Warwick 2015 (British Championships)

[John McKenna]

I’m really disappointed to see the change in the time control for the British. Have they really dumbed down the British just to accommodate a 30 second increment in the morning events?

If there’s another reason for doing this, I’d like to see it.

One could suspect a realignment to bring the event closer to FIDE standardization and the ECF closer to FIDE.

[Roger de Coverly]

Have they really dumbed down the British just to accommodate a 30 second increment in the morning events?

That's what it seems like. With almost all the morning events not containing players rated over 2200, they could have used a 75 30 or 60 30 move rate. With the am Opens, it would have been a choice to either exclude players rated over 2200, or to accommodate the tournaments in a separate room.

[Roger de Coverly]

One could suspect a realignment to bring the event closer to FIDE standardization and the ECF closer to FIDE.

They were already using one of the FIDE standard rates, namely 40 in 100, 20 in 50 + 15 with 30 second increments.

[John McKenna]

One could suspect a realignment to bring the event closer to FIDE standardization and the ECF closer to FIDE.

They were already using one of the FIDE standard rates, namely 40 in 100, 20 in 50 + 15 with 30 second increments.

One gets the impression that's yesterday's rate - FIDE seems to want to constantly up the tempo.

[Stewart Reuben]

Peter, instead of that motive, how about the following possibilities?:
1. Falling more into line with common practice worldwide. This better fits our players to play competitively internationally.
2. There is a substantial argument that longer games do not necessarily lead to better play. The tiredness factor must be considered.
3. Possibly this was requested by the players.
What the real reasons were, I have no idea.
The dumbing down in the British was clearly to generate extra income from weaker players. It started when Neil Graham became the director.

Indeed there are people (not just in FIDE) who want games to be shorter. Some think this will make chess more suitable for TV. The truth is that only blitz really suits TV. Ignatius Leong wanted two games a day for the Olympiad. That had to be fought against.
The British have experimented more with different increments thn any other area of the world. We have settled on 30 seconds, having tried one minute for some years.

[Neil Graham]

Peter, instead of that motive, how about the following possibilities?:
1. Falling more into line with common practice worldwide. This better fits our players to play competitively internationally.
2. There is a substantial argument that longer games do not necessarily lead to better play. The tiredness factor must be considered.
3. Possibly this was requested by the players.
What the real reasons were, I have no idea.
The dumbing down in the British was clearly to generate extra income from weaker players. It started when Neil Graham became the director.

Indeed there are people (not just in FIDE) who want games to be shorter. Some think this will make chess more suitable for TV. The truth is that only blitz really suits TV. Ignatius Leong wanted two games a day for the Olympiad. That had to be fought against.
The British have experimented more with different increments thn any other area of the world. We have settled on 30 seconds, having tried one minute for some years.

I was the Congress Director for 7 years (1998-2004 inclusive). I certainly had nothing to do with any change in time limits.

As for "dumbing down" I am not sure of what I being accused. My recollections of my time as Director were that new grading-limited events were introduced for lower graded players, entry fees were maintained at the previous levels, prizes were substantially increased in junior, senior and grading limited tournaments and latterly players from the Commonwealth were debarred from entering the Championship. The qualification rules for the British were equally clear and the only innovation I can recall was to allow players entry into the Championship from a reserve list when other qualified players failed to take up their option of playing. The titled players fought out the Championship whilst the "also rans" also ran!

[Stewart Reuben]

Neil you did many good things with the British. But introducing a reserve list, for players who had FAILED to qualify, a list created because some people who had qualified didn't take up their places; meant that weaker players were able to play.

[Neil Graham]

Neil you did many good things with the British. But introducing a reserve list, for players who had FAILED to qualify, a list created because some people who had qualified didn't take up their places; meant that weaker players were able to play.

So forum members unfamiliar with this might understand this subject. The reserve list was created so that players who had failed, for example on tiebreak, in qualification would be given the opportunity to take up a place if one became vacant. It did not provide any extra places; it merely filled spaces that were not taken up. For example if say Nigel Short or Julian Hodgson (for example) who were prequalified because of their rating failed to play a player from the reserve list couldn't be shoved it to take their place. If, however, a congress nominee failed to enter, their place could be taken by someone on the reserve list once the closing date had been reached. It doesn't follow that weaker players were on the reserve list. The list could and did contain strong players who were able to take up places in the British. Stewart is right to point out that these entries were fee-paying which helped the Championships throughout my tenure in office.

[Roger de Coverly]

The reserve list was created so that players who had failed, for example on tiebreak, in qualification would be given the opportunity to take up a place if one became vacant. It did not provide any extra places; it merely filled spaces that were not taken up.

The 2005 British was after Neil's time, but being in Douglas IoM, it was unsurprisingly low on entries. Having finished equal to another local player in a qualifying Congress, but worse on tie-break, I had already ascertained that he would take up his place. A few weeks before the Congress, there was an announcement that reserve list players could take up a place regardless of whether the "winner" was intending to play. Quite what happened after that I don't know for certain. I am aware that as one of the carrots to persuade weekend Congresses to move to being FIDE rated, they were given a qualification place, which I had personally utilised to qualify in 2009. So I think the qualifier inflation really set in after Neil's tenure.

[Stewart Reuben]

The reserve list was created so that players who had failed, for example on tiebreak

That was already in the rules prior to 1998. If the qualifier did not take up his place, it would then go to the next who had lost out on tiebreak, but not to somebody on a lower score. My views on tiebreks are well-known, so that should hardly be surprising.

