Advertisement
MODs please see this information notice in the mod's forum. Thanks!
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 Championship 2018

2456711

Comments



  • 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




  • 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




  • 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




  • 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?




  • 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.


  • Advertisement


  • 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!:)




  • 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. :)




  • 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.




  • #Sodacat2020 #BuildTheWallFloor




  • 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.


  • Advertisement


  • 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.




  • pawntof4 wrote: »
    If you propose it and turn up I'll second it.

    Okay.Deal! Where and when is the AGM?




  • 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?




  • 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.




  • sodacat11 wrote: »
    Okay.Deal! Where and when is the AGM?

    Some time in September up in the big smoke




  • 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.




  • The motion was withdrawn without being voted on.




  • 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: »
    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.




  • 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.


  • Advertisement


  • I feel like I will be derailing this thread if I continue with this discussion. If there is a motion at the AGM, I can discuss there or the relevant AGM thread here on boards. 

    I note an AM tournament which sounds like a good idea. 

    I wonder what will happen the 2 players (on the entry site) currently entered who are below the 1900 rating requirement.




  • 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.




  • 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.
    I never said any such thing. Anyone over 1900 regardless of gender, colour, height, width, religion , sexual orientation, ethnic origin, colour of hair, number of teeth, length of nose or shoe sizeis perfectly entitled to play.




  • 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.




  • 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.
    sodacat11 wrote: »
    The reason that I am back again this year is because I was told that the 1900 benchmark would be respected. 

    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.




  • 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.




  • zeitnot wrote: »
     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.

    Genuinely didn't see that. Guess I should pay more attention to the terms and conditions!




  • IM Mark Quinn the latest entrant. Anthony Bourached also entered this week bringing entries to 31.

    GM Alex Baburin
    IM Sam Collins
    IM Alex Lopez
    IM Mark Quinn
    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
    Henry Li
    Killian Delaney
    Gordon Freeman
    Paul Wallace
    Stephen Moran
    Gerry O'Connell
    Shane Melaugh
    Anthony Bourached
    Anthony Fox
    Mihailo Manojlovic
    Gavin Melaugh
    John McMorrow
    Paul O'Neill
    Conor Nolan
    Peter Cafolla
    Eamon Keogh
    Peter Carroll




  • Defending Champion, FM Philip Short is the #32 entrant - and currently 10th seed.

    Supporting events have now been announced in full for the 2018 Irish Championships which take place from August 3-12 with 7 events in all. The only event which is IRL-only is the Irish Championship itself which runs from August 4-12 with one round per day. We will be aiming to broadcast over 300 classical games over the ten days and possibly games from the blitz events too.

    The supporting events ensure that any player rated under 1900 can play 15 FIDE rated Classical games and 18 FIDE rated blitz games in 10 days.

    The first weekend features 2 five round weekenders for players rated u1300 (10 entrants) and from 1200-1900 (21 entrant): https://www.icu.ie/events/990

    There will then be a 5 round Open from August 6-10 played each morning before the main event starts at 3pm (12 entrants). (https://www.icu.ie/events/1111)

    The second weekend, August 10-12, features an Open 5-round Weekender with a few titled players already signed up to play (23 entrants). https://www.icu.ie/events/991

    Apart from the classical events, there will also be a 9 round blitz each Sunday evening with a €600 prize fund in each.
    https://www.icu.ie/events/1112
    https://www.icu.ie/events/1113

    The prize fund for the entire week comes close to €9k.


  • Advertisement


  • There is now just 5 days left to enter the Irish Championship. Entries are at 36.

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


Advertisement