Wood Green

[Chris Rice]

Something like limiting total squad sizes does seem rather sane.
(Mind you even that might just about have an impact - Sheffield D used 23 players just to run a team of 8 without defaults in the Yorkshire league last season....).

White rose do also have two teams who share the odd player at times, although different divisions of course.

A pair of hypothetical combined Jutes of Blackthorn team(s) would just be very different entities to the present set up - the first team would be notably stronger and the second team notably weaker than either stand alone team. Really not a lot of flexiblity left once you line everyone up in legal grade order. No additional advantages really.

Martin, the squad size for teams with multiple entries will just be doubled, the normal 80 point rule would apply

This is just to make teams a bit more vigilent was entering teams and not just registering players so others cannot approach them

Chris, I was thinking about the Bundesliga when suggesting this

Wouldn't any team be envious that they could field Chris Duncan at 2315 as the bottom board of their second team?

Jutes of Blackthorn 1

1. Hjorvar Steinn Gretarsson (2516)
2. Simon Williams (2511)
3. Danny Gormally (2507)
4. Luis Galego (2488)
5. Bragi Thorfinnsson (2478)
6. Helgi Dam Ziska (2459)
7. Harriet Hunt (2450)
8. Vincent Colin (2403)

Jutes of Blackthorn 2

1. Andrew Ledger (2402)
2. Simon Ansell (2391)
3. Richard Bates (2377)
4. Anastasia Savina (2372)
5. Ingvar Johannesson (2357)
6. Guillaume Camus (2346)
7. David Ortmann (2324)
8. Chris Duncan (2315)

[MartinCarpenter]

Sheffield D are actually an independent club Sheffield juniors would be a much better name. They really did need 23 players to fill just 8 spots over 11 matches. Very much an outlier of course - 18 would be very comfortable for most teams even without wildcards to help plug any gaps and the 4NCL is a few less weekends too.

The point about combining those teams is that there's no additional tactical advantages from it - +- 80 ensures that everyone is +-2 boards or so. For instance to play someone twice in a season needs them to drop 8 spots down their clubs combined rating list. That's an awful lot of extra players.

Of course the rules do allow for that sort of massive reinforcement and some people do take advantage of it. Nothing stopping a single team club from doing so too mind

[Roger de Coverly]

For instance to play someone twice in a season needs them to drop 8 spots down their clubs combined rating list. That's an awful lot of extra players.

Looking at the hypothetical combined squad, the first team board 8 could play board 8 for the second team with only one additional player.

Rather than a possible rule which says you cannot play the same team twice, how about the weaker version which says you cannot play on the same board against the same team twice? So if the opposition want to avoid a possible pairing repetition, they just deploy their players on the same boards as the earlier match to be guaranteed a different opponent.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Wouldn't any team be envious that they could field Chris Duncan at 2315 as the bottom board of their second team?

Jutes of Blackthorn 1

1. Hjorvar Steinn Gretarsson (2516)
2. Simon Williams (2511)
3. Danny Gormally (2507)
4. Luis Galego (2488)
5. Bragi Thorfinnsson (2478)
6. Helgi Dam Ziska (2459)
7. Harriet Hunt (2450)
8. Vincent Colin (2403)

Jutes of Blackthorn 2

1. Andrew Ledger (2402)
2. Simon Ansell (2391)
3. Richard Bates (2377)
4. Anastasia Savina (2372)
5. Ingvar Johannesson (2357)
6. Guillaume Camus (2346)
7. David Ortmann (2324)
8. Chris Duncan (2315)

Well, I don't know why you are not seriously exploring this. (Perhaps you are).

For the umpteenth time, Ben, I have said nothing against professional players in the 4NCL; indeed we welcome them (in other teams).

