Cambridge International Open

[NickFaulks]

It is far from guaranteed that a player with the required performance for a norm will have faced enough foreign opponents.

[Leonard Barden]

My attempt to evaluate norm opportunities has been hampered by the use of ECF rather than FIDE ratings. Whatever their relative merits, it is the latter that you need for norms.

Nick, there is a Fide rating list for Cambridge here https://www.englishchess.org.uk/cambrid ... -entrants/

A major culprit for this ratings disaster, where well over half the entrants are below 2000 and thus a handicap for GM and IM norm seekers, is the flat £60 entry fee for everybody bar GMs and IMs.

It should be well established by now, and certainly was so at Lloyds Bank, that you need sharply higher entry fees to minimise the number of no-hopers in a norm tournament. Here something like £30 for FMs and 2300s, rising to £100 for U2000 and £150 for U1800' would have been appropriate, with reductions for juniors.

[Richard Bates]

I think perhaps there’s sometimes an assumption that the presence of very low rated players don’t matter because the “problem” can be overcome by acceleration. In practice, whilst it can have some helpful impact for potential norm seekers in specific rating bands, it is almost only ever a mitigation to make norms technically possible, rather than a solution. Particularly when the tails are lengthy and encompass a large proportion of the field.

[Ljubica Lazarevic]

As one of those "long tail players", it's not my fault that I spotted a tournament that was in a great location, in a nice venue, with a fair entry fee, and entered promptly. I wasn't surprised at all that it filled so quickly, and that can only be a good thing for future events.

I do feel like some of the language being used is rather harsh to us folk under the 2000 rating line. Aren't we also allowed to play chess too? It's the masses of us woodpushers who turn up and enter that are helping cover the costs of these events.

[Leonard Barden]

Realistically, the way forward now ought to be for the ECF to find out which of the missing five prime GM norm candidates Wadsworth 2477, Ghasi 2471, Harvey 2466, Royal 2456, and Willow 2431 wants to play in Cambridge, and to put these players at the top of the waiting list.

[LawrenceCooper]

Although much of my chess organising revolves around providing norm opportunities I certainly don't see a new event that has attracted 120+ players as anything other than a positive addition to the calendar.

[Chris Rice]

As one of those "long tail players", it's not my fault that I spotted a tournament that was in a great location, in a nice venue, with a fair entry fee, and entered promptly. I wasn't surprised at all that it filled so quickly, and that can only be a good thing for future events.

I do feel like some of the language being used is rather harsh to us folk under the 2000 rating line. Aren't we also allowed to play chess too? It's the masses of us woodpushers who turn up and enter that are helping cover the costs of these events.

Completely agree with that Ljubica. As a very long tail player below 2000 I now realise I am a no hoper and being made to feel like a Millwall fan (no one likes us, we don't care). At any rate I'm really looking forward to playing, especially those norm seekers!

[Kevin Williamson]

I see the organisers are offering a number of rating prizes all the way down to <1600, which would indicate that 'no hopers' are very welcome. So no reason at all for Ljubica and Chris to feel bad about entering.

[Kevin Thurlow]

Unusually, I find myself agreeing with just about everyone.

"I certainly don't see a new event that has attracted 120+ players as anything other than a positive addition to the calendar."

Yes

"As one of those "long tail players", it's not my fault that I spotted a tournament that was in a great location, in a nice venue, with a fair entry fee, and entered promptly"

Yes - And you might just play a GM and there are not many opportunities to do that.

"It should be well established by now, and certainly was so at Lloyds Bank, that you need sharply higher entry fees to minimise the number of no-hopers in a norm tournament. Here something like £30 for FMs and 2300s, rising to £100 for U2000 and £150 for U1800' would have been appropriate, with reductions for juniors."

