English Chess Forum

Does anyone know how the teams in the Championship and Plate competitions fared yesterday and today in the Finals of the Yateley Manor National Schools Chess Championship?

John Swain wrote:Does anyone know how the teams in the Championship and Plate competitions fared yesterday and today in the Finals of the Yateley Manor National Schools Chess Championship?

I know that King Edward's School finished third in the plate, having lost to Wilson's School in the Semi Final. The fourth team dropped out at the last minute. So the Final of the Plate was Wilson's v Reading.

Interesting news. It's a pity that there was a late withdrawal. I've not heard of that happening before. Presumably the top seed in the Plate was given a bye into the Final but had to sit it out on the Thursday, with King Edward's missing out on a match for Third/Fourth play-off today. I feel sorry for the players who only got one game but also for the organisers, Richard Haddrell especially.

Manchester GS retained the title by beating Wellington College 2.5 to 3.5.
(Age handicap rules meant Wellington needed 4 points to win).
Wellington Coll had 5 players graded over 190!

Reading School beat Wilson's 3.5 to 2.5 in the plate, therefore not needing their age handicap advantage.
[This is the first time for 10 years that 2 state schools have met in the plate final. I think there has always been at least one independent school in the main tournament final.]
edit: This statement is false. The same 2 schools, and 6 of the players, met in the plate final just 3 years ago.

Neill Cooper wrote:Manchester GS retained the title by beating Wellington College 2.5 to 3.5.
(Age handicap rules meant Wellington needed 4 points to win).

Sigh

An 'All Stars' team made up of reserves were the fourth team in the plate, and did provide a suitable substitute team.

Congratulations to all the teams who reached the Finals. I'm pleased to hear that there were sufficient reserves to make up another team for the Plate Competition. It's good to hear about the success of state schools. If the tournament is to attract a lot more entries in future, I suspect this is where growth will have to occur.

The result of the Final is interesting. Well done to MGS who I understand had an IM on top board, but who faced a Wellington team which must in terms of grades possibly rank as the strongest ever.

The age handicap system has always been a unique feature of this tournament but one that is not without its critics. At my school, we have sometimes profited from winning under the age handicap system (usually with our 'B' team) but whenever we have been canvassed for our views (eg by Mitchell Taylor some years ago) we have always argued in favour of abolishing the age handicap, or at least making it less severe. It certainly does nothing to encourage Sixth Form Colleges to enter and maybe not some 13-16 or 13-18 schools. What do others think?

John Swain wrote:The age handicap system has always been a unique feature of this tournament but one that is not without its critics. At my school, we have sometimes profited from winning under the age handicap system (usually with our 'B' team) but whenever we have been canvassed for our views (eg by Mitchell Taylor some years ago) we have always argued in favour of abolishing the age handicap, or at least making it less severe. It certainly does nothing to encourage Sixth Form Colleges to enter and maybe not some 13-16 or 13-18 schools. What do others think?

When I was at King Edward VI Five Ways, we deliberately didn't enter it for a number of years because of the age handicap rules. Our team was quite old at that time, so it wouldn't have helped us.

I simply don't see what problem the age handicap is there to fix.

Alex Holowczak wrote: I simply don't see what problem the age handicap is there to fix.

The time has come to consign age to the dustbin of handicaps.

Why not consider grading as a benchmark for handicapping?

OR, we could be very radical and remove the handicap and use ability instead?

My view on age handicap is similarly negative - this season I had to seriously consider selecting a sub-strength team, because all of our 1st-team players are 6th formers. (In the end I didn't, and sure enough we went out at the last 16 stage by only winning 3.5-2.5 with an average age of 17 years and 9 months.) To me, it is wrong that I should even have had to think about it - schools will always want to be represented by their very best players in any competition, and in my opinion a National Championship should seek to find the best team in the country, not the relatively best.

Still, we have this discussion every year and we're still waiting...

John Upham wrote:
Why not consider grading as a benchmark for handicapping?

Because not every child has a grade.

John Swain wrote:The age handicap system has always been a unique feature of this tournament but one that is not without its critics. At my school, we have sometimes profited from winning under the age handicap system (usually with our 'B' team) but whenever we have been canvassed for our views (eg by Mitchell Taylor some years ago) we have always argued in favour of abolishing the age handicap, or at least making it less severe. It certainly does nothing to encourage Sixth Form Colleges to enter and maybe not some 13-16 or 13-18 schools. What do others think?

I find the age handicap a particular problem for state schools when their opponents use the eligibility rule which allows them to include much younger players from their prep schools. This year two state schools were knocked out of the national stages when they won a match in this scenario. [And my school, Wilson's, suffered the same fate last year.] It is this combination of independent schools being able to bring in much younger players along with the age handicap, so they get a double benefit, that leads to the greatest injustices.

The only rational for keeping age handicap seems to be that it is a long standing feature of the tournament. Why, in Daniel Young's situation above, should he have been handicapped? He might have been 4 years older than his opponent, but he has only been playing competitive chess for 2 years whilst his opponent had 7 years experience. The age handicap provides a discouragement for teenagers who have only recently started playing chess!

However, if we are to review the age handicap system then the eligibility rule for playing for a school should also be reviewed. I think the present definition is too inclusive - if the school distinguishes the prep school from the senior school, by having different headteachers, teachers, sites, school names or even websites, then intrinsically the schools are not one but two.

When both eligibility and age handicap are considered together then I think the reasons for removing the age handicap are stronger.

I have to emphasis that, as my signature states, these are my personal views.

Note that in the Secondary school events I am running for the ECF my intention is to not include age handicap and to normally have a age limit of pupils being in years 7 to 13.

Andrew Camp wrote: Because not every child has a grade.

Of course but has anyone demonstrated a reliable correlation between age and ability?

Neill Cooper wrote:The only rationale for keeping age handicap seems to be that it is a long standing feature of the tournament.

That's never an argument for doing something. I've asked the people I consider to be the decision makers on this sort of thing what the purpose of the rule is, and I am awaiting a reply.

Neill Cooper wrote:However, if we are to review the age handicap system then the eligibility rule for playing for a school should also be reviewed. I think the present definition is too inclusive - if the school distinguishes the prep school from the senior school, by having different headteachers, teachers, sites, school names or even websites, then intrinsically the schools are not one but two.

Simply state that the competition is for secondary schools, or players aged between Year 7 and 13. EPSCA has an event already for Under 11s. If independent schools want their prep schools to play, they can play in that.

Daniel Young wrote:My view on age handicap is similarly negative - this season I had to seriously consider selecting a sub-strength team, because all of our 1st-team players are 6th formers.

Can someone explain how the age handicap is worked out exactly? Presumably a certain difference in age equals a certain difference in expected score. If so, given the grading system has a certain difference in grade equalling a certain difference in expected score, it should be pretty easy to work out whether it's worth dropping an old, stronger player, for a young, not-so-strong player.

Thanks to Richard Haddrell, full results for this season are now available on http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/schoolsres.htm

Alex Holowczak wrote:Can someone explain how the age handicap is worked out exactly?

Back in 1957 someone decided to encourage 'younger' players. The system, as far as I am aware, is unchanged from that date.