12-08-2016, 04:09 PM
I have a lot of sympathy for Steve's point, and am very grateful to him for playing congresses - I have learnt more from playing him in tournaments than from any other opponent. He does not want to waste all the money he spends on foreign tournaments where the opposition is higher than here because the punishment for one bad game is not as serious.
That's fair enough (and then some) but I also want to point out my perspective. The only way I can get my Fide rating up is by spending lots of my money playing abroad because I can't get Fide rated games against the Scottish titled players. Hence me being midway through a month in the Czech Republic! I am not claiming my situation is more important than Steve's but is it a coincidence that so many people (e.g. Calum Macqueen, Adam Bremner, Andrew Green, list goes on forever if I could be bothered) get stuck at 2200 FIDE and only Clément and Andrew Burnett get FM in last few years? I also should mention that it is not just rating - the only way for me to get substantially better is to play significantly stronger players and other than Steve and Clément and a few others these guys don't play congresses.
I don't really understand George's point because, with only a few exceptions, the Scottish titled players never bothered showing up to all the non-Fide rated congresses in my time as a player before this year, and there has been little change with Fide rated at David congalton's events this year, possibly even increase in numbers of titled players.
I don't know what to conclude from this - I don't see my side as being more or less important than Steve's (we are less good but there are more of us...), but I felt it important both sides are heard and I am bored and on the train.
I don't understand why anyone would or even could care about FIDE rapid rating. Rate it or not, who cares it's allegro. Even if you take the games seriously why take the rating seriously - no one else is going to care what your rapid rating is whatsoever!
That's fair enough (and then some) but I also want to point out my perspective. The only way I can get my Fide rating up is by spending lots of my money playing abroad because I can't get Fide rated games against the Scottish titled players. Hence me being midway through a month in the Czech Republic! I am not claiming my situation is more important than Steve's but is it a coincidence that so many people (e.g. Calum Macqueen, Adam Bremner, Andrew Green, list goes on forever if I could be bothered) get stuck at 2200 FIDE and only Clément and Andrew Burnett get FM in last few years? I also should mention that it is not just rating - the only way for me to get substantially better is to play significantly stronger players and other than Steve and Clément and a few others these guys don't play congresses.
I don't really understand George's point because, with only a few exceptions, the Scottish titled players never bothered showing up to all the non-Fide rated congresses in my time as a player before this year, and there has been little change with Fide rated at David congalton's events this year, possibly even increase in numbers of titled players.
I don't know what to conclude from this - I don't see my side as being more or less important than Steve's (we are less good but there are more of us...), but I felt it important both sides are heard and I am bored and on the train.
I don't understand why anyone would or even could care about FIDE rapid rating. Rate it or not, who cares it's allegro. Even if you take the games seriously why take the rating seriously - no one else is going to care what your rapid rating is whatsoever!