PDA

View Full Version : MCC Australia Day Weekender 2010



Grant Szuveges
23-12-2009, 01:51 AM
Hi everyone, if you want even more chess after the Australian Champs finishes, then come down to Melbourne for the Australia Day weekender. Or likewise, if you are not going to play in the Austalian Champs, than this may hit the spot...

Melbourne Chess Club

Australia Day Weekender

January 23rd and 24th

Format?
7 round Swiss, ACF rated

Time Controls?
60 min + 10 seconds per move

Round Times?
Saturday January 23rd: Round 1, 10am
Round 2, 1pm
Round 3, 4pm
Round 4, 7pm
Sunday January 24th: Round 5, 10am
Round 6, 1pm
Round 7, 4pm

Entry Fees?
$55 full and $45 concession. MCC members receive a discount of $10

Further Questions?
Grant Szuveges,
Ph, 0401-925-075
Email, grantszuveges@gmail.com

Watto
17-01-2010, 11:28 AM
Just a reminder that this is on in a week. :)

Lekko
17-01-2010, 12:58 PM
I'm in.

MichaelBaron
17-01-2010, 09:01 PM
I may be in

MichaelBaron
18-01-2010, 04:34 PM
Would be great to have list of entries published...

Chigoresov
18-01-2010, 10:20 PM
Why? So if there is a couple of good players in it you won't play?

:lol:

MichaelBaron
18-01-2010, 10:40 PM
Why? So if there is a couple of good players in it you won't play?

:lol:

On the contarary, if there is a couple of good players - I am more likely to play. Even more importantly nice to know..there will be more than a couple of players playing all together. :)

Lekko
19-01-2010, 12:01 AM
On the contarary, if there is a couple of good players - I am more likely to play. Even more importantly nice to know..there will be more than a couple of players playing all together. :)
He wants to know if it will be more worthwhile playing in the allegro or the weekender.

MichaelBaron
19-01-2010, 09:36 AM
He wants to know if it will be more worthwhile playing in the allegro or the weekender.

Yes, its a big dilemma

mikesguns
19-01-2010, 08:22 PM
Ill be playing

Grant Szuveges
20-01-2010, 12:55 AM
Would be great to have list of entries published...

About 7 or 8 people have told me that they will be playing, although this isnt the sort of tournament where people tend to book in advance. Most people will just turn up on the day for this one I think.

MichaelBaron
21-01-2010, 10:19 AM
In the tournament thread on the other chess forum, Fired Goat (aka D. Beaumont) and Ferhebache (not sure what his real name is) said they will be playing.

Jesse Jager
21-01-2010, 04:39 PM
I will be playing, and I will also be paying my membership.

MichaelBaron
22-01-2010, 08:10 PM
After long deliberation I decided that I will play in allegro instead.. Good luck to all the participants, I will see you at 2 pm!

Lekko
23-01-2010, 12:14 AM
After long deliberation I decided that I will play in allegro instead.. Good luck to all the participants, I will see you at 2 pm!
Bring it, Baron ;)

Lekko
23-01-2010, 08:55 AM
The board 1 games will be viewable from live from http://no-wai.org/live/tfd.htm

You can close the advertisement that appears at the top by clicking the green X.

Australia Day Weekender Starting List

Jesse JAGER
Richard VOON
Tony DAVIS
Jack SHANKS
Brad ASHLOCK
Jake KOSTRZEWA
Michael STEELE
Laurie DALTON
Michael ADDAMO
Enoch FAN
Chris MULLEN
Tristan RAYSON - HILL
Anthony HARRIS
Ben KIM

Grant's doing the pairings and entries by hand, so it's not a matter of a simple copy/paste job.

