Do the ECf have a new policy to demerit the FM Title

[Andrew Smith]

As an FM, I used to often get a discounted entry fee to ECF and other tournaments in recognition of the title. GM's and IM's usually enter free and sometimes get conditions to play. FM's used to get some sort of discount because it adds status to a tournament if the organisers can say they have X number of GM's, X number of IM's and X number of FM's. But the ECF seem to have stopped giving recognition to the FM titled players by way of a reduced entry fee.
There was no discounted enfry fee at the 2026 British Championships and there is no discount being offered at the forthcoming 2026 British Blitz Championships in September. I accept that my rating has plummeted as I have got older, and many might say that FM's dont deserve any special treatment. I just wondered if its a formal change of policy by the ECF ?
And if so, will the tournaments stop publicising the number of FM's participating ? Its no big deal, but a maybe point of principle....maybe us FM's should boycott tournaments that dont appreciate our participation

[Richard Bates]

Obviously it doesn’t apply to blitz, but i thought that reduced fees were also because they helped for norm requirements (so used to be reduced for “FM or 2300+” until FIDE changed the norm rules to exclude the latter).

[Kevin Thurlow]

It does seem weird - maybe a secret policy? I was mildly irritated when an overseas tournament refused to put "CM" by my name as "it doesn't count as a title". Well ok, it is less eminent than FM etc. Then you get tournaments which happily state "AFM" by somebody's name. If you allow online titles, then I want my ICCF CCM title stated...

[Alex Holowczak]

I received a similar enquiry by email recently focused on the qualification standards, so I will share elements of my response to that email here.

I will start with the remark that I am sure will be unpopular, but needs saying, which is: my experience of this sort of thing is that wherever you draw the line on anything, the people who are just below the line wonder why the rules cannot state that they are above the line. This is true whether it is FMs in this case, or the 1500-1600 rated players who would like to play in the English Women's Championship this year.

Originally, nobody got free entry to the UK Open Blitz. Then Grandmasters got free entry. Now International Masters get free entry. Maybe it will be extended further in future? At which point, "Why can't CMs get free or discounted entry?" enquiries will land in my inbox.

For the British Championships, why should a FM who is now rated 2100-2199 get a discounted entry - or indeed automatic qualification - versus a CM now rated 2200-2299? Should qualification to a tournament in 2026 be based on what strength a player currently is, or what strength a player used to be? We made the decision to modify it to a rating-based qualification (top 100 in the BICC Federation ranking list, as has been noted elsewhere). This seemed like a fair way to make sure we got the best current players without having people stop playing to preserve their rating, and a number of FMs qualified via this route. From memory, the top 100 cutoff was something in the region of 2250.

We retained GM and IM as a title-based qualification for a specific reason: the Title Regulations allow tournaments with more than 20 foreign rated players, and more than 10 foreign GM/IM/WGM/WIM, to count as a foreign-requirement tournament. FM/WFM do not count for this tournament. This means that for this first time, the English Championships can now be a norm event as the National Championship this year, because the British Championship does not need it. So long as we can get the right strength of fields out for them.

These days, we seem to do a much better job of getting 2200+ players out for the British Championships than we used to a decade ago. The qualification standards are higher as a result, which is really a testament to the improved fortunes of British chess in that period. I don't see this as an effort to demerit the FM title at all; we are just adapting the qualification standards to reflect the current state of the British Championships, and a lot of FMs do still qualify. But we are not in the world anymore with the British that a 2200-rated FM would be in the top half of the tournament.

I realise at this point people - by which I mean Jonathan Rogers - will make their point about the tail, but I will defend that as I did before: there are spots that need to be issued to the British Isles Federations by virtue of it being a British Championships; and there are other qualification spots issued to help events around the British Isles during the course of the year. So as usual, we end up with a compromise between all of these conflicting aims.

[Richard Bates]

Alex - that all makes a lot of sense, but i don’t see that it has any particular relevance to the question asked, does it?

