Armstrong Reform

anchor4208

Starting a separate thread for this, although the mods can merge it with the main Armstrong thread if they wish.

The Armstrong is the world’s longest running chess league, and is still a great competition after well over a century. Most of the top active players in Leinster are regular participants. It’s not without it’s flaws. There’s regular debate about the postponement of individual games. There’s delays in the submission and publication of results, and there are delays in getting the games rated. As I type, the 5th round should have been completed four weeks ago, yet only four rounds have been submitted to FIDE for rating, Even more bizarrely, it seems that no rounds have been successfully submitted to the ICU rating officer for processing. Of the 11 rounds in the Armstrong, 10 are played without an arbiter being present, in breach of FIDE rules.

As with all competitions, it has changed over the years. The most striking change in the Armstrong now as compared with say 10 or 15 years ago is the number of weekend matches. In the past, only matches involving teams from outside the greater Dublin area were played on a Saturday. By contrast, of the total of 66 matches in the Armstrong this season, 45 will be played at weekends. Of the 12 teams in the division, only 3 will play the minority of their games on week nights (Blanchardstown, Elm Mount and Rathmines with 4, 4 and 5 week day matches out of a possible 11). On average, if an Armstrong player plays all 11 matches for their team, they will play 7.5 of them on individual weekend days.
In light of all of the above, I think it’s time to look at bringing in potential reforms to the Armstrong which could address some of the above issues, so here’s a proposal.

1. The Armstrong should become a weekend only event, held over 6 weekend days spread throughout the season. There should be two rounds per day on each of the first 5 days, with one round on the concluding day. Games will commence at 1.30 and 6.30.
2. The schedule should involve one day per month, running from October to March.
3. Each match day will involve a single venue for all matches. There will be a controller/arbiter present.
4. Teams can agree to pre-play individual games by mutual agreement, but all games will have to be concluded by the end of the relevant match day.
5. (Optional). The top six teams from the previous year each get to host a match day, with appropriate funding provided by the LCU.
6. (Optional). A blitz event at the conclusion of round 11.

The advantages of this approach are

1. Armstrong players will only have to give up 6 weekend days per year rather than 7.5.
2. Everyone will know exactly where they stand after each match day.
3. The whole event will be more sociable, with all of the players being in the one venue once per month.
4. It will allow the generation of a rating submission immediately after each match day, and will meet the FIDE requirement for having an arbiter present.
5. It will allow the space for the creation of a weeknight only league if the demand for such a thing still exists.

The disadvantages of this approach are

1. This is quite a radical change, and change is never good.
2. It won’t suit those for whom weekend matches are awkward. However, the tide is moving against these people anyway.

So, any thoughts???

zeitnot

anchor4208 wrote: »

Starting a separate thread for this, although the mods can merge it with the main Armstrong thread if they wish.

...

1. The Armstrong should become a weekend only event, held over 6 weekend days spread throughout the season. There should be two rounds per day on each of the first 5 days, with one round on the concluding day. Games will commence at 1.30 and 6.30.
2. The schedule should involve one day per month, running from October to March.
3. Each match day will involve a single venue for all matches. There will be a controller/arbiter present.
4. Teams can agree to pre-play individual games by mutual agreement, but all games will have to be concluded by the end of the relevant match day.
5. (Optional). The top six teams from the previous year each get to host a match day, with appropriate funding provided by the LCU.
6. (Optional). A blitz event at the conclusion of round 11.

The advantages of this approach are

1. Armstrong players will only have to give up 6 weekend days per year rather than 7.5.
2. Everyone will know exactly where they stand after each match day.
3. The whole event will be more sociable, with all of the players being in the one venue once per month.
4. It will allow the generation of a rating submission immediately after each match day, and will meet the FIDE requirement for having an arbiter present.
5. It will allow the space for the creation of a weeknight only league if the demand for such a thing still exists.

The disadvantages of this approach are

1. This is quite a radical change, and change is never good.
2. It won’t suit those for whom weekend matches are awkward. However, the tide is moving against these people anyway.

So, any thoughts???

Not exactly a neutral summing up of the advantages and disadvantages!

Instead of 7.5 weekend days that are half-wrecked, you'd have 6 weekend days that are totally wrecked. Hmm.

Many of the problems have nothing to do with weekends and can be solved by other suggestions above. E.g., item 4 could be done right away and would fix the rating problem. And there's nothing to stop a blitz after round 11 as it is.

Evidently there is at least some demand for weekday games, since many clubs still have their matches on weekday nights. Why not respect the clubs' choices?

cdeb

I agree the arguments against the arguments against a rather hackneyed and poorly thought-out.

A couple of other thoughts -

1) It's not correct to say the Armstrong hasn't been ICU rated. Rounds 1-4 are there.
2) If FIDE rules mean the leagues can't be rated without major changes, why not drop the FIDE rating of leagues instead? Is it really that important?
3) Weekends only would mean some current players wouldn't be able to play at all. It's not good enough to say "sod them"
4) Teams wouldn't be able to pre-play without a FIDE arbiter present
5) I think rounds are submitted two at a time to FIDE?
6) The subs rule would probably need changing. 3 sub games max doesn't divide into 2 games per day, so you could end up needing different subs for the same day
7) I don't think 1:30/6:30 would work. One late game could last five hours. Even at 4:30 hours, isn't there a rule about minimum gap between rounds for FIDE tournaments? So you could be starting the evening game at 7, ending at 11 or even 11:30 - and then you've a drive back to Kilkenny ahead of you. Or Enniscorthy/Cavan/Ballinasloe if this proposal is to be taken for all the FIDE-rated leagues
8) Most clubs couldn't host anything like 48 games at one time. If the idea is that each club find a local venue for the games - well that's more complicated for clubs than the current scenario

anchor4208

cdeb wrote: »

I agree the arguments against the arguments against a rather hackneyed and poorly thought-out.

With respect (more respect than you've shown me ), I disagree.

A couple of other thoughts -

cdeb wrote: »

1) It's not correct to say the Armstrong hasn't been ICU rated. Rounds 1-4 are there.

My bad. Some of the other divisions are a disaster from a rating point of view, but the Armstrong gets a bare pass. Round 5 did conclude a month ago though, and still hasn't been done.

cdeb wrote: »

2) If FIDE rules mean the leagues can't be rated without major changes, why not drop the FIDE rating of leagues instead? Is it really that important?

