British Chess Championships 2010

[Ian Kingston]

Even if you could get sponsorship for an APA event (which I agree is probably the better format), how stable would it be? If the championship had to revert to a Swiss every time sponsorship vanished (which might happen at short notice) it would be difficult to plan from year to year.

If stable financing (not sponsorship related) could be found, then the situation would be different and we could start to discuss what the consequences of having an APA would be. Until then, I suspect we're stuck with trying to improve the current situation.

[JustinHorton]

It's also possible that if you could increase entry to a stronger Major Open, money raised thereby could go towards funding an APA championship. I don't of course know how possible - that's why I'd hope it could be looked into.

[Jonathan Bryant]

The sponsorship thing is a different point. I'm quite happy to accept Stewart's (and your) view on the possibilities of a 12 player APA not neccessarily being more likely to generate more investment.

In which case, this is a pointless argument, because you're never going to get your 12-player APA without a heap of investment. This leaves us with no choice regarding the current format of the Championship. Even if we agreed it was better, which we don't, we couldn't do it.

I'm not sure it is ... for a start because as i've pointed out about I'm not arguing for a 12-player APA. It's not that I'd object to that format on principle (actually I'd quite like it) but as I say I doubt very much it's feasible just at the moment; not even the Americans do it like that these days.

What I'd personally like to see - and something that I *do* think is feasible, not straightaway but certainly in the not too distant future, is a more restricted Swiss. i.e. what we've got now but without the bulge in the lower middle order. Something akin to the American's recent Championship although not my choice would be not quite as restrictive. This, I think, is something that it's certainly possible to work towards.


And lastly before I go out ...

The qualification rules for 2011 have been tightened. This brought considerable criticism earlier.

Wouldn't have done from me - sounds like a good thing. Out of interest, how have they been changed.

Very much with tongue in cheek I would suggest that an APA is a non starter and so is the Swiss – in the later rounds of both there too many meaningless games between players who have no chance of winning – a KNOCK-OUT is the winning format. It's got everything a sponsor wants, sudden death play-offs, the opportunity for shock results eliminating favourites, etc, etc.

Tongue in cheek or not this seems to be highlight in inherent problem for chess tournaments. A knock-out system clearly *is* the best for generating drama and tension, not least because it builds automatically to the decisive game. The trouble is that it just doesn't work for chess because of the nature of the game. Hard to see how the knock-out could work without at least four game matches. Totally impractical, of course, and even 4 games a match would be too short really.

[John Saunders]

In compiling the 12 players for the A.P.A., Ireland appears to have been overlooked. So Alex Baburin (2549) should be in there too. He is listed as a qualifier for the 2010 championship on the tournament website. Also, I would suggest that the word "Ladies" is anachronistic. I believe Stewart Reuben changed it to "Women's" some years ago.

[Roger de Coverly]

What I'd personally like to see - and something that I *do* think is feasible, not straightaway but certainly in the not too distant future, is a more restricted Swiss. i.e. what we've got now but without the bulge in the lower middle order.

The ECF gives away places in the British as prizes. That's most obvious in the Major Open when you need a score of 7.5/11 (7 for juniors) to "win" the option to play in Sheffield. More subtle is the award of qualifying places to FIDE rated weekend swisses. This was done to increase the number of weekend tournaments being internationally rated and indirectly the number of internationally rated players.

Extending the tail of the British was a consequence of policy decisions by the ECF.

[Alex McFarlane]

THe format of the event is constantly under review but as has been indicated elsewhere finance often dictates what is possible. With the current state of affairs a cautious approach must be taken - there are no reserves to fall back on if an experiment such as an APA with enhanced Major Open failed.

A possible way forward is to increase the number of qualifiers but then have them play-off at a series of venues for the chance to actually play in the Championship. This would be similar to what happens at the Open in golf.

Other possibilities would be a 9 round event with the previous few days being used to qualify for the British proper. This would be a bit like the FA Cup format.

Believe me we are considering various 'solutions'. I sometimes get the impression that lots of people think congress organisers stick their heads in the sand and chant "Because it was once thus so shall it remain".

[Jonathan Bryant]

Other possibilities would be a 9 round event with the previous few days being used to qualify for the British proper. This would be a bit like the FA Cup format.

Now that I like the sound of. As a by-the-by it might make the event more attractive to the pre-qualified. Didn't John Cox say earlier in this thread that the typical 9-round format of european events meant only a week off work?

[David Pardoe]

A few points...
Firstly, I think it might be worth plugging the website publicity angle. Maybe from the point of trying to attract more modest sponsors, willing to put up say circa £3 - £5k... surely we could put a package together for advertising/promotion on the web, and at the venue + associated events. Maybe attracting say 8 - 10 sponsors to cover say Hastings & the British.
Format...its probably ok..... regarding entries, I`d be tempted to target more at the lower graded events... because potential numbers might be greater. Maybe run some midweek events.. 2 or 3-days, two rounds per day (or three..), for the U120 groups, + U100s with grading prizes, junior prizes, etc.... might encourage those who want to combine holiday & chess.
Maybe offer some public simultaineous events, given by the visiting GMs/IMs in the local shopping centre...with collection buckets, some commentories..local promotions..chess promotions..memorabelia....
Regarding the one horse race British this year.... I do think one or two players have given Adams a run for his money...maybe a touch unlucky not to see one or two different score lines....but credit where its due, he`s eck`d out the advantages from some positions that looked fairly benine, I thought.

