Bodley 2013/14

Echecs · 13-12-2013 7:36pm

cdeb wrote: »

I suppose it's the difference between promoting teams unexpectedly (yay!:D) and relegating teams unexpectedly (burn him! :mad:)

Yes, you're probably right. But we'll still have to insist on creating a Division 7 as soon as possible. Put it down as a motion for the next LCU AGM and see how many clubs will support us. For all I know, we may well win the vote.

Actually, we may name it Division 6B, as Ciaran suggests. Division 6A will have 12 teams (6 + 6 from this year's Bodley A and Bodley

, two of them to be promoted to the BEA; the rest of the Bodley teams from this year + the new ones form Division 6B. Sounds less like relegation, imho, so may be more attractive for some of the clubs.

Sparks · 13-12-2013 10:54pm

You know, some of us just want to play people at our level and don't really care too much whether it's division 6, 7, 8, or 3.14156.

Just sayin'

Echecs · 14-12-2013 12:55am

The introduction of a new division will actually help those who want to play people at their level, as opposed to playing Seamus Duffy, Monica Gedvilaite and their likes.

cdeb · 14-12-2013 3:22pm

Problem is with a new division, Wicklow would have started in Division 7 this season. So it wouldn't help that much. But it would help sides like Benildus who are stuck in the Bodley because there's always a new club coming along who'll walk the division (Round Tower, Gonzaga, Wicklow, Cavan, etc)

It would help match the teams up better though, cos there are a few mismatches in the division at the moment (7 games have finished 4½-½ or 5-0 so far)

Sparks · 14-12-2013 5:33pm

See, that's kindof what I was getting at with the whole Trigger/Theseus thing cdeb; if a person qualified to move up a division instead of an abstract team, that might help with that issue (it's not going to fix it, it really needs a more nuanced solution).

cdeb · 14-12-2013 7:11pm

Can't really happen though. Clubs enter the leagues, not people.

Sparks · 14-12-2013 8:28pm

Yeah, but when you have situations like Wicklow this year, maybe that could be... tweaked a little?

Ciaran · 14-12-2013 9:05pm

Sparks wrote: »

Yeah, but when you have situations like Wicklow this year, maybe that could be... tweaked a little?

How? Do you say to a team that finished in the top 2 that they can't be promoted because a strong team wants to enter next year? I can't see that being too popular.

cdeb · 15-12-2013 12:59am

Sparks wrote: »

Yeah, but when you have situations like Wicklow this year, maybe that could be... tweaked a little?

No other league (bar maybe American franchise leagues) works that way. No reason why the Leinster leagues should change.

Sparks · 15-12-2013 1:00am

I don't know. I'm just thinking that there might be a better way is all. I mean, when you can have thousand-rating-point disparities in a single division, it can't be absolutely perfect, right?

cdeb · 15-12-2013 1:01am

Still better than any alternative. What if Wicklow say they've got five 1500s, get parachuted into the Ennis at late notice - relegating a team who'd thought they'd survived at the death last season - and then those 1500s don't play, and you end up with a team of 1000s in the Ennis?

It'd get sillier quicker your way.

Sparks · 15-12-2013 1:03am

Probably

But if you can see a problem and you've stopped looking for a solution because everyone does things this way...
I mean, this is a discussion forum, we're just spitballing here, it's not like we were sitting in a subcommittee redrafting the rules

cdeb · 15-12-2013 1:06am

Ah yeah, discuss away.

But look at football leagues around the world when a big club goes broke or gets taken over and moved, so the club start again. Rangers, Fiorentina, Wimbledon, Cork City, Derry City, Newry Town, Accrington Stanley - they've all restarted at the bottom and had to work their way up just like anyone else. So if major sports leagues haven't gotten a better answer, then...

Sparks · 15-12-2013 1:14am

True, but they can pay the players to not care too much

I guess from my point of view, the bugs in the system aren't really obvious to most people who're in it because they've been playing since childhood and did the junior route and then the adult competitive route.

