County teams 2013-4

A forum for the Midland Counties Chess Union.
Alex Holowczak
Posts: 8006
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

County teams 2013-4

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sun Jul 14, 2013 10:48 pm

Just returned from the Warwickshire AGM, where we decided to drop our 1st Team from Division 1 of the Open to Division 2 of the Open (i.e. the Minor), on the grounds that we've been thumped in the KO stages for the past two seasons, and our strongest team at the moment has been consistently under the average of 180 during that time anyway.

Are any teams joining Staffordshire in Division 1?

Mick Norris
Posts: 6479
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: County teams 2013-4

Post by Mick Norris » Mon Jul 15, 2013 7:35 am

Not that I am aware of

What happens to Staffs if they are in a league of their own?

Will Div 2 still be an all play all if Warks are added to the other teams?
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: County teams 2013-4

Post by Alex Holowczak » Mon Jul 15, 2013 9:41 am

Mick Norris wrote:Not that I am aware of

What happens to Staffs if they are in a league of their own?

Will Div 2 still be an all play all if Warks are added to the other teams?
I don't know what happens to Staffordshire.

Warwickshire would be team number 6 in Division 2, and we had an APA the last time there were 6 in it. We split into East and West if 8 counties enter a particular section.

Sean Hewitt
Posts: 2190
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:18 pm
Contact:

Re: County teams 2013-4

Post by Sean Hewitt » Mon Jul 15, 2013 10:02 am

Staffs qualify as M1 without playing. A more interesting question is how is M2 decided.

David Pardoe
Posts: 1186
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:29 pm
Location: NORTH WEST

Re: County teams 2013-4 ...and National stages Actions neede

Post by David Pardoe » Mon Jul 15, 2013 10:29 am

Disappointing... That the MCCU now (apparently.) has no Open competition, and more of our top guns don't give this very good event the support it deserves.

That means that the Open event is really left to the SCCU (with its huge population advantage), and the NCCU heavyweights, with the rest sidelined.

I think our county organisers need to review matters to see if ways can be found to boost and encourage greater support. There is no doubt that the players are out there who could provide the basis of some top grade teams, and make a significant difference. I reckon a number of counties should be able to produce an Open team, with average grades of over 180 for the sixteen boards....and even having some county teams with average grades below this may be good for the health of the event, and encourage the next generation of top players, by providing strong competition for them to cut there teeth on. And many `shock results` do occur from such meetings, which is a great boost and encouragement to the players.
These county events offer a great deal to our players, at all levels, and I`d urge counties across the land to try to encourage more participation.
This starts with the respective Union bodies actively promoting these events.. Has the MCCU got a new Counties Competition organiser yet...?

Some rule changes and structure changes might also help...and many threads across these forums discuss various options.
Firstly, drop that rule requiring ECF membership...
and provide more flexible Membership options, as previously suggested....ie, cheap bulk options, and `pick & mix` introductory options...might help.
Change the grading bands, as I`ve previously suggested, and maybe increase the number of boards. This would result in fewer county matches, ie, less travel, but played over more boards would create `bigger matches`, and hopefully more participation.The ECF & Union bodies need to put out some detailed discussion papers to obtain the views of delegates and county captains about the best options and ways forward. We are shrouded in apathy...but I do also take on board the pressures of modern living, and that many might feel less able to participate. Others might be able to give some of there time to help with chess organisation at all levels. Can be very rewarding, and can make a great deal of difference and keep the wheels turning...

What the counties events `do` is to encourage competition across our regions, from a sporting perspective, and the meeting up of these teams (where no prize money is involved...), means that the true amateur aspect of the sport should be encouraged, along with the social/cultural and other links. In other words, what this event is really all about is not particularly the `winning`, but more importantly, about the `taking part`.
Some players are obsesssed about `prizes`, it might appear, or about playing in prestigeous events. Thats fair enough...our top events with GM norms, cash prizes, etc...are to be welcomed and encouraged. And I can appreciate that `the professuionals` might not always be able to give there time. But this is an event where our top brass could actually put something back into chess...show support, and thereby help UK chess to thrive and develop.

