| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ian
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 171
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2008 9:28 am Post subject: Board order |
 |
|
| As a matter of interest, what do the Glasgow League regulations say about board order? I noticed that in the Poly v. Bearsden div. 1 match, Bearsden played three players out of rating order. Genuinely curious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
robert kelso
Site Admin
Joined: 26 May 2006
Posts: 42
Location: Cumbernauld
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2008 6:44 pm Post subject: Playing Order |
|
|
Ian,
The copy of the rules of play that I have states :
2.1 ...."five minutes before the commencement of the match, exchange lists of their players in descending order of playing strength my emphasis.
2.2 Except for the provision laid down in Clause 4 (below), no rearrangement of playing order is permitted after team lists have been exchanged.
2.3 Any blatant infringement of this rule concerning order of playing strength shall be considered by the management committe and may incur penalties....
Rule 4 is about substitutes
_________________
Robert |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ian
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 171
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2008 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hmmm...did Bearsden breach the rules then?
| Quote: |
| Any blatant infringement of this rule concerning order of playing strength |
Interesting...Depends how you define "blatant" (e.g. does that imply a specific difference in no. of rating points? Is 100 "blatant", but 50 acceptable?)
| Quote: |
| shall be considered by the management committe |
So they'll definitely consider this.
| Quote: |
| and may incur penalties.... |
Or, presumably, may not. Nice get-out.
The reason I mentioned this is that we do not have the resources of other clubs and, probably, will be competing to avoid relegation. With that in mind, I would hope/expect that the league management committee will ensure that all clubs compete in accordance with their rules. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ian
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 171
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2008 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've just re-read the rule:
| Quote: |
| in descending order of playing strength |
"Strength" is the give-away. Astute clubs will argue that "strength" and "current published rating" are not necessarily the same thing. The same escape clause operates in international selection too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
robert kelso
Site Admin
Joined: 26 May 2006
Posts: 42
Location: Cumbernauld
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 10:21 am Post subject: Playing strength |
|
|
I guess the thing to watch out for is inconsistent application of this rule by a particular club.
However it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that you start someone new higer up the order then put them down as their playing strength becomes obvious.
_________________
Robert |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ian
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 171
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| >>you start someone new higer up the order then put them down as their playing strength becomes obvious.<< |
Maybe better to do it the other way round, and promote them if their results merit it.
There was quite a stooshie last season re the match between Poly and Cathcart, when Poly fielded an unrated player, Tamerlan Tajaddinov, on board 2 v. Steve Mannion (IM, 2317). Steve won. Poly's argument ran along the lines of "he had just arrived in the country and we thought he was over 2200", or something similar.
By the time of their match v. Montrose, Mr Tajaddinov had been bumped to board 8, where his alleged 2200+ was no match for Roy Smeeton's 1562.
He was never seen in a Poly shirt again, in fact they even defaulted some boards in subsequent matches.
I believe Hamilton (?) appealed, on the grounds that the free point scored by Cathcart had a signifcant influence on the detsination of the title. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ian
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 171
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My gimlet eye has just clocked that Hamilton tweaked their board order in two places last night. I won't quibble with Joe Redpath (2207) and
Steven Tweedie (2226) on 1 and 2 - there's nothing between them - but on 6 and 7 we find William McIntosh (1574) and Arthur Mulholland (1614). 70 points is significant in anybody's language.
As stand-in captain at the start of play, I thought nothing of the absence of ratings alongside the Hamilton players' names. Had the ratings been there I would have been tempted to query 6/7.
Any thoughts, anybody? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ronniewallace
Site Admin
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 53
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ian wrote: |
My gimlet eye has just clocked that Hamilton tweaked their board order in two places last night. I won't quibble with Joe Redpath (2207) and
Steven Tweedie (2226) on 1 and 2 - there's nothing between them - but on 6 and 7 we find William McIntosh (1574) and Arthur Mulholland (1614). 70 points is significant in anybody's language.
As stand-in captain at the start of play, I thought nothing of the absence of ratings alongside the Hamilton players' names. Had the ratings been there I would have been tempted to query 6/7.
Any thoughts, anybody? |
The board 7 is a junior, so once you count in the junior addition there's not much between 6&7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ian
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 171
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The board 7 is a junior, so once you count in the junior addition there's not much between 6&7. |
I thought of that. Their board 6 is a 19-yr-old junior, so gets a notional +35 bonus points = 1609, only 5 pts difference, but their current online grades show that the junior (1574) is down to 1530, the other up to 1634. The junior bonus would give 1565, a difference of 69, or near enough the difference at the start of play last night.
I mention this for one simple reason. It's the published grade (+any weighting) which counts, yet only recently a Cumbernauld junior was forced to play in a higher section in a tournament because her published grade "wasn't accurate". (It was only 10 weeks old!!)
Surely the least we can expect across Scottish chess events re the use of grades is some degree of consistency? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
