Re: Mr Barden's Guardian Article
Posted: Sun May 07, 2017 11:05 pm
It possibly could be, but it won't.Paul Cooksey wrote:I guess we are assuming that the Pool system could not be interpreted as different divisions for norm purposes.
The independent home for discussions on the English Chess scene.
https://www.ecforum.org.uk/
It possibly could be, but it won't.Paul Cooksey wrote:I guess we are assuming that the Pool system could not be interpreted as different divisions for norm purposes.
On the basis of the ECF's ongoing friendly relations with FIDE?NickFaulks wrote:It possibly could be, but it won't.Paul Cooksey wrote:I guess we are assuming that the Pool system could not be interpreted as different divisions for norm purposes.
On the basis that the man tasked with interpreting it has just written, in public, that it won't be.Paul Cooksey wrote:On the basis of the ECF's ongoing friendly relations with FIDE?NickFaulks wrote:It possibly could be, but it won't.Paul Cooksey wrote:I guess we are assuming that the Pool system could not be interpreted as different divisions for norm purposes.
I don't know too much about title regulations but does this mean two players A and B could have identical results against the same opponents, A achieving a norm and B not doing so ?Alex Holowczak wrote:Pooling was banned in 2015/16, permitted in 2016/17, and now banned again in 2017/18 going forwards.
There goes the perfect excuse to get rid of the pool system and return to the round robinNickFaulks wrote:It possibly could be, but it won't.Paul Cooksey wrote:I guess we are assuming that the Pool system could not be interpreted as different divisions for norm purposes.
Sorry.LawrenceCooper wrote: There goes the perfect excuse to get rid of the pool system and return to the round robin
are Liverpool a well known cricket club, theyre not a well known football club that's for sure lol just jokingMatthew 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.
I think matthew turner should sit down and watch matthew bulliers day out, have a perm, and listen to some duran duran, he seems to be reliving times gone past when Liverpool had a soccer team.Alan Llewellyn wrote:are Liverpool a well known cricket club, theyre not a well known football club that's for sure lol just jokingMatthew 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.
Was 'matthew bulliers day out' the unsuccessful sequel to 'Ferris Bueller's Day Off'?Alan Llewellyn wrote:I think matthew turner should sit down and watch matthew bulliers day out, have a perm, and listen to some duran duran, he seems to be reliving times gone past when Liverpool had a soccer team.Alan Llewellyn wrote:are Liverpool a well known cricket club, theyre not a well known football club that's for sure lol just jokingMatthew 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.
You mean here?MatthewParry wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 9:37 amSigh; it seems that Leonard has neglected his research again. South Wales Dragons have not been renamed and had a one player import as the article suggest but have merged with another squad. Something he would have realised if he'd either looked at the divisions beyond the first and seen that there are multiple WIB teams or looked at last season's tables and seen that WIB was around then.
will be a surprise to Marple chess clubDan Fernandez, from Manchester’s 3Cs club
I think you're reading things into the article it doesn't say or imply. Whilst it would have been clearer if it said "and, after a merger with" instead of "but (sic) renamed", it doesn't say they only acquired one new player. Mr. Barden probably thinks there was only one new player worth a mention, which is not unreasonable as he is the only titled player added to the squad, and the rest of the West is Best squad are no better than the majority of the existing South Wales Dragons squad, as can been seen from the composition of the new team in rounds 1 and 2.MatthewParry wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 9:37 amSigh; it seems that Leonard has neglected his research again. South Wales Dragons have not been renamed and had a one player import as the article suggest but have merged with another squad.