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. There's never really been a debate about whether the Armstrong should be FIDE rated. It does impact on the league so that debate should happen. IMO, it's a good thing though. For example, with the increasing number of titled players, a FIDE rated league offers the possibility of norms being available on board 1.

cdeb wrote: »

3) Weekends only would mean some current players wouldn't be able to play at all. It's not good enough to say "sod them"

A 'poorly thought-out' response . My point isn't about changing an 'evenings' league into a weekend league - my point is that this is happening anyway. The average Armstrong player who can't play on weekends will only get to play 3.5 games per year. Far from saying "sod them", my proposal could well be of benefit to them, which I expand upon below.

cdeb wrote: »

4) Teams wouldn't be able to pre-play without a FIDE arbiter present

Of course, pre-playing could be banned altogether. I'm not sure what your point is here though. I'm saying that all games (bar round 11) are against FIDE rules, and it would be an improvement to address that in most cases. Your argument against that is that there would still be some rogue games? Surely you'd have to acknowledge my suggestion is an improvement.

cdeb wrote: »

5) I think rounds are submitted two at a time to FIDE?

Your point being ... ? There's no requirement to submit rounds two at a time, it's just something we do for some reason.

cdeb wrote: »

6) The subs rule would probably need changing. 3 sub games max doesn't divide into 2 games per day, so you could end up needing different subs for the same day

Agreed - not a big deal

cdeb wrote: »

7) I don't think 1:30/6:30 would work. One late game could last five hours. Even at 4:30 hours, isn't there a rule about minimum gap between rounds for FIDE tournaments? So you could be starting the evening game at 7, ending at 11 or even 11:30 - and then you've a drive back to Kilkenny ahead of you. Or Enniscorthy/Cavan/Ballinasloe if this proposal is to be taken for all the FIDE-rated leagues

This proposal is just for the Armstrong (see thread title). The starting times for games is of course up for discussion. However, the recent ICU all play all events had starting times of 11.00 and 16.00 - a five hour gap which met FIDE requirements

cdeb wrote: »

8) Most clubs couldn't host anything like 48 games at one time. If the idea is that each club find a local venue for the games - well that's more complicated for clubs than the current scenario

Agreed that most clubs couldn't host 48 games. Under the proposal, 6 venues would have to be hired for a day each, or a single venue would have to be hired 6 times. The LCU could be required to shoulder this burden, or it could be devolved to the clubs. In the latter scenario, six clubs would each be required to source a venue once per year - hardly an earth shattering requirement.

It's not as if the current setup is ideal either. The current Armstrong is a sprawling beast, with matches taking place on a total of 34 different days over a 7 month period. The logistics involved in coming up with the fixtures list must be a nightmare. Crucially, the existing Armstrong fixture list is inhibiting the development of additional competitions, which might be of benefit to the 'evenings' only player. I should point out that I personally prefer playing chess on week day evenings than on weekends, but the way the Armstrong is developing, I'm not getting my preference any more. However, if the Armstrong was reduced to 6 fixed days, one could easily see additional club competitions being developed to fill the gap. For example, it would be relatively easy to establish an evenings only Dublin league, involving a north Dublin division and a south Dublin division, 5 or 6 rounds in each, non-FIDE rated, and with the winners of each division playing off. Or evenings only individual competitions could occur (along the lines of John McMorrow's IM norm league which took place last Summer, except for at lower levels too). These things are awkward to achieve with the current Armstrong structure, but a neater Armstrong could benefit both those who prefer weekend chess and those who prefer evening chess.

anchor4208

zeitnot wrote: »

Not exactly a neutral summing up of the advantages and disadvantages!

Indeed

zeitnot wrote: »

Instead of 7.5 weekend days that are half-wrecked, you'd have 6 weekend days that are totally wrecked. Hmm.

This of course is a matter of opinion. Some people will legitimately see it that way. Others (like me) will feel that if I have to give up a weekend day, I may as well get two games out of it. And I may as well get to eat, hang out and bond with my team mates too!

zeitnot wrote: »

Many of the problems have nothing to do with weekends and can be solved by other suggestions above. E.g., item 4 could be done right away and would fix the rating problem. And there's nothing to stop a blitz after round 11 as it is.

Maybe. The title of the thread is 'Armstrong reform' rather than 'My Armstrong reform', so other suggestions are welcome and may be more appropriate. Allowing the pre-playing of games only, even in the current Armstrong format would I think improve things.

zeitnot wrote: »

Evidently there is at least some demand for weekday games, since many clubs still have their matches on weekday nights. Why not respect the clubs' choices?

For sure, but I think you're missing the point on this one. For example St. Benildus clearly have a preference for having matches on weekday nights, and have chosen Wednesday evenings for their home games. However, Benildus players will only get to play 3 games all year on Wednesday nights versus a total of 6 games on weekends. This is happening anyway! I'm not arguing that an evenings only league should be converted into a weekend league. I'm arguing that what was more or less an evenings only league is gradually morphing into a weekend league, and is doing so in a haphazard fashion. We can ignore that and let it drift along, or we can acknowledge that change, and see if it offers an opportunity to improve things.

zeitnot

anchor4208 wrote: »

...

For example, it would be relatively easy to establish an evenings only Dublin league, involving a north Dublin division and a south Dublin division, 5 or 6 rounds in each, non-FIDE rated, and with the winners of each division playing off.
...

An easy solution would be to call the evenings-only league, of whatever structure, the "Armstrong Cup", and to call the weekend league something else (some variation on 4NCL).

sodacat11

I think that there is some merit in many of Anchor's proposals and definitely some sort of reform is needed. My own preference, for what it's worth, would be for games to be played only on weeknights unless there is more than a 50K commute involved , we have enough weekend tournaments. To cut out travelling I would also prefer to see the Armstrong cut in two on geographical grounds Group A Balbriggan, Elm Mt, Dublin, Dublin U, Blanchardstown, Gonzaga B
Group B Dun Laoghaire, Benildus,Gonzaga A, Rathmines, Kilkenny ,Bray each team plays each other home and away and then we get semi finals and a final as well as relegation payoffs on the final day.
Tough on Gonzaga B having to play in the northern section but that's the price for having two Armstrong teams and better that they are kept apart from Gonzaga B.

anchor4208

zeitnot wrote: »

An easy solution would be to call the evenings-only league, of whatever structure, the "Armstrong Cup", and to call the weekend league something else (some variation on 4NCL).

If all we're disagreeing on is what the competitions are called, then we're agreeing with each other, because I really don't care which competition is called the 'Armstrong Cup'.

cdeb

anchor4208 wrote: »

With respect (more respect than you've shown me ), I disagree.

Not sure why you think I've shown you a lack of disrespect. I was agreeing with zeitnot's analysis of your arguments against the case. They're not balanced.

A couple of other thoughts -

anchor4208 wrote: »

the Armstrong gets a bare pass. Round 5 did conclude a month ago though, and still hasn't been done.

The Armstrong gets a "bare pass" because it's fully rated? Tough crowd. What do you want here exactly? Since the leagues started moving to "live rating", they've always been rated two rounds at a time - so round 5 is not yet due to be rated. And I don't see the huge rush for it to be either. The only drawback of the (excellent) ratings system is that now people always seem to want their games rated now.

anchor4208 wrote: »

There's never really been a debate about whether the Armstrong should be FIDE rated. IMO, it's a good thing though.

