+- Forums (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Members Only (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-16.html)
+--- Forum: Tournaments and Events (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-9.html)
+--- Thread: Richardson, Spens, Nancy Elder and MacIssac (/thread-1349.html)
Re: Richardson, Spens, Nancy Elder and MacIssac - andyburnett - 26-04-2016
Inclusive and competitive are not always compatible Jonathan. The 'modern' approach whereby everybody should be allowed to participate tends to make a mockery of the competitive aspect of sport and games at times, particularly when it occurs within a small pool such as Scottish chess.
The Richardson is meant to be the premier club KO competition - having 16 teams, only 4 or 5 of which at most have any realistic chance of winning it, would just be silly in my view. Much more useful is to find a way to make it even stronger in terms of top players - getting the best players to participate in events in Scotland and find out who has the best club team, which is the point of the competition.
I didn't say numbers weren't important, just that they are not hugely important. Quality competitions which allow anyone who wants to compete the opportunity to do so, is important. If our general level of club chess is, say, around 1600 level, then that's where the focus should be when deciding on the format, location, etc. of the Spens/Campbell Rosebowl. The Richardson, to my way of thinking, should be a separate issue.
Elitist? Maybe, but it's supposed to be the elite event!
Anyway, it's probably not the main point under discussion here so I'll leave it at that.
Re: Richardson, Spens, Nancy Elder and MacIssac - Jonathan Livingstone - 26-04-2016
Andy B, I think its fair to say that your views about the Richardson's are the typical view of most top players, which includes Adam, Hamish, yourself and many others. I think your summary is true in that it is far from a National Cup, and it is an elitist cup. I am not criticising that, if that's what the top players want, that's what they want.
This might be the very thing that is however, holding the Spens back from being a successful competition, because the 2 separate events have always been banded together in how they are generally formatted. Maybe the time has come for the 2 different events to be separated? Is there argument for letting the Richardson's 'top players' organise their own event and have control over its future, and play it in Dundee or wherever (as that's what people seem to want). And let CS get on with reviving the Spens without the ties and constraints of trying to manage 2 struggling events with one single solution.
I have no idea if the Richardson's is really sustainable when 7-8 teams is pretty much all that enter, and 8 teams being the minimum to keep it a meaningful competition. There is a big question mark at the very least. The Spens on the otherhand with just 6 teams this season, where 2 matches could potentially win you the Cup is clearly a step closer to administration and seems worthy of reviving it in the form of a true National Cup, and with a central venue.
Re: Richardson, Spens, Nancy Elder and MacIssac - Ianbrownlee - 26-04-2016
Hi Guys
I'd like to summarise what we have so far and where I bekieve where we may be going
1. The Richardson Cup is our Premier (elitist and quality ) event and there was a time when only our strongest teams could play in it. Indeed it was the case that to play in it for the first time you had to qualify by reaching the final of the Spens Cup, To that end there is a desire to protect the "quality" or playing strength of that tournament. Times have moved on but I believe we can maintain the high standards of that tournament. it was also felt last even the first round losers gained prestige and valuable experience by playing in it. It was always intentioned that the Richardson Cup gave the oppertunity for our strongest players to play each other. I have also noted that our strongest player mature their game here as it gives them the opportunity to improve and shine here
2. The Spens Cup was always open to all (quantity) and the first round losers were paired off into the Campbell Rosebowl. Although traditionally not as strong as the Richardson Cup it is still a prestigious tournament to play and win.
3. The Campbell Rosebowl is also an excellent tournament to win as the competitors more often then not are evenly matched in the final.
There you have it, thats what we have got, Numbers have declined here ( I've told we up to a hundred fewer players today than a few years ago ) The onset of online chess has had an impact of Over The Board chess.
where do we go from there? Improve the quality of the Richardson Cup and improve the quantity of the Spens is a commendable start but the two competitions need to be continually linked both in rules and team pools
My own opinion is that we need to both embrace existing changes such as introducing FIDE rated tournaments (with their own nuances) and constantly looking for improvements. We need to further enhance the Richardson Cup (without denigrating the prestige of the Spens Cup). I personally dont think the Richardson Cup needs any changing at all.
