Irish Chess Championship 2023

Joedryan

A pet hate of mine, but why is the last rd again starting at a different time to all the other rounds

This really affects the players and ultimately the result of the tournament, no need for it.

Joedryan

amended title

Joedryan

Also we can use this thread to discuss this tiebreak rubbish. If 2 players finish even share the title.

macelligott

I had trouble locating your thread because of the non specific title.

others might have the same difficulty 😕

why not “Irish Chess Championship 2023?

macelligott

When searching for Irish Chess Championship I got

sodacat11

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058284154/irish-ch-2023

I like that the last round starts early.

I do agree with you though that in the event of a tie the title should be shared. Even if more than two players ties I'd share it. Rapid/blitz is a completely different discipline to classical chess and favours younger players. If some old codger can tie for the title after 9 gruelling rounds of classical chess then he/she shouldn't be subjected to the lottery of blitz chess weighted in his/her opponent's favour.

Joedryan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120243377#Comment_120243377

I think its easily sorted by lowering the starting time and starting all rds at the same time, e.g. 1-2pm

Search on line for Peter Svidler rants on this also, it is really mistreating players to make organizers life easier.

On the tie-break thing yes this is something which is really a disaster waiting to happen.

Joedryan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120240606#Comment_120240606

Its posted in Chess under Irish Ch 2023 but I see Mods have amended to make you happy :)

spidersweb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058284154/irish-chess-championship-2023

When was this NOT the case?

spidersweb

Two issues you have here. One is a non issue in my view while the second is just a matter of opinion, perfectly valid arguments can be made for and against, with many permutations.

The starting time being different for the last round in principle is wrong on so many levels for many of the reasons you mention. However, in practice, and with precedent so well established, the topic is more a curious observation and frustration than a valid or relevant issue at this stage, unfortunately.

Of course I agree that ideally every round should be the same time for the Irish Ch or and indeed any serious internationally rated tournament. In reality there are countless examples where, for various reasons of a practical and economic necessity or convenience, the last round time can be different.

In the case of the Irish Ch one might ask when was it not the case that the last round was at a different time? I honestly can’t even recall such an occurrence ever now that I think about it. Maybe I am overlooking some year/s this had in fact happened?

So to now request such a change back to what we agree would be a better way to go, it would be radical enough? Also, it would be going against a well established tradition and practice which would surely only benefit the players and potentially cause inconvenience to organizers?

My question would be, have you wrote to the ICU, be it through the secretary, tournament controller, arbiter etc to make suggestions? Have you made a case and offered it to the appropriate people through the appropriate channels? If so , how did that go?

Overall I think this is just sadly a non issue, and while ideally I would agree and much prefer every round to be at the same time, seems like far more trouble than it is worth and a minor irritant or burden to carry at the end of a 9 day event. If you do pursue the matter and are successful then more power to you and you have my support and appreciation.

spidersweb

On the other issue of tie breaks? Well there has been too many chopping and changing for my liking in more recent years and I have not been able to keep up and sort of lost interest.

It used to be that if two players had the same score then they shared, while if it was three or more players (last seen in 1996 I think – excluding both 2004 when you won it joint with an English player who was ineligible to win the title, and 2012 when the third player, from Estonia who was also ineligible to win the title) Then (1996) there was some sort of a tie break system used to determine who got the title.

In that particular year I was one of the three (as I was in 2012) and was only told after the tournament was over that there was such a tie break and I was not the winner. At least the prize was shared equally (correctly). At the time it all just seemed a bit “Oirish” and just another cock-up of sorts. I was happy just to have actually won my first Irish Ch after years of winning just about every other tournament on the calendar and many times over.

Truth be told I never liked the idea that a national title of Irish Champion be shared, as the very definition of a “Champion” being

“a person who has surpassed all rivals in a sporting contest or other competition.” among other definitions no doubt.

Notwithstanding that it does seem a bit harsh if two players end up on the same score after what is a grueling chess contest and one has to lose out. I can see and understand why they had the system of sharing for these reasons, but while I would not feel too strong either way and do accept the merit of your argument about sharing the title. I think my preference would that there should be a playoff for both the title, and with it, the Olympiad place that comes with (correctly) wining an Irish Ch.

Only one such place per year makes sense or is in the greater good to my way of thinking (max two potential Olympiad places per team secured this Irish Ch route).

A play off should be simple and easy to arrange and done on the basis of two 15 minutes games with 10 second increments. In the event of no clear winner then literally there should be a toss of a coin and that be the end of it. Absolutely no blitz play off needed or wanted. Then it is just farce and totally inappropriate as a means to decide a title of Normal, Real,Classical chess.

To those who would say that no Normal, Real,Classical chess title should be decided by a fast chess play off of any kind. I agree in principle and for the many good reasons offered, not least of which being that it is a very different game and discipline and just imagine deciding a marathon race that had seen a tie by having a 1500 M or sprint playoff the next day or hours later?

