Back to SCCU home page     Forum: Mobile Phones & the Laws     Forum: Grading

Updated 24.4.13
OPEN FORUM

Open Forum is your vehicle for comment and discussion, and it is open. Anything goes, within the bounds of courtesy and common sense and the libel laws, provided it's got something to do with chess in the SCCU. Or England. Or anywhere, really. It will be assumed, unless you say otherwise, that contributions may also be published in the printed SCCU Bulletin. To contribute, email Richard Haddrell rjh@sccu.ndo.co.uk. Please say where you're from. [Most people ignore that. Oh, well.]
    Text is best. Avoid tabs and indents.


From Mike Gunn
24.4.13
An open letter on County match proposals for next season, sent to Surrey players not named:
     Firstly, to understand fully what appears below: you can download Alex Holowczak's document from the ECF website. This document describes the NCCU proposals on the county championships (remove one section, make gap between divisions 25 points and reduce all sections from 16 to 12) and his own counter proposals (remove two sections, Open to become 20 board and all the rest (U170, U140, U120) to become 16 boards).
     Personally I don't support either proposal because they represent significant reductions in the opportunities to play county chess. For example (not withstanding the fact that not all counties enter every section) county chess is fought over 88 boards (4*16 + 2*12) in the SCCU. If we changed the SCCU rules to follow the NCCU proposal there would be just 60 boards of chess and if we follow Alex's proposal there would be 68 boards (exluding the Minor counties competition at national level). (Of course the SCCU doesn't have to follow the national alignments, but I think the practical arguments for doing so are overwhelming).
     The level of participation in county chess has held up fairly well during the years I have participated (certainly in the SCCU) and I think it is a poor argument that we should be cutting back at the national level because other Unions can't manage our participation levels.
     To take just one example: Alex proposes the removal of the U100 section and increasing the number of boards to 16 in the U120. This will significantly reduce the opportunities for lower graded players (including juniors) to play county chess. This division exists because I persuaded the SCCU to introduce an U75 division in 2008. (Subsequently when grades were revised this division became the U100 and the (pre-existing) U100 became the U120 etc.). Although it (arguably) hasn't been an enormous success in the SCCU with the same 3 counties participating since its inception I note that FIVE teams from other Unions were nominated for the national stage this year (one declined nomination).
     I don't deny that there are problems with county chess largely arising mainly from the difference in the size of the pool of players each county can draw, but there is no simple fix to that and I don't think either set of proposals improve the current situation.
Mike Gunn
Surrey
(Mike writes in a personal capacity.)


7.4.13
From Richard Thursby
Richard,
Following on from Tim Thurstan's question about a record number of consecutive defeats, in the 2002-3 and 2003-4 seasons, Buckinghamshire lost the last ten matches that they played (I played in eight of them). The only blot on the copybook (so to speak) was a 16-0 default win against Cambridgeshire in 2004.
Richard Thursby
London


From Tim Thurstan
7.4.13
Richard,
Herts open team lost all 5 SCCU league matches this season and the same last season. That's 10 straight losses (it might be more depending on the end of the 2010/11 season). Is that a record?
Tim
rjh: It's only 10. Last match of 2010-11 was a draw. Is ten-in-a-row a record, anyone?


From Roger de Coverly
19.9.12
Richard,
Could I add a comment about Jamborees? The four Chiltern counties, Hants, Berks, Bucks, Oxon have run an end season 20 board event for many years. The venue rotates. The rules for this divide it into 5 grading limited subsections. So the top four board are Open, the next four under 170 or similar etc. It think it also acts as a sort of AGM because you can get all the match captains together in one place. End of season works because apart from Hants, the other three counties will not be involved in the ECF National stages. It’s in the archives, but forty years ago, the SCCU Jamboree was a 10 board event, with not just the counties invited but other organisations capable of putting out a ten board team. So you had the Insurance Chess Club, Cambridge University as itself, county junior teams etc.
Roger de Coverly


