League Matches Between Teams Of Same Club

[IanCalvert]

Which English chess leagues , if any, do not allow more than one team of the same club in any division of the league?

In Division 1 of the London League , 2014-15 season there were happily 3 Drunken Knights team out of 12 in Division 1, is that a record proportion?

Are there any leagues which do not allow more than one team per club in any Division but once did so? Why the change?

Has team size ever been a factor in League decision making on this topic, as far as anyone can tell? What factors have been relevant?

What does Germany, Europe the World do???

What is the right thing to do?

[Mike Gunn]

When I started playing for Guildford about 20 years ago we had FOUR teams in division 1 of the Border League so I hereby claim the record on hehalf of Guildford.

[MartinCarpenter]

Both York and Sheffield have done this in the odd year in the Yorkshire league in recent years (3 teams out of 12).

I can't see any reason to stop it. You need the odd rule to make sure people can't hopelessly abuse board orders and the like, but if the players are clumped in certain clubs, that's how it is.

[David Gilbert]

In Division 1 of the London League , 2014-15 season there were happily 3 Drunken Knights team out of 12 in Division 1, is that a record proportion?

What is the right thing to do?

Drunken Knights 3 finished bottom of Division 1 and are relegated. At Wednesday’s London League AGM Clubs will be ask to vote on a proposal to limit to two the number of teams from any one club that can play in any Division - except for the lowest one. If passed and Drunken Knights 3 finish among the top two in Division 2 next season their promotion will be cancelled. This potentially affects a few other Clubs too: Athenaeum; Cavendish; Hackney; Kings Head; Metropolitan; Streatham & Brixton; and Wanstead & Woodford.

[David Robertson]

Chester CC will have four teams in the Wirral league next season. We avoid completely disturbing the competition by roughly equalising our strength across teams A-C; and reserving our recently promoted D team for juniors. We have three teams in the Chester & N Wales league too; strength equalised. Across in Liverpool, my former club Atticus have had two teams in Div 1 for many years; and from time to time, three teams. The tradition has always been to equalise strength across the teams, a practice continued by the current club.

[Kevin Thurlow]

I think the lowest Essex division had 5 or 6(?) teams from Barking at one point. Unfortunately, some players found they played the same opponent repeatedly over the season.

But if you restrict it to one team per division, X II can win division 2 every year and not be allowed to be promoted, and in the above case, you are turning away 5 entries!

[David Williams]

The vital rule has to be that an individual cannot play for more than one team in the same division. For me that is necessary, and sufficient.

[MartinCarpenter]

Actually, being that strict is wonderfully unhelpful. It'd be better to ban people from having two teams in the same division.

All that happens if you ban moving between teams in the same division is a daft yo-yo effect where in seasons where the B team is in Div2, the A team reserves happily play for them, so the A team stays strong and the B team gets promoted.

Then the next season you suddenly have to split the squads off as entirely distinct entities so you either totally destroy the B team or risk both teams falling apart due to not having enough reserves for either. The only way both squads stay viable is if they've got enough players to run a third team!

Making people keep say the top half of their teams distinct is much more viable. Or the 4NCL approach of strength order all the way down through each team. That does of course ban strength splitting which is often desirable in some leagues.

Even if not strength splitting fully it is often very sensible to be able to let the B team have some top boards as boards 1/2 obviously tend to be much stronger than boards 7/8.

[John Upham]

For the avoidance of doubt in the Surrey Border League we require intra club derbies (in the same division) to be played as early in the season as is possible.

[Matt Fletcher]

Even if not strength splitting fully it is often very sensible to be able to let the B team have some top boards as boards 1/2 obviously tend to be much stronger than boards 7/8.

We had exactly that in the Herts League last season - our 2nd team got promoted to be in the same division as our 1st which meant that we had one team which was of similar strength to the rest of the league (but unlikely to be pushing for promotion) and another that was about 15-20 points per board below the league average, so highly likely to be demoted. We weren't sure whether to split strength and have two weak-ish sides or play in exact order.

In the end we played roughly 1,2,4,5,6 and 3,7,8,9,10 as our number 3 was up for the challenge of playing board 1 for the season - I think this worked out well but it was quite a tough decision for the affected players to make.

