Semi finals

Discussion about all aspects of the ECF County Championships.
Jonathan Rogers
Posts: 3464
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm

Re: Semi finals

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Sun May 31, 2015 11:12 am

Richard Bates wrote: ...

On the specific incident here - it is illogical for the penalty to exceed the penalty applying were the board in question to be defaulted.
it seems anomalous, yes. But one could, if one were minded to defend the rules, use the logic that the captain in this case presumably intended to maximise his team chances with his board order, albeit that he thought he was doing so properly; whereas if he had intended to maximise his team's chances by nominating a player expected to default on a higher board, then he would still be subject to additional penalties under C3.3

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 3635
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: Semi finals

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Sun May 31, 2015 11:23 am

Jonathan Rogers wrote:The idea that captains should check that everything is in order with team lists before play begins was also applied in a 4NCL dispute, at the end of 2000/2001 (though that was a borderline case because the error made was discoverable but not so very apparent to the other captain).
That was an error involving me, was it not? My team captain moved me into the first team and our usual board six into the second team, or something like that, and had failed to notice that he was breaking the 80-point rule in doing so. And neither opposing captain noticed until the match was underway, because you don't normally look closely at matches not involving your own teams.

Jonathan Rogers
Posts: 3464
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm

Re: Semi finals

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Sun May 31, 2015 11:31 am

IM Jack Rudd wrote:
Jonathan Rogers wrote:The idea that captains should check that everything is in order with team lists before play begins was also applied in a 4NCL dispute, at the end of 2000/2001 (though that was a borderline case because the error made was discoverable but not so very apparent to the other captain).
That was an error involving me, was it not? My team captain moved me into the first team and our usual board six into the second team, or something like that, and had failed to notice that he was breaking the 80-point rule in doing so. And neither opposing captain noticed until the match was underway, because you don't normally look closely at matches not involving your own teams.
Yes.

Richard Bates
Posts: 2607
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: Semi finals

Post by Richard Bates » Sun May 31, 2015 11:33 am

Jonathan Rogers wrote:; whereas if he had intended to maximise his team's chances by nominating a player expected to default on a higher board, then he would still be subject to additional penalties under C3.3
Potential additional penalties which are somewhat curiously undefined in the overall context of the discussion!

AustinElliott
Posts: 634
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 11:01 pm
Location: North of England
Contact:

Re: Semi finals

Post by AustinElliott » Sun May 31, 2015 11:37 am

Looking at all this from the outside I would have thought the obvious wider point was that, given stuff like this, it is no wonder an ever declining number of people are interested in playing county chess (see threads passim ad nauseam, as Private Eye would say).

Mike Gunn
Posts: 611
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:45 pm

Re: Semi finals

Post by Mike Gunn » Sun May 31, 2015 12:04 pm

There was an earlier thread where it was pointed out that board order is (almost) irrelevant to the result of a match so that a draconian penalty (anything more than one point) is - in practice - disproportionate to the crime committed.

NickFaulks
Posts: 4052
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Semi finals

Post by NickFaulks » Sun May 31, 2015 12:34 pm

I see similarities here with the Wesley So case discussed in a concurrent thread. Perhaps the regulations are in some way unreasonable, but captains know the rules and they know the penalties ( at least that they exist and are serious ), so why does it keep happening?

Richard Haddrell

Re: Semi finals

Post by Richard Haddrell » Sun May 31, 2015 1:11 pm

Angus French wrote:The hole in the rules through which the Yorkshire team has unfortunately fallen has, I believe, been known about for some time and I suspect it might have been raised by Richard Haddrell at the ECF AGM in 2013.
It was. The SCCU's paper, pointing out the flaw in the rule, is still on the ECF website under "Council Papers" if you're interested. Council and the Home Director didn't want to know, and it has been a ticking bomb ever since. The explosion when it came was beyond my imagining.

E Michael White
Posts: 1291
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:31 pm

Re: Semi finals

Post by E Michael White » Sun May 31, 2015 5:43 pm

Mike Gunn wrote:There was an earlier thread where it was pointed out that board order is (almost) irrelevant to the result of a match so that a draconian penalty (anything more than one point) is - in practice - disproportionate to the crime committed.
I remember that post of yours and have been meaning to reply for about a year. The mathematics behind the grading system does not support your view on the irrelevance of board order.

In the county match discussed the 5 players on the next lower boards would have had easier games than had they played in an order allowed by the rules.

