Richardson/Spens 2011-12

[Clement Sreeves]

I don't get why the top players wouldn't actually want to compete if the event was Fide rated. What's the point of a grade? Giving up Chess completely would also prevent your grade from going down, but surely that would prevent your enjoyment of a game you have clearly worked hard to get good at? If players are confident in their own game and the accuracy of their grade then they should have nothing to fear from entering a Fide-rated Scottish event.

+1

People worry about grades way too much, they are only a refection of past results.

[George Neave]

The SNCL rule states that players may change board order as long as they are within 50 points, but must play in the same order for both games on the day.

Hamilton have never broken this rule, the rule applies to every team. Other teams may also change their board order if they wish. Many other teams have had players closely graded together in the past and chosen not to change their order, that is their choice. If you don't like the rule then propose that it is changed at the AGM!
...

The problem here is that the vote is undertaken by all clubs many of whom are players of lower strength and who simply have no idea the level of preparation someone 2100+ typically puts into preparation for a game. Having to do this x 4 while the opponent does not is far from equitable. OK, not all strong players prepare this way but the majority do. Having a large group of people who are oblivious to such goings on then vote on rights and wrongs of it all is just daft. (OK ...I am ready for the dogs abuse to follow...still won't change this from being true ;P )

[JRedpath]

Farell 2133
Neave 2126
Grant 2115

These are the published grades of players who have played for Edinburgh West this year in SNCL. As you can see all three players could have played in any order! You cannot say that it is only Hamilton that this rule benefits, as Ive said other teams can change order as well, if they choose not to then so be it!

Do 2100+ players really spend a lot of time on preperation? I know I don't, only very occasionally these days. Too much prep is not good and mostly becomes wasted time. Better to work on overall game and improving tactical ability.

[PatCoffey]

Grading/Board Order in SNCL (Other Scottish Team Events)

The 50 move rule at SNCL is pretty much in accordance with the approach every other chess league in the world adopts (if this its not quite right can we have some examples?) If some players (Andy B and yourself ) want to do something that is unique to the SNCL then I feel the burden should be on you guys to make a better, and frankly less selfish, case.

Look at it from the point of view of myself (and Hamilton team) as opposed to , say, Andrew Burnett. I would imagine that Andy and I are more or less on the same level ....in a game I could win or lose our next game and either way it would not be considered a surprise result (I assume this fair to say?).

The last time I spoke with Andy I am sure he said that he missed playing SNCL as it was a good chance to play 2200+ players....so he recognises the importance of tough games.

A team (Hamilton) fielding 4x2250 +a 2000 player in SNCL..if having to play same player order every match (whether strict grading used to establish the initial order or not) there is a problem. If I play B1 I have 7 games and an average opponent probably c.2100+. On B2 its c.1940. On B3 its c.1850-1920. On B4 its c-1800. On B5 its c.1700-1800.

Andy had the privilege or advantage of playing B1 every time he played for Kingdom Kings and had 7 more or less competitive games. This is good for him and his chess. BUT it is just not quite the same playing 7 games where the opposition is 350-450 points lower....this applies equally to an 1800 players playing 1350 players and so on. The response of saying something like " play games, improve your grading, get to a higher board" is totally selfish and does not address the problem as the league is just not strong enough yet to fair on our B2-B4 if we are stuck in order.

So it is FAIR, ABSOLUTELY FAIR, that Hamilton can switch around who gets to play B1/B2. Otherwise its a a disincentive for the squad to turn up as often as we do. The SNCL rules should be facilitating the continued participation of 2250+ players and trying to encourage the 2300-2400 players to play now and then (e.g.no FIDE ratings -we will see on this).

Now the issue of specific preparation that both you and Andy raise to justify your stance really has to be commented on as it is just nonesence. Lets look at my own games against you guys and others to make the point.

I played 1.b4 against Peter Constantinou (SNCL), Clement (SNCL),Ian Marks(SNCL) , David Findlay (Richardson) , John Shaw (Richardson) . I doubt I have done more than 1-2 hrs "study" on this opening as there is really nothing to look at. I play it just to avoid theory and play a middlegame. I have played the reverse move 1...b5 (which is terrible) against Andrew Greet (Richardson) and Callum (SNCL) with the same intent.

Otherwise when I play 1.e4 I play quiet systems- except against the Scandinavian. When I played George in last years SNCL I was to be B3 so had not looked at any openings at all but on the day was shuffled into B1.George anyway surprised me with 3...Nd4 is a Spanish and I took out of book asap.When I played against Andy last year I was out of theory with my 3.f3 and took oceans of time on my next moves. Where is the unfair advantage that I have that you guys are complaining about?? Where are the games that you are concerned about?

