Smith & Williamson BCF Championships, Edinburgh, 20 July - 2 August

Last Edited: Friday July 25, 2003 6:52 PM

John Saunders reports: This year's BCF Congress is being held at George Heriot's School, Edinburgh from 20 July to 2 August.

Click here to see the latest list of players entered for the 'British Championship'.

That is in inverted commas as the tournament is not very representative of British chess. There are 11 GMs in the field so far (5 July): 5 are from India (Harikrishna, Barua, Ganguly, Kunte, Thipsay); one is from Cyprus (Kotronias); 3 are from Scotland (Rowson, Motwani, McNab); and one is Anglo-Swiss (Gallagher). That leaves just one of England's 31 grandmasters in the field* (see below for latest position) (Wells, who is ranked no.26 on the English rating list for July 2003).

Explanation? Professional players are not offered 'conditions' (i.e. travel/accommodation expenses) for taking part in the BCF Championship. The cost of travelling to Edinburgh and staying there for two weeks in the summer is extremely high; for a professional it may not be worth the risk of not winning a significant prize. The leading Indian players tend to be well sponsored, hence have a marked financial - and psychological - advantage over opponents. Many English pros opt for continental tournaments with better conditions. The leading English names in the Edinburgh field are Wells, N.Pert and Gormally: nos. 26, 23 and 27 on the July FIDE England List. Minus the top 20+, the tournament scarcely merits the name of 'British Championship'.

As for the 'British Women's Championship': of the 14 entries so far, 10 are from India, with 1 (Arakhamia) being Georgian (though long-time resident in Scotland).

Clearly the BCF needs to rethink its position on the admission of Commonwealth players (gratifyingly, it has - click here), the prize-fund/expenses structure and affordable venues, if this competition is once again to become a credible British Championship.

* UPDATE (21 July): The first round pairings show that five English GMs are now in the field: Conquest, Turner, Summerscale, Wells and McDonald. That is an improvement but does not substantively change the situation since that number is hardly representative of the bulk of English GMs who could be in the field but for lack of 'conditions'. It is not about producing an 'English winner' - I'm sure everyone would be delighted if Vishy Anand turned up for the BCF Championship and won it! He would give the tournament incredible prestige. But to have one or two of England top players (Adams, Short, McShane, Speelman...) in the field should be a minimum and that is unachievable under the present financial arrangements.

One of the problems is that the BCF's constitution is utterly confused. The BCF's Business Plan for 2003/4 (http://www.bcf.org.uk/organisation/general/business_plan03-04.htm) makes astonishing reading. Here are three of the 2003/4 objectives of the British Chess Federation:

•  To encourage the study and practice of chess in the Commonwealth
•  To promote National and International Tournaments and Matches in the Commonwealth
•  To arrange such contests, meetings, etc., as may be deemed desirable and provide and present trophies for competition to suitable organisations in the Commonwealth

That's three of their nine main objectives which make reference to chess in the Commonwealth rather than in England. This seems incredible in this day and age. In fact, it is just plain wrong. The BCF has no jurisdiction over the playing of chess in any Commonwealth country that I can think of (except England, of course) and there is no overseas representation on the BCF Council. There is a entirely separate and independent Commonwealth Chess Association which occasionally organises Commonwealth championships.

Checking a very old BCF yearbook that came to hand (for 1946/7), it appears that the BCF constitutional objectives has undergone the following changes over 50+ years: 'Commonwealth' for 'British Dominions'; specific mention of problemists and tourneys; inclusion of grading as a specific object; and an 'equal opportunities' clause.

The only one of these which raises eyebrows is the 'Commonwealth' one. It seems incredible that it should have survived the 1970s or 1980s. Most Commonwealth countries now have their own federation, and are in no further need of English patronage (or paternalism). It's amusing to note that, if you move your cursor over the logo that appears on every webpage of the BCF website, it has the following message: "The British Chess Federation (BCF), founded in 1904, is the organisation that controls, directs and promotes the playing of chess in England. It is recognised as such by the UK government as well as the World Chess Federation (FIDE). Scotland, Wales, Ireland and the Channel Islands have their own federations." That would seem to encapsulate the BCF's jurisdiction. So why does the Business Plan say something different?

