Semi finals

Discussion about all aspects of the ECF County Championships.
Mick Norris
Posts: 6796
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: Semi finals

Post by Mick Norris » Tue Jun 02, 2015 8:55 am

Andy McCulloch wrote: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.
Warks are too sensible for that, in my experience, they would have been content that Yorks followed the rules of the competition

Maybe the rules need to be changed, but not in the middle of the event
C1.2.(a) Grading limits shall be based on the published ECF standardplay Grading List current at the start of the season. A captain may use either this list, or that season’s January Grading List for the purposes of board order (see E2.3).
E2.3. If a player plays on a board below another who is graded (or deemed to be graded) more than 10 ECF points lower than the player, then that player shall be deemed to be ineligible, and treated in accordance with C3.3. The captain must use a single Grading List for the purpose of this rule. The penalty shall not apply where the written consent of the opposing captain is obtained prior to the start of play.
If Yorks wanted to play anyone outside of the limitations of the 10 point ECF rule, they could easily have emailed the Warks captain to ask for permission to do so, and I would be surprised if John Fahy had refused; I have always found him to be very reasonable and easy to deal with (ditto with all the Yorks captains I have encountered too to be fair)
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

Richard Haddrell

Re: Semi finals

Post by Richard Haddrell » Tue Jun 02, 2015 1:55 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:The SCCU site is reporting a victory for Warwick by 9 and a half to minus a half.
The SCCU site got it wrong. I now make it 9½ to plus ½. The ECF site, on the other hand, says 9½ to (plus) 1½. Take your pick.

NickFaulks
Posts: 4161
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Semi finals

Post by NickFaulks » Tue Jun 02, 2015 5:34 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote: 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.
I may have just joined that latter group - of course, I may have been in it already.

If you have a squad of fourteen players whom you wish to play on boards 2 to 15, it seems to me that you have two choices.

1. You can put on top board a very strong player who you know will be in Australia on the day of the match. Perhaps they are not even eligible. You will of course default that board, but I believe there are more serious repercussions if this subterfuge is discovered.

2. You can put a rabbit on top board. Once again you will lose that board, but by comparison with (1) shouldn't there be some additional penalty?

I'm not steeped in county chess, so please forgive me if this doesn't make sense.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 16822
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Semi finals

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Jun 02, 2015 6:32 pm

NickFaulks wrote: I'm not steeped in county chess, so please forgive me if this doesn't make sense.
I don't think you would go beyond a forfeit of the game with the out of order player and perhaps a penalty deduction in the manner of the 4NCL approach on defaults.

The irony is that if the old "loose" rule of fielding teams in order of strength had applied, the board order was probably correct. As it happened the player had played most of his chess in local Yorkshire leagues that aren't part of the ECF grading system. Equally he could have been new to England and had a very solid FIDE or national Elo which on conversion would have supported his team place.

The ECF's introduction of F grades for December 2014 has had some side effects on eligibilities that competitions are having to come to terms with. Had F grades not existed, the player would only have been eligible for an under 160 by controller permission and in all probability his Yorkshire grade used.

E Michael White
Posts: 1294
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:31 pm

Re: Semi finals

Post by E Michael White » Thu Jun 04, 2015 9:58 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:I don't think you would go beyond a forfeit of the game with the out of order player and perhaps a penalty deduction in the manner of the 4NCL approach on defaults.
RdeC I don't think you are looking at this the right way round. The relevant point is that 6 players played out of order on a board too low, rather than 1 player playing too high. The penalty needs to be proportionate to the 6 out of order players, as that is where the unfair advantage is gained. There also needs to be a fixed penalty addition to allow for distraction to the other side who may be annoyed at the misorder, causing players to misdirect their preparation.
Roger de Coverly wrote: The ECF's introduction of F grades for December 2014 has had some side effects on eligibilities that competitions are having to come to terms with. Had F grades not existed, the player would only have been eligible for an under 160 by controller permission and in all probability his Yorkshire grade used.
I don't think this is correct as the eligibility to play was determined by the July 2014 list where he had an E grade. However looking at the raw data it looks to me as if his Jan 2015 grade meets the conditions for an E grade, although I'm not too well up on this aspect.
In another place David Sedgwick wrote: Surrey County Chess Association have a similar 10 point rule. Crucially, however, their rules also contain the following provision:

“Where more than one stronger player plays below a weaker player then the number of such stronger players deemed to be ineligible shall not exceed the number of weaker players playing above them.”
Surrey should revisit that.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 16822
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Semi finals

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Jun 04, 2015 10:12 am

E Michael White wrote: The relevant point is that 6 players played out of order on a board too low, rather than 1 player playing too high.
If you remove the one player, all the remaining players are in order. Logically just one player has been moved from the bottom board to the middle, so the penalty should be equivalent to that which would apply if he was not present. The 4NCL deduct an extra half point for a default not pre-announced in six and 8 board matches, so for a 16 board match, the logical penalty is perhaps a whole point. You can certainly argue that the other players are moved one board too low, but you can achieve the same end by declaring your team to contain a player known not to be expected. A suspicion that exploit was being utilised lead to the 4NCL's additional penalty.

