Richardson and Spens 2013-14

[Keith Rose]

Following a review of the Richardson and Spens tournaments I can announce the following changes for season 2013-4:

Richardson -

• No longer restricted to CS-member clubs. Any Scottish club may enter;
• Grading order – clarified as published grading for the current season with a 50 point variation permitted;
• There will be a consolation knockout for first round losers similar to the Campbell Rosebowl for the Spens. There will be a trophy but for the moment I am referring to the event as the Richardson Consolation Event until I have time to look into a trophy and a name.

Spens -

• No longer restricted to CS-member clubs. Any Scottish club may enter;
• Grading order – clarified as current published grading, no variation permitted;
• Clubs may enter more than one team

All team finals will be held at Grangemouth on 19 April 2014 starting at 13:00 – no agreement will be given to play any final at another place or time.

This information has been sent to Secretaries of all clubs in Scotland that we have contact details for.

Keith Rose
<!-- e --><a href="mailto:homedirector@chessscotland.com">homedirector@chessscotland.com</a><!-- e -->

[andyburnett]

Hi Keith,
Congratulations on your new role and for getting things up and running so quickly

A minor point I'd like to raise - is the grading variation of 50 points within teams in the Richardson as a result of the 'captain's vote' that Andy Muir initiated or your own interpretation/ruling? Also, is there a reason why this is different for the Spens?

Regards,
Andy

[Keith Rose]

Hi Andy

Thanks for your kind wishes.

I’ll get my explanation in first – I wasn’t at the AGM and haven’t seen the minutes but I have been given some gen on this topic. I did follow the arguments re 50/80 variation, published/live, etc but got fed up after a while. I concluded that whichever system was used some people would be content, others not so, and so there can be no single system that would please everyone.

Spens question first – the decision at the AGM was 5 – 2 for strict grading order versus 50 point variation, so that’s clear enough;

Richardson – the decision was 4 – 4. So what to do? Normally in the case of a tied vote my inclination is to go for status quo on the basis that no decision has been made to change. My approach to all the tournaments that I had to look at was that status quo would not be best so in this case I plumped for change. I’m aware that grading order has been controversial but at least there is no longer room for interpretation, the rule is clear, everyone knows what it means and it will be the same for all.

By the end of the season if there is wide opposition to the variation rule then it can be challenged at the next AGM.

Doubtless there will be other questions/queries but if they are all ‘minor’ I’ll be content.

There is still work to be done.

Cheers
Keith

[andyburnett]

Thanks for the explanation/clarification Keith =)

I still can't believe that it isn't completely and blatantly obvious to one and all that this is a terrible, unfair rule, but as I failed to convince at least 4 of the teams/team captains and yourself I'll just have to live with it

I'm guessing it will still not be FIDE-rated either?! I do know that recent FIDE law changes have made this more difficult, but I personally no longer view the Richardson as a serious 'elite' team competition and will most likely not take part in it this season.

Apologies for the 'negativity' - hopefully the competitions will be successful and enjoyable regardless =)

Andy

[Keith Rose]

Hi Andy

Firstly an apology to you and everyone else, I misunderstood the information I got re the voting - it wasn't at the AGM, it was a captain's vote. I'm not sure how it was carried out but I'm not going to look back, it's time to move on. I don't think, though, that it really changes anything.

Frankly, I'm not convinced either that there is any benefit to this variation rule. I suspect that it all comes down to swings and roundabouts, what might be gained on one board might be lost on another. Perhaps the reasons for it are subtler than that.

I didn't go for the change out of support for its concept, but only to see something change. Keep arguing, at the end of the season I'll be asking for views about all the changes that have been introduced over the four tournaments. Perhaps by then your view will have prevailed.

No, it won't be FIDE rated, it does seem that it would be complicated and costly though I haven't looked too closely. Again, something to mull over during the season. Here's a question for you - what is the difference between a five hour game played against another strong player in a non-FIDE-rated tournament and a five hour game played against another strong player in a FIDE-rated tournament? I'm not being funny here, I really don't know, but maybe that's because I don't have a FIDE grade and don't care if I never get one. The Richardson certainly won't be an elite event if its strongest players don't take part so I do hope you reconsider.

