Bunratty Chess Festival 18-22 Feb 2015

reunion

The players have been announced for the Bunratty Chess Classic

Note: I will try to keep this post updated with information about this tournament when they become available.

reunion

Good luck to Sam in this event and I hope he gets 6.5/9 and gets his GM title.

I hope there is significant publicity in Irish media for the buildup to this event!

Hopefully we get to see GM Collins on the Late Late Show!

L1m1tless

That would be amazing, I bet Ryan Tubridy would have a better time interviewing Sam than he did Kasparov!

Whats the criteria for the GM norm? Rating performance above 2600 and 6.5/9?

Ciaran

CowboyDreams wrote: »

That would be amazing, I bet Ryan Tubridy would have a better time interviewing Sam than he did Kasparov!

Whats the criteria for the GM norm? Rating performance above 2600 and 6.5/9?

It's organised so that 6.5/9 will give him the rating performance of 2600 I'd assume.

sinbad68

Beware ,if you are playing in this tournament not to be tricked by initial rating appearances !

The rules of competition states that only those within 50 points of threshold can play up a section in this tournament , but if you look at last years results of challengers section ( 1600- 2000 rating section ) for example , you will see that around 18 ( eighteen ) players who did not qualify ( even with 50 points ) were allowed in ,half of them 1400 rated players but they were not shown in entry list until last minute as not to scare away higher rated players and I believe same will happen this year with a late toxic dumping .

Another strange fact is that in their terms and condition rule 13 , states that icu rating will take precedent over fide rating but a player has been playing in masters section year after year even though his icu rating has been hovering 1750- 1860 ---> must be good friend with organisers.

L1m1tless

ah sure, a 1400 opponent would be an easy win for someone who can mate with a Knight and Bishop!!!

brilliantboy

sinbad68 wrote: »

The rules of competition states that only those within 50 points of threshold can play up a section in this tournament , but if you look at last years results of challengers section ( 1600- 2000 rating section ) for example , you will see that around 18 ( eighteen ) players who did not qualify ( even with 50 points ) were allowed in ,half of them 1400 rated players but they were not shown in entry list until last minute as not to scare away higher rated players and I believe same will happen this year with a late toxic dumping .

And curiously enough many of them outperformed quite a few of the players who were apparently there on merit.

The terms and conditions do state that the tournament director's decision is final in all matters and I don't see any problem with them allowing under-rated players to float up a section. It's usually the same few begrudgers who voice opposition to the practice.

Scanning through the results from last year one name that pops out is that of Alex Byrne who wouldn't have even been allowed play in the Major if the rule had been strictly adhered to. Yet less than a year on he's looking like one of the brightest young talents in the country. Who knows how much the decision of the organizers in allowing him to play up at Bunratty 2014 accelerated his development. But no, lets kick up a fuss because these rising stars might make us look bad in comparison :rolleyes:

sinbad68

brilliantboy wrote: »

And curiously enough many of them outperformed quite a few of the players who were apparently there on merit.

The terms and conditions do state that the tournament director's decision is final in all matters and I don't see any problem with them allowing under-rated players to float up a section. It's usually the same few begrudgers who voice opposition to the practice.

Scanning through the results from last year one name that pops out is that of Alex Byrne who wouldn't have even been allowed play in the Major if the rule had been strictly adhered to. Yet less than a year on he's looking like one of the brightest young talents in the country. Who knows how much the decision of the organizers in allowing him to play up at Bunratty 2014 accelerated his development. But no, lets kick up a fuss because these rising stars might make us look bad in comparison :rolleyes:

@ brilliantboy. The main issue I was raising was the DECEPTION by organisers to hide low rated players until last minute as NOT to scare away high rated players entering the tournament and NOT so much about who is allowed to enter . I think I had a discussion about this before on boards.ie . First about your point " many of them outperformed " if you look at final standing of 74 players who took part , from the 18 under-qualified players who entered ,ONLY ONE managed to get into the TOP 40 !and he was not a junior and was playing chess when john f kennedy was the president of united states!!, which I think invalidated your point of many of them performing well . I will give couple of examples where playing up actually harms rather than helps . Example 1 : If you look at bunratty master last year ,one junior rated 1840 at the time was allowed to play in masters and now this year his rating is much lower and it would be hard & demoralising to go back and play in lower section . Example 2 : When one of benildus teams visited my club last year they played up a junior and put him on board 1 and when he came back this year in the same league he was playing near the bottom which can be dispiriting for anyone . Yes , I welcome limited wild card entries ( max 3 in a section )to deserving individuals like alex byrne but NOT opening floodgates !.As I said ,long term your rating will find you and talent will shine through regardless of which section it plays today .

