Tweet
I think we may have come up with a compromise configuration of these tournaments, somewhat tested by time and experience and somewhat constrained by the fact that we are johnny come latelies and janey come latelies with to respect to organizing these tournaments. One of the items of contention was over time and timing with respect to holding these three tournaments in Windsor.
We could hold all three tournaments simultaneously with the Canadian Open at night and the CYCC and NAYCC during the day and somewhat back to back in the case of the two tournaments. None of the players, nor any of the individuals who would be doing the bulk of the work liked this scenario. The players would at most play in two of them. This would have the advantage of letting players from out of town come down once, take a week of vacation and play in all three if they were a little crazy like I was when I played 168 games in one year. Upon reflection there was a reason I didn't do the same thing the following year.
One person (not a player) argued that we could compress the Canadian Open to a four and a half day tournament and run all three tournaments back to back over 11 or 12 days.
"If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well. It were done quickly..." The Macbeth option.
This ignores and trivializes the struggle that is part of chess and the inhumanity of such an approach. The real question is that when we have three tournaments and two will be back to back or close to being back to back, which two should it be? Should we put the two junior events back to back? Maybe the two events that foreigners can also play in (CO and NAYCC). What do the gentle readers of Chesstalk think?
We could hold all three tournaments simultaneously with the Canadian Open at night and the CYCC and NAYCC during the day and somewhat back to back in the case of the two tournaments. None of the players, nor any of the individuals who would be doing the bulk of the work liked this scenario. The players would at most play in two of them. This would have the advantage of letting players from out of town come down once, take a week of vacation and play in all three if they were a little crazy like I was when I played 168 games in one year. Upon reflection there was a reason I didn't do the same thing the following year.
One person (not a player) argued that we could compress the Canadian Open to a four and a half day tournament and run all three tournaments back to back over 11 or 12 days.
"If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well. It were done quickly..." The Macbeth option.
This ignores and trivializes the struggle that is part of chess and the inhumanity of such an approach. The real question is that when we have three tournaments and two will be back to back or close to being back to back, which two should it be? Should we put the two junior events back to back? Maybe the two events that foreigners can also play in (CO and NAYCC). What do the gentle readers of Chesstalk think?