English Chess Forum

Alan Walton wrote:

Alex Holowczak wrote:3) Persuade congresses affiliated to the MCF (or in the MCF region) to run earlier in the season, to free up some weekends to allow you to field two teams.

The problem is the the majority of congresses in the MCF region are normally affliated with the NCCU, so it is very unlikely that they will move their tournaments to help the MCCU

Ah, that old chestnut. Ignore that idea then.

Alex

You can't move congresses, the calendar is too packed

We have a captain for the U160, but not for any other teams, unless his grade drops below 140, we won't change the teams

If you look at the bottom 4 boards of any of the teams, what sort of grades are they? When I last did the exercise a couple of years ago, they were all U175 and often U150, so only the NCCU and stronger SCCU counties can field 16 Open players of 180+

I identified our problem weekends as follows

4NCL plus
3 October (Ormskirk Rapid) 17 October (M/cr league v Bradford match)
14 November (Bolton Rapid) 27/8 November (Preston)
5 December (Bury Rapid) 7-9 January (York)
6 February (Stockport Rapid) 6 March (Manchester Rapid)
12-13 February (Frodsham) 12-13 March (Blackpool)
20 March (Atherton Rapid)

and promptly missed out Scarborough, which cost us for the Warks match - we were forced to clash with Preston by Staffs

Next year we'll just ignore the Rapidplays or Sunday events and concentrate on the weekend events (maybe even avoiding the e2e4 events which a couple of our players travel to play in)

You could always use your Under 160 captain to captain the Under 140. Worcestershire's Under 140 captain doesn't actually play for the Under 140 team... I could understand if the player had a lack of willingness to do it though.

I guess the likes of Warks/Worcs/Staffs would avoid the 4NCL, Warwickshire Open, possible Staffordshire Congress, Birmingham Rapidplay, and that's about it. They don't allow for Dudley for some reason. The Lancashire area seems to have a thriving local congress scene that Greater Birmingham area is devoid of (did I really just say "Greater Birmingham"? ). I guess in some respects, it's a good problem to have.

I don't think the fact that often players dip below 175 or even 150 is much of a problem. Warwickshire went down to 151 for the GMan match, but they were devoid of an a lot of 2100s who would normally compose their 4NCL team. Thomas, James, Baruch, Mason, McCumiskey to name but a few. Staffordshire's board 16 was 164. In the minor Open, Shropshire went down to 138, Derbyshire to 127 and 115, Worcestershire to 88 and 130, Leicestershire to 153 and 154, Lincolnshire 143 and 145. So there is a lot of overlap with other sections. County 2nd teams start where appropriate. If Greater Manchester could avoid clashes, I'm pretty sure you could be a match for Staffordshire and Warwickshire; you always used to be.

Alex

We have captains that want to play, non-playing is a non-starter

Notts have now defaulted, which I think is likely to put us through to the National Stages (assuming the Div 2 MC teams fulfil their fixtures)

It would be disappointing if there were only 3 Div 1 (Open) teams next season, although it would make the fixtures easier.....

I spoke to the Nottinghamshire captain this morning to find out what the problem is. Quite simply, not enough players are willing to play for the Open team. Nottinghamshire has very few players graded above 180, and the majority of those are either not interested or already playing for neighbouring counties (because they live outside Nottinghamshire). In effect, our Open team would be our U180 team with one or two additions at the top.

Suggestions that we should bolster our team with some of our juniors are, of course, sensible, but Nottinghamshire has always (in recent years, at least) picked juniors for its county teams, so this is not a source of extra players. Of the five listed by Alex Holowczak, two have effectively abandoned chess outside of school (no league chess played by either this season), and at least two of the other three would most likely have been in the team anyway.

Ian Kingston wrote:I spoke to the Nottinghamshire captain this morning to find out what the problem is. Quite simply, not enough players are willing to play for the Open team. Nottinghamshire has very few players graded above 180, and the majority of those are either not interested or already playing for neighbouring counties (because they live outside Nottinghamshire). In effect, our Open team would be our U180 team with one or two additions at the top.