Subject to the discussion on the forum and with advice U have taken with interested parties, I dont think the central venue would work out at least for the next year. Also for that reason I would not expect incremental time controls at this time, therefore the need for digital clocks would not be necessary although this requirement may change from FIDE within the next few years.
As for accommodating other tournaments outwith Scotland this may be unrealistic, especially in January. I will look at it but apart from the 3rd week there appears to be a tournament every week (The 4NCL is over two weekends) The only solution for those affected would be to play their games before the allocated date if possible.
Finally I am trying to get an injection of funds from external sources to these tournaments in a bid to freshen up and enhance these tournaments. Perhaps, as is often the case money can be a solution
Re: Richardson, Spens, Nancy Elder and MacIssac - Jonathan Livingstone - 26-04-2016
My own summary of things based on the last year is quite different and I am not sure how well it will go down on here, but its very much say what you see in terms of where we were 1 year ago when things were discussed on the forum.
- Low turn out for Rich/Spens (just like last season).
- Little bit of forum discussion after events have finished (just like last season).
- Do more or less exactly the same thing for the next season (just like last season).
- Usual 7 or 8 entries for Rich, and 6 entries for Spens if its lucky to be expected (just like last season).
- All while a separate event with a different and more modern central venue format continues to prove popular and attract new teams (just like last season).
And the cycle goes on, same time, same place, next year for general end of season forum chat about it?
This is clearly a monster to tackle. Previous Director Keith seemed to put a lot of time and energy into things. Sensible changes like making the Spens a 5-a-side match (used to be 6) were made. Club feedback was positively and actively sought but yielded little. It needs a bit of boldness and bravery, or to put it another way, some serious change.
For what its worth, given the choice, my preference would be for my club to enter one of the National knockout competitions which in itself is a bit of a false description really as so many clubs are not involved. But in the current state of these events, it just won't happen. With another competition available that adopts a modern format, that is ticking all the boxes and has become my clubs priority for our next competition to participate in.
Re: Richardson, Spens, Nancy Elder and MacIssac - Robert Lothian - 26-04-2016
Jonathan Livingstone Wrote:With another competition available that adopts a modern format, that is ticking all the boxes and has become my clubs priority for our next competition to participate in.
I think there is an important issue just there. How many of those players who are currently turning out four times a year at a central venue would be keen to turn that into 6-8 depending on results?
Is it possible that it's one event or the other and the SNCL has won already?
I also note that the entirely reasonable decision to go to 5 boards clearly hasn't succeeded in turning things around, so why should emulating other aspects of the SNCL be any more successful?
Don't get me wrong. I can see that the Spens is dying on its feet and the Richardson is quite vulnerable.
Ultimately, if going to a fixed venue performs a miracle, then BA will have to suck it up.
Re: Richardson, Spens, Nancy Elder and MacIssac - John Watkins - 27-04-2016
Here are a few wee facts to chew over:
- There are 79 players on the Chess Scotland grading list over 2000 who have played at least 1 game thus far this season (wherever they are based in the world) - 13 of the 79 have played fewer than 5 games though.
- There used to be a time when you had to have a grading over 2000 just to get into the top 100 rated players in Scotland. So the pool of 2000 plus grading players has shrunk over the years.
- One club has 13 of the 79 active players over 2000 grading.
As for this season's Richardson Cup:
- 29 out of the 48 players in the 3 games played in the quarter finals were graded above 2000. The game which defaulted would have increased this to around 50% of the active players graded above 2000.
- 18 out of the 32 players in the two semi finals were graded above 2000.
- 13 out of the 16 players in the final were graded above 2000.
The above tells me a few things:
- The Richardson is already attracting a large proportion of the stronger players in the country. More than any other competition perhaps? (9 out of the 32 2000 plus graded players playing in last summer's Scottish Championship were from abroad = 23 out of the 2000 plus Scottish graded players played and no one is calling that tournament a "failure").
