County Championships

[Sean Hewitt]

In the Midlands, not only would he get into every county first team in the Union, but he would be playing board 1 for half of them!

Which raises the question, how many counties outside the SCCU run teams in all grading bands? Three SCCU counties run teams in all six grading bands (from Open down to the extra U75 team) whilst the remaining three counties each run 4 teams. They also play lots of matches (Open teams 5, U175 8 matches etc).

In the Midlands its only Warwickshire.

[Sean Hewitt]

Have they actually consulted their players, in particular those who will be left without a team?

I can't comment on whether the captains consulted at all and if so, with whom, and more than I can comment on whether the SCCU reps consulted widely before voting at their recent exec meeting. But I can say that no player in the MCCU who wants to play next season is likely to be left without a team. The current scenario is that only one MCCU county runs a team at every level and most other counties struggle to field full squads for the teams they do enter without significantly dipping into the pool of players from the grading band below.

This is because the SCCU counties (in terms of players) are significantly larger than those everywhere else in the country.

[carstenpedersen]

Sean

The cur]ent scenario is that only one MCCU county runs a team at every level and most other counties struggle to field full squads for the teams they do enter without significantly dipping into the pool of players from the grading band below.

I can't see how that won't become a bigger problem if you exclude a significant number of current players.

OK, having now had a look at the MCCU website I can see that this particular region has an escape route as there is currently no U175 competition, so the number of teams can be maintained by moving all teams up a band - assuming all counties agree to do this.

Therefore, I can now see how it would be possible to keep the current limits without damaging county chess in the MCCU. However, as there, as far I can see, will be no benefit either I don't understand why the MCCU would want to sabotage people playing chess elsewhere in the country?

Of course, if the MCCU captains determination to avoid change meant they were to enter teams in the same bands as this year the result would be a lot less chess, due to lack of players.

[Sean Hewitt]

Sean

The cur]ent scenario is that only one MCCU county runs a team at every level and most other counties struggle to field full squads for the teams they do enter without significantly dipping into the pool of players from the grading band below.

I can't see how that won't become a bigger problem if you exclude a significant number of current players.

I don't believe that leaving the bands the same will exclude a significant number of current players. Yes, some players (not all) will become inelgible for their current team but instead will play for the team above. As one captain put it - this happens every year anyway. This year it will simply be on a larger scale.

OK, having now had a look at the MCCU website I can see that this particular region has an escape route as there is currently no U175 competition, so the number of teams can be maintained by moving all teams up a band - assuming all counties agree to do this. .

Actually Carsten, the MCCU U175 is being held on 4th April as a one round jamboree, although this is the only way we could get any interest at all, and even then it's only over 12 boards. I think I am right in saying that only the SCCU plays an U175 qualifying competition. For the rest of the country its essentially a defunct grading band. The data below shows why.

However, as there, as far I can see, will be no benefit either I don't understand why the MCCU would want to sabotage people playing chess elsewhere in the country?

The fact is that very few players will be sabotaged in the way that you describe - rather, far more players at the bottom end of the grading spectrum will get the opportunity to play. Perhaps I should turn the question around and ask why we run an U175 competition when there are so few players Nationally in that grading band?

Indeed, the SCCU is hardly wholly in favour of a change. It's executive voted a whopping 5-4 in favour of the change proposed. I doubt that the 4 who voted against the change were seeking to sabotage anything either.

I cant speak for the MCCU as a whole, but the reason that I support the idea of leaving the bands the same is simply this - I believe it will provide more opportunity for players to play county chess nationally. Under the old grades the percentage of all graded players with a county affiliation (of which there are 9605) eligible in each grading band is as follows

Open 100%
U175 95.2%
U150 84.3%
U125 65.9%
U100 42.7%

Which means that only 4.2% of all players are not eligible to play in the U175 section. This is nonsense. It means that the U175 and the Open sections are practically duplicates of each other, and it is this reason why all the Unions in the country (with the exception of the SCCU) find it nearly impossible to run teams at this level. The consequence of this is that there is little U175 chess nationally.

