Armstrong Cup 2017/2018

kildaremark · 15-02-2018 9:59pm

cdeb wrote: »

On a similar note, I believe Curragh actually scratched board 3 v Bray (the live boards give the game as 1. e4), so tree score there was actually 5.5-1.5.

Are Trinity and Curragh competing with each other to bring the league into disrepute? The season is too short to be giving some clubs effective points headstarts on others, even allowing for the provision in the league rules for play-offs.

Trinity in particular should be fined I think (in accordance with rule 5.3) Can you imagine, say, a League of Ireland team turning up to a match with ten players, or playing their u17 team in one match and the first team in another?

There's some ridiculous carry-on this season

I think people who don't know the circumstances of someone not turning up for a match should think twice about the comments they post on a public forum. This is my thirtieth season playing for the Curragh Chess Club and I have witnessed many incidents over the years, and, as team captain on many occasions, have had to juggle the requirements of our own players and opposing teams. I have made huge efforts over the years to accommodate playing games/matches in advance.
I personally, have never questioned the motives behind teams refusing or agreeing to move games or defaulting boards but, I don't think making unfounded allegations against teams or individuals is helpful to anyone. I have seen clubs on numerous occasions strengthening teams for particular matches and a quick glance through the league results will show this. The semi-rascist innuendo on your St Benildus blog (the three amigos reference) does your college no service.

Mark McLoughlin

cdeb · 15-02-2018 10:08pm

Mark - have to take serious issue with your accusation of "semi racism", particularly for someone who starts off by saying people should think twice about comments made on a public forum.

There is nothing whatsoever racist in my comments - indeed, L1m1tless, a Curragh clubmate, refers to the Spanish Armada earlier in this very thread. Is one racist and one not? (Stupid question of course - neither is remotely racist, so why the hypocrisy in singling out one comment but not the other?). I think you need to retract your statement.

Also, where is the unfounded allegation? Either the match was a default or it wasn't. I am told it was; the live boards indicate it was; you seem to accept it was - where is the issue here? I'm suggesting Trinity, not Curragh, get fined for this matter because of their repeat offending (eight or nine boards already this season, across three matches).

Curragh have, in my view, brought the league into disrepute in a different way, which I've already discussed. One good turn often leads to another in the Leinster leagues - Team A accommodating a board switch one season often leads to Team B being more ready to return the favour the following season - and I think Curragh have shot themselves in the foot in a way with their actions here, and are probably likely to see fewer favours granted to them in the coming seasons.

L1m1tless · 15-02-2018 10:58pm

Cdeb, I and another team mate traveled to Dublin after work (2 hour drive each way) to accommodate your Ennis team a few weeks ago. It's not like we don't try to help out other teams.

cdeb · 15-02-2018 11:02pm

Indeed. But how's that relevant here? This is about ye making a mockery of the fairness and validity of the relegation fight. (And then throwing out daft accusations of racism instead of arguing the point)

I will acknowledge that of the three Curragh posters here, you are, in fairness, the only one who's acknowledged that we have a legitimate gripe here.

L1m1tless · 15-02-2018 11:06pm

Your whole last point

Curragh have, in my view, brought the league into disrepute in a different way, which I've already discussed. One good turn often leads to another in the Leinster leagues - Team A accommodating a board switch one season often leads to Team B being more ready to return the favour the following season - and I think Curragh have shot themselves in the foot in a way with their actions here, and are probably likely to see fewer favours granted to them in the coming seasons.

Are you referring to us not being accommodating here. That's what it seams like

cdeb · 15-02-2018 11:12pm

No; my point is that I think ye broached league etiquette by flying in the three amigos for one specific match, and as such, I can't see us being in a rush to help ye out in the near future with requests like the one ye made of Bray. What goes around comes around sort of thing. Which is a shame, because that's not how the leagues tend to operate, but...

L1m1tless · 15-02-2018 11:20pm

OK I understand, I took it up wrong.

Perhaps we should have a grudge match for fun and raise money for charity.