From Tyrone Jefferies
17.9.12
Hi David.
In response to your SCCU Open Forum item on the future of the SCCU Jamboree event.
  1. I see no future for these type of one day events as for the general grassroots chess player this event is meaningless and unattractive.
  2. If the event should continue to be organized March and April should be avoided.
  3. A change in format with less boards may be an option. Ten boards will always be difficult. The number ten may be a round easy number, however, a very difficult number when applied to chess. Chess prefers numbers 2, 4, 6 and 8. ( Why 12 and 16 boards in SCCU County matches always amazes me, executive committees make life very difficult for county captains when numbers 10, 12 and 16 are applied).
  4. Even if you widened the scope of entries I don't consider any improvement would be made in the long term.
The One Day Jamboree events have had their day I am afraid to say. Very active chess players like myself prefer a week-end congress of five games against different opponents, or a one day rapidplay event accommodating six thirty minute games against varied opponents. Both these type of tournaments are popular and count for grading, and give value for the time contributed. A one day jamboree event does neither.
     Sorry David, the one day jamboree event is finished. The time would be better allocated to arranging a long play week-ender, or a one day rapidplay event. ( Not in March, April and December).
Kindest regards
Tyrone Jefferies
SCCU Deputy President, Kent U120/U140 Captain: Rochester Chess Club
[rjh: Some interesting generalisations there. I'm not sure if Tyrone's suggesting the Jamborees aren't graded. They are, of course.]


From David Smith
16.9.12
Those of you who attended the SCCU Council in July, or indeed read Richard’s report on the Website, will know that the future of the SCCU U185 & U150 Jamborees was referred to the SCCU Executive, which next meets on Friday 5th October 2012.
     The background to this is the sad fact that entries to these once popular events fell to an all time low this year with just two competing Counties in each section (Essex & Middlesex in the U185 and Essex & Herts in the U150). The head to head matches proceeded; there was no point in cancelling the events as the new venue in Wanstead had already been paid for and no refund was allowable. As a result the SCCU made a loss of £65.00 on the events.
     I write now to seek the views of all interested parties (Officials and players) prior to and for consideration at the Executive meeting on 5th October. In particular, I would welcome your views on:
  1. Is there any future for these Jamborees?
  2. What is the best time of year to stage these? Most recent events have been late March/early April, in the gap between the end of the SCCU Counties Championship and the start of the ECF National Stages. Would other timings suit better? (Although the calendar is very crowded)
  3. Would a change in format help? (Current format is 10 Bds @ U185 and 6 Bds @ U150)
  4. Can we widen the scope for entries, e.g. get the Chiltern Counties on Board, plus Junior County teams, or Non-County members (North Circular League have been known to play)
Any other comments or suggestions would be most welcome.
David Smith
SCCU County Match Controller
davidandjanesmith@ntlworld.com
[rjh: You could respond through these pages or to David direct.]


From Stuart Williams
27.7.12
Dear Richard,
I notice that the look of the SCCU website was discussed at the AGM [item 3] on July 14th. May I say that I think it's a model of what such a site should be: clean and very quick, and easy to find what one's looking for. Please don't change a thing!
Best wishes
Stuart Williams
Canterbury


From David Sedgwick
9.6.12
Dear Richard,
Congratulations to Essex and Kent on qualifying for the Final of the U100 Division of the Counties Championships. There is an interesting curiosity about the results of the National Stages of this Division. In two completely different ways, both teams have reached the Final without winning a match. (Please see http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/matchbcf.htm.)
Yours sincerely,
David Sedgwick
Croydon
davidsedgwick3@googlemail.com
[rjh: Let it not be thought that other SCCU teams haven't reached the Finals!]


