The Good Old Days

sodacat11

Some years ago the City of Dublin was a tournament for players rated 2000 or over on the ICU rating list.Kilkenny and Bunratty were also2000+ but I think they allowed FIDE ratings to be used .The Leinster and irish Championships were strictly for over 1900 ratings and asfar as I can remember only ICU ratings were counted.
Nowadays, even with the benefit of Chessbase, chess engines and chess coaching it seems that fewer and fewer chess players are able to achieve a 1900 rating so entry requirements for tournaments have had to be weakened to allow for the smaller brains that youngsters seem to have these days. It is similar with the Leaving Cert (or whatever it's called these days),kids can get an honour in English without being able to spell and a distinction in Maths without being able to add three numbers together without the aid of a calculator. One would think that with evolution the human race would get smarter but judging by all the dumbing down that has to be done we are regressing back to ape status. Indeed, the way that the Irish Championship is going it probably won't belong before the top boards are occupied by two gorillas,an urang utan and a chimpanzee. Some would even say that a primate has already won our national championship in the past but that is another story.
The state of Irish chess saddens me these days.When I had my own business I used to go to some extraordinary lengths to attend Irish tournaments but nowadays even though my love of chess has not diminished in any way and even though I have much more time on my hands there are very few Irish tournaments that I can be bothered to play in. Often I find myself going overseas to play when it would be much easier, and less expensive, to stay and play in Ireland. One just has to look at the list of one time tournament regulars who now rarely if ever compete to see that I am far from alone in my disillusionment with Irish chess. Why has this happened? No doubt as people get older their priorities change, they have families, perhaps motivation dwindles. There is also a lot of distraction with the blanket coverage of sporting events on television these days but there are also many chess related reasons. Often tournaments are held in unsuitable venues and the three games on a Saturday for a weekender is off putting. Time controls have become too short, there are too many kids in senior tournaments (it might not be PC to say so but most adults hate playing kids), rating floors have been ignored. Grading prizes, if present at all, are usually meagre. It is difficult to compete without having to spend half your life memorizing opening theory and often older players blunder into some topical line that their weaker opponent knows off by heart resulting in a quick and humiliating defeat. Also there are a lot of players who don't want a proper game of chess, all they want are rating points, and who will play the most boring openings imaginable with no loftier ambition than to achieve a draw. Finally, it is just much easier to stick the kettle on,relax in a pair of slippers in one's own home and play blitz online than it is to go through the expense and hassle of attending a tournament. It is sad that things have reached this stage and I can only see it getting worse because of this modern trend to dumb everything down and race to the lowest common denominator rather than try and restore some integrity to our tournaments. The forthcoming Irish Championship, infested with people who have no right being in it, is a prime example with the ICU far more interested in getting its grubby hands on as many entry fees as possible rather than give our once great championship the respect it deserves.

brilliantboy

Very entertaining. Thanks for posting

must have a jest

Yikes. Someone's got afternoon football withdrawals. I think we can all agree with you about primates having won chess tournaments anyway.

(Just getting that in ahead of Sinbad)

sodacat11

must have a jest wrote: »

Yikes. Someone's got afternoon football withdrawals]

LOL,,,,,,,guilty as charged :{

cdev

Normally just lurk around here but this post (and a couple of whiskeys) has vexed me somewhat.

sodacat11 wrote: »

...kids can get an honour in English without being able to spell ...

A bit rich coming from someone who clearly hasn't learned to master the dark arts of punctuation or paragraphs.

sodacat11 wrote: »

It is difficult to compete without having to spend half your life memorizing opening theory and often older players blunder into some topical line that their weaker opponent knows off by heart resulting in a quick and humiliating defeat

If you lose then you are the weaker player.... end of story.... deal with it. Being older doesn't give you a right to win. It also doesn't automatically make you a better player.


Chess is one of the few spheres where kids can compete against adults on a level playing field. If you have difficulty with a kid beating you then don't lose or don't enter competitions.

So you're disillusioned with Irish chess. None of your old drinking buddies have the enthusiasm to play any more. Boo hoo. My heart bleeds for you.

One thing that our younger players have in bucket loads is enthusiasm. The game of chess is becoming more popular with young Irish people after years of stagnation. No amount of poorly punctuated ranting will change that.

Your diatribe makes a host of sweeping statements as if they were facts. According to you dozens of players won't compete because:

• Tournaments are held in unsuitable venues
• Time controls have become too short
• Rating floors have been ignored
• Memorizing opening theory is too challenging
• There are a lot of players who don't want a "proper" game of chess

Have you got any data to back that up or is it just a bunch of conclusions you have jumped to in support of a pretty weak position? (or maybe your opening theory wasn't memorized properly :pac: )

sodacat11

cdev
I am amazed that you drink whiskey. You sound more like a Malibu and blackcurrant or pink gin kinda guy.

cdeb

Attack the post please, not the poster, sodacat11.

Dragan Glas

Greetings,

Sodacat11, at our age the simplest strategy when facing booked-up kids comprises the following:

1) play variations that were topical several decades ago - more often than not, before they were a twinkle in their fathers' eyes!;
2) play openings that transition to the ending;
3) know how to play the endgame.

One could also play "quiet" openings to avoid falling into opening traps.

Palliser's "Play d4!" (2003) offers a sound but not cutting-edge repertoire for players who don't want to be bothered "booking-up" on the latest wrinkle(s) in opening theory.

Kindest regards,

James

ComDubh

I don't mind playing kids, except that others make such a fuss about it. I lost a close game to Howell while he was still in nappies, but as far as I was concerned he was 2100 and it was a hard-fought game. To add to Dragan's good advice, young players tend not to cope well with dogged resistance. So they'll expect a "winning" position (especially if they get it straight out of the opening) to play itself etc. and can struggle when things don't work out so easily.

Then again, there's no call for any negativity towards younger players. They get stronger crawling over the figurative corpses of decaying "greats" and after a period at the top, will themselves decay and get crawled over. Just enjoy whichever phase you're at :-)

sodacat11

I too lost to Howell when he was 9 years old and to Vladimir Minko when he was ten but in both cases their ratings allowed them to play in the tournaments in which they were competing so I had no problem with it. My bugbear is kids being allowed into tournaments for which they are not eligible, in fact letting them in smacks of ageism. I also resent that I will have to miss this years Irish Championship (and last years) because they are being allowed to play in my place when my rating entitles me to play and theirs should not.

reunion

Ok I will address some of your nonsense. but first a TL DR.

TL;DR
Chess is about 2 players on a near equal footing. If you can't handle being equal to a fat man or a small girl, don't play chess.


Fewer and fewer players are able to achieve 1900 despite having chessbase and chess engines (chess coaching has been around for ages).

1. FIDE ratings are larger than ICU ratings. It is rare to see a player have a FIDE rating lower than their Irish one. Typically FIDE ratings are larger by 100 points sometimes it can be as high as 300 points (maybe more) which is in effect a full tournament section.

2. As noted in this report, a 1900 player now does not equal a 1900 player 10 years ago. All it tells you is the statistical odds of that player against a different opponent.

3. If these "smaller brains" are doing better than the statistical odds, either the player they beat are over-rated or they are under-rated. So even if they rating floor is lowered, the "higher" rated player should statistically win


Venues are not suitable/3 games on Saturday/Time control
1. Round information and venue are published before you enter a tournament. Don't like the venue? Tell the organisers why you won't be entering and don't enter! Don't like 3 games on Saturday? Enter a different tournament format? None to your liking? Run your own tournament.

2. You can ask for a bye if 3 games are too many.

3. Nearly all tournaments follow this format and have been since "The Good Old Days". Time control has changed but this removed the allegro rules which in my opinion, is a positive.

Playing kids/Playing people who are more knowledgeable/want rating points
1. Stop playing chess if you can't play kids. You can play kids online too, I suggest you stop playing all together. Chess isn't for you.

2. If you can't beat your opponent in a mental battle because they have less wrinkles than you/different race/gender, also stop playing. Chess just isn't for you.

3. You can play an opening that has little to no theory or you can learn from your mistake of losing to an opening line and make sure it doesn't happen again. If you don't want to improve, than you will lose rating points.

4. Some people play to win prize money, others play to meet up with people and socialise, others play because they enjoy it. Everyone has their reasons for playing.

Irish Championships
In my view the Irish Championships should be finding the best chess player in Ireland (particularly as the winner represents Ireland). The rating requirement works against this (unless of course people can earn their place through other means). I can see the benefit of having a rating requirement (to stop it being flooded by players who would struggle to get a half point), but I don't see the benefit in excluding some who can get a score of 4.5/6 in a 1600 - 2000 section (i.e. a 1900 performance), not being permitted to enter, particularly if you can get a 1900+ performance more than once in a season.

I also don't understand how someone can win a 1600 to 2000 section and not be permitted to enter the Irish Championships. But the 1999 rated person who gets 0 in the same tournament can.

sodacat11

Reunion, it would take me a week to argue all your points. To get back to the main point,i,e allowing underrated players. Golf is one of the best organised and most popular sports in Ireland and like chess it uses a rating system called handicapping. Now if 0ne wants to play in the equivalent of the Irish Championship or in one of the major Irish tournaments one must have a handicap of scratch or better. It doesn't matter if you are nine years old playing off one and the next Tiger Woods, you do not get in unless your handicap is scratch, no exceptions, rules are rules,you either achieve the required standard or you don't play. The result of this is that players practise more and work harder to reduce their handicaps as as everyone can see we are one of the strongest golf countries in the world. There are also competitions every day of the week in different clubs throughout the country.If it is an open then anyone can play. If it is an intermediate scratch cup you must be between 10 and 18 handicap, no exceptions. A junior scratch cup is for players between 5 and 9 handicap etc etc.This system works perfectly well, people get to play with their peers and there is respect for the better players in the lower categories. It would be completely unheard of for a 7 handicapper to be allowed play in a tournament for 1-5s Why can we not have similar standards in chess? 1900 or better you can play in an Irish Championship, 1899 you can not. It seems perfectly logical and fair to me.

reunion

sodacat11 wrote: »

Why can we not have similar standards in chess? 1900 or better you can play in an Irish Championship, 1899 you can not. It seems perfectly logical and fair to me.

