British Chess Championships 2010

[LozCooper]

Jack and I have been doing some Maths, and we think the following is true. Do not accept it as correct - it is to be officially confirmed.

Adam Hunt, who will obviously be playing Michael Adams tomorrow, will get a 9-round GM norm even if he loses.
Rafal Tymrakiewicz will get a 9-round IM norm if he wins tomorrow, assuming he plays someone titled.

I agree about Adam, average of around 2482 and for 6/9 2475-2519 is the required average.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Jack and I have been doing some Maths, and we think the following is true. Do not accept it as correct - it is to be officially confirmed.

Adam Hunt, who will obviously be playing Michael Adams tomorrow, will get a 9-round GM norm even if he loses.
Rafal Tymrakiewicz will get a 9-round IM norm if he wins tomorrow, assuming he plays someone titled.

I agree about Adam, average of around 2482 and for 6/9 2475-2519 is the required average.

Am I right in thinking this norm then gets awarded (if that's the right word) regardless of what happens in rounds 10 and 11?

[LozCooper]

Jack and I have been doing some Maths, and we think the following is true. Do not accept it as correct - it is to be officially confirmed.

Adam Hunt, who will obviously be playing Michael Adams tomorrow, will get a 9-round GM norm even if he loses.
Rafal Tymrakiewicz will get a 9-round IM norm if he wins tomorrow, assuming he plays someone titled.

I agree about Adam, average of around 2482 and for 6/9 2475-2519 is the required average.

Am I right in thinking this norm then gets awarded (if that's the right word) regardless of what happens in rounds 10 and 11?

Yes, he'll have a 9 round norm guaranteed but with the possibility of getting a 10 and/or 11 round norm. This is to stop players withdrawing for fear of jeopardising their norm

[Stewart Reuben]

David Sedgwick > I too have not given up hope that I might one day qualify to play in the British Championship, although I'm unlikely to have the time to try until I give up arbiting.<

However, it is true that David has played in the British Championship despite never having qualified.
He acted as a filler for several rounds in 1997.

There is absolutely no evidence that a 12 player round robin would be more likely to attract business sponsors. The 12 player round robin format was dropped in favour of a Swiss long before my time.

The whingers presumably feel that, Adam Hunt being able to get a GM norm by simply playing one move in round 9, is a sign of the weakness of the event?

Stewart Reuben

Stewart Reuben

[Alex Holowczak]

There is absolutely no evidence that a 12 player round robin would be more likely to attract business sponsors. The 12 player round robin format was dropped in favour of a Swiss long before my time.

The World Cup has 32 teams in it, of which about 10 have a realistic chance of winning the event, e.g. Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Italy. By the same token, there are countries which are no hopers, e.g. Algeria, Japan, New Zealand, North Korea. No one has ever suggested that switching it to a 12-team round robin, you would attract more sponsors. People are queuing up for it.

The Gentlemens' Singles at Wimbledon has 128 players. The winner will come from Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, del Potro and perhaps half a dozen others with an outside chance. This leaves 110+ players who are unlikely to win it. Again, there is no problem in attracting sponsorship, despite not being an APA.

The format of the game is not the problem. The fact is that chess is not popular enough in the UK to attract such sponsorship, whatever the format of the competition.

[Jonathan Bryant]

The World Cup has 32 teams in it, of which about 10 have a realistic chance of winning the event, e.g. Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Italy.

Indeed. That's about 1 in 3 of the total entry has a realistic chance of winning it.

Compare the current British. Let's count all the GMs as having a realistic chance of winning. That's a rather generous allowance I'll think you'll agree but even on that it's about 1 in 9 of the entrants in Canterbury.

That's my objection to the current field. It's not that there are people playing who have little or no chance of winning - they will always exist in every event (for every winner there has to be a loser after all). It's that there the proportion of people at the bottom end seems so excessive.

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.


As for Adam Hunt getting a GM norm. Well that's good news of course. But norms would hardly be illegal with a more restrictive field.

[Rob Thompson]

As for Adam Hunt getting a GM norm. Well that's good news of course. But norms would hardly be illegal with a more restrictive field.

Which is akin to saying "Switch to my way, because it isn't worse"

[Jonathan Bryant]

The whingers presumably feel that, Adam Hunt being able to get a GM norm by simply playing one move in round 9, is a sign of the weakness of the event?

If I might be cheeky and borrow the format of your question Stewart,

after tomorrow's 9th round I think something like 351 games will have been played of which 9 (2.5%) will have featured a GM playing a GM. Presumably you feel this is a strength of the event?

