Armstrong Cup 2018-19

Tim Harding · 16-05-2019 8:51am

sodacat11 wrote: »

You can join Rathmines Tim!
Not very sporting of Dublin to decline a reschedule but no surprise as sportsmanship seems to be a thing of the past these days . The only fair way of solving what is a very unfair situation is a play off between Dublin and Rathmines. Then again, maybe Benildus could do a "trinity" a field a vastly weakened team, that would teach Dublin a lesson.

Thanks for the offer, Sodacat! I might take you up on it but don't expect me to play many matches.

I don't know exactly what exchanges there were between our captain and Dublin CC.
Benildus are two points ahead of Trinity for the "bronze" and 3.5 ahead of Kilkenny. They are safe from us, I think, but might be worried about Kilkenny scoring big against Blanchardstown.

sodacat11 · 16-05-2019 9:48am

I now learn that Trinity did NOT ask for their match v Dublin to be rearranged, apparently their captain "forgot".
I was looking back at last season, Trinity defaulted eight games, 4 v Dun Laoghaire and 2 each v Rathmines and Kilkenny. Every season they can't play their first match at the same time as everyone else and now they seem unable to field a decent team for their final fixture. I have to wonder just what the point is in having them in the league at all especially since most of their players are just poached from other clubs once they start going to university.

DmanDmythDledge · 16-05-2019 3:08pm

There is (or at least used to be) a rule that if a team wins a game by walkover and that result had a significant impact on champions/promotion/relegation that results against the team that gave the walkover would be discounted (or something like that?). I don't know how or if that would apply to partial walkovers, in the instance that seems likely to occur.

Kilmokey · 16-05-2019 4:35pm

5.5 Where a team defaults or concedes walkovers in three or more games in a match, and
as a result there is a distortion in placing such that another team suffers, either by
relegation, missing a play-off or promotion place or failing to win a division when they
might have done, a special match shall be arranged between the team benefiting from
the defaults (say team “A”) and the displaced team (say team “B”), to determine
relative places. Team “B” shall only have the right to this match if:
a) Team “B” has a greater total of points than team “A” when both
teams scores on the defaulted boards only against the team that
defaulted or conceded walkovers are eliminated and
b) Team “B” has itself not defaulted or conceded walkovers in 3 or more games
in the season or has not benefitted from defaults or walkovers in 3 or more
games in the season.
c) To reverse the placing, team “B” must defeat Team “A” (who shall have home
venue). In the event of a draw placing remains unchanged. Where multiple
defaults occur, the scores of all defaulting teams will be eliminated to
determine “special match” rights.

Here is the rule in question

cdeb · 16-05-2019 5:06pm

Yep. So let's say Trinity only put out four boards on Sunday (as an example). Then Dublin win those boards 4-0 obviously, while Rathmines lost 3-1 on the same boards earlier in the season. Dublin have gained 3 points as a result, and if that is the difference between relegation and survival, then Rathmines are entitled to challenge Dublin to a play-off match.

Similar story at the top of the Ennis if it comes to it - Drogheda v Trinity and St Benildus v Cavan, with both Drogheda and St Benildus currently level on points. If Trinity only have three players, then St Benildus scored 2½ on the bottom three boards in the league meeting while Drogheda will have scored 3/3, and so if that decides the title, then a play-off can be held.

Something similar happened on the last day of the 2009/10 season; Elm Mount and Kilkenny were two of the teams going for the title on the last day (along with St Benildus), but Kilkenny faced a Trinity side with just five players. again involving Trinity, and I think the captains of Kilkenny and Elm Mount were called aside before the match to ensure they were clear on the rules. Probably something similar will happen this Sunday.

(In that case actually, as Elm Mount had scored 3/3 on the bottom 3 boards against Trinity, no play-off would have been granted if Kilkenny had won the title, which is slightly unfair as Elm Mount's 3/3 was achieved against real people and was therefore much harder, but it's difficult for the rule to be perfect.)

sodacat11 · 16-05-2019 5:34pm

So better for Rathmines if Trinity only have four or five players and three defaults than they turn up with three very low rated subs?

cdeb · 16-05-2019 6:31pm

Yes. If they play 4 patzers on 5-8, then Dublin still win 4-0, but there's no provision for a play-off

ishidaogo · 16-05-2019 9:02pm

Sadly the LCU seem to ignore many rules passed over the years
( notably the rule that 6 Armstrong matches be played before Christmas)
which might, if adhered to , meant that the Leagues could have finished much earlier.
Why bother going to AGM's if rule changes are not implemented?

