You could include wording such as "in cases where a player's FIDE rating is considered to be an unreliable guide...", which would hopefully exclude the most egregious cases.Richard Bates wrote: The rule may be designed for "unreliable" FIDE ratings, but you can't explicitly write a rule for that.
Division 1
-
- Posts: 8479
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: Division 1
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
- Posts: 3341
- Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm
Re: Division 1
Define "unreliable". And considered by whom?NickFaulks wrote:You could include wording such as "in cases where a player's FIDE rating is considered to be an unreliable guide...", which would hopefully exclude the most egregious cases.Richard Bates wrote: The rule may be designed for "unreliable" FIDE ratings, but you can't explicitly write a rule for that.
-
- Posts: 8479
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: Division 1
I don't think I have to. To take one example, if a team captain wishes to claim that Mark Lyell's FIDE rating should be ignored as unreliable, on the basis that he has played only two hundred and something rated games in the past twelve months, then they are free to do so but risk looking foolish.Richard Bates wrote: Define "unreliable".
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
- Posts: 3053
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am
Re: Division 1
Can we maybe get this split off to its own thread? Plenty of very tense matches in division 1 this weekend so far!
-
- Posts: 2393
- Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:44 pm
Re: Division 1
I rather think you do. It's easy to quote obvious examples where they exist - even if the thesis that even in such extreme cases FIDE ratings are more reliable that ECF grades is accepted. No doubt captains play the rules where they can, as they have done since the start of the 4NCL. I for one have no wish to enter into endless debates with captains about cases that are on the margin in the absence of a clear definition as to what constitutes "unreliable".I don't think I have to.
Of course if you would like to volunteer for the task of reviewing all ECF/FIDE elections and arguing the toss with the captains concerned on behalf of the 4NCL I'm sure we would be happy to consider your application. in the meantime, I think I can speak on behalf of the 4NCL team in saying that we have more important issues to contend with.
Last edited by Mike Truran on Mon May 02, 2016 12:19 pm, edited 3 times in total.
-
- Posts: 8843
- Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
- Location: London
Re: Division 1
Have the division 1 and division 2 tables been updated on the website? The division 3 and division 4 tables seem to be updated (showing 10 rounds played) but the division 1 and 2 tables seem to be still showing the positions after 8 rounds (clicking refresh doesn't help).
EDIT: Hang on, the results are there now! Maybe I was doing the wrong sort of refresh, or they've just been updated...
EDIT: Hang on, the results are there now! Maybe I was doing the wrong sort of refresh, or they've just been updated...
-
- Posts: 3053
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am
Re: Division 1
Ah, so there was an 'insurance' policy for Guilford Still the budget is clearly finite if they didn't use it all weekend! Got vaguely close to needing it yesterday.....
Re: Division 1
For the uninitiated, the above-mentioned "'insurance' policy" consists of four French GMs.
I don't usually comment on the 4NCL since I regard it as something of a cirque d'échecs.
In one of the circus' many rings today -
...
Bd. 5 FM Rogers,J (2277) - GM Aagaard,J (2493) 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 c5 4.c3 cxd4 1/2
...
Bd. 7 O'Toole,G (2241) - GM Shaw,J (2452) 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd8 4.g3 Nc6...
The FIDE ratings of the two teams -
1. 2341 - 2520
2. 2353 - 2448
3. 2452 - 2349
4. 2336 - 2409
5. 2277 - 2493
6. 2243 - 2388
7. 2241 - 2452
8. 2030 - 2109
To me that's a mélange - a mixture of incongruous elements.
(If I am accused of "cherry picking" my answer will be that the team orders and pairings are a cotton-picking, cherry-pickers' platform.)
I don't usually comment on the 4NCL since I regard it as something of a cirque d'échecs.
In one of the circus' many rings today -
...
Bd. 5 FM Rogers,J (2277) - GM Aagaard,J (2493) 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 c5 4.c3 cxd4 1/2
...
Bd. 7 O'Toole,G (2241) - GM Shaw,J (2452) 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd8 4.g3 Nc6...
The FIDE ratings of the two teams -
1. 2341 - 2520
2. 2353 - 2448
3. 2452 - 2349
4. 2336 - 2409
5. 2277 - 2493
6. 2243 - 2388
7. 2241 - 2452
8. 2030 - 2109
To me that's a mélange - a mixture of incongruous elements.
(If I am accused of "cherry picking" my answer will be that the team orders and pairings are a cotton-picking, cherry-pickers' platform.)
-
- Posts: 3053
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am
Re: Division 1
Actually fairly sure that three of those French GM's were playing all weekend. Vachier- Lagrave was the (very high class ) insurance..... They'd have had a huge advantage anyway, but the Guilford organiser clearly doesn't like taking chances!
Cheddleton did quite well to keep it to 5.5 - 2.5 I guess, but still a comfortable win. White Rose seem doomed to loss, might mean Wood Green getting into the ECC instead? Never been quite sure how that works.
Cheddleton did quite well to keep it to 5.5 - 2.5 I guess, but still a comfortable win. White Rose seem doomed to loss, might mean Wood Green getting into the ECC instead? Never been quite sure how that works.
