Christopher Kreuzer wrote:You need to remember here that the sizes of squads that county captains call upon isn't static. It changes as players move in and out of grading bands, and it changes as a captains builds up contacts and persuades people to play county chess.
Alex Holowczak wrote:The U160 and U180 is probably one section too many though, and it might be better to replace them with a U170 section.
Christopher Kreuzer wrote:Alex Holowczak wrote:The U160 and U180 is probably one section too many though, and it might be better to replace them with a U170 section.
On a personal level, my grade next season is likely to be 170... (not that anyone should let such thing influence their opinions, as any grading boundaries will always affect some unlucky people). When would any grading bands for the forthcoming season be decided by, by whom, and at which meetings?
Andrew Bak wrote:I don't think it's surprising that the U180s have to dip into the U160s at a higher rate than any other sections, there are simply fewer players to choose from!
Andrew Bak wrote:I think a case could be made for reducing the number of sections to Open and Minor, U170s, U140s, U120s, U100s but increase the number of boards for the top two competitions to 20 boards. This would allow at least a similar number of people to play in the competition whilst ensuring that more people play in the "correct" section.
Alex Holowczak wrote:Andrew Bak wrote:I don't think it's surprising that the U180s have to dip into the U160s at a higher rate than any other sections, there are simply fewer players to choose from!
Indeed it makes sense. If you think of the grades of chessplayers as normally distributed, then there are going to be fewer players at the top and bottom than there are in the middle. The data shown in the other thread supports the tail at the top, but not the tail at the bottom. I think this is for two reasons:
(1) The number of Under 100s is artificially inflated by juniors who play junior-only chess
(2) The tail doesn't really kick in until a much lower number than 100
I'd have to test which of these it really is, but I'm sure it must be one of them.
Alex Holowczak wrote:
Open/Minor: 20 boards
U170/U140/U120: 16 boards
That'd generate 88 boards of activity at Finals Day, whereas there are 104 now. So it's still a reduction, but I think it'd be a fairer reduction to get people playing in the correct sections. Given we have hardly any counties play at U100 (7 this year in the entire country even at the Union stages, 6 qualified for the national stages, 2 of which defaulted), I'm not sure it'd be a massive disaster to see it disappear. Increasing the U120 from 12 to 16 arguably gets around the problem.
Andrew Bak wrote:Since the grades got revised a couple of years ago, there aren't that many players U100 any more.
Ian Kingston wrote:The big counties would be able to run Open and U190 teams
Christopher Kreuzer wrote:Ian Kingston wrote:The big counties would be able to run Open and U190 teams
I doubt this, or at the very least there would be so much overlap that those running Open and U190 teams would end up fielding weakened U190 teams that would lose to counties who were not fielding Open teams and able to field full-strength U190 teams. Though I'm not sure how many players there are in the 180-189 bracket. There is the issue that counties with large numbers of 180+ players sometimes have to leave out players in the low 180s when fielding strong teams (i.e. some players in the low 180s don't get chances to play county chess). But for the smaller counties, the reverse is true.
Christopher Kreuzer wrote:PS. Has anyone ever considered scrapping the country boundaries and redrawing new boundaries that accurately reflect the location and sizes of the various centres of chess playing strength? Is there a way to divide the country neatly into areas of equal playing strength and population? (Yeah, I know I can hear the various county chess unions protesting even as I type.)
Users browsing this forum: Andrew Bak and 1 guest