Armstrong 2015/16

cdeb

Any word from Kilkenny v Phibsboro at the weekend?

Big match at the bottom; not sure how I'd like the 8 points to be spread.

Danville

cdeb wrote: »

Any word from Kilkenny v Phibsboro at the weekend?

Big match at the bottom; not sure how I'd like the 8 points to be spread.

Kilkenny 4.5 Phibsboro 3.5

sinbad68

An Interesting thing happened a few weeks ago, I was driving one Thursday evening and found myself in front of St benildus chess club and I said to myself, I haven't been in that club for years and this is their club night, better go in and say hello , so I went in and there was an Armstrong match going on which had started nearly two hours earlier and Benildus B team were playing at home and this was couple of weeks after I mentioned here that many players don't know how to set their own club's chess clocks and the problem is endemic . So I had a glance at all of the 8 clocks and one of the clocks had a lot shorter time on it than others and looked at score sheet and nearly 20 moves played and I asked someone if that board started earlier than others and I was told " No" and then I spot Benildus B captain standing and watching other games and I mentioned to him that board's clock doesn't seem to have been set properly and I suspect was supposed to be set for 1:30 min + 30 sec but increment was not set properly, I really was just letting him know and wasn't expecting much action, but he seemed very interested and despite knowing I was Sinbad and don't give bad info, he was not sure and spent ages looking at his watch and the clock to see if I was right and after a long time when eventually he was satisfied that my statement was accurate he intervened and brought in a new clock with same numbers on it as the old clock but with 30 seconds increments now added in, I thought it was noble of him to try to rectify the situation specially he when he ended up with so little time on his own board and lost his game but he made a couple of errors which I will point out.

First I like to say, the Benildus Armstrong player ( which shall remain anonymous) has been playing for donkey years and is a strong player and I find it shocking and embarrassing that after all these years he did not spend a few minutes learning to use his club's clock properly!.

Now for Benildus arbiter. Obviously not everyone is good in maths like Sinbad , instead of wasting tons of time standing around and observing the clock, if he wanted to intervene , he should have stopped the clock momentarily to inform both players that he feels the clock may not be adding increments and as we know with chess clocks when time goes below 20 minutes, the seconds counter now appears and then it becomes obvious if increments are added in or not and one of the players could inform him if this was the case and then the arbiter could return to the board.

As for what benidus arbiter did with the clock, I felt was not the best option. Yes, Fide rules gives a lot of power to arbiter to decide what to do in this case .If clock was set right it would have added 30 seconds per move from move 1 . Arbiter should have looked at the score sheet and added each side 30 seconds per move played on the score sheet for two reasons.

1. If clock was set right, this is the amount of time would show on the clock at this stage.

2.For game to be fide rated, there is a minimum amount of time the game should last, This particular game can still be fide rated as both players are under 2200 rated but if one player was 2200 or over, 2 hours or 1:30 min + 30 secs is the minimum and if arbiter had wanted the game to be fide rated , he would have to add 30 secs from move 1 and if he did it for over 2200 then he should do it for under 2200 .

Chess_Coach

http://www.leinsterchess.com/lcu1516/div1/team10.htm

Gonzaga domination is the result of good work with junior players and this is the only key to success

Looking at Kilkenny team I believe that they will not play 2nd division next year as in January they might have GM in the team

sinbad68

sinbad68 wrote: »

the Benildus Armstrong player ( which shall remain anonymous) has been playing for donkey years and is a strong player.

Now for Benildus arbiter. Obviously not everyone is good in maths like Sinbad , instead of wasting tons of time standing around and observing the clock.

This is annoying,I came to correct and change the first line in the paragraph above to ( whom shall remain anonymous) and the last line to " A ton of time" instead of " tons of time" but it won't let me edit, how long after a post can you edit ?

Chess_Coach wrote: »

http://www.leinsterchess.com/lcu1516/div1/team10.htm

Gonzaga domination is the result of good work with junior players and this is the only key to success

Looking at Kilkenny team I believe that they will not play 2nd division next year as in January they might have GM in the team

Gonzaga have a very strong team and will be the champions again this year. Strange thing is that they have Stephen Jessel & Sebastien Maze in their armstrong player panel !, what is that about ?!, what are their names doing there if they are not going to play for the team?!.

http://leinsterchess.com/lcu1516/div1/panel10.htm

Kilkenny are under-preforming badly this season, If a GM joins them in January it would be a game changer, which GM ? is it Baburin as usual or is it a surprise like Bogdan or Maze ?