But from my point of view, if you come into chess well after the traditional junior route, and then... well, you're kindof toast really. There isn't an adult equivalent to the junior routes into the sport. So when you sit down in a bodley game facing someone several hundred points and a decade or three of competitive play ahead of you... well, there's a point where a steep learning curve becomes a vertical wall with an overhanging ledge

You pretty much (right now) either play someone who could beat you even if you blindfolded them and only told them half the moves you were making; or someone who isn't yet old enough to shave... and can still kick your butt

And my butt's getting sore :pac:

cdeb · 15-12-2013 12:15pm

Thing is, the Wicklows and Gonzagas are the exception in the Bodley. There's enough of them that we haven't yet managed to get promoted despite a team that should be challenging in the BA, but not enough that the n00bs (such as yourself, on 1/3) are completely out of their depth.

The system works grand, but it could be improved with a division 7 for the simple reason that there's 18 teams in division 6 at the moment, plenty more on the way (23 teams in the O'Connell last year) and divisions are for a maximum of 12 teams per the league rules.

If division 7 gets to 20 teams, we should look at forming a division 8, and so on.

Echecs · 15-12-2013 3:18pm

cdeb wrote: »

there's 18 teams in division 6 at the moment

In fact, there are 20 of them this year (10 + 10). Next year we can have 30, for all I know. We can't have three subdivisions in the Bodley, as it will be a proper mess. So creating another division is vital, no matter if we call it Division 7 or 6B, as Ciaran suggested.

cdeb · 15-12-2013 3:54pm

Yep; dunno where I got 18 from!

There were 14 last year, so 20 is a big jump. Not unexpected though given the popularity of the O'Connell Cup and the number of clubs with decent youth structures now (ourselves, Rathmines, Blanchardstown, Skerries, Shankill, Bray, Naomh Barróg all jump to mind)

midajoh · 18-12-2013 4:04pm

Any news on when Gonzaga and Blanchardstown are rescheduled to play or have they already?

Irish Warrior · 18-12-2013 6:50pm

midajoh wrote: »

Any news on when Gonzaga and Blanchardstown are rescheduled to play or have they already?

The match will be played in the new year.

redbrandprj · 18-12-2013 8:42pm

Any chance we can get the Bodley 6b results and table updated??

cdeb · 19-12-2013 12:12am

Can't update the website, but the table is like this -

BODLEY GROUP B						
Pos	Team	        MP	GW	GD	GL	Pts
1	D&#250;n Laoghaire	4.2	14	5	2	16 1/2
2	St Benildus A	4.2	14	3	4	15 1/2
3	Curragh A	4	14	0	6	14    
4	Wicklow	        4	12	2	6	13    
5	Enniscorthy	4	12	1	7	12 1/2
6	Rathmines	4	11	1	8	11 1/2
7	Bray/Greystones	4	4	3	13	5 1/2
8	Inchicore	4	4	2	14	5    
9	Naomh Barr&#243;g B	4	3	2	15	4    
10	Phibsboro	4	3	1	16	3 1/2

Includes a draw in the first game of St Benildus v Dún Laoghaire, played this evening.

midajoh · 19-12-2013 1:57am

Are St Benildus v Dún Laoghaire not meant to play until Jan 08

Echecs · 19-12-2013 3:17am

That's correct. The game on Board 3 was played early, and a pretty good game it was. I put it through the engines, and they couldn't suggest any line where white's slight advantage becomes decisive. I think a draw was a fair result.

cdeb · 19-12-2013 5:38pm

It was only 18 moves long in fairness! No particular reason to call a halt to it quite that early.

I imagine Wicklow will be quite happy to see half a point dropped by both their main rivals.

Echecs · 20-12-2013 8:09pm

cdeb wrote: »

It was only 18 moves long in fairness! No particular reason to call a halt to it quite that early.

I imagine Wicklow will be quite happy to see half a point dropped by both their main rivals.

