Lazy questions

Discussion about all aspects of the ECF County Championships.
Jonathan Rogers
Posts: 3778
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm

Lazy questions

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Thu Jul 11, 2013 8:03 pm

The answers to these questions can probably be found in various threads in this section. But where? And I bet that some of us here know the answers of the top of their heads! So I thought I'd try to take advantage:

1) When did the eligibility rules for the Minor Counties change, such that a county can now play in it provided only that it has not qualified for the final stages of the Open?

2) We seemed to rejig the graded sections to U180, U160 etc in 2009-10: see the useful page

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/historic ... p-winners/

Why then? I had always assumed it was to do with the grading inflation of the time, but my memory is that the notorious list only came out in summer 2009, so what was the reason?

3) Why so many defaulted matches in the U100 this year? Is it mainly a U100 problem or do we fairly regularly get defaults at most levels these days? (It has happened in the Open in past years).

Richard Bates
Posts: 2849
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: Lazy questions

Post by Richard Bates » Thu Jul 11, 2013 8:08 pm

Jonathan Rogers wrote:
2) We seemed to rejig the graded sections to U180, U160 etc in 2009-10: see the useful page

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/historic ... p-winners/

Why then? I had always assumed it was to do with the grading inflation of the time, but my memory is that the notorious list only came out in summer 2009, so what was the reason?
I don't understand why you are questioning your initial assumption? The change antipated the new gradings because everyone knew what they would do.

Jonathan Rogers
Posts: 3778
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm

Re: Lazy questions

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Thu Jul 11, 2013 8:13 pm

Perhaps so. I guess I doubted myself because I thought that the new grading bands would have had to be planned some time in advance whilst the scale of the wrongness of the 2009 list seemed to come as a shock at the time. But maybe those in the know did indeed plan ahead.

Richard Bates
Posts: 2849
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: Lazy questions

Post by Richard Bates » Thu Jul 11, 2013 8:20 pm

ECF decisions don't require advance planning. They just require a motion and a vote at the AGM!

David Sedgwick
Posts: 3381
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: Lazy questions

Post by David Sedgwick » Thu Jul 11, 2013 11:19 pm

"1) When did the eligibility rules for the Minor Counties change, such that a county can now play in it provided only that it has not qualified for the final stages of the Open?"

I can't remember exactly, but I think it was about ten to twelve years ago.

(Edit: This is completely wrong. See John Philpott's post below.)


"2) We seemed to rejig the graded sections to U180, U160 etc in 2009-10: see the useful page

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/historic ... p-winners/

Why then? I had always assumed it was to do with the grading inflation of the time, but my memory is that the notorious list only came out in summer 2009, so what was the reason?"

The re-jig anticipated the intended effects of the regrading exercise. The then Director of Home Chess assured the April 2009 ECF Council Meeting that there would be no problems.

I think the "notorious" aspects of the list mainly affected juniors and hence had only limited effects on the Counties Championships.


"3) Why so many defaulted matches in the U100 this year? Is it mainly a U100 problem or do we fairly regularly get defaults at most levels these days? (It has happened in the Open in past years)."

Following last season's problems, efforts were made to ensure that there was no repeat this season. Counties were asked to think carefully before accepting nomination.

In the U100 Division the message doesn't seem to have got through, possibly because most of the would-be teams were new nominees
Last edited by David Sedgwick on Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

Angus French
Posts: 1570
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Contact:

Re: Lazy questions

Post by Angus French » Thu Jul 11, 2013 11:32 pm

Jonathan Rogers wrote:3) Why so many defaulted matches in the U100 this year? Is it mainly a U100 problem or do we fairly regularly get defaults at most levels these days? (It has happened in the Open in past years).
The Surrey U100 team was one those to default. The captain was unable to raise a team and cited:
- interest at the U100 level being more casual (dare I suggest that perhaps the membership requirement doesn't help here) with a disinclination to travel; and,
- having fewer players - especially juniors - to call on than in previous years, quite possibly as a result of competion from other events.

Dragoljub Sudar
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:34 pm

Re: Lazy questions

Post by Dragoljub Sudar » Fri Jul 12, 2013 3:38 am

It's not really surprising why the u100 section has seen so many defaults. The 'u100' section is too low since the grades were 'upgraded'.
The regular players who used to be graded u100 are now graded 100+ and the current <100 grade adult players are those who used to be graded <70 so are likely to be more casual players. The section needs to be 'u110' to be viable.

Jonathan Rogers
Posts: 3778
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm

Re: Lazy questions

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Fri Jul 12, 2013 9:40 am

Many thanks to everyone who replied. In case you are wondering, I have agreed to write a report on Finals day (tomorrow) and wanted to get a few things straight in advance. My instinctive thoughts had been along the same lines as Angus and Dragoljub regarding the U100. Anything U100 really is a low grade in today's currency and I would expect many players of that modest ability to be amazed that anyone should want them to travel across the country to play another player of similar modest ability - and ECF membership may well be an issue here too. That said, the problems have only been very stark this year, so I'll keep an open mind for now.

