Ennis Shield 2017/2018

L1m1tless

All relevant discussions here thanks.

Can anybody stop Enniscorthy this year?

L1m1tless

First bit of a result.

Curragh .5 Cavan 1.5

4 games to play tomorrow.

cdeb

Drogheda 3-2 St Benildus, with the last game on Wednesday.

Encouraging start for us given we were missing two of our top boards; Drogheda would be one of the favourites I'd say.

L1m1tless

Curragh 2 Cavan 4

cdeb

Drogheda 3-3 St Benildus in the end

cdeb

St Benildus 5-1 Inchicore

L1m1tless

Enniscorthy 2.5 Curragh 3.5

Rathminor

Very good result for Curragh. Did Enniscorthy have their two 1800’s ? The Ennis will be very interesting this year with strong Phibsboro and St Benildus squads

bduffy

Rathminor wrote: »

Very good result for Curragh. Did Enniscorthy have their two 1800’s ? The Ennis will be very interesting this year with strong Phibsboro and St Benildus squads

Enniscorthy have a strong squad, but all matches in this league will be close. Final round madness guaranteed!
On this occasion the Curragh were outrated by 250 - 300 on every board but it's our first win in a long gone time.

L1m1tless

Curragh 4 Longford 2

L1m1tless

Any other results from the weekend?

Pushyawn

Inchicore v Drogheda 3-3

L1m1tless

Phibsboro 4 Curragh 2

cdeb

Skerries 2.5-3.5 St Benildus

Credit to Skerries for being accommodating with the train strike! 2-3 hours to get out.

Drogheda 2.5-2.5 Malahide with one game to go per Drogheda's site.

I think this is going to be the tightest of all the divisions. Skerries, Malahide, Drogheda, Enniscorthy and St Benildus all seem to have legitimate promotion credentials.

Pushyawn

Cavan 2.5/3.5 inchicore

cdeb

Benildus 3-1 Curragh, with two games on Wednesday. Keeps us right in the promotion race for now

L1m1tless

What happened with your match against Malahide? Was it postponed?

cdeb

Yes, though it wasn't meant to drag on for quite this long.

It was initially postponed because of the hurricane and the national warning to stay indoors. It was rearranged for the following week, but Malahide forgot to book their venue. Then there was a Bank Holiday, and then they had a league game, and then they stopped talking to us altogether, and then they asked the controller to set a date, and finally we agreed to play sometime later this month. The match won't be FIDE-rated as a result (but the rest of the division will be unaffected)

Rathminor

Inchicore 1.5 Rathmines 4.5

Rathminor

Inchicore 1.5 Rathmines 4.5

L1m1tless

cdeb wrote: »

Yes, though it wasn't meant to drag on for quite this long.

It was initially postponed because of the hurricane and the national warning to stay indoors. It was rearranged for the following week, but Malahide forgot to book their venue. Then there was a Bank Holiday, and then they had a league game, and then they stopped talking to us altogether, and then they asked the controller to set a date, and finally we agreed to play sometime later this month. The match won't be FIDE-rated as a result (but the rest of the division will be unaffected)

OK cool, thanks for the explanation.

bduffy

cdeb wrote: »

Benildus 3-1 Curragh, with two games on Wednesday. Keeps us right in the promotion race for now

Two more draws to 4 - 2

L1m1tless

Any results? Cavan Malahide etc?

cdeb

Cavan 1.5-4.5 Malahide
Malahide 4-2 St Benildus

cdeb

Enniscorthy 4.5-1.5 St Benildus. That's us out of it now

L1m1tless

Curragh 2.5 Drogheda 3.5

Games all up on Chess Spectator

cdeb

St Benildus 4½-1½ Longford

Drogheda v Enniscorthy the big game on today.

Rathminor

Cavan 2.5 Rathmines 3.5
Very important points for both teams in the battle to stay ahead of Inchicore in the relegation battle!

bduffy

Inchicore 3.5 - 2.5 Curragh
Board 2 could have gone either way but went to the home team in the end!

