English Chess Forum

They are rather careful with their money

I doubt it. If the primary reason for playing in a tournament is the chance to get a norm, you don't just want lots of titled players. You also want no low rated players. You'd be better off playing in a tournament with a high minimum rating limit, so that the average rating of your opponents is likely to be quite high, and, if you drop a draw to a lower-rated player, they aren't too low. At the time of writing almost a quarter (6/25) of the entrants to the British Championship are rated below 2050 and almost half (12/25) are below 2200.


Just as well, because anyone who is qualified to play in the British Championship is ineligible to play in the Major Open.

This is not just a coincidence; it's part of the master plan...

Many interesting and valuable comments.
FIDE has one of the largest number of different federations as members, I have no idea how it compares for number of players. There are about 120,000 FIDE Rated players. The IOC and table-tennis also have very big international organisations as does FIFA.

The ECF runs the British Chess Championships at its own expense, or surplus. It does so on behalf of all the British Isles Federations of which there are, of course 6. The Unions have not been directly involved for the last 35 years. When the event has been sold to sponsors as the British, naturally non-English players are also supported.

Paul Douglass asked why should the ordinary player supported the leading ones. That is a perfectly reasonable viewpoint. It is patently obvious I have supported the development of chess for many years and thus naturally have a different view.

The London Chess Classic is supported by philanthropists not sponsors. Their names are never mentioned and there is no reason to believe they get tax relief on their 'investment'.

The British Championship has been run as a Swiss for over 50 years. I don't know why people believe an elite RR event of 12 players would be more successful in attracting sponsors. Reaching a greater number of people is a major objective for any sponsor. The weaker qualifiers for the British Championship pay large entry fees. Without those the whole event would not be viable. Thus there has been a 'dumbing down' of the event. Another huge contribution to the event is by the administration team who receive no fees.

Richard Haddrell takes me to task because Council nearly always agrees to the game fee asked for by the Board. What this means is that the Board is well-attuned to the opinions of Council. That is no bad thing, but I wish the Board offered Council more various options from which they could select.

Alex McFarlane is one of the organisers of the whole event because he is the best available person for that role. Some will remember that Manuel Weeks of Australia was appointed to organise the British in 2009 but had to withdraw because of ill health.

Stewart Reuben

Do you ever lose an argument, Stewart?

I do hope so. How boring if everybody eventually agreeed with me.

Stewart Reuben

In practice, I've found the British isn't a tournament where you play IMs or GMs. In 44 games, I think I've played just one IM. This contrasts with a recent weekend event where half the opponents for the first four rounds were GMs.

Ian Thompson wrote

I know but we were talking about a scenario where the top 12 players, or whatever number was decided, had their own competition for the Tiltle of British Champion. That would leave the rest with a second rank competition and I was suggesting that a lot of people might not then bother to enter who would have entered under the current format.

Michele,

As Ian has mentioned this years entry is looks like a second rank event anyway. I remembered in 2004 at Scarborough when (I think) nearly 80% of the players were over 2200, and currently this is below 50%.

Only the top 20% of the players (it could be less) have a realistic change of picking up a major prize, therefore people are really just entering a chess competition. Therefore if the Major Open becomes a very attractive tournament behind a APA (with qualifying places for the top section), this should attract entries. Currently people who haven't qualified for the top section, and shunning the Major Open due to its very poor strength for a two week tournament, I rather go abroad a play in a good Swiss open.

Why don't people just wait until the final entry is known before speculating on how strong or otherwise it is? Or at least until the late entry deadline. Chess players aren't exactly characterised by getting round to doing things before they have to.

The tournament has had some sponsorship until recently and consequently has been stronger (although i can't recall Mickey Adams playing at any time). It would be a bit silly IMO to fundamentally change the Championships in search of sponsorship if that never materialised (or came and then disappeared in the future). You would be left with no tournament at all! The British Championships are about more than just the top section.

Of course one advantage this year is that there is no clash with another tournament being held in Simpsons in the Strand.

Stewart, I think Richard wins this one. If you said that the Board doesn't have the confidence to recommend anything vaguely controversial, or that Council can't be trusted to agree anything apart from no real change, your record may have remained perfect.

Simon

Corectly deduced Matt.
I spend most of the year playing in ''smaller'' tournaments than the
British,and getting paid to do so.
The prospect of moving from the seaside(where I live now) to
Canterbury,to do my job for 2 weeks and take the risk that if I
perform badly then I will make a loss of 800 pounds,strangely does not
appeal to me.The last time I took such a risk I decided that the
prudent thing to do was to lock in a tidy profit with a draw in the
last round(v Gallagher in 2001),after which a lot of financially
comfortable hypocrites decided to attack me in the press,deciding
instead that I should have pressed the ''all or nothing'' gamble
button.

I don't pretend to be anywhere near the class of Mickey of
course,but as private sponsorship appears to be the way forward this
year,800 pounds is my price, and my email is keitharkell@gmail.com

Perhaps somebody could set up a website inviting private donations towards participation of leading players at the British. Individuals could make donations of whatever size they wish against chosen named players, with money returnable upon non-appearance. If successful such a website could be extended to other events.

Because I have entered the Canadian Open this summer I have noticed that on the Canadian Federations' website that they have a sponsorship target to enter teams into the Olympiad, from what I can gather people are given tax receipts as well (presumably they are a registered charity).

They also have tournaments where an element of the entry fee goes towards the target and the rest into the prize fund

Maybe this is something that could be adopted for the British and our Olympiad teams.

Here is the link http://www.chess.ca/2010OlympiadDonors.shtml#WAIVE

We have a very irritating problem in Britain regarding recognition of chess for adults as being suitable for charitable purposes. This was agreed under the previous governement about 3 years ago. Since then nothing has happened. This has brought to a halt money-raising exercises of the type to which Alan Walton refers. We have been awaiting the charity commission's work. So far it would have been bedtter if no such decision had been made by parliament.
If ever the Charity Commissioners do their job, then it is possible the ECF should split into two: International chess and the British Championships; other ECF activities.
Even if the absurd red tape were overcome, it would not be all wine and roses. Paying professional players is not recognised as being for charitable purposes. Thus raising money from private individuals to support our players in the British or teams in the Olympiad is not tax-efficient. Companies that are in profit sponsoring chess IS tax-efficient. Thus this is a better route.
The nearest thing to a true chess charity for adults is THE FRIENDS OF CHESS. Their money is usually channelled towards amateur players seeking to improve internationally.
Stewart Reuben