Suffolk Chess

It's not two difficult Steve, a club registers as many players as it wishes, paying a fee for each player, the first 3 on the list can only play for the A team. Any four players can play for the A team taken from the registered list. The second 3 can only play for the A or B teams, the third three can only play for the A, B or C teams. Subs can be used but you can't play down. Prior to this season it was the first 4 who could only play for the A and the second 4 could only play for A & B and so on. The previous years rule four would be better for SCCA as we have two very large clubs. There was also a provision which allowed clubs to field teams of equal strength like Ipswich or Bury may divide there top four graded players between A & B but once allocated they would not cross over as subs, this was removed this season as it had never been used by any club. The top clubs in NECL tend to be smaller than say Ipswich or Bury and would play their top four as their A team. If They need a sub it would come from any other on the registered list. Does that make sense if not email me and I may be able to help using a spreadsheet.

Thanks John, that's pretty much how I was reading it, though the wording of the rules themselves is very peculiar. Despite the wording, the numbers have nothing to do with the number of players in a club's team, but the number of boards played in matches. As long as everyone understands, that's fine ... but it did make it difficult for me as an "outsider".

As you're clearly aware such rules make things much more restrictive for the stronger players than for the weaker ones. That's probably how it should be, but if we have a large number of players all of roughly equal strength those restrictions will begin to seem increasingly arbitrary. So I'd be interested to hear about those now shelved rules relating to teams of equal strength. I have an alternative formulation of my own brewing also ... but it's late in the evening and that can wait.

I'd be interested to know how rule 22(c) is policed. I can imagine it being difficult. More pressing than policing perhaps is how team a captain's planning (or a secretary's planning) best accommodates that rule. For a big club it sounds like a logistical nightmare.

Before I give up for the evening, on a lighter note ...

It doesn't really matter, but anyone who thinks like me may also be amused by the logical peculiarities of 22(c) as some players are necessarily nominated for teams that don't exist (in a club with four players and one team, the fourth player is nominated for the non-existent B team), and to talk of the number of games that remain for those non-existent teams is at least a little problematic. But I think the main point of the rule is clear enough, so as I say, this oddity doesn't really matter. it just tickled me ... perhaps I'm (too?) easily amused.

Steve
the rule that was removed governing teams of equal strength read " If a club has two teams in Div 1, it has the option to field two two teams of more equal strength. If a club wishes to exercise this option, two of the top four registered players must be nominated for each team at the start of the season. The next four registered players. can play for either team "

I would have thought that this format could be adjusted to accommodate three teams of equal strength as in Ipswich's case.

I have not done in in depth analysis as to how this would have worked in Bury or Ipswich's case this season. But I do know that a player would not be able to play for A, B & C unless he was number nine on the list.

I will leave you to digest, but all I know is that the NECL system does not throw up the anomalies that the SCCA rules do.

Happy Christmas Woodpushers - John

John and all,

It looks like Ipswich do indeed spread their strength throughout their teams in Division 1.

Board 1 Ips A 190 IpsB 181 Ips C 178
Board 2 Ips A 174 IpsB 181 Ips C 183
Board 3 Ips A 159 IpsB 174 Ips C 162
Board 4 Ips A 150 IpsB 157 Ips C 157

Those are the nominations.

Ipswich substitutes used across the teams.

Rob's analysis above shows:
Ipswich A have played every board as nominated.
Ipswich B have managed a commendable 92% which is 11 of the 12 boards were as nominated
Ipswich C managed 75% of the boards, 12/16 as nominated.

Ipswich C all shunted up a board when Ian Wallis their board 1 did not play and made up the missing board 4 with a player who had not been nominated. So despite the 75% calculation only one player other than those nominated for the team was used.

It matters not a fig which rules you apply SCCA or NECL, this is an exemplary record by any standards and we should commend Ipswich for their handling of their obligation to play nominated players.

