Irish Championship 2018

Retd.LoyolaCpt

This year's Irish Championships will take place in the Talbot Hotel, Stillorgan from August 4-12. The prize fund for the main event is 4,000 euro and the confirmed entries are as follows:

IM Sam Collins
IM Alex Lopez
FM Stephen Brady
FM Stephen Jessel
FM Colm Daly
FM Conor O'Donnell
FM Joe Ryan
FM Tom O'Gorman
Jonathan O'Connor
Killian Delaney
Gordon Freeman
Gerry O'Connell
Henry Li
Stephen Moran

We have yet to announce the full list of events which will likely include a Blitz and an AM event but the weekender events have been announced.

Details can be seen here: https://www.icu.ie/events/986, https://www.icu.ie/events/990, https://www.icu.ie/events/991

Retd.LoyolaCpt

A few more entrants recently - 20 in all (2 IMs, 8 FMs):

IM Alex Lopez
IM Sam Collins
FM Conor O'Donnell
FM Stephen Jessel
FM Conor Murphy
FM Stephen Brady
FM Colm Daly
FM Joe Ryan
FM Tom O'Gorman
FM John Delaney
Jonathan O'Connor
Killian Delaney
Gordon Freeman
Gerry O'Connell
Henry Li
Stephen Moran
Anthony Fox
John McMorrow
Peter Carroll
Peter Cafolla

sodacat11

The Irish Championship 2018 could be one of the strongest and best ever with as many as eight or nine players in with a realistic chance of winning.
I just hope that the ICU sticks RIGIDLY to the rating requirements i.e 1900 or over on the July ICU rating list. Anyone who doesn't meet that requirement yet should play in Drogheda to get some rating points and if that doesn't work then they should play in the Irish Intermediate where they rightfully belong.

sodacat11

I was looking for a complete crosstable for the 2017 Irish Championship but I can't find one on the ICU site, the chess results server(it only goes as far as round 8 for some reason) or the Irish chess history site. Anyone know where there is one?

zeitnot

Here you go: http://www.irlchess.com/irlch2017_allfiles/pairings_irlch2017.html and http://www.irlchess.com/irlch2017_allfiles/crosstable_irlch2017.html.

sodacat11

Thanks for that.
The numbers in the top section over the past few years haven't been great even with ineligible players being allowed in to artificially boost the numbers.. I think this year the fact that so many titled players entered well in advance has been a big attraction for others. I have been arguing for years that stronger fields attract more players and this certainly seems to be the case this year.

zeitnot

Last year was already excellent and this year looks as if it will be outstanding. Better promotion, bigger prize fund, and, yes, building up the entry in stages with titled players in first, all seem to add up to a big difference. The only thing missing so far is that as it stands, no IM norms will be possible (need at least one more IM or GM). There's still time!

sodacat11

Here is a list of the runners and riders for the upcoming Irish Championship with the prices I'd give if I was a bookmaker.
A. Lopez I.M 2476 9/4 Fav An I.M with G.M talent. A naturally gifted player who knows what it takes to win an Irish Ch. A worthy favourite.

S.Collins 2425 11/4 Another with G.M quality. Perhaps not as natural a player as Lopez but theoretically probably more knowledgeable. It could come down to who has White when he plays Lopez to who will win the title.

C O'Donnell 2342 6/1 Recently gained an I.M norm so obviously in form and improving fast but not quite the finished article yet. Not without a chance though.

S .Jessl 2337 4/1 A very talented player who again has form over the course and distance. If he is on form certainly not one to dismiss lightly.

C. Murphy 2336 5/1 The dark horse. I know nothing about him but a 19 year old with a 2336 rating has got to be feared.

J.Ryan 2281 10/1 Another ex champion who will give anyone a tough game but perhaps lacking the extra gear needed to win this.

S. Brady 2279 8/1 Multiple Irish champ with (I think the most wins ever) but not as active as he used to be so perhaps vulnerable to the guys who are playing very strong opposition regularly. Good each way value at 8/1.

C.Daly 2263 8/1 Has won a huge amount of tournaments and capable of beating anyone on the day but also a bit more likely to lose to a lower rated player than Lopez and Collins are. Again, a decent each way bet at 8/1

T O'Gorman 2226 16/1 I've never played him but he seems to be a very talented up and coming player. I can't see him winning this.

