"Minor" Counties

[Joey Stewart]

I think it comes down to the fact that there are probably over 10 million people living in that area of the country, what with london being in the middle of the SCCU - even dividing it by 6 still gives a vastly larger population from which to pick players Taking it from a statistical point of view there should be more good chess players available, but it is more than just that - the majority of the money in our country comes from london and since most strong chess players are also quite competent and well educated people it makes sense that they should want to live somewhere they can take full advantage of their talents to make the most money possible.

Yorkshire and Lancashire are simply massive sprawling places, the size of three or four 'normal' counties, hence they have very large populations to choose players from as well (although they never enter the minor counties).

[Brian Valentine]

It is frustrating that a true Minor County can meet a "Major" county in the final stages that merely has jettisoned a few stronger players, who may have been unavailble anyway. It is not easy to fix this, but maybe there could be some check back to the average gradings in the qualifying competition?

No sour grapes from Bedfordshire this year, we didn't do well enough to qualify even playing against other true minor counties.

That would preclude the SCCU from fielding any teams in the Minor. All six counties are initially seeking to qualify for the National Stages of the Open Division and have a realistic prospect of so doing. They'll all want to field their strongest available players in the Union Qualifying Stages.

I suppose that depends whether there might be any other counties who might consider affiliating to the SCCU if they felt they had a chance of MInor qualification/nomination. Although if one was going down this sort of route it would make more sense perhaps if counties were required to 'self-define' themselves as Minor counties at the start of the year. But then that could decimate the Open competition if some of the weaker unions opted out.

It might answer some issues on the NCCU agm thread as well.

I have no motive to exclude SCCU teams playing in the minor, if that's what drives them. But they are in different league to Bedfordshire, who managed to get 3 players above 180 into four of their qualifying matches and in the two others we were headed by a 181 (although Kevin Williamson did scalp an IM on the day). I assert we have no ambitions to win the Open but we do enjoy the final stages against similar opposition. We happily attempted the U180, but are barely competitive at that.

[Sean Hewitt]

It would be interesting to know, however, whether the SCCU really does have far significantly greater overall strength (in depth) or whether there are other factors (consistently competitive matches, better/easier transport links?) which also mean that the strength within the Union is better unlocked.

The answer is quite simple. If we allocate a player to a county based on the location of the first club that player is listed for in the grading list (therefore the club the player plays most games) we see the following sizes. I think it tells its own story when looking at the dominant counties / unions in county chess.

COUNTY PLAYERS

SURREY 719
YORKS 544
MIDDLESEX 538
WARKS 464
ESSEX 421
KENT 396
STAFFS 357
CHESHIRE 353
HERTS 346
SUSSEX 299
LANCS 296
GTR MANC 264
LONDON 247
DEVON 244
MERSEYSIDE242
NOTTS 231
SOMERSET 218
HANTS 210
BERKS 206
OXON 205
LEICS 182
DORSET 179
NORFOLK 177
SHROPSHIRE139
CLEVELAND 135
SUFFOLK 135
WORCS 123
GLOUCS 122
DURHAM 105
CAMBS 100
BUCKS 97
NORTHANTS92
DERBYS 86
WILTS 82
LINCS 80
BEDS 78
CORNWALL 70

I suspect that there is some crossover between Lancs / Cheshire and Manchester - as well as with some SCCU counties. Nevertheless....

[Alex Holowczak]

You could do a similar thing by searching for "CWAR" for Warwickshire, and equivalent counties using their codes.