As Black I always play Sicilian ...either Kan or sometimes Basman . I played 2....Qc7 against Steve Mannion (Richardson) just to take out of theory. When I played two Sicilians against Andy (SNCL and Richardson) I took a lot of time in both games in the opening as its a positional system that I play and I usually have to try to figure things out from early on .

Against David Findlay at the last SNCL (and I assume David expected to play me as I had told him as much) I I prepared deeply a line of the Kan that he just sidestepped! Iast night I played Dougie in the Glasgow League and he played a new line (for him) on move 5!

I do not see that it is in any way fair for Andy or George trying to push a unique rule through to the SNCL just to make it eaiser FOR THEM to do specific preparations.

Andy/George ...next time we play...in whatever event... I am happy to play 1.a3 or 1.a4 against you if you agree to do the same with me.

[andyburnett]

Pat,

How about a compromise. Every time you intend to field a team against either George's team or my own, you simply let us know your board order a few days in advance? If preparation doesn't interest your lot either way, but does interest us, then problem solved since nobody else seems to care too much

I absolutely refuse to play sh*** like 1.b4 or ...b5 [or 1.a3/a4 so forget that idea Pat ] just to avoid preparation (whether YOU take advantage of that bonus knowledge or not!) and I'm sure George feels the same way. We approach chess differently to you and your Hamilton boys and take it very seriously. Again speaking for myself and George (and I hope he doesn't mind too much) we are not 'natural' players like yourself, Joe and Steven - we have to work much harder to get good results.

In the Edinburgh League over the last few years I have had to play 2nd (3rd/4th!) fiddle to Alan Tate, Nicol Bathie, and Mark Orr. Until I prove myself to be a stronger player than them (and grading is the only realistic measure that we have in chess) then I have no right to ask them to play below me. There's nothing 'selfish' about asking you to improve your grade so you can play on a higher board - think of it as a challenge.

The rule in the SNCL may not only favour Hamilton as you have pointed out, but it is an 'uneven' rule which favours some over others - I was told last weekend that Neil Farrell was disappointed that I couldn't play the SNCL match against Ed. West as he was looking forward to re-dressing our personal score a bit! But how is it fair that I am at a disadvantage because I don't know if George, Neil or Jonathan is gunning for me!? And this isn't a purely selfish concern - I play for my team and take the team result above all else in team matches (e.g. accepting a draw offer in the recent Richardson semi as it was highly likely to put us over the winning line). I/my team shouldn't have to face a disadvantage in any way, shape or form, end of story

Regards,
Andy

[andyburnett]

...
Do 2100+ players really spend a lot of time on preperation? I know I don't, only very occasionally these days. Too much prep is not good and mostly becomes wasted time. Better to work on overall game and improving tactical ability.

I was hoping to save this for a later Scottish Chess article, but now seems an appropriate time to post it - (it's copied and pasted from my chess.com pages to save time so may have 1 or 2 syntax errors, apologies if so). Hope there's nothing too nasty in it ; )

Preparation/Inspiration

"Starter question for 10: You have a critical match coming up, know you will be playing a very strong opponent and have half-a-day free at some point before the game. Do you...

a) Go out drinking and cavorting with your pals on your time off, ending up in a casino at 4am without your shirt or the taxi fare home? Or,

b) Lie in bed for a few extra hours dreaming of winning a brilliant game and being showered with gold coins by the enthralled masses around your board? Or,

c) prepare as thoroughly as time allows so that come 'kick-off' time you have a good idea of what you intend playing and why?

If you answered a) you are me 20 years ago! I once partied 'til 7am, got woken up at 7-30am, poured into a car (drunk as the proverbial skunk) and ended up beating an IM and drawing with a GM that day! Fun, but sadly those days are long gone.

Perhaps you answered b) ? Fine, but don't come crying to me when you lose horribly - apart from which there are infinitely more interesting things to dream about!

