Armstrong Cup 2018-19

Retd.LoyolaCpt

Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »

I was wrong - Li away at youth Olympiad. Rounds 3-4 will be rated in time for January.

Li 1-0 Quigley so Gonzaga A win that match against Kilkenny 5.5-2.5.

Gonzaga A are therefore 2 points clear at Christmas having played Trinity (2nd), Gonzaga B (3rd), Elm Mount (5th), Kilkenny (6th) and Blanchardstown (9th). Bray (4th) up next.

Trinity (2 behind) and Gonzaga B (4 behind) make up the top 3. Both have had far easier fixtures having only played 2 of the top 6 each.

At the other end, Dun Laoghaire are on 11 (1 adj), Rathmines on 13 (2 adj) and Balbriggan 15.5 are out by themselves in a 3 horse scrap currently. They'll hope that Blanchardstown and others join them; each of those 3 have had a fairly tough fixture list so far having played 3-4 of the top 6.

sodacat11

Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »

At the other end, Dun Laoghaire are on 11 (1 adj), Rathmines on 13 (2 adj) and Balbriggan 15.5 are out by themselves in a 3 horse scrap currently. They'll hope that Blanchardstown and others join them; each of those 3 have had a fairly tough fixture list so far having played 3-4 of the top 6.

It's a bit of a chicken and egg situation. Maybe the only reason that 3 of the 4 we played are in the top six is because they've played us. The second half of the fixture list doesn't look much easier for any of the struggling teams.

Rathminor

Kilkenny 5.5 Rathmines 2.5

Tim Harding

Was the Tom O'Gorman v De Verdier game played this afternoon?

That's the only result still awaited to complete round 5.

Round 6 matches are scheduled for mid-January:

Gonzaga B v Elm Mount and Balbriggan v Kilkenny (Sat 12th)
St. Benildus v Trinity and Dun Laoghaire v Dublin (Wed 16th)
Rathmines v Blanchardstown (Thurs 17th)
Gonzaga A v Bray/Greystones (Sat 19th).

sodacat11

It is interesting to note that Rathmines has only used its eight highest rated players in 26 of the 40 games played so far. Non availability of players is a big factor in our league position.

macelligott

No sign of Armstrong Rounds 3 & 4 being rated yet by iCU or FIDE :-(
The games have been finished for quite a while and I think tomorrow is the deadline for submission to FIDE for January rating.
They were to be rated in December but there was an outstanding game so submission was delayed. But FIDE won't be happy if we miss both the December and January deadline!

Tim Harding

There is also still no result in the round 5 game De Verdier v Tom O'Gorman. Has this been played?

Postponing games of players who don't live in Ireland is a bad practice IMHO and this is one of several areas where the league rules need tightening up before next season.

I thought that maybe Tom was coming over for the Leinster Juniors which starts on Tuesday but he is not in the entry list at present.
If this game hasn't been played by 31 December I think it should be scored 0-0.

macelligott

Tim,

But the submission of Rounds 3 & 4 to FIDE is the more immediate challenge.
Deadline tomorrow perhaps?



Round 5 will be submitted with Round 6 so the deadline is a month away.

Tim Harding

Not only will the FIDE rating be delayed, but also the ICU rating of the leagues? Normally January is a major update, and then February (before Bunratty)?

Yes, if it's true the LCU controller hasn't sent the ICU rating officer the necessary files, then it is necessary to replace him immediately!

After the bad decisions he made last April, which had to be overturned on appeal, he shouldn't have been allowed to continue in that role, but I suppose it's not easy to find a volunteer to replace him. I certainly wouldn't have the time.

Joedryan

Whats all this? Instead of trying to blame individuals maybe the system needs to be over-hauled and automated somewhat.

Just thoughts.

prey

Tim Harding wrote: »

There is also still no result in the round 5 game De Verdier v Tom O'Gorman. Has this been played?

Postponing games of players who don't live in Ireland is a bad practice IMHO and this is one of several areas where the league rules need tightening up before next season.

I thought that maybe Tom was coming over for the Leinster Juniors which starts on Tuesday but he is not in the entry list at present.
If this game hasn't been played by 31 December I think it should be scored 0-0.

MdV 1-0 TO'G weeks ago

Tim Harding

prey wrote: »

MdV 1-0 TO'G weeks ago

Thanks; it is still not up on the LCU league website.

As Joe said, maybe there needs to be an automated system so that all results once confirmed there go straight to the ICU rating system, but the rating officer needs a complete tournament or round; if a result or two is missing then he cannot proceed.
The Heidenfeld and Ennis results have also not been sent to FIDE yet and today is the deadline, I think.

I heard that the ratings officer has more than once requested the data but not received it. If the LCU controller is unwell and unable to answer, should there not be a deputy who can do it?

As I have suggested before, these three divisions should either be put under ICU control, or not FIDE-rated.

mikhail

Tim Harding wrote: »

Thanks; it is still not up on the LCU league website.

That's not really good enough. You called Tom out by name, and cast aspersions on his behaviour, speculated behaviour you considered unsporting enough to call for it to be banned. You owe him a public apology.

Tim Harding

mikhail wrote: »

That's not really good enough. You called Tom out by name, and cast aspersions on his behaviour, speculated behaviour you considered unsporting enough to call for it to be banned. You owe him a public apology.

That's a crazy reaction, totally out of proportion.

I did not say Tom did anything wrong, just that maybe the captains made an arrangement that could not be fulfilled. As it turns out the game was played in time but the result was not posted.