CowboyDreams wrote: »

ah sure, a 1400 opponent would be an easy win for someone who can mate with a Knight and Bishop!!!

Is it worth driving from one side of the country to the other and accommodation cost to checkmate a 1400 with bishop & knight?

L1m1tless

sinbad68 wrote: »

Is it worth driving from one side of the country to the other and accommodation cost to checkmate a 1400 with bishop & knight?

Definitely! You can teach us all how its done! We will be forever grateful

brilliantboy

sinbad68 wrote: »

@ brilliantboy. The main issue I was raising was the DECEPTION by organisers to hide low rated players until last minute as NOT to scare away high rated players entering the tournament and NOT so much about who is allowed to enter . I think I had a discussion about this before on boards.ie . First about your point " many of them outperformed " if you look at final standing of 74 players who took part , from the 18 under-qualified players who entered ,ONLY ONE managed to get into the TOP 40 !and he was not a junior and was playing chess when john f kennedy was the president of united states!!, which I think invalidated your point of many of them performing well . I will give couple of examples where playing up actually harms rather than helps . Example 1 : If you look at bunratty master last year ,one junior rated 1840 at the time was allowed to play in masters and now this year his rating is much lower and it would be hard & demoralising to go back and play in lower section . Example 2 : When one of benildus teams visited my club last year they played up a junior and put him on board 1 and when he came back this year in the same league he was playing near the bottom which can be dispiriting for anyone . Yes , I welcome limited wild card entries ( max 3 in a section )to deserving individuals like alex byrne but NOT opening floodgates !

It's interesting you use Top 40 as your arbitrary cutoff *MOD SNIP* and there were multiple "undeserving" players on the same 3/6 score. Not to mention quite a few 1600+ not reaching that magic top 40

Maybe I'm stupid but I'm struggling to understand why you're so concerned about this. If players are truly too weak for the section then they're only going to be playing each other on the bottom boards anyway. Perhaps you're concerned that opening the floodgates could wash away some of your own rating points? Stroking egos is not the responsibility of the tournament director.

.As I said ,long term your rating will find you and talent will shine through regardless of which section it plays today .

Is it worth all that driving from one side of the country to the other and accommodation costs just to have a number that says you're as good as you are? Ratings rise at a fairly glacial pace as it is and your rating is going to take a lot longer to find you if you're forbidden from playing higher rated players.
It's a well acknowledged problem that the Irish rating system is damaged and many players in the lower ranges are vastly under-rated. Shackling these players with oppressive rating bands isn't going to help the situation one bit.

Regarding your point about deception, if it was a deliberate action to attract (or at least not repel) a higher standard of player and it worked then I don't see why it's so big a deal.

L1m1tless

@brilliantboy I know its hard to discuss a tournament without mentioning specific players and there are others guilty of the same but it is against the forum charter to identify a poster.

Do not identify or speculate as to the identity of a poster, not only is this specific to the Chess forum, but it's a site-wide rule {Section 5 Bullet-point 5}

reunion

brilliantboy wrote: »

Maybe I'm stupid but I'm struggling to understand why you're so concerned about this. If players are truly too weak for the section then they're only going to be playing each other on the bottom boards anyway. Perhaps you're concerned that opening the floodgates could wash away some of your own rating points? Stroking egos is not the responsibility of the tournament director.

While I agree that if you should be able to beat someone, you should be able to beat them regardless of rating. However, I do believe if you've paid money for accommodation and entry and took this tournament as your one of 2 trips a year away from the kids, you can understand the frustration when you don't get what you've paid for. The tournament is for 1600+ players with a 50 point band. While I personally don't care about the rating of the player I'm playing, some people do and some people choose their tournaments based on this fact.

The organisers have been running these tournaments for a while and have one of the highest turnouts so I'm certain they've considered the implications of allowing players outside the band in.

brilliantboy wrote: »

Is it worth all that driving from one side of the country to the other and accommodation costs just to have a number that says you're as good as you are? Ratings rise at a fairly glacial pace as it is and your rating is going to take a lot longer to find you if you're forbidden from playing higher rated players.
It's a well acknowledged problem that the Irish rating system is damaged and many players in the lower ranges are vastly under-rated. Shackling these players with oppressive rating bands isn't going to help the situation one bit.

I wouldn't belittle what someone holds important. They didn't set the rating bands, the organisers did.