Phibsboro have surprisingly done well with their weak armstrong team this season but are playing a dangerous game, instead of putting all their effort into their armstrong team , they have split their strength and is not easy to see if their armstrong team is stronger than their heidenfeld !
http://leinsterchess.com/lcu1516/div1/match23.htm
http://leinsterchess.com/lcu1516/div2/match30.htm

It's the same dangerous game played By Rathmines in the past and they paid a big price for it.


One problem with LCU is that, if even several GMs got together and formed a team, they'll have to start in division 7 and play for 6 years before they play in armstrong. LCU should create a place for wild entry in division 3 ( Ennis). Strong teams from different clubs can compete in a rapid play off and the winner enters Ennis league bypassing lower divisions, obviously Ennis and divisions below it would have to eliminate 3 teams at the end of the season but it will speed up strong teams entering top divisions and weak teams getting demoted,it would be good for clubs with too many strong players like Gonzaga or new clubs with strong players and raise the standards in the top divisions faster instead of it's current snail pace.

sinbad68

Yep, ICU Armstrong league report states that Gonzaga sits at the top of tree at xmas.

The setup at Armstrong & heidenfeld is very unfair to small clubs.

Most chess clubs in Ireland are relatively small compare to their European counterparts and it was NEVER appropriate to have 8 players in a team in the top two divisions , who came up with the idea of having 8 players in a team in the first place ?, In European & international competition settings 4-6 players are usual numbers. If number of players in a team in top two divisions were cut from 8 to 6 , the top divisions would be more competitive & exciting and would give smaller clubs a chance of winning stuff and promotion.

This dragging players to Kilkenny, Longford, Cavan ..etc for sake of a SINGLE game of chess is also nonsense . If several provinces were going to get involved together, It would have been much better to have a weekender format ( one game Saturday & 2 Sunday )and have some meetings in Dublin and some in centre of country for example Tullamore , 4 meetings x 3 rounds = 12 rounds in league season.Many chess players refuse to go on long trips for the sake of a single chess game. It would have been nice to have had a tournament with Dublin & nearby clubs only.

mikhail

sinbad68 wrote: »

...Most chess clubs in Ireland are relatively small compare to their European counterparts and it was NEVER appropriate to have 8 players in a team in the top two divisions , who came up with the idea of having 8 players in a team in the first place ?...

The Armstrong is over 127 years old, and predates most such competitions. It's been an 8-board competition for most of that time.

cdeb

Just on that, here's some 1901/02 season fixtures with 8 players per team (and a remarkable lack of draws)

The first season was 1888/89 and it was 6 per team - so somewhere between the two, an extra 2 players were added.

And I don't see any problems with it. Should we change to match points rather than game points because most leagues do it, even though the latter clearly makes more sense?

L1m1tless

Curragh 3 Elm Mount 5

RoundTower

Gonzaga 7-1 Bray. Both teams fielding strengthened lineups

cdeb

Balbriggan 3½-3½ Kilkenny with one game to come.

Phibsboro 4½-3½ St Benildus B.

Phibsboro have a half-decent squad when they get everyone out, though we definitely left I'd say a full point behind over the 8 boards. But a solid score still.

Decent scores for all the bottom 4 in fact. Relegation race getting tight now.

cdeb

cdeb wrote: »

Balbriggan 3½-3½ with one game to come.

Ended Balbriggan 3½-4½ Kilkenny.

I think we're in trouble now...

cdeb

St Benildus A 4-3 Trinity

Trinity defaulted board 3

Tim Harding

cdeb wrote: »

St Benildus A 4-3 Trinity

Trinity defaulted board 3

4-4 I think (including the default - match out of term, player forgot and was still down the country).
Trinity won boards 4, 5, 6 and 8 I believe.

Clearly Trinity are now out of contention for a top place this year though we can still hope for 3rd or 4th. Elm Mount next.

cdeb

You get -1 for that board though.

So ye won the 7 matches played 4-3, and board 3 was scored 1--1, bring the score to 4-3 to us.

HaraldSchmidt

Dun Laoghaire-Dublin 2-6

Tim Harding

cdeb wrote: »

You get -1 for that board though.

