BRITISH CHESS CHAMPIONSHIP PLAY OFFS

[Dinah Norman]

I find it very sad that the British Chess Championship Play Off between Stuart Conquest and Keith Arkell had to be decided by two 20 minute games after the prize giving. Stuart and Keith had both played so well and having to decide the British Championship in this way seems all wrong. As the British Chess Championship is no longer sponsored is all this really necessary? After such a tough two weeks I think both players could do with a rest then play 4 or 6 games to decide the title at the time limit used in the British Championship. The British Championship is not a speed event. Having a proper play off may well attract sponsorship. Congratulations to both Stuart and Keith for performing so well.

[David Robertson]

I wonder if you have given your proposal as much thought as it needs.

A rest followed by a play-off involving 4-6 games at Championship time limits would extend matters by the best part of a week. Volunteer arbiters, officials, technical staff, not to mention the exhausted players themselves, would need to meet the additional expense of accommodation and so forth. The venue? Don't ask!

You may be "very sad". But I can assure you from first hand evidence that both players were very happy with arrangements. And every chess lover should be very happy too

David

[TomChivers]

I enjoyed it. And I prefer a play-off to a statistical tie-break. And I agree that a subsequent long-play decider match would be impractical.

But . . . I'm very glad it didn't come down to an Armaggedon game, which I do find somewhat demeaning to chess.

[Ian Kingston]

It could have been worse. The 1974 Championship ended in a 7-way tie. Back then, a proper play-off at standard time controls was required, which took place at a different venue at the end of the year. Fortunately, that tournament produced an outright winner (George Botterill) - if it hadn't, according to the BCM's report, a second playoff would have been required.

The modern approach of having a rapidplay playoff immediately after the event is a decent compromise, but the Armageddon game in the event of another tie should have no place in a national championship. Despite the disadvantages of tie-breaks, at least they're based on the results of games played at a sensible time control.

It would have been very interesting if there had been another mass tie this year. Presumably a rapidplay tournament would have followed, with perhaps a further playoff if that didn't produce a winner. Would there have been time to fit it in?

Trivia footnote: Jeff Horner was the only player from 1974 who also competed in 2008. He scored 5 points on both occasions.

[Stewart Reuben]

Only in 1979 was the tie decided by tiebreaks. That was ironic, Bellin, Nunn and 13 year old short tied. The publicity would have been considerable. It reverted to a playoff.
Later Grieveson Grant, then the sponsors, requested there be no separate playoff. It was not cosat-effective in terms of publicity. So I introduced the playoff after the prizegiving.
There have been few complaints from leading or other players.
Armageddon is probably no worse than penalties in football.
Stewart

[Paul Cooksey]

I look forward to hearing Martyn's view on the 2011 play-off, in 2015.

I don't see any point working out a principled position, ignoring commercial considerations, on tournaments involving professional players. If this is an overly pragmatic position, I am prepared to live with that criticism.

[Mike Truran]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo

[Alan Burke]

Many competitive events use quickplay deciders to find a winner following a tie in what we would describe as a longplay tournament.

Some footballers might be world class, but can they always be relied upon to take a good penalty ? In Rugby League, a drawn cup-tie is often decided by the 'first to score' method and that usually comes down to which team has the best drop-kicker. A darts match might have lasted for more than a couple of hours, but is then decided on the throw of just one leg - with the player who gets to throw first obviously having a better advantage.

Unfortunately, like it or not, time constraints of many sporting occasions, along with having to maintain the interest of spectators by not letting an event drag on too long, mean that a quickplay finish is often the only way to decide an competition, where in normal conditions the players would have had a longer period to show their skill. Would snooker have been so popular now if the World Championship Final was still decided over a four day period with the winner being the first to 65 frames ? In cricket, although many are still passionate for Test Matches, it is the 20-20 version that creates most interest and brings in the crowds - and just how would Geoff Boycott have coped with that ?

Until a better system can be provided then the British Chess Championship would have to continue deciding a play-off in the current form.

[Alex Holowczak]

A darts match might have lasted for more than a couple of hours, but is then decided on the throw of just one leg - with the player who gets to throw first obviously having a better advantage.

