County Matches 2010-11 Season

A forum for the Midland Counties Chess Union.
raycollett
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:54 pm

County Matches 2010-11 Season

Postby raycollett » Mon Dec 13, 2010 9:44 am

The results of matches scheduled before Christmas are now in (13 December). Leaders of the MCCU County Team competitions are currently: Championship (Open upper division), Warwickshire; Minor Counties Championship (Open lower division), Lincolnshire; Under-160, Warwickshire; Under-140, Worcestershire; Under-120, Staffordshire Bulldogs. Matches in the Under-180 and Under-100 competitions are scheduled for the New Year. For detailed results of matches, visit the MCCU website at: http://www.mccu.org.uk/ and use the 'County Matches' menu navigation button and then links to each competition and match.

Mick Norris
Posts: 6365
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Harwood, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: County Matches 2010-11 Season

Postby Mick Norris » Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:40 am

I am told that Notts can't raise a team for the Open match v G Man 29 January

Due to fixture clashes elsewhere, we can't find a new date

Looks like Notts record will be 2 defaults and 1 postponed and it isn't looking good for them to play the postponed match

Pity, given this is their first foray into the Open section, but I do wonder whether 12 boards for the MCCU Union Stage would make more sense
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 7921
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: County Matches 2010-11 Season

Postby Alex Holowczak » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:37 am

Mick Norris wrote:I am told that Notts can't raise a team for the Open match v G Man 29 January

Due to fixture clashes elsewhere, we can't find a new date

Looks like Notts record will be 2 defaults and 1 postponed and it isn't looking good for them to play the postponed match

Pity, given this is their first foray into the Open section, but I do wonder whether 12 boards for the MCCU Union Stage would make more sense


I think 16 is fine; every other county seems to be able to raise 16 players. Why not Nottinghamshire?

12 months ago, Nottinghamshire had 2 4NCL teams, so they probably had 12-16 players who were willing to play. What's happened to them?

I would hope Nottinghamshire are disqualified from the Open if this match isn't played. It would be unfair for Staffordshire to play them, given every other county would have a 16-0 win against them!

I'm also confused about the time you're hearing this. There's still three weeks to go until the match gets played. I would have thought that left plenty of time to either raise a team - even if not very strong - or find someone to raise it on their behalf if the current captain is ill or something?

Mick Norris
Posts: 6365
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Harwood, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: County Matches 2010-11 Season

Postby Mick Norris » Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:05 am

They can't raise a team so I'm guessing they will default v Staffs as well - we need to reserve and pay for a neutral venue, hence they have given notice

G Man only raised 12 for our last fixture and 15 for the one before

Nether Warks nor Staffs are that strong on the bottom 4 boards

12 would allow more counties to compete (like the NCCU have tried in the past) and they can then move to 16 for the ECF stages
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

raycollett
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:54 pm

Re: County Matches 2010-11 Season

Postby raycollett » Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:24 am

Mick Norris wrote: I do wonder whether 12 boards for the MCCU Union Stage would make more sense


Certainly 12-a side would make it easier to raise teams for the Midlands qualifying stages, but it would not help Midland counties once they had qualified and Midlands teams may not be able to field as strong teams as previously. Another disadvantage for some counties may be that the cost of the venue and refreshments would be shared by fewer, thus probably leading to an increase in board fees that could reduce participation.

What do others in the Midlands think? - Ray

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 7921
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: County Matches 2010-11 Season

Postby Alex Holowczak » Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:29 am

The MCCU currently has 11 counties affiliated. This season, only Northamptonshire and Herefordshire didn't enter. Herefordshire will probably never enter; they're too small. Northamptonshire I don't know anything about, so can't comment. Apart from that, every county has entered the MCCU Open sections this year, so it doesn't look like a major problem for them. Looking through all of the 16-man divisions, it's very rare that there are defaults if you ignore Greater Manchester and Nottinghamshire.

I think Greater Manchester's problem isn't with players, it's with scheduling. I don't know how MCCU fixtures are scheduled, but I assume they're done at the AGM by the people from the county who attend. You've had lots of clashes with other congresses. Assuming it's done at the AGM, it might be wise in future for the GM representatives to take a list of local congresses with them to fixture meetings, and try to schedule appropriately. If the congresses are organised after the fixture meeting, then again make the organisers aware of county matches, and organise as appropriate. GM has lots of congresses compared to other areas, which can make scheduling a bit of a pain. You've mentioned that your two matches so far have clashed with congresses, so that might be something you look into. (Independent research has revealed your captain has preferred to play in the congresses too!)

I've played 6 16-board matches for Worcestershire, and we've never defaulted a board. Perhaps Worcestershire is just blessed with having fantastic team organisers. :)

raycollett
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:54 pm

Re: County Matches 2010-11 Season

Postby raycollett » Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:34 am

Mick Norris wrote:I am told that Notts can't raise a team for the Open match v G Man 29 January

I wonder if Notts have tested whether there are keen juniors who would be delighted to represent their county in the Open? My first foray into county chess was when I was picked to represent Gloucestershire when I was 12. It doesn't usually do much for the score line (and it didn't for Glos!), but it stimulated my interest in playing county chess. Also a team might get press coverage if a player is very young. - Ray

raycollett
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:54 pm

Re: County Matches 2010-11 Season

Postby raycollett » Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:39 am

Alex Holowczak wrote:I've played 6 16-board matches for Worcestershire, and we've never defaulted a board. Perhaps Worcestershire is just blessed with having fantastic team organisers. :)

I wish you were right :? about Worcs, but sometimes the odd default is unavoidable with sudden illness or transport failure.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 7921
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: County Matches 2010-11 Season

Postby Alex Holowczak » Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:46 am

raycollett wrote:
Mick Norris wrote:I am told that Notts can't raise a team for the Open match v G Man 29 January

I wonder if Notts have tested whether there are keen juniors who would be delighted to represent their county in the Open? My first foray into county chess was when I was picked to represent Gloucestershire when I was 12. It doesn't usually do much for the score line (and it didn't for Glos!), but it stimulated my interest in playing county chess. Also a team might get press coverage if a player is very young. - Ray


Nottinghamshire have quite a few good young players: http://grading.bcfservices.org.uk/getco ... 0CA&sort=2

Daniel Lin, Andrew Garside, Oliver Exton, Eric Williamson and Mark Kenyon wouldn't disgrace themselves in the Open. They could even play in the Under 160 team. Of course I don't know their availability, but they have promising players!

Nottinghamshire is blessed with having Nottingham High - one of the strongest chess schools in the country - and Nottingham University, whose President plays for them already. These are two potential links to find new players.

I know Warwickshire's Open captain has asked me to suggest strong juniors and students from Aston University. These players were the top two boards in their game against Greater Manchester. Worcestershire's teams have a strong youth contingent; the U140 team I play in has three players younger than me in it! Two of them have played in the Open section. So some counties are putting younger players in county teams, which can only be a good thing.
Last edited by Alex Holowczak on Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 7921
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: County Matches 2010-11 Season

Postby Alex Holowczak » Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:50 am

raycollett wrote:
Alex Holowczak wrote:I've played 6 16-board matches for Worcestershire, and we've never defaulted a board. Perhaps Worcestershire is just blessed with having fantastic team organisers. :)

I wish you were right :? about Worcs, but sometimes the odd default is unavoidable with sudden illness or transport failure.


Absolutely, but the problem Mick talks about seems to be a fundamental number of players absent doing something else chess-related, rather than unforeseen circumstances. I guess I meant that Worcestershire have not defaulted one board in the matches I've played through not having 16 names on the teamsheet.

Sean Hewitt

Re: County Matches 2010-11 Season

Postby Sean Hewitt » Mon Jan 10, 2011 2:58 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:I don't know how MCCU fixtures are scheduled, but I assume they're done at the AGM by the people from the county who attend.