Surrey 1,330
Middlesex 919
Yorkshire 737
Kent 680
Essex 597
Warwickshire 550
Sussex 452
Staffordshire 405
Cheshire & North Wales 404
Lancashire 365
Greater Manchester 360
Oxfordshire 327
Berkshire 289
Hampshire 273
Nottinghamshire 264
Devon 260
Merseyside 256
Northumberland 247
Somerset 239
Norfolk 223
Leicestershire & Rutland 200
Dorset 192
Cambridgeshire 177
Suffolk 169
Gloucestershire 146
Shropshire 146
Cleveland 141
Worcestershire 141
Derbyshire 140
Buckinghamshire 131
Wiltshire 122
Cumberland 121
Durham 117
Lincolnshire 115
Northamptonshire 105
Bedfordshire 99
Cornwall 73
Huntingdonshire 65
Herefordshire 20

[Neill Cooper]

If we allocate a player to a county based on the location of the first club that player is listed for in the grading list (therefore the club the player plays most games)

I don't think that is quite correct. Quite a few congresses allocate a player to a past club, (e.g. because they use the first club that player is listed for in the grading list, or the club that person was a member of when they first played in that congress), or the player put that club on the entry form. I've known players be listed for clubs they have not been members of for years, or have their top club one they did not play for last season.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Here's a good example. My list contains:
In place #1: a club I haven't played for for a couple of years now.
In place #2: a 4NCL team, which is only as geographically-based as its management team makes it.
In place #3: a team that is not actually a club.

My local club (which I go to most weeks, play in the internal competitions of and play for in the Devon League) is Barnstaple, but that hasn't made it onto my list of clubs yet.

[Alex Holowczak]

Here's a good example. My list contains:
In place #1: a club I haven't played for for a couple of years now.
In place #2: a 4NCL team, which is only as geographically-based as its management team makes it.
In place #3: a team that is not actually a club.

My local club (which I go to most weeks, play in the internal competitions of and play for in the Devon League) is Barnstaple, but that hasn't made it onto my list of clubs yet.

You do appear under both CSOM and CDEV, too, so I guess my system doesn't work either.

[Carl Hibbard]

Here's a good example. My list contains:
In place #1: a club I haven't played for for a couple of years now.
In place #2: a 4NCL team, which is only as geographically-based as its management team makes it.
In place #3: a team that is not actually a club.

My local club (which I go to most weeks, play in the internal competitions of and play for in the Devon League) is Barnstaple, but that hasn't made it onto my list of clubs yet.

It's a good service though isn't it

[IM Jack Rudd]

Here's a good example. My list contains:
In place #1: a club I haven't played for for a couple of years now.
In place #2: a 4NCL team, which is only as geographically-based as its management team makes it.
In place #3: a team that is not actually a club.

My local club (which I go to most weeks, play in the internal competitions of and play for in the Devon League) is Barnstaple, but that hasn't made it onto my list of clubs yet.

You do appear under both CSOM and CDEV, too, so I guess my system doesn't work either.

But not presumably CLIN, for whom I am also eligible.

[Paul Bielby]

I enjoyed both those lists of numbers of graded players for the counties - though the first had no players in Northumberland (!) and the second 247(!!). I suspect the second is more accurate. I know that the Northumberland MO has more than 250 ECF members - is there any other county with more ECF members than graded players?

(I don't really believe it - there must be some mistake somewhere.)

[Alex Holowczak]

I enjoyed both those lists of numbers of graded players for the counties - though the first had no players in Northumberland (!) and the second 247(!!). I suspect the second is more accurate. I know that the Northumberland MO has more than 250 ECF members - is there any other county with more ECF members than graded players?

(I don't really believe it - there must be some mistake somewhere.)

It's possible Sean missed Northumberland out from his search by accident.

I missed CLON out - London appears to have its own code, presumably for the London Chess League. London has 480 players; presumably these appear in the relevant CMID, CSUR, CKEN and CESS categories too.

[Sean Hewitt]

It's possible Sean missed Northumberland out from his search by accident.

Quite so. Apologies to the 161 that should have been listed as Northumberland.

Nevertheless, I think the overall point is still made.

[Joey Stewart]

Hertfordshire won it this year with an average grade of 178 and managing quite a resounding victory over middlesex who outgraded them by one point per board with the maximum possible average grade of 179.

The limit is still blatently too high at an 180 average, when it is possible for both sides to field an IM and be quite capable of standing their ground against any other open team. The other teams in the minor competition have sides averaging about 150-160 and that is often when using their best players - surely this has to be stopped in future to make things competitive again.