Pages

Saturday, March 08, 2014

More musings on the Leagues

To postpone or not to postpone
And what should the penalty be?

Fisherwick still go on their imperious way in Division 1, but Lindores continue to dog their footsteps. Their recent drawn encounter at the East Belfast coffee house still leaves everything to play for. Lindores are definitely pulling out all the stops - not content with dragging former Williamson Shield winner Fred MacDonald from retirement to fill Board 3, they then found another person to fill that space - no less than 2012 Ulster Masters champion Alan Delaney, who seems to have been carelessly left unattended by another Belfast club.

Still, to get back to the question at the top: a little of the momentum has gone out of the top tier with the recent postponements of Muldoon's v. Lindores and Fisherwick v. Ballynafeigh 2. Our local players are not professionals and there will be occasions when ordinary life gets in the way and a team captain is left scrambling about for players. However the default position ought to be that if you can get 5 bodies out, whatever their standard, the match must go ahead.

There will be occasions when a team captain really can't get a full squad out, and the Controller will consider it reasonable to grant a postponement. However, just to make sure these occasions are few and far between, should there not be some sort of penalty for an "offending" team? Might I suggest that the team responsible for the postponement shall not be entitled to any bonus match points when the match is eventually played.

One more suggestion: if the Controller agrees to a match postponement, in the spirit of openness and transparency, he should place the reason for it on the official UCU website.

12 comments:

Dennis the Menace said...

David,,re;the bonus points penalty,,i seem to remember casually advocating this some time ago,,,perhaps this should be seriously considered

Ballynafeighchess said...

So what you're saying is that we all should only have 6 players, no point in bringing in new juniors and broaden the membership base if it is only going to cost you matches and heavy defeats.

David McAlister said...

@Ballynafeighchess

Your comment had me at a loss until I remembered "The Two Ronnies" Mastermind sketch where the specialist subject was "Answering the previous question."

I presume therefore you are referring to my earlier musings in "Butterflies and Hurricanes".

Of course, I'm not suggesting anything of the kind. Your attempt at bluster merely highlights that you have no answer to the failure to follow the rules.

Considering your proud boast that Ballynafeigh could put out six teams, surely it couldn't have been difficult to sort out 5 designated players for each of your 4 teams (and would still leave plenty of floaters left over).

Ballynafeighchess said...

"Bluster" Me thinks not!

I was referring to your comment from the above post unless the glue has kicked in and I'm reading another page in a parallel universe

"However the default position ought to be that if you can get 5 bodies out, whatever their standard, the match must go ahead"

So a Club that can't attract new players or refuses to allow members that are new to chess or of a junior standard would be allowed a cancellation.

Whereas on the other hand a "Proper" chess club inclusive to all and enrolling beginners and junior players because they don't look down their noses at them get hammered....

The team that is bad for the future of chess in Ulster gets allowances made for it?

The team or club that works to progress chess in Ulster would be punished by being forced to play beginners!

I think not!

David McAlister said...

OK, got it now. No bluster then. I now see the point you were making about my formula for dealing with a postponement disadvantaging "proper" clubs. However, I reckon providing for a penalty for asking for one evens things up.

My reference to the two recent postponements had been merely a pretext to discuss the general principles, but perhaps I unwittingly touched a raw nerve about a specific postponement. I don't know why the matches were put off; that's why I thought it would be a nice idea to inform the UCU universe officially the reasons for any postponement.

Anyway I am still a bit mystified by your take on this. All season you have extolled the virtues of the "junior" floater" rule as providing plenty of games in League competition for players new to competitive chess and the improvement in their play that has resulted. You've also been perfectly happy to allow your "juniors" at Ballynafeigh 3 to lock horns with the star teams such as Fisherwick, Lindores and Muldoon's.

Seems like a bit of a U-turn not to keep giving them those opportunities. However, perhaps it's more of a new phase for Ballynafeigh Chess Club. Having, very successfully, established a "proper" club with a large player pool, has the time come to focus more on a determined bid for some silverware?

Ballynafeighchess said...

The reasons behind the Lindores postponement are unknown to me they may or may not have had a team but the gave the mandatory 48 hours notice.

The Ballynafeigh 2 v Fisherwick postponement is much more simple but became much more complex partly due to my eagerness and another's paranoia.

Ballynafeigh had a problem with the room and actual playing tables later in the season, rather than having to swap lots of fixtures about with many teams I could have rectified the situation with 2 simple swaps one of which was the reversal of fixtures with Fisherwick 3rd March at Fisherwick and the 22nd April at Ballynafeigh to the 4th March at Ballynafeigh and the 21st April at Fisherwick

A simple uncomplicated fixture reversal not a cancellation, I phoned JC and he didn't envisage a problem .... Bouyed by his response I jumped the gun a bit and got three Ballynafeigh players (in one case a wife/baby sitter) to swap rotas from the Monday to the Tuesday.

JC then came back to me and informed me there was "no appetite" for a reversal of fixture and that we should go ahead with the match on the coming Monday. Which meant Ballynafeigh would be without a board 1 2 and 3 to replace them with beginners in a match that would have ramifications on the league title would have been extremely unfair to either Muldoon's or Lindores so I then cancelled until a later date.

I was told by another player by email that MW smelt an imaginary rat and pulled rank, hence the "no appetite" for fixture reversal.

Paranoia has taken grip at chlorine gardens and word on the grapevine is that we arrange the fixture the week of the Jones simul that Fisherwick will cancel in the insane belief that i would ask Gawain to humble himself to play in our low-rate league! That as league controller i would make a mockery of fairness to defeat Fisherwick and not the others!

Don't blame Ballynafeigh for this situation this was a very simple hitch for our venue blown up into a tin-foil helmet conspiracy session.

Hope this clears up some of the issue if not it all







Ballynafeighchess said...

I forgot to add all season long we have tried to avoid playing the juniors against the title favourites.

When we played on in a match we made sure that we played one against the other title chasers also... in an honest attempt to be fair. Anyone who doubts this can confirm it on the wonderful new UCU site the teams are all there

grendelkiller said...

well said David

grendelkiller said...

don't know how this works yet. im a bit if a thickie, however its great to c that the "bluster" has not left ulster chess...interesting debate :)

donewithucu said...

I think any player in fisherwick would rather play a standard game with GM Jones [who seems quite humble to me} and lose horrendously than win the league, even if they hadn't won same league several times so i am fairly sure that any ideas that him playing was a reason for cancelling are in the mind of ballynafeighchess.
It is bad enough that a UCU official is allowed to abuse UCU members but now he is also attracting negative publicity from both the Irish chess union and the English chess federation with a most undignified response to comments made on the ECF forums about someone he has never even met. http://irishchesscogitations.com/defamation_case/ballyna_defamtion.jpg

I will not be part of an organization that puts up with this behaviour.

Ballynafeighchess said...

Neither would the rest of us, that's why we were forced to form a disciplinary committee ....admittedly though it was to deal with much more serious breaches.

David McAlister said...

Comments are always welcome, but they should relate to the blog entry (this is not a forum). Of course if you have enough comments they will eventually go off tangentially. I'm usually prepared to see where things go but this series is starting to drift very much off course.