Move rates and League structure

[David Pardoe]

It is interesting looking at venues for 4NCL North vs South next season.

With the 'southern' league playing all of its matches at what it is now the 'neutral' venue the travel really isn't very different from Leeds/Bradford to the southern league as it is to the north. While it isn't a totally obvious decision but to be honest if I was running a third division team from round there I'd be strongly looking at going 'south' next season because you get a far more varied field to play at a rather minimal additional travel cost. This really doesn't seem calculated to help the Northern league prosper

If they are going to try and keep both divisions running long term it would surely make more sense to shove the 'Southern' venues somewhere quite a bit more genuinely southern and bring the Darlington venue down somewhere around Leeds/York etc. (Harrogate must have some nice hotels!) That surrenders the far NE of course but they've not really been joining in anyway. And it might get a more even split team wise, with maybe even some midland teams going North?!

Or just combine the two. I'm certainly not sure if the current arrangements really stack up long term.

Martin, You make some interesting points....
As usual, you could probably write a book about all the options on these topics...and
I know that many such discussions can lead to confusion and differences of opinion.
Yes, The Northern league is still in its infancy, but has made a significant contribution to the 4NCL. Many players have already been sucked into the 4NCL regime, so attracting new ones is not easy.
However, if they could attract say another 4 or so additional teams, that would be very good.
Manchester are considering the idea of entering a second team..maybe call it Magna Mancunia.. If they could attract several of our top players that would be good news.
The northern section has the great attraction of playing at several interesting venues across the region. Variety is the spice of life. I certainly dont think that trekking down to Hinckley several times a year would excite the pundits...certainly not from Manchester. We struggled to get a team out this weekend.
And the northern league has encouraged a team from Newcastle/North East to enter!! Thats got to be great news. I`d like to see other teams from Durham or Teeside entering. They have Durham University on the doorstep...a hot bed of learning and culture, right in there midst...surely several potential recruits could be found to build a new team.
And a team from Central Lancashire...another hot bed of chess talant..would also be very welcome. If some `southern teams` could join us..its job done..!!
As for Hinckley this w/e just gone, it was a great feast of chess ..and top marks must go to all those who gave there time to organise and support this event. It runs extremely smoothly, and is a great advert for chess. I cant get my head round the jungle of rooms and the network of corridors, and must have walked miles trying to find the different playing areas....amazing. As for those gergling drinks machines, constantly bubbling in the background...they drowned out the sound of any mobiles going off. A minor inconvenience.
However, I`d just warn those travelling from the northwest about taking the `scenic route` to Hinckley, via Ashbourne & Burton. They are a jungle of roads...and my `leisurely` journey took nearly 4 hours (including a stop for lunch/breaks). I really wasnt in a great frame of mind for chess when I arrived.
By the time I`d played nearly 6 hours chess, and enjoyed a team meal at a local Indian restaraunt, I was ready for a `rest`. I still felt that way next day, and the morning stroll in the country after a good breakfast was a pleasant tonic.
I took the opportunity to make this a visitor w/e.. Such fine weather, so I thought I`d visit some of villages & attractions in the area, and enjoy a stroll in the sun...a rare opportunity.

So, this is my preferred format.....ie, one or two trips to Hinckley is fine, with the remainder being spread around evenly across the regions.
For Divs 1 & 2...I`d probably go for Sunningdale, Reading, and Sheffield..with the Final two w/e`s at Hinckley....but lets see how things pan out.

[Sean Hewitt]

I'm guessing that with two Northern teams relegated from Div2 that we may see an increase in the number of teams in the Northern league next season. Let's hope so.

[MartinCarpenter]

One promoted too of course, so we'll see

As per the travel surely there's something a bit wrong when Sheffield is equidistant travel wise between the Northern and Southern divisions?
(for 13/14 it seems like it will be.).

The northern league has a tough job as it is, so it really doesn't help if several northern teams are going to play in the southern division instead. A few were already of course, and it has just got an awful lot easier to do so.

[Mick Norris]

I'm guessing that with two Northern teams relegated from Div2 that we may see an increase in the number of teams in the Northern league next season. Let's hope so.