I agree it's a good thing if it doesn't impact on the running of the league. If it does then it needs to be considered. i'd be happy dropping it. Has anyone actually come remotely close to a norm in the Armstrong?

anchor4208 wrote: »

A 'poorly thought-out' response . The average Armstrong player who can't play on weekends will only get to play 3.5 games per year.

Not "poorly thought-out" at all. 3½ games is 3½ games more than your option for starters. It's enough to make players eligible for the NCC if they wish. And it can increase in the case of players who agree to play games in advance. While I get your point that weekend games with pre-playing options could be seen as an improvement, I don't think you could get away with partly implementing FIDE's rules. Either the games need a FIDE arbiter present or they don't. "Most of them do" isn't an option. So I think strict FIDE rules simply don't allow your solution unfortunately.

anchor4208 wrote: »

Your point being ... ? There's no requirement to submit rounds two at a time, it's just something we do for some reason.

I'm not entirely sure that's correct - I think two rounds at a time is the FIDE stipulation. Could be wrong on that though. But again - why is instant ratings such a big issue?

anchor4208 wrote: »

This proposal is just for the Armstrong (see thread title).

I don't think it should be. It should be for all FIDE divisions (Armstrong, Heidenfeld, Ennis). They're all equally affected by this.

anchor4208 wrote: »

In the latter scenario, six clubs would each be required to source a venue once per year - hardly an earth shattering requirement.

It's not earth-shattering, but it extra work above and beyond what clubs undertake now. (And that's before they're subjected to a minute criticism of their venue by sodacat on here!). If the current system works - and my view is it's fine - then extra work for volunteer committee members isn't necessary.

anchor4208 wrote: »

It's not as if the current setup is ideal either. The current Armstrong is a sprawling beast, with matches taking place on a total of 34 different days over a 7 month period. The logistics involved in coming up with the fixtures list must be a nightmare.

I don't see why that's an issue to be honest. The fixtures are done by computer, with some manual intervention.

anchor4208 wrote: »

Crucially, the existing Armstrong fixture list is inhibiting the development of additional competitions, which might be of benefit to the 'evenings' only player.

I'll agree with this. We have 8 teams and it's getting very hard to find room for club events, which are essential for any club. Currently, we just about manage three (senior club championships, junior club championships, blitz grand prix). Talks or coaching sessions happen while there's other games on.

Against that of course, it's nice for players to see league matches on when they're up the club - particularly new players, who then soon become the ones that others are coming in to watch.

I don't really see the need to replace the Armstrong with an Armstrong, as you suggest (the mini Dublin league). The time would be better used developing club nights I think. But that's just my tuppence.

There are pros and cons of your suggestion. I agree with some of the pros. I don't think you've considered the cons at all sufficiently. On balance, my view would be opposed. But that's just my view - as yours is just your view.

sodacat11

Of the 196 players who took part in the Armstrong last season less than half could be called regular participants (5 or more games). This would suggest that there are possibilities for some other format being used or maybe a need for more opportunities to play midweek chess.

cdeb

Have you counted subs in that though?

sodacat11

cdeb wrote: »

Have you counted subs in that though?

Yes I have. I am not pedantic enough to go through each and every player to see who was a sub and who was not.

cdeb

Well that's fair enough, but it then invalidates your stat.

12 x 8 is 96 players who would be considered declared. Some teams could declare 9 players, but as you say, let's not get bogged down in that.

No sub by definition can have played 5 games or more, but subs are half the players.

So where you say less than half the players played 5 or more games, what you actually mean is almost every declared player did play 5 or more games

sodacat11

cdeb wrote: »

Well that's fair enough, but it then invalidates your stat.

12 x 8 is 96 players who would be considered declared. Some teams could declare 9 players, but as you say, let's not get bogged down in that.

No sub by definition can have played 5 games or more, but subs are half the players.

So where you say less than half the players played 5 or more games, what you actually mean is almost every declared player did play 5 or more games

Sodacat has.gone to slit his wrists

zeitnot

anchor4208 wrote: »

Indeed
...
For sure, but I think you're missing the point on this one. For example St. Benildus clearly have a preference for having matches on weekday nights, and have chosen Wednesday evenings for their home games. However, Benildus players will only get to play 3 games all year on Wednesday nights versus a total of 6 games on weekends. This is happening anyway! I'm not arguing that an evenings only league should be converted into a weekend league. I'm arguing that what was more or less an evenings only league is gradually morphing into a weekend league, and is doing so in a haphazard fashion. We can ignore that and let it drift along, or we can acknowledge that change, and see if it offers an opportunity to improve things.

It's interesting to consider hard numbers all right. But I'm not sure how much they support the overall 'reform' you're suggesting.

The issue isn't whether Benildus players get games on a Wednesday; it's whether they get games on weekday nights rather than weekends.

This season Benildus players get 3 out of 5 home matches on Wednesdays, and also get 2 out of 5 away matches on weekdays. (Obviously leaving out the final round.) 5 out of 10 overall -- still substantial, and not quite time to pull the plug on this just yet, it seems to me.

And some of that is luck of the draw, if a team gets drawn at home to opponents who are travelling from far away. Elm Mount players get 7 out of 10 matches on weekday nights this season. It seems a huge change to reduce that to 0.

(And it's 5 for Dun Laoghaire, 6 for Rathmines, 7 for Blanchcardstown.)

In some ways the current system has advantages. Preferences differ and clubs can tailor their schedule to the tastes of their members.

cdeb

Yes, the stat that the average Armstrong player will only play 3.5 weekday games is another bad one, as it's skewed by Kilkenny and Balbriggan who, as country teams, must play all their games on Saturdays. It's also skewed by Dublin, Trinity and the two Gonzagas choosing to play home games on Saturdays. For those clubs who choose to play home games on week nights, their players get a lot more than 3.5 games

anchor4208

cdeb wrote: »

Yes, the stat that the average Armstrong player will only play 3.5 weekday games is another bad one, as it's skewed by Kilkenny and Balbriggan who, as country teams, must play all their games on Saturdays. It's also skewed by Dublin, Trinity and the two Gonzagas choosing to play home games on Saturdays. For those clubs who choose to play home games on week nights, their players get a lot more than 3.5 games

Wow, impressive logic here. I can now understand this comment

sodacat11 wrote: »

Sodacat has.gone to slit his wrists

The stats are an accurate representation of the underlying data. They are ‘skewed’ by facts the way all stats are. The fact is that a number of teams either have to or choose to play their matches at weekends. That latter group has grown over the years, bringing us to where we are now. Furthermore, it’s likely to get worse (or better, depending on your view). The team leading the Heidenfeld at the moment play on Saturdays, and the teams occupying the bottom two places in the Armstrong play on weekdays.

zeitnot wrote: »

It's interesting to consider hard numbers all right. But I'm not sure how much they support the overall 'reform' you're suggesting.
The issue isn't whether Benildus players get games on a Wednesday; it's whether they get games on weekday nights rather than weekends.