Leaving the question of the need for entry fees aside for a moment - I accept that's a practical necessity just now - do you really feel this is an event in balance?

[Jonathan Bryant]

As for Adam Hunt getting a GM norm. Well that's good news of course. But norms would hardly be illegal with a more restrictive field.

Which is akin to saying "Switch to my way, because it isn't worse"

I'm not sure we agree there Rob.

[Stewart Reuben]

Alex Holowczak Wimbledon is not sponsored. Its huge net income is from gate money, TV, advertising and hospitality tents. I had better add an etc.

It occurs to me that Adam Hunt is ranked 15 in this year's British. Thus, if one simply took the top 12, he would not have qualified. But his getting a GM norm after round 9 is a news item. It may be only be news locally to him, but it is something. Also players are more likely to play next year if they perceive that they may get a title norm.

Should Michael score 10.5/11 (a Championship record) that will not be huge publicity, although it will be one of the highest TPR in the history of the game.

Stewart Reuben

[Jon D'Souza-Eva]

As for Adam Hunt getting a GM norm. Well that's good news of course. But norms would hardly be illegal with a more restrictive field.

Adam wouldn't have got into the tournament if it was a twelve player all-play-all as he is the 14th highest rated player.

Edit: Damn. Stewart got there seconds ahead of me, though I still reckon Adam is the 14th seed, not 15th.

[Jonathan Bryant]

As for Adam Hunt getting a GM norm. Well that's good news of course. But norms would hardly be illegal with a more restrictive field.

Adam wouldn't have got into the tournament if it was a twelve player all-play-all as he the 14th highest rated player.

Edit: Damn. Stewart got there seconds ahead of me, though I still reckon Adam is 14th seed, not 15th.

Yes but I'm not necessarily arguing for a 12 player APA (which of course would not be good for generating GM norms for the very obvious reason that it's very possible all 12 would be GMs already).

I was thinking of a more restricted swiss field in the first instance. A 12 player APA would be good for other reasons but clearly not the norm generating one.


But anyway, I'll ask you the same question I asked Stewart....

9 GM v GM games out of 351 played. Is this an event you consider to have a balanced field?

[Stewart Reuben]

Jonathan Bryant >after tomorrow's 9th round I think something like 351 games will have been played of which 9 (2.5%) will have featured a GM playing a GM. Presumably you feel this is a strength of the event?
Leaving the question of the need for entry fees aside for a moment - I accept that's a practical necessity just now - do you really feel this is an event in balance?<

Only 35/429 (8%) games could theoretically have been between GMs by the end of Round 11. Of course I would like the event to be stronger, but that would mainly be achieved because British chess was stronger. The tail is substantially weaker than I personally like. But, Jonathan, if there are few encounters between GMs does this not mean that the other players are not so weak?

Hang on, were not several people decrying the Accelerated Pairings earlier on. Without that, then there would have been even fewer GM/GM pairings if that is your criterion. If you wanted more, it would be simple to divide the groups into 6 or 8 rather than 4, if that is your objective.

Stewart Reuben

[Phil Makepeace]

I'll post some proper feedback to the various discussions in this thread after the tournament.

For now, RTK goes old school. And with a guest contributor too!

[Paul McKeown]

Stewart,

You juxtaposed two sentences, the first stating your view that financing (in effect finding a sponsor) for a round robin championship would be more difficult than financing a Swiss system championship and the second stating that the championship format changed from round robin to Swiss long before you were involved. I would just like to make it clear that the two statements are not related by any causality. The reasons that the changeover occurred from the round robin format to the Swiss format were twofold:
a) people at the time were unhappy at the idea of a committee selecting the participants in the championship
b) there were too few opportunities at the time for young, ambitious and rising players to face the strongest opposition.

The second of those reasons clearly no longer applies: the British is not needed to allow young players to compete against strong opposition, there is not only no shortage of events that not only provide such opportunities, but indeed most positively encourage it.

The first of those two reasons may still have some validity: any return to a round robin format would require objective selection criteria to be drawn up first and then adhered to.

Nevertheless, you admit yourself that the tail was too long this year. I wonder, given that you said the same last year, and the year before, too, whether that makes you, too, one of the "whingers"?

Anyway, what do you think of the idea of instituting a "cut", dropping those failing the cut into the Major Open. I have actually played in chess tournaments organised along those lines before, and the impression I have of them, is that it rather intensifies the competitive edge, and adds to the quality. Idea?

Anyway, Stewart, I'm not really whinging, certainly not about the organisation, just voicing a concern about the erosion in the dignity of the title of British champion that is gradually occurring.

Best Regards,
Paul McKeown.