Division Two 2016-17

Venues, fixtures, teams and related matters.
User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 3737
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: Division Two 2016-17

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Wed Nov 23, 2016 9:39 pm

I think, back in the day, they used to seed based on registration lists, and teams did exploit this. It's why they switched to seeding based on the previous season's results.

MartinCarpenter
Posts: 2401
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: Division Two 2016-17

Post by MartinCarpenter » Wed Nov 23, 2016 9:45 pm

I was going to ask if anyone would bother to exploit things like that. Clearly I was overestimating human nature :)
(It doesn't seem remotely worthwhile to me.).

Jonathan Rogers
Posts: 3648
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm

Re: Division Two 2016-17

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Tue Nov 29, 2016 3:07 pm

benedgell wrote: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.
Good question, and I am not sure myself. I believe it was introduced around 2006, just after the 2005/6 season when a Wood Green 3 team finished in the top three in divsion two. We assumed there would be three Wood Green teams the following season; as it turned out they had their first financial crash and only entered one team altogether the next year. I can only surmise that until their collapse became common knowledge, some people didn't like the idea of three Wood Green teams in the first division and it was thought to be a good moment to pre-empt it happening in the future.

I have never actually discussed this rule with my Guildford counterpart Roger Emmerson, which may give you an idea of how unbothered we are about its application.

Jonathan Rogers
Posts: 3648
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm

Re: Division Two 2016-17

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Tue Nov 29, 2016 3:41 pm

David Robertson wrote:
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.
Happily David and I have too much mutual respect to fall out over this. But really!

It is true that we are very keen for the youth team not to go down, and also true that the strength of our youth team can vary quite markedly from one weekend to the next. But where David is wrong is to suppose that this is because of tactical planning "or squad decisions". We never choose to leave out stronger players from our squad! If there is a chance they can play, we ask them, often quite persistently. If there is a good turn out then the youth team will be full, mainly with juniors but perhaps a FM such as myself on top board. (I don't remember us ever playing an IM in the youth team, btw). But quite often a number of stronger players are unavailable. Then I might even end up in the first team myself, and can spend several hours over a week or more just trying to fill the youth team to avoid defaults.

That was the case in the first weekend this season. If David thinks we were letting nature take its course in the youth team because it was early in the season, then he is mistaken: we had no choice. Everyone on our registration list, plus a dozen or so who are not, had been asked.

Probably David remembers 2012/13 when we had a very good turn out in the youth team in the last weekend, which enabled it to avoid relegation (and Spirit was one team which went down instead), He will also remember 2014/5 when the youth team was safely in the promotion pool but ended up defaulting games in its last three matches (having earlier in the season fielded a full strength team against Spirit). But the explanation is simple: these were the best teams that were available on each occasion. If it seems convenient, reflect on the year in between, 2013/14, when the youth team was in the wrong end of the relegation pool for much of the time and still played an understrength side in the final weekend. We expected it to go down. It had to get a result in the last round against a Wessex team which matched us over the top six boards and could be expected to win the bottom two boards (and duly did so quite quickly). There was no apparent deus ex machina. But there you are. It continued to play chess, drew the match and survived.

Mike Truran
Posts: 2349
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Division Two 2016-17

Post by Mike Truran » Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:08 pm

I believe it was introduced around 2006, just after the 2005/6 season
This from the 13 July 2006 minutes:
1. Rules

• The following changes were agreed:
o Team lists need to be submitted by midnight before the round in question.
o Registration fees will be paid on any registrations in excess of 16/12, regardless of the number of deregistrations (NB no change to rule wording required – the existing words allow for this already).
o Fees can be paid at the weekend in question if the intention to play a wild card/new registration is clearly signalled two weeks beforehand (NB not to be included in the rules so as not to discourage captains from paying early).
o #8.2 to include “for circumstances beyond the captain’s control”.
o New rule to be included preventing more than two teams from the same squad in each of Divisions 1-3.
o New rule to be added setting out captains’ powers and responsibilities in regard to draw offers.
• MT to update and circulate an updated set of rules.
• PL to communicate the changes in a captains’ newsletter.
Unfortunately the minutes (which I wrote) are silent on the preceding discussion - and this far on, needless to say, I can't remember the details.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 8506
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Division Two 2016-17

Post by Alex Holowczak » Tue Nov 29, 2016 7:30 pm

I'd prefer the rule limited squads to just one team per division, but with so many two-team squads in Division 1, now is probably not the time to introduce that. The Birmingham League currently has four teams from one club in Division 1, which is daft.

