4NCL North 2013-14

[Roger de Coverly]

That would be a 'no' then.

It's looking at a wider picture than just the success of one event. You might care to read the thread below where the author observes that the 4NCL may be threatening to kill off county chess and he suggests an alternative so as to retain Saturday afternoon playing options.

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=5836

[Roger de Coverly]

Hopefully what we can get in weekend 1 is a tough match and a reasonable match for the weaker teams, rather than 2 tough matches like we have previously experienced

The approach used in division 3 has been to pair the first round in the normal seeded manner and then the second round on the hypothetical assumption that all round 1 matches were draws. So a team in the second half of the rankings is going to be facing two teams in the first half. With two teams at their disposal, managers might try to disable their nearest rivals by packing the lower team to the extent the 80 point rule allows. It's a practice sometimes used in division 1 by those squads who have two teams in the same division.

[PeterFarr]

That would be a 'no' then.

It's looking at a wider picture than just the success of one event. You might care to read the thread below where the author observes that the 4NCL may be threatening to kill off county chess and he suggests an alternative so as to retain Saturday afternoon playing options.

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=5836

But you are missing my point - in fact you are close to coming to the opposite of the conclusion that I intended.

Yes I am saying that 4NCL is helping to kill off the county championship and also - very obviously - the National club competition. But this is because the 4NCL is a more attractive option for many players (I guess that more players now play 4NCL than county or national clubs combined?).

My idea is that the best response to this is not to stunt / kill off the thing that is successful and growing, it's to embrace and learn from that success, and see if there is a way of putting in something that will continue to be attractive to players that don't want to, or are unable to commit to the whole weekend format of the 4NCL, but do want to play single-day weekend team chess at some regional / national level.

So - the 4NCL should be officially recognized as the premier national league; and alongside that my idea is to put in a set of complementary (not competing) "Cup" competitions (to pursue the football analogy, which I know is a bit strained).

I'm not saying my ideas are necessarily a brilliant answer, no doubt there are much ones, but what definitely is not a good idea is to indefinitely struggle on as we are with ailing ECF competitions, just through inertia or for the sake of history - a shake-up of some sort is needed.

Finally, I disagree with the notion that we have reached anywhere near the limit of the amount of chess that people will play:- the provision of more attractive opportunities will surely increase the amount of chess played; it's really not a zero-sum game. To effectively suggest that the growth of one competition is a bad thing because it detracts from another is surely to create an absurdity.

[Ian Kingston]

That would be a 'no' then.

It's looking at a wider picture than just the success of one event. You might care to read the thread below where the author observes that the 4NCL may be threatening to kill off county chess and he suggests an alternative so as to retain Saturday afternoon playing options.

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=5836

Would that be a bad thing? An expanded 4NCL, providing opportunities for players of all standards, might kill off county chess but would also free a number of weekends in the calendar that could be filled by new congresses.

I have heard it argued that the 4NCL is a bad thing because it draws people away from congress chess on five weekends in the year. But perhaps county chess is the real problem - many more weekends are affected by it.

[Roger de Coverly]

Finally, I disagree with the notion that we have reached anywhere near the limit of the amount of chess that people will play

It's been established that it's possible to play almost every weekend somewhere in the country. Once you get to playing more than 100 games in a season, I believe you should ration yourself so as not to get to a position where you are just going through the motions. Therefore choices have to be made about which events to play in. I've agreed to play this season, but Hinckley or Daventry are getting increasingly boring when there are events elsewhere that I've never played in.

[PeterFarr]

That would be a 'no' then.

It's looking at a wider picture than just the success of one event. You might care to read the thread below where the author observes that the 4NCL may be threatening to kill off county chess and he suggests an alternative so as to retain Saturday afternoon playing options.

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=5836

Would that be a bad thing? An expanded 4NCL, providing opportunities for players of all standards, might kill off county chess but would also free a number of weekends in the calendar that could be filled by new congresses.

I have heard it argued that the 4NCL is a bad thing because it draws people away from congress chess on five weekends in the year. But perhaps county chess is the real problem - many more weekends are affected by it.

That's another way of looking at it; you might be right. My thought was that one of the reasons people play county chess is just that it's (mostly) one game a day on a weekend - so a lot of county players wouldn't actually fill those gaps with congresses, although some would do so presumably. Hence my idea of a single day weekend tournament as a replacement; but I admit that this is being very selfish and based on a sample of one!

[PeterFarr]

Finally, I disagree with the notion that we have reached anywhere near the limit of the amount of chess that people will play

It's been established that it's possible to play almost every weekend somewhere in the country. Once you get to playing more than 100 games in a season, I believe you should ration yourself so as not to get to a position where you are just going through the motions. Therefore choices have to be made about which events to play in. I've agreed to play this season, but Hinckley or Daventry are getting increasingly boring when there are events elsewhere that I've never played in.

