Advertisement
Boards Golf Society are looking for new members for 2022...read about the society and their planned outings here!
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards

Irish New Year Festival: Philip Hogarty Memorial

  • #1
    Registered Users Posts: 557 ✭✭✭ Retd.LoyolaCpt


    Irish New Year Festival: Philip Hogarty Memorial returns in the first week of the new year with several events being run in the Talbot Hotel, Stillorgan.

    The Irish 50+/65+ Championships 2019 returns after a popular first outing in 2018. The event is run as a 7-rounder over 5 days with all games FIDE rated and several live boards. The prize fund is 1,200 euro. Last year we had 38 entries and we are on the same pace as last year so far. Details here: https://www.icu.ie/events/1134

    The Irish New Year All-Play-Alls 2019 are a new addition to the New Year events having been trailed over Easter last year where the 3 sections filled up fairly quickly. It will run from 2-6 January with 9 rounds in 5 days. We may expand to 4 sections if these fill in the next couple of weeks and change to <1300, 1200-1600, 1500-1900, 1800+ but for now the sections are <1400, 1300-1900, 1800+. 12/30 places are currently taken. Full details here: https://www.icu.ie/events/1162

    The Irish New Year Norm Events 2019 will run again with the same format as 2018. All norm-hunter spots are taken with one GM required in the GM norm section and 2 IMs required in the IM norm section. All boards will be broadcast on live-boards. Details here: https://www.icu.ie/events/1060

    The Leinster Junior Championships 2019 run by the LSCA will run from January 1-3. The second largest junior event on the calendar has sections from u10-u19 and details can be seen here: https://www.icu.ie/events/1097

    Finally, the Irish New Year Blitz 2019 will close the festivities on January 6th. 11 round FIDE rated blitz with 3+2 time controls. Full details here: https://www.icu.ie/events/1165


«13

Comments



  • The over 50s and the all play all were two of the most enjoyable tournaments held this year so it is a great pity that they now clash. One or other of them would fully merit a weekend to itself.




  • Working on it - for now it works best to keep costs low but I'd prefer to split them alright.




  • Is the Anthony Doyle who has entered the over 65s THE Tony Doyle who was irish Champion in 1974?




  • sodacat11 wrote: »
    Is the Anthony Doyle who has entered the over 65s THE Tony Doyle who was irish Champion in 1974?

    Pretty sure it is; I will ask him.




  • Pretty sure it is; I will ask him.
    I thought that he gave up chess completely over thirty years ago?


  • Advertisement


  • 20 entries so far which is exactly where we were last year which is great - looking like another strong turnout.

    We got a lot of our entries last year just before the discount deadline/Christmas so will be hoping for the same bump this year.

    The middle section is now full in the All-play-alls so I've opened a waiting list and may split that section in 2 if we get a few more entries: https://www.icu.ie/events/1162

    The IM norm section is now full and I suspect the last spot in the GM section will go by the end of the week. Pairings to follow soon after.




  • sodacat11 wrote: »
    I thought that he gave up chess completely over thirty years ago?

    I see my last game with him was in February 1981 but Tony was still playing postal chess very successfully until the mid-1990s when he gave it up, because of computers I think. He was our first player to earn the correspondence chess IM title and his rating at that form of the game was over 2500.




  • I see my last game with him was in February 1981 but Tony was still playing postal chess very successfully until the mid-1990s when he gave it up, because of computers I think. He was our first player to earn the correspondence chess IM title and his rating at that form of the game was over 2500.
    Interesting, he must be favourite for the over 65s title and maybe the over 50s too (if the one player can win both). I have my name down for the all play all but may yet switch back to the over 50s as it looks like being quite strong.




  • sodacat11 wrote: »
    Interesting, he must be favourite for the over 65s title and maybe the over 50s too (if the one player can win both). I have my name down for the all play all but may yet switch back to the over 50s as it looks like being quite strong.

    As it stands, the top seed in the senior championship would be inactive English FM Robin B. W. Moss who is 2289 (last rated game in July 2003) followed by Tony Doyle 2210.
    It is very hard to know how long-inactive players will perform in a tournament but they should get a couple of relatively easy opponents at the start to warm up.
    I don't know who Moss is: is he living here or how did he learn about this event?

    As it's a FIDE rated event, FIDE ratings (rather than the ICU ones listed on the entries page) will be used for seedings, However it would be the January FIDE list so some numbers will be different, especially if ICU get the Armstrong results sent in.

    Paul Wallace is 2115 FIDE at present but he won his games in both rd3 and 4 of the Armstrong so will be higher in January unless he lost points elsewhere. Gerry O'Connell is currently 2122 but lost in both those rounds so Paul will probably be higher than Gerry in the seniors seedings.

    I have asked the ICU chair to clarify how the prize structure will work if one or more 65+ players finish ahead of the best 50+ player. This should be done before the event begins. I would expect that if a 65+ player wins overall, then they should get the announced first prize. There should be a guaranteed prize for at least one 50+ but it should be equal or lower than what the 65+ champion gets in the event of a 50+ winner. What do you think?

