Armstrong Cup 2017/2018

bduffy

cdeb wrote: »

I don't know the circumstances of Bray not rearranging games, so I can't comment.

If Jessel and Maze play against Balbriggan, it won't be their only game.

As far as I know they were asked about playing mid week in their club and declined the request.

History might repeat itself.......http://www.leinsterchess.com/players/code7517.htm
Not fair to Heidenfeld clubs playing Gonzaga in the early rounds....

cdeb

But were they asked at short notice? It wouldn't be an issue to refuse then.

Did they have a full team already set for the Saturday? Why rearrange if so?

It's not comparable behaviour at all.

bduffy

cdeb wrote: »

But were they asked at short notice? It wouldn't be an issue to refuse then.

Did they have a full team already set for the Saturday? Why rearrange if so?

It's not comparable behaviour at all.

No worries, we all have opinions.
They were asked to oblige by playing at home and save travelling on a Saturday but chose not to (as is their right).

The other item shouldn't be ignored either, but it's just my opinion.....

cdeb

It's not an opinion that they're not comparable; it's a fact

macelligott

Round 8:
Elm Mount 4.5-3.5 St.Benildus “A”

macelligott

Round 8 Dun Laoghaire 1-7 Gonzaga

macelligott

What was result R8 Kilkenny v Dublin Universary anybody ?

Tim Harding

macelligott wrote: »

What was result R8 Kilkenny v Dublin Universary anybody ?

I was not there but I am told Kilkenny scored 6.5 pts and I suspect Trinity only had five or six players. I don't know any individual results.

Last year (before Karl McPhillips defected back to his old club) we murdered them although we were away then also. This year Trinity will be relying on the weakness of others to avoid relegation, I suspect, especially as we face Dublin in the last round.

However, the other matches are against Bray and Benildus B, with some prospect of winning if our captain can field eight players on those occasions.

cdeb

On a similar note, I believe Curragh actually scratched board 3 v Bray (the live boards give the game as 1. e4), so tree score there was actually 5.5-1.5.

Are Trinity and Curragh competing with each other to bring the league into disrepute? The season is too short to be giving some clubs effective points headstarts on others, even allowing for the provision in the league rules for play-offs.

Trinity in particular should be fined I think (in accordance with rule 5.3) Can you imagine, say, a League of Ireland team turning up to a match with ten players, or playing their u17 team in one match and the first team in another?

There's some ridiculous carry-on this season

L1m1tless

We are all trying our best. In the end, the natural order will be restored.

kildaremark

cdeb wrote: »

On a similar note, I believe Curragh actually scratched board 3 v Bray (the live boards give the game as 1. e4), so tree score there was actually 5.5-1.5.

Are Trinity and Curragh competing with each other to bring the league into disrepute? The season is too short to be giving some clubs effective points headstarts on others, even allowing for the provision in the league rules for play-offs.

Trinity in particular should be fined I think (in accordance with rule 5.3) Can you imagine, say, a League of Ireland team turning up to a match with ten players, or playing their u17 team in one match and the first team in another?

There's some ridiculous carry-on this season

I think people who don't know the circumstances of someone not turning up for a match should think twice about the comments they post on a public forum. This is my thirtieth season playing for the Curragh Chess Club and I have witnessed many incidents over the years, and, as team captain on many occasions, have had to juggle the requirements of our own players and opposing teams. I have made huge efforts over the years to accommodate playing games/matches in advance.
I personally, have never questioned the motives behind teams refusing or agreeing to move games or defaulting boards but, I don't think making unfounded allegations against teams or individuals is helpful to anyone. I have seen clubs on numerous occasions strengthening teams for particular matches and a quick glance through the league results will show this. The semi-rascist innuendo on your St Benildus blog (the three amigos reference) does your college no service.

Mark McLoughlin

cdeb

Mark - have to take serious issue with your accusation of "semi racism", particularly for someone who starts off by saying people should think twice about comments made on a public forum.

There is nothing whatsoever racist in my comments - indeed, L1m1tless, a Curragh clubmate, refers to the Spanish Armada earlier in this very thread. Is one racist and one not? (Stupid question of course - neither is remotely racist, so why the hypocrisy in singling out one comment but not the other?). I think you need to retract your statement.

Also, where is the unfounded allegation? Either the match was a default or it wasn't. I am told it was; the live boards indicate it was; you seem to accept it was - where is the issue here? I'm suggesting Trinity, not Curragh, get fined for this matter because of their repeat offending (eight or nine boards already this season, across three matches).

