Ideas to Improve Chess overall in this country.

[Lee Bullock]

And to take the football analogy further, if Barnet win Division Three or whatever it's called, they don't go straight to the top division. They move up a level and start again, trying to climb and trying not to slip back down. And in chess, you win a few Under 120s in a year, your grade jumps up to the 130s and you in turn are 'promoted' into playing the intermediates (U150s) striving to climb to the Majors and in turn the Opens.

Yes but this idea is the equivalent of the Fa Cup and not a league. All those clubs in the FA CUP dream of pairing a top team and when it happens it is what makes that sport great. And on so many occasions the lower team gets a result! Who would of said Crawley could get a draw at Old Trafford? And didn't York also do the same? Stevenage etc v Newcastle. These teams were probably given odds of 200-1 and did it? Could it happen in Chess. Yes it could easily.

Hi Lee,

Point 1. I think your idea is an interesting one, but agree with the respondents here that it's not a good one. It would dilute the British (etc) far too much. But how about a tournament (perhaps for charity) where the prizes were to play top players? My daughter, Zoe, was very pleased to discover she had won a simul place last year for coming second in a junior tournament, after initial disappointment at narrowly missing out. A (big!) step up from a simul would be one-to-one games as prizes.

Point 2. I think I know of at least one of the people you have in mind as "sandbaggers". However, who is to judge? A few rapidplay games lost to a certain junior against the run of play in the first part of this season may have kept your rapidplay grade at 99 instead of 100. I saw the games and know it's not the case, but it would not be an unreasonable assumption that you'd thrown those games to stay in the minor section. It surely has to be left up to tournament organisers to make individual judgements for clear or persistent offenders.

Point 5. What if your grade had gone up to the next category in the ECF GP part way through the year? Why should it be unreasonable as you improve to take your previous successes with you? I'd say it's the only fair way to organise it!

Some great points Andrew. On point 1 I think this is a good idea. If not the British then a separate tournament would be better than nothing at all and I am sure a titled player or titled players if paid well for it would gladly enter and give there best. And everyone is then benefiting from it.

I kinda already have achieved one of my goals in Chess as I always wanted to just play in a tournament with some and I did this at the recent blitz at Hastings. I turned up to play in a low section but found out that one player in the Masters section did not show so I played. It was only 3 min blitz I think and was way too fast for me but I didn't care and saw it as part of my goals to play v IM's. I played Hayden, Rhys Griffiths, and the mighty Jack Rudd who still has Nightmares about hes game with me I know he does although he got mate he would agree he was in trouble 4 moves earlier lol. A full rook up I was.... damn!

And its kinda cool to see there names on my played list on my fide page. I think I played another IM that day also but not sure. Of course I lost all 9 but I really did have a few of them worried I have improved a lot since then and got better at fast chess so look forward to that re match Jack Now I know why you are dissing my idea for someone like me to pair someone like you at the British

On point 2 Andrew we are not talking one game here and I don't know if I have spoke to you about certain players I suspected. We are talking 18 games in a row. 21 losses from 24 etc. Weeks Before that winning tournaments of the same level! And I have no idea who that Junior is Andrew. He will regret beating me those 2 times lol. Although I need to get him back soon as hes improvement bracket is probably going to be far bigger than mine And come on how could I even calculate staying a 99 lol. I don't even know how to do the maths v juniors etc. And those losses to him cost me money and GP points and pride

On point 5. I don't agree. The players in the GP travel all over the country trying to build there points up. Some take the GP very serious and see it as a very prestigious event. Why should someone who has earned all there points at a lower level win a higher level Cup? Not earning any points in that section at all? I can see your point however that whats the point them getting those points only to lose them all because they are now at a higher level. My answer would be maybe they could take a % of points to that section.

I just don't see how its fair that someone in the u120 GP can win the u140 GP without getting 1 point in the u140 GP. Maybe there needs to be a 6 month GP now that the grades are twice a year? and run it twice a season.

[JustinHorton]

Who would of said Crawley could get a draw at Old Trafford? And didn't York also do the same? Stevenage etc v Newcastle. These teams were probably given odds of 200-1 and did it

Stevenage were 13/2.

Crawley were 10/1 the draw but actually lost.

York didn't "do the same".

[Richard Bates]

Lee, you seem to be taking contradictory stances throughout the thread. By the end you are saying it is all about that "dream chance" to play a GM/IM etc, with the remote possibility of pulling off that shock draw/win. But as numerous people have pointed out, if you want that "dream" opportunity it is not that difficult to realise it given time. Just enter Opens, or find some league competition where some team pays a load of strong players to play without much regard to the standard of the opposition. Sooner rather than later you will probably get that shot, although you might have to produce the odd shock along the way first. But then that applies to the FA Cup (any "120 equivalent" in football will probably have produced several shocks in the early rounds before getting anywhere near playing a league side in the competition proper).