If you look at the MCCU situation..we have many top players (grades 200+..), who surely could put in a few appearances....not necessarily for all the matches. If just some of these players put in an appearance 2 or 3 times a season, it could lift the qudos, and encourage others to turn out and support these events. It would provide extra bite to matches, and fresh challenges for our next emerging generation of players.
I noticed when Manchester dropped out of the Open section, and into the Minor, a number of our `senior` players seemed to drop out... I suspect that when Manchester dropped out, it sent a negative signal out, and maybe had a knockon effect on other teams.
Certainly, there are the players round who could play and help create a strong team from this area...
Finally...the key requirement is Publicity and promotion....particularly from our regional and local Press. Maybe we need a little more focus from all our chess bodies at getting out the news and events stories, pictures, commentaries and puiblicity to joe public.
And yes, maybe we do need to look at options to provide some extra `buzz` and recognition for our Finalists...
BRING BACK THE BCF

Alan Walton
Posts: 1163
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
Location: Oldham

Re: County teams 2013-4

Post by Alan Walton » Mon Jul 15, 2013 10:49 am

Maybe there needs to be a rethink of the Minor Champs

Maybe have 16 teams qualifying for the open champs, then the first round losers automatically qualify for the Minor (or a Plate competition) and the rest battle it out for the Open championship

It means some of the weaker team have the opportunity of one match to play the stronger teams, and thereafter compete at a more even level for the rest of the tournament

Sean Hewitt
Posts: 2190
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:18 pm
Contact:

Re: County teams 2013-4 ...and National stages Actions neede

Post by Sean Hewitt » Mon Jul 15, 2013 10:56 am

David Pardoe wrote:Change the grading bands, as I`ve previously suggested, and maybe increase the number of boards. This would result in fewer county matches, ie, less travel, but played over more boards would create `bigger matches`, and hopefully more participation.
Do you think that more boards in the Open would make MCCU teams more or less competitive compared to their SCCU counterparts?

Mick Norris
Posts: 6479
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: County teams 2013-4

Post by Mick Norris » Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:24 pm

Sean Hewitt wrote:Staffs qualify as M1 without playing. A more interesting question is how is M2 decided.
Presumably there isn't one?
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: County teams 2013-4

Post by David Pardoe » Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:34 pm

Sean.....
Its all about the art of the possible...as demonstrated at Trent Bridge by the Aussies when they came so close to winning that epic First Test. The Number 11 batsman almost scored 100 in the first innings.!!
What a treat for the crowd...and what a boost for English Cricket..and the Ausiies
You`ve got to be init to winit......
We need to encourage more participation...maybe even try and level the playing field. Maybe introduce some `handicapping`...
Remember, the SCCU have that great population advantage...plus better transport...and more dosh. Some sponsorship offers would not go amiss for English/UK chess.
And the North took that huge and bold initiative to create several `new counties` when our Metropolitans were made counties about 30 years ago. This created more counties and more playing opportunities, but that, in turn impacted on the county strength, giving the `south` yet more advantage.
We need to encourage our regional teams and maybe the NCCU could look at ways to boost support in there area.
Maybe an `East`--`West`split would be a starting point. Various other suggestions have been made on other threads..but its down to them and other county/Union bodies to actively promote/encourage positive initiatives to boost more teams and participation.
Changes to the county structures and rules could also help, and the ECF/Unions should actively canvass views from delegates and county captains to encourage greater support.
BRING BACK THE BCF

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

Re: County teams 2013-4

Post by Alex Holowczak » Mon Jul 15, 2013 3:26 pm

Sean Hewitt wrote:Staffs qualify as M1 without playing. A more interesting question is how is M2 decided.
When the number of teams in Division 1 reduced from 4 to 2, M3 in the Open simply wasn't allocated. Presumably now that the number of teams in Division 1 has reduced from 2 to 1, M2 in the Open won't be allocated.

In the past, the top 2 teams in Division 2 qualify for the Minor regardless of the number of teams in Division 1.

Mick Norris
Posts: 6479
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: County teams 2013-4

Post by Mick Norris » Mon Jul 15, 2013 3:39 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:
Sean Hewitt wrote:Staffs qualify as M1 without playing. A more interesting question is how is M2 decided.
When the number of teams in Division 1 reduced from 4 to 2, M3 in the Open simply wasn't allocated. Presumably now that the number of teams in Division 1 has reduced from 2 to 1, M2 in the Open won't be allocated.

