Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2012 Olympiad
Well it's up to individual tournaments to decide on what time control they want to use, if that is incremental then so be it.

I can only ever remember using increments once, and I actually won the event. Did not really find it difficult to adjust at all. Still don't see the need or point of them though.

Maybe we could have a poll? Tongue
Joe Redpath wrote
Quote:They have always been stronger than us, regardless of time controls.

actually this is not the case. if we take the Olympiads as a guide we have had fairly strong results in the early years compared to our status in world chess. statistics prove that we have deteriorated over the decades whilst many other small countries have improved.
in the 60's/70's/80's we averaged position 30,
in the 90's we averaged position 51 (despite Mr Muir's wonderful 6/7 in 1998);
in the noughties we averaged position 47
and thus far in the last 2 Olympiads average position of 80.

I do accept that the time control on its own is not the entire answer but whatever these other countries, many smaller and less developed than Scotland, are doing needs to be looked at.
The time control is an irrelevant factor.

Probably why we are not doing as well is because Rowson and Motwani have not played. Makes a massive difference to the team when they play.

The reason for Scotland not producing any new IMs /GMs for a long time is not because of a lack of talent, but because of a lack of opportunities. Alan Tate has proved it is possible to reach very close to IM level, but you have to be preperared to travel all over Europe to do it. Is it worth the time, money and effort... debatable.
Given the rather obvious importance of time management when playing having experienced, when under pressure, of the event's time control is essential. We all do better at all aspects of our lives if we have prior experience of it, especially when under pressure when relying on instinct.

Experience of time controls may not seem significant but when its the only difference it may be the proverbial last straw.
Who plays appears not to affect the statistical analysis of Olympic performance. Our average rating per Olympiad** has risen whilst our final ranking has dropped. This would suggest that although we are improving our competitors are improving and performing better than us. This reasons for this can be argued but most (all?) agree that it is a fact.

** taken per decade.
JRedpath Wrote:The reason for Scotland not producing any new IMs /GMs for a long time is not because of a lack of talent, but because of a lack of opportunities.

I dont remember there being a massive number of international tournaments hosted in Scotland during the 1970s, 80s and 90s when people were chasing and getting norms.

Domestically what we did have pre-2000 was a consistently strong turnout in the Scottish Championships. In the 1970s -80s the average number of the top 10 playing was 6 to 7, in the 90s it was 5, in 2000-2009 it was 3.

The more recent Open format Scot Champs certainly gives norm opportunities.
Of course it would be good for more events here at international time rates with your FIDE rating at risk rather than kept in a box under the bed. While our Olympiad and junior internationalist competitors are getting domestic practice Scotland currently has zero events listed on the FIDE website (Edinburgh Premier and Scot Champ 2013 will be added at some stage). Hard to understand the rationale of why Richardson/Spens are not FIDE rated - SNCL with 2 rounds a day is a tougher call but your opponent will also be finding it difficult - why not test your rating to see if its real.

Meanwhile our prospective 2 FIDE rated events before next July is somewhat dwarfed by Denmark (pop 5m) with 139
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... ountry=DEN</a><!-- m -->

Norway (pop 5m) with 44
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... ountry=NOR</a><!-- m -->

Slovenia (pop 2m) 34
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... ountry=SLO</a><!-- m -->

Slovakia (pop 5m) 37
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... ountry=SVK</a><!-- m -->
Is there a cost to FIDE rate events? Because I genuinely can't see any reason we don't have any more of them.
I can understand why some people aren't fans or two FIDE games a day in congresses but if all congresses are FIDE rated then there is no problem.
Not having the Richardson FIDE rated is totally ridiculous. What were the reasons for getting rid of this?

There are a lot of players out there who have FIDE ratings higher than their CS ratings, dare I suggest that's a reason?
I don't really have anything to add to the previous two posts; I'd just like to agree with them. The paucity of FIDE-rated events in Scotland is extremely disappointing, and the context provided by the countries Dougie mentioned earlier underlines that. As it is, anyone who wants to play more than 15 or so rated games in a season has to leave the country to do so, which is daft.

There's long been a trend towards shorter games in international tournaments. 4 hours is definitely a long enough session to justify submitting a game for FIDE rating - as mentioned earlier, anyone who's concerned that that's less time than they normally have should remember that their opponent has to deal with the same control.
To answer the question, yes there is a fee. I think it is £1 for a member and £2 for a non member per person per tournament section rated
"How sad to see, what used to be, a model of decorum and tranquility become like any other sport, a battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee"

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)