Bunratty Chess International Chess Festival

tedjennings

Hi, all

Entries for the Bunratty Chess International Chess Festival are now on-line.
the usual address bunrattychess dot com
Remember that this is our 25th birthday so we have invited all 18 previous winners to join us.
Some have accepted, some not (the dreaded Bundas League) and some pending, full details on the web site.
If you are planning to come and stay at our venue the Bunratty Castle Hotel check out "Hotel" on the menu on our web site to ensure you get a room and at the correct rate.
Looking forward to seeing you all there,
Ted Jenning IA

L1m1tless

Whats the cut-off point for "playing up" a section?

tedjennings

You can play up if you are 50 points below the cut.
But we will be using the Feb'18 rating list to check this.
It is all set out in our T&Cs

Asdee

I'm looking forward to this one

Bunrattyman

Super GM Peter Svidler ( current FIDE rating of 2765 ) is all set to come back to Bunratty in 2018, see the ICU website for more details.

It's the 25th Bunratty and is definitely going to be the strongest ever !

Bunrattyman

Hi All

Hotel is full now but there are alternative accommodation options now listed on the Bunratty Chess Festival website.

Hope to see you all there

tedjennings

Hi, all
Only a week left to avail of the generous discount to enter Bunratty 2018.
Over 220 entered so far so don't miss out
Ted.

sodacat11

When I was a child I went to a famous south Dublin school where rugby was treated like a religion and soccer was (in those days) frowned upon. I was a good rugby player but having one's testicles squashed in a scrum is not my idea of fun so I much preferred soccer . Much to the annoyance of the priests (in some cases sadists) I gave up rugby and joined a soccer club in a rough working class area. At 12 years old they told me that I was a traitor to the school and was throwing away the chance of a privelleged life should I ever make the senior cup team. This point was brought home quite forcefully to me some years later when in the same week that a senior cup star got off scot free for selling dope outside the school gates I got a week's suspension for smoking an ordinary cigarette in the jacks. If you were on the rugby team you were above any law,
Some years later soccer became popular in the school and for the first time we had a school team. I was in 3rd year at the time and matches were organised against 2nd and 4th year. We won one match 4-2 and lost the other 2-4,I scored twice in each. Then we played a friendly against CBC , we won 3-0 and I scored all three. By this stage the priests were getting really annoyed because they did not want me on the school team for the upcoming inter schools cup at any cost after the way I'd refused to play rugby but they also wanted to save face if they didn't select me. A practice match was hastily arranged between the "probables" and the "possibles". I captained the possibles, we won 1-0 and I scored again. This was the final straw as far as the priests were concerned but they still had a master stroke up their sleeves. The rugby season had just ended so they decided in their wisdom to let the boys from the rugby team pick the soccer team (I kid you not) . Naturally they just picked themselves, I didn't get on the team and the school got beaten in the first round of the cup. I never played any sport in the school again after that.
So what has all this got to do with chess?you might ask. Well if there was one lesson I learned in school it was what a horrible thing nepotism is. To my mind a person should reap what they earn in life. Fair play for everyone, a balanced playing field, equal opportunity.
Some months ago I entered the Masters section in Bunratty because both my ratings justified it. Since then I've had a disastrous run of results losing over 100 rating points so I have no problem with being demoted to the Challengers, that's where I now belong and I am very much looking forward to playing in it. What does rankle with me though is this business of lower rated players getting into the Masters under the flag of "Invite". This is just typically Irish. If the rules don't suit then lets find a way around them. This attitude permeates every level of Irish society, particularly politics, and it sickens me. Bunratty has always been the best Irish tournament for adhering to rating floors so this nepotism both surprises and saddens me. There should be the same rules for everyone. NO exceptions.

Danville

sodacat11 wrote: »

Some months ago I entered the Masters section in Bunratty because both my ratings justified it. Since then I've had a disastrous run of results losing over 100 rating points so I have no problem with being demoted to the Challengers, that's where I now belong and I am very much looking forward to playing in it. What does rankle with me though is this business of lower rated players getting into the Masters under the flag of "Invite". This is just typically Irish. If the rules don't suit then lets find a way around them. This attitude permeates every level of Irish society, particularly politics, and it sickens me. Bunratty has always been the best Irish tournament for adhering to rating floors so this nepotism both surprises and saddens me. There should be the same rules for everyone. NO exceptions.

Why not do what you did in school?- don't play. I'm sure the organisers will be devastated to have their entry numbers reduced from 334 last year to 333.

I would also note that some of the invitees do more to advance Irish chess in a week that you've done in your lifetime.

