4NCL North 2014-15

[Ian Wallis]

This was supposed to appear in 'First Round Pairings' but somehow ended up here (probably because I was trying to use a quote from this section and despite changing the heading post it defaulted to this path )

In reading the intellectual debate in the 4NCL North 2014-15 section on the merits and structure of triangular matches a comment struck me and I would now ask, given this,

{quote="Alex Holowczak"}

The arbiters realise that triangular matches aren't ideal, which is why they normally give them to the bottom-most scoregroup, and why they try to avoid promotion candidates playing in them.

How where the teams chosen for the Division 3s triangular match?

It is obviously not from bottom ranking of last season finish plus average grades of new teams.
Am I correct in assuming it was taken from the median of this list?

I have to concur with the general feeling that they are not ideal however they are constructed but are probably the least evil given the only alternative being a bye. No one wants to commit to a weekend of chess and only end up playing one game.

[MartinCarpenter]

I guess the aim is likely the same as with taking the median teams for 3N? Take some teams that are safe from caring about promotion and who aren't likely to end up back in a triangular if they run it for the bottom teams for the next two weekends.

If they took the very bottom seeds they might end up involved in two or three triangles in a row which would definitely be a bit much!

[Nick Grey]

Those of us playing lots of triangles last season were not worried. We'd rather have games than not.
If we were national div 3 at 1st w/e we would have avoided it. Unless someone else drops out.

Best compromise & trying to keep comparable pairings & strength & keeps that individual match going a lot longer.

Enjoy - whether playing North or South - or in div1 or 2 - or at top - middle - or bottom.

[MartinCarpenter]

Well that was fun Amusing having Bradford B ahead of Bradford A and nice from Jorvik's point of view to avenge WR2.

Anyway this was much the most amusing game I've seen in a long time. Armstrong - Newton from day 1. The position after black's 48th move rather deserves a diagram.....

Goodness knows how you'd go about even trying to annotate it. Using a computer would rather miss the point

1r1Qn3/4P2k/p5p1/2P1b3/6pq/5pnB/R5QK/3R4

[Event "4NCL Division 3n"] [Site "Redworth Hall ENG"] [Date "2014.11.15"] [Round "1.76"] [White "Armstrong, Malcolm J"] [Black "Newton, Robert"] [Result "0-1"] [WhiteElo "2095"] [BlackElo "2012"] [PlyCount "110"] [EventDate "2014.11.15"] [WhiteTeam "Cheddleton 2"] [BlackTeam "Manchester Manticores 2"] 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 d6 5. O-O c6 6. c4 Nbd7 7. Nc3 Qc7 8. e4 O-O 9. h3 a6 10. a4 b6 11. Be3 Bb7 12. Rc1 h6 13. Qd2 Kh7 14. Rfd1 Rad8 15. Qc2 e5 16. d5 c5 17. a5 bxa5 18. Bd2 Rb8 19. Ra1 Bc8 20. Na4 Qd8 21. Ne1 Ne8 22. Nd3 Ndf6 23. Bc3 Ng8 24. Qd2 f5 25. Bxa5 Qf6 26. Nc3 f4 27. b4 cxb4 28. Bxb4 h5 29. gxf4 Bh6 30. fxe5 dxe5 31. Qe2 Rf7 32. c5 Qg5 33. f4 exf4 34. Qf3 Bg7 35. Ra2 Bd4+ 36. Kh1 Nh6 37. e5 Bg4 38. hxg4 hxg4 39. Qf1 Rxb4 40. Nxb4 Qh4+ 41. Bh3 Bxc3 42. e6 Rb7 43. d6 Nf5 44. Qg2 Ng3+ 45. Kh2 Rxb4 46. d7 Rb8 47. e7 Be5 48. d8=Q f3 49. Qd5 fxg2 50. Qxe5 Qxh3+ 51. Kg1 Qh1+ 52. Kf2 g1=Q+ 53. Rxg1 Qf3+ 54. Ke1 Rb1+ 55. Kd2 Rxg1 0-1

[Matt Mackenzie]

As if Bob would ever play that sort of stuff

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Nice position after move 23. Playing 24.Bh8 would have put all Black's pieces on the back rank...

