Chess Scotland Noticeboard

FAT Green · Knight Joined: 04 Apr 2007 Posts: 12 Location: In Djukic

Just a quick question. Can arbiters at tournaments downfloat players if they are entering a tournament which is too strong for them? I know that it can be a waste of money entering a tournament, to get a very strong opponent e.g. a GM,then to play a 1500 chancing his arm in the open. You feel like by the end of the event that you have not had a good game... I know that quite a few strong players agree with this. With increasing numbers of players doing this i think maybe it is a good idea. Will arbiters do this? or just turn a blind eye?. Maybe some congresses should have limits on who can enter them E.g. Edinburgh congress, Glasgow and Oban. Of course I do not believe that all events should have limits but I do believe more than just the West and East should. I am all for players testing there strengths against the best but with so many players entering it and achieving scores of 2 or 2.5 by beating other players who probably should not be in the opens it just encourages them to enter every single open they can. Limitations seem wise to me as it strongly disuades some of the strong players when they dont get a good game.

Cheers,
Green.

Rocksy123 · Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 8:30 pm Post subject:

*Warning... Surprise coming up*:

I must say, I've changed my mind on this matter. I now completely agree with the argument that tournaments such as the Edinburgh Premier should be restricted - If you were to put a 1600 level players vs an 800 level player in a league match on a cold winter's evening, the chances are the 800 would be blown off the board in a short space of time and the 1600 player would be left grumpy and annoyed that he had to waste his night playing against a player far lower than his standard. I now see that this is how a 2100 player would feel when playing a 1600 at a Congress and what's more? - You need to PAY to enter Congresses. I think that restricting Opens is very reasonable. At Edinburgh, the Challengers is U1900s and the Premier technically is "open" to all players but since the next section down is for U1900 level players, the fact that the Premier is intended for players above 1900 playing level becomes clear. It's not practical to have a 2300 playing a 1600. If the 1600 level player was feeling ambitious, he could enter the Challengers where he would have a fair chance against all of his opponents and he would gain more enjoyment from the tournament. Therefore, despite the top tournament being called the "Open", it is generally intended for players who are playing above 1900 level.
Furthermore, the Edinburgh Premier attracts lots of very strong players and if you litter this tournament with "un-fit" 1600-1700 players, they might become less attracted to entering the tournament. As much as possible should be done to attract top players and good chess to our top tournaments.

Daniel

Keith Ruxton · Rook Joined: 28 Feb 2007 Posts: 50

Daniel,

Someone has stolen your log-in details and is maliciously posting under your name!

Rocksy123 · Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 12:04 pm Post subject:

Surprisingly so... they've not...

I've thought about it for a while and I have looked at it from a different point of view. It's not practical to make a 1600 level player play a 600 level player - this is the same case with a 2100 level player and a 1600 level player. Due to the fact that the Challengers is for U1900 level players, it suggests that the Premier is for players over that level... To be fair though, no-one knows anyone else's playing level and the player should make his/ her decision as to what section is better for him/ her - My point is, it's not fair on players in the Premier if a player who has consistently performed at 1400 level throughout the whole season, decides to enter the Premier - someone entering like this could cause many problems:

1.The 1400 scores 0/5 and gets fed-up with congress chess.
2.The 1400 plays a foreign 2200/2300 player who decides not to come back to the congress the following year - due to the fact that he was getting some "un-challenging" games.
3. All in all, some of the players won't get their money's worth.

Notice how I said "LEVEL", not grade... as there are some obvious exceptions who could merit playing in the Premier instead of the Challengers.

GreenVeganRhino · Queen Joined: 08 Feb 2007 Posts: 100

I would define 'playing up' as competing in the next (ie one) category up from the one your grading band would put you in naturally. I think whether a person 'plays up' or not is entirely their choice and other competitors aren't too fussed about that.

When you are eligible for the knights/bishops and you are playing up 3 or 4 categories you are no longer playing up, but taking the proverbial.

Rocksy123 · Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 2:39 pm Post subject:

Correct... it is entirely the choice of the player at hand, in making this choice however, the player needs to enter the section which is most suitable for their playing level, I mean... it's a bit un-realstic for someone who is scoring 2/5 in the U1350s to enter the Premier... Similarly, a player performing at 1600 level all season entering the Premier is a bit un-reasonable, the Challengers is there and would be far more appropriate...