Semi-Final Pairings & Results
-
- Posts: 1943
- Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:36 pm
Semi-Final Pairings & Results
Semi-Final pairings as follows:-
Open : Lancashire v Sussex; Middlesex v Yorkshire
Minor : Surrey v Suffolk; Lincolnshire v Devon
U180 : Middlesex v Warwickshire; Yorkshire v Essex
U160 : Middlesex v Yorkshire; Lancashire v Essex
U140 : Yorkshire v Worcestershire; Nottinghamshire v Essex
U120 ; Warwickshire v Middlesex; Leicestershire v Norfolk
U100 ; Surrey v Leicestershire; Lancashire v Warwickshire
The U100 may be subject to change because of an eligibility query.
Open : Lancashire v Sussex; Middlesex v Yorkshire
Minor : Surrey v Suffolk; Lincolnshire v Devon
U180 : Middlesex v Warwickshire; Yorkshire v Essex
U160 : Middlesex v Yorkshire; Lancashire v Essex
U140 : Yorkshire v Worcestershire; Nottinghamshire v Essex
U120 ; Warwickshire v Middlesex; Leicestershire v Norfolk
U100 ; Surrey v Leicestershire; Lancashire v Warwickshire
The U100 may be subject to change because of an eligibility query.
-
- Posts: 126
- Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 4:22 pm
Re: Semi-Final Pairings & Results
I understand that the U100 result has been changed & consequently the semi-final will be Lancashire v Essex.Neil Graham wrote: ↑Mon May 21, 2018 2:10 pm
U100 ; Surrey v Leicestershire; Lancashire v Warwickshire
The U100 may be subject to change because of an eligibility query.
-
- Posts: 1943
- Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:36 pm
Re: Semi-Final Pairings & Results
LMS shows that Surrey have conceded their U100 match to Leicestershire by default.
This will mean an £100 fine for the offending county.
This will mean an £100 fine for the offending county.
-
- Posts: 3048
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am
Re: Semi-Final Pairings & Results
I can see why you'd do that of course, but is that really a good idea to encourage future participation in a declining event?
-
- Posts: 1838
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:16 am
Re: Semi-Final Pairings & Results
Ouch. Anyway best wishes to any forumites playing or organising. Especially Surrey Minor Counties v Suffolk & our hosts.
-
- Posts: 5249
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
- Location: Croydon
Re: Semi-Final Pairings & Results
That question is rhetorical, of course.MartinCarpenter wrote: ↑Sat Jun 09, 2018 11:12 amI can see why you'd do that of course, but is that really a good idea to encourage future participation in a declining event?
Earlier this week, the ECF were seeking an arbiter for the match. I hope that they didn't find one.
I imagine that the matter will be raised at the forthcoming Annual General Meetings both of Surrey and of the SCCU.
-
- Posts: 1024
- Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:45 pm
Re: Semi-Final Pairings & Results
As the offending Surrey captain I should perhaps comment that we have plenty of eligible players who could have played but only 5 of the 35 I personally contacted were able to play on this particular date. Ironically I was (as far as I recall) the only person at a SCCU meeting who opposed this absurd £100 fine. I knew that the fine existed and it had no influence on whether we entered the team or the effort I put in to trying to raise a team. I think the only effect of this fine is to reduce the likelihood of many counties entering the national stage, bearing in mind the natural cautiousness of many chess-playing player/ organisers.
-
- Posts: 1943
- Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:36 pm
Re: Semi-Final Pairings & Results
The first results are now in :-
Minor
Lincolnshire 10 Devon 6
Surrey 9.5 Suffolk 6.5
Final Lincolnshire v Surrey
Under 140
Nottinghamshire 9.5 Essex 6.5
Worcestershire lost to Yorkshire (my estimate is by about 10-6)
Final Nottinghamshire v Yorkshire
Minor
Lincolnshire 10 Devon 6
Surrey 9.5 Suffolk 6.5
Final Lincolnshire v Surrey
Under 140
Nottinghamshire 9.5 Essex 6.5
Worcestershire lost to Yorkshire (my estimate is by about 10-6)
Final Nottinghamshire v Yorkshire
-
- Posts: 3048
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am
Re: Semi-Final Pairings & Results
I've a reliable report of Yorkshire winning their U180 semi by +3, so 9.5 - 6.5 I suppose.
And yes, the potential preemptive deterrent effect of this kind of fine was what worried me.
And yes, the potential preemptive deterrent effect of this kind of fine was what worried me.
-
- Posts: 285
- Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:25 am
- Location: origin + pathname + search + hash
Re: Semi-Final Pairings & Results
Results from Birstall
U160
Middlesex 6 Yorkshire 10
Open
Middlesex 7 Yorkshire 9
U160
Middlesex 6 Yorkshire 10
Open
Middlesex 7 Yorkshire 9
-
- Posts: 1943
- Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:36 pm
Re: Semi-Final Pairings & Results
We could be in a position where there is only one SCCU team in the national finals.
-
- Posts: 1943
- Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:36 pm
Re: Semi-Final Pairings & Results
Under 180
Middlesex 7.5 Warwickshire 8.5
Essex 6.5 Yorkshire 9.5
Final Warwickshire v Yorkshire
Under 140 confirmed result (see above)
Yorkshire 9.5 Worcestershire 6.5
Some of the remaining matches are being played today.
Middlesex 7.5 Warwickshire 8.5
Essex 6.5 Yorkshire 9.5
Final Warwickshire v Yorkshire
Under 140 confirmed result (see above)
Yorkshire 9.5 Worcestershire 6.5
Some of the remaining matches are being played today.
-
- Posts: 3048
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am
Re: Semi-Final Pairings & Results
Very impressed with the Yorkshire open team winning with some of our very top players out this year for various reasons.
-
- Posts: 1943
- Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:36 pm
Re: Semi-Final Pairings & Results
Open
Middlesex 7 Yorkshire 9
Lancashire 9 Sussex 7
Final : Yorkshire v Lancashire
Middlesex 7 Yorkshire 9
Lancashire 9 Sussex 7
Final : Yorkshire v Lancashire
-
- Posts: 2074
- Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
- Location: Harrogate
Re: Semi-Final Pairings & Results
The £100 fine is surely intended to ensure that a decision to default a match in the national stages is not taken lightly. If people find the fine excessive or not necessary at all surely they can get a motion before Council? They're not normally shy about doing so.Mike Gunn wrote: ↑Sat Jun 09, 2018 2:16 pmAs the offending Surrey captain I should perhaps comment that we have plenty of eligible players who could have played but only 5 of the 35 I personally contacted were able to play on this particular date. Ironically I was (as far as I recall) the only person at a SCCU meeting who opposed this absurd £100 fine. I knew that the fine existed and it had no influence on whether we entered the team or the effort I put in to trying to raise a team. I think the only effect of this fine is to reduce the likelihood of many counties entering the national stage, bearing in mind the natural cautiousness of many chess-playing player/ organisers.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own