English Chess Forum

David Clayton wrote:

David Sedgwick wrote:........My day ended on a somewhat sour note when I was ripped off by Oxford Bus Company on the way back to Oxford Station. However, I can hardly blame Magdalen College School for that.

David

Did you not get a plus bus ticket for Oxford?

http://www.plusbus.info/oxford-plusbus- ... kidlington

David

Sorry for the thread hijack, but I have been asked.

I arrived at Oxford Station with a suitcase after visiting my mother. I asked the bus driver for a return ticket to Magdalen College School and paid the £1.80 fare requested. When I boarded the bus for the return journey the driver of that bus said that my ticket was only valid from Oxford City Centre and demanded another £1. I didn't really want to risk missing my train through having to drag my suitcase down to the City Centre before getting on another bus, so I grudgingly paid up.

David Sedgwick wrote:

David Clayton wrote:

David Sedgwick wrote:........My day ended on a somewhat sour note when I was ripped off by Oxford Bus Company on the way back to Oxford Station. However, I can hardly blame Magdalen College School for that.

David

Did you not get a plus bus ticket for Oxford?

http://www.plusbus.info/oxford-plusbus- ... kidlington

David

Sorry for the thread hijack, but I have been asked.

I arrived at Oxford Station with a suitcase after visiting my mother. I asked the bus driver for a return ticket to Magdalen College School and paid the £1.80 fare requested. When I boarded the bus for the return journey the driver of that bus said that my ticket was only valid from Oxford City Centre and demanded another £1. I didn't really want to risk missing my train through having to drag my suitcase down to the City Centre before getting on another bus, so I grudgingly paid up.

A return fare is £3.60 in the "West Midlands".

I understand that Essex lost 9 - 7 to Lancashire in the U160 semi-final. The fact that Lancashire were able to get away with playing a 12 board match at U180 level may have had a knock on effect in terms of the strength of the U160 team that they were able to field on the same day.

John Philpott wrote:I understand that Essex lost 9 - 7 to Lancashire in the U160 semi-final. The fact that Lancashire were able to get away with playing a 12 board match at U180 level may have had a knock on effect in terms of the strength of the U160 team that they were able to field on the same day.

I guess Lancashire could have just defaulted the Under 180 match in order to preserve their Under 160 chances. So again, the National Controller is backed into a corner.

LozCooper wrote:I think Surrey's average was 201 and ours was in the 180s. They were 7-3 up so the result was never really in doubt, I think David Anderton, Malcolm Armstong and me were the only Staffs winners but apologies if I've missed anyone. Surrey didn't have Yang-Fan or Sam Franklin today which probably made life a little bit easier for Staffs at the top but they had IMs on boards 2, 5 and 7 and plenty of experienced 200+ players like Granat, Berry etc and I think only four players below 190.

Loz

Congratulations on your own win, and a good Staffs overall performance against a strong Surrey team - will be interesting to see how they go against Kent in the final

Alex Holowczak wrote:

John Philpott wrote:I understand that Essex lost 9 - 7 to Lancashire in the U160 semi-final. The fact that Lancashire were able to get away with playing a 12 board match at U180 level may have had a knock on effect in terms of the strength of the U160 team that they were able to field on the same day.

I guess Lancashire could have just defaulted the Under 180 match in order to preserve their Under 160 chances. So again, the National Controller is backed into a corner.

If Lancs were forced to play Open, U180, U160 on the same day (as well as U100 and possibly U120) then that is fair enough, as they seem to have staggered the quarter finals, despite refusing our request to move the date of the U160

The finals will be all on the same day, never really understood if this is better than having, say, Open, U160, U120 one day and U180, U140, U100 another

Mick Norris wrote:The finals will be all on the same day, never really understood if this is better than having, say, Open, U160, U120 one day and U180, U140, U100 another

I think there are too many sections, to be honest. Without wanting to reopen that debate, I reckon it'd be far easier to play Open, U175, U150, U125, U100 on one day than the current arrangements. It seems the NCCU really struggles with it.

I was discussing Warks v Yorks in the Under 100s with the Warwickshire captain. He said that Yorkshire has said they'd struggle to get a team together for the Final, and actually requested that the date be changed. Presumably he didn't understand they were all together at one venue. For what it's worth, I like the idea of it all being at one venue. It's probably a one-off thing, so while it may be annoying that Kent v Surrey has to be played in Leicestershire, I think as a one-off it's worth putting up with.

Alex Holowczak wrote:

Mick Norris wrote:The finals will be all on the same day, never really understood if this is better than having, say, Open, U160, U120 one day and U180, U140, U100 another

I think there are too many sections, to be honest. Without wanting to reopen that debate, I reckon it'd be far easier to play Open, U175, U150, U125, U100 on one day than the current arrangements. It seems the NCCU really struggles with it.

I vaguely recall warning that adding an extra graded section to the competition would lead to this kind of problem, although I thought that counties might simply drop certain teams. Perhaps the U180, U160 and U140 competitions could be converted to two sections, rather than three (U180 and U150).

