2011 AGM

A forum for the Midland Counties Chess Union.
David Pardoe
Posts: 1186
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:29 pm
Location: NORTH WEST

Re: 2011 AGM

Post by David Pardoe » Sun Jun 26, 2011 10:50 am

raycollett wrote:
David Pardoe wrote: I`d like to see a more fundamental change to the Counties National Finals stages, reducing from present arrangements to just one grand `jamboree style` Finals.
There are a few difficulties with this proposal and perhaps the greatest issue would be finding a large enough venue with sufficient accommodation for nearly 700 players and enough organisers to run such an an event. It could be done, but it would require much planning.
Ray,
This was discussed further on P10 of the `Twice yearly Longplay grading..Good or Bad` thread..see under the `ECF Matters` thread. Roger de Coverley suggested that just combining the Semi Final & Final stages into one `two-day` Jamboree style Finale, perhaps at the Barcelo Hotel, Hinckley (similar to the 4NCL finals weekend recently, which proved very successful) might be better. This could still save significant amounts in room hire, time, and travel and might give the event a more focused & streamlined look. It might also allow some extra time for the `qualifier` stages, since many captains can find this a struggle during the winter months. Stewart Reubens seemed to think this sounded like a workable idea and suggested that perhaps a survey should be conducted.
Certainly, such an event might boost interest and if the various regional Press boys were invited, it might also give some useful publicity for chess & the ECF.
BRING BACK THE BCF

Sean Hewitt

Re: 2011 AGM

Post by Sean Hewitt » Sun Jun 26, 2011 11:22 am

raycollett wrote:
Sean Hewitt wrote: better to agree an incremental time control that the home team can use if it wishes.
Sean, in your experience of using incremental time controls, what proportion of games go over 120 moves? [I'm thinking of situations where the hall must be vacated by a set time.]
In all the events that we have run, we have never had a game go over 120 moves. Of course, that was with 30 second increments. I suspect that the shorter the increment, the less likely a long game is. Gibraltar used to have one game per event (1 in 900) that went to 130ish moves (usually R+B v R) though that was with 1 minute increments.

The longest game that we have had was 118 moves.

Andrew Farthing
Posts: 614
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 11:39 pm

Re: 2011 AGM

Post by Andrew Farthing » Sun Jun 26, 2011 11:53 am

Sean Hewitt wrote:
Alex Holowczak wrote:I can't remember the full wording of what was decided, but the gist was that you can use whatever time control you like as long as both teams agreed to the time control, be it incremental or otherwise.
That's disappointing. It means that very few matches (I suspect) will get played with incremental time controls. Would have been far better to agree an incremental time control that the home team can use if it wishes.
Without trying to argue one way or the other about the merits of incremental time controls, I think it's undeniable that they take a little getting used to if one has never tried them before. I play a lot of chess, but I have only used incremental time controls at two events in all of that time. At the first congress I encountered them, I found it very hard to gauge my own speed of play. Second time around, it was easier.

My point is just that, if incremental time controls can be imposed by the home captain, whose team would be more likely to be used to them, it potentially offers an advantage against teams who never use them. In Worcestershire, for example, digital clocks are rare and I wouldn't be surprised if there were as few as half a dozen players who have ever used an incremental time control.

It's not quite the same thing the other way round, because the older time controls (with quickplay finishes) have been in widespread use for much longer.

If the team captains agree on incremental time controls, that's fine. Personally, I do see the attraction.

Sean Hewitt

Re: 2011 AGM

Post by Sean Hewitt » Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:00 pm

I think the point is that very few matches will be played with incremental time controls, regardless of the number of counties who might want to. We know that in chess where the default position is x with the option to mutually agree y, the mutually agreed option very rarely occurs. 10 second increments make a very small difference to the rate of play of the player.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 16084
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: 2011 AGM

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun Jun 26, 2011 1:22 pm

Sean Hewitt wrote: In all the events that we have run, we have never had a game go over 120 moves
....
The longest game that we have had was 118 moves.
With Keith in many e2e4 events, isn't that just luck :)

For example http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1587495

Admittedly that was the long form of increment 40/100, 20/ 50 + 15 with 30 seconds from the start.

