English Chess Forum

"We played in Mark in Somerset. Leicestershire won 14½ - 1½. Credit both captains for getting 16 players willing to travel such a distance."

Indeed - I guess as it's close to the M5, that makes the journey slightly easier. Presumably, you played in the Village Hall as there aren't many venues there!

Results from Minor Counties matches at O U Milton Keynes today

Q1 Worcestershire 5.5 - Suffolk 10.5

Q4 Norfolk 9 - Gloucestershire 7

results

Keith Arkell drew with Alan Merry

Mick Norris wrote:results

That looks like a good result for Lincolnshire - excluding the bottom board they were outgraded on most boards.

Graham Borrowdale wrote:

Mick Norris wrote:results

That looks like a good result for Lincolnshire - excluding the bottom board they were outgraded on most boards.

This is a tried and trusted method previously employed known as the "Daniel Gallagher" effect; Essex produce a player here with a grade of 88F who has played 7 standard rate games. However by playing a player with this grade it enables you to increase the strength of every other board by five or six grading points which you might expect to give you a winning advantage.

Going back to the Daniel Gallagher effect - it was employed in the 2012/13 season by Essex when they played Daniel Gallagher, a junior with a grade in the July 2012 list of 68e. By the time of the July 2013 list his grade had risen by a phenomenal 96 points to 164! So you can play a junior with a grade of 68 whose actual grade at the time of the final was 164! It certainly helped Essex win the Minor Counties that year with a convincing 10.5-5.5 win over Bedfordshire in the Final. Daniel, now shown as 15, has a current ECF grade of over 200.

Neil Graham wrote:
This is a tried and trusted method previously employed known as the "Daniel Gallagher" effect.

You might very well think that - I could not possibly comment, although I was playing for Bedfordshire in the match you mention.

The WECU Jamboree is wise to the Daniel Gallagher effect, and has a Deemed Minimum Rating rule; any grade lower than a certain specified number is treated for average grade purposes as if it were equal to that number.

There is an error in the report on Oxfordfusion result service for U120 Notts-Herts match.

It has been pointed out to me that the result of the match was 4-8 in Herts favour, yet Notts are shown as progressing to the second round.

Ref: http://www.oxfordfusion.com/oca/Display ... =133&Org=4

How can that be possible for the result is reported correctly, yet the losers progress to the next round?

Michael Flatt wrote:There is an error in the report on Oxfordfusion result service for U120 Notts-Herts match.

It has been pointed out to me that the result of the match was 4-8 in Herts favour, yet Notts are shown as progressing to the second round.

Ref: http://www.oxfordfusion.com/oca/Display ... =133&Org=4

How can that be possible for the result is reported correctly, yet the losers progress to the next round?

I've already pointed this out to the event Controller. Notts lost the match and have no intention to progress to the next round. It must be the ransomware hackers.

Neil Graham wrote:
I've already pointed this out to the event Controller. Notts lost the match and have no intention to progress to the next round. It must be the ransomware hackers.

Sorted now. The controller was working until 23.00.

Andrew, thanks for sorting this out.

Not all captains are fully computer literate and are not familiar with how to submit the results online and it does cause them worry if they don't see their teams name appear in the draw for the next round.

The deadline for reporting results is very tight - within 48hrs of the match.

Semi-finals so far:

Open - Yorks v Surrey; Kent v Lancs
Minor - Suffolk v Leics; Lincs v Norfolk
U160 - Middlesex v Lancs; Yorks v Notts
U120 - Herts v Essex; Worcs v Middlesex/Warks

Michael Flatt wrote:Andrew, thanks for sorting this out.

Not all captains are fully computer literate and are not familiar with how to submit the results online and it does cause them worry if they don't see their teams name appear in the draw for the next round.

The deadline for reporting results is very tight - within 48hrs of the match.

So, what happened in the U120 match Middlesex v Warks?

Mick Norris wrote:

Michael Flatt wrote:Andrew, thanks for sorting this out.

Not all captains are fully computer literate and are not familiar with how to submit the results online and it does cause them worry if they don't see their teams name appear in the draw for the next round.

The deadline for reporting results is very tight - within 48hrs of the match.

So, what happened in the U120 match Middlesex v Warks?

Tomorrow according to the Warwickshire captain and a Middlesex player. Going to be a nice day for it, apparently!

Great day in the morning!

Dave Gilbert, high priest of Kos, must have conjured up the ionospheric weather for the remaining q-final matches being played today.

Good luck to Surrey in the U-180 and to Kent in the U-140 & U-100.

http://www.oxfordfusion.com/oca/index.cfm?Org=4