This season Benildus players get 3 out of 5 home matches on Wednesdays, and also get 2 out of 5 away matches on weekdays. (Obviously leaving out the final round.) 5 out of 10 overall -- still substantial, and not quite time to pull the plug on this just yet, it seems to me.

Why leave out the last round? It does actually exist, it is played on a weekend, and all (or most) of the players willingly turn up and play. Leaving it out is like saying ‘obviously, we’ll leave out all matches involving Kilkenny’.

zeitnot wrote: »

And some of that is luck of the draw, if a team gets drawn at home to opponents who are travelling from far away. Elm Mount players get 7 out of 10 matches on weekday nights this season. It seems a huge change to reduce that to 0.

(And it's 5 for Dun Laoghaire, 6 for Rathmines, 7 for Blanchcardstown.)

It’s not the luck of the draw. You will play on a Saturday against Bray, Kilkenny and Balbriggan whether you are home or away. Furthermore, if that’s not your normal day for home matches, you will have to arrange and perhaps pay for your venue to be available on the Saturday. There are 4 teams close to the centre of Dublin that choose to play home games on weekends. Odds are you’ll get two of them away every year.

Taking your point and running with it though, Dun Laoghaire, Rathmines, Elm Mount, Blanchardstown and St. Benildus have all opted for weekday matches at home. As a consequence, their players will get 5/11, 6/11, 7/11, 7/11 and 5/11 matches on weekdays respectively, a total of 30/55. So, they will play 55% of their games on weekdays and 45% on weekends. These figures will flip next season if Ballinasloe get promoted.

Of the 12 teams currently in the Armstrong, 7 play their home matches on a Saturday, and 5 have chosen to stick with weekdays. So, just over 58% of the players in the Armstrong are making a conscious decision already to play 100% of their games on weekends. The remaining 42% are consciously signing up for an event where they will roughly play 55% of their games on weekdays, and 45% on weekends.

I can’t say that the majority (58%) agree with my proposal of 2 games each weekend day, and playing in a single venue. They certainly don’t agree with you though, as they have already voted with their feet.

Who knows what the minority (42%) think. No-one has asked them, and the debate on here involves a very small number of contributors. I’m one of that 42% though, and I’m frustrated with the number of weekends that league chess is eating into, for a single game on each occasion, and I know anecdotally that I am not alone. Maybe the next step should be a survey?

mikhail

The suggestion to move to pairs of games on the weekend has some merit and should probably be debated and the players polled prior to the next LCU AGM.

Like any big change it'll seriously inconvenience some people, but that's usually a bad argument against change. The important information is how many players we would lose entirely. Of course we would likely gain some too, though it's hardly fair to give equal weight to speculated players as actual current players.

The main advantage I see is that it'd be a good use of the calendar. We could put some real thought into alternative events the LCU could run on weeknights, and I guess it'd make it easier to add to the weekender calendar too without mucking up the fixtures process. It'd also simplify meeting the FIDE requirements for arbiters, though I am of a mind that FIDE rating the Armstrong is a minor benefit not worth changing anything for. I've heard a lot of the big names at Bunratty and the like quite like the lack of pressure from their games being unrated, so I'm not sure FIDE rating does much positive for the league either.

The main disadvantage seems to me to be the logistics of arranging the venues, but this is hardly unworkable.

My own preference would be to keep things as they are, but I do think this should be seriously considered.

ComDubh

Personally I find it practically impossible to play on the weekends, so the trend to have Armstrong games at the weekend is a pain for me.

However I like this proposal a lot in that it would create a vacuum for a weeknight tournament that would suit me much better.

I'd prefer to see the LCU providing the venue, rather than leaving it up to clubs to arrange this. One club fluffs a booking and the league would be in disarray!

A poll prior to the next LCU AGM would make sense. I'd love to see this proposal trialled for a season.

pdemp

I'd say you would lose a lot of casual club players [even clubs] if this change was made to the Heidenfeld and Ennis as well. If it were Armstrong only there would need to be some fixed rule for promotion from the Heidenfeld for teams who want to turn down the chance [preferably passing the option to the next best placed Heidenfeld team who wants it].



There is some need for reform though. The current rules allow clubs such as Kilkenny to play on weeknights, they just chose not to. There is nothing in the rules anymore that forces their away games to be played on a Saturday, so that probably needs to be cleaned up if this Armstrong change doesn't happen. While it would be unfair to expect Drogheda to play Enniscorthy on a weeknight, there's no reason why Gorey or Kilkenny couldn't play Enniscorthy on club nights, so maybe add a max driving time of 1 hour rule for requiring Saturday matches rather than the old Dublin centric 25 miles from GPO [or was it 25km? - must have been for Balbriggan to be considered country].



While clubs choosing Saturdays is here to stay, I'd like to see such teams given the option to play it at 715, just so the whole day isn't gone.



And some rule that would allow junior only clubs/teams play on a Saturday at 230, irrespective of where they are based.

cdeb

anchor4208 wrote: »

Wow, impressive logic here. I can now understand this comment

sodacat11 wrote:

Sodacat has.gone to slit his wrists

Little tip here. I actually don't disagree - personally - with your proposal. I don't disagree with I do disagree with the way you're arguing it though. Maybe try debating less like a ****ing child?

anchor4208 wrote: »

The stats are an accurate representation of the underlying data.

The stats do not show what you claim they show. If you had two people of age 1 and 99, their average age would be 50 - but that is completely irrelevant to anything. Similarly your stat that the average Armstrong player has 3.5 weekday games is also irrelevant to anything. There is no such thing as an average Armstrong player.

What is relevant is that a player playing for a club who choose to play their home games on weekdays will actually have more than half of their games played on weekdays. zeitnot has shown this. You yourself have shown this in your own post -

anchor4208 wrote: »

Taking your point and running with it though, Dun Laoghaire, Rathmines, Elm Mount, Blanchardstown and St. Benildus have all opted for weekday matches at home. As a consequence, their players will get 5/11, 6/11, 7/11, 7/11 and 5/11 matches on weekdays respectively, a total of 30/55. So, they will play 55% of their games on weekdays and 45% on weekends.

Yes, at present, promotion/relegation would change that figure next year - as it always does, although Celbridge are more likely to get promoted (who play on Fridays). But then if Dún Laoghaire go down and Ballinasloe go up, they'd be big favourites to replace each other again the following year, so that doesn't show a trend as such.

So zeitnot's comment about the current setup catering to a variety of players is entirely valid. And what's wrong with offering weekday players an option?

