Ideas to Improve Chess overall in this country.

[Lee Bullock]

(If you just want to skip to my idea then skip the intro but in some ways I thought it was important to put my background as that in some ways influenced my ideas)

Before anyone jumps on me or tells me my ideas are stupid I am only putting this out there to get what peoples views are. I have spoke with many players and some agree with some of these ideas or things that I think would improve Chess in this country. I have only been back in the Chess scene 10 months but I am keen to help the ECF or any organizations within this country to get Chess where it should be as a game/sport. At the moment Chess is far below other games/sports and I will do anything to try and get this great game higher and better than it currently is.

My Chess history is nothing great but that was due to the same reason kids are not reaching there goals/potential to this day. And that is stopping Chess once they leave primary school.
I was a very good player as a kid and won many local tournaments etc but then totally stopped. Its such a shame as it was my life and love since the age of 5 up to 11. Then football and kids saying how stupid Chess was in secondary school put me off for life and I did not play again till about 8 years ago online. But it was only on and off and only due to me being a chess coach at the school I worked at did I get back into it.

Only after I stopped coaching kids football did I consider taking up Chess again seriously. That was back just before the Canterbury British in which I did ok winning 4 out of 11. Back then I hated being black but was given black in my very first 3 games by Alex Holowczak This put me off and I did not play again till Sheffield. Only joking Alex

For some reason I did not play again till Sheffield but I was playing more online and studying a bit but tbh I really did not have the funds to play chess otb until I started working for CCF coaching Chess to kids in schools. Since then I have been playing nearly every tournament and have won 6 already, 5 this year and am currently 3rd in the grand prix. Very soon I also will be working for CSC which will mean I am working virtually full time. Anyway let me get on with my ideas.

1. The first idea is one I have spoken to a few people about. Most agreed it was a good idea and they would also like it to happen. If you read my intro you will know i have not been playing long and have a disappointment that I never reached my potential etc. Well one of my other feelings was I always wanted to play a GM one day 1v1 . In a real game that I actually deserved to be there. To one day play at the British really is probably my main goal in Chess right now. I really do believe it is something I can achieve looking forward 5 years or so. I am still improving rapidly and I am sure I can get to the level of being able to compete for one of those qualifying places.
But it is a long way off and hearing that the British may only be 12 players one day dashes any hope I have of qualifying in the current system. So I really hope the current system stays.

My idea is to have a few more qualifying places for players who win the Grand prix in there section. To go even further I think having 2/3 places in each rating bracket would be brilliant for Chess.
My reasons behind this is offering a place or few places at the British for all players of all levels gives that romance and giant killing story that you get in say the FA Cup etc. All these players that travel the country playing in every congress imo do not get rewarded enough. They spend so much money on hotels, travel, tournament fee, food etc and the current system only gives a trophy and £50 voucher towards the next British I think it is.(in there section only)

The idea of making it 2/3 places could be decided by the top 10 outside of the top player who qualified automatically play in a tournament a few weeks before the British and the top 2 also join that player in the main draw of the British. Of course not all players would want to do this. And not all would even want to play in the main top section at the British and of course this is where a vote would need to be done to see if this idea could even work. I would be amazed if most Chess players do not have the same dream as me of one day playing v a IM or GM or even a FM. The idea behind this is to also increase attendances at congresses. due to players trying to be in the top 12 or so of the Grand prix. Of course the players not wanting to enter this idea the next place in the GP could be awarded to a person finishing 13th,14th etc etc.

Another extension of this idea to make it even more appealing and romantic would be the 15 or so who come through this system get drawn v a titled player drawn out like a real draw. Now I know some of out top GMs may not like this idea or want this due to rating points or wasting there time etc so some kind of system would need to make sure it all works out. Eg an extra round or 2 at the British or even the top GMs are not put in this process and they get drawn in the first round as it currently stands. But I am sure even our top GMs would go along with this idea if it was making Chess in this country better, more popular and in return higher fees for them in tournaments!

Even if this whole idea is crazy and unworkable I still believe as do most do that the current reward for winning the GP is an insult and the reward for being the best/most consistent/most active player in the country should be more than £50 voucher.

2. This one is nice and short. Its my feeling already that Chess sandbagging does go on. Its very small and minor for the amount of players that play and I dont see it as a major problem but I have an idea to stop it although I am not sure how easy or hard this would be.

Currently a player can have one bad few months(Deliberately) and then be a low rating for the next season. Then win all tournaments in sight taking the rightful winners off that perch. I have spoke to many players about this and heard many complaining about similar cases eg a player being unrated or not playing for 10 years coming back to then win the British or Blackpool! It has happened the past 2 years at both these tournaments. You dont see these unrated players coming back in league games or low money/prestige tournaments? I wonder why?

