Armstrong Cup 2017/2018

cdeb

Tis actually starting to get interesting now at the top - assuming Gonzaga don't get any points back (though it appears a strict interpretation of the rules is that they have been overpenalised), then there's a gap between the top five and the rest -

Team	        MP	Pts
Dublin	        9	46    
Elm Mount	8	43    
Kilkenny	9	43    
Gonzaga	        8.25	41 1/2
St Benildus A	9.25	41 1/2

Benildus A v Gonzaga was postponed because of the snow, and is currently 1-1 after two games, with the rest on Wednesday. It's probably between Elm Mount and Gonzaga for first though; Elm Mount probably have a slightly easier run-in. Top 5 clashes left are Elm Mount v Kilkenny and St Benildus A v Gonzaga.

It's a bit more clear-cut at the bottom -

Team	        MP	Pts
Dún Laoghaire	9	29    
Rathmines	8	28    
Curragh	        10	27    
St Benildus B	9	22 1/2

We've to play Elm Mount and will get shag all out of that, so there's very little hope of a late surge. A narrow result between Dún Laoghaire and Rathmines will likely mean relegation for Curragh, even if they bring the three amigos back for the last round against Dún Laoghaire. But Rathmines also have to play Gonzaga and St Benildus A, so a big win for either side in the Rathmines v Dún Laoghaire tie will keep the relegation battle alive going into the final round.

Tim Harding

cdeb wrote: »

OK; I presumed you knew more when you said you supposed Bray would be docked a point for the bottom board. (Trinity would be close on relegated if walkovers were deducted as well as defaults)

You didn't read my message of 1109 yesterday correctly. Diarmuid was on one of the middle boards (4, I think) not bottom board, according to his message to me Saturday evening. But I have not seen the full team list.

You are really getting very boring with your repeated calls for Trinity to be penalised.

undisputed

Trinity is notorious for messing up the Armstrong league for years. I dont think they should be playing in here at all as playing teams of different strenght home and away disrupts the tournament.

checknraise

Nonsense Trinity have finished in the top 3 the last 4 years and are consistently one of the strongest clubs.

sodacat11

Does 150 pt rule not apply any more for board order? Tom O'Gorman 2216 played board 5 for Dun Laoghaire v Balbriggan.

cdeb

I wonder if that's just a mistake and should be Alice?

Rathminor

cdeb wrote: »

I wonder if that's just a mistake and should be Alice?

League website has now be updated to show this as Alice

sodacat11

You'd have to question how the Armstrong fixtures are done, Rathmines had no game between March 1st and April 14th. It;s a pity that we don't have a national chess centre where all the games in each round of the Armstrong could be played at the same time and venue and where we could hold the Irish Championship, City of Dublin etc. The venue could also maybe serve as a centre for bridge, scrabble, go and other games. If all these organisations got together they could perhaps apply for, and get, some lotto money!!

Rathminor

Rathmines 3 Dun Laoghaire 5

cdeb

St Benildus B 0-8 Elm Mount

Unfortunately we needed 5 subs for an unlikely variety of reasons, and I ended up going through 31 players just to fill the team. For all that, there were some excellent performances, on 2, 4 and 7 in particular. However, we are now mathematically relegated.

So that puts Elm Mount on 56, assuming they get their 4.5 points registration penalty back. Gonzaga need a big win against Rathmines at the weekend to keep up the pressure; they're on 46 at present.

But Gonzaga still have their 5.5 penalty applied. The tables have been a bit slow to update lately - there was an issue where result entry broke - and so this may yet be updated. My reading of the rules is that the penalty clearly should be 1.5, not 5.5, and so Gonzaga should be due 4 points back. Obviously, this makes a huge difference at the top.

It would be typical of the shenanigans that have gone on this season that the title of Leinster champions could be decided by an incorrect committee judgement. If the penalty isn't corrected, and if Elm Mount win the league by less than 4 points, then Gonzaga will rightly feel cheated and Elm Mount's second-ever title will be completely undermined as undeserved.

A real shame for both clubs.

Tim Harding

Certainly a very messy situation. Commiserations on the relegation.

Curragh are almost certainly down also since Trinity are 7 points ahead of them going into the last round.

Retd.LoyolaCpt

Curragh and Benildus (B) stuck in a bit of a cycle assuming Curragh go down (bar more point deductions coming into play).

Both relegated 2018.
Both promoted 2017.
Both relegated 2016.
Both promoted 2015.
Curragh relegated 2014.
Curragh promoted 2013.

6 years now since a B team avoided the drop in the Armstrong (Rathmines B lasted 3 years up from 2010-11 to 2012-13, eventually pulling their A team with them into D2) - Elm Mount (B) and/or Gonzaga (B) will have next bite at the cherry.

