Chess Scotland Noticeboard

DGCongalton · Queen Joined: 07 Nov 2010 Posts: 113

David, I disagree with your first point. It doesn't matter if it affects 9 or 49 players, if the rule was in at the start of the season then it should be in for the duration. Then again, I do agree when you say it's too late. It is too late now to change it during this season.

However, I totally agree with your second point. If the rule came in after the season had started then a precedent for changing rules has already been set and my point above is invalid.

The problem is you're complaining after the horse has bolted. The time to bring the issue up was before the problem occurred. In not doing so you have to accept that the rules must be applied as they stood at the time.

The answer is to play the East of Scotland and at the Scottish Championships, haul as many points as you can and then see where you stand. If the West of Scotland points cost you the Grand Prix accept this gracefully and do your best to constructively assist in improving the Grand Prix rules. If you manage to win the Grand Prix, take satisfaction that you overcame adversity and assist in improving the Grand Prix rules for next season.

I'm still regretting organising the Prestwick congress and giving three others the chance to overhaul me and two above me stretch their lead. I've dropped from 5th to 8th but I was aware that could happen before I organised the event.

DGCongalton · Queen Joined: 07 Nov 2010 Posts: 113

Of course it could be argued that there qere 50+ entrants to the West of Scotland and the event therefore qualified. The very late withdrawal of quite a few players meant that the organisers had no time to recruit additional players. The fact that there were more than 50 entrants but just 49 played is an exceptional event that was not foreseen and Chess Scotland should exercise it's discretion and consider the West of Scotland a large congress on this occassion.

David Deary · Queen Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 98

Its more Daniel that I am worried about rather than my own performance.

I gave up on the GP after Dougie posted the fact that the WoS only got 1 x multiplier. My chess in Scotland is finished for this season (except for the Irvine Open) as I cannot attend the EoS due to my best mates stag doo.

I also have reservations about renewing my CS membership as it has become pretty clear that CS is completely inflexible and bureacratic and being a member or not seems to make no difference. The GP is supposed to be a benefit but it has lost its shine for me. Also the impending increase in membership costs for next season puts me off. These are different issues of course for another topic but I'm pretty displeased. Crying or Very sad

_________________
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional!

Mike Scott · King Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Posts: 676 Location: Edinburgh

Jacqui Thomas · King Joined: 01 May 2007 Posts: 340

Jacqui Thomas · King Joined: 01 May 2007 Posts: 340

quote]I was at the Council meeting & until the minutes are out cannot confirm but I thought it was agreed that WoS would be award double points[/quote]

I have been corrected on my comments above. Apparently the WoS will not be double points. All I can say is I did try to get it changed as Tournament Director. I will not be Tournament Director again so wont have this type of burden put on me.

David Deary · Queen Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 98

Mike – rules by their very nature are inflexible.

In my view this rule was snuck in under the radar and I would be interested to see how many of the top 10 players in each GP category knew at the start of the season that there was a 50 limit introduced. I don’t think this was particularly well handled or publicised and perhaps there are some learnings for CS going forward.

I also accept that a small number of people put an awful lot of work into making CS work but that does not mean that we are not allowed to question decisions that as members we believe are wrong. My reference to bureaucracy is the fact that things take so long for instance it took almost 3 weeks after the Council meeting for someone to communicate the decision taken on the GP.

Jacqui – I appreciate you are in a difficult position as the Tournament Director but it is nice to know that someone was trying to apply some common sense.

On my own involvement in CS. I would love to be more involved in CS but unfortunately the stage I am at in my job requires a lot of my time. This means I would have to choose between helping with the organising or playing chess and I still believe there is scope for improvement in my game. As such I do not believe I could meet the time commitment that would be required to actually make a difference.

I do appreciate the suggestion and a very similar thing happened to me as a student that resulted in me being elected to the Students Association and as you suggested my view was very different from the inside looking out to the outside looking in. Rest assured I do not believe that anyone within CS does not have the best interests of chess in Scotland at their heart. If I gave that impression, I apologise.
_________________
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional!

DMB · King Joined: 08 Mar 2007 Posts: 267

I am not happy with the suggestion that I was lying about the rule already being in place - you even want people to help you search for evidence to prove my duplicity.

I have no problem with you complaining about the rules or decisions. However your over-aggressive remarks are what prompt folk to chuck CS work wondering what's the point. Apology accepted - provided you dont start sounding off again.

According to the file on my computer the change date of the GP rules page is September 2010 so the page has not been adjusted since that date (other than the new navigation to home page link). So the 50 player rule was in place long before any smaller weekend event had taken place.

I have already explained that the rules on the GP for the last 11 years have made a distinction between large and small congresses. Not sure how many times more I need to repeat this point. It was to avoid me having to make a judgement call of what a term like "large" meant that I changed it to 50. I had already mentioned to Hugh Flockhart in July that I would prefer an exact number and when I took over I adjusted the rules page in September to indicate that is how I would deal with large/small issues.

OK in retrospect it wasn't the brightest idea since it looks bad when events are close to that exact number.

However now that is the published rule it had to be enforced. What happens if I dont enact the rule as stated and that changes the GP winners? There are some new graded weekend events taking place in Edinburgh Chess Club. Space limitations mean they are under 50. Should they be double points?

Anyway, Council at the meeting in April didn't think the idea of specifying a number was a good idea and now it's a blanket multiplier that any weekend main list event regardless of size will be double points. That's fine by me. BTW in case you are wondering why I didn't check it out first there are many decisions that officers of the association make without getting everything voted on. If people dont like their decisions they can change the decision or change the officer. In fact, I would be more than happy if someone wants to volunteer for the role of GP invigilator - good knowledge of Scottish tournament circuit required, maintain the rules page, have thick skin and be immune to having your motivation questioned.

