| |
BGonline.org Forums
The REAL difference between Intermediate and Open
Posted By: Daniel Murphy In Response To: The REAL difference between Intermediate and Open (Tom Keith)
Date: Saturday, 8 September 2012, at 3:01 p.m.
I agree. Seems to me that the argument for a single standard for the open/intermediate cut-off presumes that all tournaments are alike. They aren't. They differ in cost and in the number, geographic draw, and range of skill of players attending.
Phil also wrote: "I suspect that someone who might be required to play Open in one country might well be allowed to play Intermediate in another, or even at another tournament in his own country."
Seems fine to me. Denmark, for example. The directer of every sanctioned tournament sets the cutoff for the intermediate flight, and that cutoff ranges from some number intended to ensure that some percentage of "open" players are ineligible to play intermediate (with "some percentage" being fairly high for most tournaments and quite low for the Nordic Open) to no number, in which case players who might be ineligible to play intermediate at another tournament are free to choice the more costly or less expensive flight at this one. I don't see anything wrong with having that flexibility.
With regard to players competing in countries outside their own, since the player base varies from country to country in terms of the percentage of "open" and "intermediate" players and in the dividing line(s) deemed sensible for particular player bases, surely it wouldn't be unusual that a player considered "open" level in one player base would fit in with the "intermediate" level in another. So no, it's not, to me, "obvious there should be some standards and policies set that are clear and applicable world-wide" for determining "when a player actually should be required to move up."
Phil also wrote: "Of course, there are current directors who like being able to set their own standards in this, and other areas (including rules and rule interpretation, their cut from the entry fees, their obligations for what they provide to the players, etc.) who have and will continue to resist any "outside" group from telling them what to do, even if that group is a representation of the players themselves (such as a democratic federation made up of the players). Is that attitude fair?"
I think the question is unfair, in painting "current directors who like being able to set their own standards" as close-minded, self-centered folks who "have and will continue to resist any 'outside' group from telling them what to do." I don't know of any directors who refuse to listen to criticism, and in fact it seems to me that some of the directors most willing to listen and to adjust accordingly are also the directors who like to "set their own standards," instead of being saddled with standards that, in their opinions, need improvement.
Besides which, "resistance" can be overcome, as, in a recent discussion, Steve Hast attests: "i guess i will be one of the last to require clocks.. i see it coming, just not this year !" and "discussing next year..and assuming clocks are required.." Sounds like Steve may be coming around (or you all are wearing him down).
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.