2014 LCU AGM

cdeb

We had a thread on this last year, so sure why not have the same again this year.

27 motions all told. Going to be a long night! Hope the exec don't try put time restrictions on the AGM like before; if the motions are there, they deserve to be considered properly.

So - here we go.

a) That the Cup Competitions start two months earlier, say early February ? (Bray C.C.)
b) Remove the requirement to declare players for a team, yet to play its first match.
(Bray C.C.)
c) Make 90 minutes + 30 second increments or ( 110 + 10 s ) the default time control for divisions 1 & 2. (Bray C.C.)
d) Make 11 December the last LCU league match of the year or insist that no LCU league matches be played less than 14 days before Christmas Day. (Bray C.C.)
e) Amend LCU League Rule 6.6(b); that a player who subs up for the 4th time is automatically declared for the next higher team, above that for which he/she was originally declared. EG : A division 4 player moves up to division 3, despite playing the 4th game for division 1. (Bray C.C.)
f) That the LCU Executive should consider how best to recognise the existence of the Junior Committee within the constitution of the LCU, and that a proposal to this effect should be brought forward for the LCU AGM in 2015. (Blanchardstown C.C.)
g) That the LCU will run an enhanced programme of junior activities in 2014/15 (Blanchardstown C.C.)
h) That rule 6.2 be amended to read "Where a club has only two teams (A and and both are in the same division, or where a club's bottom two teams are in the same division, the league controller may allow a player from Team B to play for Team A provided that that player is not substituting for a lower rated player and provided the team has applied (to the divisional controller) for such permission in advance. A player will only be given a maximum of three such allowances in any one season." (St. Benildus C.C.)
i) That rule 6.2 be amended to read "Where a club has only two teams (A and and both are in the same division, the league controller may allow a player from Team B to play for Team A provided that that player is not substituting for a lower rated player and provided the team has applied (to the divisional controller) for such permission in advance. A player will only be given a maximum of three such allowances in any one season." (St. Benildus C.C.)
j) That divisional controllers e-mail all divisional captains with contact details of the other captains in the division in advance of round 2. (St. Benildus C.C.)


k) That, in the event of the 2014/15 Bodley exceeding 18 teams, a Division 7 be formed for the 2015/16 season by the relegation of all bar the top 12 finishers in the 2014/15 Bodley, and that new teams for the 2015/16 start from this Division 7. This division shall operate as per the current Bodley in terms of time control, number of players per team, promotion/relegation, etc.
(St. Benildus C.C.)
l) That the last round of the Bodley take place on the final day of the leagues along with Divisions 1 to 5 (St. Benildus C.C.)
m) That Rule5.3 be amended by addition of the following:
“Team captains must be able to demonstrate that they have sought to inform each other and/or the controller of an impending walkover, prior to the visiting team’s departure from home.” (Curragh C.C.)
n) That the LCU appoint an officer to ensure that the union is actively seeking to protect the interest of younger players. (Curragh C.C.)
o) If a club is unable to field a complete team the following should occur: The captain contacts the controller for that division informing the controller of which boards they will be giving walkovers on. The controller then contacts the captain of the opposing team informing them of which boards there will be walkovers on. There is then no need for the players on the opposing team who will be getting walkovers to physically turn up for the match.
(Round Tower C.C.)
p) League controllers should update the league table as soon as they receive results of matches. Not wait until all results of matches of a particular round are received. (Round Tower C.C.)
q) That rule 7.4 be amended to read as follows:
7.4 The time controls in each of the divisions shall be as in the following table.
Fischer time controls may be used where both players agree. Otherwise the standard time controls must be used. In Fischer mode the increments shall be added from move one.





Divisions Standard Fischer
30 s increment Fischer
10 s increment
1 and 2 2 hours
for all moves 1 hour 30 minutes
+ 30 seconds/move 1 hour 50 minutes
+ 10 seconds/move
3, 4
and 5 1 hour and 45 minutes
for all moves 1 hour 15 minutes
+ 30 seconds/move 1 hour 35 minutes
+ 10 seconds/move
6 1 hour and 30 minutes
for all moves 1 hour
+ 30 seconds/move 1 hour 20 minutes
+ 10 seconds/ move
Any division N minutes
for all moves N – 30 minutes
+ 30 seconds/move N – 10 minutes
+ 10 seconds/ move
(Skerries C.C)

