Advertisement
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Bunratty 2020

  • #1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,179 ✭✭✭ sodacat11


    I have always wondered how big the gap is between the top boards in the Challengers and the bottom boards in the Masters so it will be interesting to see how the sixteenth seed from the Challengers gets on in the top section this year.


Comments



  • Surely you're not suggesting they suffer the indignity of playing amongst the peasants in the Challengers section? :eek:




  • Surely you're not suggesting they suffer the indignity of playing amongst the peasants in the Challengers section? :eek:
    Of course not, that would be like telling Karpov or Kasparov that they have to go through qualifiers to play in the Candidates or making Bjorn Borg qualify to play at Wimbledon. ABSURD.
    The Challengers in Bunratty may be for peasants but it is a highly competitive section where probably as many as thirty players have a realistic chance of winning the top prize, compared to the Masters where there are only three or four realistic contenders.




  • Huge entry in that challengers. 87 :o

    I have no idea how many contenders from Ireland there have been in previous years but it does seem like there are more Irish in the top 15 seeds than usual (7) - from a quick scan of the finishers over the last 6-7 years, it looks like we are a good bit more competitive. I would say there are maybe 8 people who could contest for top prize if you think that there could be a gang of 4 or 5 on 5/6 - but from an outright winner perspective, I would agree; maybe 3-4. Kavin at 11 in the masters might be the first so young since Howell (at 9 or 10 years old in '00).




  • I wouldn't mind a few quid each way on Tarun in the Masters. Impossible to predict the Challengers, I've played in it for the last two years and although I haven't lost a game I haven't been able to get into any kind of realistic contention, maybe third time lucky.
    Apart from the competitive nature of the Challengers another thing I enjoy is the much better lighting that you get compared to some boards in the Masters where I would need a miner's lamp to see the board and pieces. This has been a problem for years but it doesn't surprise me that the hotel is so slack about fixing it as they are invariably slack about a lot of things. Last year I left my phone charger in my room and I still haven't got it back. The bar is always very understaffed and breakfast is a chaotic affair. Just as well that the chess itself is always so good!!




  • sodacat11 wrote: »
    I wouldn't mind a few quid each way on Tarun in the Masters.

    Given his progress recently, he was part of my "contenders" in the previous message.

    354 entries now (2nd biggest) with 94 in the challengers (biggest).


  • Advertisement


  • I noticed a number of very short games in the Masters section where high rated( and these are usually FIDE ratings) foreign players who are really just here for the beer and whose ratings don't get affected, offered quick draws to much lower ICU members because they were hungover or tired after very late nights. This leads to distortion of our rating system and undermines the very integrity of the rating system itself. I was originally thinking that the Sofia Rule might stop the rating anomalies that occur but probably if the guys with hangovers were forced to play longer games all that would happen is that they would end up blundering and losing and giving even more unmerited rating points to ICU members. maybe the only solution is to ban alcohol or make the Masters a non rated tournament altogether.




  • If you can stay sober for the weekend in Bunratty you probably deserve a rating boost!




  • If you can stay sober for the weekend in Bunratty you probably deserve a rating boost!

    Maybe a religious medal or a pioneer's badge would be more appropriate.




  • One does not have to be Sherlock Holmes to see from the wildly erratic rating performances which visiting players in the Masters spent most of their weekend propping up the bar. Perhaps these players should be invited to the Easter norm events to give our home grown players a better chance of norms? Actually if we extend this idea further why not find a few alcoholic IMs and GMs somewhere and invite them too? From what I can see players with hangovers at Bunratty were on average performing almost 200 points below their ratings , if this pattern holds true then all an aspiring Irish player would need against a sozzled field of 2500 GMs is a 2300 performance to get a 2500 RP. I am sure that Guinness or Heineken would be delighted to sponsor such an event. :)




  • Go on then Dr Watson, reveal all! Your observations look like a lot of guesswork to me. A more likely explanation is that those who did well are just more experienced and/or better at coping with a tough weekend tournament schedule. With the relaxed atmosphere and lack of pressure probably even adding to relative performance. And the alcohol perhaps even working as a stimulant rather than an inhibitor.

    If I were looking to target people to be cannon fodder in norm tournaments there may even be more value in targeting those who did well rather than those who did badly....

