Wood Green

[Simon Ansell]

Leicestershire used to have a rule exactly like this. It was stupid. What happened was a really strong 2nd team would win division 2. Newly promoted to div1, it then had its best players stripped away (as they played bottom boards for the 1st team) to comply with this rule. Significantly weaker than when they were promoted, they were easily relegated. The following year they would romp div2 and get promoted again etc etc.

Isn't this somewhat the natural order of things? It happens in every sport - newly promoted teams tend to be the weakest in their new division. Perhaps the clubs involved should think about whether artificially strengthening their second team in a lower division with higher division players is beneficial in the long-term - or if they otherwise can't field a team, whether they actually do have the resources to field multiple teams in the first place.

I by no means want to stop people playing chess, which is why I used the word "compromise" above, and I still think "you can't play twice against the same team" would be a useful and not overly restrictive addition.

[David Williams]

Most leagues allow some players to play for the same in multiple divisions. in fact most leagues wouldn't survive without such an arrangement.
What is wrong is allowing a player to play for multiple teams in the same division, but I seem to be having difficulty getting other posters to accept this.

Leicestershire used to have a rule exactly like this. It was stupid. What happened was a really strong 2nd team would win division 2. Newly promoted to div1, it then had its best players stripped away (as they played bottom boards for the 1st team) to comply with this rule. Significantly weaker than when they were promoted, they were easily relegated. The following year they would romp div2 and get promoted again etc etc.

The rule was scrapped about 6/7 years ago. No one, for a moment, has ever suggested bringing it back.

I think it's ok for players to play for 2 teams in the same division, or another division. The trick is ensuring that there are sufficient players who can't play for the lower team so that there is a significant difference between to the two teams.

I got to the end of your second paragraph thinking I was agreeing with every word, and then found that what you thought was stupid wasn't the same as me. I think if I'd been a member of the team coming second in division 2 I'd have been rather resentful at being beaten by a team that would have been nothing like as good if it hadn't had first team players in it. I'd have thought that if we only had the chance to play in division 1 we might have been able to survive, and prosper. And over the years players of a similar strength to me would have gravitated to the bigger club because of the greater opportunities, the strong would have become stronger, and the weak would go to the wall.

[Sean Hewitt]

Isn't this somewhat the natural order of things? It happens in every sport - newly promoted teams tend to be the weakest in their new division.

Yes indeed. But I doubt that there are many sports that would promote a team, only then to declare "But this season, you're not allowed to play your best players from last season!" That's why I say that whether a clubs teams are in the same division or different divisions, the rules for player eligibility should be the same.

[Andrew Martin]

Quite honestly, I have been playing for Wood Green since 1984, in various competitions and I've enjoyed every game and the companionship of some very good friends. But I can't really approve of this current 'joke'. The fact that it's allowable at all must give the 4NCL cause to tighten up the rules.

The situation is preposterous.

[Simon Ansell]

Isn't this somewhat the natural order of things? It happens in every sport - newly promoted teams tend to be the weakest in their new division.

Yes indeed. But I doubt that there are many sports that would promote a team, only then to declare "But this season, you're not allowed to play your best players from last season!" That's why I say that whether a clubs teams are in the same division or different divisions, the rules for player eligibility should be the same.

Yes, but that declaration is a direct result of the promoted team having been artificially strengthened the previous season!

[Roger de Coverly]

Yes, but that declaration is a direct result of the promoted team having been artificially strengthened the previous season!

Although a widely accepted practice particularly if they are in different divisions, setting your teams as 1-2-3-4-7-8 and 5-6-9-10-11-12 isn't really fielding a genuine second team. Some overlap between teams is always likely, in the 4NCL the question becomes whether it should go beyond the 80 point rule for matches taking place at the same time.

