Posts: 353
Threads: 79
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
0
Hi Crawford
Thank you for your kind wishes.
A little correction first, I was mistaken about the decision being taken at the AGM (I owned up to this a post or two back) - it was a captain's vote that took these decisions. I think this was conducted only by email - I recall receiving something about this some months back but can't remember anything about it now. The only feedback as such that I am aware of is being told of the results a few weeks ago. I'm not aware of anything being circulated. You would probably have to look back and find the earlier threads to find the arguments. I feel it in my bones that the subject is not dead and will get another airing - too late for this season but who knows about next?
Your club, or more likely the team captain, would/should have been invited to vote. I wasn't involved at that time so I'm afraid I can't help any more than that.
Keith
Posts: 979
Threads: 92
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation:
1
Richardson votes:
50 pts : Castlehill, Poly, Hamilton, Oban = 4
0 pts: Cathcart , Dundee, Edinburgh, Wandering Dragons = 4
Ed West abstained - I asked 4 of their players , only reply from Craig Pritchett who voted for 50 pts.
Not ideal but we decided on 50 pts
FIDE rating is too expensive
Posts: 382
Threads: 19
Joined: May 2012
Reputation:
0
EW didn’t quite abstain Andy, as you had already indicated that in the absence of any further reply you intended to accept Craig’s suggestion. So the vote for the 50 pts rule was technically a democratic 5-4.
Hamish Olsen’s suggestion of a pre-published board order meets the concern of retaining flexibility when it’s genuinely dictated by variations in form - while eliminating the built-in advantage that a surprise board order provides in the area of preparation.
Variations on this solution were suggested by various people, but none of them seemed to make it on to the list of options that were actually voted for. Perhaps it wasn’t a popular option with team captains. If so, there’s perhaps not much point in all the players discussing it with each other!
Posts: 979
Threads: 92
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation:
1
There are a significant no. of people who don't like turning up at a board and finding that their opponent has spent much more time on preparation than they have and feel this gives their opponent an unfair advantage. This was reflected in the vote.
Posts: 382
Threads: 19
Joined: May 2012
Reputation:
0
It wasn't that Andy, I think the concern raised was that if two players spent equal time a player with definite knowledge of who their opponent was could spend it all on him/her, whereas the opponent might have to divide the time so most of it would be wasted. I don't know how much difference it makes - but when preparation matters (as it does sometimes) it could, objectively, amount to a significant advantage for one player.
Posts: 72
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2012
50 points is nothing, I would have voted for more flexibility upwards of 80 points. If you really want to waste time doing opponent based prep for games then you know the pairings weeks in advance, do some homework and prepare for all possible opponents. It is the same for every team, you seem to be under the impression that it helps Hamilton more than any other team, when in reality other teams have just as much opportunity to vary board orders! Grades change year on year, this year Andy Muir will be too highly graded to move down the order, just the way it goes.
I simply don't understand the right to know your opponent in advance, you don't know at weekend congresses, SNCL, Edinburgh/Glasgow Leagues, why should Richardson be any different?
