British 2016 Round by Round

[Mick Norris]

Adams' performance is surely the best ever in the British Championships - both in terms of the results on paper and also his actual chess. He mowed down his last six opponents, without ever needing to sacrifice anything or indeed taking any apparent risks at all. As an earlier poster said, at one stage his position v Eggleston was "so" winning that it defied belief that material was actually still level. Awesome!

Yes, awesome is a good word to use

[Jonathan Rogers]

Do we prefer this appearance money scenario is one I have to ask?

Given that the money appears to have been privately funded and made for the strongest championship in five years I'm not sure how anybody could raise any reasonable objection.

Unless, of course, we could have had an even stronger championships for the same amount of money, if less were distributed in appearance fees and put into prizes instead.

It is hard for an outsider to say whether this would have been possible. Perhaps the sponsor insisted on appearance fees for everyone whose participation was desired, and this might have included some players unlikely to win a substantial prize. But since we don't know, Carl's question is a reasonable one. I am afraid to say that my concerns a few months ago about why Jonathan Hawkins might have chosen not to defend his title do seem to have been well grounded. The situation might - I can only say "might" - have been different if the top players had been left to fight for higher prizes (with a possible exception for Adams on the basis that he is exceptional).

[IM Jack Rudd]

Do we prefer this appearance money scenario is one I have to ask?

Given that the money appears to have been privately funded and made for the strongest championship in five years I'm not sure how anybody could raise any reasonable objection.

Unless, of course, we could have had an even stronger championships for the same amount of money, if less were distributed in appearance fees and put into prizes instead.

That seems unlikely. Most GMs tend to be risk-averse, so moving money from the appearance fund to the prize fund is likely to be counter-productive.

[Mark Hannon]

It seems to me though that it might be more exciting to see fighting players battle over a larger prize fund then to spend that cash distributing it as appearance money to players looking for a secure income.
Philosophically I prefer high prizes to appearance fees. Having said that Adams clearly earned his cash and it was great to see him play.
@Jonathan Rogers what was the reason Hawkins did not play in your opinion? He seems to be playing less anyway so it's not clear it was the financial structure of the tournament that stopped him.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Unfortunately whether we like it or not there is not a lot of money in professional chess and Grandmasters (like the rest of us) have to put a roof over their head and food on the table. If an appearance fee is the most likely way of getting them to an event (and the alternative is that they will either go abroad where the money is or prioritise a professional career over chess like McShane and Sadler) then so be it. The appearance fees this year seem to have brought Adams back for the first time since 2011 and Jones since 2013. If they hadn't been here we'd probably be muttering about the decline of the event.

When it comes to appearance fees vs prize money; with the right sponsor and/ or personal philanthropy (ie us) we could have both.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Was there confirmation of what norms were achieved at the British Chess Championships in Bournemouth?

Nothing yet here:

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/michael- ... ens-title/

But the reader comments here:

http://en.chessbase.com/post/michael-ad ... th-10-0-11

...suggest that Justin Tan got a GM norm. Is that correct?

And did David Eggleston get a 9-round or 10-round or 11-round GM norm?

[LawrenceCooper]

Was there confirmation of what norms were achieved at the British Chess Championships in Bournemouth?

Nothing yet here:

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/michael- ... ens-title/

But the reader comments here:

http://en.chessbase.com/post/michael-ad ... th-10-0-11

...suggest that Justin Tan got a GM norm. Is that correct?

And did David Eggleston get a 9-round or 10-round or 11-round GM norm?

From memory David got a 9 round norm and Justin also got one.

[Stewart Reuben]

Both David Eggleston and Justin Tan definitely achieved GM norms. But I had to ask them both as it was not announced at the prizegiving. Also lists used to be displayed of norm seekers and what score they needed. By contrast, in the past, it was quite normal to hand out the certificates. I presume nobody achieved an IM norm.

There was substantial discussion about the private donor support for the British.
In 1997, when I obtained the Smith & Williamson sponsorship, I put all the available money in the prize fund. The first prize was £10,000 and it resulted in, arguably the strongest-ever championship. But then the Indians started descending on the event and the system had to change. Since 2004 there has been a mixture of prize money and start money. It is generally cheaper to offer both prize and start money in order to get a strong event and competitive chess in 'master Swisses'. e.g. Hastings, CCCCC.
I provided the donor with a 'wish list' for him to strike out, at his option, whatever he didn't want. The list totalled £100,000. His actual support was much lower of course.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Both David Eggleston and Justin Tan definitely achieved GM norms. But I had to ask them both as it was not announced at the prizegiving. Also lists used to be displayed of norm seekers and what score they needed. By contrast, in the past, it was quite normal to hand out the certificates. I presume nobody achieved an IM norm.

There was substantial discussion about the private donor support for the British.
In 1997, when I obtained the Smith & Williamson sponsorship, I put all the available money in the prize fund. The first prize was £10,000 and it resulted in, arguably the strongest-ever championship. But then the Indians started descending on the event and the system had to change. Since 2004 there has been a mixture of prize money and start money. It is generally cheaper to offer both prize and start money in order to get a strong event and competitive chess in 'master Swisses'. e.g. Hastings, CCCCC.
I provided the donor with a 'wish list' for him to strike out, at his option, whatever he didn't want. The list totalled £100,000. His actual support was much lower of course.

Interesting. To be clear, when you say:

"I provided the donor with a 'wish list' for him to strike out, at his option, whatever he didn't want. The list totalled £100,000. His actual support was much lower of course."

...are you referring to the 1997 British or the 2016 British?

If someone had come up with £100,000, how many GMs and IMs would that have funded (i.e. how many players were on your list - no names, obviously, just an idea of how many GMs and IMs and other players, maybe the leading female players)? Was that figure all just start money, or did it include prize money and covering the venue costs and organisational costs?

[NickFaulks]

But then the Indians started descending on the event and the system had to change.

Surely there are ways to fix that without doctoring the prize fund. It is the British Championship, after all.

[Roger de Coverly]

Surely there are ways to fix that without doctoring the prize fund. It is the British Championship, after all.

The eligibility was changed in time for the 2004 Centenary event. To make totally sure that Commonwealth GMs didn't turn up, the Major Open had a rating restriction placed on it, since rescinded.

Eligibility for those qualified for the British by rating or results is now based on either passport or residence.

[Stewart Reuben]

Christopher. It was for the 2016 British, although it was recommended it not start until 2017 as it was late in the day.
With £100,000 it was ALL active IMs, GMs and WGMS who entered by due date. Naturally including the Scots, Welsh and Irish. It included the Grand Prix. Also, in due course, reducing the number of weak players. Also a fee for the main organiser. It was in addition to the usual budget.