Division Two 2016-17
-
- Posts: 1952
- Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:36 pm
Division Two 2016-17
I've opened a new topic - no doubt there will be some comments before the end of the season!
-
- Posts: 123
- Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:50 am
Re: Division Two 2016-17
It does look like group B is stronger than the other. 4 out of the top 5 seeds reside there including Alba who fielded a team with an average rating of 2312. I'm sure Guildford 3 will get stronger through the season too.
-
- Posts: 10403
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
- Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Re: Division Two 2016-17
Of course, with 3 graduates from Div 3 N and White Rose 2Ihor Lewyk wrote:It does look like group B is stronger than the other
Any postings on here represent my personal views
-
- Posts: 3053
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am
Re: Division Two 2016-17
Doesn't seem to be much in it at all except for Alba? I'd presume that Alba were rated on their (still very good!) team from last season, but they've obviously strengthened a long way since then. Nearly everyone else is +-2050-2150.
Bradford, even given the default, don't seem to have had an especially good team for this weekend. They'll need a bit more to have good chances to survive I think.
Bradford, even given the default, don't seem to have had an especially good team for this weekend. They'll need a bit more to have good chances to survive I think.
-
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 10:37 am
- Location: Abu Dhabi & Taunton
Re: Division Two 2016-17
That was my impression as well.Ihor Lewyk wrote:It does look like group B is stronger than the other. 4 out of the top 5 seeds reside there including Alba who fielded a team with an average rating of 2312. I'm sure Guildford 3 will get stronger through the season too.
I am glad that my team "West is Best" is in group A.
Started with two wins - not bad for a newly promoted team and only one new player for one of the middle boards.
I guess Andrew Greet and John Shaw can't be happy with their performances!!!
Nullius addictus iurare in verba magistri - I am not bound to believe in the word of any master
http://www.mikerichardt.co.uk
http://www.mikerichardt.co.uk
-
- Posts: 10403
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
- Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Re: Division Two 2016-17
They couldn't find a female or junior player; I'm not sure if this will apply in future weekendsMartinCarpenter wrote:Bradford, even given the default, don't seem to have had an especially good team for this weekend. They'll need a bit more to have good chances to survive I think.
Any postings on here represent my personal views
-
- Posts: 4836
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
- Location: Bideford
Re: Division Two 2016-17
Alba will have been seeded based on their performance last season, which will have made them 7th seeds in their group, the same as us.MartinCarpenter wrote:Doesn't seem to be much in it at all except for Alba? I'd presume that Alba were rated on their (still very good!) team from last season, but they've obviously strengthened a long way since then. Nearly everyone else is +-2050-2150.
Re: Division Two 2016-17
...which, of course, is absurd. So why does it happen? Is it because someone routinely follows a formula rather than good judgement? The Pool system depends for its integrity on a fair balance between groups. Where that is so obviously skewed, as here, it disturbs the sporting contest. A bit of give-n-take is fine. But might it not have been appropriate to tweak the Pools, post-registration say, to achieve fair balance?IM Jack Rudd wrote:Alba will have been seeded based on their performance last season, which will have made them 7th seeds in their group, the same as us
Last edited by David Robertson on Mon Nov 21, 2016 2:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 3053
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am
Re: Division Two 2016-17
Says something slightly sad about Yorkshire chess that I think. We've just had a very good batch of juniors go off to University from round Yorkshire, not sure where the next lot is, if indeed there is one. Native female players have always been vanishingly rare in my experience.Mick Norris wrote:They couldn't find a female or junior player; I'm not sure if this will apply in future weekendsMartinCarpenter wrote:Bradford, even given the default, don't seem to have had an especially good team for this weekend. They'll need a bit more to have good chances to survive I think.
Checking the registrations, Bradford were also missing all their top three registered players so they'll be stronger at some points.
-
- Posts: 4667
- Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm
Re: Division Two 2016-17
Last year they sent around proposed seedings for comment. But this year, I didn't receive anything.David Robertson wrote:...which, of course, is absurd. So why does it happen? Is it because someone routinely follows a formula rather than good judgement? The Pool system depends for its integrity on a fair balance between groups. Where that is so obviously skewed, as here, it disturbs the sporting contest. A bit of give-n-take is fine. But might it not have been appropriate to tweak the Pools, post-registration say, to achieve fair balance?IM Jack Rudd wrote:Alba will have been seeded based on their performance last season, which will have made them 7th seeds in their group, the same as us
Mind you, it is almost a hopeless task seeding the second division. Almost anyone can and does beat anyone else, and this year is relatively unusual in there being a clear favourite. Whichever group had Alba in it would probably always seem stronger, because there is no telling who the second, third and fourth strongest teams truly are.
