Richardson 2012-13

[Calum MacQueen]

I'm going to save a lot of wasted typing...

Have the 80 point rule, fine. Just publish pairings the night before. Fide rate the event, use Fide ratings for board order.
Simples

Well, that was easy. What's the fuss about? Andy Muir can play his team anyway he wants and Andy Burnett can prepare properly. Struggling to see the issue...

[andyburnett]

I have still to hear anyone agree or disagree with my point that rules should put parity between teams higher than flexibility within teams. This is a fundamental question - anyone seeking to change or introduce rules really ought to have an answer or at least a viewpoint on this.

Should Andy Muir's domestic arrangements be of any interest to this discussion? We all have personal lives which impinge on our chess and Andy apparently

prepared for Burnett/Bathie/Cocuzzo

so it can't have been that much of an issue!?

Just noticed Calum's comment while writing this. I would be happy enough with this compromise (although it obviously still isn't a completely fair rule).

[Kevin Mayo]

This is all quite hilarious. Don't you lot have anything better to do?
I got bored reading all the drivel. So much energy and thought - wasted.
Is it really important enough to merit such 'discussion'? (that's rhetorical, please).

Make it simple. Make it clear.
Therefore I suggest one option:

Play your chosen team in strict published grading order (if FIDE rated, then FIDE grade, if not then CS grade).

No-one gets any advantage. No-one is penalised. Level playing field for all.
Oh my God, it's so easy. It must be flawed in every conceivable way.

[Ken_Stewart]

As Alex says, rule 6 makes no mention of grades, nor in my view, should it. Many of the complications (eg which of several possible grades? – mine differ by nearly 300) have been alluded to and I’d not favour making the rule as complex (or more) as the bona fide one. There was a case many years ago (before live grades) where a team put a player ‘out of order’ by 150 points or so. When the other team complained I checked with the grader who told me the order used was correct on current playing strength. As usual, be careful what you wish for. There may be unintended consequences, eg Craig’s point about his CS grade relative to Keti’s.

Likewise, the idea of exchanging team lists the day before (and tossing a coin remotely) is over-bureaucratic and has too many holes in it (eg if a strong player becomes available at the last minute, does he replace board 8 or is he ineligible, or what?). In the last Glasgow League match I played, I went expecting to meet three of the team at a station. Two got off the train, including one who was not among the three.

Fairness. To my mind it is pointless to argue with Andy B in detail. This is just one of many random factors in a match – home/away draw, availability of players, toss for colour, random or seeded draw, etc.

“Something must be done”. Maybe people just need to be more reasonable and realistic, and remember that the work of CS is done on a voluntary basis. In an ideal world we would pay an independent arbiter to run the tournaments. It is not perfect that Andy M (and I before him) played in the tournaments, but that’s the way it is.

Rule 12. Although this gives the Home Director power to change rules, this should really only be used in exceptional circumstances, eg to escape a situation like last year’s regarding the central venue final when strict application of all the rules was impossible.

[StevieHilton]

I have read with interest the debate over the Richardson Cup match between Wandering Dragons and Hamilton
I made the decision as Home Director in good faith and was given less than 24 hours to make a decision.
I am not a qualified arbiter and so I consulted with Donald Wilson, and based my decision on that.
I was effectively put in a no win situation. I based my decision on the time available and the demand o for an instantaneous response.
I feel now my positions as a director of Chess Scotland are untenable, and accordingly I have sent a letter of resignation to the Executive Director, which has been accepted

[andyburnett]

Ken Stewart wrote

Fairness. To my mind it is pointless to argue with Andy B in detail. This is just one of many random factors in a match – home/away draw, availability of players, toss for colour, random or seeded draw, etc.

Really Ken? Why would that be? Perhaps I have misunderstood because I have already said I would be happy to compromise whereas Andy Muir is sticking to his rigid viewpoint partly because his wife objects to 'baby-sitting' her own child! Your point about it being 'one of many random factors', however, is ridiculous.

Just because a competition is run by volunteers doesn't mean we can't disagree with them when, for example, a conflict of interest arises.


Stevie Hilton wrote: I

have read with interest the debate over the Richardson Cup match between Wandering Dragons and Hamilton
I made the decision as Home Director in good faith and was given less than 24 hours to make a decision.
I am not a qualified arbiter and so I consulted with Donald Wilson, and based my decision on that.
I was effectively put in a no win situation. I based my decision on the time available and the demand o for an instantaneous response.
I feel now my positions as a director of Chess Scotland are untenable, and accordingly I have sent a letter of resignation to the Executive Director, which has been accepted

I have to confess that I have no idea what Stevie is talking about If there was a 'decision' then nobody told me about it (Elliott?), I had already decided on the day I would play whoever sat opposite me without argument, and there is absolutely no reason why Steve should resign over it (so please reconsider), The match itself was played without rancour and now we are trying to make sure we have a rule in place which everyone involved can accept - or at least vote on and be done with it.

[PatCoffey]

Although the match was played without rancour, as all matches in all events should be, thats hardly the point as this issue could kick off again in the next round putting the organisers again under unnecessary pressure.

The events beforehand from Dragons amounted to little short of blackmail...basically agree with us on board order or have your team turn up at Edinburgh and we will refuse to play. One email in particular that I saw was blatantly offensive. What were the officials to do? We were the visiting team so what were we to do...turn up and then go home again?

I found out about this nonesence on the Friday night/Saturday morning! Very inhospitable pre-match attitude...very much in contrast to the 3 home games at Hamilton that I have played in against Dragons in recent years!

I am now strongly against FIDE rating these types of events (Richardson, SNCL). Too acrimonious.

A 50 point rule is fine. I am neutral on team lists...it does seem a hassle but I cannot see a serious objection from a players perspective.

