County teams 2011-12

A forum for the Midland Counties Chess Union.
Mick Norris
Posts: 3714
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Harwood, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: County teams 2011-12

Postby Mick Norris » Tue Aug 30, 2011 5:52 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:If the Minor were a "normal" division, we could run our Division Two to the Minor rules and hope for three nominations. We can't though, because D4 of the ECF rules say we can only have two nominations regardless. Is there any reason for this? (There's usually a reason dating back to something that happened in 1965 which is the reason we have it today...)


I think it is an accident, but may be caused by none of the Unions actually having qualifying competitions

If the MCCU did have a Minor competition, we could argue for a change, but we would lose the third Open nomination in the process

Until this season, i would have been opposed to that :)
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 7403
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: County teams 2011-12

Postby Alex Holowczak » Tue Aug 30, 2011 7:34 pm

Mick Norris wrote:If the MCCU did have a Minor competition, we could argue for a change


Would the MCCU arguing really be a change? :wink:

Because the MCCU has one Open split into two divisions (say A and B), then we get 3 from A and 2 from B for the purposes of our nominations; A to the Open, B to the Minor.

If 2 teams enter A and 6 teams enter B, then there seems to be considerable logic in having 3 nominations for the Minor Open, on the proviso that our B is run to those particular rules. In other words, if you run a Minor section, and it has 5 or more counties in it, you get 3 nominations just as you would if it were any other section?

The MCCU would need flexibility within its rules to allow for that to happen at potentially short notice. How often is the mean grade of teams over 180? Greater Manchester would be the barometer, I guess, as the team who've just dropped down.

In the Warwickshire v Staffordshire game last year, Warwickshire's mean grade was 173; within the Minor requirements.

Lincolnshire won Division Two last year. Their mean grades were:
176 v Leicestershire
176 v Derbyshire
176 v Worcestershire

Leicestershire finished second last year. They whipped out Mark Hebden in one game, and were still averaging only 174.

So it seems to me that if Division Two were played to Minor rules, there'd be absolutely no difference whatsoever to the games. So I think it's definitely something we should be considering.

Mick Norris
Posts: 3714
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Harwood, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: County teams 2011-12

Postby Mick Norris » Tue Aug 30, 2011 8:45 pm

If 3 teams enter Div 1 then under present rules all 3 qualify for the Open

You would need to speak to those who have been that third team (which has been G Man, Staffs and probably even Warks in the past, and would be Worcs this season) to see whether they would have been happy to miss out

Also, do the Div 2 teams want to play in the Minor if they finish only third?

Personally, I see the logic that you should have to finish in the top 2 to qualify - if all Unions thought the same, maybe we could avoid the preliminary round in future
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 2583
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: County teams 2011-12

Postby IM Jack Rudd » Tue Aug 30, 2011 8:50 pm

Mick Norris wrote:Personally, I see the logic that you should have to finish in the top 2 to qualify - if all Unions thought the same, maybe we could avoid the preliminary round in future


Only in a division where not all five unions submit qualifiers.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 7403
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: County teams 2011-12

Postby Alex Holowczak » Tue Aug 30, 2011 9:08 pm

Mick Norris wrote:Also, do the Div 2 teams want to play in the Minor if they finish only third?


Well, they wouldn't want to play in the Open, so it has to be an improvement?

Mick Norris
Posts: 3714
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Harwood, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: County teams 2011-12

Postby Mick Norris » Fri Sep 02, 2011 8:12 am

raycollett wrote: Votes re Open or Minor for Worcs are balanced on a knife edge today. Result late tonight.


What was the decision? And do we have the full list of entrants now?
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 7403
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: County teams 2011-12

Postby Alex Holowczak » Fri Sep 02, 2011 9:22 am

Mick Norris wrote:
raycollett wrote: Votes re Open or Minor for Worcs are balanced on a knife edge today. Result late tonight.


What was the decision? And do we have the full list of entrants now?


From an e-mail I received last night, which I'm sure Ray won't mind be pasting this part of:

Ray Collett wrote:Worcs have entered the MCCU Minor Championships, but the votes were nearly even.

