British Chess Championships 2010

[Mick Norris]

It might be an idea that the British 2012 is not scheduled to clash with the Olympics - is that possible, or are the dates not available to do so?

[Alex Holowczak]

It might be an idea that the British 2012 is not scheduled to clash with the Olympics - is that possible, or are the dates not available to do so?

It can't be held earlier than that, because children are still in school. Yes, exams have finished, and the last two weeks are virtually pointless, but it's still unnecessary. Two weeks later, and you're overlapping with the UKCC Terafinal. So there could be an issue with juniors there.

[Stewart Reuben]

Another problem with starting the British two weeks later is that, by 15 August, the Scottish Schools have reopened.
The British could be held in April. The only problem is the very large number of Easter chess events so it would require complete reordering of the chess calendar. But it would be MUCH easier to get a free venue in a resort in April.

Stewart Reuben

[Paul Bielby]

One for Alex or Stewart?

I don't like the ubiquitous ENG attached to most of the players in the championship programme. It's probably at FIDE requirement?

But on the one occasion I made it to the Championship (back in 1969) we were at least told where the players come from or the clubs they played for. P.R.Bielby (Sunderland), P.H.Clark (Holsworthy), J.E.Littlewood (Skelmersdale), J.Penrose (London NE?), etc. Not a great deal to ask for but it would make the programme more informative. Can it be done?

[Andrew Camp]

Two weeks in Sheffield! We'll be there but it still sends a shudder down my spine.

[Alex McFarlane]

Trying to answer a few of the points raised.

The dates have not been set for 2012 yet as the venue may have some influence as to which two of the three normal weeks (last in July first 2 in August) it will take place. It is currently hoped that we will finish on the day the Olympics start. Stewart has mentioned April/Easter as a possible time but has the complication of having many events around that time. There is also the additional problem that school holidays are not standardised then (some Easter, some now fixed on early April) and it is just before exams so not suitable for juniors (or some teachers!)

The programme will be available in downloadable form this year. It is unlikely to contain a list of entrants as a more up to date list can be downloaded from the website. I will try to make available a list of entrants in booklet form for those who wish to download it, but such a booklet will not be accurate until at least the second Monday. If someone reminds me closer to the time I will try to ensure that the Championship chart contains the additional information requested.

[Martin Benjamin]

As a volunteer in other fields, I am diffident about suggesting what those who give of their time freely should or should not be doing, when I am not the one organising the event. However, I would like to throw in a couple of points.

First, the British Championship. I think the principle of making it a championship genuinely open to all is worth preserving. I am not a poker or golf player, but one aspect in which these sports score highly in my eyes is in giving the opportunity to anyone to have a shot at winning the most prestigious event. Theoretically, I could enter the Open golf championship next year and if I fight my way through the qualifying events (which are held near to the time of the main event), I could get to play in and win the actual Open. Similarly, were I to fight my way through a series of satellite events, I could win a World Series of Poker tournament. (Apologies to afficionados of golf and poker if I have misrepresented the sports). Is there an opportunity to do the same with the British and simultaneously improve funding, sponsorship and publicity? For example, if the British became an event open to all, perhaps the two weeks could consist of successive group stages, with group winners progressing to the next pool and the rest taking part in other groups or a Swiss. (The current system of entering lots of events throughout the year in the hope of nabbing a qualifying place does not have the same feel). If players are guaranteed two weeks chess, with the possibility of playing the likes of Micky Adams early doors, many people might be tempted and might be willing to pay a higher entry fee. Sponsors might be more attracted by the eventual head to head final, and the publicity would probably be better. A fine performance by David Howell at Torquay, but my recollection is that he needed a draw with White in the last round, which arrived quite comfortably. Sponsors prefer the drama of a final. I realise this has a lot of "mights" and raises more questions than it answers, but it strikes me as worth bearing in mind.

The second point is the sets used on some of the Championship boards last year. I was only a spectator, for a day, but wandering around, I thought some of the boards had some sets which were not only not in correct proportion to the size of the squares, but were also of such unusual design that it was not easy at a glance to distinguish between certain pieces. I remember struggling when I played on the Championship boards in one of the junior events in Portsmouth in the seventies. I think players of my standard are loath to complain about things like this for fear of being labelled prima donnas. Am I alone in this observation?

Anyway, I shall be competing this year (probably in the loosest sense of the term) for the first time since Brighton in 1977. Thanks again to those who have organised the event.