Anyway, I mostly answer c) these days myself, and so should you if you are taking your chess seriously. I have found that my best games are those in which I have prepared myself both theoretically and practically for the game in front of me, and the following game is a good example of how this helps

[pgn][Date "2012.01.31"]
[Result "1-0"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
[White "Burnett, Andrew"]
[Black "Gattenloehner, Sebastian"]
[WhiteElo "2251"]
[BlackElo "2243"]
[Event "Edinburgh League"]
[Site "Edinburgh"]
[Round "7"]

{ First things first: what information can I find out on who I will be playing? I know my colour (white, being board 2 for the home team) so I need to know what openings my opponent prefers to play. As I can play both 1.e4 and 1.d4, I can hopefully find something in his repertoire which corresponds with my own knowledge. Looking up Sebastian's games as black, I find he plays the Semi-Slav defence to 1.d4. Now, I know a bit about this opening theoretically, but I have to admit that I'm not entirely comfortable with the positions that tend to arise. I don't yet have a FEEL for them. Why is this important? Surely I should just check the theory, the ideas and play from there? The problem is, when you do this and your opponent varies from known theory (even slightly) it can be difficult to find the correct answers over-the-board with the clock ticking unless you have this 'feel' for the position. So, 1.d4 is set aside. Next, how does he respond to 1.e4. Aha, he plays the Kan Variation of the Sicilian! Now THIS is more to my taste. I have quite a few wins using an aggressive approach system based on g4-g5 in the middlegame. But let's look a little deeper. How has my opponent fared with his Kan variation? Well, he seems to have lost (several years ago) in a very sharp variation where white sacs a pawn. It looks like the kind of position I'd be happy to play, and judging by his other openings, he seems to stick with them until he gets it right! So we now have a starting point for the game-plan! } 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.Nc3 b5 6.Bd3 Qb6 7.Nf3!? { I would normally play 7.Nb3 here - not because it's a better move, but because I know the plans well. However, I had looked at this alternative knight retreat and focussed my preparation on it. } 7...Nc6 8.O-O Qb8!? { This strange-looking manouevre, and white's sharp reply, were what really caught my attention. Once you see black's idea, the move makes more sense. He wants to use the dark squares (with Bd6 perhaps) but doesn't want his queen exposed to tactical problems (Bxb5/Nd5 ideas) on it's 'normal' square c7. } 9.e5! { Although this doesn't promise white a theoretical advantage, it does attempt to cross black's strategy, and more importantly to me leads to sharp play in the middlegame where I will have the initiative for a long time, at the cost of a pawn. With short league time controls (34 moves in 75 minutes) having the initiative, putting your opponent under pressure on the board and clock, is well worth a 1-pawn investment.
It is simply PRACTICAL chess. I don't really care if there is a more theoretically challenging way of playing, I want to beat THIS particular opponent in THIS particular game! } 9...Nxe5 { Black is almost duty-bound to accept the pawn sac. The only sensible-looking alternative would be Ne7 intending to go to g6, (although the plan THERE is to take the pawn anyway!) but this gives white a couple of development moves (Re1/Bf4 or g5/maybe h4 pawn push) } 10.Nxe5 Qxe5 11.Qf3 Qb8 12.Be4!? { This represents a major crossroads for white. The main alternative is } ( 12.Bf4 { when the accurate reply } 12...Bb7 13.Be4 Bxe4 14.Nxe4 Qc8! { intending Qc6 and black is fine. It looks slightly awkward for him, but it's not too difficult to play.
Instead with the text move white keeps more tension in the position and forces black to find some difficult answers over the board. } ) 12...Ra7 13.Bf4 d6?! { It's not that I think this is a mistake as such, but } ( 13...Bd6 { looks to be an easier way of untangling. White would continue } 14.Bxd6 Qxd6 15.Rfd1 { or } ( 15.Rad1 { and would find reasonable long-term compensation in the form of black's weakend dark-squares (his bishop is no longer around to defend them) and more active and co-ordinated pieces. It's almost impossible to be definitive as to whether it's enough for a pawn investment, but for me again it's the 'feel' of the resulting position which counts. } ) ) 14.b4! { This move is very nice! I'm not sure I would have found it myself (it was suggested