r) Rule 2.7
No league fixtures shall be arranged for a weekend involving a chess tournament officially sanctioned by the LCU or the ICU.
Amend to
No league fixtures shall be arranged for a weekend involving a chess tournament officially sanctioned or endorsed by the LCU. (Executive Committee)
s) Rule 5.4
In the event of a default by a declared player, the defaulting player shall score –1 point (minus one point). The player benefiting from the default shall score 1 point.
Amend to
In the event of a default by a declared player, the defaulting player shall score –1 point (minus one point). The player benefiting from the default shall score 1 point. The defaulting team shall have one point deducted for each game defaulted from the total points gained in the match. (Executive Committee)
t) Rule 5.5 a)
Team “B” has a greater total of points than team “A” when both team scores against the team that defaults or concedes walkovers are eliminated and
Amend to
Team “B” has a greater total of points than team “A” when both teams’ scores on the defaulted boards only against the team that defaulted or conceded walkovers are eliminated and (Executive Committee)
u) Rule 5.5 b)
Team “B” has itself not defaulted or conceded walkovers in more than three games in the season
Amend to
Team “B” has itself not defaulted or conceded walkovers in three or more games in the season or has not benefited from defaults or walkovers in three or more games in the season. (Executive Committee)
v) Rule 7.4 a)
Divisions One and Two:
Three options are available, the standard time control and two Fischer modes. For games played using the standard time control each player shall receive two hours for all his moves. For games played using the Fischer mode, two options are available. Option one: each player shall receive one hour thirty minutes plus a thirty second increment for each move from move one. Option two: each player shall receive one hour fifty minutes plus a ten second increment for each move from move one. There must be agreement between both players in order for the game to be played using Fischer mode. If one of the players does not wish to play the game using Fischer mode then the game must be played using the standard time control of two hours per player.
Amend to
Divisions One and Two:
Two options are available, the standard time control and the Fischer time control. For games played using the standard time control each player shall receive two hours for all his moves. For games played using the Fischer time control each player shall receive one hour thirty minutes plus a thirty second increment for each move from move one. There must be agreement between both players in order for the game to be played using Fischer mode. If one of the players does not wish to play the game using Fischer mode then the game must be played using the standard time control of two hours per player. In games being played using the Fischer time control, both players must record all moves played. A player who, after playing his move and receiving the increment has only thirty seconds or more left on his clock must record the moves before playing his next move. The five minute rule does not apply in games played using the Fischer time control. (Executive Committee)
w) Rule 8.1 a)
Results must be returned within three days of the match being played.
Amend to
Results must be submitted within three days of the match being played.
(Executive Committee)


x) Rule 8.1 b)
Where this is not complied with by any team captain or other designated person, the divisional controller shall levy a fine of €15 on that team, once seven days have elapsed from the date of the match. If the fine and results of the match are not submitted within a further ten days no points shall be awarded to the offending team in respect of the match.
Amend to
Where this is not complied with by any team captain or other designated person, the divisional controller shall levy a fine of €25 on the team’s club, once seven days have elapsed from the date of the match. The divisional controller shall inform the club that the fine has been imposed for not submitting the results. If the results of the match are not submitted within a further three days no points shall be awarded to the offending team in respect of the match. (Executive Committee)
y) Rule 8.2 a)
Be accompanied by a fee of €15, which will be refunded if the objection is upheld.
Amend to
Be accompanied by a fee of €25, which will be refunded if the objection is upheld. (Executive Committee)
z) Rule 8.3
An appeal may be made against a divisional controller’s decision. This shall be addressed to the leagues controller and must be submitted within ten days from the date of posting of the divisional controller’s decision. The leagues controller will consult one or more divisional controllers (excluding the controller whose decision is being appealed) and will convey a decision in writing to the appellant club’s secretary. This decision in turn may be appealed to the LCU executive committee within ten days from the posting of the leagues controller’s decision. Appeals submitted to both the leagues controller and to the LCU executive committee must be accompanied by the fee set out in rule 8.2[a] and also contain the signatures set out in rule 8.2 ; 8.2 [c] and 8.2 [d].
Amend to
An appeal may be made against a divisional controller’s decision. This shall be addressed to the leagues controller and must be submitted within ten days of being advised of the divisional controller’s decision. The leagues controller will consult one or more divisional controllers (excluding the controller whose decision is being appealed) and will convey a decision to the appellant club’s secretary. This decision in turn may be appealed to the LCU executive committee within ten days of being advised of the leagues controller’s decision. Appeals submitted to both the leagues controller and to the LCU executive committee must be accompanied by the fee set out in rule 8.2[a] and also contain the signatures set out in rule 8.2 ; 8.2 [c] and 8.2 [d]. (Executive Committee)
aa) Rule 8.7
The divisional controller shall decide on an objection within 21 days of an objection being lodged by a club. An appeal to the leagues controller shall be decided within 21 days of its being lodged. All decisions shall be notified in writing.
Amend to
The divisional controller shall decide on an objection within 21 days of an objection being lodged by a club. An appeal to the leagues controller shall be decided within 21 days of its being lodged. All decisions shall be notified in writing or by email. (Executive Committee)

cdeb

Benildus have a few in there; I'll explain our thinking for the benefits of anyone watching -

h) That rule 6.2 be amended to read "Where a club has only two teams (A and and both are in the same division, or where a club's bottom two teams are in the same division, the league controller may allow a player from Team B to play for Team A provided that that player is not substituting for a lower rated player and provided the team has applied (to the divisional controller) for such permission in advance. A player will only be given a maximum of three such allowances in any one season." (St. Benildus C.C.)