From Richard Almond
10.3.12
My understanding is that the current tie-break system is to avoid a team being disadvantaged by their rival being gifted a match point and 16 game points because of a third party team defaulting a match entirely. [rjh: Actually, no. See footnote to Roger's contribution below.] I think there have been spates of that in the past, but currently it is very rare fortunately. I haven't any idea if that decision involved any consideration of the impact where a team is only able to field a much weaker team in a match than usual.
     "Not having anything to play for" can be interpreted in different ways. As last weekend in the Open, Surrey were already First and Sussex Second, and those positions would not change. Alternatively to where a team has a fixed position (anywhere in the table), the expression could also be applied to where teams can change their position but can't qualify for the National Stages, or have qualified but can't be their section SCCU Champions. Whether a team in this broader situation takes the view "they have nothing to play for" is down to them, as they may have motivation to finish as high up the table as possible.
     The 2007-8 U175 competition has been mentioned, and illustrates the point. Sussex defaulting 8 boards v Kent was a Captaincy issue rather than due to lack of motivation. Having played in that match for Sussex I have no doubt it was unsatisfactory to both sets of players that turned out, for the match to be uncompetitive. Whilst neither side could qualify for the National Stages, losing the match left the door open for Kent to pass the wooden spoon to Sussex. Thus potential motivation in that match, and the result gave Kent a possible source of motivation to win against Surrey. While the Sussex team for that match was regrettable, it was helpful rather than unhelpful to Middlesex that Kent could gain something by winning against Surrey. Also Sussex results benefited Middlesex, as we won one match against Surrey but lost both to them. Having tied for Second, Surrey qualified having won both matches against Middlesex.
     While the tie-break system can be debated as to whether right or wrong, on that occasion it seems to have worked as intended. I don't have a strong personal opinion as whether it should remain the same or game points take preference, but it should be noted that UEFA have nicked it for the Champions and Europa Leagues Group Stages. Which possibly is evidence the method has validity, if a shame the SCCU didn't copyright it!
Richard Almond


From Roger de Coverly
10.3.12
No one has yet mentioned the reason why the SCCU tiebreaks take the form they are in. It's because of the possibility of match defaults where a 16-0 win not only gives you a free match point but also a serious advantage in game points. In evening leagues, a 6-0 result is plausible, unlike 16-0 in a county match, so a board point based tiebreak isn't unfair. I don't recall when the change was made, probably more than twenty years ago.
Roger de Coverly
Bucks
[rjh: 1993. I looked it up. But the concern was not 16-0 defaults; it was inconsistent performances by opponents who were sometimes strong and sometimes very weak. 16-0 defaults can be edited out of the reckoning, and long have been. David Sedgwick tells me - I wasn't sure - that this had already been taken care of by 1993.
     Overall Game Points afterwards languished at the bottom of the pile for years, so far down the list that it could effectively never be used. It was only at last year's AGM that it was partly rehabilitated, so that it actually will be used if the match between tying teams was drawn.]


From Tyrone Jefferies
10.3.12
Dear Richard
We all realize that the present tie-break system is flawed. It is always best to separate teams that finish with equal match points by game points to determine their league position. If match points and game points are equal, then the result between both teams involved should be taken into consideration.
Tyrone Jefferies
Kent U140 Captain


From Ivor Smith
9.3.12
Dear Richard,
Whilst my comment may have suggested that Surrey made little effort to field a strong team in their final match that was certainly not the impression that I wished to give. Badly worded it may have been and for that I apologise. Incidentally the Surrey players did extremely well in this match, overturning some significant grading deficits.
      I have the greatest respect for Owen Phillips and indeed all the other Open Match Captains that I have been involved with during the past three seasons. Not an easy job even at the best of times and I am convinced that they, and indeed as I do, always make every effort to field a strong a team as possible.
     The Surrey team have come a long way in the last eighteen months. Having finished last in 2009-2010 they then took the SCCU title in 2010-2011, winning all five matches. Three further outstanding wins led to the national title, ending five years of victories for teams from Lancashire and Yorkshire. This season Surrey's sequence of wins was extended to twelve suggesting that a record may have been established.
     David Sedgwick has quite rightly pointed out the difficulties that Match Captains face in fielding a strong team when a match is perceived to be irrelevant. For example the Essex v Surrey U180 match on March 17th will be doubly so with Surrey 2nd and Essex 5th, irrespective of the result. Incidentally situations of this nature would be far less common if tie breaks were based on overall game points rather than the present system. In many cases, including this one, last round matches would then still be 'live'. This even applies to the final round of matches played in the current Open competition when all teams would still have had something to play for.
     There is another possible case for changing the present tie break system, an example being our trip to Hassocks in October. On that occasion I had great difficulty in fielding a competitive team of 16, not helped by clashes with other events. Indeed, analysis of our results over the last ten years shows that we have been almost twice as successful, when playing at home. I don't know whether such a discrepancy applies to other counties but certainly this season Sussex themselves suffered in this way, winning three at home, losing two away. Once a match is lost in this way the present tie break rules make it more difficult for a team to progress. Essex finished equal second on match points but fourth on tie break, finishing behind Surrey, Sussex and Middlesex. However Essex did comparatively well in other matches and indeed secured more overall game points than Sussex.
     No doubt there are good reasons for the present system of tie breaks but a discussion on this point is perhaps worth considering.
Best wishes
Ivor Smith
Essex Match Captain


