Size of County teams

[Roger de Coverly]

Yes I have to admit the Northern League teams will have about 30 miles further to Daventry,

Directly between the two is more like 25 according to route planners. If coming down the M6, it's only about 15 miles extra if you aren't using the M6 Toll.

[David Pardoe]

Roger, you seem to be suggesting that its ok for the `small fry` to get mangled up in 4NCL competition, but somehow this should not be allowed in the counties events...?

Yes. The reason being that there are no restrictions on who you can field in 4NCL teams other than the one season one squad rule, so you assume lower rated players or teams are there because they want to be. This is unlike county teams where once you have approached all the strong local players and tried to find a few birth or historic residence qualified ringers, that's more or less it and you are prohibited from strengthening the team.

You`re only taslking about 6-player teams in the 4NCL, and you seem to crave after this unlimited choice so you can get the strongest possible team. Once you have got this all concuring team Roger, where does that leave the rest of us...?
And county chess doesnt just cater for the top echelons, it caters for the full range of players...and there`s generally a fair selection of potential players..till you get to other issues. So, player selection of itself is not an insurmountable problem for most captains prepared to do there research and seek out volunteers.
But, yes, I can see scope for improvement that would help, and thats why I`m suggesting some changes.
We`ll see whether anything constructive gets onto the AGM agendas, and gets taken forward.....otherwise these forums are just talk shops. Ideas just falling on deaf ears... I hope not.

[Roger de Coverly]

And county chess doesnt just cater for the top echelons, it caters for the full range of players...and there`s generally a fair selection of potential players..till you get to other issues. So, player selection of itself is not an insurmountable problem for most captains prepared to do there research and seek out volunteers.

The fundamental point on county teams is that with the eligibility rules as written, the likes of Middlesex or Yorkshire will always have more potential players than the likes of Bucks. It's all very well having volunteers, but if they aren't eligible to play, they aren't much use. With alternatives available to players like the 4NCL for weekend team chess, there's little point in the smaller counties trying to compete at a regional level. In the MCCU, they've got round this to an extent by splitting into two divisions, except the top division is now only Warwickshire and Staffordshire.

[Alan Walton]

You have issues with these `extra milages` in the counties events, I notice.

Only if I am playing one game a day, I not worried about extra travelling when playing over a weekend and staying in the hotel overnight

[Greg Breed]

Greg, as I said, you are not following what is being suggested. Pause for breath, and reread...

Yes, .....I am suggesting that the new grade bands of Open, U170, U135 & U100 would replace existing bands....

Please accept my apologies David. This is the crucial bit I overlooked. It all makes sense now.
Sorry

[David Pardoe]

No problems.. trying to communicate on these forums is not at all easy. Misunderstandings abound.

[Andrew Zigmond]

I've been following this lengthy thread with interest. The first problem is that, the County Championships - along with the National Club Championship - is now seen as lacking in prestige compared to the 4NCL.

From my own experience (admittedly in a County where weekend chess is more dominant than in other areas) chess players tend to split into two categories. There are club players who like playing one game on a saturday afternoon before going down the pub (or whatever). They travel when it's their team's turn to play away but will go no further. Then there are congress players who are willing to devote a whole weekend to playing chess away from home. Obviously there are many players who will do both. It's perhaps worth noting that club players enjoy the team atmosphere and playing with the same group of friends; congress players play mainly for themselves but probably enjoy the company of other congress regulars.

The question is which demographic do we want to pitch the County Championships to? Logic suggests it should be club players; however a weekend event in a fixed venue would surely be of more interest to congress players.

With regard to disparity in county sizes a possible solution would be to split the event into leagues with promotion and relegation between divisions. Obviously the big counties would probably dominate the top division but if a small county got their chess scene thriving and started punching above their weight - well that's surely a good thing. A possibility here would be to strip away the old grading bands and simply allow for A, B and C teams (perhaps with grading restrictions in each division to prevent ringers).

Just my rambling thoughts ...

[MartinCarpenter]

Surely A/B/C teams would tend to rather dramatically favour the bigger, more popolous counties? Looking at Chessnuts Yorkshire can in principle field a ~180 on board 50 and 174 on 100. In practice of course we can't do that but still

Still something like divisions might make some sense in the end. The minor counties is a bit like that I suppose. Even the U180/16 board thing is something which some counties can usefully support but quite a few can't. I dunno.

