4ncl 2022-23

[Roger Lancaster]

The evidence I'd expect to see if this rule had been successful would be a reasonably large number of strong English female players. I don't see that. On the current ECF rating list, there are only 6 English female players rated over 2200. Three of those are immigrants who were already strong players before they moved to England, so we can rule out the 4NCL having helped them. That leaves at most 3 players who might have been helped to become strong players by the 4NCL in 20-odd years.

Depending on which data you take, you can arrive at different concIusions. I Iooked at the top 10 femaIe u-18s and, of these, 9 have 4NCL connections

[Matt Bridgeman]

As the 4NCL had the rule for many years, up to the 2019/20 season, is there any evidence it helped female players in the past? If the answer's no, why would it be any different now?

It must be psychologically quite a positive thing to be involved in the higher divisions. People feel included, and although it certainly a tough arena to get results in the talented players can break through. I’d give one example - Tashika Arora, who plays a lot of chess but not long ago was mainly playing majors and junior events. A win and a draw against 2200+ ECF opposition last time out. I think she’s 14 and her FIDE is shooting up.

The evidence I'd expect to see if this rule had been successful would be a reasonably large number of strong English female players. I don't see that. On the current ECF rating list, there are only 6 English female players rated over 2200. Three of those are immigrants who were already strong players before they moved to England, so we can rule out the 4NCL having helped them. That leaves at most 3 players who might have been helped to become strong players by the 4NCL in 20-odd years.

I suppose my point is there’s something happening currently not 20 years ago. It’s probably going to take a few years to come into focus, but if this thread is revisited in 2 or 3 years there might be a very different picture.

[NickFaulks]

What I have never understood is why it is better for a promising 1900 girl to play on bottom board in Div 1, which will sometimes be a mismatch, than in Div 3, where they would be hugely welcome irrespective of their gender.

[Matt Bridgeman]

What I have never understood is why it is better for a promising 1900 girl to play on bottom board in Div 1, which will sometimes be a mismatch, than in Div 3, where they would be hugely welcome irrespective of their gender.

There are people coming from the north of the country, so previously the southern division was even further than Daventry. There’s the northern division but it’s smaller. In terms of mismatches, they probably aren’t as common as you think. I’ve seen quite a few out-rated girls create very favourable positions this season, that sometimes slip through their fingers very late on. There’s a lot of learning opportunities going on, and the end result doesn’t always show what a hard battle went on for 4 or 5 hours.

[Wadih Khoury]

What I have never understood is why it is better for a promising 1900 girl to play on bottom board in Div 1, which will sometimes be a mismatch, than in Div 3, where they would be hugely welcome irrespective of their gender.

The belief is that your progress best if you are playing opponents 200-300 higher than you. So better play as the underdog in Div1 than an equal game on a higher board in Div3.
Thing is, board 8s in Div1 are often the junior's.

[Paul Cooksey]

The belief is that your progress best if you are playing opponents 200-300 higher than you.

I'm surprised. I thought received wisdom was playing a lot, usually scoring about 50%, but occasionally wining an event for confidence.

[MartinCarpenter]

So would I But then I guess that anyone playing board 8 4NCL is playing/winning plenty of games in other events.

Or maybe its modulated on the basis of a junior who is fully expected to considerably increase in grade over a short period of time.

[Joey Stewart]

I have often wondered whether this is actually detrimental to women's chess, given the relatively high rate of dropouts, and you can kind of see why - getting hassled desperately to play every game for a team you have no connection with, just for the sake of filling an arbitrary rule puts a lot of pressure on the female players in division 1-2 and doesnt really create an environment where they can really enjoy their 4ncl weekend.

