Div 4 South 2018/19

[Roger de Coverly]

Where squads have 3 or 4 teams, I imagine their chances of persuading someone to stand by as 'second reserve' or even 'third reserve' are that much less.

I'm playing in a squad which has 32 registered players for three teams and 20 slots to fill. What makes such a squad work is that it needs both a hard core of players who will likely play at least four if not all five weekends along with players content to play the occasional weekend.

4NCL squads are only confined to single clubs if that's how the manager selects the team.

Those squads at the sharp end of the competition would like to know their opponents sooner rather than later. If, to coin a phrase, the manager intends to "bus in" ringers, early notice of their necessity is desirable.

The 4NCL rules render the concept of a "ringer" somewhat academic, although you could regard someone outside of a squad's normal catchment or affinity area as such.

[MatthewParry]

As Roger says, the ideal is to have a core of players who can be relied on to commit to 4/5 weekends a season, a balance of players who are flexible, and preferably at least one junior with a parent who can play but doesn't expect to so that you have a reserve! How often this utopia exists is another matter. When I captained, I found that I inevitably made myself reserve for as many teams as possible, as it is near impossible to ask another player to travel and not play.

The rule encouraging teams to withdraw if they can't put out a full team was an excellent addition when it came in- yes it makes the end table look a bit odd but it means that the captain can make the decision to not inconvenience anyone if they know that there are problems in advance. Given that you pay an entry fee I can't see any team throwing an extra team in on the off-chance they might get to field a team. Normally they withdraw because of a glut of illness, a glut of people working weekends or just a coincidence of family events all coinciding.

I agree that the penalty is comparatively low, but would making it higher deter non attendance on the day if the problem is illness, train breaking down, car breaking down? Maybe a possible rule would be to require every team to have a reserve which might encourage developing players locally to the venue to get involved as an extra option? In the event that reserves are not needed, then graded friendlies could be arranged for them?

[J T Melsom]

Nick Faulks made a rather unfair criticism of my previous post. My comment about juniors was a reference to the relative strength of those players not to their rights to play chess - the former being an entirely reasonable consideration in a national league, and one which others have expressed. The latter would be absurd as was his suggestion that I might wish to exclude women. If he had read the comment in the context of my own reservations about being strong enough for 4NCL that would have been rather more obvious. As I've said previously there is a balance to be struck between a competition that is open to all and maintaining a reasonable standard of opposition for the majority.

[Roger Lancaster]

Maybe a possible rule would be to require every team to have a reserve which might encourage developing players locally to the venue to get involved as an extra option? In the event that reserves are not needed, then graded friendlies could be arranged for them?

Watford entered the 4NCL after several years' experience of the J4NCL where this is more or less what happens. There it's not onbligatory for reserves to put in a physical appearance but they know that, if they do, a graded friendly awaits. That's a good deal more encouraging than the main 4NCL where a reserve can arrange to keep his or her weekend free, only to discover it was wasted effort. I'm a great admirer of 4NCL, and hesitate to try to tell them how to improve things, but why isn't the same practice adopted?

[Brian Towers]

I also accept that more latitude can be given in Division 4 but I think it has limits. To my mind all divisions should be treated similarly. This may be the entry level, but it is to a national league, and there is a real risk of damage to the brand if the bottom division is some sort of afterthought, and doesn't have stringent requirements. The balance is a difficult one, but I'm not sure its in the right place at present. But then again I'm not entirely sure a 154/ 1712 player should be in a national league anyway.

This is a very sad attitude.

As far as I know the 4NCL is the only FIDE rated league in England. To say that it shouldn't have a 4th division with players as weak as 1700 is a bit pathetic. The fact that the 4NCL is the only opportunity English players have to play in a FIDE rated league is pathetic.

Here is the December rating file for the Israeli "Artzit Youth League - North". That is the northern section of the regional youth league. Why should Israeli kids be so much more privileged than English kids?

[J T Melsom]

I'm not sure 'sad' is a fair description of anybody's view. When I was originally invited to play 4NCL my grade may have been a bit lower, but it didn't quite fit with my conception of what a national league should look like. I then found I was far from the weakest player participating. Perhaps I'm just a bit more modest about my ability.

Your reference to the Youth League is not really relevant to consideration of the 4NCL as the former is an event exclusively for juniors - such events also exist in this country see Junior 4NCL for example .

And I would like to restate before I get misrepresented again that I have no objection to junior participation in 4NCL at all. Indeed the squad of which I am a happy member has a deliberate policy of selecting juniors. I am simply concerned with preserving reasonably competitive chess for the majority - a problem which applies just as much with some of the squads with an exclusively adult composition.