[Michele Clack]

In the Birmingham League if you have two teams in the same division then the rules are exactly the same as if they are in separate divisions.
That is you register players in grade order ( with a discretionary 10 point ECF buffer to allow for driver balance, finding a captain, rapidly improving players and players in a form slump etc.) Once a player has played 4 times for a higher team they are automatically re-registered for that higher team. If the club has more than two teams players can play upto 3 times in each of the higher teams before they are re-registered. There is a cut-off date beyond which new players cannot be registered. Players also need to play a minimum number of games before they can be registered as one of the minimum number of players for a team the following season.
This seems to cover all bases and works very well.

[Sean Hewitt]

And yes, that this only applies in the same division and not lower ones runs big risks of silliness as per Sean's comment. We could very likely get York C promoted using 'spares' from York A/B but then they'd not have any players left when they moved up etc. Whatever rule(s) you have should at least be consistent whereever the teams are!

Exactly. If fans of chess prevention want to stop people playing more chess then by all means require players to only play for one team. But whether the teams are in the same or different divisions is irrelevant.

Do you
1) really think that people wanting league chess to be fair is chess prevention?

Where the proposed mechanism to achieve that perceived fairness it to prevent some people from playing chess then yes, of course.

2) really believe that if teams are in the same or different divisions is irrelevant?

Absolutely.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

2) really believe that if teams are in the same or different divisions is irrelevant?

Absolutely.

Being in same division does make a difference. All leagues that I know of stipulate that the teams in question must play each other in their first set of fixtures. The reasons should be obvious. The nominations for each team then affect that first fixture. Sometimes this will be the first time players from the same club have played each other!

[Sean Hewitt]

2) really believe that if teams are in the same or different divisions is irrelevant?

Absolutely.

Being in same division does make a difference. All leagues that I know of stipulate that the teams in question must play each other in their first set of fixtures. The reasons should be obvious.

Chris - that's a different issue. We are talking here about player eligibility!

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Being in same division does make a difference. All leagues that I know of stipulate that the teams in question must play each other in their first set of fixtures. The reasons should be obvious.

Chris - that's a different issue. We are talking here about player eligibility!

Yeah, but the rules on eligibility can affect the teams fielded in that first fixture.

Richard Bates raised that point here: http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 30#p113577

http://www.londonchess.org.uk/match_car ... n=20122013
http://www.londonchess.org.uk/match_car ... n=20122013
http://www.londonchess.org.uk/match_car ... n=20122013

9-1; 7.5-1.5; 12-0. Five double-defaults (out of a potential 36 games). That's not strictly chess prevention, but it does show how complicated things can get when you are trying to run three teams in the same division (in this case the three Drunken Knights teams).

[David Williams]

I'm not sure what the opposite of chess prevention is, but I'm learning that it may include
- not allowing the best players in a club to play as much as weaker players
- excluding new and weak players so that middle-ranking players can play for several teams
- encouraging keen middle-ranking players to desert smaller clubs
- disillusioning players with rules that are inequitable
- driving the less committed from the game altogether as smaller clubs become less viable.

[Roger de Coverly]

There is a cut-off date beyond which new players cannot be registered.

I can well understand why such a rule might be considered necessary. But it does have the side effect of banning a player new to the area from taking part in the league if they become available towards a season's end. I believe the London league has a similar rule.

It's established custom in the 4NCL for teams to strengthen their squads for the final weekend both with declared hired guns and with wild cards disclosed on the mornings of the matches.

[Roger de Coverly]

but it does show how complicated things can get when you are trying to run three teams in the same division

I see only five of the first team showed up for the massacre of the third team with the rest of the team comprising players from the second team and third team players turning out for the opposition.

[Angus French]

http://www.londonchess.org.uk/match_car ... n=20122013
http://www.londonchess.org.uk/match_car ... n=20122013
http://www.londonchess.org.uk/match_car ... n=20122013

9-1; 7.5-1.5; 12-0. Five double-defaults (out of a potential 36 games). That's not strictly chess prevention, but it does show how complicated things can get when you are trying to run three teams in the same division (in this case the three Drunken Knights teams).

This (from last season) raised some eyebrows at my club.