2016 draw

Discussion about all aspects of the ECF County Championships.
Post Reply
Mick Norris
Posts: 7365
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: 2016 draw

Post by Mick Norris » Sun May 22, 2016 7:58 pm

Semi-finals updated:

U100: Kent v Lancs; Essex v Notts

U120: Norfolk v Notts; Herts v Warks

U140: Lancs v Surrey; Notts v Worcs

U160: Surrey v Middlesex: Essex v Yorks

U180: Surrey v Lancs; Devon v Essex

Minor: Lincs v Cambs; Norfolk v Suffolk

Open: Yorks v Surrey; Middlesex v Staffs

ECF website results
Last edited by Mick Norris on Mon May 23, 2016 9:47 am, edited 4 times in total.
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 » Sun May 22, 2016 8:21 pm

I`ve just come back from another pulsating County U160 National Stage, Quarter Final match at Halifax where our team went down in a hard fought match..
At the half way point a strong Yorks side led narrowly by 5 – 4 against GMan with 7 to play... as they headed into the forth hour of play.
I looked around and thought we were holding our own on most boards, and probably ahead in 4 of these games.
Alas, in the final hour, our positions unravelled, and Yorks prevailed..
A very good match and I think that maybe just some lapses in concentration might have cost us in the last hour, plus maybe some `clock` battles.
Yes, we were outgraded on most boards.... but our team gave a very good showing...
A very good win on board 2 by our only junior present (others being away on exam duty), and a good showing in the top order... with the lower/middle order not quite on target..

Mick Conner was the only one of the late finishers to convert his advantage..
David Newell was very unlucky, and went astray in the later end game with his clock running down, from what looked a strong position..
He was pressing strongly in the centre with pawns breaking through, but couldn't quite find the killer move...
Francis Moan also lost out from what looked a strong middle game position where he had a strong central passed pawn, but with several active pieces on both sides, it was not easy..
Alan Beresford lost a close end game when a pawn got snapped up to give his opponent the advantage..
Ian Lamb also looked to have a sound position but it drifted into a loss....


Dave P
If I can just say that our GMan County Open team need a captain for next season, if you know of anyone who might be interested.... contact Jon Lonsdale for further details..
I`m sure there are plenty of players available to play.... just need a captain to look after team selection, etc... for a hand full of matches.
Manchester clubs...can you help. It would be good to see us present again at the top table.
BRING BACK THE BCF

MartinCarpenter
Posts: 2431
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: 2016 draw

Post by MartinCarpenter » Sun May 22, 2016 10:32 pm

9.5 - 6.5 it was in the end in Yorks - Kent, although it could have been very much closer. It was 6-6, then 7.5 - 6.5 and one of our players had a really nice position but promptly blundered his Q. Was somehow still OK then won shortly with some evil tactics :) Then a final win deep into a rook ending to add a bit of gloss. They seemed to think we were due to win on bottom board elimination if it had finished 8-8(!).

Suspect we'll need to reinforce for the semi/final (I definitely shouldn't be on board 11!).

Is it worth commenting on the Lancashire Open team vs Middlesex? Definitely no gloating at all, but Lancashire were clearly struggling very badly to raise a competitive team. Especially on top of their total default last season. Mildly disheartening if they are falling off being a real challenger :(

Mick Norris
Posts: 7365
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: 2016 draw

Post by Mick Norris » Wed Jun 01, 2016 11:32 am

MartinCarpenter wrote:9.5 - 6.5 it was in the end in Yorks - Kent, although it could have been very much closer. It was 6-6, then 7.5 - 6.5 and one of our players had a really nice position but promptly blundered his Q. Was somehow still OK then won shortly with some evil tactics :) Then a final win deep into a rook ending to add a bit of gloss. They seemed to think we were due to win on bottom board elimination if it had finished 8-8(!).

