+- Forums (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Members Only (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-16.html)
+--- Forum: General Chess Chat (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: Hamilton Stars Barred (and Stars Barred sections in general) (/thread-174.html)
Re: Hamilton Stars Barred (and Stars Barred sections in gene - Mike Scott - 31-01-2012
Quote:Mike - There have been Stars Barred tournaments before.You're not serious? Has there? Never knew that. Thanks.
To be honest I'm not sure what I would do: ideally I would like to find out why the players did not turn up - was it the venue, the time of year or whatever and then try and do something about it. Naturally that is much easier said than done. I have nothing against a stars barred event and indeed can think of some good reasons for running such events other than purely economic.
Re: Hamilton Stars Barred (and Stars Barred sections in gene - David Deary - 01-02-2012
Mike Scott Wrote:You're not serious? Has there? Never knew that. Thanks.
I took your level of shock to mean you had never heard of a Stars Barred before. Obviously not... ;P
Re: Hamilton Stars Barred (and Stars Barred sections in gene - Donald Wilson - 01-02-2012
Up to season 2009/10, the Lothians Congress had a "Stars-Barred" section alongside the Lothians Championship (players could enter the Championship only if they had a connection with the Lothians; the only restriction with the Stars-Barred was a grading limit). Now they have an open top section, and the Lothians Champion is the highest-placed Lothians player.
The last time the Stars-Barred event was held, in January 2010, a J14 by the name of Jonathan Scott took part in it - and Mike Scott would have us believe he has never heard of stars-barred tournaments?
Re: Hamilton Stars Barred (and Stars Barred sections in gene - Jacqui Thomas - 02-02-2012
slightly drifting from the current thread but on the theme of entries into congresses & why people dont enter...
There is a Chess for Kicks this Saturday 4th at Lennoxtown. This is the first CFK held at this venue although every year we try to hold a heat in the East Dunbartonshire area to accommodate children from the North of the City & surrounding areas.
~To say I am disappointed is an under statement - to date we have 8 entries. So all coaches & parents in & around the area can you please make sure all your Juniors know this event is taking place - entry form on the calendar (also an Open section for accompanying parents or guardians).
Re: Hamilton Stars Barred (and Stars Barred sections in gene - Hugh Brechin - 02-02-2012
Yeah, I knew the Lothians had been running a stars-barred for a while, hence the thread title.
I don't know, I do see the arguments for making some changes to ensure that the congress doesn't lose too much money. In addition to that, if you're putting in the effort and resources to organise a tournament then it's up to you to run it more or less however you choose.
I just think that, if there is a large cohort of players rated from 1700 to 2050, or whatever, who will be disinclined to particpate if higher-rated players are involved, then their attitude is a bit, well, sad.
Re: Hamilton Stars Barred (and Stars Barred sections in gene - Andrew McHarg - 02-02-2012
I'm usually more inclined to play if there are higher rated players for me to play against. It's usually why I play in Opens instead of Challengers, or Challengers instead of Majors (depending on the grading bands).
I actually don't think you can become a much stronger player unless you are playing against guys who consistently make stronger moves. Anyone can predict what themselves or a similarly graded opponent might play most of the time, but it's much harder to predict what a stronger player will play.
Re: Hamilton Stars Barred (and Stars Barred sections in gene - David Deary - 02-02-2012
Hugh Brechin Wrote:I just think that, if there is a large cohort of players rated from 1700 to 2050, or whatever, who will be disinclined to particpate if higher-rated players are involved, then their attitude is a bit, well, sad.
I dont think that is an issue. I could be wrong though but I've never heard anyone complain about participating in an event because they would have to play higher players. For instance, I would be happy to play in one enormous section with higher grading prizes as you have suggested previously.
Re: Hamilton Stars Barred (and Stars Barred sections in gene - Hugh Brechin - 02-02-2012
Quote:I actually don't think you can become a much stronger player unless you are playing against guys who consistently make stronger moves. Anyone can predict what themselves or a similarly graded opponent might play most of the time, but it's much harder to predict what a stronger player will play.
It's certainly part of improving, though I'd caution against seeing it as the only type of game you need to play: learning how to beat players your own level and slightly lower is a valuable skill as well, and if your opponents are too high above your level you won't necessarily learn that much from the exercise.
David Deary Wrote:Hugh Brechin Wrote:I just think that, if there is a large cohort of players rated from 1700 to 2050, or whatever, who will be disinclined to particpate if higher-rated players are involved, then their attitude is a bit, well, sad.
I dont think that is an issue. I could be wrong though but I've never heard anyone complain about participating in an event because they would have to play higher players. For instance, I would be happy to play in one enormous section with higher grading prizes as you have suggested previously.
I'd hope you're right, but in that case why put a cap on the top section?
Re: Hamilton Stars Barred (and Stars Barred sections in gene - Alan Tate - 14-02-2012
I think it's great that players of a similar rating can play in a tournament and get good games against each other without any mismatches. And if it is the only financially viable way of running the congress then that's absolutely fine. But I'm just not convinced it's what the players want. Where is the evidence of this?
8, that is one third of players in the stars barred could have played in the major but were ambitious enough to play up. Don't you think these players (mostly juniors) would like a crack at a +2050 player?
And Is that number, 8, not the same number of expected +2050 players that would have played? I just find it hard to believe that the same number of players would not play if it was an Open.
I also like the idea of one large section with rating prizes if it is possible. Accelerating/hyper-accelerating the pairings should avoid any massacres early on.
Re: Hamilton Stars Barred (and Stars Barred sections in gene - Phil Thomas - 14-02-2012
For me the stars barred section was a good one to play in.
Simply because there were no mismatches throughout the tournament. As a chess player that's what I want 5 hard fought competitive games.
It is of course unfortunate on 2050 plus players who wanted to play. The number of such players who would be expected to enter an open is .... the number who did so last year.... is four.
This year the top section was much larger than the 8 player event last year - something like 14 players.
I don't want to see stars barred become the norm - variety though is good. Talking of variety this event did not increase the prize fund due to size of entry. It increased the prize fund due to size of entry.