Yeovil Chess Congress

[Matthew Turner]

I picked up an entry form for Yeovil Congress today (18-20 June). It is a nice event that is very well organised by Jack Rudd.
I notice that there are two changes this year. Firstly there is a new venue. However, it is the second change that has got me thinking. The Open and Major (U1970/165) are both FIDE rated and the entry form states that all entrants to these tournaments must be members of the ECF (or other National Federation). If you just played one tournament a year that would mean that the entry fee for the Major was £25 + £20 ECF membership. That seems quite a lot to me. Is this something that occurs elsewhere? and what do people think about it?

[Roger de Coverly]

The Open and Major (U1970/165) are both FIDE rated and the entry form states that all entrants to these tournaments must be members of the ECF (or other National Federation). If you just played one tournament a year that would mean that the entry fee for the Major was £25 + £20 ECF membership. That seems quite a lot to me. Is this something that occurs elsewhere? and what do people think about it?

Those who oppose compulsory membership having been saying this for years.

The interpretation of the FIDE rating regulations to require internationally rated players to be members of the ECF was introduced quite a few years ago. It's one of the regular topics on this forum.

[IM Jack Rudd]

FIDE rating the Major is an experiment. It may work; it may not. If I decide it has worked, it will carry on.

[Roger de Coverly]

FIDE rating the Major is an experiment. It may work; it may not. If I decide it has worked, it will carry on.

If Sean's tournaments are a guide, it will make the Open more exclusive. With just the Open internationally rated, you get the under 2000 players eager to improve their rating and the rating seekers in the top section which dilutes its strength a bit. With a Major rated as well, you get more like the field in a typical non FIDE open - mostly 170 plus.

[Matthew Turner]

Roger,
I understand that FIDE rated players have to be members of the ECF (or other national federation). However, this is something different, because your club 145 graded player is forced to join the ECF if they wish to compete.

[Roger de Coverly]

Roger,
However, this is something different, because your club 145 graded player is forced to join the ECF if they wish to compete.

It's a question of whether the "prestige" of potentially becoming an internationally rated player outweighs the cost of ECF membership.
Sean's events seem to have shown there are enough players to make it (rated Majors) viable in the South East, Jack is, I suppose, trying out the idea in the West of England.

[Martyn Harris]

I tend to take part in 9 or 10 congresses a year, mostly located at some distance from home. Consequently the transport and accommodation costs mount up sufficiently that an extra £20 is neither here nor there. However as Matthew correctly points out for those whose only experience of congress chess is their local one the position is very different, and the extra cost is bound to act as a disincentive.

Sean has successfully acted to take advantage of the demand for FIDE rating that does exist. However if all congresses take this route they will find themselves competing for a smaller pool of players and some congresses will fail as a result. Further one of the attractions of travelling, namely the chance to meet different players, will also diminish as the 'local' player will become a rarity.

Thus FIDE rated majors is not a development I view with pleasure. But then I find it difficult to see the sense for me to have an international rating when of necessity it would be based on a minority of my games and I am not playing internationally.

[Richard Bates]

What exactly do people see as the "prestige" of an International rating these days? Serious question. Is it just that having an International rating gives you an official "world ranking" or is it something more than that?

I would have said that the "prestige", especially when the limit was 2200, was that it marked you out as a member of an "elite" within the chess playing community. Whereas for the vast majority of active players now, achieving a rating is simply a result of playing enough games which doesn't to my eyes have an obvious meaning to it. Unless it is less about prestige in the chess community, and more about prestige among the rest of the world (who don't appreciate the finer details - simply saying "i have an international rating" sounds impressive)?

[Alex Holowczak]

What exactly do people see as the "prestige" of an International rating these days? Serious question. Is it just that having an International rating gives you an official "world ranking" or is it something more than that?

Perhaps when people who don't play chess ask how good you are, you can say "I'm rated 1800, and the World Champion is 2800, and since you don't play, you'd be about 100." As opposed to needing to explain about how you have an ECF grade and not a FIDE rating, but you're about 1800.

[Sean Hewitt]

There is no doubt that FIDE rating the Major will put some players off who are not ECF members and don't want to pay to join simply to play in one event. I have long thought that the ECF should offer a short term membership (probably 1 month) for something like £5 to avoid this. However, the question is whether there will be more such players than those attracted by FIDE rating the event and I believe that that's not the case, mainly for the reasons Martyn outlines.

Roger rightly points out that FIDE rating the Major appears to make the Open more exclusive. I actually placed a rating floor on my last Open to prevent U1900 players playing. We haven't done that at Sunningdale (as it's 7 rounds we can live with a big open) but nevertheless players who previously played the Open are now in the Major so I suspect we will continue to FIDE rate Majors, but without an Open floor in future to achieve the same aim.

I think that FIDE ratings attract players mainly because of their dynamism. Play well and you can see a near instantaneous reward in terms of rating increase. A player does not have to wait up to a year or more to see their grade increase and I think this is a big part of the incentive. If the ECF moved to more regular grading lists (and this is not trivial due to the ECF mean calculation methodology) this may negate this incentive somewhat.

I also think with our events that the quality of the venue plays a part. I notice that we have 43 entries in our Warrington Open for example when other FIDE rated Opens seem to get about 30 players. I think this has much to do with the playing conditions our customers are used to and expect.

[William Metcalfe]

Any players that play in Mo areas get ECF membership for £11 but i do not know if there are any MO areas south of the midlands.

[Rob Thompson]

For Yeovil, will fide ratings take priority over ECF ratings for entry purposes? i.e. will a player over 1970 but under 165 be able to play in the Major?

[Sean Hewitt]

For Yeovil, will fide ratings take priority over ECF ratings for entry purposes? i.e. will a player over 1970 but under 165 be able to play in the Major?

If I've read the entry form correctly it says it's open to players rated below 1970 and unrated players graded below 165.

So if you have a FIDE rating your ECF is irrelevant.

Therefore the answer is yes FIDE ratings take priority and no, the player in your example could not enter.

[E Michael White]

FIDE rating the Major is an experiment. It may work; it may not. If I decide it has worked, it will carry on.

Jack. at the new venue, are you going to be able to meet the quality criteria of http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html? ... w=category
as regards (5.1) clocks and (6) space ? These apply to all FIDE registered events and might encourage a higher number of entries if fully complied with.

[David Sedgwick]

Jack. at the new venue, are you going to be able to meet the quality criteria of http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html? ... w=category
as regards (5.1) clocks and (6) space ? These apply to all FIDE registered events and might encourage a higher number of entries if fully complied with.

I meant to pick up this point the last time that you raised it.

I'm pretty sure that the use of the word "registered" is a drafting error. The heading and the rest of the document refer to "FIDE Tournaments" and "FIDE Competitions".

I don't presume to understand the legal impact of the mistake. However, I have little doubt that the intention is that these standards are to apply to FIDE events, not to all FIDE rated tournaments.

I hope that the matter can be clarified at this year's FIDE Congress.