[Mick Norris]

Manchester has no restrictions on the number of teams per division from 1 club

Where clubs have more than 1 team in a division, in say A division there always seems to have been a definite 1st and 2nd team, with the former stronger than the latter, with seeding rules to stop all the same players playing in each team (although you end up with the 1st team boards 6&7 often occupying boards 1&2 for the 2nd team)

The seeding rules also prevent what we refer to as ghost players being registered, but they are fairly lax in my view, as seeds only need to play 2 matches a season - despite this, last season saw a number fall foul of this rule, it cost 1 team promotion and another a title

The need to play in strength order has in the last couple of seasons been emphasised by the introduction of a 20 point ECF rule along the lines of the 4NCL 80 point rule (with inevitable arguments about estimating the strength of ungraded players)

Saturday's MCF AGM has a proposal to clarify the ghost player penalties, and another to clarify and relax the seeding rules for the grade-limited bottom division

In answer to Ian's question "What is the right thing to do?" - no idea, but obviously the answers are different in Liverpool and Manchester (let alone the rest of the country) and it would be interesting to know why

[Roger de Coverly]

Where clubs have more than 1 team in a division, in say A division there always seems to have been a definite 1st and 2nd team, with the former stronger than the latter, with seeding rules to stop all the same players playing in each team (although you end up with the 1st team boards 6&7 often occupying boards 1&2 for the 2nd team)

Locally, the rules have always said that for six board teams, you nominate, ie ring fence, six players per team. That works fine if the first team is players 1,2,3,4,5,6 or even 1,2,3,4,5,7 but if you overlap say with the first team being 1,2,5,6,7,8 and the second 3,4,9,10,11,12, how strong a rule do you need to prevent the first team reverting to 1,2,3,4,5,6 against its nearest rivals? Ghost players can be a potential problem as well particular if they are in the top six. Ghosts can be legitimate as well, university students or graduates who are away from "home" most of the year, but would like to maintain a connection.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

In the Thames Valley League, you often have teams from the same club in each division, as the league has more places in its league than clubs and has always been intended to allow clubs to run as many teams as they can. The top division has nearly always had at least one B-team in it. It was rare until a few years ago for that B-team to survive for more than one season (it would usually get relegated, often to be replaced by another B-team from another club). That changed when Richmond B (*) managed to survive one season and for the past two seasons has had one other B-team alongside it (first Wimbledon B and then Surbiton B).

The top division has 8 teams in total. This season, for probably the first time ever, both B-teams survived relegation and (depending on whether clubs are able to maintain the same number of teams - not always possible), there is the potential for three B-teams (Richmond B, Surbiton B and Wimbledon B) in the top division next season. Ealing B, rather sensibly, managed to avoid getting promoted. If they had been promoted, the top division would have been the A and B teams of just four clubs: Richmond, Surbiton, Ealing and Wimbledon. Not sure if any other league has ever had anything like that happen?

(*) Actually Richmond and Twickenham Chess Club to give it its full name. I'm using 'Richmond' as a shorthand here, though I shouldn't really.

[Matt Fletcher]

I don't play in it any more but Div. 1 of the Suffolk League looks like it's just three clubs - Bury A,B,C vs Ipswich A,B,C vs Manningtree A

http://www.c4results.org.uk/chess/php/D ... ectionId=1

[David Pardoe]

I like the idea of flexibility in leagues, so that a club might enter several teams in any one division.
For one thing, it means that clubs with big memberships can keep the members, who might otherwise be tempted to drift off to other clubs to play higher boards or divisions.
As to seeding and equalising...sensible to allow at least 50% of top boards to be fixed, so they cant play for lower teams, I think.
Equalising teams is a reasonable idea, not least to ensure that some players, with good grades, can actually play the higher boards on other teams, rather than being condemned to playing low boards against what might be weaker opposition. Such discouragements can cause players to move clubs and lead to club instability, and poaching, etc..
I`m also a bit wary about 20 point rules...I`d like to see captains discretion allowed, so that a limited amount of `captains judgement `can be applied. And a little tactical leeway is no bad thing, but this does need to be moderated ie, you don't want your top board man suddenly shunted to bottom board..nor your bottom board player hiked up to top board for no good reason.
But grades are a curious thing... the old adage `play the man, not the grade` is a good maxim..
Anybody watching Wimbledon this year and seeing Brown crash past Nadal will know how the form book can sometimes be turned upsidedown..

Another point about leagues...
It is vital to run `starter leagues` for those new to chess, ungraded or lower graded players... 4 or 5 player teams can get started and provide very good environment to encourage these newbies, not least, so they don't get battered off the board.. maybe a more relaxed set of league rules would also help, perhaps including two 30 min per player games, with colours reversed, as an option.. Its amazing how newbies can progress with the right encouragement.

As for Manchester...two other points to mention..
Firstly, they are very keen to hear from any local players who would take on the Open team county captaincy next season..
We have a great selection of players in this area, and it would be good to see a showing from out Open team in the National stages...and enjoy some good `Union stage` matches. I`d be keen to see a captain and deputy appointed to take things forward, and for our local players to give there support, even if only for occasional matches. These 16 board matches do require a good sized squad of players, probably of the order of 30 - 40 players. Contact Jon Lonsdale<[email protected]> if you can help.
PS The Manchester league AGM is this Saturday ..details on Manchester Chess website, News page.

Secondly..the Stockport Blitz event takes place this coming Sunday..Here are the details..it should be a good days chessing at the Guild Hall ,

EMAIL [email protected] and pay cash on the day.