It is my idea that a player dropping from one section into another no matter how little or big the drop or how much they are now in that section that you still have to play in the higher section for that following season. Its my view that only if a player drops down for say 2 years or even just two 6 month periods can they then play in that lower section. This would stop any deliberate rating drops and solve this problem. I have been told by players and friends of players that there are players who when they lose the first game in a tournament they have deliberately lost the rest! I find this really sad and it may be more often than people may realize.

3. On from the last idea and this is players coming back from a long period out and getting 5/5 in a low section! I have seen in only my short time so far it happen on quite a few occasions but surely this has to stop? To me its obvious that 10 years out the game is not the same as losing 20 points ECF. Its a lot less. A player recently won Blackpool who was 135 odd I think 10 years ago. He was then allowed to play in the U115! Of course he got 5/5 and won the tournament and the full £600!

Surely to stop this a player should have to play games in leagues or much lower level tournaments or better still play back in hes section until hes rating is realized again as some players do not lose the same amount of ability as others. Who knows he wasn't playing non stop on the internet all this time? And also surely only a % of the winnings should be allowed for someone who is basically unrated like they do in a lot of tournaments.

4. Poor Sportsmanship.

So far I have not seen this often. But it does happen at most tournaments. I am not sure what can be done about this but its my view something has to be done. Before and after the game a handshake should occur. It does not. Most players of course do. But the same players do not. Should something be done? Especially when its not shaking hands with a junior who has just beat you? Do not get me wrong. I love players wanting to win and hating to lose. Its what makes sport/competing so much fun when you do win but players who show a total disrespect of there opponent there should be a penalty. Also I was recently verbally abused and threatened by the same player I have seen showing no sportsmanship and it was something I was going to report to Sean Hewitt but I did not get round to it. The thing is he was the one in the wrong by having hes chair pulled right out and nobody could pass him so we had to keep asking him and he on 3 occasions took people outside the room to give them verbal abuse.

5. Not really an idea but a question here. Since the new 6 monthly rating changes I see the Grand prix has put people in there new rating categories with the same points they achieved in a lower rating bracket?? How is this fair? eg Caroline Robson is top of the U140. I don't think she has earned 1 of those points in a u140 event yet she is leader of the U140 and someone like Phil Foley who is 2nd has earned all hes points in the u140 section and will lose to her?? Surely this is wrong?


I do have more ideas but due to the size of this post I will leave it there as I did not know I was going to talk about each one as much as I have.

Thanks for reading and please leave any comments or constructive criticism.

Lee Bullock

[Roger de Coverly]

I would be amazed if most Chess players do not have the same dream as me of one day playing v a IM or GM or even a FM.

Just one short comment, all you need to do to play GMs, IMs and particularly FMs is to be good enough to play in the top sections of tournaments and score around 50%. e2e4 events are good for this, in one event alone, there were three GMs, two of whom I played in the first 4 rounds. I don't keep track of FMs, but in five appearances in the British Championships, I've encountered just two IMs, both of whom I had previously faced in other events.

[Lee Bullock]

I would be amazed if most Chess players do not have the same dream as me of one day playing v a IM or GM or even a FM.

Just one short comment, all you need to do to play GMs, IMs and particularly FMs is to be good enough to play in the top sections of tournaments and score around 50%. e2e4 events are good for this, in one event alone, there were three GMs, two of whom I played in the first 4 rounds. I don't keep track of FMs, but in five appearances in the British Championships, I've encountered just two IMs, both of whom I had previously faced in other events.

But not everybody is good enough which is my main point. Its like saying to Barnet FC All you need to do is get in the Premier League then you can play these top teams. I am talking about lower players who would love this chance but have no hope due to current system. I am talking about rewarding the players who have a good season, travel the whole country etc and deserve this end of season opportunity. Also with the point of the players who qualify from this system get drawn in with all the titles players etc and what an amazing first round draw being in the same pot as Short, Adams etc.

[IM Jack Rudd]

If you really want to play GMs/IMs/FMs, the way to ensure it happens is to set up a vanity all-play-all. Most titled players should be easily attractable to such events by the promise of a sufficiently large sum of money.

[Lee Bullock]

Ok so the answers have been get good enough and lucky enough or win lottery so you could set up all play alls. Nobody getting my point at all

No fun playing in an all play all as then you don't get that sense of achievement of deserving to be there.

[Roger de Coverly]

I am talking about lower players who would love this chance but have no hope due to current system

I don't think it's the system, unless it's the issue that to play the really top players, you first have to play and beat those below the top.

