League Champions!

[Roger de Coverly]

I have wondered if it was feasible that teams winning leagues could take part in a regional (or national) league (or knockout cup) in a similar way that the champions league does for teams in football.

There's already a National Club competition which attracted three entries in the Open section.

[Malcolm Clarke]

Southampton University A team won the Southampton League Division 1 title beating Southampton A in a winner takes all final match of the season. It was the University's first division 1 title for 14 years having won it seven times over the period 1980/81 to 1989/90.

[Jonathan Bryant]

It was the University's first division 1 title for 14 years having won it seven times over the period 1980/81 to 1989/90.

The University's run of success ending the year I turned up? I suspect this is not a coincidence.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Btw we play at an old coaching Inn, the Jolly Tanners at Staplefield; I believe the Prince Regent used to stop for lunch on his way down to the Royal Pavilion. "

The same is said of Reigate - he must have been hammered when he arrived at Brighton.

The Surrey league tables may be found at http://www.scca.co.uk/comps/comps_index.html

It was a more interesting competition this year - usually somebody dominates, but Guildford were deserving winners. There are some good players in action in a number of teams...

[Geoff Chandler]

Not all the leagues are finished.
Here is the state of the Scottish Borders League as of the 22nd May 2013.
Why post here? Berwick is in England.


                  P W D L Pts
Kelso           7  6 1 0 13
Berwick       6  4 1 1  9
Dunbar        6  2 1 3  5
Galashields  6  2 1 3  5
Selkirk         7  0 0 7  0

[James Pratt]

BCM carries League news in most issues. I hope this is worthwhile and of interest (who else bothers?)

James Pratt

Editor
http://www.britishchessmagazine.co.uk

[Andrew Stone]

I'd never really looked properly at the Herts League before, nor the Middlesex League, and I was surprised at how strong the teams were in the top divisions. The Herts League (where the title seems not to have been decided yet) can be seen here:

http://www.e2-e4.co.uk/chess-results/results.htm

The Herts League is effectively decided as it is waiting on my adjudication where I am a pawn up and the computer is giving +1.2 to me. We only need a draw for Watford to be champions
I was also surprised by how strong the Herts League was when I started playing in it circa 2005. I guess being only 5 boards helps

[Geoff Chandler]

"...it is waiting on my adjudication where I am a pawn up and the computer is giving +1.2"

This is a perfect argument against all adjudications.

How does it feel to have someone (or something) else win the game for you?

How are you going stick that one in your collection of Best Games?

"Here the game was stopped and adjudicated a win for me."

I was heavily instrumental in abolishing all adjournments in Scotland.
Have I got to come down there and sort you lot as well.

36 move in 1½ hours + 15 min allegrgo (no add ons.)

No wonder the Herts league is so strong. None of them have to play any end games!
Someone (or something) else does that for them.

The winner of adjourned games should not be given any grading points.
Why should they, they have not won the game.

How many players out there have a boosted grade bases on game won for them
by other players (or computers).
And now a whole league depends on upon one game that the player could not win OTB.
It's a complete joke.

Hold an emergency AGM in the summer and get yourselves sorted out.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I'd never really looked properly at the Herts League before, nor the Middlesex League, and I was surprised at how strong the teams were in the top divisions. The Herts League (where the title seems not to have been decided yet) can be seen here:

http://www.e2-e4.co.uk/chess-results/results.htm

The Herts League is effectively decided as it is waiting on my adjudication where I am a pawn up and the computer is giving +1.2 to me. We only need a draw for Watford to be champions
I was also surprised by how strong the Herts League was when I started playing in it circa 2005. I guess being only 5 boards helps

I'd noticed how things were hanging on one game there. I see Geoff has as well. I kind of agree that it would be better for the game to at least be played out. One issue regarding relegation in the Thames Valley League came down to two adjourned games. A relegation issue in division one of the London League came down to three adjournments:

http://www.londonchess.org.uk/match_car ... n=20122013

Three boards were adjourned there in a match Streatham and Brixton needed to win to stay up. The scores were level, the three adjourned games ended in draws (I presume they were not agreed drawn), and so S&B3 go down and Ilford stay up. I wonder if that was as dramatic as it looks?

