Div 3 North 2017 - 18

Venues, fixtures, teams and related matters.
David Robertson
Posts: 2144
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:24 pm
Contact:

Re: Div 3 North 2017 - 18

Post by David Robertson » Mon Oct 02, 2017 12:37 pm

Teams from the same squad playing each other first is correct in principle. Leagues are wise to insist on it.

But I have never suspected any kind of collusion in the time I've played in the 4NCL, certainly not in Div 3N; and not in Div 1 or Div 2 either. Those with greater experience may have other tales to tell. So I don't think it's a problem that needs fixing. Indeed, why should intra-squad collusion be any more likely than intra-national collusion (between, say, Gonzaga and Enniscorthy); or intra-Yorkshire collusion (between, say, Bradford and Jorvik)? Indeed, with bragging rights at stake, I'd bet MM1 v. MM2 or Brad1 v. Brad2 are every bit as fiercely fought as any other match-up, even under promotion conditions

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Div 3 North 2017 - 18

Post by Alex Holowczak » Mon Oct 02, 2017 8:49 pm

Tim Harding wrote:The Irish leagues make teams from the same club meet first and surely that should be a rule in NCL too?
That sort of happens in the pool system.

In Divisions 1, 2 and 3 South, you can't have more than two teams from the same squad in the division. So they are seeded such that they start in different pools. Should they qualify for the c or d pool, they play each other in Round 8, i.e. the first round of the new pool.

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 3914
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: Div 3 North 2017 - 18

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:03 pm

Tim Harding wrote:The Irish leagues make teams from the same club meet first and surely that should be a rule in NCL too?
It is a rule for divisions that aren't Swisses. (Specifically, when the divisions were 12-team all-play-alls, teams from the same squad always met in the first weekend. In the 16-team pools, they must start out in separate pools, and then if they end up in the same championship/demotion pool, they must play in round 8.) I suppose you could institute it as a rule for the Swisses, but it could lead to unwanted consequences, particularly when a team has more than two teams in the same Swiss division.

Mick Norris
Posts: 7430
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: Div 3 North 2017 - 18

Post by Mick Norris » Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:13 pm

There are 11 rounds with 20 teams, so each team misses 8 of the others; ideally, that would mean no clashes within squads, although I can see that a meeting between Manticores teams may prove necessary

It is missing the point of why players enter, and why squads enter more than 1 team, to insist they play each other in weekend 1 :roll:
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

Neil Graham
Posts: 1249
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:36 pm

Re: Div 3 North 2017 - 18

Post by Neil Graham » Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:30 pm

Players compete in the 4NCL to play competitive chess without the strictures of the three hour maximum time allowed for an evening League game.

I would not want to find I have a 200 mile round trip to Bolton to play against the club colleague who sits next to me in the evening league a dozen times a year and lives ten minutes drive away.

Mick Norris
Posts: 7430
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: Div 3 North 2017 - 18

Post by Mick Norris » Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:30 am

Kevin Thurlow wrote:"No Hounds and Bears, but a new team in Castleford Tigers "

The real Castleford Tigers?

https://www.castlefordtigers.com/

Bayern Munich play in the Bundesliga, so I guess it's not impossible!
It would appear not :)

Number Player Title Jnr. Nat. DM num ECF FIDE Grade Other Current 4NCL Restrict
1 Karas, Marek f SVK 14928558 2252 2252
2 Palecek, Peter SVK 14901773 2242 2242
3 Lintner, Igor SVK 14932970 2149 2149
4 Kanakova, Natalie wf CZE 350486 2117 2117
5 Skrabakova, Katarina SVK 293917E 14923971 2031 2031
6 Vrtiakova, Anna wf SVK 14927870 1994 1994
7 Kanak, Filip CZE 358150 1966 1966
8 Poliakova, Emma SVK 73601144 1916 1916
9 Meszarosova, Eva SVK 14932598 1818 1818
10 Sucikova, Katarina SVK 292282E 14923645 143 1652 1652
11 Kluckova, Alzbeta ENG 308696D 456608 1198
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

MartinCarpenter
Posts: 2434
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: Div 3 North 2017 - 18

Post by MartinCarpenter » Mon Oct 16, 2017 5:08 pm

That's truly fascinating. I wonder what on earth the story can be?

Mick Norris
Posts: 7430
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: Div 3 North 2017 - 18

Post by Mick Norris » Fri Nov 03, 2017 10:35 am

Have we any idea when the pairings for weekend 1 will be published? Or even just the seedings?
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 2932
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Div 3 North 2017 - 18

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Fri Nov 03, 2017 10:50 am

"Number Player Title Jnr. Nat. DM num ECF FIDE Grade Other Current 4NCL Restrict
1 Karas, Marek f SVK 14928558 2252 2252
2 Palecek, Peter SVK 14901773 2242 2242
3 Lintner, Igor SVK 14932970 2149 2149
4 Kanakova, Natalie wf CZE 350486 2117 2117
5 Skrabakova, Katarina SVK 293917E 14923971 2031 2031
6 Vrtiakova, Anna wf SVK 14927870 1994 1994
7 Kanak, Filip CZE 358150 1966 1966
8 Poliakova, Emma SVK 73601144 1916 1916
9 Meszarosova, Eva SVK 14932598 1818 1818
10 Sucikova, Katarina SVK 292282E 14923645 143 1652 1652
11 Kluckova, Alzbeta ENG 308696D 456608 1198"

That really is fascinating... I have a horrible feeling they know little of Rugby League.

Mick Norris
Posts: 7430
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: Div 3 North 2017 - 18

Post by Mick Norris » Sat Nov 04, 2017 4:15 pm

Weekend 1 pairings

31 Warwickshire Select 2 - - - Castleford Roses
32 Bradford DCA Knights A - - - Ashfield-Breadsall 2
33 Gonzaga - - - Spirit of Atticus B
34 3Cs 2 - - - Enniscorthy
35 Cheddleton 2 - - - Holmes Chapel
36 Manchester Manticores 3 - - - Jorvik
37 Manchester Manticores 4 - - - Shropshire 1
38 Shropshire 2 - - - Ashfield-Breadsall 1
39 Bradford DCA Knights C - - - Bradford DCA Knights B
40 3Cs 3 - - - Manchester Manticores 2

31 Jorvik - - - Warwickshire Select 2
32 Shropshire 1 - - - Bradford DCA Knights A
33 Ashfield-Breadsall 1 - - - Gonzaga
34 Bradford DCA Knights B - - - 3Cs 2
35 Manchester Manticores 2 - - - Cheddleton 2
36 Castleford Roses - - - Manchester Manticores 3
37 Ashfield-Breadsall 2 - - - Manchester Manticores 4
38 Spirit of Atticus B - - - Shropshire 2
39 Enniscorthy - - - Bradford DCA Knights C
40 Holmes Chapel - - - 3Cs 3
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 Robertson
Posts: 2144
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:24 pm
Contact:

Re: Div 3 North 2017 - 18

Post by David Robertson » Sat Nov 04, 2017 6:15 pm

Alex McFarlane has posted this 'explanatory' note to Team Captains. It provides guidance and 'illumination' on the Div 3N pairing arrangements: criteria therefor, principles thereof, exceptions therewith, and lump it therefore.

I'd like to find fault with it, just to amuse myself. But instead, I'll offer a prize to anyone who can explain what Alex is on about. To be honest, I think he's being helpful. But with Arbiters, you can never be too careful :wink:

_______________________________________________

Pairing System for 4NCL (3N)

It was agreed that various suggestions would not work. Mini leagues would fail if teams defaulted meaning triangular matches needed. Triangular matches are awkward enough but if they were to affect more than one mini-league then the problems caused would be magnified. It was considered that the risks of defaults were not insignificant and it was therefore not worth ‘taking a risk’.

It was agreed that a straight Swiss would result in the top teams playing each other sooner than was desirable with the potential for the promotion places to be decided well before the final weekend. It should be recorded that feedback from teams indicated that they wanted the final weekend to be significant in deciding promotion and that this was not just an organisers’ viewpoint. It was therefore decided to look at alternative ways of delaying the top teams meeting.