But I'll admit to having a biased view, I myself am one of the invitees!

sodacat11

As I said I am perfectly happy to play in the Challengers as that is where I should be. I have long since been complaining about rating floors being ignored in Irish tournaments simply because it is wrong,dishonest, unjust and unfair and because it undermines the integrity of tournaments. I don't know which of the three "invitees" you are but let's look at the their credentials. I don't mean to belittle what was a fine achievement but one won a "world title" with something like a 1950 RP so it's not like she beat the Polgars or Hou Yifan. Another, who I have the greatest respect for, would freely admit that his best chess was almost half a century ago and the third is someone I've never heard of but would guess is possibly the girlfriend of some higher rated participant. Why should these people get preferential treatment? It's just wrong and will set a precedent for other less prestigious tournaments. We will get a spate of unqualified people getting to play out of their depth under makey up "Invitee" flags. The rules should be the same for everyone, I really don't see how anyone can dispute that!!

sodacat11

Danville wrote: »

I would also note that some of the invitees do more to advance Irish chess in a week that you've done in your lifetime!

A stupid statement. I have coached hundreds of children and still do. I've got Irish chess radio coverage a number of times. I've supported Irish tournaments for over 40 years and have always been one of the most active participants.I got chess officially recognized as a sport in Australia.
Maybe you should do some research before you open your mouth.

Danville

The 50 point leeway whereby you can 'play up' if within 50 points of the tournament cut off point, is being strictly adhered to by Bunratty and Kilkenny.
It has brought stability to an area that was becoming greyer with every event.
It has stopped the pressure from parent coaches and players who believed themselves or their charges to be the next best thing in chess.
Whilst we can strive to run a good or even very good event I think perfection is not achievable.
Invitees are by their nature special cases, and one should accept that event organisers be allowed some leeway in the organisation of their events.
Perhaps with the increase in numbers now participating any new tournaments coming on stream should be given a template by the ICU as to the correct manner in which to run it. Following the implementation of which, the badly run events like Kilkenny can fade out!

sodacat11

Dunno why you think that Kilkenny is a "badly run event" but we are all entitled to our opinion I guess.
As for your "special cases" . What exactly constitutes a "special case" why should an 1800 rated player get into a tournament that won't accept a 1949? What is wrong with strictly adhering to the rating list, no exceptions? The 50 point leeway is a nonsense. Imagine the IOC saying that the qualifying time for the 100 metres is 10 seconds flat,,,,,,,,,,ahh but sure if you can run it in 10.5 or you are a friend of the sponsor or the girlfriend of Usain Bolt we'll let you in.

brilliantboy

I tend to agree with sodacat. I think rating bands should either be strictly adhered to or not adhered to at all. Either trust the rating system (I don't ) or accept it has it's flaws and adopt a more fluid and fair approach to categorizing players.
At the same time I'm not going to let it keep me awake at night. Good for them, hope they enjoy the tournament.

cdeb

Are any of the invitees the 2017 winners? I think Bunratty had a policy of allowing the prior year winners to play up?

I think the rating bands would be better expressed as 0-1200; 1150-1600; 1550-2000; 1950-2900.

tedjennings

sodacat11 wrote: »

The rules should be the same for everyone, I really don't see how anyone can dispute that!!

As of the above comment I can think of a least a dozen times where I can dispute that!
As to the main point:-
When it comes to running a chess tournament the only things that are black and white are the boards and pieces!
Tournament organisers must be allowed leeway to make decisions in the best interest of running the tournament.
Matters that are taken into consideration by the Tournament Director are not always obvious to others.
It goes without saying that the Tournament Director has my full confidence in these matters.

sodacat11

cdeb wrote: »

Are any of the invitees the 2017 winners? I think Bunratty had a policy of allowing the prior year winners to play up?

I think the rating bands would be better expressed as 0-1200; 1150-1600; 1550-2000; 1950-2900.

No,none are past winners of the Challengers and none of them would win the Challengers this year either had they been in it
. I think the best way would be to do away with the 50 point overlap altogether. It doesn't make any sense to have someone playing in the Masters who would only be the 20th seed had they played in the Challengers.
Bunratty has always been one of the strictest as far as rating bands are concerned so I am surprised and disappointed that they have changed their policy this year because other "lesser" events are likely to follow the example and start having "invites" in order to circumvent the proper rating requirements.

sodacat11

tedjennings wrote: »

As of the above comment I can think of a least a dozen times where I can dispute that!
As to the main point:-
When it comes to running a chess tournament the only things that are black and white are the boards and pieces!
Tournament organisers must be allowed leeway to make decisions in the best interest of running the tournament.
Matters that are taken into consideration by the Tournament Director are not always obvious to others.
It goes without saying that the Tournament Director has my full confidence in these matters.

Well perhaps the criteria used for these "matters" you mention could be made public? I would be intrigued to know what people have to do to become "special cases".
"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others" George Orwell, Animal Farm.