I don't consider I owe Tom any apology, or De Verdier for that matter.

cdeb

mikhail wrote: »

That's not really good enough. You called Tom out by name, and cast aspersions on his behaviour, speculated behaviour you considered unsporting enough to call for it to be banned. You owe him a public apology.

I don't think Tim's called for anyone to be banned in fairness? He's suggested a tightening up of rules and a 0-0 award if the game isn't yet played (as Brady v Daly last year)

I think Tim can be slightly harsh with his views on rule implementations at times (unless it's against Trinity), but I'm not sure this is one of those times.

sodacat11

cdeb wrote: »

I think Tim can be slightly harsh with his views on rule implementations at times (unless it's against Trinity), but I'm not sure this is one of those times.

"Slightly" is not an adverb that I would use to describe any of Tim's comments.

Tim Harding

sodacat11 wrote: »

"Slightly" is not an adverb that I would use to describe any of Tim's comments.

Or yours!

Tim Harding

macelligott wrote: »

Tim,

But the submission of Rounds 3 & 4 to FIDE is the more immediate challenge.
Deadline tomorrow perhaps?

Round 5 will be submitted with Round 6 so the deadline is a month away.

I just looked (10.30am Monday) and the Armstrong rounds 3-4 have been uploaded to FIDE just in time, but not the Heidenfeld and Ennis as yet.

So the Armstrong should be included in January FIDE ratings but it was originally scheduled to be included for December.

There is no obvious reason why round 5 is scheduled to be uploaded with round 6 unless it's a FIDE requirement to submit rounds in pairs (doubtful). Last season it meant that games played in November did not get rated until March whereas it could have been rated for January. I actually made this point from the floor at the agm.

sodacat11

Tim Harding wrote: »

Or yours!

My New year resolution is to be more P.C

mikhail

Tim Harding wrote: »

That's a crazy reaction, totally out of proportion.

That's how I feel about most of your posts here, but then I rate slander a higher offence than not updating the league tables instantly.

HaraldSchmidt

Blaming the players for postponing their matches is wrong, as it is the captains who are trying to get their strongest team out, and if they are allowed to postpone games, then they will do so.

Many years ago, games were often played many months after their scheduled date. It was very difficult to know where the teams stood.

Peter Scott took over, and insisted on all games being played before or on the scheduled match date. Since he has stepped back the current controller has given more leeway to the captains in organising the matches. It would seem that this is not a good idea.

No doubt there will be pressure on the LCU to reduce the number of postponements allowed next season.

Joedryan

HaraldSchmidt wrote: »

Blaming the players for postponing their matches is wrong, as it is the captains who are trying to get their strongest team out, and if they are allowed to postpone games, then they will do so.

Many years ago, games were often played many months after their scheduled date. It was very difficult to know where the teams stood.

Peter Scott took over, and insisted on all games being played before or on the scheduled match date. Since he has stepped back the current controller has given more leeway to the captains in organising the matches. It would seem that this is not a good idea.

No doubt there will be pressure on the LCU to reduce the number of postponements allowed next season.

Why? I agree it needs to be stopped permanently but if players stopped doing it that might help the process along...

Retd.LoyolaCpt

Balbriggan 4.5-3.5 Kilkenny
Gonzaga B 5-2 Elm Mount - one game to play

sodacat11

Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »

Balbriggan 4.5-3.5 Kilkenny
Gonzaga B 5-2 Elm Mount - one game to play

Call me a sceptic but I can't help wondering, given the distance involved, whether all the drawn games in the balbriggan v kk match were actually played at all.
Really annoying for the teams struggling at the bottom when their rivals get to face a much weaker Kilkenny than they had to

cdeb

Balbriggan have a very dependable team; they hardly ever use subs. (Not a single one last season for example)

You'd imagine if Kilkenny were short a couple of players, Balbriggan would hardly agree draws when the alternative was to have their full team face a weakened Kilkenny team.

sodacat11

cdeb wrote: »

Balbriggan have a very dependable team; they hardly ever use subs. (Not a single one last season for example)

You'd imagine if Kilkenny were short a couple of players, Balbriggan would hardly agree draws when the alternative was to have their full team face a weakened Kilkenny team.

If you look at the ratings for the drawn games and the Balbriggan league position prior to the match you will see that draws in any of these games would have been very welcome to Balbriggan. Kilkenny have a history of pre arranged draws in away games but maybe that's not what happened yesterday.

Tim Harding

cdeb wrote: »

Balbriggan have a very dependable team; they hardly ever use subs. (Not a single one last season for example)

You'd imagine if Kilkenny were short a couple of players, Balbriggan would hardly agree draws when the alternative was to have their full team face a weakened Kilkenny team.

This time Balbriggan were missing their top board, Bart, and they still won! Kilkenny fielded none of their 2200+ titled players.

sodacat11

Tim Harding wrote: »

This time Balbriggan were missing their top board, Bart, and they still won! Kilkenny fielded none of their 2200+ titled players.

Good point. With all this hassle about travel and rural teams fielding weak teams against some clubs and not others maybe the obvious solution is a Dublin league played on weeknights and a rural league at weekends.

macelligott

Big match for the relegation battle will be R6 Rathmines v Blanchardstown on Thursday 17th.

sodacat11

macelligott wrote: »

Big match for the relegation battle will be R6 Rathmines v Blanchardstown on Thursday 17th.

Any less than a big win and we,Rathmines, will be up a well known creek without a paddle .