English Chess Forum

Thanks, Jack. I don't think everyone will have seen or heard those views you mention, so good to be clear on that. Might at some point spark another debate on the value of female titles, but maybe not now.

IM Jack Rudd wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 07, 2018 12:08 am

we might try making some sort of case to FIDE

On what grounds? Just interested.

Another report (from Daniel Fernandez):

https://en.chessbase.com/post/adams-tak ... tish-title

This one features one of Daniel Young's games at the end (his loss to McPhillips).
Plus the news that the U21 title was shared as although AUS-registered, Justin Tan is a "British citizen studying in Edinburgh".

Full list of prizewinners is here:

https://www.britishchesschampionships.c ... ners-2018/

I forgot to include Koby Kalavannan earlier, who is the U18 champion.

A good news and bad news sort of post. Shreyas Royal (on FB) on his Major Open experience:

"If you have a passion and courage then nothing else matters ,you will be successful ! It was my last British Chess Championship and I’m happy with my excellent performance gained 149 Elo’s ( 2115) which becomes in the World Ranking 2nd (Under 9 )just a few points behind the World No.1 and won the Grading prize ."

A quick note to point out that Mickey Adams called this "the strongest British Championship that there has ever been".

I hadn't seen anyone else calling it this. Is this debatable or was it really the strongest?

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 07, 2018 3:02 pm

I hadn't seen anyone else calling it this. Is this debatable or was it really the strongest?

The average rating of Mickey's opponents was 2526, compared with 2502 when he won in 2011, the only other real candidate.

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 07, 2018 6:00 pm

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 07, 2018 3:02 pm

I hadn't seen anyone else calling it this. Is this debatable or was it really the strongest?

The average rating of Mickey's opponents was 2526, compared with 2502 when he won in 2011, the only other real candidate.

I wonder if the chopping off of the tail helped there as well, and the shortening of the event?

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 07, 2018 6:24 pm

I wonder if the chopping off of the tail helped there as well, and the shortening of the event?

2011 used accelerated pairings and deflated the average rating of Adams' opponents by allowing one through the handicap to play him in round 4.

The first of the Smith & Williamson sponsored tournaments at Hove in 1997 was also pretty strong as were many of the Grieveson Grant sponsored ones of the 1980s.

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 07, 2018 6:24 pm

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 07, 2018 6:00 pm

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 07, 2018 3:02 pm

I hadn't seen anyone else calling it this. Is this debatable or was it really the strongest?

The average rating of Mickey's opponents was 2526, compared with 2502 when he won in 2011, the only other real candidate.

I wonder if the chopping off of the tail helped there as well, and the shortening of the event?

There are two metrics. 2016-2018 all had sponsorship/donations. 2017 was the first 9-round tournament, and 2018 was the first year of the tougher qualifying regulations.

Mean Rating
2016 - 2166
2017 - 2200
2018 - 2285

Median Rating
2016 - 2143
2017 - 2161
2018 - 2287

So shortening from 11 to 9 rounds had some impact, but the new qualifying regulations had a much bigger impact.

Back in about 2010-2012, people would complain on here about "how weak the tail of the British Championships is", which I agreed with. I guess I've solved that problem.

I expect 2019 to be stronger still, albeit slightly - the 2018 Major Open qualifiers have higher ratings than their 2017 equivalents.

Alex Holowczak wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 07, 2018 7:53 pm

There are two metrics. 2016-2018 all had sponsorship/donations. 2017 was the first 9-round tournament, and 2018 was the first year of the tougher qualifying regulations.

Mean Rating
2016 - 2166
2017 - 2200
2018 - 2285

Median Rating
2016 - 2143
2017 - 2161
2018 - 2287

So shortening from 11 to 9 rounds had some impact, but the new qualifying regulations had a much bigger impact.

Your second claim, that tougher qualifying, eliminating much of the tail, had a big impact on increasing the strength of the tournament makes perfect sense to me. However the first part of the claim, that reducing the number of rounds from 11 to 9 had some impact, makes no sense whatsoever unless you accept the false premise that correlation = causation.

Brian Towers wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 07, 2018 9:05 pm

However the first part of the claim, that reducing the number of rounds from 11 to 9 had some impact, makes no sense whatsoever unless you accept the false premise that correlation = causation.

The theory was that those who were both in employment and "strong amateurs" were discouraged by the amount of limited holiday time an 11 round tournament would consume. That's perhaps not so much of a problem for those at school or university and those retired but arguably the ever increasing costs of accommodation would be even for those groups.

Why is it though that in the last couple of years, the ECF has been unable to announce the dates and venue of the next year's competition during the previous one?

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 07, 2018 9:15 pm

Why is it though that in the last couple of years, the ECF has been unable to announce the dates and venue of the next year's competition during the previous one?

Because venues are increasingly holding out for better offers than they can get from a chess tournament; i.e. ones that pay significantly more than the ECF do for their rent. You may have noticed the same trend in the 4NCL.

Brian Towers wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 07, 2018 9:05 pm

However the first part of the claim, that reducing the number of rounds from 11 to 9 had some impact, makes no sense whatsoever unless you accept the false premise that correlation = causation.

It might make more sense to you if you received the emails from the players that I did. To name one example, Luke McShane wouldn't play in the 11-round format.

Gawain also notes this was a strong tournament on his blog. http://gawainjones.uk/a-busy-august/

I think cutting the tail improves the British, even for those of us likely to be in the tail if we qualify. Restores some prestige. But I had understood no-one actually wanted the tail. Rather it was seen as a necessary evil in the absence of sponsorship.

Given that Adams played all of the leading players, giving him 2 additional games would have resulted in his 11-round field being weaker, on average, than his 9-round field, so from his perspective this probably was the strongest he has played in. The same must also be true of the other leading players - they played, on average, stronger fields.

On the venue issue, perhaps it is time for the ECF to face reality and pay the going rate, else the statement of "we don't do school halls" might come back to haunt us.