Comparing Golf to chess is a poor comparison. In Golf a handicap actual gives you a performance based score. In chess a rating does not. A rating merely serves to indicate how likely you are to beat a differently rated opponent.

A handicap of 7 on a course and a handicap of 7 on the same course 100 years later are the same. But a rating of 1500 today is not the same as 1500 in 100 years time. I'd put my money on the 1500 in 100 years time.

If we take checkers or bowling they run open events. Even look at the British Chess championships which allows nominations and performance based entries.


Also to note an unrated player can win the European Individual Chess Championships and qualify for the FIDE World Cup (or could be directly nominated by the organizers). Win the FIDE world cup and qualify for the candidates tournament. This individual could then win that and play the world champion. Then beat the world champion to become world champion.

Are you saying the world champion is no longer prestigious? Or that any event in the path I've outlined above isn't prestigious?

If getting the chance to represent your country at the Chess Olympics (i.e. Olympiad) isn't prestigious enough for you, stop playing chess, nothing will be prestigious enough for you.

ComDubh

Sodacat has competed regularly in Irish tournaments since the 70s, and while I don't agree with his line on Juniors, he's entitled to his opinion. He makes some really important points, especially (to my mind) regarding the fact that so many of the great players of old are no longer involved in chess any more. Rating bands bother me too, and some chess venues are pretty bad (windowless basements anyone?). Anyway, it's a shame to see people posting comments to him here like "stop playing chess" and "Chess isn't for you", as if what chess needs is fewer people competing. It won't bother sodacat, but we're a small community and this is no way to address another chess player.

cdeb

ComDubh wrote: »

He makes some really important points, especially (to my mind) regarding the fact that so many of the great players of old are no longer involved in chess any more. Rating bands bother me too, and some chess venues are pretty bad

I agree with what you have here. sodacat certainly makes valid points. The problem is that when they're couched in hate-filled terms, describing up-and-coming players as an infestation and indicating that he'd rather only play with his mates and have a pint after, it becomes very easy to dismiss the valid points being made - often because it's just too hard to look for them amongst all the uncalled-for vitriol.

sodacat11

reunion wrote: »

Comparing Golf to chess is a poor comparison. In Golf a handicap actual gives you a performance based score. In chess a rating does not. A rating merely serves to indicate how likely you are to beat a differently rated opponent.

A handicap of 7 on a course and a handicap of 7 on the same course 100 years later are the same. But a rating of 1500 today is not the same as 1500 in 100 years time. I'd put my money on the 1500 in 100 years time.

So you say that a chess rating does not give a performance based score??? Well, well, I am sure that that will come as big a surprise to everyone else as it does to me.
Your knowledge of golf is no better informed, a 7 handicapper of 100 years ago did not use titanium headed clubs with graphite shafts.His equipment would not have been custom fitted. The golf balls would have been nowhere near as today's and would not have flown anywhere near as far. The greens nowadays are much better quality.
I do agree that a 1900 rated chess player in a hundred years time will probably be better than one is today but the Irish Championship starts in 11 days time not in a hundred years.

sodacat11

Thank you Com Dubh for your sensible and reasoned comments. I may rant a bit at times to get my points across but I do have the interests of Irish chess at heart and as you rightly point out the game here can scarce afford to do without chessplayers of my generation yet we are being disrespected, disregarded and deterred from playing the game we still love. If people like Reunion think that the inclusion of a handfull of 1800 players adds more prestige to the Irish Championship than the likes of me then he is entitled to his opinion.

Tuisceanch

sodacat11 wrote: »

we are being disrespected, disregarded and deterred from playing the game we still love. If people like Reunion think that the inclusion of a handfull of 1800 players adds more prestige to the Irish Championship than the likes of me then he is entitled to his opinion.

