2010/11 Championship

Discussion about all aspects of the ECF County Championships.
David Sedgwick
Posts: 4157
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: 2010/11 Championship

Post by David Sedgwick » Sun Jun 12, 2011 1:50 am

David Clayton wrote:
David Sedgwick wrote:........My day ended on a somewhat sour note when I was ripped off by Oxford Bus Company on the way back to Oxford Station. However, I can hardly blame Magdalen College School for that.
David

Did you not get a plus bus ticket for Oxford?

http://www.plusbus.info/oxford-plusbus- ... kidlington

David
Sorry for the thread hijack, but I have been asked.

I arrived at Oxford Station with a suitcase after visiting my mother. I asked the bus driver for a return ticket to Magdalen College School and paid the £1.80 fare requested. When I boarded the bus for the return journey the driver of that bus said that my ticket was only valid from Oxford City Centre and demanded another £1. I didn't really want to risk missing my train through having to drag my suitcase down to the City Centre before getting on another bus, so I grudgingly paid up.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: 2010/11 Championship

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sun Jun 12, 2011 9:10 am

David Sedgwick wrote:
David Clayton wrote:
David Sedgwick wrote:........My day ended on a somewhat sour note when I was ripped off by Oxford Bus Company on the way back to Oxford Station. However, I can hardly blame Magdalen College School for that.
David

Did you not get a plus bus ticket for Oxford?

http://www.plusbus.info/oxford-plusbus- ... kidlington

David
Sorry for the thread hijack, but I have been asked.

I arrived at Oxford Station with a suitcase after visiting my mother. I asked the bus driver for a return ticket to Magdalen College School and paid the £1.80 fare requested. When I boarded the bus for the return journey the driver of that bus said that my ticket was only valid from Oxford City Centre and demanded another £1. I didn't really want to risk missing my train through having to drag my suitcase down to the City Centre before getting on another bus, so I grudgingly paid up.
A return fare is £3.60 in the "West Midlands". :shock:

John Philpott

Re: 2010/11 Championship

Post by John Philpott » Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:50 am

I understand that Essex lost 9 - 7 to Lancashire in the U160 semi-final. The fact that Lancashire were able to get away with playing a 12 board match at U180 level may have had a knock on effect in terms of the strength of the U160 team that they were able to field on the same day.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: 2010/11 Championship

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:08 pm

John Philpott wrote:I understand that Essex lost 9 - 7 to Lancashire in the U160 semi-final. The fact that Lancashire were able to get away with playing a 12 board match at U180 level may have had a knock on effect in terms of the strength of the U160 team that they were able to field on the same day.
I guess Lancashire could have just defaulted the Under 180 match in order to preserve their Under 160 chances. So again, the National Controller is backed into a corner.

Mick Norris
Posts: 8433
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester

Re: 2010/11 Championship

Post by Mick Norris » Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:08 pm

LozCooper wrote:I think Surrey's average was 201 and ours was in the 180s. They were 7-3 up so the result was never really in doubt, I think David Anderton, Malcolm Armstong and me were the only Staffs winners but apologies if I've missed anyone. Surrey didn't have Yang-Fan or Sam Franklin today which probably made life a little bit easier for Staffs at the top but they had IMs on boards 2, 5 and 7 and plenty of experienced 200+ players like Granat, Berry etc and I think only four players below 190.
Loz

Congratulations on your own win, and a good Staffs overall performance against a strong Surrey team - will be interesting to see how they go against Kent in the final
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

Mick Norris
Posts: 8433
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester

Re: 2010/11 Championship

Post by Mick Norris » Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:12 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:
John Philpott wrote:I understand that Essex lost 9 - 7 to Lancashire in the U160 semi-final. The fact that Lancashire were able to get away with playing a 12 board match at U180 level may have had a knock on effect in terms of the strength of the U160 team that they were able to field on the same day.
I guess Lancashire could have just defaulted the Under 180 match in order to preserve their Under 160 chances. So again, the National Controller is backed into a corner.
If Lancs were forced to play Open, U180, U160 on the same day (as well as U100 and possibly U120) then that is fair enough, as they seem to have staggered the quarter finals, despite refusing our request to move the date of the U160

