4NCL North 2013-14

[Alex Holowczak]

The argument that was actually put forward to justify this was that it ensured teams got one match white on odd, one white on even. I did jump up and down, and at least got the final weekend paired round by round. Personally, I think playing a team on the same number of points is more important than alternating white on odds but there we go!

These appear to be two different issues. Could you pair where your first criterion for the Sunday pairings is that the team has the opposite colour to the Saturday?

[MartinCarpenter]

Thinking about it, isn't sum of opponents scores quite a dangerous tiebreak to be using? Especially maybe for the Northern teams too.

The teams vary quite a bit in strength between weekends, but in particular there's always a chance that one of your previous opponents ends up with rather a weakened team in the final couple of weekends. Especially some of the second teams which are holding up fairly well for the Northern legs but might end up stretched then.

I guess its what people voted for (and you can see that gamepoints aren't ideal with non equal fields/distorting the matches etc.).

Is there some reason that head to head results aren't included as the first tie break? That would be rather a natural choice and very much more under the control of the teams concerned. (HtH gamepoints for a 3 way tie say.).

[Sean Hewitt]

The argument that was actually put forward to justify this was that it ensured teams got one match white on odd, one white on even. I did jump up and down, and at least got the final weekend paired round by round. Personally, I think playing a team on the same number of points is more important than alternating white on odds but there we go!

These appear to be two different issues. Could you pair where your first criterion for the Sunday pairings is that the team has the opposite colour to the Saturday?

Indeed - a point that I have also made in the past

[Mick Norris]

I think the problem is Ferry Across the Maroczy II. They can play none of Manchester 1, 2 or Bradford C. So they have to play two of the five teams on 4 points. This would then leave you pairing Manchester 2 against the teams on 2 and 3 points; Manchester 1 and Bradford C. If we were pairing one round at a time, you'd put Manchester 2 against Bradford C and hope it sorted itself out in time for Round 6. But we're not, so we can't.

Its hardly like the teams in the middle of the table care at all about playing the 'right' people in swiss terms. Just after different/interesting opposition.

The problem is nothing to do with the middle teams as Martin Carpenter suggests. Remember that team captains voted, a few seasons ago, to move from gamepoints to sum of opponents scores as the tie-break. Is it fair on Spirit of Atticus to see Manchester 1 avoid playing more difficult opposition than Manchester 2? This could have a significant impact on promotion from Division 3 to Division 2.

So the two issues are:
(1) We pair two rounds at once. If MM1 played Bradford C in Round 5, the chances of avoiding the MM1 v MM2 pairing increase.
(2) We have SOS as the tie-break, not gamepoints. With SOS, it means decisions of apparently low significance such as who to pair the team last in Div 3 North against in Rounds 5 and 6 of 11 suddenly impacts upon the whole of Division 3.

So it's then a judgement call for the arbiter: Which is more important - Avoiding MM1 v MM2, or potentially harming Spirit of Atticus's tie-break in their promotion challenge?

Dave Thomas has confirmed that the pairings won't be changed, refusing to swap our second team and Cheddleton 3 around on Saturday, which would be a simple, neat and easy solution

He consulted with Dave Welch who of course is an idiot

2 of our players have withdrawn, so we will be fielding weakened teams in both rounds

Just explain the benefits to everyone of this?

I'll be asking the players if they actually want to play at Daventry, and indeed whether we enter any teams in future

The arbiters always get in the way of sensible chess decisions

[Alex Holowczak]

Dave Thomas has confirmed that the pairings won't be changed, refusing to swap our second team and Cheddleton 3 around on Saturday, which would be a simple, neat and easy solution

He consulted with Dave Welch who of course is an idiot

2 of our players have withdrawn, so we will be fielding weakened teams in both rounds

Just explain the benefits to everyone of this?

I'll be asking the players if they actually want to play at Daventry, and indeed whether we enter any teams in future

The arbiters always get in the way of sensible chess decisions

There have been chess arguments in the not-too-distant past where the complainant has taken things too far, and if there's any sympathy for the complainant, it quickly evaporates.

Publicly calling the Chief Arbiter of the event an idiot has had that effect on me. Certainly, if I were the Organiser of an event where the Chief Arbiter I'd appointed was called an idiot by one of the players in that event, that player would find he was disqualified from the event; thus making the threat to withdraw somewhat moot.

I suggest you might want to reconsider some of your above post.

[MartinCarpenter]

No one benefits of course

Soul crushing as it is, try not to pull out just because of this sort of thing. If you want to protest the draw then do something like pre agreeing a 3-3 draw or double default the match

Surely Buxton is close enough to Manchester to drive to on the Sunday rather than stay overnight? People do it in an evening for the Stockport league.

[Mick Norris]

Some of the players will commute - in fact, having to do so to cover both days with different players

Some of us have already booked at Buxton, and for some of us the point is to stay over and enjoy the weekend

[David Robertson]

I hope Mick withdraws none of his comments: they are widely held. And I applaud him for saying so. To Alex: back in your box, sunshine.

