Hastings Results

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I think this healthy list is evidence that Hastings is becoming a pretty good event for norm seekers. Congratulations to all involved. The contrast with the London classic Open couldn't be starker. Partly it is probably down to the accelerated pairings working as wanted, but also Hastings doesn't seem to suffer from the lengthy "tail" that London has. London is reaching the sort of situation where a minimum rating for the "Open" tournament should be seen as almost necessary - there is no real reason why an extra section couldn't be introduced for lower rated players now that so many people are getting FIDE ratings. Or at least have an extra section to give players the option even if some still want the chance of playing a higher field.

Is the tail not mostly due to the population of London and it being more accessible? Good to see that two GM norms (at least, Lalith and Shyam, both from India) have been made at Hastings. Kjartansson and Olsarova still playing. Commiserations to those who failed to get the result needed. The Indians are racking up the norms right now. Is there a secret to it (more resources/popularity since Anand became world champion), or are they just producing better players at the moment?

[Mike Truran]

Does anyone know how funding for the Indian players works? Do they all get grants that pay for their travel and accommodation/living expenses? And if so, how does the Indian national federation fund itself to provide such largesse?

[Alex Holowczak]

Is there a secret to it (more resources/popularity since Anand became world champion), or are they just producing better players at the moment?

India has a population of 1.2 billion. England has a population of 0.05 billion.

India has 4,749 active FIDE-rated players. England has 943. I'm sure if India had a domestic grading list, it'd far exceed our own in terms of numbers.

I would imagine that for norm seekers, England is quite an attractive proposition. Because to the Commonwealth, they can get in to the country relatively easily, compared with, say, Russia. Of all Commonwealth countries, England probably has the most events offering norm chances. I would imagine that Indian equivalent events struggle to attract enough overseas players of the right standard, although I have no evidence for this. So a potential norm seeker may need to go abroad.

Given India has more players than us, it's likely that they'll be stronger than us because ratings are normally distributed. If we had 100,000 graded players in England, rather than 10,000, our chances of finding players with the talent to get title norms would increase (albeit not by 10-times, because the relationship isn't linear).

England also has relatively few people seeking things like GM norms. Jonathan Hawkins and Adam Hunt are probably our two most likely GM candidates in the near future, based on current information (such as rating). One presumably works for a living, so only really plays the British and 4NCL, and the other is playing in an event overseas. Under these circumstances, there's not really anyone English in Hastings who you'd expect to be in contention for a GM norm.

[Alex Holowczak]

Does anyone know how funding for the Indian players works? Do they all get grants that pay for their travel and accommodation/living expenses? And if so, how does the Indian national federation fund itself to provide such largesse?

Have you seen the size of their events?

Here is the list of events in India this rating period: http://ratings.fide.com/tournament_list ... ountry=IND

The GM International Open in Vizag estimated its number of entries at 1,000. The Chennai International Open estimated its number of entries at 1,500.

There must be many more events in India attracting this sort of number, which aren't FIDE-rated, but are perhaps run by the Indian federation. Things like junior events. If you need to find £15,000, it's far easier to get it from an event with 1,500 entries than an event with 150!

[Mike Truran]

So is there no government funding or private sponsorship as far as we know? Is most/all of the federation's revenue generated by mega-congresses?

I take the point about the size of the events, but I imagine the entry fees for all but a handful of entrants are tiny compared with ours, and so would be hardly sufficient to support a large number of players playing abroad (who are after all incurring European rather than Indian levels of expense). I would have thought that the federation must have sponsorship deals in place, including for example companies sponsoring individual players, Air India offering subsidised flights etc?

[Richard Bates]

The players probably all 'work' for Indian Railways...

I'm sure there is significant Government funding involved.

[Roger de Coverly]

Is the tail not mostly due to the population of London and it being more accessible?

Hastings has always had side events, the Christmas, Weekend and New Year tournaments running in parallel with the Premier/Challengers/Masters. These attracted and continue to attract the lower rated players, even those playing the entire length of the event. In London, although there was a parallel tournament to the FIDE Open during the week, this was announced at a fairly late stage. At weekends, you had to play short three hour (?) sessions. Entries to the midweek tournament were modest. With the size of the London entry, there's now a case for splitting the tournament by rating.

[David Sedgwick]

I take the point about the size of the events, but I imagine the entry fees for all but a handful of entrants are tiny compared with ours, and so would be hardly sufficient to support a large number of players playing abroad (who are after all incurring European rather than Indian levels of expense). I would have thought that the federation must have sponsorship deals in place, including for example companies sponsoring individual players, Air India offering subsidised flights etc?

I think both you and Alex H are right to an extent. I'd always understood that there was some government funding and considerable private sponsorship in India.

Another aspect is that (as Richard Bates indicates) the All India Chess Federation has all but their very top players under contract, so that if a prospective sponsor wants X, Y and Z to play, the Federation can more or less guarantee that they will do so. I doubt that such an arrangement would work in England, even if we had vastly increased financial resources.

[David Sedgwick]

I think this healthy list is evidence that Hastings is becoming a pretty good event for norm seekers. Congratulations to all involved. The contrast with the London classic Open couldn't be starker. Partly it is probably down to the accelerated pairings working as wanted, but also Hastings doesn't seem to suffer from the lengthy "tail" that London has. London is reaching the sort of situation where a minimum rating for the "Open" tournament should be seen as almost necessary - there is no real reason why an extra section couldn't be introduced for lower rated players now that so many people are getting FIDE ratings. Or at least have an extra section to give players the option even if some still want the chance of playing a higher field.

