Notice on Future Events at the Club

From David H. Raymond:

Here is a true history of a discussion about adding some structure to our club [Clermont Chess Club].  This discussion occurred at our meeting Thursday 10/22/15.  This is a rewritten history to enhance it & make it more accurate (as I believe it should be vs as it was).

The 1st Thursday of each even numbered month, beginning 12/3/2015, there will be a tournament abbreviated FTZ: 1st Thursday Zephyr.  3 rounds,  game in 15 min with 5 sec delay.  Not rated.  29L1 pairings, which is Swiss System except that within each score group #1 plays #2, #3 plays #4, . . .

The 1st Thursday of each odd numbered month, beginning with a team match 11/5/2015, there will be an odd event occasioning much interest & merriment.  Ideas include but are not limited to team encounters, blitz play, tournaments in which everyone is required to play a specified opening, handicap play, Fischer Random, deployment chess, . . .

Every March-April, beginning 2016, there will be a club championship.  4 rounds, 1 every 2 weeks.  Game in 90 min with 5 sec delay.  Not rated.  Regular Swiss System pairings.   

[Note from Todd Durham: I LOVE the idea of Fischer Random tournaments!]

Rethinking the One-Day Chess Tournament

[Note: I am bumping this post to the top of the page for a couple of days. New content will appear periodically below. Item originally published at 12:31 am EDT, 10/24/2015.  - Todd Durham]

Over the last year or two, I have been privileged to be involved in several interesting discussions with Wayne Strickland, a board member with the Central Florida Chess Club. The CFCC is the premier chess organizing entity in the Orlando area, and they do great work.

Click here to learn about the CFCC!

Our discussions have centered around ways to increase the player turnout at the CFCC Tornadoes, where attendance is generally poor, and consistent only in its inconsistency.  Even worse, some of the games lack competitive value- in the last one I played in, I (with my 1700 something rating) played John Ludwig at 2350+ for one game, a pair against a 1900 player and a 1400 player and one against a new player with a 499 rating.

Learning value of a game against John aside,  I went home with a 2.0 score, thinking I had wasted half the day.  To add insult to injury, I won the U1800 prize, and received a check for $37 in the mail days later.  I opened the envelop, looked at the check, and marveled at the absurdity of it all.

Wayne has had some great ideas, including drawings for free entries in the larger weekend tournaments, and also the implementation of a Club Grand Prix (an idea that exactly patterns what I proposed to the Florida Chess Association when I was on the board, but could not prevent it from being modified in a way that lost players.  Wayne succeeded in keeping the original proposal intact).

These ideas have had some flashes of success, but I believe there are three ideas that current organizers do not fully appreciate.  They are:

1)  For the vast majority of players, rating improvement is the number one motivator, and cash prizes are only a secondary consideration.

2)  Other things equal, a player would prefer to play a competitive game against an opponent of similar strength, where the outcome of the game is in doubt prior to the start of the game.

3)  A balance to the time control and the format, so that games are not too fast (my informal survey indicates that G/60 or slower is preferred), and a timely schedule that does not run well into the night. 

Of these goals, #3 is the most nebulous, so there will never be a consensus, but #'s 1 and 2 are, I believe, opinions shared by a great many players.

OK, that's enough whining.  What we need are some new ideas, and I would like to start with a pair of ideas that come straight from the US Chess Federation's Official Rules of Chess, 6th Edition, edited by Tim Just (Random House is the publisher).

The first idea is about pairings, and I will quote the rule book, specifically Rule Variation 29L1, 1 vs 2 Pairings:

"This pairing system is exactly the same as the Swiss pairing system except that the players in the upper half do not play the players in the lower half in the first or any other round.  Instead in round 1 after the players have been ranked, each odd ranked player is paired with the even ranked player following them on the ordered ranking list : i.e., 1 vs. 2, 3 vs. 4, 5 vs 6, etc.

In all other rounds the players are ranked in the rating order within their respective score groups and paired in groups of two starting with the two top-rated players in the top score group.  Odd players should be paired to the player in the next lower score group who closest matches with them in rating, using normal color priorities.  Color allocation, transposition, avoiding players meeting twice, byes, late entries, and withdrawals are applied exactly the same way as in a Swiss event.