The rating system is flawed, but that isn't the fault of people who have ratings atm.

brilliantboy wrote: »

Regarding your point about deception, if it was a deliberate action to attract (or at least not repel) a higher standard of player and it worked then I don't see why it's so big a deal.

It's hard to tell if it was deliberate or not. Considering the entry was online only last year and it was entirely automated, it's seems way too unlikely to fabricate the entry list on the fly or code it that way. I'd say the players asked on the night to play up and showed the organisers that they could play above (previous performances, FIDE ratings or past ratings).

sinbad68 wrote: »

Another strange fact is that in their terms and condition rule 13 , states that icu rating will take precedent over fide rating but a player has been playing in masters section year after year even though his icu rating has been hovering 1750- 1860 ---> must be good friend with organisers.

I don't think an accusation of deliberate deception and then bribery/special treatment is in anyway appreciated or helpful. Thank you for the warning about rating bands, but we are not a rumour mill. Point 14 may explain why someone rated 1800 ICU can play the masters and why someone below the rating band advertised can play in a higher section.

Some of those 1400 ICU players were 1600+ FIDE rated at the time and I'm unsure if they had the clause about their latest ICU rating determining their playing section last year.

Bunratty Terms & Conditions Point 14 wrote:

Players will only play in the section that their latest published ICU rating (usually the January list for ICU and Feb 1st for FIDE) indicates they should play in. Live lists are not considered.
( This will apply to all players including those who have represented Ireland at junior level. Players with a rating within 50 points may request to play up. Players with a FIDE rating of over 2000 may play in the Masters.)

brilliantboy

reunion wrote: »

While I agree that if you should be able to beat someone, you should be able to beat them regardless of rating. However, I do believe if you've paid money for accommodation and entry and took this tournament as your one of 2 trips a year away from the kids, you can understand the frustration when you don't get what you've paid for. The tournament is for 1600+ players with a 50 point band. While I personally don't care about the rating of the player I'm playing, some people do and some people choose their tournaments based on this fact.

It's precisely those players who only get two trips a year away from the kids that should be concerned about immovable rating bands as it means their rating is likely to always lag behind their true strength. And what of the players who are too strong for the lower section? Is their frustration at not getting what they paid for, at having to play half their games against kids who have just learned the moves, not equivalent? It's not their fault the rating system is broken either

sinbad68

CowboyDreams wrote: »

Definitely! You can teach us all how its done! We will be forever grateful

I think this is the best video out there for showing how to checkmate with bishop & knight
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWwuy-aiK1M

brilliantboy wrote: »

It's precisely those players who only get two trips a year away from the kids that should be concerned about immovable rating bands as it means their rating is likely to always lag behind their true strength. And what of the players who are too strong for the lower section? Is their frustration at not getting what they paid for, at having to play half their games against kids who have just learned the moves, not equivalent? It's not their fault the rating system is broken either

In same coast as bunratty we have mulcahy cup , Limerick OPEN , Ennis OPEN all of which allow any player of any rating strength to enter and have a chance of playing against strong players including GM's and if truly talented with bonuses one can get hundreds of points in one tournament alone . It is best to have mixtures of tournaments , some closed and some open ( to suit different individuals )and rating system is NOT broken in the way you mean.

reunion wrote: »

While I agree that if you should be able to beat someone, you should be able to beat them regardless of rating. However, I do believe if you've paid money for accommodation and entry and took this tournament as your one of 2 trips a year away from the kids, you can understand the frustration when you don't get what you've paid for. The tournament is for 1600+ players with a 50 point band. While I personally don't care about the rating of the player I'm playing, some people do and some people choose their tournaments based on this fact.

The organisers have been running these tournaments for a while and have one of the highest turnouts so I'm certain they've considered the implications of allowing players outside the band in.

I wouldn't belittle what someone holds important. They didn't set the rating bands, the organisers did.


I don't think an accusation of deliberate deception and then bribery/special treatment is in anyway appreciated or helpful. Thank you for the warning about rating bands, but we are not a rumour mill. Point 14 may explain why someone rated 1800 ICU can play the masters and why someone below the rating band advertised can play in a higher section.

Some of those 1400 ICU players were 1600+ FIDE rated at the time and I'm unsure if they had the clause about their latest ICU rating determining their playing section last year.

reunion , I totally agree with your first paragraph .I did NOT make any accusations of bribery but special treatment YES ( based on evidence ) and I believe special treatment is a result of friendship , even rule 14 can not help here .

brilliantboy

sinbad68 wrote: »

It is best to have mixtures of tournaments , some closed and some open ( to suit different individuals )

Why is it best? To give lower rated players a chance at diluted glory. So they can say that they were the best player among this particular subset of players who could be bothered to play on this particular weekend, and won back their entry fee and accommodation costs to boot (maybe) Sounds like ego stroking to me.