I spoke to Aigburth, Holmes Chapel, Jorvik and Cheddleton, they all confirmed yes,as did Bradford B

I understand Atticus are a yes

Spirit of Atticus told me that they might enter 2 teams in the Northern League, if they were relegated, as is now the case

We swap Bradford A with N E England, presumably

The Manticores are considering entering a second team

[Sean Hewitt]

As per the travel surely there's something a bit wrong when Sheffield is equidistant travel wise between the Northern and Southern divisions?
(for 13/14 it seems like it will be.).

The northern league has a tough job as it is, so it really doesn't help if several northern teams are going to play in the southern division instead. A few were already of course, and it has just got an awful lot easier to do so.

The point was made at the captain's meeting that the 'southern' division was never intended to be a Southern based division. It was Division 3 of the national league. Then the northern league started and somehow Div 3 became known as Div 3 south but that's not really an accurate description.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Talking of league structure, I believe that next year (2013-14) will be the first time in ages that division 3 will play all its rounds separate from divisions 1 and 2. There have been split weekends before, in terms of both venues and dates. Split venues this year (Sunningdale and Wokefield) and last year (can't remember the details), but in both cases only one of the five weekends was affected (the two Daventry locations are relatively close). Next year's season it will be all five. When was the last time there was such a degree of separation? I wonder what effect it will have.

[Roger de Coverly]

I wonder what effect it will have.

It will still be plausible to swop between divisions 1/2 and division 3 in the same weekend, but more difficult to organise. The distance between Daventry and Hinckley for anyone switching between Saturday and Sunday is about the same as it was between Wokefield Park and Sunningdale.

One possible risk is that all the venues are now with the Puma chain, so potential problems for all weekends should the relationship break down. This could result from a change of policy or management by Puma just as much as anything the 4NCL did or didn't do.

[MartinCarpenter]

Ok so not really Division 3 south, but for the previous years (and this one) there was one round down near London which would have been fairly tough for Northern teams of this sort of level to field teams at. That provided a very clear, logical, motivation for having a northern division - more teams, players etc.
(the long term viablity or otherwise is a different matter ).

Now that Div 3 is decoupled from Divisions 1 and 2 and seemingly settled in the Midlands for all of its rounds it is much less obvious what the point of the Northern division is. Even the far NE only seems to save non trivial amounts of travel time for the one weekend in/around Darlington.

Of course the arrangements for division 3's venues might not be stable going forward. Or even I suppose, as per other threads, the divisions etc.

[Mick Norris]

I append the suggestions I made with the omission of the Div Three North one which is in the process of debate already.

a) Title - anyone hearing the title Four Nations Chess League would imagine it was something like the Six Nations Rugby Championship - ie an international match between four nations. There isn't any evidence at all of this being a competitive competition between teams from four nations. No Scottish teams for seasons, no Irish teams to speak of and just a few Welsh teams. Change the name to the National Chess League.

b) Division Names - in common with football, rugby, hockey rename the First Division - the Premier League and subsequent divisions First Division, Second Division and Third Division. There is some kudos in having a Premier Division to a National League and would certainly be more appealing to sponsors. Retitle the Divisions

c) Go back to a simple all-play-all structure. All the sports quoted above have a simple all-play-all structure with champions, runners-up, relegations and promotions. The current promotion/relegation pool system is unwieldy and to the outside observer incomprehensible. Go back after next season to 3 x 12 divisions of all-play-all and a Big Swiss fourth division. If necessary there can be a seeding sytem in the draw so seeded teams met at the end of the season. It's clear and preferable to the current structure.

d) New Teams start at the bottom - it will take three seasons for a new team to work it's way from Division Three to the Premier Division. This isn't unreasonable.

e) Public Relations/Publicity Officer we all know that there is a dearth of officers at every level of English chess; however I am sure that the 4NCL would benefit from someone with expertise in this field if you could find one.

What did the Captain's meeting decide?

[Jonathan Rogers]

In the words of our late Prime Minister, "No, no, no"!