LATEST: 24 JULY - Sanity has prevailed! The BCF has published an agreement of the British Isles Coordinating Committee Agreement on its website dated 21 July. Basically it means that only citizens of British Isles countries (or three-year residents therein) can play in the British Chess Championship as from 2004 (see http://www.bcf.org.uk/organisation/meetings_reports/bicc_jul03.htm). This followed an exchange of emails between the relevant national federations. They were no doubt influenced by increasingly critical comments in the chess press (including this website) about the status of the championships. This still leaves the anachronistic mention of the word 'Commonwealth' in the BCF's constitution but there now seems no reason why this should not also change in the not too distant future.

What do readers think of the Championship structure? Or the BCF constitution? Email the BCM with your comments.  

Some Reader's Feedback (as at 12 July)

This wasn't an email to me but is very relevant - have a read of GM Nigel Davies' 11 July comments on this situation at his always interesting and very readable website - Tigerchess.com

"Referring to your comments on the lack of leading English players in this event, one point I have not seen mentioned anywhere is 'What do the sponsors think of the situation?'" - Peter Morrey (editor's note: I've put this question to Smith & Williamson - they made it clear that it is up to the BCF to decide the terms and conditions for entry to the British Championships, but do not think it is appropriate as sponsor to have a view on the remedies for the situation which I put to them in my communication)

"The only way you'll get the top GMs in is money (can't knock them for that - it's their living), and the only way you can do that is to change the structure. I've argued for some time we need to consider abandoning the large Swiss format of the British and instead have a 10 or 12 player all-play-all for the title of British Champion. Having a smaller number of players would make it more feasible to be able to offer 'conditions'. The existing Championship event could become the British 'Challengers', with the top two or three getting admittance to the following year's Championship." John Richards

"The situation has become ludicrous. The entry rules MUST be altered to produce an event that home players, and especially our strong players, are happy to attend. This should apply to the junior competitions as well as the championship (but I suppose there is an argument that the Major Open should be just that - open). It should be obvious to everyone by now that the eligibility rules written for a former era are grotesquely out of date, and are actually dysfunctional as regards encouraging the development of chess in the UK."
    "As a BCF junior selector (writing in a purely personal capacity), I should also like to see the BCF age-group championships (certainly up to, say, U14) given far more status somehow, to encourage real head-to head competition between our leading players in each age group, so that genuine comparisons can be made. This rarely seems to happen, and the selectors have to rely on other data, of often variable quality. The trend in recent years has been for even quite young juniors to enter the Major Open - this devalues the age-group championships, and we should either scrap these altogether or consider ways of making them more prestigious and attractive." Phil Adams

"This now seems to be a farcical situation when few if any English GMs play in their own Championships. There was grumbling at last year's tournament with the dominance of Commonwealth players. I think the time has come for the BCF to reconsider its position." - Paul Foster

"As the 'British' Championships are now quite clearly the British Commonwealth Championships, why doesn't the BCF consider holding the event in (say) Calcutta or Madras? After all, the Indian contingent are very keen and hotel bills would be a lot cheaper for everybody." - John Bass

"According to the entry form: "Championship events - open only to British Isles or Commonwealth subjects or players resident therein for the past three years. Additionally for the British Championship" (http://www.bcf.org.uk/events/bcf2003/how_to_qualify.htm). It seems to me that a simple solution to the issue of the championships becoming an Indian championship by proxy would be to restrict the application of rules 8 and 9 (sufficiently high rating) to players from the home unions only. Non-resident Commonwealth players would be eligible only under rule 5. ("5. The Champion, or nominee, of each Commonwealth country of playing strength 2200 or higher.") You might make it nominees to allow 2 or 3 players. This presumes the BCF actually wanted to change the rules!" - Roger de Coverly

Home Page: www.bcmchess.co.uk