TD TIP: Because it handles withdrawals and late entries as easily as the Swiss system, this 1 vs. 2 pairing system is easier, for some directors, to administer than 29 L, Using round robin table in small Swiss, in events with the number of players almost equal to the number of rounds; however, the 1 vs. 2 pairing system can accommodate many players in any size tournament.  This system has seen some popularity at the club and local level.  It is a hybrid of the traditional club "ladder" system (where one player challenges another player for his spot on the ladder) and the Swiss system."

I believe that the above rule would go a great way towards meeting player expectation #2 above.  It combines the competitive nature of round robins (mostly quads for us) where players will play other players close to them in rating, but it adds the "rise and descent" effect of Swiss pairings, where players will move up or down based on tournament performance.  Essentially, we still get a bit of "Swiss movement", but without the radical "multi-hundred" rating point swings of the normal Swiss.

With pairings like this, my two games against a 2350+ and a <500-rated player would have been replaced with two nominally competitive games- and every other player would experience the same effect.

Of course, I hear you asking "But Paul, with this kind of pairing setup, how do we allocate prize money?  With consecutive pairings, anyone could rattle off a perfect score!" 

This leads to my second idea- allow me to refer you to Rule 33E. Prizes based on points 

"Some organizers base prizes on points scored rather than place.  Such events often award prizes to all plus scores, a popular feature for players who doubt their ability to win the top-place prizes.

For example, in a five-round Swiss with an entry fee of $30, it could be announced that 5 points will win $100, 4.5 points will win $50, 4 points will win $30, 3.5 points will win $20, and 3 points will win $10.  With a fee of $60, prizes might be 5 points will win $300, 4.5 points will win $150, 4 points will win $90, 3.5 points will win $60, 3 points will win $30. These levels provide relative safety for the organizer, since even with a poor turnout prizes will often be less than entry fees.

Prizes based on points have proven more popular with Experts and below than Masters, so organizers should consider not using them in top sections.  It is desirable to have such events in sections of no more than 200-point classes each or to offer supplementary prizes for lower classes unlikely to make plus scores.  A separate section for each class is ideal if the expected turnout is sufficient (blogger's note: I consider this paragraph to be inapplicable if rule 29L1 is used, since anyone could have a plus score with consecutive pairings, but I included it anyway because I did not want to edit the citation in any way in my presentation).

The based-on-points method has a unique advantage over prizes that are guaranteed based on entries.  The announced prizes are never reduced, but their total varies according to the turnout.  This protects the organizer against financial loss without the player disappointment sometimes caused by prize reductions."

With this kind of prize distribution,  each player controls his own destiny.

So where does this leave us?  If we applied the two ideas, this is what we get:

1)  Each player will play an opponent close to his or her playing strength every round, gradually working up or down the rating list based on performance, with no wild pairing swings or "wasted rounds".

2)  Each player will be rewarded based on his or her performance in the tournament beyond a certain score, so any prize money they win will be earned, without waiting to see if a blunder or pre-arranged draw in another game takes them out of the running. (Side note: TD's could also pay out $$ this way much easier, simplifying the last round process for them!)

Will these ideas work?  Are they worth trying?  Please comment below, and let the discussion begin!

Links

Over to the right (assuming you're not looking at the mobile version of the blog), you will find various links. Some of these will be to contributors, or to old posts of note. There will also be an archive towards the bottom of that column in which to look up old posts, organized by month and year.

I have also added other sections: one for other local chess sites (other clubs in the area, Lars Bo Hansen's site, the Florida Chess Association site); one for the chess sites I think are the most useful overall; and one for other chess sites of interest.

I've started with the stuff I can think of off the top of my head. If anyone has anything else they'd like included, let me know. I won't guarantee I'll add everything, but I'll at least give it a look.

Suggestion Box

This is one for the members.

Does anyone have any general suggestions about the blog? I'm particularly interested in feedback about the formatting and layout, and also suggestions for any websites you would like to see added to the links section over there  ----->

You can either email me with suggestions directly, or put them in the comments.

Regards,
Todd

We have a blog! (Why'd we do that again?!)

Welcome to the blog of the Clermont Chess Club. This blog has been set up for a few different reasons.

