Warwick 2015 (British Championships)

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
John McKenna

Re: Warwick 2015

Post by John McKenna » Fri Oct 17, 2014 9:13 am

I hope IM Richard Bates finds enough good reasons - be they rational or irrational - to play at his alma mater in the 2015 British Ch. The more top players the better for spectators.
NickFaulks wrote:
John McKenna wrote:
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 wrote: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...

So 90/30 was agreed by the supine General Assembly. Eventually it was dropped in favour of 40 in 90, + 30 + 30 seconds... 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.

I'd describe that as - Nick spinning for FIDE, again, hit straight for 6 by Stewart for England. Love it!

Nick, as Stewart explained so well - it hasn't been seen recently because rates fluctuate according to popular demand as well as by official supply. Yes, they can go up as well as down, but often there is a long-term trend in a certain direction. Do you deny that the direction has been mainly down, with just the odd blip up?

User avatar
Joey Stewart
Posts: 1860
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:35 pm
Location: All Of Them

Re: Warwick 2015

Post by Joey Stewart » Fri Oct 17, 2014 10:51 am

I wouldn't mind playing here as well, seeing as it is my old uni too, but I really cant be doing with wasting my weekends winning a tournament to get a place - any chance I can just buy my way into the main british instead? (I would probably have a higher rating then at least 50% of the "qualifiers" anyway)
Lose one queen and it is a disaster, Lose 1000 queens and it is just a statistic.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Warwick 2015

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Oct 17, 2014 11:10 am

Joey Stewart wrote: - any chance I can just buy my way into the main british instead? (I would probably have a higher rating then at least 50% of the "qualifiers" anyway)
You would need to push your ECF grade to 218 or your FIDE rating to 2300 (to get an FM title).

It was also possible in 2014 to qualify via the 4NCL. I'm not sure where to find the rules for 2015, but if they are unchanged then it would say
For British Isles FIDE standardplay-rated tournaments or where the player represents a British Isles federation in a FIDE standardplay-rated international event of 9 rounds or more: any player meeting at least 7 FIDE Rated opponents with a Tournament Performance of 2400 (or level 50 points higher than that given in the table above) or higher qualifies. Such qualifiers must notify the Director of Home Chess within 14 days of the completion of the event, with details of opponents and results.
Another route is to be the top seed in the Major Open and hope for an odd number of entries to the British.

Chris Rice
Posts: 3417
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:17 am

Re: Warwick 2015

Post by Chris Rice » Fri Oct 17, 2014 11:42 am

I got the impression from Alex H on the ECF Forum that Joey will be able to buy his way in once the rules are rewritten. Unless I'm reading it incorrectly?

Re: The Major Open: time to say goodbye?

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sat Aug 09, 2014 1:42 am

.... "Tiered entry fees to the British Championships is already on my to-do list for 2015."


http://www.englishchess.org.uk/Forum/vi ... 2&start=40

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 5821
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Warwick 2015

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Fri Oct 17, 2014 12:04 pm

"any chance I can just buy my way into the main british instead?"

I have heard that this used to be a possibility, but probably it wasn't blatantly advertised as such.

Neil Graham
Posts: 1939
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:36 pm

Re: Warwick 2015

Post by Neil Graham » Fri Oct 17, 2014 12:18 pm

Stewart Reuben wrote: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.
Without wishing to prolong a debate about qualifying in the years I was Congress Director, what Stewart says isn't quite correct.

An example : 4 players could qualify for places via the Major Open. Lets say Players A & B qualified as of right and players D, E, F & G finished in a tie for the next two qualifying places with D & E being offered the places on tiebreak.

The qualifying places would be offered to A,B,C & D. If anyone declined the places would be offered to E and then F. Bearing in mind that if someone had played an 11 Round Major, they would often return and play an 11 round British the following year. This is as Stewart described above.

