British Chess Championships 2010

[Carl Hibbard]

Well, I'm just about in the top half. Can I make it four appearances in the main prize list in six years? Possibly.

How is the first round draw done then, have you a good chance for board one in the first round being half way?

[Richard Bates]

Being in the top half isn't that advantageous, I'd have thought, because using an Accelerated Swiss you have to play a top quarter player. Being in quarter three is probably a better starting place. This year also seemingly makes it easier for a 2200ish to get to 6.5/11 than usual, and hence get a half price entry for 2011.

Don't be silly - if it's accelerated (can't see a justification on this sort of entry) then there's a strong chance Jack will be playing me.

[Alex Holowczak]

Well, I'm just about in the top half. Can I make it four appearances in the main prize list in six years? Possibly.

How is the first round draw done then, have you a good chance for board one in the first round being half way?

Divide the entries into four even quarters. Quarter 1 (which I'll call A) plays quarter 2 (B) and quarter 3 (C) plays quarter 4 (D). As long as size(A) = size(B), and size(C) = size(D), then it works.

So, A1 v B1, B2 v A2, A3 v B3 etc. and C1 v D1, D2 v C2, C3 v D3 etc. I might have the colours the wrong way around, the number 1 seed alternates between white and black in round 1 each year.

So if Jack is the top of the second quarter, he'll be on board 1 in round 1.

I haven't the faintest idea how you do the pairings after round 1 though.

I'm pretty sure I've missed some of the finer points too...

[Adam Raoof]

And don't forget, before you start your preparation, that there are a few more entries in the pipeline!

[IM Jack Rudd]

The round 2 pairings will then have "winners from pools A and B play each other; winners from pools C and D play non-winners from pools A and B". The exact mechanism depends on what form of acceleration you use.

[Alex Holowczak]

The round 2 pairings will then have "winners from pools A and B play each other; winners from pools C and D play non-winners from pools A and B". The exact mechanism depends on what form of acceleration you use.

Technical question: How do floats work though? You'd be pretty lucky to have the winners from C and D equal to the non-winners from A and B. So what happens in that case?

[Richard Bates]

The round 2 pairings will then have "winners from pools A and B play each other; winners from pools C and D play non-winners from pools A and B". The exact mechanism depends on what form of acceleration you use.

Technical question: How do floats work though? You'd be pretty lucky to have the winners from C and D equal to the non-winners from A and B. So what happens in that case?

By definition you can't have more winners in C and D, than non-winners in A and B. The left overs are paired conventionally.

[IM Jack Rudd]

The round 2 pairings will then have "winners from pools A and B play each other; winners from pools C and D play non-winners from pools A and B". The exact mechanism depends on what form of acceleration you use.

Technical question: How do floats work though? You'd be pretty lucky to have the winners from C and D equal to the non-winners from A and B. So what happens in that case?

Winners from C and D will nearly always be a smaller set than non-winners from A and B; think about it. What you do with surplus non-winners from A and B depends on whether you're using an accelerated method that includes a "draws from C and D play losers from A and B" mechanism. In general, though, players not used for "chopping" (playing bottom-half players in higher scoregroups) will be paired normally.

Note: "chopping" pairings do not count as floats for the purposes of pairings in later rounds; other floats in round 2 do. This can cause headaches for computers.

[Alex Holowczak]

Note: "chopping" pairings do not count as floats for the purposes of pairings in later rounds; other floats in round 2 do. This can cause headaches for computers.

Causes headaches for me, let alone computers.

[Andrew Camp]

Just sent off our forms:

Me:

First rapid play
U140
Yates Weekender
U120

Partner:

First Rapidplay
U140
Soanes Weekender
U160

Daughter

First Rapidplay
Under 9s
Under 10s


That's a lot of fees.

[David Gilbert]

So Michael Adams name drops of the list! What a let down!

[David Gilbert]

I suppose it will make for a more open championship, but still very disappointing.

[Richard Bates]

I have a vague, possibly mistaken, memory of something similar happening with one of the top players either last year or the year before. Is there somebody in the ECF who thinks it's a good way of attracting extra entries? Coz if anything it would put off other professionals.

[Alex Holowczak]

Never fear people, it's just an error. His name will reappear ASAP.

[Richard Bates]

Never fear people, it's just an error. His name will reappear ASAP.

Lol, if there was a betting market there would be uproar!!!