21-01-2013, 08:09 PM
Although the match was played without rancour, as all matches in all events should be, thats hardly the point as this issue could kick off again in the next round putting the organisers again under unnecessary pressure.
The events beforehand from Dragons amounted to little short of blackmail...basically agree with us on board order or have your team turn up at Edinburgh and we will refuse to play. One email in particular that I saw was blatantly offensive. What were the officials to do? We were the visiting team so what were we to do...turn up and then go home again?
I found out about this nonesence on the Friday night/Saturday morning! Very inhospitable pre-match attitude...very much in contrast to the 3 home games at Hamilton that I have played in against Dragons in recent years!
I am now strongly against FIDE rating these types of events (Richardson, SNCL). Too acrimonious.
A 50 point rule is fine. I am neutral on team lists...it does seem a hassle but I cannot see a serious objection from a players perspective.
I had thought the idea of this 50 point rule, "playing strength" or whatever , was to prevent someone puting an 1800 against a GM on B1 and then fielding a 2300 on B2 against the same team. All of a sudden its about allowing opponent specific preparation. A joke.
A normal team discussion is who wants B1, who is on form, etc . You look at your game and decide. Other factors are spreading out the games. If this impacts the "night before prep" for some players its just too bad. Its not unfair, just too bad.
At SNCL if you play B1 its me or Joe 90% of the time...even when Stephen was also active half the time I would turn up to the SNCL on the Sunday morning expecting to be B3 and would find that I was B1. Not ideal for me but fine. So much for "unfair advantage".
At SNCL you know months in advance so how hard is it to prepare if you want to. The Richardson also gives plenty of time. Simpole facts.
Preparation is cumulative. If thats a problem for some players then again its just too bad.So you don't get your way. Fine. Its an amateur game. No money. No norms. So lets just try to maintain good manners.
The events beforehand from Dragons amounted to little short of blackmail...basically agree with us on board order or have your team turn up at Edinburgh and we will refuse to play. One email in particular that I saw was blatantly offensive. What were the officials to do? We were the visiting team so what were we to do...turn up and then go home again?
I found out about this nonesence on the Friday night/Saturday morning! Very inhospitable pre-match attitude...very much in contrast to the 3 home games at Hamilton that I have played in against Dragons in recent years!
I am now strongly against FIDE rating these types of events (Richardson, SNCL). Too acrimonious.
A 50 point rule is fine. I am neutral on team lists...it does seem a hassle but I cannot see a serious objection from a players perspective.
I had thought the idea of this 50 point rule, "playing strength" or whatever , was to prevent someone puting an 1800 against a GM on B1 and then fielding a 2300 on B2 against the same team. All of a sudden its about allowing opponent specific preparation. A joke.
A normal team discussion is who wants B1, who is on form, etc . You look at your game and decide. Other factors are spreading out the games. If this impacts the "night before prep" for some players its just too bad. Its not unfair, just too bad.
At SNCL if you play B1 its me or Joe 90% of the time...even when Stephen was also active half the time I would turn up to the SNCL on the Sunday morning expecting to be B3 and would find that I was B1. Not ideal for me but fine. So much for "unfair advantage".
At SNCL you know months in advance so how hard is it to prepare if you want to. The Richardson also gives plenty of time. Simpole facts.
Preparation is cumulative. If thats a problem for some players then again its just too bad.So you don't get your way. Fine. Its an amateur game. No money. No norms. So lets just try to maintain good manners.