Saturday, 3 May 2014

BACL Players of the Year

In the Bury Area Chess League, qualification for Player of the Year in each division is based on percentage score, rather than actual score as in the Suffolk League.   Hence, someone scoring 8 out of 9 would win over another playing scoring 9 out of 11.   Suggestion for the Suffolk League - isn't this a better way to judge this competition?

A minimum of eight games need to be played in order to qualify (two-thirds of the available games).   Games won by default count towards the minimum number of games needed to qualify.

Winners are:

Division 1
1    David Redman (Cambridge)    79.2%   (9½/12)
2    Paul Kemp (Linton)    77.3%   (8½/11)

Division 2
1    Richard Newman (Cambridge)    80.8%   (10½/12)
2    John Daugman (Cambridge)    75.0%   (12/16)

Division 3
1    Adam Harvey (Bury St Edmunds)    93.8%   (7½/8)
2    Mike Angel (Newmarket)    92.9%   (6½/7 + 1 default)


7 comments:

  1. I think Suffolk used to be the same but decided to change. Some 20 years or so ago, Suffolk was driven by the ethos of encouraging more play.
    Due to an instance of a player having a top percentage score (eg; 8 out of 8) and not playing the final games of the season in order to guarantee winning the player of the season award, the committee decided to reward the player who played more and scored more points after that incident.
    I do think percentage is a good tie-breaker but I always wonder how to treat points won by default?
    T.L.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hello All,

    Using the % system this year's Suffolk players of the year would not have changed for Division 1 and 2 but Division 3 POTY would have been Mr Bob Jones with an 85% score for 8.5 points from 10 games played.

    Instead Phil Hopkins took POTY in Division 3 with 10 points from 12 games 83.6% which is maybe a bit hard on Bob who actually beat Phil during their only game this season.

    Regards

    David Green

    .

    ReplyDelete
  3. On the other hand, the two games Bob Jones missed was the return match to Phil Hopkins (167) And against Phil Hitching (160). Would the percentage have been better had the other two games been played? I say kudos to the player who played all the games and faced all the opposition and... got the most points! :-)
    T.L

    ReplyDelete
  4. Tim - you make it sound as if I missed those two games deliberately. I can assure you I didn't!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hello again,

    Ah Tim, what could have happened !

    Look at it another way : When Bob was missing Phil Hopkins got a faily easy ride by playing Scott Taylor and winning. Scott has had a relatively poor season for him: L14 D10 and W7. Scott even lost to me!

    Had Bob been on Bpard 1 for Bury D vs Felixstowe and scored a half point or managed the full point in that match against Phil he would have been POTY by both scoring systems. Phil's record would have been 9 or 91/2 from 12 and Bob would have scored 9 or 91/2 from 11.That means there would have been a tie for POTY even if Bob had played and lost to Phil Hutchings.

    We can go on with this sort of speculation for instance: If John Barratt of Stowmarket a lowly 121, had not mugged Bob at Bury early in the season.....

    However as the rules stand we should congratulate Phil and express a little sympathy for the runner up who had a good solid season.

    Regards
    David Green

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yep, there's different ways of doing things, and usually it's the same result.
    Sorry Bob, was just throwing ideas, didn't mean to imply that you avoided games - though I seem to recall someone did causing Suffolk to take the route it did way back when.
    I think it's quite a marginal call which method is used.
    But I would be interested on views of players getting points by default. Should they count towards the total (or percentage)?
    T.L.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Tim,

      Points scored by default are always likely to be contraversial. However the player that turned up ready for a game has no control over the defaulting opponent so he should not lose out.
      Perhaps it would be possible to award the default point for the team's purposes but ignore the defaulted game entirely for POTY purposes. So he who played 10 games with one being a default would be considered as playing just 9 games for POTY puposes his score would be that earned during those 9 games he actually played.
      Only problem that I can foresee is keeping a track of all this because reference back to the grading website would have to be made and a seperate record kept for each player who suffers the disappointment of a default.
      As the likely replacement for Mike McNaughton as Competitions Secretary next year I really do need to keep things as simple as possible.
      Regards
      David Green

      Delete

Please feel free to add your comments on this subject.