Wood Green

[Simon Ansell]

There could at least be a rule (in 4NCL and other leagues) that prevents the same player playing more than once against the same team. I don't see why there should be any objection to that.

[Simon Brown]

Aronian is about to lose to Mickey. I'd ask for a discount on his fee

[Richard Bates]

There could at least be a rule (in 4NCL and other leagues) that prevents the same player playing more than once against the same team. I don't see why there should be any objection to that.

I think it would just create an unnecessary extra restriction. The discussion tends to focus on "1st team players" dropping down into the 2nd team. But there will often be circumstances (especially in local leagues) where player availability forces a lower team player to be fielded to "fill in" for a higher team. A rule would then prevent them from playing for their normal team in a subsequent match. As well as the natural crossover between higher boards of lower/lower boards of higher.

Clubs would also be in the difficult position of having to predict availability for the future match before selecting for the former. Especially if the 2nd team match came first. You could end up with the 1st team being weaker than the 2nd by necessity if availabilities work out badly.

[Simon Ansell]

There could at least be a rule (in 4NCL and other leagues) that prevents the same player playing more than once against the same team. I don't see why there should be any objection to that.

I think it would just create an unnecessary extra restriction. The discussion tends to focus on "1st team players" dropping down into the 2nd team. But there will often be circumstances (especially in local leagues) where player availability forces a lower team player to be fielded to "fill in" for a higher team. A rule would then prevent them from playing for their normal team in a subsequent match. As well as the natural crossover between higher boards of lower/lower boards of higher.

Clubs would also be in the difficult position of having to predict availability for the future match before selecting for the former. Especially if the 2nd team match came first. You could end up with the 1st team being weaker than the 2nd by necessity if availabilities work out badly.

I would argue that the benefits (fairness) would outweigh the negatives (as you stated above) - such a rule would only be relevant at most once or twice a season, and if it causes significant problems to the multi-team clubs then they probably shouldn't/ don't have the resources to run more than one team in that division in the first place.

We'll have to continue this discussion later - I'm off to the Emirates to watch Arsenal beat Man Utd B

[David Williams]

As a bystander here I have learned things, been annoyed by things, and bored senseless by even more things. But nothing, nothing, has surprised me as much as learning that anything other than a purely social league would allow anyone to play for more than one team.

Any serious competition wouldn't permit two teams from the same club to play in the same division. Semi-serious would permit that, but not allow any interchange of players.
Week 1. Man Utd A v Man Utd B. Man City v Wigan.
Week 2. Man Utd B v Man City. Wigan v Man Utd A.
Anyone foresee a problem or two?

4NCL is basically a social/amateur league. Trying to make comparisons with football is rather extreme.

Most amateur sporting club leagues have to have formulas for dealing with second/third teams. For many the solution is to operate dedicated leagues for each team, rarely viable in chess. The only other solution is to allow multi club teams in the same league. And that inevitably means players playing for more than one team. At least in chess we have a rating system which means "strength order" can be maintained (if subverted by massive strengthening at the top).

Barbican once tried to operate on the basis of two separate squads when they found themselves with two teams in the same division. But it doesn't really work.

Agreed that league chess has to accommodate multi-club teams (and can easily do so). Not quite as easy with two teams in the same division. Agreed that players playing for more than one team is beneficial (not inevitable). But every concession dilutes the competitive element. To my mind the rules should be aimed at ensuring that a club with two teams in the same division is no stronger than two smaller clubs with one team each, if their combined playing strength is the same as the bigger club. If a club finds it doesn't really work to have two separate squads, they aren't really strong enough to have two teams in that division.

The football comparison is only extreme in that I can't ever imagine Sir Alex claiming that he had to play Rooney in the B team against Man City because otherwise they couldn't raise a team.

[Richard Bates]

There could at least be a rule (in 4NCL and other leagues) that prevents the same player playing more than once against the same team. I don't see why there should be any objection to that.

I think it would just create an unnecessary extra restriction. The discussion tends to focus on "1st team players" dropping down into the 2nd team. But there will often be circumstances (especially in local leagues) where player availability forces a lower team player to be fielded to "fill in" for a higher team. A rule would then prevent them from playing for their normal team in a subsequent match. As well as the natural crossover between higher boards of lower/lower boards of higher.

Clubs would also be in the difficult position of having to predict availability for the future match before selecting for the former. Especially if the 2nd team match came first. You could end up with the 1st team being weaker than the 2nd by necessity if availabilities work out badly.

I would argue that the benefits (fairness) would outweigh the negatives (as you stated above) - such a rule would only be relevant at most once or twice a season, and if it causes significant problems to the multi-team clubs then they probably shouldn't/ don't have the resources to run more than one team in that division in the first place.

Is there really a significant fairness issue involved in a 190 player playing on bottom board of a first team in one match and then on top board in the 2nd team in the next? Which is the sort of common scenario which would be prohibited. A player playing twice on top board is pretty rare.

I think it would be an issue on a lot more occasions than once or twice a season, and i think would significantly increase the resources required to run multi teams in one division from the situation as at present. And a pile-up of 2nd teams refusing promotion would just reduce the competitive nature of lower divisions.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

such a rule would only be relevant at most once or twice a season, and if it causes significant problems to the multi-team clubs then they probably shouldn't/ don't have the resources to run more than one team in that division in the first place.

