Format of British Chess Championships

[Roger de Coverly]

In the September 2010 Chess, Malcolm Pein advocates changing the British Championships to a nine round format. This would mean starting on a Saturday and finishing on the Sunday in the following week. Provided you can travel on the Saturday morning and Sunday evening, this would just mean a 5 day work break. If neither are true for many players, if for instance if the tournament was in Northumberland, then the saving would only be three work days against the traditional schedule.

[Sean Hewitt]

In the September 2010 Chess, Malcolm Pein advocates changing the British Championships to a nine round format. This would mean starting on a Saturday and finishing on the Sunday in the following week. Provided you can travel on the Saturday morning and Sunday evening, this would just mean a 5 day work break. If neither are true for many players, if for instance if the tournament was in Northumberland, then the saving would only be three work days against the traditional schedule.

From a playing point of view this is an obvious change to make. It makes the event more affordable to play in and, even if one has to travel you could work Friday, travel Friday night and stay over being ready to go on Saturday afternoon.

Whether it's such a no brainer from an organisational point of view is different. There would be less opportunity for players outside of the main event to play mulitiple tournaments such as week 1 and week 2 events. Playing venue may need to be bigger to accommodate more simultaneous play. And whilst it may be easier to get some venues free for one week rather than two, it may equally be that only having people in town for one week is less attractive to some venues than having them for two weeks.

Personally, I would have thought it worth investigating and I would think that that is something Adam and his team will do.

[E Michael White]

This format could probably be made to work if its considered to have enough advantages. For example train travel times to Newcastle are:-

London Kings Cross 3 hrs
Plymouth 7 hrs
Edinburgh 1.5 hrs

It probably needs 7 hour fixed playing sessions, none of those ridiculous increment modes, a first day late start of 16:00 and a final days early start at 9:00 with optional prize ceremony.

[Paul McKeown]

Vandalism. As it is, the British Championship, is pretty much an Open Swiss.

Reducing it from 11 rounds to 9 rounds?

Why not simply hold a raffle for the title?

[LozCooper]

Vandalism. As it is, the British Championship, is pretty much an Open Swiss.

Reducing it from 11 rounds to 9 rounds?

Why not simply hold a raffle for the title?

Because a raffle is completely random whereas 9 rounds should be enough to produce a deserved winner. Most of the top clashes have taken place within 9 rounds and whilst having 10 or 11 rounds is good for enhancing norm opprtunities it often leads to big downfloats on the top boards especially when accelerated pairings are used.

[Roger de Coverly]

Most of the top clashes have taken place within 9 rounds and whilst having 10 or 11 rounds is good for enhancing norm opprtunities it often leads to big downfloats on the top boards especially when accelerated pairings are used.

I think it depends whether one player has broken clear of the field.

For example
2010 Adams 8/9
2009 Howell 7.5/9
2008 Jones/Lalic/Gordon/Williams/Conquest 6.5/9
2007 Aagaard 7.5/9

So in three out of four years you get a decisive winner. In the fourth a five-way play off.

The sites for 2006 and earlier no longer seem to be available.

[IM Jack Rudd]

2006 Parker 7/9
2005 Rowson, Conquest, Greet 7/9

[Ljubica Lazarevic]

Vandalism. As it is, the British Championship, is pretty much an Open Swiss.

Reducing it from 11 rounds to 9 rounds?

Why not simply hold a raffle for the title?

Surely there aren't going to be over 2^9 entrants? 9 rounds should be plenty!

[Alex Holowczak]

A shorter tournament would make a £200 entry fee harder to justify. Since the venues are normally free, how do we make money? Besides, the British Championships are doing fine; it's not struggling at all to attract players with all its side events. The Championship will be fixed with a little investment in Short, Adams etc. If it ain't broke...

[Ljubica Lazarevic]

A reason for considering change is that it may encourage more people to play in the British who normally avoid it because they have to take two weeks annual leave from work, pay for 2 weeks of hotel and avoid other commitments for 2 weeks. Easier to slot it something like the British if it's over 9 carefully chosen days...

