Irish Chess Championship 2023

RooksPawn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120971170#Comment_120971170

Because it says so at

https://chess-results.com/tnr801415.aspx?lan=1&art=4&turdet=YES

TB1 and TB2 are level, Alex is ahead on TB3 whatever that is

zeitnot

Whatever Chess-Results says is inapplicable. The tie-break rules are specified in the Irish championship terms and conditions document, and stated on the flyer. They’re part of the general championship conditions approved at the 2018 AGM.

(Does Chess-Results even have a way of saying “see terms & conditions”?)

zeitnot

It could well be a playoff, most naturally if both leaders win. Other playoffs are possible if neither wins and the board 3 game has a decisive result.

RooksPawn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120971261#Comment_120971261

Chess-results does not have a mind of its own. It applies the tiebreaks specified by the Chief Arbiter when he sets up the program in the Swiss Manager pairing system, the outputs from which are uploaded to chess-results.com.

So it could happen that the initial set-up was done incorrectly but I cannot say whether that is the case here.

There was a case earlier this year in the English Championship Seniors 50+ where the tiebreak specified by the arbiter did not match what had been announced on the tournament website; under one system Hebden would have won and under the other Arkell would have won.

They agreed to share the title.

zeitnot

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120971905#Comment_120971905

I remember the English Senior Championship mess. But in that case, if I recall correctly, the documentation from the organizers themselves provided the two different methods.

In any case, this specific point has already cropped up several times in Irish chess. For example, for the Irish championship 2015, Chess-Results showed Philip Short winning on tie-break (https://chess-results.com/tnr179720.aspx?lan=1&art=4) but nevertheless the ICU followed its own methods. Similarly in 2017, multiple tie-breaks are shown on Chess-Results (report only goes to round 8), and Philip Short would have won on the third tie-break.

Going back further, to 1982, the method announced by the controller (and used to award the trophy) didn't match what was shown by the flyer. After an objection, the ICU (in December 1982) awarded the title to the winner as specified by the method on the flyer.

cdeb

Really extraordinary stuff in the final round

Babs held to a draw by Adam Collins - left the door open for Conor, Jonathan and Kavin

Jonathan was +5 against Kavin but I think played too conservatively; ended up still two pawns up but with no other advantage (so +2, if that) - and then on move 40 left his flag fall. He probably would have ground out a win which would have earned him joint first, though there was a ways to go. But that's a horrible way to lose

Then Conor made a bollox of things v James Crowley - who had arrived 53 minutes late and was close to defaulting Conor the title. At one stage James had mate in ten but missed the line. Still had a big edge - piece and pawn up - but was struggling to find progress with Conor's rook and queen threatening annoying checks. Then James allowed a three-fold repetition, which Conor played but didn't claim!

A draw for Conor would have given him joint first too - so both Jonathan and Conor have thrown away joint first on a basic technicality. That'll haunt them...

Meanwhile it looks like Alex v Kavin for a playoff for the title (and an Olympiad spot next year)

Joedryan

when is the play off?

cdeb

8pm I think

https://lichess.org/broadcast/the-102nd-irish-championship-2023/rapid-playoff-r1/GMI43gpO

Joedryan

Ah I will miss it :) good luck, maybe a Benildus winner :)

zeitnot

"A draw for Conor would have given him joint first too ..."

He would have won the title without any playoff if he had drawn.

Missing the repetition rubs salt in the wound, but most people watching missed it (and were only alerted to it when the engine evaluation dropped to 0.0). Several people still couldn't see it after it was pointed out to them.

The game itself was strange. He really wasn't himself at all today.

cdeb

Your Covid teammate! 😀

RooksPawn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120973817#Comment_120973817

That doesn't seem to work. What happened?

cdeb

Babs won the first on time in a rook and pawn ending, and drew the second

Joedryan

was there no increment in the rapid?

zeitnot

10 seconds a move increment, I think. Not clear how Baburin win game 1

cdeb

It was on time. (Perhaps approximately, given the earlier flagging)

sodacat11

Whose stupid idea was it to accelerate the pairings in the 5 round weekender resulting in an 1100 rated player scoring 5/5 and winning big prize money without having to play even one decent player??????

RooksPawn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120975671#Comment_120975671

What is currently showing as the round 5/final results of the Open weekender is clearly some other event.

If you compare the round 4 pairings you can see the players are entirely different.

