English Chess Forum

Mick Norris wrote:Disappointing, means Notts have played 2 games this season and reached the semi, and we are playing our 5th game on Saturday in the quarter final

I can assure you Mick that the Notts captain is just as disappointed in the paucity of fixtures for his team. My Under 140 team played six matches and failed to qualify on tie-break . Notts needed to find 32 players graded Under 180 for Saturday - suffice it to say that this late withdrawal by Middlesex has caused the maximum of inconvenience to our other team as well!

On the bright side, any Middlesex or Notts players who now find themselves free at the weekend and want to play in the e2e4 event at Amersham can do so. We'll even waive the late entry fee if they enter today or tomorrow!

[Apologies for the shameless plug]

Sean Hewitt wrote:On the bright side, any Middlesex or Notts players who now find themselves free at the weekend and want to play in the e2e4 event at Amersham can do so. We'll even waive the late entry fee if they enter today or tomorrow!

[Apologies for the shameless plug]

Sorry to disappoint Sean but at least two are playing at Rhyl.

Neil Graham wrote:

Sean Hewitt wrote:On the bright side, any Middlesex or Notts players who now find themselves free at the weekend and want to play in the e2e4 event at Amersham can do so. We'll even waive the late entry fee if they enter today or tomorrow!

[Apologies for the shameless plug]

Sorry to disappoint Sean but at least two are playing at Rhyl.

Not a problem. We've also picked up two players from this match.

My feeling is that inter-county chess is slowly dying as players choose other options for their summer chess activities.

I'll be turning out for Nottinghamshire's U180 team against Yorkshire on Saturday. My fiancée is not-so-secretly hoping that I win but Notts lose, so that the semi-final (and possibly final) don't put a dent in our other plans. Without county chess, I could easily trade three Saturdays (and three games) for one weekend congress (five games), which would be a win for everyone except the county team.

Neil Graham wrote:

Mick Norris wrote:Disappointing, means Notts have played 2 games this season and reached the semi, and we are playing our 5th game on Saturday in the quarter final

I can assure you Mick that the Notts captain is just as disappointed in the paucity of fixtures for his team. My Under 140 team played six matches and failed to qualify on tie-break . Notts needed to find 32 players graded Under 180 for Saturday - suffice it to say that this late withdrawal by Middlesex has caused the maximum of inconvenience to our other team as well!

Neil

Let's hope we meet again in the final

Neil Graham wrote:

Mick Norris wrote:Disappointing, means Notts have played 2 games this season and reached the semi, and we are playing our 5th game on Saturday in the quarter final

I can assure you Mick that the Notts captain is just as disappointed in the paucity of fixtures for his team. My Under 140 team played six matches and failed to qualify on tie-break . Notts needed to find 32 players graded Under 180 for Saturday - suffice it to say that this late withdrawal by Middlesex has caused the maximum of inconvenience to our other team as well!

Speaking as a member of the SCCU Executive Committee. I'm extremely concerned about the spate of defaults from our area. We'll be reviewing the matter at our Annual Council Meeting in July.

Maybe it would help if we reverted to the 25 points gap rather than the 20 points we have now.

Dragoljub Sudar wrote:Maybe it would help if we reverted to the 25 points gap rather than the 20 points we have now.

There's a thought

David Sedgwick wrote:

Neil Graham wrote:

Mick Norris wrote:Disappointing, means Notts have played 2 games this season and reached the semi, and we are playing our 5th game on Saturday in the quarter final

I can assure you Mick that the Notts captain is just as disappointed in the paucity of fixtures for his team. My Under 140 team played six matches and failed to qualify on tie-break . Notts needed to find 32 players graded Under 180 for Saturday - suffice it to say that this late withdrawal by Middlesex has caused the maximum of inconvenience to our other team as well!

Speaking as a member of the SCCU Executive Committee. I'm extremely concerned about the spate of defaults from our area. We'll be reviewing the matter at our Annual Council Meeting in July.

I guess the Warwickshire Under 100 default would reflect the death of David Rowe reported elsewhere. David was the U-100 captain.

