Told I shouldnt enter opens

[Roger de Coverly]

In general, I'd say that tournaments wishing to restrict entries on the basis of strength really should put an explicit lower limit on rating or whatever.

Another approach is to have differential entry fees. The London Chess Classic FIDE Open also tried the idea of not having rating prizes below a particular level.

Discouraging lower rated players from the top section is more acceptable when there's a parallel tournament with exactly the same playing conditions. Weekend tournaments do this with the possible exception when FIDE rating only applies to the top section. The British Championship does this with the Major Open. Hastings and the London Classic FIDE Open don't because they only offer tournaments of fewer rounds alongside the main event.

There are some players who repeatedly enter Opens without really having the playing strength to justify it. Apart from sometimes being treated as a punch bag, they are likely to be the first choice for a bye, particularly in the first round if FIDE rules on floats are applied.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Having said that, if I were organizing a title-norm all-play-all, I would seriously consider inviting Alan or someone like him to be the fourth non-English player. But then, for such an event, I can curate the field much more carefully than is reasonable for a Swiss.

[AlanLlewellyn]

Having said that, if I were organizing a title-norm all-play-all, I would seriously consider inviting Alan or someone like him to be the fourth non-English player. But then, for such an event, I can curate the field much more carefully than is reasonable for a Swiss.

im packing my bags LOL

[Ian Thompson]

However, it clearly states on the ECF Calendar information that the Northumbria Masters is "open to all" so it seems surprising to me that there was even a conversation with Tim Wall about it.

There's also a condition on the entry form stating "6. Players may be moved to a different section at the organiser’s discretion."

It's better, in my opinion, to have a lower rating limit on sections. European tournaments quite often do this with an overlap between each section's limits so players near the boundary can choose whether to be one of the lowest rated players in the higher section or one of the highest rated players in the lower section. At the last tournament I played at the limits were:

• Open: >= 2200
• A: >= 1800 and <= 2300
• B: >= 1400 and <= 1900
• C: <= 1500

Nearly everyone in those 100 points overlaps chose to play in the higher section:

• 18 players in the Open who could have played in the A tournament; 2 players in the A tournament who could have played in the Open
• 32 players in the A tournament who could have played in the B tournament; 5 players in the B tournament who could have played in the A tournament
• 43 players in the B tournament who could have played in the C tournament; 7 players in the C tournament who could have played in the B tournament

[AlanLlewellyn]

when i was a 153 grade (my current grading is close to 122) 170 grades used to calmly agree a draw with me often but now they try and blast me off the board. my rapidplay rating has always been at around the 150 level.

[Stewart Reuben]

Stopping somebody playing in an OPEN soleley because of a low rating, or no rating at all, is an offence against the English language.

[Richard Bates]

I dunno, there are all sorts of sporting events which are described as "Opens" but in reality are "open to all who qualify". Now in most cases they have immediately preceding qualification events, but you still can't just rock up to the main event and expect to be able to play. The difference is in how you go about qualifying, and you could argue that a minimum rating limit is not materially different.

The real distinction i guess is whether you view the word "Open" as simply distinct from events which restrict players who are too strong (to give weaker competitors a chance of victory).

Tournaments with the only restriction being a lower limit doesn't technically mean they aren't theoretically "open to all". But as a general rule, calling them "Masters", or "Premier" or whatever is obviously more sensible just to avoid any debate.

[AlanLlewellyn]

I dont know if you folk have read the thread on here entitled fischer internet chess hoax but I state how i believe (before computers took hold online)I beat a ton load of gms online including nigel short i believe. Now my current otb results are rubbish too but theyre has been such things as computer contact lenses and thought control equipment in the defence and intelligence community for years now maybe since about 2001 when i had a half decent rating and was improving fast.

[Ian Thompson]

Right. There's been a recent rule change such that a player can only upgrade one opponent over the course of a tournament, although typically that wouldn't matter much.

See https://ratings.fide.com/calculations.p ... 1&rating=0 (Open de Salon de Provence) for an example of this new rule in practice. The player believes he would have gained 2 points for the event under the old rules instead of losing 0.6 points and is not happy (see his Facebook posts).

If you look at https://ratings.fide.com/calculations.p ... 1&rating=0 you can see the effect of the change for the lower rated player where one of his losses resulted in him losing 0.0 points.

Is this rule change inflationary? For the game between these two players, the winner gained 0.8 points and the loser lost 0.0 points. Under the old rules, it would have been +0.8 for the winner and -1.6 for the loser.

[AlanLlewellyn]

i have a peculiar story on ratings, i warn you its in the realm of the outer limits now.
First in around 2016 i entered the Blackpool open mainly because i wanted my fide rating to improve and in those days theyre werent many fide tournaments outside of London(which is 360 miles away incidentally). It definitely said on the entry sheet that it was a fide rated event so i entered.
In the actual open i got a draw against a 2165 fide (192 grade) called Shami abdulleyev but because of rating differences were limited to 400 points that meant if i lost all my other games i would stay the same on fide.
So i waited the next month to see a +1 or -1 rating difference and i waited in vain because nothing materialised. When i got in touch with them they said they have never entered the results to fide in years. Now i had been in the position that i had nearly entered due to them previously being fide rated. This was before the death of the organiser and the year a top grandmaster, Matthew Sadler went.
Now i knew i had only entered the competition because it was fide rated and thus thought oh i must have had an old entry form by accident but when i checked the entry form it stated nothing about being fide rated.

[Roger de Coverly]

Now i knew i had only entered the competition because it was fide rated and thus thought oh i must have had an old entry form by accident but when i checked the entry form it stated nothing about being fide rated.

It was known amongst regular tournament players that Blackpool had abandoned FIDE rating even for the top section. Their fellow big Northern tournament in Scarborough didn't FIDE rate either.

To play in a FIDE rated event, it was necessary to play in an e2e4 event, later the 4NCL Congresses. It was rare for these to venture further north than the Midlands.

[AlanLlewellyn]

this is all alternate universe stuff with all due respect Roger, i followed the fide rated open results the year earlier and it clearly stated on the entry form it was fide rated or i really wouldnt have entered. I was searching for fide competitions see. Then it didnt say on the form that it was fide rating which is the really mysterious thing in this.

[AlanLlewellyn]

even the ratings were in fide when the ecf ratings were three figures, these were 2000 odd.

[Matt Mackenzie]

I think the Blackpool Open was last FIDE rated in 2008, I played the following year as well and was then told it wasn't being included anymore. In part because certain "leading players" had expressed their unhappiness with it being eligible for rating, apparently.

[Roger de Coverly]

In part because certain "leading players" had expressed their unhappiness with it being eligible for rating, apparently.

Playing times were conducive, four hour sessions at 40 in 100 plus 20. That's the impression I had as well about their reasoning. "leading" players now largely seem to have accepted the risk to their ratings of playing in weekend tournaments. Perhaps increments help by mostly ruling out the lottery of complete time shortage.