The Pool Sucks

[Jonathan Rogers]

I hope that views on the pools system are fed back to the 4NCL Board, incidentally. Although I don't know what would happen. It is much easier politically to move from 12 teams to 16 than to do the reverse (in the same way that it's easier to spend money recklessly on public services than it is to then cut back).

This means that extra care should have been taken before switching to the new system. Unfortunately the opposite was the case. There was no consultation about it and when the new scheme was announced a few years ago, it was coupled with an announcement about a new time control, and (it seems to me) that so many mails were swapped about that decision, which was eventually reversed, that virtually no one responded to this other announcement. In fact I might have been the only one who did respond to it.

[Alan Burke]

Alex ... My suggestion would NOT involve teams playing each other for a second time.

"Team A" would play all those in the same group (Phase 1) = 7 matches. They would then play 4 teams from the other group in Phase 2, which therefore makes a total of 11 matches for the season.

This is EXACTLY the same as happens now. The ONLY difference I am suggesting is that points be carried foward into phase 2 - Nothing else needs to be changed !

[Alex Holowczak]

Alex ... My suggestion would NOT involve teams playing each other for a second time.

"Team A" would play all those in the same group (Phase 1) = 7 matches. They would then play 4 teams from the other group in Phase 2, which therefore makes a total of 11 matches for the season.

This is EXACTLY the same as happens now. The ONLY difference I am suggesting is that points be carried foward into phase 2 - Nothing else needs to be changed !

I understood your proposal. I didn't feel a need to comment on it, because someone else explained the problems with that idea too.

[Alan Burke]

But Alex, you DID comment on it (28 march, 12.38pm) and that is the only reason I have replied to you.

[Alex Holowczak]

But Alex, you DID comment on it (28 march, 12.38pm) and that is the only reason I have replied to you.

Noted.

Now, can we argue about adjournments instead?

[Simon Ansell]

I should have added that I think the strength of the 4NCL, Division One in particular, has declined or at least been severely diluted, as a direct result of the switch to a 16 team Division One.

[Jonathan Rogers]

That's not so obvious. Are you saying that the causal effect lies in that teams 6-10 don't have to worry so much about relegation and don't make efforts to strengthen themselves? The counter to that is that they might want to do so to make the chmpaionship pool.

Also, there are other contributory reasons why the League is weaker than it was - really, given the lack of any sponsorship it was absurdly strong in 2005/6 when various teams seemed to be spending their life's savings on their squads. That was never going to be sustainable.

Late edit: and I feel rather strongly that the second division has been much harder hit in terms of strength (as logically one might expect, since the first division has four extra teams, but the second division has an extra eight in comparison with the previous system). It might simply be impossible to make a norm in the second division now, and the danger of playing unrated players is considerable. Two of the Barbican Youth players have each faced four unrated players this season, which I think is really quite outrageous - and that has happened despite my efforts to put them on boards to maximise their chances of playing rated opposition.

[Alan Burke]

Alex ... Regarding your suggestion about adjournments - shall we finish that off at some later time ???

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Also, there are other contributory reasons why the League is weaker than it was - really, given the lack of any sponsorship it was absurdly strong in 2005/6 when various teams seemed to be spending their life's savings on their squads. That was never going to be sustainable.

The 4NCL created a chess 'South Sea' bubble?

[Simon Ansell]

That's not so obvious. Are you saying that the causal effect lies in that teams 6-10 don't have to worry so much about relegation and don't make efforts to strengthen themselves? The counter to that is that they might want to do so to make the chmpaionship pool.

Also, there are other contributory reasons why the League is weaker than it was - really, given the lack of any sponsorship it was absurdly strong in 2005/6 when various teams seemed to be spending their life's savings on their squads. That was never going to be sustainable.

Well, I can't prove it as I haven't analysed any data... it's just a general impression based on my experience (I have played more 4NCL games than anyone else, I think - don't check my results please!). Maybe I stated it too strongly.

That is pretty much what I am saying. It's nice to be in the championship pool (as I mentioned in my previous post), but we certainly aren't going to break the "bank" ( ) to get there

There are obviously various contributory factors but it seems to me that:

- The top teams don't need to be as strong, particularly in the early rounds because there are more weaker teams. They won't play their closest competitors until the last weekend (meaning they only have to be really strong for one weekend). EDIT: especially because certain results won't be carried through to the end of the season, so it doesn't matter whether they win 4.5 - 3.5 or 8-0.

- It's obvious that the strength of a league is diluted if you increase the number of teams for the same pool of players. There are simply more teams to play for, and not enough strong players to go round. Teams don't need to be so consistently strong to stay in the Division.

This isn't a criticism or even necessarily a bad thing (more players can play in Div 1 this way), more of an observation.

[Alan Walton]

That's not so obvious. Are you saying that the causal effect lies in that teams 6-10 don't have to worry so much about relegation and don't make efforts to strengthen themselves? The counter to that is that they might want to do so to make the chmpaionship pool.

Also, there are other contributory reasons why the League is weaker than it was - really, given the lack of any sponsorship it was absurdly strong in 2005/6 when various teams seemed to be spending their life's savings on their squads. That was never going to be sustainable.

Late edit: and I feel rather strongly that the second division has been much harder hit in terms of strength (as logically one might expect, since the first division has four extra teams, but the second division has an extra eight in comparison with the previous system). It might simply be impossible to make a norm in the second division now, and the danger of playing unrated players is considerable. Two of the Barbican Youth players have each faced four unrated players this season, which I think is really quite outrageous - and that has happened despite my efforts to put them on boards to maximise their chances of playing rated opposition.

In the years since I have been playing the 4NCL, 1999-2000 season, I don't think I have played more than 1 unrated player in a season, this year I have played 2 in 8 rounds, so I would have to agree with you regarding this problem

[Roger de Coverly]

- It's obvious that the strength of a league is diluted if you increase the number of teams for the same pool of players. There are simply more teams to play for, and not enough strong players to go round. Teams don't need to be so consistently strong to stay in the Division.

I would have said it's the other way round, for male players at any rate. Previously you had 36 teams each looking for 7 players of 2000 standard and above. Now you only have 32 teams. The knock-on effect is that there are "spare" 2000+ players available to strengthen the 6 board division.

this year I have played 2 in 8 rounds

The 4NCL is marketed as "play in the 4NCL and get an international rating" so you are going to get players seeking their initial FIDE rating.

[Simon Ansell]

I would have said it's the other way round, for male players at any rate. Previously you had 36 teams each looking for 7 players of 2000 standard and above. Now you only have 32 teams. The knock-on effect is that there are "spare" 2000+ players available to strengthen the 6 board division.

I'm referring to Division One in particular, sorry if I didn't make that clear. So I think 2200 or above is a more appropriate figure.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Well, I can't prove it as I haven't analysed any data... it's just a general impression based on my experience (I have played more 4NCL games than anyone else, I think - don't check my results please!). Maybe I stated it too strongly.

You have 1.5/2 against me Mind you, your other 190 or so games may carry more weight from your point of view.

[Alan Walton]

The 4NCL is marketed as "play in the 4NCL and get an international rating" so you are going to get players seeking their initial FIDE rating.

I kind of agree with this statement, but that should be really for division 3, but with the recalculation of the ECF grades has resulted in more unrated players slipping into the higher boards of the teams in the higher divisions

This seems to only have happened in the past few years, so you could argue that the above may be a factor