Richardson/Spens 2011-12

[Ken_Stewart]

I think the rule means what it says, ie current playing strength, and I don’t see that this needs amendment. I certainly don’t favour a rule which specifies an exact grading order; small grading differences are insignificant. A team captain who listed players far out of grading order could expect to be asked to justify this (as happened when I was running these events) and be penalised if appropriate.

There is an inescapable conflict between what may be seen as absolute consistency and common sense. I refer to the preamble to the Laws of Chess: "Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his freedom of judgement..." and agree very much with that.

It's very prevalent in football to have managers demanding 'consistency'. They forget that this can throw other things out of the window. One example is "It's either a penalty or a dive" - nonsense, there's a grey area in between. I think football is too prescriptive.

[andyburnett]

Thanks Dougie,

That's exactly the kind of reply I was looking for; helpful, constructive, informative - I somehow missed the last page or 2 of that discussion last year - my mistake.


@ Andy Muir,
Your 'guidance' on the board order issue is nothing more than your personal preference and not remotely what the rule states or implies. If you want to have an '80 point rule' in place then YOU should attempt to change the rule through the AGM.

@ Ken Stewart,
Small grading differences are NOT insignificant when it comes to board order in team matches. You may not be aware of the 'Hamilton' issue in the SNCL in recent years; 4 players within 80 points who played in a variety of board orders to suit whichever team/opponent they happened to be playing, whereas other teams (not so strong in depth) were stuck in an easy to predict order.
You already have flexibility within the wording of the rule - that is you can use either the Published list, or the updated Live list (if you feel the Published list is no longer indicative of true playing strength).

Now, to make this year's Richardson more farcical, there is a plan/suggestion to use staggered start-times for the final.
Players who can make the 1pm intended start will play normal time control, players who can't (and insist on the 2pm 'official' start time) will play a shorter time control against an opponent who may have been waiting an hour! In Scotland's premier team event?!

I strongly suggest that someone in CS who knows what they are doing takes over the organising of the finals quickly and sorts out this mess.

Andy Burnett

[amuir]

Andy
The staggered start times have been backed by senior controllers and CS officials to get round an ambiguous rule. It's not just me. Let's get these finals played in good spirit. I don't see much of that at the moment. Please turn up at the AGM with your new rules proposed and seconded.

[PatCoffey]

The team finals,including the Richardson, should be a good day for those involved. The Richardson match in particular of W Dragons v Edinburgh West should have some good matchups and if both teams are representative its difficult to predict a winner.

It has to be said that Andy Muir seems to be receiving little thanks and maybe some unjustified criticism for volunteering his time organising this event!

1pm or 2pm start. Not a matter for me to comment on (did not know about until Andy B's post) other than that if both team captains agree on 1pm then will be fine for all.

FIDE rating. Not an issue for me either way but I do know that a number of titled players do not like such events being FIDE rated e.g. some will not play SNCL D1 because of FIDE rating (which I understand has now been dropped for next season so we will see!). Andy Muir's decision to drop is his call and hardly unreasonable.

Board Order. I agree with Ken that the rule as stated is fine.
At the SNCL the rule which was voted on is 50 points (plus same board order for both matches on the day). 4NCL use 80 points (I am told). I do not know if there is debate/dissention at the 4NCL about this? Andy has played in the 4NCL which is a mature league and one game per day so his giving guidance at 80points is again hardly unreasonable whether everyone agrees with it or not!

Andy B seems to be driving at another point which is whether teams with a group of players at the same level should be able to vary....making it more difficult to do specific preparation as less certainty about the actual opponent....but being himself vulnerable to the opponents preparations!
OK... I think most people will see the issue here but I suspect that opinions will vary. If I were playing for another club and B1 in every game then it just would not bother me....I could always just go 1.b4 or 1...b5 if I wanted something different. However If I were on B4 at the SNCL for every match (even if only 1 rating pt less than B3!) then there is less incentive to play every game as the grading differences can be quite large.

For me Andy B's views do not give enough regard to giving team members a balance of fully competitive games (Andy-at the SNCL B1 is much tougher than B4 but if I could go B1 in every game -and in GD1 and Richardson-I would do so but the fact is that there is also Andy M , Joe and Steven and these are team events).

Whatever opinions on movement within teams (50 or 80 points) I feel that its hardly fair to criticise Andy Muir on this!