The fixtures are scheduled by the MCCU county champs controller. He takes into account known dates such as 4NCL and big local congresses as well as public holidays etc, as well as fixture clashes (so he won't schedule a county to play U160 and U140 on the same day). Each county has the opportunity to request that certain dates be avoided (perhaps because of a local congress, or god forbid big football match).

Mick Norris
Posts: 6365
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Harwood, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: County Matches 2010-11 Season

Postby Mick Norris » Mon Jan 10, 2011 3:53 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:The MCCU currently has 11 counties affiliated. This season, only Northamptonshire and Herefordshire didn't enter. Herefordshire will probably never enter; they're too small. Northamptonshire I don't know anything about, so can't comment. Apart from that, every county has entered the MCCU Open sections this year, so it doesn't look like a major problem for them. Looking through all of the 16-man divisions, it's very rare that there are defaults if you ignore Greater Manchester and Nottinghamshire.

I think Greater Manchester's problem isn't with players, it's with scheduling. I don't know how MCCU fixtures are scheduled, but I assume they're done at the AGM by the people from the county who attend. You've had lots of clashes with other congresses. Assuming it's done at the AGM, it might be wise in future for the GM representatives to take a list of local congresses with them to fixture meetings, and try to schedule appropriately. If the congresses are organised after the fixture meeting, then again make the organisers aware of county matches, and organise as appropriate. GM has lots of congresses compared to other areas, which can make scheduling a bit of a pain. You've mentioned that your two matches so far have clashed with congresses, so that might be something you look into. (Independent research has revealed your captain has preferred to play in the congresses too!)

I've played 6 16-board matches for Worcestershire, and we've never defaulted a board. Perhaps Worcestershire is just blessed with having fantastic team organisers. :)


Alex

Our list of weekends we can't raise a team because of clashes is greater than the number of weekends we have to play either Open or U160, hence we are forced to play on the "wrong" dates - the annoying thing is that 29 Jan is our only "right" date at Open level, and Notts can't make it
Last edited by Mick Norris on Mon Jan 10, 2011 3:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

Mick Norris
Posts: 6365
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Harwood, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: County Matches 2010-11 Season

Postby Mick Norris » Mon Jan 10, 2011 3:55 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:I know Warwickshire's Open captain has asked me to suggest strong juniors and students from Aston University. These players were the top two boards in their game against Greater Manchester.


right, so that was your fault!
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 7921
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: County Matches 2010-11 Season

Postby Alex Holowczak » Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:55 pm

The way of scheduling fixtures seems sensible.

The MCF maybe needs to sort this out then. It seems to me you have three options:
1) Status quo. Open/U160, never field a strong team because of other chess events.
2) Abandon one of the teams, to enable enough free weekends to be available.
3) Persuade congresses affiliated to the MCF (or in the MCF region) to run earlier in the season, to free up some weekends to allow you to field two teams.

Personally, I'd be inclined to keep your Open team, and reduce your Under 160 team down to an Under 140 team. Given you're usually struggling to field teams of 16 in the Open, your newly excluded Under 160 players could find a regular home in your Open team on the lower boards. A new Under 140 team might reach the lower levels a bit better. I don't know what the situation in the MCF is, and whether this is possible, but I thought I'd throw a suggestion out. The 16-board team seems to be a unique problem to the MCF, so it's probably something that its President should investigate. :)

You can't complain about their top 2 players when you lose 11.5-4.5. :wink:

The other issue with 12-man teams that just occurred to me; most counties would have the capacity to field extra teams. They probably won't, because where do your extra volunteers to organise them come from?

Alan Walton
Posts: 1154
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
Location: Oldham

Re: County Matches 2010-11 Season

Postby Alan Walton » Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:45 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:3) Persuade congresses affiliated to the MCF (or in the MCF region) to run earlier in the season, to free up some weekends to allow you to field two teams.


The problem is the the majority of congresses in the MCF region are normally affliated with the NCCU, so it is very unlikely that they will move their tournaments to help the MCCU


Return to “MCCU”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest