English Chess Forum

I have been talking with some players about trying to run a swiss for GM and IM norms. We are considering taking two weekend events closed together (say Gatwick and Sunningdale, although it could be others) and combing them. In the case of Gatwick / Sunningdale this would five us a 12 round event.

The essential idea is

You enter the two weekends seperately. You can play either weekend, or both. You would need to play both if you wanted to achieve a norm.
Rating prizes will be awared for both weekends seperately, based on performance in that particular weekend
The combined score will be counted for the overall prizes at the end of the 2nd weekend, and for pairing purposes
Players playing just the second weekend will receive 5 half point byes (2.5/5), unless they are IM's 3/5 and GM's 3.5/5

This is only roughly sketched out at this stage but I wondered what people thought? This structure would apply to the Open only. Major's and Minor's would be run as seperate events at each weekend.

Sean Hewitt wrote:I have been talking with some players about trying to run a swiss for GM and IM norms. We are considering taking two weekend events closed together (say Gatwick and Sunningdale, although it could be others) and combing them. In the case of Gatwick / Sunningdale this would five us a 12 round event.

It sounds like the sort of unique thing that e2e4 would do. I assume you've checked that FIDE allow norms like that, so it sounds good!

Sean Hewitt wrote:Players playing just the second weekend will receive 5 half point byes (2.5/5), unless they are IM's 3/5 and GM's 3.5/5

I think it would be fairer if the points awarded were based on rating rather than title. Maybe something like:

>2600: 4.5
2500-2599: 4
2400-2499:3.5
2300-2399:3
<2300: 2.5

also, i can imagine that 2050's (for example) may not want to start the second round on 50% if that's also the score group 2250's are starting in

Ian Thompson wrote:

Sean Hewitt wrote:Players playing just the second weekend will receive 5 half point byes (2.5/5), unless they are IM's 3/5 and GM's 3.5/5

I think it would be fairer if the points awarded were based on rating rather than title. Maybe something like:

>2600: 4.5
2500-2599: 4
2400-2499:3.5
2300-2399:3
<2300: 2.5

That's a fair point about rating rather than title.

Rob Thompson wrote:also, i can imagine that 2050's (for example) may not want to start the second round on 50% if that's also the score group 2250's are starting in

Maybe. The flip side is that they might like it, getting a good game against a (relativley) strong opponent.

I don't think it looks very good for the player just wanting to play over two weekends. If they score, say 1/5 in the first event, would they want to have to carry that forward to the second weekend? Perhaps you need to finesse the idea - so in the first weekend, everyone plays in the same swiss. In the second weekend, you have a choice - either continue with the first competition (on a norm hunt) or join the "second weekend only" entrants in a parallel swiss. Unless people just playing in the second weekend are valuable for norm purposes, you only allow them into the parallel event.

Interesting thoughts Roger. Wouldn't running parallel events dilute the prize fund though?

Event needs live broadcast games to be honest?

Carl Hibbard wrote:Event needs live broadcast games to be honest?

Why? Last time I tried it, most people didn't even want to pay £3 for it!

Sean Hewitt wrote:

Carl Hibbard wrote:Event needs live broadcast games to be honest?

Why? Last time I tried it, most people didn't even want to pay £3 for it!

Yes sorry it is actually a loss leader to be honest...

Carl Hibbard wrote:

Sean Hewitt wrote:

Carl Hibbard wrote:Event needs live broadcast games to be honest?

Why? Last time I tried it, most people didn't even want to pay £3 for it!

Yes sorry it is actually a loss leader to be honest...

But a loss leader for what? If we spend a couple of hundred quid setting up live broadcasts, are we really going to get 8 extra players entering a future event to cover that cost? I think the answer to that is no. In which case, you have to add £2 onto the entry fee for everyone (or £4 onto the Open entry fee) to cover the cost. And do the players get any benefit for that extra cost? I don't think so.

It seems to me the only people getting any benefit are the people sitting at home watching the games. And we already know that they don't think it's worth paying £3 to watch 9 rounds.

Fair enough, lets hope this site at least generates some traffic for you...

Sean Hewitt wrote:It seems to me the only people getting any benefit are the people sitting at home watching the games. And we already know that they don't think it's worth paying £3 to watch 9 rounds.

The reason charging for the live broadcast doesn't work is that you're going to make all of the games available for free in a PGN afterwards anyway. I'd rather wait a few days for the rerun to come out for free!

Alex Holowczak wrote:

Sean Hewitt wrote:It seems to me the only people getting any benefit are the people sitting at home watching the games. And we already know that they don't think it's worth paying £3 to watch 9 rounds.

The reason charging for the live broadcast doesn't work is that you're going to make all of the games available for free in a PGN afterwards anyway. I'd rather wait a few days for the rerun to come out for free!

I think live coverage is very desirable but if you are running to a tight budget and don't have money to play with I can understand why it's not seen as an essential item. I was really happy that the womens' event was broadcast live at the Classic but I had been asked to pay for the privilege I would have reluctantly had to turn it down.

I'm not so sure that the PGN being made available afterwards is the only reason why people wouldn't pay for live coverage. I enjoy watching games live when obviously the result isn't known and you can follow the ups and downs of the game and try and figure out what is happening. I'm probably one of the few that paid for the Staunton live coverage a couple of years ago but I would never pay to see the games afterwards.

I think that if Tatar steel is free then you will struggle to charge for most stronge opens