I'll add that to the list of points currently unaddressed by your arguments of "Change is inevitable" and "I'll go slit my wrists", where it can join the questions you've ignored, such as "Why is the Armstrong being fully-rated a 'bare pass'?", and "Why is it such an issue if one round of the leagues isn't rated for a couple of weeks?"

anchor4208

cdeb wrote: »

Little tip here. I actually don't disagree - personally - with your proposal. I don't disagree with I do disagree with the way you're arguing it though. Maybe try debating less like a ****ing child?

cdeb wrote: »

I agree the arguments against the arguments against a rather hackneyed and poorly thought-out.

Practise what you preach mate. Your opening salvo in all of this was to slag off my opinion, and the effort I had put into it, rather than simply putting forward your own contrary view. I'm not a fan of your debating style either.

cdeb

No, my opening salvo was to agree with zeitnot that the counter-argument you outlined, which can be effectively be summarised as "Change is good, and the tide is moving against some people anyway" was poorly thought out. I'm not entirely sure how you can take umbrage at that, or how you can consider that this was purely "slagging off" your opinion. It's an entirely valid point to note that the counter-arguments you presented were poor.

Tim Harding

As somebody who has called here in the past for the FIDE-rated leagues to be moved to weekend play, with some reservations about the logistics involved, I am in agreement with some points made on both sides.

This post will only address points relating to FIDE rating and the arbiting of the matches.

On the FIDE rating issue, the regulations can be seen at https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=172&view=article
This says (4.11) that FIDE may rate leagues which last more than 90 days but they must have a FIDE licensed arbiter (0.3) and FIDE reserves the right not to rate (0.5).

I don't see any regulation preventing one round at a time being submitted for FIDE rating, so round 5 should go in on its own. On principle all games should be rated as soon as possible after they are played.

BTW, who is the FIDE licensed arbiter for the leagues at present? I believe it was Rory Delaney but he is now working in England.

Clause 4.11 presumably envisages leagues like the Bundesliga and 4NCL where all games in a match are played on the day with a neutral arbiter present. The Irish leagues don't match that standard and as presently run should IMHO not be FIDE rated.

We are reliant on disputes not occurring (but occasionally they do) and on any issues being sorted out by team captains who are probably involved in their own games at the same time.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't even recall that there was a FIDE licensed arbiter present at the last round of the leagues in the 2017/18 season except in a playing role. The two main people whom I could see controlling the event were not licensed arbiters,

Practically speaking, if we ran the leagues (or just the Armstrong) at a single venue, then at least one national arbiter (or FIDE arbiter) would need to be present throughout to control the 48+ games (96 if two rounds were played as in Stephen's plan) and that person might reasonably expect expenses or even a fee. If two divisions were being played at the same time at the same venue (as happens now in the last round) there should be two arbiters.

The ICU chairperson recently posted a New Year message in which he rightly said, among other things, that Ireland needs a lot more qualified arbiters.

At present there is no list online of the Irish licensed arbiters (except as part of a lengthy FIDE document which lists all licensed arbiters from every country). So if an organiser wants a licensed arbiter they don't know who to ask.
The full list (Jan 2019) is at http://arbiters.fide.com/images/stories/downloads/2013/List_of_Licensed_Arbiters.pdf

There are three levels of arbiters recognised by FIDE (with sub-classifications that need not concern us). International Arbiters are the highest level and then FIDE Arbiters who are also allowed to be in charge of title tournaments. Then there are National Arbiters whose names are submitted by the national federations and approved by FIDE on payment of a small license fee. NAs can run FIDE_rated events but cannot be chief arbiters at title events.

Nowadays you have to be experienced at FA level to qualify for IA. We currently have two IAs and one (maybe two?) FAs who are working towards the IA qualification. Thanks to the arbiter seminar run by ICU last April we now have a few more NAs of whom one or two (myself included) are now working towards the FA qualification.

A few months ago one of our two International Arbiters posted a list at https://icaa.ie/na.php but it hasn't been updated since.
Therefore I am going to provide the full list here from the FIDE page for reference, with some comments. We actually have slightly more licensed arbiters than Scotland and Wales but I don't know how active they are.

The page cited above lists:
International Arbiters (2):
Gerry Graham and Ted Jennings.

FIDE Arbiters (5):

Ivan Baburin
Rory Delaney
Pete Morriss
Ruth Redmond
Brian Scully

National Arbiters (16):
IRL 2503204 Bisset, Vincent NA
IRL 2502526 Fitzsimons, Pat NA
IRL 2510855 Gould, Richard NA
IRL 2500256 Harding, Tim NA
IRL 2509610 Kildea, Andrew NA
IRL 2510278 Kirby, Neal NA
IRL 2501287 McKeown, Paul NA
IRL 2501481 McMorrow, John NA
IRL 2503093 Mirza, Gabriel NA
IRL 2502283 O'Flaherty, Kevin NA
IRL 2507382 O'Muireagain, Colm NA
IRL 2509091 Scanlon, Pat NA
IRL 2500574 Scarry, Herbert NA
IRL 2504405 Scott, Peter NA
IRL 2500108 Short, Stephen NA
IRL 2501937 Twomey, Pat NA

So we now have five more NAs than we had 12 months ago (though one may still be serving an ICU ban?).

Of the five FAs perhaps Rory is effectively unavailable now? Also one of our NAs (Paul McKeown) is based in England where he told me is pretty exclusively involved in running junior events in the Surrey area.

I don't know Ms Redmond and Mr Scully; Pete Morriss is an active arbiter based in Galway.

anchor4208

cdeb wrote: »

No, my opening salvo was to agree with zeitnot that the counter-argument you outlined, which can be effectively be summarised as "Change is good, and the tide is moving against some people anyway" was poorly thought out. I'm not entirely sure how you can take umbrage at that, or how you can consider that this was purely "slagging off" your opinion. It's an entirely valid point to note that the counter-arguments you presented were poor.

Let me explain.
We're lucky to live in a part of the world where we're all entitled to our opinions, and we're all entitled to disagree with one another. So if you tell me you like Bach, and I tell you I prefer Mozart, I can give you reasons for my preference. However, if I tell you that I prefer Mozart, and I'm probably right because you've put very little thought or effort into forming your musical preferences, I'm not merely disagreeing with you, I'm belittling your opinion. That's what you did in your very first contribution to this debate. Zeitnot hadn't done that, he had simply put forward a contrary view, which is fine.
I didn't complain about it at the time, because I'm big enough to take it, and it is your style on here. But then you had the nerve to slag off my debating style. Pots and kettles and all that.
Anyway, I don't want to derail the thread, so even if (when!) you come back with a contrary point on this, I won't engage.

anchor4208

cdeb wrote: »

What is relevant is that a player playing for a club who choose to play their home games on weekdays will actually have more than half of their games played on weekdays. zeitnot has shown this. You yourself have shown this in your own post -

I haven't claimed that players in clubs that play on weekdays play less than half their games on weekdays. In fact, as you've stated, I clearly point out that those players are currently likely to play more than half their games on weekdays. So we all agree with one another on this.
I do point out, which you haven't addressed, that well over half the players in the Armstrong currently choose to play all of their games at weekends though.

cdeb wrote: »

So zeitnot's comment about the current setup catering to a variety of players is entirely valid. And what's wrong with offering weekday players an option?

