SO WHO'S GOING TO SHEFFIELD? I AM!

[Roger de Coverly]

I think 9. We don't know whether the ECF is splitting into a non-charitable and charitable bit yet, but if there is, and the Championship falls into non-charitable, then it might bring the non-charitable bit under the VAT threshold. Circumstance may dictate that one!

Unless you are thinking arbiter and player expenses, I doubt if 9 or 11 rounds makes any difference. VAT is based on turnover. Prize levels would drive entry fee levels which drives turnover and would be probably be the same whether 9 rounds or 11. On venue costs, the ECF is usually looking for a 100% subsidy from the hosting organisation. By contrast the Hastings Congress has to pay for the Horntye Centre, which is why that Congress usually tries to squeeze itself into 9 days.

I guess with numbers soaring in the Championship,

I don't think numbers are soaring by any historical comparison. What's happening is that the ease of qualification means that a lot more players qualify and these are used to make up the numbers. In some respects easier qualification can mean more entries in an absolute sense particularly for a venue seen as expensive, remote or both. In other words you would travel to xx if you were qualified, but if it meant the Major Open, you give it a miss.

[Alex Holowczak]

I think 9. We don't know whether the ECF is splitting into a non-charitable and charitable bit yet, but if there is, and the Championship falls into non-charitable, then it might bring the non-charitable bit under the VAT threshold. Circumstance may dictate that one!

Unless you are thinking arbiter and player expenses, I doubt if 9 or 11 rounds makes any difference. VAT is based on turnover. Prize levels would drive entry fee levels which drives turnover and would be probably be the same whether 9 rounds or 11. On venue costs, the ECF is usually looking for a 100% subsidy from the hosting organisation. By contrast the Hastings Congress has to pay for the Horntye Centre, which is why that Congress usually tries to squeeze itself into 9 days.

Roger, I understand how VAT at the British Championship works. (The telephone Board Meeting where the hour-long discussion of the budget took place still haunts me. )

A shorter Championship - one week instead of two - means the entry fee would be lower to cover the costs. Arbiters would only need to be paid for 10-11 days, rather than 13-14. You'd have fewer associated side events in the week, so you'd lose money in entry fees but save on prize money and expenses. So the whole event would be made smaller. I'm not sure whether this is necessary to get under the VAT threshold, but it may prove to be desirable depending on the funding situation. You may also find you get venues more willing to award a free venue for 1 week instead of 2. I haven't done any research into that assertion, but I guess that's the theory.

[Adam Raoof]

Is there any evidence that either the entry fee or the length of the event puts people off playing in the Championship event? I am not convinced - it's the other events that are suffering, and they need to be revitalised with new, improved something-or-other.

[Sean Hewitt]

Is there any evidence that either the entry fee or the length of the event puts people off playing in the Championship event?

Yes. There are a number of players who have said (on this forum no less) that they would not play in the British because they have to use half of their annual holiday entitlement. I have heard fewer mention the entry fee as a barrier to entry, though I'm sure it is for some.

The obsession with having a high first prize is unhealthy in my opinion. If you want to make the event a success, a larger number of small prizes would help together with reasonable expenses for GMs.

[Adam Raoof]

Is there any evidence that either the entry fee or the length of the event puts people off playing in the Championship event?

Yes. There are a number of players who have said (on this forum no less) that they would not play in the British because they have to use half of their annual holiday entitlement. I have heard fewer mention the entry fee as a barrier to entry, though I'm sure it is for some.

The obsession with having a high first prize is unhealthy in my opinion. If you want to make the event a success, a larger number of small prizes would help together with reasonable expenses for GMs.

Understood, but some people use 'British' as a synonym for 'Major Open' and not the Championship event itself. I am sure you are right in both cases - 9 rounds would be more popular in the MO (or 2 x 5 day FIDE events), and we could redistribute prize money in the Championship. However 11 rounds events are rare, and anecdotal evidence is not necessarily supported by the stats on the number of entries in the Championship -

https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreads ... y=COnCkZEJ

[Richard Cowan]

I concur with Sean. I also like the idea of 2 x 5 or 7-round Major Opens. Or a 9- round event, purely from a time + cost perspective - Don't forget, the cost of accommodation in this country is expensive, and the longer a tournament, the less favourably it compares cost-wise with one abroad. Also, do all the events have to be in the same hall? Would a venue with multiple, but smaller, halls in one complex not be suitable? I'm not certain what the purpose of some events during the championships is. e.g. the a.m. and p.m. opens. who are they targeted at? Yang-Fan played in some last year, and I believe Cherniaev did the year before, is this really desireable?

[Adam Raoof]

I concur with Sean. I also like the idea of 2 x 5 or 7-round Major Opens. Or a 9- round event, purely from a time + cost perspective - Don't forget, the cost of accommodation in this country is expensive, and the longer a tournament, the less favourably it compares cost-wise with one abroad. Also, do all the events have to be in the same hall? Would a venue with multiple, but smaller, halls in one complex not be suitable? I'm not certain what the purpose of some events during the championships is. e.g. the a.m. and p.m. opens. who are they targeted at? Yang-Fan played in some last year, and I believe Cherniaev did the year before, is this really desireable?