- To be successful in this knock out competition you require very strong team from boards 1 to 8.
In my mind the second point here is one which may be putting off more teams entering the Richardson.
Perhaps the Spens should be decoupled from the Richardson rules and consider the following:
- A grading cap (either for the team as a whole or the maximum graded player which can play) or some form of handicap system to attract more teams. There is a handicap system in place for the Summer Cup in the Edinburgh league which attracted 15 teams from 11 clubs last year and has a plate competition for teams knocked out in the first round.
- Consider the time controls and days the games could take place (evening games in the early rounds using different time controls which could increase participation).
- Regionalise the early rounds if that helps with travel arrangements.
Re: Richardson, Spens, Nancy Elder and MacIssac - Jonathan Livingstone - 27-04-2016
Robert Lothian Wrote:How many of those players who are currently turning out four times a year at a central venue would be keen to turn that into 6-8 depending on results?
Is it possible that it's one event or the other and the SNCL has won already?
I also note that the entirely reasonable decision to go to 5 boards clearly hasn't succeeded in turning things around, so why should emulating other aspects of the SNCL be any more successful?
Don't get me wrong. I can see that the Spens is dying on its feet and the Richardson is quite vulnerable.
Ultimately, if going to a fixed venue performs a miracle, then BA will have to suck it up.
Although not a like-for-like comparison The MacIssac doesn't have the SNCL for competition and that didn't change with the times and suffered. The Elder or Spens is probably next to go, but in which order - if your a gambler then place your bets now? I know the Elder has 20-something entries last season, but I think it is a pretence to consider it successful when the majority of the entries come from 2 clubs in one area, and hardly any clubs have representatives, and that includes many bigger clubs.
I would concede that nobody knows for sure that a fixed venue is the answer, and would improve things. But if we don't try or give it a chance... ? I would not like to think that an active club in the North would have to suck it up, and if it were to happen, would hope there could be a recognition or compromise somewhere.
John Watkins Wrote:- The Richardson is already attracting a large proportion of the stronger players in the country. More than any other competition perhaps? (9 out of the 32 2000 plus graded players playing in last summer's Scottish Championship were from abroad = 23 out of the 2000 plus Scottish graded players played and no one is calling that tournament a "failure").
- To be successful in this knock out competition you require very strong team from boards 1 to 8.
In my mind the second point here is one which may be putting off more teams entering the Richardson.
I agree. But there must be some clubs who could scrape a team of 8 together for a central venue affair, that may be big outsiders, and in all likelihood get knocked out 1st round but not whitewashed. There would be a chance of an upset. Is that not what Knockout Cups are supposed to be about? Is the thought of playing one not so strong but decent opponent in the 1st round such a hardship? I am reluctant to put a team with grade examples on this, but you are never going to get a team with an average grade of 1400 say entering the Richardson's. On the off-chance it did happen which can be the case in the current rules, as any team is welcome to apply, is it really a problem? That's the ironic thing about the Richardson's it does technically invite and welcome any team in the entire land to enter, but the reality is that its not for everyone in the slightest. The Spens is clearly more inviting, yet just not supported, and I think there is great merit in the theory that a central venue aspect would improve both events.
John Watkins Wrote:Perhaps the Spens should be decoupled from the Richardson rules and consider the following:
- A grading cap (either for the team as a whole or the maximum graded player which can play) or some form of handicap system to attract more teams. There is a handicap system in place for the Summer Cup in the Edinburgh league which attracted 15 teams from 11 clubs last year and has a plate competition for teams knocked out in the first round.
- Consider the time controls and days the games could take place (evening games in the early rounds using different time controls which could increase participation).
- Regionalise the early rounds if that helps with travel arrangements.
Adopting the Lothian (& Edinburgh area) league Summer Cup format is not the worst idea I have heard for the Spens and an interesting one. Maybe my mind has got a bit single tracked on things, but the obvious and anticipated most effective change for me is always going to be to try the central venue format.
