Wood Green

[Richard Bates]

The main arguments in favour are:

1) Having some of the best players in the World playing in this country/the 4NCL generates publicity (and usually favorable) for the game.
2) Supporting professional players is a worthy cause.

If one is worried about the effect of money on Wood Green's "regular" players - that ship i think sailed long ago...

Personally i think a far greater problem (in 4NCL terms) is the knock on effect on second teams. It is not at all an exaggeration to say that playing either of Wood Green or Guildford second teams 'at the wrong time' is seriously detrimental to a team's chances of either getting into the Championship pool (early season) or of avoiding relegation (and this year there is the unusual situation of Guildford actually needing to strengthen their first team to give their second team a chance of staying up). They can vary in strength so wildly from one weekend to the next. I think there must be some sort of a case to be made for implementing some sort of rule which limits movement between 1st and 2nd (or 2nd and 3rd etc teams - probably excepting women). How exactly it would work best though i'm not sure.

[Roger de Coverly]

I think there must be some sort of a case to be made for implementing some sort of rule which limits movement between 1st and 2nd

Most leagues have years of experience devising rules to prevent people playing. I doubt a rule requiring players to be ring fenced for the 1st team would work, because your nominated team is just the super GMs you register for the final weekend. What might work if a rule is desired is the rule which says that once you had played x games you were locked to that team and couldn't play in a lower team. It could however conflict with the 80 point rule and leave someone with no valid team to play in.

[Richard Bates]

An easier way would be to prevent one club having two teams in the same division

No i don't agree that would be a good approach (although I think the limit applying to more than 2 is on balance justified for the rare occasion when it might be needed). Having a limit on more than one would likely lead to a situation where several teams in a division are likely competing each year without any prospect of promotion (and there's the added complication of what happens if a team is relegated into a lower division where they already have a team). Which isn't generally good for the competitive side of the League.

[Richard Bates]

I think there must be some sort of a case to be made for implementing some sort of rule which limits movement between 1st and 2nd

Most leagues have years of experience devising rules to prevent people playing. I doubt a rule requiring players to be ring fenced for the 1st team would work, because your nominated team is just the super GMs you register for the final weekend. What might work if a rule is desired is the rule which says that once you had played x games you were locked to that team and couldn't play in a lower team. It could however conflict with the 80 point rule and leave someone with no valid team to play in.

I don't think the latter point is really a major issue. If a player is considered a 'core' part of a first team (by virtue of playing a set number of matches for them) then i don't see why they should expect to have a team to play for if the first team is strengthened. After all, they are in no different situation to players in the majority of teams, who don't have a second team to drop into.

You could perhaps have some sort of rule which says that a player can't 'drop down' after, say, 5 games for the higher team, but limit it to the top 5/6 boards, or, say, the 5/6 highest rated players having played the five games. Which would give some flexibility for players consistently floating between the top boards of a second team and the bottom boards of a first team. But would prevent a "core" first team being decamped into the second team en masse.

[Ian Thompson]

If a player is considered a 'core' part of a first team (by virtue of playing a set number of matches for them) then i don't see why they should expect to have a team to play for if the first team is strengthened. After all, they are in no different situation to players in the majority of teams, who don't have a second team to drop into.

I think the question is whether it is right to drop regular players from a team in favour of one off appearances by stronger players when the team wants a result that it's unlikely to get with its regular players (and that applies just as much to local league teams as it does to 4NCL teams). That's a decision for members of the team. Individuals will have to make their own minds up on whether they wish to be part of a team run in that way.

[Richard Bates]

If a player is considered a 'core' part of a first team (by virtue of playing a set number of matches for them) then i don't see why they should expect to have a team to play for if the first team is strengthened. After all, they are in no different situation to players in the majority of teams, who don't have a second team to drop into.

