Mr Barden's Guardian Article

Venues, fixtures, teams and related matters.
Alex Holowczak
Posts: 8264
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Mr Barden's Guardian Article

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sat May 06, 2017 7:14 pm

Alan Walton wrote:That might have been the case at the outset, but nowadays it really just named after the town; I always wonder why people spend vast amounts of money on the 4NCL, myself this year spent more than the past for the main aim to qualify for the Euro Club Champs; but why spend thousands just to win a league by the vast margin and then not try the same for the Euro Club (but perhaps don't want to waste money against the big boys from eastern Europe)
See also: Wood Green and the London League.

Ian Thompson
Posts: 1848
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Fleet, Hampshire

Re: Mr Barden's Guardian Article

Post by Ian Thompson » Sat May 06, 2017 7:50 pm

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:Would the influx of that German team (Trier?) next season (and presumably will win promotion to division 1 the season after) make more norms possible?
It might mean there's some chance of an IM norm in Division 2 next season. The following teams will sometimes have IMs and GMs in their Division 2 team next season if they're similar to this season:

Guildford
KJCA Kings
Manx Liberty
West is Best
Wood Green MM

and there's a few other teams with FMs only.

LawrenceCooper
Posts: 4576
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am

Re: Mr Barden's Guardian Article

Post by LawrenceCooper » Sat May 06, 2017 8:16 pm

Ian Thompson wrote:
Christopher Kreuzer wrote:Would the influx of that German team (Trier?) next season (and presumably will win promotion to division 1 the season after) make more norms possible?
It might mean there's some chance of an IM norm in Division 2 next season. The following teams will sometimes have IMs and GMs in their Division 2 team next season if they're similar to this season:

Guildford
KJCA Kings
Manx Liberty
West is Best
Wood Green MM

and there's a few other teams with FMs only.
For those captains with teams in different divisions it's worth mentioning that for title norms from July 2017 "Results from different divisions may not be combined" http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/ ... ew=article (1.43b)

User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 6707
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Re: Mr Barden's Guardian Article

Post by Christopher Kreuzer » Sat May 06, 2017 10:06 pm

LawrenceCooper wrote:
For those captains with teams in different divisions it's worth mentioning that for title norms from July 2017 "Results from different divisions may not be combined" http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/ ... ew=article (1.43b)
1.43b only talks about national leagues in the context of them being exempt from the required mix of federations of opponents. What about norms where that exemption is not needed? If FIDE had meant to exclude combining of results from different divisions (presumably this was allowed, but was this that common and can anyone point to examples?), then surely somewhere like 1.14 would have been a more logical place to put that restriction.

Looking at the 4NCL, 1.43b is saying that the exemption only applies to ENG players, thus players registered as SCO, WLS or IRL (and other federations) don't get this exemption, and need to meet the normal mix of nationalities? This seems a subtle point, and looking back at the previous wording (still in effect until 1 July 2017), I see it was indeed simpler:

The old 1.43b: "National team championships."

The new 1.43b: "National team championships. This exemption applies only to players from the federation which registers the event. Results from different divisions may not be combined."

So am I right, that players from SCO, WLS and IRL will find it harder than ENG players to get norms in the 4NCL?

LawrenceCooper
Posts: 4576
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am

Re: Mr Barden's Guardian Article

Post by LawrenceCooper » Sat May 06, 2017 10:28 pm

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
LawrenceCooper wrote:
For those captains with teams in different divisions it's worth mentioning that for title norms from July 2017 "Results from different divisions may not be combined" http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/ ... ew=article (1.43b)
1.43b only talks about national leagues in the context of them being exempt from the required mix of federations of opponents. What about norms where that exemption is not needed? If FIDE had meant to exclude combining of results from different divisions (presumably this was allowed, but was this that common and can anyone point to examples?), then surely somewhere like 1.14 would have been a more logical place to put that restriction.