by Fritz13 when I was preparing for this game) but I have seen it used before in Sicilian games - I think it was Kamsky-Anand (possibly Salov?!) many moons ago where I first saw it and thought, 'oh yeah! that's a neat way of preventing ....b4!' Once seen the idea behind the move is obvious. To prevent black dislodging the knight with ....b4, and allow the a4 advance to come putting pressure on b5. Quite simple, but not too easy to defend against. } 14...Nf6 { Black HAS to finish his development. } 15.Bc6+ Bd7 16.a4 bxa4 17.b5?! { Over-the-board inspiration! I had looked at the simple 17.Rxa4 at home and was quite happy with the position, but since my opponent had been using up lots of time (45 minutes to my 16) trying to remember his half-forgotten analyses, I decided that this sharper move merited a punt. It's probably not as accurate as taking on a4, but gained another 10 minutes on the clock and sets more practical problems for black. } 17...Be7?! { Not the best response, but entirely understandable. As a couple of you have pointed out } ( 17...axb5 18.Nxb5 Ra6 { is a better defence, but my oppponent can't be blamed for trying to get castled and save some time on his clock. } ) 18.Rfb1 O-O 19.b6 { This pawn will eventually decide the day in white's favour } 19...Bxc6 20.bxa7 Qc7 21.Qe3 Ba8? { Not the best, although at the time it had me worried as black obviously intends to set up a mate threat against g2. } 22.Rxa4 Qc6 23.Qf3! { This is a strong move. If the queens come off then the a7-pawn will be unstoppable. The alternative move } ( 23.f3 d5 { looked scarier as black is threatening to win the white queen by ...Bc5. As played in the game I can triangulate to avoid this - a theme more common in endgames than middle-games! } ) 23...Qd7? { Under pressure from the very opening moves, and with 12 moves to make in under 10 minutes, black finally cracks. } ( 23...Qc7 24.Qd3 { was the idea, when } 24...Qc6 ( 24...Qxa7 25.Rxa6! { and the d-pawn falls. White would be winning as his material advantage and passed c-pawn would eventually tell } ) 25.f3 { is now safe as the queen is off the dark diagonal. } ) 24.Qxa8! { It's always pleasing to sacrifice your queen! } 24...Rxa8 25.Rb8+ Qe8 { the alternatives only save black temporarily } ( 25...Bf8 26.Rxa8 Qb7 27.Rd8 Qxa7 28.Bxd6 Nd7 29.Bxf8 Nxf8 ( 29...Qc7 30.Be7+ ) 30.Rc4 ) 26.Rxe8+ Nxe8 27.Rxa6 Nc7 { Now it's simply a matter of finding the right way to deflect black's pieces from defence of the queening square. Unfortunately, the immediate } 28.Ra2 ( 28.Rb6 { fails to } 28...Rxa7 29.Rb8+ Bf8 30.Bxd6 Ra1+ 31.Nb1 Rxb1+ 32.Rxb1 Bxd6 { when it's white who has to be careful } ) 28...Kf8 29.Be3 Ke8 30.g4!! { A fantastic move or, perhaps, a really stupid and unnecessary one? It's the latter I'm afraid! Whenever we play a game, we analyse lots of possibilities, and these possibilities change move-by-move. Caught up in the heat of the moment, it can be easy to forget that a threat which was serious in one variation, or a few moves ago, is no longer a threat! Likewise, what wasn't a threat one minute, can be dangerous the next given what's happened in-between times. So it was here I'm afraid. The note to move 28 sees my combination fail to a weak back rank, so this move gets rid of that problem. Of course, my previous move had already inadvertently taken care of that problem, so 30.g4 is entirely irrelevant! On the plus side though, it made my opponent use up precious seconds with only 1 minute remaining on his clock 'til move 34! } 30...Rc8 31.Rb2 { This should have been preferred last move. } 31...Kd7?! { There is no real defence left, but Sebastian's next few moves make life a bit easier for me. } 32.Rb7 Kc6 33.Rb8 Rd8?! { As pointed out by Artsew in his book-winning YouTube analysis, this square is unfortunate for the black rook. } 34.Bb6 { here black resigned as his flag was about to fall and there is no sensible answer available, e.g. } 34...Kd7 35.Rxd8+ Bxd8 36.Bxc7 Kxc7 37.a8=Q { I hope you have enjoyed this game and learned something from the article as a whole. My preparation was done in about 2 or 3 hours, which is about the most we can expect to have free as amateur players. Use the time wisely if the game is important to you and/or your team. find out who you are most likely to be playing, check his games for positions he likes to play but which may be dubious-looking or difficult in practice, and where you will feel comfortable or have some ideas you want to try. Think practically at all times - and focus on what you are trying to achieve one game at a time! }
1-0[/pgn]