[Alex McFarlane]

Martin, not too sure how your idea would work. Are you suggesting a Swiss format or a knock-out with further KOs for those who lose? If the former then I would point out that whilst you might (and only might) get an accurate top and bottom section the vagaries of the Swiss would cause problems in trying to get proper sections thereafter. Initial sections of up to 16 would require 4 rounds to get a winner but lots of tie breaks would be required to sort out the following sections and nobody likes tie-breaks. You would then have another set of sections of 16 followed by final sections of 8 for the 11 rounds. Is this what you envisage? I'm not sure either format would be accepted by FIDE for title norms.

With regard to the sets: All sets used were Staunton pattern, nothing else would be acceptable. The sets you used at Plymouth were possibly Jacques sets, the original Staunton pattern!

[Martin Benjamin]

Alex

You are right - I am not sure how it would all work! I have not spelled out the details, and I agree there would be an awful lot to consider in addition to title norms. For example, it might well require faster time limits and several rounds per day. The point I was trying to make was that perhaps the path for the future is similar to that mapped by poker and golf, where the prospect of a decent amateur having a shot (however slim) at the title - or at least being in the main event - attracts more entrants and finance. It also enhances the aura of the event. Of course, I stand to be corrected by poker players and golfers if I have not represented their sports accurately, and I know the financing of golf when it comes to the majors does not depend on the entry fees of club players, but I hope the general point is understood.

As for the sets, if it is helpful background, the ones I found difficult to get used to even as a spectator for a day for round 10 at Torquay were on the lower boards (for example, the set and board used in Dominic Mackle v David LeMoir). I hope this does not sound inane, but I found myself having to look at certain pieces for a second rather than knowing almost instinctively or out of the corner of my eye which piece was which, and thinking how distracting I would find it if I were playing. It goes without saying that an organiser of your experience would not use anything other than genuine Staunton, but there was something in this particular instance about the combined effect of the design, the staining and the contrast with both the colour and size of the squares that left me reflecting I would have been much happier playing with the standard Staunton plastic sets in one of the other sections. However, if no one actually playing mentioned it, it clearly was not a big problem except for me - and I was not playing anyway, so no need to worry about it! As I am sure you know, it was a habit in the seventies for certain top class GMs to object to the lighting, the pieces, the board etc. Once I have the mastered the art of complaining, all I need to be in the same league is the trifling matter of a mere 600 or so additional ELO points.

I hope you and the other arbiters and organisers have an enjoyable fortnight, and thanks again for all your work

Regards

Martin Benjamin

[LozCooper]

As a volunteer in other fields, I am diffident about suggesting what those who give of their time freely should or should not be doing, when I am not the one organising the event. However, I would like to throw in a couple of points.

First, the British Championship. I think the principle of making it a championship genuinely open to all is worth preserving. I am not a poker or golf player, but one aspect in which these sports score highly in my eyes is in giving the opportunity to anyone to have a shot at winning the most prestigious event. Theoretically, I could enter the Open golf championship next year and if I fight my way through the qualifying events (which are held near to the time of the main event), I could get to play in and win the actual Open. Similarly, were I to fight my way through a series of satellite events, I could win a World Series of Poker tournament. (Apologies to afficionados of golf and poker if I have misrepresented the sports). Is there an opportunity to do the same with the British and simultaneously improve funding, sponsorship and publicity? For example, if the British became an event open to all, perhaps the two weeks could consist of successive group stages, with group winners progressing to the next pool and the rest taking part in other groups or a Swiss. (The current system of entering lots of events throughout the year in the hope of nabbing a qualifying place does not have the same feel). If players are guaranteed two weeks chess, with the possibility of playing the likes of Micky Adams early doors, many people might be tempted and might be willing to pay a higher entry fee. Sponsors might be more attracted by the eventual head to head final, and the publicity would probably be better. A fine performance by David Howell at Torquay, but my recollection is that he needed a draw with White in the last round, which arrived quite comfortably. Sponsors prefer the drama of a final. I realise this has a lot of "mights" and raises more questions than it answers, but it strikes me as worth bearing in mind.

Anyway, I shall be competing this year (probably in the loosest sense of the term) for the first time since Brighton in 1977. Thanks again to those who have organised the event.

Hi Martin,

With regard to a series of a groups etc I think this rules out far more players at an early stage. At least in a swiss you can lose your first one, two or maybe even first three games but still have a mathematical chance of winning the event. There have been proposals to change the Olympiad from a swiss to group stages but this would also rule out a lot of teams in the early stages.

Apart from having a knockout it's diffcult to create drama that would appeal to a sponsor. Clearly a last round full of hard fought games is desirable but at least last year David fought his games out in rounds 1-10 and as I understand it did turn down one draw in the last round before agreeing when there was little life in the position.

