RICHARD FURNESS 500 LEAGUE
		HOMEPAGE	SCORECARDS	TABLE	SCORECARDS	FIXTURES
	SCORECARDS	SCORECARDS	HISTORY	SCORECARDS	RULES	SCORECARDS

400/500 Forum

Bernard Bedworth – Winwick: We would be in favour of 450 grading limit, I have spoke to you a couple of years ago about clubs not playing minor club members, I think when Richard Furness thought about the 400 league, it would encourage lower graded players to gain experience. My be a grading limit would apply to stop 140+ players  from taking part.

Judy Brown – St Helens:      I think it would be good if the league could get more new and/or lower graded players playing in either this competition or division 4 - or preferably both.

(Looking at the stats only 46 out of a possible 660 (total boards Div 4 + total boards 500 league x 2 people per game) games were played by people with estimated grades less than 70.

Formby played the most (13 games) - and they had no 500 league team and had the furthest to travel !

 A couple of thoughts :- Would it be possible to keep the limit at 500 but allow some teams to enter as an "Under 400" team - which it would have to be for every match ? A trophy then could be bought by the league and presented to the highest-scoring Under-400 team at the end of the season.

 Alternatively, you could have just one trophy as now, but allow any "Under 400" team that's playing an "Under 500" team to start with a one-point handicap (similar to Pen Cup ?)

Jan Kitshoff – Culcheth/Lymm: 450 would be fine as well, however if it would limit the number of teams that can play would prefer to stick with the 500 as the opportunity to play more games is more important than the total grades.

The 140 cap would not work for us at all  and other  team captains will have less flexibility for replacements etc so would not support it.

Barry Groves – St Helens: I agree with the concept of a handicap - but with just one cut off point, say 425 and with it being a full point such that a draw is still possible.

I also agree with Winwick that there should be a maximum limit on an individual's grade. 130 or 140 would seem about right.

With this in place it would be difficult for teams to grade much above 450.

Clinton Halsall – St Helens: Grade limit:
My idea is a little more complicated.
I think the grade limit should be set with a formula based on the grade average of the WDCL registered members.

e.g. 4 x 75% of average grade

if grade average = 150

4 x (150 x 0.75) = 450
This might be a bit of a pain to sort out, but it would only need to be done once per season and would keep the grade handicap set at a suitable level from season to season, even if that level happens to be 478!
The down side is that administration of the league cannot start until the grades are published.
However, we normally have to wait for published grades before clubs can commit to teams anyway.

The purpose of the league should be clearly defined and the grade limit percentage selected to achieve that aim.

i.e.
The original goal of the league was to get BCF grades for players not in WDCL Division 1 (at the time WDCL only BCF graded division 1), NOT to give lower graded players more games as most people seem to think.
The original rules did not have a grade limit on an individual (as suggested by Winwick)
The original rules was also very strict that ungraded players were graded at 100 and therefore it was unlikely new players were selected to play in this league.

My suggestions for League Goals.
a. The League should be a competition. (note: some clubs treat it as a social event and moan when faced with a strong team).
b. Limit should be set that most clubs can field a competitive team. (i.e. the limit should be low enough that strong clubs cannot dominate weaker clubs).
              I think the 80:20 rule could be applied here,
              If a really strong club cannot field a team, then, so be it. Equally, if a weaker club cannot field a competitive team, then, so be it.
              If the other clubs in the league all have very good chances of winning the league then the goal has been achieved.

c. All members can participate (i.e. no grade limit per individual board)

Paul Talbot – Wigan: The problem with a handicap is it doesn't really address the problem, which, for us is, weaker players (around grade 50) finding themselves against much stronger opposition even on bottom board; and what happens is they keep getting beaten and then become discouraged and possibly, in some cases, even give up playing.  What we need is a competition where novices can have a go at playing in a 'real match' without just getting annihilated.  I'm not really sure what the answer is.  I'm a bit loath to suggest introducing a new rule, which might complicate and confuse things, but how about if we said that the bottom board had to be below grade 80?

