National Club Ch 23-24 April

sinbad68

cdeb wrote: »

Were Balbriggan the last team to enter?

Maybe the ICU just decided a 5-man team was better than having an odd number of teams.

No!, better to have odd number teams than make a mockery of the competition by allowing incomplete teams, you could also avoid odd number by eliminating the team with lowest average rating from the competition. The problem is, many organisers are too eager to please and compromise too much. This lowering of average rating for entry may look good on the surface, but is off-putting for some higher rated players to from teams in the future (specially teams that are unlikely to come in top two)knowing they could be facing teams that have every board filled by a player who has a mickey mouse rating.

cdeb

So your preferred choices, in order, seem to be -

1) Tell Ballinasloe they're not wanted after all, even though they've paid to enter and have made plans accordingly
2) Have one team getting six walkovers each round
3) Have one team getting one walkover each round.

Makes no sense.

sinbad68

cdeb wrote: »

So your preferred choices, in order, seem to be-

It is amazing how my words gets twisted in this place , I was just giving examples of options, not providing preferred choices. FYI, cdeb , my preferred choice in case of odd number of teams, would be for the organiser to attempt to find another team to even the numbers, Advertise for late entry & Contact clubs that have not entered and waive the entry free.

cdeb wrote: »

Makes no sense.

You like using that phrase, Since we are talking about odd numbers in a tournament & making sense, let me ask you a question.
In Irish championship last summer, Did it make sense to allow entry to a Benildus player in the competition ( the only unqualified player in the competition) which created an odd number and 9 different players had to sit out for a day as a result? ( ANSWER )

You've repeatedly say my comments " Makes No sense ". If all of my comments did make sense to you, then you should sit a Mensa test.

cdeb

sinbad68 wrote: »

I was just giving examples of options, not providing preferred choices

You clearly said the options I listed at 1 and 2 were preferable to option 3. That's nonsense.

sinbad68 wrote: »

my preferred choice in case of odd number of teams, would be for the organiser to attempt to find another team to even the numbers, Advertise for late entry & Contact clubs that have not entered and waive the entry free.

Do you know if that didn't happen?

In Irish championship last summer, Did it make sense to allow entry to a Benildus player in the competition ( the only unqualified player in the competition) which created an odd number and 9 different players had to sit out for a day as a result? ( ANSWER )

Given the only alternative was to tell someone who had entered and made plans for playing a good two weeks previously, before some other players had even entered, that actually they were now being kicked out of the tournament, then of course it made sense.

You can't take someone's entry to a tournament and turn around a couple of weeks later to kick them out. Not in the NCC as per your suggestion, and not in the Irish.

wine and final destination

I don't think balbriggan will finish last which would mean that they deserve to play, yes it's unfortunate that there will be one w/o per round but at least 116 games will be played as opposed to 96 over all, we will see tomorrow evening but I reckon they will fair better than some teams! Regardless it all starts today and I hope it's as enjoyable and exciting as previous tournaments!

cdeb

Scores are being updated here.

I wonder how many games Colm Daly has scratched through being late in his time?

sinbad68

@ Tim Harding

I said

sinbad68 wrote: »

With 6 boards per team instead of 8 which is the case in Armstrong, Gonzaga's advantage over their rivals will be greatly reduced and with few rounds in this competition this is a much more open competition if Trinity bring out their best 6 from Armstrong, Gonzaga would have No edge over them .

and you replied

Tim Harding wrote: »

Trinity have entered but cannot be at full strength because it is too close to undergraduate exams so in fact Gonzaga's advantage is greater than in the Armstrong

Now that the competition is over, lets look at the outcome, despite Gonzaga having a very strong team and Trinity being weakened by absent players, Gonzaga & Trinity Tied on 3.5 match point with Gonzaga getting a total of 18.5 points vs Trinity 18 points.
Gonzaga came from well behind to draw their match with Trinity and save the day and won the competition by the skin of their teeth. Yes for the record, I was proven RIGHT.

sinbad68

This year, European club championship is being held in Serbia. Year after year major European championships are being held in Eastern part of Europe, caucuses & Russia, while what was regarded as Western Europe gets very little despite large population !, Is there a visa problem( very unlikely )? or are vested interests are at work. I think ICU should contact British , German, other western European nations and either singly or collectively approach Fide and European body and inquire about this UNFAIR distribution of competitions.

sinbad68

Yes, Look at ICU calendar list ( World, Olympiad, European) events, it is the same Year after Year !. We are in Czech republic alot and constantly in the Balkans and keep going to Baku!, Unless the Germans, French, British and the Irish and other western European countries stand up and say to Kirsan and his buddies " Enough is Enough" Nothing will change.

sinbad68

Yes,This is Fide calendar for upcoming events( scroll down to European section )
.
http://www.fide.com/calendar.html

Look at European section, ALL of it in Eastern Europe ! ( is Armenia really a European nation ? ) and next year events not much better. Those in control, look at western Europe leaders like Angela Merkel & Enda kenny and see feckless muppets and think to themselves, their chess federations must be run by same kind of people and they could do what they like and no one will say anything and western part of Europe gets screwed.

