Division Two 2016-17

Venues, fixtures, teams and related matters.
Neil Graham
Posts: 1272
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:36 pm

Division Two 2016-17

Post by Neil Graham » Mon Nov 21, 2016 11:25 am

I've opened a new topic - no doubt there will be some comments before the end of the season!

User avatar
Ihor Lewyk
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:50 am
Contact:

Re: Division Two 2016-17

Post by Ihor Lewyk » Mon Nov 21, 2016 11:54 am

It does look like group B is stronger than the other. 4 out of the top 5 seeds reside there including Alba who fielded a team with an average rating of 2312. I'm sure Guildford 3 will get stronger through the season too.

Mick Norris
Posts: 7620
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester

Re: Division Two 2016-17

Post by Mick Norris » Mon Nov 21, 2016 11:59 am

Ihor Lewyk wrote:It does look like group B is stronger than the other
Of course, with 3 graduates from Div 3 N and White Rose 2 :wink:
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

MartinCarpenter
Posts: 2454
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: Division Two 2016-17

Post by MartinCarpenter » Mon Nov 21, 2016 12:30 pm

Doesn't seem to be much in it at all except for Alba? I'd presume that Alba were rated on their (still very good!) team from last season, but they've obviously strengthened a long way since then. Nearly everyone else is +-2050-2150.

Bradford, even given the default, don't seem to have had an especially good team for this weekend. They'll need a bit more to have good chances to survive I think.

User avatar
Mike W. Richardt
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 10:37 am
Location: Abu Dhabi & Taunton
Contact:

Re: Division Two 2016-17

Post by Mike W. Richardt » Mon Nov 21, 2016 12:31 pm

Ihor Lewyk wrote:It does look like group B is stronger than the other. 4 out of the top 5 seeds reside there including Alba who fielded a team with an average rating of 2312. I'm sure Guildford 3 will get stronger through the season too.
That was my impression as well.
I am glad that my team "West is Best" is in group A.
Started with two wins - not bad for a newly promoted team and only one new player for one of the middle boards.

I guess Andrew Greet and John Shaw can't be happy with their performances!!!
Nullius addictus iurare in verba magistri - I am not bound to believe in the word of any master
http://www.mikerichardt.co.uk

Mick Norris
Posts: 7620
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester

Re: Division Two 2016-17

Post by Mick Norris » Mon Nov 21, 2016 1:09 pm

MartinCarpenter wrote:Bradford, even given the default, don't seem to have had an especially good team for this weekend. They'll need a bit more to have good chances to survive I think.
They couldn't find a female or junior player; I'm not sure if this will apply in future weekends
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 3956
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: Division Two 2016-17

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Mon Nov 21, 2016 1:24 pm

MartinCarpenter wrote:Doesn't seem to be much in it at all except for Alba? I'd presume that Alba were rated on their (still very good!) team from last season, but they've obviously strengthened a long way since then. Nearly everyone else is +-2050-2150.
Alba will have been seeded based on their performance last season, which will have made them 7th seeds in their group, the same as us.

David Robertson
Posts: 2176
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:24 pm
Contact:

Re: Division Two 2016-17

Post by David Robertson » Mon Nov 21, 2016 1:48 pm

IM Jack Rudd wrote:Alba will have been seeded based on their performance last season, which will have made them 7th seeds in their group, the same as us
...which, of course, is absurd. So why does it happen? Is it because someone routinely follows a formula rather than good judgement? The Pool system depends for its integrity on a fair balance between groups. Where that is so obviously skewed, as here, it disturbs the sporting contest. A bit of give-n-take is fine. But might it not have been appropriate to tweak the Pools, post-registration say, to achieve fair balance?
Last edited by David Robertson on Mon Nov 21, 2016 2:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

MartinCarpenter
Posts: 2454
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: Division Two 2016-17

Post by MartinCarpenter » Mon Nov 21, 2016 2:15 pm

Mick Norris wrote:
MartinCarpenter wrote:Bradford, even given the default, don't seem to have had an especially good team for this weekend. They'll need a bit more to have good chances to survive I think.
They couldn't find a female or junior player; I'm not sure if this will apply in future weekends
Says something slightly sad about Yorkshire chess that I think. We've just had a very good batch of juniors go off to University from round Yorkshire, not sure where the next lot is, if indeed there is one. Native female players have always been vanishingly rare in my experience.

Checking the registrations, Bradford were also missing all their top three registered players so they'll be stronger at some points.

Jonathan Rogers
Posts: 3902
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm

Re: Division Two 2016-17

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Mon Nov 21, 2016 7:19 pm

David Robertson wrote:
IM Jack Rudd wrote:Alba will have been seeded based on their performance last season, which will have made them 7th seeds in their group, the same as us
...which, of course, is absurd. So why does it happen? Is it because someone routinely follows a formula rather than good judgement? The Pool system depends for its integrity on a fair balance between groups. Where that is so obviously skewed, as here, it disturbs the sporting contest. A bit of give-n-take is fine. But might it not have been appropriate to tweak the Pools, post-registration say, to achieve fair balance?
Last year they sent around proposed seedings for comment. But this year, I didn't receive anything.