I think that Simon and I are going round in circles. He says that he is not against two teams in the same division, and can see that separate team lists are unworkable, but he still has no other rule to offer than one which would also be unworkable for such teams. I can see why he, and others, might think that we should have no trouble filling three teams with 46 players, but again that is how it is for amateur teams - players' availability is also determined by work, school and univeristy exams, family etc and some of our players have been unfortunately affected financially by the recession. We could and probably should prune the list too - whilst Brian Kelly would not play for anyone else, he has not played for us since 2006. But actually none of that is the point. Dropping regular players for a game or two because they are barred from playing by a rule of this arbitrary nature (the example so far has been me v Cambridge) would be a disaster for us; and I do insist on pointing out that all such proposed rules, now and in the past, are in all honesty aimed not at us but rather at GMs from Wood Green and Guildford, who could easily shrug off the effects and pay the affected players for doing nothing for a day if necessary, while still playing another team of similar strength.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

This talk of amateur and professional teams has got me wondering. Is it an open secret which teams are 'professional' and which are 'amateur'? Or are some a mix of both? I'm not interested in how much various players get, but more where the level tends to be drawn. Is it still the case that female and junior players are much in demand due to the rules relating to that?

[Jonathan Rogers]

Difficult to say because there are so many teams with a mixture. White Rose, for example, have always thought that having two or three paid GMs at the top, but local amateur players on the bottom boards, makes them as amateur team. Also it is unclear about what means that one is being treated as a professional. Does having your expenses paid for you suffice (presumably not) but if such players are not professionals, are they strictly amateurs either? And what is the threshold of remuneration to make one a professional?

So the terms amateur and professional have to be treated cautiously in chess, but sometimes they are useful when there is no serious dispute how they apply, eg in comparing Barbican with Wood Green for the sake of the effects of rule changes ...

[Chris Rice]

Building on what Jonathan has just said there's nothing specific naturally but from my experience when it's male players ELO>2350 its routine for them to want money to play. So the more of those players you have the more 'professional' team you are I guess.

[LawrenceCooper]

Difficult to say because there are so many teams with a mixture. White Rose, for example, have always thought that having two or three paid GMs at the top, but local amateur players on the bottom boards, makes them as amateur team. Also it is unclear about what means that one is being treated as a professional. Does having your expenses paid for you suffice (presumably not) but if such players are not professionals, are they strictly amateurs either? And what is the threshold of remuneration to make one a professional?

So the terms amateur and professional have to be treated cautiously in chess, but sometimes they are useful when there is no serious dispute how they apply, eg in comparing Barbican with Wood Green for the sake of the effects of rule changes ...

I wonder how my old Midland Monarchs team would be viewed today. The players got free accom but it was on my attic and lounge floor We did have one and sometimes two GMs who got some meagre reimbursement but it was only when we got sponsorship that the IMs were afforded the luxury of a bed

[Simon Ansell]

For the umpteenth time, Ben, I have said nothing against professional players in the 4NCL; indeed we welcome them (in other teams).

Same with me, and I've stated that several times in this thread.

I think that Simon and I are going round in circles.

Yes, we're not making any progress!

[Jonathan Rogers]

I think that Simon and I are going round in circles.

Yes, we're not making any progress!

10.2 (a) ?

[Simon Ansell]

I think that Simon and I are going round in circles.

Yes, we're not making any progress!

10.2 (a) ?

Don't start!

[Jonathan Rogers]

I wonder how my old Midland Monarchs team would be viewed today. The players got free accom but it was on my attic and lounge floor

Treat 'em mean to keep 'em keen. It did seem to work!

We did have one and sometimes two GMs who got some meagre reimbursement but it was only when we got sponsorship that the IMs were afforded the luxury of a bed

A bed each?

[LawrenceCooper]

I wonder how my old Midland Monarchs team would be viewed today. The players got free accom but it was on my attic and lounge floor

Treat 'em mean to keep 'em keen. It did seem to work!

We did have one and sometimes two GMs who got some meagre reimbursement but it was only when we got sponsorship that the IMs were afforded the luxury of a bed

A bed each?

In some cases

[Chris Rice]

Just spoke to Matthew Sadler in the hotel foyer. Great to meet him again as I haven't seen him for many years. He's playing for Guildford 1 this weekend, looks like Guildford don't intend to gift Wood Green 1 the title.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Just spoke to Matthew Sadler in the hotel foyer. Great to meet him again as I haven't seen him for many years. He's playing for Guildford 1 this weekend, looks like Guildford don't intend to gift Wood Green 1 the title.

Heh. I noticed Sadler's registration. Good to see that it was a serious one. No sign of any 2700+ super GMs that haven't played in previous rounds?