Armstrong Cup 2017/2018

Rathminor

Dublin 6 Rathmines 1

1 board still to play

sodacat11

Maybe a solution to the problem is to do away with the league point per game system and just award match points instead i.e a team gets 2pts for a win and 1 for a 4-4 draw.That way the effect of teams not turning up with 8 players is somewhat minimized. In my opinion the present system is preferable but if there are too many defaults it just doesn't work as it should.

cdeb

The current system is far superior to match points, I think. It doesn't need tampering with. We really shouldn't be talking about a team defaulting what amounts to a full match in the top division in the country.

Tim Harding

cdeb wrote: »

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.)

I would only allow limited changes on the night - maximum two replacements for the declared players and for a reason that has to be specified.

OK instead of "register" players I mean declare them; paying ICU fees is a separate issue. So your objection there is beside the point.

Trinity will, I think, have to find a place near but outside college where they can play their matches on weekdays. Maybe an arrangement with Dublin CC could be negotiated?

As for cdeb constantly going on about walkovers, I agree it is undesirable but it happens to some extent in all leagues. A more serious problem to my mind (and why I want advance declaration of teams) is the following. More times than I care to remember I have arrived at a venue in good time - both home matches and away - and had to wait until after the official start time before I know whom I am playing, and sometimes the game has been 20 or even 30 minutes late starting because

a) the sets are not ready for play;
b) clocks are not set and scoresheets not yet provided;
c) late-arriving players are being facilitated, and
d) quite often the team lists are still being written out 10 minutes after the match was supposed to begin.

I do realise Trinity have perhaps been the worst offenders in this regard but I think walkovers and defaults affect a much smaller percentage of matches than the problems listed above.

Late starts are particularly unfair on players reliant on public transport to get home.

My suggestions about guest players would have prevented Curragh's trick with the three amigos against Benildus B. The way I worded it would not stop Stephen Jessel playing in the Armstrong should he wish but it would mean Sebastian Maze, for example, could only play if declared in advance.

cdeb

Tim Harding wrote: »

I would only allow limited changes on the night - maximum two replacements for the declared players and for a reason that has to be specified.

I think even this renders the declaration of teams to the divisional controller moot to be honest. You say later on you want to know in advance who you're playing - but then the board 1 drops out, is replaced by a sub, and all the boards are changed. What's to stop teams abusing this and declaring a false team, then making the allowed two changes so the entire board order changes and no prep can be done?

Let's follow the process through - I am a divisional controller. I get e-mails from two teams who are playing a match later that evening. What do I do with them? Do I send each on to the opposing captain? But is this only to be done after a certain time? What if I don't see them because I'm in work, on holidays, etc? What happens if one captain doesn't submit a team? Is there to be a penalty? A points deduction seems harsh.

I think the rule as proposed is made with decent intention, but is unfortunately impractical.

Tim Harding wrote: »

OK instead of "register" players I mean declare them; paying ICU fees is a separate issue. So your objection there is beside the point.

Fair enough.

Tim Harding wrote: »

As for cdeb constantly going on about walkovers, I agree it is undesirable but it happens to some extent in all leagues.

Not on the large scale of Trinity this season though. That's why I think the fine should be applied. I don't agree that starting a game late - while also undesirable - is a more serious problem than the relegation battle being affected by clubs sending half a team to a match.

Tim Harding wrote: »

My suggestions about guest players would have prevented Curragh's trick with the three amigos against Benildus B. The way I worded it would not stop Stephen Jessel playing in the Armstrong should he wish but it would mean Sebastian Maze, for example, could only play if declared in advance.

True, and as I say, it's an interesting suggestion worth pursuing and even putting to the AGM when motions are called for. The issues with Bray and Adare in the past - which were very similar - were legislated against, which shows that it is generally felt to be unsporting and undesirable. On the flip side, as I say, proof of residence could be hard to establish, and that needs to be considered. Let's say we appeal Curragh's three players, and they simply say they're resident in Ireland. Where do you go from there? There are potential GDPR issues around sharing, say, utility bill info by e-mail with the leagues controller.

