The Pool Sucks

[Jonathan Rogers]

I find the idea of a second division swiss frankly bizarre! Heavens, it's hard enough getting rated opposition in division two all the time at the moment.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I find the idea of a second division swiss frankly bizarre! Heavens, it's hard enough getting rated opposition in division two all the time at the moment.

Presumably that is for norm-seekers? What about unrated players trying to secure their first rating? I know there are a fair number of titled players in division two, but which division is best for providing part-ratings or full-ratings? Does division 3 provide enough rated players?

[Jonathan Rogers]

well, division two is doubtless better for unrated palyers - then again division one would be better still! But for me that is not the right question. The top two divisions should be for established or semi-established players who expect to compete for rating points at the very least, which they cannot do if they play unrated players (one of our youth team players this year has played as many as five unrated players, and that is despite some efforts on my part to avoid this). I think that most (note, I do not say all) unrated players belong in the third division.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

well, division two is doubtless better for unrated palyers - then again division one would be better still! But for me that is not the right question. The top two divisions should be for established or semi-established players who expect to compete for rating points at the very least, which they cannot do if they play unrated players (one of our youth team players this year has played as many as five unrated players, and that is despite some efforts on my part to avoid this). I think that most (note, I do not say all) unrated players belong in the third division.

What about rated players with a low rating taking points off higher-rated players? This is not that uncommon if someone's initial FIDE rating is lower than expected and it takes time to correct things (and you can only do that by beating other FIDE rated players). I believe that losing to an unrated player does no damage to a FIDE rating (though it does damage an ECF rating), but losing to a lowly-rated (FIDE rated) player does do quite a bit of damage. Would your youth team player have objected to playing FIDE rated players rated lower than him (but, say, with an ECF grade higher than him) and losing?

[LozCooper]

well, division two is doubtless better for unrated palyers - then again division one would be better still! But for me that is not the right question. The top two divisions should be for established or semi-established players who expect to compete for rating points at the very least, which they cannot do if they play unrated players (one of our youth team players this year has played as many as five unrated players, and that is despite some efforts on my part to avoid this). I think that most (note, I do not say all) unrated players belong in the third division.

As the rating limit has lowered to 1200 ad may well go lower then the only unrated players left will be those who haven't previously played any rated games

I guess the only way around it is for captains to consult more to try and avoid things happening. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask the opposition captain a few days before the match "will you have a rated player on board 5" or whichever it is.

[Jonathan Rogers]

(To Chris) That wouldn't be much better, but one lives with that. Most people start out as under-rated and need to work their way up, and those who have done that, or who are stil doing that, should accept that they too must play the part of the much higher rated player with nothing much to gain, occasionally. And while one's K-factor is 25, then even beating someone 300 points lower is still worth something. In a nutshell, players with ratings but who are vastly under-rated and determined to rectify that, also have a place in the second division.

But your question is largely hypothetical. Many of our youth team palyers are under 2100 so they are not likely to play anyone rated very much below them. If it happens, it happens once a season, and is nothing compared to the problem of playing between three to five unrated players.

Loz, our problem this season has been that some of our opponents (most particularly Cambridge 2) have had stacks of unrated players. For our lower boards there would simply be no possibility of avoiding them. Not, incidentally, that "deciding" which of our players should face an unrated opponent in any given match is one that I much relish.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Loz, our problem this season has been that some of our opponents (most particularly Cambridge 2) have had stacks of unrated players.

Strange. I'm looking at the registration list for the Cambridge squad, and all except one have a FIDE code and presumably a FIDE rating? Are you possibly thinking of a different team/squad?

http://www.4ncl.co.uk/1011_reg_CAMB.htm

Maybe I'm looking at the wrong column. It seems you can have a FIDE code before you have a rating (presumably to help track part-ratings and to register players and so on). I should be looking at the "Init" and "Current" columns. Looking at the Barbican squad, I see they do have only one unrated player.

Looking at the other division 2 teams/squads, I see some are like Barbican and are mostly all rated players. Others are like Cambridge and have a mixture. The traditional way to manage this sort of thing in tournaments is to whack up the entry fee very high for non-titled and non-rated players. Not sure how popular that would be in a league. How do other national leagues handle this if indeed they consider it a problem rather than a feature?

[Jonathan Arnott]

I find the idea of a second division swiss frankly bizarre! Heavens, it's hard enough getting rated opposition in division two all the time at the moment.

Surely adding the bottom 4 D1 teams (all rated) and possibly the top 2 D3 teams (all rated) would mean you probably have a better chance of getting rated opposition?

To be honest I didn't really like the idea that much when I suggested it (just thought it was the only alternative to the pool system) but it's growing on me...

[Jonathan Arnott]

Loz, our problem this season has been that some of our opponents (most particularly Cambridge 2) have had stacks of unrated players.

Looking at the other division 2 teams/squads, I see some are like Barbican and are mostly all rated players. Others are like Cambridge and have a mixture. The traditional way to manage this sort of thing in tournaments is to whack up the entry fee very high for non-titled and non-rated players. Not sure how popular that would be in a league. How do other national leagues handle this if indeed they consider it a problem rather than a feature?

I've played 1 unrated opponent so far this season in D2. Okay, it happens that you get the occasional unrated opponent - fine. Is this really such a problem? As long as it's not happening every weekend then you're taking the same risk as you do if you enter any Open tournament. I've played unrated opposition at Gibraltar before. Even at the European Club Cup in October White Rose faced a Kosovan team that was largely unrated (fortunately I missed that match).

If it is a problem then maybe the entry fees could be amended to add a £20 surcharge for each unrated player in a team's squad. Makes little difference to most clubs but soon adds up if you try to have a team with 8 unrated players.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Jonathan, I may have misunderstood you when you referred above to a division two swiss. Mind you, I would have separate issues with a second division swiss anyway, regardless of what the unrated player count might be expected to be. In particularI think that you would be much less likely to get the key matches at the end of the season than you currently do with a third division swiss.

I'm pleased that you haven't played many unrated players this season but that seems to be a matter of some fortune. Several (not just one or two) of my players have been less fortunate.

Chris, the best way to look at the unrated player problem is to look at the actual match results of the teams. Then you get an idea of how many unrated players actually play in a team's various matches, which of course you don't get from looking at the registration list. Thus you will find that Cambridge 2 field a lot of unrated players, perhaps even more than their registration list might suggest (while Barbican's one unrated player has not played yet this season at all).