Neil's change in the rules, to allow the places to be flled by players on lower scores who accepted, had the full agreement of the BCF Board of the time. I was Chairman, effectively Chief Executive and usually also President. I didn't want to interfere with the work of my successor and thus made no comment. But I was aware that it made it easier to qualify for the British. 2004 was Neil's last year and it has been made even easier subsequently.
Remove the Indians in 1997 (there weren't many), then determine the median. Determine the median in 2014 and you will find it is considerably lower.

[NickFaulks]

One gets the impression that's yesterday's rate - FIDE seems to want to constantly up the tempo.

If that's true, then they aren't very good at getting what they want. Once upon a time 90/30 was indeed FIDE's time control of choice, but when was the last time it was seen in a FIDE event?

[Stewart Reuben]

It was true. 2000 Istanbul they introduced a ridiculously fast rate of play. I suspect that was preparatory to two games a day for the Olympiad. Jonathan Berry tried to get a questionnaire created, but 'they' said there wasn't time. So he produced one, but couldn't get it printed by the FIDE Office. Had he consulted me, I would have said let's go to a shop and have them run off.
So 90/30 was agreed by the supine General Assembly. Eventually it was dropped in favour of 40 in 90, + 30 + 30 seconds as organisers so seldom ran one round per day tournaments at 90/30. The roughly 5 hour rate has proven to be surprisingly successful. But as Michael Adams says, it should be 40 in 100 + 30 + 30 to get to 40 moves in 2 hours.
People think everything is black and white. FIDE Officers do often respond to market forces and/or reason eventually. Sometimes though they remind me of people who run very fast to a gate and then stand there thinking what to do next.

[Richard Bates]

Peter, instead of that motive, how about the following possibilities?:
1. Falling more into line with common practice worldwide. This better fits our players to play competitively internationally.
2. There is a substantial argument that longer games do not necessarily lead to better play. The tiredness factor must be considered.
3. Possibly this was requested by the players.
What the real reasons were, I have no idea.
The dumbing down in the British was clearly to generate extra income from weaker players. It started when Neil Graham became the director.

Indeed there are people (not just in FIDE) who want games to be shorter. Some think this will make chess more suitable for TV. The truth is that only blitz really suits TV. Ignatius Leong wanted two games a day for the Olympiad. That had to be fought against.
The British have experimented more with different increments thn any other area of the world. We have settled on 30 seconds, having tried one minute for some years.

Did we "settle on 30 seconds"? I thought we were forced as a result of FIDE's brief move to mandate a limited number of time controls? Many people (time trouble addicts especially!) were quite in favour of the experimental time control used at Hastings for a couple of years.

I wonder if there might be a further alterior thought behind these changed time controls at the British? Namely that they are a possible preliminary step to trying to turn it into a 9 round, 9 day tournament which some people are in favour of (on the grounds that shortening the tournament will make it more attractive, especially, for working players. Personally i disagree since i think the modern uniqueness of an 11 round tournament is part of its major selling point as well as valuing the weekends at each end. The advantages of a shorter tournament would be balanced by the likelihood that in the far more competitive 9 day FIDE open market, the British would look distinctly second rate).

Anyway i was probably intending to play next year (it is at my old university after all). Less likely to now.

[Stewart Reuben]

It is true that the title regulations forced us into a one size fits all of a 30 second increment. Then, when that rule was repealed, nobody seemed much to want to return to a one minute increment. Only Australia and Britain ever tried the excellent one minute. But it does lead to some very long games.
The irony is that it was I who introduced the 30 second increment. We had the rule that, if there was a MINIMUM of 30 seconds increment, score had to be kept at all time. In 1997 for the knockout World Championship in Groningen I chose 40 moves in 100, 20 in 50, + 15 + 30 seconds per move. That is as closely similar to 40/2, 20/1 all in 1 as is possible. I chose an increment because I could not stand the idea of the World Championship being decided on a quickplay finish by an arbiter - not even if it had been me. The knockout was very new and I followed David Sedgwick's opinion that there shouldn't be too many changes in the format.
To my horror almost all arbiters seem to think it is precisely 30 seconds.
What I had no means of knowing at the time, was how very much more an efficient way of thinking this is for many people. Bobby was right.

You will find the rate in the British is fine.

[Richard Bates]

It is true that the title regulations forced us into a one size fits all of a 30 second increment. Then, when that rule was repealed, nobody seemed much to want to return to a one minute increment. Only Australia and Britain ever tried the excellent one minute. But it does lead to some very long games.
The irony is that it was I who introduced the 30 second increment. We had the rule that, if there was a MINIMUM of 30 seconds increment, score had to be kept at all time. In 1997 for the knockout World Championship in Groningen I chose 40 moves in 100, 20 in 50, + 15 + 30 seconds per move. That is as closely similar to 40/2, 20/1 all in 1 as is possible. I chose an increment because I could not stand the idea of the World Championship being decided on a quickplay finish by an arbiter - not even if it had been me. The knockout was very new and I followed David Sedgwick's opinion that there shouldn't be too many changes in the format.
To my horror almost all arbiters seem to think it is precisely 30 seconds.
What I had no means of knowing at the time, was how very much more an efficient way of thinking this is for many people. Bobby was right.

You will find the rate in the British is fine.

Decisions on which tournaments i play in aren't always made for totally rational reasons

EDIT (delete): a bit off topic