Dividing into groups by seeding was considered. Having 4 groups was considered the best option. Group A would be the top 25%, Group B would be the next 25% and so on. If the number of entries did not divide by 4 then the extra teams would be put in Groups B and C. (Triangular matches if required would be 2 teams from Group C and 1 from D if possible.)

Rd1 Group A wound be paired against Group C, Group B v Group D Group B v Group C for any remaining teams.
Rd2 Group A v Group B, Group C v Group D

This pairing system would be used for the first 3 weekends and the option of doing so on weekend 4 would be kept as a possibility. (A fourth weekend would ensure the top teams playing in the final weekend but if there was a lot of bunching for the second promotion spot then it might prevent sufficient remaining rounds to ‘sort out’ the true second best team.) If at the end of weekend 3 there were 9 or more teams within 2 points of a promotion spot then it is advisable to pair these teams together in weekend 4 (rd7) and therefore abandon the avoidance pairings. If there are only 4 or 5 teams fighting for promotion then continuing the pairing system for an extra round (or possibly 2) is acceptable.

For the remaining rounds a straight Swiss would be used.

This procedure should ensure that the top teams are kept apart for as long as possible. The only potential problem could arise if the initial seeding is not accurate.

In Div3N last season the seedings were changed after weekend 1. In theory this seemed fine but did not work well in practice as one of the top teams had been weak on the first weekend and were seeded down to play the other top teams earlier than desired. Some tweaking of the quartiles may be necessary but should only be done with caution and with the amount of movement limited to a few places downwards. An unexpectedly strong team may be moved up.
____________________________________________________________

Brian Towers
Posts: 1214
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 7:23 pm

Re: Div 3 North 2017 - 18

Post by Brian Towers » Sat Nov 04, 2017 10:32 pm

David Robertson wrote:
Sat Nov 04, 2017 6:15 pm
Alex McFarlane has posted this 'explanatory' note to Team Captains. It provides guidance and 'illumination' on the Div 3N pairing arrangements: criteria therefor, principles thereof, exceptions therewith, and lump it therefore.

I'd like to find fault with it, just to amuse myself. But instead, I'll offer a prize to anyone who can explain what Alex is on about. To be honest, I think he's being helpful. But with Arbiters, you can never be too careful :wink:
It looks very sensible and quite clever. Basically it is a decelerated pairing system (opposite of accelerated pairings).

Instead of trying to get the stronger players / teams playing each other early (accelerated pairings), by pretending the stronger players / teams have more points to start with, he is using the 4 quartiles to keep them apart longer.
Ah, but I was so much older then. I'm younger than that now.

MartinCarpenter
Posts: 2434
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: Div 3 North 2017 - 18

Post by MartinCarpenter » Sun Nov 05, 2017 10:22 am

Seems very sensible to me too. The quantiles are obviously also there to keep the field each team faces vaguely balanced.

Ian Jamieson
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:00 pm

Re: Div 3 North 2017 - 18

Post by Ian Jamieson » Mon Nov 06, 2017 3:24 pm

So which teams are in which groups for the purposes of the pairing system?

Mick Norris
Posts: 7430
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: Div 3 North 2017 - 18

Post by Mick Norris » Mon Nov 06, 2017 6:03 pm

31 Warwickshire Select 2 - - - Castleford Roses
32 Bradford DCA Knights A - - - Ashfield-Breadsall 2
33 Gonzaga - - - Spirit of Atticus B
34 3Cs 2 - - - Enniscorthy
35 Cheddleton 2 - - - Holmes Chapel
36 Manchester Manticores 3 - - - Jorvik
37 Manchester Manticores 4 - - - Shropshire 1
38 Shropshire 2 - - - Ashfield-Breadsall 1
39 Bradford DCA Knights C - - - Bradford DCA Knights B
40 3Cs 3 - - - Manchester Manticores 2

Group A - white in matches 31-35
Group C - black in those matches
Group B - black in matches 36-40
Group D - white in those matches

In each case in descending order of seeding presumably
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