One of those that I'm not too fussed if it gets passed, but the idea is to ease things where a club's bottom two teams are in the same division and so fighting for the same subs, but because they're the bottom two teams, there mayn't be that many subs left. It's the same idea as the current rule (which caters for clubs with only two teams, both in the same division) just extended a bit.

i) That rule 6.2 be amended to read "Where a club has only two teams (A and and both are in the same division, the league controller may allow a player from Team B to play for Team A provided that that player is not substituting for a lower rated player and provided the team has applied (to the divisional controller) for such permission in advance. A player will only be given a maximum of three such allowances in any one season." (St. Benildus C.C.)

This will be withdrawn if the previous motion carries. This is only proposed to correct the typo. The current rule is "A player will only be given a maximum of two such allowances in any one season"; it wasn't updated when the rule allowing an increase in sub appearance was passed a couple of years back

j) That divisional controllers e-mail all divisional captains with contact details of the other captains in the division in advance of round 2.

One of those things that should happen by default, but it doesn't (though it used to). This isn't a rule as such; just a formal notice that teams do need this info, and as it's supplied when teams are being declared (hence why I've said the info should be sent around before round 2), it should be straightforward.

k) That, in the event of the 2014/15 Bodley exceeding 18 teams, a Division 7 be formed for the 2015/16 season by the relegation of all bar the top 12 finishers in the 2014/15 Bodley, and that new teams for the 2015/16 start from this Division 7. This division shall operate as per the current Bodley in terms of time control, number of players per team, promotion/relegation, etc.
(St. Benildus C.C.)

This really pissed me off last season. The committee should have the wherewithal to bring in a division 8 without being prompted to by its members, but they haven't and (so I've been told) didn't. The Bodley next year could be as many as 24 teams. That's patently ridiculous; we need a new division to reflect the increase in popularity in the game. I've already spoken to Tom O'Sullivan about the whereabouts of the O'Sullivan trophy or a the possibility of a replacement.

l) That the last round of the Bodley take place on the final day of the leagues along with Divisions 1 to 5 (St. Benildus C.C.)

I don't see any reason why this shouldn't happen. Again, I dislike the idea that the Bodley is some kind of outcast league, different from the others. In the morning session, there's currently just the Heidenfeld and O'Hanlon; plenty of room for the Bodley too.

Also, I see one of ours is missing (or has been removed) -

That a rule 5.9 be added as follows - "Teams which default three matches in any one season will be relegated to the bottom division the following season except in the lowest division, where the team may be scratched from the league the following season, unless the club submits a written explanation acceptable to the divisional controller."

Suggested because of the issues with Cavan this year, where once they'd defaulted one game, they had no incentive to avoid further defaults. It led to a lot of annoyed teams. I'll contact the committee now to see why that one was missed (it was sent in separately, so hopefully just a genuine error)

cdeb

And just to keep things separate, a few views of my own on the other motions -

(a) I don't know if there's room for the cups to start in February? Would that not just cause the leagues to overrun, leading to the same problem? I'd certainly open entries earlier, with a view to starting a couple of weeks earlier
(b) I suspect this is a league programme/system requirement, so it may need to be kept.
(c) Would there not be potential issues with significant overruns with Fischer time? Two games in the last round in Malahide ran on for 4½ hours, for example. I'd imagine in the Armstrong in particular, with extra time, endgames could go on for quite a bit. I think regular time should at least be the default for juniors.
(e) Four sub appearances is too many, I think. That's going on half a season.
(n) Interesting idea, but the committee struggles for members as it is; is adding a new position wise? Could this role not be subsumed into another role?
(o) I don't see why divisional controllers are being brought into this one. Why can't the two teams contact each other directly? What happens if the divisional controller isn't available?
(p) This one is a bit selfish, I think. It's been mentioned on here a number of times that the biggest delay isn't controllers taking things easy; it's captains not submitting results. In addition, with the regular updates provided here, I don't think there's a need for this rule.
(s) Is this basically a doubling of the default penalty from -1 to -2? Not sure I agree with that; defaulting isn't a huge problem in the leagues (annoying as it is)
(x) and (y) - fines aren't applied anyway so far as I know; I don't see what the point in upping the fine is. Unless this is an indication that the committee intend to apply fines from next year. What happens if clubs just refuse to pay? Should clubs pay a deposit to the LCU?

cdeb

Finally (!), I assume you can nominate yourself for committee positions on the day? The exec have nominated a committee, but I don't think they've actively sought interest, which seems a bit strange. For the record, I intend on nominating myself this year. Happy to discuss reasons if anyone wants!

Ciaran

Some thoughts:

e)
Amend LCU League Rule 6.6(b); that a player who subs up for the 4th time is automatically declared for the next higher team, above that for which he/she was originally declared. EG : A division 4 player moves up to division 3, despite playing the 4th game for division 1. (Bray C.C.)

If I've read this right, I agree with it.