It's time to throw everyone in the same pot, let the cream rise to the top and let the rest have a valuable learning experience. That's all anyone really wants, to play interesting games against challenging opponents. To draw an arbitrary line and say "this is where the interesting games and challenging opponents start" is a little bit silly, and downright absurd if 1549 is where you decide to draw that line.

checknraise

I think the strongest players would be in favor of more open tournaments as that should lead to bigger prize funds etc but sometimes the gap in skill is too big that it becomes a waste of time for everyone. As you said everyone wants to play challenging opponents but where is the challenge for the top players?

Nearly every other sport/game tries to copy the elo system as it seen as the fairest way to rank a player. If someone is underrated or believes they are underrated they just have to play more and quickly there rating will reflect their strength. The rating band where it is most difficult to get out of is the u1200 section where you have lots of extremely low rated or unrated players and can gain next to no points unless you win the tournament.

sinbad68

@checknraise . From your name I can tell you like poker and from your writing that you have a bright mind . Unfortunately on boards.ie some people have inflexible minds and trying to use logic & facts don't seem to work as they feel accepting someone else's argument and changing their position is a sign of weakness .Welcome aboard

brilliantboy

sinbad68 wrote: »

@checknraise . From your name I can tell you like poker and from your writing that you have a bright mind . Unfortunately on boards.ie some people have inflexible minds and trying to use logic & facts don't seem to work as they feel accepting someone else's argument and changing their position is a sign of weakness .Welcome aboard

I want to talk about facts


It's a fact that at Bunratty 2014, in many cases players who, according to rating, didn't belong in the sections they played in turned in better performances than players who did.
I mean who are these weaklings who are cheapening the tournament? Did you play any? Has somebody said you that they were traumatized from playing a player 100 points below them?

Really the only players that can air a grievance that holds some weight is the players at the top of the pile, as checknraise alluded to, but they usually have the compensation of winning the tournament to console them.

As you said everyone wants to play challenging opponents but where is the challenge for the top players?

Generally they end up playing the other top players with the exception of perhaps the 1st round. Unless they have a less than impressive tournament of course, but in that case, tough sh**

reunion

brilliantboy wrote: »

It's precisely those players who only get two trips a year away from the kids that should be concerned about immovable rating bands as it means their rating is likely to always lag behind their true strength. And what of the players who are too strong for the lower section? Is their frustration at not getting what they paid for, at having to play half their games against kids who have just learned the moves, not equivalent? It's not their fault the rating system is broken either

brilliantboy wrote: »

It's a fact that at Bunratty 2014, in many cases players who, according to rating, didn't belong in the sections they played in turned in better performances than players who did.
I mean who are these weaklings who are cheapening the tournament? Did you play any? Has somebody said you that they were traumatized from playing a player 100 points below them?

Please stop confusing issues here.
1. The rating system is flawed.
2. The rating bands were not as advertised

On 1. this is not the thread to discuss rating flaws. It sucks if you are lower rated than what you should be but you still aren't entitled to enter a higher section based on your word. Others had to go through the same process to get their ratings high. It isn't the players fault the rating system is flawed. This is an issue for the ICU to fix.

2. The Bunratty tournament (or any tournament) is run offering a service, notably an entry requirement for different sections and specific rules about what section you are entitled to play in so you play people of similar strength. If I entered the Minor section to find, I'm playing six 2500 players, I would demand my money back. I probably wouldn't have won the tournament anyway but since people are around my playing strength, I have a chance. I entered to play players at a set rating band around my level, not because I'm shielding my rating or want to get beaten in 6 games. As a player, I DIDN'T SET THE RATING REQUIREMENTS, as a customer I haven't gotten what I paid for - the rating requirements may be the reason why I go to a tournament over another.

Players used their FIDE rating last year to qualify for some sections (The only player I found was Scott Mulligan in the Master's section who wouldn't have qualified based on this year's requirements (though I don't know what last year's requirements were and he had some very impressive results in the months leading up to that event)). This year it has been changed so only the Masters section can use their FIDE rating.

sinbad68 wrote: »

reunion , I totally agree with your first paragraph .I did NOT make any accusations of bribery but special treatment YES ( based on evidence ) and I believe special treatment is a result of friendship , even rule 14 can not help here .

