4NCL 2013-14 (first weekend)

[Alan Walton]

It is pretty usual in div2 for there to be no one team dominating. On paper it is the most balanced division in the league so all matches should, theoretically, be quite close.

Apart from last year, when King's Head were virtually guaranteed promotion after the pool stages

[Joey Stewart]

I guess if you take out the broken system of carrying results against top teams when the pools merge, it should be closer.

[Jonathan Rogers]

All of the games from the weekend are now online, with apologies for the delay in yesterday's Division 1 games.

I quite liked the Williams-Rogers in Round 2 Division 1b. It was a very wild 23 moves...

Yes, we were both quite imaginative, and you can imagine how I felt, having done the hard work, to miss the simple forced draw two moves before the end (...Ne5 instead of ...Ne7). Well, evidently nothing is simple for me, and I suppose that such games are "normal" only for Simon!

[Jonathan Rogers]

It is pretty usual in div2 for there to be no one team dominating. On paper it is the most balanced division in the league so all matches should, theoretically, be quite close.

Apart from last year, when King's Head were virtually guaranteed promotion after the pool stages

And BCM Dragons (then AMCA Dragons) who scored 11/11 in 2011/12! In previous years though Joey's observation would have been right, and the unpredictable element has been a constant - no sane person would have predicted the dominance of AMCA or Kings Head in their triumphal processions.

[Joey Stewart]

There will always be a couple of teams who have good seasons, but on paper none of the games should be one sided as almost all players in that division are 2100-2300.

I still am annoyed about a couple of seasons ago when Bristol, who played really well to come top of their pool, were relegated right down to the bottom of the promotion stakes thanks to the stupid merger.

Perhaps the fairest system is to simply remove ALL points from teams going through to the promotion/relegation pools and let them start again from scratch - at least then everybody gets equally hit and there is no risk of unfairness.

[Alan Walton]

One structure could be to have 4 groups of 4, with top & bottom 2 going through to the championship and relegation pools, so three matches, then the groups of 8 all play each other for promotion/relegation, including playing the team in your group again with no carry forward points

Admittedly this is only ten matches, but you could say its fairer

[Andrew Bak]

Perhaps the fairest system is to simply remove ALL points from teams going through to the promotion/relegation pools and let them start again from scratch - at least then everybody gets equally hit and there is no risk of unfairness.

What would be the point of this? You'd still have exactly the same issue that the results against the teams in the other pool are disregarded. Only now you have to repeat matches that you have already played earlier in the season.

[Joey Stewart]

The point would be that those in the promotion pool start on level pegging, as do those in the demotion pool.
Rather then a system where a team with victories against all the top teams in it's pool can find itself fighting
Against relegation with no points at all, when they have been taken away during the merger.
As I said before, it is totally unfair to have a system where this can (and does) happen in what is supposedly a game of skill

[IM Jack Rudd]

I still am annoyed about a couple of seasons ago when Bristol, who played really well to come top of their pool, were relegated right down to the bottom of the promotion stakes thanks to the stupid merger.

Er, we carried forward 4 points out of a possible 6, and we ended up getting promoted. It's not really a season to get too incensed about.

(Brown Jack's season where they beat a couple of top teams and carried forward very few points to the demotion pool is a better example for your point, granted. It's also rather unusual.)

[Andrew Bak]

The point would be that those in the promotion pool start on level pegging, as do those in the demotion pool.
Rather then a system where a team with victories against all the top teams in it's pool can find itself fighting
Against relegation with no points at all, when they have been taken away during the merger.
As I said before, it is totally unfair to have a system where this can (and does) happen in what is supposedly a game of skill

I don't understand what making everybody start on a level pegging would achieve? The teams would still end up in their respective pools and would have to play the teams that they have already lost to once again. Instead of replaying the same fixtures again (which might be unfair to the teams that have beaten this hypothetical giant-crushing team), they just count the game that has already been played.

If can understand you not liking the current system - but your solution doesn't really change anything. You probably ought to be advocating for an All-play-all system.

This was already discussed at last season's captain's meeting and there was no desire for change.

[Andrew Bak]

Yorkshire Chess has now published a couple of reports of the Weekend's action:

Divisions 1 & 2

Division 3 North