I think the question is whether it is right to drop regular players from a team in favour of one off appearances by stronger players when the team wants a result that it's unlikely to get with its regular players (and that applies just as much to local league teams as it does to 4NCL teams). That's a decision for members of the team. Individuals will have to make their own minds up on whether they wish to be part of a team run in that way.

Not really, from my perspective. You wouldn't change the rules to deal with internal team/club politics. As you say that is a matter for individual players within that team.

You might however, as indeed most leagues do, introduce rules to address the issue of multiclub teams manipulating the way they use their players in such a way that other teams' chances are significantly affected by 'luck of the draw'.

[Jonathan Rogers]

I have no idea why Wood Green has registered all these players, but wouldn't it be marvellous if they all turned up and played - lets hope so. I appreciate my team isn't playing against Wood Green next weekend, but my view would be exactly the same if they were. I'm sure the vast majority of chessplayers would feel the same. I think we should be really grateful to the managers and captains who have got the top, top players to compete in the 4NCL.

Our second team will be playing them (Wood Green's money hasn't bought them everything this season . If they are in any way serious, then we look forward to seeing Kramnik and Topalov* playing side by side against us, and wonder what to expect if one of us should win a good game against Shakhriyar Mamedyarov...

*But of course, he would easily fit in their second team

[Christopher Kreuzer]

An easier way would be to prevent one club having two teams in the same division

No i don't agree that would be a good approach (although I think the limit applying to more than 2 is on balance justified for the rare occasion when it might be needed). Having a limit on more than one would likely lead to a situation where several teams in a division are likely competing each year without any prospect of promotion (and there's the added complication of what happens if a team is relegated into a lower division where they already have a team). Which isn't generally good for the competitive side of the League.

The situation with three teams from one club in the same division has been taking place this season in division 1 of the London League (three teams from Drunken Knights). The season is not yet finished (as far as I can tell, Drunken Knights 3 are still able to avoid relegation), but it will be interesting to see people's views on that (it is kind of on-topic here, as it is Wood Green that have dominated the London League and Drunken Knights have been attempting to challenge that over the past couple of years - the clash between the two will still decide the division 1 title as far as I can tell, despite Drunken Knights 1 slipping up against, I think, Hackney).

The situation where you are most likely to see a division with three teams from the same club is where the first team gets relegated from the first division of a league, and the third team gets promoted from the third division, both joining the middle-of-the-table second team in the second division. Has that ever happened in the 4NCL or anywhere else?

[Richard Bates]

The situation with three teams from one club in the same division has been taking place this season in division 1 of the London League (three teams from Drunken Knights). The season is not yet finished (as far as I can tell, Drunken Knights 3 are still able to avoid relegation), but it will be interesting to see people's views on that (it is kind of on-topic here, as it is Wood Green that have dominated the London League and Drunken Knights have been attempting to challenge that over the past couple of years - the clash between the two will still decide the division 1 title as far as I can tell, despite Drunken Knights 1 slipping up against, I think, Hackney).

The London League this year appears to be taking the phrase "relegation dogfight" to another level. Although it's pretty difficult to work out exactly what's happening because the website software is very user unfriendly (especially compared with the old site) in working out the real current standings (both match points and game points). Also it seems to rank teams (on tiebreak) by gamepoints difference when i think the tiebreak is actually gamepoints scored.

One feature of the 3 teams in one division was early season when a couple of the intra club matches involved double defaults, presumably, to try and mitigate some of the rules of playing for more than one team. Ironically, doing so could actually have ended up harming the DK1 tiebreak enough to reduce their chances of pulling off an upset and winning the league.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

The London League this year appears to be taking the phrase "relegation dogfight" to another level. Although it's pretty difficult to work out exactly what's happening because the website software is very user unfriendly (especially compared with the old site) in working out the real current standings (both match points and game points). Also it seems to rank teams (on tiebreak) by gamepoints difference when i think the tiebreak is actually gamepoints scored.