There isn't any evidence without proof. Yes an 1800 rated player played in the masters section, you have proof of that. I have yet to see what Terms and Conditions from LAST YEAR were breached or evidence of special treatment


Honestly, I think that really should be the end of the discussion about rating bands, unless some can point to the organisers breaching last years bands (i.e. breaching their terms and conditions for last year). I can't find a copy of them, so I can't say if the 50 points wasn't 100, or if their wasn't some other term/condition that would have allowed someone to play up a section. Other than that, we are just creating a rumour which is attempting to become a fact without facts.


For a tournament with a month before it starts, entry levels look pretty healthy!

brilliantboy

reunion wrote: »

It sucks if you are lower rated than what you should be but you still aren't entitled to enter a higher section based on your word.

And you don't get in based on your word. You get in based on the tournament organizers estimating your strength by weighing past performance and other considerations. They get it right far more often than they get it wrong.

Others had to go through the same process to get their ratings high. It isn't the players fault the rating system is flawed. This is an issue for the ICU to fix.

In a different pool of players. The general standard of play is better now than it was in previous decades due to numerous factors such as computers, a wider availability of training material, more playing opportunities etc.
"It isn't the players fault"
You keep saying this as if they're being punished or treated unfairly somehow, it's nonsense. All that's happening is players are being taken from a section they're too strong for and placed into a more appropriate section.

If I entered the Minor section to find, I'm playing six 2500 players, I would demand my money back. I probably wouldn't have won the tournament anyway but since people are around my playing strength, I have a chance. I entered to play players at a set rating band around my level, not because I'm shielding my rating or want to get beaten in 6 games.

That's an interesting viewpoint and in my experience isn't a typical one. The vast majority of chess players would bite your hand off for the chance to compete with stronger players, even when they know they'll be crushed.
Most players have never won anything and know they never will, yet they keep coming back. Winning isn't a major concern for most players, and if it is they should be glad their section is being padded with supposedly weaker players.

As a player, I DIDN'T SET THE RATING REQUIREMENTS, as a customer I haven't gotten what I paid for - the rating requirements may be the reason why I go to a tournament over another.

Except you most probably have gotten what you paid for. You just don't know it because you're too fixated on what the other guy's rating says and not what his chess says

sinbad68

reunion wrote: »

@ briliantboy .Please stop confusing issues here.
1. The rating system is flawed.
2. The rating bands were not as advertised

On 1. this is not the thread to discuss rating flaws. It sucks if you are lower rated than what you should be but you still aren't entitled to enter a higher section based on your word. Others had to go through the same process to get their ratings high.

:):):):):)

brilliantboy

sinbad68 wrote: »

:):):):):)

Fascinating and profound contribution as always

sinbad68

I don't know why a storm was created here ?!, all I did was to inform chess community , if you do go to bunratty , depending on the person ,you may get an unpleasant surprise to find many of those who did not qualify by their own merit in your section which will be hidden til the last day . That's all.

reunion

This thread is about the Bunratty chess tournament, not the rating system (which is agreed to be flawed). If you believe the rating bands should change for this tournament, or rating performances should count, let the organisers know or start another thread about how/why the rating bands are the way they are or how the system could be improved.

sinbad68 wrote: »

I don't know why a storm was created here ?!, all I did was to inform chess community , if you do go to bunratty , depending on the person ,you may get an unpleasant surprise to find many of those who did not qualify by their own merit in your section which will be hidden til the last day . That's all.

This is unproven and judging from my dealings with the organisers, just completely untrue. I haven't seen any proof that any player last year was in a section they weren't meant to be in. So until you provide proof, I can only figure you are disgruntled by a poor performance last year and that you are derailing the thread. IF they did indeed allow a player who was outside their terms and conditions to compete in a certain section (again requires proof), this is important to know for some players who intend on competing.

sinbad68

reunion wrote: »

This is unproven and judging from my dealings with the organisers, just completely untrue. I haven't seen any proof that any player last year was in a section they weren't meant to be in. So until you provide proof, I can only figure you are disgruntled by a poor performance last year and that you are derailing the thread. IF they did indeed allow a player who was outside their terms and conditions to compete in a certain section (again requires proof), this is important to know for some players who intend on competing.

reunion , you are wrong again & again

My performance in bunratty was good and I gained a bagful of points ( fact ) ! .Organisers in bunratty are nice people and they have the discretion to invite anyone they like and I don't have any big issues with it and was just mentioning , if you look at this year bunratty masters list , you will see a player whose fide rating was used instead of icu ( against rule 13 ) FACT ! to allow him to play and again I am sure he is a nice man and I have no issues with it ( If you can not figure out who it is pm me ).As regards being disgruntled , perhaps you are with me as I disagreed with your ideas of 1.Inviting president of ireland for a marathon 9 days of chess ! or 2. Inviting Bono to change careers from singing to chess ? . Also let you know posting on boards.ie is not that important to me and not likely I will reply to any more posts from you on this matter as I don't like prolonged pointless back and forth arguments .