[Roger de Coverly]

Still something like divisions might make some sense in the end.

That was the set up immediately before the introduction of rating limited competitions. For counties able to run teams in all rating divisions, rating limited rules can enable really enthusiastic players on the boundaries of the limits to play in more than one team. This breaks down at the national stages as all the matches are supposed to take place at the same time.

WECU still runs county matches using a first and second team approach.

http://www.chessdevon.co.uk/HTML/News/w ... %20results

[Mick Norris]

Surely A/B/C teams would tend to rather dramatically favour the bigger, more popolous counties? Looking at Chessnuts Yorkshire can in principle field a ~180 on board 50 and 174 on 100. In practice of course we can't do that but still

Still something like divisions might make some sense in the end. The minor counties is a bit like that I suppose. Even the U180/16 board thing is something which some counties can usefully support but quite a few can't. I dunno.

Why do the NCCU play only 12 boards including in the Open?

I know there is MCCU resistance, quite rightly in my view, to the NCCU proposal to go to 12 boards for ECF stage

I don't think Alex's proposal of 20 boards for the Open is right, either, would 16 boards be the right compromise? Otherwise,I think Alex's proposals look sensible

[MartinCarpenter]

The size of the Open/U180 NCCU matches is a bit of mystery to me. They have sometimes been 16 boards and there's defintely the option to do that every year. In recent years it has tended to be 12 at Lancashire's request. You'd have to ask them why

Its not like they struggle with teams of 16 in the K/O stages. Well maybe their U180 team does a tiny bit more.

For the U160 and down its probably a sane idea if it lets the other, smaller, counties join in.

[Mick Norris]

Apart from Cumbria in the U160, though, other counties (smaller or not) don't join in, and it is just Lancs v Yorks, so the evidence is that 12 boards doesn't work

[MartinCarpenter]

Indeed The idea of a jamboree was also tried - maybe for these reasons - and didn't really help either.
(It also cost Yorkshire playing a home open county match in Heywood but lets not be cynics ).

The 12 board open/U180 matches are different of course. They're basically because Lancashire - for whatever reason - prefer them and Yorkshire haven't felt strongly enough about it to insist on 16. If/when GM arrive I'm sure that Yorkshire would be very happy fielding 16 for the relevant matches.

Lancs I'm not sure about because I really can't work out why they want 12 in general. While it would seem rational to suppose its them behind the universal 12 board proposal I have absolutely no idea if it is.

[David Pardoe]

I think one of the problems is that many Union and county bodies tend to be fairly dead-pan organisations, who take the easy option and maintain the status quo.
Where more significant changes are suggested or are required, they tend to shy away from action....also you have to deal with the wall of apathy that often hangs over things, and only when you get some new blood, determined to get stuck in and move things forward, do you get any prpgress.

So, for the county competitions, there is some negativity...its not flavour of the month...
Yes, some counties might struggle to put together a strong Open or U180 team, due to numbers, or apathy, etc..
But, you would think that most counties, if they got stuck in, could muster a U140, or U120, or U100 team.
And if they really tried, and showed some imagination...as I`ve suggested, they might even be able to arrange mutually convenient venues, and structures, that encourage teams to actually enter.
Then , of course, you need a key ingredient...some enthusiastic, and active captains, who can make the contacts, find and encourage players, and arrange the matches and travel + venues to make to show tic...
The MCCU & SCCU show a good example and initiative in taking things forward....

[Roger de Coverly]

But, you would think that most counties, if they got stuck in, could muster a U140, or U120, or U100 team.

As pointed out in Alex's paper, those are the grading ranges where there are the most players. Paradoxically that isn't an argument in favour of having county teams involving longish distance travel since there should be a wide variety of potential opponents available in a more local area. There's a correlation of sorts between grade and interest in chess, also noted in the paper, so many lower graded players aren't so keen on spending several hours of their weekend travelling and playing.

The underlying questions are these:
What is the demand for weekend team chess?
How should it be structured?

The case in favour of weekend chess is that you can have longer playing sessions, therefore in principle avoiding the adjournment/adjudication issues being discussed in the other thread.