Proposed British Chess Championship Qualifying Regulations

[Roger de Coverly]

I am not 100% sure but does this mean I become ineligible under the proposed "pre qualification" rules? I am untitled, FIDE: 2225 ECF: 238

It looks as if ECF grades will be disregarded, so only your FIDE would count.

The qualification routes for someone in your position would seem to be:-

Qualify via a "long" tournament such as London Classic FIDE Open, Hastings or even the Major Open, This is only one year at a time.
Qualify by playing and scoring points in lots of tournaments via the proposed Grand Prix
Qualify by pushing your FIDE rating to 2300 and claiming the FM title.

[Michael Farthing]

It looks as if ECF grades will be disregarded, so only your FIDE would count.

I am quite sympathetic to the principle of the spread of FIDE ratings which Alex seems to be driving*. Nevertheless, am I alone in thinking that there is something fundamentally contradictory abut ignoring our home system when conducting our supposedly home championship? [I say 'home' deliberately because, of course, the issue is somewhat complicated by the existence of Scotland and Wales].


*I say 'quite sympathetic' because I am concerned that if this is the chosen route we should be de-coupling FIDE ratings from membership level.

[Roger de Coverly]

Nevertheless, am I alone in thinking that there is something fundamentally contradictory abut ignoring our home system when conducting our supposedly home championship?

The "weak" (in terms of FIDE rating) tail at the British has been mostly created by the ECF itself in awarding qualifying places to under 21s with grades of no more than 180. Abolishing this would make the Championship more elite. At the other end though, awarding qualification places to the handful of players not otherwise qualified who get ECF grades in excess of say 225 would be eminently reasonable. This would award places to those making high scores in competitions such as the London or Yorkshire leagues, or any domestic competition for that matter. It could be further restricted by stipulating that only A grades or perhaps A & B grades would qualify. Minimum activity for an A grade is 30 games over a year and for a B grade, 30 games over 2 years, with 10 in the most recent.

[Stewart Reuben]

Gavin, people have been expressing disquiet concerning the 'dumbing-down' of the British Championship for about 17 years. It probably goes back all the way to 1904.
Matthew, were you under the impression you were entitlerd to play in rhe British? I don't think so.

If you allowed entry only to people who had a realistic chance of winning the British Championship, that would reduce the numbers to under 10.
My direct qualification concept when in charger was that people shoulld have e realistic chance of scoring 50%. Others could qualify from qualifying events. That ws watered down to get more entry fee income.
I don't believe long-retired players should qualify on their old titles.

[LawrenceCooper]

I don't believe long-retired players should qualify on their old titles.

Why is that?

[NickFaulks]

*I say 'quite sympathetic' because I am concerned that if this is the chosen route we should be de-coupling FIDE ratings from membership level.

Indeed. The ECF's policy of using the membership fee structure to discourage FIDE rated chess looks more misguided all the time.

[Stewart Reuben]

Lawrence Cooper > Stewart Reuben wrote:
I don't believe long-retired players should qualify on their old titles.
Why is that? <

That was the system when I joined the BCF Board in 1979.I remember Bob Wade complaining he was uniquely not qualified. I pointed out that it was true also of Kottnauer and Jonathan Penrose.
In 1981 I became the director responsible. Nobody suggested a change and I gave no thought to it. When Neil Graham took over from me in 1997, he still made no change. It is only this century,quite recently, that old titles qaualify players.They aren't even British titles, but FIDE ones. Suggesting that Barden and Franklin be eligible to play in the British Championship, as BCF Masters, makes more sense. That title has never been rescinded, it has simply fallen into disuse.

[LawrenceCooper]

Lawrence Cooper > Stewart Reuben wrote:
I don't believe long-retired players should qualify on their old titles.
Why is that? <

That was the system when I joined the BCF Board in 1979.I remember Bob Wade complaining he was uniquely not qualified. I pointed out that it was true also of Kottnauer and Jonathan Penrose.
In 1981 I became the director responsible. Nobody suggested a change and I gave no thought to it. When Neil Graham took over from me in 1997, he still made no change. It is only this century,quite recently, that old titles qaualify players.They aren't even British titles, but FIDE ones. Suggesting that Barden and Franklin be eligible to play in the British Championship, as BCF Masters, makes more sense. That title has never been rescinded, it has simply fallen into disuse.

I can't think why anyone would want to stop titled players playing as their participation could be helpful to those playing for norms.

[Stewart Reuben]

That would be marginal at best in the British Championship. What good is a GM whose playing strength had dropped so much that he never met a norm-seeker? Norm-seeking, which was the basis of the chess master Swiss economy, seems to be a diminishing market.

[LawrenceCooper]

That would be marginal at best in the British Championship. What good is a GM whose playing strength had dropped so much that he never met a norm-seeker? Norm-seeking, which was the basis of the chess master Swiss economy, seems to be a diminishing market.

No worse than none at all. Judging by those that have returned to the game after a lengthy absence there is little evidence of them not being up to the task of keeping pace with the norm seekers.

[Alex McFarlane]

What good is a GM whose playing strength had dropped so much that he never met a norm-seeker?

I think Stewart is forgetting Women's titles. I've had several occasions where a woman player has had a WIM rating performance but has failed to meet enough titled players.

Stands back and awaits flack.


edited to correct quote attribution!!

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I suppose it would be theoretically possible to have a tournament performance that involved attaining a high score against enough titled players for it to qualify for that part of the norm requirements, but to fail in terms of the rating if the titled players had low enough ratings (i.e. this could be a potential downside to having low-rated titled players in such tournaments).

Maybe someone could put together a hypothetical APA tournament with the lowest-rated IMs, GMs and so on, and calculate how much higher the score would have to be (up to scoring 100%?) to meet the TPR requirement of the norm?

In practice, a couple of low-rated titled players would not usually harm norm chances and would be more likely to enhance norm chances.

[LawrenceCooper]

What good is a GM whose playing strength had dropped so much that he never met a norm-seeker?

I think Stewart is forgetting Women's titles. I've had several occasions where a woman player has had a WIM rating performance but has failed to meet enough titled players.

Stands back and awaits flack.

For avoidance of doubt the quote above came from Stewart not myself

[IM Jack Rudd]

Play any nine of these people and you can't get a GM norm from the field.

[Paul Dargan]

I seem to recall that when Hawkins came joint 1st in Vienna it wasn't a valid norm because of not enough titled players (or it might have been not enough GMs?) ... but irrespective I think I'm on the side of let anyone with a useful title in regardless.

Paul