Are Opens a little too open?

[Christopher Kreuzer]

anyone know whos winning surrey and southend?

The only score I've heard was that Amy Hoare was on 2/2 at Surrey having beaten Meri Grigoryan and Richard Cannon which as 19th seed out of 21 (according to the website) was a very promising start. I don't think any of the events are showing scores during the tournament but I hope they will appear shortly after their conclusion

Surrey Congress results are partially on the website:

http://www.surreychesscongress.co.uk/SCC34ro.html

Amy Hoare beat Ray Cannon (the senior Cannon), not Richard Cannon (the younger Cannon).

Simon Williams beat Amy Hoare in round 3.

Rendle and Williams played each other and drew in round 4 to share the lead on 3.5/4.

Peter Roberson looked to be winning against Graeme Buckley (queen for rook and bishop), but was short of time when I left. If Roberson won, he will have made it a three-way share of the lead.

[Ben Purton]

Roberson and Rendle being joint first really sorts me out.... Common Sharkies!!!!!

[LozCooper]

anyone know whos winning surrey and southend?

Amy Hoare beat Ray Cannon (the senior Cannon), not Richard Cannon (the younger Cannon).

Oops, my mistake.

[David Sedgwick]

Roger's description of the St Alban's Congress came to mind when I arrived at the Surrey Congress (being held in Cheam). Large school hall, pairing boards with pairing cards, and multi-colour wall charts. But with digital clocks! Not sure whether the draw is manual or using a computer program, but they had pairings online last night and hopefully will have tonight as well. Numbers seem quite low, though that might be people going on holiday to take advantage of the back-to-back bank holidays.

The pairings are being done manually, but, as you say, the overnight draws are being published online. The Round 5 pairings have just appeared as I write.

You're right about the numbers being fairly low. It's nothing to do with me, but I won't be at all surprised if the organisers seek a smaller venue for next year.

[George Szaszvari]

Perhaps some of those complaining about lower rated players in opens are simply afraid of losing rating points?
Where would British chess be today but for the weekend open swiss? Many juniors, or even older up and coming
players, I recall from the 60s through to the 90s, would have taken forever to progress in ratings, or would have
stagnated and possibly dropped out of chess altogether, but for the chance to compete with higher rated players.
The best example I recall was Martin Goldschmidt's 99 BCF when he was successfully competing with 200 + players.
Had the wailers here had their way Martin would have taken at least a couple of seasons to compete with the players
that he deserved to play. There is sometimes too much emphasis on ratings anyway, with people identifying it with
status. One is as good as one plays in that game, on that day, whatever rating one might have. True, the rating
system gives an indication of past average performance, for those interested in that stuff, but doesn't always tell
much about how that player might perform on the day, how much that player understands about chess, etc. We've
all played way above, as well as way below, our published rating. A few players get points and inflated ratings largely
due to aggression and the "need to win", which sometimes means an unpleasant demeanor at the board, if not outright
cheating. Then there is the other type, who have a lot more knowledge and understanding of the game than their
rating would suggest: they simply aren't competitive enough, or don't even care that much, preferring to enjoy the
possibilities of the chessboard without all the ego crap.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

The pairings are being done manually, but, as you say, the overnight draws are being published online. The Round 5 pairings have just appeared as I write.

I'd just been looking at them. I think it is great that the pairings are online like this, though in an ideal world it would include the score each player is on. For the Intermediate and Major, the score can be worked out from the results of the previous rounds (also online), but for the Open the round 3 and round 4 results are not there (yet).

The arbiters have been kept busy, though. Saw one game where someone in time trouble was awarded two extra minutes after his opponent infringed some rule following an earlier warning (the one about keeping score with more than 5 minutes left, I think). Actually, that happened to me in one of the earlier rounds, but I was so desperately trying to avoid losing on time (5 moves in 8 seconds, luckily mostly forcing moves) that I failed to noticed my opponent had stopped scoring. I must remember to thank the arbiter for stepping in and instructing my opponent to keep writing down the moves (as it was only the first warning, I didn't get the extra time).

I wonder if digital clocks produce time scrambles that are more acute than with analogue clocks? It is possible to play at a rate of around 1 move a second (or slightly faster), and you can apportion your time precisely because it is displayed to the second (or to put it another way, it is possible to let the clock nearly run right down, and then blitz in the last few seconds). I suspect that can put the opponent off as well.