Curragh have, in my view, brought the league into disrepute in a different way, which I've already discussed. One good turn often leads to another in the Leinster leagues - Team A accommodating a board switch one season often leads to Team B being more ready to return the favour the following season - and I think Curragh have shot themselves in the foot in a way with their actions here, and are probably likely to see fewer favours granted to them in the coming seasons.

L1m1tless

Cdeb, I and another team mate traveled to Dublin after work (2 hour drive each way) to accommodate your Ennis team a few weeks ago. It's not like we don't try to help out other teams.

cdeb

Indeed. But how's that relevant here? This is about ye making a mockery of the fairness and validity of the relegation fight. (And then throwing out daft accusations of racism instead of arguing the point)

I will acknowledge that of the three Curragh posters here, you are, in fairness, the only one who's acknowledged that we have a legitimate gripe here.

L1m1tless

Your whole last point

Curragh have, in my view, brought the league into disrepute in a different way, which I've already discussed. One good turn often leads to another in the Leinster leagues - Team A accommodating a board switch one season often leads to Team B being more ready to return the favour the following season - and I think Curragh have shot themselves in the foot in a way with their actions here, and are probably likely to see fewer favours granted to them in the coming seasons.

Are you referring to us not being accommodating here. That's what it seams like

cdeb

No; my point is that I think ye broached league etiquette by flying in the three amigos for one specific match, and as such, I can't see us being in a rush to help ye out in the near future with requests like the one ye made of Bray. What goes around comes around sort of thing. Which is a shame, because that's not how the leagues tend to operate, but...

L1m1tless

OK I understand, I took it up wrong.

Perhaps we should have a grudge match for fun and raise money for charity.

Tim Harding

For the sake of neutral readers, and since the Leinster League website doesn't show ratings for most of the players, I will point out that the top four boards who all won for Curragh against Benildus B were:

1. Cardenas Valero, Ramon FM 2321
2. Cardenas Valero, Joaquin 2272 fide (2139 ICU) - he plays regularly, usually on top board.
3. Munuera Sanchez, Jorge Juan 2033
4. Muelas Cerezuela, Jose 2014

If Curragh had fielded their normal team, perhaps the result of this key match in the relegation battle would have been more like 4-4.
So cdeb has a point.

BUT I strongly object to his suggestion that Trinity be fined. The defaulted boards (and I am not sure how many there were against Kilkenny, can someone say) were due to a serious disorganisation somewhat typical of students. Who exactly is to blame I cannot say; I am not involved in running the club or its teams.

Actually, when the league fixtures were published, I circulated a memo to likely team members which (inter alia) pointed out that the round one match should be rearranged (as Trinity always does) because it was before the start of term. However the designated captain (since replaced) did nothing about it and consequently only four players were available. (I am assuming the DL secretary would have agreed to a postponement if asked in good time.)

I have been playing on TCD teams since 2004 and this is the first time the club was actually made to play a match in September.

I think it would be better if round 1 matches for Trinity teams were scheduled by the leagues controller for October rather than putting the onus on the club captain (who may well be abroad when fixtures are posted) to rearrange it.

There seems to be a general problem that almost all of the first team work in paid jobs, and for various reasons are unavailable for some matches, perhaps at short notice. This is compounded by new college rules which have made it impossible to play evening matches at home because (except in residential buildings) everybody has to finish by 10pm. Saturday matches don't suit a lot of these people, I guess. This is something that next year's TCD committee (not yet chosen) is going to have to address, probably by finding a venue outside college where matches can be played in the evening.

The chaos around the Armstrong team is contrasted by the very good team spirit in our O'Hanlon squad which is going for a third consecutive promotion. I would certainly hope the two TCD teams can offer opposing clubs better playing conditions and a full set of games in 2017/18 but trying to fine us is unhelpful.

Sharkey47

The score in the Kilkenny v Trinity match was 6.5-1.5. Trinity had 6 players. Tim, last year you "murdered" us 4-4!

cdeb

Tim Harding wrote: »

If Curragh had fielded their normal team, perhaps the result of this key match in the relegation battle would have been more like 4-4.
So cdeb has a point.

I think if they'd played the team that they put out in their next match (with an 1800 on 1, 1300 on 5 and 1100 on 6) or their previous match (with their their 1800 on 1 and an 1150 on 7), we'd have won more like 6-2. That's a big difference to the 1½ we did get. It'd have us right on the tails of Dún Laoghaire and Trinity for example, albeit with a particularly tough tie against Elm Mount to come, from which we can expect very few, if any, points.

