English Chess Forum

I enjoyed taking a team to last year's National Cub Rapidplay, and was planning to take 2 or 3 this year.
But there is still no news about when and where it will be.
Are the ECF trying to kill off another event?

Neill

I did not know the answer to your question when you posed it, and I had forgotten about the existence of this thread by the time that I did. Having now rediscovered it, I will point out, for the benefit of anybody who is interested, that this event will be taking place on Saturday 26 September at Syston in Leicestershire. The entry form can be found on the ECF website at http://www.englishchess.org.uk/index.ph ... &Itemid=50.

I'd also forgotten about the thread. Cyril did kindly email me in August to tell me when it was, but life is much busier in September than April so we won't be able to play.

John Philpott wrote:
I did not know the answer to your question when you posed it, and I had forgotten about the existence of this thread by the time that I did. Having now rediscovered it, I will point out, for the benefit of anybody who is interested, that this event will be taking place on Saturday 26 September at Syston in Leicestershire. The entry form can be found on the ECF website at http://www.englishchess.org.uk/index.ph ... &Itemid=50.

Typical, b****y typical. My club, Hastings & St. Leonards, has not heard a thing about this event. We are a Corporate Vice-President and regular competitors in sections of the ECF National Club events; our e-mail address is known to the ECF. It is in fact unlikely that we would have taken part, but just maybe we'd have liked to know about it.

What makes it all the more galling is that from my long ago years with BCF I know how important it is to have the basic infrastructure of simple communication in place: and I have been banging on about it to ECF officers in recent years, it is bread and butter. As I understand it the ECF doesn't even have a mailing list of English clubs.... I once offered to oversee the compilation of this, CEO Martin Regan passed it to Peter Wilson, the offer was accepted in principle, then everything just went silent....

End of rant

PB

I appear to have subscribed to some sort of ECF mailing list (news to me), but I received this in my inbox on September 3rd.

Mailing List wrote: Dear chess player

Please find attached two entry forms that may be of interest -
The National Chess Club Championships
The National Chess Club Rapidplay Championships

The very best of luck in all your games

Andrew Walker at the ECF

And there are some attachments to download for said tournament.

Paul Buswell wrote

As I understand it the ECF doesn't even have a mailing list of English clubs....

From a call that I took today from the Director of Home Chess in my capacity as General Secretary of the Essex Chess Association, it would appear that such a list is now under construction.

I know quite clearly why I will have nothing to do with the National Club Rapidplay. I entered a team from the Athenaeum Chess Club some years ago: Clive Wismayer, Ralf Grüttner [there has to be a simpler way to enter an accented character!], myself and Oliver Williams. It was fairly shambolic, lots of arguments about the rules, their idiosyncratic interpretation and the abitrary way they were set aside or invented. Happily, we were unaffected, or, more accurately, didn't give a sh.t (the bottom dropped of the 'i' as I was typing). And, furthermore, this was the first time we had entered this competition, and so had no expectations anyway. We finished joint first [the strongest teams hadn't a hope due to the mad handicapping system that had been dreamt up on the spot], Ralf laughed himself into tears at the thought of becoming a "British champion" as a German in his first year in the UK, and we were pleased to hear Cyril Johnson say that he wouldn't split the tie, as he didn't believe in such artificial measures, but that he would award the trophy to the lowest graded of the three Champion teams (Wanstead of the top of my head, but I might be wrong). We were gobsmacked a few days later to read on the SCCU website that Wanstead (if it was indeed Wanstead) were the BCF's National Club Rapidplay team champions, without mention of ourselves or, I think, Bedford, who had come joint equal with us. As you can imagine, we were rather less surprised, when eventually the BCF's own website erased us from history, too. I think I also remember the Mushrooms CC website carrying some critical article about the competition.