Mind you, it is almost a hopeless task seeding the second division. Almost anyone can and does beat anyone else, and this year is relatively unusual in there being a clear favourite. Whichever group had Alba in it would probably always seem stronger, because there is no telling who the second, third and fourth strongest teams truly are.

I could probably agree nonetheless that pool B has more strong-looking teams in it, but I wonder whether it may have more weaker-looking teams too. Eg, Bradford have had problems with junior/woman board in the past and have not survived in two previous attempts in the second division. The tables so far confirm this impression. In pool A most teams did something other than losing or winning both. In pool B, six of the eight teams did one or the other.

User avatar
Mike W. Richardt
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 10:37 am
Location: Abu Dhabi & Taunton
Contact:

Re: Division Two 2016-17

Post by Mike W. Richardt » Wed Nov 23, 2016 3:14 pm

David Robertson wrote: ...which, of course, is absurd. So why does it happen? Is it because someone routinely follows a formula rather than good judgement? The Pool system depends for its integrity on a fair balance between groups. Where that is so obviously skewed, as here, it disturbs the sporting contest. A bit of give-n-take is fine. But might it not have been appropriate to tweak the Pools, post-registration say, to achieve fair balance?
As I play in one of the teams (West is Best) which are effected by this seeding system I am quite happy with the system :mrgreen: although I can see why the comments.

I do think it would be more sensible to do the seeding after the dead line for the player nominations. It would gives the controllers a better understanding of the teams that year and maybe the seeding would be different!!! :P

Although any system which would be implemented people would have something to "complain" about!! :shock:
Nullius addictus iurare in verba magistri - I am not bound to believe in the word of any master
http://www.mikerichardt.co.uk

Alan Walton
Posts: 1249
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
Location: Oldham

Re: Division Two 2016-17

Post by Alan Walton » Wed Nov 23, 2016 3:25 pm

Mike W. Richardt wrote:
David Robertson wrote: ...which, of course, is absurd. So why does it happen? Is it because someone routinely follows a formula rather than good judgement? The Pool system depends for its integrity on a fair balance between groups. Where that is so obviously skewed, as here, it disturbs the sporting contest. A bit of give-n-take is fine. But might it not have been appropriate to tweak the Pools, post-registration say, to achieve fair balance?
As I play in one of the teams (West is Best) which are effected by this seeding system I am quite happy with the system :mrgreen: although I can see why the comments.

I do think it would be more sensible to do the seeding after the dead line for the player nominations. It would gives the controllers a better understanding of the teams that year and maybe the seeding would be different!!! :P

Although any system which would be implemented people would have something to "complain" about!! :shock:
I suspect that people could exploit their registration lists if they waited for the final deadline, as people can be added after the case for a few weeks before the 1st weekend, you just omit your top 5 seeds to keep your average down then add them a few days later

Like you said all system are going to have flaws embedded within them

Rhys Cumming
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2014 11:31 am

Re: Division Two 2016-17

Post by Rhys Cumming » Wed Nov 23, 2016 6:25 pm

I also think there is something to be said for lower rated teams deserving to be in an easier pool by virtue of their performance last year. For example one of the reasons that Pool A looks easier is because the top seed this year was Barbican Youth, who earned promotion last year despite being on paper one of the lower rated teams in the league.

It's a bit like Leicester being in pot 1 in the Champions League Draw despite presumably being a worse side than Dortmund or Man City. They performed well enough to deserve their seeding and so fair play to them. Of course it's easier for me to say that as we (Sussex) are in the easier pool!

I think that maybe there should be a little more leeway, in particular to give Alba a higher seeding, but I think seeding based on previous years is probably about as 'fair' a system as any.

benedgell
Posts: 1254
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: Somerset
Contact:

Re: Division Two 2016-17

Post by benedgell » Wed Nov 23, 2016 6:44 pm

Just out of interest, can someone explain why Barbican Youth/ Guildford 3 can't go up unless one of their other teams get relegated? I understand the rule, just curious why it was introduced.

David Robertson
Posts: 2176
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:24 pm
Contact:

Re: Division Two 2016-17

Post by David Robertson » Wed Nov 23, 2016 9:33 pm

Rhys Cumming wrote:For example one of the reasons that Pool A looks easier is because the top seed this year was Barbican Youth, who earned promotion last year despite being on paper one of the lower rated teams in the league
Oooo, don't get me started. The Baby Barbies' match strength varies according to squad decisions. And decision No 1 - maybe No 2 - is to do what it takes to retain the Babies in Div 2. Hence, early on they let nature take its course. But if stuff turns sour, they bring down their IMs in later rounds. Whereas if all is good, then in later rounds, you can find yourself playing guys in nappies. I don't have too many problems here - though I'm sure I can think of dozens. Life's a trade-off: at least the Barbies commit to playing babies in Div 2 - better than playing them in Div 3. But this lot are by no means a reliable rating benchmark. Good players though.

Post Reply