We also see that 42% of all players are graded U100. Yet most of these never get to play county chess because the U100 section is played over 12 boards, and half of these players are graded under 75 so don't get picked as they are not strong enough.

However, if we leave the bands the same and look at this years new grades we would have the following eligibility

Open 100%
175 90.7%
150 70.9%
125 42.4%
100 15.9%

It could be argued that there are still too many players eligible for the U175 section, but the others look quite sensible and evenly distributed, so it makes sense to leave everything as is. There are fewer players in the U100 section than elsewhere but given that U100 play over just 12 boards this should be fine.

The consequence is that nationally we should see more counties playing at U175 level than presently. Indeed, I predict a huge increase. The U150 and U125 sections should be largely unaffected in terms of numbers of teams / players and at U100 level we should see many new faces who don't currently get the chance to play county chess at all.

If the SCCU (because of the size of its counties) sees that the no change option leaves it with the problem that some players are ineligible for the U175 team but too weak for the Open team it could always decide to make it's Open section 20 boards (or whatever the number should be to accomodate such players) and alleviate that one objection at a stroke.

[Ben Hague]

Actually Carsten, the MCCU U175 is being held on 4th April as a one round jamboree, although this is the only way we could get any interest at all, and even then it's only over 12 boards. I think I am right in saying that only the SCCU plays an U175 qualifying competition. For the rest of the country its essentially a defunct grading band. The data below shows why.

The NCCU also has an U175 competition (although I think only involving Lancashire and Yorkshire) and I think I'm correct in saying that everyone there was between 150 and 175, and definitely didn't play in the Open team (as they played on the same day). Under the new grades I reckon over half wouldn't be eligible next year, although I haven't checked them all. That would include the Yorkshire captain, and several drivers, which I think is the biggest problem. The teams I'm familiar with tend to have a solid core of players who can largely be relied on to organise themselves, sort out lifts etc and a regular captain. When you've got that base bringing in new players isn't a problem, but if you lose that then it's easy for teams to collapse completely and once gone they won't come back.

[carstenpedersen]

Sean


First of all, apologies for using an emotive term like sabotage, I didn't mean to imply any ill intent and shouldn't have worded it that way.

I should also stress that I have no involvement with County chess, other than playing, so what is said is solely my personal view.

You do make an interesting point.

We also see that 42% of all players are graded U100. Yet most of these never get to play county chess because the U100 section is played over 12 boards, and half of these players are graded under 75 so don't get picked as they are not strong enough

However, I've always assumed that the reason the U100 is only 12 boards is because there isn't enough interest to make 16 board teams viable.

If there is, as you imply, large numbers of low graded players who don't play County chess because they can't get into a team, why hasn't the board number simply been increased?

A cursory glance at the grades of the bottom board players in MCCU U100 matches doesn't seem to support the notion that lots of players are excluded. The notable exception is Leicestershire, where you do need to be graded 80+ to get in the team.

SCCU presumably did feel this was a problem, hence the introduction of an U75 band.

So far I'm not convinced about the pent up demand from U100 players for county chess, and unless the number of teams or boards are increased, then it's a zero sum game. Every player now selected to play U100 would do so at the expense of someone, like Angus, who can no longer get into one of the teams above.


Is this the answer?

The consequence is that nationally we should see more counties playing at U175 level than presently. Indeed, I predict a huge increase. The U150 and U125 sections should be largely unaffected in terms of numbers of teams / players and at U100 level we should see many new faces who don't currently get the chance to play county chess at all.

I think I follow your logic. By forcing some players (about half?) currently in the U150 up into U175, and most players below that into a higher band as well, it creates space at the bottom for players not currently given the option to play, hence the number of teams will increase.

So, if I've understood it correctly then you're arguing that by making fewer players eligible for each band counties would field more teams.
I don't buy it. I suspect that most counties who currently haven't got an U175 will still only have either an open or U175 team.

One thing is certain, as demonstrated by your percentage breakdowns. Leaving the bands as they are is not the cautious "no change" policy that most of the MCCU captains claim to want. Maybe it would be worth asking them which bands they expect their county to field teams in next year and see if the responses reflect the changes proposed?

