Mr Barden's Guardian Article

Venues, fixtures, teams and related matters.
Mick Norris
Posts: 6825
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: Mr Barden's Guardian Article

Post by Mick Norris » Sun May 07, 2017 1:28 pm

Matthew Turner wrote:I think Leonard has a problem with the naming of many of the teams. If you know nothing about cricket or football, you can still get behind Sussex or Liverpool because of some accident of birth. It is unlikely that many non-chess players will be rooting for Cheddleston. How many non-chess players would know where, or what, 3C's was? Would the 4NCL be more marketable if 3cs were Manchester, Cheddleston Derby?
Certainly an interesting point of view.
Possibly; then again Leonard could have used our (Manchester Manticores) full name too, but he didn't (non-chess players may know what a Manticore is :lol: ); anyway, as Alan has pointed out, 3Cs are Oldham not Manchester

I'm not sure to whom you want to market the 4NCL; if the league itself doesn't want sponsorship, as I understand to be the case, then presumably teams will choose whichever name they feel marketable or appropriate
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: 3334
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: Mr Barden's Guardian Article

Post by John McKenna » Sun May 07, 2017 2:06 pm

Matthew Turner wrote:I think Leonard has a problem with the naming of many of the teams... [SNIP] It is unlikely that many non-chess players will be rooting for Cheddleston. How many non-chess players would know where, or what, 3C's was? Would the 4NCL be more marketable if 3cs were Manchester, Cheddleston Derby?
Certainly an interesting point of view.

Above, Matthew did not do the full geographical diligence that Gordon did (see below) in answer to Matthew earlier in this discussion.
Gordon Morse wrote:Cheddleton is on the outskirts of Stoke-on-Trent and is about 30 miles from Derby... [SNIP]
If the team name Cheddleton & Stoke-on-Trent is deemed unmarketable you could go for Market Drayton, which is not that far away.
To find a for(u)m that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. (Samuel Beckett)

LawrenceCooper
Posts: 4698
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am

Re: Mr Barden's Guardian Article

Post by LawrenceCooper » Sun May 07, 2017 2:19 pm

John McKenna wrote:
Matthew Turner wrote:I think Leonard has a problem with the naming of many of the teams... [SNIP] It is unlikely that many non-chess players will be rooting for Cheddleston. How many non-chess players would know where, or what, 3C's was? Would the 4NCL be more marketable if 3cs were Manchester, Cheddleston Derby?
Certainly an interesting point of view.

Above, Matthew did not do the full geographical diligence that Gordon did (see below) in answer to Matthew earlier in this discussion.
Gordon Morse wrote:Cheddleton is on the outskirts of Stoke-on-Trent and is about 30 miles from Derby... [SNIP]
If the team name Cheddleton & Stoke-on-Trent is deemed unmarketable you could go for Market Drayton, which is not that far away.
They are known as "Cheddleton and Leek" in the North Staffs league. Ironically I played against them in the North Staffs Cup on the 26th April before playing against the 4NCL Cheddleton on the 29th. Not surprisingly there were no players who played in both Cheddleton teams.

John McKenna
Posts: 3334
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: Mr Barden's Guardian Article

Post by John McKenna » Sun May 07, 2017 2:33 pm

Only to be expected that no reserves could make it into the Premiership, Loz.

But, there must be a link I'm missing between the national & local teams.

Hope you at least broke even in your score in the back-to-back matches against them.
To find a for(u)m that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. (Samuel Beckett)

LawrenceCooper
Posts: 4698
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am

Re: Mr Barden's Guardian Article

Post by LawrenceCooper » Sun May 07, 2017 2:48 pm

John McKenna wrote:Only to be expected that no reserves could make it into the Premiership, Loz.

But, there must be a link I'm missing between the national & local teams.

Hope you at least broke even in your score in the back-to-back matches against them.
The Cheddleton team in Division Three North contains Cheddleton, Stafford and local league players. The rumoured backer of the 4NCL team was in Telford on the Saturday.