Kilmokey · 17-05-2019 9:04am

I do not see anything in the rules about playing six rounds before Christmas. I know that there may be a wish for that to happen but there are not that many free weekends before Christmas to fit everything in. Clubs also do not like to play two weekends running as well. They also do not want to play much in December. So I am sure there are plenty of experts out there who can take over and come up with a schedule that suites EVERYONE.

Good luck on that one.

sodacat11 · 17-05-2019 2:08pm

Kilmokey wrote: »

I do not see anything in the rules about playing six rounds before Christmas. I know that there may be a wish for that to happen but there are not that many free weekends before Christmas to fit everything in. Clubs also do not like to play two weekends running as well. They also do not want to play much in December. So I am sure there are plenty of experts out there who can take over and come up with a schedule that suites EVERYONE.

Good luck on that one.

No set of fixtures will suit everyone but better to use the most common sense approach which excludes having a huge break between rounds ten and eleven. I don't see how a game in December could be such an inconvenience especially as there are no other tournaments between Kilkenny and Christmas.

anchor4208 · 17-05-2019 4:28pm

Kilmokey wrote: »

I do not see anything in the rules about playing six rounds before Christmas. I know that there may be a wish for that to happen but there are not that many free weekends before Christmas to fit everything in. Clubs also do not like to play two weekends running as well. They also do not want to play much in December. So I am sure there are plenty of experts out there who can take over and come up with a schedule that suites EVERYONE.

Good luck on that one.

And the highlighted bit above is the issue. The Armstrong as originally configured was a weekday evening event. Over the years, it has gradually become a weekend event (even more so in 2019/20 than in the current season), based on the highly inefficient model of 1 game per weekend. We either grasp that particular nettle and do something about it, or we live with the fact that the it takes us 9 months to complete an 11 round event.

sodacat11 · 17-05-2019 4:36pm

anchor4208 wrote: »

And the highlighted bit above is the issue. The Armstrong as originally configured was a weekday evening event. Over the years, it has gradually become a weekend event (even more so in 2019/20 than in the current season), based on the highly inefficient model of 1 game per weekend. We either grasp that particular nettle and do something about it, or we live with the fact that the it takes us 9 months to complete an 11 round event.

Good point! Maybe the solution is to play the final two rounds on the same day in one venue sometime in March, it would certainly make for a very exciting finish as well as ease fixture congestion.

Tim Harding · 17-05-2019 5:54pm

sodacat11 wrote: »

Good point! Maybe the solution is to play the final two rounds on the same day in one venue sometime in March, it would certainly make for a very exciting finish as well as ease fixture congestion.

That would mean some teams had five home matches and others had four.

Maybe even better would be to have a double-round day at a single venue in October, which would make it much easier to have six rounds before Christmas, and just a single round at the end (as at present) but always pre-Easter.

At present there are two or three clear weekends between the St. Andrews charity classic and Limerick.

Kilmokey · 17-05-2019 6:26pm

You also need spare weeks /weekends as well to accommodate those away on international duty as there are more players going away to these events and they are need to close off rounds to get the games rated.

A single venue to play extra round will cost more money and require divisional controllers to give up more time !!

also it is a Leinster wide competition so it is unfair to blame country teams for taking up weekends

mikhail · 17-05-2019 6:35pm

Kilmokey wrote: »

also it is a Leinster wide competition so it is unfair to blame country teams for taking up weekends

I don't think that was necessarily intended. There's been a trend for Dublin-based teams to move to playing on Saturdays in recent years.

anchor4208 · 17-05-2019 7:02pm

mikhail wrote: »

I don't think that was necessarily intended. There's been a trend for Dublin-based teams to move to playing on Saturdays in recent years.

For sure, it was never my intention to blame anyone. What's happened is down to a number of factors - Dublin traffic, a thriving Irish chess scene with multiple new tournaments etc. etc.

The point is this, there's no point in complaining about the current setup without being aware of what the alternatives are. Very simply, there are just three alternatives

1. We revert to an evening league, with the only exception being for country teams.

2. We continue our move to being a weekend league, but with a number (1+) of double rounds.

3. We continue the way we are.

I really don't see any other options. Which one is the least bad?

sodacat11 · 17-05-2019 7:20pm

I think that the leagues should be midweek as there are plenty of weekend events already. It takes me an hour from my home to drive to any Dublin venue and it is not a big deal so I would only give "country status" to teams like Kilkenny and Ballinasloe and Drogheda, certainly not to Bray or Balbriggan which aren't all that far from Dublin. Even the Curragh is less than half an hour from the Red Cow roundabout. Maybe a "country" club could be defined as one in a county without a Dublin border?