One feature of the 3 teams in one division was early season when a couple of the intra club matches involved double defaults, presumably, to try and mitigate some of the rules of playing for more than one team. Ironically, doing so could actually have ended up harming the DK1 tiebreak enough to reduce their chances of pulling off an upset and winning the league.

http://www.londonchess.org.uk/tables_di ... n=20122013
http://www.londonchess.org.uk/table_cro ... n=20122013

One of the things I think should be done for leagues is to have static captures of the league tables at different points during the season. When you have pages that dynamically update, you miss the drama that unfolds during a season. And looking at those league tables, it looks like drama is unfolding, but it is difficult to be sure what is going on.

[Roger de Coverly]

The situation with three teams from one club in the same division has been taking place this season in division 1 of the London League (three teams from Drunken Knights).

I had a look at how they had managed their squads. If I understand the rules, you have to nominate enough players to fill each of the first and second teams, but second team players are eligible to play in the first team and third team players for any team. The top six or so of the DK squad are strong GMs but only play a handful of games. So the legwork is being done by the second half of the first team, supplemented by members of the second team. The third team seem to float between their own team and the second team. At least on paper, you could end up meeting the same player three times in a season. Presumably there's the rule present in most leagues which limits the number of times you can play for team x-1 and x-2 and retain your eligibility for team x (x=3).

[Simon Ansell]

FWIW, in the last six weeks I've played two games (both drawn) for Hackney in the Middlesex League against the same opponent (an IM, ECF 247) - both on board one. The first time he was playing for their 1st team, the second time for their 2nd team. I hardly see how this is remotely fair to the other teams in the league, especially as my team are not yet safe from relegation.

The same applies to the 4NCL imo. My (and Richard's) team, Blackthorne Russia, are likely to be severely disadvantaged in round 9 vs Guildford 2 (I'm not trying to make excuses, and certainly not in advance of the match, as our relegation troubles are largely our own fault/due to unfortunate circumstances early in the season). There was also a famous case a few years ago when Blackthorne's previous incarnation, Betsson, were in danger of actually winning the 4NCL but wre narrowly beaten by a heavily strengthened second team (guess which one?).

[Christopher Kreuzer]

If a club has two or more teams in one division, then players should only be able to play for one team during the season.
If a player is allowed to play for two teams then other teams in the league are disadvantaged.

This is an interesting point, and I think it could be expanded on in a separate thread if anyone wanted to start that. I understand that your point is specifically about a club having two teams in the same division, but that is actually not that common (though not that rare either). For now, I'll just say that my experience of league chess in the London League and Thames Valley League is that you get several types of chess club, and it is the size and type of club that determines whether it is a "single team club", or a "multiple team club". Unless you have had experience of both (I've captained teams from both sorts of club), it is difficult to understand the pressures both types of clubs experience.

The team I play for in the London League in division 4 is London Deaf Chess Club. It is a small club by anyone's standards, managing to field a team of 8 in division 4, but struggling to field a team of 10 when we spent two seasons in division 3 after winning division 4 one year. That is a good example of a "single team club". Fielding a team tends to be a matter of trusting that your core of regulars will be 90% available for the whole season.

Another example, this time from the Thames Valley League, would be Kingston Chess Club. They have a core of regular players that play in their team in division 1 of the TVL. Ditto for Hammersmith. I think both those clubs field teams in other leagues, but don't have enough players to field a second team as far as I'm aware. There are some teams that have enough players to field two teams, but only just. Examples of "single team clubs" in division 1 of the London League would be Richmond and Wood Green, though matches being over 12 boards, you are effectively fielding as many players as would be over two teams in a smaller league with 6-board matches.

