Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Good Old Days
Options
Comments
-
I am sure that the ICU members who at the last AGM voted in all the silly rules which now allow every Tom, Dick and Harry to play in the Irish Championship must be feeling exactly like a lot of the British electorate who voted for Brexit , never quite believing that it could happen.
I am so glad that I didn't enter this year
0 -
Just to note that Option B is in a few national club championships. Some are even Opens.checknraise wrote: »All this does is turn people off playing.
It might turn people away, though I would say cheap flights to other norm achieving tournaments are more of a draw particularly if you are aiming for a title. The Irish Championships - if the ICU got 10k in funding tomorrow for the Irish Championships, how would you run the tournament?
What is the "perfect" Irish Championships?
Just to note, the Irish Championships should NOT be catering to the top players, it should be a tournament irrespective of the top players choosing to play in it or not.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 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.
It's 1 tournament in 2 years! Maybe you could do 1 in 3 years but 2 of the 5 spots to the Olympiad team are given away to this event. It is not an unreasonable ask that the winner of the event actually PLAYS other potential team mates.
Regarding your insults to Irish and provincial Champions, they are national or provincial champions. If you think they are a joke, then you should want to stop running those tournaments if they are loss making. We should be giving them the respect they deserve.
Our Womens/Juniors/Veterans team are going to be playing titled players (in WORLD championships - way more prestigious than a national championship). They need practice and experience playing these people before they go over, they are also top players in their respective categories.0 -
For next year I would like to see all titled(FM,IM,GM) players get free entry to the Irish on condition that they enter 2 months before hand and the entry level raised to 2000 fide. That would allow enough time for the subtop and also rans to enter!
Fide ratings are what is used for the tournament and the ratings that are important to our top players.
@ Reunion totally disagree with everything you have written but in particular "[font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Our Womens/Juniors/Veterans team are going to be playing titled players (in WORLD championships - way more prestigious than a national championship" maybe if they play for a world title but until that happens being Irish champion is a far greater accomplishment than playing for Ireland in any of those competitions.[/font]
Irish chess needs our top players to play more than our top players need to play.0 -
For Next year I would like to see our titled(FM,IM,GM) players get free entry if they enter atleast 1 month in advance. That should give enough time for the subtop and also rans to enter!
[font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I disagree with everything you have written reunion but in particular the below[/font]
[font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Our Womens/Juniors/Veterans team are going to be playing titled players (in WORLD championships - way more prestigious than a national championship" [/font]
[font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Maybe when someone from Ireland is in contention to win any of the tournaments above that will be the case until that happens being Irish champion is far more [/font][font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]prestigious.[/font]
[font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Irish chess needs our top players to play more than our top players need to play. It might be an idea to listen to what they want.[/font]0 -
If I had 10k to spend I would do the following.
Invite the 10 highest rated players on the fide rating list and work my way down.
Venue would be a city center hotel with games starting at 3pm so you would get an audience.
Live commentary of the games.0 -
Advertisement
-
Just to note that Option B is in a few national club championships. Some are even Opens.
What is the "perfect" Irish Championships?
Something very different to the current situation.
Just to note, the Irish Championships should NOT be catering to the top players, it should be a tournament irrespective of the top players choosing to play in it or not.
Seriously?
It is not an unreasonable ask that the winner of the event actually PLAYS other potential team mates.
?Regarding your insults to Irish and provincial Champions, they are national or provincial champions. If you think they are a joke, then you should want to stop running those tournaments if they are loss making. We should be giving them the respect they deserve.
What insults? I didn't see any. There's nothing wrong with having a rating of 1600 or 1200, or 800 for that matter. If Mikhail points out that players with such ratings don't provide meaningful opposition to 2300+ players, he's just stating a fact.Our Womens/Juniors/Veterans team are going to be playing titled players (in WORLD championships - way more prestigious than a national championship). They need practice and experience playing these people before they go over, they are also top players in their respective categories.
