Leinster leagues format discussion

sodacat11 · 10-02-2019 9:47am #1

YAWNNNNNNNNNNN. Gonzaga "A" still have to play all the weakest teams in the league so will probably end up winning it , yet again, by more than twenty points and it is only a matter of time before Gonzaga "B" become the second strongest team. The whole thing has become completely uncompetitive and a bit of a borefest. I am sure that even Gonzaga themselves would prefer more of a challenge.
One solution would be the awarding of bonus points a bit like what happens in rugby. Any player drawing with someone 150 points or more higher rated gets a bonus point for their team and any player beating someone 150 points or more higher gets two points.
Gonzaga would still be clear favourites but it sure would tighten things up a bit. Perhaps one of the anoraks among you could draw up how the league table would look had this system been used this season? For a start Dublin Uni would have beaten Gonzaga "A" 9-4 instead of it being a 4-4 draw.

cdeb · 10-02-2019 11:14am

You'd imagine such a system would probably benefit Gonzaga with a number of young players coming through, particularly if they gain lots of rating points during the year but are still down for leagues purposes with their Sept rating.

The way forward is for other clubs to strengthen, not to try hold Gonzaga back though.

sodacat11 · 10-02-2019 11:23am

cdeb wrote: »

You'd imagine such a system would probably benefit Gonzaga with a number of young players coming through, particularly if they gain lots of rating points during the year but are still down for leagues purposes with their Sept rating.

The way forward is for other clubs to strengthen, not to try hold Gonzaga back though.

It would not benefit Gonzaga at all, in fact it would have the opposite effect as they invariably outrate everyone they play. Clubs like Blanchardstown would be the biggest beneficiaries.
The league needs to be freshened up.

sodacat11 · 10-02-2019 11:25am

cdeb wrote: »

You'd imagine such a system would probably benefit Gonzaga with a number of young players coming through, particularly if they gain lots of rating points during the year but are still down for leagues purposes with their Sept rating.

The way forward is for other clubs to strengthen, not to try hold Gonzaga back though.

First you said that my system benefits Gonzaga then you inferred that it would "hold them back". Maybe you are just disagreeing for the sake of it?

cdeb · 10-02-2019 11:44am

No, you're trying to hold them back. That doesn't help things.

I'll admit a quick review does confirm that the system would benefit Gonzaga less than I thought - though there's plenty of decent juniors on the B team who, as I suggested, could benefit from such a system. So that should at least sort out the apparent contradiction.

Your system could also encourage sandbagging ahead of a new season, and could discourage players from playing foreign tournaments and gaining points against foreign players, who tend to be too high-rated by Irish standards.

The Premiership is an uncompetitive league - if someone outside the usual top four wins these days, it's a 5,000-1 miracle - but you don't see suggestions being made that Brighton get a bonus point if they lose 4-1 to Man City but score from 50% or more of their shots, or save 60% or more of Man City's shots. But that's effectively what you're suggesting here.

So I think clubs need to look to themselves more. Like, why do Rathmines lose so many of their good junior players to other clubs? It seems to be a thing that when Rathmines Juniors players graduate, they're more likely to join St Benildus rather than Rathmines. That'll benefit us in the coming few years. I think that's the issue for Rathmines to address, not trying to score bonus points off clubs who are doing things better than them.

sodacat11 · 10-02-2019 12:21pm

cdeb wrote: »

No, you're trying to hold them back. That doesn't help things.

I'll admit a quick review does confirm that the system would benefit Gonzaga less than I thought - though there's plenty of decent juniors on the B team who, as I suggested, could benefit from such a system. So that should at least sort out the apparent contradiction.

Your system could also encourage sandbagging ahead of a new season, and could discourage players from playing foreign tournaments and gaining points against foreign players, who tend to be too high-rated by Irish standards.

The Premiership is an uncompetitive league - if someone outside the usual top four wins these days, it's a 5,000-1 miracle - but you don't see suggestions being made that Brighton get a bonus point if they lose 4-1 to Man City but score from 50% or more of their shots, or save 60% or more of Man City's shots. But that's effectively what you're suggesting here.

So I think clubs need to look to themselves more. Like, why do Rathmines lose so many of their good junior players to other clubs? It seems to be a thing that when Rathmines Juniors players graduate, they're more likely to join St Benildus rather than Rathmines. That'll benefit us in the coming few years. I think that's the issue for Rathmines to address, not trying to score bonus points off clubs who are doing things better than them.