No particular reason to play on if you don't see any line in which you can get a decisive advantage - and this was later confirmed by Fritz. I noticed that if you put additional pressure on your junior players forcing them to play for a win in any circumstances it usually is counterproductive. We have quite a few youngsters on both the O'Hanlon and the Bodley teams, and our approach is very different: we never put any pressure on them. And they are doing very well, better than we expected.

cdeb · 21-12-2013 11:20am

I don't really agree with that. At that level (1180), 18 moves is far too early to definitively call a game a draw. There's a difference between a level game and a drawn one. As players get stronger, they'll find that more games are decided by the accumulation of small advantages. By agreeing a draw in a level position after just 18 moves, neither player has learned anything about how to accumulate, recognise and capitalise on small advantages, which is an important skill.

It's not about putting pressure on junior players; it's about making them recognise that you learn nothing from early draws. A couple of our players took a bit of stick for taking too many draws in tournaments (seven between them in one weekender, I think). They were basically told draws were banned, and have gained about 400 points between them in the ten months since. That's not coincidence.

Echecs · 21-12-2013 1:43pm

cdeb wrote: »

A couple of our players took a bit of stick for taking too many draws in tournaments (seven between them in one weekender, I think). They were basically told draws were banned, and have gained about 400 points between them in the ten months since. That's not coincidence.

This is exactly what I am talking about. By doing things like that, you absolutely crash a junior player's personality. From then on, he is not allowed to trust his own judgement, he becomes the captain's puppet (or whoever it is who controls him.) Plus he knows that the club expects him to 'perform', is scared of what he thinks might be perceived as "under-performing", and is wilting under constant stress. What for, this is the question. Chess is only a game, and juniors are supposed to enjoy it.

cdeb · 21-12-2013 2:48pm

Absolutely nonsense. The players in question are actually enjoying the game more now that they can see they've improved; they've won tournaments since then and have the confidence to take on higher-rated players.

I don't particularly appreciate the club being dragged into this, as you're going on one post rather than a knowledge of what happens up the club, but we never put unnecessary pressure on our players; however, we do try to challenge them to improve. I make no apologies for that, as one isn't needed. 0.5 is nothing in the Bodley, especially when - even if you play on and lose - you learn more from it, as I've already noted (and you've already ignored). And noting that I'd rather our players played on and lost than took early draws negates any points you've made on pressure to get a result. That's simply not true.

Echecs · 21-12-2013 3:19pm

Your club being dragged into this? Oh yes, Benildus has been dragged into this, not by me, as I was merely a witness, but by those who decide policy there.

As I said, I don't like your approach very much. Your juniors may 'have gained about 400 points between them' but if a junior player is not allowed to trust his own judgement he is not a player any more, he becomes a zombie. I worked in education long enough to understand that. Frankly, I don't see any point in this discussion, nor do I have time for it. My voice is simply 'the voice of one crying in the wilderness'.

cdeb · 21-12-2013 3:34pm

Are you joking me?

The whole point of a coach in chess isn't to teach players the moves or the openings - they have to do that themselves - but to encourage and instill confidence. It's to use the coach's experience to show players where they can improve their game, and to encourage them to try out ideas in competitive games (which they can't do if they've agreed an early draw). This in fact means the exact opposite of what you're making it out to mean - they should trust themselves to play on, even when marginally worse. The alternative, suggesting that accepting an early draw is preferable to possible defeat, actually encourages a player to be defensive and to see a draw against a low-rated opponent as a good result.

And I note you've again ignored my reasons for this view - that playing on in and turning around such positions is a vital skill to be learned - and presented no grounds for your own view, other than to state it to be unarguable fact, when it's not.

The player who banned draws is actually a 2000+ rated player, who came through junior coaching in Eastern Europe. At the risk of sounding like Colm Daly here, if you're suggesting you - at 1180 - know better about chess coaching than a 2000+ rated player, I think you need to rethink. To suggest that your voice is "the voice of one crying in the wilderness" is remarkably pompous when it's arguing against many more experienced players.

Bodley 2013/14

Comments