I've previously addressed this, and other contributors have alluded to it too. The current sprawling nature of the Armstrong inhibits the development of additional evenings only competitions, which could provide weekday players with a richer suite of options than they currently have.

cdeb wrote: »

I'll add that to the list of points currently unaddressed by your arguments of "Change is inevitable" and "I'll go slit my wrists", where it can join the questions you've ignored, such as "Why is the Armstrong being fully-rated a 'bare pass'?", and "Why is it such an issue if one round of the leagues isn't rated for a couple of weeks?"

I didn't address the 'bare pass' point because your assertion isn't true. The Armstrong isn't fully rated, only 4 of the first 5 rounds are.

cdeb wrote: »

"Why is it such an issue if one round of the leagues isn't rated for a couple of weeks?"

It's not a huge issue. None of the issues are huge. At the very start of this thread, I stated that the Armstrong is still a great competition, and it is. There are small and moderate issues and flaws which could potentially be improved, and the rating one is one of them, that's all. If it never happens, I'll still sleep at night.

cdeb

anchor4208 wrote: »

Let me explain.
We're lucky to live in a part of the world where we're all entitled to our opinions, and we're all entitled to disagree with one another. So if you tell me you like Bach, and I tell you I prefer Mozart, I can give you reasons for my preference.

This isn't relevant to anything. Your only "against" points were "Change is inevitable" and "People will get left behind anyway". How this is the same as "I like Mozart" I have no idea.

I don't doubt that you prefer Mozart, and I certainly won't argue it. But I am entitled to say that the "Change is inevitable" is poorly thought out in the context of a balanced view of the matter. (I didn't need to go into the detail as I had said that I was agreeing with zeitnot's clear comments)

anchor4208 wrote: »

I do point out, which you haven't addressed, that well over half the players in the Armstrong currently choose to play all of their games at weekends though.

What you initially said was that "On average, if an Armstrong player plays all 11 matches for their team, they will play 7.5 of them on individual weekend days." This is what I have said is a bad statistic. It is not relevant as there is no such thing as an average Armstrong player.

I don't think it's correct to say that well over half Armstrong players choose to play all their games at weekends though. Only two do - Balbriggan and Kilkenny. In any event, even if we include Gonzaga A, Gonzaga B, Dublin and Trinity (who may want to play all home games at weekends, but can't play all games at weekends), I have addressed this point by saying that the current Armstrong format caters to a broad variety of player preferences.

anchor4208 wrote: »

I didn't address the 'bare pass' point because your assertion isn't true. The Armstrong isn't fully rated, only 4 of the first 5 rounds are.

But as I said, since the start of live ratings, the leagues have been rated two rounds at a time. This, presumably, is to cut down on workload for volunteer arbiters. Why is it so pressing that round 5 be rated immediately right now? You know when it will be rated. So I don't think it's fair to the volunteers putting in their time running the leagues to refer to this as a "bare pass" when what has been rated so far is to the exact same standard for the last few (3?) years with no complaints.

cdeb

I think another issue to consider here is the country clubs. Currently there's only really one (Kilkenny); Balbriggan are technically one (until, as pdemp notes, the entire concept of a country club got dropped from the league rules), but they're Dublin so I can't bring myself to count them.

Next year, there could potentially be three - Ballinasloe, Celbridge and Kilkenny.

A 6-weekend Armstrong would have to centre on Dublin realistically - so I think at least 4 of those rounds should be in Dublin. The other two could be in Kildare and Kilkenny, say.

This, then, would mean Kilkenny only having two home games per season instead of five at present. (Kilkenny maybe a bad example in all this as they often play games in Dublin, but let's run with it) Is that fair on Kilkenny? For the Dublin clubs, realistically any central venue doesn't involve too much travel, but for Kilkenny, it would be a heck of a lot of extra travelling. Ditto for teams like Celbridge and Ballinasloe in future years.

sodacat11

There are plenty of tournaments for people who want to play chess at weekends but very little for those who prefer to play midweek chess. A Saturday Armstrong game means that a person cannot go away that weekend. They would be unwise to party on the Friday night. It often also messes up the Saturday night because you might not get home from the game until 7 or 7.30 which is not ideal if you are having friends to dinner or going out socialising. If I am going to have my weekend ruled by chess then I prefer to play in a tournament rather than have everything disrupted for just one game.
Years ago the Leinster Championship was a nine round tournament played over a number of weeknights in the old Dublin Chess Club, Mondays and Thursdays if I remember correctly. It was always a very strong and well supported tournament, maybe even stronger than the Irish Championship itself. I would welcome something like that to be on the calendar again.

zeitnot

cdeb wrote: »

No, my opening salvo was to agree with zeitnot that the counter-argument you outlined, which can be effectively be summarised as "Change is good, and the tide is moving against some people anyway" was poorly thought out.

Just to clarify: I didn't say that anchor4208's proposal was "poorly thought out". And I don't think that anything I wrote implied that.

anchor4208 offered a detailed proposal and rationale, and asked for a reaction. I gave a reaction, that's all.

anchor4208

cdeb wrote: »

I think another issue to consider here is the country clubs. Currently there's only really one (Kilkenny); Balbriggan are technically one (until, as pdemp notes, the entire concept of a country club got dropped from the league rules), but they're Dublin so I can't bring myself to count them.

Next year, there could potentially be three - Ballinasloe, Celbridge and Kilkenny.

A 6-weekend Armstrong would have to centre on Dublin realistically - so I think at least 4 of those rounds should be in Dublin. The other two could be in Kildare and Kilkenny, say.

This, then, would mean Kilkenny only having two home games per season instead of five at present. (Kilkenny maybe a bad example in all this as they often play games in Dublin, but let's run with it) Is that fair on Kilkenny? For the Dublin clubs, realistically any central venue doesn't involve too much travel, but for Kilkenny, it would be a heck of a lot of extra travelling. Ditto for teams like Celbridge and Ballinasloe in future years.

I agree that it will result in Kilkenny et al. playing more matches in Dublin than they do at home. However, it won't be a 'heck of a lot of extra travelling'. In fact, they will be doing less travelling than they currently do, as they currently have to come to Dublin 6 times per year.

zeitnot

anchor4208 wrote: »

...
Why leave out the last round? It does actually exist, it is played on a weekend, and all (or most) of the players willingly turn up and play. Leaving it out is like saying ‘obviously, we’ll leave out all matches involving Kilkenny’.