The calculations show that the percentages for both Bury A & Bury B are significatly lower but this should be no surprise as 3 of their 8 nominated players have not put in an appearance to date.They have used 7 other members of their club who were not nominated for Div 1 or Div 2 and 2 from Div 3 who were nominated there.

There is no evidence of tactical selection here, the Bury teams are all absolutely within the rules as rule 21b does not define how many games a nominated player should play so at this stage of the season and under current rules Bury are spotless.

Tightening the rules to require the nominated players to play for their nominated team, but not necessarily on the board for which they were nominated would cause Bury to renominate but that is not the case now.

There may be some "moral" argument about the validity of the initial nomination by Bury and whether the nominated players all acually committed themselves to play in the league in their nominated places but we must ignore such moralising as the Bury teams are within the rules as written.

Personally I think the rules are the things that are at fault here if there is a fault not any team.

This analysis shows that with good will the rules work as intended but do we want the rules to rely on good will or enforcenment by penalty?

That is a matter on which I am undecided and I guess many others are also undecided.

Regards
David Green

Hello All,

I have done some analysis for the other teams in the SCCA leagues where a nominated player has not played and added my own club where 3 of our nominated players have made just 1 appearance each just for comparison.

Analysis on a similar basis for Clacton

38% 9 games played as nominated of the 24 games so far this season
Board 1 nominee played 2 games
Board 2 nominee played 0 games
Board 3 nominee played 5 games for the team of which just 1 on board 3
Board 4 nominee played 2 games for the team none on board 4.

A total of 8 players are recorded with just 9 games played as nominated. One sub played 5 games and another 4 .

An analysis for Mannigtree

Manningtree A team has played every game as nominated
Manningtree B is difficult to calculate as they re-nominated somewhere in November with the arrival of some 140 grade players and one of the re-nominated players has not yet played for the team.

An analysis for Stowmarket

Stowmarket A Division 2 scored 63% and 10/16
Board 1 played all games as nominated
Board 2 played all games as nominated
Board 3 played 1 game as nominated, the team played the nominated board 4 on board 3 for his only game this season.
Board 4 played 0 on Board 4 but played 1 on board 3
2 Substitutes were used to make up the teams from the Stowmarket B team nominees who play in Division 3. This is the team where shift work disrupts availability. Total players used 6
What do we do ? Options are to avoid nominating shift workers who are then ineligible to play any games on boards 3 and 4 as the nominated player are going to be more than 10 points weaker or do we nominate and play the shift workers as and when we can?
The SCCA exists to encourage chess not discourage it so we chose the latter course.

Stowmarket B, Division 3
My team scored 71% and 17/24
Board 1 played 5 on board 1 replaced by Board 2 for 1 game
Board 2 played 5 on Board 2 and 1 on board 1 replaced for that game by board 3
Board 3 played 4 on Board 3 and 1 on board 2 replaced by Franceys for 1 game and replaced by board 4 for 1 game.
Board 4 played 1 on board 3 was replaced by Franceys for 4 games and another eligible un-nominated club member for 1 game.

For one game our board 1 went missing on his way to the venue, he eventually arrived too late to play. We had all shunted up 1 board and started play ready to default on bottom board don’t you know, but we managed to grab an unsuspecting club member to play on board 4. That match was against Ipswich E when the all conquering Roger Smith beat Franceys to decide an otherwise all drawn match. It might well have been different if we were at full strength with our normal 120 grade board 3 against Roger. ( why does that sound like glass paper?)

As I said before, replacing Vicky 109 with Franceys 106 on board 4 does not seem to be a reason to re nominate. Total players used 6 of whom 2 played one game each.

Overall this targeted analysis shows that Clacton are nearest to needing to renominate to reflect the actual players playing in the league matches but are under no compulsion by the rules to do so.

I hope we all agree that none of these teams are doing anything that breaks the rules.

Regards
David Green

Ok Dave, I will renominate Clactons team before our next match, and again every time we play.

John