Take a club with three teams, in divisions 1, 3 and 4. If a player on the division 4 team subs three times in division 3 and then subs in division 1, by the rules they have to play the rest of the season in division 1 which makes no sense (and probably would break the 150-point rule anyway). This would change that to them having to play on the division 3 team instead. I actually thought this had already been changed.

r)
Rule 2.7
No league fixtures shall be arranged for a weekend involving a chess tournament officially sanctioned by the LCU or the ICU.
Amend to
No league fixtures shall be arranged for a weekend involving a chess tournament officially sanctioned or endorsed by the LCU. (Executive Committee)

What's this change for? Will league fixtures now be set for weekends of non-LCU "endorsed" tournaments? Will fixtures clash with Bunratty, Kilkenny or other tournaments.

s)
Rule 5.4
In the event of a default by a declared player, the defaulting player shall score –1 point (minus one point). The player benefiting from the default shall score 1 point.
Amend to
In the event of a default by a declared player, the defaulting player shall score –1 point (minus one point). The player benefiting from the default shall score 1 point. The defaulting team shall have one point deducted for each game defaulted from the total points gained in the match. (Executive Committee)

This needs to be clarified. Defaulting teams already have 1 point deducted per default, does this change anything? Is the team to be deducted 2 points per default? Does this relate to a match in Kilkenny early last season?

u)
Rule 5.5 b)
Team “B” has itself not defaulted or conceded walkovers in more than three games in the season
Amend to
Team “B” has itself not defaulted or conceded walkovers in three or more games in the season or has not benefited from defaults or walkovers in three or more games in the season. (Executive Committee)

This in relation to play-offs if one team (Team A) gets 3 walkovers in a match and so finishes ahead of another team (Team that they wouldn't have otherwise.

I don't like this change. Why should getting three walkovers in a season preclude you from getting a play-off? There's nothing here to say that the other team (Team A) couldn't have got 20 walkovers and still be immune from a play-off if team B got 3.


As an aside on the Fischer-time motions, do many people use that option? No one has ever proposed to me to use it.

cdeb

Ciaran wrote: »

Some thoughts:

e)

If I've read this right, I agree with it.

Take a club with three teams, in divisions 1, 3 and 4. If a player on the division 4 team subs three times in division 3 and then subs in division 1, by the rules they have to play the rest of the season in division 1 which makes no sense (and probably would break the 150-point rule anyway). This would change that to them having to play on the division 3 team instead. I actually thought this had already been changed.

Good point; that's probably the issue alright.

It happened with me a few years back; Peter Scott confirmed that this was the spirit of the rule, but no harm making it the actual rule.

cdeb

cdeb wrote: »

Finally (!), I assume you can nominate yourself for committee positions on the day?

The LCU have confirmed this is the case.

They proactively sought interested people given the difficulties in getting people in previous years, which is fair enough, but they won't turn down interested parties on the day.

Irish Warrior

s)
Rule 5.4
In the event of a default by a declared player, the defaulting player shall score –1 point (minus one point). The player benefiting from the default shall score 1 point.
Amend to
In the event of a default by a declared player, the defaulting player shall score –1 point (minus one point). The player benefiting from the default shall score 1 point. The defaulting team shall have one point deducted for each game defaulted from the total points gained in the match. (Executive Committee)

I think that amendment is just adding

The defaulting team shall have one point deducted for each game defaulted from the total points gained in the match.

to clarify the rule of teams losing points for default(s). It isn't taking extra points away.

EnPassant

a) That the Cup Competitions start two months earlier, say early February ? (Bray C.C.)

Would like to see this but I'm not sure if it is practical unless they revert to a knockout format.

c) Make 90 minutes + 30 second increments or ( 110 + 10 s ) the default time control for divisions 1 & 2. (Bray C.C.)

If there were games with increments lasting 4.5 hours at Malahide then this is a non-runner.
Maybe as an experiment you could make 70 minutes + 30 seconds allegro (or all moves in 100 minutes) the default time control for next year's Branagan.

Using increments is league matches is very rare in my experience.

d) Make 11 December the last LCU league match of the year or insist that no LCU league matches be played less than 14 days before Christmas Day. (Bray C.C.)

Not sure if this should be in the rules - maybe amend to say there can be no games in the last week before Christmas week. Christmas Day is on a Thursday this year - is a game on Saturday 13th ok?

k) That, in the event of the 2014/15 Bodley exceeding 18 teams, a Division 7 be formed for the 2015/16 season by the relegation of all bar the top 12 finishers in the 2014/15 Bodley, and that new teams for the 2015/16 start from this Division 7. This division shall operate as per the current Bodley in terms of time control, number of players per team, promotion/relegation, etc.
(St. Benildus C.C.)

No problem with a 7th division but should accelerated promotion be brought back? Would it encourage or discourage new clubs if they had to start a division lower than at present?

r) Rule 2.7
No league fixtures shall be arranged for a weekend involving a chess tournament officially sanctioned by the LCU or the ICU.
Amend to
No league fixtures shall be arranged for a weekend involving a chess tournament officially sanctioned or endorsed by the LCU. (Executive Committee)

Agree with this - it is very difficult to squeeze the fixtures into the season as it is. I don't think it means arranging fixtures to clash with Bunratty - just that you don't have to keep free weekends for every tournament.

u) Rule 5.5 b)
Team “B” has itself not defaulted or conceded walkovers in more than three games in the season
Amend to
Team “B” has itself not defaulted or conceded walkovers in three or more games in the season or has not benefited from defaults or walkovers in three or more games in the season. (Executive Committee)

I don't like this change for the same reason as Ciaran above - a team shouldn't be penalised because of the actions of another team.

cdeb

EnPassant wrote: »

Maybe as an experiment you could make 70 minutes + 30 seconds allegro

If an average game is 30 moves, that's an 85 minute time control. To make it to the current two hours, you have to make it to move 100. Surely that's too short a time control?

