Alan Tate Wrote:re increments becoming compulsory in Fide events?! It would be an interesting addition although the current time control of 3 hours each is enough not to make a mockery of the game in my opinion.
my understanding is not yet and I will seek clarification on the matter , but a little birdie had told me it may happen in the next couple of years so if we keep it FIDE rated then we may have to move over to Digital Clocks.
Jonathan Livingstone Wrote:Ian, can I suggest that you write an email to all club secretaries of those clubs not participating in either the Rich or Spens, asking them if I a central venue format would interest them and possibly encourage their involvement?
I've already had one existing club captain telling me if we implement this then they will withdraw from the Richardson Cup. I need to take views from as many people as possible. I agree with Adam in that it would be grossly unfair to expect certain teams to play in a central venue under the present format, unless we change the central venue after each round, especially the Richardson Cup when it consists of eight players. The other problem of the central venue is money, in that CS would have to fork out for venues it doesn't presently do therefore clubs would have to fork out extra entrance fees, increased travelling etc. It can be offset by the home team not having to fork out themselves but there would be a general increase in expenses. Its one thing hiring a small room by the home team in their local, its a whole different ball game hiring a massive venue for the day. I also dont see clubs playing in different central venues in the season.
I've also seen comparisons between the national tournaments and the SNCL, They are. completely different. The national tournaments are based on our club participation whereas the SNCL is a team competition where there is not necessary a tie in to any club. Remember that the national tournaments are limited to CS member clubs As such players can play for any team in the SNCL at the beginning of the season. For example players residing locally can play in any team. Presently if required, In the national tournaments players may have to demonstrate membership of the club they are playing for although eligibility should be dropped this to be replaced by a team registration form.
There is no point in contacting clubs again for a consensus. Keith Rose already did the spadework so we have to move on. I have already prepared a report for Council and will add to this in my Home Directors report in time for the AGM. I will be in a consulting period regarding these issues up to the AGM and I hope to include these points at the AGM. As already pointed by myself and others I dont think the Richardson Cup has a problem at all both in strength and numbers and I believe being FIDE-rated enhances it. I accept we should try and promote the Spens Cup and I do think we all need to work on this more. Remember that this is a CS member club tournament so I think the first step is to encourage more clubs to be CS member clubs. FIDE rated tournaments are proving to more attractive than non FIDE rated tournaments so I believe this is a good start. Promoting the benefits of CS club membership would help as well as promoting junior chess at secondary and club level which I strongly feel that it would also be a step forward. We need to get OTB player numbers up and encourage them to play in the Spens Cup. That is the main function of the Spens Cup, i.e a tournament that everyone would feel comfortable playing in.
Ianbrownlee Wrote:There is no point in contacting clubs again for a consensus. Keith Rose already did the spadework so we have to move on. I have already prepared a report for Council and will add to this in my Home Directors report in time for the AGM. I will be in a consulting period regarding these issues up to the AGM and I hope to include these points at the AGM.
Ian, if I recall correctly Keith e-mailed Club secs and or Team Captains of clubs
who were involved in the Rich/Spens about 2yrs ago. You would need to check with him or maybe he can clarify himself on here. Obviously I don't see what else goes on behind the scenes, but if that is the case then my point remains valid, that it would be worth contacting those clubs who are not entering teams into either competition (and theres plenty of them) to find out why, and what would need to change for them to be favourable about entering.
Regardless of what has been done or not before and when, do you not think it is a sensible base from which to start and talk to your people that you are supposed to represent? I hope this does not come over the wrong way, it is meant with positive intention.
Alan Tate Wrote:"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"
Unknown
Mr Tate posted the above in relation to Junior Chess ( source, page 2, <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.chessscotland.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1457&start=10">viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1457&start=10</a><!-- l --> )
It seems relevant to post it here and nicely concludes my own discussion and contributions here. See you all back here in 1 years time to do it all again.
In response to Jonathan:
In fact I conducted this survey last year, between early May and July. I emailed every club secretary, including non-members of CS, and every team captain of Richardson and Spens teams that entered the 2014-15 events. Secretaries and captains were asked to consult with their club and team members. On 1st July I wrote again saying:
“I received direct replies from 4 clubs, two team captains and one club member:
One club offered no opinions as it does not, and will not, play in either competition;
One club prefers knockout format, 8 boards;
One team captain and the club member (from different clubs) prefer knockout format and would have semi-final and final played on the same day;
One team captain prefers two groups, 6-board teams;
One club prefer to combine Richardson and Spens with fewer boards.”
[I then received replies from one Richardson and one Spens team]
“In addition some discussion took place on the CS forum with regard to the Richardson and a series of polls were conducted. The results in brief” [and in respect of issues discussed in this thread] “were:
Format – No change, i.e. knockout (73%)
KO Format – As 2014 (85%)
Players per team – 8 (87%)
Venue – option of the home (first-drawn) team except for final (67%)”
Of course the forum polls were limited in reach but were nevertheless valid as indicators of opinion.
January
Regarding the difficulties finding free dates in January it seems to me there has been a bit of 'over-focus' on this month.
The answer is simply to find a date between November and mid January, which covers about 8 – 9 usable weeks allowing for a 3 week break at Xmas/New Year. Set the start as the first weekend in November and a date in January as the latest by which a match must be played.
This time span affords plenty of flexibility to find mutually acceptable alternatives to the first date that don't clash with any other important events. If the start date is set well in advance then all teams will know to prepare for it. Last year there were 3 major events in Scotland in November – Glasgow Allegro, Oban Congress, SNCL - and nothing in December.
Keith Rose Wrote:January
Regarding the difficulties finding free dates in January it seems to me there has been a bit of 'over-focus' on this month.
The answer is simply to find a date between November and mid January, which covers about 8 – 9 usable weeks allowing for a 3 week break at Xmas/New Year. Set the start as the first weekend in November and a date in January as the latest by which a match must be played.
As a rigid setinmyways chess player this proposal is simply too flexible for me to contemplate.
Can I clarify the term central venue as to avoid confusion
a central venue is where all games in the same round are played for the tournaments running in tandem. It is not necessarily a geographical reference, so example the central venue may be in the borders, Perth, Glasgow etc. The problem with this is cost, therefore the cost may drive where the venue is, or it may be the central venue may vary within the same season. I don't think this central venue will happen within the next year, but I would encourage further discussion on this and I will bring this and other matters up on the next AGM