The finals will be all on the same day, never really understood if this is better than having, say, Open, U160, U120 one day and U180, U140, U100 another
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: 2010/11 Championship

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:49 pm

Mick Norris wrote:The finals will be all on the same day, never really understood if this is better than having, say, Open, U160, U120 one day and U180, U140, U100 another
I think there are too many sections, to be honest. Without wanting to reopen that debate, I reckon it'd be far easier to play Open, U175, U150, U125, U100 on one day than the current arrangements. It seems the NCCU really struggles with it.

I was discussing Warks v Yorks in the Under 100s with the Warwickshire captain. He said that Yorkshire has said they'd struggle to get a team together for the Final, and actually requested that the date be changed. Presumably he didn't understand they were all together at one venue. For what it's worth, I like the idea of it all being at one venue. It's probably a one-off thing, so while it may be annoying that Kent v Surrey has to be played in Leicestershire, I think as a one-off it's worth putting up with.

Ian Kingston
Posts: 1070
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 3:16 pm
Location: Sutton Coldfield
Contact:

Re: 2010/11 Championship

Post by Ian Kingston » Sun Jun 12, 2011 1:38 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:
Mick Norris wrote:The finals will be all on the same day, never really understood if this is better than having, say, Open, U160, U120 one day and U180, U140, U100 another
I think there are too many sections, to be honest. Without wanting to reopen that debate, I reckon it'd be far easier to play Open, U175, U150, U125, U100 on one day than the current arrangements. It seems the NCCU really struggles with it.
I vaguely recall warning that adding an extra graded section to the competition would lead to this kind of problem, although I thought that counties might simply drop certain teams. Perhaps the U180, U160 and U140 competitions could be converted to two sections, rather than three (U180 and U150).

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: 2010/11 Championship

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sun Jun 12, 2011 1:41 pm

Ian Kingston wrote:
Alex Holowczak wrote:
Mick Norris wrote:The finals will be all on the same day, never really understood if this is better than having, say, Open, U160, U120 one day and U180, U140, U100 another
I think there are too many sections, to be honest. Without wanting to reopen that debate, I reckon it'd be far easier to play Open, U175, U150, U125, U100 on one day than the current arrangements. It seems the NCCU really struggles with it.
I vaguely recall warning that adding an extra graded section to the competition would lead to this kind of problem, although I thought that counties might simply drop certain teams. Perhaps the U180, U160 and U140 competitions could be converted to two sections, rather than three (U180 and U150).
Perhaps. There are fewer players in Lancashire and Yorkshire (compared to their southern cousins), yet because of the structure of the competition, they end up having to field more teams in the national stages. So they struggle more.

John Philpott

Re: 2010/11 Championship

Post by John Philpott » Sun Jun 12, 2011 8:50 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote
There are fewer players in Lancashire and Yorkshire (compared to their southern cousins), yet because of the structure of the competition, they end up having to field more teams in the national stages. So they struggle more.
There is no "having to" about it. A County can decline nomination for any event in the National Stages, and this is precisely what Essex did in respect of the Minor Counties, partly because of the likely extent of overlap with the U180 team.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: 2010/11 Championship

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sun Jun 12, 2011 8:56 pm

John Philpott wrote:
Alex Holowczak wrote:There are fewer players in Lancashire and Yorkshire (compared to their southern cousins), yet because of the structure of the competition, they end up having to field more teams in the national stages. So they struggle more.
There is no "having to" about it. A County can decline nomination for any event in the National Stages, and this is precisely what Essex did in respect of the Minor Counties, partly because of the likely extent of overlap with the U180 team.
Fair enough.