I'm not really seeing what the issue with two hours for all moves is.

EnPassant wrote: »

No problem with a 7th division but should accelerated promotion be brought back? Would it encourage or discourage new clubs if they had to start a division lower than at present?

Has there been accelerated promotion in the past? (Aside from 2012/13) How did it work?

L1m1tless

cdeb wrote: »

Has there been accelerated promotion in the past? (Aside from 2012/13) How did it work?

In 2005/2006 The Curragh jumped from Division 6 to Division 4.

I dunno how it worked though, I will try find out.

Mojo Man

EnPassant wrote: »

No problem with a 7th division but should accelerated promotion be brought back?

This is exactly what we don't want: secrecy and arbitrary decisions to allow certain teams to jump the division.

EnPassant

cdeb wrote: »

If an average game is 30 moves, that's an 85 minute time control. To make it to the current two hours, you have to make it to move 100. Surely that's too short a time control?

I'm not really seeing what the issue with two hours for all moves is.

The main attraction is that with 30 seconds per move you can't play for a win on time. Now that almost every club has digital clocks we should probably use them fully rather than just using them as if they were clockwork clocks.

I imagine 100 minutes for 60 moves is still ok for rating (possibly not FIDE rating).

Has there been accelerated promotion in the past? (Aside from 2012/13) How did it work?

There used to be a system in the 70s/80s whereby the winner of a division could challenge the team in the last promotion slot in the next higher division. I don't know the exact details though.

mikhail

cdeb wrote: »

(b) I suspect this is a league programme/system requirement, so it may need to be kept.

I don't think so. I don't think you really need to declare a team unless you're using subs in round 1.

(c) Would there not be potential issues with significant overruns with Fischer time? Two games in the last round in Malahide ran on for 4½ hours, for example.

And (q).

EnPassant wrote: »

The main attraction is that with 30 seconds per move you can't play for a win on time. Now that almost every club has digital clocks we should probably use them fully rather than just using them as if they were clockwork clocks.

Almost every. Are we going to give grants to the remaining clubs that wouldn't be able to host a game with an incremental time control?

I never play for a win on time, but it galls me that people seem to want to bend over backwards to facilitate a player who cannot manage his time. Can I get a free piece when I hang one please?

(e) Four sub appearances is too many, I think. That's going on half a season.

Ciaran wrote: »

Take a club with three teams, in divisions 1, 3 and 4. If a player on the division 4 team subs three times in division 3 and then subs in division 1, by the rules they have to play the rest of the season in division 1 which makes no sense (and probably would break the 150-point rule anyway). This would change that to them having to play on the division 3 team instead. I actually thought this had already been changed.

That bug needs fixing, but the wording of the proposal is equally deranged. Say a club has teams in Divs 1-4. A Div 4 player subs three times for the Heidenfeld and a fourth time for the Armstrong. The current rules have him stuck on the Armstrong, and the proposal ridiculously puts him on the Ennis.

(n) Like, a Junior officer? Don't we have 2?

(o) In practice, players sometimes let you down with little or no notice.

(p) I think we should vote this one in on the condition that Round Tower provides the division controllers.

cdeb wrote: »

(s) Is this basically a doubling of the default penalty from -1 to -2? Not sure I agree with that; defaulting isn't a huge problem in the leagues (annoying as it is)

That's what it seems to say, but it's unclear. I don't understand the motion, and I'm totally opposed to the wording.

(x) and (y) - fines aren't applied anyway so far as I know; I don't see what the point in upping the fine is. Unless this is an indication that the committee intend to apply fines from next year. What happens if clubs just refuse to pay? Should clubs pay a deposit to the LCU?

Necessary if p passes. If I'd actually applied those rules during the cups, the LCU could afford to hold the AGM in Croker, mid Gareth Brooks concert.

cdeb

EnPassant wrote: »

The main attraction is that with 30 seconds per move you can't play for a win on time.

Well that's a fair point I suppose, but if you're saying that 4½ hour games are too long, then I don't see the need for increments given we currently have two hours each. If you're happy games are as long as they should be, then increments can add nothing. As mikhail says, it's up to the player to manage their time properly after that.

mikhail wrote: »

I don't think you really need to declare a team unless you're using subs in round 1.

You can just tick the subs box if you're using subs in round 1 surely?

