The smart ones use incrementsChristopher Kreuzer wrote:How do arbiters handle things if there are more issues requiring their attention than arbiters available?
This can of course be a real problem, particularly where the potential problems are in different rooms, or far apart from each other in a fairly large hall.Christopher Kreuzer wrote:How do arbiters handle things if there are more issues requiring their attention than arbiters available?
I don't really think the cost argument for the ECF has much validity for a couple of reasons. The first the obvious, unarguable IMO, point made by Mick. The cost is a sunk cost - it makes no ultimate difference to the finances of the ECF whether any individual final is played at the central venue, or elsewhere at the expense of the two teams involved. The second, concerning "wasteage" is that there is a compromise available - for teams to be required to cover their share of the cost of the central venue if they mutally choose to play elsewhere. At probably £40-50 per team (based on the £600 figure quoted by Alex) I'm sure that those teams that felt strongly about the issue would pay up.Alex Holowczak wrote:The cost this year is £600.Mick Norris wrote:No, the money has been spent in case all the finalists want to play at the central venue, not wasted - how much was it, by the way?
The money has been wasted if we book a venue that's twice the size we need. We could have spent £300 on the venue to achieve the same thing, but we'd have actually spent £600.
) who hoped for a Yorkshire appeal in their Open game against Somerset, I can announce that they have no intention to appeal the result of the match.
There's little more than twenty years of history for the grade limited competitions and about another ten years for the second and third team competitions that preceded them. The Minor Counties, which originally contained second teams dates back to the late seventies. The central venues issue dates back to the earlier expansions. The grade limit in the Minor Counties is an innovation in the last fifteen years.Christopher Kreuzer wrote: I know I could look some of the results up, but not sure how far back they go.
Interesting. I'd forgotten that county matches were larger in the past, and had not realised they were that large. It is also interesting that at those larger sizes they were effectively a way for many active chess players to have a game of chess at weekends, though still only one game on one day I presume, and not the several games over several days that congresses offered later. You don't know the exact progression of the size of the congress matches and how it was decided how many boards to play, do you? I wonder if any pictures survive from when the Royal Festival Hall was used? What date would that have been (the Royal Festival Hall opened in 1951)?Roger de Coverly wrote:There's little more than twenty years of history for the grade limited competitions and about another ten years for the second and third team competitions that preceded them. The Minor Counties, which originally contained second teams dates back to the late seventies. The central venues issue dates back to the earlier expansions. The grade limit in the Minor Counties is an innovation in the last fifteen years.Christopher Kreuzer wrote: I know I could look some of the results up, but not sure how far back they go.
Prior to the growth of Congresses, county matches could be logistical monsters. For example the largest SCCU counties of Kent, Surrey, Middlesex and Essex would play 75 board matches. You needed a Congress sized venue to cope. They even had central venues such as the Royal Festival Hall where nearly all the matches for a weekend would take place.
Which means, I think, that we could potentially have 5 all SCCU finals.Christopher Kreuzer wrote:For this year (2011-2012), the semi-finals are:
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/?page_id=36
U100:
Yorkshire vs Essex
Nottinghamshire vs Kent
U120:
Hertfordshire vs Lancashire
Warwickshire vs Essex
U140:
Lancashire vs Surrey
Hertfordshire vs Worcestershire
U160:
Nottinghamshire vs Yorkshire
Hertfordshire vs Greater Manchester
U180:
Middlesex vs Surrey
Yorkshire vs Lancashire
Minor:
Hertfordshire vs Hampshire
Essex vs Leicestershire
Open:
Somerset vs Middlesex
Sussex vs Surrey
As Richard Haddrell has said on the SCCU website, chicken counting would be unwise. There have been previous occasions when SCCU teams have done well in the Quarter Finals, only to suffer a series of defeats in the Semi Finals. There could be five all SCCU Finals, or there could be none at all.Sean Hewitt wrote:Which means, I think, that we could potentially have 5 all SCCU finals.Christopher Kreuzer wrote:For this year (2011-2012), the semi-finals are:
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/?page_id=36
U100:
Yorkshire vs Essex
Nottinghamshire vs Kent
U120:
Hertfordshire vs Lancashire
Warwickshire vs Essex
U140:
Lancashire vs Surrey
Hertfordshire vs Worcestershire
U160:
Nottinghamshire vs Yorkshire
Hertfordshire vs Greater Manchester
U180:
Middlesex vs Surrey
Yorkshire vs Lancashire
Minor:
Hertfordshire vs Hampshire
Essex vs Leicestershire
Open:
Somerset vs Middlesex
Sussex vs Surrey
Aside from demonstrating that the current rules (grading limits and no of boards ) favour large counties (such as most of those in the SCCU) I foresee a huge 'why do we have to trek to Leicester' debate.
They're not a large county by SCCU standards it's true, but it's all a matter of perception I guess. According to the grading list, there are 393 players with a current standard play grade who are listed for at least one club affiliated to Hertfordshire. By comparison, Leicestershire have 203. There are SCCU counties who have 600+ players.David Sedgwick wrote:Hertfordshire...are not a large county by any means.