Richardson Cup

[Keith Rose]

I have sent the following to Richardson Cup captains and Spens finalists:

With the current tournaments having been completed I ask that you indicate your preferences for some suggested changes to format to the Richardson Cup.

The following is a summary of suggestions:

• Open to the top 8 CS clubs, with play offs for relegation to the Spens with winner of the Spens being promoted; Or -
• 2 (or 4) groups of 4 all-play-all, and then semi-finals for group winners (and runners-up if 2 groups) and then a final.
• Clubs to be ranked according to the published start-of-season grading list according to the average grade of their top 8 players who have 10 or more rated games;
• Top 4 seeds not being paired together in first round and a complete draw made at outset (unless of course the group option is adopted);
• If more than 8/16 entries for the Richardson Cup, the unsuccessful clubs would be entered into the Spens Cup. Promotion/relegation to start at the end of 2014/5 season;
• Any club not fulfilling a fixture would drop automatically to losing play off fixtures;
• 5-board teams to help with car-sharing and encourage interest from smaller clubs;

The current rules can be found at:

http://www.chessscotland.com/membership/...pt2013.pdf

There has been no support for reduction of board numbers so this will remain as 8.

Please indicate your preferences with a ‘Yes’ against changes you wish to see. An absence of a ‘Yes’ I will take as ‘no’.

Number of clubs:
1. Maximum 16 clubs (as present but there were 10 this year.), or
2. 8 clubs
If there is a move to 8 any adjustment will be at the end of next season

Format:
1. Knockout (as present), or
2. Groups
Seeding (as described above)?

I ask that you consult with your club members so we get the widest range range of views. The suggestions listed above all came from Richardson Cup participants so there is at least some desire for change. So this doesn't drag on and to allow time to consider the detail of possible changes please reply by end of June.


If you have views on this please let your captains know.

Keith

[Keith Rose]

With reference to the posting above the outcome is that there will be no change to the format next season.

Of the 12 clubs I asked for views I received replies from 5. I thank those clubs, particularly the couple who gave me quite detailed descriptions of their thoughts.

One club stated clearly that they prefer no change at all. Of the other 4,
Only one club favoured groups rather than Knockout;
Only one club favoured seeding, though a couple of others had ideas if seeding were to be adopted;
Two clubs prefer a full draw at the outset;
Two clubs clearly preferred a maximum of 16 teams rather than 8.

There is clearly no appetite for any significant change, therefore the format remains as it is.

One of the respondents mentioned bona-fide issues and Euro Cup. I will be issuing a re-written set of rules that cover these topics among other matters.

[George Neave]

Why can't teams publish a team list at start of the event and then for duration play players in the board order defined on that list. Doesn't need to follow any particular rating order - each club has full discretion - but, simply, must adhere to it.

This is how all serious events do it. Why cannot CS do same?

[andyburnett]

Why can't teams publish a team list at start of the event and then for duration play players in the board order defined on that list. Doesn't need to follow any particular rating order - each club has full discretion - but, simply, must adhere to it.

This is how all serious events do it. Why cannot CS do same?

I concur!

[Keith Rose]

George, Andy

Look at it this way …. nobody has asked for this before – as far as I know.

Why cannot CS do same?

No reason whatsoever. My view is that the Richardson & Spens belong to the clubs and the players that take part, CS only administers the events. If you want it you can have it as long as it has the agreement of a majority. Democracy and all that.

How about you gents put together a proposal, worded as precisely as possible, and I’ll put it to the team captains? What if a team wanted to play someone not on their initial list (but who satisfies the bona fide criteria of course)? Should that be disallowed? Where would/could he fit into the playing order if it is not grading order?

Or have I misunderstood what you are saying?

[George Neave]

George, Andy

Look at it this way …. nobody has asked for this before – as far as I know.

Why cannot CS do same?

No reason whatsoever. My view is that the Richardson & Spens belong to the clubs and the players that take part, CS only administers the events. If you want it you can have it as long as it has the agreement of a majority. Democracy and all that.

How about you gents put together a proposal, worded as precisely as possible, and I’ll put it to the team captains? What if a team wanted to play someone not on their initial list (but who satisfies the bona fide criteria of course)? Should that be disallowed? Where would/could he fit into the playing order if it is not grading order?

Or have I misunderstood what you are saying?

Good idea Keith. May take few weeks with holidays but I will be in touch for this in next 2-3 weeks. I don't agree by the way that CS should take such a passive stance on rules actually. Individuals all have their own personal agendas and if left to a relatively small number of vocal players (no doubt myself included) risks producing a distorted view reflecting these players natural bias. I' prefer it CS take note what is tournament best practice be checking what other premier events are doing elsewhere do e.g. Euro club or 4NCL etc.

[hamish olson]

I'd like this to be the case too (George's suggestion) - assuming there was a clear rule on what happens with new players joining a club - e.g. people moving to scotland half-way through season.

[andyburnett]

What if a team wanted to play someone not on their initial list (but who satisfies the bona fide criteria of course)? Should that be disallowed? Where would/could he fit into the playing order if it is not grading order?

I think the simplest and fairest way would be that the new player would slot in to whatever position he would have been in if the team had been selected in exact 'grading order'.

[Keith Rose]

I' prefer it CS take note what is tournament best practice be checking what other premier events are doing elsewhere do e.g. Euro club or 4NCL etc.

Fair point but who decides what is ‘best practice’? Probably those who take part. If you get someone like me coming along who is not familiar with the rules and practices of events like this then it helps to get the views of those more familiar with them and then to see if there is wider agreement with those views.

I don't agree by the way that CS should take such a passive stance on rules actually. Individuals all have their own personal agendas and if left to a relatively small number of vocal players (no doubt myself included) risks producing a distorted view reflecting these players natural bias.

Isn’t that a self-countering argument, at least in respect of your suggested change? Let’s say a small number of vocal players (you and George – but not to imply you’re shouting about it ) ask for a change; I change the rules according; next season we discover a large body are opposed to it. That would be exactly the distortion you are concerned about. On the other hand a small number of vocal players (see above) ask for a change; I put it to the clubs and we discover before anyone gets upset that they don’t want it. Or do. At least more will be content with the outcome than not.

In fact some of the suggestions that I put to the clubs originally came from a small number (two or three) who sent me convincing arguments for several changes but, having consulted, it turns out they are in the minority – comfortably.

What you are proposing is a significant change to long-established practice so I think it’s right to consult. I accept what you are saying if it is in respect of administration of the events and you’ll find some of this in the new version of the rules (you do read them of course?).