Lekko
23-01-2010, 12:23 PM
Round 1
Jager 1-0 Dalton
Addamo 1-0 Voon
Davis 1-0 Fan
Mullen 0-1 Shanks
Ashlock .5-.5 Rayson-Hill
harris 1-0 Kostrzewa
Steele 1-0 Kim

Round 2
Steele - Jager
Addamo - Davis
Shanks - Harris
Voon - Ashlock
Rayson-Hill - Kostrzewa
Dalton - Mullen
Kim - Fan

Grant Szuveges
23-01-2010, 12:30 PM
The first round of this tournament is a glowing advertisement for the regular swiss system - as opposed to the accelerated version. In the first round, a player rated 1283 defeated a player rated 1830, a player rated 593 defeated someone rated 1446 and a player rated 993 drew with a player rated 1600.... Another player rated 1075 went into an ending a pawn up against a player rated 1816 too, but lost. And all this in only 7 boards!!! This indicates to me that the regular Swiss events produce very competitive chess - even in the first round! If Enoch Fan had managed to defeat or draw with Tony Davis, then more than half of the results would not have gone to plan....


Round 1
Jager 1-0 Dalton
Addamo 1-0 Voon
Davis 1-0 Fan
Mullen 0-1 Shanks
Ashlock .5-.5 Rayson-Hill
harris 1-0 Kostrzewa
Steele 1-0 Kim

Round 2
Steele - Jager
Addamo - Davis
Shanks - Harris
Voon - Ashlock
Rayson-Hill - Kostrzewa
Dalton - Mullen
Kim - Fan

Basil
23-01-2010, 12:42 PM
The first round of this tournament is a glowing advertisement for the regular swiss system
100% agreed, Grant. Do you agree that on other occasions the Swiss system leaves a traffic jam for minor placings that is often alleviated with accelerated pairings? Or is your assessment of the two systems one way traffic in favour of Swiss?

Incidentally, if Mr 1200 is going to go on and win this tournament, he'd likely win with accelerated pairings anyway. Further if he's not going to win, but is in jolly good form, he'd still get a chance to scalp a few in the latter rounds. Finally, if the first round result is a quirk, then the chance to have a shot at the scalp (which appeals to Boris and others - which I understand), then that advantage is lost but offset by the accelerated benefit of properly sorting out minor placings - which a regular Swiss isn't always so good at.

This post was brought in the interests of balanced commentary as opposed to barrow-pushing. Carry on!

Garvinator
23-01-2010, 01:30 PM
This post was brought in the interests of balanced commentary as opposed to barrow-pushing. Carry on!The issue of whether to accelerate or not does not mean much in small fields as per this MCC tournament. Even if all the top seeds had won easily, the field will have a decent opportunity to sort itself out and the winners will certainly have been sorted properly.

The issue of whether to accelerate or not applies more in large fields for the number of rounds ie 80 players in a seven round event and where there a lot of large rating 'mis-matches' in the first round.

As was highlighted recently in another thread, a bigger issue than whether to use acceleration in large fields is that the accelerated pairings are done correctly.

Basil
23-01-2010, 01:35 PM
I agree. But we're not talking about *optimal* fields for acceleration.

Grant has rolled out the old chestnut of a vote for the Swiss system because of the chance of an upset, and each time he does so I roll out the balance, inviting him to acknowledge the pros and cons of each.

In a small field, this tournament, the issue of Swiss v accelerated is largely moot anyway where an on-form low order is likely to meet a scalp anyway, again neutering the claimed advantage for the traditional Swiss (of which I am a fan).

Kevin Bonham
23-01-2010, 01:43 PM
100% agreed, Grant. Do you agree that on other occasions the Swiss system leaves a traffic jam for minor placings that is often alleviated with accelerated pairings?

In my view with accelerated pairings the traffic jam in the midfield is usually (i) more congested (ii) less proportional to performance, than in a standard Swiss. I have also done some experiments with modelled tournaments to test this, although the modelled events I used had relatively small and widely spread fields.

Basil
23-01-2010, 02:05 PM
In my view with accelerated pairings the traffic jam in the midfield is usually (i) more congested (ii) less proportional to performance, than in a standard Swiss. I have also done some experiments with modelled tournaments to test this, although the modelled events I used had relatively small and widely spread fields.
I remember we spoke about this in another thread. I recall the point you made about the congestion being pushed further down the table. I thought this was a good outcome as the problem of congestion has less significance the further south it is pushed.