I'm not that familiar with the ins and outs of Irish chess so I'm having difficulty following the logic of the complaint. Are you saying you're being excluded from entering the Irish Championship for the sake of accommodating up and coming players who don't meet the strict criteria for entry. I had a look at the flyer but I didn't see anything about it limiting entries to a certain number. I also wonder how people of a certain generation are being 'disrespected, disregarded and deterred from playing the game we still love'. My impression from the OP was that it was your choice to not enter tournaments because you don't like the venues,the proliferation of youngsters and the standard of chess. I'm struggling myself playing against youngsters but mainly because I wasn't good enough or confident enough on the day to beat them thus losing valuable rating points.With regard to the venues: I've played in Bunratty,Galway and Malahide Millenium this year and am intrigued to find out that you had better venues in your day.

sodacat11

Tuisceanch wrote: »

I'm not that familiar with the ins and outs of Irish chess so I'm having difficulty following the logic of the complaint. Are you saying you're being excluded from entering the Irish Championship for the sake of accommodating up and coming players who don't meet the strict criteria for entry. I had a look at the flyer but I didn't see anything about it limiting entries to a certain number. I also wonder how people of a certain generation are being 'disrespected, disregarded and deterred from playing the game we still love'. My impression from the OP was that it was your choice to not enter tournaments because you don't like the venues,the proliferation of youngsters and the standard of chess. I'm struggling myself playing against youngsters but mainly because I wasn't good enough or confident enough on the day to beat them thus losing valuable rating points.With regard to the venues: I've played in Bunratty,Galway and Malahide Millenium this year and am intrigued to find out that you had better venues in your day.

No I am not technically being excluded but as I won't play on principle when the traditional rules are flaunted I am being forced to exclude myself.
I do still play in plenty of tournaments, some of which are Opens and full of juniors.I have no problem with such tournaments only with the dilution of standards in our national championship.
My problem with venues has more to do with access, parking and inflated hotel prices than the actual playing conditions which are usually only bad for league games. I must mention though that the lighting in the Masters section of Bunratty is awful and undoubtedly confers an advantage on those with younger eyes.

Tuisceanch

sodacat11 wrote: »

My problem with venues has more to do with access, parking and inflated hotel prices than the actual playing conditions which are usually only bad for league games. I must mention though that the lighting in the Masters section of Bunratty is awful and undoubtedly confers an advantage on those with younger eyes.

I wouldn't disagree that the prices for Hotels are extortionate. I usually try and find a nearby B&B for maximum 60/night otherwise I couldn't justify the expense. The point you make about the lighting is also valid as if you struggle with your eyesight then such conditions can lead to a very uncomfortable experience. It's worth,if you haven't already done so,bringing it to the attention of the organizers.

cdeb

sodacat11 wrote: »

No I am not technically being excluded but as I won't play on principle when the traditional rules are flaunted I am being forced to exclude myself.

Not that it needs pointing out of course, but that's your problem, not the organisers'.

Tournament organisers can't cater to every random whim a player might have.

sodacat11

cdeb wrote: »

Not that it needs pointing out of course, but that's your problem, not the organisers'.

Tournament organisers can't cater to every random whim a player might have.

Was it not someone's random whim that changed the entry requirements for the Irish Championship in the first place? or amI the only one that has random whims?

cdeb

No, it was a vote of the general membership of the ICU, as you've been told a number of times.

The (vast) majority of those who bothered to turn up to exercise their democratic voice agreed with the idea.

sodacat11

cdeb wrote: »

No, it was a vote of the general membership of the ICU, as you've been told a number of times.

The (vast) majority of those who bothered to turn up to exercise their democratic voice agreed with the idea.

I beg to differ but underrated players have been getting into the Irish Championship for quite a few years now. It was only because I kept highlighting it that the rules were changed to make the disregard for the rules seem more acceptable. The problem started when a sponsor one year insisted that an underrated friend of his son be allowed to play. I won't name names.

sodacat11

"The (vast) majority of those who bothered to turn up to exercise their democratic voice agreed with the idea.:
Of course the vast majority agreed with the idea, the vast majority are rated under 1900.
Ask turkeys what should be served for Christmas dinner and I bet that the vast majority of them will agree with the idea of nutroast.

cdeb

sodacat11 wrote: »

I beg to differ

You can't beg to differ - it was at an AGM and was minuted and witnessed.

Whether others were turned a blind eye to previously is a different matter to the perfectly legitimate changing of the ICU's rules, which is what you had been talking about.

mikhail

sodacat11 wrote: »

I beg to differ but underrated players have been getting into the Irish Championship for quite a few years now.

When were they not?

Here's IRLchess's Irish Championship page: http://www.irlchess.com/tournaments/irish-championships/

His crosstable for 1972 includes 8 players with no listed rating. Presumably the rating system was still taking off. http://www.irlchess.com/irlch1972_allfiles/pairings_irlch1972.html

The next one he has is 1998, when three of the twenty players are 1800s, and there are two more who qualified only on their FIDE ratings.
http://www.irlchess.com/irlch1998_allfiles/pairings_irlch1998.html

2000 has one under 1900 in a tiny field of 12 players.
2003 has one out of 18
2004 has one, maybe two (Rory Quinn has no rating listed) from 20
2005 has two or three from 20. (Kieran English having no listed rating) One of them is David Fitzsimons, by the way, who I expect will win it one of these days.

I haven't skipped any - those are the older ones that site has tables for - but it seems like you're complaining about the norm rather than the exception.