As we are probably going to be in the Heidenfeld next season I wasn't looking at the problem from a Rathmines point of view at all and if such a system was used in the Heidenfeld it would probably work against us as we would be the highest rated team.
As for the top division of the English football league I've seen it won by Leeds, Derby, Notts Forest, Everton. Man C,Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea,Leicester and Blackburn and as far as the present is concerned I don't see any of the top six running away with it by huge margins year after year the way that Gonzaga do in the Armstrong.
Horses and golfers are handicapped to make races more competitive and it works perfectly well. I don't understand your objection to having a more competitive league.
I think your notion about players "sandbagging" and avoiding foreign tournaments in ludicrous.

cdeb · 10-02-2019 12:53pm

You mustn't have been watching the Premiership last season!

OK, there's six teams who run away with it by huge margins year after year - but it's still a boring and predictable league. Leeds, Derby, etc, is a thing of the past and not comparable to now. The corollary argument is that I've seen the Armstrong won by Kilkenny, Trinity, Elm Mount, Dublin, and so there's no problems now. And one team does run away with other leagues regularly - Juve and Celtic to name two - with no such suggestions to "fix" it.

I think you're being slightly naive to dismiss the sandbagging; there's certainly players who have deliberately kept their ratings below a certain level to try, say, enter and win an U1600 section for money. Wouldn't be a huge issue by any means, but it'd be a possibility.

While I appreciate you're trying to take a league-wide view of the matter, I think charity starts at home as they say, so if you're a Rathmines member, the main area you can influence is Rathmines. Gonzaga are where they are because (among other reasons) they have a tremendous support network where top players help improve junior players. Yes, this has made the leagues uncompetitive, but on the flip side it has made weekenders more competitive.

But Rathmines aren't doing this - in fact, they're losing players to other clubs. While you're entitled to look at matters from a league-wide view, I think it would be more productive to address this matter instead. Long-term, this makes more sense than to try hold Gonzaga back

sodacat11 · 10-02-2019 1:13pm

cdeb wrote: »

You mustn't have been watching the Premiership last season!

OK, there's six teams who run away with it by huge margins year after year - but it's still a boring and predictable league. Leeds, Derby, etc, is a thing of the past and not comparable to now. The corollary argument is that I've seen the Armstrong won by Kilkenny, Trinity, Elm Mount, Dublin, and so there's no problems now. And one team does run away with other leagues regularly - Juve and Celtic to name two - with no such suggestions to "fix" it.

I think you're being slightly naive to dismiss the sandbagging; there's certainly players who have deliberately kept their ratings below a certain level to try, say, enter and win an U1600 section for money. Wouldn't be a huge issue by any means, but it'd be a possibility.

While I appreciate you're trying to take a league-wide view of the matter, I think charity starts at home as they say, so if you're a Rathmines member, the main area you can influence is Rathmines. Gonzaga are where they are because (among other reasons) they have a tremendous support network where top players help improve junior players. Yes, this has made the leagues uncompetitive, but on the flip side it has made weekenders more competitive.

But Rathmines aren't doing this - in fact, they're losing players to other clubs. While you're entitled to look at matters from a league-wide view, I think it would be more productive to address this matter instead. Long-term, this makes more sense than to try hold Gonzaga back

Gonzaga would still probably win the Armstrong but it would be a lot less predictable. My proposal would in no way "hold back" Gonzaga or have any influence whatsoever on the competitiveness of weekenders, it would just give more incentive to weaker teams and lower rated players and help to balance things a bit. In American football the top teams each year lose their best players to the weakest teams for the following season,it might be a bit artificial but at least the sentiment behind it is honourable. I don't know how many times Gonzaga have won the Armstrong in a row but even they must be getting a bit bored by now. There is little merit in having a team packed with highly rated players and just stomping all over the little guys.

cdeb · 10-02-2019 1:17pm

I'm curious as to how you continually ignore my questions regarding your own club?

(And I'm not picking on Rathmines here; if Tim were making the point, I'd be throwing back the same argument about Trinity)

I always thought it was funny that American sports go down the communist route with their squads.

sodacat11 · 10-02-2019 2:12pm

cdeb wrote: »

I'm curious as to how you continually ignore my questions regarding your own club?

(And I'm not picking on Rathmines here; if Tim were making the point, I'd be throwing back the same argument about Trinity)

I always thought it was funny that American sports go down the communist route with their squads.