[andyburnett]

Andy
The staggered start times have been backed by senior controllers and CS officials to get round an ambiguous rule. It's not just me. Let's get these finals played in good spirit. I don't see much of that at the moment. Please turn up at the AGM with your new rules proposed and seconded.

There is a rule in place regarding board order which you are not following Andy - YOU should propose a change if you don't like the rule.It is your intransigence which is causing this particular problem, and your inability to either communicate changes in the rules or justify why you are ignoring them. Simply stating and re-stating that this is what YOU think the rule should be is not good enough.

The start time issue was not aimed at you in particular, but it is completely ridiculous - the rule in question is not ambiguous, it is flexible to allow you as the organiser some leeway. If you have arranged the match for 1pm, and given us all plenty of notice (which you have), then 1pm it should be and if there is someone who cannot make it for that start time then tough on them (whether it's from my team or anyone else's). [I couldn't play SNCL this year at all because of other commitments and my team has been relegated- that's unfortunate but tough luck]

[andyburnett]

It has to be said that Andy Muir seems to be receiving little thanks and maybe some unjustified criticism for volunteering his time organising this event!

See my post above Pat - it's always good to have volunteers, but that doesn't make it THEIR tournament to do with as they please in every respect.

1pm or 2pm start. Not a matter for me to comment on (did not know about until Andy B's post) other than that if both team captains agree on 1pm then will be fine for all.

Well that's the problem - another team is objecting to it and now there is a plan to have different boards starting at different times with different time controls which is farcical.

FIDE rating. Not an issue for me either way but I do know that a number of titled players do not like such events being FIDE rated e.g. some will not play SNCL D1 because of FIDE rating (which I understand has now been dropped for next season so we will see!). Andy Muir's decision to drop is his call and hardly unreasonable.

SNCL and Richardson are completely different as you well know so I don't understand your point here? Andy Muir was one of the main objectors to SNCL being FIDE-rated as there are 2 games per day (fine, valid objection) so why then object to a one-game-per-day/5 hour session being FIDE-rated? Because it's a team event and you might have to take one for the team? Think Olympiad/ European team/ European Club Cup/ 4NCL etc. Are none of these FIDE-rated?
Anyway, I have already admitted i didn't know about the FIDE-rating discussion/decision from last year in an earlier post so am perfectly wiling to accept that if I want that to change I will have to propose it and find backing.

Board Order. I agree with Ken that the rule as stated is fine.
At the SNCL the rule which was voted on is 50 points (plus same board order for both matches on the day). 4NCL use 80 points (I am told). I do not know if there is debate/dissention at the 4NCL about this? Andy has played in the 4NCL which is a mature league and one game per day so his giving guidance at 80points is again hardly unreasonable whether everyone agrees with it or not!

The rule as stated is fine, I agree. It's simply not being adhered to! It has been altered by Andy to fit whatever his personal preference is (his 'guidance'). Show me how 50/80 points can be read into the Richardson rule and I will shut up. I have also played in the 4NCL so my point is at least as valid as his.

Andy B seems to be driving at another point which is whether teams with a group of players at the same level should be able to vary....making it more difficult to do specific preparation as less certainty about the actual opponent....but being himself vulnerable to the opponents preparations!
OK... I think most people will see the issue here but I suspect that opinions will vary. If I were playing for another club and B1 in every game then it just would not bother me....I could always just go 1.b4 or 1...b5 if I wanted something different. However If I were on B4 at the SNCL for every match (even if only 1 rating pt less than B3!) then there is less incentive to play every game as the grading differences can be quite large.

For me Andy B's views do not give enough regard to giving team members a balance of fully competitive games (Andy-at the SNCL B1 is much tougher than B4 but if I could go B1 in every game -and in GD1 and Richardson-I would do so but the fact is that there is also Andy M , Joe and Steven and these are team events).

As you know Pat this has been an issue specific to your Hamilton team for years now. I don't want to play 1.b4/...b5 just because I don't know if I will be playing you, Joe, Stephen or Andy! Why on earth should I? Why should your team (or any team) be given an advantage like this (whether you use it or not)? I seem to recall your team being all upset about being asked to play in grading order against Ed. West in the SNCL a few years back? Why so upset if it doesn't matter to you?

