English Chess Forum

just wonder if you combine the Open and Minor Counties event and that the 16 team play under a Seeding System and the winners of the last 16 go into the Open and the losers go into the Minor Counties event, so that

a) 16 counties will get 2 Games
B) you might get more counties!!!

c) 2 Fide rating games as well

John Reyes wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:40 am

just wonder if you combine the Open and Minor Counties event and that the 16 team play under a Seeding System and the winners of the last 16 go into the Open and the losers go into the Minor Counties event, so that

You still run into the problem as mentioned by a Devon captain that his players are becoming increasingly reluctant to travel several hours to face a team that will out grade them quite considerably on most boards.

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:53 am

John Reyes wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:40 am

just wonder if you combine the Open and Minor Counties event and that the 16 team play under a Seeding System and the winners of the last 16 go into the Open and the losers go into the Minor Counties event, so that

You still run into the problem as mentioned by a Devon captain that his players are becoming increasingly reluctant to travel several hours to face a team that will out grade them quite considerably on most boards.

I have thought that this is maybe the best way to go around combining the minor counties and open, possibly playing the first rounds as a weekend away scenario like the 4NCL (16 teams of 16 boards is exactly the same as the current 4NCL top two divisions), to mitigate the travelling problems (which still occur in the current set up)

Personally I hate this attitude of players not wanting to play in case they play somebody too strong, and the ECF should be strong against this attitude; you also see this argument in the Tournament Structure thread around sectional congresses; I personally believe this attitude stiffles improvement of the chess community as a whole

Alan Walton wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 16, 2018 12:04 pm

Personally I hate this attitude of players not wanting to play in case they play somebody too strong

This is team chess though. It's dispiriting to play in a team which is getting crushed, particularly if it was a long journey. It's arguably not much of an afternoon for a 200 standard player to travel several hours to play someone of 160.

'This is team chess though. It's dispiriting to play in a team which is getting crushed, particularly if it was a long journey'

Does this also apply to club chess or are average rating differences regularly in excess of 40 points reasonable because its a relatively short travelling distance? Personally I don't share the view that this is overkill because the players concerned are probably legitimate club members and should be allowed to play, but not everyone is as thrilled at the prospect.

J T Melsom wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 16, 2018 1:27 pm

'Does this also apply to club chess or are average rating differences regularly in excess of 40 points reasonable because its a relatively short travelling distance?

Unlike county chess, club teams don't have restrictions of birth and residence imposed on them. Actually the Birmingham league might have been an exception.

Not my experience: as with county chess, most clubs do only select players that have been born.

More seriously, I think the "birth restriction" should be seen for what it is - an extension of eligibility for a county. While few leagues may state long rules on eligibility - maybe using phrases like 'bona fide club members' I am quite sure that if clubs in the leagues I play in started importing players from far off lands those formal rules would come in quite apart from the irritation of club members displaced from playing in league games.

I also think the same applies to counties. It's a COUNTY championship. I really can't understand this particularly bizarre example of a Roger de Coverley Hobby Horse that players need have no association with the county they are playing for.

Michael Farthing wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 16, 2018 1:44 pm

really can't understand this particularly bizarre example of a Roger de Coverley Hobby Horse that players need have no association with the county they are playing for.

I don't think it's difficult.

It is and remains a problem for the ECF that counties with slimmer playing resources no longer want to play Open county chess. Abolishing the Minor Counties as seemingly proposed isn't going to change that.

"'This is team chess though. It's dispiriting to play in a team which is getting crushed, particularly if it was a long journey'

Does this also apply to club chess or are average rating differences regularly in excess of 40 points reasonable because its a relatively short travelling distance? "

I have encountered it in the Surrey League, where I was told by a SCCA official(!) that his club had defaulted against somebody about an hour's drive away as it was obvious they were going to lose. I suggested they withdraw from the league if they didn't want to play chess.

I guess it is slightly more understandable for county matches, not that I really understand it as I recently had a three-hour flight deliberately to play strong opposition!

180s playing on board one in Devon League games against Barnstaple have an interesting situation; they know they're travelling a long way for a game with a 40 grading point difference, but don't know whether it will be in their favour or not.

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 16, 2018 1:34 pm

Actually the Birmingham league might have been an exception.

That rule got removed from the book a few years ago.

Kevin Thurlow wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 16, 2018 3:32 pm

I suggested they withdraw from the league if they didn't want to play chess.

Which is what the weaker counties have done in the context of the Open Counties and the SCCU competition for that matter. Long distance county matches with unbalanced sides are not the only weekend chess available.

On the weekend proposal of open then minor counties I cannot see how that would work as the teams are likely to be different.
At 144 last August I have a chance of playing in the minor counties (keeping the average rating low) but zero chance in the Open.
It was not so long ago that I played for both open and 180 teams and have even stepped into the open team as a reserve or replacement because of a change the night before.

I have a big range of players in tournaments, leagues, 4NCL as well as County Chess over the last few years but even a decade ago my average opponent in county chess was within +/- 10 ECF of my own ECF.

Nick Grey wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:00 am

On the weekend proposal of open then minor counties I cannot see how that would work as the teams are likely to be different.

Personally I would scrap the minor counties and U180, and have one Championship section with a couple of Plate competitions which replace the Minor and U180

For example you could have a 24 team county competition; back in 2015/16 : 18 unique counties competed in the 3 above sections, with a few missing who would normally enter (GMan for example); if you need to make upto 24 possibly add a couple of second teams into the mix (with rules about team lists obviously)

Rd 1 (Weekend 1) : Top 8 Seeds byes; rest playoff with losers going into the "Plate B" competition, winners play the top 8
Rd 2 (Weekend 2) : Top 16 play with seeding; winners compete for the Championship; losers compete for "Plate A"; "Plate B" compete for the semi-final
Rd 3 (Weekend 2) : Quarter Finals of Championship & Plate A
Rd 4/5 (Weekend 3) : Semi-Final, Third-Place Playoff & Final for all three

I suspect you would find the teams in Plate B would have average grades comparable to those at the bottom end of the current Minor Counties and U180; and the teams in the Plate A will be equivalent to the currently competing at the later stages of the Minor Counties

Still only need 3 weekends for this competition so again no different to the current ECF stages

Alan Walton wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 17, 2018 10:14 am

Personally I would scrap the minor counties and U180, and have one Championship section with a couple of Plate competitions which replace the Minor and U180

So at a stroke you are taking the 160-180 group of players in the big counties out of county chess. Why? I did read the grudging concession about maybe allowing a couple of second teams, but that won't do.