British Championship - rules in need of another make-over?

[John Saunders]

One pillar of the chess community sent me an email yesterday entitled "looks like Croatia v Germany for the title", referring to the successes of Bogdan Lalic and Dietmar Kolbus in the seventh round of the current championship.

Neither he nor I has any darkly racist sentiments in the matter (certainly no problems with either of the above-mentioned players - both splendid chaps), but it does seem a bit of an anomaly that foreign players resident in the British Isles should be allowed to play in the British Chess Championship. I noticed the qualification period is only one year these days. Didn't it use to be longer than that?

What is the reason for this? Other countries don't seem to extend the same privilege to its foreign residents. I'm not aware that Short, Flear and Conquest have competed in the Greek, French or Spanish championships. So it would not seem to be some sort of legal requirement.

Please do not misinterpret the above as a plea for a rule change - I would just like to know the reasons behind the rule. However, I would like one immediate rule change (and have to declare self-interest). Why does the championship use the same eligibility date for junior and senior championships? The chosen date is 1 Sept of the previous year. This means, for example, that someone a day short of their 16th birthday on 1 Sept 2007 could play in the 2008 British U16 Championship at the age of nearly 17. A little anomalous, perhaps, but I don't have too much of a problem with that - at least it errs on the side of being liberal. However, applying the same eligibility date to the British Senior Championship is totally unfair. This year's entry form states that it is open to players born before 1 September 1947. This means that someone born on that very date is not eligible for the 2008 tournament despite the fact that he or she would only be a month or so short of their 61st birthday when the tournament took place. That strikes me as ludicrous. And, of course, bad business - the tournament might pull in a few more entries if it allowed people who were born up to, say, 1 July 1948 or even the start date of the competition. Please change this silly rule: if you do, I might play in 2013. As it is, I'd have to wait to 2014 and I might not live that long.

[JustinHorton]

I have a certain stake in discussions of this nature (I'm not, as it happens, eligible to play in the Spanish Championships in the unlikely but not inconceivable circumstances that I should qualify*) but it doesn't seem to me unreasonable, indeed it's admirably inclusive, if long-term residents should be seen as eligible. I agree that one year seems short - I thought it used to be three? But if somebody's made their home in Britain, I really can't see the problem.

[* for instance if I were to win the Championship of Aragón, held later this month, which is a qualifying tournament.]

[John Saunders]

Eligibility did use to be three years' residence and it was still the case up to and including last year. By googling "british championship resident" from the search facility of the ECF website I found both the 2007 and 2008 regulations and the rule has changed from three to one year's residence. Why?

At present, I would just like some answers to questions before deciding what I think about the admission of British residents. It's quite a complex problem to solve. However, I am tending towards a rule based on a player's national affiliation. The current eligibility rule only seems to take into account a player's citizenship ("British Isles subjects" - I presume this term is a hybrid of 'British subject' and 'Irish citizen') and residence. It makes no reference to a player's country of chess registration. Perhaps it should do so. I can't see why anyone should reasonably expect to play in something calling itself the British Chess Championship when they are not affiliated to one of several British or Irish national federations. Indeed, I am wondering whether 'chess citizenship' should not be the only yardstick that need apply. If a British or Irish player decides to sign up with a non-British Isles chess federation, that's fine but I don't think they should then be allowed to compete in the British Championship simply because of their personal citizenship. By the same token, if a non-British person comes to live in Britain or Ireland, having spent at least a year here and changed registration to one of our national federations, I see no good reason why they should not compete (so long as they remain resident). This seems a lot simpler and equitable to me.

I guess this idea must have been considered before and rejected for some reason. But why?

[JustinHorton]

I just wonder - is it possible to be registered in more than one country? For instance, I'm an ECF member and I'm also a member of FADA, the Aragonese Chess Federation, both of which affiliations I have to have if I'm to play both where I live and in the 4NCL. I don't know if being a member of FADA makes me a registered member of the Spanish Federation too - I don't suppose you know?

