Poll: Should the Richardson Cup be FIDE rated?
This poll is closed.
Yes
89.66%
26 89.66%
No
3.45%
1 3.45%
I am not fussed either way
6.90%
2 6.90%
Total 29 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Should the Richardson Cup be FIDE rated?
#11
Douglas Bryson Wrote:The SNCL made the decision to stop rating at their AGM at the end of last season.

Was this a decision by the clubs or was it by players? Was it overwhelming or close? I dont suppose there are minutes of the discussion or the vote recorded.

It was by the clubs only involved in the top division, and the vote was very close. I think it was something like 3-2 with abstentions. As the captain of the Edinburgh Uni team last year, I cast our vote as an abstention purely because we had individuals both for and against FIDE rating it so I didn't feel I could vote either way on behalf of our team.

With regards to the Richardson being FIDE rated, of course it should. If you want to protect your rating, then don't play in it and let the rest of us enjoy having a FIDE event. While you have to respect the views of certain players, surely every chess player is equal with regards to an opinion on rating an event, so the majority should prevail unless there is a serious reason why not. If the reason is losing selection because you can't hold your FIDE (speculation of course), and instead of not playing trying to change the rules of an event, then that makes me totally sick. Two words. Man up.
Reply
#12
Adam
You are using emotive words like "totally sick" and "man up".
Why didn't you vote with your heart and not your head at the SNCL AGM then ?
In football, eg Scottish Premier League reconstructions, demotion of Rangers etc, decisions are made by clubs not players - otherwise the financial & political muscle of the larger clubs would dominate the smaller ones.
This noticeboard is dominated by players of certain clubs and not others.
The strength of feelings of the non-FIDE rated adherents are higher e.g. they refuse to play whereas the FIDE rated adherents will play either way
Reply
#13
amuir Wrote:Adam
You are using emotive words like "totally sick" and "man up".
Why didn't you vote with your heart and not your head at the SNCL AGM then ?
In football, eg Scottish Premier League reconstructions, demotion of Rangers etc, decisions are made by clubs not players - otherwise the financial & political muscle of the larger clubs would dominate the smaller ones.
This noticeboard is dominated by players of certain clubs and not others.
The strength of feelings of the non-FIDE rated adherents are higher e.g. they refuse to play whereas the FIDE rated adherents will play either way

That's a bit unfair Andy. Adam was the proxy/messenger for his club's vote and it would have been wrong of him to vote for FIDE rating after having sought the member's views and not getting a clear 'yes' from them.

The old 'it's my ball and I'm not playing (therefore neither is anyone else)' isn't a satisfactory way to decide such things.

It would be useful if you could persuade one or more of the 'no-Fide rating' brigade to take a few minutes to share their views with the rest of us - who knows, they might be able to persuade us that they are right! If they don't even try, then there will doubtless be a motion for next year (which will quite probably be passed) and they (and their clubs, who will be weakened) will be the ones who lose out..
Reply
#14
amuir Wrote:Adam
You are using emotive words like "totally sick" and "man up".
Why didn't you vote with your heart and not your head at the SNCL AGM then ?

As much as I would have loved to, it had to be a team vote, not my vote as captain. I asked everyone present what their thoughts were, and as a unit we did not have a clear majority one way or the other. Some teams may have collectively felt more strongly one way or another, so best leave it to them. We were happy to go with the majority.

Your analogy with football is true, and although it is hard to say if club voting vs individual voting is better; as long as every club and indeed every member is involved then that is fine. The only problem I have with the club vote is that you don't know if the vote being cast is made on behalf of everyone in the team, a vocal minority, or how many people actually care within that single vote.

Yes, they are emotive words, because it is how I feel personally. I feel passionate about the game in Scotland, so things like this do bother me. Reducing FIDE games/events in Scotland feels like a step backwards. I do get though that you are between a rock and a hard place on this, Andy. It doesn't matter how well you do a job, you can only please some of the people some of the time.

As an interesting thought, why not just scrap the CS gradings all together and FIDE rate everything. Then there will be no issues Tongue
Reply
#15
Having finally remembered my log-in!!!