DmanDmythDledge

reunion wrote: »

Comparing Golf to chess is a poor comparison. In Golf a handicap actual gives you a performance based score. In chess a rating does not. A rating merely serves to indicate how likely you are to beat a differently rated opponent.

I don't get this point. If your rating is based on results in previous tournaments then surely it is performance based?

reunion

ComDubh wrote: »

Anyway, it's a shame to see people posting comments to him here like "stop playing chess" and "Chess isn't for you", as if what chess needs is fewer people competing. It won't bother sodacat, but we're a small community and this is no way to address another chess player.

You are right that we are a small community however, certain attitudes and people need to understand that this game does NOT matter what gender, age, disability, race, rating or background you are or have. Chess is a fair game and when 2 players play they are nearly on equal footing.

sodacat has already said that the problems with chess these days are losing to kids and losing to lines they doesn't know. If that bothers sodacat, sodacat can either improve or stop playing. It's sad to see someone stop playing, but it's worse someone trying to make it sound like its blackmail! (if things don't change I'm not playing anymore). sodacat didn't give an opinion but gave insults and disrespect and got that in return.

For chess to grow, people need to realise that we should be working and implementing ideas for their merit, not the person's rating (age, playing career).

ComDubh wrote: »

Sodacat has competed regularly in Irish tournaments since the 70s, and while I don't agree with his line on Juniors, he's entitled to his opinion.

And I'm certain he has seen players come and go and come back again over his time, not to mention changes to the ICU. Having a different opinion or a different idea is fine, but disrespecting and insulting people is not fine and should NEVER be tolerated.

sodacat11 wrote: »

So you say that a chess rating does not give a performance based score??? Well, well, I am sure that that will come as big a surprise to everyone else as it does to me.
Your knowledge of golf is no better informed, a 7 handicapper of 100 years ago did not use titanium headed clubs with graphite shafts.His equipment would not have been custom fitted. The golf balls would have been nowhere near as today's and would not have flown anywhere near as far. The greens nowadays are much better quality.

I don't know a lot about golf (never said I did), but if someone was using the SAME equipment and had the SAME handicap 100 years ago and then was transported to play on the same course 100 years in the future with the SAME conditions they would perform at the SAME level. You can measure someone's handicap based on their play.

However, if a chess player rated 1500 100 years ago was to play 100 1500 players they would get 50/100 (because they are 1500 and that's what that indicates) transport 100 years in the future, they would not get 50/100 against 100 1500 players of today.

If I told you person A has a 1900 rating. What does that equate to? Knowing 1 opening trick? Mastering the end game? The answer is nothing, just how likely that person could beat someone else on the same rating system. There is no benchmark of what being 1900 actually means (and why they can be rated 2100 on the FIDE lists).

You only have to look at the vast majority of Junior players who shoot up in ratings every year to show how much even a year could make!

Answer me this:
What is the purpose of the Irish Championships?

reunion

DmanDmythDledge wrote: »

I don't get this point. If your rating is based on results in previous tournaments then surely it is performance based?

When I said performance based I meant that in golf a handicap is measurable.

A rating is not measurable. 1500 does not indicate anything except how likely you are to beat a person of a different rating.

For instance this paper - notes that if you have a group isolated from the rest the rating become meaningless.

Essentially if 2 clubs of X people all rated 1500.

The club only play each other in the same club (nobody else). Each club after a year has everyone at 1500. Is everyone in the club able to perform at the same level?

The answer is no. One group could have stayed the same while everyone else in the other group could have improved by 500 points. So when Club A plays club B they get destroyed by Club B as they are better players.

checknraise

Ehh no, the same logic that you use to say a chess player 100 years in the past would get destroyed is entirely applicable to golf but the truth is nobody has a clue and we wont know until someone has worked out how to travel back in time. Will gladly volunteer!

The ELO rating system is probably the fairest indicator their is over any sport or game to measure ones skill. So much so that it used by other sports and organisations. No its not perfect but I think it is pretty clear the higher rated someone is the better at chess they are.

The purpose of the Irish chess championships is to determine the best player in Ireland for a given year. As there are only 9 rounds it is important the number of players that enter are over a certain standard so that all the games are as competitive as possible and the best players play each other.

reunion

checknraise wrote: »

Ehh no, the same logic that you use to say a chess player 100 years in the past would get destroyed is entirely applicable to golf but the truth is nobody has a clue and we wont know until someone has worked out how to travel back in time. Will gladly volunteer!

I didn't say destroyed, they could be better, the exact same or worse. The point was a chess rating doesn't equate to a specific measurable point.

checknraise wrote: »

The ELO rating system is probably the fairest indicator their is over any sport or game to measure ones skill. So much so that it used by other sports and organisations. No its not perfect but I think it is pretty clear the higher rated someone is the better at chess they are.