[John Saunders]

You can certainly be a member of two national federations at the same time but only one of them will be your official federation for FIDE rating purposes. I'm thinking in terms of a player's primary affiliation. In your case, ENG, in mine, WLS. I guess you may also be affiliated to the Spanish federation. I have also been a member of the BCF whilst being affiliated officially to WLS. That is broadly analogous to joining more than one chess club. There is usually nothing to stop a player doing that, even joining clubs that play against each other in the same competition, but you can usually only represent one of them in a given competition.

[John Saunders]

P.S. Perhaps I could have been more precise with my wording when I said that you could be 'affiliated' to the Spanish federation. It is possibly better to talk about being a member of the Spanish federation. So, you can be a 'member' of more than one federation and 'affiliated' to only one.

[Roger de Coverly]

I found both the 2007 and 2008 regulations and the rule has changed from three to one year's residence. Why?

The rule change certainly benefited Felix Y - on a 3 year qualification he wouldn't yet be eligible.

I can't see why anyone should reasonably expect to play in something calling itself the British Chess Championship when they are not affiliated to one of several British or Irish national federations. Indeed, I am wondering whether 'chess citizenship' should not be the only yardstick that need apply

Don't the same rules apply to the numerous Junior titles? You wouldn't expect the under eight players to have a FIDE rating ,so nationality has be used.

You could possibly say that all players in the British proper had to be ENG,SCO,IRL,WLS,GCI or JCI ( what about Northern Ireland who are in limbo?) This would exclude non FIDE rated players ( 1 at Great Yarmouth, none in Liverpool)

[Stewart Reuben]

Michael Adams told me years ago that he was wholly against players registered with FIDE for another federation being allowed to play in the British Championship. Joe Gallagher (Switzerland) won it, but he was (probably still is) a British citizen.
David Welch changed it from 3 years to 1 to reflect the pace of modern life. It used to be 5.

Had either of Kolbus, Lalic won we would have expressed it as Bogdan Lalic of Sutton, or Dietmar Kolbus of the Isle of Man.

If we insisted on FIDE Registration of a British Isles Federation or being a UK protectorate, that would be perfectly reasonable for the Championship. It would not work well for the junior championships as previously explained.

One little boy, born in Italy, of British parents, but resident in Britain for less than a year, had to be refused entry. This was because his parents had not applied for dual nationality for him.

Of course the British Championships are just run by the English Chess Federation under license. The regulations are controlled by the British Isles Coordinating Committee.

Stewart

[IM Jack Rudd]

The likes of Bogdan Lalic, Alexander Cherniaev, Jovica Radovanovic, Nicholas Tavoularis and so on are tremendously valuable to British chess: the four men I just mentioned are all regular competitors in the Coulsdon all-play-alls, in which they count as foreign players, despite living in Britain. This means that the tournaments can have the required number of foreigners without having to shoulder the attendant problems of bringing players in from abroad.

These players could all legitimately change their federation to England if they so wished, but it helps British chess that they do not do so. I feel it is appropriate for British chess to return the favour by allowing them (if they qualify) to play in the British Championship.

[David Pardoe]

Yes, I agree that chess rules need a make over....and a pity that more of our top guns don`t participate in the British.
The rules I`d like to see moderated are
The move recording rule.....no penalty to apply unless opponent suspects foul play...when he/she should be able to approach the controller.

The mobile phone rule.....a warning to be given to player who has inadvertantly infringed, followed by a 3 minute penalty if further `annoyance` occurs. There are many forms of nuisense that can occur at league and congress events...eg, people crunching loudly on crisps....and a passing fire engine, with its siron sounding...etc. We must keep a sense of proportion with our penalty system....maybe for top international events a harsher regime might be appropriate.
If any deliberate foul play is suspected, then the controller should be approached. A Controller should be able to award a game against an offening player in a case where serious concerns are raised. ie, deliberate cheating has occured.
Formal complaints to be allowed to league/congress, etc....and if serious foul play is deemed to have occured, then that player may be banned from further league/congress play for a 12 month period.
I`ve also gone on record as being against the rule regarding descriptive notation. This is part of the history of our game, with many classic books written using descriptive. It is part of the culture of our game, I believe, and should be retained.