L1m1tless

So Drogheda have lost some of their points due to violating the 150 rule over a number of matches. That all but rules out their promotion chances and lets Benildus and Skerries in with a real chance.

cdeb

That's remarkably careless. Looks like a foreign player with a FIDE rating?

L1m1tless

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.

pdemp

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.

I think this is where the ICU only publishing paid up members is an issue. The league rule 6.8 a) 1. states "For players who are registered with the ICU, the latest ICU rating published prior to the commencement of the current season." On Sept 16 (the start of the leagues) the published list was what is now labelled the 2017 July list [ I think ]. Seems a bit unfair on Drogheda, rather than careless, given that the player had no published ICU rating, and especially when you see his current ICU is close to his FIDE, so from estimating his strength their captain did a good job.

Rathminor wrote: »

...
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??).
...

This is a case of the leagues controller telling the player he could use the September rating, so it would be very unfair to punish Elm Mount in this case [ even if it isn't the correct rating according to the rules ].

The ICU should probably move to naming the list by date of publication, rather than just year/month, and include at least unpaid new members & members who have paid the previous season rather than just current paid up members. They are now published after the end of the month, so the old idea of a Jan/May/September rating is kinda gone [and end of month is confusing given that FIDE is start of month ]

Retd.LoyolaCpt

"members who have paid the previous season" have their rating published up until December 31st of the following season - that should be long enough to figure out a rating in September.

pdemp

Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »

"members who have paid the previous season" have their rating published up until December 31st of the following season - that should be long enough to figure out a rating in September.

That's good to know, and is enough for most ... but are new members like the Drogheda situation?

Retd.LoyolaCpt

How can you rate a new member when we don't know if they want to be a member or not in advance? If they have games played, then they should have paid their ICU fees in advance of those games which they are required to (ie the onus is on them or their club, not the volunteers running the ICU).

The 150 rule doesn't count for anyone under 1200 or 1300 - I can't remember which. Ratings look first to ICU and then to FIDE if they have no ICU.

pdemp

Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »

How can you rate a new member when we don't know if they want to be a member or not in advance? If they have games played, then they should have paid their ICU fees in advance of those games which they are required to (ie the onus is on them or their club, not the volunteers running the ICU).
...

Good point. So if the player only paid in Sept then they wouldn't have an ICU rating before then.

Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »

Ratings look first to ICU and then to FIDE if they have no ICU.

And this is what they seemed to have done.

pdemp

Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »

The 150 rule doesn't count for anyone under 1200 or 1300 - I can't remember which. Ratings look first to ICU and then to FIDE if they have no ICU.

It's 1200. Anyone below that can play as if they are 1200 (i.e. above someone rated 1349)

Retd.LoyolaCpt

Correct.

Discussed the timing of ICU rating lists with the rating officer - probably not a bad idea to add in a specific date although for future reference, it will always mean the end of that month

pdemp

Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »

Correct.

It's based on that that I feel Drogheda were hard done by [i.e no published ICU rating in Sept, therefore the used FIDE]. Whether they can be bothered with an appeal is up to them. Although if Curragh get relegated by 1 point they could have reason to appeal too, as they are the only ones not to benefit.

Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »

Discussed the timing of ICU rating lists with the rating officer - probably not a bad idea to add in a specific date although for future reference, it will always mean the end of that month

Thanks. I've understood that [based on observation], but sometimes the ratings are not published until the middle of the next month [ which is fine -- volunteers after all, the ICU is not like FIDE ], so maybe the actual date they are published on the website versus the date the ratings are done up to.

Retd.LoyolaCpt

"It's based on that that I feel Drogheda were hard done by [i.e no published ICU rating in Sept, therefore the used FIDE]. Whether they can be bothered with an appeal is up to them. Although if Curragh get relegated by 1 point they could have reason to appeal too, as they are the only ones not to benefit. "

A case for the LCU to decide - I think their rules are pretty clear but given the allowance they gave to Elm Mount in the Heidenfeld, there certainly seems to be wiggle room when it comes to rating.