Actually, I don't read your posts as negative, quite the reverse. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts - it's the way to remodel an event on what people really want.

I shall continue to soak up other people's ideas.

Keith

[hamish olson]

Hi Andy

Firstly an apology to you and everyone else, I misunderstood the information I got re the voting - it wasn't at the AGM, it was a captain's vote. I'm not sure how it was carried out but I'm not going to look back, it's time to move on. I don't think, though, that it really changes anything.

Frankly, I'm not convinced either that there is any benefit to this variation rule. I suspect that it all comes down to swings and roundabouts, what might be gained on one board might be lost on another. Perhaps the reasons for it are subtler than that.

I didn't go for the change out of support for its concept, but only to see something change. Keep arguing, at the end of the season I'll be asking for views about all the changes that have been introduced over the four tournaments. Perhaps by then your view will have prevailed.

No, it won't be FIDE rated, it does seem that it would be complicated and costly though I haven't looked too closely. Again, something to mull over during the season. Here's a question for you - what is the difference between a five hour game played against another strong player in a non-FIDE-rated tournament and a five hour game played against another strong player in a FIDE-rated tournament? I'm not being funny here, I really don't know, but maybe that's because I don't have a FIDE grade and don't care if I never get one. The Richardson certainly won't be an elite event if its strongest players don't take part so I do hope you reconsider.

Actually, I don't read your posts as negative, quite the reverse. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts - it's the way to remodel an event on what people really want.

I shall continue to soak up other people's ideas.

Keith

If you want to get a title like FM/IM/GM - as I suspect andy (and quite a lot of other ambitious players who work hard on their chess) would quite like too seeing as he's 50 points off it and it would save him lots of entry fees- then you need to play fide rated tournaments. Foreign/English tournaments are expensive. Richardson is not. (Could equally well sub in SNCL in place of richardson). Have zero sympathy for the players with high grades chickening out and making it harder for ambitious players to work their way up the fide system - if you're not good enough to maintain your grade then you're not as good as your grade says you are and you shouldn't be trying to hide from the fact, you don't see 1800s refuse to play in challengers etc. and I find it hard to understand how concern for a trivial number can make someone decline to play chess (which should be about enjoyment and challenging yourself) unless it is the attention/respect that to some extent comes from being high graded that they are craving. Apologies if this sounds awfully aggressive, I have at least one friend who I have known and respected for a number of years who is guilty of grade protectionism (for want of a better term) to at least some extent. Am not expecting you to change the rules again this season just because of this post as that would just cause confusion, just wanting to explain why I and a lot of others feel the event should be fide rated in future

Re board order, it definitely favours teams with a large amount of players all roughly the same grade. For example when dragons played hamilton there were 5 different players that I could have been facing (that all turned up). Impossible to prepare for, whereas with other teams then it is much easier (and more of a level playing field). (I am a captain of a team in the north east league and have played in a lot of team events so I have a fair amount of sympathy for teams that switch their orders a bit as I have one player who refuses point blank to play above me in board order, and literally wouldn't play if he weren't the board below me but last season he was higher graded than me. Also have sympathy for players who would be stuck on a low board playing players much lower rated than them every game just because they're 10 points lower than a teammate).

My preferred solution to this is to have some flexibility in the board order but to have the teams published at least a couple of days (ideally a week) before, with any last minute withdrawals + replacements to have to be explained to the Tournament Organizer (with the default penalty being the boards affected being defaulted unless good reason given). This way everyone is happy - players idiosyncrasies can be accommodated and people don't have to be stuck on low boards all the time.

Tiny detail I have noticed about the nancy/macisaac tournaments is that the way the rules have been worded it seems (to me anyways!) that juniors between 1775 and 1850 aren't allowed to play in the nancy and are too low graded to qualify for the macisaac, which I'm pretty sure isn't what is intended!

On a more positive note I like how you are being very transparent and fair minded with you're decision making process, and also that you are encouraging discussion rather than treating it as dissent. (edited to make note and I two words rather than one...)

[andyburnett]

My thoughts and position on these matters are pretty much the same as Hamish's.

I have certain personal goals I would like to reach in chess, one of which is to attain the FM title at 2300 FIDE-rating and also perhaps sneak a spot in a Scotland team at some point.