Looking at the 4NCL, 1.43b is saying that the exemption only applies to ENG players, thus players registered as SCO, WLS or IRL (and other federations) don't get this exemption, and need to meet the normal mix of nationalities? This seems a subtle point, and looking back at the previous wording (still in effect until 1 July 2017), I see it was indeed simpler:

The old 1.43b: "National team championships."

The new 1.43b: "National team championships. This exemption applies only to players from the federation which registers the event. Results from different divisions may not be combined."

So am I right, that players from SCO, WLS and IRL will find it harder than ENG players to get norms in the 4NCL?
That is what it says (and presumably applies to all non ENG countries), albeit it's a different point to the one I was making. From speaking to one prominent captain at the weekend he was unaware of the change that would prevent norm seekers playing games over both divisions to make a norm. I interpret it to mean you could make a norm with 9 games in one division and that one or two games in the other division would be discounted from the norm result but I'll check it before the start of the new season.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 16729
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Mr Barden's Guardian Article

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sat May 06, 2017 11:12 pm

LawrenceCooper wrote: I interpret it to mean you could make a norm with 9 games in one division and that one or two games in the other division would be discounted from the norm result
That would make logical sense and put it in the same position that you don't make a Norm by playing 7 games in the 4NCL and nipping over to Germany or France for a couple of games in their league in the same season. This is FIDE so logic isn't always a strong point.

You are still allowed to amend board orders to run players for Norms, but FIDE rules have never had much to say about this apart from the notion that they stay unchanged throughout.

NickFaulks
Posts: 4052
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Mr Barden's Guardian Article

Post by NickFaulks » Sat May 06, 2017 11:42 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote: You are still allowed to amend board orders to run players for Norms, but FIDE rules have never had much to say about this apart from the notion that they stay unchanged throughout.
I don't understand.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 16729
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Mr Barden's Guardian Article

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun May 07, 2017 12:05 am

NickFaulks wrote: I don't understand.
Long standing 4NCL rules allow lower rated players less than 80 points below higher rated players to play above them in teams. This is more liberal than many local leagues which specify that board orders should be in order of strength and is used by some match captains for an attempted tactical advantage. Going beyond that, teams can be allowed to break the 80 point rule with the agreement of the League in pursuit of Norms.

By contrast to normal practice in UK and some other countries, FIDE rules allow the board order to be whatever you deem it be, provided the initial announced order stays unchanged for the length of the competition.

Whilst altering pairings to facilitate norms is banned in individual tournaments, adjusting board orders for the same purpose in national team events is allowed.

Ian Thompson
Posts: 1848
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Fleet, Hampshire

Re: Mr Barden's Guardian Article

Post by Ian Thompson » Sun May 07, 2017 12:56 am

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:So am I right, that players from SCO, WLS and IRL will find it harder than ENG players to get norms in the 4NCL?
I don't think so. There's also rule 1.44 - "A maximum of 3/5 of the opponents may come from the applicant’s federation and a maximum of 2/3 of the opponents from one federation."

If one assumes that everyone is going to play some English opponents that means:

1. An English player can get a norm with opponents from England plus one other nation.
2. A non-English player can get a norm with opponents from England plus one other nation, provided that other nation is not their own.

All players need to have played against at least 2 different nationalities to satisfy rule 1.44. It's very unlikely the non-English player will breach the "no more than 3/5 from their own federation" rule. The English player is at greater risk of breaching the "no more than 3/5 from England" rule than a non-English player is of breaching the "maximum of 2/3 from one federation" rule. So I'd say the non-English player has a better chance of meeting this aspect of norm requirements than an English player.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 16729
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Mr Barden's Guardian Article

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun May 07, 2017 1:14 am

Ian Thompson wrote: The English player is at greater risk of breaching the "no more than 3/5 from England" rule than a non-English player is of breaching the "maximum of 2/3 from one federation" rule.
Play 9 4NCL games and depending on board and division, seven ENG players are quite likely. Play 10 games and seven ENG is almost as likely.