I am ignoring your Rathmines questions because they are totally irrelevant to my proposal to improve the Armstrong and because I have nothing whatsoever to do with youth development or recruitment in the club.

Retd.LoyolaCpt · 10-02-2019 2:38pm

American sports are funny like that. The F1 considered that for a few years - each team swap drivers throughout the season and see does well with each engine and setup. Fell down for obvious reasons; why would the top teams sign up to this, why would the top drivers give up the best engines.

I guess if sodacat is advocating for the American system - the only equivalent system in chess would be a “rating cap”. Because the best teams only lose those players because they can’t keep their wages under the cap and so after contracts run out, the worst team can offer the most money.

Rating caps (unlike the other interesting suggestion) are used in chess - most noteably perhaps in the pro chess league. Or at least they were, not sure about now.

sodacat11 · 10-02-2019 2:49pm

Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »

American sports are funny like that. The F1 considered that for a few years - each team swap drivers throughout the season and see does well with each engine and setup. Fell down for obvious reasons; why would the top teams sign up to this, why would the top drivers give up the best engines.

I guess if sodacat is advocating for the American system - the only equivalent system in chess would be a “rating cap”. Because the best teams only lose those players because they can’t keep their wages under the cap and so after contracts run out, the worst team can offer the most money.

Rating caps (unlike the other interesting suggestion) are used in chess - most noteably perhaps in the pro chess league. Or at least they were, not sure about now.

No, I am not in favour of anything American,a rating cap or players swapping clubs. I like my idea of bonus points as I outlined earlier. Something needs to be done to freshen things up.

Retd.LoyolaCpt · 10-02-2019 3:13pm

To steal from one of your Irish championship argumnts: but why can’t these 1800s wait until they are the proper strength required to win the league... Armstrong participation medals next with last place getting bigger medals than first

cdeb · 10-02-2019 3:13pm

sodacat11 wrote: »

I am ignoring your Rathmines questions because they are totally irrelevant to my proposal to improve the Armstrong and because I have nothing whatsoever to do with youth development or recruitment in the club.

Well that's fair enough - but if you're not part of the solution, then...

sodacat11 · 10-02-2019 3:23pm

Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »

To steal from one of your Irish championship argumnts: but why can’t these 1800s wait until they are the proper strength required to win the league... Armstrong participation medals next with last place getting bigger medals than first

Completely different issue.

sodacat11 · 10-02-2019 3:25pm

cdeb wrote: »

Well that's fair enough - but if you're not part of the solution, then...

I have offered a solution, one that would make the leagues much more interesting.
If nothing changes then you may as well give Gonzaga their winners medals for the next five years now.

cdeb · 10-02-2019 3:27pm

I've also offered a solution. Gonzaga as a club have put in a lot of work to get where they are now. What have other clubs done to deserve a hands-up?

I always thought it was unfair how better clubs kept beating us in the European Cup the last couple of years. I think your new rule could be trialled there.

sodacat11 · 10-02-2019 3:31pm

cdeb wrote: »

I've also offered a solution. Gonzaga as a club have put in a lot of work to get where they are now. What have other clubs done to deserve a hands-up?

I always thought it was unfair how better clubs kept beating us in the European Cup the last couple of years. I think your new rule could be trialled there.

In rugby they allow Ireland to enter provinces instead of clubs.In soccer they have tried to implement financial fair play to even things up.Trying to make leagues fairer is not a new concept.

cdeb · 10-02-2019 3:36pm

Neither change is so fundamentally against sporting principles (ie unfair) though

Rugby was because the AIL wasn't remotely capable of supporting the fully-pro game which had just emerged. FFP was to stop clubs bankrupting themselves keeping up with clubs who were bankrupting themselves

Not comparable to here

sodacat11 · 10-02-2019 3:42pm

cdeb wrote: »

Neither change is so fundamentally against sporting principles (ie unfair) though

Rugby was because the AIL wasn't remotely capable of supporting the fully-pro game which had just emerged. FFP was to stop clubs bankrupting themselves keeping up with clubs who were bankrupting themselves

Not comparable to here

What about golfers having handicaps?
By your reasoning, the survival of the fittest,then there should be no chess ratings or elite tournaments. We should just all play in big opens with no grading, junior, senior or women's prizes and give all the prize money to whoever wins.
This argument has become as boring as the top of the Armstrong. I rest my case.

cdeb · 10-02-2019 3:47pm

I've no problem giving out a grading prize in the leagues. We could give it to any player who scores 75% or more in their games.

