The topic title here
Author: Mark Kaprielian
2005-08
Table of Contents
II. Existing
Policy statements under consideration.
III. Previous
motivations for changes
IV. Motivations
for changes put forward by this document
V. Outline of
Possible Solutions
VI. Discussion
Summary or Text
End of Table of Contents
To change the time control for the lowest section in each month’s tournament to a faster time control than the club’s currently defined regular time control.
From Monthly Tournament P&P dated 2003-02-07
· Normal time controls are 40 moves in 90 minutes, followed by sudden death in 30 minutes, unless otherwise announced.
Not Applicable
John Chamberlain who teaches the Monthly Group Class proposes that the time control for the lowest section in each month’s tournament be made a faster time control such as G/60 to allow lower rated adults and younger players to complete their games earlier. John suggests that the lower rated adults will prefer this as they will not have to remain at the club for long hours. He also believes that this will attract more younger players to the club because as it will not be too late for them to play on school nights.
Not Applicable
Jim Krycka, 2005-08-08
I'd like to get your
feedback on a proposal put forth by John Chamberlain and modified slightly by
me.
Based on conversations
with players from the Weekly Study Group, many favor a shorter time control for
the lowest section. John proposes that we change the time limit for the
lowest section to G/60.
The modified proposal
is that:
1. We consider
changing the time control for the lowest section in four section events to
G/60. In practice, this is only for U1350 sections and lower. (Five
round events currently have three sections with the lowest being U1400 or higher,
so there would be no changes for these events.)
2. Before making
this change we would have to poll the members. Even if the reaction is
mainly favorable, we would have to carefully consider any adverse consequences
before making such a change.
Below are the relevant
e-mails to date on the subject in chronological order from John, me, and
I'd like to hear the
pros and cons of the idea, and any thoughts you may have on how to gather data
from the membership who would be affected.
When I tossed out a
similar idea awhile back, some of the cons were:
1. It might
attract many scholastic players and where already near or at capacity in the
playing room. Overcrowding in turn might cause some regulars not to play.
2. Games with a
shorter time control are more likely to enter into a time scramble. This
would occur at a time when probably all of the TDs on duty are still playing
their games.
3. The lower
rated adults who want the long time controls would be forced to play-up.
Some of these might simply elect not to play at MCC.
I'm sure that many
younger players and their parents would welcome a short time control for the
reasons stated in John's mail.
If the feedback John is
getting from the Weekly Study Group is representative of the general membership
who play in the lower sections, then I think we should try to accomodate
them. However, I don't want to alienate those whose ratings are low but want
to play at our normal 40/90+SD/30 pace.
Jim (and on behalf of
John)
-------------------------------------
John Chamberlain's original proposal:
-------------------------------------
Hi Jim, I talked with
Mark last night and he suggested I send this to you and it be forwarded to the
monthly tournament list for discussion.
Because I lead the
lesson group every week I have a lot of contact with players in the lower
section. The feedback I get from the great majority is that the time
limit is too long. There are a few players who like it, but most of them do
not. Especially among the young kids and seniors keeping them up to 11:30
p.m. (plus the drive home) is a turnoff. Parents also are not
psyched by the 4-hour wait.
I propose that the time
limit be changed in the lower section be changed to:
G/60
For those players who
want to stay late there is always a lot of action in the skittles room. I
think this change would greatly improve the overall happiness level in the
lower section.
Hope you agree, John C.
------------------------------
Jim Krycka's response to John:
------------------------------
I like the idea.
In fact, I suggested something similar a couple of years ago when we migrated
to 4 sections for 4 round events -- specifially that we offer shorter time
controls for the lowest section in months where we have 4 sections (usually an
U1300 or U1350 section). Another option would be to play two G/45 games
against the same opponent in the lowest section.
At that time, nobody in the monthly advisory group supported the idea.
But, things have changed somewhat since then. The 4 section event has
worked out quite well and we now have more beginner and/or very low rated
players (ie, U1000) at the club. More importanly we have feedback from
some of these players through you!
