County Championship Consultation

[Roger de Coverly]

So instead, juniors in particular will just to continue to play in the 4NCL, where similar rules are already in force, and the County Championship will continue its slow decline, while the 4NCL will continue to increase its participation.

The rules aren't similar in the 4NCL because they only require one special player in 8, rather than 4 in 16. Also in the 4NCL there are no geographic restrictions on recruitment and if that fails there's always the option to bus in a wildcard. Neither of these are allowed in the County Championship.

If I understood the proposals, they would apply both to the Open and Minor County competitions. I would have thought "Minor" counties by definition would be short on players and restrictions on team selection unwelcome.

I don't think the idea of having restricted boards in the County Championships has surfaced before the recent paper with the possible exception of proposals regarding a special status women's board back in the BCF days.

[Alex Holowczak]

So instead, juniors in particular will just to continue to play in the 4NCL, where similar rules are already in force, and the County Championship will continue its slow decline, while the 4NCL will continue to increase its participation.

The rules aren't similar in the 4NCL because they only require one special player in 8, rather than 4 in 16. Also in the 4NCL there are no geographic restrictions on recruitment and if that fails there's always the option to bus in a wildcard. Neither of these are allowed in the County Championship.

If I understood the proposals, they would apply both to the Open and Minor County competitions. I would have thought "Minor" counties by definition would be short on players and restrictions on team selection unwelcome.

I don't think the idea of having restricted boards in the County Championships has surfaced before the recent paper with the possible exception of proposals regarding a special status women's board back in the BCF days.

If you go to the consultation response form I set up, you will see that there is an area to suggest amendments to the proposals as they are put. If you think that your options are worth considering, specifically:-
- There should be 1 "special player" not 4
- There should be no boundaries

Then put those there. Your views may be shared by others, and so that may become the final proposal.

Minor counties are not really short on players, no. It's basically an average grade of 180 competition for teams that don't qualify for the national Open. They still seem to be able to field a team of 16. But again, a viable amendment might be that the team size should be 12 and it isn't played with these rules applying to them. There's plenty of scope for saying this in the consultation.

Of course, people can also just reject them out of hand. That option's there too.

[Roger de Coverly]

Of course, people can also just reject them out of hand. That option's there too.

That's what's going to happen unless you can build a consensus. Many counties, mine and the CEO's included have abandoned any interest in county National stages. I don't see much to incite us back.

[Andrew Zigmond]

In the Open section, the 16-player teams must include the following:
- At least 1 female player
- At least 1 Under 18 boy
- At least 1 Under 18 girl
- At least 1 Under 11 player

Presumably a team could field a ten year old girl and cover three of the four bases simultaneously. I don't think there is any aversion at present to selecting players from these demographics, merely that there aren't that many to select. On the other hand some counties may be lucky enough to have players from these demographics who can slot into the team naturally, freeing up a 170 strength county team veteran to dispose of the 80 grade female or the inexperienced ten year old on board 15 - to be nobody's real benefit, particularly if they've traveled a long distance for the privilege.

[Roger de Coverly]

In the Open section, the 16-player teams must include the following:
- At least 1 female player
- At least 1 Under 18 boy
- At least 1 Under 18 girl
- At least 1 Under 11 player

Presumably a team could field a ten year old girl and cover three of the four bases simultaneously.

Does the document say this, or does it intend that four boards be occupied by "specials".

It's not uncommon that the male U18 player will be top board or thereabouts.

[Alex Holowczak]

That's what's going to happen unless you can build a consensus.

See Mick Norris's post earlier. This event has hundreds of people with hundreds of opinions about what should happen, more than any other competition I'm involved with. I don't feel it's for a lack of trying on my part.