The primary reason is to provide an online presence for club members to opine and discuss matters pertaining to chess and the club, and to do so in a manner that is more easily searched and indexed than the Club's Facebook account. Facebook simply does not allow for easy searches on past material, and I think that's a shame given some of the games and analyses that have been published there.

The secondary reason is Blogger will allow for much more formatting than Facebook. The worst thing about being on Facebook, for me, is that complete inability to use HTML code. Grrr.

The tertiary (and admittedly personal) reason is that I've been wanting a chess blog of my own for a few months now, just to collect my own opinions and mental meanderings on the game. May as well put it out there for ridicule from my fellow club members as well as the public at large!

...

So, that's the why. Now for some more specifics about the what.

At the moment I (Todd Durham) am the only poster here. I expect and hope that will change soon. In the meantime, I will add content as I find the time and the interest. I've already put up a few posts before taking the blog "live". Unfortunately, I am still trying to figure out how to post games - specifically games that can be replayed live online. I can post games in PGN format, and I can even post diagrams and analysis, but I haven't yet figured out a good way to post games in a replayable manner. I suspect that one of the other members will not have this problem, as he has a much more recent version of ChessBase, but we'll see. In the meantime I will plod along as best I can.

I've got ideas for certain recurring features.

First would be a "From the Archives" series, in which I would pull games & analyses from the various books, magazines and other material I own, with an eye towards checking the older material against the silicon beasts, and seeing how opinions have changed over time. First up will probably be the second match game from the Petrosian-Fischer Candidates Match in 1971, which famously ended Fischer's 20/19/13 game winning streak.

Second would be a feature called "Dumpster Diving" which will consist of positions I find amusing from my own collection of games, especially all the garbage online games I've played through the years. The title gives it away: don't expect high-quality (or any-quality) chess there!

A third likely feature would be "Games from the Clubhouse", which is exactly what it sounds like. Occasionally we manage to play a game or two with some interesting positions, and hey, this is our blog.

And, of course, I'm hoping and expecting some posts from other club members.

But don't expect any of these features or other posts to be regular. I would like to see a constant flow of content on these pages, but ultimately this is a side project for all concerned.

That's all for now. Hopefully this will be an enjoyable project for all of us!

Rules for posting

Rules for posting and commenting on the Clermont Chess Club Blog are simple.

First, keep the language clean. This is not the place for describing the anatomy of the man from Nantucket.

Second, don't be a jerk. Arguments are fine, so long as people are civil towards one another.

Third, please keep discussions focused on chess or club matters. This one isn't strict, but should be kept in mind.

Fourth, please don't bring up controversial topics, such as religion, politics, the weather, or exactly what should be done about the Kardashian problem.

...

Anyone can comment, so long as they have an account with Google or Discus or whatever. I don't mind commenters using handles, or even posting anonymously, but simply posting as "anonymous" will not be tolerated as it becomes confusing. Pick a handle and stick with it.

Any club member in good standing (whatever we decide that means) can also post here so long as they observe the rules currently in effect. To do so I will have to add you to a list, and to do THAT you must set up an account with Google. I'd recommend setting up a separate Gmail account for that purpose, but you can use whichever email account you like. As with other commenters, you do not need to use your actual name, although I will need to know who you are and it would be good manners to let other club members know your handle. I will be happy to show any potential posters what you need to do to create blog posts. More on that in a separate post.

A Note on Plagarism

Anyone that's kicked around the online chess community for some time has most likely come across discussions of plagiary in the online (and offline) chess community. Plagiary has consisted of everything from lifting a few words, to claiming credit for pictures taken by someone else, to wholesale theft.

Our position is this: We will not knowingly plagiarize anything. If we do so inadvertently, please contact the blog and we will add references as necessary, or remove the offending content entirely. The easiest way to do this will be by leaving a comment, explaining what has been lifted, who credit belongs to, and some proof of same. Fair use rules do apply, however.


Still, bring any such matters to our attention and we will try to correct them.

Who we are.

Taken from the Club's Facebook page:

The Clermont Chess Club (under the auspices of the Clermont Recreation Club) meets at the Kehlor Building on 466 W. Minneola Avenue in downtown Clermont.

The Chess Club meets on Thursdays from 6-10pm and on Saturdays from 2-7pm. Players of all ages and levels are welcome, and we are always happy to teach new players who want to learn!