British Rapidplay Championship 2023

[Wadih Khoury]

I didn't see a topic.
It's this weekend, 11 rounds over 2 days.

https://chess-results.com/tnr752774.asp ... =0&flag=30

I think all if not most games will be on live boards.

[Leonard Barden]

Congratulations to your son on a great result with the final round against a strong GM still to go!

https://chess-results.com/tnr752774.asp ... =30&snr=40

[Wadih Khoury]

Congratulations to your son on a great result with the final round against a strong GM still to go!

https://chess-results.com/tnr752774.asp ... =30&snr=40

Thanks.
I think it's not going that well and he went for a sharp line without fully knowing it

[Bob Clark]

Theo played very well and was very unlucky not to win a performance prize despite scoring more points than the winner.
Quite why the 4NCL choose to award these prizes based on rating performance rather than points scored is a mystery to me especially in a championship event such as this.
On the plus side the venue control team etc we’re excellent and made it a very enjoyable weekend.

[Roger de Coverly]

Quite why the 4NCL choose to award these prizes based on rating performance rather than points scored is a mystery to me especially in a championship event such as this.

It seems to be an arbiter thing. In a FIDE rated event they prefer the mystery of not knowing who is in line for rating prizes until they get a draft rating report.

[Mick Norris]

Prizewinners

[Alan Walton]

Quite why the 4NCL choose to award these prizes based on rating performance rather than points scored is a mystery to me especially in a championship event such as this.

Because it means he has performed better than others over 11 rounds in respect of his published strength (rating)

Looking at the two performances there is nearly 100 difference in it, even though Theo got half a point more, Theo's round 4 lost meant he had two "free hits", where as Luke played against a much stronger field throughout and only lost two games in the whole event (both 2300+)

So who can argue that it isn't deserved (although some people here will obvious give it a go)

[Bob Clark]

The prize was well deserved Luke had a great tournament, however the system used has some flaws.
1) It assumes that published ratings are accurate, and I think we all know they’re not.
2) It favours players who are underrated
3) I suspect a large percentage of the players have no idea how the system works (myself included)

You mentioned Theo’s loss in rd4 which was against a very talented and certainly underrated junior as was one of his ‘free hits’

I note the same thing happened in the bottom section.

It hard to think of any other sporting event, where prizes are decided in this manner, so I stand by my previous comment that the winner should be the player who scores the most points.

[Ian Thompson]

Quite why the 4NCL choose to award these prizes based on rating performance rather than points scored is a mystery to me especially in a championship event such as this.

The practice dates back to the 1997 British Championship. See the discussion on it here - viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5400&p=113523&hilit ... ar#p113523.

[Alan Walton]

The prize was well deserved Luke had a great tournament, however the system used has some flaws.
1) It assumes that published ratings are accurate, and I think we all know they’re not.
2) It favours players who are underrated
3) I suspect a large percentage of the players have no idea how the system works (myself included)

You mentioned Theo’s loss in rd4 which was against a very talented and certainly underrated junior as was one of his ‘free hits’

I note the same thing happened in the bottom section.

It hard to think of any other sporting event, where prizes are decided in this manner, so I stand by my previous comment that the winner should be the player who scores the most points.

Well ratings are the ratings no matter how accurate they are, but I rather have that than someone playing the "Swiss Gambit", which is more unfair

If people don't understand the rating system, then why not learn about it; naivety isn't an excuse

And btw, the free hits for Theo were the following rounds not the one he lost

Most other sporting events are played as either an round robin (league structures) or head to head matches (knockout rounds), or individual like golf where all players face exactly the same challenge; I cannot think of another sport which you have a player playing a finite number of rounds and possibly against different competitors (Swiss system), so score could possibly be more unfair than some performance metric (using ratings)

[Wadih Khoury]

For what it's worth, I organised using both systems for attribution of the grading prize and I still can't say which is best

I think the W-We is intellectually more correct, as long as ratings are correct. Its main drawback is that it is incredibly opaque. Some may argue that it is a pro rather than a con, as it prevents "fixing" in the last round. But it does give a bit of a lottery feeling like a Buchholz. While the point approach is very transparent and players know what they need to do to win.

[NickFaulks]

So who can argue that it isn't deserved

I don't think anyone is arguing that the player did not do very well, or that the prize was "not deserved". It's just that some people still hark back to simpler times when prizes were awarded on the basis of scoring the most points, rather than formulae using dubious inputs.

All three of the rating prize winners had "W-We" scores in excess of 4. That is hugely unlikely if the starting ratings were meaningful.

[Ian Thompson]

or individual like golf where all players face exactly the same challenge;

Golf, and other outdoor sport where competitors don't all compete at the same time, can be extremely unfair to some competitors if the weather conditions change significantly during the event.

I cannot think of another sport which you have a player playing a finite number of rounds and possibly against different competitors (Swiss system)

Wikipedia has a list. Most, but not all, are board games.

[Bob Clark]

To answer a couple of Alan’s points.

“And btw, the free hits for Theo were the following rounds not the one he lost”

I realised that I think you’ll find that one of his free hits was also a talented junior.

“Most other sporting events are played as either an round robin (league structures) or head to head matches (knockout rounds), or individual like golf where all players face exactly the same challenge; I cannot think of another sport which you have a player playing a finite number of rounds and possibly against different competitors (Swiss system), so score could possibly be more unfair than some performance metric (using ratings)”
Bridge uses a Swiss pairing system

[Alan Walton]

So who can argue that it isn't deserved

All three of the rating prize winners had "W-We" scores in excess of 4. That is hugely unlikely if the starting ratings were meaningful.

Yes that may be correct, but if you look at Luke & Rishi opponents they are the "older" and/or "active" players whose ratings are more thought to be generally more stable

So their starting rating would be questioned being young up-and-coming players, but even if you add 100 points onto their starting rating, the "W-We" may only drop possibly by 1; so they were more like excellent performances than inaccurate ratings

On Rafal, his rating of 1291 (FIDE Rapid) is only off 5 games (surprised it is official with FIDE), his ECF rapid of 1386 is classified as partial, so they didn't use it; there is an argument that a start FIDE rating should be off more games or a more stringent ceiling, but these arguments have been covered before; so possibly his long-play rating should have been used of 1710, which would have significantly reduced his "W-We"

Personally, perhaps more investigation is required before the tournament starts for which rating to be used; if you accept that ECF have a flag for provisional before a number of games is played, why not check that FIDE are doing the same??