Tim Harding wrote: »

BUT I strongly object to his suggestion that Trinity be fined. The defaulted boards (and I am not sure how many there were against Kilkenny, can someone say) were due to a serious disorganisation somewhat typical of students.

While I acknowledge your points - in particular, that Trinity's circumstances mean they shouldn't have to request a round 1 postponement - I don't think they really constitute a reason not to sanction the fine in accordance with the league rules.

All the defaults have been in away games, so the switch to Saturday home games, while I agree Saturday is typically a more awkward day for games, hasn't been an issue in terms of defaults. "Typically disorganised" isn't really an excuse either I think. Give us an extra four points against Curragh, ad w're ahead of them and within just 2½ points of Dún Laoghaire and survival. And that's after DL got 4 free points against Trinity.

So both Trinity and Curragh's messing has clearly had a big impact on the bottom of the table, and has effectively hit Benildus B with possibly as much as an 8-point fine for no reason.

Yes, there's times when players can't be available, and sometimes the sub is very weak (I'd note Gonzaga playing an 1100 on 8 v Curragh earlier in the season, or us playing an 800 v Balbriggan), but that's part and parcel of the leagues. But the sort of large-scale messing we've seen above destroys the fairness of the competition, which is why I think Trinity should be fined. It doesn't matter how charmingly disorganised students can be; this sort of flippancy in what is effectively the nation's top division should be very strongly discouraged.

Tim Harding

Sharkey47 wrote: »

The score in the Kilkenny v Trinity match was 6.5-1.5. Trinity had 6 players. Tim, last year you "murdered" us 4-4!

Ah, I see that now. My recollection was wrong because I was one of the four who played in Kilkenny on the scheduled day and we won those games 3.5-0.5.

Something evidently went wrong on the other boards! :eek:

Tim Harding

cdeb wrote: »

All the defaults have been in away games, so the switch to Saturday home games, while I agree Saturday is typically a more awkward day for games, hasn't been an issue in terms of defaults. "Typically disorganised" isn't really an excuse either I think. Give us an extra four points against Curragh, ad w're ahead of them and within just 2½ points of Dún Laoghaire and survival. And that's after DL got 4 free points against Trinity.

So both Trinity and Curragh's messing has clearly had a big impact on the bottom of the table, and has effectively hit Benildus B with possibly as much as an 8-point fine for no reason.

Well we went with reasonable force to Curragh in round 5, despite the travel problems (impossible to get there by public transport - they changed the venue with one day's notice etc.) and we beat them 5-3 although they had their 2100+ Spaniard on top board, so we did not let Benildus down on that one.

I think the basic problem for your club is that it is too much strain running two Armstrong teams (both have to get subs from 3rd or 4th teams) but when you are in the Heidenfeld you try too hard to get promoted...

A difficulty for Trinity is that occasionally new students from Dublin prefer to continue playing for their old clubs. This year's Armstrong would probably have looked different if Conor O'Donnell had switched to Trinity from Gonzaga. Hope he will consider playing for us in 2018/19.

cdeb

This is hardly a problem on our side!

We won the Heidenfeld with the help of an exchange student who has since gone home. We also had to add one player to the A squad to compensate for a lack of subs.

Personally, relegation isn't an issue for me; it's just good to be playing at the top level every now and again. I think many on the team are the same. But if we are to be relegated, we do expect it to be after a fair competition.

But what rankles is that Trinity and Curragh have both taken most of the sporting merit out of the relegation race through their actions. And this would be a more serious issue if relegation wasn't so clear-cut this year. If Trinity scratched 8 boards in one match, they'd be relegated automatically, and rightly so. But you're telling me you strongly object to a fine for spreading your defaults around? Doesn't stack up, I'm afraid.

The least the two sides could do is put their hands up and acknowledge they've made a mess of things. Instead, I've you now saying it's our club's fault, and a Curragh player saying I'm racist?

sodacat11

cdeb wrote: »

No; my point is that I think ye broached league etiquette by flying in the three amigos for one specific match, and as such, I can't see us being in a rush to help ye out in the near future with requests like the one ye made of Bray. What goes around comes around sort of thing. Which is a shame, because that's not how the leagues tend to operate, but...

It seems a bit harsh to me to single out the Curragh when one remembers Bray flying in players to spring a betting coup, Adare using Romanian IMs and GMs to grab places in the ECC and Gonzaga having players like Maze and Jessl registered as their players when they very rarely ever play for them and I doubt ever attend a club night. One must always remember Mr Pot and Mr Kettle as well as those poor unfortunate people in glasshouses before accusing others.

cdeb

Actually, all three have been referenced in the discussion.