[Carl Hibbard]

Pruned a quick duplicate post out here!

[Sean Hewitt]

So, if I've understood it correctly then you're arguing that by making fewer players eligible for each band counties would field more teams.
I don't buy it. I suspect that most counties who currently haven't got an U175 will still only have either an open or U175 team.

Hi Carsten,

I'm not arguing that at all! I apologise as perhaps I haven't explained the thinking as clearly as I might. If we consider what percentage of all players are eligible for each grading band (assuming that a player only plays in the "correct" band - ie a 140 player plays U150 but not U175 or Open). Then leaving the limits the same gives us the following player eligibility

Open 9.3
U175 19.8
U150 28.5
U125 26.5
U100 15.9

(all numbers are expressed as a percentage of the grading list)

So I agree with you that the gap between Open and U175 is wrong. But where as you suggest that it is too wide, I think the stats actually show that it is too narrow! In fact, if you were to start with a totally clean piece of paper and come up with the idea of a graded county championships, I am sure that you would try to make the above numbers 20% for each of the 5 bands which would mean decreasing the limit of the U175 event, not increasing it.

If we look at the change in the numbers of eligible players for each band, assuming no change to the grading limits, we see the following:-

Open +4.5
U175 +8.9
U150 +10.1
U125 +3.3
U100 -26.8

So far from arguing that we will see more teams because there are less players available in each band, I am suggesting that there will be more teams because there are more players available in each band. The exception is the U100 section which is only 12 boards and already has an abundance of non selected players. The "new" U100 tournament would look quite similar in player content to the current SCCU U75 I suspect and as you rightly point out, the SCCU presumably felt there were such players who wanted to play county chess.

However, I come back to the point I made in a previous post regarding sizes of counties. Big counties (and most in the SCCU are big counties) should want to see the grading bands shifted up as their Open team is stronger through strength in depth. Smaller and medium size counties (most in MCCU fall into this category) should want to see grading bands remain the same for exactly the opposite reason. To highlight the point I have just analyzed the make up of all teams who played in Division 1 of the MCCU Open section this year.

Over 175 28.1%
150-175 44.3%
125-150 20.3%
100-125 5.2%
U100 2.1%

This is why MCCU captains want the grading limits left the same. Open chess only exists in MCCU because 72% of players are "playing up". This is detrimental to both Open and grading banded competition. If one was to perform the same analysis of U150 or U125 you would see similar numbers of players from lower teams making up the numbers. I am sure however that same stats for the SCCU would look very different, given that we have players graded 175 who tell us that they can't get into their county 1st teams!!

It is for this reason that I think that the real solution has to be an overhaul of the competition, with perhaps a "Minor Counties" competition in each grading band (or using different grading bands) determined not by grading, but by size (in temrs of no of players) of county.

One thing's for sure - one size fits all doesn't work here. Leave the grading limits the same and the big counties won't like it. Change them, and it's to the detriment of the small and medium counties.

I hope I've explained the problem clearly as I understand it, and been fair to all views!

[Anthony Higgs]

The SCCU proposal to the ECF to "change" (depending on your interpretation) grading bands is available linked as a word doc from item 7 of the minutes from here:

http://sccu.ndo.co.uk/sccu.htm

[Martyn Harris]

A summary of last year's entries for the inter-counties can be found at http://mjh.orpheusweb.co.uk/nulcc/downs/counties.pdf in which I have taken the liberty of including Sean's rough and ready figures of the sizes of each county's selection pool. Those for Hunts have been added to Cambridgeshire's. I believe that the people in that neck of the woods are sufficiently pleasant that even if they disagree with this action I shall live to tell the tale.

On page 26 of their Business Plan 2008/9 the ECF start listing their Priority targets for the year, and under Home Chess we find
2 "To increase the number of players and counties playing in the Counties Championship."
The competition is certainly viable as the entries justify its existence. However the National Club, which needs binning (cue another topic), shows that viability does not necessarily remain constant simply because the rules are unchanged. Thus, as has been hinted by other posters, there may be a need to consider the competition as a whole rather than just the limits.