Probably the benefits of the rule as phrased outweigh the difficulties of its implementation; I'm trying to play devil's advocate here. Ultimately, I guess it's hard to legislate for every possible action, which is where etiquette should come in.

sodacat11

Dublin 7-1 Rathmines

Tim Harding

sodacat11 wrote: »

Dublin 7-1 Rathmines

That throws Rathmines into the relegation mix. They still have to play Gonzaga and Elm Mount, from which they won't get much joy, so Rathmines need a good win against Dun Laoghaire (scheduled for 1 March). If they get a win they should be safe.

Yes, the Curragh default v Bray on board 3 is now shown on the LCU website so Curragh only scored 1.5 from round 9.

Standings after 8 rounds (9 in the case of those two teams) are:
Gonzaga 46
Elm Mount 43
Benildus A 39.5
Dublin 39
Kilkenny 36
Bray/Greystones 32.5 (only two matches left)
Balbriggan 28.5
Rathmines 28
Trinity 26.5
Curragh 26 (only two matches left)
Dun Laoghaire 26
Benildus B 20

So the title is between the first two and teams in positions 3-7 are safe, while Benildus B look doomed.

Four teams chase one relegation spot (or rather try to run away from it).
DL have to play not only Rathmines but also Curragh so their fate is essentially in their own hands and Curragh look the most likely to go down.
Trinity may need a couple of last round points against Dublin to be sure of survival, so a good win against Benildus B in round 9 is essential for them.

cdeb

Worth noting Trinity also scratched two boards against Rathmines, so that's another impact they're having at the bottom.

I think the rules allow for a challenge match if (say) Benildus B finish within two points of Rathmines, having lost both 7 and 8 v Trinity, because then those boards were decisive.

Arguably that rule is inadequate as it doesn't allow for, say, Benildus B getting 1 point on those two boards and finishing 1.5 ahead of Rathmines, who were in no way guaranteed of the two points they got had the boards been played.

Tim Harding

I understand cdeb is upset because his team is probably going to be relegated but his loose use of language may mislead readers.

He keeps using the word "scratched" (which is NOT in the rules) indiscriminately between walkovers and defaults. Compare his posting of 15 Feb about the Curragh default with what he just wrote about Trinity.

The rules distinguish between conceding walkovers on the lowest boards, while playing higher boards, and defaulting on a higher board as Curragh recently did. The latter is penalised by a point deduction.

Trinity have conceded several walkovers (in three different matches I think) but they have not defaulted any games.

cdeb

I've repeatedly said that we expected from the start of the season to be relegated, having lost the upper half of our promotion-winning team. So I think we can separate that emotion from Trinity's actions (which you appear determined to avoid criticising)

The difference between scratch/walkover is semantics really. Yes, technically you're right, but it doesn't change the discussion - in this case, whether the current rule on walkovers is adequate compensation in light of Trinity's messing this season.

Would the rules be fairer if a team could challenge if they finish within the number of points which the higher team won by forfeit (be it scratch or walkover), not the number of excess points won by that team on the boards in question. In other words, if Team A finish eleventh, but 1½ points behind Rathmines, should Team A be allowed challenge them to a survival match (assuming Team A haven't benefitted from free points themselves)? The rules as they stand would prohibit a challenge if Team A picked up 1 point from the bottom two boards against Trinity - but is that really relevant? The issue is still that Rathmines got two free points.

(This is nothing against Rathmines obviously)

Rathminor

L1m1tless wrote: »

He got a provisional rating of 19xx from the Drogheda Congress in the Summer but was registered using his FIDE rating of 1730. Makes a big difference to the bottom of the table too.

How do the penalties work for boards below the breach in a particular match?
This season there also appears to be a breach in the Armstrong and an incidence twice with the same player in the Heidenfeld.
I think the Heidenfeld issue is more a case that the players final September rating was substantially higher than the original declared rating, so all should be in order (is there a facilty to true up declared ratings??).
I’m not sure if the same issue applies to the Armstrong case.

