Proposed British Chess Championship Qualifying Regulations

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Guernsey was won by a Swede, followed by a Frenchman, so surely it is reasonable for English players finishing equal third to qualify?<

That Is totally unreasonable. If there is a rule of that type, it should state: 'The highest ranked player eligible to play in the British Championship qualifies.' The player may be ENG, SCO, WLS, IRE, GUE, JER or be resident in the British Isles or resident in one of those areas, for the required period, or be born there, but now be registered for another federation.
Moreover i think it would be ludicrous in that situation for all players finishig equal third to qualify."

Well, yes. I only used English as the three equal players were all ENG, and the current rules seem to allow all to qualify. I think one might have been qualified already. I would be quite happy for only the winner of the tie-break to qualify.

[Nick Grey]

On new proposals against current.
Current I think excellent that old players as well as young can qualify from one excellent result. It was also what some of us aspired to achieve as reasonable expectation into old age and when children grew up and left home. Looking forward to seeing those older and younger players taking up their option in 2017.

Moving significantly away from this may have some unforeseen consequences so suggest elaborate in your responses.

Moving goal-posts are fine but ECF may want to consider that the Football Association's biggest, longest history, football tournament the FA Cup has 2 non-league teams in the last 16 for the first time in 120 years. Whether this is good or bad? Or is it a consequence of top teams playing their reserves

Hopefully ECF have e-mailed all titled players and old titled players for their views if they are current ECF members.

I cannot see atm how if there is an alternative tournament offer - such as Major Open - they will make it as attractive as playing in an Open tournament such as London Chess Classic.

[Stewart Reuben]

Nick Grey >Current I think excellent that old players as well as young can qualify from one excellent result.<

That is true, for all players. But the system was made easier so an excellent result was not needed. Thus having a rule, allowing EVERYNODY in the tiebreak to qualify, was dumbing down and anti-chess. If EVEYBODY in the tournament fiished with 50%, then they would ALL have qualified.

[Alan Atkinson]

So I qualify if I win a FIDE rated Open with 20 players in it?
How widely do I have to advertise my FIDE Open?

A low first prize, some way from anywhere, and anyone is in!

[Roger de Coverly]

So I qualify if I win a FIDE rated Open with 20 players in it?

You may not even have to win, just finish at least equal to the best of the non-qualified players, if you score 3.5 or better. If your sum of progressive scores is the best on that score group, 3 from 5 will do, which may even include a half point bye.

How widely do I have to advertise my FIDE Open?

You just need to attract 20 entrants. Being FIDE rated means you have to tell the ECF about it before it takes place, so it's likely to make it to the calendar on the website. The 20 entrant stipulation is a crack down within the last couple of years. When first introduced, there were no headcount restrictions. CCF ran one with about 8 players.

The problem of the dilution of the standard of players in the British Championship is one entirely of the ECF's recent making. I feel it unfair on Congresses that those who have offered qualifying places since the 1980s should have these removed. Congresses (currently) have voices on the ECF Council. Will those affected be raising their voices in April, assuming they are granted the opportunity?

[David Sedgwick]

So I qualify if I win a FIDE rated Open with 20 players in it?
How widely do I have to advertise my FIDE Open?

A low first prize, some way from anywhere, and anyone is in!

Organising a five round FIDE Rated Open Swiss, attracting 20 players to it, and complying with all the requisite FIDE and ECF Regulations, is far from being the trivial task which you make it sound.

If it were that straightforward, surely the Open section at the Thanet Congress would have been FIDE rated for years.

[David Sedgwick]

The problem of the dilution of the standard of players in the British Championship is one entirely of the ECF's recent making. I feel it unfair on Congresses that those who have offered qualifying places since the 1980s should have these removed. Congresses (currently) have voices on the ECF Council. Will those affected be raising their voices in April, assuming they are granted the opportunity?

They won't be granted the opportunity, unless some requisitionists insist on it.

As with the reduction in the length of the British Championship and of the Congress, the powers that be consider this to be an "operational" matter regarding which they feel no inclination to seek the opinion of Council.

[NickFaulks]

If it were that straightforward, surely the Open section at the Thanet Congress would have been FIDE rated for years.

I expect there are other reasons for that, one being that all entrants would have to pay through the nose for a higher level of ECF membership.