What other changes might be possible? There is the manner in which the competition is split up into stages. Should there be a role for the Unions? Your answer may depend on whether you regard the unions as an anachronism, providers of a desirable counter-balance to the ECF's apparent indifference to the ordinary player, or empires to be defended at all costs. Treating the whole competition as one, each section could be divided into groups on a geographical but not strictly Union basis to provide all entrants with roughly the same number of initial stage games. Would this be more or less attractive for current entrants? For prospective new entrants? (Example: last year we hosted an U100 quarter-final between Notts and Lancs - it was Notts' sixth match in the competition and Lancashire's first.)

Should some of the smaller counties be encouraged to pair off for inter-counties purposes to create entities that have a better chance of being competitive in big-sided matches. Anyone for Beds & Northants, Cleveland & Durham, Wilts & Glos?

Does it make more sense for grade limited competitions to be constrained by total/average grade rather than by individual grade. Leave the limits alone, but make them averages. Would this lead to fewer or more entries?

Reduce the team size. No that doesn't work. A small reduction would probably mean same number of teams so fewer players, a big reduction and you are looking at a different competition as the teams are no longer 'county' teams.

I play league, congress and (occasionally) county chess, though for me the latter comes a poor third to the other two. This is purely a personal view, based partly on a dislike of one-game-a-day weekend chess, but it does mean that I am not the best person to answer the questions I have posed.

[Neill Cooper]

[quote="Sean Hewitt If we consider what percentage of all players are eligible for each grading band (assuming that a player only plays in the "correct" band - ie a 140 player plays U150 but not U175 or Open). Then leaving the limits the same gives us the following player eligibility

Open 9.3
U175 19.8
U150 28.5
U125 26.5
U100 15.9

(all numbers are expressed as a percentage of the grading list)

So I agree with you that the gap between Open and U175 is wrong. But where as you suggest that it is too wide, I think the stats actually show that it is too narrow! In fact, if you were to start with a totally clean piece of paper and come up with the idea of a graded county championships, I am sure that you would try to make the above numbers 20% for each of the 5 bands which would mean decreasing the limit of the U175 event, not increasing it.[/quote]

But that analysis assumes that teh likelihood of players playing county chess is independent of their grade. I think that is not true in the SCCU, but might be true in MCCU.

[Sean Hewitt]

But that analysis assumes that teh likelihood of players playing county chess is independent of their grade. I think that is not true in the SCCU, but might be true in MCCU.

True. And your theory may well have some truth in it, although very difficult to prove!

The real point though is this. In the SCCU the counties have more players than anywhere else so narrow bands work because small percentage times lots of players equals enough players to man teams. Elsewhere, small percentage times not so many players equals not enough players for a county team!

That's why I think adopting or rejecting the SCCU proposal is going to upset a whole bunch of counties. It might be better to try to find a new type of solution that works for all.

[William Stimpson]

In Cambridgeshire we didn't manage to field a team in the U100 due to a lack of players and the U125 was populated mainly with sub 100 players. The proposal to keep the boundaries as they are would mean we would not be able to field either a 125 or 100 team as far as I can see. Most of the juniors would be ineligable for the U100 and probably the U125 and, as there are relatively few players in these bands anyway, they would not exist.

I fail to see why moving the bands according to the changes is not just plain common sense, are congresses likely to keep their grading boundaries? I very much doubt it.

[Sean Hewitt]

I fail to see why moving the bands according to the changes is not just plain common sense, are congresses likely to keep their grading boundaries? I very much doubt it.

I dont know of any congress that runs Open / U175 / U150 / U125 and U100 sections. Probably any that did failed long ago because of the imbabalance of players such limits bring!!

[David Sedgwick]

I dont know of any congress that runs Open / U175 / U150 / U125 and U100 sections.

How about the British Championships, Sean!

Any change thereat would not apply until 2010 and I've no idea of the thinking of the ECF Directors and Officers responsible. However, if it were my decision, I'd certainly be comtemplating adopting limits of 180/160/140/120 from 2010 onwards.

As the principal author of the SCCU Paper, I'd like to apologise for the lateness of my appearance on the thread. I'll have to leave it there for now, but I hope to comment more fully within the next few days.