Committee Thoughts

Committee Thoughts on League Evolution

The general feeling of the meeting was that the experimental system is working well for most teams with the exception of those in the first division. There followed what might best be called a brain-storming session in which ideas to improve matters were put forward. Although some suggestions attracted more approval than others within the meeting, no attempt was made to make a decision as to the best buy; we are hoping that the general league membership will put forward their views to inform future decisions.
Sections in italics below are additional comments submitted by the person stated, or of mine that I do not recall making at the meeting.

Basic Problem: Division one too small and uncompetitive

Playing each other three times is not a popular method of boosting the first division fixture list. Some individual players get more games by additionally attaching themselves to a second division team, but this solution is not open to all.
Possible solutions:

I Reduce the minimum counting grade in division 2

For: Makes it easier for those first division players wanting more games to fit into a second division team.
Against Nowhere near a complete solution, if only because not every first division club also runs a second division team.

II Two open divisions with promotion/relegation between them

For: Gives the league more control over the size of the top division.
Against: Past experience and the current voting with feet not to play in division one suggests this would be unpopular, at least amongst current second division sides. Clubs that share players between teams would no longer be able to do so and might reduce their number of teams as a result. However this is always a possibility anyway.

III Top two divisions as now except they additionally play a single game against each team in the other division

For: Increases the size and variety of the first division fixture list without ruining the second division competition.
Against: More difficult to understand. Likely to create more fixtures than some would wish. It can easily be shown that if there are a total of N teams in the two divisions then the number of games played by a first division team plus the number played by a second division one will be 3N - 4. Would require special regulations to deal with matches between teams having a common player.

Not really sure what the difficulty with common players is. In the relevant matches they simply play for one team or the other or neither. Or am I missing something?

IV Grade limit Division 1

For: Fits in with the rest of the league. By making division one a less intimidating competition for those currently outside it might encourage more entries. If strongest clubs are forced to split their strength they may enter more teams in division one.
Against: Leaves the 8 board as the only open event. May force the break up of teams of some years standing. Lower down the league structure teams always have the choice of staying together and moving division, or splitting up if they wish to stay in a given division.

With the possible exception of I, all the suggestions also have implications for division 2. In particular any increase in the size of division one is more likely to come from teams transferring out of division 2 rather than from new teams at the division1/2 level.

There was further discussion of how IV might work in practice. Naturally the first question to be resolved would be 'What is the limit'. Three values were put forward:
750: Fits in with the rest of the league structure, and by affecting all the first division clubs would not be viewed as aimed at any in particular.
800: Affects fewer teams, and is less restrictive to those it does affect. Still leaves a bigger step between division one and two than between other divisions.
775: The obvious compromise, which equally obviously doesn't necessarily make it right.

It may be worth considering what the leagues overall resources in terms of strong players are. An eight team first division would require 40 first division players. Of those players who have played at least twice this season 40 are graded 134 or above. Putting these in grade order we could regard the top eight as top boards, the next eight as board 2s, and so on. A team consisting of the best* top board, best board 2, etc would have a total grade of 801, the worst* top board, board 2, etc would form a team of total grade 748. (* best and worst are used here purely in the sense of highest and lowest graded.) Thus were we able to put together teams independent of clubs we could form a division with eight teams all roughly in the 750 to 800 range which presumably would be fairly competitive. In practice of course some of the players play too infrequently to be considered regulars, so their replacements would bring down the grade totals at least a bit. Needless to say the players don't come from various clubs in convenient multiples of five - Cheddleton provide 12, Newcastle 7, Holmes Chapel 6, Stafford and Alsager 5 each, Macclesfield 4 and Meir one.

Roger Edwards writes:
The proposal to limit the grade in the first division appears to me to be an attempt to discourage strong players from playing in the league and the league constitution states that one of the aims is to encourage chess in the area. This is not a new problem. Going back 30 years, Electra had 3 200+ players in their team with Richard Beach, Barry Hopewell and Chris Barnard. If a similar team was to come along now from, say, Keele University (which it nearly did a few years ago), would we tell them "On your bike".

IV (cont) The 8 board cup

As stated earlier adopting IV would leave the 8 board as the only Open competition. It seems desirable therefore to turn this into a league competition in some way so as to provide more Open matches. It was felt, possibly incorrectly, that a league format might be acceptable to only four clubs, and even that number is not guaranteed. Despite this suggestions were put forward as to how the competition might operate:
a) No Change: It is not worth changing the 8 board until we know whether league changes have the desired effect.
b) Double Round Robin: Probably the most attractive theoretically, but also most likely to attract a very small entry.
c) Single Round Robin: Still all play all, but less daunting than the double round robin for those clubs who sometimes struggle to get a team of eight together.
d) Single round of KO followed by Single Round Robin: Or two single round robins - one for the winners of the KO matches, one for the losers. By seeding the draw for the KO round weaker teams would be guaranteed matches against people their own size in the round robin stage if they have not had the pleasure of taking a big scalp in the KO stage.