Sean Hewitt

Re: 2011 AGM

Post by Sean Hewitt » Sun Jun 26, 2011 2:03 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
With Keith in many e2e4 events, isn't that just luck :)
Very probably! :lol:
Roger de Coverly wrote:For example http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1587495

Admittedly that was the long form of increment 40/100, 20/ 50 + 15 with 30 seconds from the start.
I hadn't thought about it before, but the amount of available time, coupled with the length of the increment, must affect the probability of an extremely long game.

raycollett
Posts: 206
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:54 pm

Re: 2011 AGM

Post by raycollett » Mon Jun 27, 2011 8:19 am

David Pardoe wrote: I`d like to see a more fundamental change to the Counties National Finals stages, reducing from present arrangements to just one grand `jamboree style` Finals.
Do we have any evidence that county players are happy to play over Saturday and Sunday rather than two separate Saturdays? The recent AGM was attended by 18, which is greater than attendance on Sundays of previous 3 years. It would be worth county captains polling their players about availability over two days.

I see the advantages of having a central venue in terms of publicity, but would it really save much? Hotel accommodation and eating out has to be factored in against the benefits of saving the costs of one return journey and a pack of sandwiches. Travel costs or a trip for the furthest counties to play - say from Newcastle-uopon-Tyne to Birmingham - would be in the region of about 210 x £0.40 = £84 by car. Most fixtures would of course require shorter journeys than the one used as an example.

Mick Norris
Posts: 6489
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: 2011 AGM

Post by Mick Norris » Mon Jun 27, 2011 9:58 am

Sean Hewitt wrote:
Alex Holowczak wrote:I can't remember the full wording of what was decided, but the gist was that you can use whatever time control you like as long as both teams agreed to the time control, be it incremental or otherwise.
That's disappointing. It means that very few matches (I suspect) will get played with incremental time controls. Would have been far better to agree an incremental time control that the home team can use if it wishes.
Sean

I made a decision to get through what I thought I could, with Alex's considerable help - basically an agreement along the lines of last year's MCF proposal

Positive - digital clocks fully accepted, with or without incremental time limits, including when blind players are in the team - David Anderton agreed to play G Man v Staffs with our digital clocks at incremental time limits next season (if we have an Open team), which means we can say to Warks, why not you too?

Negative - no default incremental time limit agreed

Positive - agreement that any incremental time control can be used as long as both captains agree in advance i.e. complete flexibility

Negative - we might use different limits in different games before an MCCU "normal" limit emerges

Since we play all games at neutral venues, I am unsure if the true concept of home team applies, but personally I prefer to get the other team's prior agreement rather than start arguments (as we have enough of those without bringing them into the MCCU)
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

Mick Norris
Posts: 6489
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: 2011 AGM

Post by Mick Norris » Mon Jun 27, 2011 10:01 am

raycollett wrote:Do we have any evidence that county players are happy to play over Saturday and Sunday rather than two separate Saturdays?
We have evidence that they do not want this

I tried to organise an U175 game in Worcs on a Saturday followed by an Open game in Birmingham on the Sunday - 1 in favour, many against

Manchester's 4NCL team shows there is an appetite for playing 1 but not both days

Moving on to important matters....
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 8006
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: 2011 AGM

Post by Alex Holowczak » Mon Jun 27, 2011 10:12 am

Could the MCCU have a two-round Jamboree over one weekend at Hinckley Island for its county stages? I reckon if you had Open, U180, U140, U100 one weekend, and Minor, U160, U120 on another weekend, you'd have no capacity problems at Hinckley, and you could probably sell enough rooms to keep the hotel happy. You could have an arbiter or two on site. You could even have 7 hour rounds, although I'd prefer 5 hours with increment (40/90 + 30 + 30''). Games to start at 2pm on Saturday and 11am on Sunday a la the 4NCL. You'd have no compulsion to have the same team on both days, or even in the same section on both days, so you'd still capture the 1-day per weekend market, but could cater for the 2-day per weekend market - which I think is bigger at the higher-graded levels - too.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 8006
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: 2011 AGM

Post by Alex Holowczak » Mon Jun 27, 2011 10:14 am

Mick Norris wrote:Negative - no default incremental time limit agreed
Cyril's sentiments were "I don't really care what time control you use". Which is fine, but it seems daft to have the current long-winded rules about what time controls you can use.