This is the key bit. You see the Irish Championship as a relatively low prestige event that should be subservient to restricted-category events, basically a training tournament for (generally weaker) players and restricted-category tournaments outside Ireland.
Bizarre.0 -
Just to note, the Irish Championships should NOT be catering to the top players, it should be a tournament irrespective of the top players choosing to play in it or not.
Really? I accept that it shouldn't "cater" to the top players, but it should be structured so as to facilitate their participation. If the top players don't play, it becomes pretty pointless.0 -
If Mikhail points out that players with such ratings don't provide meaningful opposition to 23001900+ players, he's just stating a fact.
Like I said before, rating merely indicates how likely you are to beat someone, it is not a measurement of performance. Someone who is 400 points above someone else should beat their opponent 99% (if not 100%) of the time. Based on your logic, Brian Kelly (number 1 on WAR score) shouldn't play Rory Quinn (first player that is below Brian's rating - 400) as Rory isn't meaningful opposition so the rating band should be 2100? and should be adjusted yearly as ratings change?This is the key bit. You see the Irish Championship as a relatively low prestige event that should be subservient to restricted-category events, basically a training tournament for (generally weaker) players and restricted-category tournaments outside Ireland. a prestigious event whose entry should be earned via performance (winning titles (i.e. Women's champion/Leinster Champion) or achieving a "norm" (i.e. 3 1900+ performances) based performance in that year) or by a high rating.
I fixed that for you since you erroneously tried to make up my stance on the Irish Championships. I don't see it as a "training tournament" but I do see it as having the best players Ireland has which includes our Juniors, Veterans, Women and provincial champions. I give some honour to the hardwork some people put in to achieve those titles. IF and I stress IF we are picking a player to represent Ireland based on PERFORMANCE, we should have an avenue for someone to enter via PERFORMANCE.
If I had 10k to spend on the Irish Championships (I meant extra so if you had an infinite budget essentially), I would
Live stream all the boards using ICU equipment.
Have 1 or 2 paid coaches who would go over games live streamed to the public as they happened.
Subsidize accommodation, food and entry (100% GM, 75% IM, 50% FM and 25% all other titles and national/provincial champions (junior/Women/etc)).
Invite the top 50 to compete who qualify for the Olympiad team and subsidize as follows (top 10 100%, 11-20 75%, 21-30 50% and 30-40 25%).
Make it mandatory for the game of the day winner/high rated opponent (if its a draw) to review the game with the coaches on a live stream (particularly if they get a subsidy!)
Spacious playing hall with no other event happening in the same hall (i.e. no weekender)
Refreshments (tea/coffee/water) available to participants
No alcohol permitted at the venue
Rating band of 2000 FIDE/ICU
Performanced based entry permitted (i.e. win a 1600-1999 section)
The last thing I would do, if I had more money, is put it into the prize fund.Young players are getting massively over inflated ratings because of playing "up" all the time where losses aren't going to cost them much. They would learn more by trying to beat their peers and earning their ratings the hard way like most of us had to do.
I think it is absurd that the Irish Championship now has an uneven number of participants just to accommodate a 1700 rated player. I would be hopping mad if I'd paid 70 euro to enter and then had to take a bye because of this nonsense. The same thing happened last year.
The top players have a lower K factor. They would lose less points than the younger one gained. Also if the player playing "up" all the time does better than predicted according to the rating, they get bonus points because their rating isn't reflective of their performance (because there is a severe lag between your actual rating and the rating you have) than either the player they played is over rated or they are underrated. Either way their rating deserves to go up so your argument shoots yourself in the foot and I honestly have no idea what point you are trying to make.
If a 2000 plays in the master section and wins every game against 2500 rated players, I wouldn't say their rating is inflated if they are suddenly rated 2500.
I do agree, it sucks getting a bye in ANY tournament - not just the Irish Championship. Though I don't see how you stop odd number of players occuring. You could get the person with a bye playing in the PM tournament for that round so at least they get a game.0 -
Really? I accept that it shouldn't "cater" to the top players, but it should be structured so as to facilitate their participation. If the top players don't play, it becomes pretty pointless.