Yes thanks, 1.5/2 and a board count win followed by a 5-3 4NCL win. The weekend went downhill from there :oops:

John McKenna
Posts: 3334
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: Mr Barden's Guardian Article

Post by John McKenna » Sun May 07, 2017 2:55 pm

Thanks, Loz. I know so much now about 'downhill' that I'm thinking of switching back to skiing next season.
To find a for(u)m that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. (Samuel Beckett)

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Mr Barden's Guardian Article

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Sun May 07, 2017 3:33 pm

"Guildford first played in the 4NCL in the 1995/96 season, at which time it was a team based on local players. By the 1999/2000 season non-local paid players were in the team, and the local players demoted to lower teams. That arrangement continued, apparently quite happily, until the 2011/12 when Roger Emerson took over as captain. That season saw more non-local paid players brought into the team, and local players dropped from the team (no matter how long, and regularly, they'd played for the team in the past)."

That's a pity but not surprising.

Mike Gunn
Posts: 620
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:45 pm

Re: Mr Barden's Guardian Article

Post by Mike Gunn » Sun May 07, 2017 5:01 pm

This assertion doesn't seem to be borne out by the facts. I just looked up the current Guildford squad and counted 18 out of the 40 registered players as being either Guildford or Surrey players. Guildford used to run 4 teams and Guildford 3 and 4 were mainly populated by local players. A few years ago we dropped the Guildford 4 team following a discussion at the club's AGM because it was proving difficult to get a full team out and so while (as a result) there have been fewer opportunities for local players, I have never heard of anyone being dropped from the squad. Most of the people currently playing for Guildford 3 are local and are the same as those playing 10 years ago.

Ian Thompson
Posts: 1876
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Awbridge, Hampshire

Re: Mr Barden's Guardian Article

Post by Ian Thompson » Sun May 07, 2017 5:44 pm

Mike Gunn wrote:This assertion doesn't seem to be borne out by the facts.
I was dropped from the team in the middle of the 2011/12 season and then told prior to the start of the 2012/13 season that I would not get a regular place in the team in the new season. That brought to an end my playing 139 games for Guildford over 14 previous seasons. I was also told that there were other local players who wanted to play in the 2011/12 season who didn't get to play at all.
Mike Gunn wrote:I just looked up the current Guildford squad and counted 18 out of the 40 registered players as being either Guildford or Surrey players.
Being in the squad is one thing, but how many of them got to play regularly, or even at all?
Mike Gunn wrote:I have never heard of anyone being dropped from the squad.
It may be true that no-one has been refused a place in the squad, but if they never, or rarely, get to play that, to me, is equivalent to being dropped from the squad.
Mike Gunn wrote:Most of the people currently playing for Guildford 3 are local and are the same as those playing 10 years ago.
10 years ago Guildford had 2 teams of predominantly paid players with the locals in the lower teams. That then changed to 1 team of predominantly paid players with the locals in the 2nd team, and club members in the 3rd team. With Roger Emerson's take over of the captaincy, it changed back to 2 teams of predominantly paid players, with the locals back to the 3rd team. Club members kept their existing place in the 3rd team, and some of the locals were left with no place in any team.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 8335
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Mr Barden's Guardian Article

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sun May 07, 2017 5:54 pm

Jonathan Rogers wrote:
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.
The issue came up in Tromso 2014, when various opinions were expressed at the QC meeting. There was discussion of the various different formats in different counties; for example, in other countries, different divisions are played at different times, meaning it is possible to play in several divisions throughout the season. This is unlike the 4NCL, where the rounds are normally concurrent, and where they're not, there's a rule prohibiting playing in more than one division in the same round.
Nick Faulks (minutes from the Tromso 2014 QC meeting) wrote:7. Norms from combined divisions of team events. There are many variations of national team events. The question is the extent to which games from two or more sections of the same competition may be combined to produce a norm. This is generally permitted at present. The Chairman proposed that in future, only games from one single section or division may be used for a norm. This was agreed by commissions, by a vote of 6-1.

There was then a vote on whether this interpretation should be used from 1.7.15. This was approved by a vote of 6-1.

The 4NCL is a particularly complicated case which must be handled individually, and there may be others. The Chairman invites affected federations to contact him.

The 4NCL being a "particularly complicated case" was Nick's summary of my raising the issue of whether Division 1a/b/c/d counted as "one division", and the conclusion was that the pool system was basically just a fancy pairing system with 11 rounds and 16 teams.

Nick's minutes omit the comment from one high profile FIDE person who appears to be no longer involved in chess, but who wasn't bosom-buddies with England, that any norms involved previously using games from different divisions of leagues should be taken away, and in the case where successful title applications were made off the back of those applications, the titles should be taken off them too. The Chairman, in his wisdom, decided to move on rather than entertain that idea.

