October 2015 FIDE rating list

[Michael Farthing]

Nick appears to be referring to this regulation from http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html? ... ew=article

1.45
Titles of Opponents – see 1.7 for exact numbers.
1.45a At least 50% of the opponents shall be title-holders (TH) as in 0.31, excluding CM and WCM.
1.45b For a GM norm, at least 1/3 with a minimum 3 of the opponents (MO) must be GMs.
1.45c For an IM norm, at least 1/3 with a minimum 3 of the opponents (MO) must be IMs or GMs.
1.45d For a WGM norm, at least 1/3 with a minimum 3 of the opponents (MO) must be WGMs, IMs or GMs.
1.45e For a WIM norm, at least 1/3 with a minimum 3 of the opponents (MO) must be WIMs, WGMs, IMs or GMs.
1.45f Double round robin tournaments need a minimum of 6 players. An opponent’s title as in 1.45b – 1.45e shall be counted only once.

The tournament was a double round of 8 players, so 14 games in all.

Only three IMs participated. The sting in the tail is 1.45f, allowing IMs to only be counted once.

The drafting is somewhat contradictory, as 1.45a implies you need 7 IMs for 14 games, whilst 1.45c implies you need 5.

Not my reading of this Roger.
Surely 1.45a says that you need 7 WIM,WGM,IM or GMs and 1.45b that you need 5 IM or GMs? Indeed, on closer inspection 1.45a perhaps only requires 4 title holders because it is excluded from the double round bit of 1.45f!

1.45f does seem odd - is it really saying that at least 2/3rd of the players in a round robin must hold the title a player is seeking?
[Edit: that should be 'almost' not 'at least']

[LawrenceCooper]

Nick appears to be referring to this regulation from http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html? ... ew=article

1.45
Titles of Opponents – see 1.7 for exact numbers.
1.45a At least 50% of the opponents shall be title-holders (TH) as in 0.31, excluding CM and WCM.
1.45b For a GM norm, at least 1/3 with a minimum 3 of the opponents (MO) must be GMs.
1.45c For an IM norm, at least 1/3 with a minimum 3 of the opponents (MO) must be IMs or GMs.
1.45d For a WGM norm, at least 1/3 with a minimum 3 of the opponents (MO) must be WGMs, IMs or GMs.
1.45e For a WIM norm, at least 1/3 with a minimum 3 of the opponents (MO) must be WIMs, WGMs, IMs or GMs.
1.45f Double round robin tournaments need a minimum of 6 players. An opponent’s title as in 1.45b – 1.45e shall be counted only once.

The tournament was a double round of 8 players, so 14 games in all.

Only three IMs participated. The sting in the tail is 1.45f, allowing IMs to only be counted once.

The drafting is somewhat contradictory, as 1.45a implies you need 7 IMs for 14 games, whilst 1.45c implies you need 5.

Not my reading of this Roger.
Surely 1.45a says that you need 7 WIM,WGM,IM or GMs and 1.45b that you need 5 IM or GMs? Indeed, on closer inspection 1.45a perhaps only requires 4 title holders because it is excluded from the double round bit of 1.45f!

1.45f does seem odd - is it really saying that at least 2/3rd of the players in a round robin must hold the title a player is seeking?
[Edit: that should be 'almost' not 'at least']

FMs and WFMs can also be counted as part of the 50%.

[Roger de Coverly]

1.45f does seem odd - is it really saying that at least 2/3rd of the players in a round robin must hold the title a player is seeking?
[Edit: that should be 'almost' not 'at least']

The implication is that if you run a double round tournament with 8 players, that IM Norms are available for the non-IMs only if you have a field of 5 IMs and 3 FMs ( or WIMs/WFMs) . If you ran a single round tournament of 8, no Norms would be available as with the occasional exception, 9 games is the minimum.

Other than it's what the Rules say, why does FIDE choose to outlaw the format used by the Hungarian organisers?

[NickFaulks]

Other than it's what the Rules say, why does FIDE choose to outlaw the format used by the Hungarian organisers?

The Regulations were changed for a reason. This was a draconian response to some serious abuses of the format in other places - it was a long time ago, but if I remember correctly some of there were noted on this forum, with the suggestion that FIDE should do something about it. You are quite right that a format which is in principle desirable has effectively been outlawed for norm purposes, and I agree this a shame. However, proving and dealing with abuse is always very difficult, and it was felt that the problem needed urgent attention.

[Mick Norris]

Is there an issue with the norm itself?

Yes, it falls foul of 1.45f.

Whilst I'm not involved with the federation so it's not really my place to get involved, do you know if the norm was sent to FIDE and rejected? I'm concerned the player may believe he has a norm and no one has told him otherwise. It also concerns me that players could be paying a chunky entry fee believing a norm is possible when it isn't.

If you can tell me in layman terms why it's not valid I'll pass on the unwelcome news.

I've emailed Joseph's Dad, who tells me they are waiting for FIDE to sort out his FM title, and someone else is contacting Joe directly

[NickFaulks]

I've emailed Joseph's Dad, who tells me they are waiting for FIDE to sort out his FM title

Direct titles based on rating are generally turned round very quickly. Of course, he did only get the rating yesterday!

[Neville Belinfante]

The discussions about norm regulations - interesting though they are - are off topic in this thread.

Back on topic - Daniel Fernandez is in the top 100 Juniors List, and Ravi is only 5 points off number 100. Akshaya is in the top 100 Girls list, and has been since the British. Does anyone recall the last English girl before Akshaya to make the top 100 Girls list?

[NickFaulks]

Does anyone recall the last English girl before Akshaya to make the top 100 Girls list?

This list has only been prblished since 2012, so some digging is required.

Harriet Hunt hit 2400 in 1998, which would have put her in 6th place. In the October 2000 list, Ruth Sheldon was 2301 and Jovanka 2300, putting them 21st and 22nd. In 2002 Melanie Buckley and Sophie Tidman would have been at the lower end of the top 100. Since then there's been a bit of a drought.

[NickFaulks]

I missed one, Teresa Khoo in 2001. Perhaps also Rosalind Kieran and Iva Anguelov in 2000. Was there some golden age of English girls' chess going on? Finally ( because I've other things to do ) Sabrina may have crept into the top 100 in 2005.

Edit : Must correct one big error. I was thinking that Anya Corke was always Hong Kong as a junior, but she was ENG by 2010, and rated 2257, so well up the top 100.

[Roger de Coverly]

Was there some golden age of English girls' chess going on?

The 4NCL from 1993 onwards gave a competitive advantage to teams with strong female players.

Heather Richards, now AUS, played in the Olympiad for ENG when under 20, so is also a likely contender for having been in the top 100.

[NickFaulks]

Heather Richards, now AUS, played in the Olympiad for ENG when under 20, so is also a likely contender for having been in the top 100.

Good point, 2275 in 2002, good for top 50.

[LawrenceCooper]

Heather Richards, now AUS, played in the Olympiad for ENG when under 20, so is also a likely contender for having been in the top 100.

Good point, 2275 in 2002, good for top 50.

Jessie Gilbert probably, although I'm not sure if her rating records are still available.

[Barry Sandercock]

First tie break game looks like a draw, opposite colour bishop ending.

[Barry Sandercock]

Sorry, wrong thread.

[NickFaulks]

Sorry, wrong thread.

Also wrong interpretation!