Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Richardson/Spens 2011-12
#64
Grading/Board Order in SNCL (Other Scottish Team Events)

The 50 move rule at SNCL is pretty much in accordance with the approach every other chess league in the world adopts (if this its not quite right can we have some examples?) If some players (Andy B and yourself ) want to do something that is unique to the SNCL then I feel the burden should be on you guys to make a better, and frankly less selfish, case.

Look at it from the point of view of myself (and Hamilton team) as opposed to , say, Andrew Burnett. I would imagine that Andy and I are more or less on the same level ....in a game I could win or lose our next game and either way it would not be considered a surprise result (I assume this fair to say?).

The last time I spoke with Andy I am sure he said that he missed playing SNCL as it was a good chance to play 2200+ players....so he recognises the importance of tough games.

A team (Hamilton) fielding 4x2250 +a 2000 player in SNCL..if having to play same player order every match (whether strict grading used to establish the initial order or not) there is a problem. If I play B1 I have 7 games and an average opponent probably c.2100+. On B2 its c.1940. On B3 its c.1850-1920. On B4 its c-1800. On B5 its c.1700-1800.

Andy had the privilege or advantage of playing B1 every time he played for Kingdom Kings and had 7 more or less competitive games. This is good for him and his chess. BUT it is just not quite the same playing 7 games where the opposition is 350-450 points lower....this applies equally to an 1800 players playing 1350 players and so on. The response of saying something like " play games, improve your grading, get to a higher board" is totally selfish and does not address the problem as the league is just not strong enough yet to fair on our B2-B4 if we are stuck in order.

So it is FAIR, ABSOLUTELY FAIR, that Hamilton can switch around who gets to play B1/B2. Otherwise its a a disincentive for the squad to turn up as often as we do. The SNCL rules should be facilitating the continued participation of 2250+ players and trying to encourage the 2300-2400 players to play now and then (e.g.no FIDE ratings -we will see on this).

Now the issue of specific preparation that both you and Andy raise to justify your stance really has to be commented on as it is just nonesence. Lets look at my own games against you guys and others to make the point.

I played 1.b4 against Peter Constantinou (SNCL), Clement (SNCL),Ian Marks(SNCL) , David Findlay (Richardson) , John Shaw (Richardson) . I doubt I have done more than 1-2 hrs "study" on this opening as there is really nothing to look at. I play it just to avoid theory and play a middlegame. I have played the reverse move 1...b5 (which is terrible) against Andrew Greet (Richardson) and Callum (SNCL) with the same intent.

Otherwise when I play 1.e4 I play quiet systems- except against the Scandinavian. When I played George in last years SNCL I was to be B3 so had not looked at any openings at all but on the day was shuffled into B1.George anyway surprised me with 3...Nd4 is a Spanish and I took out of book asap.When I played against Andy last year I was out of theory with my 3.f3 and took oceans of time on my next moves. Where is the unfair advantage that I have that you guys are complaining about?? Where are the games that you are concerned about?

As Black I always play Sicilian ...either Kan or sometimes Basman . I played 2....Qc7 against Steve Mannion (Richardson) just to take out of theory. When I played two Sicilians against Andy (SNCL and Richardson) I took a lot of time in both games in the opening as its a positional system that I play and I usually have to try to figure things out from early on .

Against David Findlay at the last SNCL (and I assume David expected to play me as I had told him as much) I I prepared deeply a line of the Kan that he just sidestepped! Iast night I played Dougie in the Glasgow League and he played a new line (for him) on move 5!

I do not see that it is in any way fair for Andy or George trying to push a unique rule through to the SNCL just to make it eaiser FOR THEM to do specific preparations.

Andy/George ...next time we play...in whatever event... I am happy to play 1.a3 or 1.a4 against you if you agree to do the same with me.
Reply


Messages In This Thread

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)