Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Declining entries
#34
(11-09-2017, 10:41 PM)George Neave Wrote:
(11-09-2017, 08:43 PM)JMcNicoll Wrote:
(11-09-2017, 07:39 PM)George Neave Wrote:
(11-09-2017, 03:29 PM)David Clayton Wrote: Just a quick reply to explain why the Inverness Chess Congress restricts entries to U2200.

In order to hold a FIDE rated tournament within a 3 hour playing session, we have to restrict the entries to U2200. It is part of the FIDE Rate of Play Regulations.

We would have to go to 4hr playing sessions to allow above 2200 players to participate, which is impossible to fit in due to the time constraints of the venue.

The other Scottish Chess Tour events do not have this restriction.

I hope this explains why the Inverness Chess Congress operates this restriction.

It would be better to drop the FIDE rating then and open the event to everyone. It's interesting how people get excited about discrimination for all sorts or reasons but being discriminated against for being too good is pretty weird and cannot be a good thing.
It's also interesting how people feel able to pontificate about circumstances they know nothing about and throw about words like "discriminated".

The reason to drop the length of the playing session had nothing to do with "discrimination" against 2200 and above players and everything to do with the venue and circumstances which the congress has to work around.

As to the FIDE aspect that makes no difference, as far as we can see, to the entry to this congress.

I would also note that in the previous Inverness congresses only 3 entrants were graded over 2200 at best, so not a difficult decision for us to make.

What I know about the circumstances before "pontificating" was based on what you said above. Set the time control that suits the venue and open the event to everyone. That's more important than worrying about which rating body will rate the games. Being inclusive is more important. We'll never know how many 2200's would have entered because they were not invited!

My only previous post on this thread was the one starting it so that may be another little inaccuracy, unless that's what you are referring to, in which case you may have to be a little more specific as I covered a lot of ground.

I clearly stated that the best the congress attracted was 3 over 2200 graded players and that was with the games going to FIDE rating. We adjusted the timing to accommodate the venue this year to keep the availability of a FIDE rated open available to that region of Scotland knowing that we would only appear to be disappointing, at most, 3 players. And at no time are any over 2200 graded players going to be, invited. They're not that important to the running of a congress.

I think this is a good thing to do, to give an opportunity to players to gain a FIDE rating giving them easier entry into the other FIDE rated events and a little closer to home than most of weekend congresses in Scotland.

But please, do carry on explaining how to run a chess congress, I'm sure every organiser in Scotland can't wait for the next bon mot.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Declining entries - by JMcNicoll - 10-06-2017, 10:34 PM
RE: Declining entries - by SBMannion - 12-06-2017, 10:17 PM
RE: Declining entries - by Craig Pritchett - 13-06-2017, 05:59 PM
RE: Declining entries - by WBuchanan - 14-06-2017, 12:43 AM
RE: Declining entries - by George Neave - 22-06-2017, 07:14 PM
RE: Declining entries - by Patrick McGovern - 29-08-2017, 11:50 PM
RE: Declining entries - by George Neave - 31-08-2017, 03:08 PM
RE: Declining entries - by Patrick McGovern - 31-08-2017, 04:17 PM
RE: Declining entries - by David Deary - 05-09-2017, 10:21 PM
RE: Declining entries - by PeterReidSmith - 31-08-2017, 05:13 PM
RE: Declining entries - by amuir - 01-09-2017, 11:43 AM
RE: Declining entries - by andyburnett - 02-09-2017, 03:59 PM
RE: Declining entries - by AndrewGreen - 02-09-2017, 06:11 PM
RE: Declining entries - by John Watkins - 02-09-2017, 10:20 PM
RE: Declining entries - by amuir - 02-09-2017, 09:07 PM
RE: Declining entries - by Adam Bremner - 02-09-2017, 11:59 PM
RE: Declining entries - by PeterReidSmith - 03-09-2017, 12:03 PM
RE: Declining entries - by AndrewGreen - 05-09-2017, 11:18 PM
RE: Declining entries - by Matthew Turner - 06-09-2017, 09:10 AM
RE: Declining entries - by amuir - 06-09-2017, 09:14 AM
RE: Declining entries - by Alex McFarlane - 06-09-2017, 10:10 AM
RE: Declining entries - by Andrew Greet - 06-09-2017, 01:38 PM
RE: Declining entries - by Jim Webster - 06-09-2017, 03:03 PM
RE: Declining entries - by Adam Bremner - 06-09-2017, 07:27 PM
RE: Declining entries - by George Neave - 11-09-2017, 10:19 AM
RE: Declining entries - by Andrew Greet - 11-09-2017, 11:30 AM
RE: Declining entries - by mclarke - 11-09-2017, 11:54 AM
RE: Declining entries - by George Neave - 11-09-2017, 12:05 PM
RE: Declining entries - by mclarke - 11-09-2017, 01:36 PM
RE: Declining entries - by David Clayton - 11-09-2017, 03:29 PM
RE: Declining entries - by George Neave - 11-09-2017, 07:39 PM
RE: Declining entries - by JMcNicoll - 11-09-2017, 08:43 PM
RE: Declining entries - by George Neave - 11-09-2017, 10:41 PM
RE: Declining entries - by JMcNicoll - 11-09-2017, 11:58 PM
RE: Declining entries - by andyburnett - 12-09-2017, 12:01 AM
RE: Declining entries - by Andrew Greet - 12-09-2017, 02:00 PM
RE: Declining entries - by George Neave - 13-09-2017, 08:56 AM
RE: Declining entries - by Andy Howie - 12-09-2017, 11:51 PM
RE: Declining entries - by Alex McFarlane - 13-09-2017, 06:38 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)