L1m1tless

6.9 A team offending against rule 6.8(150 rule) will have any points won by the illegal player(s)
deducted and awarded to the opposing team. In extraordinary circumstances,
further points may be deducted at the discretion of the LCU Executive Committee.

Looks like its just the loss of the game.

What team in the Armstrong violated this rule?

cdeb

Looks like Gonzaga have been docked 1½ points for subbing up Eoghan Casey four times (in which he scored 1½) while leaving Gordon Freeman on their Heidenfeld, and so breaking the 150-point rule (by 5 points). That makes things quite interesting at the top - although as I posted in the Ennis thread, while it's not the LCU's brief to catch these errors for clubs, it would probably be beneficial if there was an easy way of catching them quicker so clubs would at least be stopped from repeating their error.

Dún Laoghaire benefit by ½ point, but Bray don't benefit by 1 point because Eoghan was given a walkover in that match, and so Bray had no player to claim their point. The result has been updated to 5-2 to Gonzaga.

Has there ever been an Armstrong like this?

L1m1tless

In the bray case, neither club got the point.

Rathminor

L1m1tless wrote: »

Looks like its just the loss of the game.

What team in the Armstrong violated this rule?

Dublin University

Rathminor

L1m1tless wrote: »

Looks like its just the loss of the game.

What team in the Armstrong violated this rule?

Dublin University

Tim Harding

Rathminor wrote: »

Dublin University

Don't think we did. Why do you say so? No penalty for us in the table:

http://www.chessleague.net/chessorg/leinster/table.php?org=1&lid=93

It was Gonzaga: see discussion recently in the Armstrong thread.

L1m1tless

Its because you played behind Luke Scott and the official ratings at the start of the season made it a 150 violation.

cdeb

The ratings on the LCU site are 1807/1936 - so no violation there?

L1m1tless

yes but they are not the ratings that are on the ICU

pdemp

cdeb wrote: »

Looks like Gonzaga have been docked 1½ points for subbing up Eoghan Casey four times (in which he scored 1½) while leaving Gordon Freeman on their Heidenfeld, and so breaking the 150-point rule (by 5 points). That makes things quite interesting at the top - although as I posted in the Ennis thread, while it's not the LCU's brief to catch these errors for clubs, it would probably be beneficial if there was an easy way of catching them quicker so clubs would at least be stopped from repeating their error.

Dún Laoghaire benefit by ½ point, but Bray don't benefit by 1 point because Eoghan was given a walkover in that match, and so Bray had no player to claim their point. The result has been updated to 5-2 to Gonzaga.

Has there ever been an Armstrong like this?

But Gordan was already subbed up 4 times by that stage too, so Eoghan wasn't illegal for those two games. If they want to be strict it should be along the lines that Gordon and 4 other players were declared on the Armstrong (via first team they played for rule) before they were either declared played in lower leagues, making them illegal in lower leagues.

Rathminor

Tim Harding wrote: »

Don't think we did. Why do you say so? No penalty for us in the table:

http://www.chessleague.net/chessorg/leinster/table.php?org=1&lid=93

It was Gonzaga: see discussion recently in the Armstrong thread.

Tim,
Based on the initial declarations the rule was broken when Trinity played Benildus A.
Perhaps this is the same issue as Elm Mount in that the declared ratings were not fully updated for summer matches.

cdeb

pdemp wrote: »

But Gordan was already subbed up 4 times by that stage too, so Eoghan wasn't illegal for those two games.

Ah; good spot. I mis-read Gordon's two Heidenfeld games as two Armstrong sub appearances somehow.

So Eoghan seems to just have been ineligible for round 4, which he lost. On that basis, you'd imagine Gonzaga would get their points back on appeal? But then do Gonzaga get no penalty for breaking the rules in round 4 because the ineligible player lost? Which I suppose makes sense in a way as had they fielded a different player - who would almost certainly have been weaker - they would have been even less likely to win.

All very confusing.

