Irish Championship 2016 flyer .........Problems!

cdeb

sodacat11 wrote: »

And who proposed and passed that stupid rule???

It was proposed by the ICU exec - specifically, I think, the secretary at the time, who is below 1900, but who has never made any intimation of using the rule for personal gain.

You've already been told it was passed by the general membership of the ICU - passed by a decent majority, as I recall, with 1900+ players in attendance.

sodacat11 wrote: »

Only 1900+ players should have a vote when it comes to deciding the rules for the Irish Championship

No, the ICU exec should have a vote because, you know, the ICU exec's role is to run Irish chess. 1900+ players are more than welcome to go along to the AGM to vote or even to make representations against a certain motion (none did - and this motion was carried forward from the previous year to allow it to be re-worded, so it was hardly a surprise motion)

mikhail

sodacat11 wrote: »

And who proposed and passed that stupid rule??? Probably people with vested interests and little or no chance of ever reaching 1900. Most players are below 1900 so obviously if you let them decide the rules we end up with this silly situation we now have.Only 1900+ players should have a vote when it comes to deciding the rules for the Irish Championship, doing otherwise is like giving fish a vote on whether angling should be allowed or letting ducks decide when the shooting season starts.

You must be very happy it isn't an Open so.

You know what's silly and stupid? Every other AGM there's some motion about the senior championship, and it's always about some trivial stuff like this. There are so many serious problems for Irish chess, but people are too shortsighted to see that the senior championship is small and irrelevant because the chess community here is small an irrelevant. It reminds me of the League of Ireland despertely trying to compete with English football by changing the number of teams in the top flight every other season.

sodacat11

mikhail wrote: »

You must be very happy it isn't an Open so.

You know what's silly and stupid? Every other AGM there's some motion about the senior championship, and it's always about some trivial stuff like this. There are so many serious problems for Irish chess, but people are too shortsighted to see that the senior championship is small and irrelevant because the chess community here is small an irrelevant. It reminds me of the League of Ireland despertely trying to compete with English football by changing the number of teams in the top flight every other season.

It almost IS an Open and I do regularly play in and enjoy Opens but I think that the Irish Championship should be something above an Open.
As for our chess community being small and irrelevant,yes it is small but is it any less "relevant" than the Russian, Norwegian or Chinese chess communities?? I don't see why it is, size isn't everything as you are no doubt well aware.

cdeb

It's nowhere near being an Open.

2bts

The following motions were passed at AGM 2014 as minuted in the minutes approved at AGM 2015

25. Players in the Irish Chess Championships may have the rating requirement ignored provided they are nominated by:
a. The ICU Executive (maximum 3 players)
b. The Junior Officer (maximum 3 players who must be under-18)
c. Provincial delegates (maximum of 1 player per province)
d. The tournament organisers (maximum 1 player)

26. The Irish Women’s Champion, Irish Veteran’s Champion, Irish Intermediate Champion, Irish Open Champion are automatically nominated to play in the Irish Championships irrespective of rating.

sodacat11

2bts wrote: »

The following motions were passed at AGM 2014 as minuted in the minutes approved at AGM 2015

25. Players in the Irish Chess Championships may have the rating requirement ignored provided they are nominated by:
a. The ICU Executive (maximum 3 players)
b. The Junior Officer (maximum 3 players who must be under-18)
c. Provincial delegates (maximum of 1 player per province)
d. The tournament organisers (maximum 1 player)

26. The Irish Women’s Champion, Irish Veteran’s Champion, Irish Intermediate Champion, Irish Open Champion are automatically nominated to play in the Irish Championships irrespective of rating.

In other words we could have TWELVE underrated players in an Irish Championship, probably as many as are rightly qualified to play.
I am tired of this argument now, I was merely making the point that I always looked forward to playing in Irish Championships but now,because of the way that it has been diluted, I no longer feel inclined to do so.Maybe I am the only one in the country that feels this way but then again there could be others who feel the same as me but just do not say so and likewise will not bother entering. Nothing will ever convince me that making the tournament weaker makes in better in any way whatsoever.

ComDubh

I agree that the quoted motions allow way too many underrated players into the event, but this is what we, the ICU membership, voted for. It does reduce the status of the Irish Championship and sodacat is definitely not the only player who is less inclined to play the Irish for this reason

On a closely related topic, I find it odd that so many people want to be permitted to play events that have a minimum rating above their current rating, rather than working on their chess to improve their rating to qualify for the event properly. There is nothing 'elitist' about the Irish Chess Championship. You don't have to know the selectors or play exciting chess or have gone to a certain school or anything like that. You simply have to achieve a 1900 rating in competitive play. I agree with making an exception for Junior players who are close to 1900 and ready for the experience, but other than that, people should get the rating to qualify to play. Nothing like a fixed goal to motivate us to perform better!

Ficheall

ComDubh wrote: »

On a closely related topic, I find it odd that so many people want to be permitted to play events that have a minimum rating above their current rating, rather than working on their chess to improve their rating to qualify for the event properly.

To improve their rating by, say, scoring points against higher rated opponents?

cdeb

Yep.

If you're at the top of a rating band, it can be hard to improve your rating - the law of averages says you'll lose some games against lower-rated players, but there are no higher-rated players to beat to make up for that.

So if you stick to tournaments strictly based on rating, it can actually be hard at times to break through to the next section.

In addition, it's generally recommended playing players maybe 100 points higher than you if you do want to improve - which, again, you can't do as a top seed.

I don't agree with, say, 1400s looking to play up to a 1600-2000 section. But I've no problems with the current general rule that if you're within 50 points of a rating band, you can choose whether to play up or down.

Also, while the motion allows for a maximum of 12 extra players, I think the spirit of the motion was that wildcard entries would never actually get close to that. They're to be used for deserving players, not to be handed out willy-nilly.

ComDubh

You can improve your rating by beating players at the same level or below you as well. If you're top of your rating band, one good tournament will pop you over to the next band. And the players near the top of a rating band really don't want to play weak opponents who should be in a lower rating band.

I'd like to see the rating requirement for the Irish being raised, and raised quite a lot, to 2100 or even 2200. Every top player in the country would play in it if they possibly could, and the 'subtop' would do all they could qualify for it. Trying to increase numbers in the Irish by creating more ways to enable weaker players to play it in will never make for a great event.

cdeb

But statistically, you're going to score only 0.75 against players rated 200 below you - you will lose one in four. This balances out ordinarily with your 0.25 score against players rated 200 points ahead of you - but it can't do so if you're not playing those players.

So it is statistically harder to improve your rating if you're only playing players rated below you.

There's plenty of occasions where tournament winners on 5/6 gain only a handful of points, or even drop points. This is particularly the case if you don't qualify for bonus points.

And as I said, to gain in strength (as opposed to rating), it is often recommended to play players 100 points above you - so again, the benefit of playing up as opposed to being top seed is clear.

checknraise

I dont buy that argument at all, if I am an improving player I would wager it would be allot easier to gain rating playing players of the same level or below especially the higher up the bands you go.

I believe the current situation is doing more harm than good for Ireland to produce really strong players as very few are playing tournaments. What is going to be better for the development of a promising player 6 games against 2000+ opposition or 6 games against 1600+ opposition?

cdeb

checknraise wrote: »

I dont buy that argument at all, if I am an improving player I would wager it would be allot easier to gain rating playing players of the same level or below especially the higher up the bands you go.

Well you've not got statistics on your side for a start anyway. Or lots of coaching guidelines, which generally agree that you should play players a bit (but not too much) stronger than you. (Remember, the aim is to improve your strength, not your rating)

checknraise

Of course in a ideal world everyone would like to play stronger players but the reality is usually different. My point is that if a player is improving and playing above their rating their true rating will be reflected quite quickly - especially with juniors.

That statement proves my point tho. In Ireland the majority of tournaments are practically opens which gives opportunities for people to play stronger players. What you have to think about is why would the stronger players play tournaments, what is in it for them?

Just compare the 2016 Leinster Championships with 2006 and see the difference in players.

http://www.irlchess.com/leinsterchmasters2006_allfiles/pairings_leinsterchmasters2006.html

http://ratings.icu.ie/tournaments/865

That was a random and recent example I could use but I think it is clear that the entry on master level players is way down in tournaments.

cdeb

checknraise wrote: »

My point is that if a player is improving and playing above their rating their true rating will be reflected quite quickly - especially with juniors.

While this is true, you improve quicker by playing better rated players - so playing up if you are near the top of a rating band does make sense.

checknraise wrote: »

In Ireland the majority of tournaments are practically opens which gives opportunities for people to play stronger players.

