e2e4.org.uk Sunningdale Open

[LozCooper]

Long in more ways than one. I enjoyed the weekend and the chess as always, but I think my game was the last to finish in both rounds 6 and 7, so I was playing chess from 10:00 to around 19:20 with only a half hour break between 14:30 and 15:00. The games were 85 and 74 moves (draw and loss).

It appears I picked the wrong day to be inputting games from the major

[Alex Holowczak]

Long in more ways than one. I enjoyed the weekend and the chess as always, but I think my game was the last to finish in both rounds 6 and 7, so I was playing chess from 10:00 to around 19:20 with only a half hour break between 14:30 and 15:00. The games were 85 and 74 moves (draw and loss).

It appears I picked the wrong day to be inputting games from the major

I've noticed that ever since I've been jocularly complaining about the length of games on here, and indeed encouraged shorter draws, players have gone out of their way to make their games longer.

Who needs Sofia rules? You just need a games-inputter who complains that the players' games are too long...

[Sean Hewitt]

Winners
Open (63 players)
Rank Name Flags Score Fed. M/F Rating TPR W-We Prize
1st GM Hebden, Mark L Pride & Prejudi 6 ENG M 2539 2580 0.39 £400.00
2nd= GM Rausis, Igor Czech Republic 5.5 CZE M 2496 2503 0.22 £116.67
2nd= GM Arkell, Keith C Paignton 5.5 ENG M 2419 2460 0.5 £116.67
2nd= IM Michielsen, Joost Netherlands 5.5 NED M 2338 2363 0.3 £116.67
2100+ Ledger, Dave J Bedford 4.5 ENG M 2245 2383 1.06 £50
2025-2099 Shepley, Julien M Guildford 4 ENG M 2027 2174 1.37 £50
1950-2024 Amato, Giampiero Stevenage 4 ITA M 1970 2226 2.19 £50
Under 1950 Ignatovic, Ernest Richmond 2.5 LTU M 1570 1866 1.93 £50

Major (64 players)
Rank Name Flags Score Fed. M/F Rating TPR W-We Prize
1st Bryant, Jonathan Streatham 6.5 ENG M 1954 * 2234 1.5 £300.00
2nd Tart, Peter K Camberley 6 ENG M 1924 2477 1.18 £150.00
3rd Kelly, Anthony G Buckinghamshire 5.5 ENG M 1978 * 2593 0 £75.00
4th= Stephenson, David St Andrews, Hul 5 ENG M 1994 * 2236 1.5 £10.00
4th= Staples, Daniel J Battersea 5 ENG M 1981 1879 -0.41 £10.00
4th= Adebajo, Olufemi Milton Keynes 5 ENG M 1973 1957 -0.09 £10.00
4th= Lunn, Matthew Southampton Uni 5 ENG M 1941 2123 0.62 £10.00
4th= Bovtramovics, Vladimirs Latvia 5 LAT M 1933 * 1916 1 £10.00
1875+ Kane, Robert West London 4.5 ENG M 1875 2025 1.31 £50
1825-1874 Marley, Andrew Crowthorne 4.5 ENG M 1849 2058 2.01 £50
1700-1824 Kourtseva, Julie Cambridge University 4 F 1722 1888 1.25 £50
Under 1700 Oyama, Akito Cambridge City 4 JPN M 1554 1975 3.31 £50

Minor (39 players)
Rank Name Flags Score Fed. M/F Rating TPR W-We Prize
1st= Obihara, Jason West London 5.5 M 136 * 0 0 £225.00
1st= Flaherty, Nick C Bramhall 5.5 M 125 * 0 0 £225.00
3rd= Grobler, David Netherton 5 ENG M 136 * 0 0 £37.50
3rd= Stone, Mark Petts Wood & Or 5 M 131 * 0 0 £37.50
119-132 Taylor, Jonathan Netherton 4.5 ENG M 131 * 0 0 £17.50
119-132 Wong, Alfred Ashtead 4.5 ENG M 119 * 0 0 £17.50
105-120= Zhang, Anthony Crowthorne 4.5 M 111 * 0 0 £17.50
105-120= Collis, Paul S Ashtead 4.5 ENG M 106 * 0 0 £17.50
Under 105 Adams, Mike Guildford 3.5 ENG M 104 * 0 0 £35.00

[Sean Hewitt]

Thanks! I see that several people both won and lost in double-quick time (in terms of number of moves). It looks like there were 31 miniatures in total from I don't know how many games. Some of them were probably mismatches in terms of playing strength. Makes me wonder whether miniatures are more common at lower levels of chess than among GMs, which is what I think you'd expect (though it is always nice to see a GM get walloped in less than 20 moves - 25 moves is not so bad).

