2013 Final Stage

[Alex Holowczak]

There is something wrong when both captains are happy to overlook a minor infringement of the rules so that a game is not won on default and a match is therefore more competitive. The captains (and the controller) should not be prisoners of the rules. Whatever happened to commonsense?

The rules obviously need simplifying for the benefit of captains and controller. Alex must have better things to do with his time than enforce these pettifogging rules and then justify them on the Forum.

You do me too much credit - I'm probably chiefly responsible for these rules being introduced.

I spent some considerable time last year rewriting them, because the older rules had several oversights. Most of it was a simplification. There were several infractions that you could commit without actually having a prescribed penalty to impose. The 10-point rule was something I thought worth considering. There had been two board order disputes (which went to appeals to the DoHC). Council, or what was left of it at 1825 that Saturday last April, agreed.

The rules that have caused grief are clearing ungraded players in the Open, and captains not checking ECF membership status. These aren't, in principle, rules that are difficult to comply with. The principle of clearing ungraded players has happened in every other section since before my involvement in the tournament, and it hasn't caused any problems. Other Open captains have successfully cleared players. The membership status of players is easy to check online.

These rules aren't perfect. One match this weekend suggested one oversight, which I'll correct in time for next season. Suggestions for improvements are welcome.

This notwithstanding, you're right that I have wasted a few hours today that could have been better spent doing one of the following:
(1) Grading and Rating files for the Oxon FIDE-rated League
(2) Inputting Div 3 for the 4NCL Round 11
(3) Post-Megafinal administration
(4) Potential new arbiter regulations
(5) Dishing out the BUCA trophies that weren't presented at prize giving (this hasn't made it to the top of the priority list for three months now...)
(6) Birmingham Summer League stuff
etc.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

The event is looking for a controller. Why doesn't a forumite volunteer for the role? He or she could then draft any required rule changes for the next council meeting.

Sean took the words right out of my mouth!

[Neil Graham]

Captain finds a player, but the player is ungraded. For whatever reason the Controller is unavailable. Opposition captain is happy to waive the clearance requirement to avoid one of their players receiving a default victory. Can they play?

The rules definitely do not allow this.

There is something wrong when both captains are happy to overlook a minor infringement of the rules so that a game is not won on default and a match is therefore more competitive. The captains (and the controller) should not be prisoners of the rules. Whatever happened to commonsense?

The rules obviously need simplifying for the benefit of captains and controller. Alex must have better things to do with his time than enforce these pettifogging rules and then justify them on the Forum.

The competition has tremendous potential but there are too many obstacles. Too many counties struggle to find captains (is it any wonder with labyrinthine rules?), too many teams default boards, or, as yesterday, whole matches, at fairly advanced stages of the competition.

It should be so different. Yesterday, I played in a good-spirited under 180 match between Notts and Cambs. There were four juniors playing, which was a good sign, several players under 40, and not everyone was bearded and over 50 (like me!) The match went down to the wire with Cambs winning by a point. This was a great advert for county chess.

Notts outgraded Cambridgeshire in the lower order and they played well above their grades to win. So well done to them! However Cambridgeshire had brought forward their Under 160 match with Warwickshire which had already been played and no less than nine of the Cambridgeshire Under 160 team re-appeared for the Under 180 match. This wasn't confined to Cambridgeshire as a number of Warwickshire players also played in both competitions. Consequently whilst Notts had to find 32 players to play simultaneously yesterday; Cambridgeshire by doubling up only needed 23! If teams from the same county reach the finals they have to find the relevant number of players. I have no problem in counties moving matches but I don't believe you should be able to play more than one game in any round; Nottinghamshire were clearly disadvantaged yesterday.

[Alex Holowczak]

Nottinghamshire were clearly disadvantaged yesterday.

You say that, but there was nothing stopping Nottinghamshire declining nomination in those sections to avoid the problem. They weren't obliged to play in the Final Stage in any of those sections at all. Declining nomination is not ideal, granted...

[David Pardoe]

Having fewer county matches, involving larger teams, would save on costs, travel, venue hire, and if properly structured, with intermediate banding, could boost county participation. By intermediate banding, I mean that ..lets say the new grade bands were Open, U170, U135, U100...and you played either 20, or 24 board matches. In the U170 section, you might impose intermediate limits where no more than 6 players were `over 160`, no more than 6 were over 150 - 160 band, no more than 6 were over 140 - 150 range...leaving 2 or more in the over 135 category..which would ensure good spreads of players across various boundaries. ie, and limited front loading.

This suggestion bears all the hallmarks of a solution in search of a problem, and I don't think it'll work to counter the underlying problem, which is that larger counties tend to have more players to choose from than smaller counties in any given grading range.

