2014 Final stages

Discussion about all aspects of the ECF County Championships.
Sean Hewitt
Posts: 2190
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:18 pm
Contact:

Re: 2014 Final stages

Post by Sean Hewitt » Fri Apr 04, 2014 6:52 pm

To be fair to Alex, I doubt he would have an objection to codifying the convention to keep 1st and 2nd teams apart. His point (and he is right) is that it's not in the rules.

Neil Graham
Posts: 1127
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:36 pm

Re: 2014 Final stages

Post by Neil Graham » Fri Apr 04, 2014 7:18 pm

Sean Hewitt wrote:To be fair to Alex, I doubt he would have an objection to codifying the convention to keep 1st and 2nd teams apart. His point (and he is right) is that it's not in the rules.
Alex has pointed this out on a number of occasions; indeed in this thread yet again. This matter cannot be pursued and your post succinctly summarised the situation.

The SCCU site states the following

" We weren't going to mention it, but what the hell. Has it struck you that every single one of the teams with a quarter-final bye is at home in the semi-final? There are seven of them. Well, it could happen by accident. Or it could be an unintended, and surely incorrect, quirk in the draw methodology. Take your pick."

Whilst again the draw meets the rules, another less than satisfactory situation.

Sean Hewitt
Posts: 2190
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:18 pm
Contact:

Re: 2014 Final stages

Post by Sean Hewitt » Fri Apr 04, 2014 8:48 pm

Neil Graham wrote:
Sean Hewitt wrote:To be fair to Alex, I doubt he would have an objection to codifying the convention to keep 1st and 2nd teams apart. His point (and he is right) is that it's not in the rules.
Alex has pointed this out on a number of occasions; indeed in this thread yet again. This matter cannot be pursued and your post succinctly summarised the situation.
It can easily be pursued. If Nottinghamshire want to propose such a rule change, I'm sure Leicestershire would second it.

MartinCarpenter
Posts: 2396
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: 2014 Final stages

Post by MartinCarpenter » Fri Apr 04, 2014 9:05 pm

Suppose while we're at it I may as well point out the U180 draw too - it was always a bit odd but now that S3 has declined to enter, it really does look gently perverse :)

2 SCCU and 2 NCCU teams and they're all in the same half of the Q final draw? I guess probably the top 4 teams too, with the other two getting semi final byes. Oh well.

Being down to 6 teams in the open competition is sad and definitely rather worse than all of this :(

Neil Graham
Posts: 1127
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:36 pm

Re: 2014 Final stages

Post by Neil Graham » Fri Apr 04, 2014 9:15 pm

Sean Hewitt wrote:
Neil Graham wrote:
Sean Hewitt wrote:To be fair to Alex, I doubt he would have an objection to codifying the convention to keep 1st and 2nd teams apart. His point (and he is right) is that it's not in the rules.
Alex has pointed this out on a number of occasions; indeed in this thread yet again. This matter cannot be pursued and your post succinctly summarised the situation.
It can easily be pursued. If Nottinghamshire want to propose such a rule change, I'm sure Leicestershire would second it.
Notts will do so at ECF Council in the Autumn if agreed in meeting

Graham Borrowdale

Re: 2014 Final stages

Post by Graham Borrowdale » Fri Apr 04, 2014 10:33 pm

MartinCarpenter wrote: Being down to 6 teams in the open competition is sad and definitely rather worse than all of this :(
This does seem rather sad. If my team ever won its union section I would be upset not to have a chance to play in the open national stages. It has been said before that teams do not enter because they feel they are not good enough. That's a bit like 14 of the Premier League football teams deciding they would rather play in the Championship because they can not compete with Chelsea, Manchester City, etc. When did the result become more important than taking part?

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 17253
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: 2014 Final stages

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Apr 04, 2014 11:51 pm

Graham Borrowdale wrote:. It has been said before that teams do not enter because they feel they are not good enough. That's a bit like 14 of the Premier League football teams deciding they would rather play in the Championship because they can not compete with Chelsea, Manchester City, etc.
I think Premiership/Championship analogies can be broken quite rapidly. A football club promoted to the Premiership would usually attempt to strengthen its squad. While financial constraints and existing contracts will be important, that's as far as it goes as something to prevent them. Similarly a chess team promoted from 4NCL division 2 to division 1 or from division 3 to division 2 is limited only by connections, goodwill and finance in attempting to strengthen the squad.

Contrast this with a chess County team. To stay within the rules, you are limited to those born in the county, living in the county or active members of a club in the county. If you appear to transgress, even within the rules, you will be accused by larger counties of .... bussing in players .... Evidently they wish to maintain their monopolies.

The longest running dispute or feud in English chess relates to county eligibility.

Ian Wallis
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 6:32 pm

Re: 2014 Final stages

Post by Ian Wallis » Sat Apr 05, 2014 12:48 am

{quote="Neil Graham"}
Secondly once arrangements have been agreed between the two captains on date/venue can they be shown on the website as well? In my case I have to await a preliminary match in the Minor Counties event to ascertain my quarter-final opponent which gives a mere three weeks to sort out and agree a venue with whichever team wins. It could be that another team is already playing at an intermediate venue which we could share.{/quote}

{quote="IM Jack Rudd"}
We're playing Suffolk on the Sunday in Milton Keynes; a share might be plausible if Hampshire wins the preliminary.{/quote}

Jack is referring to the Open University in Milton Keynes.
I was told, when I made enquiries about this venue with the Bedfordshire county captain, that Nottinghamshire had already booked for two matches on Saturday 17 May.
I do not know if there would be sufficient space for three matches on this booking, however, as Jack has suggested, this would not be a problem if you wanted to play Sunday. I am sure Somerset and Suffolk would not mind if you wanted to share providing you coincided with the scheduled start of 13:00.
PM me if you need contact details.

