British Chess Championships 2010

[Alan Walton]

David,

In the early 2000s, I tried my best too qualify, and when I eventually did it, I made the effort to play in both years, Edinburgh and Scarborough.

I didn't bother with the 2005 Champs, due to the fact it was in Isle of Man, and I would have been going their in Oct. Myself, Simon Ansell & Simon Williams decided to go abroad, and found out that tournaments abroad were much better in cost and quality

The problem is that currently the Major Open is now really a "Major" rather than a "Open", so if I don't qualify, what do I gain from entering that section apart for some cash. I play chess to be challenged against strong players 2200+, and unfortunately the Major Open doesn't just cut it.

Another problem nowadays with all the qualifying places available, it doesn't seem to be an major achievement that you have qualified like it was in the past

[Ben Hague]

Rick McMichael must be winning now on 14 with something like moves king off the third, Re3-h3-h8, meanwhile black is playing Bxb4, Kg8-f8-e7, the pawn on f6 must be strong?

Presumably Kf8 would be met by Rh8 when the pawn on f6 does indeed look strong. I think the only way to save black would be something like Bf8-g7 which must lose anyway, just a bit slower.

[David Sedgwick]

Alexander had a mega-score one year (1956?) but was only just ahead of Frank Parr, I think.

Quite correct, I believe. Parr won 8 games in succession that year, a record which stood until Mestel's 9 in succession twenty years later. However, Parr's total of 9 points was not enough, as Alexander scored 9½.

[Paul McKeown]

Ben,

Yesso! Duh!

[Paul McKeown]

btw, Ben, I never congratulated you on your excellent win against me in the 4NCL qualifying tournament in 2002. Very instructive, so let me congratulate you now! I've certainly never forgotten that game, painful.

[Jonathan Bryant]

I've been out all afternoon so please allow me to come late to the 'State of the Championship' discussion.

Despite not having money for conditions, there's very little difference in the quality of the top players attending the British.

This is true but a lot of the top players entered late (or very late). Not a problem? Well what if the private sponsorship cash disappears?

I wrote this on first round day
http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.c ... ff_26.html



Regarding the field, I have to say I'm with Paul. The problem is not so much the tail as the 'lower middle' section being bloated (see http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.c ... g-dog.html for details). These players are not weak by any standard except perhaps one ... that of the top level British Championship.

There have been relatively all grandmaster clashes so far. I believe about half a dozen in total. This strikes me as a bit of a waste of the 9 GMs who are in Canterbury. It's also very different field to the recent US Championshps. I'm sure the reason the British is structured this way is not because it's the best way to find a champion but because it's necessary for financial reasons.

While I'm here some numbers about the size of this year's British compared to other years can be found here (http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.c ... etter.html).



PS: I had thought that Mickey Adams had played in the 2001 British but now I look back that was an entirely different Adams

[Paul McKeown]

Jonathan,

Basically, my view, is that if the ECF has to cut its cloth for straitened times, it should do one thing well. It should hold a British Championship worthy of the name. Do that and there will be something for chess players in England (and more widely in Britain) to be proud of. And surely a tournament of the 12 best players would have a better chance of securing sponsorship than one of a minority of contenders, a small midfield and a long army ragtag and bobtail.

Paul.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Jonathan,

Basically, my view, is that if the ECF has to cut its cloth for straitened times, it should do one thing well. It should hold a British Championship worthy of the name. Do that and there will be something for chess players in England (and more widely in Britain) to be proud of. And surely a tournament of the 12 best players would have a better chance of securing sponsorship than one of a minority of contenders, a small midfield and a long rag and bobtail.

Paul.

That's not far from my own ... except perhaps that I'd say that the numbers show that (this year at least) it's the midfield that's large not so much the very bottom end. The overall point - that the top end is diluted - remains the same though.

I'm also concerned that the current system for the championships as a whole relies on the £200 entry fees of people playing in the Championship Tournament itself. This is all very well but if the top disappears, as it might well, and the second level don't enter (e.g/ for the reasons that Simon Ansell gives earlier) then how long will people actually continue to stump up this cash. If they stop then the whole two week jamboree for everybody falls away.

As a chess fan the idea of the best playing the best (or least GMs and IMs playing) for the Championship is what I'd like to see.

[JustinHorton]

Does anybody know what i means as a flag?

[Richard James]

Does anybody know what i means as a flag?

Inactive, I think.

[JustinHorton]

As in "not currently playing except for in this current tournament"?

[Richard James]

As in "not currently playing except for in this current tournament"?

I guess so. It took me a couple of years to work it out though.

[Sean Hewitt]

As in "not currently playing except for in this current tournament"?

From the FIDE handbook

7.23
Inactive players are not included on the list but nonetheless are considered rated at their most recent published rating for rating and title result purposes.
7.23a
A player is considered to commence inactivity if he plays no rated games in a one year period.
7.23b
Inactive players are shown on the next two years of rating lists after starting being considered inactive. Their names are then flagged as inactive in the alphabetical section of the rating list and removed from the national federation’s lists which contain only the list of active players.
7.23c
A player regains his activity if he plays at least one rated game in a period and he is then listed on the next list.
7.24
For the purposes of the FIDE rating list ranking of top players, a player who is inactive over a 12 month period of inactivity on the rating list will no longer appear on the top list.

[JustinHorton]

Ta. I was partly curious because Clive Waters, against whose name it appears, was a very active player when I lived in the North-East* a few years ago.



[* of course I still do live in the North-East, but not the same one....]

[Alex Holowczak]

Jack and I have been doing some Maths, and we think the following is true. Do not accept it as correct - it is to be officially confirmed.

Adam Hunt, who will obviously be playing Michael Adams tomorrow, will get a 9-round GM norm even if he loses.
Rafal Tymrakiewicz will get a 9-round IM norm if he wins tomorrow, assuming he plays someone titled.