    Still maybe your thesis is right, and there are concerning signs of Irish players being unable to handle the booze, and of juniors hitting the bottle from an early age ;)


  • Advertisement


  • Mishvili wrote: »

    If I were looking to target people to be cannon fodder in norm tournaments there may even be more value in targeting those who did well rather than those who did badly....
    I don't quite get this?

    Still maybe your thesis is right, and there are concerning signs of Irish players being unable to handle the booze, and of juniors hitting the bottle from an early age ;)
    On the contrary, Irish players seem to have done well against the boozers. if they were up late they either didn't drink much or can handle their booze better than the visitors (nothing new there).
    I didn't see any juniors drinking alcohol at all over the weekend and besides no junior performed hugely below their rating.
    My point is that in every tournament there is always someone (often me) who plays two or three hundred points below their rating but in Bunratty this seems to happen in clusters and the people in these clusters are the very same people who don't get to bed until 4 a.m. They aren't too bothered at what state they arrive at the board the next day because their ratings aren't affected so the knock on effect is that they bestow soft rating gains on anyone fortunate enough to play them thereby undermining the integrity of our ratings.




  • I don't understand the notion being put forward about players being social and drinking over the weekend as if this had any negative impact on their chess at all. From what I can see, things for the most part, went very much according to seeding and strength of the players.

    1 GM Short, Nigel 5.0 M 2626 2658 +0.27 2403.0 21.5 19.0 1 1 1 ½ 1 ½
    2 Paehtz, Elisabeth 4.5 M 2472 2561 +0.76 2364.5 23.5 18.0 1 1 1 ½ ½ ½
    3 GM Arkell, Keith 4.5 M 2454 2477 +0.25 2277.8 20.0 15.5 1 ½ ½ 1 ½ 1
    4 IM Fitzsimons, David 4.5 M 2341 2478 +1.10 2275.8 20.0 15.5 1 ½ ½ 1 ½ 1
    5 IM Bates, Richard 4.5 M 2366 2392 +0.26 2157.5 19.0 15.5 1 1 0 ½ 1 1
    6 GM Williams, Simon 4.0 M 2473 2440 -0.16 2284.3 22.0 14.5 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 ½
    7 GM Turner, Matthew 4.0 M 2516 2402 -0.73 2281.0 21.5 14.0 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ 1
    8 GM Lalic, Bogdan 4.0 M 2400 2407 +0.15 2266.3 20.5 15.5 1 ½ 1 ½ ½ ½
    9 IM Lopez, Alex 4.0 M 2441 2366 -0.37 2194.8 21.0 14.5 1 ½ ½ 1 0 1
    10 FM Li, Henry 4.0 M 2295 2308 +0.15 2070.3 18.5 12.5 = ½ ½ 1 ½ 1
    11 FM Brady, Stephen 3.5 M 2288 2339 +0.52 2308.3 23.0 14.5 1 ½ ½ 1 ½ 0




  • After the first round and the Friday night we had the top 14 or so looking like this:

    1 Reyer, Ulli 1.0 F 2092 3149 +0.82 2349.0 0.0 1.0 1
    2 GM Short, Nigel 1.0 M 2626 3026 +0.08 2138.0 0.0 1.0 1
    3 GM Turner, Matthew 1.0 M 2516 2938 +0.09 2138.0 0.0 1.0 1
    4 GM Williams, Simon 1.0 M 2473 2929 +0.12 2129.0 0.0 1.0 1
    5 Paehtz, Elisabeth 1.0 M 2472 2926 +0.11 2126.0 0.0 1.0 1
    6 GM Arkell, Keith 1.0 M 2454 2921 +0.12 2121.0 0.0 1.0 1
    7 IM Lopez, Alex 1.0 M 2441 2911 +0.12 2111.0 0.0 1.0 1
    8 GM Baburin, Alexander 1.0 M 2418 2910 +0.14 2110.0 0.0 1.0 1
    9 GM Hort, Vlastimil 1.0 M 2400 2909 +0.15 2109.0 0.0 1.0 1
    10 GM Lalic, Bogdan 1.0 M 2400 2908 +0.15 2108.0 0.0 1.0 1
    11 IM Bates, Richard 1.0 M 2366 2900 +0.18 2100.0 0.0 1.0 1
    12 IM Fitzsimons, David 1.0 M 2341 2892 +0.19 2092.0 0.0 1.0 1
    13 WFM Kanyamarala, Trisha 1.0 F 2299 2881 +0.22 2081.0 0.0 1.0 1
    14 FM Brady, Stephen 1.0 M 2288 2838 +0.19 2038.0 0.0 1.0 1