I'd also like a rule that says teams in Division 1 must have a 2nd team playing in some lower division of the league, and if they can't field one, then they have to stay in Division 2. This would help single-team squads avoid defaults, which has happened on occasions in the past. However, the normal rationale for that in sporting leagues is so that clubs field youth/development teams lower down the league, and I guess that's not really something many chess clubs do. And if they did, it may even be that the requiring them to have a team in the Junior 4NCL would achieve that aim better.

Mike Truran
Posts: 2349
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Division Two 2016-17

Post by Mike Truran » Tue Nov 29, 2016 8:00 pm

Thanks Alex. I'm sure the rest of the 4NCL Board looks forward to your proposals in due course.

However, not entirely sure that some sort of dirigiste/interventionist command economy approach to 4NCL entry eligibility is going to meet with universal approval.

Note to self - don't retire too soon.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 8506
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Division Two 2016-17

Post by Alex Holowczak » Tue Nov 29, 2016 8:52 pm

Mike Truran wrote:However, not entirely sure that some sort of dirigiste/interventionist command economy approach to 4NCL entry eligibility is going to meet with universal approval.
Well, of course it won't, which is why it won't be proposed.

It may or may not be popular in just about every other sport - where this sort of thing applies. But leagues insist on it because it's for the good of the game.

Nick Grey
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:16 am

Re: Division Two 2016-17

Post by Nick Grey » Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:27 pm

I must admit having no more than 2 teams in both 1 or 2 makes sense on fairness & equity until you have a few years of winning 2 with no promotion (& a lesser team goes up).

As for no more than 2 in division 3 it has gone out of the window with 4 Manchester teams in 3N. Personally the combined 3s v 3n in latter w/es gave the opportunity to play nationally. Seems biased against South

The rationale seems fine for some leagues - was even going to mention it at local chess AGMs to consider.

Having played sport in the Southwest at Exeter University it was surprising there were multi-teams against neighbours but some of the internal matches were not much fun.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 8506
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Division Two 2016-17

Post by Alex Holowczak » Tue Nov 29, 2016 10:10 pm

Nick Grey wrote:As for no more than 2 in division 3 it has gone out of the window with 4 Manchester teams in 3N. Personally the combined 3s v 3n in latter w/es gave the opportunity to play nationally. Seems biased against South
I think that may have been written when there was only a national Division 1, 2, 3 and 4; and so the entry point division - Division 4 - was exempt. But there are now two entry points: Division 3 North and Division 4 South.

Mike Truran
Posts: 2349
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Division Two 2016-17

Post by Mike Truran » Tue Nov 29, 2016 11:30 pm

As for no more than 2 in division 3 it has gone out of the window with 4 Manchester teams in 3N.
Hopefully rule 13.5 (no doubt adopted at some point after the 2006 minutes) covers that off OK.

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 2535
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Division Two 2016-17

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Wed Nov 30, 2016 8:18 am

"I'd also like a rule that says teams in Division 1 must have a 2nd team playing in some lower division of the league, and if they can't field one, then they have to stay in Division 2."

Oh. I thought the idea was to encourage chess. League chess (of various types) have too many artificial rules already without bringing in something like this.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 17316
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Division Two 2016-17

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed Nov 30, 2016 8:56 am

Alex Holowczak wrote:However, the normal rationale for that in sporting leagues is so that clubs field youth/development teams lower down the league, and I guess that's not really something many chess clubs do.
Not in the same league surely. In the Football League, reserve players are loaned to clubs in lower divisions, but there isn't an Arsenal 2, Chelsea 2 etc in the Championship, League One or League Two.

Allowing the lending of players could be a better way of handling the reserve strength issue. It would avoid 80 point rule difficulties as well. Not allowing transfers of players is something where chess leagues are more stringent than sports leagues. In its earliest years, the 4NCL didn't have any formalised rules on eligibility. Players started to object when they found themselves facing the some opponent more than once.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 8506
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Division Two 2016-17

Post by Alex Holowczak » Wed Nov 30, 2016 12:20 pm

Kevin Thurlow wrote:"I'd also like a rule that says teams in Division 1 must have a 2nd team playing in some lower division of the league, and if they can't field one, then they have to stay in Division 2."

Oh. I thought the idea was to encourage chess. League chess (of various types) have too many artificial rules already without bringing in something like this.
Requiring 1st teams to have a 2nd team in a lower division does encourage chess; Division 1 teams have to field additional teams, if they don't have them. So you have more people playing. It also brings more people in, which is good.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 17316
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Division Two 2016-17

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed Nov 30, 2016 12:26 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote: Requiring 1st teams to have a 2nd team in a lower division does encourage chess; Division 1 teams have to field additional teams, if they don't have them. So you have more people playing. It also brings more people in, which is good.
I would have thought it more likely that such a squad would seek a temporary nominal merger with a lower division squad. No all team managers want the added problems of coordinating teams across multiple sites and possibly different dates.

Post Reply