Secret Cunning Plan To beat Yorkshire: CC Implications

Discussion about all aspects of the ECF County Championships.
IanCalvert
Posts: 158
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 4:59 pm

Secret Cunning Plan To beat Yorkshire: CC Implications

Postby IanCalvert » Fri Oct 30, 2015 11:27 am

After the Middlesex Open victory against Kent on 10 October, Captain A Fulton has encouraged the county to field an Open team with Board 16 being no lower than 180.

Senior managers and Captains being what they are this may well be 185 or 190 by this year's Final.

Thus Middlesex players over 180 who want to play county chess may not be able to. Do other counties have this or similar problems?

What are/should be the arrangements for changing the grading boundaries for the County championships? Is a nexus involved?? I vaguely recall the 180 boundary was changed from 175 some years ago.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 15593
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re:Secret Cunning Plan To beat Yorkshire: CC Implications

Postby Roger de Coverly » Fri Oct 30, 2015 11:39 am

IanCalvert wrote:Thus Middlesex players over 180 who want to play county chess may not be able to. Do other counties have this or similar problems?


Other counties have the problem of finding 16 players over 150 or indeed many over 180. Players can find dual eligibility if they look hard enough. It's probably enough to be nominally a member of a club that's just across a county border or which plays in a league run by another county. It would be more formalised if otherwise ineligible wildcards were allowed but the nexus has long since been against this.
Last edited by Roger de Coverly on Fri Oct 30, 2015 11:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Carl Hibbard
Posts: 5427
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:05 pm
Location: Evesham

Re: Secret Cunning Plan To beat Yorkshire: CC Implications

Postby Carl Hibbard » Fri Oct 30, 2015 11:43 am

I changed the title of this one.
Cheers
Carl Hibbard

MartinCarpenter
Posts: 2232
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: http://www.ecforum.org.uk/posting.php?mode=post&f=35#Secret Cunning Plan To beat Yorkshire: CC Implications

Postby MartinCarpenter » Fri Oct 30, 2015 11:45 am

Well, Yorkshire of course :) I'm 188 ECF just now (that's slightly higher than often) and only play for Yorkshire's open team when they're short and then on very low boards.

Not that I mind that - its an Open team you know? Whole point is to be as strong as possible. I can't be more than ~50th (equal with a bunch :)) in Yorkshire.

The change from U175 to U180 did happen, and was a non trivial change - direct conversion would have been U185. Plenty of stranded players for the bigger counties. It actually killed Yorkshire's old U175 team as so many of the players/(esp) organisers are often >180 now.

Trying to get more teams to join in, perhaps not obvious if it really worked.

Mick Norris
Posts: 6201
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Harwood, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: http://www.ecforum.org.uk/posting.php?mode=post&f=35#Secret Cunning Plan To beat Yorkshire: CC Implications

Postby Mick Norris » Fri Oct 30, 2015 12:13 pm

MartinCarpenter wrote:The change from U175 to U180 did happen, and was a non trivial change - direct conversion would have been U185. Plenty of stranded players for the bigger counties. It actually killed Yorkshire's old U175 team as so many of the players/(esp) organisers are often >180 now.

Trying to get more teams to join in, perhaps not obvious if it really worked.


Last season, the U180 national stages had Devon from WECU, plus 3 from the SCCU, 2 from the MCCU and 1 from the NCCU

The last U175 had 8 teams, but 2 of them didn't play

Not much difference

U180 is strong in the SCCU but not elsewhere
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 6348
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Re: Secret Cunning Plan To beat Yorkshire: CC Implications

Postby Christopher Kreuzer » Fri Oct 30, 2015 12:25 pm

Mick Norris wrote:U180 is strong in the SCCU but not elsewhere


Is this just normal variation or is this an anomaly? Might there be a tangible reason for this?

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 15593
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Secret Cunning Plan To beat Yorkshire: CC Implications

Postby Roger de Coverly » Fri Oct 30, 2015 12:31 pm

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: Might there be a tangible reason for this?


If you take a look at Open and Minor Counties teams at the local or National stages, you notice that captains have to go well below 180 to find 16 players. Equally they would likely to have to go below 160 to even find 16 U180 players, let alone field them in a match.

The Counties competitions are and always have been deeply flawed, given that the eligibility rules do not give equal chances to all entrants.

User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 6348
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Re: Secret Cunning Plan To beat Yorkshire: CC Implications

Postby Christopher Kreuzer » Fri Oct 30, 2015 12:50 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Christopher Kreuzer wrote: Might there be a tangible reason for this?


If you take a look at Open and Minor Counties teams at the local or National stages, you notice that captains have to go well below 180 to find 16 players. Equally they would likely to have to go below 160 to even find 16 U180 players, let alone field them in a match.

The Counties competitions are and always have been deeply flawed, given that the eligibility rules do not give equal chances to all entrants.


That's not a reason. Or are you pointing to size and population disparities as a reason? Some counties are so small they would struggle to field teams in some sections, but that doesn't seem to be the full story. For counties where a good-sized pool of eligible players is present, surely a good captain and a group of players willing to play (and travel!) and a good and easily accessible home venue are the main reasons? It takes time and effort to build the reliable nucleus of a strong side. It doesn't just happen overnight.

What I was getting at more is whether some counties have more players at a particular level through sheer chance? Whether some counties have potential U180 players that rise to Open level, whereas in other counties there are certain effects (e.g. a large group of Open-standard players in the area) that keep people's grades at the U180 level just by playing against those players and beating them so their grades don't rise up? I haven't described it very well, but does that make sense?