Don't worry about the venue, as there are plenty of suitable spaces to choose from - people like to be in the same space as the main event, the cost is another matter. But it is worth paying something for a really good venue if we can get a larger entry and not compromise on playing conditions. Whitley Bay is a really nice venue, from the looks of it. Torquay has several new and reasonably priced chain hotels opening, or building new accommodation, and a unique deal with the rail companies that will make it cheaper to travel to in the future from wherever you live.

Agreed, we need more FIDE rated events.

[Roger de Coverly]

e.g. the a.m. and p.m. opens. who are they targeted at? Yang-Fan played in some last year, and I believe Cherniaev did the year before, is this really desireable?

It's a real mixed bag of entrants. If you only have one week to spare to play at the British it's often the only choice. There is no longer a one week 9 round option, so players looking for more than 5 rounds have to play both morning and afternoon events. You also get players who will play both weeks and the weekend as well but don't feel strong enough to battle it out in the Major Open. Either that or they just want to play as many games as possible in a limited period. Cherniaev played at Torquay, we suspect, because he wasn't eligible by residence for the British and was too highly rated for the Major Open ( which at the time had a 2350 or thereabouts upper limit). Didn't Yang-Fan have the World Junior event overlapping with the British?

[Alex Holowczak]

Didn't Yang-Fan have the World Junior event overlapping with the British?

I believe you're right.

Is a 9-round FIDE-rated event in week 1 and 9-round FIDE-rated event in week 2 a possibility? They could run Monday morning to Friday morning, with AM and PM sessions. Ending on Friday morning means they can be out of the way in time for the weekender on Friday night. If that was FIDE-rated, you could theoretically play 23 FIDE-rated games of chess in two weeks.

[Matthew Peat]

The 2 week long challenger sections at Gibraltar running alonside the 2 week main event seem to be a real success. I suggest replacing Major Open with these as has been mooted elsewhere.

I can't help feel that the £1,000 first prize for the Major Open is a little out of proportion with the event. Most serious contenders in this event seem to be after entry into the main event by scoring at least 7.5/11. Maybe two first prizes (for 2, 5-day events) of a fully paid packages (entry and accomodation) to the main event followed by generous grading band prizes are a better distribution of the funds.

[Adam Raoof]

... you could theoretically play 23 FIDE-rated games of chess in two weeks.

Now you're talking!

[Richard Cowan]

The point I was making, was that if people are put off by the Major Open being too strong, so they enter the opens, aren't they going to be put off by Yang-Fan or Cherniaev playing in them? In terms of prize fund / entry fee these tournaments also have a low return if you actually win it. Personally, I'd like fewer tournaments, with more people playing in them, this may free up time to, maybe have a 960, exchange, or blitz tournaments at some point? Might increase overall entries? Just a thought...

[LozCooper]

Is there any evidence that either the entry fee or the length of the event puts people off playing in the Championship event? I am not convinced - it's the other events that are suffering, and they need to be revitalised with new, improved something-or-other.

Yes, I stopped playing the British in 1995 because 10 out of 25 days of annual leave was too big a chunk and I soon discovered that playing abroad was cheaper and less of a drain on leave. The fact that I also got an IM norm in my foreign tournament in the summer of 1996 along with free entry and accommodation meant it was an easy choice for future years.

[Roger de Coverly]

I am aware that the ECF count by entrants for external publicity purposes. But does it count people for internal purposes? The point being that if one year a player plays in both am and pm opens, first and second week and a weekender, that is counted as 5. The following year, they upgrade to just the Major Open or the British itself. On an entrant count, it looks as if you have lost 4 on numbers, but it's exactly the same number of individuals. Equally it's not a gain if you substitute one entry in the Major Open by 3 to 5 in the shorter events.

[Sean Hewitt]

Understood, but some people use 'British' as a synonym for 'Major Open' and not the Championship event itself. I am sure you are right in both cases - 9 rounds would be more popular in the MO (or 2 x 5 day FIDE events), and we could redistribute prize money in the Championship. However 11 rounds events are rare, and anecdotal evidence is not necessarily supported by the stats on the number of entries in the Championship -

https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreads ... y=COnCkZEJ

So we have between 62 and 96 entrants in the Championship ignoring the Isle of Man, which is not comparable to other locations. Significantly more play in seaside locations on average. It doesn't tell us how many of the players paid an entry fee, a very important consideration.

It also doesn't tell us anything about the popularity (or otherwise) of a 9 round Championship event because there hasn't been one. For all we know 120 players might play in 9 round event. Of course, conversely, it might be only 40! My gut feel though is more would play in a 9 round event than an 11 round one.