    At present there don't seem to be many entries for your round-robin but maybe that will change in the next week.




  • I think that it would be unfair if an over 65 was eligible to win the over 50 prize unless he specifically enters that competition in advance instead of the over 65s. After all a 50 + player isn't eligible to win the over 65 prizes.


  • Advertisement


  • sodacat11 wrote: »
    I think that it would be unfair if an over 65 was eligible to win the over 50 prize unless he specifically enters that competition in advance instead of the over 65s. After all a 50 + player isn't eligible to win the over 65 prizes.

    What I mean is that surely the announced first prize for the tournament (which is of higher value than the 65+ champion's prize) should go to the tournament winner whatever their age. If, however, Tony Doyle (say) were to come out first then the top 50+ player should certainly get a prize, even if maybe they only finish fourth.

    The Ray Byrne cup will, I think, be held for one year by whoever comes out first in the tournament (applying tiebreaks if necessary).

    It is not ideal, though, having the two age groups in the same event, because it creates this kind of issues, though it does make for more interesting struggle.

    Last year it worked out OK because 1st and 2nd were 50+ players and 3rd = were Gerry MacElligott and myself. So I got the 65+ prize and he got third prize. There was also a rating prize which was sub-1700 or something like that.

    Admittedly the 50+ players pay a higher entry fee but a lot of them are in work whereas the majority of 65+ are probably pensioners, so that seems fair.




  • What I mean is that surely the announced first prize for the tournament (which is of higher value than the 65+ champion's prize) should go to the tournament winner whatever their age. If, however, Tony Doyle (say) were to come out first then the top 50+ player should certainly get a prize, even if maybe they only finish fourth.

    Admittedly the 50+ players pay a higher entry fee but a lot of them are in work whereas the majority of 65+ are probably pensioners, so that seems fair.

    In other words you want to have your cake and eat it too.:rolleyes:




  • Yum yum. Why should 65+ players compete in a tournament in which they are ineligible to win the first prize? That is what you are asking. If we cannot win the first prize then we shouldn't have to play any of the under-65s,




  • Yum yum. Why should 65+ players compete in a tournament in which they are ineligible to win the first prize? That is what you are asking. If we cannot win the first prize then we shouldn't have to play any of the under-65s,
    They can win the over 65s title.If they want to be eligible for the over 50s then they can enter that INSTEAD of the over 65s. I don't see why they should have the chance of two titles when us young guys only get a shot at one.




  • Anyone queried the organisers on their policy regarding entries from 49.5 year olds who are feeling their age?




  • State of play:

    50+/65+ - 33 entries in all which is ahead of last year's pace for now. 2 days left to avail of discount entries.

    Norm events: Both sections now full. Pairings will go up in the next day or two.

    1300-1900: Full (5 people waiting)

    Other 2 sections: 14 places left.

    Blitz entries: now open https://www.icu.ie/events/1165




  • Since there is very little interest in the over 1800 all play all in the New Year why not rearrange it for another weekend or even run it midweek?




  • I see that it is now 1750+ and that four of the six entrants are rated between 1636 and 1694. It must be this new project maths thingy that I keep hearing about, in my day nothing in the 1600s was considered to be higher than 1750.




  • sodacat11 wrote: »
    I see that it is now 1750+ and that four of the six entrants are rated between 1636 and 1694. It must be this new project maths thingy that I keep hearing about, in my day nothing in the 1600s was considered to be higher than 1750.

    I think it's a bit like Schrodinger's cat who could be alive and dead at the same time.

    Seriously, though, three of those four are above 1750 FIDE and Hannah is almost 1750, so maybe you could consider re-entering that event and leave us real Seniors in peace? You should get nine games instead of seven and a better chance of winning first prize?




  • mikhail wrote: »
    Anyone queried the organisers on their policy regarding entries from 49.5 year olds who are feeling their age?

    The regs say one 45+ player may be admitted to balance numbers and avoid a bye.
    I'm not sure if that's a great idea, though, as some people under 50 still have all their hair.
    There is also the issue that if some players take half point byes there could be an odd number of players in certain rounds. (That happened last year, if I recall correctly)


  • Advertisement


  • The regs say one 45+ player may be admitted to balance numbers and avoid a bye.
    I'm not sure if that's a great idea, though, as some people under 50 still have all their hair.
    There is also the issue that if some players take half point byes there could be an odd number of players in certain rounds. (That happened last year, if I recall correctly)

    Tim, I hope you won’t object to my playing in the 50+ despite the fact that I still have all my hair?




  • I think it's a bit like Schrodinger's cat who could be alive and dead at the same time.

    Seriously, though, three of those four are above 1750 FIDE and Hannah is almost 1750, so maybe you could consider re-entering that event and leave us real Seniors in peace? You should get nine games instead of seven and a better chance of winning first prize?
    To be honest I hadn't realised that the Seniors was only seven rounds until you mentioned it but as I'm playing in http://boeblinger-open.de/index.php/en/participants-online-registration/a-open-en just before the seniors maybe seven rounds will be enough.
    I can't understand why the over 1800 all play all didn't attract a stronger entry, round robins are the fairest and most interesting kind of tournament to play in as far as I'm concerned.