I would say encourage rather than facilitate. I wouldn't be cancelling the event because the top 10 aren't playing in it nor would I say it is pointless.0 -
The last thing I would do, if I had more money, is put it into the prize fund.
The top players have a lower K factor. They would lose less points than the younger one gained. Also if the player playing "up" all the time does better than predicted according to the rating, they get bonus points because their rating isn't reflective of their performance (because there is a severe lag between your actual rating and the rating you have) than either the player they played is over rated or they are underrated. Either way their rating deserves to go up so your argument shoots yourself in the foot and I honestly have no idea what point you are trying to make.
If a 2000 plays in the master section and wins every game against 2500 rated players, I wouldn't say their rating is inflated if they are suddenly rated 2500.
I do agree, it sucks getting a bye in ANY tournament - not just the Irish Championship. Though I don't see how you stop odd number of players occuring. You could get the person with a bye playing in the PM tournament for that round so at least they get a game.
This idea of yours that the junior, women's, or senior champion somehow deserves the same status as a 2000 player is complete nonsense. A 1600 rated player could conceivably win one of these titles.
You are also wrong about a rating merely showing how likely someone is to beat an opponent, I think that you are confusing ratings with betting odds. Ratings may not be perfect but they do give some indication of a player's playing strength.
You don't know how to stop an odd number of players occurring????? My my, for a person of your undoubted intelligence it really shouldn't be all that difficult. You just don't allow an unqualified player to enter when you already have an even number OR you boot out the lowest (or preferably all) unqualified player when you have an uneven number Q.E.D0 -
Advertisement
-
You don't know how to stop an odd number of players occurring????? My my, for a person of your undoubted intelligence it really shouldn't be all that difficult. You just don't allow an unqualified player to enter when you already have an even number OR you boot out the lowest (or preferably all) unqualified player when you have an uneven number Q.E.D
You still don't eliminate odd number of players playing in it. If the rating band was 1900 strictly you can still get odd number of players. Nothing you've said stops that from happening.
Right now, our top junior is 2300 and our top IRL woman is 2041. Even the top Junior woman is 1916.
Ratings is a kin to betting odds. Rating is not a measurable performance but an indicator of the probability someone will beat someone else.0 -
You still don't eliminate odd number of players playing in it. If the rating band was 1900 strictly you can still get odd number of players. Nothing you've said stops that from happening.
Right now, our top junior is 2300 and our top IRL woman is 2041. Even the top Junior woman is 1916.
Ratings is a kin to betting odds. Rating is not a measurable performance but an indicator of the probability someone will beat someone else.
Well then our top junior, top woman and top junior woman are all perfectly entitled to play in the Irish Championship, I've no problem with that.
What do you think about a player with a 1670 FIDE rating being allowed to play when we had already had an even number?0 -
A 10 player all-play-all of the best players based on FIDE rating is worth trying without chucking loads of money at it; maybe one spot from a qualifying open tournament. The strength of the tournament would vary with the prize fund. It could still be weak, but at least we would never have a weak swiss with very few entrants.
How acceptable would this be to the membership?0 -
Sounds good to me, and if there was enough entrants we could have a "B" and maybe a "C" group. Players would be guaranteed games against players not rated to much differently to themselves.must have a jest wrote: »A 10 player all-play-all of the best players based on FIDE rating is worth trying without chucking loads of money at it; maybe one spot from a qualifying open tournament. The strength of the tournament would vary with the prize fund. It could still be weak, but at least we would never have a weak swiss with very few entrants.
How acceptable would this be to the membership?0 -
Like I said before, rating merely indicates how likely you are to beat someone, it is not a measurement of performance.
Your thinking is very muddled. Ratings are derived from actual previous results. Rating is indeed a measurement of performance and of nothing else. How anyone could possibly say that a rating is not a measurement of performance is beyond me.
