Posts: 1,000
Threads: 94
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation:
2
Looks like the 2 Edinburgh teams want to play the final at Edinburgh CC. This would save on travel costs and avoid the Grangemouth problem of being kicked out the halls at 6.30pm.
Perhaps the 16 players might want to chip in for the £30 booking fee and suggest an arbiter/referee - Simon Gillam is a possibility though I dont know his contact details - any other people suitable ?
Posts: 1,000
Threads: 94
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation:
2
Stephen Hilton has just informed me that CS will not pay the £30
Posts: 1,003
Threads: 101
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation:
1
amuir Wrote:FIDE ratings: players from Hamilton, Ed West, Polytechnic dont want it - not just me
80 pt rule: happy to copy 4NCL - not just me
streetfighting: thought you were nasty of your criticism of Neil Farrell, a true gentleman, he might get his revenge in the final
-I've already agreed with the FIDE rating discussion/decision - did you even read my post?
-'80 point rule' ....fine, so change the rule Andy...propose it at the AGM and get it changed.
-what on earth are you talking about? I have known Neil for years, played him loads of times and know fine well he is a true gentleman. In what way was my 'criticism' nasty? By saying that he suffers from time-trouble and that was an aspect of his game I was playing against? At least I didn't defame someone on this forum...now THAT was nasty.
Posts: 1,003
Threads: 101
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation:
1
@Pat,
Life's too short to argue with everyone....
...however, in the 4NCL the 50/80 point rule has suited you and your Hamilton colleagues just fine - but not my team Kingdom Kings. If you want this advantage, fine, you've got it, just don't ever claim it is a fair rule.
As to the Richardson interpretation of the board order rule - my entire Dragon's team are currently playing at much the same strength (our board '10' just beat our board 2) and will play in pretty much whichever board order we choose from 1 through to 8 in the final. Any complaints about this and we will be perfectly happy to play the match in strict grading order to avoid problems 
Regards,
Andy
Posts: 152
Threads: 11
Joined: Aug 2011
Just want to make a few points about the argument/discussion going on.
amuir Wrote:FIDE ratings: players from Hamilton, Ed West, Polytechnic dont want it
It seems to me that the top players in the Richardson wish to protect their "precious" FIDE ratings... The reason given for having the SNCL not FIDE rated is that it's 2 games in a day - fair enough. You claim that it's not worth having the Richardson FIDE rated due to the added cost? How much does it actually cost?
At the rate we are going there will be no FIDE rated events left in Scotland which might perhaps be beneficial for players with an artificially high FIDE rating, but at a cost to the development of chess in Scotland. This may be harsh, but it's true.
amuir Wrote:streetfighting: thought you were nasty of your criticism of Neil Farrell, a true gentleman, he might get his revenge in the final
You're making this personal. I would just like to add that none of Andy's comments were nasty... in fact quite the opposite. He made a fair amount of compliments to Neil's game.
With regards to the the 50/80 points rule: the whole team ordering affair is very dodgy. Nevertheless, a concrete rule needs to be put in place.
Posts: 14
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2012
FIDE
I am personally neutral on whether or not to FIDE rate events.
I am sympathetic to the stance of the titled players on FIDE rating domestic events as I would consider their international grades to be "hard won" rather than "precious". They are entitled , as we are, to have each their own opinion and to act on it by supporting or not certain events.
THE SNCL is getting a bit stronger year on year and it will be interesting to see if removing FIDE rating at SNCL helps in attracting IMs/GMs to the event. If so then great. If not then I am sure the matter will be voted on again at the next AGM.
The personal criticism of Andy M for not FIDE rating this years Richardson was not quite fair...also looking at the postings this seems to be more or less accepted....anyway I do not really read "cost" as being the key issue for anyone on this.
Posts: 72
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2012
It is common practice in every League I have ever played in to have some flexibility in board order, SNCL is 50 points, Glasgow League 60 points, 4NCL has it, all team events in Europe have it. I really can't understand the argument that the rule is not fair. What's to say in a few years that Hamilton players will not be within 50 points, you will not find us complaining then. 
The only reason Hamilton actually change board order is to give each of us a shot in playing on the top board and to get a better game, really has very little to do with picking and choosing opponents and even if it did it is part and parcel of team competitions!
With regards to the Richardson the current rules from CS website state "The order of players in each team shall be that of current playing strength. After team lists are exchanged, the captains shall toss for choice of colour at board one. The move at the remaining boards shall alternate accordingly"
This probably needs some clarification, current playing strength is not necessarily the same as current published grade.
Posts: 247
Threads: 6
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
0
I agree that the rule needs to be clarified for ordering just so it avoids any arguments in the future. Different people are going to have differing views on what that should be, but at least something should be officially decided on and laid down. For what it's worth, I think teams should be allowed to switch within 100/50 points, but that order should be fixed for the remainder of the event. If people on lower boards are too good to be there, they win, gain points, and move up next year.
With regards to the FIDE rating, I personally think that it should be FIDE rated, due to the great time controls and prestige of the event. Also last year, I don't think that any strong players were avoiding it due to the inclusion of the FIDE aspect when you see the team line ups. However, if it is decided not to be FIDE rated, then FIDE ratings should be irrelevant to the board ordering.
Posts: 289
Threads: 7
Joined: Aug 2011
Quote:At the rate we are going there will be no FIDE rated events left in Scotland which might perhaps be beneficial for players with an artificially high FIDE rating, but at a cost to the development of chess in Scotland. This may be harsh, but it's true.
And there speaks a man with an artificially high FIDE rating 
Seriously though, he's absolutely right. The Richardson Cup is Scotland's premier club event. It's one of the most prestigious competitions there is - aside from the Scottish and maybe the Edinburgh Premier I can't think of anything I'd rather win. Players play only one game a day, at a long time control. I can't even imagine what the argument against FIDE-rating it is. Also, Bremner is also spot on - if it's not FIDE-rated then FIDE ratings should not be used in ordering the teams.
(I don't agree with the decision not to FIDE-rate the SNCL top division either, but I can at least see the argument there...)
Posts: 678
Threads: 29
Joined: Apr 2017
Reputation:
3
I don't get why the top players wouldn't actually want to compete if the event was Fide rated. What's the point of a grade? Giving up Chess completely would also prevent your grade from going down, but surely that would prevent your enjoyment of a game you have clearly worked hard to get good at? If players are confident in their own game and the accuracy of their grade then they should have nothing to fear from entering a Fide-rated Scottish event.
|
