English Chess Forum

Why is GM Stewart Haslinger, the only Englishman on the Trier squad, conspicuously absent from the squad of Manx?

Leonard Barden wrote:Why is GM Stewart Haslinger, the only Englishman on the Trier squad, conspicuously absent from the squad of Manx?

You can only be registered for one team and he is already on Cheddleton's list.

Stewart Haslinger's Fide card suggests that he has not played a single 4NCL game, nor any Fide-rated game in England, since 2012-13. Virtually all his Fide-rated play has been in the Bundesliga or in the Netherlands. Not a good state of affairs for English chess. Maybe a switch from Cheddleton to Manx would improve that?

Leonard Barden wrote:Stewart Haslinger's Fide card suggests that he has not played a single 4NCL game, nor any Fide-rated game in England, since 2012-13. Virtually all his Fide-rated play has been in the Bundesliga or in the Netherlands. Not a good state of affairs for English chess. Maybe a switch from Cheddleton to Manx would improve that?

I suspect that is his choice as he is comfortably strong enough and higher rated enough to play in their team on a regular basis and would be paid for doing so. I'm also fairly sure that virtually every other team in the division would be happy to acquire his services including some that pay rather well.

I see that Hounds & Bears (despite having 24 registered players) have defaulted their last three games. The pairings were difficult enough to fathom without this. There is no penalty as they announced their withdrawal in advance. Similarly I see that no less than six teams aren't turning up in Division Four South.

The fine of £200 in Divisions One and Two and £50 in Division Three (South) seems to have put a stop to this nonsense. Perhaps time to rethink the rules relating to the lower divisions?

Neil Graham wrote:I see that Hounds & Bears (despite having 24 registered players) have defaulted their last three games. The pairings were difficult enough to fathom without this. There is no penalty as they announced their withdrawal in advance. Similarly I see that no less than six teams aren't turning up in Division Four South.

The fine of £200 in Divisions One and Two and £50 in Division Three (South) seems to have put a stop to this nonsense. Perhaps time to rethink the rules relating to the lower divisions?

I have one team absent from round 9 due to mainly to Megafinal clashes. The only way to field a team on that day would be to recruit a new team which would take me over the maximum permitted registrations and so involve a lot of extra cost and time. As I'm already captaining 3 teams that day at two venues and 4 teams on the other two days it felt the only sensible decision to take. The league were made aware some time ago. Clearly it's more of an issue in Division Three North as there are fewer teams and so pairings are further complicated.

Revised round 9

31 Manchester Manticores 1 - - - Manchester Manticores 2
32 Manx Liberty - - - Ashfield Breadsall 1
33 Spirit of Atticus B - - - Cheddleton 2
34 Manchester Manticores 4 - - - Jorvik
35 Bradford DCA Knights B - - - Holmes Chapel
36 Ashfield Breadsall 2 - - - 3Cs 3
37 Manchester Manticores 3 - - - Bradford DCA Knights C
50 Gonzaga - - - 3Cs 2
51 3Cs 2 - - - Enniscorthy
52 Enniscorthy - - - Gonzaga

Ok, what happens on the Monday?

Another triangular match, with each half-match being worth 1 point to the winner.

There are clashes with world senior teams too so missing some players that will normally play over that weekend.

Worrying signs for 4NCL with the withdrawal of House & Bears. I've no idea what the specific reasons might be, but I speculate on the generality. Apologies if I'm wide of the mark. Though my general point holds.

H & B are a fairly strong squad; hence committed players, not dilettantes. Not so much dissimilar from my own 'B' squad. Yet they no longer have a serious chance of promotion this year. The competition signs them up to a largely non-competitive weekend over three days in a drab dump like Wakefield; requires them to stay; and pumps them for £110 in accommodation plus another £50 or more in expenses. No fault of the 4NCL as such. But from an individual's perspective, that's a game fee/unit cost of £50+ for a pointless game of chess each day over a long Spring weekend. Add in the opportunity costs of time expended here, and not in the garden, with family, whatever, and it becomes expensive. Moreover, unlike squads living nearby the venue, they can't reduce expense by travelling home. So I sympathise. We're hitting a similar problem, though committed not to default. But we're struggling these days.

It needs thinking about

David Robertson wrote:Worrying signs for 4NCL with the withdrawal of House & Bears. I've no idea what the specific reasons might be, but I speculate on the generality. Apologies if I'm wide of the mark. Though my general point holds.

My understanding of the situation...

Hounds & Bears were intended to be a united team fielded by Solihull Chess Club and Warwick University. Warwick University has some links with Solihull Chess Club because a few of the players play for them in the Birmingham League. There were protestations from the various Committee members who know a thing or two about the 4NCL, but being a democracy, they lost the vote to the more numerous people who didn't. There was an assumption that some of the players at the University would play for this team, rather than the teams they've played for for years already in higher divisions. Another example, Tom Thorpe was asked to play, but he's busy being a valued member of the arbiting team at Division 1/2.

Predictably, the University part of the Union never really arrived as part of the team, but their captain from Solihull Chess Club did his usual sterling job to round people up to play for the squad in the first four weekends. His luck seems to have finally run out.

It has always been an issue getting players out for the 3 day final weekend, wherever it has been staged, especially when most matters are finalised

My observation is that the pairing system for the first 2 weekends might have been better employed for the first 3; last year's fortuitous 16 team division was better though

Mick Norris wrote:It has always been an issue getting players out for the 3 day final weekend, wherever it has been staged, especially when most matters are finalised

My observation is that the pairing system for the first 2 weekends might have been better employed for the first 3; last year's fortuitous 16 team division was better though

I'd suggested a pairing system before we started - hopefully more thought might be given to this next time round. However everyone knew the dates of the rounds months in advance and IMHO teams have a responsibility to play their matches whatever their status. Imagine if teams in the Football League didn't bother to fulfil their fixtures where nothing was at stake.

Neil Graham wrote: Imagine if teams in the Football League didn't bother to fulfil their fixtures where nothing was at stake.

Teams in the Football League have professional players under contract to them, and fulfilling their fixtures is part of that contract. Amateur teams in the 4NCL don't have that level of power over their players.

IM Jack Rudd wrote: Amateur teams in the 4NCL don't have that level of power over their players.

It isn't usually a problem for local chess leagues, where local pride can come into play.

In the 4NCL, lack of relegation from Division 3 North and Division 4 removes incentives to play.