But you guys are missing the point. It is impossible to regulate who is guest and who isnt.
it also seems that it's impossible to regulate what an OTB club is...
not really...
have you seen the list of clubs?
In terms of "guest players," a player would only be able to play for one team in a given season. There's not much that we can do in terms of verifying if players are actually members of the face-to-face club. I believe that online recruitment will part of the process and part of the fun.
Grant where is your CM title?
How do you define a guest player and how can they be identified and counted.
known as "ringers" in OTB world.
i have to say, the thought of this league has already gone downhill if we're talking about bringing ringers in. As far as i can see, some clubs don't actually appear to be clubs, but federations. Before we know it, there'll be a complete free for all...
Precisely! It will soon get out of control. So, perhaps the best method is to not attempt to control it... 10% this and 5% that is not going to work. How would it be regulated? Instead, we place the onus on clubs to behave for risk of forfeiture of the entire league - kicked out. All we're really concerned about is cheats. Honest players can play for my club any time. First, though, I must know their real name. They are free to know mine.
It is down to the clubs themselves also to protect their heritage. I'm very careful with our club. It isn't one of the oldest in my country, but it was still started a year before I was born. I think the other members would be angry with me if I started filling it with non-Halesowen players. However, should a master or two enquire, I'd likely let them in. Aside from that, it's likely not gonna happen.
Chess.com will also have to play a part. If a club is not a club but a federation, then a hardline approach is needed and they should be kicked out. Any league points lost to victims should be given back - although games should be allowed to stand in terms of ratings and having existed in the first place - after all, they're just games of chess.
Those, who are able to represent a federation should also be able to participate with their local chess club in this league, shouldn't they? Federations can play a very active role to promote the competition, but do they really fulfil the mentioned requirements to participate ...?
Those, who are able to represent a federation should also be able to participate with their local chess club in this league, shouldn't they? Federations can play a very active role to promote the competition, but do they really fulfil the mentioned requirements to participate ...?
They must. They have been accepted.
You are demanding an amount of proof that will push out a lot of clubs in certain regions.
If you want to even keep the pretense of having a league open for clubs internationally then those demands are too much.
Our federations are probably as big and the same as your clubs.
Fair point.
@GrantOen I am sorry, but I can hardly agree with your point of view. "There's not much that we can do in terms of verifying if players are actually members of the face-to-face club." Simple question: Why you even mention REAL clubs if that is impossible to verify? "I believe that online recruitment will part of the process and part of the fun." If that is a main thing in this competition, then just rename an a event. I propose name "Chess.com non-existing REAL chess clubs with, as many Ringers you can find - league". Sorry, but there is no fun, in recruting Ringers, with no face and soul. So if chess.com publish this: "To participate, clubs must have in-person component (regular meetings)" and in other hand to have an attitude: We really can't know if someone is a member of that particular REAL chess club and we really don't care who will represent that REAL chess club (anyone can play) all you said is simply pointless. You should be fair enough to announce to all, that REAL chess clubs or similiar organisations, don't need to waste their time on something wrongfully advertised and named like (REAL) Clubs league. I will wait to see how things will go out, but at this moment I am highly sceptical.
@GrantOen I am sorry, but I can hardly agree with your point of view. "There's not much that we can do in terms of verifying if players are actually members of the face-to-face club." Simple question: Why you even mention REAL clubs if that is impossible to verify? "I believe that online recruitment will part of the process and part of the fun." If that is a main thing in this competition, then just rename an a event. I propose name "Chess.com non-existing REAL chess clubs with, as many Ringers you can find - league". Sorry, but there is no fun, in recruting Ringers, with no face and soul. So if chess.com publish this: "To participate, clubs must have in-person component (regular meetings)" and in other hand to have an attitude: We really can't know if someone is a member of that particular REAL chess club and we really don't care who will represent that REAL chess club (anyone can play) all you said is simply pointless. You should be fair enough to announce to all, that REAL chess clubs or similiar organisations, don't need to waste their time on something wrongfully advertised and named like (REAL) Clubs league. I will wait to see how things will go out, but at this moment I am highly sceptical.
It's much easier to prove a club has a real life component then to prove every member is a member of such a club. So although it's reasonable to expect a real life component for all clubs competing it isn't reasonable to demand each person process they are part of the club. Not everyone participates in club trips and a lot of club don't have membership cards. You're being unrealistic here.
There's also nothing wrong with connecting with new people online. The relationship isn't any less worthwhile simply because it is virtual. I allowed a Brazilian NM into my team on another site after first discussing it with my OTB members.
The main thing for us is reputation. If the player is a decent person, not anonymous, Federation-rated (in this case FIDE) then why shouldn't they be able to represent our club?
Another point is that I have two other players, one is a GM who used to play for our OTB club but is no longer registered and another 200 ECF player who left the club 15 years ago to emigrate to Canada. Both play for our other online club.
Real clubs will want to preserve their identity and reputation. If others don't then that is up to them. Winning isn't everything. And if teams must resort to such tactics let them have it. Everyone will know, they only did it through mercenary tactics.
A ringer to me is somebody in a team who doesn't have a registered current rating and is now playing in a section well below his rating from several years ago. Or anybody in a tourney that is unrated... especially if they enter the open section.
The rules, regulations, format, and other details are coming in the next week or so, but players will be able to play for any one team (but not multiple teams).
My Association was rejected. And yet it runs OTB tournaments. And I don’t understand why. Especially if other clubs can have anyone they want to play for them anyway. If I had said the club here was associated with a club it would be accepted. And everything is run in the Association and many of the teams in our interclub challenges are just people who show up and get assigned a team. They aren’t actually representing a particular club at all.
Are you allowing for this. Or is the word Club or Association the deciding factor here. I live in rural Australia near the outback and we are worried Chess won’t exist after this and have started to try and get everyone online including local school children. But they aren’t in a club per se. So we are penalised.
@Kookaburrra: The South Australian Chess Association consists of eleven chess clubs, starting with the Adelaide Chess Club (established in 1854) and ending with the West Torrens Chess Club (source: http://sachess.org.au/clubs-coaches/): Is this information from the website of the SACA right?
Each of those eleven clubs is most probably welcome here and this might even include the participating schools in the youth event of the association. I'm surprised to see, that the first round of this competition is still announced to be held on friday, May 8, in SACA's Chess Center in Adelaide ...
So I should just register under Adelaide chess club then. 😎😎😎. It is just semantics. And the same club here.
It’s ok. We won’t participate. We do have the over the board component just not as organised as some places in the world.
I just looked at the website. Some of those are just social chess groups run out of libraries and cafes. They aren’t proper clubs. And others are not in existence anymore and if we don’t get everyone connected and online it is worried nothing will exist after this pandemic.
We are going to be busy running our own fixtures anyway and trying to work out how to emulate OTB tournaments here. Just thought this sounded promising for OTB players.
You haven't taken into account the variety of situations that may exist. In one of the clubs I was a member of we would have each year multiple national champions (in different age categories) and yet we wouldn't be able to fit in category A. And yet I'm 100% certain that club would be better then many clubs that are active in leagues but not at the very top level.
Opportunities aren't spread equally.