Taking a quick look at the grading database, as far as I can see about 75 players play 100+ games a year. 6,000+ players play between 10 and 50. So you are hardly a representative example. Getting bored with repeated trips to Hinckley or Daventry, on the other hand, is certainly understandable.

[David Sedgwick]

Getting bored with repeated trips to Hinckley or Daventry, on the other hand, is certainly understandable.

Perhaps the 4NCL might consider letting us have a Division 3 South?

Those alleging that county chess is declining might like to note that the number of teams in the SCCU Counties Championships will increase from 27 to 29 in the coming season.

[PeterFarr]

Those alleging that county chess is declining might like to note that the number of teams in the SCCU Counties Championships will increase from 27 to 29 in the coming season.

Yes I accept that, and one of my own club-mates is one of the people reviving a team for Sussex, so I will probably get it in the neck from him.

But still, over the long-run, participation has been declining (yes ok its a classic abuse of statistics to choose the time period that suits...) , and its the same old faces playing very week - simply time and the grim reaper will have its effect. Also the SCCU is generally in a healthier state than the rest of the country.

I think I would rather think about change now while there is still life in the thing, than just let it plod along to inexorable death, if that isn't too morbid a metaphor.

[David Pardoe]

Some interesting points on 4NCL, County & Congress chess...
I`d just say that all these flavours of chess offer something different, and help provide a rich variety that makes up our chess calander.
They all have a valuable place..
As regards county chess. Yes, I think it could do with some updating...I`ve made various suggestions which might offer benefits, and encourage greater support.
One of the problems is actually the ECF (Union, and County/League) historic hierarchy and `change process`.
Its almost impossible to penetrate the beurocratic/administrative `fog` that surrounds these organisations, and makes `change` almost impossible. Timescales seem to run on endlessly...so nothing gets done.
Another possible problem is that there are lots of ideas put forward, but no easy mechanism for getting these reveiwed and actioned, unless you are perhaps in the upper heirarchy and understand the processes well enough to fight a way through the obsticles, which can bring down many a potentially good idea/proposal.
Then...the other problem....loads of potentially good ideas floating around, but not enough officials on the ground to actually put some of these into practice... So many proposals, I think, get blocked, simply because the machinary is just not efficient enough to process and action these.
The ECF AGM illustrates this, and very often seems to result in little meaningful action, and business frustrated or rattled through in a half baked fashion due to time pressures, etc ..or spurious objections/blocks...

[MartinCarpenter]

Div 3 South is something that might very well make sense especially if, as it appears, Div 3 North is going to get reasonably solid numbers.

Next season, in terms of venue locations, there's actually Div 3 Northish and Div 3 Midlands Manchester/Leeds etc are nearly equidistant to the N and S venues in terms of travel. A cleaner N/S split would make a fair bit of sense, or I suppose even three sets.

I'm currently wondering how long before at least one of the Yorkshire teams mutates into White Rose III......

[Mick Norris]

Those alleging that county chess is declining might like to note that the number of teams in the SCCU Counties Championships will increase from 27 to 29 in the coming season.

Yes I accept that, and one of my own club-mates is one of the people reviving a team for Sussex, so I will probably get it in the neck from him.

But still, over the long-run, participation has been declining (yes ok its a classic abuse of statistics to choose the time period that suits...) , and its the same old faces playing very week - simply time and the grim reaper will have its effect. Also the SCCU is generally in a healthier state than the rest of the country.

I think I would rather think about change now while there is still life in the thing, than just let it plod along to inexorable death, if that isn't too morbid a metaphor.

Well, the SCCU is fine, the WECU and EACU motor along as normal, and the MCCU does OK
http://www.mccu.org.uk/cmatch.htm

Just some short sighted idiots in the NCCU that are finding county chess a problem

[Mick Norris]

Perhaps the 4NCL might consider letting us have a Division 3 South?

Absolutely no reason, now it has been split from Div 1 and 2, why not, would be warmly welcomed by us too - then we can all get together at Daventry (or wherever) for weekends 4 and 5

No idea what Daventry is like, but I wouldn't guess it was ideal for 5 weekends

[Ian Thompson]

Div 3 North almost doubles in size in a year, and the Sage of Bourne End still finds something to complain about.

Do you think it's a good thing that the 4NCL is seeing a 10% increase in entries this year, with 4NCL North doubling in size?

That would depend on whether the venues have the playing space for the extra games, there is accommodation for the extra players, the 4NCL has the extra arbiters needed, etc.

[Ken Norman]

I think it would be sensible to divide Division 3 into three with North, Midland and south Divisions.

The South division could play at Sunningdale or Wokefield Park.