Change in BCC Qualification Regulations

[Paul Bielby]

In the last three days there has been a change in the Qualification Regulations for the 2016 British championship Regulations. Last week item 3 read that the British Senior Champion from 2015 qualified. Today I find that the words 'Over-50' have been added before 'Senior Champion'.

Now I cannot claim to be the Senior Champion, but I am a Senior Champion. (I was the oldest of six finishing top equal in the Over-65 Championship at Warwick), I had hoped this might qualify me for next year's British Championship.

I am, of course, disappointed to find now that I have not qualified - my only previous British was 47 years ago and to play in a second at the age of 80 could have been fun, even if I would be lucky to score many points.

More seriously who, why and when was the regulation altered? If you only want one senior qualifier why pick the junior Senior Champion and not the over-65. Was the alteration discussed openly anywhere, or was it simply slipped in in the hope that no one would notice?

[David Robertson]

In the last three days there has been a change in the Qualification Regulations for the 2016 British championship Regulations. Last week item 3 read that the British Senior Champion from 2015 qualified. Today I find that the words 'Over-50' have been added before 'Senior Champion'....who, why and when was the regulation altered? If you only want one senior qualifier why pick the junior Senior Champion and not the over-65. Was the alteration discussed openly anywhere, or was it simply slipped in in the hope that no one would notice?

How's it going, Paul? Many views, still no answer. You know when you've asked the 'right' question: the person responsible scampers to gather applause by answering immediately.

But when you've asked an awkward question, as here, the person responsible - and we know who it is - stains their underwear. He spends time working out how to pass the buck. Or, previously an assidious reader of forums, he suddenly 'misses' questions; or he's 'away'; or 'busy'; or whatever. So be patient. There's no applause to be gained from an honest answer. Hence, you'll wait for an honest answer, hopefully not forever.

[Michael Farthing]

Have you tried Emailing Alex, Paul?

[David Robertson]

He did. Here. In public

[John Philpott]

"The person responsible" has not posted on this Forum since last April, having been discouraged by the former Chief Executive from responding here to questions raised.

He has raised with the Board the question of whether this restriction still applies.

He has e-mailed a response to Paul Bielby.

He asked me, at 9.46 this morning, to post the following response but with some rather more significant items on to do list I have only just got around to doing so.

The Qualification Regulations were posted on the website as a news item,
having been finalised at the 2015 British Championships after discussions
between myself and Kevin Staveley, the Manager of the Championships. They
were posted on the website in September after some drafting was tidied up.

On Friday, John Philpott e-mailed me having noticed that the Qualification
Regulations only appeared as a news item on the website, and that they
would be better placed as an item on the navigation bar because as more
news items get added, the regulations would drop off the front page. I
hadn't noticed that they weren't already in that position, so I accepted
his offer to make that adjustment. This was also done on Friday. I'm afraid
the regulations that you looked at were the 2015 Regulations and not the
2016 Regulations, as evidenced by them only being accessible by dropping
down the menu titled "2015", and then a link saying "Qualifying Regs 2015".

The regulations previously made reference to "the British Senior Champion",
but as noted this no longer works properly, and so we had to choose a
successor tournament. We decided that the Over 50 Championship was the
appropriate tournament, on the grounds that it was the stronger of the two
Seniors tournaments, which is in accordance with the Under 16 Champion
qualifying, because that is the stronger of the nine junior tournaments.

[David Robertson]

LOL. I think I should allow Paul Bielby the first go at this little lot

[Michael Farthing]

He did. Here. In public

There are two published methods of contacting Board members. One is the ECF forum and one is the Email link on the ECF website. It might be reasonable to add a third in the form of a letter c/o Battle. If you don't use the published mechanisms you can't expect an answer. You might get one, but you can hardly expect it. That's probably why I didn't get a response from David Robertson to the question I asked him in the Swaziland Times. [I didn't, of course].

I am fully aware that Alex does read here, but, however unreasonably, as seen in a previous post, he still feels inhibited from posting. And, incidentally, a post on a forum is not an Email.

[David Robertson]

And, incidentally, a post on a forum is not an Email.

So how do you think it happens then? Think about it. Slowly

[IM Jack Rudd]

[Michael Farthing]

It happens using a mechanism provided through the 'world wide web' protocol that enables users to respond through a construct known as a FORM. This enables COMMENTS to be included into the contents of the WEBSITE by people other than the WEBMASTER. It is not connected with an entirely different PROTOCOL commonly called EMAIL. WWW and EMAIL are different PROTOCOLS that both make use of the UNDERLYING protocols that enable INTERNET communication in much the same way that CARS and LORRIES both use the (literally) underlying ROAD.

Cars and lorries do different jobs. Similarly, Emails go directly to specific people while forum posts are more the equivalent of using a loudspeaker in Hyde Park, where the intended recipient may, or may not, be listening.

Is that slow enough?

[Edit: to Paul. My suggestion was serious. You asked an interesting question. Any spat between David and myself is purely and only that]

[Carl Hibbard]

And, incidentally, a post on a forum is not an Email.

So how do you think it happens then? Think about it. Slowly

If you consider it slowly the ECF and director in question are still prevented from posting here so the other place is the only choice until it vanishes of course

[Paul Bielby]

I am pleased to say that I received an e-mail response from Alex this morning, answering my questions. See John Philpott's message above. It is just a pity that the out-of-date regulations stayed up for so long - it got me too excited!

I don't necessarily agree with Kevin and Alex's decision that the junior (Over-50) of the two Senior Championships is the appropriate one to be regarded as the Senior Champion. It may have been slightly stronger in terms of FIDE ratings last year, but it is certainly less Senior! However that was their choice.

Thank you, Jack, for your advice! It just so happens that I'm enjoying a nice cuppa as I write this.

[Mick Norris]

If there are joint champions, as was the case with the over 50, do they both get offered a place with half-price entry?

[Paul Bielby]

To answer Mick.

Both the over-50 champions are, I think, already qualified for the 2016 British Championship
Nigel Povah is an IM; Glen House is an FM and is rated >2200. Does this mean that the third-placed player gets the Senior qualification? We'll no doubt find out in due course ....

[Carl Hibbard]

In the last three days there has been a change in the Qualification Regulations for the 2016 British championship Regulations. Last week item 3 read that the British Senior Champion from 2015 qualified. Today I find that the words 'Over-50' have been added before 'Senior Champion'....who, why and when was the regulation altered? If you only want one senior qualifier why pick the junior Senior Champion and not the over-65. Was the alteration discussed openly anywhere, or was it simply slipped in in the hope that no one would notice?

How's it going, Paul? Many views, still no answer. You know when you've asked the 'right' question: the person responsible scampers to gather applause by answering immediately.

But when you've asked an awkward question, as here, the person responsible - and we know who it is - stains their underwear. He spends time working out how to pass the buck. Or, previously an assidious reader of forums, he suddenly 'misses' questions; or he's 'away'; or 'busy'; or whatever. So be patient. There's no applause to be gained from an honest answer. Hence, you'll wait for an honest answer, hopefully not forever.

Over the top for someone who cannot post