23-12-2011, 10:29 PM
Andrew Mc
Exactly. Why do you persist to give the impression that you think that someone has said that its the worlds or nothing?
What we have been suggesting is that players build up towards competing in the very top events.
Why do you think players would not be motivated by being selected for other events? These would still be challenging but in which they have a better chance to score above 50%.
A great example of which is the Liverpool team event which involves 30 + players.
No one is 'pulling the rug..': That clearly implies some sudden imposition of new rules but I have specifically said that any changes to the system would need to be introduced gradually, by for example setting the grading bar low enough so that everyone who would have qualified before would still qualify in the initial year (or years) so that when the rules start to kick in everyone is fully aware and had the chance to adjust to the new rules.
Perhaps you believe that is unfair that Jonny won Grangemouth because 'he just happened to be a strong player' ? I am afraid that is chess. These top events are about the strongest players competing to find out who is best.
The example I give is spread over almost 10 years, so averages do not always work out. This is especially true in chess where in practice the numbers of players is and always will be relatively small. One of the points is that the pattern you often find, be it in chess or in physic classes in school you will get good years followed by weaker years. You would think that on average each year would be the same but it rarely is. This is the sort of detail one needs to understand when making a policy.
Quote:Because I think there needs to be something to work towards
Exactly. Why do you persist to give the impression that you think that someone has said that its the worlds or nothing?
What we have been suggesting is that players build up towards competing in the very top events.
Why do you think players would not be motivated by being selected for other events? These would still be challenging but in which they have a better chance to score above 50%.
A great example of which is the Liverpool team event which involves 30 + players.
Quote:it's unfair to have the opportunity pulled from under your feet
No one is 'pulling the rug..': That clearly implies some sudden imposition of new rules but I have specifically said that any changes to the system would need to be introduced gradually, by for example setting the grading bar low enough so that everyone who would have qualified before would still qualify in the initial year (or years) so that when the rules start to kick in everyone is fully aware and had the chance to adjust to the new rules.
Quote:- just because you don't happen to be a very strong player.
Perhaps you believe that is unfair that Jonny won Grangemouth because 'he just happened to be a strong player' ? I am afraid that is chess. These top events are about the strongest players competing to find out who is best.
Quote:but on average it is
The example I give is spread over almost 10 years, so averages do not always work out. This is especially true in chess where in practice the numbers of players is and always will be relatively small. One of the points is that the pattern you often find, be it in chess or in physic classes in school you will get good years followed by weaker years. You would think that on average each year would be the same but it rarely is. This is the sort of detail one needs to understand when making a policy.