However if A,B,C & D did take up their places, E & F would be added to the "Reserve List." They would be offered places after the Closing Date if nominations hadn't been taken up. For example there were 15 places allocated to the three Unions (1 nominee, plus two further from a nominated Open Swiss tournament organised by the Union). If these 15 places hadn't been taken up at the Closing Date, a person from the Reserve List could be offered a place. So players E & F might be offered a place from the Reserve List if, say, the WECU (substitute any other Union) didn't take up three nominations.

If people really want me to root out "terms and conditions" no doubt I might be able to do so; however I very sensibly threw out reams of paperwork some time ago; after all we are speaking about over 10 years ago.

Neil Graham
Posts: 1939
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:36 pm

Re: Warwick 2015

Post by Neil Graham » Fri Oct 17, 2014 12:24 pm

Kevin Thurlow wrote:"any chance I can just buy my way into the main british instead?"

I have heard that this used to be a possibility, but probably it wasn't blatantly advertised as such.
I have no idea in which era this was "a possibility". Going back again to my watch as Director, the method of qualifying was clearly shown for each entrant who played in the Championship. Least people think these were halcyon days when everything was rosy, they of course weren't.
That's probably enough now from me on the subject.

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 4542
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Warwick 2015

Post by Stewart Reuben » Fri Oct 17, 2014 2:42 pm

Lawrence Cooper once told me that one year he simply entered the British, in the period when I ran the event, although he was not qualified. He did so to see what would happen. His entry was simply accepted.
Should somebody be accepted who makes a donation of £5000 but is otherwise unqualified? Well, I find it hard to be critical of something which, as far as I know, has never happened.
I do remember a quite strong player, who worked for one of the sponsors of the British, making noises about his playing although not qualified. Without thinking I said, 'you have to qualify.' Perhaps I was wrong to do so.
There used to be junior players qualified by selection by the Junior Selectors. In about 1986 I asked them to nominate their 5 juniors. The response was that they didn't know anything about U20s, as they concentrated on U18s. So I made the selections. The following year I introduced the system of qualification by rating/grade.
The ECF practices positive discrimination to attract female players to the British. That went to the vote at the BCF Board and was decided on a casting vote by the then President, Peter Shaw. The propoal was to get 6 females in the tournamrnt. So I introduced the system where females qualified on their rating/grade at a lower level than males. Selection of 6 would have been no good. What about players from the Commonwealth? If the participation of at least 6 females is thought desirable, then the entry qualification should be reviewed. 6 have seldom participated.

Alan Walton
Posts: 1394
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
Location: Oldham

Re: Warwick 2015

Post by Alan Walton » Fri Oct 17, 2014 2:46 pm

When I played the British in 2004 (the last of Neil's), it seemed to me the qualifying rules were quite strict still (reserves accepted when tied in qualifying), this resulted in a reasonable strength championship

I next played in Sheffield, I made an effort to try and qualify (which I did) by playing numerous events. In one round I asked one of my opponents how he qualified, he said he didn't he just rung up a few weeks before and they just let him in (presumably wanting his cash)

For me the dumbing down off the championship has occurred since 2005 (maybe the Douglas excursion scared people), we need to go back to a proper qualifying system which has only a very limited number of available places (say 20) making a Major Open more attractive, or just make it totally open with tier entry fees to discourage entrants (say under 2000 pay £500, under 2100 £400, under 2200 £300, else £200)

Tim Spanton
Posts: 1205
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 11:35 am

Re: Warwick 2015

Post by Tim Spanton » Mon Oct 27, 2014 3:15 pm

Anyone know how much accommodation is? Can't find details on championship site and had no luck emailing the uni.

Tim Spanton
Posts: 1205
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 11:35 am

Re: Warwick 2015

Post by Tim Spanton » Mon Oct 27, 2014 3:49 pm

Am told site will be updated with prices tomorrow

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Warwick 2015

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Dec 05, 2014 4:41 pm

The entry form has now appeared.

http://www.britishchesschampionships.co ... y-Form.pdf

We've discussed the attempts to kill off the Major Open by allowing so many under 2300 players into the British championship. Is there another measure being taken next year? It used to be the rule that the top 4 would qualify for the following year's British if they were eligible. That then became a rule that a score of 7/11 or 6.5 for juniors would suffice. That seems to have disappeared from this year's entry form which just implies that the Major Open ranks alongside other FIDE rated events. The net effect is likely that there will be far more qualifiers from the five round events given the far greater likelihood of ties as against the eleven rounds of Major Open.

