Rating determinism must always be avoided, but I think Howell's performance shows the folly of trying to play 20 games in three weeks, even for someone in their prime. There were some terrible blunders in later rounds, by players far too good for them. Whilst heartening for someone of my strength, and perhaps for the 2100s too (how much of the gap to the GMs is just a couple of accidents per game?) the real point is different. An 11-round event is a real test of endurance!
Psychology was as fascinating as ever. Perhaps Howell got nervous against Hebden, which would be ironic given the terror he wrought with such appalling time-trouble. Meanwhile the likes of Rudd and Golding do similar damage (to opponents and themselves!) by playing at blitz speed. The former's escape against Kalaiyalahan is a warning not to be carried along by their tempo. Away from the clock, a distressing number of upsets were squandered in study-like fashion - it's not just the peasantry that get nervous. Lastly, the better players rightly refused to be intimidated by theory merchants. I already mentioned the KID's travails; many chose the principled Classical Variation, and the erudite treatment demanded of black was often painfully lacking. You should always take these players on; some Bristol players were ludicrously scared of my bookishness.
The following opinions on format are largely what I wrote in the questionnaire; if you have your own ideas then do fill it out! I think that Warwick was a success overall, which must be attributed to the improved location. My £3.95 train fare is already legendary, but the contrast with Aberystwyth is obvious. The 3pm start was less spectator-friendly; besides the long wait in the morning, everything was still up in the air when I left at 6pm - and that was as late as I could go.
I completely disagree with the 5-hour session in the Championship and Major Open. The justification is to suit those playing in FIDE/Junior/Senior events - but now you can't get 7-hour games! Besides, this is the premier competition in Britain, not a training event for something else. The ailing Major Open now has even less to distinguish it, but who is it targeted at? A GM arrived to hoover up the top prize, AM/PM Opens give better chances of Championship qualification, and getting a rating is no longer special. That only leaves people who can't qualify but want a fortnight's chess - and most of them just entered two one-week tournaments. The only upshot of all these changes is bringing 90+30' to the morning events, but then you could just start earlier...
I'm yet to be convinced that O-50 is really 'Senior', and since they only want to play amongst themselves, I dislike being deprived of so many opponents. But I must admit the Senior events attracted a lot of people, who may not have played at all otherwise. My 4NCL captain abandoned the Major Open some years ago, but is keen on the O-50 for next year - he can avoid juniors with disgustingly low FIDE ratings. But perhaps rating protectionism isn't the dominant factor. It's too early to say, since junior ratings are slowly re-aligning.
The Championship has its own demographic problems: only one 2600+ player, three of England's top fifteen, and nine 2200-2400s. I think that attracting these groups is a better way to spend the increased membership and game fee charges than Olympiad fantasies or bolstering the ECF's reserves: the British Championships are something ordinary members can actually be involved with. If you get a bigger entry then it pays for itself; this year realistic norm-seekers were conspicuously absent, and only Akshaya Kalaiyalahan's excellent 6½/11 was good enough. I think the weak head is more pressing than the over-long tail - though I'm not entirely disinterested. I really enjoyed my game as a filler, and I've resolved to try and qualify for real, which means playing in a lot of weekend tournaments. The congress circuit would be much the poorer without this link.
Finally, some big changes were summarily announced a couple of days after last year's ECF AGM. That should not happen again: operating in such a way smacks of cowardice. Finishing as I began, I think this was a good year, by and large - but there is always room to improve. (Did someone say IT...?) Hopefully the seaside venue of Bournemouth will raise the bar. Until then, it only remains to thank the organisers and players for putting on such an exciting display, and making my blog so easy to write for the last fortnight.
Now it is time to return to the usual fare of annotating games, and have a look at that filler game.
No comments:
Post a Comment