[Mick Norris]

I hope Mick withdraws none of his comments: they are widely held. And I applaud him for saying so. To Alex: back in your box, sunshine.

I think you know me better than to think I would withdraw them

[MartinCarpenter]

Oh, by the way can I make some VERY forceful comments about the tie break system? Not because of this, which is actually the least of the problems it could cause.

Two teams very likely to be in contention come the final rounds? Well, Spirit1 and NE1 are exceedingly likely. And guess who Spirit1 have played? Why yes, NE2. And guess who NE1 have played? Oh yes, Spirit B. Oh dear.

Doesn't this place the second teams in a truly terrible ethical position?

Seriously, if I was playing for one of them I'd already be wondering if I wanted to play given the risk of depriving my first team - and maybe myself! - of a return to Div2. I might well very decide that I just couldn't motivate myself.

Of course, with the ability to score -1 from a defaulted board things could easily get a lot worse than that! If it comes to it in the last few rounds I would not be at all surprised to see -6 scorelines. What else are they meant to do? I'd be very happy to 'get lost' on the way to the venue. Given that, putting it politely, this isn't precisely in the best interests of the competition, is there any way at all to change the tie break rules before then? Please?
(This is actually an entirely predictable problem given how Div3N is structured and will recur most years.).

[David Robertson]

Doesn't this place the second teams in a truly terrible ethical position?

No, it doesn't. Not remotely.

It cannot be ethical to arrange an unethical outcome. There is no question, none whatsoever, that Spirit of Atticus would ever 'game' the rules. We exist to play chess competitively, sportingly and convivially as a group of mutually supportive colleagues - that's what we mean by The Spirit. Absent any of this, we'd disband. I have very little doubt I speak for the NE players too.

Rest assured too: Spirit of Atticus B will play for every point, always. Three of our players went into the seventh hour in a deserted hall on the previous Sunday in Rd 4, seeking the extra 0.5 to win their match. Losing all three would have boosted our 'A' team's SOS.

So I'd advise setting aside mathematical possibilities of mucking about with the rules, and focus instead on the excellent sporting relationships between teams in the Northern League

[MartinCarpenter]

I know everyone gets on nicely which is very good People gaming the system is I admit (happily) very unlikely but the fact that the system will quite likely create an absolutely clear cut incentive to do so is still a really bad problem.
(I personally wouldn't blame anyone if they did the obviously indicated thing.).

Its worse than that for the players though. Suppose it did come to the last weekend and the chances of a tie break were very clear?

I really, really would not want to, or really be able to, play chess knowing that my winning could easily stop the first team from getting promotion. I can't imagine that I'd be alone in feeling like that either. I play teams chess for the team/squad, not myself and the top squad priorities then would be entirely obvious.

Of course the sane thing to do when feeling like this would of course be to not turn up. That could easily cause a problem if it meant that the teams ended up short on strength/numbers. Especially since they'll be quite stretched for the 'southern' legs anyway.

Actually that is another potential problem with the tie break - the northern teams turning up weak for the final weekends. Would anyone be surprised if NE2 were notably weaker and/or even defaulting boards for the southern matches? Not especially I'd think.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Of course the sane thing to do when feeling like this would of course be to not turn up.

No, the sane thing to do would be to turn up and play chess. If the first team are in a position where they are depending on some variation of the sum of their opponent's scores, then that is their problem. Arguably, they should have made the problem academic by beating their nearest rivals. If they failed to do that, then the only way to (possibly ethically) influence the tie-break situation would be to help the opponents of your rivals prepare for their games. Not turning up for games is somewhere very low on the list, definitely below ethical.

[Roger de Coverly]

I really, really would not want to, or really be able to, play chess knowing that my winning could easily stop the first team from getting promotion. I can't imagine that I'd be alone in feeling like that either. I play teams chess for the team/squad, not myself and the top squad priorities then would be entirely obvious.

It's never been raised as a problem in the larger Division 3 (south), perhaps because squads of more than one team in that division are relatively rare and the division large enough that pairings against both teams of a squad a rarity for the promotion seeking teams.

You could have a rule that if there had been a match SofA A v NE A, you didn't then pair SofA A v NE B. That could create even more trouble, since if SofA A v NE B was a legitimate pairing, then that could rule out SofA A v NE A.

[MartinCarpenter]

I meant not turn up to the weekend at all Singing up to appear then not doing it to cause a default would be rather worrying yes.

Playing a sensible game of chess where a large chunk of me actively didn't want to win? Pretty well impossible, for me, at least. Not really a position anyone should be put in.

Yes, I seriously doubt this sort of problematic thing is possible to arrange in south. Almost an inevitable problem in 3N if two serious promotion candidates as the second teams will have some of the lower players from the Div2 squad so will tend to be quite good.

You also have to play the enemy first team quite early, because you obviously want to take your best shot at them when you get the chance.