Qualification criteria for the British Championship

[Adam Raoof]

There is no evidence in Britain that having more 2 rounds per day FIDE Rated events will drive out the 1 round per day ones.

It would be worth checking how many people play both morning and afternoon events at Hastings and the British. What would happen at the British if there were back-to back rated Opens on a 9 rounds in 6 days format? Would this attract players from the Major Open and other one round a day events?

Here is the full list from the British;

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key ... y=COnCkZEJ

The second week is busier.

Personally I think the British should strive for more relaxed time controls, not faster. However at the London Chess Classic we are going to have two schedules for the FIDE rated Open, one for norms, and another for busy people. The schedules will merge at the weekend, and if you do poorly in the former, you will be able to re-enter the faster schedule. The entry forms will be available here http://www.londonchessclassic.com/ soon!

[Roger de Coverly]

However at the London Chess Classic we are going to have two schedules for the FIDE rated Open, one for norms, and another for busy people. The schedules will merge at the weekend, and if you do poorly in the former, you will be able to re-enter the faster schedule.

I would have thought it better to have two separate events, rather than this American re-entry nonsense. It's almost as bad from a competitive point of view as awarding one and a half points for a single game. Suppose you are part of the race for the major prizes. You meet and beat one of your main rivals. They then reappear having reinstated the points you took off them.

[Adam Raoof]

However at the London Chess Classic we are going to have two schedules for the FIDE rated Open, one for norms, and another for busy people. The schedules will merge at the weekend, and if you do poorly in the former, you will be able to re-enter the faster schedule.

I would have thought it better to have two separate events, rather than this American re-entry nonsense. It's almost as bad from a competitive point of view as awarding one and a half points for a single game. Suppose you are part of the race for the major prizes. You meet and beat one of your main rivals. They then reappear having reinstated the points you took off them.

We'll see how it goes. However if you meet you main rival in one of the first three rounds, that would be a little odd.

[Ian Thompson]

We'll see how it goes. However if you meet you main rival in one of the first three rounds, that would be a little odd.

But re-entries definitely favour stronger players - if they suffer an upset loss in an early round they can re-enter and start again. What's the likelihood of them suffering another upset loss? Not very high.

[Roger de Coverly]

We'll see how it goes. However if you meet you main rival in one of the first three rounds, that would be a little odd.

Not with accelerated pairings. Round 3 of the British featured Nick Pert (second seed) against Gormally (seventh seed). Also it featured the winner (Adams) against one of the players who eventually tied for third (Richard Pert).

Also what about Speelman v Hodgson from round 2 in the 2000 British?

Round 3 of last year's Classic had Wells v Rendle for instance. Wells finished in the tie for fifth, half a point ahead of Rendle.

[Richard Bates]

I didn't write that i didn't want to play chess at faster time controls, just that i didn't want to play FIDE-rated chess at faster time controls.

So, out of interest, what would be the fastest time control that you would be prepared to play FIDE rated chesss ; given that we are talking about 1 game per day.

Well given that we are talking one round a day, I would have to find a compelling reason to play in a tournament that didn't aim for something akin to the standard seven hour session. My basic premise is that the time control should be as slow as possible within the time available (and also try to avoid a sudden dramatic change in the speed of play until quite late in the game - so for example i think i would take a particular dislike to the 120'/40+30' time control used in London last year, which basically says "you've can play at 3minutes a move until move 40, but we really wouldn't advise it! )

I was wondering if my stance was influenced by the fact that i don't play that much, and with Hastings, the British Championship and 4NCL available i don't really have to compromise for the sake of playing. Certainly i remember in the late nineties playing in a lot of tournaments which were 2 rounds a day including many run by Adam. Although i checked and think that all of them were run with 6hr sessions! (9.30-3.30 and 4.30-10.30). It shows how things have changed that even after the demise of adjournments, we used to play 2 rounds a day rated chess at probably slower time controls than FIDE now considers appropriate for the vast majority of its one-round-a-day elite events! (a 6hr session under 90'/40+30'+30" being 120 moves).

Still i'm sure i'll find myself playing in an e2e4 weekender at some point... Everything else about them seems to be just about all you could ask for in a weekender (apart from 5 rounds not being enough), and whilst i dislike the quicker time controls for FIDE rating I wouldn't be surprised if they suited me.

[Richard Bates]

(acknowledging that the number of weekenders in which i would take part these days is anyway pretty limited).

Due to the speed of the game, the fact that you play three games a day in some cases, or otherwise being too busy to play?