Mick Norris
Posts: 6489
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: 2011 AGM

Post by Mick Norris » Mon Jun 27, 2011 10:36 am

Alex Holowczak wrote:
Mick Norris wrote:Negative - no default incremental time limit agreed
Cyril's sentiments were "I don't really care what time control you use". Which is fine, but it seems daft to have the current long-winded rules about what time controls you can use.
You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment :lol:
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

Mick Norris
Posts: 6489
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: 2011 AGM

Post by Mick Norris » Mon Jun 27, 2011 10:39 am

Alex Holowczak wrote:Could the MCCU have a two-round Jamboree over one weekend at Hinckley Island for its county stages?
You might not think that was an ideal location geographically within the MCCU

It was noticeable on Saturday that more delegates attend at Lichfield than Syston

If you wanted to use 4NCL venues, then Crewe might be possible (indeed, one weekend at Crewe and one at Hinckley Island might work?)
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: 1186
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:29 pm
Location: NORTH WEST

Re: 2011 AGM

Post by David Pardoe » Mon Jun 27, 2011 10:52 am

raycollett wrote:
David Pardoe wrote: I`d like to see a more fundamental change to the Counties National Finals stages, reducing from present arrangements to just one grand `jamboree style` Finals.
Do we have any evidence that county players are happy to play over Saturday and Sunday rather than two separate Saturdays? The recent AGM was attended by 18, which is greater than attendance on Sundays of previous 3 years. It would be worth county captains polling their players about availability over two days.

I see the advantages of having a central venue in terms of publicity, but would it really save much? Hotel accommodation and eating out has to be factored in against the benefits of saving the costs of one return journey and a pack of sandwiches. Travel costs or a trip for the furthest counties to play - say from Newcastle-uopon-Tyne to Birmingham - would be in the region of about 210 x £0.40 = £84 by car. Most fixtures would of course require shorter journeys than the one used as an example.
Ray,
The other cost to mention is room hire...you`re going to save on all the room hire costs (from the Semi Finals), & just have one... say 16 venues at £30 or more a time .
But the key point really is whether the ECF would like more of a showpiece Finals, held at a smart venue, creating a really major focused event that might generate more publicity & interest, just like the 4NCL finals.
It could also put an extra month into the time table, which might enable the `qualifier` stages to run longer, which might ease pressures on county captains during the winter months.
Whether counties would buy into this or not, I`m not sure....certainly it seems to work well for 4NCL.
Many county players also play 4NCL, so this isnt some new concept to them. However, captains may perhaps be concerned about whether they could find 16 player teams to do this...although the option would be there for some to play on the Saturday & others to play on Sunday, so those not wanting to play both days neednt.
Last edited by David Pardoe on Mon Jun 27, 2011 11:00 am, edited 3 times in total.
BRING BACK THE BCF

Mick Norris
Posts: 6489
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: 2011 AGM

Post by Mick Norris » Mon Jun 27, 2011 10:57 am

Andrew Farthing wrote:Without trying to argue one way or the other about the merits of incremental time controls, I think it's undeniable that they take a little getting used to if one has never tried them before. I play a lot of chess, but I have only used incremental time controls at two events in all of that time.
Shameless plug alert :wink:

Manchester Autumn Congress 2-4 September 2011, entry form downloadable here:
http://www.manchesterchessfederation.co.uk/page2.html


Tournaments: Open. Major Under 165. Knights Under 125.
Free parking ECF Graded University Accommodation MCCU GP

MOVE RATE We use an incremental (Fisher) time control. Which is much better than the traditional control. It is simpler and avoids many of the disputes associated with old fashioned time controls You start off with 80 minutes on your clock and every time you press your clock you gain an extra 30 seconds
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

Post Reply