Qualification standards, and entry fees are two very different things. You can offer free or discounted entry fees “in recognition of and/or reward for lifetime title earned” (and, in norm tournaments, because it adds to chances of producing norms) without compromising qualification requirements at all. (in fact, i may be wrong, but from distant memory i don’t think historically even IMs (possibly theoretically even GMs if weak enough) used to get automatic qualification to the British Championship, but always received free entry if they did qualify).

[Alex Holowczak]

Alex - that all makes a lot of sense, but i don’t see that it has any particular relevance to the question asked, does it?

Qualification standards, and entry fees are two very different things. You can offer free or discounted entry fees “in recognition of and/or reward for lifetime title earned” without compromising qualification requirements at all. (in fact, i may be wrong, but from distant memory i don’t think historically even IMs (possibly theoretically even GMs if weak enough) used to get automatic qualification to the British Championship, but always received free entry if they did qualify).

I realise that qualification and entry fee discounts are different points, but the uniting topic that seems to have incurred some grumpiness is "What about us FMs?"

There was a discounted entry fee for FM/WFM at the British Championships. I addressed that there isn't one for the UK Open, by saying that offering a lower entry fee for IMs was only very recent.

bcc-2026-entry-fees.png (36.63 KiB) Viewed 519 times

[Richard Bates]

OK fair enough - apologies. I took at face value the original post saying there was no discounted entry fee at the British. I stand corrected.

Whilst of course an argument can still be made, i can see that there is no obvious “change in policy”.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Are you saying that if I ever qualify for the British (no sniggering at the back!) that I would have to pay £225 for the privilege (I would hope I would be graded above 2000). And that those graded below 2000 (mostly under-rated juniors?) are being fleeced of £350 for the experience? Possibly even £450? Is it permissible to be told how many entries there were at that price point? Or if there was only one such entry is that too identifying? In reality, it would be the junior's parents paying, or possibly some chess fund?

(I am aware such pricing has been a thing for a while, but does it actually generate revenue or is it more a way of discouraging such entries?)

[Richard Bates]

Are you saying that if I ever qualify for the British (no sniggering at the back!) that I would have to pay £225 for the privilege (I would hope I would be graded above 2000). And that those graded below 2000 (mostly under-rated juniors?) are being fleeced of £350 for the experience? Possibly even £450? Is it permissible to be told how many entries there were at that price point? Or if there was only one such entry is that too identifying? In reality, it would be the junior's parents paying, or possibly some chess fund?

The entries to the British Championship, and their rating, are not a state secret!

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I think where the funding comes from (parents or self-funded or a chess fund) might be. I have heard of people qualifying unexpectedly for the British and then pondering whether to stump up the large entry fee. I had not noticed that the entry fee had gotten so large down there.

(And I am not about to calculate the income via entry fee for the last 10 years of the British Chess Championships! Alex might... It might even be in the accounts published by the ECF but am not sure the breakdown is that granular.)

[Richard Bates]

OK then - well i’m not sure then why you think the organisers/ECF would know either then! (unless funding came directly from some ECF linked grant stream). Personally i think that it’s probably a bit unfair, in the context of qualification criteria being quite strict (as opposed to the near free for all of a few years ago) and is much more justified for pure Open tournaments, but does i guess depend on whether it IS in place to discourage or revenue raising.

On the other hand i suppose there are still a few quite “soft” qualification routes (including nominated places and “rolled down” Union champions etc) so maybe just targeting those).

[Alex Holowczak]

i guess depend on whether it IS in place to discourage or revenue raising.

A little from column A, a little from column B.

I don't think you can say that someone who qualified from an event cannot then play because their rating is too low. The ultimate way to stop a weaker tail would be to say that even if you qualify from an event, you have to meet a minimum rating threshold. I don't like the idea of having two qualification hurdles to jump over. But if we wanted to bar, rather than merely discourage, then this would be how we do it.