In the Open section, the 16-player teams must include the following:
- At least 1 female player
- At least 1 Under 18 boy
- At least 1 Under 18 girl
- At least 1 Under 11 player

Presumably a team could field a ten year old girl and cover three of the four bases simultaneously. I don't think there is any aversion at present to selecting players from these demographics, merely that there aren't that many to select. On the other hand some counties may be lucky enough to have players from these demographics who can slot into the team naturally, freeing up a 170 strength county team veteran to dispose of the 80 grade female or the inexperienced ten year old on board 15 - to be nobody's real benefit, particularly if they've traveled a long distance for the privilege.

The idea was that the player would tick one box only, and you couldn't use one player to tick all of them - that would defeat the purpose of what we are trying to achieve. But if you had two 16 year old girls, you might reasonably use one as the Under 18 girl and one as the female player.

I don't think that in the Open section, a county would struggle to meet these requirements. I can't see why a county in the Minor would struggle to meet them either. Are there genuinely counties out there that don't have a female player for their team? Or three juniors?

Does the document say this, or does it intend that four boards be occupied by "specials".

Oh, so you haven't read it?

[Roger de Coverly]

Are there genuinely counties out there that don't have a female player for their team? Or three juniors?

If you are talking "Open", you are talking 170 plus. There would be little point in throwing in players graded 100 unless they could be sure of meeting equivalent opposition. Hence why you find female and junior players in the Divisions 3 and 4 of the 4NCL whilst several of the female players in Division 1 are flown in.

[IM Jack Rudd]

There were 55 players playing in a recent Devon-Somerset match. 0 of them were female, and not very many of them were younger than me.

[Brian Towers]

What a bizarre solution to the stated problems! Presumably the obvious solution was discussed and rejected. What were the reasons for the rejection?

In case it's not obvious to some, currently you have the following sections - Open, U180, U160, U140, U120, U100. Why not add "female" and "junior"? If expected numbers are a problem then have teams of 8 rather than 16 for "female" and "junior".

[Alex Holowczak]

Why not add "female" and "junior"? If expected numbers are a problem then have teams of 8 rather than 16 for "female" and "junior".

There already is a junior. It's taking place in February in Lincolnshire. 12 boards, a 1-day Jamboree. But it doesn't solve the integration within adult chess problem, and it didn't happen last year because sadly, no one was willing to organise it.

I considered the idea of a women's only section, but after a bit of research, even teams of 4 would be a struggle for many counties.

[Brian Towers]

I considered the idea of a women's only section, but after a bit of research, even teams of 4 would be a struggle for many counties.

Some years ago when I was working with a bunch of Americans I mentioned the old English saying "You can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink".

One of them gave me a sideways, look, shook his head and said, "Brian, that's loser's talk. Drag the horse into mid-stream, kick its legs out from underneath, stand on its head, lift up its tail and SUCK!"

Good luck, Alex, (and a Happy New Year) as you try to lift up the tail and suck.

[Nick Grey]

I was hoping for more chess not less. Some disappointment. Anyway I will not be making snap judgement as quite honestly I have got to concentrate on the (un)fair funding settlement for schools. So will respond in February.

I'll try not to think to harshly on what does the ECF do for me. There is enough pressure on parents on activities other than chess from schools and others.

Let's finish with something positive - Happy New Year to everyone!

[Mick Norris]

Council might think that DoHC is too big a remit for 1 person to do properly, and either reallocate part of the job to others, or require more managers appointed for specific tasks

It's not really the point of this thread, but the DoJC Directorship is much, much bigger. It's done by someone in full-time employment who has even less time than me. Yet no one has ever suggested that should be split up.

Some of us think Junior chess should be done differently, but haven't got the strength to have the arguments with those in junior chess who won't change

Happy New Year

[Michael Flatt]

Firstly, it has been taken into consideration - the paper refers to the Unions being able to run their competitions as they do now. They've no need to adopt the ECF rules at all if they don't want to. They'll have complete independence. This is actually partly driven by the consultation responses, which said this is precisely what they wanted.

Thank you, Alex. I think that statement alone will reassure many people regarding the scope of the current exercise.

[Hok Yin Stephen Chiu]

[]