Page 5 of 5

Re: Is the definition of a Minor county the correct one?

Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:16 pm
by Sean Hewitt
Mick Norris wrote:
Sean Hewitt wrote:
Mick Norris wrote:A Worcestershire delegate, but he seemed to get agreement from a number of others

It doesn't affect Greater Manchester, but I appreciate the cost basis of county chess in many counties is different to ours - I wouldn't want the standard of venues to go down along with a reduction from 16 to 12 boards, say, but also I am aware that some existing venues would struggle with an increase from 16 to, say, 20 boards
Venues vary in size according to need and cost varies with size to some extent. I know in Leicestershire for example our U120 team (12 boards) uses a venues that our Minor team (16 boards) would not be able to. If county teams were 12 boards, some venues would simply change.

Mind you - size isn't everything. I've played a county match at Chorlton. Big enough for 2 matches (probably) but we insisted on using neutral venues after that experience.
Better than Uttoxeter library, though :lol:
I reckon my Leicestershire colleagues would disagree with that!

Re: Is the definition of a Minor county the correct one?

Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:42 pm
by Mick Norris
Every time someone wanted to go out of the room e.g. to the toilet, I had to stand up to let them out - and I was playing board 2

Safe to say, we prefer Newcastle-under-Lyme Bridge club to Uttoxeter Library

Re: Is the definition of a Minor county the correct one?

Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:16 pm
by Sean Hewitt
Mick Norris wrote:Every time someone wanted to go out of the room e.g. to the toilet, I had to stand up to let them out - and I was playing board 2
On the plus side it was warm and had wallpaper - not something you can say about Chorlton. Remember to thank DP for finding Uttoxeter library as he wouldn't play in a lovely village hall near Chesterfield.
Mick Norris wrote:Safe to say, we prefer Newcastle-under-Lyme Bridge club to Uttoxeter Library
We do too!

Re: Is the definition of a Minor county the correct one?

Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:25 am
by Joey Stewart
There is definately a fine line between a weak open county and a strong minor county but since most strong players really hate to lose (or be affiliated with a losing team) then the open seems to be condensing more and more to the absolute elite teams and everybody else is bailing out into the minor.

A few years ago, it would have been possible for all the counties in the country to have competed in this competition with a few omissions from their regular line up and even the modern grade boundaries are not especially restrictive - in fact even Kent, one of the top open teams, qualified for the minor counties last year but had the decency to withdraw.

I dont want a situation where people are blocked from playing chess either, but it does seem that the current system is allowing a few counties to dominate and the others not getting a look in. A slight reduction in average grading would go a way to narrowing this gap for the weaker teams, making the section a little more competitive and stopping it being treated as a plate competition for open level teams who dont quite make the cut.

Re: Is the definition of a Minor county the correct one?

Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:34 am
by Joey Stewart
I just thought, this might be a better way of managing it, to have a plate in the open - it creates more fixtures so nobody is being shut out by grading restrictions, but should also make this section more competitive again as the top minor county teams could re enter this section with a chance of getting to win something, and frees up the 'real' minor counties to play a slightly more balanced competition amongst themselves.