National Club Chamionship - what is the point?

[Alex Holowczak]

Arbiters amused by the Bedford v Wanstead & Woodford match in the Major. Specifically board 4, where we had the game Pike v Haddock!

[LawrenceCooper]

Arbiters amused by the Bedford v Wanstead & Woodford match in the Major. Specifically board 4, where we had the game Pike v Haddock!

There's something very fishy about that pairing

[John Philpott]

Section winners were:

Open - Hackney
Major - Wycombe and Haselmere
Major Plate - Bourne End
Intermediate - Bedford
Intermediate Plate - Wanstead & Woodford 2
Minor - Hackney 2
Minor Plate - Aylesbury

Pairings and results can be found at http://www.englishchess.org.uk/competit ... s-results/

[David Gilbert]

What a fabulous weekend. Well done the organisers and participants, a great success. Good hotel and excellent playing conditions. A team event definitely offers something different and there's little doubt this can really take off next year as word gets around.

[Sean Hewitt]

What a fabulous weekend. Well done the organisers and participants, a great success. Good hotel and excellent playing conditions. A team event definitely offers something different and there's little doubt this can really take off next year as word gets around.

Well done to Alex Holowczak in particular for being prepared to make the necessary changes to the format. Like David, I think this event will grow in popularity.

[Jonathan Rogers]

All very well, but the arguments for scrapping the Open section, made for several years now, only get stronger and stronger. What a boring farce the Hackney v Watford matches appear to have been, were they not at least a little bored by the time they played each other for the fourth time in one weekend, with there being no doubt about the winner before even the first round started?

Come on, be sensible. The 4NCL killed the Open several years ago, and it is a mystery why successive Home Directors refuse to acknowledge it.

[MartinCarpenter]

Definitely have to agree there.

Not to discourage - nice to see things tried - but I'm not even that sure about the U175 section. Surely basically anyone interested in that is already able to play in Div3 of the 4NCL and that's just a hugely bigger competition?

The lower sections do seem to have a reasonably clear reason to exist.

[Alex Holowczak]

All very well, but the arguments for scrapping the Open section, made for several years now, only get stronger and stronger. What a boring farce the Hackney v Watford matches appear to have been, were they not at least a little bored by the time they played each other for the fourth time in one weekend, with there being no doubt about the winner before even the first round started?

The tournament was run as a Scheveningen. Well, not strictly: Watford switched a few players around on Sunday, which might have meant board orders got adjusted. That excepting, it would have meant that no one played the same player twice.

Come on, be sensible. The 4NCL killed the Open several years ago, and it is a mystery why successive Home Directors refuse to acknowledge it.

I think it's better to try to find an alternative solution for the event to run, rather than killing it.

Not to discourage - nice to see things tried - but I'm not even that sure about the U175 section. Surely basically anyone interested in that is already able to play in Div3 of the 4NCL and that's just a hugely bigger competition?

From my point of view, 70ish people had an apparently enjoyable time playing chess this weekend, who otherwise might not have done. Many of these also play in the 4NCL. They're not mutually exclusive.

[Jonathan Rogers]

I think it's better to try to find an alternative solution for the event to run, rather than killing it.

I know. But it's probably not possible to save the Open and we can all see why.

As Paul Sanders has gently pointed out on this forum on other occasions, the ECF might try to do less, but do it better.

[Graham Borrowdale]

Yes, well done to Alex for trying this format. As I have said before, there are plenty of people who have commitments or other priorities which prevent them playing 4NCL for 5 weekends per year, and they might well be interested in something like this. Good to see a team from my local league, Bedford, winning one of the sections, and I am sure that 3 out of their team of 4 are not 4NCl players, which I think backs up my point.
I would agree about the open, though; without a huge jump in prestige, this will probably never appeal to very strong club teams - unless Nevil would like to prove me wrong?

[J T Melsom]

I would also like to extend my thanks to those who organised the event. With the exception of our final round fixture against Bourne End, we enjoyed the opportunity to face new opposition and for those of us who have played in other parts of London and the South East catch up with old accquaintances as well. Does 4NCL deliver this? Yes it does, but although 3/4 of the team have played 4NCL, I personally prefer sleeping in my own bed, not a characterless hotel and more than one game a day, as it offers a quicker recovery from the dross or even dull draws that can arise in my games And I'm not convinced that the 3rd division of 4NCL does satisfy everybody playing in the U175 or even U150 competition. I made my debut when there were 4 Divisions of the 4NCL but even now the standard of players in Div 3 is pretty wide and you can find youself playing somebody well below 175 or even 150.

Apart from the fanatical players, most will happily play a mixture of events as and when diaries permit. But the calendar in the South East has been pretty crowded in recent months. At least one of my club members will play the forthcoming e2-e4 event at Uplands because he wasn't required for this event. Its also getting towards the time of year when some of us wish to pursue outdoor activities.

[Mick Norris]

Come on, be sensible. The 4NCL killed the Open several years ago, and it is a mystery why successive Home Directors refuse to acknowledge it.

I think it's better to try to find an alternative solution for the event to run, rather than killing it

OK then, any ideas?

I think that apart, the event seems to have been a good start, so well done - maybe think about a different date in future?

[Alex Holowczak]

Come on, be sensible. The 4NCL killed the Open several years ago, and it is a mystery why successive Home Directors refuse to acknowledge it.

I think it's better to try to find an alternative solution for the event to run, rather than killing it

OK then, any ideas?

I don't see what's wrong with this particular format.

I think that apart, the event seems to have been a good start, so well done - maybe think about a different date in future?

I wanted a big lead time into this event to allow people as much time as possible to organise things. A late Easter didn't really help in terms of availability of venues, either. I'm hoping to get a date in the diary ASAP for 2015, with the intention of it being a bit earlier in the season.

[J T Melsom]

It was good to have early notice of the event, but although all my club members knew about the event almost as soon as it was publicised, the response was intially cautious, and it didn't prevent the usual organising being done in the last month or so, and the club having to abandon attempts to field a second team (prospective members being even harder to tie down) even though the event was on the door step. 3 of the 6 clubs affiliated to Bucks entered sides. It would be interesting to know what stopped the others (I may ask at the AGM), but neighbouring counties were less well represented. Was the juxtaposition betwen e2e4 at Sunningdale and 4NCL really the main reason?

[Mick Norris]

Ok on the date, makes sense although I know the calendar is packed and it depends on hotel availability

The Open only had 2 teams, and in the previous format had only 3 normally - I'm struggling to see that it remains worthwhile