Retd.LoyolaCpt · 17-05-2019 7:22pm

I think the amount of weekends available is underestimated. I’ll be trying to free up a weekend in September for the start and will work with the new league controller on it. 95% of event dates are known by September.

1 September round, 1-2 October Rounds, 1-2 November Rounds, 1-2 December round. I don’t think it’s imperative that we play 6 rounds before Christmas as Tim and others suggested - preferable though.

Then 2 January rounds, 2 February rounds and 1-2 March rounds. I don’t really have a problem finishing in April.

zeitnot · 17-05-2019 7:37pm

anchor4208 wrote: »

... a thriving Irish chess scene with multiple new tournaments etc. etc.

Definitely. Perhaps the main cause right there.

anchor4208 wrote: »

The point is this, there's no point in complaining about the current setup without being aware of what the alternatives are. Very simply, there are just three alternatives

1. We revert to an evening league, with the only exception being for country teams.

2. We continue our move to being a weekend league, but with a number (1+) of double rounds.

3. We continue the way we are.

I really don't see any other options. Which one is the least bad?

4. Reduce the number of clubs per division to 10.

5. Tinker around the edges.

5a. Start the season a week earlier.
5b. Add a week in December.
5c. One double round on final weekend. (= smallest version of 2)
5d. Require all non-country teams to be able to play 1-2 home matches on weekdays to accommodate the away team (= mini-version of 1)
5e. Narrow definition of country team, so that home team only has to switch to Saturday if it's really necessary.
5f. Six rounds before Christmas.
5g. Finish league before Easter.

Re 5d, it might be awkward to have to make arrangements to have club premises available on a night other than the regular club night. But it's no more awkward than the current situation in which all weekday club night clubs have to do exactly that to accommodate country teams. For some clubs it's just more awkward than it's worth to arrange two possible days (unless they have to), so they switch to Saturdays, which in turn induces other teams to switch to Saturdays as well, since their players adjust their personal schedules more and more around Saturday play. There needs to be some push in the other direction.

Re 5e, there may not be scope to change many fixtures, but for example Elm Mount (home) v. Balbriggan was a Saturday match this year. Is this absolutely necessary?

Retd.LoyolaCpt · 17-05-2019 9:36pm

I think this argument is a non-issue essentially and will be resolved next year. Going through the calendar, there are 21 free weekends between September and the end of March. Take away the latter half of December, 3-4 weekends for yet to be announced events and there’s still 15 weekends.

Hopefully the new league controller can get bedded in quickly and gets some help from the outgoing LC.

7/12 Armstrong teams use Saturdays currently - I don’t think the genie will go back in the bottle and I don’t think it needs to; not for this reason anyway.

undisputed · 18-05-2019 1:05am

sodacat11 wrote: »

I now learn that Trinity did NOT ask for their match v Dublin to be rearranged, apparently their captain "forgot".
I was looking back at last season, Trinity defaulted eight games, 4 v Dun Laoghaire and 2 each v Rathmines and Kilkenny. Every season they can't play their first match at the same time as everyone else and now they seem unable to field a decent team for their final fixture. I have to wonder just what the point is in having them in the league at all especially since most of their players are just poached from other clubs once they start going to university.

Agree. Something has to be done about Trinity. The club should be dismantled and the players should return to their old clubs. That would be better for the league and for the chess in general. Other clubs would become stronger giving more competition to Gonzaga.

pawntof4 · 18-05-2019 9:47am

undisputed wrote: »

Agree. Something has to be done about Trinity. The club should be dismantled and the players should return to their old clubs. That would be better for the league and for the chess in general. Other clubs would become stronger giving more competition to Gonzaga.

Completely disagree, the club is in the division on merit.

cdeb · 18-05-2019 12:34pm

Confirmed now that Trinity only have four players for tomorrow's match.

pdemp · 18-05-2019 2:16pm

cdeb wrote: »

Confirmed now that Trinity only have four players for tomorrow's match.

It's quite possible now that Dublin could finish 9th and the 11th place team could challenge them by that rule 5.5 but they couldn't be challenged by the 10th placed team.

5.5 is a badly designed rule that can lead to more unfairness than the walkovers themselves.

Maybe separate the treatment of defaults (generally individual player issue) and walkovers (club issue) and penalise the club giving walkovers via a points deduction of 2x number of walkovers in a season if more than 2. If more than 2 defaults then an additional deduction of 1 point per default (given there's already -1 for default in match) in case a club decides to name players just for the sake of it.

cdeb · 18-05-2019 2:45pm

That wouldn't fix the unfairness of Dublin getting four bonus points in a big relegation match though. And similar happened last year when Trinity only had half a team for a match against Dún Laoghaire. For a while, it looked like this could have an impact on the relegation battle as well, but the bottom two ultimately fell off quite badly.