H. Li 2207 16/1 Similar to O'Gorman, perhaps a champion one day but not this year.

K. Delaney 2206 25/1 Would have a chance if it was a bullet or blitz tournament, but it isn't.

J. Delaney 2122 20/1 A four time champ but not the force of old. Sure to have some of the most interesting games of the tournament but I can't believe that he will be as up to date with his openings as the favourites.

100/1 bar

No offence to all the lower rated players but I can't imagine that any of us will mount a challenge.

I'm going to stick my neck out and predict a win for Jessl 7.5 ahead of Lopez and Collins7 followed by Murphy, O'Donnell and Daly 6.5. If Short plays 6.5

Retd.LoyolaCpt

Murphy's law - just as you do your odds, I've a new contender to add (current top seed by FIDE rating in fact). A reminder that June 1st is the last day to avail of our early discount rates: https://www.icu.ie/events/986

GM Alex Baburin
IM Alex Lopez
IM Sam Collins
FM Conor O'Donnell
FM Stephen Jessel
FM Conor Murphy
FM Stephen Brady
FM Colm Daly
FM Joe Ryan
FM Tom O'Gorman
FM John Delaney
Jonathan O'Connor
Killian Delaney
Gordon Freeman
Gerry O'Connell
Henry Li
Stephen Moran
Anthony Fox
Mihailo Manojlovic
John McMorrow
Paul O'Neill
Conor Nolan
Peter Cafolla
Peter Carroll

Retd.LoyolaCpt

(Duplicate)

sodacat11

Aha, that changes things. Revised betting Lopez 5/2, Collins 3/1 Baburin 7/2 Jessl 5/1 Murphy 6/1, O'Donnell 7/1 Daly and Brady 9/1 Ryan 12/1 Li and O'Gorman 20/1 J Delaney 25/1 K.Delaney 33/1 A late surge of money has seen Jonathan O'Connor cut to 40/1 (from 100). I will stick with my Jessl prediction (on a hunch), but now I think that 7/9 will win it,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Lopez and Collins 6.5,,,,,,Murphy, Daly and Baburin 6
Dunno if there is any grading prize this year (there should be) but if there is then I will have to prepare odds on who wins that.

Retd.LoyolaCpt

IM Gavin Wall is the latest entrant which means we have 11 of the current (active) top 16 Irish players.

sodacat11

How come players rated lower than 1900 are being allowed to enter the Irish Championship?????????
One of them has a 1735 rating and performed miserably in his two most recent tournaments.
There is a brilliant field for this years championship, the tournament should not be devalued by admitting players who have no right to be in it.
There was NO mention of any "within 50,or within 100 point" rule on the entry form.
Players have had the whole season to get their ratings over 1900, as indeed I had to, if they couldn't do it then they should be in the Intermediate.
If I get drawn to play anyone that is under 1900 on both the ICU and FIDE rating lists I will simply default the game in protest and others should do the same.

brilliantboy

sodacat makes a fair point. If there's going to be a rule then it should be the same rule for everybody, regardless of ancient history or future potential.

Also I don't agree with this practice of FIDE rating tournaments that don't accept FIDE ratings for the purposes of meeting rating requirements.

sodacat11

brilliantboy wrote: »

sodacat makes a fair point. If there's going to be a rule then it should be the same rule for everybody, regardless of ancient history or future potential.

Also I don't agree with this practice of FIDE rating tournaments that don't accept FIDE ratings for the purposes of meeting rating requirements.

Yes,I could live with players who are 1900 on the FIDE list getting in but certainly not with players who aren't 1900 on either list.

This looks like it all started because an ineligible Gonzaga player wanted to play and the "old boys network" clicked into gear, then of course once an exception was made for him every Tom, Dick and Harry had to be admitted.
The Irish Championship should be THE flagship event on the Irish chess calendar. Just qualifying to play in it should be an honour. This year we could have had the highest average rating ever for an Irish Ch until the ICU decided to start breaking it's own rules. It states quite clearly on the flyer that the tournament is for players 1900 or over on the ICU list. As Brilliantboy points out it is a FIDE event so this could be extended to include 1900s on that list but no way should people who can't reach what is a pretty minimum requirement be allowed to play.
Once the exception is made how can a line be drawn? Are 12 and 1300s going to be allowed to enter? I don't see how they can be reasonably refused now.

must have a jest

Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »

A few more entrants recently - 20 in all (2 IMs, 8 FMs):

IM Alex Lopez
IM Sam Collins
FM Conor O'Donnell
FM Stephen Jessel
FM Conor Murphy
FM Stephen Brady
FM Colm Daly
FM Joe Ryan
FM Tom O'Gorman
FM John Delaney
Jonathan O'Connor
Killian Delaney
Gordon Freeman
Gerry O'Connell
Henry Li
Stephen Moran
Anthony Fox
John McMorrow
Peter Carroll
Peter Cafolla

See the entries from a couple of months ago; you are well aware of exactly what happened. A player who was over 1900 when he entered (and higher rated than you), subsequently went under 1900. You can't expect players to vanish off the list automatically as their ratings fluctuate. Just let the tournament controller sort out the final entry list in July or whenever he decides.

cdeb

I think the player in question isn't on that list.

Is the special invite thing brought in at the AGM a few years back still around?

Edit - sorry; sodacat mentions an "ineligible Gonzaga player". That then does tie back to your list, and they have been above 1900 recently. So given that there's no lower section to bump them down into, it would indeed be unreasonable to remove them entirely.

must have a jest

He has complained about more than one player. You can go to the site and enter whether you are eligible or not. I think Sodacat entered when he was under 1900 ICU but presumably still over 1900 FIDE, which is fine, but the system doesn't know that. It's up to the organiser to confirm the final entry.

must have a jest

I don't know if the rule about inviting extra players still exists. It looks like it hasn't been employed anyway.

cdeb

It may be too that sodacat got a player's club wrong.

I think it's worth him clarifying. Certainly the "Gonzaga old boys network" comment should be retracted I think.

Edit - actually, I thought the Gonzaga player had a live rating over 1900 this year, but I'm wrong; he was never over 1900. He 10 points short, and the other player in question was 20 points short.

I agree that obviously the entry system is such that any player can enter and appear on the list, and we've seen it many times with other tournaments where they get bumped down a section subsequently.

But this does appear to be a flexibility of the rules alright. Though the phrase "Gonzaga old boys network" is still unhelpful.

brilliantboy

cdeb wrote: »

Though the phrase "Gonzaga old boys network" is still unhelpful.

but still hilarious

sodacat11

must have a jest wrote: »

He has complained about more than one player. You can go to the site and enter whether you are eligible or not. I think Sodacat entered when he was under 1900 ICU but presumably still over 1900 FIDE, which is fine, but the system doesn't know that. It's up to the organiser to confirm the final entry.

Just to put the record straight, I would not be such a hypocrite as to enter the Irish Ch if I was under 1900.What happened was my rating dropped 100 points to 1896 in the space of a few weeks at the beginning of the season so I played in more tournaments than I normally do to get my rating back up. Once I was over 1900 again on the live list I entered the Irish Ch but my rating popped up as being still 1896 even though I was something like 1929 in reality.
As for bumping people out, that is exactly what happened to me in Bunratty, my rating had dropped so even though I had entered the Masters when around 2000 I got demoted to the Challengers where I then rightfully belonged . I had no problem with that but then a few players rated even lower than me did get in for reasons known only to the organisers. As it turned out I very much enjoyed playing in the Challengers.
Must have a Jest is also wrong when he says that Carroll was over 1900 when he originally entered the Irish Ch, he WAS NOT. Sanjay Menon has never been 1900 on either list.
Eamon Keogh IS over 1900 on the FIDE list, and is a past Irish champion, so I've no problem with him playing.

sodacat11

brilliantboy wrote: »

but still hilarious

The ICU is for the most part run by "Gonzaga old boys" and no one has heaped more praise on them than I have since they came to power but in this instance, (If the rules are not adhered to) they are abusing that power, ignoring the history of our national championship, and undermining what should be an elite event.

sodacat11

must have a jest wrote: »

See the entries from a couple of months ago; you are well aware of exactly what happened. A player who was over 1900 when he entered (and higher rated than you), subsequently went under 1900. You can't expect players to vanish off the list automatically as their ratings fluctuate. Just let the tournament controller sort out the final entry list in July or whenever he decides.