Then you have what I suppose you can call the "multiple team clubs". These typically have far more members, and include a slightly larger core of regular players, but also a much larger group of less regular players. Examples would be Wimbledon, Ealing, Richmond from the TVL, and Metropolitan, Cavendish, Kings Head, Drunken Knights, GLCC, Athenaeum, from the London League (there are likely others that I've missed out). That brings its own pressures and advantages. You can generally expect to be able to fill out the team with these less regular players, but once or twice a season you may really struggle and have to cast your net wider. These sort of clubs mange to run multiple teams (first, second, even third and fourth teams), but usually only through some of overlap which varies depending on the exact rules of the league.

Whether this sort of distinction between "single team clubs" and "multiple team clubs" can be made in the 4NCL, I don't know. I suspect it can, but I don't know the teams or "clubs" (in many cases they are not really clubs in the same sense as in local leagues) well enough to give examples.

Getting back to the point of whether the specific case of two teams from the same club in the same division should have special rules, most leagues (the Thames Valley League and London League at least) stipulate that the teams in question have to play each other at the start of the season. Other than that, I don't know, but I will say that for most "multiple team clubs", having to keep the two teams completely separate would be unworkable. Richmond and Twickenham Chess Club have currently been in this situation in division 1 of the TVL (both A and B team in division 1 this season). Ealing and Wimbledon have both had A and B teams in the first division at the same time in recent years.

One further point - I think this distinction between small, single-team clubs, and larger, multiple-team clubs, is important to bear in mind when someone asks for advice on which chess club they should join (if they are lucky enough to have a choice). The location and how you get on with the other players is likely the primary consideration, but the 'type' and size of chess club may also be a consideration, and can also impact on the membership price. It may, of course, be very different in rural areas. I've been speaking mostly of chess clubs in urban and suburban areas with good transport links. Quite why I've said all this in a thread titled 'Wood Green', I'm not entirely sure...

[David Robertson]

Why is anyone defending this (Wood Green) farce? No one I've ever spoken with at any level, in any context, believes such an arrangement is credible or defensible. I'll leave the twaddle of Turner and Hewitt to one side for now, but happily return to it if, or more predictably when, I'm provoked.

No competitive activity - sport, game or otherwise - that allows its competitive arrangements to be corrupted by a last-minute manipulation of the kind proposed by Wood Green, deserves to be taken seriously. The fact that the 4NCL, an otherwise hugely estimable body, tolerates it is hugely disappointing. The fact that some highly competent players appear to concur, or by remaining mute indulge the indefensible, should give us all reason to consider the ethical basis upon which fair sporting competition among teams in the 4NCL might be wisely and sensibly constructed. The present arrangements simply, for specific reasons, won't do.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

FWIW, in the last six weeks I've played two games (both drawn) for Hackney in the Middlesex League against the same opponent (an IM, ECF 247) - both on board one. The first time he was playing for their 1st team, the second time for their 2nd team. I hardly see how this is remotely fair to the other teams in the league, especially as my team are not yet safe from relegation.

I can't see anyone graded 247 in this list:

http://www.ecfgrading.org.uk/top-players/

Switching the 'Nation' filter at the top to 'All', and looking at the results, are you referring to IM Gyula Meszaros? (I would have looked the details up on the Middlesex League website, but that has some set-up that requires Internet Explorer). Sometimes you get situations where the stronger players are keener, or more available to play lots of chess than the lower-graded players. What do you do when someone of that strength is willing to play in a second team? Should you say no?

My view (though I am saying this because I faced a similar situation this season) is that if it is the top division, then you should be able to put your strongest players on board one if they are available. That gives the other top boards in the division the chance to play top level chess. What I think you are saying is that while it gave you personally a good game, it disadvantaged your team, and I can see the merit in that argument as well.

EDIT: To put the above another way, when you have two teams from the same club in the same division, do you run it on a single squad basis and pick the strongest players for the first team and put whoever else is available in the second team (when the teams are playing in the same week), or do you try (if possible) to field two teams of roughly equal strength? The second strategy is rarely possible, but if it can be done, can be a better option. The former option can lead to the first team being too strong and the second team losing all its matches.