How interested are you in seeing your grading details?

[Richard Bates]

Would you also have a norm driven system to determine qualification to the Major Open? I suspect the MO will do a lot better if we flag up the fact that GMs and IMs from any nation can participate, and then it might be eligible for norms.

I would be very surprised if this were the case. I suspect that players enter the Major Open for three main reasons:

1) It's the most appropriate available tournament for their strength (and is FIDE rated) over the full two weeks of the British
2) It gives them an opportunity to qualify for the Championship
3) they might win some (quite decent) prize money

Having a few foreign IM/GMs playing would reduce the attractiveness of both 2) (because it would be harder to reach the qualifying mark of 7 or whatever it is) and 3), for obvious reasons (which is why, I think, when a very strong Russian entered about a dozen years ago and walked away with first prize, there was a bit of an outcry and the rules were changed to avoid this happening again).

I would have thought you have to be a least 2200 strength (at a push) before getting norms is a likely criteria for determining partipation in events, and these days anyone of that strength should be able to qualify for the Championship with their eyes closed anyway if they are so motivated.

It's a bit moot anyway, since the chances of getting enough IMs/GMs to play, enough FMs, enough foreign players to meet the four nationalities requirement, and meeting the minimum opposition strength requirements, are somewhat unlikely. To put it in perspective, to get an IM norm you have to play a MINIMUM average opposition of 2230. The highest average opposition of anybody in this year's Major Open was 2120!

What was the Major Open player feedback in the survey?

[Alex Holowczak]

It's a bit moot anyway, since the chances of getting enough IMs/GMs to play, enough FMs, enough foreign players to meet the four nationalities requirement, and meeting the minimum opposition strength requirements, are somewhat unlikely.

Four nationalities is much easier in England than, say, Germany. We can call on Scotland, Wales, Ireland etc., which means there's no need for passports, visas...

This year there were 7 nationalities playing: England (obviously), Netherlands, Norway, Wales, India, Scotland and Italy. I don't think that would be the problem.

[Sean Hewitt]

It's a bit moot anyway, since the chances of getting enough IMs/GMs to play, enough FMs, enough foreign players to meet the four nationalities requirement, and meeting the minimum opposition strength requirements, are somewhat unlikely.

Four nationalities is much easier in England than, say, Germany. We can call on Scotland, Wales, Ireland etc., which means there's no need for passports, visas...

This year there were 7 nationalities playing: England (obviously), Netherlands, Norway, Wales, India, Scotland and Italy. I don't think that would be the problem.

Don't forget it's not four foreigners - it's 3/5 of all opponents which for an 11 round event means each norm seeker must play 5 foreign opponents. Of the players who scored 7.5 or more this year did this only Paul Talsma and Arne Hagesaether did this - and that's because all their English opponents were foreign. However, they still would have failed the requirement that a maximum of 7 of their opponents can come from a single federation (having played 9 and 8 English opponents respectively)

However, for 11 rounders, each norm seeker has to play 6 titled players, of whom 4 must hold at least the title being sought. I agree with Richard that the idea is moot anyway as norm seekers tend to be 2200+ and they would (currently) all be in the Championship proper. But, even if not, I think there's no chance of meeting all the requirements for the Major Open to be a norm tournament whilst it is running alongside the championship.

[Adam Raoof]

You mean 'non-host nation player', not 'foreign' players. I think the regulations regarding composition of the field are here (1.43 onwards), and are complicated. In other words it would be easy to satisfy that regulation if the British were held in Scotland, as a lot of the participants would be English and some Welsh and Irish. At least ten titled players would be needed, however.

http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html? ... ew=article

[Sean Hewitt]

You mean 'non-host nation player', not 'foreign' players. I think the regulations regarding composition of the field are here (1.43 onwards), and are complicated.

http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html? ... ew=article

No Adam. I said foreign and I mean "foreign" (FIDE refer to opponents from the applicants federation rather than from the host nation).

So for Arne (who is Norwegian) an English player is a foreign opponent even though an English player is a host nation player whilst another Norwegian would not help him. Of course for an English player a Scot, Welsh opponent etc is a foreigner.

[Adam Raoof]

You mean 'non-host nation player', not 'foreign' players. I think the regulations regarding composition of the field are here (1.43 onwards), and are complicated.

http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html? ... ew=article

No Adam. I said foreign and I mean "foreign" (FIDE refer to opponents from the applicants federation rather than from the host nation).

