Tournament selection - Playing up a level

[Niall Doran]

Hi all !
I’m thinking of playing at a weekender in a month’s time, and have the choice of playing in the under 1800 or in the 1700-2199 (I’m rated 1700).
Which is more beneficial for my development, playing players of my own level, or “playing up”? I’m looking to improve my game so increased chances of winning a prize in the under 1800 isn’t a factor for me.
I’ve had a look at the previous <1800 tournament and there were lots of 1700-1799 players, so it wouldn’t be uncompetitive, and there was an even spread of players in the 1700-2199 tournament.
Thoughts?

[Greg Breed]

It's worth playing up especially if you can analyse the game after with your opponent.

[Joey Stewart]

It depends what you would like to get out of it.

If you want to improve your chess, then the stronger section will give you harder games (though you may find yourself well out of your depth, unless you are under rated at 1700)

If you would like the joy of winning a tournament, and lets face it who doesnt, then go for the lower section - you will still have plenty of hard games there and it will not be overly easy to win (loads of juniors have sub 1800 grades these days)

[Rob Thompson]

I'd advise playing a mixture. So if you play in an U1800 one tournament, play up a section in the next. It's doesn't have to be a regular thing either way.

[Jonathan Bryant]

... (though you may find yourself well out of your depth ....

Indeed. I've twice recently played folk who could have played in not just the section below the one I entered but the one below that. I was a piece up after ten moves in one game and a pawn up in two moves in the other - and no it wasn't a gambit pawn.
Precisely what they got out of those games I don't know.

Playing up - as long as you're not playing up too much - is definitely a good way to improve, but Rob's 'mix it up' strategy is certainly the best way. It's not just about prize money or enjoying winning (not that there's anything wrong with either of those).

To improve you've also got to learn to beat up those lower rated than you and to play in games when the pressure is really on. E.g. if you're playing somebody of similar rating in the last round when whoever wins gets the prize money and whoever loses will finish nowhere. You'll never get that experience if you're always playing up when a middling performance or even -2 can be counted as a success.

[Jon Mahony]

I generally play in Minor sections (mainly U120’s sometimes U135 and 140) and usually do pretty well - I have won 4 minor congresses since I’ve been playing and generally get a placing in every one I enter.

Last month I had a sickner in the Blackpool Minor - I was on 4 out of 4 going into the last round - I had taken out, who I perceived to be the riskiest player on the Sunday morning - a very sharp looking Junior who had been demolishing his opponents all weekend, with only 10 minutes used on his clock.

Then going into the last round, I got wiped out by a oldish guy, and I mean totally demolished. I’d been watching his games through the later stages of the congress, and he seemed to play a very slow positional game, I thought at least a draw was a cert. I wound up joint 3rd with £62 pounds - a big come down from a share of 1st, I confess I was pretty depressed about it and didn’t go near a chess board for 2 weeks.

I’ve come to the conclusion that there are no easy games of chess, and you cannot take anything lightly. So I’ve made a new rule for myself - I’m going for the Intermediate section every time from now (except, in the case of some smaller tourneys, where the intermediate is up to 150+ which is a bit steep for me!).

This way, I’ll get some better quality games of Chess with the prospect of grading improvement (my Standard play grade is a humble 118) and I may even get into some of the openings I have put many hours into learning - you do find generally, people in the Minor have very little opening knowledge and are basically playing their own thing from about move 5 - some might argue not a bad thing, but I’d like to see something on the board that I’ve studied once in a while.

I’ll be out of any hopes of prize money for a while - but at the end of the day, tourney prize money is generally what £200, if you are lucky? It barley covers travelling costs and the hotel. The best thing is, draws will be an option again - it’s very stressful always having to eek wins out of very stale looking endings. I’ll stick out my hand at the offer of a draw, from a 135/140 any day

Edit: spelling

[Andrew Collins]

I think section boundaries and your grade, plus the grading spread of opponents in the section can sometimes play a part in the thinking as well, when selecting which tournaments to play up in.
Last weekend I played in Nottingham and I could have played the Inter , but although by my current grade I could have done, it was quite unappealing.