If you play in an e2e4 Open and win the first couple of rounds, facing an IM or a GM in the third round is quite likely. For that matter, a run of good results in the Hastings Masters or London Classic Open would bring you against titled players even if you start from the bottom of the pairings. The British Championship is supposed to be an elite event, you don't devalue it by having a GM take on the under 120 Grand Prix winner in the first round. It's bad enough that players of my standard are allowed to qualify, but the pairing system keeps us away from the top players unless the acceleration produces a freak result.

In its way, the grading system takes you there as well. So a player who consistently scores 4/5 in under 120 events might be looking at a 140-150 grade the following rating period. Repeat the same for under 150 events, and you're looking at a grade in the 170s. Once you are just below the half way ranking in a non accelerated Swiss , or just below the first quarter in an accelerated Swiss, you are likely to get a titled player as your first round opponent, assuming the tournament has attracted any.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Ok so the answers have been get good enough and lucky enough or win lottery so you could set up all play alls. Nobody getting my point at all

I'm getting your point; I just don't think it's a good point. If you want to give yourself a chance of playing GMs or IMs on merit, play in Opens or other rating-unrestricted tournaments. (The best one to play in would probably be the European Individual; you'd be odds-on to play a GM in round 1.) If you want to play exhibition tournaments where you and eight of your 1400-rated friends club together to invite a titled player, you can probably do that at a not extortionate cost.

The trouble with your proposals is that they would put three or four players into a tournament likely to be far too strong for them, which isn't likely to be much fun for them or for any norm-seekers they happen to play along the way. The British is deliberately structured as a tournament where the population density of sub-2000 players is far lower than you might normally expect in an international Open; it might be a good idea to look at why this is the case.

[Lee Bullock]

I knew about a few of these problems eg norms etc. That is why said some kind of system could be brought in to solve that.

And no Jack if you think getting an IM to play in an all play all has any sense of achievement it doesn't. Also I am not 1400. I am at least 1750 ish

And I am talking about rewarding players who give there all to chess all year round with little rewards.

And Roger playing a GM in a first round where you have just lucky by pairing them also has no self achievement. Also I don't see how a GM being paired with a sub 120 is de valuing the tournament. These sub 120 players would have gone through a vigorous process and would deserve to be there. eg you don't see in other Sports/competitions the top teams or players saying oh this has de valued it.

Eg in Tennis you have Wimbledon Qualifying. Players ranked 500 odd and lower have the chance to get paired with the world Number 1 if they win 3 games. There is even pre qualifying where British players ranked outside the top 1000 have the chance to live that dream by playing in wild card play offs before Wimbledon qualifying. I remember back in 1999 I think it was a player called Danny Sapsford came though the Wild card play off to then win 3 games in qualifying. He amazingly won 2 rounds at Wimbledon and then got paired with Pete Sampras! And did himself proud. It was an amazing story.

My point just being that this romance story in Chess could create so much interest via media etc. But the main point being it could create a bigger interest in Chess at the lower levels in return giving more money to Chess and the top players.

[Roger de Coverly]

If you want to play exhibition tournaments where you and eight of your 1400-rated friends club together to invite a titled player, you can probably do that at a not extortionate cost.

If someone was willing to pay for it, you could envisage a tournament where you invited the winners and runners up of the graded Grand Prix sections and enough of the Open participants to match the numbers. That way you get a first round match up of Grand Prix section winner v someone probably quite good. You shouldn't sacrifice the British in its current form to do this. It would be a bit like Basman's junior final where he mixes up all the age groups and abilities.

[Paul Cooksey]

I would be amazed if most Chess players do not have the same dream as me of one day playing v a IM or GM or even a FM.

Even an FM? If someone wants to play a GM or IM, fine. But why disrespect the poor FMs?

I like Lee's enthusiasm for the Grand Prix, and his creativity in looking for different kinds of prizes. But I have a couple of issues with it:
1. What is in it for the players qualifying for the British on playing strength. Are they not just losing a game? Playing in a one round a day tournament is a significant investment of time and money.
2. I suspect the dream of being in the draw with Adams and Short will be substantially tarnished if the player goes on to score 0/11 against 180s and 190s.

[Andrew Collins]

I am talking about lower players who would love this chance but have no hope due to current system

I've got to be honest if I got given a ticket to the Main British Championships for winning my Grand Prix Section (-140) I wouldn't feel like I deserved it or earned the opportunity, more like it was given to me on a plate, not withstanding winning the Grand Prix Section.

Playing an FM in a open international tournament is not all that difficult, I have played 3 this year, albeit that I would only admit to feeling that I earned the right to play the first one whilst I was in Gibraltar.

Would I like to play a GM, yes it would be nice, but I want to earn it in an open tournament as others have said by winning my first few games against oponents rated 170-200 ect...