And for the record, the bottom seven teams in division one of the London League all finished within a single match point of each other (between 3.5 and 4.5 match points from a possible 11). That is high drama for many of those teams:

http://www.londonchess.org.uk/table_cro ... n=20122013

[Brian Valentine]

No wonder the Herts league is so strong. None of them have to play any end games!
Someone (or something) else does that for them.

The winner of adjourned games should not be given any grading points.
Why should they, they have not won the game.

Hi Geoff,
You are being a bit harsh. The Herts League rules are nothing if not bizarre.

At the start of the game the players decide on whether to play 80 mins all in each or something more sedate. The sedate version is 35 moves in 75 mins then 7/15. At some pre-determined time this version stops and the players haggle over adjudication or adjournment. If someone wants to adjourn then they have to travel.

I played on for a second session following two adjournments this season and I think my extra travails should be rewarded!

In my experience adjudications are settled usually before being formally submitted, with one side just wanting to check with their silicon second that they are doing the right thing for the team.

However something should be sorted out, if you could help please. I thought you ought to know what you were letting yourself into though.

[Andrew Stone]

"...it is waiting on my adjudication where I am a pawn up and the computer is giving +1.2"

This is a perfect argument against all adjudications.

How does it feel to have someone (or something) else win the game for you?

How are you going stick that one in your collection of Best Games?

"Here the game was stopped and adjudicated a win for me."

I was heavily instrumental in abolishing all adjournments in Scotland.
Have I got to come down there and sort you lot as well.

36 move in 1½ hours + 15 min allegrgo (no add ons.)

No wonder the Herts league is so strong. None of them have to play any end games!
Someone (or something) else does that for them.

The winner of adjourned games should not be given any grading points.
Why should they, they have not won the game.

How many players out there have a boosted grade bases on game won for them
by other players (or computers).
And now a whole league depends on upon one game that the player could not win OTB.
It's a complete joke.

Hold an emergency AGM in the summer and get yourselves sorted out.

Geoff I have found a lot of your comments amusing and good value but not this one.

1. What about my opponent? How come he avoids your wrath? Shouldn't he have played on if it is a guaranteed loss (don't know how you have worked this out- I expect we both think it is 50/50 win/draw or 60/40 perhaps)?

2. I gave up several hours work to play in this game which involved an 80 mile round trip. I would have lost more work and had to make another trip to play it on. It is far from clear that this was good for me grading wise as it is 50/50 if I will win and if I had played on it could have been easy for my opponent to go wrong. I would have played all on the night but my opponent standing in for someone with 20 minutes lost on his clock understandably didn't want to.

3. My grade is not heavily influenced by adjudications. I am a very active player and can only remember one adjudication in recent times. That was a 50/50 win/draw and it came back a draw- so your statement that I have a boosted grade is wrong- if anything it has been defalted.

4. Whilst I don't trust it (based on not many games), my rapidplay grade is far higher than my slowplay grade. Also I seem to do quite well in endings so it is likely that taking the quickplay option would probably boost my grade.

5. The Herts League depends on me not losing rather than winning like you say. Also the game was played quite some time ago- there have been several matches and adjournments since then that have influenced the standings.

6. Should I not lose grading points if the result comes back a draw? What about my opponent? If we should both lose points this deflates the grading system.

7. How could the Herts League become strong by not playing endgames? The winners are taking points from other Herts League players. Perhaps you mean that strong players don't like endings and want to get to the "finish line" asap. I find this hard to believe.

I probably agree with you that adjudications should be abolished but I am sure that has been debated ad naseum elsewhere on the site and we shouldn't hijack this thread. However I find your post really badly argued and also more than a touch insulting.