[Roger Lancaster]

Have to say that I regarded JTM's remarks as musings, rather than expressing any particular attitude, which - notwithstanding that I tended to disagree - I found perfectly acceptable. If we can't float our thoughts on this forum, what is it for?

[IM Jack Rudd]

CCF runs FIDE-rated league chess, but you're right that it is quite rare in this country.

[Brian Towers]

Your reference to the Youth League is not really relevant to consideration of the 4NCL as the former is an event exclusively for juniors - such events also exist in this country see Junior 4NCL for example .

I only picked one of the many youth leagues because I was looking for an example with lots of low rated players.

Here is a rating report for a B league which is not age restricted which still has plenty of players with low ratings, certainly lower than 1700.

Note that the league structure for FIDE rated chess is something like -
National League
Women's National League,
Regional National Leagues,
A leagues,
B Leagues

There are also several FIDE rated youth leagues.

Of course below the B leagues there are C leagues which are nationally graded but not FIDE rated.

What I find so objectionable in England is the commonly held view that somehow FIDE rated chess is only for the elites. Chess "commoners" should know their place and that place is NOT playing FIDE rated chess. Kudos to CCF for taking the opposite view.

[Roger de Coverly]

What I find so objectionable in England is the commonly held view that somehow FIDE rated chess is only for the elites.

A view promoted by the ECF itself by making a membership surcharge for participation in FIDE rated chess.

It's not just the ECF though. Some Congresses charge a higher entry fee for players without FIDE ratings on the grounds that gaining a FIDE rating is prestigious. It used to be once, perhaps still is. Back in 2000, Kirsan suggested an award for becoming a rated player as a possible money-making scheme for FIDE.

[J T Melsom]

Yes - but I never at any stage said that the 4NCL should not be FIDE rated. I don't really care what rating or grading system is used, though I accept the appeal of the event to those seeking FIDE ratings. My comments were primarily if not exclusively only about the playing strengths of those who might participate. It is sad and pathetic that you can criticise my post so vehemently, without making any serious effort to read and comprehend it. And that you then for your own purposes pretend I've written something that isn't remotely suggested in the original post.

[Roger Lancaster]

"Some Congresses charge a higher entry fee for players without FIDE ratings on the grounds that gaining a FIDE rating is prestigious"

Alternatively, those Congresses might take the view that the presence of numerous players without FIDE ratings makes an event less attractive for those who have - because, when a rated player meets an unrated, he (or she) cannot gain/lose rating points. The result does, of course, contribute towards the unrated player acquiring a rating but - for anyone trying to improve an existing rating - it's a wasted game.

[J T Melsom]

I had thought from the criticism directed at me last night by Nick Faulks that he was a champion of juniors and female chess players, yet both are absent from the Surbiton team for which he plays. Bizarre stuff.

[David Sedgwick]

I had thought from the criticism directed at me last night by Nick Faulks that he was a champion of juniors and female chess players, yet both are absent from the Surbiton team for which he plays. Bizarre stuff.

Twenty years ago Surbiton played on premises from which juniors were barred. Fortunately, they then came to realise that this was an unacceptable state of affairs.

In the two deades since, few Surrey clubs have done more than Surbiton to encourage and develop junior players.

[Alex Holowczak]

But then again I'm not entirely sure a 154/ 1712 player should be in a national league anyway.

Are there any other groups you would like to weed out while you're at it? Women, perhaps?

I had thought from the criticism directed at me last night by Nick Faulks that he was a champion of juniors and female chess players

I think the whole misunderstanding has been caused by a failure to appreciate that you were in effect being self-deprecating, as the 154/1712 in question.

Your reference to the Youth League is not really relevant to consideration of the 4NCL as the former is an event exclusively for juniors - such events also exist in this country see Junior 4NCL for example .

I only picked one of the many youth leagues because I was looking for an example with lots of low rated players.

Here is a rating report for a B league which is not age restricted which still has plenty of players with low ratings, certainly lower than 1700.

Note that the league structure for FIDE rated chess is something like -
National League
Women's National League,
Regional National Leagues,
A leagues,
B Leagues

There are also several FIDE rated youth leagues.

Of course below the B leagues there are C leagues which are nationally graded but not FIDE rated.

What I find so objectionable in England is the commonly held view that somehow FIDE rated chess is only for the elites. Chess "commoners" should know their place and that place is NOT playing FIDE rated chess. Kudos to CCF for taking the opposite view.

The difference between England and Israel (and much of Europe) is that the structure in those countries is to have only one league pyramid, with your national league at the top and your local leagues at the bottom - a bit like the Football League pyramid. This is different in England, where there is no link between the 4NCL Division Four South and the London League (for example).

We know the many reasons why those local leagues, as they are currently organised, can't be FIDE-rated. But there's no reason why every ECF-graded Rapidplay in England isn't FIDE-rated.