Sure, you can use a rating as a predictor of how well someone will perform in the future. But the prediction part plays no role in working out what the rating is.Someone who is 400 points above someone else should beat their opponent 99% (if not 100%) of the time. Based on your logic, Brian Kelly (number 1 on WAR score) shouldn't play Rory Quinn (first player that is below Brian's rating - 400) as Rory isn't meaningful opposition so the rating band should be 2100? and should be adjusted yearly as ratings change?
Again, all very muddled. I wrote that a 1600 player would not be meaningful opposition for a 2300+ player. Somehow the difference of 700+ points in my example became 400 points in your response.I do see it as having the best players Ireland has which includes our Juniors, Veterans, Women and provincial champions.
Some juniors, veterans, women, and provincial champions are indeed among the best players Ireland has. That's easy to see: their ratings are high. If the argument is that they're the "best" players by definition because they hold the relevant title, I couldn't agree less.I give some honour to the hardwork some people put in to achieve those titles. IF and I stress IF we are picking a player to represent Ireland based on PERFORMANCE, we should have an avenue for someone to enter via PERFORMANCE.
The best and most complete measure of the entire career performance of any player is their rating.Live stream all the boards using ICU equipment.
Have 1 or 2 paid coaches who would go over games live streamed to the public as they happened.
Subsidize accommodation, food and entry (100% GM, 75% IM, 50% FM and 25% all other titles and national/provincial champions (junior/Women/etc)).
Invite the top 50 to compete who qualify for the Olympiad team and subsidize as follows (top 10 100%, 11-20 75%, 21-30 50% and 30-40 25%).
Make it mandatory for the game of the day winner/high rated opponent (if its a draw) to review the game with the coaches on a live stream (particularly if they get a subsidy!)
Spacious playing hall with no other event happening in the same hall (i.e. no weekender)
Refreshments (tea/coffee/water) available to participants
No alcohol permitted at the venue
Rating band of 2000 FIDE/ICU
Performanced based entry permitted (i.e. win a 1600-1999 section)
Recognizing the Women's champion, Veteran's champion, etc., by offering a reduction on the entry fee, fine, if they qualify anyway based on actual measured results, i.e., rating.
No entry based solely on winning 1600-1999 sections: a good performance should show up in the rating.0 -
As suggested earlier, 10-player all-play-all is massively appealing. Unless the rules have changed since I last looked, a national championship can be a norm event even with all players from the same federation. The titled players would probably require conditions to play; everyone else would crawl over broken glass to get in.0
-
I'm not sure where you're getting this from - a person rated 400 points above another should score 90% against that player.Like I said before, rating merely indicates how likely you are to beat someone, it is not a measurement of performance. Someone who is 400 points above someone else should beat their opponent 99% (if not 100%) of the time.
You can test this using the St Benildus Club Championships to test this on a relatively macro level - there's been 35 matches in the our last three first rounds with a fairly consistent average rating gap of 550 points (the "closest" match had a 325 point gap), and the lower-rated players have scored 25% in that time. Obviously improving juniors helps explain why that's so much higher than expected, but even still, it shows that it's simply not true that a 2000 will beat a 1600 99% of the time.0 -
As suggested earlier, 10-player all-play-all is massively appealing. Unless the rules have changed since I last looked, a national championship can be a norm event even with all players from the same federation. The titled players would probably require conditions to play; everyone else would crawl over broken glass to get in.
I agree but I'm still curious to know if there would be any opposition from regular participants over 1900 but miles off making a top 10. Some people are quite protective of the current format. But I suppose a poll will tell us.0 -
-
Your thinking is very muddled. Ratings are derived from actual previous results. Rating is indeed a measurement of performance and of nothing else. How anyone could possibly say that a rating is not a measurement of performance is beyond me.
A rating isn't a measurement of performance, it's not a measurement of anything! A 2000 rated player can be on par skill wise with a 1000 rated player. You can measure 1 metre but you can't measure 2000 rating.
It does however give a probability of one player to beat a differently rated opponent.Again, all very muddled. I wrote that a 1600 player would not be meaningful opposition for a 2300+ player. Somehow the difference of 700+ points in my example became 400 points in your response.
700+ became 400 because 1900 is the minimum arbitrary rating requirement. Your thinking seems to be that anyone who enters should have a shot a winning it which is never true with a rating floor of 1900, 2100 would be a more accurate rating floor then. Keep in mind the 1600 would be playing the midtable (-1) rating which would be ~2000. if a 1600 was to play a 2300, that would mean this 1600 beat ~2000 rated opposition prior OR the 2300 lost to a ~2000 rated opponents. 2500 to 1900 (600 point difference) is similar odds to comparing a 1600 to 2300.No entry based solely on winning 1600-1999 sections: a good performance should show up in the rating.
Same could be said about the Olympiad spot for the Irish Championships. What's the logic in not giving out the Olympiad spots solely on rating?Sounds good to me, and if there was enough entrants we could have a "B" and maybe a "C" group. Players would be guaranteed games against players not rated to much differently to themselves.
Sounds good to me too tbh, kind of sounds like the candidates tournament! 1 place reigning champion and another for winning a tournament? The rest based on a rating list working down?
Having a B and C group sounds like a box league which I'm not sure how that would work0 -
Advertisement
-
-
A rating isn't a measurement of performance, it's not a measurement of anything! A 2000 rated player can be on par skill wise with a 1000 rated player. You can measure 1 metre but you can't measure 2000 rating.
It does however give a probability of one player to beat a differently rated opponent.
You're really very confused indeed. You've gotten it entirely backwards.700+ became 400 because 1900 is the minimum arbitrary rating requirement.
... which you don't want to stick to. You want to include players who aren't rated 1900+ but do win some restricted event. Mikhail's example was that such a player could be rated 1600. Realistic contenders for the title of Irish championship are rated 2300+. Hence under your approach there could be games in which the eventual champion could be determined in part by non-contests between 2300+ players and 1600 players. 1900 has nothing to do with it.Your thinking seems to be that anyone who enters should have a shot a winning it
You wouldn't be trying a wind-up would you?Same could be said about the Olympiad spot for the Irish Championships. What's the logic in not giving out the Olympiad spots solely on rating?
Not the same issue, is it? The point of a rating cutoff is to try to ensure that the games in the event are between relatively evenly matched players, which is best for everyone and helps ensure that the eventual champion will be appropriately tested, and won't just win because of a drastically easier set of opponents. The Olympiad players don't play each other.0 -
Predictions for the 2016 Irish Ch
First STEPHEN JESSEL 9/9 (maybe 8.5 or 8)
Second ALEX LOPEZ 8/9 (maybe 7.5 or 8.5)
Third COLM DALY 7/9 (maybe 7.5 or 4.5 or 8)
Fourth Who really cares? I suppose Killian Delaney or Gerard O'Connell?
As for making the Irish Ch a great event and attracting more of our top players? As Checknraise has pointed out, the event in large part reflects Irish chess, or the sorry state it is in.
It is not that complicated really. How about starting from the premise of actually respecting and valuing it and not degrading or denigrating it in various ways. Sometimes directly and other times indirectly. Like all this rubbish about who can play and who can not play. In what after all is supposed to be the premier Irish tournament, and certainly most prestigious title to be won.
Here are some observations and questions I think worth asking, or noting.
Who is the person most responsible for the Irish ch. Would it be the ICU tournament director and the ICU executive?
Well then, please explain to me how the same person who has run and organized for many years the most successful weekend chess tournament in Ireland ever and arguably one of the biggest and best such weekend tournaments in Europe, if not the world, has shown such an inability or interest to match in any way the success of his Bunratty venture. I could offer an answer but I don't want to be unkind or critical when I am not willing to “get involved” myself by taking a place on the ICU executive.
Gerry has a good track record of being involved with many good events in which he is the arbiter and also in control of. So why were so many things not done this year or done badly? Some examples being, Gerry's non response to my query re accommodation which was disappointing....I am not surprised at the small entry... a good barometer of overseas Irish players playing is usually if John Redmond plays!
The organizer/s left it too late to advertise and promote the championships IMO and actually I believe Gerry Graham has hindered the event by not actively promoting the fact that the Irish champion will always be offered a place in a future Olympiad . This has now been done a couple of days before the deadline for entries? You could hardly imagine such an astounding failure.
I was going to play but gave up soon after I tried to arrange accommodation and it was not at all convenient. The venue is surely going to be the worst aspect in terms of trying to get to and from and have any hope of causal foot fall interest. Which is another reason why a central venue in a nice room is paramount.
The argument about parking is well made and valid only up to a point. Ideally that is nice but there is nothing to stop people parking in the suburbs and getting a Bus,Train,Dart,Luas or cycle or walk into the city centre.
This year the location is simply an unmitigated disaster. Last year there was a buzz about the tournament and I seen many parents and families come and go. Plenty of other things to see and do considering O Cornell's street with restaurants and fast food outlets is just minutes away. Thank goodness I won't have that "stranded" feeling deep in the suburbs of leafy south Dublin miles from anywhere, with nothing else to do but commute to and from the venue.
As for actually making the Irish ch work, here is a few simple ways to assure it will become a great event. Firstly decide on a venue and dates and give notice of this and all the main details at least six months out, preferably before the end of the preceding Championships, as that can't happen this year, maybe just and announcement in October or December
Once the date and venue is decided upon get people within the ICU active with promoting the event and letting people know it is going to be big, with a good flier and plenty of adverts made available well in advance. Target people and do a good job actually selling the event. If people are sure that the ICU is serious and enthused abut the Irish ch they will get behind it and create momentum and buzz.
Having super prizes for all WILL GUARANTEE the best players will play, which in turn assures anybody and everybody who wants to give up nine days to play in a super strong Irish ch and be able have as a boast or badge of pride the mere fact of being a participant in an Irish ch plenty of incentive to give up the nine days involved. Have a good prize of say:
Best Under 2200 Prize 700
Best Under 2100 Prize 500
Best Under 2000 Prize 300
Will make it worthwhile for a potential winner of such a prize to at least off set the sacrifice involved or be rewarded with something real if they do well.
There is a knock on effect involved and a raising of the status for this once a year event that would easily become established as The Big One every year. It needs people to be keen and capable to be involved, Therein lays the main problem? People less interested in just making it a great event rather than other considerations? Here is a dramatic way to turn it around, which needs to be backed up with active promotion for months.
First Prize 3000
Second Prize 1500
Third Prize 1000
Fourth Prize 500
Best Under 2200 Prize 700
Best Under 2100 Prize 500
Best Under 2000 Prize 300
Entry Fees
GM's Free entry ( early entry 150 commute grant/appearance fee given
IM's Free Entry (early entry 75 commute grant/appearance fee given)
FM's 50 (early entry 25)
Under 2300 70 (early entry 40)
Under 2200 90 (early entry 40)
Under 2100 100 (early entry 50)
Under 2000 150 (early entry 70)
Under 1900 200 (early entry 150)
Best Under 1900? Here is a bag of Smarties, now Bugger off! Get your rating up and let's not allow under 1900 play in future – only exception being if such a single player evens up the numbers.
Where I agree with Sodcats comment about 1900 being a good, proper standard and that the rules changed to allow anybody play according to stupid motions passed at yet another stupid AGM, It is just crazy to suggest that this years Irish ch is letting in lots of sub 1900. There is only two such players and one of whom is close enough. I agree they should not be allowed to play IF the silly rules were reversed to and even allow the standard be 1800 BUT STRICTLY ENFORCED just to get more revenue and allow players not that much weaker than 1900 plus players like Sodcat who is only a few hundred points below the top seeds compared with the 100 or so plus for himself and an 1847 rated player for example.
