ECF County Championships 2011

[Adam Raoof]

Dear Friends

The recently concluded Counties Championships, were a great success. I am sure that you will join me in thanking Cyril and Julie Johnson for their sterling efforts, their team of arbiters (David Welch, Adrian Elwin, John Shaw and John Wickham) and Brian Smith for his work coordinating at Golden Lane.

I would like your feedback on an idea put to me by several Captains. Should we FIDE rate the Counties Championships? EDIT: Just the top Open and Under 180 Sections.

To FIDE rate the event it would be necessary for everyone who plays in a FIDE rated event to be a member of the ECF (or other National Federation). How many of your current team are already members, probably playing in the 4NCL?

The current standard National Stages time limit of 40 in 2 hours then all in 30 is acceptable. What we might need to do is remove the current discretion for the teams to agree something different. Is this common in the earlier rounds to reduce venue hire costs? Or is it not significant?

I would also welcome feedback about the event, if you think there are things we could do to make the experience even more enjoyable.

[Gavin Strachan]

I would like them FIDE rated as it increases the opportunity to increase FIDE ratings. I would imagine titled players maybe more reluctant to play though if it were FIDE graded.

[Jonathan Rogers]

For a start it would only be "necessary" for everyone to be an ECF member to get their games rated because the ECF might decide thus. Let's call the situation as it is! Equally the ECF could decide that it is not "necessary" for all team members to be ECF members for county chess in order to have their games rated, even if it were to continue to wish to blackmail (English) 4NCL participants in this way.

But generally, it is an excellent idea. I would have two IM norms (and would probably have been motivated to make a third) and certainly a rating well over 2400, if my county games from 1995 onwards had been rated. (There are probably better reasons for rating them, but that would do for me!)

[Roger de Coverly]

For a start it would only be "necessary" for everyone to be an ECF member to get their games rated because the ECF might decide thus.

The Dutch appear to have a concept of "rating membership".

From http://www.leidenchess.nl/programma.php (an internationally rated tournament)

Niet KNSB-leden betalen € 5 extra voor het ratinglidmaatschap van de KNSB.

which Google translates as

Non-members pay KNSB € 5 extra rating for membership of the KNSB.

subject to correction from Dutch speakers, I'd assume the proper translation is

Non-members pay KNSB € 5 extra for rating membership of the KNSB.

even if it were to continue to wish to blackmail (English) 4NCL participants in this way.

Wild cards could get very expensive! 4NCL teams seem prepared to pay this - but their decisions are not subject to the "democratic process" of the average county AGM.

[Ljubica Lazarevic]

How much work would it be to only FIDE rate ECF members? Would that fit within the rules?

[Roger de Coverly]

How much work would it be to only FIDE rate ECF members? Would that fit within the rules?

The 4NCL used to do this so that players without international ratings didn't have to be members. The ECF or Fide deemed it against the rating rules.

[Jonathan Rogers]

That would be possible, Ljubica, I think the 4NCL did it in 2004/5, before switching (being made to switch? but if so, then by the ECF, certainly not FIDE) to a rule requiring everyone to be a member of their national federation. If a compromise were sought for county chess, this would probably be the most viable one. There would be no problem with last minute replacements (who have no reason to be ECF members), and those who do value opportunities to play for rating points would have that extra opportunity - one which, for working family people, only really exists in 4NCL at present.

Incidentally, Roger, wildcards in 4NCL are exempt from the ECF membership rule, for the first weekend in which they play as such (since there is a wildcard fee for them to pay instead, this doesn't give much opportunity to milk the system). So this would be another possible compromise for county chess, though not a sensible one in my view.

[David Shepherd]

It is the ECF county championship - why not make the rules that all the players must be ECF members in all sections anyway regardless of whether FIDE rated or not.

Also why not FIDE rate all sections. In the lower sections there would not be many games to rate anyway as most players I suspect would not have FIDE grades. This assumes it would just be possible to only submit games for grading involving at least one graded player. If that is not the case and all results had to be submitted it may well be a disproportionate administrative burden FIDE rating lower sections compared to the benefits obtained.

[David Sedgwick]

How much work would it be to only FIDE rate ECF members? Would that fit within the rules?

The ECF tells the 4NCL, and organisers like Sean Hewitt, that everyone who plays in a FIDE event has to be a member of the ECF (or other National Federation). This is either a matter of ECF policy, or it's considered necessary to ensure that the ECF complies with FIDE requirements, or both.

I hope you're not seriously suggesting that the ECF could then suddenly decide that the requirement is not necessary or appropriate for its own event and exempt the Counties Championships from the regulation to which everyone else has to adhere.

[David Sedgwick]

It is the ECF county championship - why not make the rules that all the players must be ECF members in all sections anyway regardless of whether FIDE rated or not.

Also why not FIDE rate all sections. In the lower sections there would not be many games to rate anyway as most players I suspect would not have FIDE grades. This assumes it would just be possible to only submit games for grading involving at least one graded player. If that is not the case and all results had to be submitted it may well be a disproportionate administrative burden FIDE rating lower sections compared to the benefits obtained.

It's only the ECF Counties Championships in the National Stages. The Union Qualifying Stages are Union events.

If teams qualifying for the National Stages suddenly found that all their players had to become ECF members, they might well decide not to play.

