So who's going to the British Chess Championships?

[Lara Barnes]

2 questions if I may?

If conditions are now only being offered to English GMs and Women who are IMs why is the 'improved' entry form, downloadable from the ECF website still offering 'start money will be given to GMs and Women who are IMs'?

Also, was it specified that the money left in people's wills to the 'British' Championships be for only English players?

[Stewart Reuben]

>If conditions are now only being offered to English GMs and Women who are IMs why is the 'improved' entry form, downloadable from the ECF website still offering 'start money will be given to GMs and Women who are IMs'?

Also, was it specified that the money left in people's wills to the 'British' Championships be for only English players?<
Lara Barnes.

The meeting of the ECF Board which discussed these matters took place after the printed entry form was produced. The form on the website is an electronic version of the printed form.

The particular pots from which the money available for this aspect of the expenses of the event come have nothing to do with bequests. I hope to have more information on Wednesday which will enable me to answer the second question more thoroughly.
Stewart Reuben

[Ben Purton]

Ill play the Major Open if someone will lay me 8/1 to win it 1/4 odds top 3(EW).

Ben

[Ben Purton]

anyone willing to lay me 66/1 On Sarah to win womens title....thats the value bet.

[Ben Purton]

The British is in Torquey!!!! EEK!

Not good memories of Torquey

[Stewart Reuben]

The start money for strong players in the British Championships is coming from a contribution by a donor who made it very clear the money was to be used as I determined because he trusted my judgement. There may also be money from the ECF Permanent Invested Fund or Chess Centre Ltd. I was hoping that would be cleared up, but it is still taking time. Thus all three of these sources are from the ENGLISH Chess Federation.

Stewart Reuben

[Ben Purton]

My far superior half is only able to play the British because of John Robinson, as shes number 1 for women U21 , I think the fund is doing alot right(biased I know). I think people who think its being used more for the adult side are clearly on more pot than certain Sambuca Sharks....

Ben

[Andy Burnett]

Could somebody please clarify something for me please?

For title norm opportunities, does there have to be TITLED players from 3 or more different nations participating, or simply PLAYERS from 3 different nations, or is this rule no longer in place at all? (I think this forum might provide a quicker answer than me trudging through the FIDE website!)

Cheers in advance,
Andy Burnett

[IM Jack Rudd]

1.43 Federations of opponents.
At least two federations other than that of the title applicant must be included, except for 1.43a-1.43e.
1.43a The finals (but not preliminaries) of national men`s championships and also national women`s championships. See 1.43b1.
1.43b National team championships. (GA `04)


1.43b1 Title applications must include at least one tournament based on an event other than 1.43a and/or 1.43b.

1.43c Zonal tournaments.
1.43d Tournaments of other types may also be included with the prior approval of the QC Chairman.
1.43e Swiss System tournaments in which the competitors include at least 20 FIDE Rated players, not from the host federation, from at least 3 federations, at least 10 of whom hold GM, IM, WGM or WIM titles.
Otherwise 1.44 is valid.
1.44 Opponents shall be calculated using rounding up to the next whole number:
1.44a A maximum of 60% may come from the applicant`s federation and a maximum of 66% from one federation. (GA `04)

[Andy Burnett]

Thanks for that Jack.

So, are the British Championships covered under 1.43a? This isn't clear to me, though it's probably included under 1.43e?!

I guess what I'm really asking is whether the British is a worthwhile proposition this year for anyone trying to achieve a norm?

I believe the Scottish Championships have used their 'appearance fee fund' to bring in a couple of Indian GM's, and also Mark Hebden, to enable norm opportunities and thereby attract the 2200-2400 untitled brigade whose entry fees will hopefully make the top event a (more) viable event financially. Is the British Champs. route of paying fees only to English GM's precluding this approach?

[Roger de Coverly]

So, are the British Championships covered under 1.43a?

I believe the British Championships count as the national championship of federation ENG, so you don't need foreign GMs if there are enough English ones. I think you need to play 3 (is it?) GMs for a GM norm. In the past you needed the SCO,CAN ,AUS,NZL and IND players etc. to get norms, but Stewart got FIDE to relax the rules for national championships.

I believe the Scottish Championships have used their 'appearance fee fund' to bring in a couple of Indian GM's, and also Mark Hebden, to enable norm opportunities

I don't actually think you need non-SCO GMs for norms provided you can get all the SCO ones to attend.

Interestingly I saw a suggestion that the US championship ( 32 players 9 round Swiss) should not be a norm tournament. The point being that the need to take a draw for a norm could conflict with their anti-short draw rules and their desire for a competitive last round.

[Stewart Reuben]

It is quite correct that the British Championship is a norm tournament where no account has to be taken of different federations. It is unique in FIDE because it is the only national closed championship where players from more than one federation can play.
I did not devise the special rule where national championships did not need a mix of foreigners. That was before my time of involvement with the regulations. Indeed I remember telephoning John Glendenning and pointing out that if they had one English IM, playing hors concours for the title, the Scottish Championship could then be a norm tournament.

I hadn't previously realised that one advantage of having a tournament of more than 9 rounds means that the last round is likely to be more sternly contested as it is less likely that norms will be at stake.
Stewart Reuben

[IM Jack Rudd]

I hadn't previously realised that one advantage of having a tournament of more than 9 rounds means that the last round is likely to be more sternly contested as it is less likely that norms will be at stake.

A more specific point is possible here: it is less likely that norms will be at stake with a player's needing to draw to get a norm. You're unlikely to be in a situation where a draw gets you an n-round norm (with n>9) without having already got an (n-1)-round norm.

[Stewart Reuben]

Another specific point is that a 10 or 11 round norm provides little benefit over 9 rounds as 27 games are required in total. Gawain had 11, 9, 7 - but that is rare. I wanted it to require 30 in total, then 10 or 11 would be an advantage, bu I got voted down.
Stewrt

[Carl Hibbard]

Another specific point is that a 10 or 11 round norm provides little benefit over 9 rounds as 27 games are required in total. Gawain had 11, 9, 7 - but that is rare. I wanted it to require 30 in total, then 10 or 11 would be an advantage, bu I got voted down.
Stewrt

Looks like its you running the British now then Stewart?