Division 1

Venues, fixtures, teams and related matters.
Rhys Cumming
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2014 11:31 am

Re: Division 1

Post by Rhys Cumming » Sat Mar 26, 2016 2:16 am

David Robertson wrote:What happened to your own in here? They used to be good
There has been fairly little discussion of either of the top two divisions, so I'll add a few comments to encourage Jonathan to take over.

Division 1c

Cheddleton look like they will cruise to 2nd place, but I find it hard to imagine they have a real chance against Guildford especially as, if I had to guess, Guildford will be able to strengthen their team more than Cheddleton will. Still, it should be an interesting match and if Cheddleton can get their strongest team out, there probably won't be much more than 100 points between the sides. The battle for 3rd will probably be between White Rose and Barbican 1, given that Wood Green have already played both sides. I'm not entirely sure who is favourite (I guess Barbican probably have slightly more strength on the bottom boards). Blackthorne Russia are also in with a shot of a top 4 finish as they have already played both Guildford 1 and Cheddleton.

1d

After two weekends SoA, Sussex Martlets and White Rose 2 all looked certain to go down (and they may well still do), but the Martlets and SoA have now given themselves a shot at staying up, and the winner of their match in Round 10 may only need to win one other match to survive. White Rose 2 have not had the same fortune although I'm sure they've just been saving themselves for facing Sussex in round 11! It seemed initially the battle would be for who would get relegated along with those 3 sides. South Wales Dragons were probably early season favourites for that honour, but they have aquitted themselves very well and should be in the promotion pool if it weren't for only drawing 4-4 with the Martlets in a match which they were cruising to victory in. Surprisingly Grantham Sharks look to be in a bit of trouble (after being in the promotion pool last year) having lost to both Sussex and SoA so they will need to beat at least one of Oxford or 3Cs in the final weekend to survive and that looks by no means a simple task (they may be let off the hook though if their second team manages to get promoted). Both 3Cs and Oxford look to have the strength to be safe even if they haven't clinched the points yet to be certain. Cambridge still have White Rose to play which if they win would take them up to the magic number of 6 points, but given White Rose's lack of points so far, I would be surprised if 6 points were enough and so there is a good chance their fate will come down to their final round match against Spirit.

Jonathan Rogers
Posts: 3849
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm

Re: Division 1

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Sun Mar 27, 2016 6:24 pm

I don't have much to add, though I should think that 7 points will be an absolute minimum for survival in the demotion pool, and even then it may come down to gamepoints. Some separate round seven observations in the other thread (Actual reports).

benedgell
Posts: 1252
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: Somerset
Contact:

Re: Division 1

Post by benedgell » Sat Apr 30, 2016 9:14 am

Didn't realise quite how tight it is at the top going into this weekend. Guildford have got to get through probably the 3 worst teams to face in order to retain.

MartinCarpenter
Posts: 2434
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: Division 1

Post by MartinCarpenter » Sat Apr 30, 2016 9:31 am

Can't help thinking that just puts everyone neatly into one place for the 4NCL equivalent of a tactical nuclear strike!

Leonard Barden
Posts: 1466
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:21 am

Re: Division 1

Post by Leonard Barden » Sat Apr 30, 2016 5:09 pm

Nigel Short loses to Sam Collins's queen sacrifice in 18 moves and drops out of the world top 100.

MartinCarpenter
Posts: 2434
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: Division 1

Post by MartinCarpenter » Sat Apr 30, 2016 5:58 pm

Rather impressive how well they've recovered from it. Really quite easy for a team to get utterly freaked out by that sort of loss but they do seem very safe for 5/5.5.

Might be quite a good day for them if the White Rose match turns against Cheddleton, looks like Cheddleton will probably win that but tight.

User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 7267
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Re: Division 1

Post by Christopher Kreuzer » Sat Apr 30, 2016 6:26 pm

For posterity...


NickFaulks
Posts: 5033
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Division 1

Post by NickFaulks » Sat Apr 30, 2016 7:03 pm

This may not be relevant to Division 1, but in lower divisions it seems quite common for captains to use "estimated" ratings for players with well established FIDE ratings. Is this done in order to alter board orders, and Is it acceptable?