Damian McCarthy – Padgate: Perhaps rather then another rule change we should just encourage captains to communicate with each other before a match to try and ensure matches are balanced?
We have often had a very weak bottom board this year, if someone rang me a few days before the game and said they had 3 50 grades playing i'd be happy to try and give our own novices a game

Judy Brown – St Helens: OK If we can’t agree on any of that (ie. additional replies indicate some clubs want to use the 500 league to compete, others want to use it to give players a game, some clubs use div 4 for giving people a game, others don’t have a div 4 team etc.), then how about keeping the 500 league  as it is and ‘freshen up ‘ the whole wdcl with an additional ‘freshers league’ !!

I  agree with Paul that we have to encourage new players. Last season only 46 out of a possible 660 div 4 and 500 league games were played by someone with an estimated grade less than 70 – and over 25% of those were thanks to Formby, who have no 500 league team and have the furthest to travel !

Freshers league could take the following format :-

Teams to consist of only 3 players, graded less than ?? (say) 100  (estimated or otherwise), matches consist of all-play-all rapidplay (25 mins each way.)

Every player who plays gets a point – 3 for a win, 2 for a draw, 1 for a loss.

If teams are a player short, the opposition still get to play 2 matches and rapidplay is more suitable when there’s lots of ‘mismatch’ potential.

We could either rapidplay grade it or I could use the wdcl system to produce a grade at the end of the year that could be used as a more reliable estimate the following year.

Players could play for a different club than their league team so long as they don’t obviously play for more than 1 team so if a club's only got one player suitable, but they're really keen to play, we could find them another team to slot into.

Fixtures could coincide with Div 1 and 2 matches as there’s unlikely to be overlap and it would be good experience for the new players to see these matches in action.

Ideal for involving older juniors who’ve not yet reached 500 league / div 4 standard and are likely to be discouraged if they don’t get many actual games or get thrashed in the one game that they do get to play.

Objectives: Provide more matches for new players so that they can start playing (more casual) matches sooner and are less likely to drop out.

Provide variety for existing players, plus an opportunity to help less experienced players to get involved.

Would any clubs be interested ? If so, I’d be prepared to administer it for a year, then review afterwards.

Paul Talbot – Wigan: That sounds like a good idea to me.  I'll take that back to the club and see what people (mostly the people who would likely play) think.

Steve Potter – St Helens: I'd say there's not too much wrong with the 500 League.  It mixes players from the various WDCL divisions, and has a more relaxed atmosphere. Most matches seem to finish either 2-2 or 3.5-1.5, so they're usually pretty competitive.  In the last 2 years the title has been decided on the last game and any one team seems to be capable of beating any other on any given night.

The only problem that I can see with the 500 League is that it regularly seems to generate a few default wins towards the end of the season.

If we are looking to change the rules/structure for a competition, would the WDCL be a better target?  There always seems to be a fair few games in the WDCL that have one-sided score-lines, and as Paul has already said, it is off putting to the casual, weaker players.

Damian McCarthy – Padgate: Maybe Judy is right in that if people cannot agree on the 400 league a new Freshers league is the only answer. Padgate would enter a team in either the Fresher's league or the 400 league but not both.

If a new league were created I don't actually see what point there would be to having the 400 league anymore? I mean we have all the competitive chess we need in the main league, what would be it's purpose?

I agree with Clint that the 400 league needs to decide what it is about, however I quite strongly disagree with Clint that it should be a competitive to the same degree as the main WDCL.
Even if it was created initially to give players outside division one a BCF grade this is no longer the case.
I believe the role of the 400 League should primarily be to give weaker players a game where they know they at least have a reasonable chance of playing someone of a similar level. For example our board four has only won one game in two season's playing bottom board for us, imagine how dispiriting that must be!  I'm amazed she has stuck at it this long!

However if it is decided that the role of the 400 league is not for this purpose then perhaps the league has run it's course and it is time for Judy's new "Fresher's League" to take over.

At Padgate I can quite easily raise a team of 4 players of under 400 even now! Although 450 perhaps is a better option. Ungraded players should have an estimated grade given to them, giving them a grade of 100 is obviously wrong as this will most likely stop new players getting any games in the 400 league.