  • After the Saturday night games the siutation ranking for the top half was this:

    1 GM Short, Nigel 3.5 M 2626 2685 +0.21 2349.5 10.0 9.5 1 1 1 ½
    2 Paehtz, Elisabeth 3.5 M 2472 2675 +0.89 2302.0 9.5 9.5 1 1 1 ½
    3 IM Fitzsimons, David 3.0 M 2341 2482 +0.77 2274.5 9.5 7.5 1 ½ ½ 1
    4 FM Brady, Stephen 3.0 M 2288 2431 +0.80 2246.0 9.5 7.5 1 ½ ½ 1
    5 GM Arkell, Keith 3.0 M 2454 2401 -0.20 2211.5 8.5 7.5 1 ½ ½ 1
    6 GM Lalic, Bogdan 3.0 M 2400 2425 +0.20 2152.5 9.5 8.0 1 ½ 1 ½
    7 IM Lopez, Alex 3.0 M 2441 2364 -0.25 2150.0 8.5 7.5 1 ½ ½ 1
    8 IM Baker, Chris 2.5 M 2234 2435 +1.04 2436.0 9.0 7.0 1 ½ ½ ½
    9 Wallace, Paul A. 2.5 M 2145 2361 +1.10 2380.5 8.5 7.0 1 ½ ½ ½
    10 GM Turner, Matthew 2.5 M 2516 2362 -0.67 2265.0 10.0 7.0 1 ½ ½ ½
    11 GM Williams, Simon 2.5 M 2473 2324 -0.69 2250.0 9.5 7.0 1 ½ ½ ½
    12 Pein, Jonathon 2.5 M 2160 2298 +0.69 2204.0 8.0 6.5 1 ½ 0 1
    13 O'Connor, Jonathan 2.5 M 2110 2280 +0.85 2169.0 6.5 4.5 0 ½ 1 1
    14 Rawlinson, Aidan 2.5 M 2181 2273 +0.48 2154.0 7.0 6.0 ½ ½ 1 ½
    15 GM Baburin, Alexander 2.5 M 2418 2257 -0.75 2152.5 10.0 7.0 1 ½ ½ ½
    16 IM Bates, Richard 2.5 M 2366 2306 -0.25 2140.5 9.5 7.5 1 1 0 ½
    17 GM Hort, Vlastimil 2.5 M 2400 2423 +0.14 2134.0 9.0 7.5 1 1 0 =
    18 IM Heidenfeld, Mark 2.5 M 2361 2190 -0.78 2112.5 7.5 6.0 ½ ½ 1 ½
    19 IM Mannion, Stephen R 2.5 M 2266 2275 +0.07 2111.5 8.0 6.0 ½ ½ 1 ½
    20 FM Kanyamarala, Tarun 2.5 M 2349 2175 -0.81 2096.0 6.0 4.5 0 ½ 1 1
    21 FM Li, Henry 2.5 M 2295 2177 -0.41 2031.5 8.0 5.5 = ½ ½ 1
    22 Fromm, Marius 2.0 F 2189 2351 +0.74 2447.5 8.5 6.5 1 ½ ½ 0
    23 Reyer, Ulli 2.0 F 2092 2327 +1.18 2324.0 9.5 5.5 1 0 ½ ½
    24 Flynn, Jacob 2.0 M 2108 2226 +0.58 2308.5 8.0 5.0 0 1 1 0
    25 Kolb, Marcus 2.0 M 2025 2281 +1.20 2280.5 10.0 5.5 ½ ½ 1 0
    26 Manojlovic, Mihailo 2.0 M 2038 2228 +0.97 2244.5 9.0 5.0 0 1 1 0




  • I think that I mentioned earlier that what I was saying did not apply to the players who were in contention for prizes as obviously they took things seriously. It is in the bottom half of the table that the anomalies occur. It will be interesting to see the number of very short draws when the games are published.




