Size of County teams

[Roger de Coverly]

There's a new paper on the ECF site about this.

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... posals.pdf

This contains material not previously published about the distribution of grades and activity.

One main point of the paper is to advocate a return to twenty board teams in the Open. Whilst locally, the Chiltern matches are over twenty boards, this is in the context of most matches featuring a grading range of sometimes as much as 100 points between top and bottom boards. It's also geographically compact. It would be a different matter trying to take twenty board teams to places like Brighton, Catford or Wanstead where the bottom board could be outgraded by fifty points or more. The players in the stronger teams wouldn't like it much either.

To my mind, you have mutually exclusive choices -
If eligibility rules are such that potential players are not evenly distributed, then having large teams just excludes areas with smaller numbers of potential players.
or
You remove or relax eligibility rules so that teams can find their natural levels with a limited disparity of grades on all boards.

[IM Jack Rudd]

It would be a different matter trying to take twenty board teams to places like Brighton, Catford or Wanstead where the bottom board could be outgraded by fifty points or more. The players in the stronger teams wouldn't like it much either.

That's partly an artefact of the way SCCU matches are organized, though, isn't it? It's less of a problem in WECU, where the culture is that you try to put matches in mutually convenient locations, whoever is technically at home. (I don't think a Somerset-Devon match has been played in Devon in the entire time I've been playing for Somerset, but I also don't think one has been played outside the Taunton-Wellington area.)

[Roger de Coverly]

That's partly an artefact of the way SCCU matches are organized, though, isn't it?

I suspect that WECU could make twenty board matches work in the same way the Chiltern makes it work, that you have 190-200 graded players at the top, 150s in the middle and 120s as the tail. Even neutral venues would require travelling and there's a limit to the number of times you can expect a 170 player to face a 120 player and have a popular competition. Even though the big 6 of the SCCU are looking a little threadbare, I'd suspect they could still field twenty players with grades over 170 with the right match captain.

With the number of alternatives available in the London and South East area for those wanting weekend chess, one sided matches are a difficult proposition to justify.

[Ian Thompson]

I suspect that WECU could make twenty board matches work in the same way the Chiltern makes it work

I'm sure they could. The difference would be that whilst it is unusual for Chiltern counties to exercise their right to reduce the matches to 16 boards (as Oxfordshire did against Hampshire last Saturday), it would be commonplace in the WECU.

Cornwall, in particular, would struggle with 20 board matches, as they already seem to struggle with 16 board teams, probably because every match is a long journey for most of their players.

[Angus French]

Have counties been consulted about the proposals and counter proposals?

[MartinCarpenter]

Really not sure about the idea of scrapping the U180's. It's not useful for all counties but for the larger ones U170 to open (even at twenty boards) would leave a lot of keen players excluded. Even the move from 175 (old grades) to 180 (new) had that effect to a moderate degree

The K/O stages seem to be in good health in general - lots of closely fought matches with no one dominating.

Not that sure about 12 board teams in general either as its rather close to the 8 of the 4NCL/sundry other things.

[David Pardoe]

Have counties been consulted about the proposals and counter proposals?

I`ve mentioned in another thread earlier today that I favour revising the groupings for county matches.
Lets say you went for Open, U170, U 135, & U100. Lets also say you went for 20 - 24 board matches.
And lets say you introduced some controls within these groupings.. for instance in the U170 group you could have max of 6 players over 160, max another 6 players over 150, and say min of 4 players graded U140. This would provide good balance to teams and matches, and allow good representation across the grading groups.
It would also mean less county matches (but more boards per match), so far more cost effective, saving travel time also. This might allow matches to be played at better quality venues, providing a better playing experience for those taking part.
My ethos for county chess is about `local players playing for local teams`...hence, I`d also scrap all the rules that allow players from here, there and everywhere to be bussed in for matches.

[IM Jack Rudd]

My ethos for county chess is about `local players playing for local teams`...hence, I`d also scrap all the rules that allow players from here, there and everywhere to be bussed in for matches.

Which rules, precisely, do you have a problem with? And which players from "here, there and everywhere" are the source of this complaint?

[David Pardoe]

I have dealt with that question before, but in essence what the rules should make clear is that.. only players who live, or work, or attend college and actively play in a given area should be eligable to play for that particular areas` county teams. Any exceptions to this should only be granted by special request.

[LawrenceCooper]

I have dealt with that question before, but in essence what the rules should make clear is that.. only players who live, or work, or attend college and actively play in a given area should be eligable to play for that particular areas` county teams. Any exceptions to this should only be granted by special request.

What about players who may have lived there for years and recently moved away? I've lived in Staffordshire all my life and wouldn't be impressed to be told I'm no longer eligible if I dared to live outside of the county boundaries.

[Roger de Coverly]

I have dealt with that question before, but in essence what the rules should make clear is that.. only players who live, or work, or attend college and actively play in a given area should be eligable to play for that particular areas` county teams.

That is why smaller counties don't run teams any more where they have to coexist with much bigger counties. If you don't have the players of the necessary strength, you don't have a team. It depends where you are situated geographically, but there are usually better options for the weekend than matches where a grading disparity is likely in most matches.

[IM Jack Rudd]

I have dealt with that question before, but in essence what the rules should make clear is that.. only players who live, or work, or attend college and actively play in a given area should be eligable to play for that particular areas` county teams. Any exceptions to this should only be granted by special request.