Suspect we'll need to reinforce for the semi/final (I definitely shouldn't be on board 11!).
Are you aiming for a Sunday again?
MartinCarpenter wrote:Is it worth commenting on the Lancashire Open team vs Middlesex? Definitely no gloating at all, but Lancashire were clearly struggling very badly to raise a competitive team. Especially on top of their total default last season. Mildly disheartening if they are falling off being a real challenger :(
Is it?
Quarter finals for Lancs were Open=lost, U180=bye, U160=lost, U140=win, U120=loss, U100=bye, so they have 3 semi-finals to play - U100 v Kent and U180/140 v Surrey, so we will see what teams they manage to get out for what will be long journeys even at neutral venues
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: 2431
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: 2016 draw

Post by MartinCarpenter » Wed Jun 01, 2016 11:55 am

Saturday this time (the 11th I believe), and a slightly earlier start. All welcome. I might even manage not to play :)

The basic comment about the Lancashire team for the Open was that it averaged 173 over 16 boards and so was 15-20 pts/board under the strength required to really compete for the open. They'd actually have been out graded by nearly all of the minor county teams.

They can field much better teams on paper - they were ~195 over 12 boards in the Roses match! - but these K/O stages are always tough to field teams for. You'd like to think it was a temporary blip - the open badly needs every competitive county it can get - but coming on top of the default last year you do wonder.

Richard Bates
Posts: 2848
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: 2016 draw

Post by Richard Bates » Wed Jun 01, 2016 11:14 pm

MartinCarpenter wrote:Saturday this time (the 11th I believe), and a slightly earlier start. All welcome. I might even manage not to play :)

The basic comment about the Lancashire team for the Open was that it averaged 173 over 16 boards and so was 15-20 pts/board under the strength required to really compete for the open. They'd actually have been out graded by nearly all of the minor county teams.

They can field much better teams on paper - they were ~195 over 12 boards in the Roses match! - but these K/O stages are always tough to field teams for. You'd like to think it was a temporary blip - the open badly needs every competitive county it can get - but coming on top of the default last year you do wonder.
Someone told me that the decision to default in the Open team last year in favour of the U180 had cost them at least one pretty strong player.

Mick Norris
Posts: 7365
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: 2016 draw

Post by Mick Norris » Thu Jun 02, 2016 8:09 am

Richard Bates wrote:
MartinCarpenter wrote:Saturday this time (the 11th I believe), and a slightly earlier start. All welcome. I might even manage not to play :)

The basic comment about the Lancashire team for the Open was that it averaged 173 over 16 boards and so was 15-20 pts/board under the strength required to really compete for the open. They'd actually have been out graded by nearly all of the minor county teams.

They can field much better teams on paper - they were ~195 over 12 boards in the Roses match! - but these K/O stages are always tough to field teams for. You'd like to think it was a temporary blip - the open badly needs every competitive county it can get - but coming on top of the default last year you do wonder.
Someone told me that the decision to default in the Open team last year in favour of the U180 had cost them at least one pretty strong player.
The U180 won last year on board count v Essex then lost v Devon the same way in the semi - I wonder if not having to play an U180 1/4 final helped them this year
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

LawrenceCooper
Posts: 4989
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am

Re: 2016 draw

Post by LawrenceCooper » Wed Jun 08, 2016 4:46 pm

Neil Graham wrote:
LawrenceCooper wrote:
Neil Graham wrote:Going back to Lawrence's point. What makes you think Staffordshire will actually raise a team to compete in the semi-final - unless you organise it yourself. Staffordshire were due to play in the MCCU U160 competition in which they'd entered a team but defaulted and then withdrew without playing any matches. Their explanation? They had no captain! :?
Wishing thinking probably :oops:
Staffordshire should have let the MCCU know that they wish to be nominated to play. If they withdraw from the competition after 31st March they become liable to a fine of £100. The MCCU will also be fined £100 for nominating them. Although the MCCU has to list the Union's nominees, I don't see anywhere in the rules that they have to give details of a captain.
Sadly Neil's concerns have proven correct. After various e-mails and phone calls I eventually found out that the reason I'd had no further information on the match was because it had already been conceded :oops:

