46th Berks and Bucks Congress

[Sean Hewitt]

I asked Neville at the exciting Berkshire Chess Association AGM if I could play in the Challengers section which is FIDE rated. I was told I would not be able to enter this section so we decided to go shopping instead.

More fool me you might say but I feel one should be able to enter a higher rating limited section.

No doubt Neville will provide an excellent explanation for not letting me do this.

It's common in Ireland for sections to have a floor such as Over 2000, 1999-1600, under 1599.

I put a floor of 1900 / 155 on the Uxbridge Open last year as we were getting too many players in the Open. This diverted players into the Major, which we also FIDE rated - which ensured that any player could play in a FIDE rated section which I think is perfectly reasonable. One or two players under the floor weren't happy but the stronger players in the Open certainly liked the fact that the 'tail' had been diminished.

[Rob Thompson]

Possibly better would be to say that, instead of a solid floor, entries from players U-1900 will be considered on a case by case basis. For example, I'm currently an 1896 - 173, and would feel plenty strong enough to play in the open, if i wanted to.

[Sean Hewitt]

Possibly better would be to say that, instead of a solid floor, entries from players U-1900 will be considered on a case by case basis. For example, I'm currently an 1896 - 173, and would feel plenty strong enough to play in the open, if i wanted to.

I disagree. Bettter to say here is the criteria to play and either you meet the criteria or you don't than get into a subjective argument. At Uxbridge the floor was 1900 FIDE or 155 ECF so you would have been ok. I think that if you are below both floors then it's reasonable to ask you to play the Major.

However, not an issue for us now. FIDE rating the Major has taken the additional players out of the Open and into the Major voluntarily.

[Rob Thompson]

At Uxbridge the floor was 1900 FIDE or 155 ECF so you would have been ok.

That explains my misunderstanding

[Richard Bates]

I asked Neville at the exciting Berkshire Chess Association AGM if I could play in the Challengers section which is FIDE rated. I was told I would not be able to enter this section so we decided to go shopping instead.

More fool me you might say but I feel one should be able to enter a higher rating limited section.

No doubt Neville will provide an excellent explanation for not letting me do this.

It's common in Ireland for sections to have a floor such as Over 2000, 1999-1600, under 1599.

I put a floor of 1900 / 155 on the Uxbridge Open last year as we were getting too many players in the Open. This diverted players into the Major, which we also FIDE rated - which ensured that any player could play in a FIDE rated section which I think is perfectly reasonable. One or two players under the floor weren't happy but the stronger players in the Open certainly liked the fact that the 'tail' had been diminished.

Any particular reason why you don't adopt this as a consistent policy? Did you adopt the policy at Uxbridge in advance, or after the entries had come in?

[Sean Hewitt]

Any particular reason why you don't adopt this as a consistent policy? Did you adopt the policy at Uxbridge in advance, or after the entries had come in?

What happened was we saw increasing numbers in our Open, culminating in 66 players one weekender which is just too many players for a 5 round swiss to work properly, with 30 players in the Major. 21 of the players in the open were rated below 2000 and of the 10 unrated players 6 were of under 2000 strength. I judged the reason for them entering the Open was because it was FIDE rated.

So at the next event we placed a floor of 1900 or 155 ECF and, just as importantly FIDE rated the Major. This was announced in advance on the website and on the entry form. We got 44 in the Open and 42 in the Major. So success in that it had reduced the number of players in the Open but were a few entries down overall. Whether this was due to the policy or just natural fluctuation is uncertain.

At the next event we FIDE rated the Major again, but didn't place a floor on the Open. We hoped that players would play the Major voluntarily. Lo and behold we got 53 entries in the open and 44 in the major. And of the 53 open entrants, only two were actually below the floor imposed previously. So I think we've managed to even out the demand pretty well by giving players what they want without imposing actual rules. I think that's a win win.

If I could just work out why we only get 20 something entries in the Minor...

[Richard Bates]

If I could just work out why we only get 20 something entries in the Minor...