Grant Szuveges
23-01-2010, 03:13 PM
100% agreed, Grant. Do you agree that on other occasions the Swiss system leaves a traffic jam for minor placings that is often alleviated with accelerated pairings? Or is your assessment of the two systems one way traffic in favour of Swiss?

Yes, I do agree - sometimes there is a bit of a traffic jam for minor places, and there is nothing worse than being on 5/6 and losing both you game and the chance of a big prize while someone on 4.5 wins against an easier opponent and takes the prize themself (its happened to me before), but thats just the Swiss system. I think that it is more important to run a tournament to decide the winner, rather than deciding accurately who will come equal 46th..... Accelerated pairings dont always remove that conjestion for the minor places anyway. I wont be able to participate too much in this discussion because I am actually running the tournament (and the allegro at the same time), so I dont have a great deal of time. I will try to contribute when I can though. The post was actually targeting someone on the other forum who has a "competitive index" which supposedly shows how competitive the round is based on the rating difference. My point is that this round was particularly competitive despite huge rating differences. But, as you said, let the debate carry on. Its good for chess!

Basil
23-01-2010, 03:46 PM
Yes, I do agree - sometimes there is a bit of a traffic jam for minor places, and there is nothing worse than being on 5/6 and losing both you game and the chance of a big prize while someone on 4.5 wins against an easier opponent and takes the prize themself (its happened to me before), but thats just the Swiss system.

Great. I shan't raise the issue with you again. We agree.


I think that it is more important to run a tournament to decide the winner, rather than deciding accurately who will come equal 46th
Well ... no one is proposing that.



The post was actually targeting someone on the other forum ...
Lord give me strength :lol:

mikesguns
23-01-2010, 09:09 PM
I missed perpetual in my game with Jesse Jager, as I though his king could move to a square where there was no checks

Grant Szuveges
23-01-2010, 09:41 PM
Jager - Davis
Shanks - Addamo
Kostrzewa - Ashlock
Voon - Mullen
Harris - Dalton
Rayson Hill - Kim

Paul Cavezza
23-01-2010, 10:34 PM
For my part as a 'lower rated' player i'll say that playing in a swiss one of the major motivations and enjoyments is the potential to play against a top top player. Last year I was drawn first or second round with Douglas Hamilton, in the end he withdrew but I had a great (and competitive- http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=9484&page=5&highlight=Pyke+Cavezza) game with Malcom Pyke last year which really helped boost my enjoyment and enthusiasm for chess.

If I wanted to play in a tournament against a lower field I would play in an under 1800 tournament, I guess there are positives and negatives but one major positives is the continued incentive for young and improving players who (i'm sure as they did once upon a time) think about playing West or Rujevic all week!

Basil
23-01-2010, 10:39 PM
For my part as a 'lower rated' player i'll say that playing in a swiss one of the major motivations and enjoyments is the potential to play against a top top player. Last year I was drawn first or second round with Douglas Hamilton, in the end he withdrew but I had a great (and competitive- http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=9484&page=5&highlight=Pyke+Cavezza) game with Malcom Pyke last year which really helped boost my enjoyment and enthusiasm for chess.

If I wanted to play in a tournament against a lower field I would play in an under 1800 tournament, I guess there are positives and negatives but one major positives is the continued incentive for young and improving players who (i'm sure as they did once upon a time) think about playing West or Rujevic all week!
Yes, this appears to be THE #1 cited positive for the Swiss format (of which I am a fan).

mikesguns
24-01-2010, 06:42 PM
Can the standings be put up?

Grant Szuveges
24-01-2010, 08:38 PM
The Australia Day Weekender was easy pickings for Jesse Jager, being the only player rated over 2000. Jager won his first 6 games comfortably and agreed to a quick draw in the final round, after having secured outright first with his 6th round win against second seed Richard Voon. Jack Shanks defeated Tony Davis in the final round to come outright second while various players shared third including Michael Addamo and Michael Steele who shared the rating prize.

