Should Grading limits be changed in leagues

[Kevin Thurlow]

Surrey league allows you to play for two clubs as long as they are different competitions. One player was much stronger than all his team-mates so didn't get very interesting games in the low division in which they played. He could join a much stronger club fairly nearby and get better games, but that would mean deserting his original club. So the rule was brought in to help him and one can understand why. So for a while he played for both clubs. Of course other people jumped on the bandwagon and you get people changing clubs every year so that they can get lots of games. Of course, it might prevent regular members getting games... The original player doesn't seem to play now.
Despite what Matt thinks, it is very unusual in any sport to be allowed to play for two different clubs in the same (overall) league. In fact it is totally unnecessary in the South East as there are so many different leagues within easy reach. I suspect the rule will stay until someone starts a new club and enters the league and they field a team entirely consisting of players from one club in a higher division...

[Martyn Harris]

The evening leagues in this country are organised in a variety of ways, each presumably starting with a system that the founders thought best suited the circumstances at the time, and then evolving in accordance with local wishes/needs. Consequently I believe there is no best for all situations solution, and agree with those posters who have pointed out that the sensible place to raise the original question is amongst players in the Surrey Borders League. I also concur with Roger's point that grade limiting and promotion/relegation would make uneasy bedfellows. Others will differ, and may include words such as ought, should, fair, proper chess, in an attempt to give their opinions/biases greater credence.


Circumstances do change however, and it is always possible that a point has been reached where the inherited system is no longer the best fit. The question I would ask Matt is "What problem(s) with the current system are you intending to solve?" His statements on this are a bit vague.

With a grade limited system there will always be some people who are just above a limit. If we ignore any selfish wish by some of these to become important top boards rather than anonymous lower ones, there would appear to be four possible reasons for wanting to retain a grade limited system but with altered limits.

The most obvious is what happened recently, namely there was a shift in grades. In order to retain the same target group of players for a competition, the grade limits need to be changed also. Of course it may be that things were getting out of kilter before the grading system changes, which then rectified any problems and so negated the need for a change.

Secondly, with grade limited divisions the league loses control of the size of the divisions with the result that divisions are likely to be of differing sizes. Thus it might be desirable to move the grade boundaries at some point to encourage a rebalancing of the relative sizes of the competitions.

Thirdly, allowing players to compete in more than one division enables individual players to tailor the amount they play to fit their wishes. However thsi facility is not available to those only eligible for the open division. Thus raising the limit of the next division will extend this facility to more players. However this might prove self-defeating in that teams previously only eligible for the open might transfer into the top grade restricted division, shrinking the open and so reducing the amount of chess available to the highest graded players.

Fourthly, the need to accommodate their strongest players may lead clubs to place teams in divisions in which they are uncompetitive. However the real problem here is the gap in standard between the club's strongest players and their weaker teammates, and with the ever present risk that the strongest player is, or soon will be, too strong for any chosen limit, moving the limits may prove to be at best a very short term solution. As with thirdly above a better solution would appear to be to move to grade limits based on a whole team (or average) basis.


Having identified a problem and come up with a possible solution there then comes the non-trivial difficulty of getting the solution adopted. Many AGMs are very conservative beasts, with "No" being the default response to any proposal. Springing proposals on such bodies without making the effort to garner interest beforehand will usually lead to failure - the obvious fairness of your suggestions being lost on the gathering. If the constitution allows OMOV you can increase the chances of success by flooding the meeting with your clubmates, but I confess that to me this smells of might is right. Many Associations work on the basis that it is the clubs (or teams) rather than the players that are it's members, and by distributing votes accordingly prevent this sort of mob rule.

Don't expect the opinion of this forum, or indeed any other one, to carry weight - it it the support of the clubs and players that would be affected by the change that is needed. And don't mimic the canvassing techniques of politicians who are only too ready to criticise their opponents and insult those who disagree with them. This approach works in the political environment as it encourages the politicians natural supporters to vote by proving that the candidate has the proper credentials. You on the other hand will be looking for the support of neutrals, and maybe even looking to get converts. Would you change your opinions if people started insulting you or those you respect? Thought not. So don't use abuse as part of your campaign, and if your campaign fails don't come on here complaining about the local dinosaurs - you'll just make it harder to achieve change in the future.

[Graham Mill-Wilson]

The Bristol League doesn't normally allow playing for two different clubs in the same season. If you want to change clubs, say because you've moved house, you have to get permission from the League Management Committee. Unless you live close to a county border (Gloucestershire, Wiltshire, Somerset), or are willing to travel, there aren't any other leagues immediately available. My own club applied to join the Gloucestershire league in the mid '90s, but we were told we were too far away from most clubs.

[Malcolm Clarke]

I have played in the Southampton League, Berkshire League, London League, Middlesex League, Civil Service League and London Commercial League, but I do not believe that any of these leagues allow you to play for more than one club in league games during a season. However as far as the Southampton League is concerned, when consecutive teams of the same club are one division apart it is possible to play all season on both the lower boards of the higher team, and the higher boards of the lower team.

It is also possible in our league for a player to represent one club in the league, and a different club in the cup. Some of our players also play in the Portsmouth and Bournemouth leagues, as a means of getting additional games.

[matt_ward]

Kevin, and others regarding what I think is of course totally irrelevant but it's matter of opinion. Of course with other games/ sports I can be totally sympathetic with your view to why you should not be allowed to play for more than one club or whatever the circumstance might be.

But in chess I don't see the issue at all to why it should be banned or not allowed, I mean the majority of players wont join more than one club because alot of clubs these days charge excessive amounts to be a member, but whats the problem with being a member of more than one chess club at least you can then get extra games and meet new people.

Matt.

[John Upham]

As far as the Surrey Border League is concerned, a player may potentially play for as many clubs as there are divisions. If a player has a standard-play rating of less than 116 then they could play for six different clubs : one in each of the rating limited divisions.

If this option seems unreasonable then I'd be curious to hear any views on this matter.

[John Upham]

I don't think you should combine promotion and relegation with grading limited divisions.

Agreed, of course.

In a promotion / relegation type league consisting of open divisions is it correct to allow a new club to enter the highest division on the basis of simply asking to do so?

Many people might say that this would devalue the competition. Many years ago a new strong club in the Berkshire League had to enter the lowest division and fight their way into division one on merit : this would seem to be the right and proper process.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

In a promotion / relegation type league consisting of open divisions is it correct to allow a new club to enter the highest division on the basis of simply asking to do so?

Many people might say that this would devalue the competition. Many years ago a new strong club in the Berkshire League had to enter the lowest division and fight their way into division one on merit : this would seem to be the right and proper process.

It would depend on how strong the team is and how weak the lowest division is. You can't expect a team of grandmasters to spend a year beating people graded around 130 (or whatever the average grade is of the lowest division). But there are more recent examples of teams fighting their way up the divisions in current leagues. Drunken Knights 2 is a team playing in the London League, and they won divisions 4, 3, and 2 in successive seasons (2007/8, 2008/9, and 2009/10) to rise from division 4 to division 1, winning 30 matches and conceding only two drawn matches.

http://www.lcl.streamlinenettrial.co.uk ... table4.htm
http://www.lcl.streamlinenettrial.co.uk ... table3.htm
http://www.lcl.streamlinenettrial.co.uk ... table2.htm

Drunken Knights 2 are struggling a bit in division 1, with only one win from four matches:

http://www.lcl.streamlinenettrial.co.uk/table1.htm

But what division would you have had them enter at?

Drunken Knights 3 look to be trying to do the same, having won division 4 in 2009/10 (though not as emphatically), and they are currently leading division 3 with 6 wins from 6 matches:

http://www.lcl.streamlinenettrial.co.uk ... table4.htm
http://www.lcl.streamlinenettrial.co.uk/table3.htm

I think they might struggle a bit in division 2, though.

But again, what division should they have entered at? You could argue that entering them too low deprives other teams of winning a lower division instead of merely getting promotion behind a strong team on its way up. But entering them too high, or over the head of other teams, is also problematic.

EDIT: Correction made to number of matches won and drawn by Drunken Knights 2 (DK2). I also note Morley College 1 (MC1) stayed with them up until division 2 in 2009/10, when DK2 went up to division one, but MC1 fell back to division three.

[John Upham]

You can't expect a team of grandmasters to spend a year beating people graded around 130 (or whatever the average grade is of the lowest division).

I wouldn't expect that but I would expect a strong club to justify a team in the top division by getting promoted.

[matt_ward]

Well John,

I just don't think playing in six divisions or clubs would be practical. Why would you need to. And realistically it would be only lower divisions they would be choosen for.

Matt.

[Phil Makepeace]

Drunken Knights 2 is a team playing in the London League, and they won divisions 4, 3, and 2 in successive seasons (2007/8, 2008/9, and 2009/10) to rise from division 4 to division 1, winning 30 matches and conceding only two drawn matches.

Drunken Knights 2 are struggling a bit in division 1, with only one win from five (edit) matches:

http://www.lcl.streamlinenettrial.co.uk/table1.htm

Hardly. We've lost to our own first team and 3 of the other top sides, all of whom field Grandmasters. We'll be amongst it, but have a very decent shot at staying up.

But what division would you have had them enter at?

The lowest division possible, because that's the only fair way of doing it. The club has adapted the squad to be fit to purpose over the seasons. I played in Division 2 for the 2nds last season and it was by no means overkill, we were just the strongest side in the division.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Drunken Knights 2 is a team playing in the London League, and they won divisions 4, 3, and 2 in successive seasons (2007/8, 2008/9, and 2009/10) to rise from division 4 to division 1, winning 30 matches and conceding only two drawn matches.

Drunken Knights 2 are struggling a bit in division 1, with only one win from five (edit) matches:

http://www.lcl.streamlinenettrial.co.uk/table1.htm

Hardly. We've lost to our own first team and 3 of the other top sides, all of whom field Grandmasters. We'll be amongst it, but have a very decent shot at staying up.

I was just thinking that, funnily enough. I was far too harsh with my initial assessment.

But what division would you have had them enter at?

The lowest division possible, because that's the only fair way of doing it. The club has adapted the squad to be fit to purpose over the seasons. I played in Division 2 for the 2nds last season and it was by no means overkill, we were just the strongest side in the division.

Ah, the squad adapted and changed as it went through the divisions. That makes a lot of sense. I take back what I said before, as this sort of thing works well if you have the resources to change the strength of a squad as it moves up the divisions.

What will the likely future of the third team be?

[Phil Makepeace]

What will the likely future of the third team be?

Well, assuming DK2 maintain their presence in Division 1, the 3rds will be unable to be promoted beyond Division 2. Three teams from the same club aren't permitted in the same division. I imagine they'll get very decent competition in Division 2 next season, assuming they complete the job they've started.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

What will the likely future of the third team be?

Well, assuming DK2 maintain their presence in Division 1, the 3rds will be unable to be promoted beyond Division 2. Three teams from the same club aren't permitted in the same division. I imagine they'll get very decent competition in Division 2 next season, assuming they complete the job they've started.

What happens if DK3 get promoted and both DK1 and DK2 go down?

(OK, I just checked where DK1 are in Division 1, and with 5/5, it's not likely [might even be impossible]. Seeing as Wood Green have dropped half a match point to Hackney, the clash between Drunken Knights and Wood Green really means something this year! Last match of the season, on Mon 18 Apr - maybe all the GMs will be on holiday?)

[Richard Thursby]

What happens if DK3 get promoted and both DK1 and DK2 go down?

One would hope that in any situation where, due to promotion and relegation a nominally higher team is in a lower division than a nominally lower team than sense would prevail and the higher team wouldn't go down and the lower team wouldn't go up. In the case of DK3 finishing in the top 2 of division 2 and DK1 and DK2 bringing up the rear in division 1, then the net effect should be that DK2 gets relegated, DK1 remain in division 1 and DK3 remain in division 2.

I vaguely remember reading at least one set of league rules that included such provisions, but I similarly vaguely remember hearing of at least one second team in a higher division than its first team.