I presumed it was to do with getting the initial player records set up, but I wasn't a controller at the start of last season, so I could well be wrong alright.

mikhail wrote: »

That bug needs fixing, but the wording of the proposal is equally deranged. Say a club has teams in Divs 1-4. A Div 4 player subs three times for the Heidenfeld and a fourth time for the Armstrong. The current rules have him stuck on the Armstrong, and the proposal ridiculously puts him on the Ennis.

I imagine the "e.g." part isn't to form part of the official rule; it's just Bray explaining the idea. Take that out, and the rule reads ok.

mikhail

cdeb wrote: »

You can just tick the subs box if you're using subs in round 1 surely?

I presumed it was to do with getting the initial player records set up, but I wasn't a controller at the start of last season, so I could well be wrong alright.

I imagine it can work, though it's perhaps important to be clear on who can't play down from the start.

I imagine the "e.g." part isn't to form part of the official rule; it's just Bray explaining the idea. Take that out, and the rule reads ok.

"e) Amend LCU League Rule 6.6(b); that a player who subs up for the 4th time is automatically declared for the next higher team, above that for which he/she was originally declared."
The next higher team above their own, not the lowest of the teams they've subbed onto. You don't see the problem?

cdeb

Hmm. Hadn't looked at it like that actually. But what if they're not allowed move up to the Heidenfeld because of the 150 point rule? It makes most sense to move the player onto the next team up. It'd be up to the club then to manage their subs to avoid the problem you're highlighting. Which I'd imagine would be vanishingly rare anyway.

The rule does need rewording - our Armstrong fell foul of it this year remember. The proposed ruling would have suited us perfectly. I don't think it's as ridiculous as you make out.

What's the alternative if this rule isn't worded entirely correctly?

On a separate note, an addendum to the agm has gone out to add in my motion about relegating teams to the bottom division if they scratch three full matches. So that's 28 motions now.

Ciaran

cdeb wrote: »

But what if they're not allowed move up to the Heidenfeld because of the 150 point rule? It makes most sense to move the player onto the next team up.

That doesn't solve anything though, they'd still have subbed 4 times from the Ennis then. If they couldn't play on the Heidenfeld because of the 150-point rule, their last sub appearance would be illegal and the game should be defaulted.

cdeb

Mikhail's point is about someone from the O'Hanlon subbing three times for the Heidenfeld, then once for the Armstrong, yet getting dumped permanently onto the Ennis (using the case of a club with one team in each division). I think that's ok. I think mikhail's suggestion - that they be on the Heidenfeld - mayn't be workable, and it's the club's issue to ensure anyone getting bumped up a team because of sub appearances comply with the 150-point rule. However, it does make to change the rule as it stands.

Ciaran

cdeb wrote: »

Mikhail's point is about someone from the O'Hanlon subbing three times for the Heidenfeld, then once for the Armstrong, yet getting dumped permanently onto the Ennis (using the case of a club with one team in each division). I think that's ok.

But then you have an Ennis player who's subbed three times onto the Heidenfeld and once onto the Armstrong but is still playing on the Ennis. That doesn't sound right to me, it seems like a way around the three sub-appearances rule.

I think mikhail's suggestion - that they be on the Heidenfeld - mayn't be workable

Why wouldn't it be workable? Assuming that the 150-point rule isn't broken, it seems like the most sensible result to me.

cdeb

Ciaran wrote: »

But then you have an Ennis player who's subbed three times onto the Heidenfeld and once onto the Armstrong but is still playing on the Ennis. That doesn't sound right to me, it seems like a way around the three sub-appearances rule.

I think it's confusing because it's a highly unlikely event, which I'm not sure has happened in the leagues before (would be interested to see if anyone can provide an actual example). But obviously the rule should cover all eventualities.

How possible is it to abuse the rule as stated for tactical reasons?

I think we both agree teams need to be careful making their subs, and that the idea of subbing onto the team you last played for - even if it's a higher team and you're not allowed sub on to it - is silly. I guess I'm much of a muchness between which team you end up on; I just don't entirely agree (as yet) with mikhail's view on the proposal as stated.

But yeah, maybe it makes more sense to end up on the lower of the two (or three) teams subbed up to, and if that means you break the 150-point rule, then you're justifiably frozen out of the leagues for the season, or deemed to have forfeited a game somewhere. Should an extra piece be put in about what exactly happens in this situation then?

mikhail

Ciaran wrote: »

But then you have an Ennis player who's subbed three times onto the Heidenfeld and once onto the Armstrong but is still playing on the Ennis. That doesn't sound right to me, it seems like a way around the three sub-appearances rule.

Well, they'd have moved from the O'Hanlon to the Ennis, but I have no idea how further subs by them would work.

My understanding of the rules is that if subbing a player a fourth time would put him on a squad in breach of the 150 point rule, you have to bring up everyone 151+ points ahead of him too, or not play him.

As for wording of the rule, I think something like:

When a player is first declared for a team or plays their first game (except as a substitute), they are said to be on the squad associated with that team.

• They may not play for a team in a lower division.
• They may substitute for a team in the same division only as permitted under rule

  ---

  .

If at some point the player has substituted four times for higher teams, they must move onto the squad of the lowest team for which they have substituted in those four instances. Their substitute appearances for yet higher teams carry forward for further applications of this rule within the current season.

The rule is then in three clear parts: what squad you're in initially, the restrictions your squad places on you, and how you change squad.

cdeb

That all seems fairly clear.

Rule 6.7 covers substitutions breaching the 150 point rule actually -

A player who has substituted three times for a team cannot play any further games for
that team during that season if there is another player rated 150 points above him
playing for that club in a lower division. Breaches of this rule will result in the player
being declared an illegal player on that team. Teams offending against this rule will have
any points won by the illegal player(s) deducted and awarded to their opponents and
may have any points gained on boards lower than that on which the infringement took
place likewise deducted and awarded to their opponents.

Perhaps "subject to rule 6.7" should be added after "in these four instances" in mikhail's rule?

But then take mikhail's O'Hanlon player playing three times for the Heidenfeld and then once for the Armstrong. Mikhail's rule says that player is now on the Heidenfeld. However, if that's not allowed, my reading is that the Armstrong sub appearance is cancelled, the team gets a -1 on that board and the player is still deemed to have only made three sub appearances, so stays on the O'Hanlon.

That said, technically the rule only covers the O'Hanlon player playing four times for the Heidenfeld, and not three times for the Heidenfeld and once for the Armstrong. Does this rule need to be re-written? Possibly -

A player who has substituted three times for higher team cannot play any further games for
any higher team during that season if there is another player rated 150 points above him
playing for that club in a lower division. Breaches of this rule will result in the player
being declared an illegal player on the team for which the fourth sub appearance was made.
Teams offending against this rule will have any points won by the illegal player(s) deducted and
awarded to their opponents and may have any points gained on boards lower than that on which
the infringement took place likewise deducted and awarded to their opponents.

cdeb

mikhail wrote:

Their substitute appearances for yet higher teams carry forward for further applications of this rule within the current season.

For what it's worth, the current rules state -

Thereafter for the remainder of the season no further substitution in respect of that player shall be allowed.

Maybe that's an easier way to sort the subs carrying forward issue? Once you bump up a team, no more sub appearances, full stop.

Enniscorthy Chess

r) Rule 2.7
No league fixtures shall be arranged for a weekend involving a chess tournament officially sanctioned by the LCU or the ICU.
Amend to
No league fixtures shall be arranged for a weekend involving a chess tournament officially sanctioned or endorsed by the LCU. (Executive Committee)

As a Country Club with a small player base who actively partake in official ICU events we have huge concerns over this amendment as all of our league games are scheduled for Saturdays. We would like clarification as to what constitutes as an LCU sanctioned/endorsed event.

mikhail

Enniscorthy Chess wrote: »

As a Country Club with a small player base who actively partake in official ICU events we have huge concerns over this amendment as all of our league games are scheduled for Saturdays. We would like clarification as to what constitutes as an LCU sanctioned/endorsed event.

Read it again: the proposal is to limit an existing rule. In practice, the events referred to are weekender tournaments.

Enniscorthy Chess

mikhail wrote: »

Read it again: the proposal is to limit an existing rule. In practice, the events referred to are weekender tournaments.

We understand the proposed amendment refers to weekender tournaments and that is where our concern lies. As it stands we have a relatively small field of players most of whom regularly participate in weekend tournaments, all of our league games take place on Saturdays and we would like clarification as to how the LCU would determine which events will be endorsed.

mikhail

Enniscorthy Chess wrote: »

We understand the proposed amendment refers to weekender tournaments and that is where our concern lies. As it stands we have a relatively small field of players most of whom regularly participate in weekend tournaments, all of our league games take place on Saturdays and we would like clarification as to how the LCU would determine which events will be endorsed.

Fair enough.

The proposers will have certain events in mind to exclude (I'd guess smaller regional tournaments like Limerick for example), but ultimately the consensus from the representatives at the AGM would inform the committee how to interpret the rule should it be passed. It sounds like it'll be important Enniscorthy have at least one representative present to voice your concerns.

cdeb

Is the current set-up really that bad though? Do we need extra weekends for leagues?

mikhail

cdeb wrote: »

Is the current set-up really that bad though? Do we need extra weekends for leagues?

I didn't think so. It might help let us move the cups forward, which is another motion. I'd be curious to hear the reasoning from the proposers at the meeting.

mikhail

cdeb has a report on the AGM up here:
http://stbenilduschessclub.wordpress.com/2014/07/02/lcu-agm/

RoundTower

I see it has a link to the results of the motions here https://stbenilduschessclub.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/2014-lcu-agm1.docx

How did motion (c) and (v) both get passed? Which one takes precedence?

(c) Make 90 minutes + 30 second increments or ( 110 + 10 s ) the default time control for divisions 1 & 2. (Bray C.C.)

(v) ...If one of the players does not wish to play the game using Fischer mode then the game must be played using the standard time control of two hours per player...

Sparks

Choose A, B or C - if you don't choose, we'll go with A.
Seems straightforward enough to me...

RoundTower

Sparks wrote: »

Choose A, B or C - if you don't choose, we'll go with A.
Seems straightforward enough to me...

It says the default is both A and B?

Sparks

Er, no, it says 90+30 or 110+10...

cdeb

One says Fischer time is the standard, and one says regular time is the standard. Can't be either. (90+30 or 120 can't both be the standard)

It's entirely possible I'm wrong. The three motions were taken together, and I wasn't making notes at the time.

Sparks

I kinda think you'd have to be one of Ireland's greatest plonkers to actually cause a ruckus over it in a match though

"I DEMAND A!"
"I DEMAND B! ARBITER!"
"This, gentlemen, is called a coin. I shall now flip it into the air, where it shall repeatedly spin in a random fashion. When it falls to the ground, the side that is uppermost shall be designated the winning side. Should this be heads, it shall be A; should it be tails, it shall be B; and should either one of you two gombeens think this is objectionable, we'll go with C. Now, strap in boyo's, or I'm getting out the hurley..."

cdeb

Sparks wrote: »

I kinda think you'd have to be one of Ireland's greatest plonkers to actually cause a ruckus over it in a match though

How long are you playing chess now?

But in fairness, league rules shouldn't have such a blatant contradiction in them. Kinda defeats the point of league rules.

What I find interesting is that there seems to be such strong feeling for Fischer time, yet I've never ever seen anyone request it at a league game. Tis strange!

RoundTower

I think it's a pretty big difference, I wouldn't criticize anyone for insisting on playing with Fischer time (or quickplay time) if they thought the rules gave them that right. It's not like causing a fuss about which side the clock goes on.

Sparks

Okay, am I completely misreading it? Because I read it as follows:

(c) Make 90 minutes + 30 second increments or ( 110 + 10 s ) the default time control for divisions 1 & 2. (Bray C.C.)
(v) ...If one of the players does not wish to play the game using Fischer mode then the game must be played using the standard time control of two hours per player...

(c) says you use Fischer time by default, whether in the format of 90mins + 30sec increments or in the format of 110mins + 10sec increments. Presumably two grown adults could sort out between themselves which format they'd use without needing to strip off, oil up and wrestle over it (although the youtube monetisation of that might well aid the LCU's coffers). I don't think myself that having two formats to choose from is all that broken; you already have that when you say you can use Fischer time or standard controls anyway.

(v) then says that if either player doesn't want to use Fischer time (whether because the host club's clocks can't do it, or one player has a bus to catch because they didn't drive to the venue or they want their try at being the biggest plonker in Ireland or Reasons or whatever), then they revert to using the standard 120min time control.

Maybe I just spend too much time telling incredibly stupid machines how to do every little thing in excruciatingly fine detail, but it just doesn't seem all that unworkable or contrary to me...

Sparks

Besides, everyone knows the far more important thing is the introduction of Division 7 :P

cdeb

Certainly what was agreed is that if either player wants to play Fischer time, the other must agree.

This was eventually recognised after the chair thought it would be a bit unfair for one player to be playing to standard time and one to Fischer time...!

Sparks

cdeb wrote: »

the chair thought it would be a bit unfair for one player to be playing to standard time and one to Fischer time...!

Well, that'd make for an interesting game at least!

Irish Warrior

From what I remember about the 3 motions, there were amendments to them, it ended up something like...

It was agreed that the 110min + 10s was removed from motions (thus passing the exec motion) as people using Fischer time are required to write their moves for the entire game (stop writing with 5mins or less remaining doesn't aplly to Fischer time) and 10s was deemed not to give enough time when relying on the increment when your time is all but gone.

Fischer time of 90 min + 30s is now the default time for divisions 1 and 2, with the normal 2hr being used if both players agree, or if a club doesn't have the clocks to use Fischer time.

The standard time controls will apply to divisions 3 to 7, with Fischer time not being an option for players, as the Skerries motion q was defeated.

Thats just going off my memory though.

checknraise

Matches are going to have to start earlier if this rule is going to be used. It really is terrible decision and extremely short sighted by the LCU to introduce it. I can see the introduction of the rule having a significant impact to playing numbers in the next few years.

You just have to look at the winners of the Armstrong this year. A student team where the majority of the team do not drive and rely on public transport.

It is funny tho as its seems some particularity weak players have convinced themselves that only if they have more time results would improve.

cdeb

I don't think this year's Armstrong winners have much cause for complaint seeing as they weren't represented at the AGM, as far as I'm aware.

I did raise the point about late finishes - as noted on this thread, two games in the last round in Malahide went on 4½ hours. I don't think you can really start much earlier than 7:15, allowing for commuting home from work to get the car to head out to an away game. There was lots of nonsense talk about "bringing the game into the 21st century" and "That's what they do in Europe", but little enough consideration of the practicalities of it.

Fischer time in the bottom divisions is a particularly bad idea where there are more juniors playing. How do you explain to parents what time to expect the kids home at when it's Fischer time?

Sparks

But the rules specifically state that you don't have to use fischer time if you don't want to...

cdeb

Which is why they had an AGM to change the rules...