Would I also like to play in the British Championships one year, its a nice dream, but I've got to get a lot better and earn my qualification spot

[IM Jack Rudd]

Eg in Tennis you have Wimbledon Qualifying. Players ranked 500 odd and lower have the chance to get paired with the world Number 1 if they win 3 games. There is even pre qualifying where British players ranked outside the top 1000 have the chance to live that dream by playing in wild card play offs before Wimbledon qualifying. I remember back in 1999 I think it was a player called Danny Sapsford came though the Wild card play off to then win 3 games in qualifying. He amazingly won 2 rounds at Wimbledon and then got paired with Pete Sampras! And did himself proud. It was an amazing story.

I'm not sure how tennis qualifying works, but my guess would be that the very low-ranked players who qualify nearly always, somewhere along the way, beat someone who was just short of automatic qualification on rating. It's certainly true of snooker, where the final qualifying round for the World Championship always has sixteen pairings of {player ranked 17-32 in the world} v {player who's come through qualifying rounds to play him}. This is very different from your suggestion, in which a low-ranked player comes through to the main event having won an event in which everyone is guaranteed to be a similarly low-ranked player.

[Roger de Coverly]

These sub 120 players would have gone through a vigorous process and would deserve to be there.

I don't agree they deserve to be there. The players eligible for 120 and below events have a playing strength of below the half way mark. In other words, at least half the chess playing population weren't eligible to compete, therefore there are thousands of players who would be expected to beat the Grand Prix winners one to one.

And Roger playing a GM in a first round where you have just lucky by pairing them also has no self achievement

It's a function of relative ratings, rather than luck. It's not just round 1 either. Depending on the strength of field and number of players , GM or IM opposition is possible or likely in later rounds if you score well.

Eg in Tennis you have Wimbledon Qualifying. Players ranked 500 odd and lower have the chance to get paired with the world Number 1 if they win 3 games. There is even pre qualifying where British players ranked outside the top 1000 have the chance to live that dream by playing in wild card play offs before Wimbledon qualifying. I remember back in 1999 I think it was a player called Danny Sapsford came though the Wild card play off to then win 3 games in qualifying. He amazingly won 2 rounds at Wimbledon and then got paired with Pete Sampras! And did himself proud. It was an amazing story.

I'm not sure how tennis rankings compare, but wouldn't the chess equivalent be something like someone of Jack's standard qualifying to play Carlsen? In chess a UK top ranking of 500 (out of 10000) is around 184, which is well within the normal standard of British Championship qualifiers. World ranking of top 500 is exclusively a GM club, or those about to get that title.

[Andrew Camp]

Hi Lee, hope you're well.

I found your article interesting and certainly passionate. Your achievements in the minor divisions of chess this year have certainly been noticed by me as I am always keen to know how past opponents and friends are doing. Your run of wins and fantastic showing in the Grand Prix should be commended and will be again next time we meet at a tournament.

I have to disagree with your ideas of allowing lower-graded players into the British though. The British Championship should be the elite domestic tournament in this country. We are crowning the British Champion. I already think too many players are allowed in it and said as much in questionnaires at Canterbury and Sheffield. I am in the camp which believes that the twelve highest graded players in the country who wish to play should make up the tournament and that it should be an round robin. This is contentious, I agree, but if we could elevate the British to a more prestigious level, I feel that would be an excellent way to 'improve chess overall in this country' as your thread title says.

And this leads me to my main question: how do your proposals seek to improve chess OVERALL in this country? They seem to me to be aimed more at improving chess for lower-graded players rather than those at the top end who we really want to see improving and getting into World Cups, Candidate's Tournaments and ultimately playing for a World Championship. I remember the boom after 1993 and if Gawain Jones or Luke McShane could follow in Short's footsteps, would have an incredible affect on chess in this country. But this won't happen if our top GMs are having to play the likes of me just because I do well in the U120 GP. We should be stretching our GMs as far as we can.

That said, there are relatively simple ways of someone like me playing a titled player and they have already been highlighted - play in Opens rather than lower-graded sections. It doesn't appeal to me at all - I want challenging matches where if I play well, I have a chance of winning. But if you want a chance to pit yorself against the likes of Hebdon or Arkell, play the e2e4 Opens rather than the Minors. I will be rooting for you as I always am when I read your Facebook updates.

I do like your points on 'sandbaggers' but don't feel I've had enough experience in seeing examples of this to give an opinion.

It's a good thread you have started though and I look forward to seeing how it develops.

Cheers.

Andy

[Alex Holowczak]

Back then I hated being black but was given black in my very first 3 games by Alex Holowczak This put me off and I did not play again till Sheffield. Only joking Alex

In my defence, Neville Belinfante saw me do that draw, and the other option was to break the scoregroup and give the two 0s games against people on 0.5. He chose the three blacks route, not me.