Proposed British Chess Championship Qualifying Regulations

[Alan Walton]

Jonathan, I can only say it has significantly deteriorated since 2004 where the vast majority were over 2100 with a handful under that, in this I was rated 2207 and on board 15ish in round 1 playing Stewart Haslinger, in this I was on 1.5/5 finishing with 4/11 having and played the following : S Haslinger, T Rendle, R Palliser, D Howell, A Greet, P Sowray, D Ledger, D Spence, G Kafka, S Gregory & R Bryant (all over 2100ish with the exception of Bryant who was unrated at the time)

This was my last British before the foreign tournament pull took effect, the only British which I have entered since was Sheffield but this was a one-off due to the large sponsorship deal and the tail was proportionally smaller due to the high entry of 2250+ players, in fact I was about 2180 and in the bottom half again

[IM Jack Rudd]

A rejuvenated Major Open would provide that tournament (as it used to in the late 1980s when I first started playing).

Whether I or others would return given the availability of cheap foreign tournaments is another question.

That's the real issue. The Major Open is a throwback to an era when long tournaments were few and far between, and people would play in it because there wasn't any other tournament of that sort open to them. Nowadays it has to compete with many other tournaments, and it compares unfavourably to most Opens of its nature.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Jonathan, I can only say it has significantly deteriorated since 2004 ....

I’ve no doubt at all that’s true.


Talking about ratings, one possible snag with having elo as a qualifying mark is that for some parts of the country there seems to be systematic under-rating.
One way of countering that is by using ECF grade as a qualifying mark as well/instead of Elo. I suspect in London and South East, ECF Grade is much more representative of a junior’s strength than Elo. That’s probably true for many/most grown-ups too.

[Alan Walton]

Jonathan, the problem is using ECF grades is that the FIDE rating is used for the norms; it is really up to the ECF to incentivise tournaments to become FIDE rated to people's ratings are more realistic

[Roger de Coverly]

My answer will be that removing the tail would theoretically bring the 2200-2400 players back in to tournament (I am one of these); these are the players predominantly seeking norms and the magical 2300 rating for FM

Culling almost all the players under 2150 is likely to leave a rather large funding gap, both because they pay a higher entry fee and because there are a lot more potential entries of that standard than there are of 2200-2400 players.

This year's field will be a test case, as supposedly the previous two week format discouraged such players.

For players in FIDE rated weekend tournaments, it will no longer be enough to have one decent result to qualify for the British. Rather it looks as if entering all known tournaments and scoring respectably might be enough.

Large home counties events such as St Albans and Kidlington or Midlands events such as Warwickshire which don't have Friday evening rounds are now permanently excluded from offering British Championship places, or at least until FIDE allows unrestricted rating of three or three and a half hour games.

[David Shepherd]

Jonathan, the problem is using ECF grades is that the FIDE rating is used for the norms; it is really up to the ECF to incentivise tournaments to become FIDE rated to people's ratings are more realistic

Whilst this is true at least to some extent - there is still an issue in the short term where significant numbers of lower rated players do not have FIDE ratings (but this is improving slowly).

For players with FIDE rating in the range 1800-2050 it is very easy to lose rating points in tournaments by losing to higher rated players and beating unrated players. So for example in the rapidplay at the London chess classic I scored 5.5/10 and lost 16 rating points based on a score of 3.5/8 against rated players .

[Roger de Coverly]

First, a minor one: if FMs have to be over 2300 (eg, "proper FMs"!), shouldn't IMs too have to have some minimum rating, even if a lower one (such as 2250 or 2200)? Nowadays the title is not regarded as such an achievement that it should qualify one for life, eg when forty years past his peak and below, say, 2250. (While they have previously reached a higher peak than FMs, they will also have declined much more by the time of the event in question!).

For Norms, there have to be a minimum number of titled (IM,GM) players in the field. From this viewpoint, a 2250 IM counts the same as a 2499 IM and imposes less testing opposition on the Norm seeker.

[JustinHorton]

Out of interest, why lose the 2350 qualification? Redundancy?

[Roger de Coverly]

Out of interest, why lose the 2350 qualification? Redundancy?

It looks as if qualification using a national rating or grade is being removed. Anyone with a FIDE rating over 2300 can apply for an FM title and qualify that way.

[Simon Brown]

Hmmmm.

I'm not necessarily convinced that the 2200-2400 players are, in general, there to be brought back. They aren't playing the British, but they also aren't playing many other tournaments of this type either.

If I was to start playing again, and assuming that with some work I could get close to my strength when I stopped (2325), the "old" British wouldn't come into my thoughts, but the "new" British certainly would. If it was somewhere nice.

[Jonathan Rogers]

First, a minor one: if FMs have to be over 2300 (eg, "proper FMs"!), shouldn't IMs too have to have some minimum rating, even if a lower one (such as 2250 or 2200)? Nowadays the title is not regarded as such an achievement that it should qualify one for life, eg when forty years past his peak and below, say, 2250. (While they have previously reached a higher peak than FMs, they will also have declined much more by the time of the event in question!).

For Norms, there have to be a minimum number of titled (IM,GM) players in the field. From this viewpoint, a 2250 IM counts the same as a 2499 IM and imposes less testing opposition on the Norm seeker.

If that were the reasoning, all FMs would be permitted too, since they count towards the 50% of titled opponents rule for norm seekers.

But surely, the "all IMs proposal" has nothing to do with helping norm seekers. Under this vision of the British, the majority of the field, as opposed to the 25% minority, would be titled players. Rather, it is there because they have simply cut and pasted this rule without really thinking about it.

[NickFaulks]

it is really up to the ECF to incentivise tournaments to become FIDE rated to people's ratings are more realistic

This is of course an old and tedious subject, but if they were simply willing to stop disincentivising them so heavily, that would be a start.

[Roger de Coverly]

If that were the reasoning, all FMs would be permitted too, since they count towards the 50% of titled opponents rule for norm seekers.

You have to watch the eligibility for the Major Open. Perhaps the only one of these is, or used to be, "not eligible for the British Championship". If 2100 FMs were eligible for the Championship, that has the effect of barring them from the Major Open.

[Roger de Coverly]

but one example is that Blackpool would currently lose their qualifying place if they don't become FIDE rated again

In the context of the parallel thread about who should have votes, is it likely that this proposal on the British will be put to the vote at the April Council meeting? The representatives of Blackpool, Scarborough and other non-FIDE rated Congresses may feel vexed at losing their British Championship spot.

[Jonathan Rogers]

(To Roger) Well, maybe 2100 IMs would want to play the Major Open too! You are not demonstrating why a minimum rating is needed for FMs but not for IMs. Granted, you would expect FMs to be more likely to go further down the list as they decline, but that is a rule of thumb; the difference between FMs and IMs is not such that all IMs should play regardless of the extent of their decline.