e2e4 Uxbridge Congress : 18th - 20th March 2011

[Jon D'Souza-Eva]

"Kidlington winner" held Mark Hebden with black in rd 2.

And followed that by beating Yang Fan Zhou.

[Richard Bates]

It is a very impressive line-up, as well as the 3 GMs there's a lot of our strong juniors playing and as you mention the Kidlington winner (Marcus Harvey) I hope he will complete his initial FIDE rating (currently 2151 from 4 games from the Brighton event).

OK, so here's a technical question. If, as seems likely, Marcus completes his rating from this event, where does that leave any part-rating likely obtained from the 4NCL? Presumably his rating would appear on the May list, at which point there would appear to be no mechanism allowing games played so far in the 4NCL to be included (and remaining 4NCL games would presumably be unrated?) As it happens i think after this performance any part-rating obtained from the 4NCL would likely drag down his rating, so he wouldn't miss it, but what would happen if he was doing much better? Just unlucky?

[Leonard Barden]

"Kidlington winner" held Mark Hebden with black in rd 2.

And followed that by beating Yang Fan Zhou.

which means that he will acquire an impressive initial Fide rating, even more so if the less impressive 4NCL games are excluded as Richard suggests might occur. I think this is relevant to the advice given to juniors on another thread that they should play Fide tournaments as soon as possible even if this means an initial rating far below 2000. I don't believe that this is the right approach in all cases, because once a player's K factor changes from 25 to 15, there can be problems.

Back in the late 1990s I advised a talented junior to try to avoid an initial rating as it could affect his prospects of competing realistically for IM norms in a year or two's time. And it happened that he was competing in the Jersey or Guernsey Open and was in danger of acquiring a Fide part rating there, but the kind controller slightly rearranged the draw so this didn't happen......

[Roger de Coverly]

OK, so here's a technical question. If, as seems likely, Marcus completes his rating from this event, where does that leave any part-rating likely obtained from the 4NCL? Presumably his rating would appear on the May list, at which point there would appear to be no mechanism allowing games played so far in the 4NCL to be included

I suspect that his initial rating might change and they will bring in the 4NCL as part of the part-rating. So they will recalculate based on all the results to July. So if he can break 2300 in the May list, get the FM title app in quick .

If you can think of players in previous years who started the 4NCL unrated, but finished it rated, the method used could be checked.

I think Stewart was thinking about proposing some changes to the rules on part-ratings so you could rate leagues as they are played but also enable players to earn part-ratings. I suppose you would have to go down to accumulating partials at one game at a time.

[Richard Bates]

Back in the late 1990s when the Fide rating floor was still 2200 I advised a talented junior to try to avoid an initial rating at that level as it could affect his prospects of competing realistically for IM norms in a year or two's time. And it happened that he was competing in the Jersey or Guernsey Open and was in danger of acquiring a 2200ish Fide part rating there, but the kind controller slightly rearranged the draw so this didn't happen......

Really? Pretty sure the rating floor dropped in around 1993/4. Although the basic point could still stand. Of course back then the rating you had was a major factor in norms because of the existence of ('superior') 'Category norms' - where norms were calculated on basis of an average rating, including the player's own. Basic 'Performance norms' were very frowned upon (i think there may have even been a maximum number that could be included in a norm application).

[Sean Hewitt]

The answer is in the FIDE handbook

If an unrated player receives a published rating before a particular tournament in which he has played is rated, then he is rated as a rated player with his current rating, but in the rating of his opponents he is counted as an unrated player.

[Richard Bates]

The answer is in the FIDE handbook

If an unrated player receives a published rating before a particular tournament in which he has played is rated, then he is rated as a rated player with his current rating, but in the rating of his opponents he is counted as an unrated player.

So if he came in at 2300 then he'd be losing in the region of 25pts straight off from games played in the 4ncl to date (1/3 vs 2180), and before the rating was achieved? Seems a bit unfair, since those games would otherwise have been discarded (3 not being enough for a part rating).

Hopefully Oxford won't get in the top half, coz potentially jumping straight in as high as board 2 he could be a bit of a norm wrecker (as an unrated player for norm purposes!)

[Sean Hewitt]

So if he came in at 2300 then he'd be losing in the region of 25pts straight off from games played in the 4ncl to date (1/3 vs 2180), and before the rating was achieved? Seems a bit unfair, since those games would otherwise have been discarded (3 not being enough for a part rating).

Yes he would lose rating points, but I'm not sure why this is unfair as you only need 3 games for a part rating.

Hopefully Oxford won't get in the top half, coz potentially jumping straight in as high as board 2 he could be a bit of a norm wrecker (as an unrated player for norm purposes!)

Won't happen. He will only be rated on the May list and the 4NCL final weekend will use the March list for board order purposes.

[William Metcalfe]

How has the in tournament coaching gone how many players signed up for it and is it something you will be doing again Sean

[Richard Bates]

So if he came in at 2300 then he'd be losing in the region of 25pts straight off from games played in the 4ncl to date (1/3 vs 2180), and before the rating was achieved? Seems a bit unfair, since those games would otherwise have been discarded (3 not being enough for a part rating).

Yes he would lose rating points, but I'm not sure why this is unfair as you only need 3 games for a part rating.

Apologies, I'm somewhat out of date. It could be potentially unfair if he'd only played 2 games though!

Hopefully Oxford won't get in the top half, coz potentially jumping straight in as high as board 2 he could be a bit of a norm wrecker (as an unrated player for norm purposes!)

Won't happen. He will only be rated on the May list and the 4NCL final weekend will use the March list for board order purposes.

Of course. Got it into my head that the last weekend was at the end of May. Sorry. Again.

[Sean Hewitt]

How has the in tournament coaching gone how many players signed up for it and is it something you will be doing again Sean

There are two different things happening here which I think have got mixed up on the other thread.

The first thing was I offered unconditional free entry to female players. We have 19 females entered which is about 13% of the total entry and I'm delighted with that. When we made the announcement we said it would be good for Uxbridge, Sunningdale and Gatwick and I stand by that.

Having made that offer, Sabrina approached me and asked if they could do the training. I said yes, but it's purely something that she and Jovanka have done. I don't know how it's gone or how many have signed up for it as I've been busy with the tournament although they look busy!

[William Metcalfe]

Sean have you asked the female players if they will continue to play your events when they have to pay a entry fee.
Have you asked if they are playing because of the free entry or if its because they feel welcome and your providing a posative tournament experiance for females.

[Thomas Rendle]

Does anyone know the results in round 4 of the Open (top few boards)?

[Richard Bates]

Does anyone know the results in round 4 of the Open (top few boards)?

I'm assuming that Keith is involved in some 180+ move epic that is holding up the last round

[IM Jack Rudd]

Longson beat Harvey. That was the only decisive result on the top six boards.