London chess classic

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Roger de Coverly
Posts: 17315
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: London chess classic

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:10 am

Jonathan Rogers wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:03 am
Two places, eh?
There will be a need to define a tie break method. Last year Alan Merry won outright, so the issue didn't arise. There was a tie of four players for second though.

Mick Norris
Posts: 7012
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: London chess classic

Post by Mick Norris » Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:16 am

Jonathan Rogers wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:03 am
Two places, eh? Either they have been listening to the crowds about Rowson, or Short and Malcolm have unaccountably fallen out over something or other.
There were 2 qualifiers in 2016 so just reverting to that system?
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

Jonathan Rogers
Posts: 3648
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm

Re: London chess classic

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:26 am

No, surely the number of qualifiers depends on the availability of a certain number of favoured players, rather than a particular idea of whether there ought to be one or two qualifiers. A proper qualifier has not yet won a match (taking the view that Nick was invited in 2015).

And remember they are probably adding Adams this year. So they would hardly have two qualifiers now, unless....?

Richard Bates
Posts: 2740
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: London chess classic

Post by Richard Bates » Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:34 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:10 am
Jonathan Rogers wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:03 am
Two places, eh?
There will be a need to define a tie break method. Last year Alan Merry won outright, so the issue didn't arise. There was a tie of four players for second though.
There will be but it’s nowhere near as problematic producing a fair tiebreak for a nine round international, as it is for a five round weekender. And qualification will be far less “luck of the draw” dependent. Two years ago somebody was able to come very close to guaranteeing qualification by taking a bye in round 3.

The question on nationality was (I think 🤔) mainly rhetorical. But I have no idea who the sponsor is or their motivation for sponsoring the tournament. It was pretty clearly originally set up with a nationality based focus though. Maybe they don’t care as long as the Olympiad players are given a guaranteed place if they want it?

Richard Bates
Posts: 2740
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: London chess classic

Post by Richard Bates » Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:45 am

Jonathan Rogers wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:26 am
No, surely the number of qualifiers depends on the availability of a certain number of favoured players, rather than a particular idea of whether there ought to be one or two qualifiers. A proper qualifier has not yet won a match (taking the view that Nick was invited in 2015).

And remember they are probably adding Adams this year. So they would hardly have two qualifiers now, unless....?
Wouldn’t be surprising if Short made himself unavailable regardless of current personal relations with Malcolm. Even ignoring that he may not be willing to commit in advance of the FIDE election. He has commented on the gruelling nature of the schedule so probably the only positive attraction for him is the money. But the starter prize money isn’t huge, and he would probably have lower expected return than in the past (especially if Adams was playing). I think there was a year when he voluntarily opted out of the main event (albeit he probably still got a reasonable wage as a commentator instead).

Graham Borrowdale
Posts: 113
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 10:54 pm

Re: London chess classic

Post by Graham Borrowdale » Tue Sep 18, 2018 12:45 pm

Jonathan Rogers wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:03 am
Two places, eh? Either they have been listening to the crowds about Rowson, or Short and Malcolm have unaccountably fallen out over something or other.
Why should Short and Pein's personal differences over FIDE elections have any bearing on whether or not the former might be invited to play in a chess event organized by the latter?

Jonathan Rogers
Posts: 3648
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm

Re: London chess classic

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Tue Sep 18, 2018 1:09 pm

I left open the other possibility, that Short might have declined.

Why? Well, the tweets flying around at the moment seem to suggest that there is a bit more to it than personal differences of opinion as to who should be the next FIDE President! Though no doubt they will make up again, in the fullness of time.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 17315
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: London chess classic

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Sep 18, 2018 1:38 pm

Richard Bates wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:34 am
Maybe they don’t care as long as the Olympiad players are given a guaranteed place if they want it?
Arguably you need a non-ENG player to justify the "British" tag as opposed to "English". It's an explanation for the invites to the otherwise inactive Rowson. Matthew Turner is playing at Telford so would add a SCO player should he qualify.

The first two at Telford won't receive directly receive any prize money, so the Knockout place being open is logical from that viewpoint.

Graham Borrowdale
Posts: 113
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 10:54 pm

Re: London chess classic

Post by Graham Borrowdale » Tue Sep 18, 2018 5:48 pm

Jonathan Rogers wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 1:09 pm
I left open the other possibility, that Short might have declined.

Why? Well, the tweets flying around at the moment seem to suggest that there is a bit more to it than personal differences of opinion as to who should be the next FIDE President! Though no doubt they will make up again, in the fullness of time.
Well, yes, my question was rhetorical, but if this event is styled a "British Knockout Championship", then surely the player list should not be influenced by personal differences of opinion or anything else? Perhaps the whole entry criteria needs to be a bit more transparent.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 8506
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: London chess classic

Post by Alex Holowczak » Tue Sep 18, 2018 7:18 pm

I know a bit more than everyone here, but it's information I don't regard myself as being at liberty to disclose. However, you're all going to be disappointed with how mundane the reason is, unless you're the sort of person who gets excited by competition formats.

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1688
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: London chess classic

Post by Michael Farthing » Tue Sep 18, 2018 7:43 pm

Right folks! Close the thread. No point in discussing a chess tournament if there's no skullduggery to agonise over.

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 3737
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: London chess classic

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:29 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 7:18 pm
I know a bit more than everyone here, but it's information I don't regard myself as being at liberty to disclose. However, you're all going to be disappointed with how mundane the reason is, unless you're the sort of person who gets excited by competition formats.
As a person who does get excited by competition formats, I look forward to it.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 17315
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: London chess classic

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:40 am

IM Jack Rudd wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:29 pm
[As a person who does get excited by competition formats, I look forward to it.
With 8 participants, it could be run on the model of the 1975 Cricket World Cup.

You have two groups of 4 from which the winners and runners up qualify for semi-finals and a final.

Mick Norris
Posts: 7012
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: London chess classic

Post by Mick Norris » Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:46 am

IM Jack Rudd wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:29 pm
Alex Holowczak wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 7:18 pm
I know a bit more than everyone here, but it's information I don't regard myself as being at liberty to disclose. However, you're all going to be disappointed with how mundane the reason is, unless you're the sort of person who gets excited by competition formats.
As a person who does get excited by competition formats, I look forward to it.
Yes, interesting; maybe not 8 players then
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 17315
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: London chess classic

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:05 am

Mick Norris wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:46 am
Yes, interesting; maybe not 8 players then
The Classic as a whole is occupying a nine day slot from Sunday all the way to the Monday of the next week. Only the last three days will feature the Grand Chess Tour as some of that is being played at Google's Deep Mind. So the question comes as to whether the commentary rooms and the lecture theatre will be unused for the first six days or feature some other event.

Post Reply