Irish Championship 2018

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

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 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!:)

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.

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 wrote: »

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

Okay.Deal! Where and when is the AGM?

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.

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

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.

cdeb wrote: »

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.

It worries me that I find myself agreeing with CDEB more and more these days.
Incidentally,I never said that Eamon Keogh should not be in the Irish Ch. His FIDE rating is over 1900 so he is perfectly qualified quite apart from his past achievements.

zeitnot wrote: »

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.

Perhaps the downturn in numbers happened because low rated players started to be allowed into the tournament? I have always played in Irish Championships whenever possible but haven't for the last three years for that very reason. The reason that I am back again this year is because I was told that the 1900 benchmark would be respected. Ironically my rating then dropped 100 points and I had to do some work on my game to qualify but I enjoyed doing so and I learned from the experience. I have earned my place in the championship as have all the other contestants. It really annoys me that others think that they have some god given right ( for whatever silly reason) to participate when they have not earned their place by reaching 1900.
I would much prefer to spend my time on the golf course, by the sea, or walking my dog in this weather than arguing here so this is my final post on the matter.

reunion wrote: »

sodacat11;107330683
Incidentally,I never said that Eamon Keogh should not be in the Irish Ch. His FIDE rating is over 1900 so he is perfectly qualified quite apart from his past achievements.

The rating requirement is 1900 ICU rating not FIDE. You are saying that, at present, Eamon Keogh, a former champion, should not be playing in the event. While you haven't specifically said him, he is in your bucket of under 1900 ICU rated players with "silly reasons" to play.

Actually the requirement is 1900+ on either list. This could be clearer: the flyer says (Notes, item 5) that it's for 1900+ ICU. But the more detailed terms and conditions (link from Notes, item 8) says 1900+ on either list (Competition terms, item 2). "Retd. Loyola Capt." wrote earlier on this thread that the intention was 1900+ on either list. So E. Keogh is a clear case.

For the remaining player, it's not clear if he qualifies based on a live rating of over 1900 (which I think "Retd. Loyola Capt." said was the case), or if he will be invited. Since he's 1852 ICU and currently makes it an even number of players, it seems more than reasonable to me to invite him.