Tim Harding · 16-02-2018 12:24am

For the sake of neutral readers, and since the Leinster League website doesn't show ratings for most of the players, I will point out that the top four boards who all won for Curragh against Benildus B were:

1. Cardenas Valero, Ramon FM 2321
2. Cardenas Valero, Joaquin 2272 fide (2139 ICU) - he plays regularly, usually on top board.
3. Munuera Sanchez, Jorge Juan 2033
4. Muelas Cerezuela, Jose 2014

If Curragh had fielded their normal team, perhaps the result of this key match in the relegation battle would have been more like 4-4.
So cdeb has a point.

BUT I strongly object to his suggestion that Trinity be fined. The defaulted boards (and I am not sure how many there were against Kilkenny, can someone say) were due to a serious disorganisation somewhat typical of students. Who exactly is to blame I cannot say; I am not involved in running the club or its teams.

Actually, when the league fixtures were published, I circulated a memo to likely team members which (inter alia) pointed out that the round one match should be rearranged (as Trinity always does) because it was before the start of term. However the designated captain (since replaced) did nothing about it and consequently only four players were available. (I am assuming the DL secretary would have agreed to a postponement if asked in good time.)

I have been playing on TCD teams since 2004 and this is the first time the club was actually made to play a match in September.

I think it would be better if round 1 matches for Trinity teams were scheduled by the leagues controller for October rather than putting the onus on the club captain (who may well be abroad when fixtures are posted) to rearrange it.

There seems to be a general problem that almost all of the first team work in paid jobs, and for various reasons are unavailable for some matches, perhaps at short notice. This is compounded by new college rules which have made it impossible to play evening matches at home because (except in residential buildings) everybody has to finish by 10pm. Saturday matches don't suit a lot of these people, I guess. This is something that next year's TCD committee (not yet chosen) is going to have to address, probably by finding a venue outside college where matches can be played in the evening.

The chaos around the Armstrong team is contrasted by the very good team spirit in our O'Hanlon squad which is going for a third consecutive promotion. I would certainly hope the two TCD teams can offer opposing clubs better playing conditions and a full set of games in 2017/18 but trying to fine us is unhelpful.

Sharkey47 · 16-02-2018 8:17am

The score in the Kilkenny v Trinity match was 6.5-1.5. Trinity had 6 players. Tim, last year you "murdered" us 4-4!

cdeb · 16-02-2018 8:50am

Tim Harding wrote: »

If Curragh had fielded their normal team, perhaps the result of this key match in the relegation battle would have been more like 4-4.
So cdeb has a point.

I think if they'd played the team that they put out in their next match (with an 1800 on 1, 1300 on 5 and 1100 on 6) or their previous match (with their their 1800 on 1 and an 1150 on 7), we'd have won more like 6-2. That's a big difference to the 1½ we did get. It'd have us right on the tails of Dún Laoghaire and Trinity for example, albeit with a particularly tough tie against Elm Mount to come, from which we can expect very few, if any, points.

Tim Harding wrote: »

BUT I strongly object to his suggestion that Trinity be fined. The defaulted boards (and I am not sure how many there were against Kilkenny, can someone say) were due to a serious disorganisation somewhat typical of students.

While I acknowledge your points - in particular, that Trinity's circumstances mean they shouldn't have to request a round 1 postponement - I don't think they really constitute a reason not to sanction the fine in accordance with the league rules.

All the defaults have been in away games, so the switch to Saturday home games, while I agree Saturday is typically a more awkward day for games, hasn't been an issue in terms of defaults. "Typically disorganised" isn't really an excuse either I think. Give us an extra four points against Curragh, ad w're ahead of them and within just 2½ points of Dún Laoghaire and survival. And that's after DL got 4 free points against Trinity.

So both Trinity and Curragh's messing has clearly had a big impact on the bottom of the table, and has effectively hit Benildus B with possibly as much as an 8-point fine for no reason.

Yes, there's times when players can't be available, and sometimes the sub is very weak (I'd note Gonzaga playing an 1100 on 8 v Curragh earlier in the season, or us playing an 800 v Balbriggan), but that's part and parcel of the leagues. But the sort of large-scale messing we've seen above destroys the fairness of the competition, which is why I think Trinity should be fined. It doesn't matter how charmingly disorganised students can be; this sort of flippancy in what is effectively the nation's top division should be very strongly discouraged.

Tim Harding · 16-02-2018 11:59am

Sharkey47 wrote: »

The score in the Kilkenny v Trinity match was 6.5-1.5. Trinity had 6 players. Tim, last year you "murdered" us 4-4!

