LCU blog discontinued

Sparks · 07-06-2013 3:40pm

phnompenhchess wrote: »

I believe it is in their interest to have some form of editorial control.

And, as has been explained quite a few times so far, that editorial control is what would sink them because it comes with the attached legal liabilities.
If the ICU really don't want the legal hassles, then they really don't want the editorial control.

phnompenhchess · 07-06-2013 3:56pm

cdeb wrote: »

LCU's call is to put their forum here.

No its not. They pointed here to discuss their thread closing in the absence of somewhere else to put that. Unless there's something I'm missing.

phnompenhchess · 07-06-2013 3:56pm

cdeb wrote: »

LCU's call is to put their forum here.

No its not. They pointed here to discuss their thread closing in the absence of somewhere else to put that. Unless there's something I'm missing.

Sparks · 07-06-2013 4:02pm

phnompenhchess wrote: »

No its not. They pointed here to discuss their thread closing in the absence of somewhere else to put that. Unless there's something I'm missing.

So they closed their blog and pointed to here instead of the forums on chess.com or the english chess forum or any of the other blog-style club sites in the country or a facebook page or twitter or anywhere else.

It's not exactly an official decree, but it's not nothing either.

I thought it was kindof nice of them myself, but then, as you've said, I'm a biased chap who you're not allowed argue with, that only wants to control the debate in Irish chess so that boards.ie can make loadsamoney off of the huge amount of advertising that chess players look at.

cdeb · 07-06-2013 4:15pm

phnompenhchess wrote: »

No its not. They pointed here to discuss their thread closing in the absence of somewhere else to put that. Unless there's something I'm missing.

Yep, you're right (for once!) there.

But I still think here is significantly better than any of the options mentioned so far.

And that's not to rule out that there may well be a better option yet.

bernard palmer · 07-06-2013 4:52pm

I think gentlemen, from the absence if the large majority of people who posted on the l c u site, one is getting the feeling they might prefer something resembling the old site(minus the nervus mod) im even beginning to miss peters compulsive blogs -well no that's a fib

reunion · 07-06-2013 5:09pm

bernard palmer wrote: »

I think gentlemen, from the absence if the large majority of people who posted on the l c u site, one is getting the feeling they might prefer something resembling the old site(minus the nervus mod) im even beginning to miss peters compulsive blogs -well no that's a fib

Then if someone wants a similar website, I suggest a motion at a variety of General Meetings (Leinster, Munster, Irish) to create one.

To the mods; can this thread be closed and/or can people be told to talk like normal people? For the last 5 pages, nothing of use has been said except "I have one viewpoint that isn't in agreement with the policies of this website. I clicked that I agreed when I created my account but the website needs to change".

We are all in agreement; boards' users can be anonymous. If you don't like it go to a different blog. I suggest dublinchess.com as an alternative (that is also not anonymous).

bernard palmer · 07-06-2013 5:22pm

I can only imagin you have some realy odd name "reunion" this shyness is beginning to worry me. Have you ever talked to anyone about it? But seriously, we don't need any motions at a g ms to do this and i think you'll find that if when one is set up by the i c u people will not be able to hide.

Sean Coffey · 07-06-2013 5:44pm

My reaction, for what it's worth: this is quite a good format and forum, and a million times better than having no forum at all. Just for myself, though, I prefer the format at Irish Chess Cogitations (i.e., www.dublinchess.com). It's closer to what we had before. Beyond that, Sparks put it well: there are topics that have been debated on boards.ie a million times and it's not that productive to rehash them. But similarly the LCU blog ("Leinster Chess Cogitations") had issues that were debated extensively and this discussion at boards.ie is rehashing some of them. The debate has moved on.

E.g., this issue of whether to take Peter Cafolla's suggestion of a strict 1900 limit for the Irish championship seriously. There was a massive debate on the LCU Blog about what to do about the Irish championship, with all sorts of suggestions. Often those discussions go nowhere but in this case I think Colm Daly managed to change some opinions, on the issue of closed vs. open championship. (And I see that this year all players have to be IRL-registered with FIDE, so a change from last year.) With that background, which is the better and more productive place to discuss the Irish championship? For me, it's the other site.

Sparks · 07-06-2013 6:05pm

Sean Coffey wrote: »

Sparks put it well: there are topics that have been debated on boards.ie a million times and it's not that productive to rehash them.

What I actually was talking about was the whole controlled-v-open forum format...

With that background, which is the better and more productive place to discuss the Irish championship? For me, it's the other site.

Well, if only the top N players have a voice in it, then only the top N players should talk about it...