I think perhaps an apology is due to me as everything quoted above was pure balderdash and completely untrue. :P

sodacat11

Yippee!!! The 1700 player has been removed from the list of entrants. A victory for common sense. Talented kids have their whole lives ahead of them to play in Irish Championships, handing them everything on a plate is no good for them chess wise or character wise. Far better to make them achieve things rather than to mollycoddle and pamper them.
I hate having this debate about rating floors all the time. There should be no room for argument ,,,1900 you are in 1899 you are not,,,,,,,Bunratty 2000 in, 1999 out. Simple.
In golf if the entry for a championship says that you must be scratch handicap( i.e 0.4) or better then that's it. You don't get in with a 1 handicap even if you are 0.5 , just .1 away from scratch.
In athletics if the qualifying time for the Olympic 100 metres is 10.2 seconds you do not get in with 10.3 even if you are a six year old who can run that time. I really don't see why chess should be any different.

Retd.LoyolaCpt

At the time Peter Carroll entered, his rating was 1940 (a foreign event would eventually be rated which lowers this "live" rating). Two of his events were rated out of order, but his official high live rating at the end of an event was approx 1915 (before the NCC but after rounds 9-10 of Heidenfeld). I would not have included him on my second draft of entries if he was not above 1900 on the Event page.

Sanjay's highest rating appears to have been 1881 and current rating is about 100 points below that. He was entered without prior approval and is now no longer on the list of entries. He was never published here or on chess-results as an entry - the ICU list auto-updates upon receiving an entry unlike my posts here or chess-results. If I'd been emailed to fix this, it would have been resolved a lot quicker than 10 posts complaining/speculating about it.

Out of a 13 member executive, Gonzaga CC has 3 members which will soon fall to 2; and could be 0 come the new season. Certainly groundless accusations of abuse don't do much to further anyone's interest in ICU roles. Especially in two consecutive threads.

There are a few mistakes on the flyer I'll clear up once back from abroad - the "July Rating List" should be the June rating list. The July Rating list would not be published until the end of July which doesn't make sense if entries close a week prior - this was meant as the rating list published at the start of July (which would be the June rating list). This is cleared up in the T&Cs.

For whatever reason, I also didn't state that FIDE ratings of 1900+ would be allowed to register - which they will. I think my thought process at the time was to leave no ambiguity about what entry fees are tied to (ICU rating). I will fix this - however, I did have it stated in the T&Cs.

The issue of invited players (or wildcards) and all of the above is detailed and is hyperlinked from the flyer in the terms and conditions: https://www.icu.ie/articles/670. Those rules were input in the 2014 AGM.

Retd.LoyolaCpt

Current List:

GM Alex Baburin
IM Alex Lopez
IM Sam Collins
IM Gavin Wall
FM Conor O'Donnell
FM Stephen Jessel
FM Conor Murphy
FM Stephen Brady
FM Colm Daly
FM Joe Ryan
FM Tom O'Gorman
FM John Delaney
Jonathan O'Connor
Killian Delaney
Gordon Freeman
Paul Wallace
Gerry O'Connell
Henry Li
Stephen Moran
Shane Melaugh
Anthony Fox
Mihailo Manojlovic
Gavin Melaugh
John McMorrow
Paul O'Neill
Conor Nolan
Peter Cafolla
Eamon Keogh
Peter Carroll

sodacat11

Well thank you for clearing that up. Seeing a 1700 player on the list was like a red rag to a bull for me.
My one remaining bone of contention is this silly wild card or invitee business, other terms for nepotism if you ask me.
I can see the logic in giving the organiser the right to invite one player but only if there is already an uneven number and only if the player concerned is the highest available.
This business of junior or regional nominees is a load of bullocks (sic) and just another way to sneak people in under the radar. The motion was carried at an AGM but mostly by people who never were and never will be 1900 rated players. What right have these tin pot dictators to make the rules for a tournament that doesn't concern them? You may as well ask Donald Trump to make the rules for the E.E.C.s monetary policy. It is blatantly wrong to let some promising junior play just because he is from Kilkenny for example instead of Donegal or because his father is sponsoring the tournament or because he might go to the same school as someone on the ICU when another player of similar talent might have no useful connections or live in the wrong part of the country. The rating system may not be perfect but it is the fairest system that we have. Players should be made to earn the right to play in an Irish Championship like the rest of us have had to do. No special cases, no favouritism, no nepotism.

pawntof4

sodacat11 wrote: »

The motion was carried at an AGM but mostly by people who never were and never will be 1900 rated players. What right have these tin pot dictators to make the rules for a tournament that doesn't concern them?