Not much you could probably do about it, but is it possible that people might get scared off/intimidated by the "quality" tag on the tournaments, and the advertised billing of the strong players set to play? Some sort of "I'm not fit (in chess strength terms) to associate myself with this company" effect? Even people thinking that their (acknowledged) weak strength doesn't really fit with top class tournament conditions?

[Sean Hewitt]

If I could just work out why we only get 20 something entries in the Minor...

Not much you could probably do about it, but is it possible that people might get scared off/intimidated by the "quality" tag on the tournaments, and the advertised billing of the strong players set to play? Some sort of "I'm not fit (in chess strength terms) to associate myself with this company" effect? Even people thinking that their (acknowledged) weak strength doesn't really fit with top class tournament conditions?

You may be right, in which case we may be best to go down the Dutch route and just offer an Open and an Under 2000 especially as events continue to grow and we run out of room. But that would be a shame, because we do have a loyal following of U140 players - just not many of them!

[Richard Bates]

If I could just work out why we only get 20 something entries in the Minor...

Not much you could probably do about it, but is it possible that people might get scared off/intimidated by the "quality" tag on the tournaments, and the advertised billing of the strong players set to play? Some sort of "I'm not fit (in chess strength terms) to associate myself with this company" effect? Even people thinking that their (acknowledged) weak strength doesn't really fit with top class tournament conditions?

You may be right, in which case we may be best to go down the Dutch route and just offer an Open and an Under 2000 especially as events continue to grow and we run out of room. But that would be a shame, because we do have a loyal following of U140 players - just not many of them!

I don't know. If that WERE the issue, which may have no evidential basis in Psychology whatsover(!), then maybe it just needs a slight tweaking in the way the tournaments are marketed. At the moment i guess the selling point of quality conditions takes for granted that the target population values that. Perhaps it just needs to add an extra layer marketing the virtue of quality conditions themselves. So not just "our tournaments are played under excellent conditions", but "excellent conditions are good for/improve your chess (whatever your standard)... and our tournaments offer them".

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Most byes come in the Round 3 on a Saturday night (if you have a 3-2 format), so before Round 2, it is usual to announce that players should check their byes are registered, and inform the arbiters if not (it's usually written into the wallchart for ease). I think that offering that flexibility may increase your entry slightly, which is always a good thing."

Well yes, that's what I usually do. Unfortunately, this time it happened before I could update the chart! And someone made a transcription error between entry form and computer, which is easy to do!

[John Upham]

Well yes, that's what I usually do. Unfortunately, this time it happened before I could update the chart! And someone made a transcription error between entry form and computer, which is easy to do!

The error is less likely to happen if their is no transcription. The entry form populates a database table which is then used to produce print out. Easy peasy and not whizzy in the slightest : where there is a will there is a way. If there is no will.....

[LozCooper]

Does anyone know the results from the two FIDE rated sections?

[Ian Thompson]

I certainly find most players are very considerate. We have only had three players do as Kevin describes, and we have responded by banning all three from future events. Withdrawing without notifying the organiser really does rile me because it can ruin the event for a player who has travelled a long distance to play.

They're not in Spain - you'd have a very lengthy banned list. At the just finished Barcelona open:
35 no-shows in Round 1, resulting in 29 players winning by default (out of an entry of 354)
10 no-shows in Round 10 (out of 297 who hadn't withdrawn/defaulted before the last round)

[Adam Raoof]

I certainly find most players are very considerate. We have only had three players do as Kevin describes, and we have responded by banning all three from future events. Withdrawing without notifying the organiser really does rile me because it can ruin the event for a player who has travelled a long distance to play.

They're not in Spain - you'd have a very lengthy banned list. At the just finished Barcelona open:
35 no-shows in Round 1, resulting in 29 players winning by default (out of an entry of 354)
10 no-shows in Round 10 (out of 297 who hadn't withdrawn/defaulted before the last round)

That's not very satisfactory! Many continental events ask you to confirm your registration in person at the venue the night before, or the morning of the event, which works much better.

[JustinHorton]

At the Aragon Championship last year, plenty of players failed to show up in round one and were then allowed to play in the rest of the tournament. Which didn't much amuse those of us who had to come a hundred kilometres each day to play and found that our first round opponent hadn't shown up.