British Championships size/format

[David Shepherd]

As there is a consultation in progress over detailed qualification rules for the British Championship, I thought it might be interesting to have a poll for the preferred size/format of the Championship.

[Michael Farthing]

There isn't a box for 'None of the Above'

[I'm only semi-joking. The problem with this sort of poll is that some options provoke questions. Is a 'separate ladies championship' meaning that ladies entering a separate champonship cannot play in the British? Or do they have to play two games a day? Or do they attend a diferent congress to get a ladies title? And how do I vote to positively oppose it? Anyway, as a male, should I vote at all? And how can I put my vote for a separate Gentlemen's Championship? (That last bit is a joke and, anyway, I'm no gentleman)].

[NickFaulks]

The problem with this sort of poll is that some options provoke questions.

Knockout is certainly ill-defined. All comers, or 2^n invitees, or perhaps GMs seeded into the third round, like the FA Cup? I don't suppose it will get many votes, anyway.

[David Shepherd]

I just added knockout as an option for completeness but not anticipating many votes for that either I thought it would mainly be interesting to see what level of support there would be for an all play all (probably combined with a strong second tournament - similar to the London Chess Classic setup), or alternatively just an open tournament. Also I tried to keep it simple but for example with an U21 championship and an all play all main Championship, the U21 Championship would probably have a qualifying place for the main Championship in the following year.

[Kevin Thurlow]

Aren't you supposed to say "women's" instead of "ladies" nowadays, not that I'm a fan of "political correctness"?

[Mike Truran]

It's all very well voting for an APA, but it would be helpful to hear from those voting in favour as to how they think it would be funded.

[Mark Ashley]

It's all very well voting for an APA, but it would be helpful to hear from those voting in favour as to how they think it would be funded.

I voted for an all play all because i want to see the best of the best in Britain duking it out for the British title, and a Swiss format (for me) doesnt give me that same feeling - maybe because as a low end club player, i only play in swiss events and all play alls are what i associated the best players in the world being invited to. Also (at least in my mind, and may not be backed by any evidence) there is always the feeling that a player could get a favourable draw in a swiss event.

Havent a clue what options there are for funding or how much it will most likely cost. Happy to make suggestions if i know the latter.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Swisses are usually very good at deciding first place and last place, and get progressively worse at sorting as you get towards the middle.

[David Shepherd]

It's all very well voting for an APA, but it would be helpful to hear from those voting in favour as to how they think it would be funded.

I guess in the same way as any other tournament involving top players, so by sponsorship and being subsidised by other tournaments/players. So for example if there are say 10 players, five players could get invites with the remainder being qualifying places which could be used to generate money and encourage players to enter other tournaments at the British/elsewhere which could offer the qualifying places. These qualifying tournaments could in turn be subject to qualifying conditions, I have no idea if it would work as a model, but I suspect sponsorship would be the key.

One of the problems with the all play all format is that some players will enter the main British as it gives them a good chance of playing a number of the top players. With those players in their own tournament any second tournament is likely to be significantly weaker and so less attractive and not so likely to raise the same level of entry fees.

I am not surprised that all play all is ahead, as many people that post on the forum will watch the games on the internet and an all play all should produce the strongest games and most interest. However even if the vote is strongly in favour of all play al, it doesn't mean it is the best solution as this would need to be a balance of what spectators, players and sponsors want, and as Mike correctly points out, take into account the economics of the situation. As a whole though I think the poll might give a useful insight into peoples views over the balance of the tournament between smaller and stronger compared to larger/open.

[Mike Truran]

Havent a clue what options there are for funding or how much it will most likely cost. Happy to make suggestions if i know the latter.

The prize fund for December's British Knockout Championship (presumably a less onerous event than an APA British Championship for most of the players) was £50,000.

I look forward to your suggestions!

[Paul Cooksey]

Can I vote for a match?

I'd like defending champion vs winner from a Swiss held in parallel the previous year (or top two if the champion abdicates). The Swiss would be more or less the same format as now.

I think it has the advantage of minimising cost for a blue riband event necessary for press coverage and to attract people to the festival without making the Swiss much less attractive for the people who enter today.

The way the ECF measures success - number of entries - suggests that having a big festival where people get together is as much part of the strategy as determining a legitimate winner. I don't think I've ever seen that stated explicitly, but I'd support it.

[David Shepherd]

Oh dear I just added match and I seem to have removed all the votes - I'm not touching it again , sorry everyone

[Roger de Coverly]

I'd like defending champion vs winner from a Swiss held in parallel the previous year (or top two if the champion abdicates). The Swiss would be more or less the same format as now.

At the risk of having the winner(s) of the Open not qualified to take part in the match for the Championship, you could then amalgamate the Swiss with the Major Open and abolish the need for qualification.

[Paul Cooksey]

I was in two minds between an open Swiss with highest eligible player qualifying and a restricted entry Swiss, but thought the latter probably more attractive to people who wouldn't realistically have any chance of winning a match vs Adams but are prepared to enter and pay a premium entry because they believe they are entering a special event compared to the dozens of other Swisses in Europe in the summer.

I'm not sure if British qualification incentivises anyone to enter the qualifying events any more. If it didn't I wouldn't see the point. But if it did, there would be a reason to keep it.

[E Michael White]

I think arbiters should have to qualify to arbit the British. The qualification could be:-

a) rules and laws swiss quiz supervised by players who know the rules, none of this level X stuff
b) metabolism test - able to survive 4 hours without munching biscuits
c) able to drink tea quietly
d) able to walk up and down an average tournament hall a specific number of times without moaning or groaning.
e) awkward or pompous arbiters should have to pay a bond at the beginning of the tournament, returnable on good behaviour.
f) arbiters must not carry dinner menus into the playing venue.