This is a fair point (though some leagues are run on a home and away basis, so I think you mean more then once for a different team against the same team). A lot of these rules were, I suspect, brought in to avoid defaults and walkovers, and to allow those who are able to play lots of chess to do so within one club, instead of having to play for multiple clubs in multiple leagues (though some players do that as well). Some people only play one or two games for a club a season. Some play more. I've played 20 games already for one club in one league this season - if restricted to one team, the maximum would have been 14 (the strange thing is that I've almost managed to avoid playing the same player twice - I only played one player twice, so 19 different players over 20 games). There will be other examples as well. But the decision on whether to run more than one team, and whether to reduce from (say) three teams to four, or expand from two teams to three, is not an easy one. If things go wrong, you can get a second (or lower) team starting a season and then withdrawing when they realise they won't in fact be able to fulfil their fixtures.

[Richard Bates]

Agreed that league chess has to accommodate multi-club teams (and can easily do so). Not quite as easy with two teams in the same division. Agreed that players playing for more than one team is beneficial (not inevitable). But every concession dilutes the competitive element. To my mind the rules should be aimed at ensuring that a club with two teams in the same division is no stronger than two smaller clubs with one team each, if their combined playing strength is the same as the bigger club. If a club finds it doesn't really work to have two separate squads, they aren't really strong enough to have two teams in that division.

I should say that i'm not even sure if having two separate squads is within the rules these days.

Without separate squads you can't prevent players playing for two teams as the following example demonstrates:

Suppose a squad has 20 players, ranked 1-20. In the first weekend all are available, so the 1st team has players 1-8, and the 2nd team has players 9-16.

In the second weekend player 1 is unavailable. None of players 9-16 can play for the 1st team and the 'strength order' rule prevents player 17 from playing for the first team. So the 1st team is forced to default!

Conversely playing with two squads "can" be an advantage in certain circumstances. Because the "2nd" team can be strengthened by putting very strong players (stronger than any in the 1st team!) straight into the 2nd team. Whereas with one combined squad the 2nd team has to make do with the weakest players from the first team. Playing Wood Green 2 in those circumstances really would be a scary prospect!

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Conversely playing with two squads "can" be an advantage in certain circumstances. Because the "2nd" team can be strengthened by putting very strong players (stronger than any in the 1st team!) straight into the 2nd team. Whereas with one combined squad the 2nd team has to make do with the weakest players from the first team.

This is exactly right. Being able to spread the strongest players across the teams makes the second team more competitive, at the expense of the first team. If the first team is strong enough to take this weakening (it needs to be, otherwise both teams risk getting relegated!), and the rules allow it, then having two competitive teams is better than having one strong first team and a second one doomed to relegation. If a second team gets promoted to the first division of their league, should they stick with the same squad and likely end up relegated (the football comparison does work here!), or should they strengthen their squad (if possible) and seek to run two competitive teams in the first division? To put that another way, do people want leagues where second teams are capable of beating their first team and winning the division, or do they want leagues where second teams bounce between first and second divisions each year? Some leagues will be happy with the former, others will be happy with the latter.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Aronian is about to lose to Mickey. I'd ask for a discount on his fee

Not to mention Kramnik given how he played in the last round

[Simon Brown]

After saving that position against Mickey, he should charge a premium!

[Simon Ansell]

Is there really a significant fairness issue involved in a 190 player playing on bottom board of a first team in one match and then on top board in the 2nd team in the next?

That wasn't a Man Utd B team

Not as significant as the same player playing board one in both matches, obviously, but the second team is still stronger than it would otherwise be due to the addition of the first team player.

[Richard Bates]

Is there really a significant fairness issue involved in a 190 player playing on bottom board of a first team in one match and then on top board in the 2nd team in the next?

That wasn't a Man Utd B team

Not as significant as the same player playing board one in both matches, obviously, but the second team is still stronger than it would otherwise be due to the addition of the first team player.

Or the first team weaker by being forced to make use of a normal second team player! It works both ways

[Simon Ansell]

Or the first team weaker by being forced to make use of a normal second team player! It works both ways

Well, yes , but that could be considered one of the consequences of running multiple teams. Currently the (lack of) rules favours those clubs at the expense of single-team clubs. There should be some compromise.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

There is an assumption that I think many make that a second team has to be, or is expected to be, weaker than the corresponding first team. Possibly due to the ingrained idea that chess players work to improve their grades and are 'rewarded' by playing on higher boards and eventually in their club's first team. Usually the lower-graded players are told that games in the second team against division 2 players will suit them, and stronger players are told that games in the first team against division 1 players will suit them (in practice, it is usually not as simple as this - middle-order players will be suited to games on a higher board in division 2 and also for lower board games in division 1). But if the top two teams in a club are playing in the same division, and facing the same opposition, then this natural order breaks down. It makes little sense to send out the players in grading order accumulatively down both teams, especially if the opposition are all first teams that will (in most cases) outgrade the second team.

If instead you can field two teams where the first team is slightly stronger, and the second team is slightly weaker, and both teams give good competitive matches, then where is the problem? It is possible that some teams see the prospect of an 'easy' match against a weak second team taken away from them, and replaced by the prospect of a 'difficult' match against a strengthened second team. And then see the same players playing in both the first team and second team. Obviously if the overlap is 100%, that is silly (the first and second team would be the same team). But what percentage of overlap is acceptable? 50%, 25%, 10%? That is the point where rules are brought in to address that. I believe these rules vary a lot around the country, but it would be interesting to see a selection compared.