Asdee

This tread seems to have lost its way and is heading down the road of personal attacks and i thought we were past all that.

sodacat11

Asdee wrote: »

This tread seems to have lost its way and is heading down the road of personal attacks and i thought we were past all that.

The only personal attack came from Danville.
I have no issue with anyone. I think that the Bunratty organisers do a great job. This "playing up" business and the silly "50 point" rule wasn't started by them, it is something that crept into Irish chess after one particular Irish Championship.
I always point it out when people get into tournaments where they don't have the rating requirement and I will continue to do so no matter what tournament it is. I thought that the situation had improved this year but there was a couple of dodgy entries in the norm tournaments recently and now the same thing is happening here.
You will be glad to hear that this is my final post on the subject, my time will be better spent preparing my openings for the different type of challenge that the Challengers will provide this weekend.

Asdee

Good luck and enjoy Bunratty sodacat11

ComDubh

Good idea by cdeb, to express the rating bands as 0-1200; 1150-1600; 1550-2000; 1950-2900. This is clearer than the notion of "playing up." I think Sodacat is right to complain about players being invited into sections that they don't qualify for. I wouldn't fancy driving down from Dublin Friday after work to play someone hundreds of points below me. Good luck at the weekend everyone!

eclipsechaser

At the risk of banging a dead donkey, I really believe that no overlap or a small overlap tournament is a bad thing for Irish chess. If you're an 1100 and all tournaments are U1200 with just a 50 point rule (or strictly U1200), then you never get to play against - say - a 1300... unless of course you win all your games - and even then, you might not go up the required 50 or 100 points. I have had cases of players winning the lower section but still being ineligible to play up at the next tournament. How are you meant to improve if you're only playing lower rated opponents?

Requiring people to win tournaments to move up is also a bad idea. We've a lot more up and coming players at 1100 than we do tournaments to win. It really slows down their exposure to stronger players and I think juniors often lose valuable experience that would help them progress faster. Imagine being 1900 but never being allowed play someone over 2000. Most of us would think that ridiculous. It's even more ridiculous at the lower end where people have the potential to improve a lot in a short period of time. People rated 1000 should get to play against 1300's often enough. In the Irish system, that just never gets to happen at tournaments.

I agree that tournaments should stick to their stated rules (although I also acknowledge it's difficult running a tournament - try it if you haven't). I'd just like to see a bit more overlap in the sections. 100 points seems like a minimum in order for people to be able to progress smoothly without an artificial barrier.

cdeb

I think it should be acknowledged that we've developed a good bit of variety in grading bands in recent years. Gonzaga is what- 0-1200; 1100-1900; 1800+? Ennis is an Open with an U1400 section alongside. Cork's top section is 1600+. The junior events obviously have huge ratings gaps. So players do have scope for playing a variety of opponents

eclipsechaser

cdeb wrote: »

I think it should be acknowledged that we've developed a good bit of variety in grading bands in recent years. Gonzaga is what- 0-1200; 1100-1900; 1800+? Ennis is an Open with an U1400 section alongside. Cork's top section is 1600+. The junior events obviously have huge ratings gaps. So players do have scope for playing a variety of opponents

That's certainly true compared to how it had been. Drogheda also provide opportunities to mix it up a little. Still, the main ones (Cork, Galways, Kilkenny, Bunratty, Gonzaga, City of Dublin) were always U1200 and this can lead to the above issues.

flipsake

Over 360 people already entered. That is phenomenal. I guess Cork and Galway not happening this year has affected the numbers but it’s certainly shaping up to be a great event. Does anyone know of an Irish chess tournament that has attracted so many players?

eclipsechaser

Super weekend. Great job by the organizers!

sodacat11

Bunratty was very well organised and very enjoyable as always. My first time playing in the Challengers and I must say that I enjoyed it hugely. Much more fun being a shark (or at least a haddock) in relatively shallow waters instead of my usual role as a minnow (shrimp) in the deeper waters of the Masters.
One thing I must comment on is the amount of fifth round defaults in both the Masters and the Challengers. I know that Bunratty is largely a social event but it is disrespectful to the sponsors, organisers and opponents not to turn up for a game. It is also pig ignorant bad manners. If anyone wants to go on a drinking binge they can simply request a bye . There is simply no excuse for a default and habitual offenders should be suspended by the ICU and if they are visitors to this country they should be warned that a second offence will see them barred from the tournament.

Asdee

Well said.

Ciaran

Excellent weekend as usual. My opponents were unusually obliging with blunders too which helped.

Ballynafeigh Chess

Brilliant event per usual, as one of the cohorts of the Belfast to Bunratty party wagon I would just like to state that whilst we would have difficulty denying that we were habitual squatters in the bar we did leave the bar early this year 4am to 4.30am can't be sure exactly but we were all in bed around 5ish
Every single one of us made it to the boards on time (May have played like demented donkeys but we were there)