So like I said, the rating merely serves to indicate how likely someone is to perform against another rated opponent. I never said it was unfair, but pinning a rating requirement to an arbitrary number seems peculiar when rating certainly does not equate to a measurable point.

checknraise wrote: »

The purpose of the Irish chess championships is to determine the best player in Ireland for a given year. As there are only 9 rounds it is important the number of players that enter are over a certain standard so that all the games are as competitive as possible and the best players play each other.

I agree that this tournament has a maximum number of players (I'd say around the 60 mark) so there does need to be limits but in what way is a 1900 playing a 2590 (Baburin's FIDE rating Jan-2001) competitive? Someone who is 1899 produces the same competitive game. Which then begs the question:

Why is the rating set at 1900?


My two cents: I'd argue for the rating to be set at 2000 so it is in line with the Masters sections (where there are 4 sections) around the country. Then winners of the Challengers sections (1600 - 1999 sections) or 3.5/6 in sections where it is 1600+, provincial/national champions and an ICU executive nominee would be permitted to enter. 2100 at least aligns with a different K factor; 1900 to me doesn't seem to align to anything and I don't recall any discussion why it is set at this point.

sodacat11

reunion wrote: »

Y







I don't know a lot about golf (never said I did), but if someone was using the SAME equipment and had the SAME handicap 100 years ago and then was transported to play on the same course 100 years in the future with the SAME conditions they would perform at the SAME level. You can measure someone's handicap based on their play.

However, if a chess player rated 1500 100 years ago was to play 100 1500 players they would get 50/100 (because they are 1500 and that's what that indicates) transport 100 years in the future, they would not get 50/100 against 100 1500 players of today.

If I told you person A has a 1900 rating. What does that equate to? Knowing 1 opening trick? Mastering the end game? The answer is nothing, just how likely that person could beat someone else on the same rating system. There is no benchmark of what being 1900 actually means (and why they can be rated 2100 on the FIDE lists).

You only have to look at the vast majority of Junior players who shoot up in ratings every year to show how much even a year could make!

Answer me this:
What is the purpose of the Irish Championships?

For a start a golfer's handicap is based on how he performs against a golf course so obviously someone who could play to scratch on a course 100 years ago would obviously do far better on that same course today with all the improvements in equipment.
A 1900 rating shows that a player has achieved a certain playing strength. As you rightly point out juniors can gain a huge amount of points very quickly because of their huge k factor. It follows then that it is even easier for juniors to achieve a 1900 rating so what is the problem in insisting that they do so?
The purpose of the Irish Championship is to find an Irish Champion and as someone said this should ideally be the strongest player. In 2012 I was joint leader going into the last round due in no small measure to the fact that I had lost a couple of early games then got to play a few relative "weakies" . Had I not got black against Stephen Brady in the last round I could well have become Irish Champion but there is no way that I was among the strongest players in the tournament. Had the 1900 rating floor been observed it would have been very unlikely that someone like me could have won four games in a row and found myself in the position that I was in. Having underrated players in the championship dilutes the strength and integrity of it.

sodacat11

Mikail
Your post surprises me. My memory of all the earlier Irish Championships I played in is that I never played anyone rated under 1900. The table you show is particularly interesting, I can't understand how players like Kennefick, Mc Daid and some of the others mentioned didn't have ratings because they were very strong players.I can only assume it's a typo or that whoever complied the list just didn't know the ratings of all the players.

sodacat11

[QUOTE=reunion;100119520

Why is the rating set at 1900?


My two cents: I'd argue for the rating to be set at 2000 so it is in line with the Masters sections (where there are 4 sections) around the country. Then winners of the Challengers sections (1600 - 1999 sections) or 3.5/6 in sections where it is 1600+, provincial/national champions and an ICU executive nominee would be permitted to enter. 2100 at least aligns with a different K factor; 1900 to me doesn't seem to align to anything and I don't recall any discussion why it is set at this point.[/QUOTE]

No good reason for 1900, it does seem a strange benchmark.
2000 is generally accepted to be expert strength so that would be the best minimum requirement for an Irish Championship. 2000 and no exceptions unless one player was needed to even up the numbers.

mikhail

sodacat11 wrote: »

Mikail
Your post surprises me. My memory of all the earlier Irish Championships I played in is that I never played anyone rated under 1900. The table you show is particularly interesting, I can't understand how players like Kennefick, Mc Daid and some of the others mentioned didn't have ratings because they were very strong players.I can only assume it's a typo or that whoever complied the list just didn't know the ratings of all the players.

I expect that the 72 table is missing some information all right. Or, possibly that the rating system was still being established here and even some strong players were still unrated. The same site has some interesting records on that: http://www.irlchess.com/2013/06/16/the-early-days-of-icu-ratings/

I'd also guess that the floors were better observed in the late 70s and the 80s when chess was more popular here thanks to Fischer and so there was no shortage of strong players. (This is why I think the real solution to your problem is more juniors, not fewer!)

zeitnot

The ratings in the 1972 report are Leinster Chess Union ratings: see below the table on the Pairings & Results page. This explains why Munster and Ulster players have no rating listed. Paul Henry was a very strong player for example (later 2400 FIDE).