David Sedgwick wrote:Speaking as a member of the SCCU Executive Committee. I'm extremely concerned about the spate of defaults from our area. We'll be reviewing the matter at our Annual Council Meeting in July.

Glad to hear that, would be good to know if there is something structurally wrong (as the rest of the country seems to think)

Neil Graham wrote:I guess the Warwickshire Under 100 default would reflect the death of David Rowe reported elsewhere. David was the U-100 captain.

Yes, that's correct. Essex offered to postpone the match, but in the sad circumstances Warwickshire were unable to field a team even on the new date.

Mick Norris wrote:

David Sedgwick wrote:Speaking as a member of the SCCU Executive Committee. I'm extremely concerned about the spate of defaults from our area. We'll be reviewing the matter at our Annual Council Meeting in July.

Glad to hear that, would be good to know if there is something structurally wrong (as the rest of the country seems to think)

Sean Hewitt wrote:

Dragoljub Sudar wrote:Maybe it would help if we reverted to the 25 points gap rather than the 20 points we have now.

There's a thought

I understand that the 25 point v 20 point band issue is likely to be raised again at either the October 2012 or the April 2013 ECF Council Meeting, with any change taking effect in the 2013-14 season.

In effect that will be four years since the issue was last decided, so it's perfectly reasonable to consider the subject again.

However, I haven't changed my own views. Any change would result in there being several fewer teams in the SCCU Counties Championships and I've yet to see any real evidence that there would be a corresponding increase in the number of teams from other Unions.

My impression is that the defaults from within the SCCU area have arisen because the counties concerned didn't consider carefully enough whether they would be able to field teams in the National Stages in all the Divisions for which they'd qualified. That's a management issue rather than a structural one.

David Sedgwick wrote:My impression is that the defaults from within the SCCU area have arisen because the counties concerned didn't consider carefully enough whether they would be able to field teams in the National Stages in all the Divisions for which they'd qualified. That's a management issue rather than a structural one.

To be fair, it is difficult to predict in advance how many teams will qualify. Should those organising teams assume all teams entered from a single county will qualify for the National stages? The grading changes seem to also make it harder to handle overlaps.

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
To be fair, it is difficult to predict in advance how many teams will qualify. Should those organising teams assume all teams entered from a single county will qualify for the National stages? The grading changes seem to also make it harder to handle overlaps.

The narrow bands are designed to allow those that like playing weekend county matches to play in more than one team as generally speaking the SCCU matches don't all take place the same weekend. So if the under 160 team is run with about a third of its players borrowed from the under 140, you will get an obvious problem if they both try to compete in a national stage with all the matches taking place at the same time.

David Sedgwick wrote:

Sean Hewitt wrote:

Dragoljub Sudar wrote:Maybe it would help if we reverted to the 25 points gap rather than the 20 points we have now.

There's a thought

I understand that the 25 point v 20 point band issue is likely to be raised again at either the October 2012 or the April 2013 ECF Council Meeting, with any change taking effect in the 2013-14 season.

In effect that will be four years since the issue was last decided, so it's perfectly reasonable to consider the subject again.

However, I haven't changed my own views. Any change would result in there being several fewer teams in the SCCU Counties Championships and I've yet to see any real evidence that there would be a corresponding increase in the number of teams from other Unions.

My impression is that the defaults from within the SCCU area have arisen because the counties concerned didn't consider carefully enough whether they would be able to field teams in the National Stages in all the Divisions for which they'd qualified. That's a management issue rather than a structural one.

I think that the sections should be set such that a county can field a team within the boundary without having to dip into players who would be eligible in another section. Clearly that's not going to be possible for every single county, but I think very few counties would actually succeed in doing this.

While such a change would result in fewer teams in the SCCU stage, it may result in more teams in other unions. The NCCU already play their regional games over 12 boards, and they find it a real struggle to field teams of 16 for these things (they end up in every section somewhat by default). The SCCU needs to remember that it is a massive Union, and while it may managed to sustain lots of sections with lots of boards, none of the other Unions can on the same scale.

I'm not convinced that it's a governance issue with the SCCU. Kent claimed that the Preliminary Round clashed with an internal-Kent event. To me, this sounds like a governance issue within Kent.