[Eric Gardiner]

Anyway this was much the most amusing game I've seen in a long time. Armstrong - Newton from day 1. The position after black's 48th move rather deserves a diagram.....

Goodness knows how you'd go about even trying to annotate it. Using a computer would rather miss the point

It would be interesting to read Bob's annotations. Good job second queens were provided - no surprise to see them getting used in one of his games !

[Mick Norris]

The analysis in the bar late Sat night/early Sun morning was amazing - I did ask Bob to annotate it for the MCF website

[AustinElliott]

Nice position after move 23. Playing 24.Bh8 would have put all Black's pieces on the back rank...

After move 23 and after move 47 (with the white d- and e-pawns both on the 7th) would be my choice for 'picturesque contrast'...

[Mick Norris]

I've spoken to Dave Thomas about the pairings rules fullstop. Writing them up never happened, so here goes my attempt.

Triangulars: Dave Welch and Dave Thomas both agreed that the teams in the triangular should be the three teams in the middle of the seedings on the bottom-most scoregroup. Of course, this time, there is only one scoregroup. It was unfortunate that these three teams were the only three teams who don't have a second team in the division. So you end up with the pairings: 1 v 9, 10 v 2, 3 v 11, 12 v 4, 5 v 13, 6 v 7 v 8.

As a sidepoint, another option is to put the teams at the top, middle and bottom in the triangular. So you would, in effect, have normal first round pairings like 1 v 7, 8 v 2, 3 v 9, 10 v 4, 5 v 11, 12 v 6, but you'd put 13 on the first match to create 1 v 7 v 13. The disadvantage of this is that the number 1 seeds might end up promoting and, in some way, benefited from playing a triangular. This might be perceived as unfair.

Dave isn't committing to there being only one triangular. Because of the unfairness perception, it may be that a team at the bottom plays in more than one triangular, rather than a team near the top, because lots of teams near the bottom might already have played in a triangular match.

Has there been any further discussion on this?

[David Robertson]

There needs to be - it was a mess to all concerned. But having played 130 moves across nearly twelve hours under the burden of a heavy cold, and being last out of the room on both days, I'm simply too knackered to say more just now.

[MartinCarpenter]

Not surprised you were exhausted at the end then! These weekends are hard work even with 'normal' length games.

One thing which did occur to me is about the seating - having all 9 boards in one long row really didn't makes it easy to keep track of what was going on in each match. Wouldn't grouping the games in each half match work better? Ideally on 3 tables with the 3 boards each, but one long table with a small gap between each half match would work OK too.

[Mick Norris]

Both of you were playing in the triangular, but from an outsiders viewpoint it wasn't worth trying to work out what was happening

I would say though thanks to Redworth for after 4 years in the Surtees suite, the Prince Bishop was a big improvement, much more convenient for access, and indeed a nicer room, better with the analysis being in a separate room too, and the bookstall outside on Sunday

The Bay Horse was excellent on Saturday night too

Finally, great to have moved from 5 Manticores at Redworth year 1 to 18 this weekend

[MartinCarpenter]

While I'm being super pedantic - and not that anyone cares! - isn't the board order on the results sheet for Jorvik - Holmes Chapel wrong?

I know I was formally board 1 on Saturday, but team C's 1 and 2 both play the board 2's in the equivalent team then so I'd think you'd normally follow team B's board order in the result sheet? Guess its likely confused one way or another.

Nice to have our name spelt right this year mind Probably should use viking runes of course

[Pat Bennett]

Hi Martin - the board order as reported for Holmes Chapel is a result of our Board 4, Ben Scattergood, being upfloated in Round 1 by the pairings table. In round 1, he played your Board 3 despite being Board 4 in our submitted board order. Triangular matches -arrggh!!