[David Sedgwick]

If it were that straightforward, surely the Open section at the Thanet Congress would have been FIDE rated for years.

I expect there are other reasons for that, one being that all entrants would have to pay through the nose for a higher level of ECF membership.

In response to that comment I have made a minor amendment to my post.

[Richard Bates]

Are the proposed regulations attempting to make a claim about the respective strength's of FIDE rated and non-FIDE rated events? Because I doubt there is really any reason to think that FIDE rating a tournament increases the strength as a result. If there is any pattern of increased strength it is likely more that FIDE rated tournaments are more likely to offer free entry to titled players at a minimum, and maybe conditions for stronger players to play. Which suggests that this is more to do with the general trend towards trying to promote FIDE rating over ECF grading, which I would argue would be a misuse of the qualifying system if so, especially in the context that the "reforms" are being proposed.

[Roger de Coverly]

Because I doubt there is really any reason to think that FIDE rating a tournament increases the strength as a result. If there is any pattern of increased strength it is likely more that FIDE rated tournaments are more likely to offer free entry to titled players at a minimum, and maybe conditions for stronger players to play.

Titled players will already be qualified. Five round tournaments with titled players taking the top 3 prizes are likely to have qualifiers on 3.5 or 3.

[Alan Atkinson]

Regarding the Thanet : a change, for it to become a FIDE rated event, was briefly considered a few years ago: we could not certainly do it then because we would be reliant upon being able to find the required qualified arbiters : there are none in Thanet; [I am going through the process now, but it has taken over a year, has involved some cost, and is not yet complete. And if/when I do become a FA, we would still need another because all arbiters need to be at least FIDE Licensed, and we should have a reserve "just in case".]

And yes, ideally the competitors would all have gold membership, but in fact the Open section tends to have only a few players without that membership class. So having the general Congress circuit become FIDE rated might well be of benefit to the ECF, as players will have to pay more for their annual membership.

Are people being too cynical to imagine that was a planned intention?!

AA

[NickFaulks]

I am going through the process now, but it has taken over a year, has involved some cost, and is not yet complete.

Just for clarity, this process is an ECF requirement ( I'm not commenting on whether it's a good one ), rather than something FIDE demands.

[Michael Flatt]

... we would be reliant upon being able to find the required qualified arbiters : there are none in Thanet; [I am going through the process now, but it has taken over a year, has involved some cost, and is not yet complete. And if/when I do become a FA, we would still need another because all arbiters need to be at least FIDE Licensed, and we should have a reserve "just in case".]

Alan, don't forget FIDE licensed arbiters also include National Arbiters (NA). Anyone who has passed the ECF or FIDE arbiter exam can become FIDE licensed by applying to the ECF Manager of Arbiters (International) and paying the appropriate registration fee to the ECF.

Incidentally, your award of ECF level 2 does not appear in the re-issued list of ECF Arbiters (10-jan-2017). The list seems to have gone through a major tidying up and some other names may have been removed accidentally.

Update: I've just rechecked the ECF Arbiter list and it looks as though it has been updated again, although there is no issue date given in the pdf document itself and the ECF web page still shows the original date. What was 2 pages has expanded to 4 pages.

[Alan Atkinson]

My Level 2 Arbiter Level status was removed quite deliberately: however, if I was to ask Alex H nicely, he could write up the 4NCL Individual Rapidplay and the 4NCL Team Rapidplay events that I assisted at in 2016 and then if two out of Alex, Laura B and Geoff G were to agree, I might apply to get my Level 2 status reinstated.

I am hopeful of becoming a FA soon, so that takes me to Level 3 so there should, all being well, be no need to trouble them.

However, I do worry that in this Brave New system there are so very few Arbiter Assessors: I set out to be an arbiter because of the changes in the pipeline which would adversely affect chess in Thanet and East Kent generally. Now we will have to get Assessors to come along here if we want any more arbiters. Have any of them been to any Congresses in East Kent since the British was held in Canterbury in 2010? I doubt it, but would be happy to be proved wrong. It is not their fault, there's just not enough of them.

And I do believe that we, the chess playing community, have to look after and encourage volunteers: granted, we certainly do not want rubbish ones, but if the first thing I have to say to any volunteer is "Pay for that course, pass the test, then pay a further £20 to become a Licensed National Arbiter" I can probably guess the general gist of most people's answers.