However in the case of an Irish Ch title playoff, in which there are practical considerations, instead of a toss coin then two game rapid match is a compromise which allows some chess skill and elements decide matters and players know all this going into an event and short of that, a toss coin just to have an actual Champion (singular) is better than sharing.

When asked how many times I have won the Irish Ch it is perhaps amusing to note that I often respond saying 7 times BUT six Irish titles, while at the same time I don’t have much pride or regard for the 2012 win and although I shared the title with the other most successful winner with the most titles that year, I regard my 1996 win as far better and feeling like I was an Irish Champion that year much more than in 2012.

I also never regarded the 2007 win by Stephen Brady and Brian Kelly as meaningful or even legit, even though technically it is. As many will know, it was not really a proper Irish Ch at all that year and the two had totally different sets of opponents which, though seeing them end up on the same score, the farcical nature of things (not the fault of either player) rendered the whole spectacle a bad joke and absurdity.

Neither actually even winning the tournament, whereas by contrast the following year at least Alexander Baburin, playing in what was his first and only ever Irish Ch at the time, (also his only ever Irish Ch win since) did manage to win the tournament jointly with an Israeli GM and be the sole deserved winner of the title of Irish Ch.

As another curious aside it was also the very last time I lost to Alex and one of his best ever wins against me. Despite many games since then, every game since being a draw (often, mostly [not always] fighting and interesting games that brought out the best in both of us) which, after all these years, is indeed curious.

After the farce of the 2012 Irish ch, the rules were changed and the event made back into a proper national Irish Championships ever since. It has got better and better and allowing for flaws, has tended to be a great event which Irish chess can be proud of and thankful for. It is an excellent example of the potential value and prestige of a proper Irish Championships which attracts and showcases often our very best players regularly.

Surviving the Panicdemic and the Covid lunacy intact has been a fantastic tribute to and achievement by the ICU and compares favorably with our neighbors. So we have to give credit where and when it is due. The issue of mixing things up and making things more complex than they need be is unfortunate and I agree that the whole tie break thing is not ideal and could do with making it much more simple?

Joedryan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120249108#Comment_120249108

Thats a classic logical fallacy of conservative bias

As for the tie-break issue you have given a good over-view of the issues but without suggesting a solution.

zeitnot

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120249891#Comment_120249891

A solution to what? Spidersweb said "I would not feel too strong either way" (shared title or not) but that his own preference was for no shared title.

Joedryan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120250435#Comment_120250435

He said a lot more than that pointing out that a blitz/rapid playoff is not ideal to decide a National championship, amongst various other things.

I noted Giri in Wijk said he was thinking not to play any play-off as it simply seemed absurd, the same would apply here.

Its basically a ticking time bomb that through pure luck we havent run into yet.

zeitnot

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120250550#Comment_120250550

?

"Haven't run into yet"?

There have been many occasions down the years when Irish championships, including events that ended in a tie between two players, were decided by tiebreaks of one sort or another, starting with John O'Hanlon, and ending with Wolfgang Heidenfeld. (Heidenfeld's last two championships were achieved this way.) We have now (thankfully, in my view) returned to the original understanding: one Irish champion at a time.

Joedryan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120250597#Comment_120250597

ah sorry I dont remember pre world 2 events :)

Seriously though you have not addressed my point.

If you had said something like playoff will be a 4 game classical match to be played at a later date I might have agreed with you

zeitnot

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120250610#Comment_120250610

That was exactly the system the last time there was a tiebreak involving two players (1972). I think it was the system in place in 1975, when Eamon Keogh and Alan Ludgate tied. There should have been a playoff of some sort, anyway, but since Ludgate was living in England, it was awkward to arrange, and they shared the title. That's what led to the rule changing. (I can't find anything definite, but Ludgate tied again in 1977, with Ray Devenney, and shared, and by 1979 it was the established rule.)

In an ideal world, I'd certainly agree with you. (A two-game playoff would be fine with me.) But it can be very hard to arrange getting players back together in practice. As you have commented on elsewhere, it is not even easy to get players to show up to play a single Armstrong Cup game at a definite time and place. It would be very complicated with people travelling in from far away.

spidersweb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120249891#Comment_120249891

Solution? Playoff as per the suggestion of yourself or Zeitnot of 2 or 4 game match is a great solution, but hard to arrange in practice. Certainly could be done if there was the will and could be made to work. Certainly better than any non classical chess time frame.

If a player could not or did not want to make himself available then he (she) could also easily just forfeit the right to compete. As I said, I can see both sides and think both have merit.

