2nd Bournemouth Grand Chess Congress: 26-28 April 2013

[Chris Rice]

As part of the organising team I feel deflated to say the least! I still can't quite believe that somehow we ended up with 3 players on the top two boards who had no interest in fighting for a first prize of £1000. What's to be done? Should we be aiming to offer a first prize of 2K? 3?

Probably the opposite. I would have thought that large prizes would encourage players to halve out to ensure a decent prize, whereas this would be less likely to happen with smaller prizes, where an all or nothing approach is more likely to be followed.

Spot on Ian, the Dubai Open had a $50,000 prize fund which didn't prevent 7 of the top 9 boards in the final round ending in draws. The organisers had a rule that you couldn't offer a draw before move 30 which didn't help any, the top board was a 31 move draw. The only reasonable successful way I think of getting a winner would have been to have Armageddon games at the end to split the money. Players would no doubt be against the idea of a worry free last round but the spectators and TV would have lapped it up. In the Bournemouth case though I would have let Roger and the other guy keep their deserved British Championship places before subjecting them to the torture of the Armageddon finish.

[James Pratt]

I did wonder whether the drop from first to second prize was a bit much.

On a more serious note, what about applying the Victorian housekeeping system 'you sit there til you eat it!'? Thus strongplayers should have to play the same opponent in the next round, from the same position they had agreed drawn, until a positive result is reached.

Simples.

[Roger de Coverly]

Thus strongplayers should have to play the same opponent in the next round, from the same position they had agreed drawn, until a positive result is reached.

I'm not sure what is meant by a positive result, but the game of chess is basically drawn. The problem wasn't the distribution of prize money, but that the Congress was a qualification step for another event and it was perceived that a draw would qualify both of us.

At Exeter, last month, I faced the same opponent on the top board in the last round but with Black. With only the prize money at stake, it was apparent from the opening that no early draws would be on the table.

[Sean Hewitt]

But where were all the GMs when there was this £1000 first prize on offer?

The organisers were applying what one of them described as poker rules. So to have a shot at the prize, it was necessary to stake the entry fee, travel and accommodation costs. For whatever reason the tournament turned out to be shark city for the top players.

Poker rules is a really good way of describing the decision. Clearly, most decided that the pot odds were not sufficiently in their favour.

As always with these things, you have to decide what you want to achieve. If that is a barrel load of GMs playing fighting chess, then a large first prize ain't gonna do it.

[Roger de Coverly]

Clearly, most decided that the pot odds were not sufficiently in their favour.

That's arguably where British chess has gone soft in the last twenty years. Twenty years ago or more, a large prize fund would have Mickey Adams and Julian Hodgson turn up to contest it, with their round 4 or 5 encounter contributing to the theory of the Trompovsky. Forty years ago, the enhanced prize funds supported by the massive events of the 1970s enabled players like Tony Miles and his contemporaries to try to make a living from chess and playing chess in particular. The outcome was a team that could hold the Soviet Union by the end of the decade.

[Jon Wells]

Congratulations Roger on your qualification to the British, securing a quick draw in the circumstances, from your point of view, was quite logical.

The irony of the situation, "but that the Congress was a qualification step for another event and it was perceived that a draw would qualify both of us", was that your opponent had already qualified for the British following his performance at the e2e4 Torquay event in February.

I must confess, after reading the qualification rules, I am unsure why 3 qualifiers are shown for this event, rather than just the player with the best "SPS", but it is recorded on the ECF website.

[Roger de Coverly]

The irony of the situation, "but that the Congress was a qualification step for another event and it was perceived that a draw would qualify both of us", was that your opponent had already qualified for the British following his performance at the e2e4 Torquay event in February.

I think this was unknown to both of us and the organisers for that matter. The other players with 4 are either not eligible or are IM/FM. This on the face of it would award the remaining place to one of the players on 3.5, or all of them on the Torquay e2e4 precedent.

[Sean Hewitt]

The tie break rule for the British was changed this year. SPS is not used in the case where the tied players scored 60% or more. In such a situation, all tied players qualify.