However, there are very few opportunities within Scotland to play FIDE-rated games - those there are can be quite time-consuming/expensive (Scottish Champs for example) which means that I would have to juggle/mix family holidays with cheaper overseas events. I feel that the Scottish events where conditions are good should certainly consider the idea, and the Richardson ought to be FIDE-rated as a matter of principle.

I get the feeling that those against it (generally the higher-rated/titled players in Scotland) don't mind losing points abroad in tournaments but don't want to lose them to those who might be challenging their position for Scottish selection!
Of course, they may have other reasons, but those we have read on here seem to change like the wind! '2 game a day in 4NCL? Shouldn't be fide-rated, too quick and can't prepare', '1 game at a good time-control in Richardson? Errr, shouldn't be FIDE-rated, don't have a reason why!'

The 50-point rule is absurd and inequitable of course, as Hamish's example shows.
Almost all those who have argued in favour of it continually bring up Olympiad/4NCL, etc. as examples of board order flexibility in big, prestigious events...but they never add that pairings are displayed prior to the match taking place which allows for equal preparation if you so choose.

Anyhoo...so far there has been a shocking lack of acrimony in this thread! Has the whole of Hamilton gone 'Doon the Water' for their hols?

[Douglas Bryson]

There could have been a vote at the recent AGM on whether the Rich/Spens should reintroduce FIDE rating this season. Judging by the comments on here I suspect a reintroduction would have been supported. It is irrelevant that certain higher rated players are against it - if the democratic vote was in favour then it restarts.

The issue is already covered here: <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://chessscotland.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=750">viewtopic.php?f=11&t=750</a><!-- l --> New FIDE rules make it technically impossible in the current format of the competition. What was the point of voting in favour if you cant actually carry out what you have just voted on.

The only solution would be each round played in a central venue where you get your licensed arbiter to attend. Would clubs prefer that format just so FIDE rating can restart ?

[andyburnett]

From Dougie's link....

FIDE confirmed to CS that they intend to enforce the policy that licensed arbiters must be used for all rated games. They suggest that CS pay 20 euro per head for every team captain in the Richardson and Spens competitions to be classed as National Arbiters who would then be licensed with FIDE. These team captains could not play in the match.

If I'm reading this correctly, there is no requirement for these team captains to be arbiters in any shape or form, no experience of arbiting required, nor even any knowledge of chess for that matter? Just as long as we pay the 20 Euros per head?

[Douglas Bryson]

Here is the CS/FIDE correspondence on the issue from early August.

CS to FIDE

I wonder if you could please confirm the following new regulation will be strictly enforced.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=161&view=article">http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html? ... ew=article</a><!-- m -->
0.3 All arbiters of a FIDE rated tournament shall be licensed otherwise the tournament shall not be rated.

This regulation presents a real problem for our federation since we had hoped to submit our top knock out club competition in Scotland for FIDE rating.

These matches are played at appropriate time controls in the home premises of each of the competing clubs.

Our federation just does not have sufficient licensed arbiters to go round all these matches which usually take place in multiple locations around Scotland on the same day.

Is it valid for the team captains to act as arbiters?

If not then I think we will have to no longer proceed with the idea of FIDE rating our top club competition.

*****

FIDE to CS

I believe that as a solution could be accepted that the Captains will be appointed by your Federation as National Arbiters, but they need to be licensed. It means that your Federation has to register them to FIDE, by paying the license fee of 20 euros per National Arbiter.

The registration could be made by sending an email to FIDE ( to FIDE Office and to Arbiters' Commission ) and asking for licenses, including the names of the National Arbiters that will get the License. The invoice will be sent by FIDE to the Federation later.

Takis Nikolopoulos
Chairman
FIDE Arbiters' Commission

and with a follow up comment to clarify CS asking if the "arbiters" could play in the match.

I mean non playing captains of course.
It is not possible to accept arbiters who are playing at the same time in the games.
For sure your Federation has to chose people and appoint them as national Arbiters to get license by FIDE, but they must not be players at the same time.
I understand how difficult it is for your Federation, but we cannot bypass the FIDE regulations on this issue.