Interclub feedback – survey results

Following the formal survey launched by the Interclub Working Group, we would like to sincerely thank all the clubs that took the time to share their preferences and insights. This survey was designed as a direct follow-up to our previous update.

We received a total of 72 responses from clubs regarding the general proposals, while 8 clubs active in the first division provided specific feedback for the first division questions.

At the right is a comprehensive overview of the results, which will guide the Workgroup Interclub and the RBCF Board in their regulation modification proposals.

1. The Calendar Puzzle: December vs. January

Finding a balance in the winter schedule remains one of our most complex challenges. When asked about adding an extra round to improve continuity, the feedback indicates a clear preference to avoid adding standalone winter rounds if possible, though a fallback preference emerged:

• Round in mid-December?
  • Yes: 26 votes
  • No: 45 votes
• Round in mid-January?
  • Yes: 30 votes
  • No: 41 votes
• Forced choice between mid-December and mid-January: When explicitly asked to choose the lesser of two evils if a round must be scheduled in one of these slots, the clubs leaned toward January:
  • January: 38 votes
  • December: 34 votes

2. Structural Expansion: The 6th Division & Round Reduction

The proposal to introduce a flexible, regional 6th Division received strong and widespread support, signaling a clear mandate to move forward with this structural update.

• Preference for a regional 6th Division (with flexible group sizes and potential bye-rounds):
  • Yes: 53 votes
  • No: 18 votes
• Willingness to register one or more 5th Division teams into the new 6th Division:
  • Yes: 45 votes
  • No: 26 votes
• Openness to a concept where the 5th and 6th Divisions play fewer rounds:
  • Yes: 42 votes
  • No: 29 votes
    (Note: As highlighted during the proposal phase, skipping the dates of the 5th and 6th rounds in a 10-team setup provides a perfect equivalent to the 12-team schedule, fully preserving the “together at home” club setups).

3. Time Control in Lower Divisions

The workgroup’s proposal to simplify the time control in the 4th, 5th, and 6th divisions to a single period of 90 minutes + 30 seconds increment per move (abolishing the second time control after 40 chess moves) resulted in a very tight split:

• In favor of shifting to 90′ + 30” (no second period): 34 votes
• Against changing the current time control: 37 votes

4. Group Pairing Priorities: Distance vs. Playing Venue Logistics

When pairing and scheduling groups, the federation often faces a trade-off between minimizing travel distance and honoring specific club pairing numbers (which allow clubs to ensure multiple teams play at home on the same day to optimize venue reservations). Clubs were asked to choose which factor the RBCF should prioritize:

• Club requirements for common home and away matches: 47 votes
• Total distance traveled throughout the season: 24 votes

5. Promotion and Demotion Dynamics in the 5th Division

Clubs were consulted on whether they would prefer an increased number of promotions from the 5th Division, which would subsequently lead to a higher number of demotions from the 4th Division back to the 5th:

• In favor of more promotions/demotions: 34 votes
• Against increasing the turnover: 37 votes

6. High-Level Competition Standards (First Division Only)

To protect the sporting integrity and competitive level of the highest national tier, the working group put forward thresholds to prevent severely lower-rated players from occupying the top division or being placed inappropriately on high boards. Only clubs affected by these top-tier restrictions provided data on these thresholds:

• Minimum FIDE ELO requirement to play in the 1st Division (Workgroup proposal: 1800 ELO):
  • 1700 ELO: 1 vote
  • 1800 ELO: 4 votes
  • 1900 ELO: 3 votes
• Minimum ELO threshold required to play on higher boards (Workgroup proposal: 2000 ELO):
  • 2000 ELO: 7 votes
  • 2100 ELO: 1 vote

The feedback shows solid alignment around the workgroup’s initial benchmarks, with a slight variation in opinions regarding the baseline entry rating.

Next Steps

The Workgroup Interclub will now compile these objective metrics to finalize the regulation modification proposals.

We will keep all clubs updated as these final adjustments are prepared for review. Thank you once again for your vital collaboration in modernizing our Interclub competition!