OK taking note of Joe's perfectly legitimate point that these polls are far from scientific. Nevertheless we have at least some engagement now
and my interpretation of what we see so far:
Stick with knock-out, single leg only, first out the hat hosting and 8 player teams with a CS nominated venue for the final. Sounds familiar?
Approach to team orders is less well defined; majority want change but with smaller majority here. 24 hour notice is popular I had not thought about idea to have pools AND 24 hour notice but this is certainly a common approach or FIDE so probably needs consideration.
It's 50-50 on the 30 mile rule. Personally surprised at that given how mobile we all are now a days. This also will need a closer look. I think a few comments from the voters to articulate why the hold their particular view would be interesting here.
Lets see where we are come the weekend!
Which all sounds like it will keep existing Richardson Cup players happy, but unlikely to increase team numbers.
Gary McPheator Wrote:Which all sounds like it will keep existing Richardson Cup players happy, but unlikely to increase team numbers.
Correct. The poor brother that is the Spens will die within a few years unless it can survive as a 4-team semi final competition. And the premier Rich will struggle along with 6-8 teams. Something has desperately got lost here, as I interpreted Keith's original mandate he was driving forward was a question along the lines, How can we improve the two events and improve entrant numbers?
The key issue putting off teams from entering is clearly the admin required around venues/dates. Unfortunately not many are taking this on board and practical ideas with alternatives are being dismissed and we are getting bogged down in the formatting of the Rich.
If your car exhaust was making a lot of noise and the car was generally struggling along the roads, you wouldn't give it a fresh lick of paint, put on some nice alloys and hope it would improve things. It is still going to struggle along until things get worse!
You can move the Richardson in two directions: more entries, or stronger teams. I don't think it's possible to get both. The sort of things being proposed and voted on will keep the event strong, but yes, I'm not convinced it will cause an influx of entries. Moving the event to a more weekend based approach will increase numbers, because we can see from congresses, it is a popular format.
However, I have done some analysis on the Richardson this year. In the quarter finals, of the 60 players who played a game, only 31 had played at least one Scottish congress this year. Several of those 31 (I guess myself included) have only managed 1, and those tend to be players playing their local congress only. Now as soon as you go to something requiring weekend commitment on a particular weekend at a defined venue, I guess you will knock out most of those players, for the same reasons they currently don't play congresses. Now there is no doubt that introducing this format, while being popular for many players, would severely dilute the quality of the teams.
This is why I think it is important to decide if you are after a quality or quantity based event. There are reasons in favour of both, but I sit firmly on the quality side because this is the premier team competition in Scotland.
Adam Bremner Wrote:...I have done some analysis on the Richardson this year. In the quarter finals, of the 60 players who played a game, only 31 had played at least one Scottish congress this year. Several of those 31 (I guess myself included) have only managed 1, and those tend to be players playing their local congress only. Now as soon as you go to something requiring weekend commitment on a particular weekend at a defined venue, I guess you will knock out most of those players, for the same reasons they currently don't play congresses. ..
How many of those not playing congresses do play 4NCL? I think there is a group of players in Scotland who play most of their chess outside Scotland. Presumably this is because they feel CS has little to offer them on the domestic scene. What's particularly unfortunate is these guys are generally the best payers in the country or those who aspire to be. They do turn out for Richardson maybe because of a nostalgia for the tradition of the event or because it's only a couple of games max and played at a generous time control against peers. Who knows? What is for sure is this is only place it happens. Personally I think we should try keep it happening to get these guys visible even if just occasionally.
I'll leave it to others to setup the polls on the Spens. Of course Craig's idea straddles both events but based on the feedback on this board it is a not less popular as the existing setup.
George Neave Wrote:How many of those not playing congresses do play 4NCL?
3/29 from what I count. Again, based on this season alone.
10/60 players played 4NCL in total. Again on this season alone, but this will rise with the Scottish team entering next year.
Fascinating and important stat from Adam. The Richardson persuaded 29 stronger plays who ,generally, live within 30 miles of their club to turn out at the weekend. To my way of thinking that makes it a successful event. Elsewhere the point is made in several places that chess players do not like to organise their own venues. To grow the Richardson leave the format in place and facilitate the venues.
The Spens event has parallel logic - sorry have not done stats as per Adam's analysis- Beware of cancelling competition for first division players in order to improve the event for premiership players. That leads only to one competition less.
30 mile residence rule needs changing if only to a larger number. If English IM and GM players started appearing in the Richardson they might in time start appearing in the Scottish Championships.
Keeping our stronger players competing is something that any new format must achieve, but it mustn't be the only aim. Another important stat is that 14 clubs entered teams into both the Richardson and Spens Cups. This compares to 16 clubs in the Richardson Cup alone when I started playing chess about 30 years ago. We must halt the decline in team numbers and in fact reverse it. Preserving the current format so we can continue to see the Lesser Spotted Strong Player in their natural habitat isn't going to achieve this.
I think what has to be done is a rethink not just of our tournaments but of chess Scotland overall. I see a desire to place a team in the 4NCL which I presume the cost of this is being 100% covered by the participants I also presume the huge percentage of the cost of the Scottish team's participations are being met again by the team members themselves. The reason I mention this is that I believe that serious resources have be to allocated in restructuring the game such as making the premier tournaments attractive to play in whether it be a financial or other reward even at the expense of paying for foreign participation. I genuinely believe that chess is not deteriorating but the green shoots of development are manifesting in online chess. The numbers of Scottish players in online forums such as chess.com and others are pleasantly surprising. Chess Scotland should be looking at this slice of the pie if for no other reason than to connect to remote regions where chess clubs are more sparse. There are already several online chess clubs in Scotland with no affiliation to chess Scotland. Perhaps this is the first step for Chess Scotland to reverse this. I also like the idea of a regional chess league tournament where each regional chess league is represented as well as other organisations such as a disabled team or other representative body.
paramount to all this is for each regional chess (and each club) to actively support Chess Scotland events and to support its volunteers such as Keith Rose, which is why I am looking forward to be playing in next years Nancy Elder. We should also be relaxing the rules as to who can play in these tournaments. Anyone who knows me will know of the particular personal experiences (difficulties) I had this year
These polls look to have run their course now. My interpretation:
We keep 8 man teams in a straight knock-out with only the final at CS selected location. All of this is as now.
The 30 mile rules should go.
Interestingly, more people posted on the board order topic than on any other. On choices given, the marginal favourite is for no change although I think the vote for change has been diluted over the other choices and that in fact the majority do want change. Certainly I am for change here as the current arrangement gives unfair advantage to teams where players have similar ratings. I think another poll is needed on this but I am not sure what options to offer. Any suggestions?
One other observation is that either we have only about 20 people sufficiently bothered to express a view or maybe this board does not get visited by the majority of CS members. No idea which it is :-\