From memory, 2008 had a play-off for the title itself which provided extra drama on the Saturday. The US championship recently had a swiss where the top 4 after 7 (i think) rounds then played a mini all-play-all to produce a winner whilst everyone else carried on playing a swiss. I daresay it's possible after 8, 9 or 10 rounds of the British for the top 8, 4 or 2 to be placed into a knock out whilst everyone else stays in the swiss although if someone is on 8/8 it would seem harsh to have only the same chance as someone on 5.5 or 6 of being British champion but that is equally true in the football play-offs and they certainly create extra drama.

Finally, it's great to hear that you will play your first British for 33 years. I wonder what the record is for the biggest gap

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Theoretically, I could enter the Open golf championship next year and if I fight my way through the qualifying events (which are held near to the time of the main event), I could get to play in and win the actual Open. Similarly, were I to fight my way through a series of satellite events, I could win a World Series of Poker tournament. (Apologies to afficionados of golf and poker if I have misrepresented the sports). Is there an opportunity to do the same with the British and simultaneously improve funding, sponsorship and publicity? "

That's how it used to be done in the 70s(?). There were regional all-play-all groups, where you tried to fit the games in with other events, and then if you finished high enough, you played a regional event I think. Some of my club colleagues got very excited when we hosted a BC qualifying game one evening, until our guy got blown away. I didn't actually play in the thing, but I think there were the usual problems about getting every game played. There you could get eliminated in October. Maybe the current system where there all sorts of potential qualifying events is better, and encourages more chess. People might keep trying at event after event, whereas in the old days, you got one chance.

There are issues with every way of running a British Championship
(1) All-play-all for 12 invited players
(2) Lloyds Bank style huge Swiss open to all eligible players (with higher entry-fees for the lower-rated etc.)
(3) Massive qualifying event as in (2) but take top few players for a final at some stage. (as this year's US Championship or the Gawlikowski Memorial RP in Poland)
(4) Knockout
(5) others...

But you do want everyone involved for the whole event of course.

[Stewart Reuben]

Martin Benjamin >Similarly, were I to fight my way through a series of satellite events, I could win a World Series of Poker tournament.<

Your highest percentage probability of winning a World Series of Poker Chmpionship is to pay the full entry fee direct rather than playing in a satellite. The events are totally open to anybody who has the money.

Martin also commented on the sets for the top boards in the British. They are indeed different from those used on lower boards, though still of Staunton design. They are wooden as are the boards. not plastic. They contain electronic gizzmos that enable the position on the board to be communicated to a computer. Thus the games can go out worldwide immediately. The pieces and boards are made by the Dutch DGT company.

Martin is the first person I know of who has raised issues about the ease of understanding the nature of the pieces due to their colour and that of the boards. This suggests he has less than perfect colour sense. That interests me, I have never had that problem, although I am rather colour-blind. By contrast some demonstration boards seem to be deliberately designed so that I am better-off playing blindfold. If enough people express a problem, then Albert Vasse CEO of DGT would consider changing newly-produced boards and sets.

Stewart Reuben

[E Michael White]

The second point is the sets used on some of the Championship boards last year.........

Nearly all sets used in UK chess do not conform to the FIDE standard which is that the base of the king should be between 40% and 50% of the height. Most sets used fall just short at about 37-40%, so if you come up against a 45 % base it seems very strange indeed. I blame it on the Twiggy slim fashions of the 60s and BHW who seemed to incorporate this into his chess sets.

[Alex Holowczak]

Nearly all sets used in UK chess do not conform to the FIDE standard which is that the base of the king should be between 40% and 50% of the height. Most sets used fall just short at about 37-40%, so if you come up against a 45 % base it seems very strange indeed. I blame it on the Twiggy slim fashions of the 60s and BHW who seemed to incorporate this into his chess sets.

Don't FIDE have better things to do?

[Roger de Coverly]

Martin also commented on the sets for the top boards in the British. They are indeed different from those used on lower boards, though still of Staunton design. They are wooden as are the boards. not plastic. They contain electronic gizzmos that enable the position on the board to be communicated to a computer. Thus the games can go out worldwide immediately. The pieces and boards are made by the Dutch DGT company.


Stewart Reuben

The DGT pieces and for that matter the Staunton ones at the British and Hastings seem chunkier than the plastic sets that most of us will use in the rest of the year. This can make the board seem more crowded. Also the colour contrasts on the wooden boards and sets aren't as great as with the plastic ones. I don't think it matters at normal OTB play but at blitz an unfamiliar set might cost a second or two.