Joedryan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120250861#Comment_120250861

"If a player could not or did not want to make himself available then he (she) could also easily just forfeit"

What happens when both winners refuse to prostitute themselves by playing some absurd blitz or rapid? Who exactly has "forfeited"?

Edit - or you mean forfeits a classical playoff, yeah that is more reasonable. At the moment we have this ticking time bomb waiting to happen

zeitnot

@Spidersweb--without wishing to argue too strongly against this suggestion, which is clearly the purest solution, the question arises of what happens when the initial two game match is drawn. With one game per day, this requires finding another weekend, then hoping that that doesn't end level as well.

One feature of the current system is that a rapid playoff might not be necessary at all. In fact, though past experience is no guarantee of future outcomes, only two playoffs would have been necessary all the way back to 1986. (The two years would be 1996 and 2007.) I think if it as a virtual playoff with results carrying over: if one player has clearly won, hand over the trophy.

zeitnot

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120250924#Comment_120250924

If one player forfeits, my reaction will be "not again!"

When it comes to the Irish championship, a thing might be grotesque, unbelievable and bizarre, but it is probably not unprecedented. There has already been one championship decided by walkover in a playoff match. In 1925, John O'Hanlon and William Edward Thrift tied for first in an 8-player all-play-all. The tiebreak system was a 5-game playoff match. Thrift, who was a sitting T.D. for the Dublin University constituency (!) (he was Professor of Mathematics at T.C.D.) was too busy and unable to play, and the ICU awarded the title to O'Hanlon.

In retrospect, it's hard to see why a 5-game playoff was necessary, when the entire original event had only 7 rounds. Thrift had beaten O'Hanlon in their individual game.

spidersweb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120250994#Comment_120250994

Very simple solution is that if and when there are players on the same score then we need to decide who is the champion so we have a play off match thereby giving the players another chance to settle it on the chessboard. If that does not resolve matters well, we tried and then we literally just toss a coin. Simple as that and with all that known to players in advance there will be no problems at all. The title and with that the Olympiad place if need be decided by pure luck if an outright champion cannot be produced on the chess board. Main thing is that everyone knows the exact situation and know and understand what they are getting into before the event. Such clarity can have a great effect on these sorts of things. Keep it simple and easy to organize and implement. As always with these things it is about there being the will and competence to follow through with these things.

spidersweb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120250994#Comment_120250994

2012 also. There were 3 players on the same score at the end and one was not eligible to be Irish Champion so it was Brady - Daly sharing the title. The rules thankfully were changed thereafter and we have had proper Irish Championships ever since.

Only blight on this (minor and in effect inconsequential, relatively speaking) was last year when a player totally ineligible to play and not IRL, was absurdly allowed or invited to play.

That was a mistake and should, and need never have happened. Lessons learned hopefully and no repeat ever again in the future. The Championships has been a great success for years now thanks to the fine efforts of various people in the ICU and the fantastic sponsorship of Gary O Grady and Blackthorne International Transport.

corkcitychess

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058284154/irish-chess-championship-2023

Common sense dictates this is done for practical reasons - namely to facilitate players (especially those travelling long distances or from overseas) in avoiding unnecessary expenses eg an additional nights hotel acomodation or an additional day of leave from employment.

Joedryan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120258257#Comment_120258257

That might be an argument for an Open tournament, and even there I disagree.

But for a flagship and prestigious event like a National Championship which should decide the best player in the country there should definitely be no need for that kind of messing about.

sodacat11

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120259376#Comment_120259376

The Irish Championship does NOT "decide the best player in the country". The best player in the country mightn't even be playing in it, or the best player in the country might be off form that particular week. If one takes snooker as an example, was Joe johnson, Terry Griffiths or Denis taylor ever "the best player in the world"? yet they were world champions. was Greece the strongest football team in Europe when they won the European football championships? hardly. The Irish Championship is a very prestigous event and can confer an Olympiad place but it does not decide who the best player is except maybe for that particular week therefore I see nothing wrong with the title being shared by two or more players.

Joedryan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120264586#Comment_120264586

Fair point.

RooksPawn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120258257#Comment_120258257

But that's not the reason why they do it, is it?

It seems to me that ICU have an early start in the last round so that they can make money by running a blitz tournament afterwards. That's not a very good reason to have an earlier start, is it?

zeitnot

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120381171#Comment_120381171

Earlier starts for last rounds go back way before blitz tournaments. Cf. 1995 (three players defaulted in the last round (two paired against each other), having gotten the starting time wrong). I have the impression that it goes back much further than that.

Joedryan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120383917#Comment_120383917

Last year there were also defaults in the last round, always seems to be an issue.

Chess players get used to a rhythm that is hard to break in the most important round of all.

RooksPawn

Yes there were two last round defaults in 2022, one by the Ukrainian lady who arguably should not have been in the tournament at all.

Communications/language barrier might have been an issue there?