L1m1tless

I'm pretty excited to see the top GM's in the flesh. It's pretty cool that Wesley So is coming! I wonder will he have a few pints with us lesser mortals!?

sinbad68

CowboyDreams wrote: »

I'm pretty excited to see the top GM's in the flesh. It's pretty cool that Wesley So is coming! I wonder will he have a few pints with us lesser mortals!?

If you are buying the pint , you could really have chat with anyone you like .Are you staying at the venue hotel ? , many guests had issue with having no hot water and couldn't take shower , I had a unique issue of congregation of birds outside my bedroom window ( outer green wall ) making a racket all night and ended up putting my laptop beside the window on max volume playing sounds of birds of prey to scare them away ( didn't work ) but made them go quiet for a while !:D

brilliantboy

sinbad68 wrote: »

If you are buying the pint , you could really have chat with anyone you like .Are you staying at the venue hotel ? , many guests had issue with having no hot water and couldn't take shower , I had a unique issue of congregation of birds outside my bedroom window ( outer green wall ) making a racket all night and ended up putting my laptop beside the window on max volume playing sounds of birds of prey to scare them away ( didn't work ) but made them go quiet for a while !:D

Christ you are a character

L1m1tless

sinbad68 wrote: »

If you are buying the pint , you could really have chat with anyone you like .Are you staying at the venue hotel ? , many guests had issue with having no hot water and couldn't take shower , I had a unique issue of congregation of birds outside my bedroom window ( outer green wall ) making a racket all night and ended up putting my laptop beside the window on max volume playing sounds of birds of prey to scare them away ( didn't work ) but made them go quiet for a while !:D

Yeah I am staying at the Hotel, First time to go to Bunratty for the Chess. I am really looking forward to it.

A cold shower might be the job to wake me up for the morning games! I usually do bad with the early starts because my brain is still asleep!

Those damn birds! have they no respect for the important chess that's going on!? :P

Ciaran

Birds at the window don't bother me, I had an entire childhood of *# $& magpies shouting at my window.

On Bunratty's rating bands, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a tournament to stick to its advertised rating bands. If they say "1600-2000 and people within 100 points can play up" then stick to that. I had a poor Gonzaga and played 11-1300s for most of the tournament and it was purely my own fault but if I'd played a load of 900s, I'd have been justifiably annoyed given the rating bands on the entry form.

brilliantboy

Ciaran wrote: »

Birds at the window don't bother me, I had an entire childhood of *# $& magpies shouting at my window.

On Bunratty's rating bands, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a tournament to stick to its advertised rating bands. If they say "1600-2000 and people within 100 points can play up" then stick to that. I had a poor Gonzaga and played 11-1300s for most of the tournament and it was purely my own fault but if I'd played a load of 900s, I'd have been justifiably annoyed given the rating bands on the entry form.

It might surprise you to learn that there's very little difference between 900s and 11-1300s

Ciaran

brilliantboy wrote: »

It might surprise you to learn that there's very little difference between 900s and 11-1300s

Having been both in the past 10 years, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

Doesn't have much effect on the argument that a tournament should advertise the rating bands that it intends to apply though.

brilliantboy

Ciaran wrote: »

Having been both in the past 10 years, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

Doesn't have much effect on the argument that a tournament should advertise the rating bands that it intends to apply though.

There's no sense in inflexible rating bands. Some 1500s are going to play like 1500s, some are going to play like 1700s. It should always be on a case by case basis. People should have a bit of common sense.

Is someone honestly going to try to argue that players will be put off from entering because they might be asked to play a player 200 points below them (on paper) in the first round?. It's an absurd assertion.

Some people seem to have an issue with a couple of 1800s being allowed entry to last years Masters section at Bunratty, but what I can see is a couple of 2100+ players propping up the table.

I'm going to go back to the example of Alex Byrne. the lad is rated 1800 or so, some 150 points below the cutoff, but if he chose to enter the Masters section at Bunratty I wouldn't begrudge him a spot, and I don't think that anyone could argue based on his recent performances that he would be out of place.

