4NCL North 2013-14

[MartinCarpenter]

The problem with Buxton is going to be wanting to go for a walk instead of playing chess Weather dependent I suppose but still.....

Think I'm likely playing this one, although obviously little idea precisely who else will be in the Jorvik team!

[David Robertson]

Jorvik's finest celebrate 4NCL win

[Mick Norris]

Fixtures published for Buxton

Weekend 3: Round 5 - Sat 8th Feb 2014 14:00

Spirit of Atticus A (7) v Bradford DCA Knights B (6)
Spirit of Atticus B (5) v Cheddleton 2 (5)
North East England 1 (6) v Holmes Chapel (4)
North East England 2 (4) v Cheddleton 3 (4)
Bradford DCA Knights C (2) v Ferry 'Cross the Maroczy 1 (4)
Ferry 'Cross the Maroczy 2 (2) v Jorvik (4)
Manchester Manticores 1 (3) v Manchester Manticores 2 (0)

Weekend 3: Round 6 - Sun 9th Feb 2014 11:00

Cheddleton 2 (5) v Spirit of Atticus A (7)
Bradford DCA Knights B (6) v North East England 1 (6)
Jorvik (4) v Spirit of Atticus B (5)
Ferry 'Cross the Maroczy 1 (4) v North East England 2 (4)
Holmes Chapel (4) v Manchester Manticores 1 (3)
Cheddleton 3 (4) v Ferry 'Cross the Maroczy 2 (2)
Manchester Manticores 2 (0) v Bradford DCA Knights C (2)

[MartinCarpenter]

Was there really no way to avoid that?

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.

I'd reccomend a quick 3-3 draw (I guess you'd both get penalised for the otherwise tempting 0-0....) and a nice walk in the white peak!

[Alex Holowczak]

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?

[Roger de Coverly]

So the two issues are:
(1) We pair two rounds at once.

It's worth considering whether that's still necessary. Results are now posted to the website as they occur, so provided the pairings can be done quickly, they can be made available to match captains and players within a few minutes of the last result coming in. The wide use of smart phones and mobile internet enables even those not at the venue to find pairings.

[MartinCarpenter]

I hadn't realised it'd mess with the top teams tie breaks if you broke the pairings. Tricky then because that may well be relevant come the end of the season.

Not that Manchester 1 vs 2 is entirely certain to feature a fully motivated Manchester 1 outfit

[Mick Norris]

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?

If you need to ask yourself that question, you aren't fit to be answering it

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I thought it was normal for teams from the same 'club' to play each other in the first round(s). Does that not happen in the 4NCL? Or is that only in APA team competitions and not in Swiss competitions?

[IM Jack Rudd]

I thought it was normal for teams from the same 'club' to play each other in the first round(s). Does that not happen in the 4NCL? Or is that only in APA team competitions and not in Swiss competitions?

In all-play-alls, it's highly encouraged, because they'll have to play at some point and it minimizes their chances of being able to rig the result in their favour.

In Swisses, they might not meet at all, so that criterion doesn't apply. The usual rule of thumb with Swisses is "how much does it disrupt the draw if we avoid this pairing, and how reasonable does it look?"; the natural consequence of this is that the bigger the Swiss, the more likely it is that such a pairing will be avoided. This is a very small Swiss, with the fourteen entries containing five pairs of linked teams, so the chances are that trying to avoid all five of those pairings every time will horribly disrupt the draw.

[Alex Holowczak]

So the two issues are:
(1) We pair two rounds at once.

It's worth considering whether that's still necessary. Results are now posted to the website as they occur, so provided the pairings can be done quickly, they can be made available to match captains and players within a few minutes of the last result coming in. The wide use of smart phones and mobile internet enables even those not at the venue to find pairings.

Being Division 3, one argument is that it helps to guarantee that players can contact captains in advance of the weekend to ensure a particular player plays rated opponents, which might be helpful in turning a part-rating into a full rating.

Now that you can't get a part-rating at a 4NCL weekend if you're starting from scratch in terms of FIDE-rated game, that minimises that argument's value.

I've never been convinced by those arguments myself, but there doesn't seem to be anyone jumping up and down about two rounds being paired together.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Jorvik's finest celebrate 4NCL win

Wheelie bins? There was a time when Jorvik celebrations involved full-on Viking long ship burnings!

[Sean Hewitt]

So the two issues are:
(1) We pair two rounds at once.

It's worth considering whether that's still necessary. Results are now posted to the website as they occur, so provided the pairings can be done quickly, they can be made available to match captains and players within a few minutes of the last result coming in. The wide use of smart phones and mobile internet enables even those not at the venue to find pairings.

Being Division 3, one argument is that it helps to guarantee that players can contact captains in advance of the weekend to ensure a particular player plays rated opponents, which might be helpful in turning a part-rating into a full rating.

Now that you can't get a part-rating at a 4NCL weekend if you're starting from scratch in terms of FIDE-rated game, that minimises that argument's value.

I've never been convinced by those arguments myself, but there doesn't seem to be anyone jumping up and down about two rounds being paired together.

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!

[Kevin Thurlow]

We are too used to having the draw fiddled in this country, which is why it's an issue. Everywhere else, they do (what they think is) the correct pairing, so when this happens nobody worries. And if you fiddle the draw to avoid a pairing, there is always the danger that you are being unfair to a third party.

Are the players from Manchester likely to play each other in the normal run of things?

[MartinCarpenter]

Very likely in the Manchester league, yes. Not that many teammates I suppose, although 3 of them (split over the two teams) are long term team mates in the Yorkshire league for Calderdale. Also some of the Lancs leagues N of Manchester I think.

An awful lot of these players are rather familiar to each other of course. The Yorkshire league has a strong presence in places you might not quite expect. Manchester have 3, Spirit of Atticus have a strong Sheffield (via Chesterfield) flavouring - 2 last weekend and sometimes more, Paul Kendall plays for Hull/NE2 etc.

It isn't even like the Yorkshire teams are neatly separated. There were 8, and could easily have been 9, York based/associated players in the Jorvik - Bradford B match (I'll be well over 50 matches sat next to Jim Nicholson for York by now.).

Goodness this year I've played on teams with people from at least NE1 (2 maybe), Jorvik and Bradford B.

Having said all of that, playing your second team never feels good. Especially not when you've driven all the way out/stayed in a hotel etc for it. At least Buxton isn't at all terrible travel wise from Manchester.

Had this been in the NE leg it'd have been rather less funny. It could easily have caused an issue with raising full teams, thus messing with the tie break anyway.

As it is, if I was playing for either Manchester team I'd very likely briefly check with Mick that he didn't mind, then trying to prearrange a draw, turning up in walking clothes and going for a walk. And no, I wouldn't care about messing with anyones tie break