So for Arne (who is Norwegian) an English player is a foreign opponent even though an English player is a host nation player whilst another Norwegian would not help him. Of course for an English player a Scot, Welsh opponent etc is a foreigner.

Yes, but I think that 1.43e means that you can ignore this requirement for norms.

"Swiss System tournaments in which the competitors include at least 20 FIDE Rated players, not from the host federation, from at least 3 federations, at least 10 of whom hold GM, IM, WGM or WIM titles. Otherwise 1.44 applies."

At the Classic, we were one non-host nation player short of qualifying under 1.43e in the Open!

[Sean Hewitt]

You mean 'non-host nation player', not 'foreign' players. I think the regulations regarding composition of the field are here (1.43 onwards), and are complicated.

http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html? ... ew=article

No Adam. I said foreign and I mean "foreign" (FIDE refer to opponents from the applicants federation rather than from the host nation).

So for Arne (who is Norwegian) an English player is a foreign opponent even though an English player is a host nation player whilst another Norwegian would not help him. Of course for an English player a Scot, Welsh opponent etc is a foreigner.

Yes, but I think that 1.43e means that you can ignore this requirement for norms.

"Swiss System tournaments in which the competitors include at least 20 FIDE Rated players, not from the host federation, from at least 3 federations, at least 10 of whom hold GM, IM, WGM or WIM titles. Otherwise 1.44 applies."

At the Classic, we were one non-host nation player short of qualifying under 1.43e in the Open!

Of course that's true but we are 10 foreign titled players short of this exemption! As I've said, I think that this is a non starter anyway - the event just isn't strong enough and isn't likely to be.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

What do the recent posts have to do with "How interested are you in seeing your grading details?"?

[Richard Haddrell]

Richard,

Your figures are unklikely to be wrong but, as Andrew says, they are open to interpretation. The number of players' figures that you are quoting is actually the number of records in the result file's player list, and the a single person may have multiple entries in this list. I have thus updated your table with the figures of different ECF player codes that have taken part in this event.

It’s a fair cop. I forgot that a league may list the same player more than once. (Usually it’s because he plays for more than one club. They seem to do that a lot in Bradford.) My figures for Direct Members were inflated for the same reason, and I’ve corrected them (I hope). See right-hand end. As before, it’s Andrew on the left, my (usually) wrong figures in the middle, and amended figures (Howard’s and mine) on the right.

Sheffield League - 284 players ........ 388 players, 44 DMs .... Actually 346 players, 33 DMs
Bradford League - 200 players ........ 326 players, 57 DMs .... Actually 213 players, 41 DMs
Leeds League - 156 .................... 208 players, 144 DMs .... Actually 160 players, 109 DMs
Hull League - 118 ....................... 173 players, 7 DMs .... Actually 133 Players, 6 DMs
York League - 108 ...................... 133 players, 32 DMs .... Actually 124 players, 23 DMs
Huddersfield League - 108 ............ 138 players, 19 DMs .... Actually 113 Players, 11 DMs
Calderdale League - 91 ................ 137 players, 12 DMs .... Actually 97 players, 8 DMs
Doncaster League - 66 .................. 60 players, 12 DMs .... Actually 60 players, 12 DMs
Harrogate League - 44 .................. 36 players, 10 DMs .... Actually 36 Players, 10 DMs
Humber League - 40 ..................... 31 players, 1 DM .... Actually 31 players, 1 DM

I have also done some global Yorkshire figures (congresses excluded):

Game-Fee events ...................... 552 players, lncluding 184 DMs (of whom 118 Basic)
Non-Game-Fee events ............... 1077 players, including 142 DMs (of whom 69 Basic)
All ...................................... 1251 players, including 208 DMs (of whom 118 Basic)

These are leagues and club internal events. All get “free” grading for DMs. The Game-Fee events - which more or less means the Leeds and Yorkshire Leagues - pay for their non-DMs and get grading for them. The non-Game-Fee events do not.

I have excluded congresses because DMs in congresses get “free” grading everywhere. Most Yorkshire congresses pay Game Fee and are treated no differently from congresses anywhere else.

I don't know what any of this proves. But I agree with Christopher. We’ve been in a new thread since about page 2.

[Carl Hibbard]

I don't know what any of this proves. But I agree with Christopher. We’ve been in a new thread since about page 2.

My fault, if I don't split the thread early enough it's very hard work at this point