I think it's hard to come up with something fair in this instance to be honest. Arguably it's a matter of discussion with Trinity to see where the issues are. Yes, the final round this year is very late and that doesn't help at all (though not sure if UCD have the same problems?) This isn't purely a May thing though as the last couple of years have shown

pdemp · 18-05-2019 2:57pm

Agree complete fairness is impossible in any league, but in this case such a rule would put trinity into the relegation mix.

cdeb · 18-05-2019 3:01pm

True, although the danger then is you're designing a rule for this instance only, and it may be that in the next instance, it may be too harsh or something.

There's certainly logic to it - it's basically a points deduction - but would just need to be careful the idea is fair overall, not just in this instance.

I might have a look at how many walkovers were conceded in the past few seasons in all divisions. Could then look at the impact of -1 for all scratches after the second one in the season

Rathminor · 18-05-2019 3:27pm

Cdeb,
Does the fact that DUBLIN also benefited from a 1 point default on board 7 when they played KK earlier this year come into play tomorrow, or would there have needed to be three walkovers/defaults in that game for it to impact.?
It would be helpful if the league could clarify before tomorrow afternoon!

cdeb · 18-05-2019 3:45pm

I would certainly suggest talking to the Armstrong controller pre-match to ensure ye're aware of what the exact circumstances are.

However, rule 5.5 says that team B - the challenging team - can not challenge if it "has itself [...] benefitted from defaults or walkovers in 3 or more games in the season"

So one default can be discounted - which is only fair, as things can happen which make one default entirely reasonable, if unfortunate.

Rathminor · 18-05-2019 3:57pm

cdeb wrote: »

I would certainly suggest talking to the Armstrong controller pre-match to ensure ye're aware of what the exact circumstances are.

However, rule 5.5 says that team B - the challenging team - can not challenge if it "has itself [...] benefitted from defaults or walkovers in 3 or more games in the season"

So one default can be discounted - which is only fair, as things can happen which make one default entirely reasonable, if unfortunate.

Cdeb,
Rathmines haven’t benefited in any matches this season, but Dublin had a further benefit of a default win on board 7 when they played KK in round 2 - we will look to clarify tomorrow with the controller to see if this potentially also comes into play, over and above the other 4 walkovers they pick up v Trinity.

pdemp · 18-05-2019 4:13pm

cdeb wrote: »

True, although the danger then is you're designing a rule for this instance only, and it may be that in the next instance, it may be too harsh or something.

There's certainly logic to it - it's basically a points deduction - but would just need to be careful the idea is fair overall, not just in this instance.

I might have a look at how many walkovers were conceded in the past few seasons in all divisions. Could then look at the impact of -1 for all scratches after the second one in the season

I don't think -1 is a sufficient deterrent, whereas -2 would nearly always result in a drop down the table. If teams forsee an issue then maybe allow them declare to play less one board in every match at the beginning of the season.
My original thought has that the team giving more than 2 in a match would lose those boards in every match, but that would be unreasonably harsh.

cdeb · 18-05-2019 5:14pm

Rathminor wrote: »

Cdeb,
Rathmines haven’t benefited in any matches this season, but Dublin had a further benefit of a default win on board 7 when they played KK in round 2 - we will look to clarify tomorrow with the controller to see if this potentially also comes into play, over and above the other 4 walkovers they pick up v Trinity.

Ah, sorry - I missed that bit.

I think it still doesn't impact things though. The start of rule 5.5 says "Where a team defaults or concedes walkovers in three or more games in a match, and as a result there is a distortion in placing such that another team suffers..." - so my reading of that is that only the distortion caused by Trinity v Dublin affects things.

sodacat11 · 18-05-2019 5:40pm

pdemp wrote: »

Agree complete fairness is impossible in any league, but in this case such a rule would put trinity into the relegation mix.

That would be no bad thing, Trinity are just a blight on the Armstrong. As was suggested the Trinity players should go back to their home clubs and withdraw the Trinity team from the league.

zeitnot · 18-05-2019 6:07pm

cdeb wrote: »

Ah, sorry - I missed that bit.

I think it still doesn't impact things though. The start of rule 5.5 says "Where a team defaults or concedes walkovers in three or more games in a match, and as a result there is a distortion in placing such that another team suffers..." - so my reading of that is that only the distortion caused by Trinity v Dublin affects things.