Something must have gone wrong with the upload to chess-results and I have asked Ivan Baburin to sort it out, but he will be at work now so I guess it won't be fixed for a while.

RooksPawn

Oh no, I see it really did happen! That is indeed ridiculous.

Several motions to agm about the running of the Irish Championships are required and ensuring this cannot happen again must be one of them.

Other essential motions which I expect sodacat and others will support:

1. All rounds in the Irish Championship to start at the same time each day, preferably 2pm; no early starts.
2. Reduce default time to 30 minutes
3. No discretionary half-point byes
4. Nobody who withdraws from the championship may enter the open weekender. (That didn't happen this year but it did in 2022.)

Joedryan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120976904#Comment_120976904

I agree with motions 1, 3, 4.

On motion 2 I think 60 min default time is OK, its pretty standard in most tournaments now

Retd.LoyolaCpt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120976904#Comment_120976904

I would vote against motion 1. I polled players about this in 2015 and 2016 and it was preferred to have rounds later in the day. As organiser/arbiter, I prefer the last round starting earlier; it allows for travel home at a reasonable hour, allows time for playoffs, and allows time for a reasonably timed prize giving to coinside with the weekender.

I would vote against motion 2. I don't see much difference between 30 minutes and 60 minutes - but would prefer less defaults.

I would vote against motion 3. I see no problem with half point byes in round 1 and 2. That would be my counter motion; half point byes are permitted in rounds 1 and 2; but a player may only receive 1 half point bye. My example here would be Peter Carroll this year who was away until Monday - by getting 0.5, he wasn't totally out of contention while also definitely not gaining strategically.

Motion 4 was added to the T&Cs after last year - general rules; item 8.

Joedryan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120976988#Comment_120976988

On motion 1 you have to admit that there have been too many incidents of players not even turning up in time for the last rd surely? This is far more important than if players prefer to play one hour later in the day.

This year the whole tournament was almost decided by a player failing to turn up.

Retd.LoyolaCpt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120977077#Comment_120977077

There was a reminder about this before every single round; apparently it even became a joke in the playing hall it was mentioned so often. I don't think rules should be based on such exceptions - this has been the schedule for 5-7 years now. On the example you gave on Svidler's rant; I think he was right in that scenario - the round time there was moved by a full 5 hours from 3pm to 10am. The last round was moved here by 2.5 hours - for the reasons I previously gave. Some consideration has to be given to the actual organisation of these events - not just the players.

Pete Morriss

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120975671#Comment_120975671

There are many different ways of accelerating pairings, and done intelligently it can be useful in large tournaments. I have noticed that in many recent Irish tournaments when accelerated pairings have been used it has not been done well, though this seems a new low. With 85 players in a 5 round tournament accelerating pairing would be desirable. The FIDE (Baku) system would probably have been the best one to adopt.

Joedryan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120977141#Comment_120977141

Reminders before the round are of little use to players normally, they are in their bubble and many dont arrive at the board until the rd has started anyway.

Retd.LoyolaCpt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120977169#Comment_120977169

Arbiters/Organisers don't make them late (edit - to clarify) in prior rounds/announcements.

Joedryan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120977184#Comment_120977184

Its common practice for many players to arrive a few minutes late as they dont like hanging about, Carlsen and others. I know some do like to sit there waiting alright

corkcitychess

yesterday's play off is another excellent reason why the last round should remain as an early start.

Despite the 12:30pm start the play off did not start until 8pm

It would not be practical to have an 11pm play off. But of course by all means someone please make this a motion at the AGM so it can be put to bed once and for all. (I would be voting against it)

Agree with motions 2,3 and 4...if they become motions that is.

corkcitychess

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120973852#Comment_120973852

indeed I was the first to spot the evaluation dropping to 0 but I thought it was a crazy computer glitch...

RooksPawn

Joe Ryan is right. I was present at the start of round 8 when the arbiter reminded the players of the early start next day.

Only half of them were in the room to hear it.

Some didn't turn up for another 20-30 minutes.

The time allowance for the first 40 moves is so generous that many players feel under no pressure to be there on time.

I consider this tendency shows disrespect for the event which wasn't the case in former years - except for one notorious past champion who has always made a habit of turning up very late.

As for the player who didn't start until round 3, if you cannot be there for round 1, don't enter.

I suspect one main reason Retd Loyola Captain etc. like the early last round start is that it enables ICU to run a profitable blitz in the evening which helps defray the expense of hiring the venue.