Agree on your potential alternative rule issue (and the possibly excessive strictness of applying a penalty for it)

pdemp

cdeb wrote: »

Ah; good spot. I mis-read Gordon's two Heidenfeld games as two Armstrong sub appearances somehow.

So Eoghan seems to just have been ineligible for round 4, which he lost. On that basis, you'd imagine Gonzaga would get their points back on appeal? But then do Gonzaga get no penalty for breaking the rules in round 4 because the ineligible player lost? Which I suppose makes sense in a way as had they fielded a different player - who would almost certainly have been weaker - they would have been even less likely to win.

Think they'd get -1 for that only. (Rule 6.7)

cdeb wrote: »

All very confusing.

Agree on your potential alternative rule issue (and the possibly excessive strictness of applying a penalty for it)

Plus there is no explicit time deadline in rule 6.5 about when you have to declare players on lower teams [even though I'd imagine there was an intention to have it]. So Gonzaga could be expected to successfully appeal against it anyway and just take the -1 in the Armstrong if that suited them better overall.


Do the controllers have to do this all manually? If so it's an impossible task to expect them to do.

Tim Harding

Rathminor wrote: »

Tim,
Based on the initial declarations the rule was broken when Trinity played Benildus A.
Perhaps this is the same issue as Elm Mount in that the declared ratings were not fully updated for summer matches.

This doesn't make much sense to me. For a start neither Luke nor I played against Benildus A. We did play against Elm Mount but the difference in our ratings was possibly less than 150 as somebody else pointed out.

Possibly the difference was 190 at the City of Dublin (early September) which might be the relevant rating period? I had to search back a long way to find the ratings at that time.

https://www.icu.ie/events/885

And I am not sure those are actually the correct ratings for Luke and me. Those lists are usually people's ratings at the point when people pay their entries, not necessarily correct at the time of play.

I certainly would not deliberately play too low; I wanted to play the Kilkenny match instead and was asked to play Elm Mount very late in the day.

Perhaps our captain made an understandable mistake (you would have to ask him why he had the wrong ratings), but the loss to the team is surely only the two half points that Luke and I scored? Whereas Gonzaga have lost 4 points under a different rule which is what I was referring to earlier.

Finally, this is the ENNIS thread so discussions about penalties in the Armstrong should be in that thread.

cdeb

Divisional controllers don't have any responsibility for updating the league table these days; that's done by Tristan/Peter because it's more efficient to do it centrally with the online results now tying into the website software. It does seem, however, that there's no easy way for the software to work out who's subbed four times, etc, so all that must be done manually.

Divisional controllers just settle disputes, act as liaison points for captain queries, etc.

Tim Harding

I actually think all these rules about "illegal" rating differences are stupid. If LCU wants to enforce any 150-point rule they should post on their site before the leagues start the ratings of all Irish-rated players on 1 September and keep the list available, as it's hard to find them later on the ICU site.

What perhaps also should be done is make clubs declare their player order for each division (including subs from lower teams) at the start of the season and stick to it. But they can put them in whatever order they like, as in FIDE team events and the NCC. I see a lot of debate about this on the English Chess Forum too.

If a new member joins or a new sub comes in then their position in the list.

I don't agree, however, with the wholesale randomising of team orders that is regularly allowed in the 4NCL.

Tim Harding

On another issue, was the match Trinity v Benildus B scheduled for yesterday postponed? It seems ironic that the only round 9 match scheduled for a later date has already been played, and the weather will presumably force cancellation of the rest?

pdemp

It looks like the ratings [or at least some of them] in the league site have been changed since the start of the season, and no longer use the list that was published on the ICU rating website on 2017-09-16. That will be a further cause of confusion going forward, and is in contradiction with the leagues own rules.

cdeb

Trinity v St Benildus B was moved at the start of the season because Trinity don't have a midweek venue.

The ratings are very easy to find on the LCU site - it's in the list of every declared squad, and the ratings don't change throughout the season. So the 150-point rule is very easy for captains to navigate in that regards.

Whether those ratings are in fact correct, as per pdemp's post, is a separate matter.