...of course, if only the top N players have a voice in it, then it's only reasonable that only the top N players should pay for it as well, and that's not quite what the ICU accounts say happens today.

Mind you, there's a gap between only the top players having a voice and only the top players wanting to talk about it, and I think we're more on the latter and not the former (and maybe that in itself is something to think about).

reunion · 07-06-2013 6:47pm

Sean Coffey wrote: »

My reaction, for what it's worth: this is quite a good format and forum, and a million times better than having no forum at all. Just for myself, though, I prefer the format at Irish Chess Cogitations (i.e., www.dublinchess.com). It's closer to what we had before. Beyond that, Sparks put it well: there are topics that have been debated on boards.ie a million times and it's not that productive to rehash them. But similarly the LCU blog ("Leinster Chess Cogitations") had issues that were debated extensively and this discussion at boards.ie is rehashing some of them. The debate has moved on.

I don't mind giving my real name, if there is some benefit for doing so. I really don't see the need (Also you can create an account without giving your real name on the dublinchess.com site)

Sean Coffey wrote: »

E.g., this issue of whether to take Peter Cafolla's suggestion of a strict 1900 limit for the Irish championship seriously. There was a massive debate on the LCU Blog about what to do about the Irish championship, with all sorts of suggestions. Often those discussions go nowhere but in this case I think Colm Daly managed to change some opinions, on the issue of closed vs. open championship. (And I see that this year all players have to be IRL-registered with FIDE, so a change from last year.) With that background, which is the better and more productive place to discuss the Irish championship? For me, it's the other site.

The 1900 limit is a bit silly. Making it Irish only and rating limitied? about 1000 active players in the ICU with 90 players over 1900 and are registered with FIDE as Irish (more are FIDE rated 1900+ only 90 are 1900+ and are current members of the ICU). How many of those 90 can actually take a full week off to play one tournament?

What should happen is: The top juniors are eligible regardless of rating; Winners of the challenger sections (1600+ rated tournaments) across Ireland should also qualify to be eligible to enter. The winner of the open and intermediate tournaments the year prior should be eligible regardless of rating (and the AM and PM winners from this year - if that format is to be kept).

This would give players who want to improve their rating something to achieve and then give them a year to further improve in time for the Irish Championships the year after. It would also increase participation rates and improve our junior players.

historian · 07-06-2013 7:37pm

Never knew this place existed until Ciaran re-routed us here. At first, I wasn't sure I'd like it, but it has become a bit addictive. So I decided to register, which also gave me an opportunity to shamelessly plug my own website on an old thread.:D

While normally I post on forums under my own name, I decided on a handle here (when in Rome etc) but it's not hard to find out who I am.

So lose one forum, gain two. I reckon I'll prefer the one at dublinchess (which apparently is already on the move) but hey, it's great to have a choice.

Zaph · 08-06-2013 12:04am

I've been keeping an eye on this thread for the last couple of days, and there appears to be a serious amount of paranoia emanating from some quarters. Why is there such an overwhelming desire to know who's posting what? Boards doesn't have a major problem with sock puppeting because we're here long enough to recognise when it's happening and we have faith in our moderators that they are able to take appropriate measures to deal with this sort of thing. I'd love if more people used this forum, it's a popular activity and there's plenty of scope to breath life into a relatively neglected part of the site. But some people need to understand that participation here is on our terms, and that means anonymity is guaranteed unless a poster chooses to relinquish it. In fact we take this seriously enough to include it in the Terms of Use:

You agree, through use of this service, NOT to use boards.ie to:

* identify or speculate as to the identity of any anonymous or pseudonymous user

To that end, if I see any more badgering of posters on this thread to identify themselves, I will siteban the person doing the badgering.

As regards the ridiculous suggestions that Boards wants to make this forum more active to attract advertising or that Boards has an agenda against certain posters here, all I can suggest is that I can provide you with a link to the Conspiracy Theories forum if you wish. Boards revenues are of no concern to anyone who has posted on this thread, and we all have far better things to be doing with ourselves here than sticking our noses into the petty politics of any Irish sporting body.

I think that this forum could be a very useful resource for chess players all over the country, not just LCU members, but just to be clear that we won't be changing the way Boards works just to pander to a few individuals. All are welcome to post here, and I hope that people do, but if you don't like how the site operates well I'm afraid we won't be begging you to stay and perhaps you should look for somewhere else to post.

bernard palmer · 08-06-2013 12:29am

As I wrote before, I was unaware that people were sensitive about even the suggestion of revealing their identitys I am unused to the culture of these posts . I am still astonished that is so deeply embedded that it seems weird and offensive to even ask for the name of a person whom I might have been playing in the leagues age previous month. Perhaps it is a generational thing? After all I don't know the age of most of the people posting, and young people can be very sensitive.

Sparks · 08-06-2013 1:05am

I don't think it's terribly generational bernard; the same topic came up on the LCU blog before and people were very annoyed when anonymity was broken there and the decision to do so was reversed and acknowledged as wrong: http://leinsterchess.com/blog/2010/05/a-call-for-civility-and-politeness/

Col Dal · 08-06-2013 2:51am

IRISH CHESS COGITATIONS IS LEAVING DUBLINCHESS and has found a home of it's own.

Please note that this website is leaving http://www.dublinchess.com and moving to:

http://www.irishchesscogitations.com

As for the debate that has been raging here over many pages, well not sure what to say other than, if you want to talk about talking about chess and all matters therein then stay here, excellent people with excellent ideas no doubt, but if you just want to talk chess - specifically issues of an Irish chess interest, then your welcome to come visit and express yourself.

Try catching up on the latest news and views about the Irish Championships for example, http://www.irishchesscogitations.com/topic.php?id=2

reunion · 08-06-2013 12:10pm

Col Dal wrote: »

As for the debate that has been raging here over many pages, well not sure what to say other than, if you want to talk about talking about chess and all matters therein then stay here, excellent people with excellent ideas no doubt, but if you just want to talk chess - specifically issues of an Irish chess interest, then your welcome to come visit and express yourself.

Why is it moving to a different site after 2 days of operation? Wouldn't a simple redirect be just as sufficient?

Like I said earlier, that forum also doesn't mandate everyone to give their full names so you have the exact same situation as you have here. The difference is that this forum is linked from the LCU blog.

The other forum seems more like a conversation with people that know each other, they might stray off-topic of just purely chess (2 out of 4 aren't about chess but rather general topics) ; however this forum will be purely about chess (as there are other forums to discuss legal matters, etc).

phnompenhchess · 08-06-2013 2:03pm

Fair play to Colm for investing both his time and money to establish an Irish chess forum. It doesn't conform to the format I would have preferred but at least it's run by a chess player. In the absence of an alternative I guess that's the new blog. www.irishchesscogitations.com As with the last year of the LCU Blog I won't be posting there but will be an avid reader.

Thanks to boards.ie for hosting this discussion.

Col Dal · 08-06-2013 3:11pm

A simple redirect was an option alright, but I have other plans for dublinchess.com and want to keep it apart from any blog/forum which I wish to see take root within Irish chess and be a useful resource for the small Irish chess community.

My vision for such a blog/forum is that it can evolve to be a self regulating community of chess enthusiasts that will see all the benefits that were to be had with, for example, the LCU blog, by way of a place to share and find out information or discuss and raise concerns about various issues.

However I would like to see a situation like that come about without the inconsistent and at times dismal way the blog was moderated. The blog had been dying a slow and painful death for some time and had stopped being so welcoming to multiple voices and views for some time. It had been hijacked and monopolized far too much by an ill informed, often ignorant, certainly rude and even nasty persona that turned people off. Having long surpassed the level of shock or amusement value.

In short, that blog was abused as a resource and then the LCU itself no longer wanted the responsibility to keep it going, especially when having only one person to be the moderator and thus alone responsible for what went up or didn't.

With no doubt the best of intentions and being a very sound person indeed I respectfully don't think Ciaran was ever comfortable in that role and it is understandable that he wanted no more of it. However that is just one persons perspective and the fact that he choose to end the blog [his involvement - with the knock on effect no doubt that as nobody else within the LCU wanted it to continue, or be a moderator] and then post a link to this huge and very general Irish forum is purely one individual giving a link,.

I don't put any great weight to the fact that one person, after washing his hands of one chess blog, decided to give a link to this site. I don't even see it as very relevant at all, one way or another. There have been pages here talking about talking about talking etc etc.

Now there is an actual website dedicated to and for Irish chess players http://www.irishchesscogitations.com/ to cultivate a sense of their own chess community and have a resource which will be of the members and for the members. It will stand or fail on it's merits and the content of the submissions made by people and the mutual respect shown by those who choose to use it.

There is and will be great freedom, very much based on the type of comments and issues mentioned here. In fact some parts of the model here will be used, namely that there will be several moderators, or at least, several trusted people who will be given moderator rights and status which they can choose to use and avail of or not as is there own choice. In other words, there will be no obligation to act as a moderator by people,they would just be helping out by their own choice, but it will be more a case of a small community self regulating to some extent. I do not envisage my having to play the role of censor either, but suffice to say that libel, defamation, hate speech will not be entertained. It should be a fun experience to share and express ides and news about all things chess related.

As for my own personal views regarding the whole concept of what to do now that the LCU blog is gone? Well much can be understood from what I have already said so far I hope.

Basically I think such a resource in the modern age is vital to the well being of any chess community. The means to share and express concerns, and if need be, offer a critical view on any number of topics or highlight issues in a public and transparent way is a good thing.

I am not a fan at all of the idea that the ICU [of which I am the current Vice Chairman] should be doing this type of thing,as the instinct to control and manipulate information is too great a risk or an unavoidable feature. Such a website should be independent and depend only on the support of it's own members.

I am enabling this website to start in a purely personal capacity as I think the resource has great potential value and utility for the chess community. and regarding any notion of control by way of restricting people access to such a website, well needless to say I am not in favor of that at all. People will be judged over time on the content of their posts regardless of whose name was behind them.

And with that I say goodbye to eboards.ie

A great site and resource generally for sure but not one in which I would be interested in as a place to debate or discuss chess, Irish chess or any chess related topics.

bernard palmer · 08-06-2013 4:21pm

I shall also be saying adieu to this forum I find it a strangely unpromising. Place to actually discuss chess. I realize iv been text ing for the last few days in a complete vacuum. Just talking about talk. This is what happens I suppose, when a majority of contributors are very casual players. So I think if I'm to post at all , it had better be on colms new enterprise. I urge Sean et al to follow suit.

EnPassant · 08-06-2013 4:28pm

Just to clarify a couple of things:-

1. The decision to end the LCU blog was taken by the LCU committee - it was not my decision (although I agreed with it).

2. The LCU is not endorsing this or any other forum - I started this thread so that users of the blog would be able to keep in contact rather than being left in limbo.

Good luck with the new site, Colm.

My own personal view is that IrishChessCogitations.com will likely become, in practice, HigherRatedPlayersCogitations.com. The post by Cafmendo about under-1900s exemplifies this - it is hardly encouraging towards most players taking part in discussions. I think that the boards.ie chess forum is actually a much more open and welcoming place for all chess players, from beginners to masters, but I can also see the attractions of a dedicated chess site - especially from a technical point of view (including positions or games in posts, etc.).

As someone once said "let a thousand flowers bloom" ...

Sean Coffey · 08-06-2013 4:41pm

EnPassant wrote: »

My own personal view is that IrishChessCogitations.com will likely become, in practice, HigherRatedPlayersCogitations.com. The post by Cafmendo about under-1900s exemplifies this - it is hardly encouraging towards most players taking part in discussions. I think that the boards.ie chess forum is actually a much more open and welcoming place for all chess players, from beginners to masters, ...

Thanks, E.P., for giving me the chance to say that this is not at all the approach at IRLchess (http://www.irlchess.com), where the scope is "anything to with Irish chess, from Labourdonnais-McDonnell to today, from rating level 500 to 2500, and from chess-centric to the social & personal aspects." See http://www.irlchess.com/2013/05/30/denis-irwin/ for one example of non-higher-rated chess, http://www.irlchess.com/community-games/ for another. And see http://www.irlchess.com/simuls/ for a topic that brings higher and lower rated players together.

We don't have many such details and games but that's because often they're not recorded, and even when recorded it's hard to get people to send them in. But if anyone has records / games / clippings, please send them in.

cdeb · 08-06-2013 5:01pm

EnPassant wrote: »

My own personal view is that IrishChessCogitations.com will likely become, in practice, HigherRatedPlayersCogitations.com. The post by Cafmendo about under-1900s exemplifies this - it is hardly encouraging towards most players taking part in discussions.

Add the thread wondering if under 18s should be banned as well.

Sparks · 08-06-2013 5:52pm

For lads who only want to talk about chess, and who think here is useless for that, there's an awful lot of advertising waffle here all of a sudden

Have fun on HigherRatedPlayersCogitations.com lads, just do your ironymeters a favor and never ask why there are so few people showing up for the Irish Championships (it's what, up to twelve entrants now?) or why there aren't more chess clubs, or why there are so few "real" chess players and so many online players

Col Dal · 08-06-2013 6:06pm

wrote:

Good luck with the new site, Colm.

My own personal view is that IrishChessCogitations.com will likely become, in practice, HigherRatedPlayersCogitations.com

I think that says a lot as there is a certain prejudice on display here. If I were a 1200 player unknown within our small chess community then that no doubt would be more to your liking?

Fact is the LCU lost interest in the Blog and since you were the person moderating it and had reached the point of wanting to wash your hands of it [VERY UNDERSTANDABLY] it follows that once you made your choice the result was a forgone conclusion. You then give a link to this site which is a site you have just confirmed is a personal choice of yours and that you think is the best place to continue having a chess forum.

Needless to say I disagree and I would further suggest that had you been more judicious in the way you moderated the LCU blog then it may not have gone downhill so much as it did and it could have been a lot more positive than negative as it had become and been seen as.

Don't wish to blame you personally as it was the LCU blog and it was unfair for the burden of moderating to fall on you alone. Plus I do not think you were ever well suited or comfortable in that role either. I think you are far more interested in the technical aspects of working the site with added features etc. Nothing wrong with that, but it does indicate to me that the blog had been doomed for some time. Anyway you can not please all the people all of the time and I venture to say that was not a position you liked being in. Your too easy going to want to have been put in that position in the first place. Whereas I am a lot more used to belligerence or the sort of put down you have engaged in here and know the true nature and value of such put downs = not much.

The fact that I happen to be the current Vice Chairman of the ICU and active in Irish chess for over 30 years but willing to put my head above the... counts for so less to you I guess.

The point being that I am in fact in a very good position to launch a site for ALL our chess players and chess community, if only because I tend to know what I am talking about and am usually well informed and interested enough in Irish chess to want to share my insights, which on occasion have and do provide some useful information and perspective..

As for the example you give about the comment made about ratings with specific reference to the Irish championships. You fail to grasp that the whole point of allowing people have their view expressed is that others may be able to better inform or in this case out right refute the assertion made, and thus that is what happened by the reply of both Sean, David and myself. Which in turn is the whole point of such a debate and blog/forums. This in truth only confirms to me why the LCU was abandoned by you and the LCU.

You were never really for it to start with and I don't think you understood how it should have been utilized or worked well either. Perhaps you are too agreeable a person so you did not and do not like to be party to even the appearance of disagreement?

Regardless what you or I think, www.irishchesscogitations.com will not become anything like what you doubtless fear in terms of a higher rated players platform. It will sink or swim based on the members and the people who contribute to it.

My role is more of a facilitator or catalyst to give the concept a kick start. Others will determine the success or usefulness of having a dedicated chess site where people can exchange ideas,views and news.

As for the other comment about a thread asking about people being over 18 allowed, or encouraged to post? Well here too that was someone giving an opinion and to which there is a reply, while I must confess that when you say

wrote:

it is hardly encouraging towards most players taking part in discussions.

I am thinking that in general I am not so keen to have people under 18 post and see more down sides than up sides. If only because anybody under 18 should not be wasting their time on a chess blog to begin with as their parents are the ones who make any meaningful decisions on their behalf.

In fact I will be dissuading anybody under 18 from the using the site = let somebody set up a Junior Chess site if they wish, as I think anybody interested in chess under 18 should not be wasting their time on a blog when they could be down in their local chess club or actually playing chess online. Anyway this really must be the last post on here so I wish you the best of luck and hopefully you will visit www.irishchesscogitations.com and maybe even become a member in due course.

Col Dal · 08-06-2013 6:10pm

Sparks wrote: »

Have fun on HigherRatedPlayersCogitations.com lads

I am sure you meant www.irishchesscogitations.com

reunion · 08-06-2013 7:09pm

Col Dal wrote: »

I am thinking that in general I am not so keen to have people under 18 post and see more down sides than up sides. If only because anybody under 18 should not be wasting their time on a chess blog to begin with as their parents are the ones who make any meaningful decisions on their behalf.

I don't see the negative; younger players typically have more time to post on blogs and they are the most eager to learn and read material. The site doesn't ask for age so how can you tell someone is over 18 or not? Without getting some age card you are just trusting the user.

Col Dal wrote: »

In fact I will be dissuading anybody under 18 from the using the site = let somebody set up a Junior Chess site if they wish, as I think anybody interested in chess under 18 should not be wasting their time on a blog when they could be down in their local chess club or actually playing chess online. Anyway this really must be the last post on here so I wish you the best of luck and hopefully you will visit www.irishchesscogitations.com and maybe even become a member in due course.

Via that logic every chess player should be in a chess club instead of talking on a forum.

It's sad that Cork Congress (and other tournaments) have started decreasing from ~200 players to ~120. I'd rather everyone had a place to talk and air their opinion (as everyone is important to the future of Irish Chess). This talk of excluding probably the most technically savvy because they aren't good is really what's stopping young people from playing.

Sparks · 08-06-2013 7:30pm

Col Dal wrote: »

I am sure you meant www.irishchesscogitations.com

Of course you're right, higherratedplayerscogitations.com wouldn't be cliquey enough for "real" chess players.

:P

Zaph · 08-06-2013 8:42pm

Col Dal wrote: »

I am thinking that in general I am not so keen to have people under 18 post and see more down sides than up sides. If only because anybody under 18 should not be wasting their time on a chess blog to begin with as their parents are the ones who make any meaningful decisions on their behalf.

In fact I will be dissuading anybody under 18 from the using the site = let somebody set up a Junior Chess site if they wish, as I think anybody interested in chess under 18 should not be wasting their time on a blog when they could be down in their local chess club or actually playing chess online. Anyway this really must be the last post on here so I wish you the best of luck and hopefully you will visit www.irishchesscogitations.com and maybe even become a member in due course.

As a complete outsider I have to say that I'm completely gobsmacked by this post. I have never heard of any sporting organisation wanting to exclude participants in their internet discussions on the basis of age. To say that they should be playing in their club or online instead of posting on a chess site is extraordinarily patronising. There's lots younger players can learn on a website from more experienced hands, which helps promote the game and secure its future. It's no wonder that participation in events is falling if that's the attitude generally displayed towards the next generation of players.

Btw, for any younger players reading this, Boards is a PG13 site and you're very welcome to post here.

phnompenhchess · 08-06-2013 9:51pm

Zaph wrote: »

It's no wonder that participation in events is falling if that's the attitude generally displayed towards the next generation of players.

Wrong. The overall trend in terms of both rated games and ICU member numbers is upwards. What Cork missed out in terms of numbers this year Bunratty more than made up for although with the alleged assault/cheating incident only Cork is remembered. Perhaps both topics could be discussed on www.irishchesscogitations.com

Sparks · 08-06-2013 9:59pm

phnompenhchess wrote: »

Wrong.

Others disagree it would seem: http://leinsterchess.com/blog/2013/05/lowering-standards/

Perhaps both topics could be discussed on www.irishchesscogitations.com

But we don't have 25 years experience in Irish Chess, don't want to give out our phone numbers and aren't rated over 1900, so why would anyone there do anything but pour on the scorn?

reunion · 09-06-2013 1:29am

phnompenhchess wrote: »

Wrong. The overall trend in terms of both rated games and ICU member numbers is upwards. What Cork missed out in terms of numbers this year Bunratty more than made up for although with the alleged assault/cheating incident only Cork is remembered. Perhaps both topics could be discussed on www.irishchesscogitations.com

or both topics could be discussed here by everyone and not a select few that meet a rating criteria and are over a certain age.

The ICU membership is static with the average rating decreasing. Bunratty has a large following and it certainly seems to have increased in size. The active player base could still be the same size, with more tournaments located all around the country. We are probably just seeing more smaller tournaments located around the country.

TBH the biggest problem (in my view anyway) is that you typically see the same people at each different tournament around the country. That ends up making it harder for a new player(s) to break into an established group.

A huge problem is finding something to do in between rounds if you don't know anyone there.

phnompenhchess · 09-06-2013 2:37am

Sparks wrote: »

Others disagree it would seem: http://leinsterchess.com/blog/2013/05/lowering-standards/

But we don't have 25 years experience in Irish Chess, don't want to give out our phone numbers and aren't rated over 1900, so why would anyone there do anything but pour on the scorn?

That thread is about rating deflation, nothing to do with player numbers. As to your second point there are no such restrictions on www.irishchesscogitations.com from what I can see.

Sparks · 09-06-2013 2:55am

phnompenhchess wrote: »

That thread is about rating deflation, nothing to do with player numbers.

Really? Badly written so:

I did argue long and hard that the annoying trend of waiving rating requirements which was creeping in to Irish chess like bindweed in a flower garden was going to result in falling numbers attending tournaments and a lowering of standards but the majority didn’t agree with me. I for one just don’t bother with many tournaments I used to always attend and I am clearly not the only one who has been driven away. Sad to see that my prediction is coming true.

brilliantboy · 09-06-2013 3:06am

This thread has all gone a bit silly and far too cynical

My own preference would be to use this forum to discuss all matters of Irish chess rather than hiding away and erecting a barrier, unintentional or otherwise, to newcomers. The surge in activity here the last few days has been refreshing, and I don't see why it can't continue.
The issue of anonymity is a non-issue in my opinion. Take this thread as an example; everyone has been willing to make clear who they are
(and should anyone wish to know who is behind this mystery door they can just PM, but will be sorely disappointed

),
and competent moderation will ensure that anyone wishing to remain anonymous won't be doing so only to stir the pot.

I do however appreciate the service Col Dal is providing in setting up a dedicated Irish chess forum, and should it continue to exist I'll be reading it regularly, and contributing if I have anything to say (as I did very occasionally on the LCU blog). I may not agree with everything that appears there, but then discussion would be a far less useful tool if everyone was already in agreement about everything.

brilliantboy · 09-06-2013 3:10am

Sparks wrote: »

Really? Badly written so:

The author of that post is complaining about falling numbers among higher rated players and a general "lowering of standards" in Irish chess :rolleyes:

phnompenhchess · 09-06-2013 3:37am

Sparks wrote: »

Really? Badly written so:

Peter's comment was that there was falling attendance in the top level sections. If you'd understood the thread you'd know that it went on to say that rating deflation was likely the reason. I admire your enthusiasm and don't mind filling in the blanks for you but can we do it over on the proper forum? www.irishchesscogitations.com

Sparks · 09-06-2013 3:50am

phnompenhchess wrote: »

Peter's comment was that there was falling attendance in the top level sections. If you'd understood the thread you'd know that it went on to say that rating deflation was likely the reason. I admire your enthusiasm and don't mind filling in the blanks for you

Excellent.
Can you then tell me how it's mathematically possible to see rating deflation without a reduction in the overall number of players in the pool? Because I was under the impression that if the pool increased, the total number of available points went up and you got rating inflation (which is what the rest of the chess world is pondering when trying to compare everyone from capablanca to carlson) and that it wasn't actually possible to see rating deflation unless players left the pool.

phnompenhchess · 09-06-2013 4:10am

Sparks wrote: »

Excellent.
Can you then tell me how it's mathematically possible to see rating deflation without a reduction on in the overall number of players in the pool? Because I was under the impression that if the pool increased, the total number of available points went up and you got rating inflation (which is what the rest of the chess world is pondering when trying to compare everyone from capablanca to carlson) and that it wasn't actually possible to see rating deflation unless players left the pool.

Ten players die average rating 2000. Twelve players enter, average rating 1200. Overall average rating falls. If the adjusters,such as bonus points, do not have their intended effect you get deflation. It not rocket science.

Sparks · 09-06-2013 4:34am

phnompenhchess wrote: »

Ten players die average rating 2000. Twelve players enter, average rating 1200. Overall average rating falls. If the adjusters,such as bonus points, do not have their intended effect you get deflation. It not rocket science.

No, it's statistics, and your scenario is off:

When you set a starting point at 1000 what you are essentially saying is that the average player = 1000 pts. With a closed group of initial players (beta testers?) this is true, within that group average = 1000. But if the game is something you improve at with time then your closed group average player becomes highly skilled compared to someone who hasn't played.

Now when you assign a 1000 to a new player you are saying new average players = existing highly skilled average player. This is not true, they are likely to be much less skilled that your original closed group. So the new player loses points and your highly skilled players gain => inflation.

But we're seeing deflation, so we're losing more players than we're gaining. The math doesn't work otherwise unless you're doing something screwy.

phnompenhchess · 09-06-2013 4:49am

Sparks wrote: »

No, it's statistics, and your scenario is off:

But we're seeing deflation, so we're losing more players than we're gaining. The math doesn't work otherwise unless you're doing something screwy.

Setup a thread on the Irish chess blog, www.irishchesscogitations.com to have this properly explained to you. My scenario was intended to be simplistic to help you get it, there are people posting there who can give you a detailed explanation.

Zugszwang · 09-06-2013 9:43am

If a player joins the system at 1000 and leaves at 700, they cause inflation. If they leave at 2400, they cause deflation.

Inflation/deflation is a side issue. Chess would seem to be on the decline in Ireland, Bunratty numbers notwithstanding. This sort of discussion sure doesn't help matters.

@Sparks, don't vent your frustration at those who have "25 years experience in Irish Chess, don't want to give out our phone numbers and are rated over 1900" -- you're really arguing with one or two people on this board who don't represent anything in Irish chess, other than themselves. Hope you get back to club chess; the expansion of the ICU membership can start here

phnompenhchess · 09-06-2013 9:52am

Zugszwang wrote: »

Chess would seem to be on the decline in Ireland, Bunratty numbers notwithstanding.

:eek:

http://www.icu.ie/icu/subscribed.php

Lists paid up members of the ICU. Season 2012/2013 is not yet finished.
2011/2012 - 906 members
2010/2011 - 880 members
2009/2010 - 819 members
2008/2009 - 767 members

How is this decline? The increase under Jonathan O'Connor's chairmanship has been consistently strong.