-
- Posts: 3341
- Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm
Re: Division 1
It's not that complicated - top 3 who want to go. Doubt Wood Green will want to go, and Barbican haven't shown much interest for several years. So seems likely that White Rose are in, unless there is a shift in approach from those who fund the professional teams, or a new external source who wants to put some money in.MartinCarpenter wrote:Actually fairly sure that three of those French GM's were playing all weekend. Vachier- Lagrave was the (very high class ) insurance..... They'd have had a huge advantage anyway, but the Guilford organiser clearly doesn't like taking chances!
Cheddleton did quite well to keep it to 5.5 - 2.5 I guess, but still a comfortable win. White Rose seem doomed to loss, might mean Wood Green getting into the ECC instead? Never been quite sure how that works.
-
- Posts: 912
- Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:46 pm
Re: Division 1
Although comfortable in the end there was one point at the time control where the outcome looked slightly unclear with their bottom board being in a losing position (but the correct move of 41 Re1 was hard to find).MartinCarpenter wrote:Cheddleton did quite well to keep it to 5.5 - 2.5 I guess, but still a comfortable win.
-
- Posts: 4667
- Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm
Re: Division 1
We (Barbican) play ECC every now and then. We look more likely to take our place this year than in most recent seasons. I share Richard's doubts about Guildford and Wood Green, though.Richard Bates wrote:It's not that complicated - top 3 who want to go. Doubt Wood Green will want to go, and Barbican haven't shown much interest for several years. So seems likely that White Rose are in, unless there is a shift in approach from those who fund the professional teams, or a new external source who wants to put some money in.MartinCarpenter wrote:Actually fairly sure that three of those French GM's were playing all weekend. Vachier- Lagrave was the (very high class ) insurance..... They'd have had a huge advantage anyway, but the Guilford organiser clearly doesn't like taking chances!
Cheddleton did quite well to keep it to 5.5 - 2.5 I guess, but still a comfortable win. White Rose seem doomed to loss, might mean Wood Green getting into the ECC instead? Never been quite sure how that works.
-
- Posts: 4667
- Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm
Re: Division 1
I struggle to understand this post in general, but you have copied down the teams and ratings quite wrongly. Look up the match again. http://www.4nclresults.co.uk/2015-16/4ncl/11/1c/export/John McKenna wrote:For the uninitiated, the above-mentioned "'insurance' policy" consists of four French GMs.
I don't usually comment on the 4NCL since I regard it as something of a cirque d'échecs.
In one of the circus' many rings today -
...
Bd. 5 FM Rogers,J (2277) - GM Aagaard,J (2493) 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 c5 4.c3 cxd4 1/2
...
Bd. 7 O'Toole,G (2241) - GM Shaw,J (2452) 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd8 4.g3 Nc6...
The FIDE ratings of the two teams -
1. 2341 - 2520
2. 2353 - 2448
3. 2452 - 2349
4. 2336 - 2409
5. 2277 - 2493
6. 2243 - 2388
7. 2241 - 2452
8. 2030 - 2109
To me that's a mélange - a mixture of incongruous elements.
(If I am accused of "cherry picking" my answer will be that the team orders and pairings are a cotton-picking, cherry-pickers' platform.)
-
- Posts: 10406
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
- Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Re: Division 1
For interest, why is that? Is it the expense, the fact that some teams are simply too strong to compete with or have too much money?Jonathan Rogers wrote:We (Barbican) play ECC every now and then. We look more likely to take our place this year than in most recent seasons. I share Richard's doubts about Guildford and Wood Green, though.
Any postings on here represent my personal views
Re: Division 1
Jonathan, that will teach me not to rely on outsourced info. I agree that numerically I was "quite wrong" but the biggest discrepancy - apart from the last one below* was 22 rating points. Hardly a material fact in the matter in question.
Bd. 1 Black is 2518 not 2520, i.e -2
Bd. 2 W is +2 and B -7
* Bd. 3 See below...
Bd. 4 B is +8
Bd. 5 W is +11 and B -2
Bd. 6 W is -22 and B -11
Bd. 7 B is -1
Bd. 8 W is -6 and B +15
* Bd. 3 I did have quite (the) wrong (way round at 2452 - 2359).
The 4NCL results site has bd. 3 at 2365 - 2456, which also seems not to be quite right since the current ratings of the two players involved are 2349 and 2450, respectively.
[Also not quite right on the 4NCL results - on bd. 7 Black is 2377 (not 2385), and on bd. 8 W is 2032 (not 2024) and Black 2122 (not 2107) according to FIDE.]
Please forgive any errors in the above, and let's not struggle further with comprehending the mysteries since I was just making an observation about the way it looks to me as a rank outsider.
Bd. 1 Black is 2518 not 2520, i.e -2
Bd. 2 W is +2 and B -7
* Bd. 3 See below...
Bd. 4 B is +8
Bd. 5 W is +11 and B -2
Bd. 6 W is -22 and B -11
Bd. 7 B is -1
Bd. 8 W is -6 and B +15
* Bd. 3 I did have quite (the) wrong (way round at 2452 - 2359).
The 4NCL results site has bd. 3 at 2365 - 2456, which also seems not to be quite right since the current ratings of the two players involved are 2349 and 2450, respectively.
[Also not quite right on the 4NCL results - on bd. 7 Black is 2377 (not 2385), and on bd. 8 W is 2032 (not 2024) and Black 2122 (not 2107) according to FIDE.]
Please forgive any errors in the above, and let's not struggle further with comprehending the mysteries since I was just making an observation about the way it looks to me as a rank outsider.