English Chess Forum

Alex Holowczak wrote:

Phil Makepeace wrote:"Hour long fire test" at the Mick Jagger Centre. Fun and games.

Latest: Kent 1.5-1.5 Middlesex

Result just been submitted by the Kent captain, reporting Kent won 8.5-7.5. This eliminates the defending champions...

The test was meant to be an hour (caused by some builders cutting some cables or something) but reckon it only lasted 15 mins. We got moved to the music room which had pretty good soundproofing (not sure what would have happened if there was a real fire!). Middlesex went 3 up early doors but Kent hauled us back in. Kent would have won on tiebreak also. A hard defeat to take as Middlesex were favourites but well done Kent anyway.

It is reported that Surrey beat Lancashire 10-6. So the final of the Open will pit Surrey v Kent; a repeat of the 2011 Final.

Those reporting the results in the Under 140 Semi Final not quite au fait with the system yet...

"Garbage in, garbage out".

It could be said that the system might check its inputs (or prevent certain inputs).

Alex Holowczak wrote:Those reporting the results in the Under 140 Semi Final not quite au fait with the system yet...

Kent-Yorks fail.JPG

Perhaps the SCCU website, which you derided up thread, has its uses after all:

SCCU Website wrote:Speaking for ourselves we'd hazard a guess at Stephen A Jennings 105 of York RI.

http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/matchbcf.htm#u140

When match captains returning home after a long day's chess are then expected to spend an hour or so uploading results to some wonderful new system, it's hardly surprising if they make the odd mistake.

I don't imagine they'll appreciate being mocked by the Controller.

David Sedgwick wrote:Perhaps the SCCU website, which you derided up thread, has its uses after all:

SCCU Website wrote:Speaking for ourselves we'd hazard a guess at Stephen A Jennings 105 of York RI.

http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/matchbcf.htm#u140

I'd second that guess

The other thing I like about the SCCU site, other than Richard usually being right, is to know where the matches were played

Interesting venue (and date) news on the Essex website for those wondering when the other matches might be played

Mick Norris wrote: I'd second that guess

if it works the same way as the Berks, London League and other sites, it will present the person inputting the results with a drop down list of names. So when you have two players within the broad Yorkshire squad with the same or similar names, it's a mistake just waiting to happen.

Mick Norris wrote:
The other thing I like about the SCCU site, other than Richard usually being right, is to know where the matches were played

I’d agree with that and maybe an option to enter the venue details can be added to the official results page. I’m sure it would useful for match captains to have list of potential venues to call on.

After the Bedfordshire match with Hampshire yesterday I’d certainly recommend the venue at Grove (Oxfordshire) as a spacious, well equipped and (maybe most importantly!) well priced option.

Kevin Williamson wrote: After the Bedfordshire match with Hampshire yesterday I’d certainly recommend the venue at Grove (Oxfordshire) as a spacious, well equipped and (maybe most importantly!) well priced option.

Kevin, also its close to a pub where you can celebrate your win!

John Sharp wrote: Kevin, also its close to a pub where you can celebrate your win!

Indeed John, and a pub showing us finishing off the Aussies in the cricket at that!

Angus French wrote:"Garbage in, garbage out".

It could be said that the system might check its inputs (or prevent certain inputs).

Indeed it could. But the player exists, and might actually have played.

David Sedgwick wrote:When match captains returning home after a long day's chess are then expected to spend an hour or so uploading results to some wonderful new system, it's hardly surprising if they make the odd mistake.

I don't imagine they'll appreciate being mocked by the Controller.

It's very strange. The Birmingham Rapidplay League embarked on this new system concurrently, and they've had far fewer issues.

Of course, they're not being mocked by the Controller because there isn't one.

Alex Holowczak wrote:

David Sedgwick wrote:When match captains returning home after a long day's chess are then expected to spend an hour or so uploading results to some wonderful new system, it's hardly surprising if they make the odd mistake.

I don't imagine they'll appreciate being mocked by the Controller.

It's very strange. The Birmingham Rapidplay League embarked on this new system concurrently, and they've had far fewer issues.

Try to work out why.

Alex Holowczak wrote:Of course, they're not being mocked by the Controller because there isn't one.

Try to work out why.

David Sedgwick wrote:Try to work out why.

I would have thought that a controller would want the software to allow him or her to set aside the confirmed result and request the match captains to reconsider the submitted result for data accuracy.

Roger de Coverly wrote:
if it works the same way as the Berks, London League

Fortunately it does not.

Anyway, some aspects of the application do appear somewhat familiar!

Alex Holowczak wrote:

Angus French wrote:"Garbage in, garbage out".

It could be said that the system might check its inputs (or prevent certain inputs).

Indeed it could. But the player exists, and might actually have played.

What the software might have done is flagged that:
a) a player's grade was higher than the limit for the competition; or,
b) a player's grade was higher by more than a stipulated amount - 10 points, I believe - than the grade of a higher-board player.

Then the inputting and confirming captains would have had the opportunity to reconsider or to provide text to explain the situation.

I'm not saying that the software should have done this but it might have - one has to weight up costs and practicalities when developing software.

What I am saying is: be careful before blaming the captains.