Look at Corruption perception index map in link below (scroll down and zoom on Europe)

http://www.transparency.org/cpi2015

and you'll see, that the least corrupt European countries miss out on staging events ? why ?

And as for Ireland sending 3 teams, it is not that they love Ireland , it is based on more people---> more hotel rooms booked & more fees & kickbacks.

It would be nice if a major European event was held in Ireland. When was the last time Ireland held an important European event, importantly when is the next one ?

Tim Harding

Your rants are becoming tedious, sinbad.

Yes Armenia is in Europe (it's west of the Urals), and it is the venue for the upcoming EU Individual Seniors Championship. I agree it is not an ideal venue - difficult and expensive to travel and too strong opposition when you get there!
Very few players from western Europe will probably go since they didn't provide information, though I asked twice (once by email, once in person at last year's Worlds where there was one Armenian player in my hotel).

Azerbaijan and Georgia are also (just) in Europe, also future venues for major FIDE events. To get there, as with Armenia, it's probably necessary to go via Moscow or maybe Dubai.

The reason these countries get so many events, though, is I think not FIDE corruption but that western nations (especially UK and Ireland) do not have the money to submit bids.
The eastern countries can offer cheaper conditions (for players coming from the poorer countries), have State support and probably companies to offer sponsorship because chess has a higher profile in that part of the world.

Fortunately many of the senior and some other (e.g. amateur and junior) events do get bids from Greece and they are well supported because of the nice climate, relatively low prices, friendly people, good food and excellent organisation by Nikos Kalesis and his friends.

sinbad68

@ TIM

Thanks for explanation,I get it now , Eastern European countries & federations have all the money,sponsorship, ect and can stage events and Western Europeans are broke and have No money to stage anything.

You are also right about Armenia being west of the Urals ( standard you use to define Europe boundaries)

https://www.google.ie/search?q=map+of+ural+mountains&espv=2&biw=1018&bih=523&tbm=isch&imgil=9A30Ps_OfE2ysM%253A%253B9acsrp2S0j6XpM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fkids.britannica.com%25252Felementary%25252Fart-88887%25252FUral-Mountains&source=iu&pf=m&fir=9A30Ps_OfE2ysM%253A%252C9acsrp2S0j6XpM%252C_&usg=__DxONwxS7IOayDKgDLlXWDPkmcew%3D&ved=0ahUKEwi7p423tKzMAhWFHsAKHU44Ag8QyjcIMg&ei=IG0fV7uXF4W9gAbO8Ih4#imgrc=9A30Ps_OfE2ysM%3A

but since the mountain range southern endpoint latitude line is well north of Armenia and doesn't go through it then using same principle, Syria, Jordan and parts of Saudi Arabia which are further west of Urals than Armenia are also in Europe !.

Perhaps proximity to The Urals is the reason behind Russia & Qatar being awarded the world cups by FIFA ?

Anyway, how was your performance in NCC ?

Tim Harding

sinbad68 wrote: »

@ TIM

Thanks for explanation,I get it now , Eastern European countries & federations have all the money,sponsorship, ect and can stage events and Western Europeans are broke and have No money to stage anything.

Basically that is it, I think. It's not that all western European countries are broke of course (ha ha) but rather that such money which is available for sponsorship seems to go to elite round-robin events, national championships (in some cases) and big Opens.

sinbad68 wrote: »

You are also right about Armenia being west of the Urals ( standard you use to define Europe boundaries)
...
but since the mountain range southern endpoint latitude line is well north of Armenia and doesn't go through it then using same principle, Syria, Jordan and parts of Saudi Arabia which are further west of Urals than Armenia are also in Europe !.

Perhaps proximity to The Urals is the reason behind Russia & Qatar being awarded the world cups by FIFA ?

Nice joke. Here too I have to agree that the border between Europe and Asia in the east/south-east isn't something that can be defined only in terms of physical geography but also there are historical/cultural factors.
There is some discussion of this at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe

Still, I think I'm probably right to say that in the Soviet period, the Urals (specifically the watershed) was considered the boundary between the European and Asian parts of the RSFSR (Russian republic), while the southern republics with Turkic peoples were considered Asian. Of course the ethnic balances in many of those republics became greatly rebalanced by Stalin's resettlement policies.

sinbad68 wrote: »

Anyway, how was your performance in NCC ?

Kind of you to ask. As the oldest competitor (I think) it was never my intention to play more than one game a day unless absolutely necessary.
As you may have heard, I was nominated number 1 for Trinity because there is no 150-point rule in the NCC and we expected Gonzaga to nominate a French GM. (We were right about that but eventually he did not come.)
So I started in round 2 and managed to win with White against Anthony Fox (Adare). Then I had Black in round 2 against IM Sam Collins (Gonzaga) and drew that game.
The match was very tense as we led 2.5-0.5 at one point but in the other games there were great complications and the final result probably reflected the positions that were on the board after two hours.
I did not play round 4. Maybe I should have played against John Delaney but he was also in excellent form in this event and I doubt if the final result would have been different. (He drew with Sam, Colm Daly and Karl McPhillips and won his other game.)