Mick Norris
Posts: 8433
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester

Re: 2010/11 Championship

Post by Mick Norris » Tue Jun 21, 2011 11:55 am

John Philpott wrote:I understand that Essex lost 9 - 7 to Lancashire in the U160 semi-final. The fact that Lancashire were able to get away with playing a 12 board match at U180 level may have had a knock on effect in terms of the strength of the U160 team that they were able to field on the same day.
John

I see your U100 team has been awarded the win against Lancs

I should state for the record that the ineligible fielding of the player is a disappointment to the MCF, particularly as he is our League Match captain, as we like to see Lancs doing well and indeed any other counties fielding MCF players

I did laugh though when I realised who it was
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19265
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: 2010/11 Championship

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:10 pm

Mick Norris wrote: I see your (Essex) U100 team has been awarded the win against Lancs
http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/matchbcf.htm#u100
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... ruling.pdf

A bit of a technicality in some respects. The player concerned did have a grade below 100, but not in the 2010 list and the grade had been established before the ECF's revaluation. So the letter of the rules was that the controller had to give permission ( which Adam suggests would have been refused)

I didn't really understand the relevance of Lancs going on (as quoted in Adam's report) about performances over this season. If the eligibility rule is grade < 100 in the 2010 list, subsequent performances aren't relevant. It's a bit harsh on the improving ungraded player since the standard to measure their inclusion is always likely to be results in the current season, in other words after improvement. I suppose there was a logic to the Essex board order, not obvious to the casual reader. But you wouldn't expect it to be.

Neil Graham
Posts: 1573
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:36 pm

Re: 2010/11 Championship

Post by Neil Graham » Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:57 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote: There are fewer players in Lancashire and Yorkshire (compared to their southern cousins), yet because of the structure of the competition, they end up having to field more teams in the national stages. So they struggle more.
I don't think this is correct for a minute. Yorkshire can call on players from Leeds, Bradford, Sheffield and Hull not forgetting Halifax, Huddersfield, Doncaster, York etc. etc. The main problem as I see it is that county chess is moribund in the NCCU; basically Yorkshire and Lancashire get together for a one-day jamboree over 12 boards to see which one is nominated as NCCU 1 and NCCU 2; I think Cumbria might play in one competition. The remaining NCCU counties are conspicuous by their continued absence. In the SCCU and to a slightly lesser extent the MCCU we all have to go through an extensive qualifying competition to actually get into the national stages. It's time qualification was based on a system of 1 place per three entrants or part thereof; (ie 1-3; 4-6; 7-9); this would immediately cut out lots of preliminary matches and prevent sides being nominated when they've played just one twelve board match.

Neil Graham
Posts: 1573
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:36 pm

Re: 2010/11 Championship

Post by Neil Graham » Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:09 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Mick Norris wrote: I see your (Essex) U100 team has been awarded the win against Lancs
http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/matchbcf.htm#u100
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... ruling.pdf

A bit of a technicality in some respects. The player concerned did have a grade below 100, but not in the 2010 list and the grade had been established before the ECF's revaluation. So the letter of the rules was that the controller had to give permission ( which Adam suggests would have been refused)

I didn't really understand the relevance of Lancs going on (as quoted in Adam's report) about performances over this season. If the eligibility rule is grade < 100 in the 2010 list, subsequent performances aren't relevant. It's a bit harsh on the improving ungraded player since the standard to measure their inclusion is always likely to be results in the current season, in other words after improvement. I suppose there was a logic to the Essex board order, not obvious to the casual reader. But you wouldn't expect it to be.
This year Notts had a University player in their Under 140 team. In common with many young people he had taken a year out and although he had published grades from 2005-2009, he had no grade for 210. All his grades were below 140; his 2009 grade of 135 was his highest by some distance. We sought permission to play him in the Union stages based on his 2009 grade which was granted. However when we qualified for the national stages we correctly asked if he could continue to play - however his grade for this season was calculated at 145 when we obtained details from the local grader so this application was rejected. The rules on playing ungraded players are clear and bearing in mind last year's dispute, captains should be aware of the procedure.

Post Reply