Irish Ch Tipping Competition

cdeb

sodacat11 wrote: »

I want to see a good clean contest,no gouging, kicking or head butting, no petrol bombing of houses, no poisonous snakes in the letterbox or ringing people at 3 a.m to deprive them of sleep all of which we saw in last years competition.

I guarantee I won't engage in any of that.

I'll just breathe on you. Maybe a small cough too...without covering my mouth.

I'd advise you not to call my bluff on that...

Mod note - the tipping competition itself is here.

Retd.LoyolaCpt

sodacat11 wrote: »

no petrol bombing of houses.

So we can only petrol bomb one house? Public safety gone mad

sodacat11

Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »

So we can only petrol bomb one house? Public safety gone mad

As the current holder of the tipster title I think that you are the one most at risk from any underhand tactics.
Do bear in mind this year when making your predictions that we are told that the wearing of masks can seriously effect player's ability to produce decent chess and may even result in some players experiencing serious health problems at the board. It may be prudent to see which players come with snorkels, air tanks and breathing apparatus before making any predictions.

cdeb

I'm curious as to the tactical decisions around one-board or two-board.

I suspect those with glasses may struggle on the two board options for example. Will we have this vital info in advance?

spidersweb

I have to confess that I don't think I have hardly ever seriously engaged with this sort of predicting stuff here. Viewing it as a mix of mindless, uninformed guess work, and sometimes comical wishful thinking projections.

Looking at the tournament overall, and cutting to the chase, I would say the event is as wide open as it was last year. Then, there was any one of about ten players who could have, or were, in varying degrees, likely potential winners. There were some more likely favorites than others of course, but as it happens, one of those ten emerged as the sole winner ( C Murphy), who was certainly not the most likely favorite going into the event.

This year we have lost that defending champ (C Murphy) and the player who came joint second/third (multiple time ex champ - A Lopez) along with one of the players who finished joint fourth/sixth ( two time ex champ Joe Ryan) plus the only GM we have (A Baburin - ex OPEN champ) who though prone to drawing too much, would surely always be among the favourites and possible winners?

Now we have the much improved and much stronger, two Indian kids (Tarun and Trisha), who while performing modestly, or even poorly last year, are far stronger now and likely to be among the favorites this year.

We have the player who finished joint second/third last year (two time ex champ S Collins) as arguably the top favorite this year, along with Tarun K and David F just behind as the top three favorites?


Then there are still two of the players who finished joint fourth/sixth last year ((multiple time ex champs - S Brady and C Daly), neither of whom could be ruled out as serious contenders again this year. Ahead of them on rating and on paper we have the young players T O Gorman and C O Donnell with thirty something Killian Delaney now at his peak. With Trisha K not far behind.

So realistically, and on paper, we have the first favorite being S Collins, followed by Tarun K and Fitzsimons D, with a further group in no particular order of S Brady, C O Donnell, C Daly, K Delaney, T O Gorman, Trisha K.

Outside of these 8-9 players there is as good as no chance the winner/s won't be a,among these players. The odds one would venture to give for any of these players being a matter of guess work and degrees of probability.

I would not like to bet much on anybody emerging as the sole winner or even joint winner, as there is so much scope for things going any number of ways. It will be very tight and competitive but if I had to pick a winner at all as the most likely, I would stick with S Collins, Tarun. K, D Fitzsimons.

As for the first round? Amusing predictions already to be seen, but badly mistaken I think. Daly is a dead cert win as the little kid already used up a lot of luck when he fluked a draw earlier in the year when they played in Gonzaga, and is unlikely such a gift will be given a second time around. On the other hand giving out gifts has become something of a specialty in more recent years.

C O Donnell is another dead cert as the contest between the player finishing last of 39 players last year, versus the player who came within a whisker (one move blunder) of winning jointy last year will likely eviscerate and make mince meat out of P Caffola

Alex Byrne however could grab a draw V K Delaney.

Most, but not all of the rest will go according to rating, with maybe 2-3 draws thrown in.

sodacat11

cdeb wrote: »

soda_bread - 6 words, clear who his tips are
En Passant - 6 words, clear who his tips are
spidersweb - 633 words (with needless derogatory comments thrown in for no real reason), no idea who his tips are.

Probably a lesson to be learned somewhere there.

First round draw is here for quick reference btw.

Please don't ask Spiderswet to curtail his ramblings, I find them highly amusing and a rare insight into the complexities of the mind.

sodacat11

spidersweb wrote: »

I have to confess that I don't think I have hardly ever seriously engaged with this sort of predicting stuff here. Viewing it as a mix of mindless, uninformed guess work, and sometimes comical wishful thinking projections.
Like your prediction about mass withdrawals from the championship because of masks?