But you don't get to be Bunratty senior champion just because you're 1950 and put in a 2100 performance.

Or maybe that is what you're arguing for?

DmanDmythDledge · 10-02-2019 4:52pm

I think you can only admire how strong Gonzaga have become. They do have a somewhat unique advantage with the link to the school and two of their strongest players involved developing their players. Fair play to them for utilising that strength though.

St Benildus are the only other club I am aware of with direct link to a school and benefit heavily from it. Perhaps that is a model other clubs should follow and form links with local schools and offer coaching along with it.

cdeb · 10-02-2019 5:08pm

Thing is, they're not actually all that strong either. One IM and one FM? Compare that to teams from smaller countries in the Europeans and it's nothing.

But we should hold the game back because some 1900s think they should have some right to challenge for a national title?

Danville · 10-02-2019 5:33pm

sodacat11 wrote: »

The league needs to be freshened up.

I remember this was suggested recently, but the person who suggested it(moi) this was told there was no problem, and there was no need for change!Thnigs have hardly changed that much in a month?

DmanDmythDledge · 10-02-2019 6:26pm

Would reducing the Armstrong from 8 boards to 6 boards make the league more competitive? I would be against making any changes though to a league structure that has worked very well. The level of success for one team may be unprecedented but other clubs need to perhaps look at what they're doing right and try to emulate that as best they can. It could also be that the player pool Gonzaga have at the moment is particularly strong and in 5 years time the same level of dominance won't be there.

cdeb · 10-02-2019 7:07pm

Doubtful. Teams are generally better balanced on the bottom boards. I did a brief analysis of that a while back on this thread

Rathminor · 10-02-2019 8:07pm

cdeb wrote: »

No, you're trying to hold them back. That doesn't help things.

I'll admit a quick review does confirm that the system would benefit Gonzaga less than I thought - though there's plenty of decent juniors on the B team who, as I suggested, could benefit from such a system. So that should at least sort out the apparent contradiction.

Your system could also encourage sandbagging ahead of a new season, and could discourage players from playing foreign tournaments and gaining points against foreign players, who tend to be too high-rated by Irish standards.

The Premiership is an uncompetitive league - if someone outside the usual top four wins these days, it's a 5,000-1 miracle - but you don't see suggestions being made that Brighton get a bonus point if they lose 4-1 to Man City but score from 50% or more of their shots, or save 60% or more of Man City's shots. But that's effectively what you're suggesting here.

So I think clubs need to look to themselves more. Like, why do Rathmines lose so many of their good junior players to other clubs? It seems to be a thing that when Rathmines Juniors players graduate, they're more likely to join St Benildus rather than Rathmines. That'll benefit us in the coming few years. I think that's the issue for Rathmines to address, not trying to score bonus points off clubs who are doing things better than them.

Cdeb,

Players will always move between clubs, and at the moment St Benildus are doing well with their juniors. I would feel however that Rathmines have consistently lost more top players to Gonzaga. Just looking at this years Armstrong squads, 4 of Gonzaga’s Armstrong players, started out on Wednesday nights at Rathmines Juniors (and that’s without counting Killian).

The lure of playing with your classmates and also potentially winning the Armstrong is very hard compete with, and will continue to be the case- it will be interesting to see how this impacts Benildus in the coming years as some of your top juniors filter into Gonzaga secondary school.

Rathmines are not the only club to lose top players to their school club, as Bray and Blanch have also been impacted, whilst these players do also benefit from very good coaching within the Gonzaga system.

Gonzaga are not the only Armstrong club to benefit from picking up strong juniors from elsewhere- Trinity have had secondary school players on their team the last two seasons.

Another pertinent point (maybe not for this thread) is how to keep top joint prospects in the game- if you look at the list of Stokes (u12) players over the last 10 years, there are a very high number who have stopped playing competitive chess.

Retd.LoyolaCpt · 10-02-2019 8:09pm

I think the most fantastic suggestion so far was that more clubs partner up with local schools. Honestly, had never crossed my mind before - ingenious way to invest in the future of your club and area. Have sent a few emails about this already now today to see what can be done to help clubs link up with schools like this. Many thanks dmandmythdledge

Rathminor · 10-02-2019 8:24pm

DmanDmythDledge wrote: »

I think you can only admire how strong Gonzaga have become. They do have a somewhat unique advantage with the link to the school and two of their strongest players involved developing their players. Fair play to them for utilising that strength though.

St Benildus are the only other club I am aware of with direct link to a school and benefit heavily from it. Perhaps that is a model other clubs should follow and form links with local schools and offer coaching along with it.