Danville

Tim Harding wrote: »

I was not there but I am told Kilkenny scored 6.5 pts and I suspect Trinity only had five or six players. I don't know any individual results.

Last year (before Karl McPhillips defected back to his old club) we murdered them although we were away then also.

Karl was only ever out on loan!, so I think "defected back" is somewhat misleading.

Tim Harding

Danville wrote: »

Karl was only ever out on loan!, so I think "defected back" is somewhat misleading.

Well if Karl had warned us at the end of last season that he was switching back, we would have had some opportunity to recruit a replacement.
There are still few FMs in Ireland and if one changes teams at short notice it means a significant shift in the balance of power.

Danville

Tim Harding wrote: »

Well if Karl had warned us at the end of last season that he was switching back, we would have had some opportunity to recruit a replacement.
There are still few FMs in Ireland and if one changes teams at short notice it means a significant shift in the balance of power.

....maybe when you're out searching for a replacement you should try and get someone who's available to play more than three out of eight matches!
Winning is but a bonus, turning up is a prerequisite.

Tim Harding

May I suggest for debate here some proposed new rules for the Armstrong Cup (and perhaps all divisions) in future seasons. This is not a complete set as a lot of the present rules (like allowing players to sub max three times for higher teams) are probably fine as they are.

FIXTURE SCHEDULE
1. Six rounds are to be played before Christmas. No match in those rounds will be scheduled later than 10 December. Rounds 6-10 must be completed before Easter. The final round may be scheduled in April, but only in years where an early Easter makes it unavoidable.

2. Teams representing universities or other third-level educational institutions will not be scheduled to play matches before October or during their December/January break between semesters, but it will be the responsibility of such clubs to notify the league secretary of term dates for the next season not later than 30 June.

ELIGIBILITY AND REGISTRATION OF PLAYERS.
3. Except for the first round of the season, all players must be registered at least 24 hours ahead of the start of play, in such a way that the names of all registered players are declared to both the league secretary and all opposing captains.
Where a player is a substitute who will normally play in a lower division for the club, this must be declared (as under present rules #6.5).
In the case of the first round, registration must be completed and visible to all online within 48 hours of the match.
Guest players (as defined under #5) must be registered at least 24 hours in advance in order to be eligible to play in the first round.

4. All players (except as provided under #4) should be Irish citizens or long-term residents of Ireland (32 counties), as defined in ICU rules for eligibility to play for Ireland, or else temporarily living in Ireland for purposes of work or education.

5. Each team may also include (per season) EITHER
i) Up to three guest players (i.e. players not qualified under #3) whose FIDE ratings at the time of registration are below 2000,
OR
ii) One guest player with a FIDE Rating of 2000 or higher.
Additionally:
iii) No more than two guest players may be used in the same match;
iv) No guest may play more than five matches.
v) Guest players cannot play in the final round.

5. When registering a player from abroad (whether a temporary resident or guest player) who has no Irish rating, their FIDE ID number and current FIDE rating must be declared.

OTHER ISSUES?
We might consider reviewing the 150-point rule for board order, maybe making ratings at 1 January applicable for rounds 7-11.

Or even declaring players in a fixed order, as in the NCC and olympiads, but allowing the order to be changed before round 7.

Matches often don't start on time so we need provisions to tighten this up. Saying that teams must be declared "immediately before" should be changed perhaps to notifying the league secretary of the intended team by email some hours in advance, with the proviso that a maximum of two replacements may be made before play starts.

Clubs should no longer be able to avoid playing with increments on the grounds that their clocks do not support them. It should be the responsibility of all clubs to have suitable digital clocks (including replacements) at the start of and throughout the season.

cdeb

Don't agree with a fixed board order; that takes away all sorts of interesting tactical board switching.

Notifying the league secretary of teams by e-mail hours in advance of a game just adds needless red tape, especially if changes can be made thereafter.

I think it would be quite problematic to fit in six games for Trinity in the Armstrong in the shortened pre-Christmas period you've allowed, when ye play on Saturdays.

A problem with rule 3 is that registering players requires their ICU subs to be paid - but what if a player hasn't yet registered with the ICU? Quite possible when you consider the leagues start about two weeks after ICU membership for the season opens. Does the club pay all fees and hope to recoup throughout the season? That seems an unfair financial burden to put on clubs.

Rule 4 is interesting, although potentially quite hard to prove if a dispute is raised under it.

It's already a requirement to declare a FIDE rating if there is no ICU rating (it's implied by rule 6.8.a.2, read in accordance with the subsequent rule 6.10)