Mick Norris
Posts: 3714
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Harwood, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: County teams 2011-12

Postby Mick Norris » Fri Sep 02, 2011 10:34 am

Thanks

So Worcs v G Man - suggested neutral venue? Newcastle under Lyme would be good
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 7403
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: County teams 2011-12

Postby Alex Holowczak » Fri Sep 02, 2011 10:41 am

Mick Norris wrote:So Worcs v G Man - suggested neutral venue? Newcastle under Lyme would be good


Well, Ray is the captain so you'd have to speak to him. As for a neutral venue... How about Chipping Campden? :lol:

I hope that the captains will agree to use digital clocks - of which I gather GMan now have plenty! - with an increment. May I throw 40/90 + 30 + 30'/move out there as an option... :wink:

All this presupposes my selection, which is a rash of me... :oops:

raycollett
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:54 pm

Re: County teams 2011-12

Postby raycollett » Fri Sep 02, 2011 9:07 pm

Mick Norris wrote:
raycollett wrote: Votes re Open or Minor for Worcs are balanced on a knife edge today. Result late tonight.


What was the decision? And do we have the full list of entrants now?


We decided to go for the Minor so see you later! No information from Julie yet about other entries. - Ray

Mick Norris
Posts: 3714
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Harwood, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: County teams 2011-12

Postby Mick Norris » Fri Sep 02, 2011 10:13 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote: I hope that the captains will agree to use digital clocks - of which I gather GMan now have plenty! - with an increment.


Hopefully Lincs, Leics, Shrops, Derbys and Worcs will agree to that as will the U160 for Leics, Warks, Staffs and Notts - but I wouldn't put money on it

At least we should get to use digital clocks even if no increment, although Newcastle-under-Lyme was set up without them last time I was there, as was Holmes Chapel
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 7403
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: County teams 2011-12

Postby Alex Holowczak » Fri Sep 02, 2011 10:35 pm

Mick Norris wrote:At least we should get to use digital clocks even if no increment, although Newcastle-under-Lyme was set up without them last time I was there, as was Holmes Chapel


What the rule should have been that increments are the default and a guillotine finish is the option where the home team supplies digital clocks.

Mick Norris
Posts: 3714
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Harwood, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: County teams 2011-12

Postby Mick Norris » Sat Sep 03, 2011 7:53 am

You could have proposed that at the meeting in June :)
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 7403
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: County teams 2011-12

Postby Alex Holowczak » Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:40 am

Mick Norris wrote:You could have proposed that at the meeting in June :)


The reason I didn't was that it meant thinking up a rewording of this on the fly:

The duration of play in the Championship shall be not less than five hours and all games shall be played with clocks. Each player shall complete not less than forty moves in the first two hours on his clock. Following Black's fortieth move both clocks shall be turned back thirty minutes and the game shall be completed under the ECF Quickplay finish rules. In the remaining grade restricted tournaments the duration of play shall be not less than four hours and each player shall complete not less than thirty six moves in the first one hour and a half on his clock. Following Black's thirty-sixth move both clocks shall be turned back thirty minutes and the game shall be completed under the ECF Quickplay finish rules.

I got rid of the references to ECF Quickplay Finish rules this year. I think what should happen is:
(a) The home team (or designated home team) has choice of equipment, be it digital or analogue clocks
(b) The home team has the right to insist on either an incremental or non-incremental time control if it's using digital clocks.

And we should have acceptable time controls that can be used. E.g. it should be 40/100 + G/20 or 36/90 + G/30 for non-increments in a 4-hour session, and 110 + 10' or 90 + 30' for increments. Then in the 5-hour session, 40/120 + G/30 for non-increments and 40/90 + 30 + 30' or 40/110 + 30 + 10' for increments. So basically, the home team chooses the time control, and notifies the other captain in advance of the game.

I confess to not thinking of raising something like this at the time. Still, something for next year?

Sean Hewitt

Re: County teams 2011-12

Postby Sean Hewitt » Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:59 am

Alex Holowczak wrote:(a) The home team (or designated home team) has choice of equipment, be it digital or analogue clocks
(b) The home team has the right to insist on either an incremental or non-incremental time control if it's using digital clocks.

And we should have acceptable time controls that can be used. E.g. it should be 40/100 + G/20 or 36/90 + G/30 for non-increments in a 4-hour session, and 110 + 10' or 90 + 30' for increments. Then in the 5-hour session, 40/120 + G/30 for non-increments and 40/90 + 30 + 30' or 40/110 + 30 + 10' for increments. So basically, the home team chooses the time control, and notifies the other captain in advance of the game.

I confess to not thinking of raising something like this at the time. Still, something for next year?

I think the problem with this is that 30 second increments actually mean that games can go on for a who hour longer that planned. The 5 hours session could easily have a game lasting over 6 hours. I'm not sure that's appropriate for county matches. 10 second increments may be more acceptable.


Return to “MCCU”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests