ICU agm motions

sinbad68

Just looking at ICU agm document released and here are some questions I have about some of the motions that passed…

1. Is it fair that less than %10 of icu members get to decide the faith of rest us ? , yes , only those that can sit through insane number of hours in an agm meeting , why can’t rest of us vote on motions online with voters names and the way they voted published to prevent fraud?

2. Was it right to charge icu members 700 euro retrospectively to pay for the unnecessary trips of two chess coaches who went on private capacity to glorney cup ?

3. Is it right to allow a dozen or more players into irish chess championship senior section who have not qualified by their own rating and many now can get in, if they are well connected with icu executive ?

Personally I believe allowing many low rated players along with longer format for games will put off many high rated players attending this competition in the future.

cdeb

1. If that's all that turned up, yes, it's fair to let them vote on everyone else's behalf.
2. Don't know the details of point 2, so will have to abstain from comment for the moment.
3. Yes, if those who bothered to attend the AGM voted it in.

sinbad68

Hi cdeb !

1. I am sure many icu members would like to be able to vote on motions but can't spend half a day in agm and also many icu members don't live in Dublin , many organisations and even company shareholders get to vote by mail or other methods .It's best to get the opinion of as many members possible on issues and not just less than % 10 of icu members and disenfranchise the majority of members.

2. Two chess coaches invited themselves to glorney and asked and received 700 euro payment from parents of the kids going to that competition , the motion was to charge 700 euro from icu members and repay the parents of kids .

3. In 2014 we had one of best irish chess championship in senior section in living memory ,I believe if it ain't broken don't try to fix it . Players who played in master sections 2014 should have been consulted about the change in entry requirement and time format , rather than rashly passing motions without thinking much about the consequences ,IMHO.

cdeb

I think voting by proxy has been suggested before, but it hasn't come into force as yet. It'd be rather hard to police I'd say. We've had cynical attempts to rig ICU AGM elections before (and that was obviously when people had to attend to vote). There are, shall we say, a few characters in the game who you'd need to be confident wouldn't be able to manipulate the system. But everyone can attend the AGM and vote, so I don't think it's fair to say the 10% are deciding for the 90%.

I'm not entirely sure your version of events for point 2 is correct.

I don't think there's any evidence for your claim in point 3 that people were "rashly passing motions". This motion was proposed in 2013 as well, and withdrawn for further consideration. People who voted on this motion had more time to think about it than most motions. I don't see the harm in it though. It'd be particularly beneficial allowing promising juniors to play; they could learn a lot - not only in terms of game experience against top Irish players, but also about game preparation and study methods, given the nature of the tournament. All the spots don't have to be offered. I don't really see much of a problem to be honest.

sinbad68

1. In my first post ,I stated that names of those who voted and which way they voted should be published , that will combat fraud .

2. That's what heard from couple of different sources

3. Juniors have k factor 40 and bonus points which will ensure their rating rises very rapidly should they do well in competitions . I believe juniors should learn that they need to work hard to get to get the right to play in masters section and that will help build their character in life rather than a silver spoon in the mouth solution and prematurely throwing them into the deep end , also remember at the rate of one game per day , think of the rights of an over 2000 rated adult who has taken time out of work to sit and play an under-qualified kid .

cdeb

I don't think you can go about publishing people's votes when the rest of the AGM is a secret ballot. Doesn't seem fair. And doesn't seem like it'd encourage people to go down this route. Maybe the secretary can take and tally proxies and just reveal the count of those proxies (you can do this at a company AGM), but the ICU is a lot more informal, and the members a lot more transient, than a company. I still think it'd need extra checks to combat fraud.

Fair point on juniors in the Irish. But while you're correct to say their rating rises very rapidly in competitions, it's also fair to say that at times their strength rises quicker. So for some, they could be strong enough to play in the competition, but their rating doesn't show that as yet. Yes, they could just have patience. But if it'd benefit junior players to (a) play in the tournament and (b) even set them a target to reach which would mean they could play in the tournament, I think it'd be good. I don't think there's be too many players (though I can think of one anyway!) who'd be too bothered by playing a 1750-rated 14-year-old in the Irish.

Ciaran

I like the idea of proxy voting on motions. Only the votes for committee positions were by secret ballot so that wouldn't necessarily be a problem for voting on motions. If people didn't like their names being publicised, they could still go to the AGM, no one's losing anything. The biggest change would probably be that AGM attendance would plummet!

sinbad68

@ ciaran , You took the words right out of my mouth ! , if icu is informal and transient there is no need to be holding all these secret votes as no one will be publicly flogged for the way the vote .As regarding juniors ,I believe , there is too much hype about their abilities and advantage over adults , for evidence one only has too look at the rating website to see that there is ONLY ONE under 16 year old player who is rated over 1800 .

Gearoid MacGabhain

Would it not be a better idea if all ICU members voted through their provincial union.
If you have a grievance you rais it with your local provincial union then it is passed on to the ICU
This would give the ICU more time to set policy at a higher level and have the provincial unions deal with the nitty gritty. It would also cut down on having to travel longer distances for AGMs etc.

sinbad68

@ Gearoid . Any decent organisation would try to hear the opinion of as many members as it can and there are many ways to do this , in many organisations you can not pass motions or policies with such low turn out for vote. ICU should be more inclusive and think of it's all members . Take chess coaching and work shops for example , in icu ALL the focus is on so called " improving juniors " or ladies and NON on " improving men ".There are many talented men out there whose potential is totally ignored but go on to make great achievements. valentin kalinins is a great example , with all the time and effort icu has done on training juniors , there are only two under 18 year old who are rated over 1800 .

Sparks

sinbad68 wrote: »

in many organisations you can not pass motions or policies with such low turn out for vote.

And in most organisations, they don't allow intimidating behaviour at AGMs, let alone actual assault; as a result of that being most and not all, several people including myself just won't go to ICU AGMs anymore. The idea that we have to expose ourselves to that kind of schoolyard crap (and to give up five to ten hours when most organisations of this size need less than one for an AGM) in order to cast a vote we paid our membership dues to get is a bit offensive to be honest.

reunion

sinbad68 wrote: »

2. Two chess coaches invited themselves to glorney and asked and received 700 euro payment from parents of the kids going to that competition , the motion was to charge 700 euro from icu members and repay the parents of kids .

They didn't invite themselves, one was selected by the ICU to be the coach and the other wasn't. The one that was selected refused the place (well refused to communicate with anyone about the place). The parents then paid for both coaches to go over as extra external coaches privately (no association with the ICU).

That motion was to repay the parents and sets a stupid (idiotic/moronic) precedent that people can ask for money for a PRIVATE venture from the ICU's money. So, in theory, if I get coaching I can now bill an AGM (provided the AGM passes it). This has to be the stupidest action undertaken.

sinbad68 wrote: »

3. In 2014 we had one of best irish chess championship in senior section in living memory ,I believe if it ain't broken don't try to fix it . Players who played in master sections 2014 should have been consulted about the change in entry requirement and time format , rather than rashly passing motions without thinking much about the consequences ,IMHO.

Considering 7 (about a quarter) participants of the Irish Championships that year were at the AGM (more from previous years too and others that qualified) and were in agreement, it's hard to argue. It wasn't really debated by the general members there, players qualified to participate were asked for their input. And all viewpoint aligned with favouring the motions. There were no "no" votes for this motion if memory serves, the only comment was to change it to the Irish champion (women's, veteran, etc) for the last 14 months. The spaces don't have to be used and the proposer of the motion even suggested removing quite a few of the "non-rating" places but this was rejected by the floor.

The original idea of these motions was to give prestige to the other Irish Champions as currently the only champion with more than just a trophy prestige (in my opinion), is the Irish Champion who gets an automatic spot on the Olympiad team.

Does the Irish women's champion get an automatic spot on the ladies Olympiad team? Why should someone under 1800 play in the Open or intermediate (U1800) tournaments - how are these tournaments different from the Limerick Open and Bunratty?

I would also point out that it was proposed the year prior too but was withdrawn as the meeting had been going on for 8(ish) hours. With no debate or negativity about this motion (last year or this year) and the fact that an EGM can be called to alter this, it's hard to argue a trial run at least.

Also at the meeting it was pointed out that Irish ratings are massively under-rated. I believe it is due to Junior players taking rating points from the below 1800 range and after a few years, not playing anymore. Either ratings have to be increased, rating floor lowered or people under rated have to be given a chance.

sinbad68 wrote: »

there are only two under 18 year old who are rated over 1800 .

It should be 18 or under (basically anyone who can compete in the U-18 Junior tournament). There are 2 on the ICU rating list (17 and below). 2 withing 40 points of 1800. And that's just their Irish rating, there are a few over/close to 1800 who have Irish ratings below 1800.

sinbad68 wrote: »

3. Juniors have k factor 40 and bonus points which will ensure their rating rises very rapidly should they do well in competitions . I believe juniors should learn that they need to work hard to get to get the right to play in masters section and that will help build their character in life rather than a silver spoon in the mouth solution and prematurely throwing them into the deep end , also remember at the rate of one game per day , think of the rights of an over 2000 rated adult who has taken time out of work to sit and play an under-qualified kid .

Are you specifically just talking about juniors being offered a place or just U-1800's?

Juniors and U-1800's are 2 different kettle of fish here. David Fitzsimons is a prime example of Junior training churning out a very good player. Adults typically have commitments, less free time and a routine developed. Juniors have more free time and an amazing capacity for knowledge and potential. If you were investing money, Juniors are a more long-term worthwhile investment.

There are quite a few over 1800 adults that are over-qualified (K factor makes it hard for them to lose points (also tournaments are typically limited to over-1800)), shall we start excluding them and making an activity based requirement? There are quite a few juniors with 1800+ rating performances but with ratings below 1800 and quite a few adults with 1800- performances but with ratings above 1800 (thanks lower K factor). If it's ok for an on-form 2000 rated adult to play a massively over-rated 2000 adult then it should be acceptable for an over-rated 2000 adult to play an on-form 1700 rated player, particularly if both play at a 2000 rating performance.

Also the Olympiad has people rated below 1800 FIDE (sometimes unrated I believe), any adult that can't play an under 1800, doesn't deserve to have a chance to be in the Olympiad and honestly, sounds like they want to protect their rating instead of getting the toughest game possible. I know if I was playing chess for a week, I'd want the best games possible, irrespective of the rating of my opponents.

Sparks wrote: »

And in most organisations, they don't allow intimidating behaviour at AGMs, let alone actual assault; as a result of that being most and not all, several people including myself just won't go to ICU AGMs anymore. The idea that we have to expose ourselves to that kind of schoolyard crap (and to give up five to ten hours when most organisations of this size need less than one for an AGM) in order to cast a vote we paid our membership dues to get is a bit offensive to be honest.

Unless actual assault is proven and someone has been found guilty, let's not make accusations become fact. Too many lies and half-truths get picked up and people raise pitch-forks all too quickly in Irish Chess.

The problem is people take chess way too seriously and a differing viewpoint can result in such petty behaviour (starting a new chess union). It does kill off those who genuinely want to help chess and leaves those who either A. have the same viewpoints of those with petty behaviours or B. haven't been a victim of the petty actions.

sinbad68

@ reunion

Regarding your first paragraph about chess coaches , I agree with you , may be someone enlightens me and tells me what did coaches actually do during these tournaments ? if it is going over games , they could wait til kids come back from tournaments as going over games or teaching things when kids are playing 2 round of games in one day , morning and afternoon will only add to fatigue and don't see how it could be very helpful or the need for urgency .

As regards, why should we have so many wild card entries be allowed into senior section , I find your reasoning convoluted and to be frank doesn't make much sense to me , " giving prestige " to other champions by letting them into senior section , perhaps you are making the senior section far less prestigious as a result then ? also many that would be allowed entry are chosen by icu executive and don't have to be champions anyway with this motion . As regard that in prior year " there was no debate or negativity " , There was !, someone did stand up and made a negative statement about the idea and it was then that the proposer withdrew his motion.

As regards rating gap difference between irish rating and fide ,to fix the problem, I think perhaps it would be best that we talk to rating officer and one day we wake up and find santa has put 50 points or more into some/all icu members rating account ? .

reunion

sinbad68 wrote: »

Regarding your first paragraph about chess coaches , I agree with you , may be someone enlightens me and tells me what did coaches actually do during these tournaments ? if it is going over games , they could wait til kids come back from tournaments as going over games or teaching things when kids are playing 2 round of games in one day , morning and afternoon will only add to fatigue and don't see how it could be very helpful or the need for urgency .

Junior games can finish earlier than adult games so there may be scope for going over a game with quite a few players immediately after their games. Also it would be surprising the difference having a coach available makes. I would also guess that not being able to drink means that Juniors may be able to handle significantly more chess in a day than an adult.

sinbad68 wrote: »

As regards, why should we have so many wild card entries be allowed into senior section , I find your reasoning convoluted and to be frank doesn't make much sense to me , " giving prestige " to other champions by letting them into senior section , perhaps you are making the senior section far less prestigious as a result then ? also many that would be allowed entry are chosen by icu executive and don't have to be champions anyway with this motion . As regard that in prior year " there was no debate or negativity " , There was !, someone did stand up and made a negative statement about the idea and it was then that the proposer withdrew his motion.

My reasoning or rationale doesn't have to make sense (it makes sense to me and I'm not articulating it very well), but my point about 25% of this years contestants being in favour and holding an EGM to correct it still stand. Currently it seems the majority of the voices so far from players who compete at the Irish Championships and the ordinary members prefer the system voted in at the AGM. While it mightn't be a perfect system (And can be changed at any subsequent AGM/EGM), it does indicate that people are willing to change the Irish Championships if it might improve it (and a trial run isn't unreasonable).

sinbad68 wrote: »

As regards rating gap difference between irish rating and fide ,to fix the problem, I think perhaps it would be best that we talk to rating officer and one day we wake up and find santa has put 50 points or more into some/all icu members rating account ? .

The ICU ratings have been bumped up by 100 points previously (not 100 across the board, it scaled for higher rated players I believe). Which honestly, puts a question mark over why we even have a set rating floor of 1800 for the Irish Championships and why it isn't based on some level of activity (ICU grand prix points? or rating performance? or require a score of 4.5/6 in an over 1600 event or 3/6 in an over 1800+ event in Ireland.

cdeb

sinbad68 wrote: »

Regarding your first paragraph about chess coaches , I agree with you , may be someone enlightens me and tells me what did coaches actually do during these tournaments ?