I thought so too. But the trouble is how to interpret the last sentence of rule 5.5 ("Where multiple defaults occur, the scores of all defaulting teams will be eliminated to determine "special match" rights."). Does it mean all three-or-more-in-a-match defaults only, or all defaults (once there is any match with three of more defaults, to trigger rule 5.5 in the first place). The wording is not too clear. (And the sentence is misplaced, since it's in 5c, which deals with the special match itself.)

Rule 5.6 seems to deal with defaults over the entire season, with a threshold of six. But that doesn't resolve the issue of what to do about the last sentence of 5.5.

These two rules could do with some editing.

cdeb · 18-05-2019 8:01pm

Hm. I think that would be in the case of, say, Dublin getting 4 walkovers against two separate teams. But yeah, it could be clearer alright. I know there was a meeting of the new rules committee last month to review the rules for this purpose, and maybe it's something they picked up on.

prey · 19-05-2019 2:51am

this situation totally unsatisfactory and undermines the entire league
effectively a team otherwise safe is throwing a crucial match in the final round
IMO regardless of the technicalities and how things pan out in Rd11 for fairness the team failing to field a side should be relegated

sodacat11 · 19-05-2019 11:04am

prey wrote: »

this situation totally unsatisfactory and undermines the entire league
effectively a team otherwise safe is throwing a crucial match in the final round
IMO regardless of the technicalities and how things pan out in Rd11 for fairness the team failing to field a side should be relegated

I second that.

Kilmokey · 20-05-2019 12:03pm

There is a misconception of the time taken to play a round of chess. The problem is that there is only about 16 week free between the start of the league and the end of March. Part of the problem is that the League round has to accommodate all game for an individual club. If all clubs could play all their games at the same time no problem. It also has nothing to do with playing on Saturday. For example purposes only and I am not singling out the clubs in question so here goes.

Dublin have four teams but can only play one home match at a time. Bray play on different night for different divisions but do not want say the Armstrong team to play the same day as the Heidenfeld or the Heidenfeld team to play the same as the Ennis and the Ennis to play as the O'Hanlon. This will give them flexibility for Subs. Now extend this over all the divisions and across all clubs and the permutations multiply.
You also have other events out side of Leinster who get on to the league controller looking to keep a weekend free for their event.

You also have to keep a few weekends free to play catch up games for players away at international events etc

So the LCU has to look after the needs of all the clubs, not just the needs of one or two so good luck to who ever has the task of putting the leagues together.

Its not as if you do not know when the games are to be played it just that a lot of players never look at the fixture list and seem to be surprised when they are asked to play a game.

sodacat11 · 20-05-2019 12:36pm

While it is commendable that the league controller tries to facilitate everyone it is obviously just not practical to do so and what we have ended up with is a clear case of the tail wagging the dog. Rather than the controller having to bend over backwards to please the clubs it would be better if the fixtures were just laid down as practically as possible and then let the clubs themselves deal with any inconvenience that may arise. Imagine Barcelona asking to have a game rearranged just because Messi was injured or the club president was away on holiday.

Tim Harding · 20-05-2019 12:59pm

sodacat11 wrote: »

While it is commendable that the league controller tries to facilitate everyone it is obviously just not practical to do so and what we have ended up with is a clear case of the tail wagging the dog. Rather than the controller having to bend over backwards to please the clubs it would be better if the fixtures were just laid down as practically as possible and then let the clubs themselves deal with any inconvenience that may arise. Imagine Barcelona asking to have a game rearranged just because Messi was injured or the club president was away on holiday.

I agree. I think that:

a) All games in every match so far as possible should be played on the designated date indicated when the fixture list is published. Clubs should have large enough squads to facilitate this. Very few players turn out in every single match for their club.

b) Any issues with the list (e.g. Valentine's Day clash as occurred this year) should be identified within 10 days of publication and the list amended rapidly, not raising problems at the last minute.

c) There should be an underlying principle that clubs play their matches in full on the designated day with whoever they have available (sodacat's last point).
It is desirable that all games in a match be played simultaneously for various reasons, but we may recognise that some players can only play week-nights and others can only play Saturdays.

So I would suggest:

c1) playing not more than (say) two games in any match in advance may be agreed between captains.

c2) No games should be postponed to a later date without prior agreement of the division controller, and permission should only be granted for very good reason (e.g. a serious illness, accident or bereavement within 48 hours of the match).
As there is no olympiad falling in the 2019/2020 season, there are very few if any representative events abroad to constitute reason for postponement. Maybe something like a Junior World Championship and the European Club Cup, but such games should if possible be played in advance, and if that can't be arranged, then within two weeks of the player returning to Ireland.

Armstrong Cup 2018-19

Comments