Forums

No the 4NCL wasnt in the thought process because I wasnt informed it should be. It couldnt be in the process anyway because the $NCL had scottish players over two weekends. I was also informed after the event that Cappelle Le Grande was promised to be avoided as well. We simply cant avoid clashes at this time of year. Anyway part of the issue was due to the fact that Poly had to change captains as well . It was just an unfortunate chain of events that led to Poly not being able to field a strong enough team. Having said that if I am still Home Director I plan to tighten the process up a bit and publish team captains on the forum so that we can communicate a bit better and maybe offer multiple dates that are beneficial to both teams. We are also looking at a central venue, possibly Grangemouth ( OK not central for the North) and certain fixed dates as well.

Adam Bremner Wrote:Well regards the Poly match, don't arrange rounds to clash with 4NCL. I believe
they asked for a different date and it was declined, hence the default.

again not the only reason. Sorry Adam but if a round has to be played in January then we cant avoid clashing with some congress or other. December is too tight in the schedule and February too late to start it. The only way possibly out of this would have been to indicate a problem earlier on when the draw was announced but Poly didnt realise there was a problem until January 5th when they had a change of captains and the new captain recognised there was maybe an issue. Remember the draw was made at the Dundee congress so there was plenty of time to flag it up. We couldnt postpone the game for a further two because as it was FIDE rated, all the games had to be submitted for January 30th, which couldn't be played then anyway because of the Livingston Allegro. Personally I was surprised they couldnt play the match as I thought they had strength in depth but my hand was tied anyway due to the rules.

Alan Tate Wrote:Thanks for the reply Ian. What do you have in mind?

We have several ideas on the table. One is to introduce a team registration form at the beginning of the season with the proviso to add players ( under conditions) if required. The elegibility rule is out of date and nonsense and certainly out of place with the registration form. All FIDE events will require players FIDE registered before they play hence one of the reasons why the team registration forms will be required. We are also looking at Incremental time controls (as per FIDE requirements ) which will require digital clocks, hence we are looking at chess scotland clocks loaned out and Chess Scotland FIDE arbiters present , possibly at a cental venue. We are also looking at SERIOUS sponsorship.

Jonathan Livingstone Wrote:I am like a broken record on this, but at least I am consistent. The single biggest issue with the Spens/Rich is surely about location and date uncertainty. So change it to a fixed date, at a fixed location (i.e. Grangemouth/Dunfermline/Livingston or wherever), and watch the team entries flow in (my own clubs entry will be the first one).

You are not a broken record Jonathan and I do listen to you so keep it coming. For the record we are looking a fixed venue such as Grangmouth , possibly with fixed dates with FIDE arbiters present I expect an entry from your club once your criteria has been met!

Finally please keep sending in your views about this. Perhaps if more people turned up at the AGM then we can have a fuller discussion

Hamish, my question was based on the misunderstanding that Poly couldn't get players. I now know what happened (In future perhaps someone could step in to avoid a repeat of this unfortunate scenario?) Venue+dates+simple organisation appear to be the main concerns here. Really it shouldn't be so hard to find a compromise. I'm going to have another go at increasing the number of rounds (a 3 round knockout has to be some kind of global record in the history of all knockouts, and not in a good way): How about home and away legs?

Hi Hamish

Fair enough. I have had these differing views with Adam and yourself when this crops up every season but the differing views have been respected on both sides which is good. I said previously I do think it is only right that your club as the most travelled should be factored into any decisions. However do you have any alternative solutions?

That clubs without track records are not entering the Spens/Rich is precisely the problem that has been discussed on here for sometime now with no resolution. How can we get these clubs involved and create some new track records without some change to the existing format?

The key component of the venue aspect, is a team captain has enough admin as it is. Many clubs don't have access to their club night venue for weekends. Getting another venue is difficult, and costly, and that's admin people just don't need or want. And even if you are drawn away, that can create admin around other things also.

Does a 'central venue' where ever it may be really make it too much like the SNCL which is a 2-game a day League format. The Spens/Rich are going to remain National Knockout Cups, and the "national" part of that might even become a relevant description if the right changes are made.