I left it out because it plays a different role within the system, and tells us nothing about what clubs and players prefer for the main routine of the season. The joint last round means that the everyone actually knows who the winners were, and the team that plays the last match doesn't have an advantage in knowing exactly what to aim for, neither of which was necessarily the case before the joint last round was brought in. It's not unreasonable even for clubs and players who generally prefer weekday night games, other things being equal, to support a single, unified, one-off finale to the league. It would make sense even if all teams went to weekdays to have a last round of the current format.

anchor4208 wrote: »

It’s not the luck of the draw. You will play on a Saturday against Bray, Kilkenny and Balbriggan whether you are home or away. ...

What I meant was that there is some randomness, as a result of the draw, in how many weekday games you actually get, if you're in a club with a nominal weekday club night. In an ideal world you would get at least your 5 home matches (no randomness), plus all away matches that happen to be against teams that have weekday home matches (so some randomness right there). As it is, you may lose some of your home weekday matches if the draw happens to put you at home to Balbriggan or Kilkenny or both. This season the 'weekday' clubs get between 5 and 7 actual weekday matches, as a result of the draw.

anchor4208 wrote: »

Taking your point and running with it though, Dun Laoghaire, Rathmines, Elm Mount, Blanchardstown and St. Benildus have all opted for weekday matches at home. As a consequence, their players will get 5/11, 6/11, 7/11, 7/11 and 5/11 matches on weekdays respectively, a total of 30/55. So, they will play 55% of their games on weekdays and 45% on weekends. These figures will flip next season if Ballinasloe get promoted.

Of the 12 teams currently in the Armstrong, 7 play their home matches on a Saturday, and 5 have chosen to stick with weekdays. So, just over 58% of the players in the Armstrong are making a conscious decision already to play 100% of their games on weekends. The remaining 42% are consciously signing up for an event where they will roughly play 55% of their games on weekdays, and 45% on weekends.

I can’t say that the majority (58%) agree with my proposal of 2 games each weekend day, and playing in a single venue. They certainly don’t agree with you though, as they have already voted with their feet.

I'm not sure I follow this. Players and clubs have already voted with their feet for a league where they (for weekday clubs) get somewhere between 45% (5/11) and 64% (7/11) (calculated your way) on weekdays. Perhaps they like that! They have voted with their feet for that, not for a all-weekend system.

anchor4208 wrote: »

Who knows what the minority (42%) think. No-one has asked them, and the debate on here involves a very small number of contributors. I’m one of that 42% though, and I’m frustrated with the number of weekends that league chess is eating into, for a single game on each occasion, and I know anecdotally that I am not alone. Maybe the next step should be a survey?

If you banned Saturday matches except where the visiting team had > 1 hour travel (or whatever), how much angst would that cause? Just to get all options on the table.

But yes, a survey might be very worthwhile.

Danville

The major change I would like to see in the Armstrong Cup is as follows;

Teams be reduced from eight to five players.

Why?

I think there is too much of a disparity in standard within teams.
Most top three boards are in the 2200-2400 ratings range.
Most bottom three boards from 1700-1900

E.g.
Board 1 playing latest theory and taking 4 hours to eek out a well deserved win against another very good player.
Board eight losing without raising a gallop, or board eight out rating his opponent by 500 points.
One all!


Some benefits of such a reduction imo
Much more competition within clubs to get on the Armstrong Cup team, which increases club activity on club nights.
Maybe more participation in in-house club championships?
Lots of the best club players don’t even attend club night as they are guaranteed
a team place.
Easier to arrange matches with less postponed games.
A knock on effect on the Heidenfeld with an increase in standard there too. Of course Heidenfeld should also be reduced to five.

A few extra leagues may be needed but that should not be an insurmountable problem.

Most of the lower leagues have five or six players

I have played Armstrong Cup myself for most of the last 20 years and make the following observation;
Almost every year only about three out of twelve team have a realistic chance of winning.
Three are favourites for relegation from the off.
Six sit comfortably in the middle, no chance of winning, little chance of relegation.

It is thus a stale league, no real excitement.

Change to five person teams with hopefully at most 400 points rating difference top to bottom. Comfort zone disappears. Every result super important.

Increased tournament participation as players try and increase their rating to get back on the team?

Thoughts please.
Are you happy with Armstrong Cup playing standards?
Your suggested improvements?

Tim Harding

Danville wrote: »

...
Most top three boards are in the 2200-2400 ratings range.

This is just factually untrue. There are very few active players rated above 2200 FIDE in Ireland (and in general ICU ratings for most players are lower than their FIDE ratings).

Currently Trinity are second in the Armstrong. We have currently no player rated above 2200, though one was briefly. Our two strongest players are in the 2100s and our next two or three in the 2000s.

Name two teams whose board three is above 2200?

Retd.LoyolaCpt

Tim Harding wrote: »

Name two teams whose board three is above 2200?

Kilkenny, Gonzaga A

Tim Harding

Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »

Kilkenny, Gonzaga A

AH yes I did think of Kilkenny after posting, but they have only played the top three against Gonzaga A and it's rare they all turn out together.

I think six boards might be reasonable as in most matches the captains are scratching around trying to find subs for the bottom boards. Five is too few because then one team would have three Blacks and two Whites.

cdeb

zeitnot wrote: »

Just to clarify: I didn't say that anchor4208's proposal was "poorly thought out". And I don't think that anything I wrote implied that.

anchor4208 offered a detailed proposal and rationale, and asked for a reaction. I gave a reaction, that's all.

OK, if I've taken you up wrong, my apologies.

Though I'm not saying the proposal was poorly thought out - just the arguments against. You yourself noted that the pros and cons listed were "not exactly neutral", and I agree. I probably extrapolated from there - maybe not entirely incorrectly - that you figured the "against" arguments of, essentially, "change is good" and "people are getting left behind anyway" weren't particularly good.

So my initial comment was merely to agree with what you had already said (albeit that I maybe read it somewhat, but not entirely, incorrectly), and then add my own comments. I've said I'm not entirely against the idea, but a big change like this needs more attention paid to the negatives than the positives I think - to the risks, and not the benefits, because the risks are where you suddenly find there's a serious issue.

cdeb

Tim Harding wrote: »

I think six boards might be reasonable as in most matches the captains are scratching around trying to find subs for the bottom boards. Five is too few because then one team would have three Blacks and two Whites.