You could perhaps do both, ie have an overlap. A number of continental tournaments seem to have a lower limit of 1900-2000 for their top section and an upper limit of 2000-2100 for their second one. I see no reason why such an arrangement shouldn't work in London, although I hasten to add that I have no role in any decision as to whether or not to introduce it.

[Mike Truran]

Here's some stuff from the federation's long term development plan:

With the support from the Government, our players were exposed to tournaments abroad and also received intensive coaching under eminent and world renowned chess trainers from abroad which enabled them to compete with their counterparts across the world.

and this:

With the kind of activity that we have, there is need to introduce professionalism in administrative set-up. It is therefore imperative that there should be a full fledged Secretariat to cater to the various administrative and technical requirements of the Federation. We therefore propose to have the following personnel in the Secretariat with financial assistance from the Government.

and this:

We propose to utilize the 75% - 25% scheme of the Sports Authority of India to purchase quality equipments to serve the cause of developing the game of chess.

and this:

We place on record the excellent support we have received from the Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports, Government of India and the Sports Authority of India and we hope that in future also, the Sports Authority of India and the Government will lend their whole hearted support and encouragement in our ambitious plans and proposals so that our dreams come true.

We can only dream......

[Richard Bates]

I think this healthy list is evidence that Hastings is becoming a pretty good event for norm seekers. Congratulations to all involved. The contrast with the London classic Open couldn't be starker. Partly it is probably down to the accelerated pairings working as wanted, but also Hastings doesn't seem to suffer from the lengthy "tail" that London has. London is reaching the sort of situation where a minimum rating for the "Open" tournament should be seen as almost necessary - there is no real reason why an extra section couldn't be introduced for lower rated players now that so many people are getting FIDE ratings. Or at least have an extra section to give players the option even if some still want the chance of playing a higher field.

You could perhaps do both, ie have an overlap. A number of continental tournaments seem to have a lower limit of 1900-2000 for their top section and an upper limit of 2000-2100 for their second one. I see no reason why such an arrangement shouldn't work in London, although I hasten to add that I have no role in any decision as to whether or not to introduce it.

Yes i agree. In time organisers are going to have to give serious thought to these issues. The organisers of the British Championships already appear to be thinking about the issue with their loosening of the rule which excludes low rated qualifiers for the Championship from the Major Open. Whether it will have much of an effect remains to be seen.

To be fair the London tournament is the first example i have seen in England where the "anyone can play and get an International rating" philosophy has had a clearly detrimental effect at the leading end of the tournament and the potential for norms.

[Alex Holowczak]

Another aspect is that (as Richard Bates indicates) the All India Chess Federation has all but their very top players under contract, so that if a prospective sponsor wants X, Y and Z to play, the Federation can more or less guarantee that they will do so. I doubt that such an arrangement would work in England, even if we had vastly increased financial resources.

In the hypothetical world where such a thing could be afforded: I reckon we could. For example, we could put our Olympiad players under contract to both play in the Olympiad and the British Championship. The contract could give them the right to negotiate other playing commitments that don't clash with the Olympiad and British, and give them the chance to negotiate participation for a 4NCL team.

This does explain, however, why Anand tends not to play for them in the Olympiad.

[Paul Cooksey]

The AICF Budget does include significant government funding.

But not sure about the model, as an ill-informed outsider this stuck in my mind: Humpy's dispute, and it seems more recently there is this legal action.

[Richard Bates]

The AICF Budget does include significant government funding.

But not sure about the model, as an ill-informed outsider this stuck in my mind: Humpy's dispute, and it seems more recently there is this legal action.

"The court noted that AICF uses its position to arm twist players by getting them removed from international ranking.

"AICF has been given the mandate to select the players who would eventually be entitled to participate in international tournaments. AICF also flexes its muscles by instructing FIDE to remove the ranking of the chess players who participate in unauthorised or illegal tournaments," it said."

Wonder where they got that idea...

[Tim Spanton]

Subject to confirmation

Hastings Masters
Results required for Norms
Grandmaster
Babu Lathith needs to play
Sundar Shyam requires a draw
Gudmundur Kjartansson requires a win
International Master
David Haydon requires a draw
Karolina Olsarova requires a win
Michael Massoni requires a win
Ryan Rhys Griffith requires a win
Woman Grandmaster
Karolina Olsarova requires a draw
N Krithika Pon requires a win
Woman International Master
N Krithika Pon needs to play

I think this healthy list is evidence that Hastings is becoming a pretty good event for norm seekers. Congratulations to all involved. The contrast with the London classic Open couldn't be starker. Partly it is probably down to the accelerated pairings working as wanted, but also Hastings doesn't seem to suffer from the lengthy "tail" that London has. London is reaching the sort of situation where a minimum rating for the "Open" tournament should be seen as almost necessary - there is no real reason why an extra section couldn't be introduced for lower rated players now that so many people are getting FIDE ratings. Or at least have an extra section to give players the option even if some still want the chance of playing a higher field.

OK, I'll bite - why does a long tail negatively impact norm chances?