I wouldn't see the need for any other changes, I just think the venue/date uncertainty has proven not to be successful and is ultimately causing detriment to both the Rich/Spens and as such is the obvious thing to tackle.

hamish olson Wrote:I am dead against this and Bon Accord probably wouldn't enter if this was implemented. If you are going to do a central venue then it has to be genuinely central i.e. Perth, not 40 minutes from Edinburgh and 2 and a half from Aberdeen (5 hours of driving every round). If you want to have Grangemouth as the finals every year as seems to be the case then thats fine but it's too much to have it every round. We already have the SNCL which is fantastic, we don't need to make a pale imitation of it which is all the Richardson would be if we held an event in the same way but with a fifth of the teams and half the rounds and no track record in this format.

noted Hamish I'll see what can be done. The reason Grangemouth was chosen this year was that basically got the hall for free, thanks to the generosity of both Grangemouth sports centre and Grangemouth Chess Club. Chess Scotland cant afford to turn down such generosity. The central venue idea may have issues to be addressed but if incremental time controls are implemented , we have to address the idea of someone supplying digital clocks like CS and for someone to manage them in the case of a dispute. As I've already said we are very much in discussion as to where we go forward in this and | want to encourage further discussion on this.

"....respected on both sides which is good"

Agreed


"That clubs without track records are not entering the Spens/Rich is precisely the problem that has been discussed on here for sometime now with no resolution. How can we get these clubs involved and create some new track records without some change to the existing format?"


Hard to say how to solve this problem but making it too difficult for what has been termed the "North" to play is NOT the solution. (If a venue is nearer Newcastle than Aberdeen then what exactly is it in the centre of?)

"Getting another venue is difficult, and costly, and that's admin people just don't need or want."

I disagree and have put my money where my mouth is by organising plenty of Richardson matches in Dundee which isn't even my home town or a place I know at all well. I should probably credit Keith Rose here who has been incredibly helpful in the past but the point is still valid because most teams are going to be playing in their home city and therefore will know it well enough. Getting a function suite in a pub is not rocket science and if it is within my utterly woeful organisational abilities (ask anyone who knows me!) then it is easy enough for everyone else too. We did not even have to pay for a venue this season (shout out for Allison's Bar Dundee!) and even when we have it hasn't exactly broken the bank.

How many Richardson clubs don't have digital clocks? Genuinely curious. Away team can always provide clocks if the home team doesn't have them.

Ian, again I am saying for next season, will you take the 4NCL into consideration? I am suggesting it is a potential problem, because it was this season. There inevitably will be a spare weekend.

One thing which also needs considered is what you actually want the Richardson to be. Do you want to get more teams entering, or do you want to get more top players involved for a more quality event? They are not mutually exclusive of course. Personally I want to see the strongest teams possible, so the absolute best team wins the cup. That means working out why you don't currently get the strongest players all playing. If you want flat out more teams, how about changing the Spens format, and promotion and relegation to the Richardson?

Another good idea would be to just email say the top 20 players in Scotland and ask them if they currently play, do they have any suggestions, or if they don't could they give you an idea of what it would take for that to change. Emails to captains don't always filter down, and the noticeboard has barely any of the top players posting on it.

Central venue idea I hate for the reasons Hamish gives. It would stop me playing for sure.

OK the central venue may not so good for the reasons Hamish gave so I dont think that will be on the table at least for the next season. It means we have to use at how to implement the incremental time control (if we do at all?)
The team registration is a must for the FIDE angle and to improve the administration and maybe get the formal admin process running. The big issue then would be how to avoid the 4NCL. This is a real issue. Perhaps instead of playing in the 23rd of January, change it to be played BY the 23rd of January. Indeed one match was played the week before without issue.
Again the POLY issue was caused by them not realising the potenital clash on the 23rd combined with a change of captains. The draw was made at the Dundee congress so there was no reason the game could have been played in December or Early January had POLY recognised the issue. I cannot legislate for the 4NCL anyway because our draw was listed first
I dont see how we cant have both quality and quantity. Perhaps quantity would allow for regional heats before the finals but i dont see our higher graded players liking that option.
While I am also posting I should also mention that we plan to reimagine the MacIsaac tournament as a FIDE rated rapidplay tournament as a one day event

Just putting an idea out there, but is a CS travel subsidy payment for clubs/teams who have to travel more than X miles from their club venue location a workable solution?

Jonathan Livingstone Wrote:Just putting an idea out there, but is a CS travel subsidy payment for clubs/teams who have to travel more than X miles from their club venue location a workable solution?

Not my place to say Jonathan...but no would be the likely answer!