Southampton League
Division 4 2000/2001 Analysis
Division Four was dominated by three teams, who all won five games and only lost one. As you can see from the table, there was little to choose between these teams. In the end there had to be a play off to decide who gained the promotion slot.
| Team | P | W | D | L | GS | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Winchester B | 6 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 22 | 10 |
| Passed Pawn B | 6 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 23 | 10 |
| Eastleigh Unity C | 6 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 21 | 10 |
| Winchester C | 6 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 11½ | 4 |
| University C | 6 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 9 | 3 |
| Ordnance Survey B | 6 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 10½ | 2 |
| Eastleigh WMC | 6 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 7 | 1 |
Due to Passed Pawn B playing an ineligible player in their match against University C, they in fact scored 22 games points, rather than 23 (although the match result still seemed to count as a 4 - 1 win for Passed Pawn). Rather than Winchester B being promoted, it was decided that Passed Pawn would play Eastleigh Unity C and the winner would play Winchester B. I am not sure if Eastleigh Unity C could still get promoted in this scenario, but this did not come into play, as Passed Pawn B defeated Eastleigh Unity C 4 - 1 anyway.
I think if this happened in a higher division, there would have been a bit more fuss made over this, as deducting one point for playing an ineligible player is about the weakest punishment you can have. There is certainly a view among players that the match result could have been reversed for this offence.
In the end Winchester B proved too strong in the play off match against Passed Pawn B and deservedly gained promotion. It is difficult to run two teams in one division and Winchester will certainly find it easier to run three teams next year. It seems that with Fair Oak folding in Division Three, Passed Pawn will also gain promotion.
Winchester B
Winchester B used 10 players in the season, but as can happen, having a strong board One can play real dividends. M.Manzouri played 6 games, winning 4, all but one of these was on Board one.
| Name | Grade | Played | Won | Drawn | Lost | Points Scored | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D.Hoskins | 135 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 100.0 |
| O.Jones | u | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 100.0 |
| M.Manzouri | 122 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 5 | 83.33 |
| J.Hough | 110 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2½ | 83.33 |
| S.Kitley | u | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2½ | 83.33 |
| R.Cleave | 135 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1½ | 75.00 |
| M.Stone | 97 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2½ | 62.50 |
| P.T.Miller | 116 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 60.00 |
| M.J.White | 127 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ½ | 50.00 |
| A.Blake | 125 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1.5 | 37.50 |
Passed Pawn B
Whereas Winchester B used a hatful of players, Passed Pawn B relied on a hard core of five players, with two players used for the odd game and in one case this was the ineligible player. Having consistency of players certainly helped and with Fair Oak folding, Brian Grant proved an extremely useful acquisition. Passed Pawn B also played every match, whereas Winchester B had a 5 - 0 default, which helped them in the tie-break. It was only in the games against Winchester B where Passed Pawn failed, with a narrow defeat in the league and also losing the play-off.
| Name | Grade | Played | Won | Drawn | Lost | Points Scored | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M.Buckley | 138 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 100.00 |
| B.Grant | 116 | 8 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 75.00 |
| C.Lewis | 112 | 7 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 71.43 |
| L.O'Sulivan | 133 | 7 | 5 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 71.43 |
| K.Rettallack | 105 | 8 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 5½ | 68.75 |
| H.Fell | u | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 50.00 |
| A.Mayer | 126 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2½ | 41.67 |
Eastleigh Unity C
The other two teams that finished in the tie at the top of the table had quite high graded board One's. Eastleigh Unity C had strength in depth, but on board One they had a negative result. They did the sensible thing in moving the board order around so that different players played on top board during the season. Dave Culliford and keven Lamb had an excellent season, both playing well above their grades. Eastleigh Unity C were the only team to defeat Winchester B and were unlucky not to gain promotion (slightly biased view, but what would you expect!). Next year could well be their year.
| Name | Grade | Played | Won | Drawn | Lost | Points Scored | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D.Culliford | 108 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2½ | 83.33 |
| K.Lamb | 73 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 80.00 |
| S.Murphy | 100 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 66.67 |
| R.Sims | u | 7 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 4½ | 64.29 |
| P.Pavey | 115 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3½ | 58.33 |
| R.Crawley | u | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 50.00 |
| C.Priest | 146 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.00 |
Winchester C
Something had to give with three teams only losing one game, Winchester C managed to sneak into fourth place, but they were six points behind third place. They also won a match by default and their game against University C was a double default. With the promotion of their B team, this should help Winchester C next season. Two players managed 50%, which given the three strong teams in the league, is an excellent result.
| Name | Grade | Played | Won | Drawn | Lost | Points Scored | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chris Newby | u | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1½ | 50.00 |
| B.White | u | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 50.00 |
| D.Green | 80 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1½ | 37.50 |
| R.Collns | 89 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 33.33 |
| B.Jack | u | 4 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 25.00 |
| R.Patterson | 85 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0.00 |
University C
University C certainly struggled to play a regular team, with only J.Foster playing more than three games in the season. I understand that a lot of players from the A and B teams are leaving University next year, so it's good to see some fresh players coming through.
| Name | Grade | Played | Won | Drawn | Lost | Points Scored | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A.Waumsley | u | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 100.00 |
| S.Ridden | 94 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 100.00 |
| P.Lawson | 71 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 50.00 |
| R.Vaidyanath | u | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 50.00 |
| J.Foster | u | 5 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 1½ | 30.00 |
| N.Davies | u | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | ½ | 25.00 |
| P.Mills | u | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | ½ | 25.00 |
| D.Koch | u | 3 | 0 | 1 | 2 | ½ | 16.67 |
| C.Foster | u | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0.00 |
| M.Bizzozero | u | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.00 |
| P.Whittington | u | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.00 |
| W.Clarkson | u | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.00 |
Ordnance Survey B
Colin Newby had an excellent season, scoring 90% I am sure they Ordnance Survey A team will nab him next year! On a separate note Tony Cornick was the first player I played against in the Southampton Chess League (about 12 years ago), so it's good to see him active again. The game was a draw, which I was very pleased about
| Name | Grade | Played | Won | Drawn | Lost | Points Scored | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Colin Newby | 129 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 4½ | 90.00 |
| J.Vickers | u | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 50.00 |
| C.White | 52 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 33.33 |
| J.Gould | u | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 33.33 |
| M.Painter | 63 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1½ | 25.00 |
| P.Johnson | 125 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | ½ | 25.00 |
| J.Drew | 76 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 20.00 |
| T.Cornick | u | 3 | 0 | 1 | 2 | ½ | 16.67 |
Eastleigh WMC
It seems that Eastleigh WMC had a few troubles this season. Lets hope that next season proves better, without so many defaults, maybe they don't like playing Winchester! (both defaults were against Winchester).
| Name | Grade | Played | Won | Drawn | Lost | Points Scored | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C.George | u | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1½ | 37.50 |
| J.Manly | 58 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 33.33 |
| E.Pitt | 95 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 3 | ½ | 12.50 |
| N.George | 94 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0.00 |
| A.George | u | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.00 |
| M.Henbury | 108 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.00 |
| P.George | u | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.00 |
For the complete match results see the Division Four Results page.