Proposed British Chess Championship Qualifying Regulations

[Paul Dargan]

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

Not sure I understand Jack - yes they are low rated GMs, but surely a big enough score against them would do the trick?

Paul

[LawrenceCooper]

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

Not sure I understand Jack - yes they are low rated GMs, but surely a big enough score against them would do the trick?

Paul

GM performance is ≥ 2600 performance against opponents with average rating ≥ 2380.

Looking at that list the 2380 average is a problem.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Specifically, rule 1.48a from here:

https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html ... ew=article

"The minimum average ratings Ra of the Opponents are as follows: GM 2380; IM 2230; WGM 2180; WIM 2030."

Does anyone know when that criterion was added (presumably to avert precisely this sort of thing)?

[Nick Grey]

Just as well that many of these people are ineligible for the British.
Far more British likely to be ineligible for British but at least we are getting a consultation & if possible on other voting rights a chance to change.

[Brian Towers]

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

Many on the list are just old but perhaps some of those titles are dodgy?

One that sticks out like a sore thumb is Lomsadze, Davit born in 1991. His title details don't look particularly kosher - https://ratings.fide.com/title_applicat ... e=GM&pb=46.

2 norms and highest rating = 2400

[LawrenceCooper]

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

Many on the list are just old but perhaps some of those titles are dodgy?

One that sticks out like a sore thumb is Lomsadze, Davit born in 1991. His title details don't look particularly kosher - https://ratings.fide.com/title_applicat ... e=GM&pb=46.

2 norms and highest rating = 2400

Titles can sometimes be gained in continental events so maybe that was the case from his performance in the 13th European Individual. Pure guesswork on my part though

[Brian Towers]

Could be, I suppose, although it seems like quite a big reward for 155th place - https://ratings.fide.com/ct/228025ct.pdf

[Andrew Zigmond]

Matthew, were you under the impression you were entitlerd to play in rhe British? I don't think so.

I'm not sure I understand this slightly sarcastic comment. As Matthew Webb is listed as a 2017 qualifier on the BCC website (graded above 218) a fair few people would `think so`. More to the point his results in congresses (especially Blackpool 2015 where he drew with Arkell and beat Hebden) as well as his performance for Yorkshire in county matches suggests he would hardly form part of the tail either.

[Roger de Coverly]

Could be, I suppose, although it seems like quite a big reward for 155th place -

I believe it's an event that counts double. Although he played 10 games, it counts as 20. It was an eleven round tournament, but it appears he lost one by default in the middle.

What happened to the requirement of a minimum 2500 rating?

[Paul Cooksey]

I guess it is a bit irritating for me to keep repeating it is unclear what the ECF are trying to achieve, beyond eliminating the tail to encourage their (eccentric) sponsor. But I'm going to anyway because it is true.

If norms are important, who they want to encourage and discourage to enter, if it is important the best player wins, how the championship is supposed to co-exist with festival events, etc are all unclear.

[Mike Truran]

I think the first three lines of the proposal are entirely clear. Whether you agree with them is a different matter. You are entirely at liberty to disagree with the Board - as the Board is with you.

BTW I have no idea who the "eccentric sponsor" is to whom you refer, nor why (if we had an "eccentric sponsor") we would seek to "encourage" him/her (whatever "encouraging" means in this context).

[Paul Cooksey]

The proposed changes to the regulations have far deeper impact than just eliminating the tail. The preceding nine pages of speculation illustrate that. I think it is unclear whether those impacts are welcome to the ECF board.

I was giving the ECF board credit for understanding that this is not the simplest way to achieve their stated aim, and that they just hadn't specified what else they are trying to achieve. But maybe not.

BTW eccentric because tails don't seem to bother sponsors, for example, Tradewise. Sponsors seem to care about what is at the top that they can try to publicise.

I suppose I shouldn't assume the ECF had been encouraged to think in this way. If this is an exercise in pure thought, probably someone should check with Tradewise how they feel about the event they sponsor becoming a qualifier for an event sponsored by someone else.

[carstenpedersen]

Specifically, rule 1.48a from here:

https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html ... ew=article

"The minimum average ratings Ra of the Opponents are as follows: GM 2380; IM 2230; WGM 2180; WIM 2030."

Does anyone know when that criterion was added (presumably to avert precisely this sort of thing)?

As far as I know for as long as ELO has been used to calculate title norms, it just used to be defined differently. Tournaments were divided into categories based on the average rating of the participants, in 25point increments, starting at Category one, 2251-2275, which was the minimum for getting rated, and for IM norm qualification. When I started playing (1980) The minimum for a GM norm was Category 7, i.e average 2401 - 2425, I've got a feeling it may have been cat 6 to start with but got tightened at some point.

The prestige of GM tournaments was to a large extent dependent on what category they were. Montreal 1979 was a big deal as the first ever cat 15 tounament, average over 2600.

[Roger de Coverly]

I think the first three lines of the proposal are entirely clear.

What they say is this.

Aim of Changing the Regulations
The British Championship draws criticism for having a “weak tail”, i.e. players rated well below 2000 who qualify. We believe that this will increase the prestige of the Championship, encourage more stronger players to play, and that this in turn will have increased commercial benefits.

The unanswered question is to what extent stripping the rights of tournaments such as Kidlington and players of the calibre of Matthew Webb from having qualification places achieves the stated ends.

[Nick Burrows]

A rule that I find strange is when a qualifying place goes to the highest placed finisher - not already qualified
Surely lots of the weaker players in the British qualify via this route.

A compiled list of qualifiers that didn't win a tournament to qualify would be interesting.

The winner of any open deserves to qualify imo. The 4th, 5th and 6th place finisher does not.