British 2015 Round by Round

[Carl Hibbard]

There could have been a webcam given the bandwidth but a team of one is a team of one.

[MartinCarpenter]

I suspect the complaint is (as with the grading website etc) more to do with there being some expectation of them actually funding this sort of thing a little than critique of the actual people trying to cope somehow.

Not so sure if that's entirely fair for the British mind. Never likely to be anything like as polished (or well funded) as the coverage of stuff like super tournaments. It is an awfully visible shop front for English chess mind.

[Andrew Zigmond]

That's not how I read the post Martin. There's a difference between `heads should roll` and `the ECF should invest in this`. Personally this is how I'd like to see my membership invested but I know that others will disagree.

[Roger de Coverly]

Personally this is how I'd like to see my membership invested but I know that others will disagree.

Some of the problems are self inflicted. At the time of writing, I don't think any of the pairings for tomorrow afternoon have been made available. How difficult is it, I ask, to input results to a program, press the buttons marked "pair next round" and "post pairings to website"?

It isn't actually, but the Luddite arbiters in charge of the British are wedded to their pairing cards and presumably enjoy extended discussions about whether pairings conform to their published principles.

(edit) Now available

But these are the top boards for the Over 50

1 8 FM House Glenn L 2169 3 2½ Pitcher John 2251 3
2 2 Chandler Cliff R 2261 2½ 2½ Shephard Chris C W 2185 7
3 23 De Coverly Roger D 1992 2½ 2 IM Povah Nigel E 2303 1
4 4 Kett Tim 2219 2 2 Hackman Paul 2110 1
5 10 Moore Gerald 2128 2 2 Brooks Phil J 2217 5
6 13 Fegan Chris 2090 2 2 FM Gant Chris J 2146 9
7 16 Vickery Jim E 2055 1½ 2 Szymanski Mark 1823 32

It doesn't look like a CAA style "float the median" set of pairings.

[abi&timadams]

Could someone explain the situation of paid staff at the British please? I do not know who is or isn't a volunteer.

Do the forumites think that being a volunteer is enough to shield someone from criticism?

Thanks in advance.

[Roger de Coverly]

Could someone explain the situation of paid staff at the British please? I do not know who is or isn't a volunteer.

The practice in past years has been that arbiters and others administrating have received expenses or a contribution to their expenses. Whether still the case remains to be confirmed.

[Tim Harding]

OK I accept the reprimand. I was not meaning to criticise individuals concerned, especially if they are unpaid volunteers. Apologies to them.

I was indeed assuming that the ECF was paying the people concerned (Andrew and Ravi at least) and taking responsibility for providing DGT boards and a commentary system that actually work properly.

Many other tournaments (not all super-events, I mean many ordinary Opens that are featured on Chess24) do manage to present live game relays; commentary is not so important I think, except for spectators at the venue.

This championship should be, as Martin said, an important shop window for English chess and it has been a considerable disimprovement on last year's coverage.

It would perhaps be better (especially in the late rounds) that they feature the top 8-12 boards and make sure they all function throughout the session.

[Tim Harding]

Here are the top nine boards for round 9 (all players with 5 points or more):

1 GM Pert Nicholas 2562 6½ v 6 GM Hawkins Jonathan 2554
2 GM Gormally Daniel W 2484 6½ v 6 GM Emms John M 2460
3 GM Howell David W L 2698 6 v 6 GM Arkell Keith C 2502
4 FM Jackson James P 2343 5½ v 6 GM Williams Simon K 2426
5 GM Flear Glenn C 2450 5½ v 5½ Hill Alistair 2159
6 IM Pert Richard G 2440 5½ v 5½ FM Batchelor Peter J 2304
7 GM Hebden Mark L 2500 5 v 5 FM Lewis Andrew P 2295
8 GM Ward Chris G 2423 5 v 5 FM Storey Charles H 2245
9 GM Summerscale Aaron P 2416 5 v 5 Taylor Adam A 2055

[David Sedgwick]

An interesting thread has started in the other place at http://www.englishchess.org.uk/Forum/vi ... ?f=7&t=371.

If I'm wrong, then I owe a Mr John Jones an unqualified apology.

On the other hand ...

[Andrew Zigmond]

Could someone explain the situation of paid staff at the British please? I do not know who is or isn't a volunteer.

Do the forumites think that being a volunteer is enough to shield someone from criticism?

Thanks in advance.

The only paid staff the ECF have are those at the office in Battle although a few honorariums are paid.

As regards the British specifically the event falls under the Director of Home Chess (elected annually by the ECF Council and accountable to them) and the Manager of the Championship (nominated by the Director of Home Chess with the approval of the board and accountable to him in the first instance). All other `staff` at the British are volunteers who give up two weeks of their time (and for those of working age presumably two weeks of their paid holiday) to make the event happen.

Of course it doesn't `shield` somebody from criticism. Constructive feedback should be noted and, to an extent, failures of competence should be addressed. My point (and quite frankly it beggars belief that I'm having to spell this out) is that we are not talking about paid staff who can be replaced, nor do we have an endless pool of volunteers to draw upon. A volunteer led organisation needs volunteers. Nasty personal comments like `luddite` or `heads should roll` should prompt the response as to a) whether the complainant could do a better job themselves and b) are they offering?

Having written that I saw Tim Harding's post so I'm happy to draw a line under this. I think we all agree that there is an opportunity around the live boards and the first step is to a) ask what went wrong and b) if it was a failure of resources, to help ensure that these resources are available for Bournemouth (where incidentally I have booked a hotel already).

[Roger de Coverly]

All other `staff` at the British are volunteers who give up two weeks of their time (and for those of working age presumably two weeks of their paid holiday) to make the event happen.

Certainly in the past, they have been paid expenses. In years when titled players haven't received expenses, arbiters have been less out of pocket than non-prize winners. This contrasts with most locally run weekenders where organisers are frequently local volunteers trying to promote chess in their area.

[Nick Grey]

Interesting thread on the other place -
It certainly helps to throw up in front of the organisers/over the sets - 1st Jessie Gilbert

[JustinHorton]

I don't suppose the principal actors and events in this drama can be identified for the benefit of those of us not physically present?

[David Sedgwick]

I don't suppose the principal actors and events in this drama can be identified for the benefit of those of us not physically present?

An investigative journalist like you should be willing to do some investigative journalism.

[Roger de Coverly]

I don't suppose the principal actors and events in this drama can be identified for the benefit of those of us not physically present?

It's a relief that it doesn't happen more often. FIDE's approach of not allowing re-pairing could just encourage bad behaviour. For example titled player B is poorly disposed towards Norm seeker A. They are paired in the last round where A only has to start the game to get a Norm. Player B withdraws pleading illness or whatever. I don't think it happens, or if it does, it isn't reported.