  • I think it's a bit like Schrodinger's cat who could be alive and dead at the same time.

    I must admit to knowing more about Tom and Jerry or Sylvester and Tweety bird than Schrodinger's cat but having googled it I still don't get it. The cat is either dead or alive , regardless of whether it is exposed to radiation. Just because we don't know which has no bearing on the reality.




  • sodacat11 wrote: »
    I must admit to knowing more about Tom and Jerry or Sylvester and Tweety bird than Schrodinger's cat but having googled it I still don't get it. The cat is either dead or alive , regardless of whether it is exposed to radiation. Just because we don't know which has no bearing on the reality.

    Quantum mechanics says the cat is BOTH dead and alive until the wave function is collapsed by observation. When observed, the cat has to be either dead or alive. But before that, it is both. Quantum mechanics is a strange world.




  • Quantum mechanics says the cat is BOTH dead and alive until the wave function is collapsed by observation. When observed, the cat has to be either dead or alive. But before that, it is both. Quantum mechanics is a strange world.

    A strange world indeed! It still makes no sense to me. Before the cat is observed it has to be either alive or dead, it can't, by definition, be both.
    It does raise an interesting point though. I've been hammering on about low rated players being allowed into competitions for which they aren't eligible BUT maybe in the world of quantum physics(and some organisers) a player rated 17 something is both under 1900 and over 1900 until the stupidity of his/her entry is collapsed by observation?




  • Seriously, though, three of those four are above 1750 FIDE and Hannah is almost 1750, so maybe you could consider re-entering that event and leave us real Seniors in peace? You should get nine games instead of seven and a better chance of winning first prize?

    This again raises the issue of the conflict between ICU and FIDE ratings. It seems natural to me that if a tournament is to be FIDE rated then FIDE ratings should be used as the sole basis for accepting entries.

    Using both systems in the same tournament is just a recipe for confusion with some players, like sodacat, being turned off by a perceived lack of competition and others discouraged from entering an appropriate section because their ICU rating isn't up to scratch.

    I wonder what the majority view would be on a general moving away from the ICU system as the primary rating system used in Irish tournaments. Quite a few events in the calendar including provincial leagues are FIDE rated as it is, with the big weekenders being the most notable exceptions.




  • I'd rather see us turn away from the FIDE system, to be honest. It's largely unsuitable for the leagues (requiring rating reports constantly - the ICU system was happy to just rate the whole thing at the end of the year - and the requirement of an arbiter present at playing venues that's fudged in Leinster for now) and for weekenders (time controls and max games/day), which leaves a handful of longer tournaments where it can be applied naturally.

    I don't really care which system they use for deciding what section entries play in, providing it's also used to rate the event.




  • Was there not some plan to get rid of national ratings altogether and to just use FIDE ratings ? Given some of the discrepancies ,often 100 pts or more, that exist it would make good sense to only use one rating system.




  • I wonder what the majority view would be on a general moving away from the ICU system as the primary rating system used in Irish tournaments. Quite a few events in the calendar including provincial leagues are FIDE rated as it is, with the big weekenders being the most notable exceptions.
    Too many events are non-FIDE-rated for this to be a practical option.

    I would sooner move away from the focus on FIDE ratings, for the reasons mikhail noted.


  • Advertisement


  • cdeb wrote: »
    Too many events are non-FIDE-rated for this to be a practical option.

    I would sooner move away from the focus on FIDE ratings, for the reasons mikhail noted.

    The main problem with eliminating the ICU rating system is the quite large number of weekend events (and also lower league divisions and maybe some junior events) that use a time limit too fast for FIDE rating.

    The discrepancy between players' ICU and FIDE ratings is due to a number of factors, of which the time limit is one. Another is that in general ICU ratings are too low because (as statistician John Delaney explained to me once) new players are started at too low a rating and this drags down ratings globally, as does the tendency of higher rated players to compete very little.


    The issue identified about the entry lists on the ICU website is something to do with programming that can only be fixed when the ICU database is moved to a new server, and then only if the webmaster has the time and will to change it.

    At present, as I understand it, when somebody pays an entry fee on Stripe their name and current ICU rating is added to the tournament list page; by the time the event is played the rating may be out of date anyway. Also no rataing is displayed for overseas players except the few who have paid ICU membership.

    It would be desirable if FIDE ratings for everyone were displayed instead but that would require almost daily intervention as entries come in, and updating on teh first of every month when FIDE ratings change.

    Personally I would be quite happy if the leagues were not rated by FIDE because the games are often played under conditions that do not strictly comply with FIDE requirements. Instead we could just use FIDE rating for tournaments played at 90/30 or slower.

    Since ICU doesn't have its own rating system for rapid and blitz, it would also be desirable if as many of those events as possible were submitted for FIDE rapid and blitz rating.

    I am not sure why Bray is not FIDE rated (cost?) as its time limit is correct and it's undoubtedly our largest and most popular annual rapid event. The Dun Laoghaire rapid needs to move to the 15/10 rate and be submitted for FIDE rating also.


Advertisement