What? No they're not.

checknraise wrote: »

What you have to think about is why would the stronger players play tournaments, what is in it for them?

This is a point worth investigating alright. The example you give isn't even a particularly good one - though it does show the point alright. I found some booklets from the 1981 Irish Championships going through some old books up the club recently - it was a very very strong tournament. 38 players, all over 2000, and many over 2200. Last year's tournament had half the number of entrants, and wasn't anywhere near as strong.

I guess it's worth asking the players concerned why they're not playing. Looking at the list for the Leinsters you've given, I think a few of those players simply don't have time for tournaments at the moment because of work commitments. Obviously one has passed away, which doesn't help.

But I think looking at the bigger picture, there's a bigger wave of junior players coming through than at any time in maybe the last 40 years, and the potential is there to get back to the level of the 1981 championships. I don't see any harm in encouraging some players to play in order that the tournament does reach that level again in the future.

sodacat11

There is another side to things. When a tournament has a number of more mature entrants there is a certain sense of camaraderie and friendship between the players (granted there is the odd twat that this doesn't apply to) as most of us have known each other for years and have developed a friendly rivalry. It is not unusual to have a pint or a coffee with an opponent after the game. This aspect goes out the window when your opponent is some acne faced nerd who is going to post the fact that he beat you all over Facebook or Twitter within minutes of the game ending. It is also very difficult to get motivated when playing these little plonkers as a draw or loss costs a heap of points whereas a win is no big deal and not worth much rating wise.

cdeb

Well that's probably the daftest rant I think I've heard in a long time.

Particularly given that we know who in Irish chess tends to do most posting of silly stuff all over facebook and twitter, and it isn't "some acne faced nerd"

sodacat11

cdeb wrote: »

Well that's probably the daftest rant I think I've heard in a long time.

Particularly given that we know who in Irish chess tends to do most posting of silly stuff all over facebook and twitter, and it isn't "some acne faced nerd"

I did say that there was the "odd twat" who is the exception to the norm.

cdeb

Fair enough.

The rest of your rant is still just bizarre though.

sodacat11

Not half as bizarre as the dumbing down of our national championship for a few players not good enough to get a 1900 rating without being spoonfed.

cdeb

No. Your rant is many, many times more bizarre.

To be frank, it contains a level of abusive content towards several players which the game here could really, really do without.

sodacat11

As soon as I find my violin I will play it for you

ComDubh

@sodacat we were all irritating kids once, and no doubt our elders at the latter end of their playing days didn't appreciate playing us then either. That's the way, it's not worth getting annoyed about.

The 1900 rating requirement for the Irish has been in place at least 35 years and probably more. 1900 was far harder to achieve in 1980 than it is now, so it should really be set higher at this stage, rather than effectively dropping it to 1850. Most of the discussion I see about the improving the Irish is based around allowing more weaker players in, and that will never make a great Irish. We have a GM and a bunch of IMs. The Irish has the potential to become be a truly prestigious norm event. It would be exciting if it were moved in that direction.

sodacat11

ComDubh wrote: »

@sodacat we were all irritating kids once, and no doubt our elders at the latter end of their playing days didn't appreciate playing us then either. That's the way, it's not worth getting annoyed about.

The 1900 rating requirement for the Irish has been in place at least 35 years and probably more. 1900 was far harder to achieve in 1980 than it is now, so it should really be set higher at this stage, rather than effectively dropping it to 1850. Most of the discussion I see about the improving the Irish is based around allowing more weaker players in, and that will never make a great Irish. We have a GM and a bunch of IMs. The Irish has the potential to become be a truly prestigious norm event. It would be exciting if it were moved in that direction.