Ah, I see that now. My recollection was wrong because I was one of the four who played in Kilkenny on the scheduled day and we won those games 3.5-0.5.

Something evidently went wrong on the other boards! :eek:

Tim Harding · 16-02-2018 12:08pm

cdeb wrote: »

All the defaults have been in away games, so the switch to Saturday home games, while I agree Saturday is typically a more awkward day for games, hasn't been an issue in terms of defaults. "Typically disorganised" isn't really an excuse either I think. Give us an extra four points against Curragh, ad w're ahead of them and within just 2½ points of Dún Laoghaire and survival. And that's after DL got 4 free points against Trinity.

So both Trinity and Curragh's messing has clearly had a big impact on the bottom of the table, and has effectively hit Benildus B with possibly as much as an 8-point fine for no reason.

Well we went with reasonable force to Curragh in round 5, despite the travel problems (impossible to get there by public transport - they changed the venue with one day's notice etc.) and we beat them 5-3 although they had their 2100+ Spaniard on top board, so we did not let Benildus down on that one.

I think the basic problem for your club is that it is too much strain running two Armstrong teams (both have to get subs from 3rd or 4th teams) but when you are in the Heidenfeld you try too hard to get promoted...

A difficulty for Trinity is that occasionally new students from Dublin prefer to continue playing for their old clubs. This year's Armstrong would probably have looked different if Conor O'Donnell had switched to Trinity from Gonzaga. Hope he will consider playing for us in 2018/19.

cdeb · 16-02-2018 12:55pm

This is hardly a problem on our side!

We won the Heidenfeld with the help of an exchange student who has since gone home. We also had to add one player to the A squad to compensate for a lack of subs.

Personally, relegation isn't an issue for me; it's just good to be playing at the top level every now and again. I think many on the team are the same. But if we are to be relegated, we do expect it to be after a fair competition.

But what rankles is that Trinity and Curragh have both taken most of the sporting merit out of the relegation race through their actions. And this would be a more serious issue if relegation wasn't so clear-cut this year. If Trinity scratched 8 boards in one match, they'd be relegated automatically, and rightly so. But you're telling me you strongly object to a fine for spreading your defaults around? Doesn't stack up, I'm afraid.

The least the two sides could do is put their hands up and acknowledge they've made a mess of things. Instead, I've you now saying it's our club's fault, and a Curragh player saying I'm racist?

sodacat11 · 16-02-2018 6:59pm

cdeb wrote: »

No; my point is that I think ye broached league etiquette by flying in the three amigos for one specific match, and as such, I can't see us being in a rush to help ye out in the near future with requests like the one ye made of Bray. What goes around comes around sort of thing. Which is a shame, because that's not how the leagues tend to operate, but...

It seems a bit harsh to me to single out the Curragh when one remembers Bray flying in players to spring a betting coup, Adare using Romanian IMs and GMs to grab places in the ECC and Gonzaga having players like Maze and Jessl registered as their players when they very rarely ever play for them and I doubt ever attend a club night. One must always remember Mr Pot and Mr Kettle as well as those poor unfortunate people in glasshouses before accusing others.

cdeb · 16-02-2018 7:13pm

Actually, all three have been referenced in the discussion.

Danville · 16-02-2018 8:54pm

Tim Harding wrote: »

I was not there but I am told Kilkenny scored 6.5 pts and I suspect Trinity only had five or six players. I don't know any individual results.

Last year (before Karl McPhillips defected back to his old club) we murdered them although we were away then also.

Karl was only ever out on loan!, so I think "defected back" is somewhat misleading.

Tim Harding · 16-02-2018 9:21pm

Danville wrote: »

Karl was only ever out on loan!, so I think "defected back" is somewhat misleading.

Well if Karl had warned us at the end of last season that he was switching back, we would have had some opportunity to recruit a replacement.
There are still few FMs in Ireland and if one changes teams at short notice it means a significant shift in the balance of power.

Danville · 17-02-2018 4:48pm

Tim Harding wrote: »

Well if Karl had warned us at the end of last season that he was switching back, we would have had some opportunity to recruit a replacement.
There are still few FMs in Ireland and if one changes teams at short notice it means a significant shift in the balance of power.