That's not always true. In the PDC World Matchplay, the match is decided in the same way as tennis; the first to two clear legs wins. Best-of-35 finals have been won 19-17 on two occasions.

Would snooker have been so popular now if the World Championship Final was still decided over a four day period with the winner being the first to 65 frames ?

For a brief period after World War II, the Final was played over two weeks and the best-of-145 frames. Dead frames were played out. In an era where the World Championship was the only tournament, they had to do that to get the income off gate receipts. The rest of a professional's income would be from exhibitions.

They've shortened it ever since; and only when they decided to hold the whole tournament in one place at one time over a 2-3 week period did it finally settle down to the best-of-35 final we know today, which they've had since 1980.

The best final of all-time probably happened in 1975 in Melbourne. It was best-of-61!

[Alan Burke]

Martyn, so just how would you propose the Championship being decided in the event of a 2-way (or even more) tie ?

Of course, the following details must be considered ...

The last round is scheduled to finish in the evening of a particular date, so unless every player/official in the Championship pre-booked extra nights accommodation on the off-chance they might be in a play-off, then there would be no possibility of the tournament being extended, whilst the venue would also have to be hired on the same proviso - and would you be happy spending such money to then find out that there is an outright winner and the accommodation/venue is then not required ?

A "replay" at a later date would also cause similar problems for the players/officials involved, as everyone would have to leave a gap in their diary just in case of that possibility, when they might have usually been competing in some other tournament.

Yes, a play-off in its current form might not be ideal, but it does seem to be the only option until an alternative method agreeable to all parties (ie players, officials, spectators, venue, date) is proposed.

Over to you !

[Adam Raoof]

Alan has hit the nail on the head. My personal opinion is that a playoff is not necessary, causes organisational problems and is not fair on the players. As long as the rules are stipulated in advance of the event, I don't see a problem with a tiebreak. It would be better to know who the British Champion is on the final day of play, and have a civilised proper award ceremony at a meal in the evening.

http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/ ... ew=article

[Alex McFarlane]

I don't see a problem with a tiebreak. It would be better to know who the British Champion is on the final day of play, and have a civilised proper award ceremony at a meal in the evening.

Every tiebreak has problems, even a play-off! Mathematical tiebreaks can have the additional problem that the winner is known regardless of results before the last round is begun. I'm not saying the play-off is ideal but unless you are willing to share the Championship, it is the best of a bad lot.

When would this meal take place? In the current arrangements it could not start before 9.15 with any great certainty of having the afternoon winners in attendance. If you start the last round early to accommodate the meal then what do you do with the morning events (6am start anyone?).

The meal numbers would not be known until the very last minute (and prizewinners decided) or are you saying that people would sit round the edge of the hall watching others eat until their prize is presented. It would certainly mean players having to book an extra night's accommodation to attend the dinner.

Please provide us with a schedule that will realistically allow for your requirements. As an organiser I would love to see your solution.

[Adam Raoof]

I don't see a problem with a tiebreak. It would be better to know who the British Champion is on the final day of play, and have a civilised proper award ceremony at a meal in the evening.

Every tiebreak has problems, even a play-off! Mathematical tiebreaks can have the additional problem that the winner is known regardless of results before the last round is begun. I'm not saying the play-off is ideal but unless you are willing to share the Championship, it is the best of a bad lot.

What do you do for the Scottish Championships?

[Alex McFarlane]

Council decided it should be on performance after many years of sharing the title. It was felt that a play-off would have been better but one immediately after round 9 was not fair to one player and an extra day was impossible. A play-off at a later date had logistical problems with several of the players possibly living abroad (well outside Scotland anyway).
It is fair to say that no method of tie-break attracted significant support without using a transferrable vote system.

[Roger de Coverly]

When would this meal take place? In the current arrangements it could not start before 9.15 with any great certainty of having the afternoon winners in attendance. If you start the last round early to accommodate the meal then what do you do with the morning events (6am start anyone?).

You don't know the length of games either with increments. Remember Jones against Pert from the last round at Sheffield. Spectators had long since departed to the pubs and were watching through wi-fi.