Whilst Gonzaga do benefit from a very strong school feeder, St Benildus are no longer producing schools players the way they did six or seven years ago- they have an excellent player in sixth year, but very little thereafter- their second best schools player plays with a different club, whilst they have probably slipped to fourth or fifth in the schools leagues.
Perhaps this will change again with strong players starting to come through from the likes of St Laurence’s Kilmacud, if they stay local for secondary school.

Rathminor · 10-02-2019 8:31pm

Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »

I think the most fantastic suggestion so far was that more clubs partner up with local schools. Honestly, had never crossed my mind before - ingenious way to invest in the future of your club and area. Have sent a few emails about this already now today to see what can be done to help clubs link up with schools like this. Many thanks dmandmythdledge

Easier said that done, as the challenge is getting the primary school players into rated games - we had players feed through from Soil Bhride Ranelagh, St Mary’s Harrington Road and St Mary’s Donnybrook to name three examples, but getting the players jump to rated games is a big challenge.
Aprile consistently has good players coming through Donore Ave, so perhaps that’s a link we should try build on again.

sodacat11 · 11-02-2019 10:39am

I hadn't planned on commenting further on this matter but someone went to the trouble of working out how the Armstrong would look after every team playing seven games if my bonus point system was used so the least I can do is publish the interesting results.
Blanchardstown 45
Dublin Uni 43
Gonzaga "A" 41.5
Gonzaga "B" 35.5
Bray 32
Elm Mount 30
Benildus 30
Kilkenny 29
Balbriggan 29
Dublin 24
Rathmines22
Dun Laoghaire 21

A Much more exciting situation than what we have now. Gonzaga "A" would have much the easier final four games than Dublin U and Blanchardstown so would still probably win the league but it would go down to the very last game. Gonzaga (or anyone else) aren't being penalised or "held back" as some suggest, all that is happening is that giant killing is being rewarded by bonus points. It seems perfectly fair to me.

cdeb · 11-02-2019 11:47am

sodacat11 wrote: »

It seems perfectly fair to me.

I'm not sure you understand what the word "fair" means.

Even Blanch would blanch from the suggestion that a fair Armstrong would have them on top.

Tim Harding · 11-02-2019 12:26pm

cdeb wrote: »

Even Blanch would blanch from the suggestion that a fair Armstrong would have them on top.

I think that table is really a reductio ad absurdum of sodacat's idea.
But I do agree with him to some extent; the inevitability every year that Gonzaga will win the Armstrong is diminishing interest in the Armstrong among some players. A more balanced league is in everyone's interest and the fact is that very few clubs can match either their top board power or their strength in depth. Reducing the division to 6 boards might reduce their dominance a bit but soon would lead to three Gonzaga teams in the top division, I guess.

There are various points not yet made, or only partially.

1) While other teams may be able to organise some recruitment of promising young players through schools, the established fact now is that many kids are asking their parents to be sent to Gonzaga for its chess club and coaching. Henry Li (who has just won the Dublin rapid BTW) was quoted in a 21 December 2018 article by Sam Collins for the Sunday Business Post Magazine that he identified chess as one of the main reasons be wanted to go to Gonzaga.
So this is likely to mean that for the foreseeable future they will get the cream of the juniors. (The only exceptions are likely to be those with parents who don't want their kids exposed to the Jesuit ethos of the school.)

2) Gonzaga have been rather greedy, in that since they have such a strong stream of players they should not be reinforcing it by bringing in other players unconnected with the school. Here are some instances of that.

a) In some seasons (not yet this year) they have brought in some non-resident players (e.g. Maze, Steil-Antoni) to significantly strengthen their team for some matches, though they obviously didn't need to do that to win the league.

b) Last weekend they seriously damaged Trinity's chance of a runner-up spot by persuading our number 2 player to go to the 4NCL for them, when he was needed for our team against Kilkenny. I am tempted to view that as sabotage on one side and disloyalty on the other. As a result nearly all our team was playing a board too high, and we had a very weak sub on bottom board. We just have not been able to perform consistently this season but we did draw with Gonzaga A and beat their B team soundly.

c) Further to 2 and 3, they might have released Conor O'Donnell to play for Trinity for a few seasons while he is studying. This season he is playing top board for Gonzaga B, but he could have had top board last season too which would obviously have benefited his development as well as evening up the league a bit. It would also have meant that Henry Li could be playing top board for Gonzaga B this year instead of languishing around boards 2-4 for the A team.

d) As already pointed out by someone they poached Killian Delaney from Rathmines a while back also, but maybe Rathmines had been relegated for a season or there was some other good reason for that?