So ye won the 7 matches played 4-3, and board 3 was scored 1--1, bring the score to 4-3 to us.

OK I see the rule now. So it was a very expensive blunder by the player who let us down. And it doesn't even cost him any rating points!

cdeb

Yep.

Had it been known in advance, you could have arranged your sub and pushed everyone up a board - but of course, that would have presumably enabled us score more points than we did, which is why the -1 is there to discourage any abuse of defaults. There's been at least one accusation in recent years (whether it was true or not, I obviously have no idea) that a team declared a board 1 knowing he wasn't available - they took the -1 hit and hoped to make up for it on the lower boards.

Walkovers have never counted for rating points, I think because in a way it's irrelevant - your rating will just find your strength again anyway.

Tim Harding

cdeb wrote: »

Had it been known in advance, you could have arranged your sub and pushed everyone up a board - but of course, that would have presumably enabled us score more points than we did, which is why the -1 is there to discourage any abuse of defaults. There's been at least one accusation in recent years (whether it was true or not, I obviously have no idea) that a team declared a board 1 knowing he wasn't available - they took the -1 hit and hoped to make up for it on the lower boards.

In this case it was obviously a genuine mistake by the player concerned and maybe the team captain not checking with him. So the -1 is rather harsh.

As you know well, had our captain known in time, he could easily have pushed up everyone by a board without anyone being lower rated, and brought in a sub probably no weaker than our lower boards.

cdeb

I don't doubt that what happened was a genuine mistake alright. Though unfortunately, if the rules make an allowance for a "genuine mistake", then everyone would claim that and the rule would be essentially void!

I don't agree with the rest of your post though. You actually did get a sub - I don't know if you're aware of this - but he was 1450-rated. So considerably weaker than yourself on board 8. He couldn't play in the end though because it would have broken various rules - team already declared, 150-point rule, etc.

But even if ye'd arranged a sub days in advance, that's a moot argument - because ye didn't. What happened instead was that ye had seven players for the game. In that case, the rules are clear that the forfeit is to be on the lowest board - and ye gained an advantage by putting it on board 3 instead. Given that we only scored 1/5 on the bottom boards, had your bottom five players all been playing players 50/100 points higher rated, with the walkover to us on board 8, the law of averages says we would have gotten an extra half point or maybe a point over all the boards.

But we don't get compensated for that loss - which is fair enough in a way as it's impossible to quantify what that loss is. So the rule is there to actively discourage any sort of walkovers, which makes things easier to work out - and in that regard, I think the rule is largely quite successful.

So while I think the -1 is unfortunate, I don't think it's harsh.

L1m1tless

Kilkenny 4.5 Curragh 3.5

Could have been better, could have been worse.

L1m1tless

Kilkenny 4.5 Curragh 3.5

Could have been better, could have been worse.

cdeb

Bray 5-3 Phibsboro

So the bottom four are -

Phibsboro 7-22
Kilkenny 7-19½
Curragh 7-18
St Benildus B 6-15½

So we need a draw against Balbriggan in our round 7 match to lift us back out.

cdeb

St Benildus B 3.5-4.5 Balbriggan.

Balbriggan scratched 7 and 8, and broke the 150 point rule higher up (unfortunate - they'd played one game early, and then a player pulled out). I don't know if there's a points adjustment to come for that.

L1m1tless

cdeb wrote: »

St Benildus B 3.5-4.5 Balbriggan.

Balbriggan scratched 7 and 8, and broke the 150 point rule higher up (unfortunate - they'd played one game early, and then a player pulled out). I don't know if there's a points adjustment to come for that.

Points won by illegal player will be awarded to their opponents. Was the 150 rule broken using the latest published list?

cdeb

Jan and Sep ratings lists.

So we could end up winning the match despite picking up just three draws? A bit unsatisfying, but I guess we have to take it!

cdeb

Jan and Sep ratings lists.

So we could end up winning the match despite picking up just three draws? A bit unsatisfying, but I guess we have to take it!

cdeb

Meant to say as well - congrats to Balbriggan's captain, Seán Nolan, who missed the game today on the minor point of welcoming a new family arrival early this morning!

A future chess player, no doubt.