You rejected this earlier in the thread because of some idea about it "not deserving" it. Why does that matter considering the purpose outlined above?

I should also add that simply qualifying for the British would not make it that likely that a 120 would play a GM/IM or even an FM. You would just spend your time bumbling along at the bottom losing to 180s.

[Sean Hewitt]

Innovative thinking should always be encouraged and for that I applaud Lee's idea.

However, there are two issues with it that I can see. As others have pointed out, it wouldn't be much fun for the stronger player. But, far more importantly, how much interest would there be from the lower rated players? Juniors and Lee apart, I suspect not much. Juniors already have a lower rating qualification for the British anyway.

[Roger de Coverly]

Who would of said Crawley could get a draw at Old Trafford? And didn't York also do the same? Stevenage etc v Newcastle. These teams were probably given odds of 200-1 and did it? Could it happen in Chess. Yes it could easily.

If football results were used to generate a rating list in the style of an Elo list, what sort of differences would we expect between Premiership and League Two or Conference? As the odd result goes in favour of the lower team, presumably of the order of 300 to 400 Elo points. With average GMs having ratings in the 2400 to 2500 range, this corresponds to the typical qualifier to the British from weekend tournaments in the 2000 to 2100 range.

[Roger de Coverly]

(any "120 equivalent" in football will probably have produced several shocks in the early rounds before getting anywhere near playing a league side in the competition proper).

I don't know the minimum standard needed to enter the FA Cup, but any such team would have to work its way through numerous preliminary rounds against every stronger opposition before it faced even League One or Two opposition in the First Round proper. It wouldn't get there by beating other opposition of the same standard.

[Trefor Owens]

Have tried to read the thread but did skip some repetitive posts, so sorry If I am being repetitive myself

I have played in a couple of Major events over the past 12 months ( U175 ) and enjoyed all the games - am doing one more then moving to Opens - as I too want to play higher rated opponents, not titled necessarily just much stronger than me, to see how far I can push myself. Have recently changed jobs so should be able to enter many more weekend events!

My advice to Lee is to stop entering Minor events, move on to Majors and Opens then you will play many strong players with or without a title - if you don't want to do this then you can continue to be a big fish in a tiny pool but you won't meet GM,IM or FM and probably won't improve much either, or course you will win some prize money just depends on what you really want to do.

Chess players are very lucky to have Open competitions to enter I don't know of any other individual sports that offer the chance for weak players like you and me to potentially play International standard competition - so start entering Opens Lee and good luck, I will see you there: First one to play a titled opponent gets the drinks in

Cheers

Trefor

[Andrew Zigmond]

Just picking up on the point about inactive players returning to congresses in a lower section and winning. Virtually every congress entry form I've seen states that ungraded players must enter the open unless they can provide evidence of recent playing strength. Surely the most reliable evidence must be the last published grade and the emergence of online grading databases with records going back almost twenty years makes things easy enough? Obviously this didn't stop recent controversies from happening which begs the question, why?

Most congresses (Blackpool being the only exception I can think of) allow anybody to enter the open and there are always a few low grade players who sign themselves up for some good hard practice.

Quite agree Andrew. I find it really sad these players are allowed in at the lowest levels when there previous rating was way higher. Especially at prestigious tournaments like Blackpool and the British. I also see I think last year a player won Blackpool and never played again! He was some foreign player. Polish or something. He got 5/5 and it was the only tournament he had ever played. Arek Szota was hes name. Not to be confused with Arkadiusz Szota. So 2 years running at Blackpool and the British a player who never plays/played at a higher level or was ungraded has won both those tournaments.

Arkadiusz Szota and Arek Szota ARE the same person - Arek is short for his full name and caused him to be duplicated in the grading list (I corrected this in Yorkshire). He was a Polish gentleman who worked in Harrogate and played chess whenever and wherever he could. Unfortunately he lost his job, left the area and hadn't been heard of since (the fact he hasn't played chess suggests he left the country). It's a shame as he was a chess fanatic and a very pleasant man as well. Had financial circumstances not intervened I'm sure he would be still playing.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

All these players that travel the country playing in every congress imo do not get rewarded enough. They spend so much money on hotels, travel, tournament fee, food etc and the current system only gives a trophy and £50 voucher towards the next British I think it is.(in there section only)

<snip>

Even if this whole idea is crazy and unworkable I still believe as do most do that the current reward for winning the GP is an insult and the reward for being the best/most consistent/most active player in the country should be more than £50 voucher.