As for the first round? Amusing predictions already to be seen, but badly mistaken I think. Daly is a dead cert win as the little kid already used up a lot of luck when he fluked a draw earlier in the year when they played in Gonzaga, and is unlikely such a gift will be given a second time around. On the other hand giving out gifts has become something of a specialty in more recent years.
Kaven is improving by the minute while Lady is undoubtedly in decline. Obviously any of the higher rated players failing to win in the first round would be a surprise but stranger things happen.

C O Donnell is another dead cert as the contest between the player finishing last of 39 players last year, versus the player who came within a whisker (one move blunder) of winning jointy last year will likely eviscerate and make mince meat out of P Caffola
In the nine previous meetings two wins for Conor and seven draws (including the two most recent games) so some sort of result for the ageing hacker isn't completely out of the question.
Alex Byrne however could grab a draw V K Delaney.
.

My prediction is 1st Tarun K 2 Sam Collins 3 Stephen Brady, with Trish K a good outside bet to crash into the top three.

sodacat11

Oops,can't figure out that multiquote thingy so anyone who is interested will have to separate the wheat from the chaff in the above post to read what I said.

spidersweb

cdeb wrote: »

spidersweb - 633 words (with needless derogatory comments thrown in for no real reason), no idea who his tips are.

I think juniors are the way to go this week - no rated games since March means many could be underrated. I'll go for Putar v Murray, Daly v Venkatesan and Collins v Jackson

.

Weird notions and more wishful thinking and projection confirming my view very well indeed. Words won't harm you honestly you are very safe from words, regardless the number of them: https://youtu.be/tccpGP80oik

Curious to see "Needless derogatory comments thrown in" such as?
Nah I think that is what you do, not what I do. As far as I can tell you make a habit of misrepresenting and attacking the poster, not the post and from all I have seen, then turn around and routinely claim it is the others who do this.

Funny and amusing at times, but so wonderfully predictable. Gotta luv your reactions sometimes. You make me laugh- in a good way- which at least is a positive. Honestly it is comedy gold.

I will do you a favour now, and I will refrain from making any more "predictions" and leave my 633 word overview stand as is. Let's see how it all pans out in 12 days or so.


Best of luck with you predicting fun. Main thing is to be happy.

spidersweb

sodacat11 wrote: »

My prediction is 1st Tarun K 2 Sam Collins 3 Stephen Brady, with Trish K a good outside bet to crash into the top three.

Perfectly reasonable and plausible predictions, though, for myself, I would still put Sam Collins comfortably ahead of Tarun in terms of one to one comparison of likely winner/s.

While Stephen Brady, as 7th seed, can't be ruled out for sure either and, I agree he is far more likely to come 3rd (jointly) than 1st. He could still win it jointly though, but I think there are too many strong players that he would need to actually win more against than he is likely to do. Reckon a top 4-6 place would be a good result and very decent chances of that.

A big dark horse is still David Fitzsimons who has never delivered on his potential and if it all came together for him in the week that is in it, then I could easily see him beat the likes of S Brady, Tarun K, S Collins, and all or any of the top players in succession!

He is one of only about 3-4 players (SC,TK,CD) capable of raking up a big winning streak like that and dominating. Hard to see him not in the top 5 at the end and a serious contender, if he gets a good run from early on. C O Donnell is also surely more likely to be a serious contender and will hardly be out of the top 4-6 places either?

sodacat11 wrote: »

Like your prediction about mass withdrawals from the championship because of masks?

This is of course just not true and mere projection on your part. I never made any such prediction. What I did do was throw out the question and also wonder how many people listed as playing would actually be playing when the event starts.
In total it turns out that indeed 5 people withdrew and I have no idea their reasons, but in some cases I am not that surprised. The mask compulsion issue should have been a deal breaker for serious chess players, but the whole take it or leave it, like it or bugger off, approach instead prevailed, especially on here, albeit not from a single serious Irish ch contender.

All the players like yourself G mac , anchor all firmly in the bottom half of the rankings or in the case of cdep not strong enough be even in the tournament and never having played an Irish ch at all (?), which is just a curious aside.
We may never know what all the players individual preferences were/are on the mask compulsion issue. So this was a clear success for the Mask Choice Deniers, and not for common sense when considering the per specs and all other measures taken.

At the time I noted that M Quinn had withdrawn (his name was removed- never to return as it happens) and then suggested very broadly and sardonically that there could be a serious issue regarding some of the measures and transformative changes being made from a normal chess tournament. Into what I regard, in respect of a couple of specific issues, as very bad and more akin to a freak show and totally over the top and unnecessary. Especially given the otherwise excellent work that was done for the event. My view seems to be a minority view and so I had to consider my own options and act accordingly.

