Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Richardson 2012-13
#68
PatCoffey Wrote: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.

Which is why the point I made the point The match itself was played without rancour [b]and now we are trying to make sure we have a rule in place which everyone involved can accept [/b]- or at least vote on and be done with it


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?

Fair enough, things could have been dealt with much better and less rudely (there were amicable behind-the-scenes discussions taking place to find a compromise), but maybe you should also be looking at members of your own team in this respect, and reign in the more offensive ones?


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!

Again, you should be looking also at your own team and your history of being involved in such disputes - (I'm still waiting to hear back from Joe about the SNCL incident). Like it or not, Hamilton have a reputation of trying to bend the rules (or interpret them as Andy Muir would say) to suit their own ends.

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 think a 50 point rule would probably be even more unfair than an 80 point one - team lists is a decent compromise.

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.

Only a joke because it doesn't affect your team in the way it affects most others. The thing here is, I'm not banging on about this because of a 'poor me' attitude - it confers an advantage on one team, whether that happens to be yours, mine or anyone else's.

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.

Our team discussion doesn't involve who wants to be board 1! Can't you see this point? Hamilton's team discussion could easily have been, 'OK, who wants to play Alan Tate?' Steve? Joe? Pat? Andy? Anyone got a good/great score against him? OK, Pat, well done, you're on 1. Steve, your on 2 cos you've beaten Andy the last 4 times you've played...blahblahblah'

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".

That's your problem then Pat - no-one else has any say in your team preparation or lack of it! Why even bring this up?

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.

and much easier if you know you are to play a specific person

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.

It's not just preparation as I point out above, but even here your argument is that you want flexibility/ share of stronger games. So improve. If thats a problem for some players then again its just too bad. You don't get your way? Fine. It's an amateur game blahblahlah good manners ;P
Reply


Messages In This Thread

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)