Players under 2050 in Opens

[Roger de Coverly]

The Executive Editor of "Chess" who is also the ECF International Director has something of a bee in his bonnet about players rated under 2050. He writes in the May 2017 issue about the Jersey result of the Manchester player Daniel Abbas that

It was only the low ratings of his untitled opponents that spoilt his TPR. That's why at the London Chess Classic we do not encourage entries from players below 2050.

Looking at the Jersey entries, there were 29. Had players under 2050 been excluded there would have been 13. It's inevitable with such a small field that the top half are likely to meet more than one of the bottom half. That's surely the problem, as in an Open with several hundred players such as the London Chess Classic, the FIDE floor rules will come into effect where a first round low rated opponent can be given a rating more useful for the preservation of Norm chances.

http://www.jerseychessclub.com/the-pola ... /the-open/

This rather insulting attitude to players rated under 2050 has now spread to the British Championships. In mitigation there's the Major Open running in parallel to the British itself, whilst the London Chess Classic does not offer a B tournament alongside.

[Stewart Reuben]

The British Chess Championship has never been open. When I was in charge there was a quite rigid system. Anybody could qualify, but weaker players were unlikly to do so. Later it was made easier to qualify in order to increase the revenue. Now they are seeeking to return to a stronger event. That is one of ther objectives of the new sponsor.

If you want to hold an open where players can get title norms, then you may have to use Accelerated Pairings. These have become unfashionable, but often that was because they were used with the wrong objectives. They had no place in the 11 round British Championship in my view, partly because title norms are not the main objective.

[Roger de Coverly]

Now they are seeking to return to a stronger event.

That's not necessarily a bad objective if affordable. My objection is to the complete withdrawal of rating based prizes to those below a 2050 rating cut off.

[NickFaulks]

The Executive Editor of "Chess" who is also the ECF International Director has something of a bee in his bonnet about players rated under 2050. He writes in the May 2017 issue about the Jersey result of the Manchester player Daniel Abbas that

It was only the low ratings of his untitled opponents that spoilt his TPR. That's why at the London Chess Classic we do not encourage entries from players below 2050.

I do not subscribe to the megazine, so I lack direct access to what sometimes seems to be the best insight into the thinking of the ECF Board.

Why did the TPR matter? Is it being suggested that a title norm was affected?

[Roger de Coverly]

Why did the TPR matter? Is it being suggested that a title norm was affected?

I believe the context is that he got the results he needed against the titled players, but overall his performance wasn't enough for a Norm. The assumption presumably is that if he had faced 2200 players instead of 1900 players and still beat them, it would have been enough for a Norm.

http://www.chess-results.com/tnr257154. ... =821&snr=5

He scored 50% against Hebden, Hillarp Persson, Rudd, Speelman and Merry and 100% against four players of 2061 and below for what chess-results quotes as a rating performance of 2388 and third place.

[NickFaulks]

The assumption presumably is that if he had faced 2200 players instead of 1900 players and still beat them, it would have been enough for a Norm.

That's true, but it's quite an assumption - three wins and a draw would not have done. He did lose to a player rated 2177, after all.

[Roger de Coverly]

He did lose to a player rated 2177, after all.

Jack on the other hand, with the advantage of not having to play himself, had a performance of 2508 according to chess-results.

http://www.chess-results.com/tnr257154. ... =821&snr=7

[Stewart Reuben]

Roger>That's not necessarily a bad objective if affordable. My objection is to the complete withdrawal of rating based prizes to those below a 2050 rating cut off.<

One of the objective of rating prizes is to encourage lower rated players to enter an event. Since the objective for the British is now to discourage low rated players, it would be insane to have such rating prizes.
By the way, I regard it as a good objective.

[Roger de Coverly]

Since the objective for the British is now to discourage low rated players, it would be insane to have such rating prizes.

It would serve the ECF and other organisers right if players under 2050 boycotted the British and other tournaments adopting this policy.

If this is now an official ECF policy, when did the individual membership or their representatives get the chance to endorse or reject it?

[NickFaulks]

Since the objective for the British is now to discourage low rated players, it would be insane to have such rating prizes.

I see a difference between not having under 2050 rating prizes, which is fine, and saying that such players do not even qualify for the higher rating prizes. I am of course ignoring the weird nature of the rating prizes, which I don't want to talk about.

If this is now an official ECF policy, when did the individual membership or their representatives get the chance to endorse or reject it?

Now you're being silly.

[Stewart Reuben]

I have no idea. When I ran it, the objective was to make the event open to ALL Commonwealth players and to provide routes to qualify, if they played well enough, for any player irrespective of their grade or rating. The bar to qualifying for weaker players has been set higher than in recent years. This seems to me laudable. The basic problem was that you did not have to have a good result. If nobody else wanted the place and you had played in the relevant tournament, you could play. Then I believe they introduced a reserve list for places not taken up by the people who actually qualified. That was never put to the players or Council. The result was that some higher rated players boycotted the event.
When I was in charge, the highest placed eligible player, who had not already qualified, played. If s/he chose not to play, the place was only offered to the next person on the list if s/he had made the same score and lost out on tiebeak.

Nick >saying that such players do not even qualify for the higher rating prizes.<
I didn't know that. Of course that is silly. Say you have the lowest rating prize as under 2200, then indeed a player under 2050, who has qualified legitimately, should be eligible. The choice of best score, or best TPR would be debateable. To fulfil the objective, best score would be more logical. Higher rating prizes would probably be better on TPR.

[Ian Thompson]

Why did the TPR matter? Is it being suggested that a title norm was affected?

He only played 2 players below 2050, the lower of which could be increased to 2050 for norm purposes.

The actual average rating of his opponents was 2222 (not enough for a norm), but with the uplift of one opponent to 2050, the average was 2249, meaning he needed 7/9 for a norm, which he didn't manage.

One can speculate on whether he would have still scored 6.5/9 had some of his lower rated opponents been rated higher, such that 6.5 was enough for a norm. It's not true to say he was deprived of the opportunity to get a norm due to playing too many low rated opponents.

[Roger de Coverly]

Nick >saying that such players do not even qualify for the higher rating prizes.<
I didn't know that. Of course that is silly. Say you have the lowest rating prize as under 2200, then indeed a player under 2050, who has qualified legitimately, should be eligible

That indeed is what they have done. This follows a lead set by the London FIDE Chess Classic Open. I believe the same people are involved in both the London event and the British Championship.

You could argue, but no-one ever has, that allowing players under 2050 access to the under 2200 rating prize is "unfair" when done on a (W-We) basis as it's easier for the same performance to be an out-performance. Personally I prefer to see prizes where you can see on the wall chart who is in contention, which means basing them on score achieved.

[Ian Thompson]

You could argue, but no-one ever has, that allowing players under 2050 access to the under 2200 rating prize is "unfair" when done on a (W-We) basis as it's easier for the same performance to be an out-performance.

You certainly could. Equally, if a rating prize was restricted to, say, 2200 - 2400 rated players, you could use the same argument to say that it's unfair on the 2400 rated player. You'd be right in both cases.

[Stewart Reuben]

For a Rating improvement prize, I cannot see why comparing a 2200 player performing at 2400 is so different from a 2050 performing at 2250.
You can have a wall chart, probably as a computer print out showing who is doing best in such contests. You can also, of course, look on the website. They tend to be inaccurate when a player meets an opponent more than 400 points higher or lower than himself.