My view has not changed one bit and rather has only been vindicated by all the evidence from then and ever since after. The per specs removing any doubts and also the tournaments elsewhere using commonsense too.

sodacat11 wrote: »

Kaven is improving by the minute while Lady is undoubtedly in decline.

This is undoubtedly true, yet the gap is still huge and hardly closed that much to see a repeat of the earlier upset in the Gonzaga event.

Oddly enough, despite the huge decline and playing utter rubbish for most of last years event, a joint 4th-6th place with fellow many time ex champs was seen. Still, you could be right and the decay and decline may only become more apparent and faster now. We will soon see.

sodacat11 wrote: »

Obviously any of the higher rated players failing to win in the first round would be a surprise but stranger things happen.

Don't disagree at all and think there will be some upsets in round one and throughout, which in part is what makes things so exciting and interesting

sodacat11 wrote: »

In the nine previous meetings two wins for Conor and seven draws (including the two most recent games) so some sort of result for the ageing hacker isn't completely out of the question.

Well this does change things alright and there is much I was not aware of that certainly does give pause for thought and further reflection. There was certainly, I have to confess, an element of me engaging in the very thing I suggest is so prevalent here with these predictions, namely wishful thinking on my part when I suggested he would make mince meat of you etc.

I mean, I still think he will, but based on this new information I am much less sure anymore.
In conclusion, all predictions are risky speculations and aside from the view that the tournament can and will only be won by one of the 8-9 players I mentioned- but if I had to really choose and bet I would even go so far as to say that I personally can't see, in any particular order, anybody other than SC,TK.,DF, CD, COD. winning it

I am now done with making any further predictions other than I won't be making any more of them! It's been a bit of gas and an amusing distraction but I have to look at some actual chess now.. Enjoy the event as much as you can, and have fun online here with your predictions stuff.

Oh and cdep might have another conniption or heart attack if I post another word more, so please look out for him and take care of him for me
Hasta la vista!

spidersweb

Meanwhile, elsewhere:

zeitnot

spidersweb wrote: »

While Stephen Brady, as 7th seed, can't be ruled out for sure either and, I agree he is far more likely to come 3rd (jointly) than 1st. He could still win it jointly though,

No joint champions.

sodacat11

spidersweb wrote: »

Well this does change things alright and there is much I was not aware of that certainly does give pause for thought and further reflection. There was certainly, I have to confess, an element of me engaging in the very thing I suggest is so prevalent here with these predictions, namely wishful thinking on my part when I suggested he would make mince meat of you etc.

I mean, I still think he will, but based on this new information I am much less sure anymore.
![/B]

Actually I was doing myself an injustice as I beat him in Bunratty in 2016 so Played 10 W1 D7 L2 I think but I can't seem to find his second win against me so maybe he only beat me once. Obviously he will be a heavy favourite to win but you never know.

spidersweb

zeitnot wrote: »

No joint champions.

Read again.

"He could still win it jointly though," No mention of who will gets the title of champion.

It used to be that if 2 players won then they shared the title (which I always thought was a bit daft), while if there were three players then there was some sort of a tiebreak used and the last time this happened was in 1996 when a 2000/2100 player and a 2200 player along with a 2300 player all won the tournament on 6.5/9 and split the prize money.

Then after the tournament was over (no mention before or during the event itself) the tie break system was mentioned to the winners and it turned out that the 2000-2100 player who had beaten the 2300 player early in the event but lost to the 2200 player had the best tie break system score and months later got the trophy and the title.

Seemed obvious to me that there should be a play off for the title if and when there is more than one winner of the tournament but prizes should still be split evenly by people on the same score.

Since 1996 the title has been shared between 2 players 3 times even though in 2012 I argued (in vain) at the time, before and during the tournament that there should be a system like what we have now. Thankfully this has changed and we now have a set of rules that prevent a shared title of Irish champ.

zeitnot

spidersweb wrote: »

Read again.

"He could still win it jointly though," No mention of who will gets the title of champion.

Actually, I had noticed that. He could finish joint first (and split the prize money, I assume) but not become joint champion, yes.

It used to be that if 2 players won then they shared the title (which I always thought was a bit daft), while if there were three players then there was some sort of a tiebreak used and the last time this happened was in 1996 when a 2000/2100 player and a 2200 player along with a 2300 player all won the tournament on 6.5/9 and split the prize money.

Then after the tournament was over (no mention before or during the event itself) the tie break system was mentioned to the winners and it turned out that the 2000-2100 player who had beaten the 2300 player early in the event but lost to the 2200 player had the best tie break system score and months later got the trophy and the title.

