2013 British Chess Championships (Torquay)

[Dan O'Dowd]

I agree Jack that it would rather defeat the purpose not to be offered a re-pairing in such a situation, and I've always preferred them too, though it must be frustrating if such a pairing ends up with a relatively strong player parachuted in leaving you no time, since I presume it would be way out of line somehow either in ethics or law, to then nip home (if you lived that close!) or do some prep, after the round start time.

[IM Jack Rudd]

I agree Jack that it would rather defeat the purpose not to be offered a re-pairing in such a situation, and I've always preferred them too, though it must be frustrating if such a pairing ends up with a relatively strong player parachuted in leaving you no time, since I presume it would be way out of line somehow either in ethics or law, to then nip home (if you lived that close!) or do some prep, after the round start time.

I think I've seen arbiters allow games to start later in that situation, to allow the affected players time to prepare. It's a reasonable solution if practical.

[Andrew Zigmond]

I agree with Nigel and you on this one, but please be a little more careful not to make quite such sweeping statements without qualifying, about minor section entrants (presuming this includes all grade limited sort of players) Personally I know that I and quite a few people I know try to prepare conscientiously as part of the tournament experience. Though it is certainly fair to say that for as many of us who do this, there are just as many who might either see it as a vulgarity against the test of skill of a game on its own, and those who would find the effort unrewarding compared to the holiday experience.

It would be inappropriate of me to comment on amateurishness for a few reasons though, but why do you consider it ironic?

I was a minor entrant for many years until the revised grades pushed me up into inters (the way my grade is going I'll be back in the minors soon but I digress). Personally I'd rather play the opponent I was paired against and claim a win by default if he fails to appear rather than be repaired against another opponent after half an hour (mainly because having been sat at the board psyched up ready for my opponent I'd rather not have the disruption of the repairing - not because I want a free point). However a lot of players would just want to enjoy a game of chess.

Ironic because the arbiters are being criticised by some for doing the professional thing and not repairing.

I've just seen Jack's comment. I agree that the player should be given the option of a repairing should they wish. The point about the Isle Of Man dispute (which dates back some years and I believe the arbiter in question is now deceased) was that Dr Short was simply told he had to accept a repairing. The player who got the default today may well have preferred a game of chess.

[Dan O'Dowd]

I agree with Nigel and you on this one, but please be a little more careful not to make quite such sweeping statements without qualifying, about minor section entrants (presuming this includes all grade limited sort of players) Personally I know that I and quite a few people I know try to prepare conscientiously as part of the tournament experience. Though it is certainly fair to say that for as many of us who do this, there are just as many who might either see it as a vulgarity against the test of skill of a game on its own, and those who would find the effort unrewarding compared to the holiday experience.

It would be inappropriate of me to comment on amateurishness for a few reasons though, but why do you consider it ironic?

I was a minor entrant for many years until the revised grades pushed me up into inters (the way my grade is going I'll be back in the minors soon but I digress). Personally I'd rather play the opponent I was paired against and claim a win by default if he fails to appear rather than be repaired against another opponent after half an hour (mainly because having been sat at the board psyched up ready for my opponent I'd rather not have the disruption of the repairing - not because I want to a free point). However a lot of players would just want to enjoy a game of chess.

Ironic because the arbiters are being criticised by some for doing the professional thing and not repairing.

I've just seen Jack's comment. I agree that the player should be given the option of a repairing should they wish. The point about the Isle Of Man dispute (which dates back some years and I believe the arbiter in question is now deceased) was that Dr Short was simply told he had to accept a repairing. The player who got the default today may well have preferred a game of chess.

Ah, I see what level you meant now (: Having played at that same level I agree with what you say - more recently I've been plying a trade in U160/180 and in any case I will happily admit I am amongst the most serious about my chess in the county even, though coming from Cumbria this is hardly representative in the first place

[Andrew Zigmond]

Rather to my shame this year's British was the first time I've really seen top level players in action and it made me appreciate exactly what effort is required to play chess at such a high level.

[Ian Thompson]

It is unfortunate but let's not forget that it was the ECF's FIDE delegate who got this rule put in place. That would make it even more stupid if it were an ECF event which was to ignore it.

Really? I thought he got FIDE to confirm that this was the existing rule that the Isle of Man organisers had failed to follow.

I'm playing in a tournament at the moment where the organisers are effectively circumventing the rule, perhaps unintentionally. They're publishing a provisional draw as soon as they can after completion of a round, but stating that it might be changed until they declare it confirmed, which they're doing an hour or two before the next round. Even if this isn't breaking the letter of the FIDE rules, it's certainly breaking the spirit of them. On the other hand, as a player, a provisional draw is better than no draw at all.

[Jonathan Bryant]

I hope everyone enjoyed the hosting as it takes a lot of effort to bring you that many boards.

Your rather unsung heroes are Dave Clayton and Matthew Carr so offer them your thanks or even a beer if ever you meet them face to face.

The coverage this year seemed a cut above previous (already enjoyable) tournaments. More games carried and transmission more reliable.

Thanks to all involved.

[JustinHorton]

I disagree with Dr Short on a lot of things but I happen to think he was right on this one.