MartinCarpenter
Posts: 2434
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: Division 1

Post by MartinCarpenter » Sat Apr 30, 2016 7:15 pm

It is explicitly allowed in the rules, and is done because the players in Div 2/3 etc have intrinsically much more reliable ECF ratings than FIDE ones.

Many more games in their ECF grades of course. Their FIDE ones are often only based on 4NCL games, and often not full seasons at a time, and for some people they can be quite badly out.

Back on topic - annoying time for White Rose 1 vs Cheddleton to bug!

LawrenceCooper
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am

Re: Division 1

Post by LawrenceCooper » Sun May 01, 2016 9:11 am

NickFaulks wrote:This may not be relevant to Division 1, but in lower divisions it seems quite common for captains to use "estimated" ratings for players with well established FIDE ratings. Is this done in order to alter board orders, and Is it acceptable?
8 Team lists and board order
8.1 In all divisions, FIDE ratings will be used to determine the order of strength of a team. For a player without a FIDE rating, a national grade will be converted to an equivalent FIDE rating using an appropriate conversion formula. Managers may elect to use the latest published national grade for conversion to an equivalent FIDE rating for any player, provided this is declared prior to the player playing in that season. Such an election is irrevocable for the season. If, however, a player first gains a FIDE rating during the season, the manager may then elect to use it to determine the order of strength of a team.

http://www.4ncl.co.uk/1516_rules.htm#8

NickFaulks
Posts: 5033
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Division 1

Post by NickFaulks » Sun May 01, 2016 9:30 am

LawrenceCooper wrote: Managers may elect to use the latest published national grade for conversion to an equivalent FIDE rating for any player,
I do remember that, but I thought the point was that it should be used for players whose FIDE ratings are considered unreliable because of the scarcity of rated events in the UK. However, it is quite clear that the rule is sometimes invoked where the player has a perfectly good FIDE rating, so presumably for some other reason.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18047
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Division 1

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun May 01, 2016 9:43 am

NickFaulks wrote: However, it is quite clear that the rule is sometimes invoked where the player has a perfectly good FIDE rating, so presumably for some other reason.
I would suspect some squads use the facility for tactical reasons, not least to get a preferred split between A and B teams. Juniors plausibly have ratings that lag their true strength or at a minimum are out of line with the rest of the squad.

NickFaulks
Posts: 5033
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Division 1

Post by NickFaulks » Sun May 01, 2016 9:48 am

Roger de Coverly wrote: Juniors plausibly have ratings that lag their true strength or at a minimum are out of line with the rest of the squad.
We all know that is a significant problem in British chess, which I why I was explicitly talking about other cases.

Richard Bates
Posts: 2890
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: Division 1

Post by Richard Bates » Sun May 01, 2016 10:01 am

NickFaulks wrote:
Roger de Coverly wrote: Juniors plausibly have ratings that lag their true strength or at a minimum are out of line with the rest of the squad.
We all know that is a significant problem in British chess, which I why I was explicitly talking about other cases.
The rule may be designed for "unreliable" FIDE ratings, but you can't explicitly write a rule for that.

Richard Bates
Posts: 2890
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: Division 1

Post by Richard Bates » Sun May 01, 2016 10:11 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:
NickFaulks wrote: However, it is quite clear that the rule is sometimes invoked where the player has a perfectly good FIDE rating, so presumably for some other reason.
I would suspect some squads use the facility for tactical reasons, not least to get a preferred split between A and B teams. Juniors plausibly have ratings that lag their true strength or at a minimum are out of line with the rest of the squad.
The problems with the reliability of FIDE ratings these days go far beyond Juniors. The problems (IMO) now are that deflation* is endemic in the system, but the workings of the FIDE rating system mean that the deflation can only affect people who play, and the more people play the greater the individual 'deflationary' effect. (This contrasts, for example, with the ECF system, where whatever the arguments about deflation, it was generally in the context of affecting all players equally (or at least all players at the same level equally) so there wasn't perceived to be a problem of players being listed "out of order").

It may be that the changes to Junior K-factor begin to reverse this, but time will tell.

(*the alternative explanation is that most people in English chess are simply getting weaker as the population ages - which is not at all an unreasonable hypothesis - but even then the same issues arise. People who don't rarely play are getting weaker, but their rating doesn't reflect this)

Post Reply