As to publicising the Council decision finally we have reached agreement on one point. The minutes of these meetings have to be published far faster in future. Officers want to publicise changes quickly on this noticeboard. However just as with Jacqui's comments above there can be different recollections of what was said so before a decision is posted it is better to see exactly what the minutes say. We live in instant communication age and waiting weeks for minutes to appear is less than ideal.

David Deary · Queen Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 98

Sorry Dougie but I firmly resent the implication of over aggressive remarks. Feel free to email me with any comments you would like explained as you have clearly misinterpreted them. Further to say I don’t start sounding off again, that suggests to me that you believe no questions should be asked ever! Rest assured I will continue to question things that I believe are wrong.

Also the reason for discussing when the rule comes into force is because there is in my view an anomaly that should not have occurred:

The Scottish U1500 got a 2x multiplier before the rule change (in July). With only 16 players and even adding in the Seniors (19 players) you only get 35 players and yet this got double points for this years GP.

The rule was then changed and the WoS (in April) with 49 players only gets 1x multiplier. This rule change it could be argued is already changing the GP Leaderboards and in my view this anomaly should not have occurred.

For me this needs to be re-examined as there is a massive inconsistency.
_________________
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional!

DMB · King Joined: 08 Mar 2007 Posts: 267

David - I dont think you have read the rules fully.

This is rule 4c "Points scored at the Scottish Championships and the large weekend congresses will be doubled."

The 50 player amendment at the bottom of the page. " "Large" weekend congress is defined as a minimum combined total of 50 players in the adult sections for GP purposes."

The Scottish Championships have always been a double point event regardless of size. However your count is wrong above the numbers are 33+19+16 - you have omitted the Scottish Championship itself.

However you seem to be under the misapprehension that it is the individual section which determines the "large" status of an event. As the rules state it is "large weekend congress" is double points and "minimum combined total of 50 players in the adult sections." All the sections together are used to determine the size of an event.

The key point is that even if the 50 player amendment had not been in place this season it is still possible that the West could have been a single point event. There has always been a distinction between large and small events in terms of double and single multipliers. The GP invigilator could still have deemed that 49 players constituted small depending on their judgement. I changed this to 50 to avoid having to make these decisions.

David Deary · Queen Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 98

DMB · King Joined: 08 Mar 2007 Posts: 267

[No misapprehension on my part just odd that 2 of those events run over a weekend and have 5 rounds and the other has 9 rounds and is run over several days. Seems odd to count them together to me when all competitions dont run over the same number of days, or have the same number of rounds or time controls? Bizarre in fact! Razz

These inconsistencies need to be tackled as there is an inherent unfairness.
[/quote]

You have that wrong I'm afraid. The under-1500 and the Seniors were staged in parallel with the Championship over 7 days. The top event having two double round days. However even if the smaller events had been at the weekend they would still have been part of the "Scottish Championships" ie the term used in the GP rules.

**********

The GP rules actually state that they are not set in stone. Council listened to the comments that you and others had been making and decided to scrap the size requirement for future events.

"The GP organiser or CS Grader would be happy to clarify rules and receive any constructive suggestions about the Grand Prix. Modification of rules and conditions will be necessary as experience of its operation is gained. Please help to continue to make it a success."

**********

I have explained as fully as I possibly can why I made the decision in relation to the West. I accept that my rule change may have not been ideal but the use of the vague term "large" congress in the long-standing rules was the reason for my attempt to clarify what it meant.

George Murphy · Knight Joined: 14 Aug 2007 Posts: 19 Location: Cardross

Andy

Having read over the Council Minutes and witnessed the unedifying spectacle to which we have all been subjected on this thread over the past few weeks, yes, I think it would be preferable to revert to the old system of letting Council or the Management Committee get on with its job and then publish the result or outcome so that the members are informed but without having to endure all the gory details of the discussion. What we have been given has very little to do with transparency.

DMB

We were all aware of the rules. It was your sudden introduction of the 50-person guillotine that caused the problem. I correctly used ‘arbitrary’ to pinpoint the effects of that benchmark - not the motives which prompted you to implement it. Did you miss the very extensive market research that WoS organisers conducted last year to find out why their tournament seemed to lack appeal? Your abrupt innovation must have had the attraction of cold steel to them. No wonder they have now decided to ‘pass the parcel’ to David Congalton in Prestwick.

What ‘player disquiet’ did you have in mind in relation to WoS? It was CS members - non-members are ineligible for the GP - who voiced concern - led by the Tournament Director and subsequently - encouraged by her example, no doubt - one player. That doesn’t seem like a huge reaction.

I cannot believe that so many WoS organisers sat mute in that Council meeting and let your remarks stand unchallenged. Hardly seems like transparency.

Nor was your amendment made at the beginning of the season as you first stated. The chronology suggests it came in in September ‘long before any smaller weekend event had taken place’. But after the season had started and without sufficient publicity.

David Deary was 100% accurate in his use of the phrase ‘below the radar’. Look it up. You’ll find it in the Oxford English Dictionary. It does not infer ‘duplicity’ but asserts lack of publicity. He was right. The change was simply inserted into the rules without being flagged up. This is a lesson for the future.

Yes, we all owe you a debt for allowing your sense of duty to persuade you to take up - and retain - the post. But it’s your perceived critics who need the thick skin.

Let me assure you that my interest is solely in the principle of equity. I’m not in the slightest bit interested in competing for the Grand Prix. But, I am grateful that Council saw fit to restore - and improve - the former system.

The one discrepancy that seems not to have been addressed is the notion that WoS and EoS are geographical entities that deny entry to players from outside these regions. They don’t.

Now can we all get back to playing chess…?