Chess Scotland Noticeboard

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

Hpw many of the 'its unfair for the open section to have higher prizes' gang have entered the single section event at Edinburgh CC this weekend?

Given that there is a 'fair' distribution of prizes surely there should be a rush of entries?

robin moore · King Joined: 03 Jul 2009 Posts: 164

http://www.chessscotland.com/event2011/events2011.htm

Hmm, the Ayrshire individual single section event seeemed to be very well supported this year as always...

Paul Denham · Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 9:16 pm Post subject:

Robin,

Tad disingenous of you there since the only other event that runs alongside it, the very fine JBW Robertson Cup has a rating limit of around 1300.

Both great events but the Ayrshire is effectively an open for 1300 plus players.
_________________
It is said that life is too short for chess but that is the fault of life, not chess

robin moore · King Joined: 03 Jul 2009 Posts: 164

Paul,

I stand corrected. The Ayrshire individual does indeed have two sections although the vast majority of players enter the top section.

Robin.

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

robin moore · King Joined: 03 Jul 2009 Posts: 164

David Deary wrote,

Donald Wilson · Queen Joined: 07 Mar 2007 Posts: 143

GN would still have organisers shunt players between sections, against their will, simply to ensure that each section is of an appropriate size.

Perhaps there is another way of looking at the problem. The list of active players graded 2000 or above in the 2010-2011 CS Grading List contains (by my reckoning) 32 players who are eligible to be the East of Scotland Champion (I exclude foreign students and one or two people whose place of residence is unclear) out of a total of 75 names - that's a bit over 42%. In total, there are 300 players in the grading list with grades of 1800 (the limit for the EoS Major) or more. If we assume that only a third of these (rather than the 42+% the Top list suggests) are actually resident in the East, that still gives 100 players eligible to be the EoS Champion. But of these 100, only 8 actually took part.

Rather than penalise the small group of players who could have entered the Championship but chose to play in the Major instead (as they were entitled to do), should we not question why so few players who might have had a realistic chance of winning the Championship entered it? I'm not suggesting that any of them is too lazy, too miserly, too conceited, or too anything to enter - maybe every one of the missing players had a compelling reason why they couldn't enter the tournament this year.

Or maybe not.

It's not just the East of Scotland where the top players are not taking part - every congress organiser in Scotland is keen for the top players to enter their Open sections, and they are generally pretty glad if 10 players graded 2000+ turn up (out of 135 in the Grading List!).

So nobody should do down the Major and Minor players - they are the ones who are entering congresses and playing, they are the ones who are providing most of the money that comes into tournaments. They deserve every bit as much respect as the elite players.

(Am I beginning to sound like David Deary? Well, David did once describe me as his role model.)

GN · King Joined: 30 Mar 2007 Posts: 415

Donald Wilson · Queen Joined: 07 Mar 2007 Posts: 143

George, the point is that if organisers arrange their tournaments to suit the top players they will lose a large number of the middle and lower-ranking players - which will destroy the financial viability of most tournaments.

Like it or not, the majority can survive without the elite (albeit in an intellectually impoverished condition) but the elite cannot survive, and cannot even come into existence, without the lower and larger part of the pyramid.

So the trick is to steer a course that is as fair as possible to all levels of our player population.

Yes, it is right to recognise that the top players have worked hard and made sacrifices to reach the top, and that their achievements benefit us all. So it is right that there should be some flow of cash from the lower sections of tournaments to the top sections, and if the flow is greater in some congresses and smaller in others, that's fine - variety is good.

But it's one thing to milk lower tournaments to boost prize money in top sections - it's another to conscript cannon fodder from lower sections to fill out the ranks higher up when the players who should be filling those ranks are sitting at home. Conscription is slavery, and I oppose slavery.

robin moore · King Joined: 03 Jul 2009 Posts: 164

GN's views are not particularly elitist, indeed his input is especially welcome since he is representative of the type of player that tournament organisers in Scotland are delighted to welcome to their congresses. We need more like him to give a frank opinion of why there are so few competitors in the top section at many events on home soil. I do understand the attraction of overseas tournaments thanks in part to budget airlines but these events are usually over 9 or 10 days.

Daniel Rocks · Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 10:16 pm Post subject:

I have played 1 Scottish congress since 2009. Why? The reason is quite simple. At each congress I would play the same people over and over again and after a while it became a bit boring. With the very limited player pool in Scotland, tournaments are lucky to see the same faces coming back. I think this lack of variance is a crucial reason why lots of people end up drifting away. Until this lack of originality is addressed, I think the problem of attracting people to play in the top section will remain.

Sadly, I think the numbers will only decrease unless there is some sort of divine cash injection. The real killer is internet chess... people can get their chess fix by logging onto their computer instead of having to travel across the country. Perhaps in the future CS will need to look at hosting online games (maybe even FIDE rated) as I know FIDE-rated games have already been held on ChessCube.com.
_________________
Daniel Rocks

GN · King Joined: 30 Mar 2007 Posts: 415

Stuart Blyth · King Joined: 11 Sep 2008 Posts: 209

What, to me, comes out of all this discussion is how tricky a problem this is. Lots of different viewpoints and interests - and not simply between the different grading sections, but within them too?

If larger sections were used, how would things like accelerated pairings and/or king of the hill work? The latter was used in the TAFCA a few years ago (I think) and seemed to work quite well (I may have won a prize, but that's not what I meant - it set up really meaningful final round clashes). Is the problem with larger sections and larger grading prizes perhaps that there is more of a lottery involved in determining who plays whom (particularly further down) in a five round swiss, and so luck might play too larger a role?

I guess with only five rounds and a small pool of players in Scotland and congress attendance dropping, it's always going to be hard?

JR · King Joined: 23 Jan 2007 Posts: 447 Location: Edinburgh

Pat McGovern · Bishop Joined: 10 Jan 2011 Posts: 24 Location: saltcoats

Robin, we have freedom of choice to which sections we enter, subject to controllers acceptance of course. The issue of "weaker" players entering open section is up for debate. My view is that it is useful and indeed ambitious of "weaker" players to enter opens.
My personal experience was very pleasant in achieving 1.5 out of 5 with average prade of my oppnent being over 2000. You are too modest to point out your own successes in Europe against stronger opposition thus, i feel, negating your argument!