In which case, my guess is that you're really exaggerating the scale of the problem, if problem there actually is. Take my county, Somerset, for example. In the past couple of years, the non-Somerset-resident players I can recall our fielding have been:

Some pupils at Millfield school.
A player who lives in Dorset, but who regularly plays for Yeovil.
A player who lives in Wiltshire, but who regularly plays for Bath.
A player who lives in Devon, but who lived in Somerset for over twenty years.

Do any of these sound unreasonable as Somerset players? I am, of course, biased on this one, but they all sound reasonable to me.

[David Pardoe]

Roger, I have also suggested options to ease the matter of grading disparity, but I think you rather over play that card.
eg, It is quite likely if you play in w/e congresses, that you will meet at least 1 opponent who has a significantly different grading to yours...not a big deal generally. And in league chess, I`d suggest this is a fairly commonplace occurance.
Tip...play the player, not the grade...? Some players actually relish the challenge...
But I take your point that you dont want too many matches where the teams are wildly mismatched.
Then again...it also depends what you make of grades. I actually believe that gradings up to say 175 can be treated as plus or minus 30 points.
Yes, I accept that some smaller counties are at a considerable disadvantage sometimes than there larger neighbours. There again, counties might well be spurred on by this challenge to do better, and encourage the development of there players.
One of the keys to success is having an enthusiastic and energetic captain(s). I recommend that counties should appoint both a captain and a deputy (preferably from different clubs, and its probably helpful if one of the captains belongs to a bigger club, from which he might recruit some players).
There are those who just think events like 4NCL are the bees knees. This also can throw up some significant distortions....and those FIDE gradings can mean almost anything, particularly below the 1950 level.
And I do laugh when some folk whinge in one breath about travel for counties matches, then quite happily trott off to the far end of the country (....the deep south) to play that `south centric 4NCL stuff` against those bussed in foriegn chess stooges.....
But just lets be clear....there are a wide variety of chess offerings in this country... we are fairly lucky in that respect. These cater for a wide variety of players with a wide range of chess fads/tastes... so most players can find something that suits them. So, dont go round mouthing off one sect, just because it doesnt happen to fit your perceptions. The county chess scene has a great deal to offer players. Its not just about the top 10% of our 200+ players.

[Roger de Coverly]

The county chess scene has a great deal to offer players.

It doesn't if you come from a county with a limited number of players and clubs. The attraction of playing for teams that always lose is dispiriting both to the players and the captains. Occasionally small counties can assemble a team which is competitive. This can only be done by exploiting eligibility to its legal limit and sometimes beyond. Why is it wrong for county rules to allow teams to select a limited number of wildcards? These would be players willing to play for the county in question but not otherwise qualified.

[David Pardoe]

I guess there will always be occasions when it is right to allow exceptions....I made that very point earlier.
One obvious possiblility is to allow a smaller county to merge its resources with a neighbouring larger county. Hereford linking up with Worcestershire, or Rutland linking with Leicestershire comes to mind.

The main difficulty that many counties face is in not being able to find volunteer captains to run teams.
In Manchester, for instance, we wanted to run an U120 team...we`ve not had any offers to run this team as yet.... But there`s a fair pool of players who I`m sure would quite like to play.
Another problem counties have is that they often dont use the information and resources at there disposal effectively enough. Local league & county websites can produce a wealth of useful information and contact information. I`ve known cases where this has simply not been utilised. I`ve also known of cases where players have been willing to play, but never recieved a callup from the captain.
Publicity is vital...a good email list helps...and its important to keep contact details uptodate...easier said than done. But, its vital that captains communicate with the players both before, during and after matches.
For instance, I always kept my pool of players informed about who had offered to play, the progressive team list, likely board order..etc...not least because this allowed for vital feedback from players who might offer advice on board order, or other useful comments regarding prospective transport arrangements, etc.
It also gives the players an interesting talking point on the way to the match. And, after matches I would often put out a post match report, even if we had lost. This can help boost interest and support, and result in further helpful feedback.
Here`s another revelation.....County chess is fun.... On a Saturday, you can get together with fellow local players and off you go, using combined transport...and for a fiver you get a day out playing chess. How cool is that. And if you lose, so what.... you learn lessons, you do some home work, and before you know it you`re making progress. From small beginnings many a fine team has emerged.
Quite often, you`ll meet at some isolated country Inn, having scuttled through the highways and byways, arrive to warming cup of tea/coffee/biscuites...or a pint of beer ...have your sandwiches, chat with opposing players, or even your own team mates...and a pleasant afternoons chess ensues.
Yes, I know in todays workaholic madhouse society, people dont have a spare moment when they can get off the tread mill that our tory masters so worship.... everybody should be working al hours that godd sends to fill the coffers that our bankers have emptied (and still the crazy bonusses get dished out). Meanwhile, may savers and pensioners are getting totally stuffed, having saved thriftily only to find they get totally naff pensions, and there savings are used as cannon fodder to bail out the clowns who created this economic mess.;... And Osborne and the tory fruit cakes keep telling us `the plan is working`.
And the price we are all paying....comes in the form of family breakdowns, ...buckling under the stress of this madhouse world these joker politicians have created...
So, its essential that we have some escapism...and what better than a Saturday afternoon at the match...!!
Which reminds me...when are the football leaders going to clamp down on these over paid footballers....a 90% reduction in these wages, with strong perfrmance related clawbacks, would provide a very welcome reality check. Maybe reduce the cost of entry to our grounds, so that the real fans can afford to go....

End of sermon for today....