David Pardoe
Posts: 1197
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:29 pm
Location: NORTH WEST

Re: Semi finals

Post by David Pardoe » Sun May 31, 2015 6:54 pm

The ten point rule is not really a sensible one in my view. You can find any number of instances where players with significant grading differences upset the form book in team matches. In practice, I`d go for at least a 20 point rule, to give captains the latitude to play according to `form`, or the various other factors that can kick in.
The other side of this coin is the negative attitudes that can arise from captains who find they are struggling for `players of the right grade grouping`, and some who give up, and default matches just because they cant get there favourite group of star players to turn out.
And also, counties, that don't enter teams, because they cant get there quota of `deemed` suitable graded players.
Its surprising how well a team of keen players can do, having put themselves forward to play, verses a group who are reluctant pressed men, playing without much enthusiasm, perhaps. I`ve had players who were 30 or 40 points below the grade band, step in and give a good account. Not always...but more often than not they have enjoyed playing and put in a good show.
I`d urge counties who currently don't participate, to consider this...it might also provide motivation and incentive for improving players to step forward. A team with three or four so called `weaker players` can often put in a good showing, and cause some upsets at times.
BRING BACK THE BCF

Neil Graham
Posts: 1094
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:36 pm

Re: Semi finals

Post by Neil Graham » Sun May 31, 2015 11:52 pm

The problem here is one that has been conveniently pushed under the carpet for years; there is no solution and no attempt to sort out a solution.It just gets left and of course over the years the situation gets worse until there is no prospect of a solution.

I refer, of course, to the independent Yorkshire Leagues who make minimal financial contribution to the ECF. The player who has caused all the problems here is a Peter Leonard whose ECF grade is shown as 141E dropping to 131F. He has played a total of nine ECF graded games over a couple of seasons. However is we examine the Yorkshire Grading List a different story emerges. Mr Leonard has played over 40 graded games to date mostly in his local league over the same period and these show his true grading to be 156 at the start of the competition and over 160 now. In these circumstances had the Yorkshire grade been used there would have been no penalty as he is playing in his rightful place in the team.

Of course to play in the Counties Championship he has to be an ECF member and this is shown but I bet that a membership fee had to be paid to ensure his eligibility.

What, of course, we want is for all players in the Calderdale, Sheffield, York, Bradford Leagues etc. etc. to sign up to be ECF members and to have their games ECF graded - then we might have a proper national grading list that reflects all the games played rather than two lists that are both inaccurate and incomplete. Whilst the unfortunate case of Mr.Leonard is regrettable; had his true and correct grade been known there would have been no offence; I guess that the Yorkshire captain simply stuck him in where he ought to have been - a grade of 156!

Incidentally perhaps someone can advise how much it costs per team or club to enter these leagues?

Andrew Bak
Posts: 830
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 11:48 am
Location: Bradford
Contact:

Re: Semi finals

Post by Andrew Bak » Mon Jun 01, 2015 3:50 pm

As someone who's tried to integrate Yorkshire more with the ECF (we've managed to at least get division 1 of the Bradford League graded), I know that the ECF has a very poor reputation amongst the majority of players I come across and situations such as this certainly won't help with smoothing those relations.

Angus French
Posts: 1449
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Contact:

Re: Semi finals

Post by Angus French » Mon Jun 01, 2015 6:42 pm

Neil Graham wrote:... The player who has caused all the problems here is a Peter Leonard whose ECF grade is shown as 141E dropping to 131F. ...
'F' grades are derived from between five and eight results in three years. In my view this is insufficient to guarantee anything like an accurate measurement of player's strength. I think it would be better if 'F' grades were disregarded in competitions.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 16729
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Semi finals

Post by Roger de Coverly » Mon Jun 01, 2015 11:31 pm

The SCCU site is reporting a victory for Warwick by 9 and a half to minus a half.

Chess administrators don't learn, a similar result five to minus 1 caused by an ineligible player was satirised by Bill Hartston forty years ago in his book "Soft Pawn".

I would have thought it obvious enough that the penalty against a team for fielding a player out of grading order should not exceed that for a player not turning up at all. Those who believe otherwise have my contempt.

Less than scrupulous match captains have been known to write team lists containing the names of players not intending to play, so there can be a justification for a penalty that exceeds that of a default.

Andy McCulloch
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:57 pm

Re: Semi finals

Post by Andy McCulloch » Tue Jun 02, 2015 12:53 am

I have this awful feeling that if the player in question had been played on a board commensurate with his ECF grading, there would have been an appeal that he was not played on a board commensurate with his 'known' strength, i.e. his Yorkshire grade.

Post Reply