here it is. Unless team lists or something similar are introduced for next season then I won't play the Richardson.

actually achieves anything other than weakening your team.

[andyburnett]

My suggestion: Team pools published pre-season and strict grading order. 'New players' must be published 2 weeks before a tie. Very little admin required.

I understand completely where Alan is coming from with this, and if he feels playing the event is to his detriment (FIDE-rated, international selection at stake) in the current format than he has every right to not play.

However, I was under the impression that there was enough support from among those who are affected by the current rules/format to see changes discussed and put in place? The notice-board may not be well-populated, but if others can't be bothered to join in debate here then the director should listen to those who are!

That includes myself, having been part of the post-Olympiad discussion re: playing activity/international selection.

Ian B. may, of course, have been contacted privately about Richardson rule changes. I suggest that Alan, Adam, etc put together a rule-change proposal for Ian to look at for next year's event.

Cheers,
Andy Burnett

[Alan Tate]

I don't feel like it's to my personal detriment. The competition just feels kind of pointless anyway with so few rounds, such a disparity between the teams, and in addition the strongest teams have extra advantages. Missing one Fide rated game a year doesn't really make a difference to me so I'm taking a stand.

[Ianbrownlee]

OK guys here we go and I hope I don't offend anybody

Andy B I haven't been in correspondence with anybody regarding this point but will willingly discuss publicly or privately about this

Jim is quite right in that I wont (cant) make this kind of change halfway throughout a tournament.

I don't see a majority of CS members actually asking for this change. If anyone wants this change then make a motion for discussion at the AGM or at least email or phone me and I will enter any sort of discussion.

If the majority want this sort of change then I will facilitate it. I just how this can be made to work practically without a lot of increased admin. For example a third party would be required to hold these "team lists" (probably me!) and then i would have to factor in changes for rules of exchanging, penalties and what type of penalties. Also I would like to see how these team lists are exchanged simultaneously unless on site on the day of the fixture, which would then require the away team to arrive earlier and the home team to book the venue longer. Then the home team would have to load the way team chess boards and adequate time to prepare. If the team lists are exchanged the day before then the third party would have to send both teams the team list at the same time. Again what penalties for non-compliance. To facilitate the all this then a central venue would be required with more expense for both teams

It's not ultimately I'm against this but I just don't see how this can practically work with teams geographically so far apart. Emailing each other has its own pitfalls. Perhaps a general agreement to publish player registration forms with a strict grading playing order would help.

Again if anyone wishes to contact me I would welcome the correspondence

[Alan Tate]

As I understand it, no one is asking to change it halfway through the tournament...