....maybe when you're out searching for a replacement you should try and get someone who's available to play more than three out of eight matches!
Winning is but a bonus, turning up is a prerequisite.

Tim Harding · 17-02-2018 6:31pm

May I suggest for debate here some proposed new rules for the Armstrong Cup (and perhaps all divisions) in future seasons. This is not a complete set as a lot of the present rules (like allowing players to sub max three times for higher teams) are probably fine as they are.

FIXTURE SCHEDULE
1. Six rounds are to be played before Christmas. No match in those rounds will be scheduled later than 10 December. Rounds 6-10 must be completed before Easter. The final round may be scheduled in April, but only in years where an early Easter makes it unavoidable.

2. Teams representing universities or other third-level educational institutions will not be scheduled to play matches before October or during their December/January break between semesters, but it will be the responsibility of such clubs to notify the league secretary of term dates for the next season not later than 30 June.

ELIGIBILITY AND REGISTRATION OF PLAYERS.
3. Except for the first round of the season, all players must be registered at least 24 hours ahead of the start of play, in such a way that the names of all registered players are declared to both the league secretary and all opposing captains.
Where a player is a substitute who will normally play in a lower division for the club, this must be declared (as under present rules #6.5).
In the case of the first round, registration must be completed and visible to all online within 48 hours of the match.
Guest players (as defined under #5) must be registered at least 24 hours in advance in order to be eligible to play in the first round.

4. All players (except as provided under #4) should be Irish citizens or long-term residents of Ireland (32 counties), as defined in ICU rules for eligibility to play for Ireland, or else temporarily living in Ireland for purposes of work or education.

5. Each team may also include (per season) EITHER
i) Up to three guest players (i.e. players not qualified under #3) whose FIDE ratings at the time of registration are below 2000,
OR
ii) One guest player with a FIDE Rating of 2000 or higher.
Additionally:
iii) No more than two guest players may be used in the same match;
iv) No guest may play more than five matches.
v) Guest players cannot play in the final round.

5. When registering a player from abroad (whether a temporary resident or guest player) who has no Irish rating, their FIDE ID number and current FIDE rating must be declared.

OTHER ISSUES?
We might consider reviewing the 150-point rule for board order, maybe making ratings at 1 January applicable for rounds 7-11.

Or even declaring players in a fixed order, as in the NCC and olympiads, but allowing the order to be changed before round 7.

Matches often don't start on time so we need provisions to tighten this up. Saying that teams must be declared "immediately before" should be changed perhaps to notifying the league secretary of the intended team by email some hours in advance, with the proviso that a maximum of two replacements may be made before play starts.

Clubs should no longer be able to avoid playing with increments on the grounds that their clocks do not support them. It should be the responsibility of all clubs to have suitable digital clocks (including replacements) at the start of and throughout the season.

cdeb · 17-02-2018 8:41pm

Don't agree with a fixed board order; that takes away all sorts of interesting tactical board switching.

Notifying the league secretary of teams by e-mail hours in advance of a game just adds needless red tape, especially if changes can be made thereafter.

I think it would be quite problematic to fit in six games for Trinity in the Armstrong in the shortened pre-Christmas period you've allowed, when ye play on Saturdays.

A problem with rule 3 is that registering players requires their ICU subs to be paid - but what if a player hasn't yet registered with the ICU? Quite possible when you consider the leagues start about two weeks after ICU membership for the season opens. Does the club pay all fees and hope to recoup throughout the season? That seems an unfair financial burden to put on clubs.

Rule 4 is interesting, although potentially quite hard to prove if a dispute is raised under it.

It's already a requirement to declare a FIDE rating if there is no ICU rating (it's implied by rule 6.8.a.2, read in accordance with the subsequent rule 6.10)

Rathminor · 17-02-2018 9:42pm

Dublin 6 Rathmines 1

1 board still to play

sodacat11 · 17-02-2018 10:25pm

Maybe a solution to the problem is to do away with the league point per game system and just award match points instead i.e a team gets 2pts for a win and 1 for a 4-4 draw.That way the effect of teams not turning up with 8 players is somewhat minimized. In my opinion the present system is preferable but if there are too many defaults it just doesn't work as it should.

cdeb · 17-02-2018 10:27pm

The current system is far superior to match points, I think. It doesn't need tampering with. We really shouldn't be talking about a team defaulting what amounts to a full match in the top division in the country.

