2016 draw

Discussion about all aspects of the ECF County Championships.
Mick Norris
Posts: 7507
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: 2016 draw

Post by Mick Norris » Mon Jun 13, 2016 7:57 am

inals:

Open Yorks v Middlesex
Minor Lincs v Norfolk
U180 Essex v Lancs
U160 Essex v Middlesex
U140 Worcs v Surrey
U120 Notts v Warks
U100 Essex v Kent/Lancs
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: 2440
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: 2016 draw

Post by MartinCarpenter » Mon Jun 13, 2016 9:46 am

Good result for Lancashire U180 there :) Their county chess has always been admirably organised in terms of teams, much more so than Yorkshire to be honest.

I just checked and they used 6 players on both their Open team vs Middlesex and their U180 team. Given those sorts of numbers I think you can understand why they dropped the Open team last season when they had to choose between the two.

Mick Norris
Posts: 7507
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: 2016 draw

Post by Mick Norris » Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:23 am

MartinCarpenter wrote:Good result for Lancashire U180 there :)
Yes, a quarter of the team are Manticores, and there are more than that eligible to play for G Man :wink:
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

David Pardoe
Posts: 1221
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:29 pm
Location: NORTH WEST

Re: 2016 draw

Post by David Pardoe » Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:27 am

Mike Truran wrote:David

I've suggested it before, and I'll suggest it again - instead of posting (at some length) on this forum, why don't you step up to the plate yourself?

Living off past volunteering glories (whatever they may be) doesn't really help our current volunteer deficit.

Alex, Mike T, ...Andrew Z..

I`ve mentioned the possible establishment of a new Northern Chess Powerhouse, and the need to reawaken the sleeping giants of that region.
Same goes for the Midlands... a Midlands chess powerhouse would be great, to rekindle the enthusiasm for our great counties/regions offerings.
So, for the Midlands, I see Warwickshire, Nott's, Leicestershire and Staffs forming the core block, and certainly capable of raising half decent Open teams.
An `all play all` contest between that group to find the Open Champs and National Qualifiers should be possible.
Similarly a Minor Counties/U180 events with Shrops & Welsh Borders, Worcestershire & Hereford, Derbs, & Lincs + Northants could well be a viable option. Or maybe Northants could link in with Leicestershire.
It must surely be possible for these groups to play 3 Qualifier matches between Oct and March, to create a second wave of power to challenge the mighty South in the National stages.
Yes, I can see that there are challenges, not least, because you have the 4NCL and other events all vying for space. But at the Qualifier stages, it may not be necessary to turn out the mightiest armies to do battle... that can come later in the National stages, when 4NCL stuff has finished, and more top players become available (potentially). The juniors should be given there chance to gain experience and shine in the Qualifier stages, and they might drop out in the latter stages due to exam pressures etc..
As for Manchester in this North/ Midlands equation, it might well be that Manchester's Open squad joins the Northern titans and the U160 squad remains with the Midlands, where we have had years of good chess competition. If they could then maybe move forward and bring in an U120 team, that would be good.
Then the mighty armies of the North & Midlands can do battle with the South, in true titanic fashion, and if regional teams from the East and West zones could join the fray, so much the better.
If the sleeping giants can be roused into action, there are great possibilities for our counties events. Whether we need to look at prize funds and other options, we`ll see.
All this is about `inclusion`, and creating the right positive atmosphere, and to use these great events to help drive forward our chess offerings.
There are too many folk looking for reasons why things shouldn't work, and maybe the focus should be moved towards the positive beneficial aspects, and what good things can be achieved.
Politics is all about the art of the possible... and this is definitely possible.

Yes, we really do need leadership to motivate the troops and inspire our various chess bodies to come out more positively.... with a `can do` approach.
Cyril Johnson was a great ambassador of chess, who made a great contribution to our chess. The ECF probably needs others of that ilk to stir the legions.. We have some very good administrators already doing much good work, but a respected figurehead (or two..) to offer encouragement and motivation would be good. Others can serve by making there various contributions, and as Mike T has said, all our chess bodies really do need fresh volunteers to step forward at this time to keep the wheels turning. These people can bring fresh energy and vitality to the party, and there are always others around to offer help and support..should this be needed.

