Poll: How should the Sensory Boards be funded
This poll is closed.
By Donation (individuals and congresses)
44.12%
15 44.12%
Increasing congress entry fees by £1 (going towards the costs)
23.53%
8 23.53%
Congresses using the boards paying a hire charge of £50
8.82%
3 8.82%
Congresses using the boards paying a hire charge of £75
2.94%
1 2.94%
Congresses using the boards paying an extra 5p per graded result
8.82%
3 8.82%
I do not think Chess Scotland should use such boards
11.76%
4 11.76%
Total 34 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Sensory Boards
#31
J*R Wrote:The idea of having an auction to play on a live board is quite frankly ridiculous! Donations are good, but will they be enough to raise the full amount?

This wont be a popular opinion with those not playing in the Open's, but really broadcasting games from the lower events makes no sense to me. It might be an elitist view, but I think these boards should be for the best players who play the best chess. Those in lower events who would like to play on such boards, well then you should work your way up through the ranks until you are good enough to compete in Open events.

I could be wrong, but I can't recall any other events in England or Europe where expensive sensorary boards are used to broadcast games between players who could be as lowely rated as 1200.

What is it with you and your elitist opinions on absolutely everything? If the boards are only for the best players who play the best chess then why don’t you pay for them then? Or is a case of "Ooooh no, lets go cap in hand to the players who are the lifeblood of chess in Scotland who make up to 80% of tournament entrants and who already subsidise us for our prize money." Lower graded players are not a cashcow to milked by the "elite" (I hate that term but it will do for this rant!) and treated with contempt.

I don’t know why you guys seem to think you are entitled to handouts from everyone else. Because you are the best? Does that make you guys the best at bringing in sponsorship? the big draws so the thousands of your fans can watch you? If so, prove it...

I hate to say it but if this is the underlying principle and view behind sensory boards and a £1 surcharge is levied I have no intention of paying it. Congress organisers can decide whether they want my entry at £23 or no entry at £24 as I will not endorse the principle of elitism in any way, shape or form.

On your issue of who would watch live games: The Junior Scottish Cup final (football) each season tends to have a better attendance than many SPL games in a season and there is a gulf in level as some would put it. It is also broadcast on the television. I guess the people who attend and watch that are just misguided?

Edit to add: Also I find your last sentence particularly distressing - grade is irrelevant for many. I have seen blunders in the Open that would be eye openers in a Minor. Also the use of the word lowly is offensive and maybe instead of criticising players who are not as good as yourself and telling them to do more work maybe you can impart some of your experience and learnings to others in another topic where us "lowly" players could learn from your greatness. =o
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional!
Reply
#32
As a chess community we really need to move past this "them and us" mentality from the "elite" to the "lowly". (I hate these terms but they make the point) It just causes division where there need be none. I know I can be one of the biggest instigators on occasion but I will endeavor not to mention it unless it is ridiculous like Edinburgh last year.

To be clear: I have no issues with a 4/2/2 spread of the boards but if an Open has say 10 players maybe it should be reconsidered. However, I will not support this initiative if the ultimate aim is to soley use these boards in the top section with the so called "best" players.
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional!
Reply
#33
Alex McFarlane wrote:
Indeed it is the ideal way to make sure your husband is where he says he is. ("Oh darling, we've got plenty of time - he's just entering the middle game".)

Hmmm,

Yes, or worse still... what three words do you not want to hear while making love?....Honey, I'm home.
Reply
#34
Quite a few heated posts since I entered the debate.

Time to pose for thought.
Time to pour oil onto troubled waters and then apply a match

Can someone do a quick head count of the congresses who have a offered to pay £50 or more to have the use of these 8 sensory boards?

Its not going to happen, no matter how many members and non members vote for it.
Reply
#35
Quote:The Junior Scottish Cup final (football) each season tends to have a better attendance than many SPL games in a season and there is a gulf in level as some would put it. It is also broadcast on the television. I guess the people who attend and watch that are just misguided?

That's a cup final. Hamilton v Kilmarnock is usually not. You are comparing things that are not the same. I'd wager Linlithgow Rose's average weekly gate doesn't compare so favourably with SPL crowds.

Quote:lso the use of the word lowly is offensive

Come on David, Joe was saying 'lowly-rated'. As in, they have low ratings. That's not an insult, that's a statement of fact. His posts can be a touch inflammatory sometimes, but I think he was fairly careful to be polite in this one.

I think you've sometimes got some points with the things you say, but you take it a bit far. Phrases like 'so-called best players' are just silly, and distract from your point. 2300s are better at chess than 1400s. Denying that's just daft.
Reply
#36
David D.said
Quote:with the so called "best" players

What a bizarre comment. Quite clearly those in the open are better chess players on average than those in the lower (on grading) sections and those at the top end of the open at the end of the event are undoubtedly amongst the best chess players at the event.

Or have I misunderstood the point of a chess competition?

Your frequent reference to the stronger chess players as the elite as if it is some form of class warfare is amusing at time but is getting a tad tiresome. My experience is that chess is a wonderful example of community, where those that have benefited in the past from the dedication of others repay that debt in turn by helping the next generation of players, run events or making anonymous donations.
Reply
#37
Hugh Brechin Wrote:That's a cup final. Hamilton v Kilmarnock is usually not. You are comparing things that are not the same. I'd wager Linlithgow Rose's average weekly gate doesn't compare so favourably with SPL crowds.

Its good to see that instead of debating points we still resort to this not comparing like for like. On numerous occasions I have pointed out that attending a football match is not the same as playing chess and yet its a comparison that is always drawn.

Also, it may be a cup final but are you saying a last round duel in the Minor between two players on 4/4 wouldn’t generate any interest? Thats similar to a cup final to me and I’m sure it would be for the players involved.

Mike Scott Wrote:What a bizarre comment. Quite clearly those in the open are better chess players on average than those in the lower (on grading) sections and those at the top end of the open at the end of the event are undoubtedly amongst the best chess players at the event.

On reference to the so-called best players – they are the so called best players because that's what they are and what everyone refers to them as. I was simply highlighting that not disputing their obvious playing strength.

What I find bizarre is the choice not to debate points but seek clarification on wording rather than debate substance. That’s interesting...
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional!
Reply
#38
Quote:David D.said
with the so called "best" players


What a bizarre comment. Quite clearly those in the open are better chess players on average than those in the lower (on grading) sections and those at the top end of the open at the end of the event are undoubtedly amongst the best chess players at the event.

Or have I misunderstood the point of a chess competition?


We could of redefine elite chess players as "those chess players who are paid up members of Chess Scotland" and reserve the sensory boards for CS members only - plus occasionally guests sat on the other on the other side of the board.
Reply
#39
Actually I would strongly disagree with JR re the boards being reserved for the open players only. The games of weaker players (than those in the open) can be just as entertaining and often more understandable to the majority of followers.
Reply
#40
Quote:but seek clarification on wording rather than debate substance. That’s interesting...

The use of language is important in any discussion.

Whether you believe the players in the open have a better grasp of chess than those in other sections is clearly relevant to the debate.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)