British Chess Championships 2010

[Stewart Reuben]

I have very little doubt that, had I attempted to replicate the pairings in the British Championship, I would have been able to do so - or had my errors explained to me and then reached the same conclusion.
I think it is scandalous to suggest the pairings have been in any way fiddled.

Stewart Reuben

[Adam Raoof]

Definitely doing one or other at the Classic. Not really interested in arbiting if computer pairings are used, but interested if manual pairings are.

There was I thinking you were into using computers to run events! OK, how about you do the rapidplay with cards, and Lara can enter the results onto computer afterwards! Assuming the playing schedule allows you to, you could combine that with playing in the Open.

[Alex McFarlane]

Richard,
I think you exaggerate a little when you describe the alternative time as 'quickplay'. It is one of only 2 FIDE options which are allowed for title tournaments and have increments.
David and I had a lot of discussion about which to use in the first place and the existing time was trialled at Hastings. You will be glad to hear that the status quo has a large majority at this point.

Stewart,
I am not sure that Joey Stewart did not have his tongue firmly lodged in his cheek when he was describing fiddling the draw or perhaps he had a glass firmly lodged in his hand. In either case his accusation is easily dismissed. The draw is done openly and often attracts a reasonable audience. The banter which follows disagreement or the howls of derision at what the computer sometimes suggests are a source of amusement to the assembled multitude.

[Peter Sowray]

Alex / Stewart,

Are the rules for the pairing system published anywhere?

[Richard Bates]

Richard,
I think you exaggerate a little when you describe the alternative time as 'quickplay'. It is one of only 2 FIDE options which are allowed for title tournaments and have increments.
David and I had a lot of discussion about which to use in the first place and the existing time was trialled at Hastings. You will be glad to hear that the status quo has a large majority at this point.

Hi Alex - I am confident that most players would agree that if it is an exaggeration it is only a minor one. As far as i am concerned the time control is a bit of an abomination which can only be justified by a compromise needed in FIDE's rules to allow tournaments with two rounds in one day (although it would now be a very long day!). How anyone could think it either suitable or necessary to consider it for a one round a day tournament is frankly beyond my comprehension. About the only thing going for it is that it is not 90' + 30" a move, which really is anti-chess!

[Alex McFarlane]

The pairing rules areon the CAA website http://www.chessarbiters.co.uk

The accelerated rules haven't yet been posted there but should be by the end of the month.

With regard to the time control. I have already said that we considered the existing one the best option but if we don't ask for confirmation then we get complaints and when we do we still get complaints. Oh well.

[Richard Bates]

The pairing rules areon the CAA website http://www.chessarbiters.co.uk

The accelerated rules haven't yet been posted there but should be by the end of the month.

With regard to the time control. I have already said that we considered the existing one the best option but if we don't ask for confirmation then we get complaints and when we do we still get complaints. Oh well.

Fair enough I certainly wouldn't want to imply that consultation with the players is a bad thing, (except of course when i worry that the players will give the wrong answer. Democracy is a dangerous thing! ). To be honest my post was more due to an instinctive need to rant against the time control than its inclusion in a questionnaire!

However, i note you didn't include a non-incremental option which many might prefer. Whilst acknowledging the cost implications of that, wouldn't establishing preferences on that be an equally valid exercise? Or considering the cost implications, is the view that the use of increments is permanent, and therefore closed for discussion?

EDIT: of course, now awake and thinking clearly, my inner cynic has pointed out that a canny Scot wouldn't be averse to including the odd controversial question to increase questionnaire responses, would he...?

[JustinHorton]

About the only thing going for it is that it is not 90' + 30" a move, which really is anti-chess!

I think every game I've played for at least the last two years has been at that time control.

[Richard Bates]

About the only thing going for it is that it is not 90' + 30" a move, which really is anti-chess!

I think every game I've played for at least the last two years has been at that time control.

Well quite - you can usually rely on the Brits to do their utmost to stand firm against this nonsense but venture onto the continent and anything can happen

[E Michael White]

Alex / Stewart,
Are the rules for the pairing system published anywhere?

For title norms to be available in a tournament, the pairing system has to be publicised in the tournament brochure.

This requirement is stated in 3.(c).5 of FIDE document :-
http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html? ... w=category

which in turn has to be used for the event as stated in section 1.11 of this FIDE document:-
http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html? ... ew=article

Following these regulations should ensure a system is seen to be fair as well as being fair.

[JustinHorton]

Well quite - you can usually rely on the Brits to do their utmost to stand firm against this nonsense but venture onto the continent and anything can happen

Indeed. Anyway Richard, do you reckon Adams will open with 1.P-K4 today?

[Sean Hewitt]

About the only thing going for it is that it is not 90' + 30" a move, which really is anti-chess!

It should be pointed out that the decision to outlaw this time control for norm purposes has been rescinded - for now.

[Alex Holowczak]

Alex / Stewart,
Are the rules for the pairing system published anywhere?

For title norms to be available in a tournament, the pairing system has to be publicised in the tournament brochure.

This requirement is stated in 3.(c).5 of FIDE document :-
http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html? ... w=category

which in turn has to be used for the event as stated in section 1.11 of this FIDE document:-
http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html? ... ew=article

Following these regulations should ensure a system is seen to be fair as well as being fair.

To be honest, having watched the pairings, I doubt anyone has any right to complain about their pairing. They were done independently by three people and a computer to check they got them right. They were using concepts I've never seen before on a pairing board, so I doubt whether the players involved could do a better job themselves whether they knew the pairing rules or not!

[Richard Bates]

About the only thing going for it is that it is not 90' + 30" a move, which really is anti-chess!

It should be pointed out that the decision to outlaw this time control for norm purposes has been rescinded - for now.

Of course, one does have to be careful about complaining about time controls too much before they get accused of being "anti-chess" in the "chess prevention" sense I assume that FIDE have run into the problem that even 90'+30' +30" move is just a bit slow for two rounds a day chess. My main gripe with time control "reform" has always been when arguments have been put forward for shortening the length of games out of a desire for "entertainment", rather than flexibility. My view (and this is consistent across almost any sport) is that entertainment can rarely ultimately be sustained when quality is compromised (and you have probably have to play blitz or proper rapidplay before you are likely to get any dividend in the sense of getting Television potentially seriously interested).

[Adam Raoof]

Black is OK!

Lawrence Cooper has pointed out that black won ALL 39 games in the Championships today!

http://www.britishchess2010.com/events/championship.htm

is that a record?

EDIT: it'll probably be corrected by the time you read this...