Re: County teams 2011-12
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 11:05 pm
Sean Hewitt wrote:Worcestershire are b****red thenmichele clack wrote: I suspect that Alex H is also down as a rapidly improving younger player with a lot expected of him.
The independent home for discussions on the English Chess scene.
https://www.ecforum.org.uk/
Sean Hewitt wrote:Worcestershire are b****red thenmichele clack wrote: I suspect that Alex H is also down as a rapidly improving younger player with a lot expected of him.
That's ll be £13 pleaseCarl Hibbard wrote:I could be persuaded to turn up for a laugh with a little arm twisting?
No it won't. He's ungraded, and we won't go over the 3 game threshold. (We'll have 2 games in the MCCU stage, and probably lose our first in the National Stage...)Sean Hewitt wrote:That'll be £13 pleaseCarl Hibbard wrote:I could be persuaded to turn up for a laugh with a little arm twisting?
It's sad when this and this need to be explained!Alex Holowczak wrote:No it won't. He's ungraded, and we won't go over the 3 game threshold. (We'll have 2 games in the MCCU stage, and probably lose our first in the National Stage...)Sean Hewitt wrote:That'll be £13 pleaseCarl Hibbard wrote:I could be persuaded to turn up for a laugh with a little arm twisting?
Also, it's a year early.
Well, I don't even intend to try and read that 19-page (soon to be more, no doubt) thread that sprung up recently...
Oh right, I knew he was ungraded last season, and didn't realise he played a game again.michele clack wrote:Carl's not ungraded. He's down in the ECF list as 181, having played the odd game for Stratford.
I assume the competition controller, Julie would consult counties to propose a format that is acceptable to competing teams.Alex Holowczak wrote:OK, so suppose only two teams enter Division One.
No need. The rules are clear - it's a match. It's happened a few times at U175/U180 level.raycollett wrote:I assume the competition controller, Julie would consult counties to propose a format that is acceptable to competing teams.Alex Holowczak wrote:OK, so suppose only two teams enter Division One.
Thanksmichele clack wrote:I think the top board is the Latvian player who won the Worcestershire Open and has moved to Worcester. The juniors include the Friar brothers and Kyle Reed I believe. I suspect that Alex H is also down as a rapidly improving younger player with a lot expected of him.
Rayraycollett wrote:I assume the competition controller, Julie would consult counties to propose a format that is acceptable to competing teams.Alex Holowczak wrote:OK, so suppose only two teams enter Division One.
M1 and M2 will be decided by the Open. If we get 5 entries in Division One and Division Two, we're entitled to an M3 spots in the Open regardless of how many of those play in Division One. Whether a subsequent MCCU rule prevents this from being awarded due to only having two teams in Division One, I don't know.Mick Norris wrote:If it is just Staffs and Warks they play a match for the title and M1 nomination for the nationals - you might offer M3, if we get it, to the Div 2 teams, but they can surely just say no?
Div 2 first and second get the Minor nominations under MCCU Rules I think
You're correct that the situation has arisen largely for historical reasons.Alex Holowczak wrote:If the Minor were a "normal" division, we could run our Division Two to the Minor rules and hope for three nominations. We can't though, because D4 of the ECF rules say we can only have two nominations regardless. Is there any reason for this? (There's usually a reason dating back to something that happened in 1965 which is the reason we have it today...)