  • Then comes the "hangover round" of Sunday morning and after that we have the top half ranking situation like this:

    Ranking after round 5

    Rank Name Score M/F Rating TPR W-We Rat-HiLo BH PS 1 2 3 4 5
    1 GM Short, Nigel 4.5 M 2626 2734 +0.47 2380.0 16.0 14.0 1 1 1 ½ 1
    2 Paehtz, Elisabeth 4.0 M 2472 2602 +0.86 2352.7 16.0 13.5 1 1 1 ½ ½
    3 FM Brady, Stephen 3.5 M 2288 2420 +0.95 2297.3 15.5 11.0 1 ½ ½ 1 ½
    4 IM Fitzsimons, David 3.5 M 2341 2434 +0.67 2271.7 13.5 11.0 1 ½ ½ 1 ½
    5 GM Williams, Simon 3.5 M 2473 2402 -0.36 2262.7 14.0 10.5 1 ½ ½ ½ 1
    6 GM Arkell, Keith 3.5 M 2454 2410 -0.17 2237.0 15.0 11.0 1 ½ ½ 1 ½
    7 GM Lalic, Bogdan 3.5 M 2400 2392 +0.05 2197.7 13.5 11.5 1 ½ 1 ½ ½
    8 GM Hort, Vlastimil 3.5 M 2400 2475 +0.42 2167.3 14.0 11.0 1 1 0 = 1
    9 IM Bates, Richard 3.5 M 2366 2350 -0.01 2147.0 13.5 11.0 1 1 0 ½ 1
    10 Fromm, Marius 3.0 F 2189 2371 +1.11 2329.0 12.5 9.5 1 ½ ½ 0 1
    11 GM Turner, Matthew 3.0 M 2516 2345 -0.95 2275.0 16.0 10.0 1 ½ ½ ½ ½
    12 O'Connor, Jonathan 3.0 M 2110 2292 +1.16 2233.0 11.5 7.5 0 ½ 1 1 ½
    13 Rawlinson, Aidan 3.0 M 2181 2298 +0.78 2224.7 12.0 9.0 ½ ½ 1 ½ ½
    14 IM Lopez, Alex 3.0 M 2441 2334 -0.51 2213.7 15.5 10.5 1 ½ ½ 1 0
    15 IM Mannion, Stephen R 3.0 M 2266 2284 +0.17 2188.0 13.0 9.0 ½ ½ 1 ½ ½
    16 GM Baburin, Alexander 3.0 M 2418 2238 -1.05 2162.0 13.5 10.0 1 ½ ½ ½ ½
    17 Lange, Jannis 3.0 F 2126 2251 +0.75 2136.3 11.5 7.0 0 1 0 1 1
    18 WFM Kanyamarala, Trisha 3.0 F 2299 2283 -0.13 2116.0 13.0 8.5 1 0 ½ ½ 1
    19 IM Heidenfeld, Mark 3.0 M 2361 2170 -1.09 2111.7 11.5 9.0 ½ ½ 1 ½ ½
    20 Shanel, Jaroslav 3.0 M 2138 2216 +0.45 2078.7 11.5 6.5 0 ½ ½ 1 1
    21 FM Li, Henry 3.0 M 2295 2263 -0.13 2051.7 12.0 8.5 = ½ ½ 1 ½
    22 IM Baker, Chris 2.5 M 2234 2352 +0.76 2424.0 15.0 9.5 1 ½ ½ ½ 0
    23 Wallace, Paul A. 2.5 M 2145 2273 +0.81 2353.3 13.5 9.5 1 ½ ½ ½ 0
    24 Pein, Jonathon 2.5 M 2160 2235 +0.45 2258.0 13.5 9.0 1 ½ 0 1 0
    25 Lucchi, Lorenzo 2.5 M 2111 2236 +0.74 2249.0 11.0 6.5 0 1 ½ 0 1
    26 Manojlovic, Mihailo 2.5 M 2038 2204 +1.07 2206.0 14.0 7.5 0 1 1 0 ½

    Clear conclusion being that "Drink and socializing" has close to zero impact on the strongest players doing well and better than the less stong players, for the most part. The top seed in his 50s winning clear first with apparent ease, regardless of how much drink and craic was being had? So the whole notion of things shaping up in anything other than a pretty predeictable (by and large) way is just not supported by the evidence.




  • sodacat11 wrote: »
    I think that I mentioned earlier that what I was saying did not apply to the players who were in contention for prizes as obviously they took things seriously. It is in the bottom half of the table that the anomalies occur. It will be interesting to see the number of very short draws when the games are published.


    Fair enough but the strongest players by and large done as well as one would expect- if not better- I don't think people having a good time had much of anything to do with how the results panned out. Indeed the younger players, who are all about their chess, did not shine or perform particularly well.


    I don't think GM Baburin was on a drink fueled spree either and he had 5 draws and a win, which was below par but nothing too shocking.