For my part, I thought that Neil was putting rather excessive emphasis on what the ordinary man on the street might think of our league structure and name, and so on. Take the suggestion to call the First division the Premiership. Well, we could but why should we? It would be a pain for people like me who always goes on about what happened in the 4NCL in the past, if we always had to explain that the first division was really the first division in 2007, and not what it is today, etc.

For Neil, the Carlsen v Anand match would catch the imagination of the chess public and lead to another chess boom (hmmm ) and our game would then want to be accessible to ordinary people and sponsors. Perhaps the most interesting snippet which arose from this was that Mike doesn't much want the 4NCL to be sponsored, a view which may surprise some but for which I have considerable sympathy (it is something on which I have changed my mind over the years).

[David Robertson]

Are we going to get a Captains' Meeting report, possibly to a separate thread? I understand some important changes were 'agreed' alongside some proposals not agreed. I have a reason for asking since I'd like to thank Jonathan Rogers on one point initially before putting the boot in on another.

[Jonathan Rogers]

On this occasion, the inverted commas are right: nothing is "agreed" at captains meetings. Decisions are taken at Board meetings and the views of captains are only advisory or relevant factors. Sometimes there can be moderate support for a proposition at a captains meeting, but not overwhelming suport and the Board (if it has no strong view of its own) might decide to wait a while for a more definite picture. For example, two years ago the captains overwhelmingly agreed that it should be possible for juniors to play under converted ECF grades for board order purposes, but there was some disagreement about othe categories of players. The board decided only to bring in the rule for juniors. I raised it again on Sunday and this time there was overwhelming support that, while it should still be the default position that board order is determined by Elo rating, a captain can ask that any player with a publiched ECF grade should have that converted for board order purposes throughout the 4NCL season. I now need to draft the exact provisions for the Board to consider but clearly this time there is a real chance that it will go through.

I was impressed by how much was covered in a short period of time. Basically no one seemed to speak just for the sake of it, and so if no one felt fully like supporting something, then it was not even discussed. (ECF Council, take note!). So, it was no surprise that there was little support for changing the league structure (turkeys, Christmas etc) but it was quite something that no one even wanted to propose carrying over matchpoints between the pools, and so that wasn't discussed either.

We will move to increments next year: 40 moves in 100 minutes plus 30 seconds per move, etc. It was noted that on the one hand, arbiters are only there at the right time in a small amount (no figure was given, but let's say about 10%) of time scrambles at the four hour point at the moment, and that problem will be solved by increments, whilst on the other hand, games that proceed beyond move 120 are in fact quite rare!

There will be some tidying up on the rules on registrations. Some of this can easily be done. Sean also seemed to persuade people that players must explicitly consent to registration each and every year, in all cases eg even though they might have happily played that same team for ten years or more, but in my view it remains to be seen whether the Board will go for that.

[Roger de Coverly]

whilst on the other hand, games that proceed beyond move 120 are in fact quite rare!

Quite rare, but not that rare and encouraged by increments because players don't have to agree a draw because of time shortage. The 144 moves of Jones v Pert from Sheffield 2011 was a case in point.

Using 40 in 100 plus 20 in 50 cuts an hour off the game length if it's only 60 moves, but long games will reinstate it and more. I'm not sure avoidance of 10.2 claims is still an excuse as the increment substitution rule might be in place for next season.

[Jonathan Rogers]

... I'm not sure avoidance of 10.2 claims is still an excuse as the increment substitution rule might be in place for next season.

I agree and I pressed the point at the meeting that we shouldn't feel pressed into it because of 10.2. However everyone insisted that they really wanted it either on its own merits or to avoid the problems that arise from the chronic lack of arbiters.

[Roger de Coverly]

to avoid the problems that arise from the chronic lack of arbiters.

Odd though, that elsewhere on the forum, it is being suggested that county matches or Woodhouse Cup (Yorks Saturday league) could be FIDE rated despite the absence of any physical arbiter presence whatsoever.

It's fair to say that the recent Hinckley weekend did generate a number of time scrambles. It's my impression that players mostly continue to keep score or at least a note of the number of moves made.