Dublin 2010 - report, games, photos and discussion

[Ingo_Zachos]

Dear friends,

my fellow German checker player, Igor Martynov asked me to open a new topic for the aftermath of the IO and the QT in Dublin.

His critical report is translated, and will be published very soon.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a starter, here is a Link to a report that has been written in the magazine of the Israeli Draughts friends:

http://draughts.nl/downloads/ShashIsr/S ... 010_10.pdf

read from page 33 onwards.

It is in Russian, so not easy to understand to me, but easier for others on this forum.

But the games are entertaining, and are among the first published.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is also a report in Italian by the FID:

http://www.federdama.it/cms/index.php?v ... format=pdf

which does not contain games.
But see how quick it is possible to report in the time of the internet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Igor asks every player that played in Dublin to give reports, pictures, games, and critical remarks on the tournaments in Dublin.

Not necessarliy direcly on this forum, but you can also present links of reports on other sites in other langauges.
Don't be afraid.


Greetinx from cloudy Dortmund,

Ingo Zachos

[Ingo_Zachos]

Due to the lengths of the report,

I had to sent it by file sharing, as by clipping it directly to the forum, the pics and diagrams are not displayed corretly.

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2353&p=16971#p16971

But the discussion about it should be lead in this topic.

Plz reade it and write a comment about the critique of Igor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few remarks by me:

1. The reason why there is no repairing (the word already sounds like someting is kaputt) at the QT is, that the WCDF rules allow no repairing in their QT, while a national event like the IO may feel free to use that "system".

I personally believe that repairing is unfair in swiss system, and against the spirit of this fine system. Especially it spoils any tie breaking system and infuences the price ranks unduely.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. And I especially do not believe that GAYP should be replaced, but rather 3-move, as this system, especially in its current form, supplies an unfair allocation of opening difficulties to the players.
And thus makes the game a game of chance, rather then of skill.
BTW: Jonathan Schaeffer made that remark years ago, and still we have not done anything.

Besides, 3-move is not liked by beginners at all and has lead to the decline we see in the USA, Britain and Ireland. This was also realized by Schaeffer.

I would instead recommend to either skip 3-move (maybe 11 men with GAYP is a solution) or to use a fairer system (like then Italians use)with equal opening difficuly for everyone during one tournament,
and GAYP for the lower sections in each case.

In Beijing some players only had "though deck" openings and others only GAYP openings.
That made quite a difference in many cases!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Also, I think the promotion of the game must be much better.

A) We need online reports (blogs, websites, at least a daily email newsletter) from the organizers for each event on a national level or above, that should not be left to some enthusiastic players or spectators!

B) And TV stations and the press should be informed about all events in that level or above a few weeks before, and again in the days before.

C) And there should be posters at least in and around the venue of that event.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. A a part of the budget is simply better spent for posters or PR-work or technical equipment like a laptop with pairing software and internet access, then in price money.

Price money, which, as we saw on many events, is not paid as it was declared in the program.

To be honest:
I think each "proposal" to attract more players by giving or proposing more price money is simply outright stupid, as first you need more sponsors, players and attention for the sport before you can guarentee high prize money on a professional level.

There can be no good prizes without media coverage and promotion first!

And if you use money that has been founded for that purpose by an individual, that money will be only distributed among the best players, and not benefit our game at all, and we had nothing more than a simple helicopter scenario.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. The more media attention we can get, the better.
One member of the organizing team should be given that task, and that task alone.
Or the organizers and or/the WCDF have to pay the expenses of their PR-officer as well as that of the referees.

He should inform the press, TV stations, print a few posters and stick them to the walls in the venue and around it, and he should start with that work as soon as venue and date have been fixed.
He should be able to sope with a PC and provide results, pairings and pictures for the press and the internet, as well as for the players.
And no, the WCDF PR-officer can not do that, provided he is able to live and work in the country where the QT takes place.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. price allocation should be made with a fair system:
there are systems like the Hort system, why can't checkers players not use that system or others?
Not everyting chess players invented is bad.
LEARN from chess or other sports, LEARN for god's sake!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. We should really rethink the Women and Youth QT and WC format.
Seperate events seem to attracht no-one, and so maybe they should play in the same class, like in Beijing, but with an additional place each federation can get by nominating a woman or a youth player, so that they can sent 4 or 5 players, provided one is a woman and one or a youth player.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Greetinx from cloudy Dortmund, Germany

Ingo Zachos

[Danny_Alvarez]

2. And I especially do not believe that GAYP should be replaced, but rather 3-move, as this system, especially in its current form, supplies an unfair allocation of opening difficulties to the players.
And thus makes the game a game of chance, rather then of skill.
BTW: Jonathan Schaeffer made that remark years ago, and still we have not done anything.
Besides, 3-move is not liked by beginners at all and has lead to the decline we see in the USA, Britain and Ireland. This was also realized by Schaeffer.
I would instead recommend to either skip 3-move (maybe 11 men with GAYP is a solution) or to use a fairer system (like then Italians use)with equal opening difficuly for everyone during one tournament,
and GAYP for the lower sections in each case.
In Beijing some players only had "though deck" openings and others only GAYP openings.
That made quite a difference in many cases!

I find this interesting Ingo.... and I would like to know on this thread or maybe we could start a new one.... about 3-move vs GAYP, their respective relevance and/or influence in the decline of the popularity of the game.

Regards,
D. Alvarez