From Anthony Fulton
4.3.12
Hi Richard,
Just seen the details of the Open Ex v Sy match.
     The converse comment also applies: Should a team with NOTHING to play for still field its strongest side? The 2007-8 U175 campaign is one that will haunt me! As ECF Champions Mx were looking forward to progressing to the ECF Stage to defend title, however Sussex and Kent with nothing to play for failed to field competitive teams in their last matches, Sussex defaulting 8 boards and Kent fielding only 1 player 160+ (something which they had not done all season). Consequently Sy got an easy ride and qualified at our expense.
     ...
There are occasions when events conspire against a captain. A situation like this occurred for me when the weakest Open team I fielded was in our 1st season back in 2007. I was unable to get a strong enough team together. Things happen.
Regards
Anthony
Middx


From Richard Almond
4.3.12
As regards question posed on SCCU website whether teams with nothing to play for should field strongest team, then morally yes. Whilst the Captain/County should select in same way as in other matches to be fair to other teams, it is not a professional event and they have no contract with the players, so can't compel1 any individual to play. So if people decide they prefer to do something else to playing in a chess match that from their side has no competitive relevance there is not much that can be done.
     In some matches it is simply the case that many people are unavailable and so a weak team has to be fielded, so unless the Controller has time to obtain alibis supported with evidence from absentees to prove they simply didn't choose to play then it is hard to introduce rules and penalties. Maybe the Controller could in some circumstances simply deem a match to have been effectively defaulted and so impose the existing penalties in following season of playing away etc.
Richard Almond
Sussex CCA


From Owen Phillips
4.3.12
Thanks David. I think you know me well enough to know too that I did indeed try to get out our strongest team. I appreciate your intervention here as that comment on The SCCU website is wholly inappropriate.
     Richard I don’t know whether the comment is yours on the SCCU website, but I would actually like it removed as I find it insulting. As a sportsman I would always try to put out my best team. If you want to say anything you can say what I told the Essex Captain, and after the match the Middlesex Captain too - that I had approached a great many players –I was missing players due to a number of factors including their attending other events.
     Incidentally - If anything the score could have been a lot closer based on the way the games went - so not an easy victory for Essex despite our having not been able to field our National winning side! Which incidentally I would not expect to be able to field on a regular basis.
Owen Phillips
Open captain, Sussex CCA
[rjh: The comment was mine, if comment it was. I expressed no opinion; I'm not even sure I have one. I just thought it was a question worth asking. Nothing was further from my mind than insulting anyone.]


From David Sedgwick
4.3.12
Dear Richard,
"Surrey, having already taken the SCCU title, were well below full strength so this was something of a hollow victory." - Essex captain. "Should a team which has finished first with a match to spare field its strongest side in the last round? Discuss." - RJH [See Open matches 4.3.12]
     Is there any real suggestion that Surrey didn't field their strongest available team? It's not like a professional football club. Players have other interests, responsibilities and commitments and may not be very eager to turn out for a dead match. They can't be compelled to do so. On Saturday 17th March we (Surrey) are away to Essex in the U180 Division. We are certain to finish second in the Division whatever the result. I don't particularly wish to play and will probably only do so if it's necessary to avoid a default. If the match had been crucial, I would have turned out without question.
Yours sincerely,
David Sedgwick
Croydon
davidsedgwick3@googlemail.com


Earlier material (lots of it) is in the Archive.


Back to top      Back to SCCU home page