Jack..this suggestion, or something similar, offers some potential improvements to county competitions, which might encourage greater participation, and give county captains more selection options.
Yes, bigger counties always have some advantages, but this option might balance some of these.
Thats not to say that other good options might not be offered.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Having fewer county matches, involving larger teams, would save on costs, travel, venue hire, and if properly structured, with intermediate banding, could boost county participation. By intermediate banding, I mean that ..lets say the new grade bands were Open, U170, U135, U100...and you played either 20, or 24 board matches. In the U170 section, you might impose intermediate limits where no more than 6 players were `over 160`, no more than 6 were over 150 - 160 band, no more than 6 were over 140 - 150 range...leaving 2 or more in the over 135 category..which would ensure good spreads of players across various boundaries. ie, and limited front loading.

This suggestion bears all the hallmarks of a solution in search of a problem, and I don't think it'll work to counter the underlying problem, which is that larger counties tend to have more players to choose from than smaller counties in any given grading range.

Jack..this suggestion, or something similar, offers some potential improvements to county competitions, which might encourage greater participation, and give county captains more selection options.

Have you read your own proposals? They give county captains fewer selection options for any given competition. They do so by design!

[Andrew Stone]

Thanks Nick. Well done on drawing with our super 225 Zehra (and for your IM norm at the 4NCL). My captain has just told me your board 12 was not registered.

Thanks Andrew but I didn't get the norm this year at the 4NCL as I needed to win the last round and lost

Whoops Sorry wasn't an intentional mistake Nick. Don't play 4NCL if that is any mistake for the error (which is a feeble excuse I know)

[Neil Graham]

Nottinghamshire were clearly disadvantaged yesterday.

You say that, but there was nothing stopping Nottinghamshire declining nomination in those sections to avoid the problem. They weren't obliged to play in the Final Stage in any of those sections at all. Declining nomination is not ideal, granted...

I'm sorry but I fail to see your point. We correctly fielded all the 32 players we were required to on the specified date - what's all this about "declining nomination" and "a problem" ? My complaint is that Cambridgeshire by playing their match early were able to avoid playing 32 players and play just 23; had they had to play two teams of 16 at the same time their side against Notts would have clearly been weaker or possibly they might even have declined nomination - certainly we have no intention of doing so if we qualify unlike some other counties who have defaulted. My point is that you shouldn't be able to compete in more than one competition in any round - I see that one Warwickshire player has managed to play in the quarter-final of the Minor, the Under 180 and the Under 160 by staggering the dates - would you have allowed him to play in all three matches simultaneously should Warwickshire have reached all three finals? Do the rules cover this possibility?

[Christopher Kreuzer]

After five pages of debate about the rules, the semi-final line-up is almost known. Still one result to come in (bolded below).

Minor: Bedfordshire vs Hampshire and Lincolnshire vs Essex
U100: Essex vs Lancashire and Nottinghamshire vs Surrey
U120: Kent vs Warwickshire and Essex vs Staffordshire
U140: Shropshire vs Hampshire and Kent vs Yorkshire
U160: Lancashire vs Warwickshire and Yorkshire/Essex vs Nottinghamshire
U180: Cambridgeshire vs Middlesex and Lancashire vs Kent
Open: Kent vs Middlesex and Lancashire vs Surrey

Someone may want to calculate the number of semi-final places by ECF region. I make it 11 SCCU representatives out of 28 (though I may have missed out one or two and the final number is not yet known). Kent and Lancashire have four teams still competing. Essex have three, possibly four, teams still competing. Nottinghamshire, Hampshire, Warwickshire, Surrey, and Middlesex have two teams still competing. Yorkshire have two or possibly only one team left in it. Singletons are: Bedfordshire and Lincolnshire (Minor counties), along with Shropshire, Staffordshire and Cambridgeshire.

Six matches so far in the Final Stages have seen penalties imposed. One match, Lancashire v Shropshire in the U140 quarter-finals, saw three penalty points imposed: "Lancashire boards 1, 2 and 7 not ECF members. 3 penalty points imposed on Lancashire. All three games declared won by their opponents." The final match score, after these penalty points were deducted, was 0.5-12.5, perilously close to the ignominy of a negative score.

Unless the captains are being tardy, one can only presume that some dispute over player eligibility and clearance and/or membership has affected the Yorkshire-Essex U160 match, and appeals are being made. Let's hope not.

[Neil Graham]

After five pages of debate about the rules, the semi-final line-up is almost known. Still one result to come in (bolded below).