Was this not thought about before withdrawing in protest from the 4NCL?

This suggests you have a few stronger players; I'm not sure how available they are: http://grading.bcfservices.org.uk/getco ... NOT&sort=2

Ian Kingston wrote:Suggestions that we should bolster our team with some of our juniors are, of course, sensible, but Nottinghamshire has always (in recent years, at least) picked juniors for its county teams, so this is not a source of extra players. Of the five listed by Alex Holowczak, two have effectively abandoned chess outside of school (no league chess played by either this season), and at least two of the other three would most likely have been in the team anyway.

Fair enough!

Alex Holowczak wrote:

Ian Kingston wrote:I spoke to the Nottinghamshire captain this morning to find out what the problem is. Quite simply, not enough players are willing to play for the Open team. Nottinghamshire has very few players graded above 180, and the majority of those are either not interested or already playing for neighbouring counties (because they live outside Nottinghamshire). In effect, our Open team would be our U180 team with one or two additions at the top.

Was this not thought about before withdrawing in protest from the 4NCL?

I'm sure it was, although I was not actually involved in making the decision. I suspect that estimates of how many would be willing to play in the odd county match as opposed to making a commitment to the 4NCL were wide of the mark. But you don't know until you actually try. My guess is that we will enter either the Open or the U180 next season, but not both. But that's pure speculation on my part.

Alex Holowczak wrote:This suggests you have a few stronger players; I'm not sure how available they are: http://grading.bcfservices.org.uk/getco ... NOT&sort=2

From what I've been told, not many. I'm not privy to any detailed information, so I can't really say more.

Ian Kingston wrote:My guess is that we will enter either the Open or the U180 next season, but not both. But that's pure speculation on my part.

Given that the U180 only has one match, I'm not sure there's much prohibiting you from entering both. You'll qualify for the Under 180s by default; I guess you could always decline your nomination from the Open/Minor Open should you qualify for it.

The powers that be will have to examine the situation and make a decision. We could obviously do both in principle; in practice there appears to be enthusiasm for only one.

Ian Kingston wrote:The powers that be will have to examine the situation and make a decision. We could obviously do both in principle; in practice there appears to be enthusiasm for only one.

In that case, I wish Nottinghamshire CA a speedy resolution to this problem.

Staffs beat Warks and also (again by default) Notts

Congratulations to Staffs as Midlands Open Champions again, and Warks as runners-up

They both have tough draws in the ECF National Stages, but could meet again in the semis
http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/matchbcf.htm

Mick Norris wrote:They both have tough draws in the ECF National Stages, but could meet again in the semis
http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/matchbcf.htm

Don't hold your breath. Warwickshire may have to play Kent in the Quarter Finals*. They defaulted at the same stage last year, but if they field a team that's close to representative, Kent ought to win. Their board 8 has had a grade of 200 this season.

*This is rather dependent on Kent v Surrey in March; Surrey are the only other unbeaten team.

Alex Holowczak wrote: Their board 8 has had a grade of 200 this season.

Why the past tense? Did he misplace his grade? That would have been rather careless of him.

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:

Alex Holowczak wrote: Their board 8 has had a grade of 200 this season.

Why the past tense? Did he misplace his grade? That would have been rather careless of him.

Because their board 8 might not have a grade of 200 for the remainder of the season. It might be higher or lower; i.e. he might not be on board 8 at all.

Alex Holowczak wrote:

Mick Norris wrote:They both have tough draws in the ECF National Stages, but could meet again in the semis
http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/matchbcf.htm

Don't hold your breath. Warwickshire may have to play Kent in the Quarter Finals*. They defaulted at the same stage last year, but if they field a team that's close to representative, Kent ought to win. Their board 8 has had a grade of 200 this season.

*This is rather dependent on Kent v Surrey in March; Surrey are the only other unbeaten team.

Alex

The SCCU teams (all 3) and both the NCCU teams will be much stronger on paper, but it may be that the 3 MCCU teams can compete and pull off an upset - fortunately, we don't just exchange grades of players and then go home (although from a G Man point of view, we have been pretty close to it this season)