I'll float this idea in the monthly discussion list. If it seems like a
good idea, then I suggest we introduce the concept to the membership through
the newsletter and conduct some sor! t of informal poll to see what what
players think who actually play in the lowest section -- those U1000-U1300
players who play there but don't like the short time controls will have to play
up, so we need to be careful.
----------------------------------------
Mark Kaprielian's reply to both e-mails:
----------------------------------------
We should really
quantify the interest if we are going to consider taking action. I think
this could be very easy to do. For round 3 of next months event I can
easily generate a list of players in the section for a polling sheet. We
put perhaps 3 or 4 questions with a column for each and people just find their
name and check it off. We could also solicit via the newsletter
from people not present if we wanted more data.
Also, I can just generate a list of all people under a certain rating and we
could probably do an email directly to that list only. Thus we would have
a direct send to and response from.
The idea about the two G/45 against the same opponent is interesting.
Ideally they can just turn the board and start the second game. Thus,
minor, distributed disruption and no real need for TD intervention. Only
problem I foresee is based on whe! n I see games end somewhat quickly I go over
and try to get them to flip colors for a shorter game. Both Adults and
Kids often turn it down I suspect mostly because it was a blow out
and the game was to lop sided. Also, because of the desire to call
it a night and get home.
If we are going to keep discussing then you should probably respond to this
email thread by forwarding it to the monthly list.
Neil Cousin – 2005-08-08
The lack of TDs
available around 9:30 is definitely a drawback as I see it. The odds of a
TD being available are pretty remote and would require them to be interrupted
during their game. I do not like the idea of even more interruptions than
there are now. We should try to quantify the interest and then continue
the discussion on the other merits.
Harvey Reed – 2005-08-09
All,
The biggest negative
for me is that our Club is “defined” by our consistent application of our time
control. That’s who we are. We are not for everyone. I think if we start to introduce
additional time controls, it’ll bring chaos. Once we do it for one section, why
not another? Why not run parallel sections?
We can’t please
everyone. The scholastics know if they play at the Club, they play our time
control.
This will also wreak
havoc with TDs, with people wanting to play additional side games (why not get
a few games in, right?)…
I am very against this.
Very.
Matt Phelps – 2005-08-10
Add me to the list of
very, very against this proposal. As a TD, events with different time controls
in different sections are highly undesirable. For example, GAME/60 is
dual-ratable for both regular and quick chess ratings. Though certainly
do-able, we'll have to keep remembering to dual-rate certain sections on
certain months, which we may forget one month, causing more headaches. I'm not
sure, but we may have to pay more to have the event dual rated too.
One of our assets is
that we play "real" chess in a weeknight-only club every week. Let's
keep it that way.
The logistical reasons already mentioned concerning TD availability at the two hour mark, and also the fact that sudden-death time scrambles will happen in the middle of the upper sections games causing general disturbances, are enough in by book to squash this idea.
Harvey Reed – 2005-08-10
Our focus is our
strength.
That's why there is
room for other chess clubs with different focus, like Waltham CC.
If we have people that
want short time controls, refer them to
Mark Kaprielian – 2005-08-13
I agree with
By changing what we
have been doing consistently for almost ten years, we are changing the expected
outcome we may achieve. Some times
change is good, other times change is bad.
Compare our numbers with other area clubs. Other clubs have a consistent time control
such as we do yet they do not get the numbers we get. The Waltham Chess Club varies their time
control and they do not achieve the numbers that we have. By sheer volume of players we manage to get
more young players on our school night then
The question I would propose back to anyone still in favor of changing the time control is, what is the perceived better outcome than what we have now? My summary of what we have now is:
· Highest attendance of any club in the region – average 80 people each month
· A high proportion of young players at the club – many with above 1200 ratings
· Near capacity for the facilities – more players would take away comfort and skittles area
· Conditioning young players and new to rated play adults to “slow” chess. They can get fast chess on the internet, on their PC or at other clubs. How much slow chess at appropriate ratings is available on the Net? I have heard repeatedly, very little.
· A strong retention rate of lower rated adults and young players. As of today we have 50 players with a rating under 1100 who have been participating at the club in the last 12 months.
I just don’t see how any of the risks identified can result in a better overall result than what we are achieving.
Not Applicable