1) Very tiring.
2) Not that many of them around London.
3) Poor prize money and consequently usually not particularly strong opposition (that i then lose to anyway! )

[Stewart Reuben]

Roger De Coverley >What would happen at the British if there were back-to back rated Opens on a 9 rounds in 6 days format? Would this attract players from the Major Open and other one round a day events?<

We have never tried that one. But we did have 9 rounds in each of the 5 weekdays. People were able also to play in the weekend event or, to have a leisurely schedule, taking the Saturday off and play in the middle Sunday rapidplay. Initially this was successful in terms of numbers, but abandoned when the numbers of entries later dropped too low. Thus there are now 5 day morning and 5 day afternoon 5 round events. We tried evening graded sections, but that was unsuccessful. Special evening events are usually very successful, but very taxing for the admin team. Volunteers are ideal for those and Sheffield may be good for this.
Rather few players play in a morning event and the Masters in Hastings. Rather more play in a morning event and the Major Open or British, many of these being juniors.
There are so many possible permutations that generally the most useful response is direct rather than through a questionnaire. Originally the Challengers in Gibraltar was 10 days in the morning. Now it is two separate 5 day events in the morning. Lloyds Bank Masters we tried a morning event the first year, but practically nobody entered and it tied up staff.
Stewart Reuben

[Roger de Coverly]

Rather few players play in a morning event and the Masters in Hastings. Rather more play in a morning event and the Major Open or British, many of these being juniors.

What I think I noticed was adult players at the British playing in the morning open and the afternoon open (both domestic rating only). Where eligible, one of the rating restricted tournaments might be substituted. If anything the popularity of the morning and afternoon events has made the Major Open a more elite event again.

At Hastings, I think you see players in both the Christmas/New Year morning and afternoon - again both domestic rating only. Again this seems to attract lower rated players away from the Masters.

I suppose running two events rather than three reduces the arbiting and enables players to mix and match as to whether they want to play mornings, afternoons or both. Preparation isn't so much of an issue at the sub 2000 level as in practice you only ever find a handful of games for most opponents at that rating level.

[Stewart Reuben]

But what I wrote is that rather few people play in a morning event and also a top level event in the afternoon. Thus, where they play two events, it is unrated and for 'weaker' players.
Preparation sub 2000 is still possible after the first round of an event. Many children at the British do prepare for their games and this has been very much encouraged.
Stewart Reuben

[Adam Raoof]

We'll see how it goes. However if you meet you main rival in one of the first three rounds, that would be a little odd.

Not with accelerated pairings. Round 3 of the British featured Nick Pert (second seed) against Gormally (seventh seed). Also it featured the winner (Adams) against one of the players who eventually tied for third (Richard Pert).

We are not using accelerated pairings at the Classic.

[Roger de Coverly]

We are not using accelerated pairings at the Classic.

That opens up the old debate about whether acceleration is good for norm seekers.

Does the chance of a high ranked "early encounter" not depend on how many entries you get?

In the May Sunningdale, also not accelerated, round 3 featured the number 4 seed v the number 1 seed (who lost). The number 2 seed also lost in this round. Sunningdale was around 50 players.

[Alex Holowczak]

Does the chance of a high ranked "early encounter" not depend on how many entries you get?

Sure it does. If you have 8 entries, you'll get 1v2 (if games are won according to seeding) in round 3.

If you have 16 entries, 1v2 happens in round 4.

32, round 5. etc.

[Adam Raoof]

We are not using accelerated pairings at the Classic.

That opens up the old debate about whether acceleration is good for norm seekers.

Does the chance of a high ranked "early encounter" not depend on how many entries you get?

In the May Sunningdale, also not accelerated, round 3 featured the number 4 seed v the number 1 seed (who lost). The number 2 seed also lost in this round. Sunningdale was around 50 players.

I think it is safe to say that Malcolm's priority for the Open is to find a winner. The Arbiter and the Organiser would both be very happy if an English (ok, or Scottish) player got an IM, or even a GM norm!

[Stewart Reuben]

Adam Raoof >The Arbiter and the Organiser would both be very happy if an English (ok, or Scottish) player got an IM, or even a GM norm!<
I fervently hope the arbiter shows no prejudice about anybody. Nor should the Organiser.

Alex's analysis of the likelihood of the two top seeds meeting in a Swiss is a bit flawed. Roger must have meant two top seeds meeting unexpectedly at an early stage. Hodgson and Speelman depended on their both drawing and those being the only two draws in the first round. In any event, the top two seeds would meet in round 2 if they were the only winners in the first round. Both are very unlikely and get more improbable with more players. I don't think it is possible for the top 2 seeds who draw in the first round to meet in the second round of an Accelerated System (British style, called Fractional in FIDE).

I look forward to a Swiss where everybody wins with White in the first two rounds. FIDE everybody with 2/2 would have to play an opponent with 1. ECF they could sail on merrily winning game after game with White, until there is a lone leader.

Stewart Reuben