If anyone has the ICU ratings from the last list before this event, please send them. It's not that easy because lists were sporadic back then, and even when you have a list it's not obvious that it was the last one before the event.

On all these reports, on the "Information" page at the end of the first block, there's a "Sources and Notes" link that takes you to a separate page. In this case that page shows that the LCU ratings come mostly from John Gibson's notebooks for the 1971-72 Armstrong Cup.

I don't know exactly when the 1900 cutoff came in. It must have been sometime in the mid-70's. I have the impression it was in force by 1979, when I first played, but probably wasn't in place in 1972.

sodacat11

2000 seems the most logical cut off point to me and as it is an Irish Championship with supposedly ICU registered players I think that ICU ratings only should be used. FIDE ratings can be very misleading and often only based on one or two tournaments. Many people have FIDE ratings 100 points or more higher than their ICU rating.
If one was to list the players for this years Irish Championship using just ICU ratings it would soon become evident just how weak a field it is.

Lucena

Purely guesswork here, but the 1900 cut-off mark may have just been put at that level to juggle between having the better players participate and making sure enough players were eligible to have sufficient numbers playing.

zeitnot

From the Irish Times, June 15, 1972 p. 4: "Details of Irish Chess Championship" ... "All players with a national grading of 1,900 and over are eligible to compete".

On a quick search I can't find any such statement in relation to the 1971 championship, so the rule seems to date to 1972.

EnPassant

zeitnot wrote: »

From the Irish Times, June 15, 1972 p. 4: "Details of Irish Chess Championship" ... "All players with a national grading of 1,900 and over are eligible to compete".

On a quick search I can't find any such statement in relation to the 1971 championship, so the rule seems to date to 1972.

1979 was my first Irish Championship also. I was thrilled when my rating reached 1900 at the end of the season and immediately sent off my entry for the Irish. Looking back, you will see that that in the 1979 tournament I was one of four players with ratings of exactly 1900 .. which seems somewhat unlikely statistically. Perhaps there was some judicious "rounding-up" taking place ..

There was also a period in the late 1980s where you could qualify for the Irish Championship by achieving a certain result in qualification tournaments. Not sure how long this lasted but I think it was in effect for Derry in 1987.

Looking at this year's entrants, all but one have had an ICU rating of 1900+ at some point in 2016 and the one exception has a 2000+ FIDE.

So in reality there is not much difference between this year and the "good old days" ....

sodacat11

Having "had" a 1900+ rating at some point is hardly a recommendation as they could be 1600 now.
1900 used to be the benchmark for the Leinster Championship too when it was a stand alone event, and a very strong one at that, and not just something incorporated into the Malahide or City of Dublin tournaments.
As far as I remember the City of Dublin used to be for 2000+ players.
I think that there is room on the Irish chess calendar for every type of event, junior, intermediate, senior,over 60s, under 12s and also for tournaments with different rating bands, Opens, over 1600, 0ver 1800 , under 2200 etc etc something to give everyone a chance but above all this should be just one elite tournament, The Irish Championship, with a strict rating floor of something like 2000 ICU (not FIDE)

sodacat11

Good to see that ten boards from the Irish Ch will be broadcast live each day but with only fourteen entrants so far, and only three of them having any chance of winning it, it is not going to be the most exciting championship ever.
I have no doubt whatsoever that had all the 2100+ (ICU rated) players in the country been emailed by the ICU some months ago and told that this year's championship would be strictly for 2000+ (ICU rated) players and that the plan was to have one of the strongest Irish Championships ever then many of the better known players would have responded and made every effort to play.
I know from a personal point of view that were such a tournament promised for next year I would already be wiping the dust off my chess books and figuring out which tournaments I should play in during the year to get my rating back over 2000.
I predicted some time ago that ignoring the rating floor and the continued adoption of a "quantity not quality" approach would eventually backfire and destroy the Irish Championship and sadly now my prediction is coming true. I can see a situation in the coming years where the top placed Irish player in Bunratty or Kilkenny is awarded the title of Irish Champion much like what happens with the Malahide event and the Leinster Championship.

checknraise

The entries do seem a bit weaker than normal but there are a couple of days left to enter. I would be surprised if atleast 1 of Stephen or Philip do not try and defend their title.

reunion

sodacat11 wrote: »

I predicted some time ago that ignoring the rating floor and the continued adoption of a "quantity not quality" approach would eventually backfire and destroy the Irish Championship and sadly now my prediction is coming true.

Your version of destroy is different to everyone else. Personally, a low turnout and high cost tournament is a massive disaster for an exceptionally low budget organisation such as the ICU.

In the tournament 10 years ago in 2006, had 2 of the top 15 playing in it, 4 of the top 30 (Granted 1 or 2 players aren't on the May 2006 rating list). For your version of "quality" the championships this year has 3 of the top 15 in it already! Making your argument that this tournament is quantity not quality absolutely rubbish.

