English Chess Forum

John Reyes and Jack Rudd
>I know that the elite people get fees to play in the british, but would they do it, if there was no fees, just the 1st, 2nd and 3rd <

When I negotiated with Smith & Williamson for them to sponsor the British Chess Championships in 1997, I decided to do away with start money. That was partly to diminish my successor's task and partly to give the impression that the financial support was very generous.

The first prize became £10,000, second I think £5000 and it went down some way.
Arguably it attracted a stronger field than ever before and also ever since. The following year it was much the same. What spoilt that system was the later mass invasion of the Indians. They were, of course, entitled to play at that time.

Generally it is cheaper to offer start money and less prize money in order to attract leading players.

Going back to the original post I do not understand why some one who qualifies for the English Championship moans about 300 pounds to enter because of their low rating when clearly stated in the conditions of entry. Anyway I'm hoping Kevin causes a few upsets. A legend in playing.

Best wishes for all the forumites entering and hope you get the luck in swiss formats to get the right players for your own chances.

Nick Grey wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 12, 2018 11:01 pm

Going back to the original post I do not understand why some one who qualifies for the English Championship moans about 300 pounds to enter because of their low rating when clearly stated in the conditions of entry.

The British Championship and other Stewart Reuben influenced events such as Hastings have long used an entry fee system where it's unlikely that your first round opponent will have paid the same as you.

Everyone is used to that. The current gripe is that rating prizes have been completely withdrawn for players below a certain rating. I suspect a candidate for the FIDE vice-presidency has dirty hands with regards to this and it's not something that has ever been put to representatives of ECF members for approval at an AGM or other meeting.

Sorry Roger but i'm with ECF & London Chess Classic on charging policy.
And it is really about time for a London Championship. Not that ECF are likely to ever go for that.

We'd happily run a British Championship in London. Find us a suitable venue for a suitable price, and we'll talk.

Nick Grey wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:10 am

Sorry Roger but i'm with ECF & London Chess Classic on charging policy.

The London Chess Classic abandoned the policy of not allowing lower rated players to win rating prizes for the 2017 event. What's the ECF's excuse?

Nick Grey. >And it is really about time for a London Championship. <

I doubt the ECF would think a London championship was necessarily anything to do with them.
Perhaps you mean the British Championships in London? Clearly Jack thinks so.
When I consulted the players, there was a resounding 'NO'.

Jack may have overlooked two other factors.
The cost of accommodation for the players and control team.
Many Londoners don't want the British there.

"£300 for 11 games"

9 games actually!

The sliding scale of entry fees is not a problem for me. It's been around for years.

I think I first introduce free entries for IMs in around 1967 in the Islington Open. Bojan Kurajica received start money that year.
Did Jonathan Penrose really pay an entry fee all those year he won the British Championship?
Bill Hartston once commented he thought it improper that the first prize for the Evening Standard London Chess Championship (a weekend event) was higher than that for the British. I thought that was the BCF's problem, not mine.

Stewart Reuben wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:37 am

Nick Grey. >And it is really about time for a London Championship. <

I doubt the ECF would think a London championship was necessarily anything to do with them.
Perhaps you mean the British Championships in London? Clearly Jack thinks so.
When I consulted the players, there was a resounding 'NO'.

Jack may have overlooked two other factors.
The cost of accommodation for the players and control team.
Many Londoners don't want the British there.

You don't know Jack very well if you think he could have overlooked those factors. It's far more likely that he knew that no one could come up with a viable venue in London thereby making the other points irrelevant.

Matt Mackenzie wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 12, 2018 4:13 pm

How widespread is "sandbagging" in reality, though?

I get the impression it is far more rumoured than it actually occurs.

I wouldn't want to clog up this thread discussing it, as it's an issue on its own rather than one about the British Championship as such, but in my view we don't have any idea how widespread sandbagging is because no effort is made to identify it.

Stewart Reuben wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 11, 2018 11:30 am

But I don't know what you want to understand and know.

What I'm trying to establish is:

(a) has anybody actually said "we exclude lower-rated players from grading prizes to discourage them from entering, or are we just assuming that's the reason? Are any other reasons plausible?

(b) if that is indeed the reason, do we have any cause to think that it's effective, i.e. that any significant numbers of people are put off from entering? If it's not effective, why bother?

My own view for the very little that it's worth is that anybody whose entry to the British Championship is dependent on their being eligible for a grading prize maybe shouldn't bother in the first place - but also that it does seem a bit odd, and a bit mean, that somebody graded (say) 1950 can't win a grading prize that a rather higher-graded player can. I' think I'd want to know that the policy was both widely-understood and effective before I favoured it.

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:39 am

What I'm trying to establish is:

I think you may be reading too much logical thought into this.

Malcolm tried the idea, found that it caused more trouble than it was worth and abandoned it. It should never have made the cut in the first place, but good sense did prevail. The British also introduced it, either at Malcolm's behest or simply following his example, but unfortunately they feel the need to cling on to their ideas as a matter of principle.

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:26 pm

The British also introduced it, either at Malcolm's behest or simply following his example, but unfortunately they feel the need to cling on to their ideas as a matter of principle.

It's a question that should have been raised at last year's AGM but wasn't. The London Classic ran it for one year only.

This is what Malcolm wrote about the policy in September 2016.

The answer to your question is that all players of any rating are welcome to enter the FIDE Open, but we do
not wish to encourage players under 2050 as they can damage the norm chances of title aspirants and giving players the opportunity to compete for title norms is one of our main objectives

So allegedly damaging the norm chances of title aspirants was the reason for the London Chess Classic adopting that policy.

I have an alternative theory to explain why there are no rating prizes for players below 2051:
With rating prizes being calculated using W-We, it is important that players ratings are an accurate reflection of their playing ability. In my experience, playing in FIDE rated weekend events in the last few years, there are a number of players graded around 180 to 200 ECF who have FIDE ratings which are far too low. For example a 190 player can be rated 1870. I don't know why this is the case, but it is. Perhaps some simply haven't played many FIDE rated games?

Anyway, this could lead to a 180 graded, 1850 player, winning the rating prize, despite performing at a lower level than another 180 who was correctly rated at about 2040.