There were 200 games keyed in from the Open, and 206 from the Major.

[James Coleman]

Hi Sean, one of the players on that list didn't realise he'd won a prize and consequently didn't stay for the prizegiving - will he be sent it automatically or should he make contact with you? Thanks again for an enjoyable event!

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Sean out of interest why has Colin Crouch got two 1/2 point = in round 4 and 6 is this normal?

Simply because he asked for a bye in each of rounds 4 and 6. We allow all players to take up to three 1/2 point byes in any of the first 6 rounds. In fact, if you look you will see that Colin is not the only player to take two byes and at least one player has had three. So yes, this is perfectly normal.

Several players took two half-point byes (which I think is reasonable), but on reviewing the results, I think a valid objection can be made for people taking three half-point byes (even though this is a seven-round event). I did a quick look through the results, and I think two players took three half-point byes. I've linked to their results below.

1) Ali Janooby: Open: byes in first three rounds: 2/4 in actual play, plus 1.5/3 for 3.5/7

http://www.e2e4.org.uk/sunningdale/May2 ... /p015.html

2) Anthony Kelly: Major: byes in rounds 1, 4, 5: 4/4 in actual play, plus 1.5/3 for 5.5/7

http://www.e2e4.org.uk/sunningdale/May2 ... /p007.html

The latter example above is particularly interesting because it resulted in 3rd place and a £75 prize.

In both cases, the byes taken meant that the players played a 2-day event, rather than a 4-day one. This may or may not be an advantage (it wouldn't be possible to get 1st place for instance, but it is easier to get something like 4/4 than to sustain form over 7 games). Does anyone else have views on this?

[Ben Purton]

I disagree .

You know the rules when entering a tournament, if everyone wanted to take a 1/2 point bye x 3 it would make it a much easier tournament to run. I can't see how if i am trying to win a tournament taking 1.5/3 is advantageous in any manner. Unless I quickly fatigue.

The main point is you set the rules, you play the tournament. I guess the only objection could be changing mid tournament If I am in a 7 round tournament and I get White in the first round it might be to my advantage to take 2 instead of 1 or 3 1/2 point byes if I prefer White. Same as if I got Black then Id want 1 or 3 byes. Giving myself either 3 2 White Black or 2 2 White Black to avoid a surplus Black amount.

Even then this could easily backfire if the pairings come down to this. As I would be one of the first players used to balance a color due to a lesser number of games.

[Alex Holowczak]

Hi Sean, one of the players on that list didn't realise he'd won a prize and consequently didn't stay for the prizegiving - will he be sent it automatically or should he make contact with you? Thanks again for an enjoyable event!

There was no such thing as prizegiving. You were invited to leave behind details for transfer of the money, just in case you won a prize. I understand that if you won a prize but chose not to do so, Sean would be in touch with you. (Of course, if the person wanted to get in touch with Sean, I don't see why that'd be a problem.)

[Alex Holowczak]

In both cases, the byes taken meant that the players played a 2-day event, rather than a 4-day one. This may or may not be an advantage (it wouldn't be possible to get 1st place for instance, but it is easier to get something like 4/4 than to sustain form over 7 games). Does anyone else have views on this?

If they want to pay £x to play 7 games of chess, and end up only playing 4 of them, that's fine by me!

[Ian Thompson]

If I am in a 7 round tournament and I get White in the first round it might be to my advantage to take 2 instead of 1 or 3 1/2 point byes if I prefer White. Same as if I got Black then Id want 1 or 3 byes. Giving myself either 3 2 White Black or 2 2 White Black to avoid a surplus Black amount.