There still has been no comment from the ECF as to why they have cut down the playing times from seven hours to five with a later start at 3pm.

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 4542
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Warwick 2015

Post by Stewart Reuben » Mon Dec 08, 2014 1:06 am

Let us discuss Roger's comments sensibly.
Roger's continual harping on about the malevolent intent of chess administrators is rebarbative but, more important, it is boring.
If it was intended to kill off the Major Open, it could have been done by simply not holding the event. If fewer places are offered for a qualifying event, it is probably because it is not thought to be of adequate strength to justify that many qualifiers. An alternative is that it was simply forgotten about.
It is obvious they have changed the playing time from 7 hours to 5 in order to follow the worldwide trend. This has happened bcause the increment of 30 seconds means players use their time more efficiently. Having gone down to a 5 hour session, they have taken the opportunty to have a longer gap between the morning session and the afternoon. This may cause more people to play both sessions. The evening events may be better attended. People who play in the afternoon have slightly more time to do other things in the morning. Some people who like to have a substantial lunch may prefer a 3pm start.

When I started running the congress in 1981 play started at 9am and, I think 2.30pm. I realised that 9am was too early for some people having breakfast in their hotel. So it became 9.30 and 3 (it may have been 2.30). Later I realised that a finish of the session at 8pm made it difficult for the press. So I changed it to 2.15pm. I was thanked for that. For many years now the press has reported the event two days later. so they became irrelevant.

NickFaulks
Posts: 8453
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Warwick 2015

Post by NickFaulks » Mon Dec 08, 2014 2:11 am

Stewart Reuben wrote:
It is obvious they have changed the playing time from 7 hours to 5 in order to follow the worldwide trend.
If true, that is a pathetic reason. I believe it is a widespead view among English players that if they are willing to give up 24 hours of their time per game of chess, they deserve to be granted more than 5 hours to play that game. It makes no sense to criticise FIDE, quite properly, for demeaning Olympiads by reducing games to 5 hours and then to "follow the global trend" in the national championships.
This has happened bcause the increment of 30 seconds means players use their time more efficiently.
We all know you believe that, but that does not make it true - many amateur players find it to be utter garbage. It would be interesting to try an experiment in which players were given the choice between 25 minutes which they could use as they wish, and 30 minutes to be used in the way that Uncle Stewart thinks is best for them. Easy decision in my case.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.

Richard Bates
Posts: 3338
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: Warwick 2015

Post by Richard Bates » Mon Dec 08, 2014 7:46 am

NickFaulks wrote:
Stewart Reuben wrote:
It is obvious they have changed the playing time from 7 hours to 5 in order to follow the worldwide trend.
If true, that is a pathetic reason. I believe it is a widespead view among English players that if they are willing to give up 24 hours of their time per game of chess, they deserve to be granted more than 5 hours to play that game. It makes no sense to criticise FIDE, quite properly, for demeaning Olympiads by reducing games to 5 hours and then to "follow the global trend" in the national championships.
This has happened bcause the increment of 30 seconds means players use their time more efficiently.
We all know you believe that, but that does not make it true - many amateur players find it to be utter garbage. It would be interesting to try an experiment in which players were given the choice between 25 minutes which they could use as they wish, and 30 minutes to be used in the way that Uncle Stewart thinks is best for them. Easy decision in my case.
And anyway, the argument surely only applies to the time spent before the first time control (where the "FIDE" time control steals ten minutes). The idea that the 30 minutes post time control is an adequate substitute for what we used to get for the rest of the game is ridiculous.

"Using time more efficiently" is just a comment on how people use their time (they are forced to move faster because they have to rely on having time in hand for the latter stages of the game for which they have no idea if they will need to go to move 50 or move 150). It says nothing of the quality of moves played.