"Thanks. I've understood that [based on observation], but sometimes the ratings are not published until the middle of the next month [ which is fine -- volunteers after all, the ICU is not like FIDE ], so maybe the actual date they are published on the website versus the date the ratings are done up to."

Unlike with FIDE, the ICU rating lists backdate if files are delivered late - and they often are delivered to the ICU late. So its a little more complicated than a "publish" date. Like with FIDE, there is a "received", "not received" and "rated" list - it would be very rare that a file is received by the rating officer but not rated within 24 hours. There were two instances of this in the last few years - one where the rating officer was simply away, the other where the system had a glitch which took a few weeks to work out (there was a news item about that one).

I know the rating officer and LCU work closely around August list time and I'd work closely with all involved to make sure the upcoming FIDE and ICU lists are as up to date as possible for February for International Selection. Apart from Internationals, all events tend to be well up to date by August 31st given the sparseness of Irish events over summer.

cdeb

Another issue to consider is whether the LCU should have left it so late to apply the penalty. I don't know is it the case that the player's rating was realised/recorded so late that's the issue, but if a penalty was applied after the first instance, Drogheda would have been saved 6 points.

I'm loathe to overly criticise the LCU here because they do fantastic work running the leagues as smoothly as they do, but it's just a thought.

pdemp

Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »

"It's based on that that I feel Drogheda were hard done by [i.e no published ICU rating in Sept, therefore the used FIDE]. Whether they can be bothered with an appeal is up to them. Although if Curragh get relegated by 1 point they could have reason to appeal too, as they are the only ones not to benefit. "

A case for the LCU to decide - I think their rules are pretty clear but given the allowance they gave to Elm Mount in the Heidenfeld, there certainly seems to be wiggle room when it comes to rating.

From me this is the issue. The LCU rules are clear, and Drogheda appeared to have obeyed them. There is no room for wiggle room in the rules, but I think there should be, provided there's transparency, or course. Both Elm Mount's 150 issue and Gonzaga's players declaration issue seem genuine mistakes/misreading of the rules, and so a controller judgement should be allowed, as was used in these issues, but it doesn't appear to be allowed for in the current league rules.

Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »

"Thanks. I've understood that [based on observation], but sometimes the ratings are not published until the middle of the next month [ which is fine -- volunteers after all, the ICU is not like FIDE ], so maybe the actual date they are published on the website versus the date the ratings are done up to."

Unlike with FIDE, the ICU rating lists backdate if files are delivered late - and they often are delivered to the ICU late. So its a little more complicated than a "publish" date. Like with FIDE, there is a "received", "not received" and "rated" list - it would be very rare that a file is received by the rating officer but not rated within 24 hours. There were two instances of this in the last few years - one where the rating officer was simply away, the other where the system had a glitch which took a few weeks to work out (there was a news item about that one).
...

But would the whole ICU original v corrected/official rating cover it, with the original able to have a proper published date.


Sorry Ennis players I've definitely taken this off topic at this stage.

cdeb

Stuff on the Armstrong transgression moved to that thread.

pdemp - don't think the posts on the Ennis points deduction are off topic at all. Any results can still come through around the discussion.

L1m1tless

Skerries V Rathmines, any results or was it rescheduled? Thanks

Rathminor

L1m1tless wrote: »

Skerries V Rathmines, any results or was it rescheduled? Thanks

Skerries v Rathmines was postponed. The new date hasn’t been set yet

Rathminor

Skerries 4 Rathmines 2

L1m1tless

Decent result considering the gap. Well done

L1m1tless

Curragh 1.5 Malahide 1.5 with 3 games to go

L1m1tless

Curragh 3 Malahide 3 Final Result

L1m1tless

Rathmines 1 Curragh 5

Rathmines were very unlucky, Games were much closer than the scoreline suggests.