British Championship Congress 2017

[LawrenceCooper]

how did Michael Rahal, who as far as I know only played once in England (Lloyds Nank Masters 1994), become ENG on the FIDE list?

Maybe because he was born in England (Aldershot) https://translate.google.co.uk/translat ... rev=search

[JustinHorton]

Just asking - do we normally do the BCF in this particular sub-forum?

Yes, this did occur to me as well.......

2016 was in General (as was the previous year).

[NickFaulks]

Steven Jones is today's victim of the Swiss Manager pairing system.

[Adam Raoof]

Steven Jones is today's victim of the Swiss Manager pairing system.

There is no "Swiss Manager pairing system"! Do you mean the Swiss System or has the draw been created manually?

[Christopher Kreuzer]

how did Michael Rahal, who as far as I know only played once in England (Lloyds Nank Masters 1994), become ENG on the FIDE list? Stewart Reuben once said on this forum that he would mail him to find out, but I don't believe that a satisfactory answer was ever reported back.

An excellent question.
His first three appearances on FIDE lists (July 1992, January 1993, July 1993) have him as ESP (Spain). From January 1994 on he appears as ENG.

That's really useful information. I had Rahal listed here:

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=2165

But I didn't have a note about him switching from ESP to ENG. I wonder if there are any other federation transfers not noted yet in that list (of British Isles titles achieved between 1950 and 2010)?

Am still not sure if this later list (of titles achieved since 2010) is up-to-date now or not:

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=6531

I think some of the update are on later pages in that thread, so the main listing (last edited 05/01/2015) needs updating. The updates are there, just not edited into the listing yet...

Might be a good point to speculate on which players are most likely to, or need to get, various norms from these Championships (or indeed rating increases to gain rating conditional titles)?

[Alan Walton]

Steven Jones is today's victim of the Swiss Manager pairing system.

It looks like the "non-English" pairing system they are using

Lower down Elliot Cocks is playing Ravi Haria, it would have been Michael Ashworth, but since Elliot had already played Daniel Gallagher he was moved down

I prefer this methodology of down-floating since it doing exactly what it sets out to acheive, trying to get rid of the outlier on the higher score pairing against the strongest below; if anything it also has an indirect affect on his average rating helping norm chances as well

[Roger de Coverly]

There is no "Swiss Manager pairing system"! Do you mean the Swiss System or has the draw been created manually?

I suppose he means the system endorsed by FIDE which floats the highest rated player in a lower score group to face the lowest rated player in a higher score group. But then Swiss systems do this even within the same score group. Beat a higher rated player and you might get an even higher rated player next round.

[Roger de Coverly]

Might be a good point to speculate on which players are most likely to, or need to get, various norms from these Championships (or indeed rating increases to gain rating conditional titles)?

James Adair is only a handful of rating points away from the GM title.

According to his father, William Claridge-Hansen has left school and is intending to take a gap year as a Norm seeker.

[NickFaulks]

There is no "Swiss Manager pairing system"! Do you mean the Swiss System or has the draw been created manually?

I mean the version of the Swiss System applied by Swiss Manager. In early rounds, this produces games where the rating difference is fairly standard, except where there are floats and the difference is typically doubled.

[Alan Walton]

James Adair is only a handful of rating points away from the GM title

It looks like he needs 19 points to get over 2500; if he wins today I suspect he needs another 10 or so ratings points

With K=10; 6 draws against higher rated players may get him these points; but it is more likely he will need a couple of 2500+ wins to make it a certainty (he can be virtually over which may help his cause)

20 points to gain with k=10 is quite a large number, especially when already at 2481; most probably that would be a GM norm

[Roger de Coverly]

It looks like he needs 19 points to get over 2500; if he wins today I suspect he needs another 10 or so ratings points

He scored 4.5/5 at the 4NCL Congress at Wokefield Park, earlier in July. I don't know whether that gained him any points.

[Alan Walton]

It looks like he needs 19 points to get over 2500; if he wins today I suspect he needs another 10 or so ratings points

He scored 4.5/5 at the 4NCL Congress at Wokefield Park, earlier in July. I don't know whether that gained him any points.

Looking at his results there; wins against 2017, 2125, 1776, 2267 and a draw against 2391; without actually checking I suspect the first 3 wins gain him about 3 points, and possibly counteract the draw, so he would be holding about 4/5 points max

So my early prediction is pretty similar

[Paul Cooksey]

I guess his plan was to clear out the rust.

Do we know if he definitely only needs the rating? I'm not sure how norms get approved - in advance or at the time of the application

[Roger de Coverly]

Do we know if he definitely only needs the rating? I'm not sure how norms get approved - in advance or at the time of the application

The 4NCL seemed to think it was only a matter of rating.

https://twitter.com/4NCL/status/726732898729123840

I believe you can apply for a title conditional on rating, but not essential. There's some form of deadline for recording Norms with FIDE. You may recall Lawrence Cooper hunting down all the Norm results from many years ago.

[NickFaulks]

I prefer this methodology of down-floating since it doing exactly what it sets out to acheive, trying to get rid of the outlier on the higher score pairing against the strongest below

I don't think it is the job of the Swiss System to single out one individual who is outperforming ( half the time, when there is an odd-numbered group ) and try to "get rid of" them. Nor to single out one conspicuous underperformer and try to give them a free point. If that is really what you want, then do it properly and accelerate.