6.5/7 Jesse JAGER
5 Jack SHANKS
4 Richard VOON
4 Brad ASHLOCK
4 Jake KOSTRZEWA
4 Michael STEELE
4 Michael ADDAMO
3.5 Tony DAVIS
3.5 Anthony HARRIS
3 Chris MULLEN
2.5 Enoch FAN
2 Laurie DALTON
1.5 Tristan RAYSON - HILL
1 Ben KIM

MichaelBaron
24-01-2010, 10:42 PM
Congratulations to Jesse:clap:

Grant Szuveges
24-01-2010, 11:56 PM
Here is a nice win from the final round by new MCC member Jake Kostrzewa. Playing black is Chris Mullen, a member of Jakes other club Hobsons Bay Chess Club which meets on Tuesday evenings. Great to see so many Hobsons Bay members playing in recent MCC events.

Jake KOSTRZEWA vs Chris MULLEN
Aust Day Open 2010

1. d4, d5
2. c4, c6
3. Nf3, Nf6
4. Nc3, e6
5. Bg5, Nbd7
6. e4, dxe4
7. Nxe4, Be7
8. Bxf6, Nxf6
9. Bd3, 0-0
10. 0-0, b6
11. Nxf6+, Bxf6
12. Re1, g6
13. Be4, Bb7
14. b4, Qc7
15. Ne5, Rfd8
16. Qf3, Bxe5
17. dxe5, Rac8
18. h4, Qd7
19. h5, Qxb4
20. hxg6, hxg6
21. Qf6, Rd7
22. Rad1, Rc7
23. Bxg6, Qxc4
24. Bxf7+, resigns
1-0

Can someone please put this into pgn format?

Bereaved
25-01-2010, 12:20 AM
Hi Grant,

I guess this was the game though there were a couple of ambiguous moments in the score of the game

[Event "MCC Australia Day weekender"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2010.01.24"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Kostrzewa, Jake"]
[Black "Mullen, Chris"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D51"]
[PlyCount "47"]
[EventDate "2010.01.06"]
[SourceDate "2010.01.25"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. Bg5 Nbd7 6. e4 dxe4 7. Nxe4 Be7 8. Bxf6 Nxf6 9. Bd3 O-O 10. O-O b6 11. Nxf6+ Bxf6 12. Re1 g6 13. Be4 Bb7 14. b4 Qc7 15. Ne5 Rfd8 16. Qf3 Bxe5 17. dxe5 Rac8 18. h4 Qe7 19. h5 Qxb4 20. hxg6 hxg6 21. Qf6 Rd7 22. Rad1 Rcc7 23. Bxg6 Qxc4 24. Bxf7+ 1-0

Take care and God Bless, Macavity

MichaelBaron
25-01-2010, 01:25 AM
Hi Grant,

I guess this was the game though there were a couple of ambiguous moments in the score of the game

[Event "MCC Australia Day weekender"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2010.01.24"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Kostrzewa, Jake"]
[Black "Mullen, Chris"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D51"]
[PlyCount "47"]
[EventDate "2010.01.06"]
[SourceDate "2010.01.25"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. Bg5 Nbd7 6. e4 dxe4 7. Nxe4 Be7 8. Bxf6 Nxf6 9. Bd3 O-O 10. O-O b6 11. Nxf6+ Bxf6 12. Re1 g6 13. Be4 Bb7 14. b4 Qc7 15. Ne5 Rfd8 16. Qf3 Bxe5 17. dxe5 Rac8 18. h4 Qe7 19. h5 Qxb4 20. hxg6 hxg6 21. Qf6 Rd7 22. Rad1 Rcc7 23. Bxg6 Qxc4 24. Bxf7+ 1-0

Take care and God Bless, Macavity

after 23...Qe7 black appears to be ok unless there is something that i am missing.

Lekko
25-01-2010, 03:06 AM
after 23...Qe7 black appears to be ok unless there is something that i am missing.
He probably missed Bxg6.

MichaelBaron
25-01-2010, 10:37 AM
He probably missed Bxg6.

After Bxg6 black is still OK