English Chess Forum

Simon Ansell wrote:

Jonathan Bryant wrote:

Alex McFarlane wrote: 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.

That would be a bit harsh! You'd get no end of complaints about the pairings in the 'cut-off' round! As well a whole group of players agreeing quick draws in the round in question in order to "guarantee" their place

Anyway, effectively all the weaker players not having exceptional tournaments have worked their way away from having any impact on the tournament outcome by the second week, and will have done their terminal damage to some people's phantom norm chances, so cutting them out at that point wouldn't really serve a purpose. Are you going to guarantee a prize to everybody making the cut?

OK I admit it's not perfect and I hadn't thought about it, it just sounded good

But it might lead to more exciting chess and less mismatches in the second week, I mean look at the pairings now from boards 5-18, there are 150+ point differences on many of them.

Simon Ansell wrote:OK I admit it's not perfect and I hadn't thought about it, it just sounded good

But it might lead to more exciting chess and less mismatches in the second week, I mean look at the pairings now from boards 5-18, there are 150+ point differences on many of them.

I'm sure i for one will be at the forefront of those demonstrating this to be an illusion...

John Saunders wrote:I have not looked further back than 1976. It's possible that Atkins had some mega-early title wins for all I know. I don't think Penrose had any early wins (might be wrong). Hodgson was another maximalist but, even when he scored 10/11 he was only a point clear of Mestel with two to go. 'Jools et Jon' were the British Championship's big scorers - maybe Mickey is going to join them this year. Alexander had a mega-score one year (1956?) but was only just ahead of Frank Parr, I think.

I've had a look at Atkins' wins (well, not those of 1924-25) as I have a copy of Di Felice's Chess Results 1901-1920. Obviously the margin of victory is no real guide, as you could be 3.5 points up with three rounds to go and still only win by half a point, but for what it's worth, Atkins' biggest victory margins were 1905 and 1908, in each instance being a point and a half. I know he won 1908 with a round to spare - 1905, I don't know.

Richard Bates wrote:

Simon Ansell wrote:OK I admit it's not perfect and I hadn't thought about it, it just sounded good

But it might lead to more exciting chess and less mismatches in the second week, I mean look at the pairings now from boards 5-18, there are 150+ point differences on many of them.

I'm sure i for one will be at the forefront of those demonstrating this to be an illusion...

Pretty sure you don't have much choice but to play exciting chess against Jack!

"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."

And will finding 8 - 10 people with £3-5k to spare be possible? It would be nice if it happened!

900 entries seems pretty good, and I think having qualifying places at lots of events supports other events during the year.

There will be a short broadcast of about 20 mins or so at 1pm of the game Gormally-Mason from yesterdays round just to test the system. You are welcome to log on!

Andrew

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

Ian Thompson >IBM would disagree with this statement. "IBM, as Official Internet Technology Sponsor of the Championships ..." (http://aeltc2010.wimbledon.org/en_GB/in ... index.html).

As would Slazenger. "Slazenger is pleased to continue ... as the official ball sponsor for the tournament." (http://aeltc2010.wimbledon.org/en_GB/ab ... enger.html)

If you go http://aeltc2010.wimbledon.org/en_GB/ab ... liers.html you'll see that Wimbledon has 13 official suppliers, who clearly pay for this privilege - "The income from the Official Suppliers is an important part of The Championships’ surplus ..."<

Most of these are clearly advertisers, just as in my original list, which also included etc.

Paul McKeown >just voicing a concern about the erosion in the dignity of the title of British champion that is gradually occurring.<

Now you do puzzle me. Why have Stuart Conquest 2008, David Howell 2009 and now presumably Michael Adams 2010 been evidence of an erosion in the title of British Champion? Erosion in the strength of the middle I agree with.

Stewart Reuben

Richard Bates wrote:

Jonathan Bryant wrote:

Alex McFarlane wrote: 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.

True. Like you said in your earlier post, one person's solution is another's vandalism. That's one of the difficulties of the British I think - trying to be so much to so many different people.

Stewart Reuben wrote:Stewart Reuben wrote:
Wimbledon is not sponsored. Its huge net income is from gate money, TV, advertising and hospitality tents. I had better add an etc. Most of these are clearly advertisers, just as in my original list, which also included etc.

Sorry, Stewart, they are definitely sponsors. We should get some!

http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/3794.asp

and from their own site;

"One of the Club’s key objectives is to enhance the unique character and image of The Championships by keeping our courts and grounds relatively free of commercial sponsorship and product placement. Hence the lack of overt advertising around the Grounds.

This helps to give the event and the Wimbledon brand a special resonance that TV and commercial companies around the world wish to be associated with, and enables the Club to derive revenue which goes towards the funding of The Championships and British tennis. "

Stewart Reuben wrote:Paul McKeown >just voicing a concern about the erosion in the dignity of the title of British champion that is gradually occurring.<

Now you do puzzle me. Why have Stuart Conquest 2008, David Howell 2009 and now presumably Michael Adams 2010 been evidence of an erosion in the title of British Champion? Erosion in the strength of the middle I agree with.

It isn't the name of the winners, just the opposition they face, which eats away at the credibility of the title. What is a championship title worth, when the entrants are not of the highest quality?

Stewart Reuben wrote:
Most of these are clearly advertisers,

Stewart,

Could you please provide your definitions of

1. sponsor
2. main sponsor
3. supplier and
4. advertiser ?

Should we inform IBM and Slazenger (and the All England Lawn Tennis Club) that you have decided that they are not sponsors? I am sure that they will be delighted to save their money!

Where's Mark Hebden this year? It doesn't seem like a real British Championships without him in it.

Edit: Never mind I see this has been discussed already in this thread (http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... &start=225)

David Pardoe wrote: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.

At the risk of derailing this thread... What?!

1) Where do you get tables and chairs from? (And more importantly, who moves them?)
2) Warwick is not a flat city. It would be difficult to put the equipment there.
3) Summer at Warwick Castle means one thing: Jousting! Chess would not be a big draw at that time at all.

Also, what if it rains? Do you propose we seal a move and continue when it stops?

Just had a potential disaster averted. I popped downstairs to buy crisps at about 2:20, to notice my Polish friend had not arrived at the board. This was unlike him, so after making sure I could and wouldn't be breaking the rules, I phoned him. He said he'd be there in 5-10 minutes. When he arrived, he explained that he was asleep when I called...