George - I'd first like to say thank you for taking the initiative with these polls. They have elicited more of a response than direct approaches to clubs and teams. Although I emailed every club and every Richardson and Spens team captain I received responses from just one club, two team captains and one 'ordinary' club member. Thanks to the polls there is now some direction for the 'what next' question.
I agree with your reading of the results and I confess to being a bit surprised at some of the results, I really thought there was a desire for radical change but these results suggest otherwise. In fact it looks as though the only element with a call for change is the 30-mile restriction in the bona fide rules, and that one is quite close. The distance restriction will go but other parts of the bona fide rule will have to change too, so if there are any opinions out there please do share. I'll put forward my own thoughts a little later
Quote:the current arrangement gives unfair advantage to teams where players have similar ratings
Can you clarify what you mean? What arrangement and what is the advantage?
I am speaking as someone who is not a top class player and who only occasionally plays in the Richardson and even less frequently in congresses in Scotland. Why? I derive more enjoyment from playing in tournaments abroad - better playing conditions, sensible time controls with increments, one game only per day, and the opportunity for chess tourism as well as playing, and the chance to watch top-class players in action.
For what it is worth, I too favour the Current Richardson knockout format with 8 players per team. As regards a central venue, common sense should prevail in the event of two two teams from the same region being drawn together, even in the final. The one change I would support would be to allow more flexibility in player eligibility - I see no reason why a 'sponsored' team should not play whoever they like so long as they can afford the expense of doing so, as happens in the 4ncl and European club cup and elsewhere in Europe. That might open the way to possible sponsorship of teams and more money coming into chess in Scotland.
Keith Rose Wrote:Quote:the current arrangement gives unfair advantage to teams where players have similar ratings
Can you clarify what you mean? What arrangement and what is the advantage?
I think I can take this one, because the lineups would be a nice thing to change. If you are from a club where you have a lot of players within 100 points, there are so many permutations of board ordering that the opposing team has no idea who will play where, especially when switching between rounds is allowed. Teams play out of order all the time to try and surprise their opponents and get a slight advantage. However, if you come from a club where your players are spread out a bit, the lineup is easy enough to predict, or at least on some boards. Therefor one club is getting a decent prep advantage. It is not their fault, but it is certainly an advantage, and I can't see any good reason why evening this up would be a bad thing. The way round it would be basically what 4ncl does. You submit the team sheet the night before, and the team lineups get published, say by 10pm the night before. That way both teams get a chance to do some prep, and when the event is FIDE rated, I think it is only right.
There were some people wondering what would happen if a player pulled out between the team sheet being submitted and the actual game. Well, just have a nominated reserve, again like 4NCL, who can step in on a given board. OK this may not strictly fit with grading order, but to be a reserve the player would likely not be in the strongest 8 anyway, and the club fielding the reserve would be the ones put at a minor disadvantage. That would only change that one board, and I believe that teams would all be reasonable enough not to fiddle it to have a GM reserve who steps in on b7.
Keith Rose Wrote:....Quote:the current arrangement gives unfair advantage to teams where players have similar ratings
Can you clarify what you mean? What arrangement and what is the advantage?
I just tried to explain my reasoning on this in the thread attached to the poll. Adam also gets it. I think all players in the 2000 and up get it. Those in the clubs that are gaining advantage from it often comment here to say there is no issue (what a surprise). Players at top end of the board order may be less bothered too as the probabilities of predicting opponents is easier as number of players above is less and so impact of 1 not playing is lessened.
In short, in 2015, in an FIDE event to be taken seriously there should be some effort on part of the organiser to ensure information available to players in advance of the game is equal. Publishing the team 24 hours in advance seems a pretty good starting point to me.
I don't agree with what is being said on board order. Publishing the list in advance gives an advantage to those with the time/dedication and the best games databases/engines to do some preparation. What about those who do not have the time or desire to do any pre-game prep?
I think you are under the impression that some teams change board order to give themselves an advantage, which may be the case with some teams, however I can say the only reason I would switch order would be to avoid computer prep, certainly never to give myself an advantage!
Computers have not been good for chess, let the best player win, not the one with the best computer.
JRedpath Wrote:the only reason I would switch order would be to avoid computer prep, certainly never to give myself an advantage!
Isn't avoiding someone who would have prepared to play you gaining an advantage!!
Virtually all tournaments which claim any status will publish the draw in advance. The vast majority of players, even those under 2000, expect that to be the case even those who have no intention of doing any additional prep.
It was wrongly stated that the 4NCL publishes a night in advance. It does so only a couple of hours ahead of the round starting. Board orders are submitted by midnight on Thursday, Saturday and where necessary Sunday. But these are not made public. There is provision for these orders to change prior to publication. The draws are published at the venue and on the web site.
Alex McFarlane Wrote:It was wrongly stated that the 4NCL publishes a night in advance
I see I worded what I meant badly. I was meaning that the concept of submitting a team sheet the night before, and then getting it published in advance was the model to use as in 4NCL. Unlike 4NCL, there is travelling on the day with the Richardson, so you would have to get more than the 90mins used there, so 10pm the night before was just an idea.
Also, while Joe may be noble enough not to fiddle his board to choose his opponent, it IS happening with some teams. I don't want to name and shame so to speak, but you can just look at the past few years and see for yourself. I think everyone can find an hour in the morning to do some prep if they really wanted, so if you can't be bothered, then I would say you quite rightly give the person who puts in the work a slight advantage.That has to be more fair than some players essentially being a sitting target for others.
Adam is right. I'm gonna do another poll with a clearer yes / no choice and then if advance publication wins I will do a follow-up to see what is preferred notice.
Fide is the international chess body. I don't know about the rest of the world but in Europe the minimum standard of any quality Fide rated team event is:
1) One game a day
2) Draw published at least a several hours before the start of play
3) Rules in place to prevent teams gaining an advantage by fiddling with the board order
Whether certain individuals prefer one way or another is irrelevant. I prefer playing without preparation too but look at the bigger picture - it's the fairest way. Anyone can use TWIC and Stockfish is free. Really hard to see an argument against that is not purely out of self interest?
George Neave Wrote:this board does not get visited by the majority of CS members.
which is why we need more players throughout Scotland to engage in conversations generally. On a personal note we should encourage as many people to engage on this and other topics. I think this thread is brilliant for encouraging discussion and thanks to all for participating. I see an increase in forum membership requests so all good here