Tim Harding · 17-02-2018 11:01pm

cdeb wrote: »

Notifying the league secretary of teams by e-mail hours in advance of a game just adds needless red tape, especially if changes can be made thereafter.

I think it would be quite problematic to fit in six games for Trinity in the Armstrong in the shortened pre-Christmas period you've allowed, when ye play on Saturdays.

A problem with rule 3 is that registering players requires their ICU subs to be paid - but what if a player hasn't yet registered with the ICU? Quite possible when you consider the leagues start about two weeks after ICU membership for the season opens. Does the club pay all fees and hope to recoup throughout the season? That seems an unfair financial burden to put on clubs.)

I would only allow limited changes on the night - maximum two replacements for the declared players and for a reason that has to be specified.

OK instead of "register" players I mean declare them; paying ICU fees is a separate issue. So your objection there is beside the point.

Trinity will, I think, have to find a place near but outside college where they can play their matches on weekdays. Maybe an arrangement with Dublin CC could be negotiated?

As for cdeb constantly going on about walkovers, I agree it is undesirable but it happens to some extent in all leagues. A more serious problem to my mind (and why I want advance declaration of teams) is the following. More times than I care to remember I have arrived at a venue in good time - both home matches and away - and had to wait until after the official start time before I know whom I am playing, and sometimes the game has been 20 or even 30 minutes late starting because

a) the sets are not ready for play;
b) clocks are not set and scoresheets not yet provided;
c) late-arriving players are being facilitated, and
d) quite often the team lists are still being written out 10 minutes after the match was supposed to begin.

I do realise Trinity have perhaps been the worst offenders in this regard but I think walkovers and defaults affect a much smaller percentage of matches than the problems listed above.

Late starts are particularly unfair on players reliant on public transport to get home.

My suggestions about guest players would have prevented Curragh's trick with the three amigos against Benildus B. The way I worded it would not stop Stephen Jessel playing in the Armstrong should he wish but it would mean Sebastian Maze, for example, could only play if declared in advance.

cdeb · 17-02-2018 11:33pm

Tim Harding wrote: »

I would only allow limited changes on the night - maximum two replacements for the declared players and for a reason that has to be specified.

I think even this renders the declaration of teams to the divisional controller moot to be honest. You say later on you want to know in advance who you're playing - but then the board 1 drops out, is replaced by a sub, and all the boards are changed. What's to stop teams abusing this and declaring a false team, then making the allowed two changes so the entire board order changes and no prep can be done?

Let's follow the process through - I am a divisional controller. I get e-mails from two teams who are playing a match later that evening. What do I do with them? Do I send each on to the opposing captain? But is this only to be done after a certain time? What if I don't see them because I'm in work, on holidays, etc? What happens if one captain doesn't submit a team? Is there to be a penalty? A points deduction seems harsh.

I think the rule as proposed is made with decent intention, but is unfortunately impractical.

Tim Harding wrote: »

OK instead of "register" players I mean declare them; paying ICU fees is a separate issue. So your objection there is beside the point.

Fair enough.

Tim Harding wrote: »

As for cdeb constantly going on about walkovers, I agree it is undesirable but it happens to some extent in all leagues.

Not on the large scale of Trinity this season though. That's why I think the fine should be applied. I don't agree that starting a game late - while also undesirable - is a more serious problem than the relegation battle being affected by clubs sending half a team to a match.

Tim Harding wrote: »

My suggestions about guest players would have prevented Curragh's trick with the three amigos against Benildus B. The way I worded it would not stop Stephen Jessel playing in the Armstrong should he wish but it would mean Sebastian Maze, for example, could only play if declared in advance.

True, and as I say, it's an interesting suggestion worth pursuing and even putting to the AGM when motions are called for. The issues with Bray and Adare in the past - which were very similar - were legislated against, which shows that it is generally felt to be unsporting and undesirable. On the flip side, as I say, proof of residence could be hard to establish, and that needs to be considered. Let's say we appeal Curragh's three players, and they simply say they're resident in Ireland. Where do you go from there? There are potential GDPR issues around sharing, say, utility bill info by e-mail with the leagues controller.

