Armstrong 2015/16

checknraise

Gonzaga 7.5 kilkenny. 5

VanMorrison

Rd 4 - Dublin 1.5 -- Bray/Greystones 6.5

Draw board 1. Win for Dublin board 4. Rumors of a comedy self mate in 1 from a winning/better position on board 4.

L1m1tless

Dublin University 5.5 Curragh 2.5

Win on board 1 and 3, draw on board 4 for the Curragh

cdeb

What's happening with Trinity this season?

Bet we get thumped 8-0 after they dropping lots of points to all our relegation rivals now...

L1m1tless

Well our Board 1 is 2295 FIDE so not a big upset there, that was probably our best chance to get a point. The race for the title might be more exciting than last year. Your A team and Gonzaga will be a crucial match.

cdeb

Yeah, fair enough on board 1 alright - I keep forgetting that he's not the 2050 Irish he has to be declared as!

Looks like there's no-one else left to challenge Gonzaga really - Elm Mount have already been thumped by them, and while Trinity drew, they've dropped points elsewhere that Gonzaga won't (Phibsboro/Balbriggan) or didn't (Curragh).

But before that, our Bs have to play them. :eek:

L1m1tless

oh god, yeah that's your next match. Best of luck in it, nothing to lose and everything to gain in a match like that.

cdeb

Funny - after ye lost 8-0 to them, there's now added pressure on us not to lose 8-0. So in a way, 8-0 would be a double disaster (a whitewash and a missed chance to catch up to ye)!

But it beats playing with the patzers and wood-pushers of the Heidenfeld of course.

cdeb

St Benildus B 1 - 7 Gonzaga

Not too often a 7-1 defeat goes with a !

Enjoyed that!

cdeb

St Benildus A 5-3 Dublin
Elm Mount 4-4 Balbriggan

cdeb

Any word from Kilkenny v Phibsboro at the weekend?

Big match at the bottom; not sure how I'd like the 8 points to be spread.

Danville

cdeb wrote: »

Any word from Kilkenny v Phibsboro at the weekend?

Big match at the bottom; not sure how I'd like the 8 points to be spread.

Kilkenny 4.5 Phibsboro 3.5

sinbad68

An Interesting thing happened a few weeks ago, I was driving one Thursday evening and found myself in front of St benildus chess club and I said to myself, I haven't been in that club for years and this is their club night, better go in and say hello , so I went in and there was an Armstrong match going on which had started nearly two hours earlier and Benildus B team were playing at home and this was couple of weeks after I mentioned here that many players don't know how to set their own club's chess clocks and the problem is endemic . So I had a glance at all of the 8 clocks and one of the clocks had a lot shorter time on it than others and looked at score sheet and nearly 20 moves played and I asked someone if that board started earlier than others and I was told " No" and then I spot Benildus B captain standing and watching other games and I mentioned to him that board's clock doesn't seem to have been set properly and I suspect was supposed to be set for 1:30 min + 30 sec but increment was not set properly, I really was just letting him know and wasn't expecting much action, but he seemed very interested and despite knowing I was Sinbad and don't give bad info, he was not sure and spent ages looking at his watch and the clock to see if I was right and after a long time when eventually he was satisfied that my statement was accurate he intervened and brought in a new clock with same numbers on it as the old clock but with 30 seconds increments now added in, I thought it was noble of him to try to rectify the situation specially he when he ended up with so little time on his own board and lost his game but he made a couple of errors which I will point out.

First I like to say, the Benildus Armstrong player ( which shall remain anonymous) has been playing for donkey years and is a strong player and I find it shocking and embarrassing that after all these years he did not spend a few minutes learning to use his club's clock properly!.

Now for Benildus arbiter. Obviously not everyone is good in maths like Sinbad , instead of wasting tons of time standing around and observing the clock, if he wanted to intervene , he should have stopped the clock momentarily to inform both players that he feels the clock may not be adding increments and as we know with chess clocks when time goes below 20 minutes, the seconds counter now appears and then it becomes obvious if increments are added in or not and one of the players could inform him if this was the case and then the arbiter could return to the board.

As for what benidus arbiter did with the clock, I felt was not the best option. Yes, Fide rules gives a lot of power to arbiter to decide what to do in this case .If clock was set right it would have added 30 seconds per move from move 1 . Arbiter should have looked at the score sheet and added each side 30 seconds per move played on the score sheet for two reasons.