As I've said on the other thread about the Counties Championships: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The Counties Championships are certainly not broke - they're in a very healthy state. So don't fix them.

[Brian Valentine]

While this proposal has it attractions it would need material changes in how the EACU runs its qualifying rounds.

Currently the union meets three times a year and each county has two matches. My understanding is that each player must have at least two hours playing time (this is a loose summary), making games needing four hours. At present we play 36 moves in 90 minutes with 20 mins quickplay. However even this makes a long day as most players will have 30-50 miles travel each way. In practice, with the start often delayed some players get a very small lunch break between games.

I'd rather not put my FIDE rating on the line, if these conditions persisted with a "small" something added to meet the rate of play rules.

[John Philpott]

Adam Raoof wrote

I am sure that you will join me in thanking Cyril and Julie Johnson for their sterling efforts, their team of arbiters (David Welch, Adrian Elwin, John Shaw and John Wickham).........

Hear hear!

.....and Brian Smith for his work coordinating at Golden Lane.

Brian was an excellent host for the National Club finals, but these had nothing whatsoever to do with the County Championship!

Should we FIDE rate the Counties Championships? EDIT: Just the top Open and Under 180 Sections.

The edit to restrict this to the top Open and Under 180s Sections takes care of a point that I would have raised otherwise. If we go down this approach, which I have some sympathy with, I would be inclined to include the Minor Counties Championship. Such a move would parallel the international rating of the top division of the County & District Correspondence Chess Championships (the Ward-Higgs) which has been introduced for this season.

The current standard National Stages time limit of 40 in 2 hours then all in 30 is acceptable. What we might need to do is remove the current discretion for the teams to agree something different. Is this common in the earlier rounds to reduce venue hire costs? Or is it not significant?

The Union qualifying competitions tend to be played over a shorter session - for the SCCU the default limit is 35 in 105 minutes then all in 30 when mechanical clocks are used or 35 in 100 minutes then all in 20 with a 10 second increment added from the start when digital clocks are used. With longer travelling distances for the National Stages, it is extremely common for a shorter limit to be agreed by the captains: this is more a question of the time needed to get to and from the venue than of economising on venue costs. This season both the Yorkshire v Essex U180 quarter final and the Essex v Notts U180 semi-final adopted the SCCU mechanical clock time limit. In the 14 seasons for which I have been a County captain before finally retiring last month, the occasions when a 5 hour limit has in practice been played in the National Stages outside the Final have in my own experience been few and far between. I am not sure what is required to qualify for FIDE rating, but if this would necessitate a significant curtailment of the flexibility that captains currently enjoy, I would on balance be inclined to retain the flexibility and forego the FIDE rating.

On a separate matter, I think that the rules should permit explicitly the use of an incremental time limit (as was in practice adopted for the Essex v Greater Manchester preliminary round match in the Open with the consent of the then acting controller). Consideration could indeed be given to making this the default approach.

[David Sedgwick]

While this proposal has it attractions it would need material changes in how the EACU runs its qualifying rounds.

Currently the union meets three times a year and each county has two matches. My understanding is that each player must have at least two hours playing time (this is a loose summary), making games needing four hours. At present we play 36 moves in 90 minutes with 20 mins quickplay. However even this makes a long day as most players will have 30-50 miles travel each way. In practice, with the start often delayed some players get a very small lunch break between games.

I'd rather not put my FIDE rating on the line, if these conditions persisted with a "small" something added to meet the rate of play rules.

The Union qualifying competitions tend to be played over a shorter session - for the SCCU the default limit is 35 in 105 minutes then all in 30 when mechanical clocks are used or 35 in 100 minutes then all in 20 with a 10 second increment added from the start when digital clocks are used. With longer travelling distances for the National Stages, it is extremely common for a shorter limit to be agreed by the captains: this is more a question of the time needed to get to and from the venue than of economising on venue costs. This season both the Yorkshire v Essex U180 quarter final and the Essex v Notts U180 semi-final adopted the SCCU mechanical clock time limit. In the 14 seasons for which I have been a County captain before finally retiring last month, the occasions when a 5 hour limit has in practice been played in the National Stages outside the Final have in my own experience been few and far between. I am not sure what is required to qualify for FIDE rating, but if this would necessitate a significant curtailment of the flexibility that captains currently enjoy, I would on balance be inclined to retain the flexibility and forego the FIDE rating.

As I understand it, Adam is at present only suggesting the FIDE Rating of the National Stages. It will be up to each Union to decide whether to do likewise it its Union Qualifying Stages. The SCCU could not do so in 2010-11; the Annual Council Meeting has already taken place.

If anyone playing is or may be 2200 or over, you need to have a four hour playing session. The first time control, if there is one, must be after 40 moves. Thus all moves in 2 hours would be acceptable, as would 40 moves in 2 hours followed by all moves in 15 minutes.

With an incremental time limit a player must have two hours for 60 moves. Therefore the equivalent of all moves in two hours is all moves in 110 minutes plus 10 seconds per move.

Hence you wouldn't need to eliminate the current flexibility entirely, but you would have to curtail it considerably.

[Alex Holowczak]

I would say just do it for the National Stages of the Open and Minor Open sections at first, and if too many people don't rebel, then start expanding into the other sections.

[Richard Bates]

No.