New sponsor for british chess championship

[Roger Lancaster]

Just to be clear, are you talking about the ECF Board or the sponsor?

Well, Nick, I was rather assuming the two had reached agreement

[Michael Flatt]

The British is not exclusively an English competition although the casual observer might be forgiven in thinking that it is since there are so few competitors from other home nations.

How many players would be excluded if it became the English Championships?

A good number of players registered to non-British Federations are eligible to play in the Championships through residence. Should that be reviewed too?

[Mick Norris]

I have every confidence that Council will discuss this matter as much as it deserves to be.

Indeed

Council doesn't seem to have time to get through the agenda to important items, so the prize distribution in the British isn't a priority

Scrutiny is fine and welcome, but needs to be proportional

An idea about whether this is likely to be a one-off for 2017 or a continuing relationship would be handy

Again, I am pleased to see the sponsorship and congratulate those concerned in bringing it about

[Roger de Coverly]

An idea about whether this is likely to be a one-off for 2017 or a continuing relationship would be handy

The ECF Directors appear to have made a policy decision to exclude "lower" rated players from the British Championship either by measures such as not making them eligible for rating prizes or by changing the qualification rules. I would argue that is a policy decision which like the switch to a 10 day format should not have been made unilaterally. If the sponsorship isn't ongoing, they've shot themselves in the foot for 2018 and onwards.

The budget for the 2017 Congress will need careful scrutiny. Entries and thus entry fee income will be well reduced because players will no longer be able to enter multiple events to the same extent as they did last year and previous years. Expenses will also be reduced, but only by the absence of two five round weekday tournaments, the reduced number of junior tournaments and the reduced period of venue hire.

[NickFaulks]

Well, Nick, I was rather assuming the two had reached agreement

We all know what that means. The organiser sets out the details and the sponsor says ok. Perhaps that is as it should be, but my point, and I think Roger's, is that it is less than honest to say "sorry, but this is the sponsor's wish and there's nothing we can do".

When the number of rounds in Olympiads was reduced from 14 to 11, the cover story was that it was impossible to find bidders for the longer events. I asked the three bidders in Calvia to confirm this, and they all confirmed that they had been fully prepared to bid for 14 rounds, but had been told that only bids for 11 rounds would be considered. Everyone does it.

[Roger Lancaster]

... it is less than honest to say "sorry, but this is the sponsor's wish and there's nothing we can do".

Well, yes, fair point. But, having said that, someone at the ECF has worked hard (and, take it from me, it's not easy to find sponsors!) to identify a possible sponsor and secure its agreement to a specific proposition. That proposition may, I accept, reflect someone's personal tastes with which others may disagree. However, for those others now to expect that same someone to have to go back to the sponsor and renegotiate the terms of the agreement is unrealistic. Worst case scenario, the sponsor decides, "Well, if you lot can't make up your minds I'll invest my money with someone else who can".

[NickFaulks]

However, for those others now to expect that same someone to have to go back to the sponsor and renegotiate the terms of the agreement is unrealistic.

Of course, that's the point, it's a fait accompli. If this turns out to be a long-standing arrangement, then the insulting treatment of lower rated players probably isn't important. If it doesn't, then you will have hacked off a valuable community.

[Roger Lancaster]

Of course, that's the point, it's a fait accompli.

Nick, the ECF someone (no matter who it was) would have had to put a business proposition to the sponsor. We both know that. What that someone couldn't credibly have said, in my estimation at least, is "Here's a draft proposition but it'll need debate and discussion among the ECF membership before we can finalise it". No competent producer of sponsors would be prepared to operate with - and this is a general observation not aimed at you or Roger - a lorry-load of back-seat drivers.

[Roger de Coverly]

If this turns out to be a long-standing arrangement, then the insulting treatment of lower rated players probably isn't important. If it doesn't, then you will have hacked off a valuable community.

I pleased to see at least some agreement that the treatment is insulting and was equally so by the organisers of the London Chess Classic.

Are the ECF Directors prepared to put their heads over the parapet and say, "yes this is our decision and we believe it to be correct because ... "? I would have thought discussions with the sponsor would have been at the level of "Here's the current prize format, we suggest enhancing it with Over 50 prizes and rating prize awards at a much higher level".

If the sponsor doesn't want a long tail, the more honest approach would just be for the ECF to put a direct rating limit on eligibility.

(edit) There's actually some internal confusion as to what rating prizes apply. The document quoted above by Angus has the lowest rating prize for the range 2051 to 2200.

That range isn't in the document
http://www.britishchesschampionships.co ... -Rules.pdf
which caps the rating prize eligibility at 2201. So even CMs and FMs with sub 2200 ratings are made unwelcome. (\edit)

[chrisbeckett]

Wouldn't a potential knock-on effect of this prize structure be to encourage more players under 2050 to enter the Major Open and give that tournament a bit of a (much-needed) boost in terms of entries and strength in depth? It also says on the prize list from earlier that there'll be some rating prizes on offer in the MO too.

I can understand a bit of Roger's frustration but, in terms of the good of the competition, I'd say it's better to try and move a large amount of the tail from the British (hot-shot juniors excepted) into the MO to boost the status of both.

[Ian Thompson]

If the sponsor doesn't want a long tail, the more honest approach would just be for the ECF to put a direct rating limit on eligibility.

That isn't an option for 2017. Players with relatively low ratings have already qualified, and future tournaments are advertising qualifying places that might entice lower rated players to take part in an attempt to qualify. You can't reasonably change the qualification rules to exclude these players now.

[Roger de Coverly]

I'd say it's better to try and move a large amount of the tail from the British (hot-shot juniors excepted) into the MO to boost the status of both.

The Major Open has had a strange field in recent years with a mixture of foreign FM/IM players not eligible for the British and sub 2000 players.

Why make an exception for hot shot juniors? If their rating under 2050 or under 2200 depending on which rule set you read, they are just as excluded from rating prizes.

Talking of hot shot juniors, I've also noticed that whilst there are four under 21 prizes, there are no under 18 prizes. There isn't a separate under 18 Championship and hasn't been for many years. Perhaps they will still award the title(s) to the best placed under 18s, but there's no prize money to go with it.

[Roger de Coverly]

You can't reasonably change the qualification rules to exclude these players now.

You shouldn't try to exclude them by manipulating the prize fund either. Under 18 prizes have vanished as well. Extending qualification to all under 21s with a grade of at least 180 makes for a long list of players with low FIDE ratings.

[David Shepherd]

Wouldn't a potential knock-on effect of this prize structure be to encourage more players under 2050 to enter the Major Open and give that tournament a bit of a (much-needed) boost in terms of entries and strength in depth? It also says on the prize list from earlier that there'll be some rating prizes on offer in the MO too.

I can understand a bit of Roger's frustration but, in terms of the good of the competition, I'd say it's better to try and move a large amount of the tail from the British (hot-shot juniors excepted) into the MO to boost the status of both.

I am not convinced for the following reasons:

1) The players involved will have a limited amount of time
2) They probably enter the tournament as they enjoy tough games, like a challenge and also the opportunity to try to win the title
3) The top of the major open is largely absent (i.e. they are in the main British)
4) There are other tournaments that can offer them better what they are looking for either overseas, or tournaments such as Hastings, LCC, South Wales ..., or even strong weekend opens

[Roger de Coverly]

4) There are other tournaments that can offer them better what they are looking for either overseas, or tournaments such as Hastings, LCC, South Wales ..., or even strong weekend opens

Don't insult them by demanding an accelerated entry fee for their participation and then completely exclude them from the prize fund