Bunratty is the jewel in the crown of Irish chess and whatever the organizers are doing they should keep doing it if you ask me.

Ciaran

The whole point of rating bands is that they're inflexible, otherwise you effectively just have open tournaments (which aren't very popular based on the turnouts of the current ones as far as I can see). Pretty much every tournament allows people within 100 point so of the bottom limit to play up which is perfectly sensible IMO and I wouldn't want to stop that. I'd be inclined to allow more leeway to players under 1200 to play up given the difficulty in gaining any rating points in the under-1200 sections of tournaments but I don't think there's anything stopping a 1400 rated player from getting to 1500 or above if their play is of that level.

My question is why do tournaments say in the rules that "players within 100 points of the threshold for a higher section may play up if they wish" and then allow players 200 or more from the limit play up? If that's what they want to do, why not just say so in advance and let everyone know what they're going to get?

sinbad68

reunion wrote: »

This thread is about the Bunratty chess tournament, not the rating system (which is agreed to be flawed). If you believe the rating bands should change for this tournament, or rating performances should count, let the organisers know or start another thread about how/why the rating bands are the way they are or how the system could be improved.

This is unproven and judging from my dealings with the organisers, just completely untrue. I haven't seen any proof that any player last year was in a section they weren't meant to be in. So until you provide proof, I can only figure you are disgruntled by a poor performance last year and that you are derailing the thread. IF they did indeed allow a player who was outside their terms and conditions to compete in a certain section (again requires proof), this is important to know for some players who intend on competing.

Ciaran,.I totally agree with your statement above , if organisers want to allow 1400 rated in challenger section , then let them announce those within 200 points of threshold can enter and give every one equal chance . My days may be numbered on boards.ie .As you can see by the false accusation of derailing the threat in quote above ( setting up pretext for a BAN ) even though the conversation is about bunratty (rating bands)!. I find it SHOCKING for someone to make a statement in the quote above that there is NO proof ANY player last year played in ANY section which they were not meant to be , while anyone with internet can see the challengers list in bunratty last year and see about 18 players who did NOT qualify were allowed in ( 50 points rule is the same as last year ) . Ciaran tell your captain in your next game to put you on board 1 , it would be a good experience for you and not to worry about your grading prize and points table , cdeb will be your guardian angel here .

Brilliantboy , when I look at your name I get an image of " homer simpson" in my head , do you have a poster or cup with his image in your house ?

Cowboy , keep us updated with your experience in bunratty , thanks

GOODBYE

sinbad68

checknraise wrote: »

I think the strongest players would be in favor of more open tournaments as that should lead to bigger prize funds etc but sometimes the gap in skill is too big that it becomes a waste of time for everyone. As you said everyone wants to play challenging opponents but where is the challenge for the top players?
.

Your statement above clearly indicates you are a very strong player , any advice regarding how to improve our game , for example how to divide our time in training between , engine , chess correspondence , database , etc would be grea.t

reunion

sinbad68 wrote: »

while anyone with internet can see the challengers list in bunratty last year and see about 18 players who did NOT qualify were allowed in ( 50 points rule is the same as last year) .

And prove the terms and conditions were the same last year (a link? a picture? any proof?). I can't find anything, maybe the 50 points was a 100 last year and that's how they were allowed to compete (or their FIDE rating permitted them to compete).

sinbad68 wrote: »

Brilliantboy , when I look at your name I get an image of " homer simpson" in my head , do you have a poster or cup with his image in your house ?

sinbad68 wrote: »

Your statement above clearly indicates you are a very strong player , any advice regarding how to improve our game , for example how to divide our time in training between , engine , chess correspondence , database , etc would be grea.t

PM him if you want advice or post a new thread asking for advice, do not hijack or derail a thread. This is your final warning before you get to take a vacation for a day.

sinbad68

reunion wrote: »

And prove the terms and conditions were the same last year (a link? a picture? any proof?). I can't find anything, maybe the 50 points was a 100 last year and that's how they were allowed to compete (or their FIDE rating permitted them to compete).
PM him if you want advice or post a new thread asking for advice, do not hijack or derail a thread. This is your final warning before you get to take a vacation for a day.

<snipped>

cdeb , I don't want to be a member here with reunion and cause him anymore distress and would like to close my account on boards.ie but I am not a quitter , so could you please close my account for me . Thanks cdeb

checknraise

I believe the reason an organiser accepts fide ratings instead of ICU ratings is that if the player had never played chess in Ireland they would be able to play in the top section based on their fide rating. That would surely be seen as unfair to the player with the ICU rating below 2000 and a higher fide rating.