So I don't entirely disagree with people who have said it is up to other clubs to bring themselves up to Gonzaga's level. Frankly though, with the limited pool of 1900+ players in Leinster, there is little or no chance of that.

sodacat11 · 11-02-2019 12:46pm

It would be in everybody's interest to have a much more competitive league, the problem isn't just Gonzaga. having 24.5 poins difference between the top and bottom teams after seven rounds is simply not a healthy situation. It might seem somewhat idealistic but why can't we devise some format where all twelve teams could start every season with a realistic hope of finishing in the top three? A competitive league would attract more players to play in the leagues and could only be good for everyone.
What is the purpose of the league after all if not to provide enjoyment for the participants? We don't need the league to prove that Gonzaga are far and away the strongest club in Leinster, we all know that just by looking at the rating list.

cdeb · 11-02-2019 1:05pm

Tim Harding wrote: »

Reducing the division to 6 boards might reduce their dominance a bit but soon would lead to three Gonzaga teams in the top division, I guess.

I think it's already been shown that teams are more evenly balanced on the bottom boards, so reducing the size of teams would only unbalance things more.

There is a valid question to be asked as to whether the LCU should allow C teams in the Armstrong though. (It should be fine in other divisions as promotion/relegation will naturally sort it out soon enough - but certainly Gonzaga A/B seem unlikely to be promoted/relegated from the Armstrong any time soon)

Tim Harding wrote: »

1) While other teams may be able to organise some recruitment of promising young players through schools, the established fact now is that many kids are asking their parents to be sent to Gonzaga for its chess club and coaching.

I think it'd be few enough parents who'd send a child to x school simply because the child wanted to go there. Other factors - educational reputation, cost, location - would be far more important. Chess is only a game, after all.
It is, however, great that we have a school that is gaining a reputation for chess coaching.

Tim Harding wrote: »

b) Last weekend they seriously damaged Trinity's chance of a runner-up spot by persuading our number 2 player to go to the 4NCL for them, when he was needed for our team against Kilkenny.

If your number 2 wants to play for Gonzaga ahead of ye, that's your problem I would have thought.

Tim Harding wrote: »

c) Further to 2 and 3, they might have released Conor O'Donnell to play for Trinity for a few seasons while he is studying.

As Conor is hardly under contract at Gonzaga, it makes no sense to say they "might have released" him. This is Conor's decision surely? Besides, Trinity have poached plenty players of their own (from Elm Mount, Rathmines and St Benildus in recent years off the top of my head) - but the aim here should be to develop, not poach.

cdeb · 11-02-2019 1:10pm

sodacat11 wrote: »

It might seem somewhat idealistic but why can't we devise some format where all twelve teams could start every season with a realistic hope of finishing in the top three?

It does sound idealistic. It also sounds contradictory. If an 1800 junior wants to play in the Irish Championships, you call him a spoiled brat and say he should earn his right to play there - even if encouraging juniors would attract more players. (I generally agree with your no-exceptions stance on rating floors FWIW)

But now, it seems you're happy to give everyone a chance of winning the Armstrong without earning it by handing out bonus points so everyone has a chance of winning, and Blanch suddenly appear top of the league?

Sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it too.

sodacat11 · 11-02-2019 1:23pm

cdeb wrote: »

It does sound idealistic. It also sounds contradictory. If an 1800 junior wants to play in the Irish Championships, you call him a spoiled brat and say he should earn his right to play there - even if encouraging juniors would attract more players. (I generally agree with your no-exceptions stance on rating floors FWIW)

But now, it seems you're happy to give everyone a chance of winning the Armstrong without earning it by handing out bonus points so everyone has a chance of winning, and Blanch suddenly appear top of the league?

Sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it too.

Bonus points are not handed out to everyone, a player has to draw or beat a player 150 points higher to earn them.
Rating floors in individual events has nothing whatsoever to do with trying to make team events more balanced. You keep going way off topic and haven't yet given me one good reason why a more balanced league wouldn't be a good thing.

cdeb · 11-02-2019 1:38pm

sodacat11 wrote: »

Bonus points are not handed out to everyone, a player has to draw or beat a player 150 points higher to earn them.
Rating floors in individual events has nothing whatsoever to do with trying to make team events more balanced. You keep going way off topic and haven't yet given me one good reason why a more balanced league wouldn't be a good thing.