I understand that some clubs may not be able to field a team in a 400 or 450 league however if that is the case I don't really see why they should to be entering a team at all. They are obviously too strong anyway for a league that is supposed to be for weaker players. If you have no beginners at your club it shouldn't mean that you be allowed to field a team of four veteran club players.

Finally, I don't know how you find things at your own clubs but I find it really hard to keep absolute beginners interested and coming back to chess club after their first few visits.
If the 400 league was organized in a way that they could play knowing that they would be playing other newcomers to the game then I think the retention rate may become much higher attracting more players to the league maybe?

(I’ll resist the temptation of posting to this thread again, just wanted to let you know what I thought!)

Paul Talbot – Wigan: I would like to agree with everything Damian has said above.  We need to decide what purpose we want the 400/500 league to serve.  I personally think there is a gap in the market, so to speak, for novice players and think we should utilise the 400 league for that.  That doesn't mean better players can't player in the league on the higher boards, but lets just give the beginners a chance on the lower boards.

Colin Ford – I’ve just gone through the results and applied a handicap of 0.5 and 1 point for teams under 450 and 400 grade respectively. Seven results would have been altered with the table looking like this ….

1.	St Helens A	9	7	0	2	25.5	11	14
2.	Culcheth/Lymm B	9	6	1	2	25	13	13
3.	Culcheth/Lymm A	9	5	2	2	21	16	12
4.	Northwich	9	5	1	3	19.5	17	11
5.	Runcorn	9	4	1	4	20.5	16.5	9
6.	Padgate	9	3	2	4	17	19.5	8
7.	Winwick	9	2	3	4	17	21	7
8.	Wigan Knights	9	3	1	5	14.5	23.5	7
9.	St Helens B	9	2	1	6	16	20.5	5
10.	Central	9	1	2	6	9.5	27.5	4

Instead of this…..

1.	St Helens A	9	7	1	1	25.5	10.5	15
2.	Culcheth/Lymm A	9	6	1	2	21	15	13
3.	Culcheth/Lymm B	9	5	1	3	23	13	11
4.	Runcorn	9	5	0	4	20.5	15.5	10
5.	Northwich	9	4	2	3	19	17	10
6.	Padgate	9	3	3	3	17	19	9
7.	Winwick	9	3	1	5	16	20	7
8.	St Helens B	9	2	2	5	16	20	6
9.	Wigan Knights	9	1	4	4	13.5	22.5	6
10.	Central	9	1	1	7	8.5	27.5	3

If the handicap system was adopted then the default rule would have to change to something like. Defaults count 10 grading points less than the board above or 10 points higher than the board below.

So if Board 1 was defaulted and Board 2 was 132 then Board 1 would count 142. If Board 4 was defaulted and Board 3 was grade 60 then Board 4 would count 50. If Board 2 or 3 was defaulted then the grade would be 10 points higher/lower than the boards either side with the higher figure counting.

If the League is to survive with the greatest number of teams taking part then I think the 500 limit should stay in place. The original intention of Richard’s League was to give player’s a chance to get a BCF grade as only Division 1 was graded at the time.

If there is enough demand for the Fresher’s League then Judy or I will run it.

Changing the subject – I received the following from the BBC and maybe some of you out there would like to form a team?

Dear Colin

I’m getting it touch because I’m in the process of finding contestants for series 4 of the BBC4 quiz Only Connect.  Since it’s a quiz involving a great deal of problem solving and lateral thinking I’m sure chess players would do well – here’s some information about the show:

Victoria Coren presents the fourth series of the popular BBC Four quiz show ONLY CONNECT where, as in life itself, knowledge will only take you so far: patience and lateral thinking are also vital.  It’s all about making connections between things which may appear, at first glance, not to be connected at all.

We’re looking for teams of three players who share a common passion, ability or profession, to pool their combined wits to solve fiendish conundrums and vexing puzzles. 

Only Connect: the quiz where general knowledge meets lateral thinking. 

To request an application email contestants@presentable.co.uk including a telephone number

All entries must be received by no later than midnight on Wednesday the 9th of June

so get your application in as soon as possible.  

Auditions will be held in regional centres throughout the UK.  

All applicants must be aged 18+ and U.K. residents

Please feel free to pass this email on to anyone you think would be interested.

Many thanks

Claire