No more e2e4 events?!

[Carl Hibbard]

It is Miss Lazarevic, and my opinion of the tournament has absolutely no bearing on my poor performance at it. You will find I am not the only person very unsatisfied with the event.

As moderators we attempted to correct the title posted but also got it wrong, apologies

[Eoin Devane]

Having had to experience the most horrendously organised and administered tournament in my chess-playing history this past weekend, it is critical to encourage tournament organisers like Sean.

I think you are being excessively harsh. I for one enjoyed the event and felt the organisers did a good job keeping it running as it did. Admittedly it was not without its problems - the hotel was perhaps not the best of the venues around, but it was adequate, and the rounds did fall behind schedule on the Saturday, though they managed to correct this on the Sunday as the games then started very promptly when they were supposed to.

Running a tournament with 9 rounds per day is always going to put more pressure on the controllers and create more potential for things to go wrong. Given this, I thought the organisers did well. I would be interested to know why exactly you felt it was "the most horrendously organised and administered tournament in my chess-playing history".

[Ljubica Lazarevic]

It perhaps was not the wisest thing to have posted on the forum and I apologise to the organisers. I was very bothered to hear that some of the best tournaments organised in the country were being cancelled, and not having a particularly good experience at the weekend exacerbated. I will pass comments back to the organisers privately.

[John Upham]

Can we have an estimate of the revenue to be lost by the ECF by these events not running?

Normally I quite enjoy the odd Mexican stand-off but in this case we need a compromise.

I suggest that the way the previous IRO did things was a practical solution and could be returned to even if Kirsan loses the odd £6 here and there.

If the current IRO wishes to resign over a matter of principle then I know which I'd rather have : the events

Is the amount of humble pie too large to digest?

[Carl Hibbard]

Can we have an estimate of the revenue to be lost by the ECF by these events not running?

Normally I quite enjoy the odd Mexican stand-off but in this case we need a compromise.

I suggest that the way the previous IRO did things was a practical solution and could be returned to even if Kirsan loses the odd £6 here and there.

If the current IRO wishes to resign over a matter of principle then I know which I'd rather have : the events

Is the amount of humble pie to large to digest?

I will try to ignore this utter tosh until both sides of the conversation have been posted

[Roger de Coverly]

even if Kirsan loses the odd £6 here and there.

I think it's very much an internal ECF squabble. If I read the International rating regs correctly, the ECF's bill for international rating is based on the number of players with games sent to Elista for rating in a particular period. In other words it doesn't matter when FIDE charge the ECF whether a player took part in one event or several. The only practical difference, which I can't say I'd noticed is that e2e4 events were previously coming up on the FIDE ratings site as Sunningdale Congress, rather than Sunningdale Open and Sunningdale Major.

[Alex McFarlane]

Roger,
The figure you are giving is what a national organisation has to pay for each active player that appears on the FIDE list. This is in addition to rating fees.
What we call a grading/rating fee FIDE calls a registration fee.

The registration fee is calculated on the following basis:
Tournaments of an average rating of up to 2300 50 Euro
Tournaments of an average rating of 2301 - 2400 100 Euro
Tournaments of an average rating of 2401 - 2500 150 Euro
Tournaments of an average rating of 2501 - 2600: 200 Euro
Tournaments of an average rating above 2601 300 Euro

Swiss Tournaments: Number of players multiplied by 1 Euro
Team Tournaments: 1 Euro per player, no maximum

The first tournaments referred to are All-play-alls. As these normally consist of 10 players so they are much more expensive than Swisses.
This also explains the difference in the fees charged by having two events rather than one.

[Sean Hewitt]

I think it's very much an internal ECF squabble. If I read the International rating regs correctly, the ECF's bill for international rating is based on the number of players with games sent to Elista for rating in a particular period. In other words it doesn't matter when FIDE charge the ECF whether a player took part in one event or several. The only practical difference, which I can't say I'd noticed is that e2e4 events were previously coming up on the FIDE ratings site as Sunningdale Congress, rather than Sunningdale Open and Sunningdale Major.

You're absolutely right Roger. It makes no difference to FIDE, no difference to you (as a rated player) and no difference to the ECF. It does make a difference to unrated players and therefore to me as an organiser (on their behalf).

Bizarrely, the ECF are happy to rate Div1, Div2 and Div3 of the 4NCL (analagous to the Open and Major of the e2e4 events) as one event.

No regulation is being broken rating all games as one event (in fact, FIDE regulations actually talk about rating "events" rather than sections within an event) so it's just the ECF (or a certain part of it) being pig headed. Especially as they've rated my events this way ever since we started rating the Major as well as the Open. It's the fact that we rate both which explains why it's not an issue to events that only rate the Open.

Alex - there is no issue with all play alls.

[John Upham]

I will try to ignore this utter tosh until both sides of the conversation have been posted

Commenting on something is not equal to ignoring it...

[Matthew Turner]

What happens with 4NCL? Do all the weekends/division count as one event?

[Sean Hewitt]

What happens with 4NCL? Do all the weekends/division count as one event?

They are indeed counted as one event. Which makes the stance of Adam Raoof and Howard Grist all the more indefensible.

[Mike Truran]

Matthew - see Sean's earlier post (which I think answers your question).

[Matthew Turner]

Adam Raoof is one of the good guys. Lets give him the opportunity to explain the ECF position.

[Leonard Barden]

Adam Raoof is one of the good guys. Lets give him the opportunity to explain the ECF position.

Adam has explained his position on the Home Chess 2009-10 thread, page 3, ninth post down.

[Ljubica Lazarevic]

Adam, Howard and Sean are good guys. Just a shame someone couldn't compromise.