Regards,
Paul McKeown

Paul McKeown wrote

we were pleased to hear Cyril Johnson say that he wouldn't split the tie, as he didn't believe in such artificial measures, but that he would award the trophy to the lowest graded of the three Champion teams (Wanstead of the top of my head, but I might be wrong).

You are not wrong Paul - this was indeed Wanstead & Woodford Chess Club. The tie was not broken in terms of prize money: however, the physical award of the trophy to the lowest graded tied team seems to have been taken as synonymous with the paper award of the title. As Wanstead & Woodford captain I do not feel particularly guilty about this turn of events, because one of the peculiarities of this event was that having arrived in Oxford as non-playing captain I had my arm twisted to play for a scratch "Aardvarks" team that was created to avoid a bye. As an Aardvark I proceeded to take a full point off my own club in round 2 before losing a completely won position against Ralf Grüttner in the last round.

Paul McKeown wrote:I think I also remember the Mushrooms CC website carrying some critical article about the competition.

Mushrooms Chess Club were indeed highly critical of the handicapping system and we declined to take part for some years.

However, by the April 2008 event everything seemed to have changed. That competition took place in an excellent venue, at a desirable time of the year, and with a much fairer method of handicapping. Like Neill Cooper's team, our players thoroughly enjoyed the event.

Now in 2009 we have a competition taking place at a much less convenient location, at a much less suitable time of the year, and with the return of the handicapping system which we thought had been abandoned. We won't be playing.

Mushrooms Chess Club would like to wish Adam Raoof success in the forthcoming election for ECF Director of Home Chess.

I am taking two teams from Wanstead & Woodford to Syston for this event tomorrow, and will be able to provide a first hand report.

An enjoyable afternoon's chess took place at a decent venue, although the entry of 8 was down from the 13 teams that played at Magdelen College School, Oxford in April 2008. This event was different in character from previous years, in that instead of this being purely a handicap rapidplay event (with no prize going to the team scoring the highest unadjusted game points) it was run as a rapidplay event in conjunction with which handicap prizes were awarded: no team could win more than one prize.

The basic event went largely in line with expectations, with the finishing order (with average grades indicated in brackets) being

1 Wigston (193.75) 16 - £80
2 Leighton Buzzard (173.5) 13 - £40
3 Watford (179) 11½ - free entry to next event
4= Wanstead & Woodford 1 (173.75) 11
4= Warwick (179) 11
6 Snodland (156) 9½
7 Wanstead & Woodford 2 (147.25) 5½
8 Syston (107) 2

The handicapping system applied, of which Mushrooms have previously been critical, adjusted the game point score by an absolute amount determined by the average grade. The adjustments prescribed were -10 for 190+, -8 for 180-189, -6 for 170-179, -4 for 160-169, -2 for 150-159, 0 for 140-149, +2 for 130-139, +4 for 120-129, +6 for 110-119, +8 for 100-109 etc. This produced the following finishing order.

1 Syston 2 + 8 = 10 - £80
2 Snodland 9½ - 2 = 7½ - £40
3 Leighton Buzzard 13 - 6 = 7
4 Wigston 16 - 10 = 6
5 Wanstead & Woodford 2 5½ + 0 = 5½ - free entry to next event as Leighton Buzzard and Wigston ineligible
6 Watford 11½ - 6 = 5½
7 Wanstead & Woodford 1 11 - 6 = 5
8 Warwick 11 - 6 = 5

The key shortcoming of this approach, to my mind, is that it takes no account of the quality of opposition faced. Had Syston scored 0 points they would still have won the handicap event: their score would have fallen to 8 and Snodland's increased to 8, but Syston would have taken the title on the tie break of lower average grade. To his credit the controller recognises that this situation needs to be addressed, and he proposes to revisit the lower gradings, and to require at least ½ game point to be scored before the benefit of a positive handicap adjustment can be obtained.