While I agree with you that most teams patently don't have 2200-rated board 3s, I don't think the above statement is necessarily correct. I did a rough analysis of the relative strengths of each board in the leagues last year (to follow on from an article I did for the ICJ about ten years ago), and this was the result -

Board	        Rating 17/18
Armstrong 1	2149
Armstrong 2	2043
Armstrong 3	1944
Armstrong 4	1870
Armstrong 5	1828
Armstrong 6	1799
Armstrong 7	1735
Armstrong 8	1615
Heidenfeld 1	1855
Heidenfeld 2	1764
Heidenfeld 3	1705
Heidenfeld 4	1640
Heidenfeld 5	1601
Heidenfeld 6	1516
Heidenfeld 7	1456
Heidenfeld 8	1314
Ennis 1	        1631
Ennis 2	        1566
Ennis 3	        1497
Ennis 4	        1406
Ennis 5	        1326
Ennis 6	        1301

The Armstrong is stronger this year with Gonzaga B and Blanch replacing Curragh and St Benildus B. But even last year, board 8 on the Armstrong was mid-Heidenfeld strength, and was stronger than all bar board 1 in the Ennis. (You can also see it's not remotely true that most teams have 2200-2400 on the top three boards) I don't think it's fair to dismiss board 8 as "scratching around for subs", which to me (and to Danville, based on his post) implies a 1200/1300 making up the numbers. If every board 8 were a sub (which isn't the case, granted, but a lot would be), then you're talking some fairly strong subs - typically in the top half of the club's next team. I don't see a problem with that.

I also don't see how reducing the Armstrong from 8 to 6 would help this - you would still be "scratching around for subs" even in that instance surely?

I don't see the need to go with the sweeping changes suggested by Danville to be honest. I don't see the issue with 1700s and 2400s playing on the same team (though it's very rare, as already noted). I don't see how a reduced Armstrong size would lead to more players playing club championships. While it would be easier for a captain to arrange a 5-man team, it would be harder for a club (and the leagues controller) to arrange a 30% or so increase in the number of teams which would result.

The issues Danville notes about not all teams having a chance of winning the league are by no means unique to the Armstrong. In fact, this would be the norm in pretty much any league in any sport in any part of the world. Some teams are better than others; that's the way of things. And Gonzaga A with five players would still beat Dún Laoghaire with five players.

Danville

Thanks for the replies, in particular to cdeb who was able to furnish facts which always helps. Certainly the ratings figures I used for boards 1-3 were too high.

However in mitigation, the figures I used for the last three boards 1700-1900 were also 100 points too high!

There is a five hundred point difference between boards one and eight in both the Armstrong and Heidenfeld. I think this is too high, meaning too high a discrepancy in standards.

The issue of a five person team having three whites and two black should not be an issue as over ten rounds it evens out. I know that in the eleventh round a team in each pairing loses out but I can accept that.

I believe that our leagues are won/lost on the performance of the bottom three boards and I think the average figures for those boards are somewhat misleading.

In my previous post I said that there are usually only three teams annually really vying for the title and this is in the main because their three bottom boards are on average say almost three hundred points higher than the nine other teams.

I wonder could cdeb have a look at the average rating of the bottom three boards of the winners/contenders of the past?
I postulate that this average figure on say board eight in much higher than 1615, which would in turn mean that the average on the other teams is somewhat less than 1615 and that’s what’s leading to only three teams being in contention.

How then do we flatten the averages?, reduce to five player teams!

cdeb

Danville wrote: »

Thanks for the replies, in particular to cdeb who was able to furnish facts which always helps. Certainly the ratings figures I used for boards 1-3 were too high.

However in mitigation, the figures I used for the last three boards 1700-1900 were also 100 points too high!

The ratings you used for 1-3 were 300 points too high though.

But I still don't see why that's an issue anyway. I don't think the leagues are won/lost on the bottom 3 boards. Gonzaga last year (I only did the first four rounds, but the averages were settling down by then anyway) had an average of 2067 on board 5 and 1650 on 8 (skewed somewhat by 1180 in round 1, but never higher than 1820)

Elm Mount, by contrast, don't tend to use subs somehow, so their board 8 was the same player each time - 1882. They were also 80 points stronger, on average, than Gonzaga on 7 (1946 v 1865). So reducing to 5 boards would be to Gonzaga's advantage. Dublin are harder to measure as they scratched on board 8 (of 4 in my sample), and had an non-ICU rated player another time.

At the bottom, Curragh and St Benildus B were unusually weak for Armstrong teams and are arguably bad examples. Curragh were 1384 on 7 and 1254 on 8. St Benildus B were 1650 on 7 and 1500 on 8 - yet those were by far the boards on which we were closer to Gonzaga and Kilkenny (e.g. we were within 100 points of Kilkenny on 7/8 but more than 400 points adrift on 1/2/3, and within 220 points of Gonzaga on 7/8 and still more than 400 points adrift on 1/2/3). So 7/8 were our best chances of results against those teams (and we scored 1½/2 against Gonzaga there, while our team against Kilkenny had collapsed utterly by that stage unfortunately)

So again reducing to 5 boards would, it seems, stretch the division, not compact it.

undisputed

I dissagree with weekends matches. Games should be played only weekdays. Many players arent available on the weekends.

I agree there should be no postponements.

One other change is needed. A win for a team should be awarded with two points and a draw with 1 point. Like in the chess olympiad

cdeb

Strongly disagree with that. It makes no sense to reward a 7-1 win the same as a 4.5-3.5 win. It also means every match remains important even if your team is 4.5-0.5 behind.

The Olympiad did use game scores, but changed a few years ago I believe because it isn't really suited to Swiss tournaments. But that's obviously not an issue with the Armstrong

undisputed

cdeb wrote: »

Strongly disagree with that. It makes no sense to reward a 7-1 win the same as a 4.5-3.5 win. It also means every match remains important even if your team is 4.5-0.5 behind.

The Olympiad did use game scores, but changed a few years ago I believe because it isn't really suited to Swiss tournaments. But that's obviously not an issue with the Armstrong

It does make loads of sense. It would eliminate the problem, where one team plays well weakened opposition and gets high score. As it often happens now, some teams field very different players for different games. It would bring more balance into the league

mikhail

undisputed wrote: »

It does make loads of sense. It would eliminate the problem, where one team plays well weakened opposition and gets high score. As it often happens now, some teams field very different players for different games.

That sucks, but so would an unfortunate turnaround at 3.5 all. And so would being the last to finish when your team is 5-2 down. Literally nothing to play for. That's not a team. As it is, you can be 7-0 down (or up!) and you still watch that last game with bated breath because every point counts.

If you want fair, just award the title to the team with the highest performance rating.

cdeb

Yep, and those are far more frequent occurrences than a seriously weakened team. So why base rules on issues less likely to arise?

There are rules in place to compensate for a team gaining places by virtue of walkovers received too

Past_Pawn_99

undisputed wrote: »

I dissagree with weekends matches. Games should be played only weekdays. Many players arent available on the weekends.

I dissagree with weekdays matches. Games should be played only weekends. Many players arent available on the weekdays.