Opinions Invited On Rabble Rousing Chess Blogs

[Mick Norris]

Not that it actually matters if you still enjoy it!

Exactly, there's no problem with people playing a lot, and chess wouldn't function as well without those who do, as opposed to those of us who don't find time to play very often at all

[Nigel_Davies]

It's an observed fact that if IMs or GMs enter weekend tournaments and do badly, that they withdraw to avoid further potential damage to their rating or grade. Why should lower rated or graded players be any different?

Really? Where did you observe that? Please furnish proper evidence or we're back into the territory of rabble rousing and witch hunts again.

If someone enters numerous tournaments and scores zero in all of them, what conclusions can be drawn?

That they are struggling with their chess or issues that will affect their game?

They are either a glutton for punishment or a sandbagger.

If subsequently they score 100% or near in later editions of the same tournaments, a cynic would suggest the second explanation.

Only if they couldn't conceive of other possibilities.

[Roger de Coverly]

[
Really? Where did you observe that?

At tournaments over the last forty years.

I was looking at the results for this year's Kings Head Rapidplay only a few minutes ago.

http://ecfgrading.org.uk/new/menu.php?f ... ectionNo=1

Look at the player finish 9th.

St Albans Open 2014, a tournament I played in.
http://ecfgrading.org.uk/new/menu.php?f ... ectionNo=1

Look at the player finishing 17th.

If I've 1 or 1.5 from 3 in a weekend event and there's an IM or GM on the same score, there's little chance of playing them, because they most likely withdraw.

I've personally, in effect, knocked out players in penultimate rounds several times. Back in the 1970s I played and beat the late David Parr in the first round when he was 220 something. I didn't expect to see him in the second round and so it proved.

[Nigel_Davies]

[
Really? Where did you observe that?

At tournaments over the last forty years.

I was looking at the results for this year's Kings Head Rapidplay only a few minutes ago.

http://ecfgrading.org.uk/new/menu.php?f ... ectionNo=1

Look at the player finish 9th.

St Albans Open 2014, a tournament I played in.

Look at the player finishing 17th.

If I've 1 or 1.5 from 3 in a weekend event and there's an IM or GM on the same score, there's little chance of playing them, because they most likely withdraw.

I've personally, in effect, knocked out players in penultimate rounds several times. Back in the 1970s I played and beat the late David Parr in the first round when he was 220 something. I didn't expect to see him in the second round and so it proved.

I'm sorry but cherry picking a few cases and tournament tables doesn't count. You need a proper study to show that GMs and IMs withdraw more than other players. Actually I doubt that it's true and expect people just notice more when a GM or IM withdraws.

[Brian Towers]

It's an observed fact that if IMs or GMs enter weekend tournaments and do badly, that they withdraw to avoid further potential damage to their rating or grade. Why should lower rated or graded players be any different?

Really? Where did you observe that? Please furnish proper evidence

I'm with Nigel on this one. Speaking as a lower rated player, when I pay to enter a competition then basically I'm paying X per game of chess where X is the entry fee divided by the number of rounds. I don't want a bye and in a competition with an odd number of players I really don't want to be bottom and be cheated out of a game by not having an opponent. I won't be dropping out.

I also try not to let the PTSD and rating damage affect me too much. Last summer I got a call on a Thursday evening. One of the (much stronger) club teams which was playing in the Israel Cup rapid team championships the next day had had a number of players drop out. Could I make up the numbers? This is an end of season jolly for the equivalent of 4NCL div 1 and 2 teams. My first opponent (on board 4!) was an IM. I ended up with a 0.5/5 shellacking. There was never any question of me dropping out. Actually the only real rating damage was caused by me trying to win a drawn game against a 1900 and inevitably going down. I've been on both sides of that often enough to know better.

[Roger de Coverly]

You need a proper study to show that GMs and IMs withdraw more than other players. Actually I doubt that it's true and expect people just notice more when a GM or IM withdraws.

You admit then that they withdraw, which was the point of my comment. Usually like many players it's in response to a defeat, a series of defeats or no longer being able to win the tournament. Particularly if feeling unwell, withdrawal is a means of protecting your grade from damage.

[Nigel_Davies]

You need a proper study to show that GMs and IMs withdraw more than other players. Actually I doubt that it's true and expect people just notice more when a GM or IM withdraws.

You admit then that they withdraw, which was the point of my comment. Usually like many players it's in response to a defeat, a series of defeats or no longer being able to win the tournament. Particularly if feeling unwell, withdrawal is a means of protecting your grade from damage.

Suggest you give this one up Roger. Your entire assertion is just opinion and guesswork. For some people it's a question of principle to complete a tournament once they start it, in fact I've tried to stick to this myself.