Probably the benefits of the rule as phrased outweigh the difficulties of its implementation; I'm trying to play devil's advocate here. Ultimately, I guess it's hard to legislate for every possible action, which is where etiquette should come in.

sodacat11 · 20-02-2018 11:38am

Dublin 7-1 Rathmines

Tim Harding · 20-02-2018 12:57pm

sodacat11 wrote: »

Dublin 7-1 Rathmines

That throws Rathmines into the relegation mix. They still have to play Gonzaga and Elm Mount, from which they won't get much joy, so Rathmines need a good win against Dun Laoghaire (scheduled for 1 March). If they get a win they should be safe.

Yes, the Curragh default v Bray on board 3 is now shown on the LCU website so Curragh only scored 1.5 from round 9.

Standings after 8 rounds (9 in the case of those two teams) are:
Gonzaga 46
Elm Mount 43
Benildus A 39.5
Dublin 39
Kilkenny 36
Bray/Greystones 32.5 (only two matches left)
Balbriggan 28.5
Rathmines 28
Trinity 26.5
Curragh 26 (only two matches left)
Dun Laoghaire 26
Benildus B 20

So the title is between the first two and teams in positions 3-7 are safe, while Benildus B look doomed.

Four teams chase one relegation spot (or rather try to run away from it).
DL have to play not only Rathmines but also Curragh so their fate is essentially in their own hands and Curragh look the most likely to go down.
Trinity may need a couple of last round points against Dublin to be sure of survival, so a good win against Benildus B in round 9 is essential for them.

cdeb · 20-02-2018 2:11pm

Worth noting Trinity also scratched two boards against Rathmines, so that's another impact they're having at the bottom.

I think the rules allow for a challenge match if (say) Benildus B finish within two points of Rathmines, having lost both 7 and 8 v Trinity, because then those boards were decisive.

Arguably that rule is inadequate as it doesn't allow for, say, Benildus B getting 1 point on those two boards and finishing 1.5 ahead of Rathmines, who were in no way guaranteed of the two points they got had the boards been played.

Tim Harding · 20-02-2018 2:29pm

I understand cdeb is upset because his team is probably going to be relegated but his loose use of language may mislead readers.

He keeps using the word "scratched" (which is NOT in the rules) indiscriminately between walkovers and defaults. Compare his posting of 15 Feb about the Curragh default with what he just wrote about Trinity.

The rules distinguish between conceding walkovers on the lowest boards, while playing higher boards, and defaulting on a higher board as Curragh recently did. The latter is penalised by a point deduction.

Trinity have conceded several walkovers (in three different matches I think) but they have not defaulted any games.

cdeb · 20-02-2018 7:21pm

I've repeatedly said that we expected from the start of the season to be relegated, having lost the upper half of our promotion-winning team. So I think we can separate that emotion from Trinity's actions (which you appear determined to avoid criticising)

The difference between scratch/walkover is semantics really. Yes, technically you're right, but it doesn't change the discussion - in this case, whether the current rule on walkovers is adequate compensation in light of Trinity's messing this season.

Would the rules be fairer if a team could challenge if they finish within the number of points which the higher team won by forfeit (be it scratch or walkover), not the number of excess points won by that team on the boards in question. In other words, if Team A finish eleventh, but 1½ points behind Rathmines, should Team A be allowed challenge them to a survival match (assuming Team A haven't benefitted from free points themselves)? The rules as they stand would prohibit a challenge if Team A picked up 1 point from the bottom two boards against Trinity - but is that really relevant? The issue is still that Rathmines got two free points.

(This is nothing against Rathmines obviously)

Rathminor · 25-02-2018 10:02pm

L1m1tless wrote: »

He got a provisional rating of 19xx from the Drogheda Congress in the Summer but was registered using his FIDE rating of 1730. Makes a big difference to the bottom of the table too.

How do the penalties work for boards below the breach in a particular match?
This season there also appears to be a breach in the Armstrong and an incidence twice with the same player in the Heidenfeld.
I think the Heidenfeld issue is more a case that the players final September rating was substantially higher than the original declared rating, so all should be in order (is there a facilty to true up declared ratings??).
I’m not sure if the same issue applies to the Armstrong case.

L1m1tless · 25-02-2018 10:07pm

6.9 A team offending against rule 6.8(150 rule) will have any points won by the illegal player(s)
deducted and awarded to the opposing team. In extraordinary circumstances,
further points may be deducted at the discretion of the LCU Executive Committee.