Rathminor

Gonzaga 7 Rathmines 1

Gonzaga had 8 players all over 2,000

Rathminor

I think Elm Mount are 3 points ahead of Gaonzaga going into the last round once they pay their memberships.

This is with Gonzaga having 4 points deducted.

Depending upon whether the final deduction is 1.5 or 4 the final round will be unbelievably tight with Elm amount likely 0.5 ahead.
Gonzaga won the head to head.

What are the scenarios that would lead to a play off between both teams?

It would be a shame to have the title decided by a committee, so hopefully the final outcome will be clear cut for either side.

macelligott

Rathminor - All Elm Mount players are paid up. There has been some glitch somewhere........Regarding Gonzaga: When Gonzaga played Elm Mount in round 3, I warned the Gonzaga captain that they were likely to run into trouble if they continued to play Casey in the Armstrong because of the 150 point rule. Their captain was unaware of the potential problem. I advised him to read the league rules carefully. So Elm Mount have been fair and above board and gave friendly advice. We can hardly be blamed if our friendly advice was not acted upon.

cdeb

Gonzaga have lost 5.5 points, not 4. They were deducted 4 points and also had 1.5 points reversed. But the correct penalty is 1 point I think. (The game v Kilkenny is the only illegal appearance - the game was lost, but there's still a -1 to add)

So that means Gonzaga have been done out of 4.5 points.

I don't think a play-off is possible? That's only if teams' positions are altered by excessive walkovers (3 or more in one match). It could have happened at the bottom (because of Trinity v Dún Laoghaire), but won't now because us and Curragh are well adrift.

That's my reading of it all anyway

cdeb

macelligott wrote: »

. So Elm Mount have been fair and above board and gave friendly advice. We can hardly be blamed if our friendly advice was not acted upon.

Nobody's blaming Elm Mount in fairness.

That said, if ye did want to win the league fair and square, ye could appeal the Gonzaga penalty.

macelligott

I gave the Gonzaga captain good advise. That’s above and beyond the call of duty as far as I’m concerned.

cdeb

Certainly I can't say that I would do any different if I were in your position.

But there is a difference between a fair penalty (which you warned Gonzaga about, and which I agree was very sporting) and an incorrect one, which has been applied here.

macelligott

Gonzaga lacked care by declaring players on the Armstrong - Maze and Jessel - (who were unlikely to play). It would seem this was done to help their Heidenfeld team. Regarding your interpretation of the rules: I beg to differ!

cdeb

I agree that prioritising the Heidenfeld is what caused this.

But when you differed when we spoke on Wednesday, you misquoted the rule.

The rule in full is -

A player who has substituted three times for a team cannot play any further games for that team during that season if there is another player rated 150 points or more above him playing for that club in a lower division. Breaches of this rule will result in the player being declared an illegal player on that team. Teams offending against this rule will have any points won by the illegal player(s) deducted and awarded to their opponents and will receive a -1 on that board

The word "declared" isn't in there at all.

So the game v Kilkenny is easy to adjudicate - Eoghan was an illegal player, and lost. The 1-0 can't be reversed, and the -1 was correctly applied.

Their next game was v St Benildus B. In that game, Eoghan didn't play, but Gordon subbed up for the fourth time. At that stage, he was no longer playing for a team in a lower division.

The next one was v Bray/Greystones, when both players played. But now Eoghan is no longer an illegal player, so no penalty should apply. But the LCU have deducted Eoghan's win and also applied -1 - the correct penalty if Gordon was still a Heidenfeld player, but he wasn't. Ditto for the games v Dublin and Dún Laoghaire.

Possibly the confusion arises from the sentence "Breaches of this rule will result in the player being declared an illegal player on that team" - but a general reading of the rules makes it clear that there is no intention to freeze the illegal player out of the leagues for the season. We can see this in rule 6.8 for example, where a player who breaks the 150 point rule is an "illegal player" - but they can still play the next game. Similarly, rule 6.3 mentions illegal players, and it's clear that the illegality is to be considered purely for the duration of the one game in question. So "illegal player" in rule 6.7 - the rule in question here - must mean that a player is illegal for one game only, and not, de facto, for subsequent games.

I'm not sure what the counter argument is. It seems quite clear to me that the rule has been incorrectly applied.

macelligott

By all means propose an amendment to the rules at the AGM if you think they lack clarity. You have your interpretation which I don’t believe is watertight. Seems to me the LCU applied the rules exactly as they are worded.

cdeb

I don't think the rules lack clarity. I believe I've shown clearly why the punishment applied is incorrect.

At present there is no counter argument though. Your argument on Wednesday was that Eoghan couldn't continue playing Armstrong so long as a higher-rated player was "declared" on a lower team - and you were specific about the word declared. But that word appears nowhere in the rule.