The Spens may well benefit from an evening type time control and regionalisation, of course regionalisation only works if you have the teams entering in the first place, and without a central venue that won't change?
A side issue that has been cropping up is the effect of online chess. I don't think we should worry about that too much. There is a danger we could just plod on, observing a continual decline and blaming online chess for all our problems. The effects of this have not been measured in our country. It is sensible to assume it has some impact of course. We should focus on creating and managing the best competitions we can and giving them the best chance which means increasing and encouraging more participation.
Re: Richardson, Spens, Nancy Elder and MacIssac - Jonathan Livingstone - 27-04-2016
Ianbrownlee Wrote:Subject to the discussion on the forum and with advice U have taken with interested parties, I dont think the central venue would work out at least for the next year. Also for that reason I would not expect incremental time controls at this time, therefore the need for digital clocks would not be necessary although this requirement may change from FIDE within the next few years.
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? You already have one pledge from a Club Secretary (me) to enter a team into one of the events next season should they adopt this format. While the forum throws up some good debate, it is not direct contact.
It's an avenue worth exploring? (*not implementing at this stage, but just a bit of fact finding)
Re: Richardson, Spens, Nancy Elder and MacIssac - Alan Tate - 27-04-2016
Ianbrownlee Wrote: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.
Are 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.
I don't even know what the eligibility rule is at the moment.
Re: Richardson, Spens, Nancy Elder and MacIssac - Adam Bremner - 27-04-2016
Jonathan Livingstone Wrote:But there must be some clubs who could scrape a team of 8 together for a central venue affair, that may be big outsiders, and in all likelihood get knocked out 1st round but not whitewashed. There would be a chance of an upset. Is that not what Knockout Cups are supposed to be about? Is the thought of playing one not so strong but decent opponent in the 1st round such a hardship? I am reluctant to put a team with grade examples on this, but you are never going to get a team with an average grade of 1400 say entering the Richardson's. On the off-chance it did happen which can be the case in the current rules, as any team is welcome to apply, is it really a problem? That's the ironic thing about the Richardson's it does technically invite and welcome any team in the entire land to enter, but the reality is that its not for everyone in the slightest. The Spens is clearly more inviting, yet just not supported, and I think there is great merit in the theory that a central venue aspect would improve both events.
For me it's like the Champions League and Europa League. There's a reason they are run differently, and they allow teams to be competitive. I watched Aberdeen in the Europa League qualifying this season, and we did well, played some good clubs, and learned you can get knocked out by a team next to the Chinese border that are apparently European! (Kairat Almaty for anyone interested). The Champions League is the one everyone wants to win, and is set up to encourage quality. The Europa is more for teams who do well to get the experience of European football and play clubs they would otherwise not play. It is actually very inclusive with the amount of qualifying rounds.
Two different events very closely linked, with different goals. That's how I could see Richardson and Spens working in the future. The numbers you showed seems to suggest that the drop in entries is mainly due to a decline in the Spens (Richardson seems stable at the moment?). So maybe run the two with different goals. Focus on setting the Richardson to bring out the best players, and focus the Spens to harvest as many entries as possible. Like I said in my very first post, you have to decide what you really want from these competitions.
As for the mismatching issue, it really is in nobody's best interest to see it happen. Speaking as someone who has played in SNCL div5, and 4 this year, it just isn't fun for either person. Obviously that is a situation we created by dropping out and are having to go through the divisions, but there is no way round it. I honestly think it would be very selfish if a 1400 average team entered the Richardson and dragged a club on an away day, especially if a more appropriate event was available (Spens). I know that I might get pelters for that coming across as elitist, but similarly I would never expect Aberdeen to walk in to the Champions League and play Barca in an extra round we created. Maybe the way round that is an average Club rating from the top 6 players say, and have a cut off for Spens and Richardson. If you win the Spens, then of course you play Richardson next time if you want!