1. The title Dr is incorrect.

The point about the Isle Of Man dispute (which dates back some years and I believe the arbiter in question is now deceased) was that Dr Short was simply told he had to accept a repairing.

2. For some people, including many who like myself were participants, the point was that repairing was the rule applying to the tournament and had been published as such. (I seem to recall other repairings took place in that first round without complaint, because other playes were aware of this.) I say "the" point, but another point was the indeed absurd nature of Short's reponse, since there are other ways of making one's disagreements known than the one he chose to employ.

Of course this argument has been done to death in the past decade and I have no great desire to engage in it again, but if you have not heard other points of view than Short's, it is worth being aware of them.

[Roger de Coverly]

I thought he got FIDE to confirm that this was the existing rule that the Isle of Man organisers had failed to follow.

The notion that you publish a first round draw based on the then available information, with a re-pairing process for non-arrivals and late entrants had been a standard practice in English events since at least 1975. The major advantage was that it got the first round started on time, a very important consideration for a Friday evening round. I thought it strange that Nigel had never encountered this in his youth at the weekend Swiss.

The Isle of Man case showed that the British arbiters had neglected to get this standard practice incorporated into FIDE rules as a variation when British events became FIDE rated. The Lloyds Bank tournament would have been one of the earliest in the world to incorporate FIDE rating into a massive Open Swiss and develop seeded pairing systems and the rules associated with them.

[Matthew Carr]

The Prize giving is being broadcast to the internet as it happens.

Prize giving is due to start at 9.30 so the camera will start soon before that.

The web address is www.livestream.com/ecfwebcam

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I can't remember if I've been to a prize-giving at the British before, but I thoroughly enjoyed the one today at the end of these championships. An impressive array of trophies.

Having just got back from being in Torquay for the second week of the British, I went and dug out some old photo albums from 1998 (the first time I went to the British, when it was also held in Torquay), and I discovered I do have a few photos from back then. Two are of the playing hall, and among the players on the show boards are Speelman, Sadler and Short (who seems to have had a bleached hairstyle back then). It all looks exactly the same. The main difference is the use of demonstration boards, with juniors making the moves! No live boards or internet broadcast...

[John Clarke]

I was once denied a re-pair (in the fifth round out of six) on the grounds that the only available opponent was a full point ahead of me in the standings, and it wouldn't have been appropriate to have a game between people having such a disparity in their scores.

It didn't seem to occur to the organiser that I'd be meeting someone at that level anyway in the final round! How did he imagine that having been credited with an unearned point for the walk-over made any real difference? It didn't as far as I was concerned then, and still wouldn't now.

The way I look at it is: I've paid my entry fee and expect in return, if at all possible, to get six games or whatever the number of rounds is.

[Rob Thompson]

For what it's worth, if this happened to me and there was a repairing available I'd like it to be offered, but I may well decide not to take it and have the point instead.

[Stewart Reuben]

I only just looked at this thread.
The lack of players in the 2300 rating range in British title tournments has been quite marked for many years. Nobody has ever suggested a cogent reason. It may be because such players, realising they are unlikely to make IM, simply lose interest in such events.

The possibility of my playing as a filler in the last round of the British was also mooted. But it was very clear that this would have been a most unlikely decision on the part of the British Under 12 Champion. That she won both the British and English Women's AND an age group championship separately was unquestionably a record.

Winning a game by default always damages any tournament. The Icleandic player who was denied a Rond 1 opponent in the Isle of Man wcould no longer achieve an IM norm. The way in which the FIDE Tournament Regulations try to resolve the problem when using Bucholz or Sonneborn-Berger for tiebreaks, is absurd - and I am secretary of the commission dealing with such matters. A 'virtual' opponent?! Of course we seldom use tiebreaks in Britain.

If yoy want to use a random Swiss pairing system, but are inhibited because it is impossible to reproduce the pairings independently, this is not a problem. Simply assign the pairing numbers randomly to the players and then use the Seeded Swiss System you favour. as if the piring number was based on rating. I believe if you simulated pairings perhaps 100 times for each system, with a random number generator for each result based on the colour and difference in rating; then a random Swiss would produce the 'fairest' result. But if you just do it once, it may bring up glaring inconsistencies.

I would define 'fairest' as players at all score levels to achieve a higher TPR than players on a lower score level. This definitely does not happen with a Seeded Swiss with players in the middle of the pairing range. I would investigate:
Seeded Swiss Pairings
Accelerated fractional
Accelerated bonus
Dubov
Burstein
Random
To help with such a project, the late John Robinson provided me with a 60 player round robin from 2600 to 2010 double round. The results were determined from the actual results shown on chessbase at the time. Thus the results could be used for all the different systems. The British Seeded Swiss system is so little different from the Dutch that I guess it would need more than 100 simulations to demonstrate a significant difference statistically. We float median to median. They float bottom to top. It is only a gut feeling that the former is better.

[MartinCarpenter]

I guess it must have got into a self reinforcing cycle whereby the 2300's who do play end up facing a very up/down field and consequently lose interest etc. Especially if they have a bad start the field they face can turn very weak for quite some time. The 4NCL eliminates that risk and might be a basically more solid field anyway.

The stats would, I suppose, look quite a bit better if some of the (ex)juniors had more realistic grades.