Proposals for future D1/2 formats

[Gareth Harley-Yeo]

Is there a need for a division 3 and then a division 4 North/South
So
Division 1 - 12 team APA. 8 player teams, eligibility rules as now.
Division 2 - 12 team APA. 8 player teams, eligibility rules as now, with possible alteration as per Mike Yeo's proposal.
Division 3 - South / North - as current division 3.

This would probably improve the viability of the Northern league

This would also continue to allow new teams to get to Division 1 in two years as opposed to three which I understand was one of the reasons for changing the four division structure.

The downside of the current structure is the extreme difficulty in getting promoted to the 2nd division with so many clubs of fairly equal strength slugging it out at the top of the table.

I feel there is a place for those players in the 2200-2000 bracket which the newly proposed 3rd division would fill.

[Alan Walton]

Would a problem be and 8 board Div 3 without constraints, if a team was promoted a settled team would then have to drop a player for the junior/female, unless they already had one within their team, that is why I suggested the 7 board format, so the only extra player you would have to find if promoted into Div 2 would be the junior/female, as you already have played a season with 7 players

I think the best solution is to drop the requirement for juniors and females completely. It might have had some merit years ago when there were far fewer teams in the 4NCL. Now there are numerous teams of all standards, so a junior or female should be able to play for a team in a division appropriate to their standard of play without needing preferential treatment.

I didn't want to make that point as I thought I might get shot down on this forum for being a sexist

But I agree that no restrictions would be an ideal situation, if somebody is good enough then they will find a team and position within said team purely down to their chess playing ability and not down to a neccessity to fill a quota

[Gareth Harley-Yeo]

Would a problem be and 8 board Div 3 without constraints, if a team was promoted a settled team would then have to drop a player for the junior/female, unless they already had one within their team, that is why I suggested the 7 board format, so the only extra player you would have to find if promoted into Div 2 would be the junior/female, as you already have played a season with 7 players

I think the best solution is to drop the requirement for juniors and females completely. It might have had some merit years ago when there were far fewer teams in the 4NCL. Now there are numerous teams of all standards, so a junior or female should be able to play for a team in a division appropriate to their standard of play without needing preferential treatment.

I didn't want to make that point as I thought I might get shot down on this forum for being a sexist

But I agree that no restrictions would be an ideal situation, if somebody is good enough then they will find a team and position within said team purely down to their chess playing ability and not down to a neccessity to fill a quota

Couldn't agree more.

Will this be put to the vote on the weekend?

[Alex Holowczak]

Will this be put to the vote on the weekend?

It will if someone proposes it, I guess. You could get whoever the Sharks send to propose it. However, the meeting starts at 10am on Sunday...

[Gareth Harley-Yeo]

Will this be put to the vote on the weekend?

It will if someone proposes it, I guess. You could get whoever the Sharks send to propose it. However, the meeting starts at 10am on Sunday...

Ben wouldn't support it. He's very much in favour of women having their place regardless of ability.

[Mike Truran]

From the agenda:

If firm proposals for change emerge from the meeting, we will carry out a poll in the close season to give all captains (rather than those who attend the captains' meeting) the chance to comment.

In other words, if big changes are proposed they will be put to all the captains after the meeting. It wouldn't be right to have them made only by those who attend the captains' meeting - and that will also give all captains time to reflect on the proposals at their leisure, to consult with their players etc.

[Jonathan Rogers]

I am surprised to see so much comment on this. It was actually just last year - not two years ago! - that this was discussed at a captains' meeting and then put to the vote by email. Those who wanted change to the gender rule lost quite handsomely. I think the proponents of this will just have to bide their time. Nothing has happened in the last year to make any difference.

[Ben Purton]

Most captains support the "One from each gender" rule. Sadly these are the least vocal of captains it would appear. The whole point of the rule is to promote womens participation at the 4NCL and this allows strong women players the ground to play other strong women which is good prep for the Olympiad. It also adds an extra dimension to squad selection etc.

One thing that does annoy me, I am defaulting bottom board Saturday. Is that I cannot play a man as a filler to avoid losing points in the game. Which idiot in the 4NCL/captain came up with what I am going to nickname the "Prostitute rule". Technically speaking if "5 dollar whores" were freely available in the Hinckley it would be in my teams interest to hire one to avoid the default.

True we are allowed one default before 20/'a pop' but it is still a stupid rule.

Instead of playing a 150 , sometimes 170-180 reserve to give board 8 a fide rated/good game. We now face a 'semi forced' default.

I totally disagree with the person who took this away, i see no logic in forcing the default on a team, I understand the loss of the game point, fine. But the fact you can't fill with a player to avoid fines/give a player a game is beyond me.



I also totally disagree with this extension to the rule with seniors? It appears to suit the team proposing it.

[Jonathan Rogers]

....