Paying members of the ICU have a right to vote on motions proposed at the AGM? There is nothing dictatorial about that.

sodacat11 wrote: »

It is blatantly wrong to let some promising junior play just because he is from Kilkenny for example instead of Donegal or because his father is sponsoring the tournament or because he might go to the same school as someone on the ICU when another player of similar talent might have no useful connections or live in the wrong part of the country.

This sort of statement is not very helpful. If you have come across what you perceive as unfair treatment of one player over another why not lodge a complaint with the ICU?

terradat

Just of topic there for a moment,
Does anybody have any information about the Drogheda Congress that concluded this weekend ?????

Retd.LoyolaCpt

Just spotted the results on their page - I had checked their home page rather than their news page until now:

Section A
"Champion: Colm Daly (Bray/Greystones)
2nd Michael Waters (Fisherwick)
Joint 3rd: Conor O'Donnell & Peter Carroll (both Gonzaga)
Board Prize: John Loughran (Skerries)"

Section B
"Joint Winners: Sam Murray (Lucan) & Hugh Moran (Gonzaga)
Joint 3rd: Sean Cummins (Drogheda) & Hugh O'Connor (UCD)
Board Prizes: Rohan Joshi (Drogheda), Pascal O'Shea (Skerries) & Tom O'Sullivam (Malahide)"

Section C
"Joint Winners: Tathya Srivastava, Finn Ellingboe & James Kavanagh (all Malahide)
Board Prizes: Nikita Koush (St Josephs Secondary School, Drogheda) & Isaac Flynn (Malahide)

Full details to follow later in the week"

sodacat11

pawntof4 wrote: »

Paying members of the ICU have a right to vote on motions proposed at the AGM? There is nothing dictatorial about that/QUOTE]

No, instead it is the classic case of a committee sitting down to design a horse and ending up with a camel.
The Junior officer gets three places for promising children, (ageist and arbitrary).
The women's delegate gets a place for a female.
The regional delegates each get a spot for someone THEY think is good enough.
Some twit from the Gaeltacht gets a spot for a native Irish speaker.
The special needs rep gets a place for a disabled person.
The religous body get a place for two members of the clergy.
The synagogue and mosque have to get one each etc etc etc and before you know it instead of an Irish Championship you end up with just another open.
No place in the championship,or any tournament for that matter, should be decided by anyone's personal preference or opinion. There should be a clear benchmark, be it 1800 , 1900 or 2000 and if you reach it you qualify and if you don't then you can follow the tournament online. No exceptions, no arguments, no debate. Q.E.D

sodacat11

Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »

Just spotted the results on their page - I had checked their home page rather than their news page until now:

Section A
"Champion: Colm Daly (Bray/Greystones)
2nd Michael Waters (Fisherwick)
Joint 3rd: Conor O'Donnell & Peter Carroll (both Gonzaga)
Board Prize: John Loughran (Skerries)""

How many tournaments has Colm Daly won? I remember a few years ago him telling me that it was over 50 but it must be somewhere up around the 80 mark by now. That's some going

Sepp Blatter

Just as football is a game to be played, injustice is a battle to be exaggerated! Let us stand strong in the face of corruption. #1900 #Communism #Diva

pawntof4

sodacat11 wrote: »

pawntof4 wrote: »

Paying members of the ICU have a right to vote on motions proposed at the AGM? There is nothing dictatorial about that

No

Then who should be allowed to vote on proposals made at the AGM? Just yourself?

sodacat11 wrote: »

There should be a clear benchmark, be it 1800, 1900 or 2000 and if you reach it you qualify and if you don't then you can follow the tournament online. No exceptions, no arguments, no debate. Q.E.D

While I do agree with you on this point, I would be interested to know if you have ever proposed such a motion?

cdeb

sodacat11 wrote: »

There should be a clear benchmark, be it 1800 , 1900 or 2000 and if you reach it you qualify and if you don't then you can follow the tournament online. No exceptions, no arguments, no debate. Q.E.D

I agree with this as well - and in fairness, that's exactly what's happened this year, it appears. (I think it's entirely reasonable, given the time commitment involved in entering the Irish, that the rating cut-off isn't the rating list prior to the event, but is any live rating from the opening of entries. Once exception I would make is that former winners should be allowed back in perpetuum, like in golf)

I don't think the "wild cards" have ever been used, and in that case, there'd certainly be no harm in moving that they be removed.

sodacat11

cdeb wrote: »

I agree with this as well - and in fairness, that's exactly what's happened this year, it appears. (I think it's entirely reasonable, given the time commitment involved in entering the Irish, that the rating cut-off isn't the rating list prior to the event, but is any live rating from the opening of entries. Once exception I would make is that former winners should be allowed back in perpetuum, like in golf)

I don't think the "wild cards" have ever been used, and in that case, there'd certainly be no harm in moving that they be removed.

