British Championship 2017

[benedgell]

Presumably this means the board's planned extra expenditure for the British will be lower?

"Despite the support from the PIF and the JRT, it is increasingly difficult, particularly for events where there is not a free venue available, to produce a balanced budget while offering some conditions to titled players without increasing entry fees to a level that will discourage participation. The Board has approved additional expenditure of £5,000 for the 2016 event in Bournemouth (which falls within the 2015/16 financial year) to support the running of the event: the budget for 2016/17 envisages a similar contribution."

[NickFaulks]

reducing the tournament to nine rounds may have the unwanted side-effect of making the tournament less attractive to norm seekers

That is a very good point. The next idea will be accelerated pairings, and downhill from there...

[Jonathan Bryant]

This is the first change to the British Championship format in, what, 75 years? More?

The ECF’s twitter feed announcement of the news is not overwhelming.



https://twitter.com/ecfchess/status/728201393253826560

[Roger de Coverly]

This is the first change to the British Championship format in, what, 75 years? More?

It was 1949 when they switched from all play all to Swiss and over a period between about 1975 and 1985 when the number of entries was no longer restricted to around 32. It used to be an eleven player all play all, so that fits in with a traditional British holiday period of two weeks Saturday to Saturday with no play on Sundays.

[Jonathan Bryant]

This is the first change to the British Championship format in, what, 75 years? More?

It was 1949 when they switched from all play all to Swiss and over a period between about 1975 and 1985 when the number of entries was no longer restricted to around 32. It used to be an eleven player all play all, so that fits in with a traditional British holiday period of two weeks Saturday to Saturday with no play on Sundays.

Thanks. I'd misremembered the change happening pre-war. Still 67 years is quite a long time to go without changing the format.


You might be right btw. Maybe the change won't induce more entires from the 2200 - 2400 folk - I suspect easy availability of European tournaments is always going to hurt the British now - but I still think attemps to address the current situation are a laudable thing.

[Jonathan Rogers]

The event is an absolute disaster for norm seekers as it is; it is no coincidence that the event attracts hardly any entrants beyween 2250-2400. So reducing it to round nine won't make things significantly worse from that angle. And at least the move is solving a real problem, because nine rounds surely is more attractive to everyone in terms of time and expense.

Mind you, we will probably see even more shared titles now.

[Stewart Reuben]

The British Championship started in 1904. It was 11 rounds Monday to Friday with a rest day on Sunday in the middle.
1949 it became an 11 round Swiss with the same structure.
About 1985 the numbers were not limited to 32. Instead it was limited to whoever was strong enough.
After 2003 the Commonwealth players were excluded.
Around about then the numbers qualifying for the British were increased dramatically so many weaker players qualified. This makes the event less attractive to players in the range 2200-2400. That will not be solved with reducing the number of rounds to 9. There is another factor. Players around 2300 do not seem as interested in title norm events as they once were.

The British junior championshsips (apart from the U11) used to be 11 round in 12 days on the same schedule as the British. In 1985 they became 7 rounds in one week, with the U10, U12, U14, U16 being one week and U11, U13, U15 the other. Thus the proposed new system is also an upheaval.

There is nothing necessarily wrong with tradition, nor with change of course. Jonathan, some people no doubt prefer 11 rounds to the standard 9.

The ECF seems to have been coy about mentioning that there is a fairly large injection of cash into the 2016 event (apart from their £5000) to attract more strong players to the event. Thus Michael Adams is playing.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Players around 2300 do not seem as interested in title norm events as they once were.

I just did a search on the FIDE rating database for English players rated 2300-2399. There are 36 active players in that range. 19 of them are already IMs; the remaining 17 include Alan Merry, Peter Sowray and John Richardson, who do not need any more IM norms. That might be a big part of it: norm events are only valuable if you don't already have the norms for the title you're seeking.

[NickFaulks]

The event is an absolute disaster for norm seekers as it is; it is no coincidence that the event attracts hardly any entrants between 2250-2400.

The event is a disaster for norm seekers because it attracts hardly any entrants between 2250-2400, which is in turn because it is no good for norm seekers. Any attempt to cut this Gordian knot is welcome, but Jack's worry is valid.

[IM Jack Rudd]

And in particular, my worry would have come into play at last year's event; Akshaya Kalaiyalahan got a 12-round WIM norm there, but would not have achieved a norm after round 9, because only four of her first nine opponents were titled.

[Richard Bates]

As mentioned above, nine rounds doesn't make it more attractive to me, in fact less so. The reason I haven't played for a few years is because it clashes, or is adjacent to, the period when I have been genuinely holidaying. 1 or 2 weeks makes no difference. But then I have more holiday than some! Realistically if I played I would want to get there on Friday and leave on Monday, so only gains three days. I'm not sure if the proposed schedule would make it harder to get accommodation (holiday lets are often Saturday to Saturday I think). 9 days works for something like the London classic because it is so close, not for an event like the British potentially on the other side of the country.

I like the idea of the 11 round tournament because it is so rare. If you want a 9 round Swiss you can take your pick around the world. Not many places you can find an event like the British. And let's not forget - it gives you two extra games! Over 20% more! It's also a shame they changed the time control - a negative, for an event that doesn't need any double round days. And I like the idea of the rest day - when combined with the weekend before and the weekend after it makes it a genuine holiday event. Not rushing from work to round 1, and straight back into work after the last round. I also reckon the "rest day" probably made a large amount of money last year - a pretty large blitz tournament with a not insignificant entry fee that paid almost none of it around in prizes.

For all the talk about making the event cheaper, will a one week event not make it less attractive to potential hosts?

[NickFaulks]

I just did a search on the FIDE rating database for English players rated 2300-2399. There are 36 active players in that range.

Germany has 299. I'm not making any particular point, just saying - I guessed it would be a lot, but not that many.

[Carl Hibbard]

Two weeks off playing chess is a no no for me so a week may work.

[Jonathan Bryant]

As mentioned above, nine rounds doesn't make it more attractive to me, in fact less so. The reason I haven't played for a few years ....

Ah memory did serve - a rare event these days.

I’ve not played at the British for over 25 years. Not at all to do with it being two weeks but because there’s no tournament for me.

As a chess fan i’d like the championship to be a championship. As a chess player I’d like there to be a tournament that’s attractive to play in. I’m currently thinking of playing an event this summer and it occurred to me today that I hadn’t spent even 1 second considering whether to play in Bournemouth. It would be 1 second wasted.

I don’t know if the move to a 9-rounder would help at all with those things. I don’t know if it’s the 'right’ decision - Im not privy to the information that Alex has. I do know that change in some form needed to be made, though.

[Mick Norris]

I like the proposals. The British at 11 rounds is too long stretched over 2 weeks so bringing it all into one week is fine. Its going to increase the entries for the reasons already given and decrease the not insignificant accommodation costs.

I agree with Roger that I don't see the rationale for the seniors events only being 7 rounds. Unless there is an argument I'm missing then that should be challenged and be 9 rounds as well.

Even if there is a good argument against the seniors events being 9 rounds, they could be 8 rather than 7, but 9 sounds a better idea, running them at the same time as the Major Open & the Championship