A more balanced league would be a good thing.

It's your proposals for achieving which are off the wall, and which are contradictory to previous views that if you want something (to play up a section, or to win a league), then you should work for it.

cdeb · 11-02-2019 1:40pm

Mod note - thread split out from the main Armstrong results thread

sodacat11 · 11-02-2019 2:09pm

cdeb wrote: »

A more balanced league would be a good thing.

It's your proposals for achieving which are off the wall, and which are contradictory to previous views that if you want something (to play up a section, or to win a league), then you should work for it.

Far from being contradictory my views are perfectly consistent. The reason I like strictly observed rating floors is because they are a way of avoiding mismatches and ensuring,as far as possible, more balanced competition.
The reason I want to change the leagues is exactly the same,
My bonuse point idea maybe isn't the best way to achieve a competitive league, maybe handicapping is, maybe rating bands for different boards is, maybe restricting the overall rating of a team is,,,,,,,there are many possible solutions. All I am saying is that the Armstrong has becoming boring , predictable and uncompetitive and that a change would be a good thing.

checknraise · 11-02-2019 2:38pm

Gonzaga are the strongest club in Ireland but far from guaranteed to win the league every year. Last year it was extremely close and came down to the final day or has everyone forgotten? Some of the suggestions are bonkers.

If clubs want to be able to compete with Gonzaga they have to improve their chess, less time posting on boards and more time coaching/reading a few chess books might be a start! If any clubs out there want to improve and get stronger maybe speak with Gonzaga or a couple of members of their team and ask for advice. I am certain they would be happy to help.

FYI O'Donnells control expires in 35 years

sodacat11 · 11-02-2019 2:47pm

checknraise wrote: »

Gonzaga are the strongest club in Ireland but far from guaranteed to win the league every year. Last year it was extremely close and came down to the final day or has everyone forgotten? Some of the suggestions are bonkers.

If clubs want to be able to compete with Gonzaga they have to improve their chess, less time posting on boards and more time coaching/reading a few chess books might be a start! If any clubs out there want to improve and get stronger maybe speak with Gonzaga or a couple of members of their team and ask for advice. I am certain they would be happy to help.

FYI O'Donnells control expires in 35 years

it was only close because Gonzaga got penalised three points . Even then the result was never really in doubt

pdemp · 11-02-2019 5:22pm

There is a way to "balance" the league [i.e. every team equal chance of winning], essentially similar to handicapping in amateur golf where teams start on a negative score, and while fine for a friendly league (e.g. it's what we'll be using in our next club rapid), I'd disagree with it in a proper competition. What would happen with relegation for instance?

The competitive flaw with a bonus point system as proposed, is the Gonzaga could win every game 8-0 and still end up not winning the league. It's not in anyway similar to rugby's which was mainly introduced for in game excitement. The equivalent in chess would be the stronger player giving draw odds.

Gonzaga are essentially like Dublin in football at the moment, a few years ago neutrals thought it would be nice to see them finally win, and now they just can't stop. As with all dominant teams their time will pass. It's up to everyone else to catch them.

That said I don't like they idea of A/B teams in the same division, especially the top one. A club split could be an option for such situations so Gonzaga B players who worked hard to get there don't lose out [a la AC and Inter - albeit without the disputes].

zeitnot · 11-02-2019 6:19pm

Another proposal: A and B teams (or A, B, C, etc.) have to be balanced by rating, according to some rule along the lines of the 150-point rule.

E.g., take the initial declared A and B teams, write them out as a list, with 1 -> A team board 1, 2 -> B team board 1, 3 -> A team board 2, and so on. Now ask does the resulting list satisfy the 150-point rule? If not, redo the team assignments. (Or make it 100 points, or whatever.)

For this season, the Gonzaga A and B declarations wouldn't satisfy the 150-point version, but it would suffice to move one of David Murray, Killian Delaney, or Henry Li (2205, 2203, 2201 respectively) to the B team (I think).

Regardless of competitiveness, shouldn't higher rated players be playing on higher boards anyway?

cdeb · 11-02-2019 6:38pm

That's an interesting suggestion. I presume once the squads are agreed, the 150-point rule can be operated normally by each team? So in this game - http://www.chessleague.net/chessorg/leinster/match.php?org=1&lid=103&fid=6909 - Jack Killane is legitimately on board 4 for the As, even though that's 150+ points higher than boards 2 and 3 for the Bs. However, on rating order, he would have started as 2, which would then be fine.