It would be easy to fix this by simply amending the rule to guarantee an available spot to any female player wishing to play in division 1 or 2 teams I.E. they dont HAVE to play every match but are never in a position where they will be frozen out of the team entirely, thus you preserve the sense of equality the rule was intended to achieve without it being simultaneously awkward for both the players and the teams

[Tim Spanton]

I have often wondered whether this is actually detrimental to women's chess, given the relatively high rate of dropouts, and you can kind of see why - getting hassled desperately to play every game for a team you have no connection with, just for the sake of filling an arbitrary rule puts a lot of pressure on the female players in division 1-2 and doesnt really create an environment where they can really enjoy their 4ncl weekend.

It would be easy to fix this by simply amending the rule to guarantee an available spot to any female player wishing to play in division 1 or 2 teams I.E. they dont HAVE to play every match but are never in a position where they will be frozen out of the team entirely, thus you preserve the sense of equality the rule was intended to achieve without it being simultaneously awkward for both the players and the teams

There were no doubt many reasons for the rule, but "the sense of equality" was unlikely to have been one of them - "paternal patronisation" was more likely to the fore

[LawrenceCooper]

It would be easy to fix this by simply amending the rule to guarantee an available spot to any female player wishing to play in division 1 or 2 teams I.E. they dont HAVE to play every match but are never in a position where they will be frozen out of the team entirely, thus you preserve the sense of equality the rule was intended to achieve without it being simultaneously awkward for both the players and the teams

Do you mean that teams should be able to play more than one woman in the same match? (If so, they already can albeit clubs with multiple teams may not always be able to do so). Or are you meaning they should be free to play for other teams if they lose their place?

[Joey Stewart]

My idea was that teams were not put in a situation where they are required to have to hunt down and force women into playing for them in order to compete, but they would be obliged to find one space for any that did want the opportunity to be in the upper divisions and specifically requested to be on that team (and the team be sanctioned hard if it were discovered they had ignored such a request).

And yes, it could create situations where several girls were all on the same team but it would not be such a bad thing as they are still getting to play chess and other teams are not being unfairly penalised when they cannot get a player.

[Alan Walton]

My idea was that teams were not put in a situation where they are required to have to hunt down and force women into playing for them in order to compete, but they would be obliged to find one space for any that did want the opportunity to be in the upper divisions and specifically requested to be on that team (and the team be sanctioned hard if it were discovered they had ignored such a request).

And yes, it could create situations where several girls were all on the same team but it would not be such a bad thing as they are still getting to play chess and other teams are not being unfairly penalised when they cannot get a player.

The rule was never have one female in your team; it was must contain at least one male and female; one weekend from memory Wood Green played with Shirov on board 1 with 7 females, I may have it wrong but Jovanka was on board 8, all others were rated around 2500

[LawrenceCooper]

one weekend from memory Wood Green played with Shirov on board 1 with 7 females, I may have it wrong but Jovanka was on board 8, all others were rated around 2500

https://www.4ncl.co.uk/pre2010/photos04-woodgreen1.htm

"The Wood Green 1 team was:
Alexei Shirov (world ranked #10)
Pia Cramling (Sweden olympiad board 1)
Viktorija Cmilyte (Lithuania board 1)
Ekaterina Kovalevskaya (Russia board 3)
Ketevan Arakhamia-Grant (Georgia)
Elena Sedina (Italy board 1)
Harriet Hunt (England board 1)
Yelena Dembo (Greece board 1)"

[Joey Stewart]

I remember that team, I think they re-entered the next session as 'pride and prejudice' but it seemed less of an attempt to give opportunity to UK women players and more of a cynical gimmick to troll the rest of the league and say "hey look what we can do with all this money, don't you wish you were as rich as us, shame you aren't or you could get a female master in your team too'l"

[LawrenceCooper]

I remember that team, I think they re-entered the next session as 'pride and prejudice' but it seemed less of an attempt to give opportunity to UK women players and more of a cynical gimmick to troll the rest of the league and say "hey look what we can do with all this money, don't you wish you were as rich as us, shame you aren't or you could get a female master in your team too'l"

Pride and Prejudice was a separate team organised by Claire Summerscale.