But if the ECF wants to destroy its competition with penal rules and allow controllers to reverse match results almost for the sake of it, that's the ECF's problem.

E Michael White
Posts: 1294
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:31 pm

Re: Semi finals

Post by E Michael White » Thu Jun 04, 2015 10:39 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:Logically just one player has been moved from the bottom board to the middle, so the penalty should be equivalent to that which would apply if he was not present.
In this competition defaults ie turning up a player short have to be taken on the bottom boards, which as you suggest, involves moving players up and encountering harder games.
Roger de Coverly wrote: ... but you can achieve the same end by declaring your team to contain a player known not to be expected.
Yes more sophisticated cheating. I'm not advocating zero late arrival defaults but that is one consequence of not having them.
Roger de Coverly wrote:The 4NCL deduct an extra half point for a default not pre-announced in six and 8 board matches, so for a 16 board match, the logical penalty is perhaps a whole point
That's not a bad rule but I estimate .25 per player per board offset which for the county match would be 6x .25 +1 = 2.5. In a large match of say 24 games if 2 players play out of order it can become difficult to assess the correct order and correct size of penalty. Either way it shouldn't be left to league or SCCU officials or arbiters unless they have additional skills.

Mick Norris
Posts: 6796
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: Semi finals

Post by Mick Norris » Thu Jun 04, 2015 11:00 am

Michael is correct that eligibility of this player was from his July 2014 grade, which was an E grade

Yorks board order was determined by the Jan 2015 lists, when he had a lower F grade - Yorks appear to have decided to substitute his Yorks grade without prior permission

I think we need the rules to be flexible enough to allow us to substitute a reserve on any board once it is clear a player isn't turning up, but it is hard to draft rules to stop any sharp practice, and I think most county chess is played somewhat on trust, and quite reasonably so

I'm not clear what the correct level of penalty should be, and I assume this will be revisited before next year's competition
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: 16822
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Semi finals

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Jun 04, 2015 11:43 am

Mick Norris wrote: Yorks board order was determined by the Jan 2015 lists, when he had a lower F grade - Yorks appear to have decided to substitute his Yorks grade without prior permission
Had F grades not been invented, he would be an ungraded player for board order purposes. What would the rules have said about ungraded players and their place in the board order?

Mick Norris
Posts: 6796
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: Semi finals

Post by Mick Norris » Thu Jun 04, 2015 3:36 pm

He wouldn't would he? If he hasn't got a Jan grade you would use his Aug grade, as otherwise you would have had to clear him in advance with the Controller, who would have assigned him an estimated grade
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

MartinCarpenter
Posts: 2393
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: Semi finals

Post by MartinCarpenter » Thu Jun 04, 2015 11:32 pm

Or a mostly non estimated one :)

Just to echo Andy a bit - this sort of rule, and especially with F grades counting is going to force the Yorkshire U160 and down to use some objectively fairly silly board orders at times. Others maybe too but mostly Yorks.
(Ditto the strict ECF membership requirement.).

Big struggle to get captains already and it can't help. Oh well.

The only objectively gamey thing about that team was board 1 - >200 in the next list - but that's allowed with rapid improvers :)

MartinCarpenter
Posts: 2393
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: Semi finals

Post by MartinCarpenter » Thu Jun 04, 2015 11:49 pm

As an aside, for many Yorkshire players the ECF list is the one to use here - it'll be Yorkshire league and 4ncl (+ congresses) so a very good predictor of county chess level. Evening leagues fairly different of course.

Issues when few games though!

Neil Graham
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:36 pm

Re: Semi finals

Post by Neil Graham » Sat Jun 13, 2015 8:36 pm

Results:-

U140 - Hampshire 7.5 Notts 8.5
U100 - Essex 5 Notts 7

benedgell
Posts: 1212
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: Somerset
Contact:

Re: Semi finals

Post by benedgell » Sat Jun 13, 2015 9:03 pm

Somerset- Essex in the Minor tomorrow.

MartinCarpenter
Posts: 2393
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: Semi finals

Post by MartinCarpenter » Sun Jun 14, 2015 12:46 am

10.5 - 5.5 for Yorkshire vs Surrey in the Open. Not sure quite when it turned that comprehensive. Looked very close both on paper and early on but gradually drifted as the match went on.

Looks like Yorkshire haven't ever won the thing twice in a row so that's definitely something to play for.
(and yes, everyone was neatly lined up in order of ECF grades!).

Post Reply