Are Open Tournaments really interesting?

The act of developing or disclosing that which is unknown.
Giulio Simeone
Posts: 154
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 1:06 pm
Location: Rome, Italy

Re: Are Open Tournaments really interesting?

Post by Giulio Simeone » Fri May 04, 2012 11:26 pm

Ian Kingston wrote:For me, the only problem with playing against a club mate in a congress (or league match) is the risk of never hearing the end of it if I lose. I am, of course, far too polite to boast (much) when I win.
:) :) When I read MSozinsky's reply to my post I thought the same thing: when I play against a friend my fighting spirit gets doubled, not weakened, because I know that the game will be recalled very often ...

Apart from jokes, I think that when friend & friend, brother & sister, husband & wife, ecc. are paired together they should play without too many lamentations ... a game against a friend/relative is a game like any other game, even if two players live in the same house and play each other five times a day, in their lifespan they can't exhaust all the possible chess games, which are about 10^120, that is, a number with 120 zeros.

Last week I played against my best friend in a FIDE rated open tournament: we have played each other very often, but not for this reason the game was less interesting and hard-fought, we consumed all the time at our disposal. The first five moves were as in a rapid tournament that we had played two days before, then he changed variation and the game was completely different.

MSoszynski
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 4:43 pm

Re: Are Open Tournaments really interesting?

Post by MSoszynski » Sat May 05, 2012 12:17 am

Giulio Simeone wrote:
Ian Kingston wrote:For me, the only problem with playing against a club mate in a congress (or league match) is the risk of never hearing the end of it if I lose. I am, of course, far too polite to boast (much) when I win.
:) :) When I read MSozinsky's reply to my post I thought the same thing: when I play against a friend my fighting spirit gets doubled, not weakened, because I know that the game will be recalled very often ...

Apart from jokes, I think that when friend & friend, brother & sister, husband & wife, ecc. are paired together they should play without too many lamentations ... a game against a friend/relative is a game like any other game, even if two players live in the same house and play each other five times a day, in their lifespan they can't exhaust all the possible chess games, which are about 10^120, that is, a number with 120 zeros.

Last week I played against my best friend in a FIDE rated open tournament: we have played each other very often, but not for this reason the game was less interesting and hard-fought, we consumed all the time at our disposal. The first five moves were as in a rapid tournament that we had played two days before, then he changed variation and the game was completely different.
Giulio, the question isn't about your views of how people should play chess. (In fact you contradicted yourself: "when I play against a friend my fighting spirit gets doubled" ... "a game against a friend/relative is a game like any other game".) The question is about what would enhance players' experience of a tournament, and whether that can be accommodated within the organizer's capabilities, taking ECF or FIDE requirements into account. I pointed out that English congresses have commonly avoided pairing clubmates when possible. To do otherwise now would be a change of policy. Would that enhance players' experience of tournaments? Would that make genuinely competitive chess more probable? I have seen too many nonsensical or contrived games to believe either would be true.

Locked