When Anteaters Attack II - Reform of the British

[Krishna Shiatis]

I'm not 100% sure I understand everything about accelerated pairings etc and if someone has already suggested this, then sorry!

Capelle La Grande is a tournament which throws everyone in together and the highest graded players usually come out on top indicating a 'fairness' in the way that it is done.

Could we not put everyone from the Open and the Major Open all in one and do what they do?

PS Also, it is very popular, as it attracts 100s of players so clearly players do like this kind of thing.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

PS Also, it is very popular, as it attracts 100s of players so clearly players do like this kind of thing.

Is that not because no-one has offered anything else? Would some brave soul (Sean?) like to try exporting the British model to the Continent? Or vice-versa?

[Roger de Coverly]

Is that not because no-one has offered anything else? Would some brave soul (Sean?) like to try exporting the British model to the Continent? Or vice-versa?

There are lots of different models. The French like to have one massive Open with acceleration for almost the entire tournament. The Dutch model is to subdivide the tournament into Open A, Open B, Open C etc. depending on entries and venue capacity with a minimum rating restriction on entries to the higher sections. Italian tournaments tend towards the Dutch model.

With the possible exception of Holland, what you don't see is the weekend congress as we know it, with at least two games on the Saturday and Sunday and fast move rates. e2e4 have shown that with the re-introduction of Friday night rounds, that you can fit five 90 30 games into a weekend. I say re-introduction, because from a South East perspective, local Friday evening rounds disappeared years ago.

Events like the London Classic and Hastings Masters are a hybrid. Whilst it's just the one tournament and there aren't rating restrictions, the existence of parallel and shorter tournaments keeps the lower rated players out of the "big" event. We even see it at the British where the Major Open is not usually considered as an entry option for players under 130.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Events like the London Classic and Hastings Masters are a hybrid. Whilst it's just the one tournament and there aren't rating restrictions, the existence of parallel and shorter tournaments keeps the lower rated players out of the "big" event. We even see it at the British where the Major Open is not usually considered as an entry option for players under 130.

Much higher entry fees tend to discourage lower rated players as well.

[Roger de Coverly]

Much higher entry fees tend to discourage lower rated players as well.

I was looking this one up. At this year's Championship, the Major Open fee was £ 100, whilst the One Week fee was £ 40. If you add the one rapid-play to the Major Open and a weekender to the One Week events, you get £ 118 against £ 105. So not much to choose relative to the costs of food, travel and accommodation.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Much higher entry fees tend to discourage lower rated players as well.

I was looking this one up. At this year's Championship, the Major Open fee was £ 100, whilst the One Week fee was £ 40. If you add the one rapid-play to the Major Open and a weekender to the One Week events, you get £ 118 against £ 105. So not much to choose relative to the costs of food, travel and accommodation.

Clearly they need to make it even more expensive!

[Paul Cooksey]

Just talking about the case for reform. I think traditionally the British has looked to create norms, but this is harder with a long tail.

James Adair started 1/2-1-0 against GM-IM-GM, TPR close to 2500, a solid base for an IM norm. But playing a <1900 player, TPR a little over 2000, in round 4 makes it harder. Not the fault of that player of course. But losing a game at the top, even to a GM, means you may well have to play a a much lower rated opponent in a tournament with few middle rated players.

[LawrenceCooper]

Just talking about the case for reform. I think traditionally the British has looked to create norms, but this is harder with a long tail.

James Adair started 1/2-1-0 against GM-IM-GM, TPR close to 2500, a solid base for an IM norm. But playing a <1900 player, TPR a little over 2000, in round 4 makes it harder. Not the fault of that player of course. But losing a game at the top, even to a GM, means you may well have to play a a much lower rated opponent in a tournament with few middle rated players.

At least one opponent can be rounded up to 2050 and with eleven rounds you have the option of discarding a win against a low rated opponent. What you don't want is to drop points against them and play another two or three in quick succession.

[Alex McFarlane]

It is also possible to disregard a win against a player.

[Paul McKeown]

Making a shorter norm, often less useful.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Before I forget, does anyone know what is happening next year yet (at Torquay, 100th edition)? Are plans well advanced, or is a lot of the work taking place after this year's event? I had been thinking of planning now for attending next year, but searching for 'british chess championships 2013' doesn't throw up much.

[Paul Cooksey]

At least one opponent can be rounded up to 2050 and with eleven rounds you have the option of discarding a win against a low rated opponent. What you don't want is to drop points against them and play another two or three in quick succession.

or for it to happen a second time, difficult to avoid a draw-loss-bad pairing sequence, even for an inform player.

I hope James still has a good chance, I think he is now at IM standard. But while I agree one bad pairing is not disastrous in an 11 round tournament, I stand by a bad paring making norms harder. Normally you'd hope to play a player 200-300 points lower after a loss, rather than 500-600 points lower.

As ever, it is about the aims of the tournament. If norms are a priority, I think an 11 round open championship creates better chances than an 11 round closed one.

[LawrenceCooper]

Making a shorter norm, often less useful.

I don't think that is as relevant as it was years ago. Your norms have to cover a minimum of 27 games as opposed to it once (I believe) being 30.

[Roger de Coverly]

Before I forget, does anyone know what is happening next year yet (at Torquay, 100th edition)? Are plans well advanced, or is a lot of the work taking place after this year's event?

I don't think anything is published beyond the qualification rules for the Championship and the dates, 27th July to 10th August. It's normal to have some promotional material for the next event at the current event, but Torquay is well enough known not to really need it.

Various ideas were discussed on this forum, quite some while back. An invitational tournament featuring ex-champions of many years ago was suggested, notwithstanding the obvious problem.

[JustinHorton]

That being that most of them are dead?