British Championship 2017

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: British Championship 2017

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed May 25, 2016 11:43 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:[
On the several hundred questionnaires that were filled in at Torquay and online, that I saw and processed.
Are you able to give a link to the analysis of the answers?

I thought it had been "lost".

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire

Re: British Championship 2017

Post by Alex Holowczak » Wed May 25, 2016 11:49 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Alex Holowczak wrote:[
On the several hundred questionnaires that were filled in at Torquay and online, that I saw and processed.
Are you able to give a link to the analysis of the answers?

I thought it had been "lost".
We worked out the results, and never got around to publishing a full analysis of each question. That doesn't stop the answers being any less valuable.

Ironically, one of the things it did say, was that people wanted an 11-round Championship! We'd have changed it back then if it said otherwise. Asking the people who want to play in it, rather than those who did play in 2013, gives a different answer.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: British Championship 2017

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed May 25, 2016 11:56 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:
We worked out the results, and never got around to publishing a full analysis of each question. That doesn't stop the answers being any less valuable.
I rather think it does. Previous questionnaires had been published in full.
Alex Holowczak wrote: Ironically, one of the things it did say, was that people wanted an 11-round Championship!
Malcolm Pein, now an ECF Director is in favour of an 9 round Championship. Apart from him, who else?

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 4818
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: British Championship 2017

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Thu May 26, 2016 12:11 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Alex Holowczak wrote:
We worked out the results, and never got around to publishing a full analysis of each question. That doesn't stop the answers being any less valuable.
I rather think it does. Previous questionnaires had been published in full.
The publishing of the results doesn't affect how valuable the answers are, only how confident we can be that they say what Alex says they say.

Angus French
Posts: 2151
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am

Re: British Championship 2017

Post by Angus French » Thu May 26, 2016 12:18 am

Alex Holowczak wrote:We worked out the results, and never got around to publishing a full analysis of each question. That doesn't stop the answers being any less valuable.
I think, if you conduct a survey it's a good idea to publish the results - especially if you're going to rely on them later to support a decision. That way you can't be accused (rightly or wrongly) of misinterpreting or making selective use of the results. It's also good to provide feedback.
Last edited by Angus French on Thu May 26, 2016 12:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

E Michael White
Posts: 1420
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:31 pm

Re: British Championship 2017

Post by E Michael White » Thu May 26, 2016 12:18 am

IM Jack Rudd wrote:The publishing of the results doesn't affect how valuable the answers are, only how confident we can be that they say what Alex says they say.
It affects the value obtained from the survey though. eg if kept entirely secret, zero value is obtained from the exercise.

User avatar
Lee Bullock
Posts: 202
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 3:29 pm

Re: British Championship 2017

Post by Lee Bullock » Thu May 26, 2016 12:40 am

ok apologies if this has already been suggested but is it a crazy idea to have 2 rounds in 1 day for the 1st 2 days?

This way 11 rounder can be kept over just the 9 days planned. Most of these early rounds are total walk overs anyway. Then by round 5 the action really starts and a game a day format resumes. It may even be possible to do 2 rounds for 3 of the days and give players a rest day in between.

ofcourse just ideas and would be totally dependent on how many players would dislike this or be ok with it.
2013/2014 and 16/17 U140 Grand Prix Winner! ;)

2015 and 2016 Chess character of the year :)

Its not a failure to lose. Its a failure when you dont try and win.

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 4818
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: British Championship 2017

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Thu May 26, 2016 12:47 am

Lee Bullock wrote:ok apologies if this has already been suggested but is it a crazy idea to have 2 rounds in 1 day for the 1st 2 days?
I think I'd like that better than a 9-round event.

User avatar
Lee Bullock
Posts: 202
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 3:29 pm

Re: British Championship 2017

Post by Lee Bullock » Thu May 26, 2016 1:34 am

IM Jack Rudd wrote:
Lee Bullock wrote:ok apologies if this has already been suggested but is it a crazy idea to have 2 rounds in 1 day for the 1st 2 days?
I think I'd like that better than a 9-round event.
Problem solved. :) Next issue for me to solve please :)
2013/2014 and 16/17 U140 Grand Prix Winner! ;)

2015 and 2016 Chess character of the year :)

Its not a failure to lose. Its a failure when you dont try and win.

Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3452
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: British Championship 2017

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Thu May 26, 2016 6:44 am

Michael Farthing wrote: ... is sad if you really think that Council (or, indeed, Council members) should not express opinions (should not opine) on operational matters."