A good example is the English under 12 team at the last Glorney. Ireland beat England 4½-1½ on the first day, but England beat Ireland 4½-1½ in the re-match on the last day. I think the English team had six GMs with them, and all helped not just go over the players' games, but to prepare them for the next game. The higher rated you get, the more important game prep becomes (so I'm told!) So coaches present at the tournament help with that. And obviously going through a game while it's still fresh in your mind - rather than at a debrief session a couple of weeks later - is much more beneficial as well.

There's a reason all the teams bring coaches with them.

sinbad68

I want to clarify things , the two coaches that did go to glorney are good guys and I have no issues with them , the dispute is only about icu members retrospectively funding coaches who went on private capacity to a foreign trips with kids .

I don't agree that a kid who has played several hours of chess games am & pm needs to sit down for hours more during the tournament and get coaching instead he/she should be resting or going for walk & sightseeing, he/she will get fatigued even more by going over the games for a prolonged period and will be tired for the next round. Once the game is played ,it is water under the bridge whether you go over it 5 minutes or 5 days later to analyse , it makes no difference and probably leaving it later when your mind is not tired would be better. Juniors can use engine to analyze their own game immediately after a match to see where they went wrong anyway also they can use skype to communicate with coaches back home during tournament if needed .Why not have local coaches at venue going over games with travelling kids , same when next glorney , irish coaches can interact with english and scottish kids .

As regard reunion stating " kids have amazing potential " I believe there are far greater numbers of adults with amazing potential than kids in ireland , around 145 adults rated over 1800 vs just two kids is the proof ! .It is alot harder to go from 1800 to 2000 than it is from 700 to 1400 .Lots of kids thanks to high k factor and bonus points go from 700 to 1200-1600 zone quickly and then make no progress .

I don't understand why the principle that " ALL entrant should be treated equally and meet the same standards " is so hard to accept ?. anyway reunion I don't want to engage in back and forth arguments , lets agree to disagree and we shall find out what happens in next irish championship and if there are significant numbers of low rated player from hoi polloi entering senior section we will see many high rated player will turn up.

cdeb

sinbad68 wrote: »

Juniors can use engine to analyze their own game immediately after a match to see where they went wrong anyway

Fairly dangerous for juniors to restrict their analysis to whatever the computer tells them. For one thing, the computer won't go into the finer details like the common ideas in an opening, and why a certain move - which looks plausible - is in fact not usually played because it goes against the whole idea of the opening.

As regard reunion stating " kids have amazing potential " I believe there are far greater numbers of adults with amazing potential than kids in ireland , around 145 adults rated over 1800 vs just two kids is the proof !

That doesn't prove anything about potential!

reunion

sinbad68 wrote: »

I want to clarify things , the two coaches that did go to glorney are good guys and I have no issues with them , the dispute is only about icu members retrospectively funding coaches who went on private capacity to a foreign trips with kids .

No one said anything bad about the coaches that did go, rather the retrospective funding for private ventures.

sinbad68 wrote: »

As regard reunion stating " kids have amazing potential " I believe there are far greater numbers of adults with amazing potential than kids in ireland , around 145 adults rated over 1800 vs just two kids is the proof ! .It is alot harder to go from 1800 to 2000 than it is from 700 to 1400 .Lots of kids thanks to high k factor and bonus points go from 700 to 1200-1600 zone quickly and then make no progress .

I agree, there are adults with potential, however, with a low K factor the improvements are quite small and tehy typically can afford the training required.

Also a youth player has the potential to play for their entire life but an adult really only takes up chess with an interest already in chess (usually).

sinbad68 wrote: »

I don't understand why the principle that " ALL entrant should be treated equally and meet the same standards " is so hard to accept ?. anyway reunion I don't want to engage in back and forth arguments , lets agree to disagree and we shall find out what happens in next irish championship and if there are significant numbers of low rated player from hoi polloi entering senior section we will see many high rated player will turn up.

I agree that we should wait and see. I certainly don't believe that the system in place is perfect but I think it's the right stepping stone to improving the event.

sinbad68

cdeb wrote: »

Fairly dangerous for juniors to restrict their analysis to whatever the computer tells them. For one thing, the computer won't go into the finer details like the common ideas in an opening, and why a certain move - which looks plausible - is in fact not usually played because it goes against the whole idea of the opening.

That doesn't prove anything about potential!

@ cdeb. I did NOT say that juniors should restrict their analysis post match to using engine only , what I said was that engine would be a useful tool to use for a quick analysis after a match( spending less than one hour ) to see where mistakes/blunders took place and what missed opportunities were .All tools available, engines , coaching, videos , books etc should be used for training.

It does about potential !! . We have lots of kids playing chess in tournaments , in case of an u-12 he/she has over 6 years to reach high rating ( say over 1800 ) helped by bonuses and high k factor if possesing amazing potential , then it should be a piece of cake but it doesn't happen .


@ reunion . 2014 senior irish championship had one of best attendance by high rated players in living memory , you talk about " not perfect " , what would you describe as being a perfect irish championship ?

