BRITISH CHESS CHAMPIONSHIP PLAY OFFS

[Matt Mackenzie]

There was a Nunn-Hartston play-off match in the months following the 1980 championship, decisively won by the former.

[John Upham]

here are very few games played with adjournments.

The London League currently features 25 games adjourned and here they are: http://www.londonchess.org.uk/games.php ... filter=all

Over the course of this season I'd estimate that between 100 and 200 LL games were adjourned: I will ask Brian Smith for a more accurate figure.

[David Shepherd]

Why do you believe longer is necesssarily 'better'.

I just offered an alternative, without expressing an opinion that it was better. The rapidplay games I have seen are a good format for the spectators and normally seem to produce a result, whether they are the best format I am not sure - they may be, but it is likely no form of tie break is 100% satisfactory. The worst I have ever seen was a junior tournament decided on sum of opponents grades where both players had 6/6

[Stewart Reuben]

Since two players have a different ability, it can never be an exactly level playing field. Thus, whenever Kasparov played he had an advantage over his opponents, he did not have to play himself. It is different for athletics as that is not a one-on-one or team-on-team sport.

Referring to a brain abnormality as 'physical' is stretching the meaning of the word.

We will have simply to beg to differ about whether the various tiebreaks I mentioned require identical abilities. I am sure they are not. Take penalty shoot-outs. There is absolutely no doubt some teams are better at this than others, although of the same ability in a match. Teams should practice penalty shoot-outs where they may apply. Similarly people who may have to play faster chess in a playoff, should practice.

When person takes an exam and it is accepted that he needs extra time, then it is given. The same could be done in chess, but has never been considered. If a player needs to take a pill at a certain time, or to pray, allowances are made in chess. The difficulty some people have about keeping score, because they need to change their glasses, has never been addressed.

[Mike Gunn]

(I'm sure I posted the same as below in another thread.)

I attended one session of the Basman-Harston playoff in 1974 (for the 1973 championship). There were about 8 people present including the two players and the arbiter. It was in a hotel near Heathrow airport. Although there were several bottles of Cutty Sark whiskey on display none of these was actually opened for the benefit of the players or spectators.

Although I do prefer these "old-fashioned" or "proper" replays, they don't make economic sense for the players, organisers or sponsors. In contrast an audience of between 100 and 200 watched the playoff between Mickey and Nigel at Sheffield this year (plus many more on the internet, I expect).

[Roger de Coverly]

Having thought about it, wouldn’t a blind player also have a disadvantage at twenty minute games? - as they have to waste time calling out the moves and making their opponent’s moves

The usual practice would be that an arbiter would execute the move.

Whilst 1 minute chess is quite different from 7 hour chess, and 5 minute also up to a point, I don't think twenty minute chess, particularly with an increment differs that much. Once quick play finishes and increment timing replaced perpetual adjournments in international chess, anyone with success has on occasion to produce a high standard at a relatively high speed of thought. Computer engines have shown that the faster you think, the more you search and are thus the better player against a shallower depth. That applies as much to seven hour chess as twenty minute.

[Alex Holowczak]

Having thought about it, wouldn’t a blind player also have a disadvantage at twenty minute games? - as they have to waste time calling out the moves and making their opponent’s moves

While the blind player would have this disadvantage, so would the sighted player. Both players have to (or get an assistant to):
(1) Announce the move to their opponent
(2) Make their opponent's move on the chessboard

So the playing field is as level as it can be for both players. As it has to be. FIDE would make sure of this before they start writing rules, so that they don't fall foul of various discrimination laws.

[Stewart Reuben]

Alex >FIDE would make sure of this before they start writing rules, so that they don't fall foul of various discrimination laws.<

That is incredibly optimistic. The FIDE Laws regarding blind players were written before there were discrimination laws. There are no laws that related to every country. Take the definition of 'disabled'.

When Grieveson, Grant sponsored the British, they eventually said that the championship playoff after the event did not give them value for money and thus we stopped having one. Even earlier than that, there used to be a playoff for the British Ladies'. In 1983 Rani Hamid and Helen Milligan tied. They made it clear that it would be impossible to mount a playoff at a later date. Clearly they both wanted to hold the title. I consulted nobody, but that was the end of that playoff. Dinah Norman, who started this thread, (then Dobson) did have a match with Rowena Bruce for the title.
I tied with David Anderton for the British Seniors. For me it does not detract from that achievement that I shared it with somebody else.
Gibraltar, Brian Callaghan wants there to be a winner. He raises the money and is now the organiser. Thus there is a playoff and sometimes the event is tied into knots to make it possible.
European Championship they now rely on tiebreaks.
World Championship...World Cup they rely on speed playoffs.
The World Championship they used to rely on the incumbent retaining the title. That was patently unfair. Bobby wanted an advantage such that he would retain the title if he won 9 games, whereas Tolya would have had to win 10 wins to 8 to gain the title. That is what is supposed to have stopped the 1975 match taking place. Many believe Bobby would have put up other obstacles.

Bobby obviously had problems. They weren't physical at that time. FIDE went a long way trying to get Bobby to play. Some think they should have gone further.

[Alan Burke]

Martyn, although I don't necessarily agree with your point of view, I do understand you reasoning. However, I think your argument would have more clout if any player had ever been involved in a British Championship play-off and felt he had been disadvantaged due to the reasons you suggest. Yes, the situation might occur in the future, but so could many, many other scenarios where a particular player would like a ruling to be altered to suit his own needs.

Until then, and until you can possibly come up with an alternative system taking into account all the points I raised in my last post (and I note that you haven't made any answer concerning the situations I described) it seems the vast majority of entrants are quite happy to accept that the ECF do their best to accommodate the needs of all players, but in the knowledge that whichever system they decide upon there will always be someone who feels disgruntled.

[Paul McKeown]

IF a blind player were to tie for the British Championship, I'm damn sure that no one would require them to participate in a blitz or rapidplay playoff, nor anyone with a physical handicap that severely impacted their dexterity. People should stop being ridiculous and trying to take theoretical situations to the extreme. I doubt that an organiser would accept autism without impeded dexterity as a reason to set aside a proposed rapid play-off.