Change in BCC Qualification Regulations

[Stewart Reuben]

It is not a disgrace that the eligibility for the seniors was changed to 50+ and 65+. It was simply a error. Given they wanted a 50+ championship, it should have been 50+ and 60+, with a view to introducing 70+ quite shortly. The ECF failure to oppose the 65+ in Tallinn in 2013 was simply one of the examples where the ECF igored my advice to send somebody. I was there, but was simply overwhelmed with tasks I wanted to tackle.

It makes perfect sense for ECF Officers to post first about ECF matters on the ECF Forum, rather than the EC Forum.

[Roger de Coverly]

Given they wanted a 50+ championship, it should have been 50+ and 60+, with a view to introducing 70+ quite shortly.

It's sufficiently important to enough people that there should be a discussion about the format of the British Championship Congress at the ECF's October AGM. If the Home Director is making the decisions, an outline of any plans for change. If it's the Congress manager(s), the Home Director can front up what they intend to do, or if they are present hand over to them to present the outlined changes.

As it is, changes can be put through, without those affected by the changes having a chance to comment or vote on the proposals. I didn't see that either the Pearce Review or the CEO's 22 pages on what's wrong with the ECF, addressed this practical problem.

[Roger de Coverly]

The list of qualifiers and known future events with qualification places has now been added to the Championships website.

http://www.britishchesschampionships.co ... iers-2016/

[Ian Thompson]

The list of qualifiers and known future events with qualification places has now been added to the Championships website.

http://www.britishchesschampionships.co ... iers-2016/

There must be dozens, if not hundreds, of names missing from the "Deferred from 2015" list.

[IM Jack Rudd]

There must be dozens, if not hundreds, of names missing from the "Deferred from 2015" list.

Bear in mind that deferral is only possible for players who got their places from a qualifying competition, not for players who were exempted by virtue of title or rating.

[NickFaulks]

The ECF failure to oppose the 65+ in Tallinn in 2013

That is irrelevant to the British championships. For FIDE events, which means World and Continental, if you are going to have only two age groups, I think 50+ and 65+ are at least a defensible choice. They make less sense for the British, so do something appropriate for the British. FIDE don't care and I'm surprised that the ECF would feel compelled to take any notice if they did.

[Stewart Reuben]

The ECF felt it should fall in line with the 50+ 65+. Apparently this is what the players preferred. European Senior Team is still 60+, so much for World and Contnental uniformity. Of course 50+ and 6+ is defensible. It is just 50+ and 60+ would have been much better, leading in due course to 50+, 60+ and 70+.