The issue of FIDE rating an event is a complicated one.

Clearly for younger and under-rated players the more opportunities to play FIDE rated games the better. However, for those with established and high(ish) ratings this can be a double edged sword. The argument that the more games played the more accurate the figure is not correct. Many players feel that their weekend performances are better than their league ones played after a day’s work. To some extent this reflects the preparation that is possible. Also people only like to play FIDE rated games if they have been able to prepare for a particular opponent. This factor is recognised by FIDE. Serious FIDE rated events always allow some preparation time hence the one round per day.

I have seen comments on this forum with regard to the SNCL that a certain club has an advantage in that their board order is flexible so proper preparation ahead of meeting them is not possible. I consider this to be a genuine concern of the serious player.

The next paragraph is intended to be controversial but is necessary for what follows.
Scotland has two national team events. Neither is totally satisfactory. The Richardson attracts more of the top players but is short of teams. The SNCL has large numbers but the winners are not really seen as Scottish Champions. If we were starting from scratch would we run these events under their current formats? I think that is doubtful. In England, its equivalent of the Richardson has all but died. The 4NCL is the dominant event. We are heading that way in Scotland but the SNCL still lacks that bit of prestige necessary to complete the ‘take-over’. My personal opinion is that the two events should be merged to provide a meaningful championship. The format of that is a different matter and for another topic.
Back to the Richardson. An obvious question is to query whether having only one rated game is worth the effort. I really doubt if the current format makes going for FIDE rating, in light of any opposition, a worthwhile activity.

If there is to be any real point in having FIDE rating then a sensible number of games must be possible. This would require a change from the knockout formula. To make rating viable, the Richardson could be held as a five round Swiss. The draw is published 3 weeks before each round. Team lists have to be submitted 18 hours in advance (assuming a 2pm start). These lists are published by the organiser by 9am on the day of the round. There would need to be consideration given to what would happen if a player withdraws but the suggested timescale should limit the impact of that.

I don’t think this is ideal but it might be worth considering.
Reply
#16
Quote:As an interesting thought, why not just scrap the CS gradings all together and FIDE rate everything. Then there will be no issues

Adam why not go the opposite way? Do not submit any games for FIDE grading, keep everything for our national ratings. If you want FIDE, which is essentially european, then play outwith Scotland!

"You can take our freedom but you'll never beat our grading syatem" Tongue
Reply
#17
amuir Wrote:This noticeboard is dominated by players of certain clubs and not others.

I am not sure that this is entirely true. Even if it was, it shows that a large amount of people are unhappy with the current situation. This does not seem right. I was simply pointing out that the current voting system is flawed and the poll seems to confirm it. An individual vote is clearly superior as EVERYONE has their say.

Many Scottish players travel down to the 4NCL at a great expense to just play a couple of FIDE rated games against strong opposition. Therefore, I think the argument that the Richardson is not worth FIDE rating due to it only being a couple of games is not fair.
Reply
#18
AndrewGreen Wrote:
amuir Wrote:This noticeboard is dominated by players of certain clubs and not others.

I am not sure that this is entirely true. Even if it was, it shows that a large amount of people are unhappy with the current situation. This does not seem right. I was simply pointing out that the current voting system is flawed and the poll seems to confirm it. An individual vote is clearly superior as EVERYONE has their say.

Many Scottish players travel down to the 4NCL at a great expense to just play a couple of FIDE rated games against strong opposition. Therefore, I think the argument that the Richardson is not worth FIDE rating due to it only being a couple of games is not fair.

+1

Re: Pat's post. FIDE = Federation Internationale des Echecs. Europe is a very small place Tongue
Reply
#19
Quote:
Re: Pat's post. FIDE = Federation Internationale des Echecs. Europe is a very small place

big enuf for us Benidorm adventurers Big Grin oh and yes Slovakia, Czech Republic, Ireland, Espana, and whisper it England
Reply
#20
Pat what about us that play in the Netherlands and Poland?? Big Grin Big Grin
We even go beyond Europe Tongue Big Grin Big Grin
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)