[Roger de Coverly]

You're right about the numbers being fairly low. It's nothing to do with me, but I won't be at all surprised if the organisers seek a smaller venue for next year.

I cannot claim to have measured the relative size of the halls, but St Albans seemed to have a "busy" atmosphere which the Surrey lacked. Not that I've played in it (Surrey) since 2009.

[David Sedgwick]

The pairings are being done manually, but, as you say, the overnight draws are being published online. The Round 5 pairings have just appeared as I write.

I'd just been looking at them. I think it is great that the pairings are online like this, though in an ideal world it would include the score each player is on. For the Intermediate and Major, the score can be worked out from the results of the previous rounds (also online), but for the Open the round 3 and round 4 results are not there (yet).

These results have now appeared.

[LozCooper]

The pairings are being done manually, but, as you say, the overnight draws are being published online. The Round 5 pairings have just appeared as I write.

I'd just been looking at them. I think it is great that the pairings are online like this, though in an ideal world it would include the score each player is on.

Round 5:

Simon Williams (3.5) v Peter Roberson (3.5)
Peter Lalic (3) v Tom Rendle (3.5)
James Holland (3) v Olga Lopatin (3)
Liam Varnam (2.5) v Timothy Seymour (2)
Graeme Buckley (2) v James C Foster (2)
Martin Costley (2) v Matthew Wadsworth (2)
Meri Grigoryan (2) v Simon McCullough (2)
Jasper Tambini (2) v Amy Hoare (2)
Alexandra Wilson (2) v Julien Shepley (1.5)
Ray Cannon (1) v Julian Way (1)
Robert Kane (0) v Matthew Grattage (1)

Tumen Buyandalai (2) HALF POINT BYE
Kishan Pattni (0) FULL POINT BYE

I hope my maths is right

[Mick Norris]

You're right about the numbers being fairly low. It's nothing to do with me, but I won't be at all surprised if the organisers seek a smaller venue for next year.

Numbers are low at Bolton too - and they have already moved to a smaller venue - I think it is a combination of Easter falling later and the excellent weather

Don Mason plays Adam Ashton today, both on 3/3 with 2 rounds to go

There were 49 playing in the Busy Persons yesterday afternoon, top seed Miroslav Gruca lost in the first round - I had to leave half way through, so no idea who won

[Mike Gunn]

Best question asked of arbiter at yesterday's Surrey Congress:

"My opponent is doing an extremely annoying thing with his ballpoint pen (demonstration followed). Is there anything in the Laws of Chess which says I can't put drugs in his Pepsi when he goes to the restroom?"

[Mike Gunn]

Latest from Surrey Congress:

Round 5 results:

#1 Simon Willams 1-0 Peter Roberson
#2 Peter Lalic 0.5-0.5 Thomas Rendle
#3 James Holland 0.5-0,5 Olga Lopatin

So leading scores are 1. Simon Williams 4.5 2. Thomas Rendle 4 3. Peter Roberson, Olga Lopatin, James Holland, Peter Lalic all 3.5, several games still in play although only one other player can reach 3.5.

One round to go.

[Susan Lalic]

I think Surrey will have a lot more players next year.
The entry forms came out late this year, due to a switchover of organisers, but with the junior event doing so well the Congress has a secure future.
It needs the large venue to cope with the junior event on the Monday!
Now the model is set for future years, the entry form can come out much earlier.
Paul Dupre has also revamped the website so that will help with publicity.
Rumour has it that the Congress will get its FIDE results sent in within 24 hours of the last round, in order to ensure inclusion for the next list.

[LozCooper]

I think Surrey will have a lot more players next year.
The entry forms came out late this year, due to a switchover of organisers, but with the junior event doing so well the Congress has a secure future.
It needs the large venue to cope with the junior event on the Monday!
Now the model is set for future years, the entry form can come out much earlier.
Paul Dupre has also revamped the website so that will help with publicity.
Rumour has it that the Congress will get its FIDE results sent in within 24 hours of the last round, in order to ensure inclusion for the next list.

That's very good news, both in terms of next year and in submitting the results.

I have to confess that my abiding memory of playing at Sutton was getting my car locked in a multi-storey car park overnight in 1995

[Mike Gunn]

Round 6 Pairings

#1 Olga Lopatin (3.5) v Simon Williams (4.5)
#2 Thomas Rendle (4) v Jamess Holland (3.5)
#3 Peter Roberson (3.5) v Peter Lalic (3.5)