So the rule changed in time for the 2015/16 season, and sufficient noises were made about its coming in.

Fast forward to Baku 2016, when the same thing came up again. This time, it was to be written formally in the regulations that have now been published coming in from 1.7.17. David Welch, in attendance, asked if this meant that for norm puroposes, the 4NCL could use games from more than one division in 2016/17, if this new regulation came into force. "Yes", was the Chairman's answer, followed by a witty remark about owing him a drink or somesuch, even though it contradicted the minuted decision from Tromso 2014.
Nick Faulks (minutes from the Baku 2016 QC meeting) wrote: 1.43b. Clarification was sought on the question of whether norms could be based on pooled results from different divisions of a national team championship. It was agreed by a clear decision that no pooling should be allowed. However, in view of the uncertain nature of the present position, this will be allowed for the 2016/17 season.
"Pooling" in this context means using more than one division, and as you can see has now made it into the regulations.

The situation seemed clear to me, unless something happened I am unaware of. But in the interests of this improving the 4NCL's lot for 2016/17, I didn't say anything.

So this is consistent with your view. Pooling was banned in 2015/16, permitted in 2016/17, and now banned again in 2017/18 going forwards.

NickFaulks
Posts: 4231
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Mr Barden's Guardian Article

Post by NickFaulks » Sun May 07, 2017 6:08 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:
Nick Faulks (minutes from the Abu Dhabi 2015 QC meeting) wrote: 1.43b. Clarification was sought on the question of whether norms could be based on pooled results from different divisions of a national team championship. It was agreed by a clear decision that no pooling should be allowed. However, in view of the uncertain nature of the present position, this will be allowed for the 2016/17 season.
"Pooling" in this context means using more than one division, and as you can see has now made it into the regulations.

The situation seemed clear to me, unless something happened I am unaware of.
It seemed clear to me, too. There is a history of giving federations the benefit of the doubt when they claim they did not understand regulations.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 16917
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Mr Barden's Guardian Article

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun May 07, 2017 6:58 pm

NickFaulks wrote:There is a history of giving federations the benefit of the doubt when they claim they did not understand regulations.
With the 4NCL division 1 and 2 being played simultaneously, it would seem harsh to disallow a Norm scored for a first team in division 1 and a second team in division 2, whilst allowing one scored for both the first and second teams when they are in the same division.

NickFaulks
Posts: 4231
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Mr Barden's Guardian Article

Post by NickFaulks » Sun May 07, 2017 7:16 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote: With the 4NCL division 1 and 2 being played simultaneously, it would seem harsh to disallow a Norm scored for a first team in division 1 and a second team in division 2, whilst allowing one scored for both the first and second teams when they are in the same division.
It might. However, not all leagues have all divisions play simultaneously, and there is a limit to how far you can draft regulations to fit the rules of every individual league.

LawrenceCooper
Posts: 4698
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am

Re: Mr Barden's Guardian Article

Post by LawrenceCooper » Sun May 07, 2017 7:18 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
NickFaulks wrote:There is a history of giving federations the benefit of the doubt when they claim they did not understand regulations.
With the 4NCL division 1 and 2 being played simultaneously, it would seem harsh to disallow a Norm scored for a first team in division 1 and a second team in division 2, whilst allowing one scored for both the first and second teams when they are in the same division.
It could also complicate a captain's plans if a player who has played (for example) in Guildford 2 and is on the verge of a norm after eight rounds but is then unable to play in G/ford 1 or 2 because of the 80 point rule when the inevitable strengthening for the final weekend takes place. At least captains are (hopefully) aware six months in advance of the season and can try and plan for all eventualities. It gives me more of a challenge with teams in 1 & 2 and hoping to be able to promote a player who has made a promising start in Div 2 to Div 1 to increase their norm chances but at least I know now to make sure that they play 9 games in the same division.

Paul Cooksey
Posts: 244
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:15 pm

Re: Mr Barden's Guardian Article

Post by Paul Cooksey » Sun May 07, 2017 10:35 pm

I guess we are assuming that the Pool system could not be interpreted as different divisions for norm purposes.

Seems a bit unfair to criticize Guildford for trying to be a professional team, even if the league as a whole struggling to meet that aspiration.

Post Reply