Division 1

Venues, fixtures, teams and related matters.
NickFaulks
Posts: 5043
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Division 1

Post by NickFaulks » Sun May 01, 2016 10:16 am

Richard Bates wrote: The rule may be designed for "unreliable" FIDE ratings, but you can't explicitly write a rule for that.
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
Posts: 2890
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: Division 1

Post by Richard Bates » Sun May 01, 2016 10:56 am

NickFaulks wrote:
Richard Bates wrote: The rule may be designed for "unreliable" FIDE ratings, but you can't explicitly write a rule for that.
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.
Define "unreliable". And considered by whom?

NickFaulks
Posts: 5043
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Division 1

Post by NickFaulks » Sun May 01, 2016 6:04 pm

Richard Bates wrote: Define "unreliable".
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.

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

Re: Division 1

Post by MartinCarpenter » Sun May 01, 2016 9:30 pm

Can we maybe get this split off to its own thread? Plenty of very tense matches in division 1 this weekend so far!

Mike Truran
Posts: 2389
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Division 1

Post by Mike Truran » Sun May 01, 2016 9:31 pm

I don't think I have to.
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".

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.

User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 7277
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Re: Division 1

Post by Christopher Kreuzer » Sun May 01, 2016 9:36 pm

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... :D

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

Re: Division 1

Post by MartinCarpenter » Mon May 02, 2016 11:34 am

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.....

John McKenna
Posts: 3709
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: Division 1

Post by John McKenna » Mon May 02, 2016 1:29 pm

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.)
To find a for(u)m that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. (Samuel Beckett)

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

Re: Division 1

Post by MartinCarpenter » Mon May 02, 2016 4:36 pm

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.

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

Re: Division 1

Post by Richard Bates » Mon May 02, 2016 6:33 pm

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.
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.

User avatar
David Shepherd
Posts: 849
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:46 pm

Re: Division 1

Post by David Shepherd » Mon May 02, 2016 7:00 pm

MartinCarpenter wrote:Cheddleton did quite well to keep it to 5.5 - 2.5 I guess, but still a comfortable win.
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).

Jonathan Rogers
Posts: 3851
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm

Re: Division 1

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Mon May 02, 2016 7:46 pm

Richard Bates wrote:
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.
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.
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.

Jonathan Rogers
Posts: 3851
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm

Re: Division 1

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Mon May 02, 2016 7:52 pm

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.)
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/

Mick Norris
Posts: 7425
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: Division 1

Post by Mick Norris » Mon May 02, 2016 8:31 pm

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.
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?
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

John McKenna
Posts: 3709
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: Division 1

Post by John McKenna » Mon May 02, 2016 10:01 pm

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.
To find a for(u)m that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. (Samuel Beckett)

Post Reply