We`re now well into the AGM season, for clubs, leagues, county bodies, and our National bodies, so it is important that these bodies send out `welcome` invitations to a wide range of parties, including those who might come along to observe and maybe make ad hoc contributions. It is also vital that our chess bodies make maximum use of these meeting to encourage new initiatives, and to allow time at the end of meetings for `open discussion` from the floor, so that everyone has a chance to contribute.
And remember too that we now live in the internet era, where communications are easier (in some respects), so try to avoid shelving important business for a whole year just because the meeting has `timed out`.
Finally.. the old addage.. Rome was not built in a day... so sometimes a little patience can be important..
BRING BACK THE BCF

Mick Norris
Posts: 7507
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: 2016 draw

Post by Mick Norris » Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:35 am

David Pardoe wrote:As for Manchester in this North/ Midlands equation, it might well be that Manchester's Open squad joins the Northern titans and the U160 squad remains with the Midlands, where we have had years of good chess competition.
Manchester's Open team needs a captain before it can play anywhere at all

The U160 played this season at Newcastle-under-Lyme v Notts & Warks; Lancaster v Cumbria; Halifax v Yorks - those of us living on the north side of Manchester (i.e the last 3 team captains) prefer the latter - the NCCU would give us 3 teams to play against, rather than the (very pleasant) 2 in the MCCU
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

Neil Graham
Posts: 1254
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:36 pm

Re: 2016 draw

Post by Neil Graham » Tue Jun 14, 2016 12:32 am

May I make some fairly brief comments on recent contributions?

Firstly - reducing teams to twelve players. This has been suggested before. At the time I stated it would be easy to reduce teams to 1 player and about as sensible. Once you have reduced to teams of twelve, the next thing we will be hearing is teams of 10 and so on. The key to success is good and competent organisation. Counties simply lack this (cf Mike Norris's quote that Manchester has no first team captain) - it isn't due to a lack of players.
If the NCCU wish to organise some 12 board matches at any level (u160, U140, etc) to encourage Northumberland, Merseyside, Durham etc. etc. back into county chess that's fine.

Secondly - in respect of the County Open Championship can I again re-emphasise that there is no enthusiasm to combine the Minor Counties with the Open in some hybrid scheme. The EACU, WECU & MCCU have no candidates that are strong enough to play in the CC. A far better solution would be a tournament with Lancashire, Yorkshire, Kent, Middlesex, Surrey and possibly one other to play over the season with the final match(es) to be held at the Central Venue on Finals day.

Thirdly - lumping counties together into "powerhouses" and so on is no solution. We go back again and again to a lack of volunteers. To expand on a point made earlier in one of my posts. The county next to Notts has a Minor and an U100 team - there is clearly scope for U160, U140 & U120 teams but no-one is prepared to volunteer to run them I assume. I could go on with other examples but rather than that here is an old chestnut or in this case chess nut.

This is a story about four chess players named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody and Nobody.

There was an important job to be done as County Chess Captain and Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it. Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it. Somebody got angry about that, because it was Everybody’s job. Everybody thought Anybody could do it, but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn’t do it. It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have.

Mick Norris
Posts: 7507
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: 2016 draw

Post by Mick Norris » Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:26 am

John Philpott wrote:That just leaves Kent v Lancashire in the U100 unreported.
Any idea what happened?
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: 2440
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: 2016 draw

Post by MartinCarpenter » Tue Jun 14, 2016 10:47 am

Neil Graham wrote: Secondly - in respect of the County Open Championship can I again re-emphasise that there is no enthusiasm to combine the Minor Counties with the Open in some hybrid scheme. The EACU, WECU & MCCU have no candidates that are strong enough to play in the CC.
The last statement is seriously debatable - Suffolk, Norfolk and Essex all fielded teams averaging bang on 180 this season. You don't do that unless you can average ~185 with everyone playing :) Cambridgshire were seemingly routinely fielding teams of 185 average strength in the internal EACU competition.

