Armstrong 2015/16

L1m1tless

Kilkenny 4.5 Curragh 3.5

Could have been better, could have been worse.

L1m1tless

Kilkenny 4.5 Curragh 3.5

Could have been better, could have been worse.

cdeb

Bray 5-3 Phibsboro

So the bottom four are -

Phibsboro 7-22
Kilkenny 7-19½
Curragh 7-18
St Benildus B 6-15½

So we need a draw against Balbriggan in our round 7 match to lift us back out.

cdeb

St Benildus B 3.5-4.5 Balbriggan.

Balbriggan scratched 7 and 8, and broke the 150 point rule higher up (unfortunate - they'd played one game early, and then a player pulled out). I don't know if there's a points adjustment to come for that.

L1m1tless

cdeb wrote: »

St Benildus B 3.5-4.5 Balbriggan.

Balbriggan scratched 7 and 8, and broke the 150 point rule higher up (unfortunate - they'd played one game early, and then a player pulled out). I don't know if there's a points adjustment to come for that.

Points won by illegal player will be awarded to their opponents. Was the 150 rule broken using the latest published list?

cdeb

Jan and Sep ratings lists.

So we could end up winning the match despite picking up just three draws? A bit unsatisfying, but I guess we have to take it!

cdeb

Jan and Sep ratings lists.

So we could end up winning the match despite picking up just three draws? A bit unsatisfying, but I guess we have to take it!

cdeb

Meant to say as well - congrats to Balbriggan's captain, Seán Nolan, who missed the game today on the minor point of welcoming a new family arrival early this morning!

A future chess player, no doubt.

EarlofCurragh

Could even be worse than that. Although maybe in exceptional circumstances the controller may decide otherwise. This is what the LCU rule says:

6.9 Players and teams offending against rule 6.8 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

Yeah, that's the rule alright - though I wasn't sure how it's to be read exactly.

Rules shouldn't be arbitrary for a start - the word "may" has no place in there.

And who's the illegal player(s)? Rule 6.8 states that "No player is placed ahead of a team member whose rating is 150 or more rating
points higher." So in this case, board 3 played above board 4 - is board 3 the only illegal player? Because their board 4 didn't play ahead of anyone 150 points or more higher. And looking back, our Armstrong (A) team were the victims of the rule a few years back - again, a game played in advance and then a player pulling out of the main day - and both players seem to have been deemed illegal.

It seems to me Balbriggan might even have been better off defaulting board 3 (where they placed their ineligible player) and playing on board 7 - and that can't be right if that's the case.

I wonder should a rule amendment be proposed at the AGM? If so, what amendment?

Should be pointed out I've nothing against Balbriggan of course! It's just unfortunate; but I guess it'd be good for us and Curragh to know where we stand ahead of next week's game. And there's nothing in the above that won't be seen when the league table is updated anyway.

L1m1tless

Definitely agree on the wording of the rule, its very ambiguous.

Anyways if you beat the Curragh next week it'll make no difference in the end.
Serious business from here on in!

L1m1tless

How did Kilkenny and Dublin University get on yesterday?

Tim Harding

Neo_Ninja wrote: »

How did Kilkenny and Dublin University get on yesterday?

Apparently 5-3 to Trinity after the top two boards played last night.

cdeb

St Benildus 4.5 - 3.5 Elm Mount

Only question now is whether we can stop Gonzaga winning the title against us...

sinbad68

cdeb wrote: »

St Benildus 4.5 - 3.5 Elm Mount

Only question now is whether we can stop Gonzaga winning the title against us...

The Only question in my mind was, why you would make such a comical statement, the dogs in the street know that when the hurly-burly is done, Gonzaga will finish miles ahead of their nearest rival. After analysis I came to the conclusion that your subconscious mind wanted to remind the rest of us that Benildus A will finish second in the league table. Yes, The Bad news for Benildus A is that when the season in over they won't be within 10 points of Gonzaga , But the Good news is that, next season they would have ample subs to choose from their newly demoted team in Heidenfeld!.

cdeb

Liverpool won't be winning the league any time soon, but they still wouldn't want Man Utd to claim the title in a match against Liverpool.

So holding their main rivals' celebrations off for one more match is about all they'd have left in a season like that. Same with us.

Not sure why the need to bring conspiracy theories into it.

L1m1tless

Good luck tomorrow to St.Benildus B making the trip to play us. Its sure to be great fun!

cdeb

5.5-2.5 win for the Bs!

Even with a new signing for Curragh on board 2. Brilliant win for us. Got lucky in a couple of games, but we've left points behind in previous matches, so happy to steal some here

Tim Harding

cdeb wrote: »

5.5-2.5 win for the Bs!

Even with a new signing for Curragh on board 2. Brilliant win for us. Got lucky in a couple of games, but we've left points behind in previous matches, so happy to steal some here

Well done; Curragh look pretty much doomed to relegation now.

So you have moved up to 10th place but meet Trinity next. That last round match Benildus B v Kilkenny looks like being decisive for the relegation slot.

With GM Baburin turning out for Kilkenny in their later matches, you will have a tough fight to stay up.

cdeb

Yup, still a tough task alright. But happy to be alive and kicking at this stage. Phibsboro could still be a target too; they've to play Gonzaga and St Benildus A.

L1m1tless

Congratulations St Benildus, not sure how you did it but that was an amazing result!

Don't let us down now and stay up for next year!

Best of luck!

sinbad68

cdeb wrote: »

5.5-2.5 win for the Bs!

Even with a new signing for Curragh on board 2. Brilliant win for us. Got lucky in a couple of games, but we've left points behind in previous matches, so happy to steal some here

IMO : Missed Controversy in Curragh vs Benildus game!
After a long time, I visited Benildus site to look at their match report and came across this statement below

Around this stage, Mariusz’ opponent claimed a draw – he’d managed to squirm out of a couple of nasty pins to emerge just down two pieces for a rook, and he claimed a three-fold repetition. But after a bit of debate, it turned out that while Mariusz’ opponent’s position had repeated three times, his own had just repeated twice – Mariusz was trying to add to his two minutes on the clock to give himself time to find a winning plan. Play resumed, and the game reached a tricky-looking 2B+4 v R+4 ending.

The Curragh player tried to use "Three fold occurrence" Rule ( incorrectly called "Three fold repetition") and was denied. The rule states that if the same position is reached on the chess board three times, player can ask for a Draw under the rule which happened here , there is No need for both players to have 2 separate positions repeated three times.The Curragh player was Wrongly denied a draw!.

cdeb

What?

The position wasn't repeated three times. Their player had just repeated his moves three times. Our player hadn't.

sinbad68

cdeb wrote: »

What?

The position wasn't repeated three times. Their player had just repeated his moves three times. Our player hadn't.

It states clearly on Benildus site that

But after a bit of debate, it turned out that while Mariusz’ opponent’s position had repeated three times, his own had just repeated twice

Here the link to full article

https://stbenilduschessclub.wordpress.com/2016/02/14/armstrong-b-alive-and-kicking/#more-5439

It says in black & white in st benildus website that " A POSITION was repeated THREE TIMES" If that was a case then the game was a Draw by Three fold Occurrence.If Marius would have repeated his move then a separate position would have been repeated three times.

cdeb

Yes - so the position of the black pieces had repeated three times, but the position of the white pieces had not.

Not sure how this is causing so much trouble.

cdeb

Yes - so the position of the black pieces had repeated three times, but the position of the white pieces had not.

Not sure how this is causing so much trouble.

Tim Harding

sinbad68 wrote: »

IMO : Missed Controversy in Curragh vs Benildus game!
After a long time, I visited Benildus site to look at their match report and came across this statement below


The Curragh player tried to use "Three fold occurrence" Rule ( incorrectly called "Three fold repetition") and was denied. The rule states that if the same position is reached on the chess board three times, player can ask for a Draw under the rule which happened here , there is No need for both players to have 2 separate positions repeated three times.The Curragh player was Wrongly denied a draw!.

The explanation of what happened is unclear on both the St Benildus site and in the above comment. Can somebody please supply the actual game score so we can see whether the claim was valid or not?

There is no such concept as "my position" and "opponent's position" in the rules. There is just the board position which is about to appear after the move nominated by the claimant (in writing on the scoresheet) whereupon the clock is stopped and the claim is checked. In the case of an incorrect claim the opponent gets extra time.


The full text of the applicable rule is as follows:

9.2
The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by a player having the move, when the same position for at least the third time (not necessarily by a repetition of moves):
is about to appear, if he first writes his move, which cannot be changed, on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, or
has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move.
Positions are considered the same if and only if the same player has the move, pieces of the same kind and colour occupy the same squares and the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same. Thus positions are not the same if:
at the start of the sequence a pawn could have been captured en passant.
a king or rook had castling rights, but forfeited these after moving. The castling rights are lost only after the king or rook is moved.

cdeb

I think this molehill is rapidly becoming a mountain...

A three-fold claim was made, but upon inspection, I think it transpired that (say - I don't know the exact position) a white bishop was on g2 in one position and h3 in the other two positions - ergo, the claim was invalid and play went on. Yes, there's no such thing as a "black position" in the rules, but that shouldn't make the concept indecipherable.

As a sidenote, I see we've now been given an extra point against Balbriggan, lifting us - temporarily at least - up to the heady heights of 8th.

cdeb

Phibsboro 3-5 Dublin.

As you can see from the new scrolling results feature on the ICU website, which should make this thread redundant (or the results posts anyway; we can still talk about who's staying up!)

HaraldSchmidt

cdeb wrote: »

Phibsboro 3-5 Dublin.

As you can see from the new scrolling results feature on the ICU website, which should make this thread redundant (or the results posts anyway; we can still talk about who's staying up!)

Well, as there's only one result listed at the moment, there won't be any scrolling. But, any logged in member can report a result. If they abuse the privilege, it will be taken away from them, but I'm sure nobody here would do such a thing!

it will show the most recent 5 results, and they will scroll if there are more than 1 result.