[Roger de Coverly]

and a pity that more of our top guns don`t participate in the British.

English top 10 July 2008 from

http://ratings.fide.com/topfed.phtml?ina=1&country=ENG

# Name Title Fed Rating G B-Year
1 Adams, Michael g ENG 2735 20 1971
2 Short, Nigel D g ENG 2655 25 1965
3 McShane, Luke J g ENG 2596 5 1984
4 Howell, David W L g ENG 2561 12 1990
5 Jones, Gawain C B g ENG 2549 37 1987
6 Pert, Nicholas g ENG 2547 3 1981
7 Parker, Jonathan F g ENG 2538 1 1976
8 Conquest, Stuart C g ENG 2536 22 1967
9 Wells, Peter K g ENG 2526 19 1965
10 Speelman, Jon S g ENG 2524 3 1956


Of these 10, 3 were playing in Liverpool, 4 were playing in the Staunton event and 1 was in the world u-20. The other 2 as far as I am aware have high powered city jobs.

Of the next 10

11 Hebden, Mark L g ENG 2520 17 1958
12 King, Daniel J g ENG 2518 4 1963
13 Haslinger, Stewart G g ENG 2511 19 1981
14 Gordon, Stephen J m ENG 2508 0 1986
15 Arkell, Keith C g ENG 2506 18 1961
16 Gormally, Daniel W g ENG 2504 3 1976
17 Williams, Simon K g ENG 2496 7 1979
18 Flear, Glenn C g ENG 2493 22 1959
18 Turner, Matthew J g ENG 2493 3 1975
20 Emms, John M g ENG 2489 10 1967

7 were playing in the British.

So that's 10 out of the top 20 with another 5 playing in conflicting events.

If you include inactive players, the top 5 are

1 Adams, Michael g ENG 2735 20 1971
2 Short, Nigel D g ENG 2655 25 1965
3 Sadler, Matthew D g ENG 2617 0 1974
4 Hodgson, Julian M g ENG 2609 0 1963
5 Nunn, John D M g ENG 2602 't 0 1955

I doubt that changes to the rules of the British would be sufficient to tempt players out of retirement.

[David Pardoe]

Roger,
Thanks for your analysis...
As usual, there are many reasons that can explain the numbers...or lack of them. Always an organisors headache trying to avoid clashes with significant competing events. I was surprised this year when looking at the prelims to our MCCU planning for the counties qualifier competitions. The number of dates I saw requested to be excluded from the calendar was quite surprising. Still we`ve found difficulties.
That the Staunton event clashes with the British is unfortunate......perhaps. That the Staunton, held in the plush surroundings of the Strand, attracts more of our top ten than the `British` probably is no surprise......it commands a higher place in the pecking order, I guess. Some live televising, or recorded highlights of such events...maybe showing on Channel 4 or such like, with Bill Hartson/Ray Keene style commentories, might be a help in promoting our chess scene.....perhaps mentioning various other chess events/information to alert joe public to the existance of the sport/game across the land. Certainly, more new faces entering our clubs/congresses etc would be very welcome.
Yes, I know that trying to get these media muppits to give airtime to sports like chess is hard work...viewing figures must be sustained....by the endless `soups` that appear on our screens...... even darts gets some space on the box..... our chess clubs surely must offer better entertainment value?
The number of top english players entering the British over the years, has been commented on previously as disappointing.
Same has been said about Hastings....and the difficulties of attracting top players. Prize funds have been criticised.......marketing and publicity perhaps too.

[Stewart Reuben]

All the active English leading players played in August. Why Matthew Turner did not play in the British I don't know. Perhaps he had a better offer, but he did play abroad. John Emms and Danny King are not very active players.
I think we did pretty well by the top english players in terms of offering opportunities this August. The Staunton clash is unfortunate, but even then Adams and Short would not have played in Liverpool. But they will be there in September, along with most leading English players.
Down with the moaning whingers.
Stewart Reuben

[Matthew Turner]

