Tweet
Toronto and surrounding Region players,
Here I am presenting some informal information about the upcoming 2010 Thanksgiving Open, to be held at 918 Bathurst ave in Toronto, some of which bears some relevance to comments and suggestions that came my way after the 2010 Toronto Labour Day Open at the same location.
Firstly, the tournament lighting. The top 16 boards did not have any issues here but some players brought to me a concern that the lighting in the main room could have been better.
what I can say at the moment is that I agree with these comments, and also the people at 918 Bathurst agree. i have been advised that it is their intention to take steps to improve the lighting in the main hall, and to have these steps implemented BEFORE the 2010 Thanksgiving Open. I will present more information when it becomes available, but right now I do believe players who play in the 2010 Thanksgiving open can expect this aspect to see an improvement.
Secondly, sectional placements. some players addressed various concerns such as: -- I'd like to play in the FIDE rated section but my rating isn't high enough, or -- I don't want to play against too many lower rated players who are playing up a section, as examples.
I am going to propose an alteration to the section format which I intend to implement for the 2010 Toronto Thanksgiving Open, provided that I receive feedback in the next short while that sounds positive or that does not sound negative. Here is the proposal:
SECTION 1: minimum rating of 2100, and FIDE rated. elite players are guaranteed to get only relatively strong opposition. only open prizes here, no class prizes.
SECTION 2: ratings between 1900 and 2300 and FIDE rated. this means TWO sections are FIDE rated and 1900 + players have the opportunity to get FIDE ratings. 1900+ players can get the opportunity to play masters but not IMs.
SECTION 3: ratings between 1700 and 2100.
SECTION 4: ratings between 1500 and 1900.
SECTION 5: ratings less than 1700.
what is mist directly obvious is that the rating ranges are overlapping.
this may look a lot different but actually it is not that different, because currently players are allowed to play up a section if they choose. one key difference is it gives a clearly defined rating range for each section, so that all players will know what kind of competion they can expect to face when entering a section. this is an attempt to ease the concern of players who enter a section not knowing how many players may be playing up from a lower rating range or what ratings these players may have. players between the ratings of 1500 and 2300 who wish to avoid playing against opposition too far below them have the choice of the higher section to play in rather than the lower. if they choose the lower section, they know what to expect in terms of opposition. also in this format, it is my intention to remove the extra charge for playing up a section. the standard entry fee permits a player to play in either section that their rating fits within. in no case, except the lowest section or possibly the highest, would a player be pitted against an opponent in excess of 400 points above or below their rating.
Let me explain it a different way:
RATING SECTION
above 2300 must play in section 1
2100 - 2300 choose section 1 or section 2
1900 - 2100 choose section 2 or section 3
1700 - 1900 choose section 3 or section 4
1500 - 1700 choose section 4 or section 5
under 1500 must play in section 5
Alright, there you have my proposal. it is attempting to fix or improve on some concerns brought to me without drastically altering the opportunities offered to players.
at the moment I am only intending to try this out for one event, but I will consider keeping it for some further events if the feedback is positive. if you have an important opinion about this proposal,or about another matter that you do not see mentioned here,that you would like to communicate to me, please do so at bryan.lamb@rogers.com.
Thank you to all the chess players who support the Toronto events and especially those who offer moral support, even if it is just an offhand thank you. It does matter to me.
Bryan Lamb
Here I am presenting some informal information about the upcoming 2010 Thanksgiving Open, to be held at 918 Bathurst ave in Toronto, some of which bears some relevance to comments and suggestions that came my way after the 2010 Toronto Labour Day Open at the same location.
Firstly, the tournament lighting. The top 16 boards did not have any issues here but some players brought to me a concern that the lighting in the main room could have been better.
what I can say at the moment is that I agree with these comments, and also the people at 918 Bathurst agree. i have been advised that it is their intention to take steps to improve the lighting in the main hall, and to have these steps implemented BEFORE the 2010 Thanksgiving Open. I will present more information when it becomes available, but right now I do believe players who play in the 2010 Thanksgiving open can expect this aspect to see an improvement.
Secondly, sectional placements. some players addressed various concerns such as: -- I'd like to play in the FIDE rated section but my rating isn't high enough, or -- I don't want to play against too many lower rated players who are playing up a section, as examples.
I am going to propose an alteration to the section format which I intend to implement for the 2010 Toronto Thanksgiving Open, provided that I receive feedback in the next short while that sounds positive or that does not sound negative. Here is the proposal:
SECTION 1: minimum rating of 2100, and FIDE rated. elite players are guaranteed to get only relatively strong opposition. only open prizes here, no class prizes.
SECTION 2: ratings between 1900 and 2300 and FIDE rated. this means TWO sections are FIDE rated and 1900 + players have the opportunity to get FIDE ratings. 1900+ players can get the opportunity to play masters but not IMs.
SECTION 3: ratings between 1700 and 2100.
SECTION 4: ratings between 1500 and 1900.
SECTION 5: ratings less than 1700.
what is mist directly obvious is that the rating ranges are overlapping.
this may look a lot different but actually it is not that different, because currently players are allowed to play up a section if they choose. one key difference is it gives a clearly defined rating range for each section, so that all players will know what kind of competion they can expect to face when entering a section. this is an attempt to ease the concern of players who enter a section not knowing how many players may be playing up from a lower rating range or what ratings these players may have. players between the ratings of 1500 and 2300 who wish to avoid playing against opposition too far below them have the choice of the higher section to play in rather than the lower. if they choose the lower section, they know what to expect in terms of opposition. also in this format, it is my intention to remove the extra charge for playing up a section. the standard entry fee permits a player to play in either section that their rating fits within. in no case, except the lowest section or possibly the highest, would a player be pitted against an opponent in excess of 400 points above or below their rating.
Let me explain it a different way:
RATING SECTION
above 2300 must play in section 1
2100 - 2300 choose section 1 or section 2
1900 - 2100 choose section 2 or section 3
1700 - 1900 choose section 3 or section 4
1500 - 1700 choose section 4 or section 5
under 1500 must play in section 5
Alright, there you have my proposal. it is attempting to fix or improve on some concerns brought to me without drastically altering the opportunities offered to players.
at the moment I am only intending to try this out for one event, but I will consider keeping it for some further events if the feedback is positive. if you have an important opinion about this proposal,or about another matter that you do not see mentioned here,that you would like to communicate to me, please do so at bryan.lamb@rogers.com.
Thank you to all the chess players who support the Toronto events and especially those who offer moral support, even if it is just an offhand thank you. It does matter to me.
Bryan Lamb
Comment