English Chess Forum

We did. A very hard earned (maybe a little lucky) 6.5 - 5.5 in the Open where we were a bit weaker than at times the past couple of years - will need to get back up to strength for the 1/4's and onwards to make it three in a row.

The U160's seemed to win reasonably easily/quickly, didn't get the result. Andy Bak was there and getting games so there'll be a good report on the website in time.

Looking at the Open draw I do have to wonder if Lancs haven't got the better deal out of it all

I gather Jeff Horner (proably his only game this season) beat Matthias Ganter

Really nice game actually, and very emphatic. Mattias did something very ambitious out of the opening and ended up in a horrible mess. He struggled very hard but Jeff didn't let go

McPhillips fared rather less well vs Palliser on board 1. The young(ish) folk on the lower boards for both teams did rather better!

Full results on Yorkshire chess now - http://yorkshirechess.org/nccu-2016-ope ... 0-results/ - U160's very close in the end too, and Lancs even keeping a tiny average grade advantage in the Open.

Yorks about 5 pts/board weaker than in 14/15, so I guess that offers hope for everyone else in the Open this year

Indeed

I wonder how Joe McPhillips qualifies to play for Lancs, although of course it doesn't matter and no-one would do anything about it if it did

Well, in a remotely sane world, being coached by Jeff should automatically qualify him Absolutely no risk of complaints for internal NCCU matches anyway.

The group stage controllers have shown themselves very happy to impose penalties even without complaints being raised.... Imagine the formal legalities round the Bolton area are such a horrible mess that even they wouldn't go near them!

Mick Norris wrote:Open
Quarter 1 N1 v S3
Quarter 2 N2 v S2
Semi 1 S1 v Winner Q1
Semi 2 M1 (Staffs) v Winner Q2

Semis will then be:
Surrey v winners of Yorks v Kent
Staffs v winners of Lancs v Middlesex

Mick Norris wrote:I wonder how Joe McPhillips qualifies to play for Lancs, although of course it doesn't matter and no-one would do anything about it if it did

I don't know where he was born, but presumably living in Bolton qualifies him for Lancashire {based on the historic county definition} in the same way that living in Hendon would qualify someone to play for Middlesex?

Sean Hewitt wrote:

Mick Norris wrote:I wonder how Joe McPhillips qualifies to play for Lancs, although of course it doesn't matter and no-one would do anything about it if it did

I don't know where he was born, but presumably living in Bolton qualifies him for Lancashire {based on the historic county definition} in the same way that living in Hendon would qualify someone to play for Middlesex?

The two situations are not comparable.

A resident of Hendon is eligible to play for Middlesex CCA because Hendon is in the Middlesex CCA area. There is not, and never has been, a London CCA.

Bolton is in Greater Manchester.

I'd better stop there.

The eligibility rules are here:-

(i) Birth in that county.

(ii) Five years’ residence in that county at any time.

(iii) Two months immediate previous and present membership of a club either in or affiliated to that County.

(iv) One month’s immediately previous and present residence in that County.

(v) Present attendance as a student at a school, college or university in that County.

If the player concerned does not satisfy any of these conditions he is ineligible to play. I note that Middlesex are due to play Lancashire in the Open section of the Counties Championship; no doubt they will ask how the player qualifies if there is any element of doubt.

Sean Hewitt wrote:

Mick Norris wrote:I wonder how Joe McPhillips qualifies to play for Lancs, although of course it doesn't matter and no-one would do anything about it if it did

I don't know where he was born, but presumably living in Bolton qualifies him for Lancashire {based on the historic county definition} in the same way that living in Hendon would qualify someone to play for Middlesex?

That was the offer we made to Lancs, which they rejected, so anyone born after 1974 in Bolton is in Greater Manchester and living here, going to school etc here, ditto

Using the pure historic county boundaries would of course give a huge swathe of even Manchester itself dual nationality.

Objectively it'd be a real shame if he wanted to and couldn't. The competition definitely badly needs as many strong open teams as possible, and Lancashire are maybe slightly marginal in those terms so need as many top players as they can get.

In fact, with the competition struggling rather, I'd almost want to scrap the qualification rules. Definitely seems sane enough to give Lancs the rights to field people willing (if there is anyone!) in their historic boundaries. Isn't like GM are even fielding an Open/U180 team nowadays

MartinCarpenter wrote: Isn't like GM are even fielding an Open/U180 team nowadays

Any why is that, do you think?

Well, actually, it isn't just that.

3C's are all very happily off in the 4NCL instead nowadays (for good I suspect) and can GM realistically field a 'proper' strength Open team without lots of them? You'd need nearly everyone else playing I think, and that never happens.

That Yorkshire team vs Lancs had something like 3 or 4 players out for every one playing, which isn't entirely atypical.

The Counties competitions offer some very good Saturday afternoon chessing for players and teams at ALL LEVELS.
Its not just about the Open teams..
They also play to sensible time controls, which facilitate the playing out of `real` endgames, rather than league chess, where the blitz pot luck lottery finish can be a very poor way to conclude what is otherwise a good evenings chess, in my view.
And the cameradery, chance to chat with players as things progress, and enjoy the unique atmosphere of these big 16 board matches, adds to its value..
I think these events should be encouraged more at the county stage, and county bodies should do more to promote the uptake...in my view.
As for county boundaries...I`d urge chess bodies to play to these as the primary driver..
I live in M`r, have worked in M``r, and played chess in M``r area...so support for the `local` group seems the right approach.
Yes, I agree that a little flexibility is needed...but this should be `little`, and not driven by the desire to exploit things and cherry pick your neighbours best players for personal gain.
These `county events` should be encouraged and promoted `as friendly, sporting events`, and not cynically exploited.
The encouragement of all the county bodies would be good, and I`m not keen on those who `wont play`just because they don't believe they will win. You can start with modest ambitions and build from there...
These events should be about the `joining in` , not the winning...although winning does add spice to proceedings.
The rules could do with some changes to add balance to the competitions..
But the key thing which makes things tick, apart from county bodies `getting stuck in and organising good, active, well supported events`, is about finding Captains and deputies who can get out and sort out a good sized team squad... you probably need about 30 - 40 players in a pool to be able to run a team, and the `web` does provide some very good contact points. And don't focus too much on grades...finding players willing and able to turn out on a Saturday afternoon is better and can give some surprising results...great learning , and much enjoyment. And remember, players who can only make the occasional game are also vital to keep things ticking...signing up doesn't have to mean a commitment to play every game, or even `most games`..
This competitions provide some excellent chess opportunities and should be encouraged, where possible. `Real chess` played under reasonable conditions... and yes, I`d urge counties to try for venues that offer some comforts, and preferably good access, refreshments and adequate parking.
They all help to make for an enjoyable experience...and add to the many `flavours` of chess on offer..