English Chess Forum

I deplore the reduced length of the 2015 British Senior Championship - 6 rounds instead of 7. Some thought 7 rounds were not enough.

As others have mentioned in another thread, I also deplore the abandonment of the traditional 60+ age rule in favour of the 50+ and 65+ split. I know this is now FIDE policy, but the ECF could have ploughed its own furrow, even if just for the British.

Paul Habershon wrote:I deplore the reduced length of the 2015 British Senior Championship - 6 rounds instead of 7. Some thought 7 rounds were not enough.

Entirely agreed. Like the Under 18, the Under 21 and the Women's Championship, the natural place for a 50-65 Championship is in the British proper. The Major Open has unexpectedly become more attractive. In our youth the Junior Championships were 11 round events. What's wrong with that and repeating it for the Seniors?

In our youth the rate of play in the Junior Championships (even u14) was slower than that proposed for next year's British Championship.

I agree with Paul.

I agree with Kevin.

Michael Farthing wrote:In our youth the rate of play in the Junior Championships (even u14) was slower than that proposed for next year's British Championship.

The pace of life has increased so I, reluctantly, accept the new faster rate of play.

Seniors are going to have to work increasingly more years, however, in order to reach retirement - so I say increase, rather than reduce, the number of rounds.

John McKenna wrote:I agree with Kevin.

Michael Farthing wrote:In our youth the rate of play in the Junior Championships (even u14) was slower than that proposed for next year's British Championship.

The pace of life has increased so I, reluctantly, accept the new faster rate of play.

Actually I suspect the main driver of change is the abolition of adjournment, which always suspect, has now become untenable. Two four hour sessions was less daunting than an eight hour session and the second session could relatively easily be timetabled against the first sessions of other competitions. [The 20% (guess) of games involved could be regrouped into a small part of the playing area and would start simultaneously with the new games, so no disturbance as peopled entered for their games].

Edit: Corrected the word adjudication to adjournment. Thanks to Roger whom pointed out this mistake.

Michael Farthing wrote: Actually I suspect the main driver of change is the abolition of adjudication, which always suspect, has now become untenable.

I think you mean adjournment rather than adjudication. Adjournments were abolished many years ago, even for morning sessions. Initially they used a straight four hour session with quickplay. This guarantees that a game started at 9.30 am will finish by 1.30 pm on the cost of potential Appendix G/ 10.2 claims. In the last few years, they've switched to 110 minutes with 10 second increments. A long game could overrun slightly and they moved the afternoon sessions to a 2.30 pm start. They've now adopted the 90 30 move rate, which is almost guaranteed to overrun when you get a long game. As a consequence, they've moved the start of the afternoon round to 3.00 pm and curtailed it to the five to five and half hour session length.

For rating restricted events, there was no need to use a four hour session in the first place, since FIDE's four hour minimum reduces to three hours if all the players are under 2200. So simply bar players rated over 2200 from morning events or just allow one am Open if there's a separate room.

The 49+ players were canvassed at this year's British in Aberystwyth. The majority voted for 50+ and 65+. This came as a surprise to people who prepared the questionaire. Thus the change for the Senior Championships. One of 6 rounds and the other of 7 was mooted, but that would have meant players couldn't play all rounds in both if play started on Monday. Why they didn'tg start on Sunday, or even Saturday, I don't know.

Stewart Reuben wrote:One of 6 rounds and the other of 7 was mooted, but that would have meant players couldn't play all rounds in both if play started on Monday.

For many years, the Under 21, Under 18 and Women's titles have been incorporated in the British Championship tournament itself. The logic behind this, I would always have supposed, was that the leading players of these subgroups were legitimate contenders for the main title, or if they weren't had Norm ambitions which required their presence in the Championship itself. I would have thought the same logic would apply to the 50-65 title. Perhaps it might depend on financial support and prize money, but does the ECF really expect Grandmasters to drop down from the 11 round British to playing in a 6 round event? In compensation, perhaps it makes the Major Open more attractive for the 50-65 age group, if they would otherwise want to stay for the whole tournament.

I did indeed propose that the British 50+ title be subsumed within the British Championship. A new title could have been created. e.g. British 50+ U 2250 Championship. As it is a very strong player is being denied his opportunity to win the first British 50+ Championship.

You referred to the U21. There has been no such animal since 2008. It is the British 18-20 Championship. Players U18 cannot also win the U21 title.

I am slightly worried that I am nearly eligible for the seniors. But on the bright side some of the international events look great!

Stewart Reuben wrote:A new title could have been created. e.g. British 50+ U 2250 Championship.

It has always seemed strange to me that any game/sport could award titles to people where the eligibility criteria are based (wholly or in part) on lack of ability at the game in question. Does anyone know of any other examples of this being done, either in chess or other sports?

If I ever change my decision never to play at the British Championships again I'd have a reasonable chance of winning such a title, but it's definitely not one I'd be proud of winning.

Ian Thompson wrote: Does anyone know of any other examples of this being done, either in chess or other sports?

Isn't that fairly commonplace? - Prizes and titles for those of lesser ability. Golf comes to mind where you even have different playing conditions for "amateurs" as distinct from professionals. If there's ever an explicit or implicit amateur v professional split, you are likely to have at least two sets of titles.

Ian Thompson's question seems quite surprising. There are separate events for women in most sports. In chess we have
Junior events of various age groups
Senior events of various age groups
Grading/Rating restricted events, including a World Amateur Championship
Events for disabled players who have various problems
I have offered prizes for family teams
The National Schools Team Championship used to have a handicap system based on average age.

Has he not heard of the Paralympics?

Stewart Reuben wrote:Ian Thompson's question seems quite surprising. There are separate events for women in most sports. In chess we have
Junior events of various age groups
Senior events of various age groups
Grading/Rating restricted events, including a World Amateur Championship
Events for disabled players who have various problems
I have offered prizes for family teams
The National Schools Team Championship used to have a handicap system based on average age.

Has he not heard of the Paralympics?

Most of the examples you quote are fine because the eligibility criterion is not a measure of the competitor's skill at the sport being contested. In most of your examples the criterion is age, then you've got one based on sex and a couple based on disability. The one that isn't sensible is the World Amateur Championship - eligibility criteria being not having a FIDE title above CM and not being recently rated over 2000. We all know there are thousands of players who are clearly amateur who don't meet those criteria because they're better players than that.

By comparison, would the IAAF have a world championship for the 100m where the eligibility criterion is never having run it in less than 11 seconds, or golf declare a world champion amongst players with a handicap above 10? I very much doubt it, but chess is doing the equivalent of that by having championships with eligibility based on upper limits of grade or rating.

Roger de Coverly wrote:

Ian Thompson wrote: Does anyone know of any other examples of this being done, either in chess or other sports?

Isn't that fairly commonplace? - Prizes and titles for those of lesser ability. Golf comes to mind where you even have different playing conditions for "amateurs" as distinct from professionals. If there's ever an explicit or implicit amateur v professional split, you are likely to have at least two sets of titles.

Prizes, yes, and there's nothing wrong with that. Titles depends on what the title is. Declaring someone the winner of an event restricted to Over 50/under 2250 is fine. Calling them a "British Champion" isn't, for the reasons I've given above in answer to Stewart.

My question was whether other sports declared someone as a national champion where the eligibility criterion is an upper limit on their ability at the sport, not whether events are run that are restricted to players of a certain ability, which must be widespread.