Yes - at least that makes it clear to idiots like me that I was not wanted, and I understand the reasons. However, I was somewhat irritated at Lloyds Bank that I paid a big entry fee to try to get a FIDE-rating, and found all the subsidised unrated juniors on my score group got rated opponents every round, whereas we unrated adults got other unrated adults. Readers here will not be surprised to learn that I mildly expressed my concerns to an arbiter and then got rated opponents (but only 5 in 9 rounds in the days when you needed at least 4 rated opponents for it to count.) I believe fiddling the draw to aid certain players is now frowned on. I must find the tournament bulletin and see how many of those juniors are still playing!

"I think perhaps there’s sometimes an assumption that the presence of very low rated players don’t matter because the “problem” can be overcome by acceleration."

Yes - but acceleration merely moves the "mis-matches" from round 1 or 2 to later in the tournament.

[Roger de Coverly]

However, I was somewhat irritated at Lloyds Bank that I paid a big entry fee to try to get a FIDE-rating, and found all the subsidised unrated juniors on my score group got rated opponents every round, whereas we unrated adults got other unrated adults. Readers here will not be surprised to learn that I mildly expressed my concerns to an arbiter and then got rated opponents (but only 5 in 9 rounds in the days when you needed at least 4 rated opponents for it to count.) I believe fiddling the draw to aid certain players is now frowned on.

In my experience that became a standard practice. Shortly after I got an initial International rating, I tested it by playing at Hastings. However I was paired against unrated players for 8 of 9 rounds, only facing the late Frank Parr in the final round.

A conspiracy theorist would say that the historic aversion of British arbiters to mechanised pairings was so they could fiddle pairings to punt rated against unrated.

[Brendan O'Gorman]

As one of those "long tail players", it's not my fault that I spotted a tournament that was in a great location, in a nice venue, with a fair entry fee, and entered promptly. I wasn't surprised at all that it filled so quickly, and that can only be a good thing for future events.

I do feel like some of the language being used is rather harsh to us folk under the 2000 rating line. Aren't we also allowed to play chess too? It's the masses of us woodpushers who turn up and enter that are helping cover the costs of these events.

Hear hear!

[LawrenceCooper]

Long ago at Lloyds Bank it was done differently. As soon as the entry form was available, a personal invitation was sent to every young English norm contender, with financial incentives to compete.

My recollection of that era, as an IM norm achiever in 1987 and someone who slept on Ali Mortazavi's floor for several years to reduce the cost of 10 days in London are slightly different.

That said, the tournaments themselves were an amazing experience.

[NickFaulks]

Realistically, the way forward now ought to be for the ECF to find out which of the missing five prime GM norm candidates Wadsworth 2477, Ghasi 2471, Harvey 2466, Royal 2456, and Willow 2431 wants to play in Cambridge, and to put these players at the top of the waiting list.

This would probably be pointless unless they also managed to raise several ( five would be good ) 2200+ foreign players to reduce the potential disappointment of performance norms not counting.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"A conspiracy theorist would say that the historic aversion of British arbiters to mechanised pairings was so they could fiddle pairings to punt rated against unrated."

No - conspiracy theorists tend to believe things with no supporting evidence at all, whereas fiddling pairings (and in some cases results) has definitely happened.

[Richard Bates]

"I think perhaps there’s sometimes an assumption that the presence of very low rated players don’t matter because the “problem” can be overcome by acceleration."

Yes - but acceleration merely moves the "mis-matches" from round 1 or 2 to later in the tournament.

That was the point. A norm seeker, especially a GM norm seeker can be scuppered from the start under a conventional pairing system if they spend two or three rounds at the start playing very low rated players (if it makes it near impossible to generate the minimum average rating of 2380. Acceleration can make it possible to avoid this scenario - but only if the norm seeker performs exceptionally in the early rounds (probably against stronger players). Slip up at all and the end result is potentially the same - but it is generally situation dependent - sometimes it can assist the strong norm candidate, sometimes favour more the somewhat weak candidate having the tournament of their life. The strong candidate is more likely to suffer from a weaker field (because will more often be paired down), the weaker candidate clearly more likely to be unable to sustain a strong enough start to benefit from the acceleration.