[George Neave]

Farell 2133
Neave 2126
Grant 2115

These are the published grades of players who have played for Edinburgh West this year in SNCL. As you can see all three players could have played in any order! You cannot say that it is only Hamilton that this rule benefits, as Ive said other teams can change order as well, if they choose not to then so be it!
...

OK but lets see how it worked in practice in this season's SNCL.

So, for Ed West I played board 2 in every game. Neil Farrell played one on all bar one game when he was unavailable and jonathan Grant stepped in. So it was probably a good bet playing Ed West that any team would face Neil on 1 and me one 2.

Now lets compare with the Hamilton strategy:

Rounds 1 and 2 we see 1. Coffey 2. Redpath 3. S Tweedie. 4 weeks later, however, playing strength has shifted because now we see Joe is playing board (1) and Pat dropped down to board (2). It seems Pat was unable to regain his top spot over the Christmas break as by round 5/6 Joe retains board one ahead of IM Muir and Coffey relegated to board 3. Hang on though, all is not lost because by time we come ot the key Dundee match in round 7 Pat has obviously been practising hard because now he is back on board 1 not just ahead of Joe on (2) but also ahead of IM Muir this time as well! What a surge in "playing strength" that was. In fact Andy has clearly completely lost form as for this game he has dropped from board 2 on previous weekend down to a lowly board 4 this time.

There was me thinking this was all this order manipulation was designed to maximise difficulty for opposition - especially Dundee in key final round - to predict the order. How could I be so cynical?!

[StevieHilton]

"The problem here is that the vote is undertaken by all clubs many of whom are players of lower strength and who simply have no idea the level of preparation someone 2100+ typically puts into preparation for a game"

Are you saying that clubs with the strongest playing pools should have a bigger say than a small club?
That is very dangerous ground you are walking. If you follow this line then I can say because I have played in two World Blind Championships 2 European Championships, 1 blind olympiad soon to be 2 and 1 braille world cup then the logic of what was said would say that I should have a bigger say. look at the mess the SPL is in because it allows a certain 2 clubs to dictate policy. That is what is being suggested.

I do not believe that 2100+ prepare all that thoroughly for league match. I cannot believe that they would prepare right up to the start of a match. That would be stupid, for they would arrive at a match exhausted and that would not be good for the team. Best thing is little or no preparation on the morning of a game, a good nights sleep befor the game and if timn allows, then a short walk before the start to clear the mind

[andyburnett]

"The problem here is that the vote is undertaken by all clubs many of whom are players of lower strength and who simply have no idea the level of preparation someone 2100+ typically puts into preparation for a game"

Are you saying that clubs with the strongest playing pools should have a bigger say than a small club?
That is very dangerous ground you are walking. If you follow this line then I can say because I have played in two World Blind Championships 2 European Championships, 1 blind olympiad soon to be 2 and 1 braille world cup then the logic of what was said would say that I should have a bigger say. look at the mess the SPL is in because it allows a certain 2 clubs to dictate policy. That is what is being suggested.

I do not believe that 2100+ prepare all that thoroughly for league match. I cannot believe that they would prepare right up to the start of a match. That would be stupid, for they would arrive at a match exhausted and that would not be good for the team. Best thing is little or no preparation on the morning of a game, a good nights sleep befor the game and if timn allows, then a short walk before the start to clear the mind

Nobody has said they prepare right up to before the match Steve, so where did that come from? You can't just imagine scenarios that suit your argument but which have no basis in any of the preceding discussion/history etc!! Just because you, Pat or whoever does little or no preparation doesn't negate myself, George and others who do. Also, George's post has shed a bit of light on Pat's interpretation of events... =o

On a more serious point though Steve, might it not be best if you stayed on the outside of this debate for the time being (with all due respect) as it has been pointed out to me that you are the person to whom complaints about Andy Muir's handling of the Richardson event should be directed at?!

Regards,
Andy

[PatCoffey]

Cannot see the point....please reread my posting and look at the pairings in SNCL. Both Joe and I played 7 games

Coffey:2203,2173,1920,1866,1970,1754,2167 (average=2020)
Redpath:1837,1884,2092,1870,2133,2088,2120 (average =2008)

Neil had an average opponent c.2120 which I would like to have had but c.2000 is still fine.

So its about level which is fair. This cannot be achieved without switching boards . My form was quite consistent as was Joe's so its about participation for equal strength teammates. It would have made no difference to me or Joe if I were B1 against Edinburgh and B2 against Dundee.

Consider if we same board every match. Then its c.2120 B1 and c.19whatever B2. But our B4 (say Steven who is 1 pt more than me on grading) it would be c.1750. A huge differential. At Gd1 my average opposition this season is 2162....if it was 1750 I would play less as its big difference.

What about board order...where are the games that opening preparation by Hamilton is changing the outcome of matches...its just a silly a point when actually you consider the games...and as Andrew says my sh** openings!

George-Cynicism? (your word) Selfishness? (my word-but OK maybe its overstating things) Or just an honestly held opinion...

p.s. Actually an 1800 has just the same rights to an opinion here as a 2200.