Ian Kingston wrote:

Alex Holowczak wrote:

Mick Norris wrote:The finals will be all on the same day, never really understood if this is better than having, say, Open, U160, U120 one day and U180, U140, U100 another

I think there are too many sections, to be honest. Without wanting to reopen that debate, I reckon it'd be far easier to play Open, U175, U150, U125, U100 on one day than the current arrangements. It seems the NCCU really struggles with it.

I vaguely recall warning that adding an extra graded section to the competition would lead to this kind of problem, although I thought that counties might simply drop certain teams. Perhaps the U180, U160 and U140 competitions could be converted to two sections, rather than three (U180 and U150).

Perhaps. There are fewer players in Lancashire and Yorkshire (compared to their southern cousins), yet because of the structure of the competition, they end up having to field more teams in the national stages. So they struggle more.

Alex Holowczak wrote

There are fewer players in Lancashire and Yorkshire (compared to their southern cousins), yet because of the structure of the competition, they end up having to field more teams in the national stages. So they struggle more.

There is no "having to" about it. A County can decline nomination for any event in the National Stages, and this is precisely what Essex did in respect of the Minor Counties, partly because of the likely extent of overlap with the U180 team.

John Philpott wrote:

Alex Holowczak wrote:There are fewer players in Lancashire and Yorkshire (compared to their southern cousins), yet because of the structure of the competition, they end up having to field more teams in the national stages. So they struggle more.

There is no "having to" about it. A County can decline nomination for any event in the National Stages, and this is precisely what Essex did in respect of the Minor Counties, partly because of the likely extent of overlap with the U180 team.

Fair enough.

John Philpott wrote:I understand that Essex lost 9 - 7 to Lancashire in the U160 semi-final. The fact that Lancashire were able to get away with playing a 12 board match at U180 level may have had a knock on effect in terms of the strength of the U160 team that they were able to field on the same day.

John

I see your U100 team has been awarded the win against Lancs

I should state for the record that the ineligible fielding of the player is a disappointment to the MCF, particularly as he is our League Match captain, as we like to see Lancs doing well and indeed any other counties fielding MCF players

I did laugh though when I realised who it was

Mick Norris wrote: I see your (Essex) U100 team has been awarded the win against Lancs

http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/matchbcf.htm#u100
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... ruling.pdf

A bit of a technicality in some respects. The player concerned did have a grade below 100, but not in the 2010 list and the grade had been established before the ECF's revaluation. So the letter of the rules was that the controller had to give permission ( which Adam suggests would have been refused)

I didn't really understand the relevance of Lancs going on (as quoted in Adam's report) about performances over this season. If the eligibility rule is grade < 100 in the 2010 list, subsequent performances aren't relevant. It's a bit harsh on the improving ungraded player since the standard to measure their inclusion is always likely to be results in the current season, in other words after improvement. I suppose there was a logic to the Essex board order, not obvious to the casual reader. But you wouldn't expect it to be.

Alex Holowczak wrote: There are fewer players in Lancashire and Yorkshire (compared to their southern cousins), yet because of the structure of the competition, they end up having to field more teams in the national stages. So they struggle more.

I don't think this is correct for a minute. Yorkshire can call on players from Leeds, Bradford, Sheffield and Hull not forgetting Halifax, Huddersfield, Doncaster, York etc. etc. The main problem as I see it is that county chess is moribund in the NCCU; basically Yorkshire and Lancashire get together for a one-day jamboree over 12 boards to see which one is nominated as NCCU 1 and NCCU 2; I think Cumbria might play in one competition. The remaining NCCU counties are conspicuous by their continued absence. In the SCCU and to a slightly lesser extent the MCCU we all have to go through an extensive qualifying competition to actually get into the national stages. It's time qualification was based on a system of 1 place per three entrants or part thereof; (ie 1-3; 4-6; 7-9); this would immediately cut out lots of preliminary matches and prevent sides being nominated when they've played just one twelve board match.

Roger de Coverly wrote:

Mick Norris wrote: I see your (Essex) U100 team has been awarded the win against Lancs

http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/matchbcf.htm#u100
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... ruling.pdf

A bit of a technicality in some respects. The player concerned did have a grade below 100, but not in the 2010 list and the grade had been established before the ECF's revaluation. So the letter of the rules was that the controller had to give permission ( which Adam suggests would have been refused)

I didn't really understand the relevance of Lancs going on (as quoted in Adam's report) about performances over this season. If the eligibility rule is grade < 100 in the 2010 list, subsequent performances aren't relevant. It's a bit harsh on the improving ungraded player since the standard to measure their inclusion is always likely to be results in the current season, in other words after improvement. I suppose there was a logic to the Essex board order, not obvious to the casual reader. But you wouldn't expect it to be.

This year Notts had a University player in their Under 140 team. In common with many young people he had taken a year out and although he had published grades from 2005-2009, he had no grade for 210. All his grades were below 140; his 2009 grade of 135 was his highest by some distance. We sought permission to play him in the Union stages based on his 2009 grade which was granted. However when we qualified for the national stages we correctly asked if he could continue to play - however his grade for this season was calculated at 145 when we obtained details from the local grader so this application was rejected. The rules on playing ungraded players are clear and bearing in mind last year's dispute, captains should be aware of the procedure.