2010/11 Championship

[Richard Thursby]

Middlesex spread themselves too thin in the Preliminary round - they beat us (G Man) in the Open, but lost in the U180 and defaulted the U160 (possibly disproving the theory that the SCCU counties have enough players to fill every one of the teams available)

Speaking from experience, they may have enough players to fill every one of the teams available, provided they aren't all playing on the same day. Adjacent divisions don't play on the same weekend. Middlesex qualified for the preliminary in the top three divisions and all three matches were due to be played on the same day. By the time a few U180 players had been lost to the Open and lots of U160 to the U180, there wasn't a lot left for the U160.

Not that it was SCCU, but in 2009 Yorkshire reached the final in the top three divisions and won all three matches, so somewhere it is possible.

[Mick Norris]

Richard

The cross over of players was the point of the argument - it was felt that apart from the very biggest counties, like Yorks, Lancs and the SCCU, most of us would struggle - the point here is that Middlesex couldn't actually mange to get 48 players out, even though the U160 team could presumably have gone right down the grading list

[Mick Norris]

U160 - Lancs beat G Man

I am told:
"We lost narrowly by 9.5 - 6.5 I think.
It was 1 up to Lancs with 3 to finish at one point. Ian missed a winning endgame tactic, which would have levelled the scores. The final 2 games drifted away in tricky positions. One we had a clear time advantage & might have done better.
A bazzar start saw 7 of the top 8 boards starting with the wrong colours. My opponent arrived late so it was decided that my match should restart with clocks level, and 10 mins off the clocks to compensate, because GMan were playing with 9 whites.. This effectively meant I lost 30 mins, instead of having a 20 min clock advantage...?!? Thats called Bill O`Rourke logic, I guess.
Anyway, considering we were outgraded on most boards (Lancs were 150+ on top 12 boards at least....and the last three boards to finish were from the bottom 5 boards, it was a pretty good effort.."

Our captain may indeed be pleased he was in Las Vegas

[David Gilbert]

Also in the U-160s, Kent overcame Cumbria 11-5. Actually 6-5 on the day with Cumbria defaulting on five boards. Nice venue at Bushbury near Wolverhampton - very comfortable - thanks to Busbury Chess Club who play in the Wolverhampton League. So the (unofficial) U-160 semi-finals are:
Kent v Notts
Lancs v Essex

[Alex Holowczak]

Also in the U-160s, Kent overcame Cumbria 11-5. Actually 6-5 on the day with Cumbria defaulting on five boards. Nice venue at Bushbury near Wolverhampton - very comfortable - thanks to Busbury Chess Club who play in the Wolverhampton League. So the (unofficial) U-160 semi-finals are:
Kent v Notts
Lancs v Essex

They play in the Birmingham League too.

[Nick Thomas]

Looks like we (Warwickshire) managed 1.5 points against Surrey yesterday. Me and Andy Baruch disagreed before the match started about how many points we would get. He thought 3 - 3.5 and I guessed 2.5. It turns out we both overestimated our chances

[David Sedgwick]

Looks like we (Warwickshire) managed 1.5 points against Surrey yesterday. Me and Andy Baruch disagreed before the match started about how many points we would get. He thought 3 - 3.5 and I guessed 2.5. It turns out we both overestimated our chances

The detailed match result can now be found at http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/matchbcf.htm#open. I see that you and Andy both contributed to Warwickshire's score.

[LozCooper]

Looks like we (Warwickshire) managed 1.5 points against Surrey yesterday. Me and Andy Baruch disagreed before the match started about how many points we would get. He thought 3 - 3.5 and I guessed 2.5. It turns out we both overestimated our chances

Well you guys did well, just a shame you got only half more from the other 14 boards

[Alex Holowczak]

Anyone know the last time there was a match this one-sided? (Other than 16-0 defaults obviously!) I can't recall any sizeable defeats like this, but then I've only been paying attention for the last two seasons...

[David Sedgwick]

Anyone know the last time there was a match this one-sided? (Other than 16-0 defaults obviously!) I can't recall any sizeable defeats like this, but then I've only been paying attention for the last two seasons...

I've been trying to recall a similar result, without success. And I've been endeavouring to pay attention for over twenty-five seasons.

I had a look through the SCCU archive pages. A 10½ - 1½ win in a 12 board match can be found on http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/0203/matchbcf.htm.

Over 16 boards I found a few 13 -3 wins. The one on http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/9899/matchbcf.htm should act as a warning to Surrey not to get over-confident. Kent won 13 - 3 in the Semi Finals, only to lose 11 - 5 in the Final.

[Richard Thursby]

Anyone know the last time there was a match this one-sided?

Can't directly answer this question but can think of three examples off the top of my head:

Cambridgeshire 14-2 Buckinghamshire (January 1997, my SCCU debut, no defaults. The sole Buckinghamshire victor arrived late if I remember rightly.)

The next two involved involved significant defaults, so probably don't count:

Cambridgeshire 14.5-1.5 Buckinghamshire (November 2002, Buckinghamshire won 4-1 on defaults, their only OTB score being in the last game to finish).

Sussex 15-1 Buckinghamshire (November 2003, Buckinghamshire won 5-0 on defaults. This was Buckinghamshire's last season in the county championship, only four years after having reached the semi-final.)

Finally, something to cheer up any Buckinghamshire players who find the above too depressing:

Sussex 7.5-8.5 Buckinghamshire (December 2001, Buckinghamshire defaulted board 13 to 16 but then proceeded to score 6/6 with black in a match where the only white win decided the match in the last game to finish.)

[Nick Thomas]

I don't know why we did so badly. Without working it out properly I guess we should have got about 4 points give or take a bit given that there was a 20 - 30 point grading difference on most boards (just figured we should have got about a quarter of a point per board). Perhaps a maths'y person with too much time on their hands (Alex?) could work it out exactly. I guessed we would get 2.5 points before the match started. Perhaps my pessimism was due to my belief that a fair few of our chaps were local league herbivores predominantly and the southern lot looked like a bunch of hardened 4NCL carnivores. Also, harping back to the grading debate, I wonder if the 160's/170's/180's who made up our team were sitting on the same grading scale as the 190's/200's of the Surry's (what do you call someone from Surrey ).

[Nick Thomas]

(what do you call someone from Surrey)

Apart from "Unbeatable"

[Roger de Coverly]

I wonder if the 160's/170's/180's who made up our team were sitting on the same grading scale as the 190's/200's of the Surry's

You have a point there. A number of your lower board players looks to have been career 150s or 160s players before their recent elevation to 170s status. By contrast, almost all the Surrey players have always been 175 plus, in some cases a lot plus.

At a 25 point difference, the expected score is 12-4. 14.5 to 1.5 is more like the expected score in a forty point difference. The scoreline suggests the match resembled the culling in the first round of an Open.

[LozCooper]

I don't know why we did so badly. Without working it out properly I guess we should have got about 4 points give or take a bit given that there was a 20 - 30 point grading difference on most boards (just figured we should have got about a quarter of a point per board). Perhaps a maths'y person with too much time on their hands (Alex?) could work it out exactly. I guessed we would get 2.5 points before the match started. Perhaps my pessimism was due to my belief that a fair few of our chaps were local league herbivores predominantly and the southern lot looked like a bunch of hardened 4NCL carnivores. Also, harping back to the grading debate, I wonder if the 160's/170's/180's who made up our team were sitting on the same grading scale as the 190's/200's of the Surry's (what do you call someone from Surrey ).

I'm sure that the Warwickshire players valiantly threw caution to the wind when they were 7.5-1.5 down in the hope of pulling off a famous 8.5-7.5 victory