Neil Graham
Posts: 1229
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:36 pm

Re: 2016 draw

Post by Neil Graham » Wed Jun 08, 2016 6:57 pm

LawrenceCooper wrote:
Neil Graham wrote:
LawrenceCooper wrote:
Wishing thinking probably :oops:
Staffordshire should have let the MCCU know that they wish to be nominated to play. If they withdraw from the competition after 31st March they become liable to a fine of £100. The MCCU will also be fined £100 for nominating them. Although the MCCU has to list the Union's nominees, I don't see anywhere in the rules that they have to give details of a captain.
Sadly Neil's concerns have proven correct. After various e-mails and phone calls I eventually found out that the reason I'd had no further information on the match was because it had already been conceded :oops:
A disaster waiting to happen - and it did!

MartinCarpenter
Posts: 2431
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: 2016 draw

Post by MartinCarpenter » Wed Jun 08, 2016 7:45 pm

Bit of a waste of the 1/4 final bye that then :)

The open really does have huge issues :( I'm not sure if they're terminal or not, but 4.5 teams does not a great competition make. Especially when 3 of those teams have already spent months playing against each other.

LawrenceCooper
Posts: 4989
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am

Re: 2016 draw

Post by LawrenceCooper » Wed Jun 08, 2016 7:55 pm

MartinCarpenter wrote:Bit of a waste of the 1/4 final bye that then :)

The open really does have huge issues :( I'm not sure if they're terminal or not, but 4.5 teams does not a great competition make. Especially when 3 of those teams have already spent months playing against each other.
The year we won it we had to play seven matches to get this far :roll: Whilst we would have been obvious underdogs needing to win only two matches for a national title does seem like a missed opportunity.

Neill Cooper
Posts: 1228
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Croydon
Contact:

Re: 2016 draw

Post by Neill Cooper » Wed Jun 08, 2016 11:22 pm

LawrenceCooper wrote:
MartinCarpenter wrote:Bit of a waste of the 1/4 final bye that then :)

The open really does have huge issues :( I'm not sure if they're terminal or not, but 4.5 teams does not a great competition make. Especially when 3 of those teams have already spent months playing against each other.
The year we won it we had to play seven matches to get this far :roll: Whilst we would have been obvious underdogs needing to win only two matches for a national title does seem like a missed opportunity.
One thing that I had observed in the national schools tournaments was that winning a match by default increased the likelihood of a team then defaulting in the next round. The same seemed to happen in the ECF County stages, though the financial penalties have reduced the amount this happens. The more regularly a team plays the less likely they are to default.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 17924
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: 2016 draw

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed Jun 08, 2016 11:27 pm

Neill Cooper wrote:The same seemed to happen in the ECF County stages, though the financial penalties have reduced the amount this happens. The more regularly a team plays the less likely they are to default.
The MCCU allowed what the SCCU have not done, namely for teams to elect for the Minor Counties at the Union stage, even if there was only one nominal entrant to the National Stage of the Open. The consequence this year is that whilst Staffs had the nomination, they hadn't played any matches at all.

Mick Norris
Posts: 7365
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: 2016 draw

Post by Mick Norris » Thu Jun 09, 2016 12:09 am

Staffs were offered matches by the MCCU, I got no reply from their captain when I emailed to ask if he wanted a friendly against G Man
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

LawrenceCooper
Posts: 4989
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am

Re: 2016 draw

Post by LawrenceCooper » Thu Jun 09, 2016 7:57 am

Mick Norris wrote:Staffs were offered matches by the MCCU, I got no reply from their captain when I emailed to ask if he wanted a friendly against G Man
Yes, I recall being copied into some e-mails, although I can't now recall if that was this or last season. I only became aware of the existence of a captain this season on 28th April.

Post Reply