It's certainly true that the British Championships need to raise money through entry fees across the suite of events that are organised in order to work financially. If we flattened out/removed the pricing points there, then the logical consequence is that we have to put them up somewhere else for other people, perhaps in other events. I'm sure there could be a long argument about the right way to split the entry fees, but it is probably something that has no right or wrong answer, and just depends on how you see the event as a whole.

[Richard Bates]

It's certainly true that the British Championships need to raise money through entry fees across the suite of events that are organised in order to work financially. If we flattened out/removed the pricing points there, then the logical consequence is that we have to put them up somewhere else for other people, perhaps in other events. I'm sure there could be a long argument about the right way to split the entry fees, but it is probably something that has no right or wrong answer, and just depends on how you see the event as a whole.

I’m not sure that logically follows - it depends whether those who might “unexpectedly” qualify and would then enter, but for the entry fee, would otherwise play in other events and/or if not whether the loss of income outweighs the gain from those who do pay the high fee anyway - but of course it’s all entering into the realm of economic utility and pricing models which require more detailed expertise and analysis than just speculation and guesswork!

[Jonathan Rogers]

Alex wrote, to my slight surprise

"I realise at this point people - by which I mean Jonathan Rogers - will make their point about the tail, but I will defend that as I did before: there are spots that need to be issued to the British Isles Federations by virtue of it being a British Championships; and there are other qualification spots issued to help events around the British Isles during the course of the year. So as usual, we end up with a compromise between all of these conflicting aims."

A surprise because it must have been some years since I commented on the tail at the British! It is now much shorter than it used to be, and I am delighted that FMs in the 2200s are now back in the bottom half of the field (as they were when I played the British in 1989).

Reading through this thread has made me wonder if I was qualified for the British this year (by FIDE rating - no idea what my ECF is). If I was, no one told me. Just an observation, you understand: not criticism. Many years ago, I remember being told I had qualified (not that I had asked, nor any intention of playing, then as now). But if they were more eager - desperate, even - to have players of my rating back then, that would make sense.

Generally there has never been a coherent "policy" regarding FMs. Their fortunes/misfortunes in the ECF depend entirely upon the aims of organisers, economics and demographics of those who play certain competitions at any particular time. Could it really be otherwise? I imagine that many of us have the general impression that FMs are treated better in many parts of Europe, but while I should think there is some truth in that, it is difficult to quantify its extent, again because aims vary, as might pools of titled players.

One thing to say to FMs who feel underappreciated - it depends upon your circle. If you prefer to play among similarly able players, of course you will feel underappreciated, especially if you start comparing "privileges" with IMs of the same rating. If you meet and greet "ordinary" club players, who do not play first or second division 4NCL and so on, you are still a figure of considerable respect. Everything is relative!

[Alex Holowczak]

Alex wrote, to my slight surprise

"I realise at this point people - by which I mean Jonathan Rogers - will make their point about the tail, but I will defend that as I did before: there are spots that need to be issued to the British Isles Federations by virtue of it being a British Championships; and there are other qualification spots issued to help events around the British Isles during the course of the year. So as usual, we end up with a compromise between all of these conflicting aims."

A surprise because it must have been some years since I commented on the tail at the British! It is now much shorter than it used to be, and I am delighted that FMs in the 2200s are now back in the bottom half of the field (as they were when I played the British in 1989).

2025: viewtopic.php?f=25&t=14214&hilit=Britis ... 60#p319503

Reading through this thread has made me wonder if I was qualified for the British this year (by FIDE rating - no idea what my ECF is). If I was, no one told me. Just an observation, you understand: not criticism. Many years ago, I remember being told I had qualified (not that I had asked, nor any intention of playing, then as now). But if they were more eager - desperate, even - to have players of my rating back then, that would make sense.

You were indeed qualified: https://www.britishchesschampionships.c ... st-v7a.pdf

Letting qualifiers know that they qualified is probably an area that we need to be better at.