LawrenceCooper
Posts: 4989
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am

Re: Lazy questions

Post by LawrenceCooper » Fri Jul 12, 2013 10:44 am

Jonathan Rogers wrote:The answers to these questions can probably be found in various threads in this section. But where? And I bet that some of us here know the answers of the top of their heads! So I thought I'd try to take advantage:

1) When did the eligibility rules for the Minor Counties change, such that a county can now play in it provided only that it has not qualified for the final stages of the Open?
Back in the dark ages when I was a county captain they had a rule that a county was eligible for the minor counties only if they had failed to qualify for the national stages four years in a row. I remember my slight annoyance when in the fourth year Staffs qualified for the national stages thus denying us of what I thought would be a better chance of winning something. Rather bizarrely, we then ended up winning the national title for the only time in our history :shock:

Jonathan Rogers
Posts: 3778
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm

Re: Lazy questions

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Fri Jul 12, 2013 11:02 am

LawrenceCooper wrote:
Jonathan Rogers wrote:The answers to these questions can probably be found in various threads in this section. But where? And I bet that some of us here know the answers of the top of their heads! So I thought I'd try to take advantage:

1) When did the eligibility rules for the Minor Counties change, such that a county can now play in it provided only that it has not qualified for the final stages of the Open?
Back in the dark ages when I was a county captain they had a rule that a county was eligible for the minor counties only if they had failed to qualify for the national stages four years in a row. I remember my slight annoyance when in the fourth year Staffs qualified for the national stages thus denying us of what I thought would be a better chance of winning something. Rather bizarrely, we then ended up winning the national title for the only time in our history :shock:
I played a part in your triumph, by putting a rook en prise in a very good position against Jana Bellin on board three in Staffordshire v Nottinghamshire. The match was tied 8-8 and Staffordshire proceeded on board count ...

David Sedgwick
Posts: 3381
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: Lazy questions

Post by David Sedgwick » Fri Jul 12, 2013 11:37 pm

Jonathan Rogers wrote:Many thanks to everyone who replied. In case you are wondering, I have agreed to write a report on Finals day (tomorrow) and wanted to get a few things straight in advance. My instinctive thoughts had been along the same lines as Angus and Dragoljub regarding the U100. Anything U100 really is a low grade in today's currency and I would expect many players of that modest ability to be amazed that anyone should want them to travel across the country to play another player of similar modest ability - and ECF membership may well be an issue here too. That said, the problems have only been very stark this year, so I'll keep an open mind for now.
The U100 Division was introduced for the 2009-10 season, at the same time as the grading re-jig already mentioned. But for the latter, an U75 Division might have been introduced.

When I put forward the idea on behalf of the SCCU at the April 2009 ECF Council Meeting, I asked other Unions and their constituent counties not to support it unless they anticipated entries from their areas. They thought there would be such entries, so did support it. I too feel that it's only this year that there have been significant problems.

If the ECF membership requirement is a significant cause of the defaults, that would suggest that counties didn't check how many of their players were ECF members prior to accepting nomination.

Jonathan Rogers
Posts: 3778
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm

Re: Lazy questions

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Sat Jul 13, 2013 11:34 pm

David Sedgwick wrote:
Jonathan Rogers wrote:Many thanks to everyone who replied. In case you are wondering, I have agreed to write a report on Finals day (tomorrow) and wanted to get a few things straight in advance. My instinctive thoughts had been along the same lines as Angus and Dragoljub regarding the U100. Anything U100 really is a low grade in today's currency and I would expect many players of that modest ability to be amazed that anyone should want them to travel across the country to play another player of similar modest ability - and ECF membership may well be an issue here too. That said, the problems have only been very stark this year, so I'll keep an open mind for now.
The U100 Division was introduced for the 2009-10 season, at the same time as the grading re-jig already mentioned. But for the latter, an U75 Division might have been introduced.

When I put forward the idea on behalf of the SCCU at the April 2009 ECF Council Meeting, I asked other Unions and their constituent counties not to support it unless they anticipated entries from their areas. They thought there would be such entries, so did support it. I too feel that it's only this year that there have been significant problems.

If the ECF membership requirement is a significant cause of the defaults, that would suggest that counties didn't check how many of their players were ECF members prior to accepting nomination.
Thanks David, but are you sure? I don't understand why there are entries for U100 winners going back to the 1990s on the link I gave above

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/historic ... p-winners/

John Philpott

Re: Lazy questions

Post by John Philpott » Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:15 am

Jonathan Rogers wrote
Thanks David, but are you sure? I don't understand why there are entries for U100 winners going back to the 1990s on the link I gave above
The "old" U100 competition became the U120 when the grades were rebased, in the same way as the U125, U150 and U175 divisions became U140/U160/U180.

John Philpott

Re: Lazy questions

Post by John Philpott » Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:20 am

Jonathan Rogers wrote
1) When did the eligibility rules for the Minor Counties change, such that a county can now play in it provided only that it has not qualified for the final stages of the Open?
I have now tracked down this change to the ECF AGM held on 18 October 2008.

Jonathan Rogers
Posts: 3778
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm

Re: Lazy questions

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Sun Jul 14, 2013 10:23 am

John Philpott wrote:Jonathan Rogers wrote
Thanks David, but are you sure? I don't understand why there are entries for U100 winners going back to the 1990s on the link I gave above
The "old" U100 competition became the U120 when the grades were rebased, in the same way as the U125, U150 and U175 divisions became U140/U160/U180.
Now I get it. Thanks, John (and David and others).

Post Reply