English Chess Forum

Opening fixtures:

http://www.4nclresults.co.uk/2018-19/4ncl/1/4s/export/

When are the round 3 pairings expected to be published?

Already published - they are accessed via the home page, rather than accessed through the pairing and results option in the drop down menu.

I see that the triangular match begun in Round 2 wil be completed in Round 3.

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 08, 2019 1:45 pm

When are the round 3 pairings expected to be published?

41 Watford 1 - - - Check Innmates 2
42 West is Best 3 - - - Wessex B
43 Crowthorne 1 - - - Throw in the Tal
44 Fischer's Catch - - - Ashfield 1
45 Banbury Bulldogs - - - The Pitstop
46 Poisoned Pawns - Next Generation - - - All Anands on Deck
47 Shropshire 2 - - - Warwickshire Select 2
48 Shropshire 3 - - - MK Phoenix 2
49 CSC 3 - - - Ashfield 2
50 West is Best 4 - - - Iceni 3
51 Oxford 3 - - - Rook & Roll
52 Celtic Tigers 2 - - - Wood Green Youth
53 Sussex Martlets 3 - - - Camberley Juniors
54 The Full Ponty - - - Chesstivus
55 Crowthorne 2 - - - Barnet Knights 3
56 Cambridge University 3 - - - Watford 2
60 Oxford 4 1 - 2 Wessex C
61 Wessex C 1½ - 1½ Barnet Knights 2
62 Barnet Knights 2 1½ - 1½ Oxford 4

I see that there are three absentee teams from Division Four (South) - namely Barnet Knights 4, Barnet Knights 5 and Check Innmates 3.

Bearing in mind the number of registrations these clubs have notified (69 & 32 respectively), I can't understand why they are unable to raise sides given the dates of the 4NCL are known months in advance. My view is that financial penalties need to be increased for teams that enter and then don't turn out.

Neil Graham wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 08, 2019 8:55 pm

I see that there are three absentee teams from Division Four (South) - namely Barnet Knights 4, Barnet Knights 5 and Check Innmates 3.

Bearing in mind the number of registrations these clubs have notified (69 & 32 respectively), I can't understand why they are unable to raise sides given the dates of the 4NCL are known months in advance. My view is that financial penalties need to be increased for teams that enter and then don't turn out.

Seems a bit tough. I'd save my ire for clubs who don't withdraw from a particular weekend and then turn up several players short, to the annoyance of opponents who may have travelled some distance. I make what I hope is an obvious exception where this is unavoidable - for example, an HGV has just rammed the car carrying half the team to the event.

Phil Neatherway wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:48 pm

I see that the triangular match begun in Round 2 wil be completed in Round 3.

That's something the 4NCL arbiters haven't tried before.

I wonder what they would have done if there had been an even number of teams expected to take part in round 3.

Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:00 pm

Neil Graham wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 08, 2019 8:55 pm

I see that there are three absentee teams from Division Four (South) - namely Barnet Knights 4, Barnet Knights 5 and Check Innmates 3.

Bearing in mind the number of registrations these clubs have notified (69 & 32 respectively), I can't understand why they are unable to raise sides given the dates of the 4NCL are known months in advance. My view is that financial penalties need to be increased for teams that enter and then don't turn out.

Seems a bit tough. I'd save my ire for clubs who don't withdraw from a particular weekend and then turn up several players short, to the annoyance of opponents who may have travelled some distance. I make what I hope is an obvious exception where this is unavoidable - for example, an HGV has just rammed the car carrying half the team to the event.

Yes, you encourage the behaviour you want, and penalise the behaviour you don't want. In this case, we clearly prefer teams to withdraw in advance, rather than mess everyone around at the weekend.

Alex Holowczak wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:58 pm

Yes, you encourage the behaviour you want, and penalise the behaviour you don't want.

I would have thought the behaviour you really want is that teams entering commit themselves to playing every single weekend. If that could be assumed, there would be no need to delay publishing the pairings pending discovery of who was actually showing up.

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 08, 2019 11:08 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:58 pm

Yes, you encourage the behaviour you want, and penalise the behaviour you don't want.

I would have thought the behaviour you really want is that teams entering commit themselves to playing every single weekend. If that could be assumed, there would be no need to delay publishing the pairings pending discovery of who was actually showing up.

Absolutely. But given it's the bottom division, and teams come and go due to player availability, I think there needs to be more flexibility. And given it's a Swiss and not one of the Round Robins, it doesn't really make a lot of difference if they turn out or not.

In round 1 the triangle was Camb Uni 3 v West is Best 4 v CSC 3. Some defaults so Camb Uni were not playing round 2
I was not aware of the round 2 triangle.
Anyway if another team pull out or come in by Friday night then there ought to be a change.
It makes a world of difference if they turn out or not. But then again we got the curtesy of an early morning call on the defaults in round 1.

I think we can cut teams that default in timely fashion a little bit of slack - some of them are trying to encourage juniors so some people might be happy when they miss a weekend (those teams are not necessarily the strongest opponents). It would be nice if they could commit to every weekend but then again some clubs in local leagues have teams that drop out mid season so people shouldn't rush to be indignant.

I don't think we should buy the idea that a phone-call on the day is acceptable. Its better than no communication but given the distances teams travel, it would be preferable if the decision were taken earlier.

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.

Here I'm speaking as team captain of a squad which has so far played six 4NCL weekends without a default so, for the moment at least, we've nothing to apologise for. But I have to admit that, once or twice, we've been a bit fortunate. In a typical weekend, we might have 15-16 players involved (2 teams) and the chances of someone having to pull out for perfectly good reasons - illness, for example - at short notice are not negligible. Of course, the answer is to have one or more reserves on standby. But in practice, it's not always easy to persuade club members to keep their weekends clear against the chance that someone might withdraw at short notice. 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.

J T Melsom wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:55 pm

some of them are trying to encourage juniors so some people might be happy when they miss a weekend.

In the hope that this might serve to nullify any such encouragement? Seriously, anyone wondering why juniors play a lesser role in English competitions than in comparable federations may not need to look beyond comments like that.

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?