English Chess Forum

I can't see how Scotland realistically can progress. The facts are:

England pts. 14, GD +99
Argentina pts. 10, GD 32
Scotland pts. 10, GD 19

To play:
England - Scotland
Argentina - Georgia

Argentina are very probably going to beat Georgia by a cricket score and a bonus point.

Therefore Scotland would need to beat England, gain a bonus point (4 tries) and deny England a bonus point (win by more than 7 points), or, alternatively, Scotland would have to beat England by 81 points or more, either of which would place England third and Scotland second.

It is certainly possible for Scotland to beat England, but for them to win by the necessary margin?

Four tries seems unlikely.

All Scotland realistically can do is salvage pride.

Alex is right, although to be fair to Scotland, they came close in 1986, beating England 33-6, but scoring only 3 tries. England were rubbish, conceding 5 penalties and, but for Rob Andrew's boot, they would have been a hopeless, clueless, two left-footed, butter fingered and scoreless rabble, pointless in more ways than one. Scotland shared the five nations title that year with France, England shipped 100 points in the championship. I remember watching that particular match on my granny's little black and white portable telly...!

Scotland would need to beat England by 'only' 41-0 (& meet the other conditions), not 81-0, if I understand things correctly. In binary contests like this, calculate GD as 'political swing' ie. (GD gap/2) + 1

David - yes, you are correct, my blunder!

first time I've ever seen anyone use a political analogy to explain something in sport!

I think we may have been wrong yesterday, and Scotland’s task may not be quite as difficult as we first thought. It seems a tie on points between two teams is resolved by the head-to-head result between those teams – see the relevant section from the official website below.

Therefore, in the following scenario, if I have understood this correctly, Scotland would qualify:-

1. Scotland beat England by >7 points (thus denying England a losing bonus point)
2. Argentina beat Georgia, scoring four or more tries, thus scoring a winning bonus point.

In that event Argentina would reach 15 points, with England and Scotland tied on 14, but with the Scots going through on head-to-head.

Of course if Argentina win, but do not score a bonus point then all 3 teams are tied.

If Argentina only draw or lose then both England and Scotland can progress.

Simple isn’t it?!

____________________________________________________________________________________

If at the completion of the pool phase two or more teams are level on match points, then the following criteria shall be used in the following order until one of the Teams can be determined as the higher ranked:
1. The winner of the match in which the two tied teams have played each other shall be the higher ranked;
2. The team which has the best difference between points scored for and points scored against in all its pool matches shall be the higher ranked;
3. The team which has the best difference between tries scored for and tries scored against in all its pool matches shall be the higher ranked;
4. The team which has scored most points in all its pool matches shall be the higher ranked;
5. The team which has scored most tries in all its pool matches shall be the higher ranked;
6. Should the tie be unresolved at the conclusion of steps 1 through 5, the team that is higher ranked in the updated Official IRB World Rankings on October 3, 2011.

BBC website says Scotland qualify by beating England by 8 points, so seems to agree with Kevin

_________________
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation

Well spotted! Best to check the rules. So - game on for Scotland!

I'm quite pleased. The preliminary stages have been dragging, with few competitive games. If Scotland's task was unrealistic, the game would likely be poor.

Naturally, I assuming England will beat Scotland anyway, but we will get a better warm up for France

They've been getting better over the last three World Cups. The pool stages are getting less one-sided. The results might not be, but the performance of the minnows seems to be improving.

_________________
February 16-17: 2013 BUCA Team Championship
April 20: 2013 British Blitz Championship
July 27-August 10: 100th British Chess Championships

Maybe. I think its right to help the nations with less rugby heritage to improve, and at least the format isn't as bad as the cricket WC. But I feel I've been waiting a long time to get to the knock-out stages.

The question is whether a 16 team tournament with an Emerging Nations tournament alongside would be better than a 20 team tournament where those nations are given an unhealthy schedule (Namibia have played 4 games in 16 days I think I heard on the radio today)

The Rugby League final of this at Gigg Lane a few years back was excellent

_________________
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation

I’m not keen on having odd numbers of teams in each group as somebody (usually the minnows) will get a raw deal with the scheduling and have a quick turnaround of games. In one of the tournaments (1999?) I think they experimented with 5 x 4 team groups, but then had a round of play-offs involving group runners up (and a third place team if memory serves me correctly) to get down to eight teams for the quarter-finals.

The traditional 16 teams in four groups seems the best way of giving all the participants a fair crack of the whip whilst not extending the tournament unnecessarily.

1999 didn't solve the problem of the hurried schedule, though. The playoffs were played mid-week, so anyone who qualified for those playoffs had three games in about 9 days. Every team that won a playoff lost in the Quarter Finals...

I agree; 16 teams in four groups seems to be the fairest way.

_________________
February 16-17: 2013 BUCA Team Championship
April 20: 2013 British Blitz Championship
July 27-August 10: 100th British Chess Championships

The scheduling is interesting though, given that cricket, football and rugby play on different days (and indeed different times of day when matches are on the same day) to maximise TV coverage

Why does the chess World Cup (or candidates matches) have everyone playing at the same time on the same days? If you wanted to maximise internet coverage, why not stagger them?

Similarly, sports events are spread over different locations, why are chess mostly at the same one (the current Masters split between Sao Paolo and Bilbao being an exception)?

I understand why the next Candidates tournament has to be in the same place, and given the short turn around between matches ditto for the recent chess candidates and world cup

_________________
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation