Chess
Best for whom?
David Levy
For at least the past ten years many of the country's strongest players have been unhappy about the way that the British Championship is organised. Some feel that it should be an all-play-all event with twelve competitors, and that a big Swiss system tournament held alongside the championship could offer one or two places in the following year's contest. Others do not mind the present system of forty-odd players in an eleven-round Swiss and there are those who like the Swiss system but would prefer to see the number of competitors reduced in order to produce a 'more accurate' result. There is yet another argument— retain the Swiss system but increase the number of competitors, possibly without limit!
Until very recently I held the view of my co-columnist, namely that the British Championship should be open only to the top ten or twelve players in the country, and that the Swiss system makes the contest into more of a lottery, enabling the occasional outsider to win the title. Certainly in all other leading chess countries, I think without exception, the national championship is a closed event limited to selected and qualified players of the highest calibre. The USSR has occasionally experimented with the Swiss system, as have the Yugoslays, but the players tended not to support the idea once they had a taste of it.
If the British was made into an all-play-all event it would solve some problems associated with the question of who should be allowed to take part. At the moment there is a qualifying competition which compels would-be aspirants to compete in one or two very short preliminary stages. With only ten or twelve players it would be easier to follow the US and accept entries starting at the top of the grading list and working down. On the other hand such a system would not be too exciting for the chess public and there would be little chance of a promising junior getting a place in the championship until he had fully established himself. No doubt most of the very strongest players would argue that the allplay-all is best, but for whom is it best?
The current system of a qualifying competition seems to me to be undesirable for a number of reasons. The shortness of each stage means that luck can play a big part in the result, while the number of qualifying places in a particular zone may not be commensurate with the number of deserving cases in that zone. This year, for example, such well-known stalwarts as Cafferty, Clarke and Eley have failed to qualify, and were refused places when they applied to be allowed in on the basis of their past results. Bearing in mind the fact that they have all represented England during the not-so-distant past, that Eley won the championship as recently as 1972 (against very strong opposition), and that the other two have played in the championship regularly for twenty years, it seems more than sad to reject them just to keep the numbers down and to avoid petty arguments such as 'If he is allowed in why aren't I?'
As I see it there are two ways in which the number could reasonably be expanded. Firstly, there is the system operated at the world's best and most famous Swiss, the Lone Pine international. Under this system one would admit all players with a BCF grading of (say) 210 or more, and all juniors with a grading of (say) 200. These grading restrictions would eliminate the need for a qualifying competition while ensuring that no rabbits were allowed in. The total number of players would still be manageable and qualification would be based on a far greater number of games than that required by the present zonal system.
An even more attractive idea is to make the event open to absolutely everyone—yes, you too! — but to adjust the entry fees according to the grading of the competitor. Anyone below 120 would pay, for example, £100, from 121-130 the entry fee would be £90, and so on. Juniors would pay less and titled players would be awarded a certain percentage of the entry fees as appearance money. The number of competitors would be huge by today's standards, but in the US there are often 600 players or more in a ten-or twelve-round Swiss, and the result is much higher prizes, not only for the leading players but also for players in each rating category. It is this system which I now think would be best, and I believe that it would be best for absolutely everyone. The weaker players would have the opportunity of com peting alongside their peers; the middle strength players would not have the trauma of trying to qualify, year after year, and the top players would reap better financial rewards.
To go with a long article here is a short game won by Bernard Cafferty a couple of years ago. The notes are based on his own comments.
Johnson-Cafferty: Larsen Attack.
1 P-QN3 P-Q4 2 B-N2 B-N5 3 P-KB4 P-K3 4 N-KB3 BxN 5 KPxB P-KR4!? So that P-KN3 can be strongly met by . . . P-R5. 6 Q-K2 N-QB3 7 P-B5 R-R3! Enterprising to say the least. 8 Q-N5? Better would be 8 P-N3 P-R5 9 P-KN4, with an unclear position. 8. . . PxP 9 N-B3 Cafferty had planned a forced win after 9 QxNP R-N1 10 Q-R6 R-QN3 11 Q-R4 R-N5 12 Q-R6 N-Q5!• e.g. 13 0-03 R-K3ch 14 K-Q1 Q-K2. 9. . • R-K3ch 10 N-K2? P-R3! 11 Q-R411 QxNP R-R2, and 11 0-03 N-N5 12 Q-B3 P-Q5! 13 Q-)34 R-QB3 are equally hopeless. 11 . . . B-N5 White resigns There is no good defence to the threat of . . . P-QN4, winning the queen.
Previous page