Playing this year would see Sodcat still as one of the also rans but assured of many good games with players mostly above him in rating. I get orgasmic when I think of playing in an event with more 50 percent of my opponents being higher rated than me and I almost faint or pass put when I have the prospect of playing 3 players several hundred points above me.
So this year's Irish ch will be a bit like in 2012, 2006, 2000 every six years we get a low turn out but oddly enough still with some of out very best players playing. Two or Three of our finest is still not what it should be, but I would guess that if people want to really destroy the event and almost be assured of having only one, two or zero of our top players then the badly thought out suggestion of a 10 player all play all is a great way to finish off the Irish ch completely. Ideal number of participants in out Irish ch given the number of active players would be anything over 20 ,with 30 to 40 or even 50 being possible if it was done as I have suggested above.0 -
I nearly forgot MEEOW!0
-
Welcome back
0 -
CafollasCat wrote: »I nearly forgot MEEOW!
MOD NOTE: Please do not speculate on a posters identity, It is against site rules.0 -
-
I wasn't "speculating", there is only one person bitchy and catty enough to behave in such a childish manner.
Since when did people lose a sense of fun and take things so seriously? If I can park my car, and play the people I want to play only, then I don't think I am being a pussycat. I want to play in the tournament that I like and that is my right.
This Lion roars and takes a dump here there and everywhere as is my right, but only when I am bored and confronting injustice and never when I am afraid to compete with 13 players over 1900 and 2 players below 1850.
If I was doing badly in the Irish ch I would risk having to play these two players and I would feel awful if I lost to either one of these low rated players, so why should I be subject to this sort of tyranny and persecution. I think it would be a disgrace and shameful matter if I was forced to be exposed to the chance to play these players. How dare they even be in this tournament.
I know 7 games against players with Fide ratings all over 1900, with most being higher than me, is still good value, but it can be so much more relaxing to whinge and complain. We are all only human and none of us is perfect so what is so wrong with trying to raise the standards in the Irish ch.
I can't be bullied into playing n an Irish ch with 2 players below 1900 I won't allow it and I call on all true supporters of Irish chess to come forward and bring this madness to an end. If something does not change I will be happy to play Golf only every year during the Irish ch and then see who is laughing.0 -
You're really very confused indeed. You've gotten it entirely backwards.
Then by all means explain to me how rating is a measurement.Not the same issue, is it? The point of a rating cutoff is to try to ensure that the games in the event are between relatively evenly matched players, which is best for everyone and helps ensure that the eventual champion will be appropriately tested, and won't just win because of a drastically easier set of opponents. The Olympiad players don't play each other.
The Olympiad players play 1600s at the Olympiad.
If someone is so good that they win the Irish Championships, their rating should adjust and they should be number 1-5 on the rating list. A good performance should show up in their rating after all.a good performance should show up in the rating.0 -
Advertisement
-
Then by all means explain to me how rating is a measurement.
Well, how does the rating system actually work? Ratings are a function of a player's results. More exactly the player's result, opponent ratings, and K-Factor. Nothing else.
Thus the rating system provide a single numerical factor ("measure") that reflects the player's entire playing career results, taking into account the strength of the opposition ("performance").The Olympiad players play 1600s at the Olympiad.
So?If someone is so good that they win the Irish Championships, their rating should adjust and they should be number 1-5 on the rating list. A good performance should show up in their rating after all.
Eh?
I think I sort of see the point you're making. If ratings are so good a measure, to the exclusion of all else, why don't the Olympiad selection rules drop the automatic qualification for Irish champions?
Well, if the goal is to send the strongest possible team, to the exclusion of all other factors, then yes, I think the automatic qualification rule would be better dropped, and the team picked exclusively on rating.
However many people (perhaps most) prefer to have the strongest team as a primary but not exclusive goal. There's also some value in having the Olympiad team have an actual connection to the game in Ireland. Giving the Irish champion an automatic place is one way of achieving this, and it also serves to promote the Irish championship (which badly needs all the promoting it can get).0
Advertisement