Players under 2050 in Opens

[Roger de Coverly]

Roger - I'm not sure why you continue to make a fuss about no prizes for U2050s particularly when organisers offer & recommend appropriate other tournaments as part of the events where you are eligible for prize money.

It is wrong in principle to exclude players below a particular limit from a rating prize. The London Chess Classic adopted it and the similar cancer has spread to the British Championships, not least because the same people are making the decisions. It's a little less wrong in the British because of the Major Open, but very wrong in the London Chess Classic because there is no "B" tournament over the same schedule.

If I highlight it, it's to draw attention to it, as not everyone may have realised what has been adopted.

[Stewart Reuben]

If somebody defaults in a tournament, there was no game. That round for those 'players' cannot count.

[Ian Thompson]

If somebody defaults in a tournament, there was no game. That round for those 'players' cannot count.

I assume the point being made was that some people find that they've been paired against a junior and choose to default the game rather than adversely affect their W-We by playing the game and losing. If that's true, I would hope the game would count towards the defaulter's final score, to discourage such behaviour.

[IM Jack Rudd]

You could also discourage such behaviour by saying that players who default games or withdraw are not eligible for (W-We)-based or TPR-based prizes.

[Nick Grey]

Why not change the performance of the player in this position to also give them a win in these circumstances?
I was given a repairing opportunity against a junior in a lower section to say at least a game subject to grading. Except the junior had a est of fide that was more than 600 below my rating. So impossible to give me a rating though of course I got +10 for that game on my ECF.

I just believe that Roger is wrong - he has plenty of opportunities to play a weekend, plus midweek, plus super-rapid play at LLC, at British, Major Open, Seniors, or other tournaments.

His best way is to improve his grade. Or like others play in lower graded tournaments.

[Roger de Coverly]

he has plenty of opportunities to play a weekend, plus midweek, plus super-rapid play at LLC, at British, Major Open, Seniors, or other tournaments.

Perhaps I prefer one 9 round tournament to playing back to back five round ones.

I'm not sure I want to advocate that players under 2050 should boycott the London Chess Classic Open, but the organisers are going out of their way to be unwelcome and they've spread the poison to the British Championship.

[Nick Grey]

So Roger with all the other offers on London Chess Classic why did you not do what some others did.

Enter the fide open paying the relevant fee - the organisers were not going to change the prize structure - so you could have your 9 round tournament & if time watch the other events going on.

I do not believe the organisers are going out of their way to make anyone unwelcome.

[Roger de Coverly]

I do not believe the organisers are going out of their way to make anyone unwelcome.

Why then have they departed from what is probably a world standard practice in not expressing their lowest offered rating prize as rating X and under? It doesn't cost any more.

I got a private reply from Malcolm Pein claiming that the reason they did it was to improve Norm chances by attempting to dissuade lower rated players from entering. Giving that the current FIDE rules allow a rating floor for Norm seekers, they aren't harmed by having to play against someone rated 400 points lower in the first round. In any case, the better and more honest way of tackling that problem, if it really worries them, is to divide the tournament by rating into A and B sections.

[Ian Thompson]

I got a private reply from Malcolm Pein claiming that the reason they did it was to improve Norm chances by attempting to dissuade lower rated players from entering.

I'd be surprised if it had much effect because very few players of that standard would enter a tournament expecting to win a prize, so they're unlikely to very bothered if there isn't one (with the exception of you).

A bigger factor in low rated players entering is likely to be free entries for all under 25s and women. That's an immediate saving of £125 which might encourage them to play in London rather than somewhere else. There were 94 players rated under 2050 last year (38% of the entry). I wonder how many of them got a free entry?

[Roger de Coverly]

There were 94 players rated under 2050 last year (38% of the entry). I wonder how many of them got a free entry?

Despite being nominally in the school term, there were a number of juniors, both in the Open and the shorter restricted tournaments. It's a balance of sorts, giving free entry in exchange for no prize eligibility, but that doesn't further the cause of keeping Norm seekers and lower rated players apart.

[NickFaulks]

You could also discourage such behaviour by saying that players who default games or withdraw are not eligible for (W-We)-based or TPR-based prizes.

Or you could go back to the old system of giving prizes to the players who score the most points. I believe that players liked the normal method, and contorted ideas such as (W-We) are whims of organisers determined to fiddle with everything.

[NickFaulks]

I got a private reply from Malcolm Pein claiming that the reason they did it was to improve Norm chances by attempting to dissuade lower rated players from entering.

Has there ever been a case in the Classic where a norm has been ruined by having to play two <2050 opponents ( the first is a good thing )? I doubt it, although I'm willing to be proved wrong.

[Roger de Coverly]

I believe that players liked the normal method, and contorted ideas such as (W-We) are whims of organisers determined to fiddle with everything.

To what extent is it true that players of similar ratings who achieve the same score, will in longer tournaments at least, have faced much the same strength of opposition? Using (W-We) is an admission that the pairing scheme is unduly influenced by the exact sequence in the ranking of players in the middle and to the tail of tournaments.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"I got a private reply from Malcolm Pein claiming that the reason they did it was to improve Norm chances by attempting to dissuade lower rated players from entering."

"A bigger factor in low rated players entering is likely to be free entries for all under 25s and women. That's an immediate saving of £125 which might encourage them to play in London rather than somewhere else. There were 94 players rated under 2050 last year (38% of the entry). I wonder how many of them got a free entry?"

That does seem contradictory!

[NickFaulks]

To what extent is it true that players of similar ratings who achieve the same score, will in longer tournaments at least, have faced much the same strength of opposition?

In the middle of the table, very little, of course. That has always been a feature of Swisses and has until recently been accepted as the rub of the green.

If you generally outplay your opponent for most of a game but make one late error you may well lose. What next, declaring this to be inequitable and awarding the game to the player whose moves are a better overall match with Stockfish?