British Chess Championships 2010

[Ian Thompson]

Why do we use accelerated pairings in an 11 round event? Discuss.

This has been discussed in previous threads, with no-one able to provide a good reason for using them where the number of rounds is large in relation to the number of players (in my opinion). Accelerated pairings:

1. Tend to reduce mismatches in the accelerated rounds, but increase mismatches when the non-accelerated rounds start.
2. Tend to increase the number of pairings between highly rated players in the early rounds, and consequently reduce them in the later rounds, leading to a less interesting finish to the tournament.

[JustinHorton]

Meanwhile, back at Gormally-Adair, the computer and I reckon Black is better before the time control and certainly should not have lost: 44...d3 the fatal move.

[Alex McFarlane]

Why Accelerate?

a) I think most (everybody) would agree that it leads to what should be more interesting games at an earlier stage. This is surely much better from a spectators point of view. Hopefully the larger number of web hits will make it easier to tempt a sponsor to come forward. Chess must try to make itself more appealing. A balance of interesting games is better than a drought followed by a flood. The end of a tournament provides interest anyway.

b) Akin to (a) is the fact that acceleration should reduce the number of games between players with a large rating differential. Despite what should be an easy point the better players are discouraged if they meet a lot of much weaker opposition and even more so, whilst a low rated player likes the occasional pop at a GM to lose easily is always a disincentive that can affect performance in later rounds as well.

c) If a player is doing well then it increases their chances of meeting sufficiently strong opposition to obtain title norms. This is particularly true following the recent changes in FIDE regulations which make it more difficult to achieve norms. Playing two or three low rated players can effectively kill off any norm chance a player might have, particularly if the results cannot be ignored. (Wins against low rated players can be discounted as long as you still have at least 9 games remaining.)

The reason for pairing low rated successful players against high rated off-form players was queried. As Stewart pointed out the probability is that the high rated player will 'come good'. However, even if he doesn't then the low rated has scored points against a highly rated player and has greatly increased the norm chance – surely a win win situation?

[Alex Holowczak]

a) I think most (everybody) would agree that it leads to what should be more interesting games at an earlier stage.

Depends on how you define "interesting". I don't see why having GM v GM earlier would be any more interesting than having two phases of the tournament:
1) Watching 2000-rated guys (most of whom in the field this year are up-and-coming youngsters) have a chance to shoot down 2500s in the early rounds, followed by
2) All the GMs against each other at the end; far more of a climax.

Exaggeration, but you get the idea. Still interesting, but perhaps in a different way.

The number of players entered is less than 2^7, and there are 11 rounds. So there will be 4 rounds (now 5 rounds with acceleration) where you have to look back into the field to find someone for the leader to play against. So the climax comes earlier in the tournament. The climax tends to be the most interesting part of any sporting contest, so I would assume that you'd want to delay that for as long as possible.

[Alan Walton]

I think the main reason for acceleration is to assist in the players achieving norms, especially the players in the 2nd Quartile

This is especially so with the high volume of players under 2200 in this years tournament, where in a normal Swiss the players in the 2nd Quartile would play the 4th Quartile, the acceleration would "ideally" avoid this from happening

[Paul McKeown]

Acceleration would not be necessary if a sufficient standard was maintained at the bottom end of the championship. As it is, for many years now, it's just all odds and sods.

[harrylamb]

If accelerated pairings are so good why do players and spectators find them difficult to understand?
If accelerated pairings are so good why does no other sport or game use them?

Wimbledon for example does the very opposite. It keeps the best two players apart until the last game. Football does the same. The best teams do not take part in the FA Cup until round 3.

If you want sponsorship perhaps it would be better to organise it like those sports who successfully get sponsors

[Adam Raoof]

If accelerated pairings are so good why do players and spectators find them difficult to understand?
If accelerated pairings are so good why does no other sport or game use them?

Wimbledon for example does the very opposite. It keeps the best two players apart until the last game. Football does the same. The best teams do not take part in the FA Cup until round 3.

If you want sponsorship perhaps it would be better to organise it like those sports who successfully get sponsors

Not many, if any, have the concept of 'norms' and the elaborate, artificial, rules that are constructed around them.

[Ian Thompson]

If accelerated pairings are so good why do players and spectators find them difficult to understand?
If accelerated pairings are so good why does no other sport or game use them?

Wimbledon for example does the very opposite. It keeps the best two players apart until the last game. Football does the same. The best teams do not take part in the FA Cup until round 3.

If you want sponsorship perhaps it would be better to organise it like those sports who successfully get sponsors

Not many, if any, have the concept of 'norms' and the elaborate, artificial, rules that are constructed around them.

So you are suggesting that maximising players' chances of achieving norms is more important than maximising the chances of getting a sponsor?

[Wilf Arnold]

If accelerated pairings are so good why do players and spectators find them difficult to understand?
If accelerated pairings are so good why does no other sport or game use them?

Wimbledon for example does the very opposite. It keeps the best two players apart until the last game. Football does the same. The best teams do not take part in the FA Cup until round 3.

If you want sponsorship perhaps it would be better to organise it like those sports who successfully get sponsors

The examples you quote are knockout tournaments - very easy to do if the pesky losers didn't keep expecting to play in the next round. At least the congress costs could be kept down - you only need half as much space after each round! No need to worry about 'GM draws' then - a guaranteed winner each time - I'll even let them use my tie break from last year's junior blitz - (rock,paper,scissors - best of 3)

Who are the best 2 players? Wimbledon seedings are often quite controversial as the results on grass carry more weight. What happens when the 'best teams' don't enter or take it seriously? You end up with Cardiff v Portsmouth (no disrespect to them) as a final.

From the number of queries I've dealt with there are quite a few spectators who don't understand 'normal' Swiss Rules!

[Jonathan Bryant]

... with the high volume of players under 2200 in this years tournament ....

I don't know about 2200 but 45 of the 78 entrants in the Championship (58%) are 2220 or below. I would suggest that's too many for a tournament to decide the British Champion. My feeling is the problem is not so much with the pairing system as the field.


EDIT:
I've just noticed that Paul got there before me with this:-

Acceleration would not be necessary if a sufficient standard was maintained at the bottom end of the championship. As it is, for many years now, it's just all odds and sods.

[Adam Raoof]

So you are suggesting that maximising players' chances of achieving norms is more important than maximising the chances of getting a sponsor?

I don't know how you got that message, Ian! I am not suggesting that.

[Peter Smith]

Can one still enter a later section?

Of course you may, Peter!

http://www.britishchess2010.com/

Which section were you interested in?

I was thinking of coming down for the weekender this weekend. I've suddenly become free!

[JustinHorton]

The last time the Britsh Championships were held in Kent was 1929 when the event took place in Ramsgate. There were just 12 invited entrants, including Mir Sultan Khan, who won the first of his three British titles, and included the great chess organiser (and a former top Board at my Club) W (Wilfred). H. M.Kirk, who finished 11th

There was another very strong tournament held in Ramsgate in 1929, won by Capablanca. Were the events played simultaneously?

[Answering my own question: no]

[Peter Smith]

Can one still enter a later section?

Yes, but it's subject to late fee. The weekenders will probably fill up on Friday.

Thanks Alex, I'm going to try to get down for the weekend. Sorry about our game at Worcester again. Should have been yours. How did you finish in the end?