English Chess Forum

Joey Stewart wrote:Yeah, I guess that all comes into consideration.
Do you think that there will come a stage when FIDE tournaments in the UK will be on a smaller scale without the need for masters to provide norm opportunities?

There already are a number of different types of events in UK, and it's horses for courses.

There are norm events run by Coulsden, us and others. South Wales is in play as I write. These do require GMs / IMs and will continue to do so, and without sponsorship the entry fee has to fund this.

However, there are plenty of non-norm events (not just ours) which do not require titled players and so are not much more expensive than a bog standard weekender. Some of these congresses now FIDE rate the Major as well as the Open.

Then, there are events like our International Major where a rated player can get 9 rated games for £25. At less than £3 per game that's cheaper than most (if not all) 5 round weekend tournaments.

Thanks for the replies. I've been skip reading them, but surmise that the answer to my question is "the time limit is no obstacle, but for financial and space reasons the ECF is choosing to make them non-rating events".

I'd guess that none of the above is relevant. The AM and PM Opens rose phoenix-like from the ashes of the old two-a-day Open which on the Isle of Man was fought out among just four players - an all-play-all three times for both weeks! My considered view is that nobody has even thought about making them FIDE rated.

Just back from the Scottish.

We have been increasing the number of events at the British which are FIDE rated and constantly review the situation. Until now the number of FIDE rated players was not considered large enough to justify having it rated. Basically you are looking at non-rated players having a reasonable chance of meeting 3 FIDE rated opponents to make it worthwhile. As more players get FIDE ratings the greater the likliehood of more events being sent to FIDE. Obviously, the more rounds there are the greater the chance of getting the three games. For this reason the U16 has been FIDE rated for a year or two (I think).

4NCL Division 3 works out at £2.27 per player per game - again, cheaper than most if not all weekend tournaments, and FIDE rated into the bargain.

Adam Raoof wrote:
No, I accept that without a sponsor, if and when we make a profit we would be committing those funds to the next year's event, and probably allocating some money to be provided as appearance fees. Those appearance fees would be to encourage our GMs (and by that I mean all our GMs, including Rowson and Motwani and so on) to take part in the Championships, but also to get IMs into the Major Open and make it a norm seeker event.

I am somewhat mystified about this idea of making the Major Open into a norm seeker event. We already have a norm seeker event at the British - it's called the British Championship. To state the obvious to construct a "norm seeker" event you need a bit more than a few IMs (and you would need A LOT of sponsorship before you started extending conditions outside of the Championship proper) - you also need some norm seekers! Which under the current Championship structure could only mean foreign norm seekers, given that any genuine British norm seekers should be able to find a place in the Championship fairly comfortably. And without the strength in depth there would be difficulties in reaching the average opposition requirements as well.

Meanwhile existing Major Open players would be annoyed that their chances of winning the prizes (and qualifying for the Championship) would be much smaller.

Richard,
The points you make are valid and have already been under consideration. It is always good to see that players appreciate the problems that exist.

It is difficult to get the right balance. We want to improve the Major Open but not to the detriment of the Championship. This is why we don't want to rush into things. All possibilities have to be considered. In addition we also have to take into consideration the effect it will have on other events, e.g. the Afternoon Open already discussed.

It would be easy to say that the top priority is the British Championship and the rest of the events have a lesser priority. To some extent this is true but the counter to this is that currently the British requires the other events in order for it to survive (slight exageration - but you know what I mean).

In simplistic terms it would be nice if the British was a GM norm event and the Major Open one to obtain IM norms. This would effectively mean a very strong British and a healthy Major Open. But as you indicated, the problems associated with this approach are huge.

There will be considerable discussion on this matter over the next few weeks. Additionally, we are also considering special events for the 2013 Championships as these will be the 100th.
Suggestions, written on the back of a £1000 note, are most welcome!!

I think the Championship itself must remain the focal point maybe the Major Open could be replaced by a number of all play alls in rating brackets eg 1800-1900 2000-2100 2100 + as a guide. This would mean norms would not be on offer but on the flip side you might get a few more players wishing to play and it does not have to be for 2 weeks. A lot of players in the 2000-2200 might not fancy the major open lots of juniors and sharks but might fancy playing a group in their own bracket with a chance to gain some rating points . Just an idea and you could run them morning and afternoon like the weekdays and say let the winners of each group play off on the final day or something like that. It would also mean you could include foreign players ( who may not play major open as they can never ply the British ) and as per the earlier posts the British could be left to the British so to speak.

I rather like Mark's suggestion. I know players who would like to play two games a day but are not keen to play in the 5 round morning or afternnon open events because the grade range is too wide.

Mark Josse wrote: It would also mean you could include foreign players ( who may not play major open as they can never ply the British ) and as per the earlier posts the British could be left to the British so to speak.

The Major Open is open to the world; anyone under 2350 can play in it.

Alex Holowczak wrote:The Major Open is open to the world; anyone under 2350 can play in it.

In a change marked by no publicity, the rating restriction has been removed.

From http://www.britishchess2010.com/main_events.htm

Open to all players except those entitled to play in the British Championship

David Gilbert wrote: I would like to see Stewart Conquest doing battle again.

Some people get what they wish for! Now come on Graeme Buckley - you won the London League's top player prize again tonight - get your socks down to Canterbury!

David, why are you so obsessed with this?! Graeme plays for Wood Green in London League, so I guess that he must be on about board six most of the time. However well he does on that board (though he drew with Ivor Smith in the match that I saw) it is not an obvious platform for scooping the boards at the British!

David Gilbert wrote:

David Gilbert wrote: I would like to see Stewart Conquest doing battle again.

Some people get what they wish for! Now come on Graeme Buckley - you won the London League's top player prize again tonight - get your socks down to Canterbury!

Unless there was a very generous cash prize for the London League's top player I'm not why it would tempt him to embark on a very expensive fortnight in Canterbury with no conditions. IMs were always less likely to play this year anyway as with no conditions for GMs it was unclear until recently that GM norms would be possible. My guess is that Graeme and Susan have decided that playing at Uxbridge makes much more sense financially and it is also 5 days instead of 12 as well as being within commuting range, an important consideration for families.

Mike Truran wrote:4NCL Division 3 works out at £2.27 per player per game - again, cheaper than most if not all weekend tournaments, and FIDE rated into the bargain.

Although, as I have found out, NOT FIDE rated if you don't play the 'right' opponents or enough games