I agree with what you propose, IF the traditional 1900 floor must be done away with then 2200 should be the requirement and it should be strictly adhered to.
My first Irish Championship was probably about 35 years ago and I was a regular participant over the years. I never had much chance of winning it or even getting a prize but just being there every year was an achievement because it meant that I was still among the elite group of players rated over 1900 and it was still the tournament by which I would measure my whole season. Someone once said that a camel was a horse designed by a committee and never were truer words spoken. Whether it be in chess,football, golf, politics or even a tidy towns organisation it is always the same, some little people who never achieve anything much themselves in their chosen sphere get their jollies by making the rules for everyone else. These tin pot dictators, under the guise of democracy, give each other a sense of self importance by the use of such lofty terms as Chairman, General Secretary, Treasurer, Captain, President, Ex-Officio etc etc then glorify in the utterance of their favourite mantras, "through the chair if you please" , "point of order" , "the floor is yours", "all in favour" rah rah rah. Then they confirm honorary memberships on themselves and never pay another red cent to whatever group they are supposed to represent. The Irish Championship was a special and unique tournament for generations but the ICU soldit out to a rich sponsor a few years ago and it has never been the same since. It was a ridiculous Open one year, another year we had a joint winner, Yuri Firstov,who wasn't eligible to claim the title (how stupid was that?? ) Now we have a tournament infested with people whose ICU rating never was and never will be 1900 and all because some Committee bureaucrats wanted to add their hump to the horse. You say that it is not worth getting annoyed about but actually it is. <snip>

Mod edit - no need for the abusive name-calling. A point can be made without resorting to abuse of committees, etc.

Debornie

I find it quite disturbing that a grown adult thinks it appropriate to resort to name calling of juniors. I know a lot of work goes into teaching junior chess players about respect towards your opponent and listening to adults resort to name calling is totally inappropriate and ridiculous at best.

The point of rating floors has always annoyed me. Consistently in tournaments you see players well below the rating floor playing in sections they shouldn't be in. Rules in this regard are there too protect the integrity and strength of the tournament and should be adhered to. I do think that a wild card option should be there but limit that wild card to 1 in total amd let the decision go to the selections committee. 12 wildcards is a tournament in itself.

mikhail

ComDubh wrote: »

@sodacat we were all irritating kids once, and no doubt our elders at the latter end of their playing days didn't appreciate playing us then either. That's the way, it's not worth getting annoyed about.

The 1900 rating requirement for the Irish has been in place at least 35 years and probably more. 1900 was far harder to achieve in 1980 than it is now, so it should really be set higher at this stage, rather than effectively dropping it to 1850. Most of the discussion I see about the improving the Irish is based around allowing more weaker players in, and that will never make a great Irish. We have a GM and a bunch of IMs. The Irish has the potential to become be a truly prestigious norm event. It would be exciting if it were moved in that direction.

I'm all for that - even though it'd exclude me personally - but only when we have the players to justify it. We have barely over 100 players over 1900 in this country. We've exactly 19 active FIDE rated players over 2200. The Irish is a 9 day event, which means a lot of holiday time for those with a job. The tournament would be tiny.

Debornie wrote: »

I do think that a wild card option should be there but limit that wild card to 1 in total amd let the decision go to the selections committee. 12 wildcards is a tournament in itself.

I doubt we'd ever see anything close to twelve wildcards actually used. The rules as they stand are too loose, but that's generally okay once the committee is sensible enough not to overdo it, which they haven't.

sodacat11

<snip>

I have yet to hear any refutation of the points I made

1 Our national championship has been devalued.

2 The ignoring of the rating floor probably puts off as many entrants as it attracts

3 The people who changed the rules were not eligible to play in an Irish Championship themselves so should not have spoiled it for other people.

4 It would benefit the charming children of the country more if they had to reach 1900 to play rather than spoonfeeding the little darlings.

5 The whole history and tradition of the Irish Championship is undermined by the drop in standards.

I had arranged time off and accommodation in Dublin to play in this years championship but now I feel that I am being denied the chance to play because of these silly rules allowing just about anyone to play. I know that it is my choice not to play and that no one is actually preventing me but on principle I just don't feel able to take part in what I see as a sham. Thanks for that.

Mod edit - don't be arguing mod decisions in-thread; it just creates tangents. You can take any issues up by PM or the dispute resolution forum if you wish.

must have a jest

In terms of this year's Irish, this is a non-issue. The 1900 cut-off is essentially still in place. The player in question is a junior and his high tide rating is 1988. That's more than good enough. No sensible tournament organiser would refuse his entry. There was similar complaining about this two years ago and the tournament still had a very strong field.

sodacat11

There is no "player in question". My complaint covers anyone and everyone below 1900 , I don't know the player you seem to be referring to, I have never met him or played him, I don't think I've ever even seen him so my attack is nothing personal.

checknraise

A positive development IM Alex Lopez is making his comeback and is playing in the Irish Championships this year.