A completely different system had been applied in 2008. with the lower graded team receiving an increment to its score based on the difference between the average grades of the sides ( 0 - 10 points 0, 10 - 19 ½, 20 - 29 1, 30 - 39 1½, 40 - 49 2, 50 - 59 2½, 60+ 3). I have worked out what the handicap results would have been under this system (although it is not necessarily comparing like with like as in 2008 round by round pairings were, if I remember correctly, based on the handicap adjusted score):

1 Wigston 16 + 0 = 16
2 Syston 2 + 13 = 15
3 Leighton Buzzard 13 + 1½ = 14½
4 Snodland - 9½ + 3 = 12½
5.Wanstead & Woodford 1 11½ + ½ = 12
6 Watford 11½ + ½ = 12
7 Warwick 11 + ½ = 11½
8 Wanstead & Woodford 2 5½ + 4 = 9½

This confirms my impression that Wigston not only had the strongest team, but played extremely well on the day. However, with Wigston and Leighton Buzzard ineligible for handicap prizes, 1st and 2nd places in the handicap would still have been taken by Syston and Snodland: the only difference would have been that the free entry would have gone to Wanstead & Woodford 1 rather than Wanstead & Woodford 2.

John Philpott wrote: The key shortcoming of this approach, to my mind, is that it takes no account of the quality of opposition faced. Had Syston scored 0 points they would still have won the handicap event: their score would have fallen to 8 and Snodland's increased to 8, but Syston would have taken the title on the tie break of lower average grade. To his credit the controller recognises that this situation needs to be addressed, and he proposes to revisit the lower gradings, and to require at least ½ game point to be scored before the benefit of a positive handicap adjustment can be obtained.

Is the controller intending to change the handicapping system to one where all teams have a chance to win the handicap event, even if a negligible one, or is he intending to keep a system in place where a team could win all their games and still have no chance of winning the event? I suppose you could say that a new requirement to score 0.5 a point does that, but the overall handicapping (below) hardly encourages highly graded teams to enter.

190+ -10
180-189 -8
170-179 -6
160-169 -4
150-159 -2
140-149 0
130-139 +2
120-129 +4
110-119 +6
100-109 +8
90-99 +10
80-89 +12
0-79 +14

Ian Thompson wrote

Is the controller intending to change the handicapping system to one where all teams have a chance to win the handicap event, even if a negligible one, or is he intending to keep a system in place where a team could win all their games and still have no chance of winning the event?

That is a question for the controller, not for me. I have simply reported the remarks that he made on the day.

It is true that, absent the proposed rule to require 0.5 points to be scored, a team with an average grade of over 190 would have no mathematical chance of winning the handicap competition if a team with an average grade of 99 or under had entered (bearing in mind the tie break principle). However, this is surely less of a concern when the event is not purely a handicap rapidplay, but a rapidplay offering prizes both for unadjusted and adjusted scores, as the team which wins all its matches (as Wigston did yesterday) is very likely to take away the trophy and the cheque for the best unadjusted score.

I had not played in this competition before and understand this was first year there had been an “Open” event as well as the handicap.

The way things worked out, the stronger teams were in contention for the main prizes, with the others
competing to win the handicap event. I would have thought this is how it should be, but since Syston were quite a bit weaker than any of the other teams their adjustment did seem too generous and they looked certain to win the handicap competition from very early on.
I think a system where the handicaps are applied once the strengths of all the competing teams are known might work a bit better, but to be fair running two competitions in one, with eight teams, five rounds and six prizes can’t be easy and the controllers did a good job. Nice venue too.

Congratulations to Dan Lambourne of Leighton Buzzard who was the only player to achieve 5/5.

Whilst dicussing handicapping systems, I would like to direct readers attention to a system that I devised (actually blatantly stole from Arpad Elo ) which has been successfully in use in the inter-club tournament at Coulsdon for around 5 years now.

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/chessway/DW/dw_fr.htm

The excellent web page is maintained by Keith Selby.


Perhaps this can be of some use to handicap-tournament organisers ?