Michael, Mike said "need not" rather than "should not".

FWIW my interpretation of what’s being said is not "<council> should not speak on this"

but more

"we are not an anarcho-syndicalist commune taking it in turns to act as executive officers with all decisions having to be ratified by special bi-weekly meetings (simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, two-thirds majority otherwise"

PeterFarr
Posts: 624
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 11:20 pm
Location: Horsham, Sussex

Re: British Championship 2017

Post by PeterFarr » Thu May 26, 2016 7:13 am

A few points:

1) I agree with Mike that it's an operational decision, and not one for Council. Deciding a tournament format on one day through the voting of a roomful of 40 people or so strikes me as likely to result in farce ( "hmm so we are tied on 9 rounds or 11, let's compromise on 10.." Etc.).

2) Probably more creativity could be employed in surveying and then presenting results, but this is not trivial, particularly when sifting through verbatim comments. There's also the difficult balance between canvassing current customers and attracting new ones; there's no right answer: it's a matter of skill and judgement, which is what the Directors are "paid" for. Personally I prefer to see some changes at least being attempted, as with the National clubs, rather than sticking with the same format forever out of fear, which probably guarantees a slow decline.

3) It's called the British Championships. Having the ECF Council decide the format strikes me as inherently unsatisfactory. I would rather see more attempt made to encourage more Scottish, Welsh and Irish participants (don't ask me how, I haven't the faintest idea, but that's the beauty of being an internet forumite).

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: British Championship 2017

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu May 26, 2016 9:28 am

PeterFarr wrote: 1) I agree with Mike that it's an operational decision, and not one for Council.
It seems likely that the decision to at least consider the move to a 9 day format was taken before the April meeting. One of the items that was put to Council for discussion was the level of financial support for the British Championships. A less secretive organisation would have made Council aware of the structure of the event for which financial support was required.

It seems quite clear that the notion that the ECF doesn't need OMOV because Council is sufficiently representative is rejected by some members of the current Board.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: British Championship 2017

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu May 26, 2016 9:41 am

Mike Truran wrote: 1. "I seem to recall" isn't really good enough, I'm afraid.
http://www.hertschesscongress.com/index ... dback-2015

A couple of points I was able to make.

If it's possible to put pairings online during the event, organisers should do so. The British Championship Congress is good for that, although less so at trusting the software thus making pairings available timely.

If prizes based on grade are available, wall charts should indicate who is eligible. It's a downside of running the event relying on printouts that such background information can be lost.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire

Re: British Championship 2017

Post by Alex Holowczak » Thu May 26, 2016 9:42 am

PeterFarr wrote:3) It's called the British Championships. Having the ECF Council decide the format strikes me as inherently unsatisfactory. I would rather see more attempt made to encourage more Scottish, Welsh and Irish participants (don't ask me how, I haven't the faintest idea, but that's the beauty of being an internet forumite).
There are parts of the British Championships that those countries let the ECF get on with, and some parts that they don't. These are set out in the most recent Agreement between the Federations in 2007. The relevant parts the ECF can't unilaterally change are:
(1) The countries entitled to participate
(2) That players rated 2350 in any standardplay rating list qualify
(3) The number of nominations available to each member of the BICC
(4) Some redundant stuff about a Reserve List that we don't have anymore
(5) That Denbigh & Flint are part of Cheshire & North Wales, and thus in England administratively. I've no idea why that's in a document mostly about the British Championships.

The agreement can be terminated by any of the signatories at two years' notice.

If the ECF wanted to change any of those things, it would need the consent of all of the other seven constituents of the BICC. Everything else is up to the ECF.

Mike Truran
Posts: 2393
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:44 pm

Re: British Championship 2017

Post by Mike Truran » Thu May 26, 2016 9:45 am

It seems quite clear that the notion that the ECF doesn't need OMOV because Council is sufficiently representative is rejected by some members of the current Board.
Complete rubbish.

On this matter at least perhaps forum readers might care to take into account the comment of someone who is actually on the Board, rather than of someone who is (in characteristic style) quite happy to speculate from a safe distance.

In any event, the two clauses in the statement are mischievously conflated to suggest that the one follows from the other - no doubt in the hope that nobody will notice. It is quite possible to believe both that OMOV is not needed (in its extreme form at least) and that Council is insufficiently representative. To (mis)quote Gerald Abrahams, a good friend of mine happens to believe just that.