23-02-2015, 10:43 PM
Good luck to the teams at Dresden. Starts tomorrow.
I tend to agree that 50+ is ridiculously young to be a 'senior' in chess. Botvinnik (b 1911) was world champion till 50+ (defeated by Petrosian in 1963). But these are the new rules!
My main concern, however, is that in introducing the new age limits, 50+ and 65+ - two separate events these days, for both seniors team and individual euro and world championships - FIDE / ECU unthinkingly, not to say quite crassly, and without bothering to ask member federations or competitors about their views on any possible change, abolished the 'old' 60+ championships, which had great traditions, popularity and economic viability ...
... the roll call of the 60+ world seniors individual champions from the inception of the event in the very early 1990s is particularly impressive, including real greats (still playing well!), including the likes of Smyslov, Geller, Taimanov, Korchnoi and so on. Last year's 65+ winning TPR (around 2500) was some 100+ ELO points lower than in most recent 60+ years. That's an awful lot.
I've been told that ECU and FIDE will review the value of the recent rule changes later in the year at their late summer assemblies. I'm lobbying strongly (and there are many others) to abolish the 65+ events to be replaced by the 'old' 60+ championships ... asap!
Entries and overall strength were both markedly down in these largely unwanted new 65+ events in 2014 (their first year) compared to the old 60+ championships. 65+ is simply too old to set an age qualification for a truly attractive and competitive seniors event.
Trouble is that ECU / FIDE fear (I think, though they won't say this publicly) that if they bring back the 60+ events, it will destroy the 50+ events ... which last year hugely depended on 'attracting' sufficient decent 60-65 year-olds to make up the numbers (and strength!) ... as the 50+ players aren't really biting in sufficient numbers to make these 50+ events viable without attracting 'real' oldies!!
That's daft, of course. And there's a real danger that many 60-65 players and many, too, in the 65+ age range, who want a more competitive tournament, will simply vote with their feet.
It is all a bit of a mess!
I tend to agree that 50+ is ridiculously young to be a 'senior' in chess. Botvinnik (b 1911) was world champion till 50+ (defeated by Petrosian in 1963). But these are the new rules!
My main concern, however, is that in introducing the new age limits, 50+ and 65+ - two separate events these days, for both seniors team and individual euro and world championships - FIDE / ECU unthinkingly, not to say quite crassly, and without bothering to ask member federations or competitors about their views on any possible change, abolished the 'old' 60+ championships, which had great traditions, popularity and economic viability ...
... the roll call of the 60+ world seniors individual champions from the inception of the event in the very early 1990s is particularly impressive, including real greats (still playing well!), including the likes of Smyslov, Geller, Taimanov, Korchnoi and so on. Last year's 65+ winning TPR (around 2500) was some 100+ ELO points lower than in most recent 60+ years. That's an awful lot.
I've been told that ECU and FIDE will review the value of the recent rule changes later in the year at their late summer assemblies. I'm lobbying strongly (and there are many others) to abolish the 65+ events to be replaced by the 'old' 60+ championships ... asap!
Entries and overall strength were both markedly down in these largely unwanted new 65+ events in 2014 (their first year) compared to the old 60+ championships. 65+ is simply too old to set an age qualification for a truly attractive and competitive seniors event.
Trouble is that ECU / FIDE fear (I think, though they won't say this publicly) that if they bring back the 60+ events, it will destroy the 50+ events ... which last year hugely depended on 'attracting' sufficient decent 60-65 year-olds to make up the numbers (and strength!) ... as the 50+ players aren't really biting in sufficient numbers to make these 50+ events viable without attracting 'real' oldies!!
That's daft, of course. And there's a real danger that many 60-65 players and many, too, in the 65+ age range, who want a more competitive tournament, will simply vote with their feet.
It is all a bit of a mess!