Counterplay / Readers Respond
People, Pairings,Yip PEOPLE WHO NEED PEOPLE
I am responding to Bill Le Boeuf’s letter in the August 2015 issue. His description of deterrents for “recreational players” to play in tournaments had valid points, and I don’t think the editorial response fully addressed them. Chess tournaments can be intimidating; partly because there is a lot of jargon, but also because chessplayers are generally not “people people.” It’s hard for me to imagine someone coming up to a new tournament player and saying, “Hey, new here? Let me show you around.” There may be ways around this. Prep is good:
I’d practice with a friend using a clock and scoresheet. A first-timer might try to find a tournament player in his or her area who would be willing to come to the local club and talk about US Chess tournaments. And I wonder how a director would react to a request for orientation from a newbie. Do you suppose there are players willing to act as mentors and answer questions before and after the first round of a tournament? Rob Newbold via e-mail
After a tournament game I invited my opponent
to go to the skittles room and review the game. My opponent gave me a typical reply. “No thanks. I would prefer to go over the game (after replacing you) with my 3200-strength laptop software.” As far as chess mastery alone goes, this is wrong
in many dimensions. Will a 3200-strength computer explain prophylactic moves that thwart the plans of humans? Will you learn tactical analysis by babysitting a computer and then staring at a series of “best” moves in an isolated line 14 moves long? Are we too lazy to set up a real board with a position at the end of a relevant hypothetical line, and compare this with the soon-to-be- forgotten clarity we experienced during the game while attempting to envision this same position? What is more important are the social skills
required for chess to be enjoyed by humans. Even relatively anti-social grandmasters must be nurtured with some level of human interaction. Interactions between chess friends, rivals, mentors, students, fans and organizers will determine the fate of chess popularity. The most enjoyable memory about a recent
chess game was the way I squirmed after making a horrible blunder. Unable to keep a straight face, I avoided incidental eye contact with my opponent
8 October 2015 | Chess Life
by pretending that the position was so boring I was only interested in looking at the game on the board next to us. And it worked! My opponent missed a simple win. I was really hoping to tell my opponent all about it after the game, but my offer for a post-game discussion was declined. Tom Harley via e-mail
RANDOM PAIRINGS
Another alternative to the Swiss System besides RP (“The Case for Random Pairings,” August 2015) is McMahon pairings, as used in Go tournaments. When this system was detailed 12 years ago in another Chess Life article, I took the basic McMahon concept and imagined how I could shoehorn it into my Swiss pairings software. Here’s the simple system that emerged: In our
open tournaments, all players compete in the same Swiss-paired section, but players in the top half of the field are awarded a permanent point (1.0) before the tournament starts. Voilà!No more first- round blowouts, players of similar strength play each other sooner and more often, and underrated players can still play top rated players. It’s worked well. Give it a try!
Randy Kaech
Ferndale, Washington US Chess life member
Neal Bellon, author of the “The Case for Random
Pairings” article, sent some additional informtion: Regarding my piece on random pairings (RP),
I feel compelled to clarify a few points. First, the subtitle “An alternative to the Swiss System for club-level events with under 25 players” was an editorial addition that is somewhat misleading. In paragraph three of my article, 25 players is clearly an approximation; RP is also effective for sections with higher numbers. Second, regarding
POST MORTEM
In the August 2015 issue, in the “Contributors” section, we misspelled Neal Bellon’s name.
Join us on the US Chess Facebook group for #FischerFriday!
Tim Just's comments, RP is a variation within the Swiss System (i.e. it's still a Swiss tournament) and so color equalization, as I state in paragraph six, is accounted for, as is having the lowest rated odd-man drop down if a score group is une - ven—the software handles all of that. However, the option is available to have the odd-man drop down choice be random as well, rather than the lower rated player. With RP, note that in the later rounds it will pair almost exactly as a regular Swiss since many will have played each other already. RP is most effective in the early rounds. I hope Tim will include info on RP in the next edition of the US Chess rulebook.
CARISSA YIP
Congratulations, Carissa (“Yip, Yip, Hooray!,” August 2015)! Becoming a master at 11 is an achievement, for either a girl or a boy. Yet, it is disturbing to see a child attaching a greater impor - tance to the chase of records and rating points than to the joy of playing chess and playing it well.
Gerard J. van Deene Gresham, Oregon
US Chess life member There is really nothing in the article that indicates
she doesn’t also enjoy chess just for chess’ sake too. Perhaps the emphasis on records helps her focus? Top players often have different motivations driving their pursuit of chess excellence.
Send your letters to
letters@uschess.org or post on the US Chess Facebook group or the
uschess.org Issues Forum. Letters are subject to editing for style, length, and content.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76