Picking up on what I think is the flawed assumption in your proposal. The assumption that being very active and travelling the country playing lots of chess should be 'rewarded' in any way. Most people don't play that much chess, and if they do, they do it because they want to, not because they are looking for some 'reward'. If you want the Grand Prix prizes to be larger, sponsorship is a better bet.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I did say in my original post the main idea would be to generate more prize money at the top of Chess by creating more interest at the bottom. Chess as like most sports/games has a lot more casual players and amateur players that it does have elite players. The point being if ideas create more interest in the game and less drop outs etc then the top players will benefit by getting more prize money in certain tournaments.

I for one would pay extra to be an ECF member if this idea was implemented. I also would play as much as possible each year trying to be one of the lucky qualifiers to one day get that dream game v a GM and try and pull off the impossible.

And this is the other point I don't get about what you have been saying. Where does this idea come from that having armies of players travelling the country trying to get this single prize would happen (most people wouldn't bother), and where does the idea come from that it would result in more prize money for the top players? If you want to improve the lot of the top players, the best way to do that is to pay to play them in a simultaneous display, pay to buy the books they publish, or pay to be coached by them. That way the money goes direct to them, rather than being funnelled through a system of tournaments that each take their cut.

[Angus McDonald]

Personally I think the key to developing chess will be making internet chess clubs with a social aspect.

Unfortunately I don't know how to do it but an idea would be to make online tournaments for people whilst promoting outings to over the board Chess events where people can meet up for Chess weekends or indeed Chess weeks depending on length of the tournament.

I know of so many people who play Chess online but don't have the time to play Club Chess or can make a years commitment to a Club tournament with a round a month etc.
Perhaps internet Chess clubs led by Grandmasters with 4 divisions of 10 teams. The grandmasters pick alternatively from those who put there names forward to join the teams. Needs 40 titled players to lead the teams and about 300 players to put their names forward for the teams. Players pay the Titled player a monthly fee for running the team. Saves on travel and venue costs. More money left to put into the game.
The internet is the key for Chess, it is the friend of Chess and can potentially expand what is a truly international mind sport.


That way Lee we might not get to play a GM but we could be a GM's teamate!

[Roger de Coverly]

The internet is the key for Chess, it is the friend of Chess and can potentially expand what is a truly international mind sport.

There's a yes and no to the idea of online teams which is probably why it hasn't greatly taken off in the fifteen to twenty years since it first became feasible. The problem is that unless you are prepared to have an observer at every playing site, the tournament either becomes or is suspected of becoming a variant of Advanced Chess, Karparov's idea where you are allowed to consult your computer during the game.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

It's a function of relative ratings, rather than luck. It's not just round 1 either. Depending on the strength of field and number of players , GM or IM opposition is possible or likely in later rounds if you score well.

It is even possible to end up playing a GM if you lose in the first round. That's what happened to me in the Surrey Congress in August 2006:

http://surreychesscongress.co.uk/2007_P ... /fide.html

I lost to Peter Roberson in round 1 of the Open (I rarely play in Opens, but chose to do so here as preparation for an upcoming tournament, I think). Nick Pert (the only GM in the tournament) lost to Callum Kilpatrick in round 1, and was then paired against me in round 2. Let's just say the game didn't last long...

[Kevin Thurlow]

I do admire Lee's enthusiasm and it is of course right to play stronger players. But it can be a bit depressing getting wiped out by a mediocre GM in 20 moves, then seeing him lose next round in 20 moves to a stronger GM. As David Norwood said of Kasparov, (roughly) "It is easy to underestimate him, because when you play him, you discover he's even stronger than you thought he was!"
You are not likely to learn much more playing someone 1000 Elo higher than you do playing someone 300 higher. Having said that, I am always pleased to get paired with GMs.

Anyway, http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8260 reports a similar idea. I assume the TCF hasn't noticed the Federation of its coach...

[Andrew Camp]

And this is the other point I don't get about what you have been saying. Where does this idea come from that having armies of players travelling the country trying to get this single prize would happen

I would hazard a guess it's come from the fact that three very active players, Bullock, Crockett and Fraser have all been playing almost every weekend, picking up excellent results and are all challenging for the top of the Minor GP.

I would say though that this year has been the exception to the norm given that Alan Fraser has won the last god knows how many Under 120 GPs without breaking sweat.

It has been fascinating to watch though (from a minor player point of view) and I look forward to seeing the final outcome.