EarlofCurragh

Could even be worse than that. Although maybe in exceptional circumstances the controller may decide otherwise. This is what the LCU rule says:

6.9 Players and teams offending against rule 6.8 will have any points won by the illegal player(s) deducted and awarded to their opponents and may have any points gained on boards lower than that on which the infringement took place likewise deducted and awarded to their opponents.

cdeb

Yeah, that's the rule alright - though I wasn't sure how it's to be read exactly.

Rules shouldn't be arbitrary for a start - the word "may" has no place in there.

And who's the illegal player(s)? Rule 6.8 states that "No player is placed ahead of a team member whose rating is 150 or more rating
points higher." So in this case, board 3 played above board 4 - is board 3 the only illegal player? Because their board 4 didn't play ahead of anyone 150 points or more higher. And looking back, our Armstrong (A) team were the victims of the rule a few years back - again, a game played in advance and then a player pulling out of the main day - and both players seem to have been deemed illegal.

It seems to me Balbriggan might even have been better off defaulting board 3 (where they placed their ineligible player) and playing on board 7 - and that can't be right if that's the case.

I wonder should a rule amendment be proposed at the AGM? If so, what amendment?

Should be pointed out I've nothing against Balbriggan of course! It's just unfortunate; but I guess it'd be good for us and Curragh to know where we stand ahead of next week's game. And there's nothing in the above that won't be seen when the league table is updated anyway.

L1m1tless

Definitely agree on the wording of the rule, its very ambiguous.

Anyways if you beat the Curragh next week it'll make no difference in the end.
Serious business from here on in!

L1m1tless

How did Kilkenny and Dublin University get on yesterday?

Tim Harding

Neo_Ninja wrote: »

How did Kilkenny and Dublin University get on yesterday?

Apparently 5-3 to Trinity after the top two boards played last night.

cdeb

St Benildus 4.5 - 3.5 Elm Mount

Only question now is whether we can stop Gonzaga winning the title against us...

sinbad68

cdeb wrote: »

St Benildus 4.5 - 3.5 Elm Mount

Only question now is whether we can stop Gonzaga winning the title against us...

The Only question in my mind was, why you would make such a comical statement, the dogs in the street know that when the hurly-burly is done, Gonzaga will finish miles ahead of their nearest rival. After analysis I came to the conclusion that your subconscious mind wanted to remind the rest of us that Benildus A will finish second in the league table. Yes, The Bad news for Benildus A is that when the season in over they won't be within 10 points of Gonzaga , But the Good news is that, next season they would have ample subs to choose from their newly demoted team in Heidenfeld!.

cdeb

Liverpool won't be winning the league any time soon, but they still wouldn't want Man Utd to claim the title in a match against Liverpool.

So holding their main rivals' celebrations off for one more match is about all they'd have left in a season like that. Same with us.

Not sure why the need to bring conspiracy theories into it.

L1m1tless

Good luck tomorrow to St.Benildus B making the trip to play us. Its sure to be great fun!

cdeb

5.5-2.5 win for the Bs!

Even with a new signing for Curragh on board 2. Brilliant win for us. Got lucky in a couple of games, but we've left points behind in previous matches, so happy to steal some here

Tim Harding

cdeb wrote: »

5.5-2.5 win for the Bs!

Even with a new signing for Curragh on board 2. Brilliant win for us. Got lucky in a couple of games, but we've left points behind in previous matches, so happy to steal some here

Well done; Curragh look pretty much doomed to relegation now.

So you have moved up to 10th place but meet Trinity next. That last round match Benildus B v Kilkenny looks like being decisive for the relegation slot.

With GM Baburin turning out for Kilkenny in their later matches, you will have a tough fight to stay up.

cdeb

Yup, still a tough task alright. But happy to be alive and kicking at this stage. Phibsboro could still be a target too; they've to play Gonzaga and St Benildus A.

L1m1tless

Congratulations St Benildus, not sure how you did it but that was an amazing result!

Don't let us down now and stay up for next year!

Best of luck!

sinbad68

cdeb wrote: »

5.5-2.5 win for the Bs!