Only one team so far in the open has averaged over 196/board (Yorkshire in the semis.), so you're looking at a 10 pts/board difference in average strength. For each individual game? That's nothing. It adds up to a significant edge over 16 boards of course, but there is still moderate upset potential so well worth playing the match.

Forcing these teams to play all their matches in the Open competition wouldn't be good as it'd leave the teams - like Notts I guess - who can only really reach 175-180 at best - with no one to play. Giving the top few Minor county qualifiers a single round of matches vs the traditional Open teams? Hard to see how it would hurt.
Neil Graham wrote: A far better solution would be a tournament with Lancashire, Yorkshire, Kent, Middlesex, Surrey and possibly one other to play over the season with the final match(es) to be held at the Central Venue on Finals day.
Were the transport possible, yes. It really isn't - its a big strain as it stands. If giving up on more teams better to just cut qualification from the SCCU/NCCU back and do semi, final. Maybe on one day.

Mick Norris
Posts: 7507
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: 2016 draw

Post by Mick Norris » Tue Jun 14, 2016 11:39 am

Neil Graham wrote:This is a story about four chess players named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody and Nobody.

There was an important job to be done as County Chess Captain and Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it. Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it. Somebody got angry about that, because it was Everybody’s job. Everybody thought Anybody could do it, but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn’t do it. It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have.
Yes, had an email from one of the Everybody's today :roll:
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

John Philpott

Re: 2016 draw

Post by John Philpott » Tue Jun 14, 2016 1:53 pm

Mick Norris wrote:
Any idea what happened?
According to the Essex website
We understand the wait for the identity of the opponents in the U100 Final might be a little protracted. Apparently, the teams agreed to postpone their Semi-Final until 25th June, contrary to the Rules. We await a ruling!

Neill Cooper
Posts: 1239
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Croydon
Contact:

Re: 2016 draw

Post by Neill Cooper » Tue Jun 14, 2016 2:11 pm

Can I suggest that it would be worthwhile giving greater publicity to the county championships on the ECF website.
For instance, last weekend's scores could be put as news on the home page with links to results pages for each match.
At present it is only those who know about the county championships who would find it on the website.

MartinCarpenter
Posts: 2440
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: 2016 draw

Post by MartinCarpenter » Tue Jun 14, 2016 2:20 pm

Not sure what they can with both teams agreeing to postpone the match. Could always DQ both of them of course, but really!

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 1716
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: 2016 draw

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Tue Jun 14, 2016 2:38 pm

John Philpott wrote:Mick Norris wrote:
Any idea what happened?
According to the Essex website
We understand the wait for the identity of the opponents in the U100 Final might be a little protracted. Apparently, the teams agreed to postpone their Semi-Final until 25th June, contrary to the Rules. We await a ruling!
I was only advised of the postponement on the weekend of the semi final matches (accompanied by an apology to be fair). While far from ideal, allowing the postponement was considered preferable to the only other alternative, which was to disqualify both teams. The final will still be played a week later in Warwickshire.

No further public comment will be made.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

Mick Norris
Posts: 7507
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: 2016 draw

Post by Mick Norris » Tue Jun 14, 2016 4:51 pm

Neill Cooper wrote:Can I suggest that it would be worthwhile giving greater publicity to the county championships on the ECF website.
For instance, last weekend's scores could be put as news on the home page with links to results pages for each match.
At present it is only those who know about the county championships who would find it on the website.
Agree with this, maybe Mark Jordan can help?
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

David Sedgwick
Posts: 3465
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: 2016 draw

Post by David Sedgwick » Tue Jun 14, 2016 5:32 pm

Andrew Zigmond wrote:I was only advised of the postponement on the weekend of the semi final matches (accompanied by an apology to be fair). While far from ideal, allowing the postponement was considered preferable to the only other alternative, which was to disqualify both teams. The final will still be played a week later in Warwickshire.

No further public comment will be made.
In view of your last sentence, please don't feel under any obligation to respond to my post.

Please could I suggest that you make it clear that on a future occasion an unauthorised postponement could well result in the disqualification of both teams. Had this occurred with a Quarter Final match, disqualifying the oiffenders could well have been preferable to putting an innocent third team in the position of having to arrange a Semi Final match at a week's notice.

Post Reply