Under the new system, it would have been a playoff between Richard O'Donovan and Tom Clarke.

In previous years the tie-break system had sometimes been printed on the flyer and sometimes not. (The new system of deciding it separately and not relying on the flyer is much better.) In 1982 it was explicitly listed on the flyer that two would share but in the event of a tie between three or more, the cumulative system would be used. John Delaney, David Dunne, and Philip Short tied for first, and John Delaney won on cumulative.

Seemed obvious to me that there should be a play off for the title if and when there is more than one winner of the tournament but prizes should still be split evenly by people on the same score.

Since 1996 the title has been shared between 2 players 3 times

Four times, I think: 2007, 2012, 2015, 2017.

spidersweb

zeitnot wrote: »

Actually, I had noticed that. He could finish joint first (and split the prize money, I assume) but not become joint champion, yes.

Under the new system, it would have been a playoff between Richard O'Donovan and Tom Clarke.

In previous years the tie-break system had sometimes been printed on the flyer and sometimes not. (The new system of deciding it separately and not relying on the flyer is much better.) In 1982 it was explicitly listed on the flyer that two would share but in the event of a tie between three or more, the cumulative system would be used. John Delaney, David Dunne, and Philip Short tied for first, and John Delaney won on cumulative.
Four times, I think: 2007, 2012, 2015, 2017.

Yes thanks for correcting me, I forgot about 2017 you are right about that indeed. It felt like the late Philip was so obviously the far more deserving and impressive winner in 2017 that I somehow forgot for a moment that he actually shared with Alex who in turn then won it in 2018 in a very impressive and deserving manner.

As for 1996, if using the new system, I presume ROD would play TC because while he lost to TC, he also beat CD whereas CD did not actually play TC. That makes sense, though it is not ideal.

In any case, at the time it all felt like a bit of a farce anyway. Winning the Irish was good enough, regardless of who got the title on a technicality of a tiebreak system not even mentioned until all the results were in at the end of the tournament.

A play-off would have clearly favoured the much higher rated, and far more accomplished player (CD) with a chance for redemption after the 2nd round slip up against ROD. ROD losing in the next two successive Irish ch to CD, who in turn goes on to win it another 6 times. though you could argue that one of them - joint in 2012 - really doesn't count for too much)

The new system is big improvement, though personally I would just as soon have a play off that includes all the players who ended up with the same score at the end. Not something I would be concerned with anymore as winning the tournament even jointly would be a great result in of itself at this stage. Imagine the same would be true for S Brady, though I don't know if that is the case.

zeitnot

spidersweb wrote: »

As for 1996, if using the new system, I presume ROD would play TC because while he lost to TC, he also beat CD whereas CD did not actually play TC.

No, it's because (since none of the three would finish clear first in the 'virtual playoff') the playoff would be between the top two players in the 'virtual playoff', counting all unplayed games as draws.

The new system is big improvement, though personally I would just as soon have a play off that includes all the players who ended up with the same score at the end.

There are pros and cons of all systems. Sometimes there are huge ties (the 2015 New Zealand championship ended in a 10-way tie) and more often there is the potential of a huge tie. The advantage of the current ICU system is that it gets everything down to 1 or 2, and allows a playoff with a decent time control. (New Zealand has a policy of joint champions, so all 10 shared the title.)

RooksPawn

Rather than having both the Irish Championship thread and the Tipping Competition thread overcomplicated (I nearly wrote polluted) by the rantings of spidersweb, could we please have a new thread where spidersweb and sodacat can exchange compliments and comments about the event?
This would leave the former thread clear for brief and to-the-point posts by the rest of us about the actual play and the tipping competition thread kept clean for just the tips and scores?

I think the rest of us would appreciate if the mods can organise this before play starts, thank you.

sodacat11

As requested by Rookspawn I've started a new thread for predictions only. Perhaps a mod could close or delete this thread?

sodacat11

RooksPawn wrote: »

Rather than having both the Irish Championship thread and the Tipping Competition thread overcomplicated (I nearly wrote polluted) by the rantings of spidersweb, could we please have a new thread where spidersweb and sodacat can exchange compliments and comments about the event?
This would leave the former thread clear for brief and to-the-point posts by the rest of us about the actual play and the tipping competition thread kept clean for just the tips and scores?

I think the rest of us would appreciate if the mods can organise this before play starts, thank you.

Good idea!! It has been done.

cdeb

sodacat11 wrote: »

As requested by Rookspawn I've started a new thread for predictions only. Perhaps a mod could close or delete this thread?

I'll leave this open to soak up the mask nonsense.

But prediction posts have been moved here.