One thing that does annoy me, I am defaulting bottom board Saturday. Is that I cannot play a man as a filler to avoid losing points in the game. Which idiot in the 4NCL/captain came up with what I am going to nickname the "Prostitute rule". Technically speaking if "5 dollar whores" were freely available in the Hinckley it would be in my teams interest to hire one to avoid the default.

True we are allowed one default before 20/'a pop' but it is still a stupid rule.

Instead of playing a 150 , sometimes 170-180 reserve to give board 8 a fide rated/good game. We now face a 'semi forced' default.

I totally disagree with the person who took this away, i see no logic in forcing the default on a team, I understand the loss of the game point, fine. But the fact you can't fill with a player to avoid fines/give a player a game is beyond me.

I fully agree. It was decided in a captains' meeting at Sunningdale in September 2007, and I was stunned at the apparent consensus on this point. I even argued for a compromise, that if the woman in the other team was actually happy to play the male filler, then the game should be played with no extra penalty other than the default for match purposes, but even that was rejected! Definitely a point that should be revisited now that we have financial penalties as well.

[Roger de Coverly]

I also totally disagree with this extension to the rule with seniors? It appears to suit the team proposing it.

It's an ever growing pool though. On this year's registrations, even the Sharks will have at least one for the 2011-12 season.

http://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=419800

(edit) just checked the registered players for all this year's division 2 teams. Every squad has at least one person born 1951 or earlier with the exception of Cambridge University who don't appear to do any older than 1954. I didn't check everyone for Cambridge though, just those who have been around for a while.

[Ben Purton]

I find it quite amusing in terms of "discussion" or one could say debate, the whole point of this rule is to promote participation for women to improve or say Juniors to gain experience.

If the idea is to include a "Minority" , then surely nearly every team having a player does not support this notion in fact the complete opposite it does not suggest the need for it if every team already has one registered.

I believe the junior idea was so that underated juniors could play in division 2 for teams such as Barbican Youth and gain experience at such a level before they go on to greater things and earn there place in teams by their playing strength.

I can think of multiple players in Barbican(Formerly sort of Preception) who fit this mold.

I do not see how the seniors idea works. You might gain heavy support at the meeting itself given the demographic of the captains who attend the meetings(I would expect- have not been once in 8 years), but I don't see the need for the idea. Not that its a not a "cute" idea, but where is the need?

Ben

[Roger de Coverly]

Not that its a not a "cute" idea, but where is the need?

You made the case yourself, when you told us you are defaulting a board on Saturday. Of course that might be in the first division, but if there's a limited pool of players, teams suffer if they have just the one representative from that pool and their representative becomes unavailable.

[Gareth Harley-Yeo]

The problem I have with a forced female player is that if team A has a 2200 strength female then she will be rightly in the team and getting a good game against somebody of equal strength but if team B has a 1500 player she'll end up facing team A's lowest rated man and is very likely if not certain to lose both games. I can't see how this is going to help the female player in team B. Surely she'd be better placed in the bottom division where she'd actually have a chance of scoring rather than being paid to turn up to score zero just to avoid the team incurring penalties. If anything I feel the current rules harms women's chess for those rated under 2000.

[LozCooper]

The problem I have with a forced female player is that if team A has a 2200 strength female then she will be rightly in the team and getting a good game against somebody of equal strength but if team B has a 1500 player she'll end up facing team A's lowest rated man and is very likely if not certain to lose both games. I can't see how this is going to help the female player in team B. Surely she'd be better placed in the bottom division where she'd actually have a chance of scoring rather than being paid to turn up to score zero just to avoid the team incurring penalties. If anything I feel the current rules harms women's chess for those rated under 2000.

There are very few, if any, 1500s playing in division 1, certainly not first choice picks and there are plenty of female players interested in playing in the 4NCL who don't get asked or end up as second or third choice for some of the bigger teams.

http://ratings.fide.com/topfed.phtml?to ... ountry=ENG
http://grading.bcfservices.org.uk/engtopfemale.php
http://grading.bcfservices.org.uk/engtopgirls.php

Given that it is only teams in Division 1 who have to have 1 female player and several teams use non English already play I really don't think the arguement about 1500 players is a very relevant one. Looking at last weekend's Division 1, there were only 2 women out of 16 who were rated below 2000 and both of these play for teams likely to be relegated.

[Ben Purton]

I had a choice really between a 160 junior for Sunday and Monday or a 70 odd graded girl for all 3 days. I made the choice to take the default as I had not all season. As I have said I could have filled the board.

You have made the case that numerous Seniors already play so why don't we have

a) People of a certain job?
b) must have a player whos not ENG , one from any other fed
c) why don't we chuck in religion for good measure.

Really.... I don't get the logic at all.. the idea is juniors are hard to find so the women still get selected quite a bit, you make it anyone over 60 then women will get phased out it seems.

Ben