English Chess Forum

Neil Graham wrote:Under 140

Kent 7 Nottinghamshire 9

Under 120

Staffordshire 4.5 Nottinghamshire 7.5

I haven't received the full boards scores as yet - these are the results as reported to me.

The full board by board results of both matches are now posted on the ECF website

There is a minature report under the Middlesex - Surrey match on the results section which mentions this. (http://www.oxfordfusion.com/oca/ViewCup ... ot=2&Org=4).

Seemingly 3 previous finals (starting in 1907/8!), lots of matches spread over a good 100+ years but as yet only ever one result Yorkshire's top boards are definitely stronger than they have been for a good while though. A lot of rather useful students.

Plenty of scope to strengthen the bottom boards a bit of course. Not playing me for starters

Surrey currently lead Essex 7½ - 6½ in the U180 semi-final. Essex need to win both remaining games to go through in view of the Board count position.

....and Essex did exactly that. Congratulations to Chris Hampton and Neville Twitchell for holding their nerve. Essex 8½ - 7½ Surrey

Finally, one result of which I can vaguely approve this weekend, having lost my game yesterday, seeing my team lose, seeing England lose and I still have zero points in the sweepstake game of guessing the world cup results .... Weekend horribilis!

With all results now on, the line-up for the finals is (subject to confirmation):

Open: Yorkshire vs Middlesex
Minor Counties: Suffolk vs Nottinghamshire
U180: Warwickshire vs Essex
U160: Middlesex vs Yorkshire
U140: Hampshire vs Nottinghamshire
U120: Hertfordshire vs Nottinghamshire
U100: Kent vs Warwickshire

An impressive three teams from Nottinghamshire and the same match-up for Open and U160 levels. Not worked out the distribution of representation from the various union levels, but maybe someone will see if that differs markedly from previous years (I think it is only 5 SCCU teams this year).

Results from here: http://www.oxfordfusion.com/oca/index.cfm?Org=4

EDIT: Updated to include final result.

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:With one result still to come (from one of the U100 semis), I think the line-up for the finals is (subject to confirmation):

Open: Yorkshire vs Middlesex
Minor Counties: Suffolk vs Nottinghamshire
U180: Warwickshire vs Essex
U160: Middlesex vs Yorkshire
U140: Hampshire vs Nottinghamshire
U120: Hertfordshire vs Nottinghamshire
U100: Kent vs Warwickshire/Norfolk

An impressive three teams from Nottinghamshire and the same match-up for Open and U160 levels. Not worked out the distribution of representation from the various union levels, but maybe someone will see if that differs markedly from previous years (I think it is only 5 SCCU teams this year).

Results from here: http://www.oxfordfusion.com/oca/index.cfm?Org=4

A substantial reason for the performance of Notts teams this season has been the work of Neil Graham. Neil has been involved with the selection of our teams, coordinating transport for away matches as well as arranging venues, refreshments etc. This has involved a huge amount of effort which I hope we (in Notts) never take for granted. Thanks, Neil!

Congratulations indeed to Nottinghamshire and to Neil Graham.

It wasn't Surrey's best weekend ever, but congratulations to Middlesex Open and Essex U180.

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:With all results now on, the line-up for the finals is (subject to confirmation):

Open: Yorkshire vs Middlesex
Minor Counties: Suffolk vs Nottinghamshire
U180: Warwickshire vs Essex
U160: Middlesex vs Yorkshire
U140: Hampshire vs Nottinghamshire
U120: Hertfordshire vs Nottinghamshire
U100: Kent vs Warwickshire

An impressive three teams from Nottinghamshire and the same match-up for Open and U160 levels. Not worked out the distribution of representation from the various union levels, but maybe someone will see if that differs markedly from previous years (I think it is only 5 SCCU teams this year).

Results from here: http://www.oxfordfusion.com/oca/index.cfm?Org=4

EDIT: Updated to include final result.