I understand your 'less incentive' point, but the main incentive should be for your team to win shouldn't it? That's why I have played TAFCA league matches whenever I am resident in Fife despite outgrading many opponent's by hundreds of points.
Another incentive might be to get your grading higher than your team-mates to get stronger opponent's - that is what is firing me when I play Edinburgh League matches.

Whatever opinions on movement within teams (50 or 80 points) I feel that its hardly fair to criticise Andy Muir on this!

It is perfectly fair to criticise him on these points as he has been unable/unwilling to clarify how this fits the rules as they stand, instead telling me to propose a change!

I will enjoy the finals whatever happens, but volunteer or not, one person should not have the power to run long-standing CS tournaments in ANY way he sees fit. See last year's discussion (linked by Dougie in an earlier post) and you will see similar coments to this by others.

Regards,
Andy Burnett

[amuir]

FIDE ratings: players from Hamilton, Ed West, Polytechnic dont want it - not just me
80 pt rule: happy to copy 4NCL - not just me
streetfighting: thought you were nasty of your criticism of Neil Farrell, a true gentleman, he might get his revenge in the final

[PatCoffey]

What to say? I am sure everyone would agree that " volunteer or not, one person should not have the power to run long-standing CS tournaments in ANY way he sees fit." However is Andy M really making it his tournament doing as he pleases "in every respect?". Really?

" It is perfectly fair to criticise him on these points as he has been unable/unwilling to clarify how this fits the rules as they stand, instead telling me to propose a change!" Ok...how many responses do you want...should he be debating it with you online?

1pm or 2pm start
I have no further comment.

FIDE rating
OK everyone has their own views which is fair.

Board Orders
"SNCL and Richardson are completely different" -yes but you were the one who referenced SNCL in your reply to Ken's opinion.
You state "The rule as stated is fine, I agree. It's simply not being adhered to!". According to who? Kens opinion seems clear on this and it is one that I happen to agree with..you disagree which is fine and reasonable ...but your disagreement it does not make the views of others unreasonable.

You asked Andy for guidance on board order ....and as organiser he has given it... you do not like the guidance...you state that "I have also played in the 4NCL so my point is at least as valid as his" this is great but please recognise that his point is also at least as valid as yours....and I am sure there are others with their own equally valid views who would disagree with you both...he is the organiser... you did ask for guidance.

Actually previous Richardson finals (and earlier rounds) have not been played by just listing by grade i.e. a one point differential and you are on a lower board. If anyone you are the one trying to have your interpretation read into the rule (which does not even mention grading!) but Kens opinion seems unambiguous.

"As you know Pat this has been an issue specific to your Hamilton team for years now" "I seem to recall your team being all upset about being asked to play in grading order against Ed. West in the SNCL a few years back? Why so upset if it doesn't matter to you? "
It mattered because of how it was done. I was the only one who was "upset"...I was actually sitting at B1 waiting for play then informed with a minute to go that we were being asked to play in strict grading order (differences maybe a handful of points)...and that I should move to B3...all a bit rude and unsettling....pure gamesmanship. At least the 50 point rule that was introduced at the AGM put a stop to this kind of nonesence.

The further points re participation v. team balance we just need to disagree on and hardly matters here.

[JRedpath]

The SNCL rule states that players may change board order as long as they are within 50 points, but must play in the same order for both games on the day.

Hamilton have never broken this rule, the rule applies to every team. Other teams may also change their board order if they wish. Many other teams have had players closely graded together in the past and chosen not to change their order, that is their choice. If you don't like the rule then propose that it is changed at the AGM!

I agree on the issue of the Richardson though with regards start time, it is ridiculous that games may start at different times and with a different time control. All games should either start at 1pm or 2pm, not a mixture.

Couldn't care less if games are FIDE rated or not.

[Jim Webster]

Parts of this thread seem confusing to me, even as a non Richardson/Spens player. Particularly regarding the flexible start time and different rates of play.

Flexible start time I can understand and accept, but not the different rates of play.

According to the published Rulebook on our website

Richardson Cup Rules

10 It is the responsibility of the home team to provide sufficient clocks and suitable sets, boards, etc. When play takes place at an intermediate venue, each team shall provide half the equipment required (plus one additional clock). The time limit shall be 40 moves in 2 hours.

I don't see anywhere where authority is delegated to make any change to this, and would imaging that any Rule change would need to be done via the AGM.

Can anyone clarify and show where I'm missing the point in the published Rules?