Minor: Bedfordshire vs Hampshire and Lincolnshire vs Essex
U100: Essex vs Lancashire and Nottinghamshire vs Surrey
U120: Kent vs Warwickshire and Essex vs Staffordshire
U140: Shropshire vs Hampshire and Kent vs Yorkshire
U160: Lancashire vs Warwickshire and Yorkshire/Essex vs Nottinghamshire
U180: Cambridgeshire vs Middlesex and Lancashire vs Kent
Open: Kent vs Middlesex and Lancashire vs Surrey

Someone may want to calculate the number of semi-final places by ECF region. I make it 11 SCCU representatives out of 28 (though I may have missed out one or two and the final number is not yet known). Kent and Lancashire have four teams still competing. Essex have three, possibly four, teams still competing. Nottinghamshire, Hampshire, Warwickshire, Surrey, and Middlesex have two teams still competing. Yorkshire have two or possibly only one team left in it. Singletons are: Bedfordshire and Lincolnshire (Minor counties), along with Shropshire, Staffordshire and Cambridgeshire.

Six matches so far in the Final Stages have seen penalties imposed. One match, Lancashire v Shropshire in the U140 quarter-finals, saw three penalty points imposed: "Lancashire boards 1, 2 and 7 not ECF members. 3 penalty points imposed on Lancashire. All three games declared won by their opponents." The final match score, after these penalty points were deducted, was 0.5-12.5, perilously close to the ignominy of a negative score.

Unless the captains are being tardy, one can only presume that some dispute over player eligibility and clearance and/or membership has affected the Yorkshire-Essex U160 match, and appeals are being made. Let's hope not.

The SCCU site has shown an Essex win since Saturday night - no board details. Can I echo Kevin Williamson's point that the rule amendments were clearly made known to all captains by Alex at the start of the Finals. To date although penalties have been correctly invoked, there have been no match changing results where a penalty has been given. It was made clear from the outset that the rules would be followed.

[Roger de Coverly]

One match, Lancashire v Shropshire in the U140 quarter-finals, saw three penalty points imposed: "Lancashire boards 1, 2 and 7 not ECF members. 3 penalty points imposed on Lancashire. All three games declared won by their opponents."

I'm trying to follow what happens here. Does this mean that a match captain with only non-members willing and able to play will get a better match score by defaulting?

At least the ECF are trying to give a practical illustration of the incompatible relationship between compulsory membership and team chess.

[Neil Graham]

One match, Lancashire v Shropshire in the U140 quarter-finals, saw three penalty points imposed: "Lancashire boards 1, 2 and 7 not ECF members. 3 penalty points imposed on Lancashire. All three games declared won by their opponents."

I'm trying to follow what happens here. Does this mean that a match captain with only non-members willing and able to play will get a better match score by defaulting?

At least the ECF are trying to give a practical illustration of the incompatible relationship between compulsory membership and team chess.

Do you happen to have a different drum somewhere to bang? This is the ECF Counties Championship and I see no reason why players who aren't members of the ECF should be able to compete. Notts have had to register a couple of members who don't play in the county league to play in this competition - perfectly reasonable. I watched the FA Cup last weekend a team competition organised by the Football Association; would you believe all the players had to be registered to play?

[David Pardoe]

Having fewer county matches, involving larger teams, would save on costs, travel, venue hire, and if properly structured, with intermediate banding, could boost county participation. By intermediate banding, I mean that ..lets say the new grade bands were Open, U170, U135, U100...and you played either 20, or 24 board matches. In the U170 section, you might impose intermediate limits where no more than 6 players were `over 160`, no more than 6 were over 150 - 160 band, no more than 6 were over 140 - 150 range...leaving 2 or more in the over 135 category..which would ensure good spreads of players across various boundaries. ie, and limited front loading.

This suggestion bears all the hallmarks of a solution in search of a problem, and I don't think it'll work to counter the underlying problem, which is that larger counties tend to have more players to choose from than smaller counties in any given grading range.

Have you read your own proposals? They give county captains fewer selection options for any given competition. They do so by design!

Jack...
I`m proposing widening the grade boundaries by around 80%... How does this limit captains choice?
Yes, you need intermediate band restrictions to stop front loading and ensure that large swathes of players dont become `unselectable`... Yes, whatever scheme is suggested, you will always find some punters that are dissaffected.
Yes, I`m sure there are other potentially good options that might be considered.

[Roger de Coverly]

This is the ECF Counties Championship and I see no reason why players who aren't members of the ECF should be able to compete.

Is the mission of the ECF to promote or discourage the playing of chess?

would you believe all the players had to be registered to play?

Registered to play yes, compelled to become individual members of the FA by an annual subscription, I doubt.

Registration and membership aren't the same thing. Players have to be registered to take part in the 4NCL, they don't have to become members of it.

[Roger de Coverly]

Yes, you need intermediate band restrictions to stop front loading and ensure that large swathes of players dont become `unselectable`.

The days are long gone when county teams had more eligible players than they could cope with. If we ever did return to such an excess, a better solution would be to weaken eligibility rules so that affected players could bus themselves to play for a neighbour with fewer resources.