Ive always thought that a mid summer open aire MCCU championships at say Warwick Castle, with public paying entry/donations (via buckets.., etc), could attract lots of interest and help to boost public interest.
Lets be a little more accessible to joe public...and make the point that chess really is for the common man.....good fun (win or lose), and really does exist in our local communities...(at venues near YOU...!).
Many out there are put off by the idea that you have to be some kind of genius to play the game...whereas most local chess clubs would welcome new faces of all standards, and willingly offer encouragement to novice and other players interested to learn.

[Richard Bates]

I'm not sure how appropriate it is to discuss "solutions", until one has properly defined what the current "problem" is! There are several gripes on this thread, but no obvious consistent theme.

There are any number of potential (not necessarily actual) current 'problems' - some of which are not mutually soluble!

eg. - Championship is not truly representative at the top end
- there are two many 'weak' players
- the congress is in financial difficulty and cannot continue as it is
- it is not attractive to norm seekers
- the Championship cannot attract sponsorship (and this may or may not be related to the format)
- etc etc

I do think, however that people should compare, for example, the field in 1996 and 1997 before getting too carried away with the idea that it is the format which is part of whatever the problem is.

[Carl Hibbard]

The fact is that the DGT live games software refreshes the webpage showing the live games every time a move is made. If you watch the live games for one hour you might expect 20 moves to be made by each player in each of 20 games. That's 800 hits in 1 hour which sounds great, until you realise that you actually only have one person viewing your website.

A far more meaningful number is how many unique visitors a day does the website get? My guess is perhaps 10,000 which is still pretty darned good, but let's not kid oursleves as to how big our audience is, or how valuable the event would be to a commercial sponsor.

Not even close, I have already commented elsewhere at 5,493,937 requests and 4,709 unique visitors on Monday

However the "unique" visitors is a conservative calculation based on multiple hits with the same IP, user agent and access day, will be considered a single visit - so a university or large company portal may only generate one visitor

[Adam Raoof]

It's good to see people's views about what should or should not happen to the British (it's more than just the Championship, it's 24 events and counting), but the fact is that we have a very healthy entry (almost 900 players), and the prospect of making a profit even above what we budgeted for. We have trialled online coverage of the commentary and a webcam (thanks Dave and Carl!) and the website (Steve Connor) is generally considered a much improved way to get information about the tournaments in progress. The Facebook and Twitter pages, plus an email campaign and the easy-to-access location all served to attract a lot of late entries. We have got a sponsor interested in the event (Stagecoach) and I am sure they would look favourably on the event in 2011 as they also run buses and trams in Sheffield. Canterbury are happy to have us back. Of course we would like to improve the event(s), and we're working on ideas to do that.

[Richard Bates]

Other possibilities would be a 9 round event with the previous few days being used to qualify for the British proper. This would be a bit like the FA Cup format.

Now that I like the sound of. As a by-the-by it might make the event more attractive to the pre-qualified. Didn't John Cox say earlier in this thread that the typical 9-round format of european events meant only a week off work?

Or less attractive if, in principle, you prefer playing an eleven round tournament to a nine round one. Nine round tournaments (Saturday to Sunday - which isn't anyway the suggestion put forward by Alex) have the one advantage of shorter holiday period required. But in every other aspect 11 rounds, with the weekend either end and the rest day, is better. More time for norms, more time for leading players to play each other, less tiring if you have to work (Work on Friday & travel, 9 days chess, travel on the last and back to work the next day isn't much of a holiday).

[Alan Walton]

Adam,

Is it 900 players or 900 entries

Also, Most of these discussions will not effect the other sections, only the Championship and Major Open, and after reading the comments it seems alot of people would like a more representative championship section, so maybe it is just the criteria around qualifying places at weekenders, so improving this could be a simple first step

[Adam Raoof]

Adam,

Is it 900 players or 900 entries

Also, Most of these discussions will not effect the other sections, only the Championship and Major Open, and after reading the comments it seems alot of people would like a more representative championship section, so maybe it is just the criteria around qualifying places at weekenders, so improving this could be a simple first step

900 entries across all the sections.

When you say 'improve', are you aware of the implications that this has for the British Championship budget? And for weekend tournaments which might already be struggling? We need to be supporting tournaments with every means available, and a BCQ place is one thing which still gets players out and taking part in Open events, even if they know they won't win.

And sadly 'a lot' of people who have valuable ideas wouldn't have played at Canterbury even if the tournament had been in the ideal format they seek. Next year will be a much stronger event at the top. However you will never please everyone.

Money is crucial. Working on it.

[Simon Ansell]

Other possibilities would be a 9 round event with the previous few days being used to qualify for the British proper. This would be a bit like the FA Cup format.

Now that I like the sound of. As a by-the-by it might make the event more attractive to the pre-qualified. Didn't John Cox say earlier in this thread that the typical 9-round format of european events meant only a week off work?

I like the sound of this too, or the "cut" as in golf idea. Those not making it could play in the Major Open.