Perhaps others can enter this discussion and voice their opinion , I like to hear what ciaran who posted here earlier has to say ?

cdeb

sinbad68 wrote: »

@ cdeb. I did NOT say that juniors should restrict their analysis post match to using engine only , what I said was that engine would be a useful tool to use for a quick analysis after a match( spending less than one hour ) to see where mistakes/blunders took place and what missed opportunities were .All tools available, engines , coaching, videos , books etc should be used for training.

Computer is absolutely a useful tool.

But coaches are better. Again, there's a reason every country there has coaches with them.

It does about potential !!

Ratings show ability, not potential

reunion

sinbad68 wrote: »

@ reunion . 2014 senior irish championship had one of best attendance by high rated players in living memory , you talk about " not perfect " , what would you describe as being a perfect irish championship ?

Everyone's version of perfect is different.

I am unaware of what other national federations have as requirements for national championships, however the US one is open (I think, their website is poor) and the British one requires people to qualify (via rating, an invite, performance or any previous champion or women's champion).

There are 69 active players with ratings above 1800 with the ICU (more with FIDE ratings but they mightn't be active members of the ICU), I would argue for the British championships style as people who qualify via performance increases the available pool of players to compete (note people who qualify don't have to play). It also increases the relevance of other tournaments. The MCU could give the place to the Munster Champion, meaning this title isn't just a random trophy just handed out. Realistically, these titles are already won by people who qualify via rating anyway. I suspect we will only see 1 maybe 2 players under 1800 participating in the Irish Championships this year. Which won't be randomers as previous years, but people who have earned a title or achieved something in the year.

sinbad68

cdeb wrote: »

Ratings show ability, not potential

When a potential which has been nurtured and does not bear much fruit and yield high rating , then may be it was not much of a potential to begin with .

Ciaran

sinbad68 wrote: »

@ reunion . 2014 senior irish championship had one of best attendance by high rated players in living memory , you talk about " not perfect " , what would you describe as being a perfect irish championship ?

Perhaps others can enter this discussion and voice their opinion , I like to hear what ciaran who posted here earlier has to say ?

Allowing the Intermediate, Women's, Under-19 and Seniors/Veterans' champions to play in the Irish is a good idea IMO. Most of the time, they'll be pretty close to the rating cut off anyway and if a 1400 rated player somehow wins one of those, I doubt they'll be bothered paying €100 to get hammered for a week and half.

The Irish Intermediate in particular could do with some prestige being attached to it. At the moment, it's singularly unenticing with a high entry fee, only 5 games and (in my experience) usually in a poor venue. Seeing as players under the rating cut off can enter based on FIDE ratings (including two sub-1700 players last year), there isn't strict rating purity anyway and a couple of players who won their way in won't make much difference.

The ICU committee nominating people isn't such a good idea though IMO as regardless of how deserving they might be, it'll always look like they got their place based on who they know.

reunion

Ciaran wrote: »

The Irish Intermediate in particular could do with some prestige being attached to it. At the moment, it's singularly unenticing with a high entry fee, only 5 games and (in my experience) usually in a poor venue. Seeing as players under the rating cut off can enter based on FIDE ratings (including two sub-1700 players last year), there isn't strict rating purity anyway and a couple of players who won their way in won't make much difference.

Exactly!

Ciaran wrote: »

The ICU committee nominating people isn't such a good idea though IMO as regardless of how deserving they might be, it'll always look like they got their place based on who they know.

Keep in mind the ICU nominating people isn't really meant for a generic 1600 rated player.

Think of it more like, a 1600 rated player who just got a WFM title or did something significant in the past year (rating performance of 1800+ in the world youth for example or outstanding performance in the Glorney) or even potentially captained the Olympiad team. It could also be used as a token invite to say the Patron of Irish chess, Michael D Higgins or Bono to generate publicity. Like these people aren't going to accept these invites but it could make for some good publicity.

Or you know, they could just not be used.

sinbad68

reunion wrote: »

Keep in mind the ICU nominating people isn't really meant for a generic 1600 rated player.

Think of it more like, a 1600 rated player who just got a WFM title or did something significant in the past year (rating performance of 1800+ in the world youth for example or outstanding performance in the Glorney) or even potentially captained the Olympiad team. It could also be used as a token invite to say the Patron of Irish chess, Michael D Higgins or Bono to generate publicity. Like these people aren't going to accept these invites but it could make for some good publicity.

Or you know, they could just not be used.

@ reunion. Not a generic 1600 but only a woman or a junior who did well !. Unfortunately fide and icu have the same mindset of yourself by treating the bulk of their members ( men ) as second class citizens.Can I ask , how many here would consider a 1600 rated player a " chess master " just because she holds the title of WFM ? .Inviting the president of ireland or Bono ?!, how does getting rejected by these two helps generate (good )publicity ?who is going to report it ? .