Zugszwang · 09-06-2013 10:14am

Fair enough, but in the nineties there were well over 4,000 people on the ICU rating list (key question is of course how many were paid up?). I may have rose-tinted spectacles on, I admit. Anyway, you're right to focus on the positives so perhaps you might try to encourage Sparks and others to get active and get registered again?

Sparks · 09-06-2013 10:33am

906 ICU members (down from 4000 or so?)

Meanwhile, Chess.com has 1040-odd Irish members, RedHotPawn.com has 3326, some 500 more on Gameknot... all places that make it their business to welcome new members, remove barriers to entry, and encourage people along; there's a lesson in there somewhere and a trend.

Sparks · 09-06-2013 10:41am

Zugszwang wrote: »

@Sparks, don't vent your frustration at those who have "25 years experience in Irish Chess, don't want to give out our phone numbers and are rated over 1900" -- you're really arguing with one or two people on this board who don't represent anything in Irish chess, other than themselves. Hope you get back to club chess; the expansion of the ICU membership can start here

I got back to it a month ago after a twenty-year gap, mainly thanks to Mark Orr and cdeb; and if all goes well, we might see the new club at work join up to the ICU in a couple of months. But any of the lads in the work club would take one look at some of the things the "more experienced" people posted in here and wash their hands of the whole thing and just keep playing online.

reunion · 09-06-2013 10:48am

Sparks wrote: »

906 ICU members (down from 4000 or so?)

Meanwhile, Chess.com has 1040-odd Irish members, RedHotPawn.com has 3326, some 500 more on Gameknot... all places that make it their business to welcome new members, remove barriers to entry, and encourage people along; there's a lesson in there somewhere and a trend.

Sparks I do think you might be taking some of this a little personally but just my opinion.

phnompenhchess wrote: »

Setup a thread on the Irish chess blog, www.irishchesscogitations.com to have this properly explained to you. My scenario was intended to be simplistic to help you get it, there are people posting there who can give you a detailed explanation.

Can you stop advertising that forum? All your posts have become btw have you seen this. We get it, someone set up another forum somewhere else on the internet. That also isn't rocket science. Also what you said implies that no one here could explain rating deflation. Why would we join another forum if you can't explain it here?

The impression of the other forum so far is, if you don't join us, you don't know what your talking about when it comes to Irish chess. Not a good impression so far; not one that would make me want to join.

The restrictions for posting is an active topic on that forum. Either its open to everyone (making those threads a waste of everyone's time) or it isn't (and it truely is selective). I do like discussion and topics can be talked about but that forum needs a bit of purpose. Currently I don't know who it is aimed for. Casual player, different clubs, master players, game analysis? All I know it might be possible that you could talk about Irish chess.

phnompenhchess · 09-06-2013 11:00am

Zugszwang wrote: »

Fair enough, but in the nineties there were well over 4,000 people on the ICU rating list (key question is of course how many were paid up?). I may have rose-tinted spectacles on, I admit. Anyway, you're right to focus on the positives so perhaps you might try to encourage Sparks and others to get active and get registered again?

I think Sparks should play chess, I just disagree with his assertion that chess should be discussed on here. Is the logic that I should agree with him just to be nice?

I wish there was 4,000 people active in the 90's but don't think there was. Some of the great events are sorely missed though, the City of Dublin and Ballyfermot events in the Mansion House were great as was the Rathmines tournament in Terence.

Rev Hellfire · 09-06-2013 11:37am

phnompenhchess wrote: »

I think Sparks should play chess, I just disagree with his assertion that chess should be discussed on here.

Discussing chess on the chess forum, crazy I tell you

Nothing stopping people discussing chess on both forums, there's nothing to say it has to be exclusive. Can both happily co-exist.

reunion · 09-06-2013 11:47am

phnompenhchess wrote: »

I think Sparks should play chess, I just disagree with his assertion that chess should be discussed on here. Is the logic that I should agree with him just to be nice?

I'd rather everyone talked about Irish Chess. If their preference is here, fine if it's somewhere else, that's fine too. Wherever they feel most comfortable to discuss chess.

phnompenhchess wrote: »

I wish there was 4,000 people active in the 90's but don't think there was. Some of the great events are sorely missed though, the City of Dublin and Ballyfermot events in the Mansion House were great as was the Rathmines tournament in Terence.

Chess can be as good as it used to be, however we do need to start actively recruiting and encouraging more people to play. I do still think in between rounds at tournaments can get boring if you are there on your own. That probably should be addressed

LCU blog discontinued

Comments