    The standard of the play from the players generally seemed pretty high from what can be seen from the games played. Some interesting clashes throughout and plenty of fighting chess I thought?



    As you mentioned also I think, with no Fide rating points at stake players can feel more relaxed about their play. Don't think drink had any impact negatively on anything chesswise.




  • spidersweb wrote: »
    Fair enough but the strongest players by and large done as well as one would expect- if not better- I don't think people having a good time had much of anything to do with how the results panned out. Indeed the younger players, who are all about their chess, did not shine or perform particularly well.


    I don't think GM Baburin was on a drink fueled spree either and he had 5 draws and a win, which was below par but nothing too shocking.


    The standard of the play from the players generally seemed pretty high from what can be seen from the games played. Some interesting clashes throughout and plenty of fighting chess I thought?



    As you mentioned also I think, with no Fide rating points at stake players can feel more relaxed about their play. Don't think drink had any impact negatively on anything chesswise.
    I saw a number of bleary eyed players arriving at the board in no fit state to give their best and in many cases they just offered quick draws to grateful opponents. Undoubtedly the top two thirds of the tournament was hotly contested with a lot of high quality games. Look at the amount of players around 2200 rating who performed over 150 points lower than their ratings and you will see what I am talking about.




  • The games are available on the tournament web site and also in the ICU games collection.

    Most of the short draws seem to be in round 6.




  • zeitnot wrote: »
    The games are available on the tournament web site and also in the ICU games collection.

    Most of the short draws seem to be in round 6.

    Thanks, I will have a look.


  • Advertisement


  • I see that FM Weischede 2276 played a total of 77 moves for the whole weekend. My shortest game in the Challengers was 44 moves.




  • sodacat11 wrote: »
    I see that FM Weischede 2276 played a total of 77 moves for the whole weekend. My shortest game in the Challengers was 44 moves.

    I saw that too. In fairness, his round 4 game (1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 exd5 1/2-1/2) was understandable. Why waste your time when your opponent plays something like that?




  • GM Lalic didn't waste too much energy either only playing 130 moves in six games. There really is a case for very short draws not to be rated as they are completely meaningless.




  • Dunno what happened in the rd 6 game between Keogh and Blair, according to the scoresheet Eamon resigned after 12 moves in a dead level position??? Did his phone go off?




  • sodacat11 wrote: »
    Dunno what happened in the rd 6 game between Keogh and Blair, according to the scoresheet Eamon resigned after 12 moves in a dead level position??? Did his phone go off?

    ... and similarly, why is Weischede - Flynn, round 3, 0-1?

    Sometimes (often) in such cases the scoresheets are illegible or moves were recorded incorrectly, and the game actually went on.

    (If you happen to be transcribing a game like this, adding "{ ... }" just before the result is helpful.)




  • zeitnot wrote: »
    ... and similarly, why is Weischede - Flynn, round 3, 0-1?

    Sometimes (often) in such cases the scoresheets are illegible or moves were recorded incorrectly, and the game actually went on.

    (If you happen to be transcribing a game like this, adding "{ ... }" just before the result is helpful.)

    Weischede isn't the best 2270+ player I've ever seen. :pac: He had a rating performance of 1999. This is exactly what I mean about foreign players not being too bothered because their ratings don't get affected, they just end up donating unmerited rating points to all and sundry.




  • sodacat11 wrote: »
    GM Lalic didn't waste too much energy either only playing 130 moves in six games. There really is a case for very short draws not to be rated as they are completely meaningless.

    Have you never come across Bogdan Lalic before? The idea that his correlation with quick draws (especially with black) against weaker players has anything to do with either a) being hungover, or b) linked to the tournament being unrated, is so far off the mark as to being almost libellous!




  • sodacat11 wrote: »
    I see that FM Weischede 2276 played a total of 77 moves for the whole weekend. My shortest game in the Challengers was 44 moves.
    The infamous German efficiency.




  • Mishvili wrote: »
    Have you never come across Bogdan Lalic before? The idea that his correlation with quick draws (especially with black) against weaker players has anything to do with either a) being hungover, or b) linked to the tournament being unrated, is so far off the mark as to being almost libellous!
    Lol, keep your hair on. I never suggested that Lalic drinks, I have certainly never seen him in a bar. I just said that he didn't waste any energy. He is notorious for quick draws.


  • Advertisement


  • Last time I played Bunratty there were some spectacular morning defaults. Any this time?


Advertisement