The question then is whether the rule proposed is one which is tailored towards the current, unusual, situation. If, say, St Benildus were to have two Heidenfeld teams next season, and we wanted to target promotion with the As while being happy to let the Bs get experience even if it meant relegation, would we still have to split the teams' strength as above?

Should some rules apply only to the Armstrong because it's more prone to domination (you can't dominate the other leagues; the best you can do is yoyo)

zeitnot · 11-02-2019 7:27pm

cdeb wrote: »

That's an interesting suggestion. I presume once the squads are agreed, the 150-point rule can be operated normally by each team? ...

Yes, that was the intention.

cdeb wrote: »

The question then is whether the rule proposed is one which is tailored towards the current, unusual, situation. If, say, St Benildus were to have two Heidenfeld teams next season, and we wanted to target promotion with the As while being happy to let the Bs get experience even if it meant relegation, would we still have to split the teams' strength as above?

Should some rules apply only to the Armstrong because it's more prone to domination (you can't dominate the other leagues; the best you can do is yoyo)

This is all still just a suggestion. But for the sake of argument, yes, let's say it applies only to the Armstrong.

mikhail · 11-02-2019 7:53pm

Sooner or later a team would refuse promotion from the Heidenfeld, so they'd keep winning it each year instead of causing their club to implode with a double relegation from the Armstrong. We're not all able to split our strength in the Armstrong and still be competitive.

sodacat11 · 11-02-2019 8:16pm

zeitnot wrote: »

Another proposal: A and B teams (or A, B, C, etc.) have to be balanced by rating, according to some rule along the lines of the 150-point rule.

E.g., take the initial declared A and B teams, write them out as a list, with 1 -> A team board 1, 2 -> B team board 1, 3 -> A team board 2, and so on. Now ask does the resulting list satisfy the 150-point rule? If not, redo the team assignments. (Or make it 100 points, or whatever.)

For this season, the Gonzaga A and B declarations wouldn't satisfy the 150-point version, but it would suffice to move one of David Murray, Killian Delaney, or Henry Li (2205, 2203, 2201 respectively) to the B team (I think).

Regardless of competitiveness, shouldn't higher rated players be playing on higher boards anyway?

Good idea! Your last point is very salient too, if high rated players didn't play on low boards it would solve the problem of imbalance in the league.

Kilmokey · 12-02-2019 1:48pm

The problem is not that Gonzaga is so good its everyone else is spending to much time crying and not playing fighting chess.

Clubs need to get better organised and pick players who want to play each game.Someone told me many years ago if you team captain does not lose 30ELO points each year he is not doing a good job. Tim is giving out that one of his players was not available to play at the week end. Simple answer play the game early. Fixture lists come out in early September, its not something that sneaks up on you at the last minute. Same about this playing chess on Feb 14th, this again has been known since last September.

Many moons ago there use to be a competition where the weaker team got extra points based on the rating difference. This may have been run under the Brannigan moniker. This took place in the 70's or 80. It was a six man team competition.

Please remember that you are not forced to play in the league. The Armstrong has been on the go fro a long time so it must be doing something right. The only change that I would like to see is that a club can only have one team in the top division. This change might encourage some movement of players to other clubs in order to play at a higher level.

cdeb · 12-02-2019 2:27pm

Kilmokey wrote: »

The only change that I would like to see is that a club can only have one team in the top division. This change might encourage some movement of players to other clubs in order to play at a higher level.

I'm not sure I agree with that. If Benildus get promoted, should I have to move club to play in the Armstrong? People in general have an affinity for their clubs; it's not like getting a transfer in football. And if B teams are blocked from promotion and players decide to stay with their clubs, then as noted above, you'll get a case where the Heidenfeld starts being won by the same clubs each year too.

I think this comes back to the difference between clubs strengthening organically (i.e. developing players) and inorganically (i.e. bringing players in from other clubs). The former would be much better for the game in general and should be what's encouraged.

zeitnot · 12-02-2019 5:37pm

Kilmokey wrote: »

Many moons ago there use to be a competition where the weaker team got extra points based on the rating difference. This may have been run under the Brannigan moniker. This took place in the 70's or 80. It was a six man team competition.

The De Loughrey Memorial, 1978? That was over 8 boards, though.

Kilmokey wrote: »

The Armstrong has been on the go fro a long time so it must be doing something right.

Yes.

Leinster leagues format discussion

Comments