Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Largs T+C
Gary McPheator Wrote:Very true Alex, but a slight adjustment to the starting times and adopting 90 mins + 30 secs is doable.
So long as there is no repeat of the game settled by the 50-move draw rule, like there was last year - I went for lunch, came back and they were still playing! Smile
I get my kicks above the waistline, sunshine
Glad you like the leaflet Jonathan!

The entry fees are higher than what is the norm on the Scottish weekend cicuit, I hope not overly so. As you point out, the cost of going to a weekend congress is greater than the entry fee alone and we hope by offering a greater chance to cover these costs, at least in part, will prove popular. The Grading prizes on offer should be contested by 9-15 people and reward the winners with a cash prize (numbers permitting) that only sectional winners usually see.

I personally feel that there is a link to the decline in prize money over the years to the decline in numbers participating. It could be that we are now left with the players who only play for the enjoyment of the game. I hope that the congress will prove attractive to them as well as players who like some financial reward for their weekend's efforts.

Not all congresses are going to appeal to everyone, let's hope for plenty of choice to please everyone at least some of the time!
Alan Jelfs Wrote:
Gary McPheator Wrote:Very true Alex, but a slight adjustment to the starting times and adopting 90 mins + 30 secs is doable.
So long as there is no repeat of the game settled by the 50-move draw rule, like there was last year - I went for lunch, came back and they were still playing! Smile

Even that should be ok Alan as we have the venue booked on each day for long enough to cope. Not sure those players involved or the arbiter would care for a repeat though!
Gary McPheator Wrote:I personally feel that there is a link to the decline in prize money over the years to the decline in numbers participating.

I quite agree Gary, i don't think it's a coincidence that Blackpool and Scarborough have both large entries and large prize funds.
Re- the cheating aspect, i'm pretty sure we don't have any Borislav Ivanovs on the Scottish circuit, but the bigger prizes might prove a bigger incentive for someone to cheat, and the congress has to protect its integrity. I'm sure the large prizes will attract entries from further afield than just from Scotland, players who aren't well known, if at all, around these parts
I haven't played Largs before and the prizemooney is certainly a tempting aspect of the event. Many of the top Scottish players will be on Olympiad duty, but I'm sure those who missed out will welcome the chance to play for a hopefully very decent prizefund at the top - the 2nd section also looks good in that respect.

I can't remember wwhich came first; the drop-off in player numbers or the decline in prizefunds?! I do know that the Glenrothes Congress tried to have big prizes for a while to attract more entrants, but rising costs of the venue and only a small increase in numbers meant it wasn't viable to have big prizes in the long-term (although for a few years we had very kind sponsors which helped out quite a lot financially.)

Not sure if I will be in the country when Largs is on, but I hope I can make it. I wanted to play David C's SCT events and was glad I managed to play Ayr last year and Perth this year - good venues are one of the biggest attractions for me these days (20 years of school halls wore a bit thin about 2 years into it!)

FIDE rating the Open would make it more attractive to me - would be interesting to know the general consensus on this though?!
Clement Sreeves Wrote:Unfortunately I won't be around for the Largs congress this year, it looks like a great event again. I did see the following in the terms and conditions though:


However there is no mention of any penalty for wrongly accusing someone of cheating. Cheating doesn't seem to be a problem in Scotland thankfully but this rule seems quite dangerous.

I agree, this confers too wide a range of powers, and could even put arbiters in a difficult position.

For example, a piqued opponent accuses an opponent of cheating in the toilet and badgers the arbiter into 'action'. The arbiter reluctantly asks the opponent to see what he has in his pockets, but is met with a refusal or even reluctance. This attitude may well be justified, as even 'a police 'stop and search' requires reasonable suspicion. The arbiter can now expel the player for 'non-compliance'' without any particular regard to the suspicion (there might actually be none) or the circumstances.

Of course I would hope most arbiters would behave more reasonably but the whole point of powers being sweeping is that they CAN be used unreasonably!

Some qualification of these powers is needed (eg appeals committee) and as Clement says, there should be a counterweight to ensure an accusation isn't made lightly. An unfair accusation could wreck a player's tournament and perhaps even sour their view of competitive chess.

Largs looks like being a terrific event though!
This today on ChessBase, well worth a read, including many of the comments.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... /1#discuss</a><!-- m -->
Also this one, finally in an English language version (which is a damn sight easier to follow than google-translated Norwegian!)

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... -cheating/</a><!-- m -->

This may have implications for certain players who require aids for playing, so would appreciate any input from Steve Hilton among others.
Thanks for the links Andy.

From the link <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... g-in-chess</a><!-- m -->

The game Danov, Radi–Ustianovic

From the Diagram in the link above Lilov claims that White’s decision to capture the f-pawn gxf5 before playing the winning Re8 is a deliberate suboptimal move in a completely winning position to deflect suspicion.

Lilov comments:

“"A club player will find this move in a second," Kuznetsov writes. Danov, who has completely outplayed his opponent, has a move rated at +18 pawns, but plays one the computer rates at about +5. It still wins, but the path to victory is more complicated than the simple overwhelming 49.Re8 which immediately gets White a queen.”

It is disingenuous to suggest White did not ‘find’ the immediate Re8. After Black’s (obviously dangerous) reply Rb2+, White would have to calculate accurately to avoid a perpetual or even 2 lines where White is mated.

The chosen gxf5 is not ‘more complicated’ - it’s obvious that Black has NO chance of saving the game, and was quite likely to resign. Elsewhere in the video Lioov goes on about computer moves and human moves, but this gxf5 is a very human move. As a ‘club player’ I would certainly have played it. Lilov only has a point if it is assumed that the White player was using a computer – circular, prejudicial reasoning which reminded me of "if she floats, she's a witch"

This and the remainder of Lilov’s video seems to comprise hand-waving, biased innuendo – this kind of thing is a much bigger worry to me than cheating itself, and it’s disappointing that Chessbase readily promotes it.
I have to agree completely with your analysis of Lilov's approach Walter. The first thing I thought about that position was, wait a minute, White gets mated!

We were actually discussing the Danov 'case' as the event was happening, in a Facebook group I frequent. I posted that there was very little about his games which made me suspect outright cheating, and that a far more detailed analysis would be needed to prove anything. This Lilov approach is certainly not it!

On the other hand, I have no real problem with measures being put in place to prevent/detect cheating. If they want to check my shoes - good luck to them. (I had just finished a 4-day festival in a forest -a metal festival by the name of Brutal Assault if you were wondering - when I was stopped at security in Prague airport a few years back. "Take off your shoes!" "Really? Are you sure you understand what you're asking?" Big Grin

In any event, ChessBase basically publish any old tripe they like when the mood takes them. Dubious theories, bad science, or in this case biased and/or badly-thought out cheating accusations.

Lilov's video on Ivanov was similar, but more convincing as there were 'proper numbers' to back up the accusations. I would much prefer Ken Regan to take a look at Danov before anything was published, if at all.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)