Dramatic changes in congress performances

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
User avatar
Lee Bullock
Posts: 188
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 3:29 pm

Re: Dramatic changes in congress performances

Post by Lee Bullock » Mon Nov 16, 2015 8:15 pm

Clive Blackburn wrote:
Lee Bullock wrote: I have been complaining and talking to people about Stephen Crockett for over 4 years.
Why? :?

We all have good tournaments and bad ones; last year, Stephen Crockett played 109 standard games and 87 rapid games, which is a great many more than most of us. It is hardly surprising that he has some very bad results in there.

I have played him several times and he is a good player but I have no reason to suspect that he deliberately loses games as you suggest.
Because as some of said. This is not just about a few bad or good tournaments. It is about 4 years of constant high and low scores. We are talking about someone who gets scores of 0-20% or 80%-100% all the time. On the odd occation he gets a score in between 30-70% but it is so rare.

Most of us get 30%-70% in tournaments, its the norm. Occasionally we have a good one or a bad one. Steve is the opposite and I have seen nobody else in the country even close to these stats. And as I say to lose 26 out of 27 games is truly incredible. Then to go and win nearly every event the following season in the lower sections. He even once entered the u100 Rapid at Richmond! Cleaned up with 5.5/6. He mostly offers one draw during the a tournament as a perfect 5/5 6/6 looks more dodgy and he can say "oh I could not win all the games"

And Roger thank you for pointing out those games you showed. I know about those 2 in particular due to it being e2e4 where you had to write all moves down. Steve rarely played in these events due to the games going online! I can promise you those sorts of losses were common place! He once lost to a 52 grade. And the number 52 has been a long standing joke online. He deliberately lost on time in that game taking 20 mins for 1 move and 25 mins on another on only moves in the opening!

I have hundreds of stories. When he is sandbagging the games last less than 25 minutes! Long 4/5 hour games lasting only 20/30 minutes! They are never long drawn out battles that most of us have. Its a horrid early blunder then he resigns. But will then play the next event and win it easy with 4.5/5.

As I said in my earlier post I am certain he does not do it for the money. It is a very small reason but not the main one. So taking money out of lower events is not the answer. Although it would help in some of the more bigger events with £500 prize money etc.

And Micheal I agree. Doing all this just to stay in the minor sections for all these years takes some serious mentality. But he enjoys the social aspect, he likes to travel. So he is doing other things, not just losing 5 chess games then going home. And he gets so much pleasure from winning this yearly GP and winning these lowly events he See's it as worthwhile for these 0/5 events or scores below 2 to keep his grade down.

For people who want another story on this mans mentality he is a known online cheat. He had an online rating of 2300 on chess.com! He won over 60 games in a row and went from 1500 to 2300 in less than 6 months. He also abused me personally online saying things about my ill disabled mum and son I dont see due to my accusations of him and saying how he is wrong to be doing this to old people and young people and beginners. Just to give people of an idea that this is not just some nice man they meet at a Chess congress who can be so pleasant.
2013/2014 and 16/17 U140 Grand Prix Winner! ;)

2015 and 2016 Chess character of the year :)

Its not a failure to lose. Its a failure when you dont try and win.

User avatar
Carl Hibbard
Posts: 5851
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:05 pm
Location: Evesham

Re: Dramatic changes in congress performances

Post by Carl Hibbard » Tue Nov 17, 2015 6:44 pm

Carl Hibbard wrote:I have somehow missed this one so I would prefer we don't trial someone who isn't a forum member and so will not be answering back.
This thread gone far enough perhaps too far so closed.
Carl Hibbard