I didn't play at the British Championships, because despite being a teacher I have a lot of holiday commitments. This means that the Summer holiday is just that - a holiday. I don't consider Liverpool to be a holiday venue (I know it has a lot to offer, but nothing that I found particularly rivetting). I choose instead to play in Tromso, at the Arctic Masters (in the Arctic Circle). I got a lot of great experiences, seeing herds of reindeer, fishing at midnight (in daylight) and meeting Magnus Carlsen to name but a few.
All that said, I think Stewart did a fantastic job on the British and without his efforts to energise the event and whip up interest, it would have been nowhere near the event it turned out to be.
In terms of eligibility, I don't have any particularly strong views, however I do have two comments.
1. It appears (rightly or wrongly) that David Welch is able to change the rules on a whim, this surely cannot be right.
2. The event used to be a 'Commonwealth Championships' and I remember the likes of Sasikiran and Anand competing - has the event improved since commonwealth players have been excluded? is it more attractive to sponsors? have the (leading) players who signed the petition to exclude commonwealth players (I was not one of them) supported the 'British Championships'. I don't know the answer to any of those questions, but I think we need to consider where we want the British Championships to go before we meander from one rule change to another.

[Stewart Reuben]

I very much doubt David Welch changed the eligibility rule by himself. Anyway the right of Commonwealth players to participate was removed in 2003 when Neil ran the event. I supported the change (although I had no office) and it was decided on by the British Isles Coordinating Committee, against Neil's wishes I believe. He wanted it to continue until 2004. The situation could not continue as before.
1. It is not logical for non-British Isles people to be eligible for the British Championship.
2. India has become very strong as a chess nation, partly due to our own efforts. Quite correctly so, one of the objects of the BCF was to develop chess in the Commonwealth. But it is not an objective of the ECF nor any of the home federations. The Indians were winning most of the prize money.
3. Winning a national championship has commercial value to an Indian child. Thus many were coming to the event and winning the junior titles. Most of the best British youngsters play above their age group to get better opposition. Parents and children didn't like this.

We have a one year residence in the British Isles now in order to be allowed to play in the British. This was instigated by David W. I expect it was discussed, but it can only be a matter of opinion. People are much more mobile these days. On the other hand, it is awkward that players registered for other federations are eligible for the British. Had Bogdan won the British, the announcement would have been about Bogdan Lalic of Sutton. If a majority want this changed, it can be done. Junior residential eligibility is a different matter.

Another eligibility matter that should interest Matthew. We define age group eligibility as being under the stated age on 1 September of the preceding year for the British junior championships. It could be on the first day of the congress. The alternative is to fall into line with FIDE who make it 1 January of the year of the congress.
Hitherto it was to the advantage of some borderline juniors. A player born 31 December had to play in a higher age group than 1 born one day later. Richard Bates told me that he thought this had given him a considerable advantage over James Vigus who was just sightly older. Our having 1 September means we mix the situation up and that can be for the good.
But Peter Purland bases international selection on results in junior events in the player's age group. This is new. Should we not now make age group eligibility in the British be as of 1 January? I have yet to find time to discuss this with Peter. There would be some upheaval in the first year where some people would become ineligible for the U16 Championship.
John Saunders has said that the senior eligibility for the British should be 1 January or the starting date of the congress. I would prefer both junior and senior to be the same date, but the argument is thin. The difference is that, for seniors, it would make more people eligible, not fewer as for juniors.

I don't think you can claim the changes in various rules for the British Champonships have meandered under my predecessors. In fact very little had changed from when I last ran the event in 1997.

By the way, I do intend to change the titles of British and English Ladies Championships to Women's. I dislike the name lady and both Eagle sisters will be pleased. It isn't often that one can do something to please two government ministers at so little cost. The trophy will still read British Ladies Championship. I said that was what counted when a schoolboy 50 years ago, but the time has come.

None of this will change the fact we badly need a business sponsor or philanthropy for the British, Hastings, international teams, the Grand Prix, new international activity and so on. That is just in my area of responsibility in English chess. People often do not even think of contacting the marketing department of the companies for which they work. If anybody has any cogent thoughts do please contact me. It is immensely difficult in the current economic climate and with the Olympics coming up. By the way, £60,000 would be fine for the British.

Stewart Reuben