Cumbernauld Chess Club

robert kelso

These are the emails I was talking about tonight, any thoughts?

Hi Folks,
I believe there is currently a discusion regarding the number of players required for a team in each Division. I have some thoughts on this which I woulfd like you to consider.My first reaction was that the 1st Division should be 'protected' ie. remain with 8 players per team. However I have looked at the GCL website and the number of reserves that each of the clubs are having to call upon to meet the 8 required players and it is obvious that no club is managing to get through the season without using reserves as a matter of course. The picture is:
Inverclyde 4 reserves
Giffnock 7 reserves
Hamilton 5 reserves
Cathcart 4 reserves
Bearsden 5 reserves
Glasgow Montrose 6 reserves
East Kilbride 5 reserves
Polytechnic 4 reserves
Shettleston 4 reserves
Crowood 2 reserves

It is clear that no club in the 1st Division can rely upon having even having a 9 player pool to meet its commitments.

Moreover, some of those clubs with a B team, are having problems in meeting B team comitments. The number of defaults in the 2nd and 3rd Division is growing year on year and it is highly likely that the 4th Divison will diasappear very soon.

We are all aware that numbers of players are declining, but might I suggest that clubs are being put under unnecessary pressure in to having to field 8 players in the 1st Division? Nor is it the case that the bottom 2 boards in this Division are consistantly strong players. Clubs are backfilling these boards with whoever they can get their hands on. We have been robbing Peter to pay Paul for so long now that it seems entirely natural.

I would like to suggest that the !st Division in the GCL comes into line with the rest of the Leagues in Scotland and teams should be reduced to 6 players. If this is done it will not reduce the quality of play in the Division, indeed it could enhance it. It would also enable clubs to fully meet their B team comitments and reduce the defaults in the lower leagues. It must be a disheartening experience to play for a team where defaults are a regular feature of a match. Can any club afford to inflict this regularly on weaker members who are expected to play in the 2nd or 3rd Division?

For those who want to reamain with an 8 player team in the 1st Division I would like to point out that quite soon defaults could become a regular feature of this division as well. This will come about through disallusioned 'weaker ' players aimply stopping to play. Then where are the reserves going to come from? An arguement may be made that simply reducing the numbers required in the 2nd and 3rd Divsions would alleviate matters.Would that change the picture of reserves used? Would that enhance or even maintain the playing strength of the 1st Division? We would be treating symptoms, no more than that.

I suggest that the 1st Division be for teams of 6. The 2nd Division teams of 6, The 3rd Division teams of 4.

John Dempsey

Hi,

Earlier today I sent the message below to the five people in the Cc box. I did not have your email addresses at that time. So far three people have contacted me; Trevor Davies, Sam Collins, and Douglas Bryson. All three have agreed that a restructure is badly needed. All three have made it clear that they believe that the 1st division should be subject to change as well. Trevor thinks 6 players in a 1st division team, Douglas and Sam, suggest 7 but would not be averse to 6. All of them believe that a restructure of the 2nd and 3rd Divisions is required as well.

The idea behind this email is to start a debate prior to the GCL AGM so that people and clubs can discuss the merits of a restructure and reach conclusions. All that I am asking of each of you is to confirm receipt of this email so that I know that I have contacted each club. If there are any Club Secretaries whose name does not appear above then please advise me so that I can forward this to them.

Regards

John Dempsey

Dear All,

I have long advocated a total reform of the Glasgow League along the following lines. But have not had the time to fully format my thoughts but the basic idea is:

Premier Division
6 teams of 8 open to teams in Glasgow area based on current clubs but not just restricted to members - guests allowed. FIDE rated.

Divisions 1-3
Basically the league as at present though probably 5 player teams (1 car load). Players can take part in this and the Premier if they want (and for different clubs)

Social League
1 or 2 divisions. Teams of 4. 30mins each on the clocks play two games per night. Ideal for lower rated player. Could have upper limit of 1200.

The bottom two options could start next season with the Premier needing a bit more research and effort eg venues, time controls, playing sessions.

Regards,
Alex McFarlane

Alex,

There seems to be no shortage of ideas for reforming the league, it
appears!

I'd like to correct a misunderstanding (I should have been clearer!):
I am not advocating a reduction in team strength in Div 1 (from 8
players to 6). I don't have strong views on these adjustments one
way or another - these are simply ways of managing decline. (Some
will suit some clubs and some players more than others)

I am much more interested in thinking about ways to arrest the
decline in the first place.

Best wishes Trevor

Trevor,

You are so right! We need top stop the decline and for me part of he answer is getting the large increase we have in junior chess translated onto adult chess players. The question to consider is is this for GCL to do and will restructuring the leagues help towards that?

I would like to think yes

Andy
_________________
Robert

George Thomson · Joined: 08 May 2006 Posts: 150

Any Thoughts?
Yes it's far too long.
Why did only Robert kelso and I win at Dalmuir?

robert kelso · Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:33 pm Post subject: Why did we win?

Because the chess gods are capricious!
Confused

_________________
Robert

Ian · Joined: 07 May 2006 Posts: 161

The matter of using reserves is relevant, but so too is the question of why some clubs have difficulty fielding a team for a home match when highly-rated members , some 2000+, are sitting around not wanting to play. I know it's not the Glasgow League, but we had a very recent experience of this in a Dunbartonshire League match. It is disheartening for the away team, who have committed themselves to the travelling involved, to find that an opponent is way out-rated or, in some cases, doesn't even know how to note down the moves. So, before clubs start wanting to tinker with the number of players per team in whatever division, let them ask themselves why it is that some of their own members can't be bothered playing.

ronniewallace · Site Admin Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 128

ronniewallace · Site Admin Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 128

Can't say it would trouble me greatly if GCL2 was reduced to six boards.

If clubs B teams were not allowed to enter the top division and the "playing up"
rule abolished for that league I imagine this would help teams with regard defaults.

Ian · Joined: 07 May 2006 Posts: 161

robert kelso · Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 8:42 pm Post subject: Numbers for Glasgow Leagues

Getting enough players to participate at a level that challenges the stronger ones while allowing the beginners and intermediate plyers an opportunity will never be easy.

I think that a reduction to six for division one should be OK from our point of view and might encourage further participation in the lower leagues and the social leagues as mentioned above, so I for one would support some changes along these lines.

One of the reasons we compete in five leagues is the flexibility it gives us in providing opportunities to play, makes me wonder if it isn't time that the various leagues have a discussion about which clubs and players play in what leagues and for which clubs. If it is anything like Cumbernauld then the same diminishing group of players is supporting five or more leagues and ssome coordination might just improve the situation.
_________________
Robert