GLORNEY CUP COMPETITION RULES

[Gordon Cadden]

Have been trying to find the rules for this competition on the internet. They seem to be a closely guarded secret, known only to the organisers.
In the recent competition at Cardiff, the welsh juniors were under the illusion that because it was a match competition, that match points would decide the outcome.
Not so, with the Glorney Cup. Match points count for nothing. The competition is decided on the total accumulative game points for each team.
The organisers need to update the rules of play, which have not been changed since the competition's inception, in 1948.

[Andrew Camp]

I was there and the Welsh Juniors were under no such illusion. They were fully aware of the rules at the start as all teams were.

[Gordon Cadden]

I was there and the Welsh Juniors were under no such illusion. They were fully aware of the rules at the start as all teams were.

Recommend that you take note of comments made by Stuart Hutchings, on the WCU website. Also suggest that you take note of comments made by Thomas Thorpe, on the "Idris Draig" F/B page, which is the only chess forum in Wales.
The Glorney Cup match competition does not recognise match points, and is the probable reason why the low countries have long ago, pulled out of this event.

I was also at the Park Inn Hotel, North Cardiff, and spoke to some of the juniors. Recommend the basket chips served in their restaurant - truly outstanding.

[Sean Hewitt]

I've read the comments by Mr Hutchings and he says that he only realised at the end of round 1 that the event was based on game points rather than match points. I can't see anywhere where he alleges that the players themselves didn't know.

The event was run in Wales by Welsh Officials. If there is any query, it should be pointed in their direction.

That said, I personally prefer match points for team events. It's far more meaningful in my opinion.

[Gordon Cadden]

I've read the comments by Mr Hutchings and he says that he only realised at the end of round 1 that the event was based on game points rather than match points. I can't see anywhere where he alleges that the players themselves didn't know.

The event was run in Wales by Welsh Officials. If there is any query, it should be pointed in their direction.

That said, I personally prefer match points for team events. It's far more meaningful in my opinion.

The competition is run by Peter Purland, who is an International Arbiter, and does not live in Wales. It must be very difficult for any child to fully comprehend, that match points do not count, in this particular match competition.

[PeterFarr]

Confusing or not, scoring by game points seems most unfortunate for this competition. All other things being equal, England already has a big natural advantage through pure population size, and the game points approach will only tend to exaggerate this, which is surely a bad idea for the sustainability of the competition. Also it rather dampens the excitement of team chess.

[Sean Hewitt]

I've read the comments by Mr Hutchings and he says that he only realised at the end of round 1 that the event was based on game points rather than match points. I can't see anywhere where he alleges that the players themselves didn't know.

The event was run in Wales by Welsh Officials. If there is any query, it should be pointed in their direction.

That said, I personally prefer match points for team events. It's far more meaningful in my opinion.

The competition is run by Peter Purland, who is an International Arbiter, and does not live in Wales. It must be very difficult for any child to fully comprehend, that match points do not count, in this particular match competition.

This Peter Purland? http://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=1802135

Confusing or not, scoring by game points seems most unfortunate for this competition. All other things being equal, England already has a big natural advantage through pure population size, and the game points approach will only tend to exaggerate this, which is surely a bad idea for the sustainability of the competition. Also it rather dampens the excitement of team chess.

Agreed.

[LawrenceCooper]

I couldn't help but notice that if Wales had beaten England 3-2 in the last round that England would have won the Glorney despite Wales winning all six matches, including the two head to head encounters and having five extra match points

[Gordon Cadden]

I've read the comments by Mr Hutchings and he says that he only realised at the end of round 1 that the event was based on game points rather than match points. I can't see anywhere where he alleges that the players themselves didn't know.

The event was run in Wales by Welsh Officials. If there is any query, it should be pointed in their direction.

That said, I personally prefer match points for team events. It's far more meaningful in my opinion.

The competition is run by Peter Purland, who is an International Arbiter, and does not live in Wales. It must be very difficult for any child to fully comprehend, that match points do not count, in this particular match competition.

This Peter Purland? http://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=1802135

Confusing or not, scoring by game points seems most unfortunate for this competition. All other things being equal, England already has a big natural advantage through pure population size, and the game points approach will only tend to exaggerate this, which is surely a bad idea for the sustainability of the competition. Also it rather dampens the excitement of team chess.

Agreed.

Yes, that is the Peter Purland. Lives in Merseyside. Senior Arbiter for the ECF.

[Sean Hewitt]

Yes, that is the Peter Purland. Lives in Merseyside. Senior Arbiter for the ECF.

You forgot born in Wales. International Arbiter for Wales. Appointed by the WCU. But hey, why bother with facts when you can just blame the ECF.

That said, Peter did nothing wrong. You seem confused by the rules for some reason (is that because you made an assumption instead of reading them?) which is strange because others from Wales have said they were well aware of the rules. Indeed, I have it on good authority that it was announced by Peter Purland at the start of round 1 that the events were decided by game points, not match points.

I still think match points are a more sensible way to resolve team events, but your claim that players didn't know the rules appears to be false.

[Gordon Cadden]

Yes, that is the Peter Purland. Lives in Merseyside. Senior Arbiter for the ECF.

You forgot born in Wales. International Arbiter for Wales. Appointed by the WCU. But hey, why bother with facts when you can just blame the ECF.

That said, Peter did nothing wrong. You seem confused by the rules for some reason (is that because you made an assumption instead of reading them?) which is strange because others from Wales have said they were well aware of the rules. Indeed, I have it on good authority that it was announced by Peter Purland at the start of round 1 that the events were decided by game points, not match points.

I still think match points are a more sensible way to resolve team events, but your claim that players didn't know the rules appears to be false.

This is not a blame game Sean. As I stated in my original thread, it is the competition rules that need to be revised, and you clearly agree on this point.

Andrew Camp has stated that the players were informed of the rules of play, before the tournament commenced. I spoke to some of the players, and they were confused that match points were no longer valid.

[Gordon Cadden]

Confusing or not, scoring by game points seems most unfortunate for this competition. All other things being equal, England already has a big natural advantage through pure population size, and the game points approach will only tend to exaggerate this, which is surely a bad idea for the sustainability of the competition. Also it rather dampens the excitement of team chess.

I believe that you have correctly assessed the problems with the Glorney Cup rules of play. Excitement is important in any competition, and this can only be achieved by awarding match points.

[ThomasThorpe]

As a Welsh player I'd like to clairfy what we were thinking.

From the start the Welsh team knew it was on game points - Stuart Hutchings knew after round 1.

Throughout the tournament we were joking that it should be changed into match points, because that would've favoured the Welsh team. However we all knew it was on game points.

As for the match vs game points systems - there are pros and cons to both. With game points, every game matters and as such gives every child worth and meaning. However match points don't penalise a team who has one player having a bad few days.

Ignoring the fact we'd have won on match points, I prefer the match points system because overall it's a team event. If the Glorney was a schools event, and an event encouraging new juniors, then game points is better IMO, but this is a prestigious 4 nations event, and we don't need to make every kid's game count (although some matches could require a result in the last game)

[Andrew Camp]

Mr Cadden: the welsh juniors (sic) were under the illusion that because it was a match competition, that match points would decide the outcome

Mr Thorpe (Player): From the start the Welsh team knew it was on game points


End of thread.