Also I think there is the perspective of an objective personal evaluation of current chess ability v where someone would like to get to. So for me I didn't see it as playing up as a particular challenging weekend, I was quite confident of getting a good result, which I did and I am very keen to add more to my new grade than the nice improvement I'm currently running at

[Greg Breed]

To improve you've also got to learn to beat up those lower rated than you and to play in games when the pressure is really on. E.g. if you're playing somebody of similar rating in the last round when whoever wins gets the prize money and whoever loses will finish nowhere. You'll never get that experience if you're always playing up when a middling performance or even -2 can be counted as a success.

A valid point! learning from stronger players is one thing, but equally useful is the ability to handle pressure and stress in tight crucial moments of a game. If you're down the bottom half of the standings there's very little pressure to perform well, but when you're fighting for 1st it's a different ball game! Rob's advice to mix it up is good.

[Niall Doran]

... (though you may find yourself well out of your depth ....

Indeed. I've twice recently played folk who could have played in not just the section below the one I entered but the one below that. I was a piece up after ten moves in one game and a pawn up in two moves in the other - and no it wasn't a gambit pawn.
Precisely what they got out of those games I don't know.

Playing up - as long as you're not playing up too much - is definitely a good way to improve, but Rob's 'mix it up' strategy is certainly the best way. It's not just about prize money or enjoying winning (not that there's anything wrong with either of those).

Thanks for all the advice guys, I’ve taken the decision to play in the under 1800, as yes, it’s probably more important to be able to beat the weaker and guys my own level than hoping for a ‘result’ against a much stronger player. Also the idea of coming down to the last round and playing a game for €300 is exciting, even if it doesn't come to that.

By the way Jonathan, since I read your comment about the player giving away a pawn on move two, I’ve been racking my brains trying to come up with a reasonable opening sequence where it’s possible, haven’t found anything too plausible. Please put me out of my misery!
This maybe?
1.e4 e5
2. Nf3 b6?

By the way, interesting article on playing up here (for those who haven't seen it):

http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.f ... es-on.html

[Jonathan Bryant]

1 Nf3 Nf6, 2 c4 e5!?

[Niall Doran]

1 Nf3 Nf6, 2 c4 e5!?

Black gets the semi-open e-file!

I hate when I've won material easily against a weaker player in the opening. Generally means a long boring game, especially if they take ages to think.

[Roger de Coverly]

1 Nf3 Nf6, 2 c4 e5!?

I might have supposed a novelty, but there are a number of games appearing to start this way. Quite a few of them I would suspect are input errors, where the inputter clicked on e7 and the automatic move generator pushed the pawn two squares. If a subsequent Ne5 had been played the absence of a pawn on e6 may not make any subsequent moves illegal.

I hate when I've won material easily against a weaker player in the opening. Generally means a long boring game, especially if they take ages to think

The engines think it's only worth half a pawn in advantage. It is a decision point though. If against a lower rated player, you see a chance to gain a small but lasting advantage, do you accept their offer or keep the position complex hoping to force a bigger error later?

[Niall Doran]

I'll take the material. A pawn is a pawn, especially in this position. If my online blitz experiences count for anything, they'll probably try to save face by making it look like a gambit by playing Qe7 (after N x e5), making the development of Black's kingside bishop a bit fiddly.

[JustinHorton]

In my youth I played the White side of 1.b4 e5 2.Bb2 Nc6 on at least one occasion.

[Roger de Coverly]

In my youth I played the White side of 1.b4 e5 2.Bb2 Nc6 on at least one occasion.

Again there are some games, admittedly mostly in junior tournaments. It prompted me to check what computer engines think about it. They think white is better, obviously, but not by as much as you might expect and white's advantage isn't evaluated as much greater than more conventional ways to give away a pawn such as the Budapest and Albin.