I agree!:)

cdeb

Going to have to take a screenshot of that if you don't mind!

Cos no-one will believe it later if you delete the post.

sodacat11

pawntof4 wrote: »

Then who should be allowed to vote on proposals made at the AGM? Just yourself?



While I do agree with you on this point, I would be interested to know if you have ever proposed such a motion?

In an ideal world I would rule the universe and the ICU but sadly I don't:(

No I have never proposed such a motion, except here. I'm not sure if I have ever even attended an AGM. The reading of minutes, proposing, seconding, "through the chair" and all the other nonsense that goes on is really not my thing.
The only thing that I am interested in is having rating floors adhered to by tournament organisers. No favourites, no favours, no nepotism, no exceptions. I really can't believe just how much opposition there is from some people to what I see as the only fair system. 1900 players aren't allowed to compete in under 1800 events so why should 1700 or 1800 players be allowed to enter over 1900 events? If a player has talent or is prepared to put the work in they will get there eventually, if not then they won't. It seems perfectly fair to me.
I may attend this years AGM , I certainly would if I could get rating floors strictly enforced.

Retd.LoyolaCpt

#Sodacat2020 #BuildTheWallFloor

zeitnot

I was never a fan of that 2014 motion myself (at all) but at least it's better than motion 7 from the 2013 AGM, which would have set a firm 1800 (ICU or FIDE) floor, but allowed up to 34 additional places to be filled by winning other tournaments or by nomination by various officials, and invited players wouldn't have to be over 1800, or be IRL-registered. This year shows that a great event can be put together without any extravagant motions that try to micromanage how the event has to be organised.

pawntof4

sodacat11 wrote: »

In an ideal world I would rule the universe and the ICU but sadly I don't:(

No I have never proposed such a motion, except here. I'm not sure if I have ever even attended an AGM. The reading of minutes, proposing, seconding, "through the chair" and all the other nonsense that goes on is really not my thing.
The only thing that I am interested in is having rating floors adhered to by tournament organisers. No favourites, no favours, no nepotism, no exceptions. I really can't believe just how much opposition there is from some people to what I see as the only fair system. 1900 players aren't allowed to compete in under 1800 events so why should 1700 or 1800 players be allowed to enter over 1900 events? If a player has talent or is prepared to put the work in they will get there eventually, if not then they won't. It seems perfectly fair to me.
I may attend this years AGM , I certainly would if I could get rating floors strictly enforced.

If you propose it and turn up I'll second it.

sodacat11

pawntof4 wrote: »

If you propose it and turn up I'll second it.

Okay.Deal! Where and when is the AGM?

sodacat11

zeitnot wrote: »

I was never a fan of that 2014 motion myself (at all) but at least it's better than motion 7 from the 2013 AGM, which would have set a firm 1800 (ICU or FIDE) floor, but allowed up to 34 additional places to be filled by winning other tournaments or by nomination by various officials, and invited players wouldn't have to be over 1800, or be IRL-registered. This year shows that a great event can be put together without any extravagant motions that try to micromanage how the event has to be organised.

Was there really such a madcap 2013 motion or are you having a laugh?

cdeb

It was at the 2013 AGM that the motion was originally proposed; a pared-back version was adopted at the 2014 AGM.

Players may also be invited to the event by the following:
○ 6 under-18 players may be invited by the Junior Officer
○ 3 players may be invited by the ICU executive
○ 3 players may be invited by the Women’s officer
○ The current Irish Women’s Champion
○ The current Irish Veteran’s Champion
○ The current Irish Intermediate Champion
○ The current Irish Open Champion
○ 3 players may be invited by each delegate on the Executive (Munster, Connaught, Ulster, Leinster, FIDE and IUCA)

This was arguably in response to the 2012 event, which had only 14 players, just two of whom had titles, and which was (jointly) won by a non-IRL player (Firstov)

But the current exec deserve huge credit for delivering a championships which isn't the biggest ever, but surely is the strongest ever. I think in that context, the motion (modified as it was when passing) is no longer needed.

pawntof4

sodacat11 wrote: »

Okay.Deal! Where and when is the AGM?

Some time in September up in the big smoke

sodacat11

cdeb wrote: »

It was at the 2013 AGM that the motion was originally proposed; a pared-back version was adopted at the 2014 AGM..

Who proposed and passed such a ludicrous motion? It sounds like something that Humphrey from Yes Minister would suggest.

zeitnot

The motion was withdrawn without being voted on.

reunion

sodacat11 wrote: »

pawntof4 wrote: »

Paying members of the ICU have a right to vote on motions proposed at the AGM? There is nothing dictatorial about that/QUOTE]

No, instead it is the classic case of a committee sitting down to design a horse and ending up with a camel.
The Junior officer gets three places for promising children, (ageist and arbitrary).
The women's delegate gets a place for a female.
The regional delegates each get a spot for someone THEY think is good enough.
Some twit from the Gaeltacht gets a spot for a native Irish speaker.
The special needs rep gets a place for a disabled person.
The religous body get a place for two members of the clergy.
The synagogue and mosque have to get one each etc etc etc and before you know it instead of an Irish Championship you end up with just another open.
No place in the championship,or any tournament for that matter, should be decided by anyone's personal preference or opinion. There should be a clear benchmark, be it 1800 , 1900 or 2000 and if you reach it you qualify and  if you don't then you can follow the tournament online. No exceptions, no arguments, no debate. Q.E.D

By saying the current Women's champion doesn't deserve a place at the Irish Championships irrespective of rating, you are saying the Irish Women's Champion (regardless of rating) is a waste of time and not respected. What about the Irish Veteran's Champion? Also a waste of time and unrespected title?
As another example, Eamon Keogh's rating is below 1900, are you saying that a 2 time winner (or any former winner) doesn't deserve to be in the Irish Championship anymore?
I note you don't say a spot for the Women's delegate for a female isn't sexist? But a Junior place is ageist.
If you can't trust the officers who dedicate their time to run the ICU to hand out the place responsibly, then why trust them with the ICU or even running the event? If you think this year or other years since that motion passed the Irish Championships ran well, then the ICU have used these spots responsibly. The purpose of that motion wasn't to hand out entries like tic-tacs but, should we have a promising player whose participation could/would benefit the ICU, it should be something to be considered. Again it doesn't have to always be used. 

Also as the World Champion can be anybody irrespective of rating, and the Candidate's tournament has players irrespective of rating, it doesn't sound unreasonable some players can earn their place by winning events. 

To note when that motion passed, David Fitzsimmons and Alexander Baburin (I think both were there) along with other players who would qualify said they'd have no objection to it and it sounded like a good idea. Maybe

cdeb

reunion wrote: »

By saying the current Women's champion doesn't deserve a place at the Irish Championships irrespective of rating, you are saying the Irish Women's Champion (regardless of rating) is a waste of time and not respected. What about the Irish Veteran's Champion? Also a waste of time and unrespected title?

This doesn't follow.

The Irish Women's Champion is the best female player in Ireland. That's a respected title.

The Irish Senior Championships is for players over 1900 in strength. It doesn't follow that the Women's Champion must be entitled to play in this tournament to make her title respected.

Same argument for the Veteran's Champion.

You could make the same argument for the Irish U-10 champion - yet no-one would argue that they should be allowed enter the senior tournament. Unless they were strong enough.

I agree that the ICU committee in general could be trusted to use their powers in this regard properly (and I don't think any committee has as yet used them?), but the above logic doesn't stack up in my view.

zeitnot

reunion wrote: »

 If you think this year or other years since that motion passed the Irish Championships ran well, then the ICU have used these spots responsibly.

The motion coincided with a sharp downturn in the championship. Compare 2014 (30 players, 11 of them 2150+ on at least one list) immediately before, with 2015 (19 players, 6 of them 2150+) and 2016 (16 players, 3 of them 2150+ (all-time low?)), with all three championships in Dublin. In contrast 2017 (16 players, 8 of them 2150+, for a championship outside Dublin) was a major step back in the right direction, and this year looks set to surpass 2014. The ICU have used these spots wisely--by not using them at all.