+- 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: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 (/thread-831.html)
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - Andrew McHarg - 27-01-2014
True Andy. But it'll take a long time for the message to sink in. =) It's not the kind of thing that works over night.
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - seanmilton - 28-01-2014
Jonathan Livingstone Wrote:it could be a good long term investment to fund someone suitable to go off on a fact finding trip and link up with the right country. The aim would be to learn from and perhaps replicate the right chess model where appropriate. Or perhaps even better would be to get someone in from a small but successful chess country (headhunt that right person if you like), then either use them as a consultant, or employ them to restructure everything in our game from bottom up and take Chess in Scotland to the next level.I am delighted members are continuing the remote participation discussion on the forum as there are sure to be a few gems of ideas to come from it. (The working party is already packing their bags for a fact finding mission to the chess power house of the Seychelles).
I wish to reiterate one point at this stage to prevent unfounded concern or for the topic to divert off on an unnecessary tangent. If an acceptable remote play model can be found, only one remote board will be introduced into congress halls during the first year. Around three boards are envisaged in the next 2-3 years. The remote boards will not be offered to all and sundry but to a limited most deserving few. The impact on the overall congress scene will be minimal with regards playing over the board chess against actual opponents, social interaction among players, atmosphere etc.
The topic of running new congresses out with the Central Belt has been aired on a number of occasions. The goal of the remote participation initiative is to bring chess communities together. Arranging a congress at a remote location will be a kin to holding a local club match unless those advocating more congresses can arrange for the current chess congress population to travel and play at these events.
Back to Jonathan’s point regarding sending someone on a fact finding mission. I am the first to agree that lessons can be learned from others but why can’t Scotland in this instance show the rest of the world how to do it? All we need is desire, a touch of ingenuity and a little bit of compromise. Scots have been at the forefront of innovation and discovery across a wide range of spheres. We held the first ever correspondence match between two clubs (Edinburgh v London in 1884), let’s add innovators of remote congress participation to the list of global chess achievements.
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - Andrew McHarg - 28-01-2014
I admire your passion for innovation Sean. Good luck with this one. I hope you find a way to make it work and I'm glad it's not being proposed as an alternative for any/every player at an event. But it'll undoubtedly help some players from remote parts of the country enjoy the Chess scene in the central belt.
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - StevieHilton - 28-01-2014
I like to think that play by remote will be a step forward. For far too long numbers at clubs and congresses have been dropping. This has led to the loss of congresses mentioned in previous threads. There are valid reasons for this such as the increased need for the population to be more mobile in order to find work. Also the fact that there is more attractions for our free time than ever before, compared to most of us started to play competitively
well in my case yes!! I know that some players, no matter how viable a point remote chess can be will not accept this. From a disabled point of view, this would be a great help, as there are still difficulties in regards transport to tournament venues and also the fact that some venues are not suitable for disabled players
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - Matthew Turner - 28-01-2014
I agree with pretty much everything Sean has said, but I think people get concerned about the impact of remote play when they see mixed messages coming out.
Sean says
"Around three boards are envisaged in the next 2-3 years"
"The impact on the overall congress scene will be minimal"
That doesn't really tally with what Steve has said
"I like to think that play by remote will be a step forward. For far too long numbers at clubs and congresses have been dropping. This has led to the loss of congresses mentioned in previous threads."
If the view is that remote play will somehow increase numbers at congresses (except perhaps in the long long run) and will make congresses financially viable, then it really is pie in the sky.
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - Jonathan Livingstone - 28-01-2014
There are so many factors that could be argued for the decline of Tournaments in Scotland. Stevie noted some quite feasible thoughts about numbers going down.
Surely the junior retention rate is the main reason? As someone who played as a junior, then quit the game as a junior, then came back in recent times after a 20+ year break from Chess, I can make one clear observation. The juniors of my generation which I played with, just aren't aren't there any more. Admittedly I comment purely from an observational perspective, but I am saying what I see, and I only see a handful of players now from my childhood which are still active in the game. I'd estimate 95% or more are gone. There won't be many like myself that fall in love with chess again walking through the tournament doors in future. Incidently the availibility of internet chess could not be considered as a main contributer from the people from my generation leaving the Scottish Chess scene.
I doubt improved inclusion can reverse the decline of tournaments. That said I do support research into improving inclusion, just for the stand alone reason of inclusion - nothing to do with improving tournament numbers (that would just be a bonus knock on effect). I can't help but strongly feel keeping juniors in the game is the key factor were missing in our game.
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - Andrew McHarg - 29-01-2014
StevieHilton Wrote:For far too long numbers at clubs and congresses have been dropping.
Remote play will not reverse this trend, as Jonathan has suggested above. If everyone that "attends" a tournament plays remotely, then you basically have a really slow and expensive online tournament. I much prefer the angle Sean seems to be taking, and agree with Matthew's last post entirely.
StevieHilton Wrote:I know that some players, no matter how viable a point remote chess can be will not accept this. From a disabled point of view, this would be a great help, as there are still difficulties in regards transport to tournament venues and also the fact that some venues are not suitable for disabled players
I think people who are opposed to the idea have some very valid points. Perhaps some of them can be persuaded to see that it's a good idea for a small number of exceptional cases. But I think - and I may be incorrect in suggesting it - that Ian's main concern is that it'll become the norm and OTB Chess as we know it will no longer exist. That would be a concern of mine too; if I thought it even remotely possible.
But I do think there is an argument for allowing some disabled players to play remotely - and for me this is one of the primary examples of why this is a good idea on a small scale. The same applies to - perhaps - talented juniors whose parents lack the funds to take them to some of the major events as regularly as would be required for them to realise their potential. I think it would be a great pity if, under such circumstances, some players refused to play them.
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - Phil Thomas - 29-01-2014
Taking data from grading section these are numbers of weekend congresses per season.
2013 -14 9 happened 7 listed =16
2012-13 16
2011-12 18
2010-11 16
2009-10 18
2008-09 17
2007-08 17
2006-07 16
2005-06 19
2004-05 23
Earlier data is harder to extract
Trend since 2006-2007 season looks flat to me
Some congresses cease for various reasons, other get created for only one reason. A committed individual with the skills and contacts and desire to make the new event work.
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - robin moore - 29-01-2014
May I suggest that Phil's important post be the start of a new topic? Andy, Hugh? Must be plenty of thoughts to discuss regarding this.
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - Matthew Turner - 30-01-2014
It may be perceived that Phil's post provides evidence that runs contrary to some popular perceptions. That may be true, but I think to understand the state of Scottish congress chess you perhaps need to consider some more metrics. There may be the same number of tournaments in 2013/14 as there were in 2006/7 but how does the number of competitors and prize money compare. My impression is that you might conclude that Scottish congress chess is in a fair state of health, but that it has in recent history been better.