In the past, the top 2 teams in Division 2 qualify for the Minor regardless of the number of teams in Division 1.
Alex, I agree with that, but the MCCU have 2 places automatically for the Open regardless of the qualifying competition, whereas the third place used to depend on having a qualifying competition

There would be nothing to stop the third (or lower) team in Div 2 accepting the place of M2 in the Open, even if they might be advised not to
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: County teams 2013-4

Post by Alex Holowczak » Mon Jul 15, 2013 3:49 pm

Mick Norris wrote:Alex, I agree with that, but the MCCU have 2 places automatically for the Open regardless of the qualifying competition, whereas the third place used to depend on having a qualifying competition
That's not quite right.

The MCCU runs its Division 1 and Division 2 to Open rules, meaning that in 2012/13, we had a total of 7 Open teams. You need 5 teams to finish the qualifiers played to Open rules in order to qualify for an Open M3.

Even with 1 team in Division 1 and 6 teams in Division 2, the MCCU is entitled to 3 nominations in the Open and 2 in the Minor.

The MCCU chooses how to make these nominations. It chooses to use Division 1 as its Open qualifier, and Division 2 as its Minor qualifier. It could choose to do something different.

Ian Jamieson
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:00 pm

Re: County teams 2013-4

Post by Ian Jamieson » Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:20 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:
Mick Norris wrote:Alex, I agree with that, but the MCCU have 2 places automatically for the Open regardless of the qualifying competition, whereas the third place used to depend on having a qualifying competition
That's not quite right.

The MCCU runs its Division 1 and Division 2 to Open rules, meaning that in 2012/13, we had a total of 7 Open teams. You need 5 teams to finish the qualifiers played to Open rules in order to qualify for an Open M3.

Even with 1 team in Division 1 and 6 teams in Division 2, the MCCU is entitled to 3 nominations in the Open and 2 in the Minor.

The MCCU chooses how to make these nominations. It chooses to use Division 1 as its Open qualifier, and Division 2 as its Minor qualifier. It could choose to do something different.
Wouldn't it make more sense to run Division 2 to Minor Counties rules?

MCCU would then have 2 nominations in the Open and 3 in the Minor.

There must be more chance of a third county taking up a nomination in the Minor than a second or third county now taking up a nomination in the Open.

Mick Norris
Posts: 6479
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: County teams 2013-4

Post by Mick Norris » Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:21 pm

Alex

Yes, sorry confusing myself :oops:
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: 6479
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: County teams 2013-4

Post by Mick Norris » Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:22 pm

Ian Jamieson wrote:
Alex Holowczak wrote:
Mick Norris wrote:Alex, I agree with that, but the MCCU have 2 places automatically for the Open regardless of the qualifying competition, whereas the third place used to depend on having a qualifying competition
That's not quite right.

The MCCU runs its Division 1 and Division 2 to Open rules, meaning that in 2012/13, we had a total of 7 Open teams. You need 5 teams to finish the qualifiers played to Open rules in order to qualify for an Open M3.

Even with 1 team in Division 1 and 6 teams in Division 2, the MCCU is entitled to 3 nominations in the Open and 2 in the Minor.

The MCCU chooses how to make these nominations. It chooses to use Division 1 as its Open qualifier, and Division 2 as its Minor qualifier. It could choose to do something different.
Wouldn't it make more sense to run Division 2 to Minor Counties rules?

MCCU would then have 2 nominations in the Open and 3 in the Minor.

There must be more chance of a third county taking up a nomination in the Minor than a second or third county now taking up a nomination in the Open.
Ian

I hesitate here, but I think there are only 2 places available for the Minor regardless of the qualifying competition

EDIT - reading the Rules, you appear to be correct

I think the way the competition developed over the years means that counties prefer not to bother in the Qualifiers with the requirement to be under 180 on average - it makes less work for the controller, too if you don't have to register players for your Div 2 Open team and assign them estimated grades

Your suggestion may be worth thinking about for the 2014/15 season
Last edited by Mick Norris on Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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