I have to say that our captain Stephen Moran had a fantastic result winning all his four games although he was in severe zeitnot a couple of times, and also Ioana Gelip on board 3 was very impressive. After only drawing in a long game against Balbriggan (credit to her opponent there) she had quick wins against strong opponents in the other three rounds, which settled the nerves of the other players a lot.
After all, we only missed first by half a game point. I think that if Adare had scored 1 point instead of half a point against Gonzaga in the last round then we would have been first on tiebreak.

The third qualifying place going to Bray is a joke because they did not have to play either the top two teams. Really Blanchardstown were the third best team although they had to play without their board 2 on Sunday when he was called in to work.

corkcitychess

Tim Harding wrote: »

The third qualifying place going to Bray is a joke because they did not have to play either the top two teams. Really Blanchardstown were the third best team although they had to play without their board 2 on Sunday when he was called in to work.

Surely the draw was done on a swiss pairing programme? It cannot be Bray's fault that they did not play the top two seeds. I offer my hearty congratulations to the minnows Bray on their outstanding achievement in finishing in 3rd place ahead of much higher seeded teams.

Tim Harding

corkcitychess wrote: »

Surely the draw was done on a swiss pairing programme? It cannot be Bray's fault that they did not play the top two seeds. I offer my hearty congratulations to the minnows Bray on their outstanding achievement in finishing in 3rd place ahead of much higher seeded teams.

There were ten teams and all five first round matches were decisive, meaning that one team that won had a downfloat for round two to a losing team.
Bray (who had the lowest seeded opponents in round 1) benefited from this and they were paired with Rathmines. That match was drawn (great credit to Rathmines), as a result of which in round 3 Bray played Blanchardstown, losing 2-4.

In the last round the four highest seeded teams played each other while Bray got another soft pairing, this time against Elm Mount, who were fielding their second team.

So in fact Bray not only had the easiest first round pairing. In all three subsequent rounds they had a downfloat to a team with a lower score. This may well be the fault of computer Swiss pairings because in the days of manual pairings floats were taken into account.

Congratulations to Bray are therefore NOT in order, though doubtless some of their individual players performed creditably. Not, though, their top board who made a minus score (including a default).

reunion

Tim Harding wrote: »

Congratulations to Bray are therefore NOT in order, though doubtless some of their individual players performed creditably. Not, though, their top board who made a minus score (including a default).

I don't think commenting on any individual player's performance in a team based tournament is fair or wise.

RQ_ennis_chess

reunion wrote: »

I don't think commenting on any individual player's performance in a team based tournament is fair or wise.

Commenting on individual players performance is common in team sports in fairness. Sports journalism would hardly exist if it weren't!
You are right in that it's not nice to pick on someone but if you behave badly to others then that's what you get back I guess.

reunion

RQ_ennis_chess wrote: »

Commenting on individual players performance is common in team sports in fairness. Sports journalism would hardly exist if it weren't!
You are right in that it's not nice to pick on someone but if you behave badly to others then that's what you get back I guess.

Yeah that's true in actual team sports. Where the performance of 1 person affects someone else playing at full potential. But you don't get that in chess. Every team competition is just individual games really.

sinbad68

Tim Harding wrote: »

As you may have heard, I was nominated number 1 for Trinity because there is no 150-point rule in the NCC and we expected Gonzaga to nominate a French GM. (We were right about that but eventually he did not come.)
So I started in round 2 and managed to win with White against Anthony Fox (Adare). Then I had Black in round 2 against IM Sam Collins (Gonzaga) and drew that game.

Well done that was a good performance, why there is No point gap rule?!, what is stopping mickey mouse rated players sitting on board 1 and annoying titled players ?!

Tim Harding

sinbad68 wrote: »

Well done that was a good performance, why there is No point gap rule?!, what is stopping mickey mouse rated players sitting on board 1 and annoying titled players ?!

I wasn't involved in the drafting of the rules nor at the egm in 2015 that voted for them, so I don't know whether it was discussed.

The ECC itself, for which this is a qualifying rule, does not have a rating gap rule and the same is true of many other international team events. SO perhaps that is why ICU did not include such a rule.
http://www.europechess.org/regulations/tournament-regulations/european-club-cup-and-european-club-cup-for-women/f-2-organisation/

The tactic of sacrificing top board in a team tournament probably would not work in many circumstances but we didn't see it that way as essentially we were just targeting our principal rival. I used to have a much higher rating and reckoned I had a decent chance of scoring something against all the top boards except Maze, and that he might not want to play against such a low rated opponent. (Also I used to have a much higher FIDE and ICU rating, and an IM title for correspondence play, so I think "mickey mouse" is a bit harsh.)