Personally I would envision the tournament either

A. Being limited to 8 players all play all - Highest Irish placed in the U18 Champion, Irish Open, Bunratty (or other) Masters, Women's Champion, Leinster Champion, Munster Champion, Connaught Champion and Ulster Champion.

B. The Olympiad team should be mandated to play in one of the 2 Irish Championships prior to an Olympiad to be qualified to play. Exactly like the Junior criteria. To qualify you either have a minimum rating of 2000 in the May rating list (strictly adhered to) OR If you score 4.5/6 in a weekender (such as 1600-2000 section, or 3/6 in a 1600+ section) OR you are the U18/U16 Champion, Women's champion, Veteran's champion, Provincial Champion you qualify to play irrespective of rating.


Personally I'd prefer option B.

sodacat11

B. The Olympiad team should be mandated to play in one of the 2 Irish Championships prior to an Olympiad to be qualified to play. Exactly like the Junior criteria. To qualify you either have a minimum rating of 2000 in the May rating list (strictly adhered to) OR If you score 4.5/6 in a weekender (such as 1600-2000 section, or 3/6 in a 1600+ section) OR you are the U18/U16 Champion, Women's champion, Veteran's champion, Provincial Champion you qualify to play irrespective of rating.


Personally I'd prefer option B.

Most adults have jobs and family commitments, juniors don't.

Your suggestion "A" is ludicrous

zeitnot

reunion wrote: »

Personally I would envision the tournament either

A. Being limited to 8 players all play all - Highest Irish placed in the U18 Champion, Irish Open, Bunratty (or other) Masters, Women's Champion, Leinster Champion, Munster Champion, Connaught Champion and Ulster Champion.

Complicated.

reunion wrote: »

B. The Olympiad team should be mandated to play in one of the 2 Irish Championships prior to an Olympiad to be qualified to play. Exactly like the Junior criteria. To qualify you either have a minimum rating of 2000 in the May rating list (strictly adhered to) OR If you score 4.5/6 in a weekender (such as 1600-2000 section, or 3/6 in a 1600+ section) OR you are the U18/U16 Champion, Women's champion, Veteran's champion, Provincial Champion you qualify to play irrespective of rating.

Very complicated.

sodacat11

For your version of "quality" the championships this year has 3 of the top 15 in it already! Making your argument that this tournament is quantity not quality absolutely rubbish.

Who was it that said something about lies, damn lies and statistics?
Reunion's 3/15 comment is very misleading, one could also say that 45 of the top 50 are NOT playing.

mikhail

reunion wrote: »

Personally I would envision the tournament either

A. Being limited to 8 players all play all - Highest Irish placed in the U18 Champion, Irish Open, Bunratty (or other) Masters, Women's Champion, Leinster Champion, Munster Champion, Connaught Champion and Ulster Champion.

While I appreciate what you're trying there, the U19 champion (there is no U18 champion unless things have changed recently) can be as weak as 1600, the Women's champion also. There isn't a Connaught championship to my knowledge, and there are relatively few players outside of Galway. You'd get a horribly unbalanced tournament, where three or four players would compete for the title while hammering some totally uncompetitive others. The draw for colours would probably determine the champion some years. I could see a small round robin tournament working, but it'd need to have less stuffing. Or you could qualify the women's and u19 champions, but in a bigger tournament like it currently looks.

B. The Olympiad team should be mandated to play in one of the 2 Irish Championships prior to an Olympiad to be qualified to play. Exactly like the Junior criteria.

The juniors have to play in a weekender. The Irish is not a weekender. And the Olympiad also requires substanial holiday time. I have no problem requiring reasonable domestic activity from Olympiad hopefuls (though surely some consideration should be made for active players who happen to live abroad), but this is too onerous.

Pete Morriss

mikhail wrote: »

There isn't a Connaught championship to my knowledge ... .

Whilst I don't want to get involved on the question of who should be eligible to play in the Irish Championship, I should point out that for the last four years the Connaught champion has been the highest-placed eligible player in the Galway Congress. As the current Connaught champion is also the current Irish champion, this is not a mickey-mouse title.

zeitnot

Entries for this year's championship close tomorrow, and so far there's an alarmingly small entry of just 12. There may be a last-minute rush, but if not, what are the reasons?

Some candidates:
A. Don't like the watering down of rating qualifications
B. Venue announced too late, couldn't arrange time off work / accommodation / whatever
C. Can't or don't want to (or are not allowed to) allocate 9 full days to the same tournament year in, year out
D. Other work or travel commitments this year at championship time
E. Other chess commitments this year at championship time

Might be interesting to see a survey of all players who might reasonably be expected to consider entering. 'A' has been suggested here already, 'B' must be a factor this year (the notice went out on April 28), but surely 'C' must be a limiting factor no matter what you do (short of switching to two games a day).