@Ciaran . Thanks for the reply. Yes , I totally agree that the winner of intermediate competition must be allowed into the masters section the following year, I suppose a very weak argument can be made to allow various winners of different competitions to play as well but to allow not one or two but a whole group of individuals chosen not any merit at all but only by their connections to icu executive is totally unfair .As for motive of the person who proposed this absurd motion ,I am not sure , but those who voted for it were mainly those who did not qualify to play in masters section themselves, so perhaps that's why they voted for it ?, it's like if a motion was put forward to all passengers in Dublin airport to allow most of them to use VIP lounge, it is a certainty that they would vote yes ( I am just giving this as an example ).

IMO ,rushing juniors to play up a section may look like doing them a favour but in general will lead to an early peaking of their rating and little progress or even drop in rating for a prolonged period after that , In the long run your rating will find you .

reunion

sinbad68 wrote: »

@ reunion. Not a generic 1600 but only a woman or a junior who did well !. Unfortunately fide and icu have the same mindset of yourself by treating the bulk of their members ( men ) as second class citizens.Can I ask , how many here would consider a 1600 rated player a " chess master " just because she holds the title of WFM ? .Inviting the president of ireland or Bono ?!, how does getting rejected by these two helps generate (good )publicity ?who is going to report it ? .

A generic 1600 could mean a female or junior player with a 1600 rating. A male 1600 player could, lets say, have beaten/drawn to a FM/IM/GM in a tournament during the year or won an under 1900 section abroad, etc. I will admit that their are more options for a female or Junior player to get an achievement (good score in Glorney, Women's title) but it's certainly NOT exclusively for female or junior players. The example I gave was an example.

I'm not a publicist, but with Bono getting injured, a letter from the ICU to Bono inviting him to move careers from singing to chess (or to take up chess while he recovers) at the Irish Championships has the potential to go viral online or generate some publicity (or he might donate money to it). There at least is some potential to utilise these spots in new ways to help fund/publicise these events.

sinbad68 wrote: »

@Ciaran . Thanks for the reply. Yes , I totally agree that the winner of intermediate competition must be allowed into the masters section the following year, I suppose a very weak argument can be made to allow various winners of different competitions to play as well but to allow not one or two but a whole group of individuals chosen not any merit at all but only by their connections to icu executive is totally unfair .As for motive of the person who proposed this absurd motion ,I am not sure , but those who voted for it were mainly those who did not qualify to play in masters section themselves, so perhaps that's why they voted for it ?, it's like if a motion was put forward to all passengers in Dublin airport to allow most of them to use VIP lounge, it is a certainty that they would vote yes ( I am just giving this as an example ).

Read my post, almost 25% of last year's participants of the Irish Championships agreed that these measures were a good thing. There were plenty of people there who qualified but didn't compete in this year's Irish Championships who were also in agreement that these were a good thing. I suggest, when the list of people who attended is released, you can see the ratings of the people who voted. With no votes against the motion, you could just take people rated above 1800 and note that they voted 100% in favour for these motions.

So your example of the VIP lounge, the VIP members also voted in favour with no VIP members voting against the motion.

Honestly, it would seem a bit silly, low rated people wanting this but higher rated people not wanting this. The fact that there was agreement across the board, indicates that both higher and lower rated people were in favour of the motions and not just lower rated or just higher rated people.

sinbad68 wrote: »

IMO ,rushing juniors to play up a section may look like doing them a favour but in general will lead to an early peaking of their rating and little progress or even drop in rating for a prolonged period after that , In the long run your rating will find you .

I agree, and a few poor performances may stop some Juniors playing. It's honestly down to the individual and I imagine if the Junior Officer is recommending someone, it is because they would be able to benefit, win or lose, from playing in the Irish Championships.

cdeb

sinbad68 wrote: »

IMO ,rushing juniors to play up a section may look like doing them a favour but in general will lead to an early peaking of their rating and little progress or even drop in rating for a prolonged period after that , In the long run your rating will find you .

Players - juniors in particular - shouldn't be obsessed with ratings. Maybe the rating of an invited junior would spike and then drop again. Maybe it'd drop and then climb again. The important issue is how much it'd improve their game in the long-term, which is a separate issue from their rating. As you say, your rating will find you.

sinbad68

cdeb wrote: »

Players - juniors in particular - shouldn't be obsessed with ratings. Maybe the rating of an invited junior would spike and then drop again. Maybe it'd drop and then climb again. The important issue is how much it'd improve their game in the long-term, which is a separate issue from their rating. As you say, your rating will find you.

@cdeb. I totally agree with your statement above ,juniors shouldn't be obsessed with their ratings and in the long run it is not the player that finds his rating ( what he wants ) but it is his rating that will find him .If it would also be helpful if some blogs did not obsess too much about ratings after a tournament and drew comparison between their own juniors saying for example that junior A gained 54 points and is now rated above junior B who lost 5 points etc.

I believe Juniors should be taught about importance of sportsmanship and fair play and competitions that are handicapped ,blow the concept of fair play out of water and are not healthy for the mind. As for coaching juniors , it is also important that the coach understands his student ( weaknesses & strengths) and adopts his teaching according to his student's needs .