1. If clock was set right, this is the amount of time would show on the clock at this stage.

2.For game to be fide rated, there is a minimum amount of time the game should last, This particular game can still be fide rated as both players are under 2200 rated but if one player was 2200 or over, 2 hours or 1:30 min + 30 secs is the minimum and if arbiter had wanted the game to be fide rated , he would have to add 30 secs from move 1 and if he did it for over 2200 then he should do it for under 2200 .

Chess_Coach

http://www.leinsterchess.com/lcu1516/div1/team10.htm

Gonzaga domination is the result of good work with junior players and this is the only key to success

Looking at Kilkenny team I believe that they will not play 2nd division next year as in January they might have GM in the team

sinbad68

sinbad68 wrote: »

the Benildus Armstrong player ( which shall remain anonymous) has been playing for donkey years and is a strong player.

Now for Benildus arbiter. Obviously not everyone is good in maths like Sinbad , instead of wasting tons of time standing around and observing the clock.

This is annoying,I came to correct and change the first line in the paragraph above to ( whom shall remain anonymous) and the last line to " A ton of time" instead of " tons of time" but it won't let me edit, how long after a post can you edit ?

Chess_Coach wrote: »

http://www.leinsterchess.com/lcu1516/div1/team10.htm

Gonzaga domination is the result of good work with junior players and this is the only key to success

Looking at Kilkenny team I believe that they will not play 2nd division next year as in January they might have GM in the team

Gonzaga have a very strong team and will be the champions again this year. Strange thing is that they have Stephen Jessel & Sebastien Maze in their armstrong player panel !, what is that about ?!, what are their names doing there if they are not going to play for the team?!.

http://leinsterchess.com/lcu1516/div1/panel10.htm

Kilkenny are under-preforming badly this season, If a GM joins them in January it would be a game changer, which GM ? is it Baburin as usual or is it a surprise like Bogdan or Maze ?

Phibsboro have surprisingly done well with their weak armstrong team this season but are playing a dangerous game, instead of putting all their effort into their armstrong team , they have split their strength and is not easy to see if their armstrong team is stronger than their heidenfeld !
http://leinsterchess.com/lcu1516/div1/match23.htm
http://leinsterchess.com/lcu1516/div2/match30.htm

It's the same dangerous game played By Rathmines in the past and they paid a big price for it.


One problem with LCU is that, if even several GMs got together and formed a team, they'll have to start in division 7 and play for 6 years before they play in armstrong. LCU should create a place for wild entry in division 3 ( Ennis). Strong teams from different clubs can compete in a rapid play off and the winner enters Ennis league bypassing lower divisions, obviously Ennis and divisions below it would have to eliminate 3 teams at the end of the season but it will speed up strong teams entering top divisions and weak teams getting demoted,it would be good for clubs with too many strong players like Gonzaga or new clubs with strong players and raise the standards in the top divisions faster instead of it's current snail pace.

sinbad68

Yep, ICU Armstrong league report states that Gonzaga sits at the top of tree at xmas.

The setup at Armstrong & heidenfeld is very unfair to small clubs.

Most chess clubs in Ireland are relatively small compare to their European counterparts and it was NEVER appropriate to have 8 players in a team in the top two divisions , who came up with the idea of having 8 players in a team in the first place ?, In European & international competition settings 4-6 players are usual numbers. If number of players in a team in top two divisions were cut from 8 to 6 , the top divisions would be more competitive & exciting and would give smaller clubs a chance of winning stuff and promotion.

This dragging players to Kilkenny, Longford, Cavan ..etc for sake of a SINGLE game of chess is also nonsense . If several provinces were going to get involved together, It would have been much better to have a weekender format ( one game Saturday & 2 Sunday )and have some meetings in Dublin and some in centre of country for example Tullamore , 4 meetings x 3 rounds = 12 rounds in league season.Many chess players refuse to go on long trips for the sake of a single chess game. It would have been nice to have had a tournament with Dublin & nearby clubs only.

mikhail

sinbad68 wrote: »

...Most chess clubs in Ireland are relatively small compare to their European counterparts and it was NEVER appropriate to have 8 players in a team in the top two divisions , who came up with the idea of having 8 players in a team in the first place ?...

The Armstrong is over 127 years old, and predates most such competitions. It's been an 8-board competition for most of that time.

cdeb

Just on that, here's some 1901/02 season fixtures with 8 players per team (and a remarkable lack of draws)

The first season was 1888/89 and it was 6 per team - so somewhere between the two, an extra 2 players were added.

And I don't see any problems with it. Should we change to match points rather than game points because most leagues do it, even though the latter clearly makes more sense?

L1m1tless

Curragh 3 Elm Mount 5

RoundTower

Gonzaga 7-1 Bray. Both teams fielding strengthened lineups

cdeb

Balbriggan 3½-3½ Kilkenny with one game to come.

Phibsboro 4½-3½ St Benildus B.

Phibsboro have a half-decent squad when they get everyone out, though we definitely left I'd say a full point behind over the 8 boards. But a solid score still.

Decent scores for all the bottom 4 in fact. Relegation race getting tight now.

cdeb

cdeb wrote: »

Balbriggan 3½-3½ with one game to come.

Ended Balbriggan 3½-4½ Kilkenny.

I think we're in trouble now...

cdeb

St Benildus A 4-3 Trinity

Trinity defaulted board 3

Tim Harding

cdeb wrote: »

St Benildus A 4-3 Trinity

Trinity defaulted board 3

4-4 I think (including the default - match out of term, player forgot and was still down the country).
Trinity won boards 4, 5, 6 and 8 I believe.

Clearly Trinity are now out of contention for a top place this year though we can still hope for 3rd or 4th. Elm Mount next.

cdeb

You get -1 for that board though.

So ye won the 7 matches played 4-3, and board 3 was scored 1--1, bring the score to 4-3 to us.

HaraldSchmidt

Dun Laoghaire-Dublin 2-6

Tim Harding

cdeb wrote: »

You get -1 for that board though.

So ye won the 7 matches played 4-3, and board 3 was scored 1--1, bring the score to 4-3 to us.

OK I see the rule now. So it was a very expensive blunder by the player who let us down. And it doesn't even cost him any rating points!

cdeb

Yep.

Had it been known in advance, you could have arranged your sub and pushed everyone up a board - but of course, that would have presumably enabled us score more points than we did, which is why the -1 is there to discourage any abuse of defaults. There's been at least one accusation in recent years (whether it was true or not, I obviously have no idea) that a team declared a board 1 knowing he wasn't available - they took the -1 hit and hoped to make up for it on the lower boards.

Walkovers have never counted for rating points, I think because in a way it's irrelevant - your rating will just find your strength again anyway.

Tim Harding

cdeb wrote: »

Had it been known in advance, you could have arranged your sub and pushed everyone up a board - but of course, that would have presumably enabled us score more points than we did, which is why the -1 is there to discourage any abuse of defaults. There's been at least one accusation in recent years (whether it was true or not, I obviously have no idea) that a team declared a board 1 knowing he wasn't available - they took the -1 hit and hoped to make up for it on the lower boards.

In this case it was obviously a genuine mistake by the player concerned and maybe the team captain not checking with him. So the -1 is rather harsh.

As you know well, had our captain known in time, he could easily have pushed up everyone by a board without anyone being lower rated, and brought in a sub probably no weaker than our lower boards.

cdeb

I don't doubt that what happened was a genuine mistake alright. Though unfortunately, if the rules make an allowance for a "genuine mistake", then everyone would claim that and the rule would be essentially void!

I don't agree with the rest of your post though. You actually did get a sub - I don't know if you're aware of this - but he was 1450-rated. So considerably weaker than yourself on board 8. He couldn't play in the end though because it would have broken various rules - team already declared, 150-point rule, etc.

But even if ye'd arranged a sub days in advance, that's a moot argument - because ye didn't. What happened instead was that ye had seven players for the game. In that case, the rules are clear that the forfeit is to be on the lowest board - and ye gained an advantage by putting it on board 3 instead. Given that we only scored 1/5 on the bottom boards, had your bottom five players all been playing players 50/100 points higher rated, with the walkover to us on board 8, the law of averages says we would have gotten an extra half point or maybe a point over all the boards.

But we don't get compensated for that loss - which is fair enough in a way as it's impossible to quantify what that loss is. So the rule is there to actively discourage any sort of walkovers, which makes things easier to work out - and in that regard, I think the rule is largely quite successful.

So while I think the -1 is unfortunate, I don't think it's harsh.