[John Hodgson]

A relegation issue in division one of the London League came down to three adjournments:

Three boards were adjourned there in a match Streatham and Brixton needed to win to stay up. The scores were level, the three adjourned games ended in draws (I presume they were not agreed drawn), and so S&B3 go down and Ilford stay up. I wonder if that was as dramatic as it looks?

And for the record, the bottom seven teams in division one of the London League all finished within a single match point of each other (between 3.5 and 4.5 match points from a possible 11). That is high drama for many of those teams.

Yes, the relegation fight at the bottom of the London League 1st division was closer than at any time I can remember. Streatham needed to beat Ilford to stay up, but could only draw; and Drunken Knights 3 needed to beat Richmond, which they did. However, celebrations in the latter match were premature as Drunken Knights were docked half a match point for fielding an ineligible player, and went down instead.

Since many threads degenerate into a discussion on adjournments ...

One of the games (French v White) was clearly better for the Streatham player and I expected us (Ilford) to lose it, and be relegated. However, the second session turned into a marathon and the game was adjourned a second time. Fortunately the game was clearly drawn by that time and was not resumed again. The point is this: the adjournment session was a game in its own right (i.e. moves 37-72 were as valid as moves 1-36), and the game was decided by the players on the day and not by prior computer analysis. Of course if the game had been subject to a quick-play finish it would still have been settled by the players, but the method would, in my opinion, have been less satisfactory.

[John Hodgson]

It's a complete joke.

Hold an emergency AGM in the summer and get yourselves sorted out.

However I find your post really badly argued and also more than a touch insulting.

Well said, Andrew, and I agree.

But perhaps the original post was just a complete joke.

[Andrew Stone]

A relegation issue in division one of the London League came down to three adjournments:

Three boards were adjourned there in a match Streatham and Brixton needed to win to stay up. The scores were level, the three adjourned games ended in draws (I presume they were not agreed drawn), and so S&B3 go down and Ilford stay up. I wonder if that was as dramatic as it looks?

And for the record, the bottom seven teams in division one of the London League all finished within a single match point of each other (between 3.5 and 4.5 match points from a possible 11). That is high drama for many of those teams.

Yes, the relegation fight at the bottom of the London League 1st division was closer than at any time I can remember. Streatham needed to beat Ilford to stay up, but could only draw; and Drunken Knights 3 needed to beat Richmond, which they did. However, celebrations in the latter match were premature as Drunken Knights were docked half a match point for fielding an ineligible player, and went down instead.

Since many threads degenerate into a discussion on adjournments ...

One of the games (French v White) was clearly better for the Streatham player and I expected us (Ilford) to lose it, and be relegated. However, the second session turned into a marathon and the game was adjourned a second time. Fortunately the game was clearly drawn by that time and was not resumed again. The point is this: the adjournment session was a game in its own right (i.e. moves 37-72 were as valid as moves 1-36), and the game was decided by the players on the day and not by prior computer analysis. Of course if the game had been subject to a quick-play finish it would still have been settled by the players, but the method would, in my opinion, have been less satisfactory.

Well done John on Ilford staying up. Someone pointed out that the problem with league chess is that there is not enough time on the night and so no options are fully satisfactory. I would agree with this. In the match Streatham (another of my teams!) won a game on time despite losing a queen for I think a pawn when both players were down to seconds in a quickplay finish. So a good example that there are drawbacks with taking the non-silicon route.
Must say I think your (implemented) idea that quickplay can be insisted on on odd numbered boards was a fantastic idea.

[Jonathan Bryant]

One of the games (French v White) was clearly better for the Streatham player and I expected us (Ilford) to lose it, and be relegated. However, the second session turned into a marathon and the game was adjourned a second time. Fortunately the game was clearly drawn by that time and was not resumed again.

Or unfortunately, depending on your point of view


Chris will no doubt be fascinated to know that this critical relegation game came down to a rook ending.