I had thought the idea of this 50 point rule, "playing strength" or whatever , was to prevent someone puting an 1800 against a GM on B1 and then fielding a 2300 on B2 against the same team. All of a sudden its about allowing opponent specific preparation. A joke.

A normal team discussion is who wants B1, who is on form, etc . You look at your game and decide. Other factors are spreading out the games. If this impacts the "night before prep" for some players its just too bad. Its not unfair, just too bad.

At SNCL if you play B1 its me or Joe 90% of the time...even when Stephen was also active half the time I would turn up to the SNCL on the Sunday morning expecting to be B3 and would find that I was B1. Not ideal for me but fine. So much for "unfair advantage".

At SNCL you know months in advance so how hard is it to prepare if you want to. The Richardson also gives plenty of time. Simpole facts.

Preparation is cumulative. If thats a problem for some players then again its just too bad.So you don't get your way. Fine. Its an amateur game. No money. No norms. So lets just try to maintain good manners.

[andyburnett]

Although the match was played without rancour, as all matches in all events should be, thats hardly the point as this issue could kick off again in the next round putting the organisers again under unnecessary pressure.

Which is why the point I made the point The match itself was played without rancour [b]and now we are trying to make sure we have a rule in place which everyone involved can accept [/b]- or at least vote on and be done with it


The events beforehand from Dragons amounted to little short of blackmail...basically agree with us on board order or have your team turn up at Edinburgh and we will refuse to play. One email in particular that I saw was blatantly offensive. What were the officials to do? We were the visiting team so what were we to do...turn up and then go home again?

Fair enough, things could have been dealt with much better and less rudely (there were amicable behind-the-scenes discussions taking place to find a compromise), but maybe you should also be looking at members of your own team in this respect, and reign in the more offensive ones?


I found out about this nonesence on the Friday night/Saturday morning! Very inhospitable pre-match attitude...very much in contrast to the 3 home games at Hamilton that I have played in against Dragons in recent years!

Again, you should be looking also at your own team and your history of being involved in such disputes - (I'm still waiting to hear back from Joe about the SNCL incident). Like it or not, Hamilton have a reputation of trying to bend the rules (or interpret them as Andy Muir would say) to suit their own ends.

I am now strongly against FIDE rating these types of events (Richardson, SNCL). Too acrimonious.

A 50 point rule is fine. I am neutral on team lists...it does seem a hassle but I cannot see a serious objection from a players perspective.

I think a 50 point rule would probably be even more unfair than an 80 point one - team lists is a decent compromise.

I had thought the idea of this 50 point rule, "playing strength" or whatever , was to prevent someone puting an 1800 against a GM on B1 and then fielding a 2300 on B2 against the same team. All of a sudden its about allowing opponent specific preparation. A joke.

Only a joke because it doesn't affect your team in the way it affects most others. The thing here is, I'm not banging on about this because of a 'poor me' attitude - it confers an advantage on one team, whether that happens to be yours, mine or anyone else's.

A normal team discussion is who wants B1, who is on form, etc . You look at your game and decide. Other factors are spreading out the games. If this impacts the "night before prep" for some players its just too bad. Its not unfair, just too bad.

Our team discussion doesn't involve who wants to be board 1! Can't you see this point? Hamilton's team discussion could easily have been, 'OK, who wants to play Alan Tate?' Steve? Joe? Pat? Andy? Anyone got a good/great score against him? OK, Pat, well done, you're on 1. Steve, your on 2 cos you've beaten Andy the last 4 times you've played...blahblahblah'

At SNCL if you play B1 its me or Joe 90% of the time...even when Stephen was also active half the time I would turn up to the SNCL on the Sunday morning expecting to be B3 and would find that I was B1. Not ideal for me but fine. So much for "unfair advantage".

That's your problem then Pat - no-one else has any say in your team preparation or lack of it! Why even bring this up?

At SNCL you know months in advance so how hard is it to prepare if you want to. The Richardson also gives plenty of time. Simpole facts.

and much easier if you know you are to play a specific person

Preparation is cumulative. If thats a problem for some players then again its just too bad.So you don't get your way. Fine. Its an amateur game. No money. No norms. So lets just try to maintain good manners.

It's not just preparation as I point out above, but even here your argument is that you want flexibility/ share of stronger games. So improve. If thats a problem for some players then again its just too bad. You don't get your way? Fine. It's an amateur game blahblahlah good manners ;P

[andyburnett]

I have read with interest the debate over the Richardson Cup match between Wandering Dragons and Hamilton
I made the decision as Home Director in good faith and was given less than 24 hours to make a decision.
I am not a qualified arbiter and so I consulted with Donald Wilson, and based my decision on that.
I was effectively put in a no win situation. I based my decision on the time available and the demand o for an instantaneous response.
I feel now my positions as a director of Chess Scotland are untenable, and accordingly I have sent a letter of resignation to the Executive Director, which has been accepted

It turns out I was copied into an e-mail from Steve/Donald but the message only read "there is" =o which is why I probably didn't see it!

[JRedpath]

I can only remember one inncident from SNCL a few years back when Edinburgh West insisted that we play in strict order of FIDE grades. This was the year when Myself, Steven and Pat were all rated within 1 point of each other I think.

As far as I can remember the arbiter upheld their complaint and we were forced to change board orders right before the round was about to start, completely wrong in my opinion, but we accepted the decision.

Clearly you have a completely different view on the issue to us Andy, which is fair enough. I do however wonder what would have happened if we had stuck to our chosen order before last Saturdays match ;P

Who knows what might happen in the future, maybe in a few years Dragons will have 4-5 players who can change boards, I will not be complaining then. There is also no guarantee that Hamilton players ratings will remain so close either, it's the luck of the draw.