@ reunion . If you want to involve president of ireland for publicity , it would be much better to contact him well in advance and as he is the patron of icu ask him for an hour of his time to attend the first day of irish championship where he will shake a few hands and be photographed making the first move on board 1 of masters section and try to get that published in newspapers or websites , BUT if going by your idea and contacting him to tell him to come and play for 9 days in a row and spend several hours each day playing chess where he will almost certainly get beaten 9-0 , he will think icu has lost it's marbles.

Lucena

sinbad68 wrote: »

Just looking at ICU agm document released and here are some questions I have about some of the motions that passed…

3. Is it right to allow a dozen or more players into irish chess championship senior section who have not qualified by their own rating and many now can get in, if they are well connected with icu executive ?

Personally I believe allowing many low rated players along with longer format for games will put off many high rated players attending this competition in the future.

What exactly are the selection criteria for the dozen players? Also what is the rating necessary to qualify via normal means? I've read 1900, 1800 and 1900 with a tolerance of 50 points i.e. 1850

Sorry if the questions seems silly, I'm an Irish player based abroad (following this situation from afar), who's never pushed a pawn in Ireland but would like to participate in the national championship one day.

cdeb

sinbad68 wrote: »

@cdeb. I totally agree with your statement above ,juniors shouldn't be obsessed with their ratings and in the long run it is not the player that finds his rating ( what he wants ) but it is his rating that will find him .If it would also be helpful if some blogs did not obsess too much about ratings after a tournament and drew comparison between their own juniors saying for example that junior A gained 54 points and is now rated above junior B who lost 5 points etc.

I disagree. If ratings follow a player's strength, then highlighting ratings gains shows a player getting stronger. But we still tell players not to be too worried about ratings going down, and not to go after draws just because it's against a higher-rated player and it'll boost your rating. There's a balance.

Your point on handicapped competitions is, I think it's fair to say, a pre-existing bee in your bonnet, and nonsense as such. I take it you won't be playing this year so?

Ciaran

Lucena wrote: »

What exactly are the selection criteria for the dozen players?

The Irish Women’s Champion, Irish Veteran’s [sic] Champion, Irish Intermediate Champion and Irish Open Champion qualify automatically. Players can also be nominated by the ICU Executive (3), Junior Officer (3), Provincial delegates (1 per province) and the tournament organisers (1). The only criterion for those is that any junior officer nominees must be under 18.
http://www.icu.ie/system/downloads/000/000/207/ICU_AGM_Documents_with_comments.pdf?1420129005

Also what is the rating necessary to qualify via normal means? I've read 1900, 1800 and 1900 with a tolerance of 50 points i.e. 1850

1900 generally (ICU or FIDE). Last year there was a 50-point tolerance, I don't know if that's going to be standard in future years.

reunion

sinbad68 wrote: »

@ reunion . If you want to involve president of ireland for publicity , it would be much better to contact him well in advance and as he is the patron of icu ask him for an hour of his time to attend the first day of irish championship where he will shake a few hands and be photographed making the first move on board 1 of masters section and try to get that published in newspapers or websites , BUT if going by your idea and contacting him to tell him to come and play for 9 days in a row and spend several hours each day playing chess where he will almost certainly get beaten 9-0 , he will think icu has lost it's marbles.

reunion wrote: »

I'm not a publicist, but with Bono getting injured, a letter from the ICU to Bono inviting him to move careers from singing to chess (or to take up chess while he recovers) at the Irish Championships has the potential to go viral online or generate some publicity (or he might donate money to it). There at least is some potential to utilise these spots in new ways to help fund/publicise these events.

Ciaran wrote: »

1900 generally (ICU or FIDE). Last year there was a 50-point tolerance, I don't know if that's going to be standard in future years.

It was 1850 last year (with 1 player allowed to play under 1800 to even out the numbers) and 1800 the year before that. 1900+ before that I believe.

brilliantboy

There definitely is scope for abuse with this new rule.
We shall have to see how it pans out but it's not difficult to imagine a scenario in the future in which a large number of Irish Championship places go unmerited to students of a Junior Officer, mates of a tournament organizer or provincial delegate, and anyone else the ICU executive wants to curry favor with.

All of this could be avoided of course if you just do away with rating bands and throw everyone in the same pot. An Open Championships with accelerated pairings. All the resistance to letting weaker players participate in a tournament seems to come from those in the lower echelons of the Masters sections, players who an underrated and unpredictable 1600 could actually do damage to. I don't think the stronger players, those with a chance of actually winning the tournament, mind too much being gifted the free points

sinbad68

cdeb wrote: »

I disagree. If ratings follow a player's strength, then highlighting ratings gains shows a player getting stronger. But we still tell players not to be too worried about ratings going down, and not to go after draws just because it's against a higher-rated player and it'll boost your rating. There's a balance.

Your point on handicapped competitions is, I think it's fair to say, a pre-existing bee in your bonnet, and nonsense as such. I take it you won't be playing this year so?