Or maybe more people that would normally be at U160 level rise upwards to U180 level for some reason? Success breeds success?

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 15593
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Secret Cunning Plan To beat Yorkshire: CC Implications

Postby Roger de Coverly » Fri Oct 30, 2015 1:09 pm

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:Or are you pointing to size and population disparities as a reason?


Exactly. If the top 16 players available to play at weekends in county teams has to extend down to 160 or lower, it's obvious enough that you aren't going to have both an Open team and under 180 team.

As to whether counties with nominally enough players can raise teams, that's down to match captains and alternative events. I'm thinking it's only Middlesex, Surrey, Essex and Kent from the south, Warwickshire and Greater Manchester (!) from the Midlands, Yorkshire and Lancashire from the north, that are ever going to have a problem of too many under 180 players not unable to play either in the Open team or the U 180.

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 3321
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: Secret Cunning Plan To beat Yorkshire: CC Implications

Postby IM Jack Rudd » Fri Oct 30, 2015 1:24 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:Exactly. If the top 16 players available to play at weekends in county teams has to extend down to 160 or lower, it's obvious enough that you aren't going to have both an Open team and under 180 team.

Or not simultaneously, anyway. (Devon has an Open team, which only plays in the regional stages, and an U-180 team, which only plays in the national stages. It seems to work for them.)

User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 6348
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Re: Secret Cunning Plan To beat Yorkshire: CC Implications

Postby Christopher Kreuzer » Fri Oct 30, 2015 1:28 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Christopher Kreuzer wrote:Or are you pointing to size and population disparities as a reason?


Exactly. If the top 16 players available to play at weekends in county teams has to extend down to 160 or lower, it's obvious enough that you aren't going to have both an Open team and under 180 team.

As to whether counties with nominally enough players can raise teams, that's down to match captains and alternative events. I'm thinking it's only Middlesex, Surrey, Essex and Kent from the south, Warwickshire and Greater Manchester (!) from the Midlands, Yorkshire and Lancashire from the north, that are ever going to have a problem of too many under 180 players not unable to play either in the Open team or the U 180.


When you say "available" that is a factor that varies a lot. (Or do you mean "eligible"?) It would be more meaningful to look at the actual numbers of eligible players active on the grading list, though sometimes knowing which counties (sometimes more than one) that unassigned players are eligible for is not easy.

Do you not think it is possible for certain local distributions of players to have an internal effect on the playing strength distribution? If an area has lots of strong players, does that create more strong players over time? But is there also a grade suppression effect (a 'ceiling' of strong players you bounce off)? In some areas, the tensions between these two effects might have different results.

To put it even more crudely, someone from an area with not many strong players might achieve a high grade playing locally and winning lots of games, but then struggle when they play further afield. Conversely, someone from an area with lots of strong players might do OK up to a certain level, and then struggle. These two players might be about the same strength, but graded differently. Or they might be graded the same, but really be of different playing strengths.

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 3321
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: Secret Cunning Plan To beat Yorkshire: CC Implications

Postby IM Jack Rudd » Fri Oct 30, 2015 1:41 pm

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:Do you not think it is possible for certain local distributions of players to have an internal effect on the playing strength distribution? If an area has lots of strong players, does that create more strong players over time? But is there also a grade suppression effect (a 'ceiling' of strong players you bounce off)? In some areas, the tensions between these two effects might have different results.


It's certainly possible, but it's almost certainly going to be swamped by size-related effects.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 15593
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Secret Cunning Plan To beat Yorkshire: CC Implications

Postby Roger de Coverly » Fri Oct 30, 2015 1:41 pm

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:To put it even more crudely, someone from an area with not many strong players might achieve a high grade playing locally and winning lots of games, but then struggle when they play further afield. Conversely, someone from an area with lots of strong players might do OK up to a certain level, and then struggle. These two players might be about the same strength, but graded differently. Or they might be graded the same, but really be of different playing strengths.


I suspect the 4NCL has done much to iron out such discrepancies, provided the top local players actually play in it from time to time. There was a suggestion that a former English international maintained his grade in a relatively remote area by playing "+40" games in his local league. I don't know of any current players to whom this may apply. The grading system would know, look for players with 85% or higher scores, particularly where many games were between players more than 40 points apart. Anomalies are also possible on the rapid play list, where players play it infrequently.

IanCalvert
Posts: 158
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 4:59 pm

Re: Secret Cunning Plan To beat Yorkshire: CC Implications

Postby IanCalvert » Fri Oct 30, 2015 6:29 pm

Maybe the current U180 (second team) competition should be replaced by a Minor Counties like average under x (say 170) ?

(Players could play for only one team in a season)

Of course, Yorkshire might then play and lose to a SCCU county??

Ian Thompson
Posts: 1692
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Fleet, Hampshire

Re: Secret Cunning Plan To beat Yorkshire: CC Implications

Postby Ian Thompson » Fri Oct 30, 2015 7:02 pm

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:It would be more meaningful to look at the actual numbers of eligible players active on the grading list, though sometimes knowing which counties (sometimes more than one) that unassigned players are eligible for is not easy.

I wouldn't say its "not easy". It's impossible for most players because you'd need to know where they were born and everywhere they've previously lived for long periods.

Even if you did know this, what would you do with the information when you saw that most adult players were eligible for at least 3 or 4 counties, with many being several more than that.


Return to “County Championships”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest