Amstrong Cup 2016/17

Tim Harding

The ICU ticker shows Gonzaga beat Bray 5-3 so it's time to congratulate Gonzaga on winning the Armstrong yet again, with a round to spare again, but something needs to be done about this.
They are averaging almost 6.5 points per match.

Gonzaga seem determined to try and recruit more and more titled players (Stephen Jessel registered but only played in the 4NCL; they're targetting Alex Lopez now, I hear).
Surely this cannot be healthy for Irish chess to have a situation where the other 11 teams in the Armstrong know from an early stage that they are only competing for the runner-up spot?

Phibsboro are not quite relegated yet but would need to win their last match 8-0 and have both teams above them collapse in the last round.

Here are the pairings for 23 April with current team totals:

Trinity [49.5] v Gonzaga [63.5]
Bray/Greystones [32.5] v Phibsboro [24]
Balbriggan [31] v St Benildus [42]
Rathmines [33] v Blanchardstown [27.5]
Kilkenny [37.5] v Dublin [53]
Elm Mount [46] v Dun Laoghaire [34.5]

macelligott

It is a pity to see such a long established Armstrong team as Phibsboro getting relegated :-( They seem to have been very disorganised this year. They were surely strong enough to have remained in the Armstrong had they been able to field their strongest team in most matches. Only two of their players played in all the games up to round 10! And they used 19 players in the first 10 rounds.

cdeb

I guess the flip side is that Phibsboro have been on the slide for quite a while now, and relegation was always likely one of these years.

Agree that it'd be good for the league to see them as strong as they were in prior years, but I guess to an extent, that - and the issue of Gonzaga's strength - comes down to what individual clubs are doing to keep strengthening. Gonzaga have a great youth development policy which is to the benefit of the game overall (bigger, stronger weekenders) and which other clubs would do well to try replicate (and some are trying of course)

An obvious "issue" with chess of course is player longevity, so it is easier for a team to stay at the top longer. Though individually, we should all be thankful of that!

Rathminor

Phibsboro will also have a further challenge next season, if their second team avoid relegation from the Heidenfeld, in so far as they will not be able to cross substitute between both teams.

Their dilemma will be to either go all out for promotion back to the Armstrong and sacrifice the second team or to let both teams stand alone with very tight squads and a more limited pool or potential subs.

zeitnot

Tim Harding; &#160 wrote: »

something needs to be done about this.

Do you have any suggestions?

Tim Harding

zeitnot wrote: »

Do you have any suggestions?

With a view to making the Armstrong more of an equal and perhaps national competition. I think it is up to:

a) Rival clubs to see what they can do to improve their teams (also in some cases their club playing conditions).

b) Prospective Gonzaga recruits like Jessel & Lopez, and 2300+ players currently unattached to Armstrong clubs (e.g. Mark Heidenfeld, Philip Short, and Ryan Rhys Griffiths if he returns to Ireland) should turn down any invitations from Gonzaga and consider joining other clubs to balance things up a bit.
I realise a lot of these people don't live in Dublin but a lot of clubs now play their matches on Saturday afternoons...

c) Gonzaga might examine their collective conscience and think of what is best for Irish chess. I understand them wanting to build up eligibility of a stronger team for the European Clubs (which they have now done with French GM Sebastien Maze) but otherwise their overkill policy doesn't make much sense.

In particular, while one of the great early teenage prospects we have in Ireland (Tom O'Gorman) has been getting great experience playing top board for Dun Laoghaire, his close rival Henry Li is playing much too low because the Gonzaga team is so strong. Henry has played mostly board 4 or 5, but even board 6 in one match and board 7 in another. No other club has a player rated 2200 with FIDE anywhere near as low as that.

Maybe they could lend Henry to another club (NOT Trinity) for a season until their 2nd team (likely to be in the Heidenfeld next year) gets up to the Armstrong. Then have him back as top board for their 2nd team in 2018/2019.

After all they already have Sam Collins (who has two GM norms), Conor O'Donnell (an FM likely to get to IM once he has the Leaving Cert out of the way) and Killian Delaney who is pushing FM standard, as well as some other very useful players of 2000+ who outclass pretty much all the opposition on the lower Armstrong boards.

d) In general, harking back to what I said a few days ago about playing conditions at some matches, maybe LCU should consider making the Armstrong a competition to be played on Saturdays only with good standard conditions, as we have at present only for the final round - proper heated and well-lit playing rooms, all matches to start dead on the scheduled time and using clocks that accommodate time increments.
They could begin by insisting for the 2017/18 season that teams be declared somewhat in advance (say noon on the day by email) to the opposing captains and league controller, as this would end the common practice of hanging around until about 7.25 while lists are exchanged with sometimes tactical switching of board orders based on who can be seen in the room.
Such an improvement of conditions might also induce some strong Dublin players who weren't in any league team this season (e.g. sodacat11?) to play in the competition again?

If LCU cannot do more to ensure a level playing field, then they should stop submitting the event for FIDE rating.
The lower divisions could stay the way they are.

must have a jest

@zeitnot

Now you see what happens when you give him some encouragement.

ishidaogo

Maybe when Gonzaga exceed Sackville's 6 in a row from 1904-9
there could be a small discussion.

cdeb

Funny, there's a lot of instances of successive Armstrong wins - presumably helped by longevity, as I suggested earlier.

Even Phibsoro recently won 6 in 8 years; Kevin Barry did the same not long before.

Probably the current Gonzaga are the strongest team ever to play in the Armstrong? I don't see how that's their fault though.

zeitnot

cdeb wrote: »

Funny, there's a lot of instances of successive Armstrong wins - presumably helped by longevity, as I suggested earlier.

Even Phibsoro recently won 6 in 8 years; Kevin Barry did the same not long before.

Probably the current Gonzaga are the strongest team ever to play in the Armstrong? I don't see how that's their fault though.

The scores are noticeably more lopsided now, though.
Of course it's not a crisis if more strong players play in the Armstrong, but maybe something could be done to make it slightly more competitive. Waive the 150-point rule for the team that finished lower the previous year, for example.

cdeb

Would that not be counter-productive though?

Say every team starts to sandbag board 1 v Gonzaga. Suddenly Sam Collins is basically playing board 8 v 1700s. Would he bother?

macelligott

The 150 point rule has been very successful and I see no reason to change it. I suspect several people would give up Armstrong or Heidenfeld chess were it removed. In fact some might argue there should be a 100 point rule!

Rathminor

Heard that Blanchardstown were relegated with Phibsboro this afternoon although they did have a strong line up for the last round including John Delaney on B1.
Full results should flow through later.

ComDubh

It's a free world and if Gonzaga players want to create and maintain a 'superteam', more power to them. Some of the Gonzaga players (Delaney and Murray come to mind) have improved a lot recently. I think this comes from playing on a cohesive and highly-motivated team, and that more than compensates for the low board they have to play on.

sodacat11

ComDubh wrote: »

It's a free world and if Gonzaga players want to create and maintain a 'superteam', more power to them. Some of the Gonzaga players (Delaney and Murray come to mind) have improved a lot recently. I think this comes from playing on a cohesive and highly-motivated team, and that more than compensates for the low board they have to play on.

No doubt it is good,,,,,,,,,,for Gonzaga. The fact that the league is completely uncompetitive is probably one of the reasons that the Armstrong is so much less than it used to be these days. Cold uncomfortable venues that can be hard to get to is another deterrent as is the amount of games played on Saturdays instead of midweek. Giving up a weekend for a tournament is perfectly worthwhile but giving up a Saturday for just one game, which could end very quickly is a no no as far as I'm concerned.
How to improve the Armstrong? Reduce it to six boards a match. Play all games in the one venue , two matches at a time, morning and afternoon. Set rating bands for each board or have a maximum average for each team to even things up a bit.

ComDubh

Why do so many strong players play with Gonzaga? Why do players who could be Board 1 on most Armstrong teams prefer to player a lower board with Gonzaga?

A partial answer is simply that Gonzaga actively recruit new players. Who else invited Stephen Jessel to play for them last year?

Gonzaga have set a high bar for winning the Armstrong and the other clubs should try to step up.

Or else come to boards.ie to complain :-)