Looks like its just the loss of the game.

What team in the Armstrong violated this rule?

cdeb · 26-02-2018 11:18pm

Looks like Gonzaga have been docked 1½ points for subbing up Eoghan Casey four times (in which he scored 1½) while leaving Gordon Freeman on their Heidenfeld, and so breaking the 150-point rule (by 5 points). That makes things quite interesting at the top - although as I posted in the Ennis thread, while it's not the LCU's brief to catch these errors for clubs, it would probably be beneficial if there was an easy way of catching them quicker so clubs would at least be stopped from repeating their error.

Dún Laoghaire benefit by ½ point, but Bray don't benefit by 1 point because Eoghan was given a walkover in that match, and so Bray had no player to claim their point. The result has been updated to 5-2 to Gonzaga.

Has there ever been an Armstrong like this?

L1m1tless · 26-02-2018 11:28pm

In the bray case, neither club got the point.

Rathminor · 27-02-2018 12:13am

L1m1tless wrote: »

Looks like its just the loss of the game.

What team in the Armstrong violated this rule?

Dublin University

Rathminor · 27-02-2018 12:13am

L1m1tless wrote: »

Looks like its just the loss of the game.

What team in the Armstrong violated this rule?

Dublin University

Tim Harding · 28-02-2018 11:49am

Rathminor wrote: »

Dublin University

Don't think we did. Why do you say so? No penalty for us in the table:

http://www.chessleague.net/chessorg/leinster/table.php?org=1&lid=93

It was Gonzaga: see discussion recently in the Armstrong thread.

L1m1tless · 28-02-2018 3:13pm

Its because you played behind Luke Scott and the official ratings at the start of the season made it a 150 violation.

cdeb · 28-02-2018 3:18pm

The ratings on the LCU site are 1807/1936 - so no violation there?

L1m1tless · 28-02-2018 3:19pm

yes but they are not the ratings that are on the ICU

pdemp · 28-02-2018 4:38pm

cdeb wrote: »

Looks like Gonzaga have been docked 1½ points for subbing up Eoghan Casey four times (in which he scored 1½) while leaving Gordon Freeman on their Heidenfeld, and so breaking the 150-point rule (by 5 points). That makes things quite interesting at the top - although as I posted in the Ennis thread, while it's not the LCU's brief to catch these errors for clubs, it would probably be beneficial if there was an easy way of catching them quicker so clubs would at least be stopped from repeating their error.

Dún Laoghaire benefit by ½ point, but Bray don't benefit by 1 point because Eoghan was given a walkover in that match, and so Bray had no player to claim their point. The result has been updated to 5-2 to Gonzaga.

Has there ever been an Armstrong like this?

But Gordan was already subbed up 4 times by that stage too, so Eoghan wasn't illegal for those two games. If they want to be strict it should be along the lines that Gordon and 4 other players were declared on the Armstrong (via first team they played for rule) before they were either declared played in lower leagues, making them illegal in lower leagues.

Rathminor · 28-02-2018 4:47pm

Tim Harding wrote: »

Don't think we did. Why do you say so? No penalty for us in the table:

http://www.chessleague.net/chessorg/leinster/table.php?org=1&lid=93

It was Gonzaga: see discussion recently in the Armstrong thread.

Tim,
Based on the initial declarations the rule was broken when Trinity played Benildus A.
Perhaps this is the same issue as Elm Mount in that the declared ratings were not fully updated for summer matches.

cdeb · 28-02-2018 5:32pm

pdemp wrote: »

But Gordan was already subbed up 4 times by that stage too, so Eoghan wasn't illegal for those two games.

Ah; good spot. I mis-read Gordon's two Heidenfeld games as two Armstrong sub appearances somehow.

So Eoghan seems to just have been ineligible for round 4, which he lost. On that basis, you'd imagine Gonzaga would get their points back on appeal? But then do Gonzaga get no penalty for breaking the rules in round 4 because the ineligible player lost? Which I suppose makes sense in a way as had they fielded a different player - who would almost certainly have been weaker - they would have been even less likely to win.

All very confusing.