Bill Armstrong makes further suggestions about this option:
We should be able to attract sufficient entries to the open 8 board tournament to make the first round a knockout round with four seeded clubs meeting four other entries. The competition could then have two groups,
first round winners who would play each other in a league for 8 board teams,
and
first round losers who would play each other in an open league for teams of six players. (My emphasis: MJH)
All the entries would have four matches in the season, one knockout match and three open league games.

Division 1
Assuming we change division 1 to a grade limited event, more clubs would be attracted by the greater uncertainty of the final positions. But without relegation the second half of a season can lose interest for the less successful teams.
I suggest that the first four clubs in division one should be the teams seeded in the first round of the next season 8 board knockout/qualifying stage. This would create a significance in the lower placings of division 1 and increase interest for the players.

From Roger Edwards:
I am not sure I like the proposal to mess around with the knockout cup(s). I think it messing with something that doesn't need messing with. If we want a "super" league, then organise a super league, not change the knockout. It reminds me of football's Champions League (which is a mis-nomer as they are not all champions, what about Trade descriptions etc) which is a knockout, then a league and then a knockout with teams coming in and going out all over the place, totally unintelligible. At least they have the excuse that they are in it for the money.

e) Any above, but using 6 board teams rather than 8: Clearly an attempt to make it easier for clubs to put teams together.

V Insert a 750 division:

If this can be done without damaging the second division, then the open division being small is less of a problem - if their players want more games but won't play in a 750 competition it is that much harder to have sympathy for them.

Me:
The biggest problem with strong players is that there are not many of them.

I discount any approach that contains a significant element of forcing other teams to play them as this effectively says that the second tier of players exist to service the top tier, and if they decide to take up origami instead the responsibility passes to the third tier. I do not believe that this is right. In general terms the possibilities therefore are

Shrug your shoulders and accept that the top players are stuck with a small number of games. Not exactly the approach to win friends and influence people, but what you are left with if all else fails.
Create an additional competition for them. Always you are likely to confront the problem that you may be simply giving them more games against the same players.
Rely on clubs to arrange their other teams to give their strong players the games they want (effectively the current position). This requires that the strong players are honest about their wishes before the season starts so that teams can be designed with them in mind. Parachuting the player into an already existing team for a few games is unlikely to work. Of course it helps if the club concerned have one or more second division teams to build around the strong player.
Assemble the top players into teams in such a manner that other teams are willing to play them, which obviously is where grade limits come in. Choosing a limit is not a trivial task. If teams are not playing in division one because of a "We don't want to be cannon fodder" feeling, then to them the problem is not just the strength of Cheddleton A, but also a feeling that they would get little change out of Kings, Newcastle A and Stafford A. Whether their assessment is correct or not, one cannot complain about them acting on their believes. Consequently it seems likely that for a grade cap to have the desired effect of increasing the size of division one to at least six teams it would need to cut into the teams named above. Else there is a danger that we would have the worst case scenario of a capped top division (which I suspect is mostly viewed as no better than possibly a necessary evil) which is still too small.

Briefly

Having spent a lot of time generating suggestions for the top end of the structure it seemed right that we should at least consider the other end. Division four currently contains 11 teams restricted to a total grade of 360. If more teams arrive we can split into parallel divisions with end of season play-offs. However the teams in division four are not of a completely uniform strength and particularly if new weaker teams are attracted there must be some merit in having a division five with a limit of 280 (possibly 300). It would be important to avoid creating a small division 4 as a result of the introduction of division 5 as we do not want have to have gaps within the overall structure. On the other hand a small division 5 would be acceptable as the teams (or their players individually) can easily play additionally in the fourth with no gap being created.

Roger Edwards:
On the proposal for a division 5, it is an admirable idea to try and get more teams in the league. This one is actually trying to encourage chess in the area. However experience has shown that it is not the number of players that is the problem, it is the number of people who would willingly run these teams (not people who are coerced at the club AGM and do the minimum necessary). I am convinced that we could get more teams in now if there were more captains of the right caliber available. I do think division 5 is a good idea and hope that enough captains can be found to make it work.

And finally ...

The current structure was introduced as an experimental one for one year. By vote at the last AGM it was decided to extend the experiment by a further year. The experimental status means that the default position is still that we revert to the old league structure unless there is a continuing 2/3 support for the new system. It seems likely that an amendment will appear at the AGM to extend the experimental status for a further year. Effectively the question will be put to the meeting 'Do you think it is right that the system should remain experimental until we are sure we have got it completely right, or do you feel that if we are willing to use it for a third year then we should make it the default and require separate proposals be put forward if a return to the former league structure is wanted?'

Sitemap