Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Private profiles - please note that profiles marked as private will soon be public. This will facilitate moderation so mods can view users' warning histories. All of your posts across the site will appear on your profile page (including PI, RI). Groups posts will remain private except to users who have access to the same Groups as you. Thread here
Some important site news, please read here. Thanks!

Irish Championships 2021

12346»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 228 ✭✭ zeitnot


    Well, well, well! The championship continues to deliver dramatic swings of fortune and very entertaining chess.

    Four players can finish first or equal first. On a first glance (could be wrong!), I think only Heidenfeld, S. Murphy, and O'Gorman have a path to being champion. Of these, only Heidenfeld controls his own fate--but he needs a win.

    A. Heidenfeld wins - Heidenfeld champion.

    B. Heidenfeld draws or loses, O'Gorman wins - O'Gorman champion.

    C. Heidenfeld loses, O'Gorman draws - S. Murphy champion.

    D. Heidenfeld loses, O'Gorman loses - playoff between Heidenfeld and S. Murphy.

    Anyone see it differently?



  • Registered Users Posts: 425 ✭✭ Joedryan



    If Heidenfeld draws and O'Gorman wins its a tie isnt it?



  • Registered Users Posts: 228 ✭✭ zeitnot


    No--O'Gorman won their individual game, so would be champion.



  • Registered Users Posts: 425 ✭✭ Joedryan


    eh? That doesnt make much sense, is this a new rule?



  • Registered Users Posts: 228 ✭✭ zeitnot


    It's been the rule for a few years now. Didn't we have this discussion last year during the championship? See the terms and conditions. I'd provide a link but I'm out of town and typing on my phone.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 425 ✭✭ Joedryan


    Dont think it was the rule last time I played, I know that now 2 players dont share it, but to decide it on some random tie-break is another step too far IMO

    Actually why it was ever changed I dont get - as they say if it aint broke dont fix it



  • Registered Users Posts: 94 ✭✭ anchor4208


    https://www.icu.ie/documents/33 for the rule change. The method of tie break isn't specified in the rules so I guess that means its at the discretion of the organisers, and could vary from year to year. In theory, it could be by play off.

    The method for this year is specified here https://www.icu.ie/articles/670



  • Registered Users Posts: 425 ✭✭ Joedryan


    Not sure what executive brought that in but its a very poor decision in my view.

    Looks like it was brought in for other reasons, not the championship itself.



  • Registered Users Posts: 94 ✭✭ anchor4208


    I think it was brought in via an AGM - maybe someone who was there can remember the arguments raised. It may have been related to the awarding of Olympiad places to the Irish Champion. There's two Irish Ch. in between each Olympiad, so if both those championships were 2 way ties, in theory you could have 4 Olympiad places tied up. If that was the main argument, then they should have focused on resolving that issue alone. I agree that its a bad development for the championship itself. If someone has gone through 9 grueling days against a top quality field and finishes joint first with one other person, they both deserve the title.



  • Registered Users Posts: 425 ✭✭ Joedryan


    Agreed, its not good. It looks like someone trying to twist the Irish ch rules to suit selection dilemmas, which is absurd.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 228 ✭✭ zeitnot


    There is a long backstory to this, and it has nothing to do with Olympiad places. One motivation was that the procedure when three or more tied was completely messed up, and had been for years. Some rule applied, but what? In 2012, with the possibility of a 5-way tie, it was all being debated even after the last round started.

    Another motivation was that some people didn't like shared titles.

    The topic was brought up in the ICU Chair's report in 2017 (I think), then the new rule was approved by the Executive for the 2018 championship, and subsequently ratified (as part of the overall rules) at the 2018 AGM. While opinions can always differ, I'm not sure what else could have been done.

    The last championship Joe played in was 2019, and the rule was in place then. It came within a couple of moves of being used. If Conor E. O'D had won against Conor E. M, there would have been a 4-way tie for first between the two of them plus Collins and Lopez. What was the previous rule in that case? There were about six different rules in recent history. As it was, I don't recall any complaints in 2019.



  • Registered Users Posts: 425 ✭✭ Joedryan


    when 3 or more tied it went to tie-break, not ideal agreed but not a situation that happened very often

    I think if 2 share the title that is it, let it be, its the history of the tournament.

    I could give various other arguments but I'm sure its not required as its not a complicated debate.



  • Registered Users Posts: 228 ✭✭ zeitnot


    The possibility of a 3 or more way tie happened often enough, and to me, if I'm one of the players involved, I'd want to know the rules, as it could affect my decisions in the last round.

    As it is, we could have had a 3-way tie heading into the last round last year, and 4-way tie the year before. It's not a once-in-a-century thing.



  • Registered Users Posts: 425 ✭✭ Joedryan


    Historically a 3 way tie has been highly unusual, I used to play a lot of these and I can remember only one.

    Having said that you are right, the players should be made aware of the tie-break rules in this case and often this is not the case.



  • Registered Users Posts: 94 ✭✭ anchor4208


    I can agree that a tie involving 3+ people would need clarity and may have required addressing.

    IMO, if people thought that a tie involving 2 people needed to be addressed too, they were looking for a problem where none existed. Our top chess players are amateurs who will have given up 9 days to compete in our top event and it's tension filled and exhausting for those in contention. That's why we get twists and turns such as unfolded today - it's not a normal event. No tie break method is really fair in that scenario, so for a 2 person tie, why bother?

    The conclusion of the men's high jump at the current Olympics got huge and positive attention for the sportsmanship shown by the top two competitors who, when they both finished exactly level at the conclusion of the normal event, chose to share the gold medal rather than have a jump off. The top competitors know what's involved and what's right, which is why I respect Joe's opinion on this.



  • Registered Users Posts: 425 ✭✭ Joedryan


    Quite right, I'll give you an example that should convince anybody:

    1997 - myself and Stephen drew in round 2 and were basically beating everybody else. Only by the grace of god Tony Fox drew with Stephen in rd 9 and I won it on 8.5/9

    My point is that if we both had of finished 8.5/9 what then? Some crazy tie break?

    Nah, a play off? nah - We would have both deserved it.

    So this rule needs looking at... not sure why it was changed, but its wrong.



  • Registered Users Posts: 228 ✭✭ zeitnot


    While I don't agree, these are all arguable points. However, it's a topic for another day.

    For this year, it's between Heidenfeld, O'Gorman, and S. Murphy (I think!).



  • Registered Users Posts: 425 ✭✭ Joedryan


    Why dont you agree? I cant see a good argument against so far, bring it on!

    As for this year I think Mark has it in the bag now barring the usual chess upsets



  • Registered Users Posts: 228 ✭✭ zeitnot


    To me (and I think to many others--not all, obviously), champion = just one. It would be unthinkable to have joint world champions, for example.



  • Registered Users Posts: 425 ✭✭ Joedryan


    well you are trying to project one thing to another - world ch is a professional thing, etc.

    I'll be here to refute every thing you post on this ;)



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 228 ✭✭ zeitnot


    Fair enough.

    But this really is a topic for another day. In the meantime, the championship is in the balance. I won't offer predictions--I tipped Tom in round 8 in the tipster competition, obviously the kiss of death--but this has been a great championship, all credit to the organisers and players. Every champion down the years has been a deserving one, as far as I can see, but there is no denying that the overall events have been up and down. Here is just one fact I noticed: up until 2017, there had never been two consecutive Irish championships that had an entry of 30 or more players, going all the way back to 1865. Each of the last four championships has reached this mark.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1 scrublands


    Massive congratulations to the new champion, Mark Heidenfeld! He played six serious contenders, put in a 2550 performance and is a well-deserving outright winner.



  • Registered Users Posts: 425 ✭✭ Joedryan


    Indeed, a great score and thankfully no tie-breaks required :)



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,249 ✭✭✭ sodacat11


    Congratulations to Mark winning the title 49 years after his dad last won it, a great performance.

    I hate tournaments being decided by tie breaks or play offs. I see nothing whatsoever wrong with the title being shared as happened with the Olympic high jump last week. In 2012 I was one of five joint leaders going into the last round and I made it quite clear that in the event of a three way time I would not be taking part in any form of blitz play off. As far as I was concerned IF I had come joint first my achievement would have been the best as I was by far the lowest rated of the five. I was not going to jeopardize my win by playing a game of blitz that hugely favours the higher rated players. Blitz has nothing to do with classical chess, you could just as well have a game of golf or tennis to decide the winner.



  • Registered Users Posts: 425 ✭✭ Joedryan


    Agreed, having a tie-break for a top 2 finish is bizarre, just not on, whoever makes these rules (the ICU I guess) needs to get it sorted. Its not acceptable as it stands so please whoever sort this out.

    By the grace of god there were no issues this year, but its a terrible issue just waiting to break loose.



  • Registered Users Posts: 197 ✭✭ Pete Morriss


    My recollection is that most of the rules for the Irish Championship were decided at an AGM many years ago. There's another AGM next month, so if you really feel strongly about this you could put down a motion: you have 48 hours to get it in, so now's your chance!



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,249 ✭✭✭ sodacat11


    I notice that the Irish Championship hasn't been rated by the ICU yet and it appears that FIDE have not had the results submitted to them either. Has someone who lost rating points bribed the rating officer to bin the results????😮



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 6,601 Mod ✭✭✭✭ cdeb


    I think the ratings officer is getting married around about now, so probably some delays are to be expected!



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,249 ✭✭✭ sodacat11


    Hmmmm, I suppose that's a legitimate excuse. Could he not have done the ratings on his honeymoon though? I mean what else would he be doing?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 425 ✭✭ Joedryan


    On this again, the tie-break needs a revisit, disaster waiting to happen...



Advertisement