I dont think there is any secret to improving at chess or any activity for that matter, I think with hard work anyone can get to play in the master section of a tournament. At the moment I would only every use database's and practice playing blitz.

Even the great Sinbad had to overcome a few demons on his travels, I wouldn't have thought a few posters on boards would be enough to get the better of Sinbad!

sinbad68

<snipped> getting bored here and not much else left to say anyway <snipped>

Myrddin

sinbad68 wrote: »

getting bored here

Cmod Note: I'll save the mods the trouble here, goodbye so. You're welcome to return in a month if you wish, on the proviso that you've learned how to conduct yourself in a civil & mature manner. Failing that, your access to this forum will be revoked permanently. In relation to your previous mention of asking Cdeb to close your account, only users themselves may do that. You can find the option to do so in your user control panel.

User sinbad68 banned for one month, for repeated personal abuse against others, depite mod requests to refrain from doing so.

reunion

Chess_Coach wrote: »

Rules Governing ICU Membership and Participation in Tournaments
Pat Fitzsimons
With effect from the 1st of February the following rules will apply to all tournaments (other than international team tournaments held under the auspices of the ICU, such as The Glorney Gilbert International) held in Ireland which are ICU rated:
All participants in such tournaments, irrespective of their nationality or native chess federation, must be fully subscribed members of the ICU.
No person can be accepted as a participant in any tournament governed by these rules unless he/she fulfils the above condition.
The responsibility rests with the organisers of the tournaments in question to ensure that these rules are fully implemented.
Where a person wishes to become a member of the ICU in order to participate in a tournament or event, the organisers should facilitate the collection of the requisite fee prior to the commencement of the tournament or event through the use of the ICU online subscription form.
Where a player who is not a member of the ICU participates in a tournament governed by these rules, the tournament or event organisers will be liable.
The ICU reserves the right to take action in cases where it perceives that the organisers of a tournament have been negligent in applying these rules or have been persistent offenders in this regard. Such action may include refusal to rate the tournament as a whole, withdrawal of grants to the organisers in question, and any other action which the ICU deems appropriate

Please take conversations about this topic to the thread I just started unless it specifically applies to Bunratty.


The Bunratty masters is going to be rated by FIDE (for the GM title) and doesn't have to be ICU rated so it isn't effected (by what little is posted about this new ruling).

The Bunratty masters section will likely to just not be rated at all.

Challenger and Major sections will be rated as these players should be members of the ICU.

The Bunratty minor section probably won't be rated this year then I guess or numbers down significantly.

mikhail

reunion wrote: »

Please take conversations about this topic to the thread I just started unless it specifically applies to Bunratty.

In that case, could you split off those posts and merge them into that thread, please? The option should be available in your thread tools menu.

webactivation

Accommodation at Turret lodge, Low Road, Bunratty
see airbnb or contact
annakirbyhughes gmail.com

reunion

mikhail wrote: »

In that case, could you split off those posts and merge them into that thread, please? The option should be available in your thread tools menu.

Done. I was of the opinion though that this would impact Bunratty so it may be relevant.

Valmont

I wish I could make a trip to this tournament, maybe in a few years when I have the time and ELO points. Speaking of knight & bishop vs king, Judit Polgar once beat another grandmaster in the ending during a blindfold game!

L1m1tless

@chess_coach please leave out any personal abuse. Consider this a warning, any more and we will be forced to give you a holiday. We appreciate all your input, but please keep it civil. Thanks for your understanding

Chess_Coach

Where is the article now cant see at icu.ie website

this one

Bunratty Chess Festival Fast Approching
2015-01-31
The Bunratty Chess Festival is on from February 20th to 22nd this year, for full details click here. Players can now enter online using paypal ( or any major credit card ), please click here to enter.

The hotel is very nearly full so if you're thinking of playing but haven't booked yet, you haven't got much time !

is gone !

reunion

Chess_Coach wrote: »

Where is the article now cant see at icu.ie website

this one

Bunratty Chess Festival Fast Approching
2015-01-31
The Bunratty Chess Festival is on from February 20th to 22nd this year, for full details click here. Players can now enter online using paypal ( or any major credit card ), please click here to enter.

The hotel is very nearly full so if you're thinking of playing but haven't booked yet, you haven't got much time !

is gone !

Why has it disappeared?

Is the ICU really against promoting the Bunratty Chess Festival?

Chess_Coach

Organizer published and removed could you please ask him why ? I dont know

mikhail

That article is up again. Let the wild speculation begin.