I could probably agree nonetheless that pool B has more strong-looking teams in it, but I wonder whether it may have more weaker-looking teams too. Eg, Bradford have had problems with junior/woman board in the past and have not survived in two previous attempts in the second division. The tables so far confirm this impression. In pool A most teams did something other than losing or winning both. In pool B, six of the eight teams did one or the other.
-
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 10:37 am
- Location: Abu Dhabi & Taunton
Re: Division Two 2016-17
As I play in one of the teams (West is Best) which are effected by this seeding system I am quite happy with the system although I can see why the comments.David Robertson wrote: ...which, of course, is absurd. So why does it happen? Is it because someone routinely follows a formula rather than good judgement? The Pool system depends for its integrity on a fair balance between groups. Where that is so obviously skewed, as here, it disturbs the sporting contest. A bit of give-n-take is fine. But might it not have been appropriate to tweak the Pools, post-registration say, to achieve fair balance?
I do think it would be more sensible to do the seeding after the dead line for the player nominations. It would gives the controllers a better understanding of the teams that year and maybe the seeding would be different!!!
Although any system which would be implemented people would have something to "complain" about!!
Nullius addictus iurare in verba magistri - I am not bound to believe in the word of any master
http://www.mikerichardt.co.uk
http://www.mikerichardt.co.uk
-
- Posts: 1397
- Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
- Location: Oldham
Re: Division Two 2016-17
I suspect that people could exploit their registration lists if they waited for the final deadline, as people can be added after the case for a few weeks before the 1st weekend, you just omit your top 5 seeds to keep your average down then add them a few days laterMike W. Richardt wrote:As I play in one of the teams (West is Best) which are effected by this seeding system I am quite happy with the system although I can see why the comments.David Robertson wrote: ...which, of course, is absurd. So why does it happen? Is it because someone routinely follows a formula rather than good judgement? The Pool system depends for its integrity on a fair balance between groups. Where that is so obviously skewed, as here, it disturbs the sporting contest. A bit of give-n-take is fine. But might it not have been appropriate to tweak the Pools, post-registration say, to achieve fair balance?
I do think it would be more sensible to do the seeding after the dead line for the player nominations. It would gives the controllers a better understanding of the teams that year and maybe the seeding would be different!!!
Although any system which would be implemented people would have something to "complain" about!!
Like you said all system are going to have flaws embedded within them
-
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2014 11:31 am
Re: Division Two 2016-17
I also think there is something to be said for lower rated teams deserving to be in an easier pool by virtue of their performance last year. For example one of the reasons that Pool A looks easier is because the top seed this year was Barbican Youth, who earned promotion last year despite being on paper one of the lower rated teams in the league.
It's a bit like Leicester being in pot 1 in the Champions League Draw despite presumably being a worse side than Dortmund or Man City. They performed well enough to deserve their seeding and so fair play to them. Of course it's easier for me to say that as we (Sussex) are in the easier pool!
I think that maybe there should be a little more leeway, in particular to give Alba a higher seeding, but I think seeding based on previous years is probably about as 'fair' a system as any.
It's a bit like Leicester being in pot 1 in the Champions League Draw despite presumably being a worse side than Dortmund or Man City. They performed well enough to deserve their seeding and so fair play to them. Of course it's easier for me to say that as we (Sussex) are in the easier pool!
I think that maybe there should be a little more leeway, in particular to give Alba a higher seeding, but I think seeding based on previous years is probably about as 'fair' a system as any.
-
- Posts: 1260
- Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:43 pm
- Location: Somerset
Re: Division Two 2016-17
Just out of interest, can someone explain why Barbican Youth/ Guildford 3 can't go up unless one of their other teams get relegated? I understand the rule, just curious why it was introduced.
Re: Division Two 2016-17
Oooo, don't get me started. The Baby Barbies' match strength varies according to squad decisions. And decision No 1 - maybe No 2 - is to do what it takes to retain the Babies in Div 2. Hence, early on they let nature take its course. But if stuff turns sour, they bring down their IMs in later rounds. Whereas if all is good, then in later rounds, you can find yourself playing guys in nappies. I don't have too many problems here - though I'm sure I can think of dozens. Life's a trade-off: at least the Barbies commit to playing babies in Div 2 - better than playing them in Div 3. But this lot are by no means a reliable rating benchmark. Good players though.Rhys Cumming wrote:For example one of the reasons that Pool A looks easier is because the top seed this year was Barbican Youth, who earned promotion last year despite being on paper one of the lower rated teams in the league