Agree on your potential alternative rule issue (and the possibly excessive strictness of applying a penalty for it)

pdemp · 28-02-2018 5:47pm

cdeb wrote: »

Ah; good spot. I mis-read Gordon's two Heidenfeld games as two Armstrong sub appearances somehow.

So Eoghan seems to just have been ineligible for round 4, which he lost. On that basis, you'd imagine Gonzaga would get their points back on appeal? But then do Gonzaga get no penalty for breaking the rules in round 4 because the ineligible player lost? Which I suppose makes sense in a way as had they fielded a different player - who would almost certainly have been weaker - they would have been even less likely to win.

Think they'd get -1 for that only. (Rule 6.7)

cdeb wrote: »

All very confusing.

Agree on your potential alternative rule issue (and the possibly excessive strictness of applying a penalty for it)

Plus there is no explicit time deadline in rule 6.5 about when you have to declare players on lower teams [even though I'd imagine there was an intention to have it]. So Gonzaga could be expected to successfully appeal against it anyway and just take the -1 in the Armstrong if that suited them better overall.

Do the controllers have to do this all manually? If so it's an impossible task to expect them to do.

Tim Harding · 28-02-2018 6:15pm

Rathminor wrote: »

Tim,
Based on the initial declarations the rule was broken when Trinity played Benildus A.
Perhaps this is the same issue as Elm Mount in that the declared ratings were not fully updated for summer matches.

This doesn't make much sense to me. For a start neither Luke nor I played against Benildus A. We did play against Elm Mount but the difference in our ratings was possibly less than 150 as somebody else pointed out.

Possibly the difference was 190 at the City of Dublin (early September) which might be the relevant rating period? I had to search back a long way to find the ratings at that time.

https://www.icu.ie/events/885

And I am not sure those are actually the correct ratings for Luke and me. Those lists are usually people's ratings at the point when people pay their entries, not necessarily correct at the time of play.

I certainly would not deliberately play too low; I wanted to play the Kilkenny match instead and was asked to play Elm Mount very late in the day.

Perhaps our captain made an understandable mistake (you would have to ask him why he had the wrong ratings), but the loss to the team is surely only the two half points that Luke and I scored? Whereas Gonzaga have lost 4 points under a different rule which is what I was referring to earlier.

Finally, this is the ENNIS thread so discussions about penalties in the Armstrong should be in that thread.

cdeb · 28-02-2018 6:15pm

Divisional controllers don't have any responsibility for updating the league table these days; that's done by Tristan/Peter because it's more efficient to do it centrally with the online results now tying into the website software. It does seem, however, that there's no easy way for the software to work out who's subbed four times, etc, so all that must be done manually.

Divisional controllers just settle disputes, act as liaison points for captain queries, etc.

Tim Harding · 28-02-2018 6:21pm

I actually think all these rules about "illegal" rating differences are stupid. If LCU wants to enforce any 150-point rule they should post on their site before the leagues start the ratings of all Irish-rated players on 1 September and keep the list available, as it's hard to find them later on the ICU site.

What perhaps also should be done is make clubs declare their player order for each division (including subs from lower teams) at the start of the season and stick to it. But they can put them in whatever order they like, as in FIDE team events and the NCC. I see a lot of debate about this on the English Chess Forum too.

If a new member joins or a new sub comes in then their position in the list.

I don't agree, however, with the wholesale randomising of team orders that is regularly allowed in the 4NCL.

Tim Harding · 28-02-2018 6:40pm

On another issue, was the match Trinity v Benildus B scheduled for yesterday postponed? It seems ironic that the only round 9 match scheduled for a later date has already been played, and the weather will presumably force cancellation of the rest?

pdemp · 28-02-2018 6:42pm

It looks like the ratings [or at least some of them] in the league site have been changed since the start of the season, and no longer use the list that was published on the ICU rating website on 2017-09-16. That will be a further cause of confusion going forward, and is in contradiction with the leagues own rules.

cdeb · 28-02-2018 6:45pm

Trinity v St Benildus B was moved at the start of the season because Trinity don't have a midweek venue.

The ratings are very easy to find on the LCU site - it's in the list of every declared squad, and the ratings don't change throughout the season. So the 150-point rule is very easy for captains to navigate in that regards.

Whether those ratings are in fact correct, as per pdemp's post, is a separate matter.

Armstrong Cup 2017/2018

Comments