English Chess Forum

Ashfield-Breadsall are drawn in Round One against "Check Us Out". As this team is not mentioned on the entry list or on the website could anyone throw any light on who they might be? Are they a team from last year under a new name? I make no comment about the actual name itself!

I recall that in previous years we received pairings for both Rds 1 & 2 together at this stage. Is Round Two now going to be drawn in Division Three once the first round results are in?

Incidentally I have opened a new topic so this isn't mixed up with any comments on Div 3 North pairings.

Neil Graham wrote:Ashfield-Breadsall are drawn in Round One against "Check Us Out". As this team is not mentioned on the entry list or on the website could anyone throw any light on who they might be? Are they a team from last year under a new name?

Comparing the list of entries to the teams included in the first round pairings then:-

Out are
Anglian Avengers 3
Downend & Fishponds
Midland Monarchs 2
Sandhurst Scorpions
The Rookies
West is Best 3

In are
Barnet Knights 3
Check Us Out

Witney have become Witney Brown Jack. We would await the registrations list as to whether it's a combined squad with the second division Brown Jack team.

It doesn't particularly help in the identification of the "Check Us Out" squad. Ashfield are the seeds though.

(Edit) it appears that I missed the triangular match involving
Anglian Avengers 3
Downend & Fishponds
The Rookies

Unless "Check US Out" are a renamed Sandhurst, they seem to be a new team (/edit)

Neil Graham wrote:I recall that in previous years we received pairings for both Rds 1 & 2 together at this stage. Is Round Two now going to be drawn in Division Three once the first round results are in?

Yes, this was agreed at the Division Three captains' meeting at the end of last season.

The sporting rationale for doing both at once was that it ensured a team would get a white on odds one day and a white on evens on the other. It was pointed out that you could still achieve that by pairing round-by-round, and making that as one of the absolute criteria.

The non-sporting rationale is that it was a pain administratively to do the pairings after Saturday evening's play. It was pointed out that the arbiters had done this for the final two weekends in Division Three for two years now without apparent difficulty.

AA3, Downend and The Rookies are in a triangular match.

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Unless "Check US Out" are a renamed Sandhurst, they seem to be a new team (/edit)

They are a renamed Sandhurst.

LawrenceCooper wrote:

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Unless "Check US Out" are a renamed Sandhurst, they seem to be a new team (/edit)

They are a renamed Sandhurst.

Ah just what I enjoy - a team of under rated and under graded juniors.

(Player A July 2012 ECF Grade 68 now 172;
Player B July 2012 ECF Grade156 now 186;
Player C July 2012 ECF Grade 108 now 181) etc

and they think we're the seeded team?

Neil Graham wrote:

LawrenceCooper wrote:

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Unless "Check US Out" are a renamed Sandhurst, they seem to be a new team (/edit)

They are a renamed Sandhurst.

Ah just what I enjoy - a team of under rated and under graded juniors.

(Player A July 2012 ECF Grade 68 now 172;
Player B July 2012 ECF Grade156 now 186;
Player C July 2012 ECF Grade 108 now 181) etc

and they think we're the seeded team?

http://www.4nclresults.co.uk/static/4nc ... t.html#cuo

They are actually rated relatively high for juniors these days - it is the sub 1700s who are in the 180s who are the real nightmare pairings.

I have heard a few instances of players defaulting rather then facing an opponent where they are losing points just for sitting down at the board - the new fide k factor might help somewhat, but it is going to take some years before it begins to filter back in, and there are several of these younger players who are no longer under 18 so are stuck with low ratings for years to come.

Joey Stewart >I have heard a few instances of players defaulting rather then facing an opponent where they are losing points just for sitting down at the board<

That has not been true in the ECF Grading system since the early1960s. No doubt Roger can give us the exact year.
It has not been true in the FIDE Rating system since they changed to rating each game indivually, about 2004. Now you gain at least 0.7 Rating point.
It was not true in the US in 1963. You always gained at least 2 for winning.

Stewart Reuben wrote: That has not been true in the ECF Grading system since the early1960s. No doubt Roger can give us the exact year.

I think it actually the late 1960s when anti-deflation measures such as the 40 point rule and the increment for juniors were introduced. The BCF used to publish lists of players over 200 or thereabouts. It became painfully obvious that the count of such elite players was reducing from year to year. That was indicative either that the standards were declining or that grades were being diluted. With far more younger players as a proportion than today, they came to the latter conclusion.

Joey's point is still relevant though for the ECF method. Whilst the hack of treating juniors as new players regardless can solve the problem of lagging grades, it doesn't do anything for the adult player with a grade of say 180 and a playing strength of 200. If they are paired against someone 140 or below, they score 190 by winning, but that dilutes their 200 target.

Re-re-pairings up on 3 South