So again - what is the argument for the current penalty?

macelligott

CDEB Rule 6.7 has no mechanism for “legalising” an illegal player. So Casey became illegal when he played his 4th game in the Armstrong. And remained illegal thereafter. Therefore on the exact reading of the rule the points were correctly deducted.

cdeb

It does have a basis for legalising an illegal player. I've already quoted it.

A player who has substituted three times for a team cannot play any further games for that team during that season if there is another player rated 150 points or more above him playing for that club in a lower division.

Once there was no longer a player 150 points higher rated on a lower team, the player was quite clearly no longer an illegal player.

macelligott

Rathmines 1-7 Gonzaga. Seems Gonzaga strengthened their team further for this match (2 new players) and had Killian Delaney on board 8

Tim Harding

macelligott wrote: »

CDEB Rule 6.7 has no mechanism for “legalising” an illegal player. So Casey became illegal when he played his 4th game in the Armstrong. And remained illegal thereafter. Therefore on the exact reading of the rule the points were correctly deducted.

I think two Senior Counsels would have fun arguing this before the Supreme Court.
In a top level case, the judges will not necessarily go by the literal meaning of the words as you interpret them. They will want to know what was the intention of the legislators when drafting the rule.
What abuse was intended to be eliminated when introducing the rule? It's rather unclear and complicated to my non-legal mind and I don't know what was the ancient case that caused it to be included in the league rules.
Maybe you can explain for the benefit of readers who may think the rule is rather silly and the punishment for infringement is excessive.

zeitnot

If asked "is X playing for Y in the Heidenfeld this season?", personally I'd say "yes" if the records showed he had played any games. cdeb's interpretation seems to be something along the lines of "will X play for Y some time in the future?". Not so obvious. And certainly not "quite clear"!

sodacat11

macelligott wrote: »

Rathmines 1-7 Gonzaga. Seems Gonzaga strengthened their team further for this match (2 new players) and had Killian Delaney on board 8

Yes Gonzaga brought in two foreign players who hadn't played for them before this season (if ever). Cdeb mentioned "shenanigans" in this season's Armstrong and that is exactly what this is. Gonzaga players seem to have a win at all cost attitude that has on at least one occasion stepped beyond the rules (i refer to "toiletgate").
I know all the present Gonzaga team personally and individually they are all very decent people and very honest sportsmen so it surprises me that as a group they are happy to go outside the spirit of club chess by doing things like bringing in the two players they did yesterday while one of their other 2100 rated regular players was actually in the room watching the games. It is not fair on the other Armstrong title contenders or indeed to Rathmines who are in a relegation battle that Gonzaga could be so mercenary and unethical. They may argue that they didn't break any rules and if that is the case then the rules need to be changed. Perhaps all league players should be permanent residents in the country? I hope that Elm Mount or Dublin go on to win the Armstrong this season because if Gonzaga do it will be a very tarnished victory. No doubt for their final match they will import 3 GMs and 2 I.Ms.

cdeb

zeitnot wrote: »

If asked "is X playing for Y in the Heidenfeld this season?", personally I'd say "yes" if the records showed he had played any games. cdeb's interpretation seems to be something along the lines of "will X play for Y some time in the future?". Not so obvious. And certainly not "quite clear"!

But the logical conclusion of this is that the players would not have been allowed to sub up in the opposite order either (i.e. Gordon first, and then Eoghan). This can't make sense. Of course a club can sub more than one player up from a lower team. They just have to do it in the correct oder.

In any event, the tenses you use are not in the rule, which says -

A player who has substituted three times for a team cannot play any further games for that team during that season if there is another player rated 150 points or more above him playing for that club in a lower division

(The emphasis is mine.)

It doesn't say "if there has been another player...", which would then support your interpretation. It doesn't say "if it is possible that another player will...", which you suggest is my interpretation, but which isn't. It says "if there is another player".

In the Armstrong round 6 - the first key match; I don't dispute a penalty for round 4 - Eoghan and Gordon were both subbing up more than the stipulated three times. At the start of that match, is there another player 150 points higher than Eoghan playing for Gonzaga in a lower division? Answer - no. Gordon is playing in the Armstrong - rule 6.6.a explicitly prohibits him from playing for the Heidenfeld again. Therefore Eoghan is not an illegal player, and no penalty applies.

sodacat11 wrote: »

Yes Gonzaga brought in two foreign players who hadn't played for them before this season (if ever).

I presume these weren't Maze/Jessel? That is akin to Curragh alright, and Curragh certainly didn't break any rules. Maybe it is the case that a rule should be introduced as you (and Tim earlier in the thread) suggest, with an exception for IRL-registered players with FIDE living abroad. The LCU AGM is coming up in a couple of months.

I don't think it's remotely fair to bring "toiletgate" into this debate; it's irrelevant in this context.