[Alex Holowczak]

A reason for considering change is that it may encourage more people to play in the British who normally avoid it

At the moment, we don't know how many people prefer one or the other. Perhaps it can work its way onto a future British Championship players' survey...

[Paul Littlewood]

Even though I am semi-retired it would suit me more to have a shorter tournament because , surprisingly, there are other things I want to do with my life in August !

[Ljubica Lazarevic]

Yes, also if a qualifier for the championship works in an office full of colleagues with young children, trying to take two weeks off during the peak holiday season is not likely to be greatly appreciated...

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Surely there aren't going to be over 2^9 entrants? 9 rounds should be plenty!

I've never quite understood how the theoretical and practical aspects of tournament lengths affects whether there is a single winner or how likely it is that there will be a shared winner.

My experience with weekend tournaments (admittedly limited) is that 5 rounds for larger events is sometimes not enough to produce a clear winner. Six rounds normally is, though any event can produce lots of ties at the top if there are lots of draws. It does depend though on whether you have a clear favourite (either on rating or form), as that player will tend to extend their lead if you increase the number of rounds. However, if the players are all roughly equal in strength, then an individual's form will dip over a longer event, and I think you are more likely to end up with more players tied for the top places over a longer event than a shorter one if they are roughly equal in strength at the top and all end up playing each other.

To take some examples from the weekend tournaments I've played this year (both the ones at Sunningdale), the one in May 2010 was over 7 rounds, and the September 2010 one just finished this weekend was over 5 rounds. The numbers taking part varied due to fillers and withdrawals, but there were some that still finished in ties for first place.

Over 5 rounds: The Sunningdale September Open had around 44 players, and there was a single winner. The Sunningdale September Major had around 45 players and a 2-way tie for first. The Sunningdale September Minor had around 19 players and a single winner.

Over 7 rounds: The Sunningdale May Open had around 49 players, and there was a single winner. The Sunningdale May Major had around 43 players and a 3-way tie for first. The Sunningdale May Minor had around 22 players and a single winner.

Briefly looking at other e2e4 events, Warrington (May 2010, 5 rounds) had a single winner in all three sections, and Uxbridge (March 2010, 5 rounds) also had a single winner in all three sections, and Uxbridge (September 2009, 5 rounds) had a single winner in the Major and Minor sections, but a 2-way tie in the Open.

So out of 5 tournaments with three sections each (i.e. 15 tournaments), only three produced ties for first place. Of those, I think 2 had too many players for the number of rounds (5 - 32 players) to even theoretically produce a single winner, but several had too many players but still produced a single winner. But even with the 7-round tournaments, it still proved possible to produce a 3-way tie for first.

The question really seems to be when is the earliest point (with only wins) at which a single leader can *theoretically* emerge, and when does this tend to happen in practice (i.e. with draws you can get a single leader in a Swiss both earlier and later than the theoretical 'only-wins' point). And if the tournament lasts longer than this, does the chance of the tournament ending in a tie for first place become a bit random?

That was all a bit long, so maybe boiling it down to two questions is better:

1) Anecdotally, how common is it for weekend tournaments to end in ties for first place, rather than a single winner?

2) How often have the British Championships ended in a tie for first place?

[Ljubica Lazarevic]

As soon as you exceed 32 players, 5 rounds is going to make it very difficult to judge a winner. Make that 20+ similarly strengthed runners in a tournament, and you're going to have joint winners. But, add another round, and you reduce the chances of this happening for 30ish players. It's not perfect, but provides a way of avoiding joint winners. I can't see why 9 rounds wouldn't be enough for the British. Perhaps 11 rounds encourages more 'grandmaster' draws as fatigue/apathy/drinking sets in. Perhaps chopping off a couple of rounds may encourage a more determined effort to win as many games as possible for the title.