Neil Graham
Posts: 1127
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:36 pm

Re: 2014 Final stages

Post by Neil Graham » Sat Apr 05, 2014 8:49 am

Ian Wallis wrote:{quote="Neil Graham"}
Secondly once arrangements have been agreed between the two captains on date/venue can they be shown on the website as well? In my case I have to await a preliminary match in the Minor Counties event to ascertain my quarter-final opponent which gives a mere three weeks to sort out and agree a venue with whichever team wins. It could be that another team is already playing at an intermediate venue which we could share.{/quote}

{quote="IM Jack Rudd"}
We're playing Suffolk on the Sunday in Milton Keynes; a share might be plausible if Hampshire wins the preliminary.{/quote}

Jack is referring to the Open University in Milton Keynes.
I was told, when I made enquiries about this venue with the Bedfordshire county captain, that Nottinghamshire had already booked for two matches on Saturday 17 May.
I do not know if there would be sufficient space for three matches on this booking, however, as Jack has suggested, this would not be a problem if you wanted to play Sunday. I am sure Somerset and Suffolk would not mind if you wanted to share providing you coincided with the scheduled start of 13:00.
PM me if you need contact details.
Nottinghamshire play Kent in the U100 at the OU on 17th May.
Nottinghamshire play Lancashire in the U120 at Newcastle Bridge Club on 17th May.

The other match proposed for 17th May at the OU was Notts v Hertfordshire in the U140. This has now been moved to 10th May at a different venue.

Nottinghamshire's final match in the Minor Championship cannot be arranged until the prelim round result of Hampshire v Greater Manchester has been played.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 8468
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: 2014 Final stages

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sat Apr 05, 2014 12:01 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:I intend to discuss this with the Unions
Tuesday, 15th July @ 2000, by Skype. Announced to Union Representatives; will appear on the ECF website on Monday, hopefully.

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 1565
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: 2014 Final stages

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Sat Apr 05, 2014 5:15 pm

MartinCarpenter wrote:Suppose while we're at it I may as well point out the U180 draw too - it was always a bit odd but now that S3 has declined to enter, it really does look gently perverse :)

2 SCCU and 2 NCCU teams and they're all in the same half of the Q final draw? I guess probably the top 4 teams too, with the other two getting semi final byes. Oh well.

Being down to 6 teams in the open competition is sad and definitely rather worse than all of this :(
Obviously the fact that there wouldn't be a third SCCU nomination wasn't known until the last minute. Although the rules do allow the controller to alter the pairings the slightly lopsided draw seemed preferable to ripping up the whole thing and starting again.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

Sean Hewitt
Posts: 2190
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:18 pm
Contact:

Re: 2014 Final stages

Post by Sean Hewitt » Sat Apr 05, 2014 5:38 pm

Andrew Zigmond wrote:Obviously the fact that there wouldn't be a third SCCU nomination wasn't known until the last minute. Although the rules do allow the controller to alter the pairings the slightly lopsided draw seemed preferable to ripping up the whole thing and starting again.
Which begs the fundamental question - why do the draw before the nominations are confirmed?

Kevin Williamson
Posts: 113
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 6:24 pm

Re: 2014 Final stages

Post by Kevin Williamson » Sat Apr 05, 2014 6:42 pm

Sean Hewitt wrote:
Andrew Zigmond wrote:Obviously the fact that there wouldn't be a third SCCU nomination wasn't known until the last minute. Although the rules do allow the controller to alter the pairings the slightly lopsided draw seemed preferable to ripping up the whole thing and starting again.
Which begs the fundamental question - why do the draw before the nominations are confirmed?
The same question was asked on an earlier thread and we were told that’s what the Unions wanted.

I guess the withdrawal of S3 in the u180 has given the ECF their first pound of flesh through the new system of fines. I have some sympathy with the SCCU there as they (as all Unions did) had to agree the number of nominations before knowing which Counties had qualified. If individual Counties later decide they don’t wish to play the Union has to pick up the £100 fine.

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 1565
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: 2014 Final stages

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Sat Apr 05, 2014 7:25 pm

Kevin Williamson wrote: If individual Counties later decide they don’t wish to play the Union has to pick up the £100 fine.
That's not entirely true. The Union is charged in the first instance - they are then free to hold an individual county accountable should they feel it's appropriate.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

Sean Hewitt
Posts: 2190
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:18 pm
Contact:

Re: 2014 Final stages

Post by Sean Hewitt » Sat Apr 05, 2014 8:02 pm

Kevin Williamson wrote:
Sean Hewitt wrote:
Andrew Zigmond wrote:Obviously the fact that there wouldn't be a third SCCU nomination wasn't known until the last minute. Although the rules do allow the controller to alter the pairings the slightly lopsided draw seemed preferable to ripping up the whole thing and starting again.
Which begs the fundamental question - why do the draw before the nominations are confirmed?
The same question was asked on an earlier thread and we were told that’s what the Unions wanted.
Then perhaps the question is better phrased as "why do the Unions want it?"

Post Reply