@cdeb. I said I agree totally with your statement and you say you disagree !!.I am afraid you can't have your cake and eat it too !, On hand you say juniors should not be obsessed with their ratings but it's ok for their club's blog to be ?! . I didn't say that their club should not mention whose rating goes up or down , merely that should not mention junior A has overtaken Junior B ..etc.

As for handicap competition , I've only been to one --> st benildus charity blitz over 2 years ago and had a terrible experience , full of kids and every round got 2 minutes ( no increments ) for all my moves and my opponent got 8 minutes except the last round.I tell you with 2 minutes you have to play very fast and pieces go flying in the air and there is an undignifying feel to the game .In the last round I should've got 8 minutes and my opponent ( which shall remain nameless to protect his identity )whom at the time was about 500 points higher rated than me ( as we speak he is much lower rated than me ! ) , got 2 minutes but I declined and we played 5 minutes each and he needed every second of that 5 minutes as he checkmated me with 6 seconds on the clock due to my last move blunder while I had over one minute left , a year later I played the same player in gonzaga in a long game and the game went into the blitz and I went for broke and won , I was so delighted after ,even though a year had passed since the first blitz , I tell you it's true what they say " Revenge is a dish best served cold "

@ Ciaran . You are clever to use such a common name " ciaran " to hide real identity ,you are the only here on boards.ie that I feel is on the similar wavelength as me to some degree, so I will ask our advice on a chess matter if that's ok ? . See, it looks likely that next week I will be playing an opponent who is actually called ciaran ! , this player is obsessed with playing scotch game and 2.5 years ago I beat his scotch game which went this way 1. e4..e5 2. nf3,nc6 3.d4.exd4 4.nxd4...Qh4?! , yes I played the dubious Qh4 ,.. this time ( he will be white again) I am planning to play 4... d5 instead of 4.. Qh4 , this very rare response to scotch game has only scored win or draw for black in masters level , what do you think about this variation ? TIA

@ briliantboy , opening masters level to every one from this motion would be throwing the competition from the frying pan into the fire !.

cdeb

sinbad68 wrote: »

I didn't say that their club should not mention whose rating goes up or down , merely that should not mention junior A has overtaken Junior B ..etc.

Au contraire. When there's a lot of improving players in a club, being passed out by a couple of clubmates can be a spur to improve your own game. As opposed to improving your rating.

But I think we're going slightly off topic here!

brilliantboy

sinbad68 wrote: »

@ briliantboy , opening masters level to every one from this motion would be throwing the competition from the frying pan into the fire !.

Only a handful of players capable of winning the tournament compete in any one year anyway, so why not add a few dozen names to the list of also rans?
Make it a proper celebration of the entire Irish chess community, and not just an elite few. No Collins vs Brady or Daly vs Fitzsimons could ever hope to exceed the spectacle of a sub-1000 player beating the pants off some grumpy git who's been jealously guarding his 1800 rating points since Korchnoi was a spring chicken.

sinbad68 wrote: »

I am planning to play 4... d5 instead of 4.. Qh4 , this very rare response to scotch game has only scored win or draw for black in masters level , what do you think about this variation ? TIA

It doesn't lose, that's a good start. I say go for it. Hope you like your endgames though.
I see in my database that Kasparov has played the White side however, so maybe a Scotch aficionado might not be as surprised as you had hoped and will come to the board with the refutation in hand.

sinbad68

Letting too many rated players will scare many high rated ones.

I've tried 4..d5 in scotch gambit 5 times in the last 2 years and won every game . It is a devastating surprise weapon and every time I play it ,opponent thinks I've blundered and spends ages thinking about what to do ,I know correct play in this variation up to 25 moves and nothing wrong with it .Here is my most recent game where I checkmated my opponent in 15 moves using it .

1. E4 E5
2.Nf3Nc6
3.d4exd4
4.Nxd4d5
5.Bb5dxe4
6.Nxc6Qxd1+
7.Kxd1a6
8.Ba4Bd7
9.Nc3bxc6
10.Nxe4O-O-O
11.Ke2Re8
12.Kf3h5
13.h3Bg4+
14.Kf4g5+
15.Nxg5Bd6#

L1m1tless

sinbad68 wrote: »

Letting too many rated players will scare many high rated ones.

I've tried 4..d5 in scotch gambit 5 times in the last 2 years and won every game . It is a devastating surprise weapon and every time I play it ,opponent thinks I've blundered and spends ages thinking about what to do ,I know correct play in this variation up to 25 moves and nothing wrong with it .Here is my most recent game where I checkmated my opponent in 15 moves using it .

1. E4 E5
2.Nf3Nc6
3.d4exd4
4.Nxd4d5
5.Bb5dxe4
6.Nxc6Qxd1+
7.Kxd1a6
8.Ba4Bd7
9.Nc3bxc6
10.Nxe4O-O-O
11.Ke2Re8
12.Kf3h5
13.h3Bg4+
14.Kf4g5+
15.Nxg5Bd6#

If you want to discuss the scotch please make a new thread