British Championship Congress 2021

[Wadih Khoury]

At the lower end, the goal is experience, not winning the title. You can expect the juniors to give their best at every game, because the whole goal is to play a lot of stronger players. So I don't see why that would be a problem for the tournament.
I also thought that the first round bye is a pairings allocated one due to odd numbers, the only request byes were for round 8-9.

[Roger de Coverly]

I also thought that the first round bye is a pairings allocated one due to odd numbers, the only request byes were for round 8-9.

That's the FIDE rule of giving the bye to the lowest rated player. A couple of actions could have avoided the bye or awarded it to someone else. One would have been to rustle up someone as a round one filler. The other would have been to invoke a rule that if there's a player requested bye, there isn't also a pairing allocated bye. Perhaps that rule no longer exists or doesn't apply if the requested bye is in the future.

[NickFaulks]

The other would have been to invoke a rule that if there's a player requested bye, there isn't also a pairing allocated bye.

That seems very unfair on the player who was hoping to take part in all rounds.

[Adam Raoof]

In the British, it was always a rule that you never had a bye.

[Roger de Coverly]

That seems very unfair on the player who was hoping to take part in all rounds.

I found the original thread where this rule was mentioned and a player did indeed complain about unfairness. Bizarrely it's in a thread about the 2016 elections.

viewtopic.php?f=25&t=8517&start=30#p186638

[Wadih Khoury]

I found the reason behind the round 8-9 byes: It's the Terafinal in Blenham Palace.

[IM Jack Rudd]

The awkward thing about Gordon's round 1 bye is not so much the effect on his norm chances - which we know from other evidence were never on the cards - it's the effect on those of his round 2 opponent. (If all ten games go to seeding, that'll be McPhillips.)

[Ian Thompson]

At the lower end, the goal is experience, not winning the title. You can expect the juniors to give their best at every game, because the whole goal is to play a lot of stronger players. So I don't see why that would be a problem for the tournament.

Because it doesn't look good for what's supposed to be a prestigious event if players drop out before the end.

In the not too distant past there was a rule that anyone dropping out without good reason had to pay a deposit the next time they played. They only got the deposit back if they completed the next event. I doubt that dropping out because there's another event a player prefers to play in would be considered a good reason.

[David Sedgwick]

In the not too distant past there was a rule that anyone dropping out without good reason had to pay a deposit the next time they played. They only got the deposit back if they completed the next event. I doubt that dropping out because there's another event a player prefers to play in would be considered a good reason.

Decades ago, Niaz Murshed defaulted in the last round of the British Championship 1982 in Torquay, in order to go to the World Junior Championship. To the best of my knowledge, he wasn't sanctioned.

He played in each of the following two British Championships, completing both.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Six wins for the seeds, four draws. Given the rating differences, overall a successful round for the unseeded players.

If nothing weird happens, I think these are the round 2 pairings:

1. Eggleston (1) v Gormally (1)
2. Gordon (1) v Hebden (1)
3. McPhillips (1) v Ledger (1)
4. Pert (½) v Bradbury (1)
5. Harvey (½) v Khoury (½)
6. Latypova (½) v Arkell (½)
7. Olson (½) v Sucikova (½)
8. Finn (½) v Brooks (½)
9. Webb (0) v Willison (0)
10. Head (0) v Stubbs (0)
11. Mehrafarin (0) v Starley (0)

[LawrenceCooper]

Six wins for the seeds, four draws. Given the rating differences, overall a successful round for the unseeded players.

If nothing weird happens, I think these are the round 2 pairings:

1. Eggleston (1) v Gormally (1)
2. Gordon (1) v Hebden (1)
3. McPhillips (1) v Ledger (1)
4. Pert (½) v Bradbury (1)
5. Harvey (½) v Khoury (½)
6. Latypova (½) v Arkell (½)
7. Olson (½) v Sucikova (½)
8. Finn (½) v Brooks (½)
9. Webb (0) v Willison (0)
10. Head (0) v Stubbs (0)
11. Mehrafarin (0) v Starley (0)

Nothing weird happened

[IM Jack Rudd]

Mehrafarin v Starley appears to have gone 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bf4 d6 3.e3 1-0 according to Chessbomb. Mobile phone?

[LawrenceCooper]

Mehrafarin v Starley appears to have gone 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bf4 d6 3.e3 1-0 according to Chessbomb. Mobile phone?

It appears not as the game now has quite a few more moves. A variety of sites do, at times, seem to have results showing on games that are clearly still in progress, some sort of technical glitch I suspect.

[LawrenceCooper]

I also thought that the first round bye is a pairings allocated one due to odd numbers, the only request byes were for round 8-9.

That was true for the player receiving the full point (Gordon), but not the one receiving a half (Latypova).

[IM Jack Rudd]

Check out this pawn structure in Gordon-Hebden: r4rk1/p5pp/b1p3n1/P1P1p3/2p1P3/2N2pP1/2P2P1P/1R2KN1R --b