In fact this is the first year that the SCCU's qualifying dominance has been challenged - MCCU & SCCU 5; NCCU 2 ; EACU & WECU 1

Since the grading limits were amended five years ago the finalists have been as follows:-

2012/13 - SCCU 6; MCCU 4; EACU & NCCU 2
2011/12 - SCCU 9; NCCU 3; MCCU 2
2010/11 - SCCU 6; MCCU 3; WECU & NCCU 2; EACU 1
2009/10 - SCCU 6; MCCU 4; NCCU 2; WECU & EACU 1

The grand totals over the five years have been SCCU 32; MCCU 18; NCCU 11; EACU 5; WECU 4 with winners over the past four seasons
similarly in the southern Union's favour - SCCU 16; MCCU 6; NCCU, WECU & EACU 2 each.

May I make a couple of comments about the compliments paid in preceding posts - before my head swells too much! Firstly whilst I have had some autonomy in sorting out match arrangements etc, I cannot influence what happens on the board and the success of Nottinghamshire this year is primarily due to the team spirit of our sides and the hard work they have put in during play.

Secondly as I have emphasised many times here, any county with good organisational skills and competent officers in place should be able to challenge for national honours in the grading limited events at least. I am sorry that several counties cannot even raise one team to compete in the County Championships.

Neil Graham wrote: Secondly as I have emphasised many times here, any county with good organisational skills and competent officers in place should be able to challenge for national honours in the grading limited events at least.

For a small county, I would have thought it easier to raise an Open/Minor Counties team, than get players competitive enough in a particular grading band. With the unbalanced nature of the catchment areas for each county, a skill at rule manipulation is also necessary to construct an eligibility.

Roger de Coverly wrote:

Neil Graham wrote: Secondly as I have emphasised many times here, any county with good organisational skills and competent officers in place should be able to challenge for national honours in the grading limited events at least.

For a small county, I would have thought it easier to raise an Open/Minor Counties team, than get players competitive enough in a particular grading band. With the unbalanced nature of the catchment areas for each county, a skill at rule manipulation is also necessary to construct an eligibility.

At one time the ECF used to publish a list of statistics showing how many players there were in each grading band. The median grade is around 120-130 I think - consequently most counties will have a majority of their players within 25 or so points of 125. Last year Shropshire, one of the smallest counties in the ECF, defeated Kent who are one of the largest in the Under 140 final. Every county could, no doubt, raise an Open team of sixteen players but as has been found you need a team with an average grade of 200+ to make any waves in this competition. A grading limited team in the U160, U140 etc is a level playing field.

Neil Graham wrote:A grading limited team in the U160, U140 etc is a level playing field.

For success in an U160 competition, assuming grades to be reliable, you would want a team graded 155 to 159. If there's a pool of fifty or more players in the appropriate range, that's more achievable than if you have to rope in players under 140 or under 120 to even make sixteen eligible players.

~150 average seems to be enough for the semi's 170 in the U180's etc.

On paper the bigger places should be really packed with people just falling into the grading bracket etc, but they tend to keep consistent teams for the sake of having one!
(I wouldn't be at all confident of Durham or Cleveland being able to field teams over about 140. Quite small, scattered, leagues.).

Roger de Coverly wrote:

Neil Graham wrote:A grading limited team in the U160, U140 etc is a level playing field.

For success in an U160 competition, assuming grades to be reliable, you would want a team graded 155 to 159. If there's a pool of fifty or more players in the appropriate range, that's more achievable than if you have to rope in players under 140 or under 120 to even make sixteen eligible players.

The average grades of the eight quarter-finalists in the Under 160 were :- 141, 144, 146, 147, 147, 150, 150 & 153 so not at all true (these were Jan 2014 figures I think) - as Martin pointed out.

I see that Durham's 2014 AGM minutes are on line - there is no mention of even considering a county side and indeed following the untimely death of their Association Secretary no-one came forward to fill the post. A check of their gradings confirms that in the Jan 2014 list there were some 27 active grades between 139 & 120 and some 28 active grades between 119 and 100.