[Roger de Coverly]

That they are struggling with their chess or issues that will affect their game?

You do understand why this issue came up?

It followed the British Championship Congress, in which the player concerned spent the first weekend winning the Under 125 Rapid, the rest of the first week scoring just a point in the Under 140 and then the second weekend winning the Under 125 weekender. There then followed a series of weekend disasters scoring one point or less and a return to form by winning the relevant section at Scarborough.

It would appear his near rivals had had enough and brought it to public attention on this forum. There are other very active players whose grades never seem to go up. Whilst they make prize winning tournament scores from time to time, usually an unsuccessful tournament sees them scoring around 50%.

[Roger de Coverly]

Your entire assertion is just opinion and guesswork.

#

Observation. Not every player who starts a tournament will finish it. That surely is an agreed fact. As to why, it's an observation that players withdraw when they are no longer able to win a prize or where they no longer feel motivated to play. That's conjecture, but I would have thought reasonable enough.

What should happen to players who consistently blast through minors scoring 100% is that their grade should rocket up to the 160s.

This guy for instance.
http://ecfgrading.org.uk/new/menu.php?f ... de=300762F

[Brendan O'Gorman]

I don’t have any comments on “rabble rousing blogs” but the discussion seems to be about the Streatham and Brixton blog which I believe is on the whole a good thing. True, it can be obsessive. Yes, it could show greater understanding of the messy compromises forced on anyone that has to manage an organisation. But, isn’t it right to mock the Times chess column? Isn’t it a good thing that our desire to claim health benefits for chess should be tested against the research evidence? Why shouldn’t a set of mind-bogglingly unlikely results be challenged, particularly when the individual involved has profited from them to remain eligible for the minor sections in weekend congresses where he is able to display prize winning ability in the prestige events.

Moreover, as Chris K has mentioned, the blog contains some good stuff on chess history and culture.

[Nigel_Davies]

Observation. Not every player who starts a tournament will finish it. That surely is an agreed fact. As to why, it's an observation that players withdraw when they are no longer able to win a prize or where they no longer feel motivated to play. That's conjecture, but I would have thought reasonable enough.

What should happen to players who consistently blast through minors scoring 100% is that their grade should rocket up to the 160s.

Some players have more volatile results than others and will tend to win more prize money because of this. The way to solve this problem is not to 'top load' prize lists, ie give smaller prizes to a larger number of players. And for rating restricted events the graders might add a volatility component which means lower rated but more volatile players have their 'effective' grade increased.

What volatile results do not mean is that someone is manipulating their grade. Have you considered the possibility that spreading these sorts of rumors to an uncritical audience (and chess players aren't as smart as they think they are) is deliberate sabotage of a rival? The entire way this issue has been raised and simmered on is a shameful indictment of the chess scene and many of those who populate it.

[Roger de Coverly]

What volatile results do not mean is that someone is manipulating their grade.

The degree and extent of the volatility is suspicious, particularly in the minds of those who face this player in events that would prohibit his entry if the runs of poor results didn't take place. It's taken over five years for suspicions to be voiced in public, so it's not something of a sudden witch hunt.

I'd like to hear more from those who've witnessed his play at close hand. During a run of bad results, does his demeanour appear different from when in tournament winning form?

[Nigel_Davies]

What volatile results do not mean is that someone is manipulating their grade.

The degree and extent of the volatility is suspicious, particularly in the minds of those who face this player in events that would prohibit his entry if the runs of poor results didn't take place. It's taken over five years for suspicions to be voiced in public, so it's not something of a sudden witch hunt.

I'd like to hear more from those who've witnessed his play at close hand. During a run of bad results, does his demeanour appear different from when in tournament winning form?

Well I have witnessed his play close at hand, unlike just about everyone else. He used to be a regular at minor tournaments in which my son was playing. Basically he seems to have a good understanding but with times when he has huge sequential lapses. Without the lapses he's probably around 140 strength, with them his playing strength sinks without a trace.

Having seen him play and analyze on good days and on bad is what convinces me there's no manipulation involved and that this whole things stems from the spite and viciousness of many on the chess scene.

[Mick Norris]

(and chess players aren't as smart as they think they are)

I hope we can all agree on that

[Roger de Coverly]

Without the lapses he's probably around 140 strength, with them his playing strength sinks without a trace.

What the world struggles to understand is how these changes can take place within a long event such as the British Championship Congress, but always seem to coincide with the start and end of individual tournaments.

I believe he has a new ambition of reaching 160. That's the type of grade ambition where you have to be ruthless about not playing when you would otherwise perform badly. Those with FIDE title ambitions have to be careful there naturally enough.