LawrenceCooper
Posts: 4576
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am

Re: Mr Barden's Guardian Article

Post by LawrenceCooper » Sun May 07, 2017 8:52 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:
NickFaulks wrote: I don't understand.
Long standing 4NCL rules allow lower rated players less than 80 points below higher rated players to play above them in teams. This is more liberal than many local leagues which specify that board orders should be in order of strength and is used by some match captains for an attempted tactical advantage. Going beyond that, teams can be allowed to break the 80 point rule with the agreement of the League in pursuit of Norms.

By contrast to normal practice in UK and some other countries, FIDE rules allow the board order to be whatever you deem it be, provided the initial announced order stays unchanged for the length of the competition.

Whilst altering pairings to facilitate norms is banned in individual tournaments, adjusting board orders for the same purpose in national team events is allowed.
Not to mention a generous number of whites.

Jonathan Rogers
Posts: 3464
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm

Re: Mr Barden's Guardian Article

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Sun May 07, 2017 9:15 am

LawrenceCooper wrote: ...
That is what it says (and presumably applies to all non ENG countries), albeit it's a different point to the one I was making. From speaking to one prominent captain at the weekend he was unaware of the change that would prevent norm seekers playing games over both divisions to make a norm. I interpret it to mean you could make a norm with 9 games in one division and that one or two games in the other division would be discounted from the norm result but I'll check it before the start of the new season.
I would have thought so. I had actually been led to believe that such provision was already in force, and even applied last year, but perhaps not. It is an annoying change, no doubt about it. At least three of our past norms have been made by players who played some first and second division games, and having this facility also helped Matthias Gantner this year, whose game in round five for White Rose 2 (winning against Chris Ward) presumably contributed invaluably to his norm.

User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 6707
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Re: Mr Barden's Guardian Article

Post by Christopher Kreuzer » Sun May 07, 2017 9:42 am

Jonathan Rogers wrote:At least three of our past norms have been made by players who played some first and second division games, and having this facility also helped Matthias Gantner this year, whose game in round five for White Rose 2 (winning against Chris Ward) presumably contributed invaluably to his norm.
Can you remember the specific examples of cross-division norms?

I see Matthias Gantner is registered with Switzerland. How common is it for non-ENG (indeed non-British) players to be seeking norms?

I am guessing that the non-ENG players fall into the following categories: (i) those with Scottish/Welsh/Irish (and a couple of other ones such as Guernsey and Jersey) backgrounds of some sort, who are registered there; (ii) those living and working and studying in the UK (whether short-term or long-term) but originally from elsewhere and registered with their original federation; (iii) players from outside the UK who travel to the country to play in the 4NCL.

I would have thought (i) would have the full and normal range of rating strengths (including norm seekers), that (ii) might have slightly more stronger players (including norm seekers), and that (iii) would mostly be titled players (men and women) of which those below GM would in theory be seeking norms for higher titles.

Anyway, it is a bit beside the point as it has been pointed out earlier that it is unlikely that the new rule will actually change anything in practice. All that it will mean is that norm calculations (in terms of federations of opponents) will have a couple of extra subtleties that may catch the unwary. The ban on combining across divisions will have much more effect.

NickFaulks
Posts: 4052
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Mr Barden's Guardian Article

Post by NickFaulks » Sun May 07, 2017 9:44 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:By contrast to normal practice in UK and some other countries, FIDE rules allow the board order to be whatever you deem it be, provided the initial announced order stays unchanged for the length of the competition.
Are we discussing title regulations or the rules for FIDE's own events? The two are not connected.

MartinCarpenter
Posts: 2390
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: Mr Barden's Guardian Article

Post by MartinCarpenter » Sun May 07, 2017 11:44 am

Mike Truran wrote:Northern takeover? Perhaps a team called The White Walkers to complete the job?
That's what Alba and Manx are for ;)
(Manx perhaps more deep south in reality....).

Post Reply