Full Version: Adult budget for 2013 -14
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
there should be more demand for cappelle - only 3 names so far - you can get a norm there at little expense
same for british - usually little demand - I got my norm breakthrough there
the richardson is not worth upsetting the higher rateds for 1.5 games a year average as voted on previously
The problem with the British as far as I am concerned is the ridiculous cost of it. From the 2013 entry form...

"Early Entry Fee £200 (£140 U-21) After 8 July fee £225 (£165 U21)
Free to GMs, IMs, WGMs, WIMs.
Half price to FMs and WFMs."

That entry fee is roughly the same as I paid for the Tatry Open in Slovakia, which included 8 days hotel with full board!
It probably costs the same in transport to Slovakia (or Czech/Poland etc.) as it does getting to Torquay.

There is also the fact that one has to qualify or be nominated for the British. I guess the nomination wouldn't be too problematic, but borrowing from another thread, can we have Edinburgh nominated as a British Champs qualifier as it is FIDE-rated?

Re: the Richardson, I still don't know who these higher-rated guys are Andy! Please re-consider FIDE-rating the Richardson...from discussions during this years matches and from this forum, there haven't been any/many dissenters.

Craig's most recent post makes a lot of sense although I'd still like something included which aims at the 'average' player/member in Scotland. Of course finances are tight, but a few hundred quid extra thrown at the Grand Prix (for example) might entice more congress entries/ membership take-ups?!
Andy (er, Muir, not Burnett), please name some of these guys who currently play in the Richardson and don't want it to be FIDE rated. This thread has seen several of Scotland's better players stating quite the opposite opinion. It's beyond a joke that our premier club tournament - with one game a day - isn't internationally rated.

'As voted on previously' - can we vote on it again? This is a question to anyone - is 'that games in the Richardson Cup be submitted for rating to FIDE' (or a better-worded version of the same) competent as an AGM motion for next summer?
I believe that internal tournaments should not necessarily be FIDE rated - we have an excellent CS rating system for this.
Players who are against FIDE rating include Vlad Barnaure (Poly), several titled Ed West players, Steve Mannion (Hamilton).
There are 9 clubs in the Richardson. If a club wishes to make 2013-14 FIDE rated, could the captain of the club email me with a proposal plus a 2nd captain's backing.
I don't want to change this back and forwards every year on a 5/4 split but certainly if 6 captains want this then it will be introduced
Thanks for the info Andy. Can you tell us some of their reasons for their dislike of the FIDE rating idea?

I can understand the argument for not FIDE rating events with 2 games per day (Edinburgh Congress, which is FIDE-rated; SNCL, which isn't) but the Richardson is one game per day with an excellent time control (better than most external FIDE-rated events!)
Wasn't able to edit my last post for some reason?! Anyway, 2 of those named (and a third who I can guess) have lost most or all of their Richardson games in the past year or 2. Co-incidence? Tongue
Main reason for not wanting ELO rating is scared of losing rating points and therefore losing out on selection for a future event e.g. Olympiad team, Cappelle/British selection etc
If a player say rated 2300 with a K -factor plays someone 2000 and loses then can lose 13 points but only gain 2 if win , so odds not good from their point of view.
Another reason is that we have a very good CS system which contains less bias/inflation than ELO so it should benefit from premier tournament rating
3rd reason - only 1 or 2 games - why bother ?
All in all it was outvoted last time - happy for new vote on this or any other rule if backing
If you are not strong enough to maintain your grade then you don't deserve to have it! Its as simple as that! I wouldn't be scared of maintaining my grade against 1700 opposition so why should they against the equivalent?
Andy can we have an individual vote instead? I don't think it’s fair that a team consisting of 8 serious players is only allowed 1 vote whilst another team consisting of say 2 serious players has the same voting power. As for not wanting it Fide rated; do we want to send our highest rated players to the Olympiad or our strongest players? Perhaps CS rating should be used instead or a tournament format used.
Surely not including all games these top players play in their Fide ratings is going to make their grades not the truest representation of their playing strength? Which - in my opinion - somewhat defeats the purpose of having a grade... ?
Pages: 1 2 3 4