Even then this could easily backfire if the pairings come down to this. As I would be one of the first players used to balance a color due to a lesser number of games.

I don't think so. You'd be last in line for getting the 'wrong' colour because you've played fewer games. One of the pairing rules is "A player who has played fewer games has greater priority for the correct colour."

[Jonathan Bryant]

I enjoyed the weekend and the chess as always, but I think my game was the last to finish in both rounds 6 and 7, so I was playing chess from 10:00 to around 19:20 with only a half hour break between 14:30 and 15:00. The games were 85 and 74 moves (draw and loss).

Nobody should doubt Chris' dedication to the cause. I dropped back in to the playing hall at about 2:20pm to see his game still going. When I came back to get myself set for the final round I saw that he was spending some of that half an hour break analysing the game from round 6!

You certainly got your money's worth yesterday Chris.


As for in the inputting of games, it is - like everything else about e2e4's Sunningdale - excellent. When I look back at my scoresheets after games have finished I see that I seem to suffer some kind of notation dyslexia. Parts of moves are missed out (I think I wrote b6 once instead of Bb6), I get moves plain wrong (e.g. Kb1 written down when it should have been Kb2) and sometimes I just make other kinds of random errors (Rdd2 when it should have been R6d2). And yet still they get the games keyed in and available on the internet in no time at all - and how they should be.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

In both cases, the byes taken meant that the players played a 2-day event, rather than a 4-day one. This may or may not be an advantage (it wouldn't be possible to get 1st place for instance, but it is easier to get something like 4/4 than to sustain form over 7 games). Does anyone else have views on this?

If they want to pay £x to play 7 games of chess, and end up only playing 4 of them, that's fine by me!

I was thinking more of the other players than the organisers. In particular, those who reached 4.5/7 or 5/7 from actual play (compared to 4/4 and then adding on byes). Competing over 4 days feels very different to competing over 2 days. And adding 1.5 points to a score without pushing a pawn in anger seems wrong somehow. Maybe it is just me, though. Taking it to extremes, a player who only played 1 or 2 games would probably be considered a filler rather than a participant in the tournament. I presume that there is a limit to the number of byes it is possible to take, something like it having to be less than half the number of games in the tournament?

[Ben Purton]

Even better then ian, yes if its allowed post tournament kick off, then for purposes of colors you could have advantage.

Getting 4/4 is more impressive than 5/7 . In my view.

Especially as half the four would have to come V someone on 2/2 and 4.5/6 respectively.

Ben

[Sean Hewitt]

We offer three byes in this event because we recognise that not everyone can make 7 or even 6 rounds. Lots of people need a bye on the Friday night because of travel and / or work. With a three day commitment over what is often a nice weekend, one family event in the weekend could then prevent you from playing. We don't like chess prevention so we allow three byes instead so that people can play and still do their other things.

Is this an advantage? I don't know, and perhaps it depends on your perspective. It's certainly not an unfair advantage, as it was announced up front and anyone could have chosen to have three byes if they wanted to. Personally I think it's a disadvantage because to win a prize you typically have to score 78% or more. Consequently, the more games you score at 50% because of a bye, the better you have to perform in your remaining games to win anything. Anthony Kelly scored 100% in the games he played, yet only came 3rd. His byes cost him any chance of 1st or 2nd place.

The fact that only 2 players took three byes (and neither did so for tactical reasons) suggests that players don't think that taking multiple byes aides your chances in the tournament.

[Alex Holowczak]

As for in the inputting of games, it is - like everything else about e2e4's Sunningdale - excellent. When I look back at my scoresheets after games have finished I see that I seem to suffer some kind of notation dyslexia. Parts of moves are missed out (I think I wrote b6 once instead of Bb6), I get moves plain wrong (e.g. Kb1 written down when it should have been Kb2) and sometimes I just make other kinds of random errors (Rdd2 when it should have been R6d2). And yet still they get the games keyed in and available on the internet in no time at all - and how they should be.

Yours is far from an isolated case. I've not done any statistics on this, but I reckon failing to disambiguate is probably the most common mistake people make.