Even with a new signing for Curragh on board 2. Brilliant win for us. Got lucky in a couple of games, but we've left points behind in previous matches, so happy to steal some here

IMO : Missed Controversy in Curragh vs Benildus game!
After a long time, I visited Benildus site to look at their match report and came across this statement below

Around this stage, Mariusz’ opponent claimed a draw – he’d managed to squirm out of a couple of nasty pins to emerge just down two pieces for a rook, and he claimed a three-fold repetition. But after a bit of debate, it turned out that while Mariusz’ opponent’s position had repeated three times, his own had just repeated twice – Mariusz was trying to add to his two minutes on the clock to give himself time to find a winning plan. Play resumed, and the game reached a tricky-looking 2B+4 v R+4 ending.

The Curragh player tried to use "Three fold occurrence" Rule ( incorrectly called "Three fold repetition") and was denied. The rule states that if the same position is reached on the chess board three times, player can ask for a Draw under the rule which happened here , there is No need for both players to have 2 separate positions repeated three times.The Curragh player was Wrongly denied a draw!.

cdeb

What?

The position wasn't repeated three times. Their player had just repeated his moves three times. Our player hadn't.

sinbad68

cdeb wrote: »

What?

The position wasn't repeated three times. Their player had just repeated his moves three times. Our player hadn't.

It states clearly on Benildus site that

But after a bit of debate, it turned out that while Mariusz’ opponent’s position had repeated three times, his own had just repeated twice

Here the link to full article

https://stbenilduschessclub.wordpress.com/2016/02/14/armstrong-b-alive-and-kicking/#more-5439

It says in black & white in st benildus website that " A POSITION was repeated THREE TIMES" If that was a case then the game was a Draw by Three fold Occurrence.If Marius would have repeated his move then a separate position would have been repeated three times.

cdeb

Yes - so the position of the black pieces had repeated three times, but the position of the white pieces had not.

Not sure how this is causing so much trouble.

cdeb

Yes - so the position of the black pieces had repeated three times, but the position of the white pieces had not.

Not sure how this is causing so much trouble.

Tim Harding

sinbad68 wrote: »

IMO : Missed Controversy in Curragh vs Benildus game!
After a long time, I visited Benildus site to look at their match report and came across this statement below


The Curragh player tried to use "Three fold occurrence" Rule ( incorrectly called "Three fold repetition") and was denied. The rule states that if the same position is reached on the chess board three times, player can ask for a Draw under the rule which happened here , there is No need for both players to have 2 separate positions repeated three times.The Curragh player was Wrongly denied a draw!.

The explanation of what happened is unclear on both the St Benildus site and in the above comment. Can somebody please supply the actual game score so we can see whether the claim was valid or not?

There is no such concept as "my position" and "opponent's position" in the rules. There is just the board position which is about to appear after the move nominated by the claimant (in writing on the scoresheet) whereupon the clock is stopped and the claim is checked. In the case of an incorrect claim the opponent gets extra time.


The full text of the applicable rule is as follows:

9.2
The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by a player having the move, when the same position for at least the third time (not necessarily by a repetition of moves):
is about to appear, if he first writes his move, which cannot be changed, on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, or
has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move.
Positions are considered the same if and only if the same player has the move, pieces of the same kind and colour occupy the same squares and the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same. Thus positions are not the same if:
at the start of the sequence a pawn could have been captured en passant.
a king or rook had castling rights, but forfeited these after moving. The castling rights are lost only after the king or rook is moved.

cdeb

I think this molehill is rapidly becoming a mountain...

A three-fold claim was made, but upon inspection, I think it transpired that (say - I don't know the exact position) a white bishop was on g2 in one position and h3 in the other two positions - ergo, the claim was invalid and play went on. Yes, there's no such thing as a "black position" in the rules, but that shouldn't make the concept indecipherable.

As a sidenote, I see we've now been given an extra point against Balbriggan, lifting us - temporarily at least - up to the heady heights of 8th.

cdeb

Phibsboro 3-5 Dublin.

As you can see from the new scrolling results feature on the ICU website, which should make this thread redundant (or the results posts anyway; we can still talk about who's staying up!)

HaraldSchmidt

cdeb wrote: »

Phibsboro 3-5 Dublin.

As you can see from the new scrolling results feature on the ICU website, which should make this thread redundant (or the results posts anyway; we can still talk about who's staying up!)

Well, as there's only one result listed at the moment, there won't be any scrolling. But, any logged in member can report a result. If they abuse the privilege, it will be taken away from them, but I'm sure nobody here would do such a thing!

it will show the most recent 5 results, and they will scroll if there are more than 1 result.