2nd Cambridge International Open

[Roger de Coverly]

Exception 1.43d is what I think Jack was referring to:

"Swiss System tournaments in which participants include in every round at least 20 FIDE rated players, not from the host federation, from at least 3 different federations, at least 10 of whom hold GM, IM, WGM or WIM titles"

Hastings usually manages this. Presumably it's down to having a policy of invitations designed with this as one objective. Perhaps also a long standing reputation which may generate entries from non English non titled players.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

My question still stands, if they had been present for all nine rounds, would a non-ENG WGM or WIM (or indeed another non-ENG IM or GM) have meant the exemption requirements were met?

Yes.

And what exactly was the reasoning behind the 20 and 10 figures? Plucked out of thin air, or were there reasons.

I used to call this the "Aeroflot rule", from back when that tournament might have seventy GMs and you could play nine of them and by bad luck they were all Russian. There was felt to be a need for some exception for a "big Swiss" and these numbers seemed reasonable.

The hope was that they would in most cases they would be comfortably exceeded but we were fully aware that some organisers ( the usual suspects! ) would organise their events around them. This is why they are enforced with no latitude, and claims based on "18 or 19 plus a sob story" have been rejected.

The excerpt quoted leaves out

"For this purpose, players will be counted only if they miss at most one round (excluding pairing allocated byes)."

This is important, since it invalidates the "tag team" approach to the crucial players which had been exploited in some cases.

It does seem a bit harsh that a clearly valid IM-level performance is not counted. For what reason?

People don't talk about this much, but the reason must be a fear that players from your own federation will be more likely to help you out in your search for a title. I suspect that is less true than it may once have have been.

Thank you, Nick, for your candour in responding here. The Aeroflot example makes a lot of sense of the history of this rule and the development of an exception. Thank you also for quoting the bit I missed out (not intentionally) as I had not checked to see if that applies.

Leaving aside for the moment that Fava may currently be resident in England(?) as I may be wrong there (I think he is or was associated with Cambridgeshire Juniors, no idea if he plays for any 4NCL teams), the fact that he is registered ITA and that it was people technically not from 'his' federation that he was playing.

I do wonder if the Cambridgeshire organisers were aware of how close they were to meeting that 'd' exception and if they considered trying to ensure that was met, or if that might have been considered the 'wrong' thing to do? I wonder how many relatively strong (in absolute terms, this tournament does not compare to the super-strong Opens) Open Swisses each year hover around this somewhat arbitrary boundary?

Anyway, maybe it is best not to dwell on it too long or in too much detail, as Fava appears to have gained 138 rating points(!) and must be close to 2300 now, and has a draw with the current British Chess Champion under his belt.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Fava needed to have played at least four players who weren't Italian (he did), three players who weren't English (he didn't), and players from two non-Italy nationalities (he didn't).

The Lithuanian FM Aras Vardanyan might be a good example of how it was possible to meet a good mix of federations in this tournament:

https://chess-results.com/tnr811519.asp ... =30&snr=23

I think they met the right mix of titled players and federations, but am not sure if lifting the 1971 opponent to 2050 is sufficient to push the rating performance over the 2450 IM norm level.

I suspect not, but am I right to say that all the other conditions were met and it is only the performance rating condition that was (possibly) not met?

EDIT: Somewhat to my surprise, the adjusted TPR for Vardanyan turns out to be 2443. An extra half point would have been enough, as would have being paired with someone rated 2133 or more in the final round.

There were several other players in the score bracket of 5/8 with the requisite rating where Vardanyan could have been in the position of needing to win in round 9 for an IM norm, including, somewhat ironically, Lorenzo Fava (2140)!

[IM Jack Rudd]

It isn't, no, and you can easily work that out: it's an uplift of 79 points in total, which is (to the nearest integer) 9 points per round, so his effective TPR increases by 9 points to 2409, well short of the 2450 needed.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

That's what I thought as well, but then I put the numbers in here:

https://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-cont ... rPage.html

Why is that calculator telling me the adjusted TPR is 2443. Is it doing some adjustments under the hood?

[NickFaulks]

Anyway, maybe it is best not to dwell on it too long or in too much detail, as Fava appears to have gained 138 rating points(!) and must be close to 2300 now, and has a draw with the current British Chess Champion under his belt.

Agreed, I think far too much fuss is made about title norms ( and titles ) achieved by young players. If you're 14 years old and playing 2400 chess, then if you carry on seriously you will in a few years be a GM. The timing of the milestones along the way really isn't important.

[NickFaulks]

That's what I thought as well, but then I put the numbers in here:

https://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-cont ... rPage.html

This needs some context. What do you believe the output is supposed to mean?

[Christopher Kreuzer]

That's what I thought as well, but then I put the numbers in here:

https://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-cont ... rPage.html

This needs some context. What do you believe the output is supposed to mean?

Because I am lazy about calculating a TPR for 6/9, I thought that a random TPR calculator would be reliable. When I put in the values for Vardanyan's opponents, it gives me 2438 as the TPR for 6/9, not the 2400 that chess-results.com gives (hence the post above about how Vardanyan appeared to also be in the running for a norm chance when the round 9 draw was done).

I am now confused...

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Anyway, maybe it is best not to dwell on it too long or in too much detail, as Fava appears to have gained 138 rating points(!) and must be close to 2300 now, and has a draw with the current British Chess Champion under his belt.

Agreed, I think far too much fuss is made about title norms ( and titles ) achieved by young players. If you're 14 years old and playing 2400 chess, then if you carry on seriously you will in a few years be a GM. The timing of the milestones along the way really isn't important.

Yes. Agreed totally. It is still nice to see how it all pans out and these edge cases are somewhat instructive.

[Roger de Coverly]

I am now confused...

That particular calculator seems to date back to 2012 using the url as a clue. The reference to grades is a giveaway as well. Perhaps even for FIDE ratings, it uses a Clarke method of calculation, called the rule of 400 in an Elo context. In other words, add up the ratings and add on 400 times the excess of wins over losses, then divide by the game count. The other method of calculation is to use the Elo tables to establish what x of player rating would expect to achieve the score actually obtained by the player in question.

Fava is resident in Cambridge I think and has been a regular in UK rated events such as the 4NCL Congresses.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Thank you Roger. I tried to use the FIDE rating calculator here:

https://ratings.fide.com/calculator_rp.phtml

But that said "File not found". The FIDE rating change calculator is not much use either.

[Mike Gunn]

In terms of the terminology of the new ECF rating rules, FIDE uses the K formula approach to calculate TPRs whereas the 400's formula uses the P formula approach. You can find details of how P ratings are calculated versus K ratings on the ECF rating site under "Help".

[NickFaulks]

But that said "File not found".

Good!

The FIDE rating change calculator is not much use either.

Is there a way to reach that directly via the website rather than through a search?

[Christopher Kreuzer]

But that said "File not found".

Good!

The FIDE rating change calculator is not much use either.

Is there a way to reach that directly via the website rather than through a search?

From the menu option at the top:

https://ratings.fide.com/

Click on 'calculators'.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

In terms of the terminology of the new ECF rating rules, FIDE uses the K formula approach to calculate TPRs whereas the 400's formula uses the P formula approach. You can find details of how P ratings are calculated versus K ratings on the ECF rating site under "Help".

So why is there such a big difference?