Tweet
This was the first major Canadian tournament I've played in in five years. I've seen very little in Canadian chess in the past decade that excites me so I largely play in European opens these days. But Brian Fielder and his team did a very credible job and that's why I decided to stay home this year. I would have played in his weekender last year but as I work weekends it's tough to get the time. I generally find it amusing to read the chesstalk posts, and a lot of the ones with regards to this year's open were very amusing so I thought I'd give a few thoughts on this tournament based on my experience in playing in various opens in seven or eight European countries over the past decade.
I play in relatively few events and I choose them very carefully. Fielder's two efforts this year and last caught my attention because he got quality playing sites that are easily accessible (downtown and close to subway stops) and managed to get a number of sponsors. That suggested to me someone who wants to get it right. Note to organizers of future CO's. Not having to cart around chess sets and clocks to events is nice. In European tournaments the equipment is supplied, even in a rinky dink 15 minute tourney I played in Spain last year. The organizers this year got it right by doing so.
A word about pairings since this seems to be a major bone of contention with some and an obession with others. In a one section open accelerated pairings just don't make that much of a difference -- you basically put off the masters pounding the B and C players for a couple rounds but sooner or later it happens.
In my experience where that pairing model has worked alright was in 2000+ tournaments like Gibraltar and the Isle of Man. I laughed when I saw rhetoric on this forum about the tournament being wrecked because of third round pairings, etc, etc. That's silly. I've had few tournaments where I'm completely happy with the pairings I got. Last year in Dublin I had to play five juniors out of nine games. You just play and do your best and don't obsess about who the other guy is playing. In this event I played badly and had a poor result, but that's hardly the fault of the organizers or the TD.
The key to making the Canadian open successful in the future is to focus on what kind of event you want and not try to be all things to all people.
There seemed to be a bit of unrest about entry fees. Since the average European chess trip costs me about 3000 bucks I didn't find 195 dollars all that excessive. But perhaps in future try lowering the entry fee and cutting the class prizes down. Professionals play chess for money, but amateurs should play chess for chess. For those who want money, take up poker. I never even looked at the prize list for this year's open. European events have lower entry fees and I've rarely heard complaints about the prizes. Canada is unlikely to be able to outdo the World Open and having played there, why would you want to?
One idea to attract players, although this wouldn't involve too many people I suspect. For Canadian Opens in central Canada at least why not work out a deal with the organizers of the Quebec Open or even the World Open for that matter for discounted entry fees for those who play in both touraments.
On norms, the tournament seemed to get into hot water with pairings because it was concerned with providing this possibility for realistically maybe one or two players, but where did it get you? I see no evidence anyone picked up a norm. 2000+ events are the most common tourneys I've come across in Europe, with shorter events for class players. But one sectionals are held as well so you have to judge what is the right event for Canada and not worry about it being something for everyone. BTW, to solve the norm problem they tried an interesting idea in the Geneva International a few years ago. They put some of the invited grandmasters and some stronger local players into a small round robin. I think it was 10 players. The open was left with 3-4 GM's to give the amateurs that chance to play one. It seemed to work well and there were probably enough GM's in Toronto this year to make that approach feasible. It's something to be looked at. But if you stick with a one section open, then don't worry about stuff like norms.
It was good to see some news releases popping up on marketwire and since I work in the mainstream media I'll make a couple of points. There was quite a good release that I saw a couple of weeks ago -- but it was issued too early. A couple weeks beforehand if I recall correctly. Overworked assignment editors are deluged with releases and ones that talk about events 2-3 weeks away get lost in the shuffle. That sort of thing should go out on the Thursday before the event when assignment editors are deciding on weekend coverage. Given the appetite on mainstream media websites for good weekend stories you might have attracted more coverage. It was a good idea to put out news releases during the event. One I saw sort of buried the lead at bit -- Hambleton's win over two GM's. Rather than a headline in the release like Canadian Open halfway through, how bout: "Canadian teen steamrolls over grandmasters in upset shocker." Building your news release around Hambleton gives a ready-made story for news outlets. Naturally you'd have to make sure he'd be prepared to do interviews.
Looking at it objectively, the various: I don't like the pairings/a sandbagger got better pairings/a master threw the game/I didn't get my norm/ complainers are being far too harsh on the organizers. Nor am I overly impressed with rapturous praise for what was a solid, but not overly amazing event. Based on my experience this was about on par with a "second string" European open. It certainly doesn't compare with Biel, which is the gold standard for opens in my view, or Gibraltar, the Isle of Man or even Hastings. But it was no worse than some of the opens I've played in in Denmark, Holland or Prague. But I would agree with Gordon Ritchie, Brian I hope you keep organizing, Toronto chess badly needs you.
I play in relatively few events and I choose them very carefully. Fielder's two efforts this year and last caught my attention because he got quality playing sites that are easily accessible (downtown and close to subway stops) and managed to get a number of sponsors. That suggested to me someone who wants to get it right. Note to organizers of future CO's. Not having to cart around chess sets and clocks to events is nice. In European tournaments the equipment is supplied, even in a rinky dink 15 minute tourney I played in Spain last year. The organizers this year got it right by doing so.
A word about pairings since this seems to be a major bone of contention with some and an obession with others. In a one section open accelerated pairings just don't make that much of a difference -- you basically put off the masters pounding the B and C players for a couple rounds but sooner or later it happens.
In my experience where that pairing model has worked alright was in 2000+ tournaments like Gibraltar and the Isle of Man. I laughed when I saw rhetoric on this forum about the tournament being wrecked because of third round pairings, etc, etc. That's silly. I've had few tournaments where I'm completely happy with the pairings I got. Last year in Dublin I had to play five juniors out of nine games. You just play and do your best and don't obsess about who the other guy is playing. In this event I played badly and had a poor result, but that's hardly the fault of the organizers or the TD.
The key to making the Canadian open successful in the future is to focus on what kind of event you want and not try to be all things to all people.
There seemed to be a bit of unrest about entry fees. Since the average European chess trip costs me about 3000 bucks I didn't find 195 dollars all that excessive. But perhaps in future try lowering the entry fee and cutting the class prizes down. Professionals play chess for money, but amateurs should play chess for chess. For those who want money, take up poker. I never even looked at the prize list for this year's open. European events have lower entry fees and I've rarely heard complaints about the prizes. Canada is unlikely to be able to outdo the World Open and having played there, why would you want to?
One idea to attract players, although this wouldn't involve too many people I suspect. For Canadian Opens in central Canada at least why not work out a deal with the organizers of the Quebec Open or even the World Open for that matter for discounted entry fees for those who play in both touraments.
On norms, the tournament seemed to get into hot water with pairings because it was concerned with providing this possibility for realistically maybe one or two players, but where did it get you? I see no evidence anyone picked up a norm. 2000+ events are the most common tourneys I've come across in Europe, with shorter events for class players. But one sectionals are held as well so you have to judge what is the right event for Canada and not worry about it being something for everyone. BTW, to solve the norm problem they tried an interesting idea in the Geneva International a few years ago. They put some of the invited grandmasters and some stronger local players into a small round robin. I think it was 10 players. The open was left with 3-4 GM's to give the amateurs that chance to play one. It seemed to work well and there were probably enough GM's in Toronto this year to make that approach feasible. It's something to be looked at. But if you stick with a one section open, then don't worry about stuff like norms.
It was good to see some news releases popping up on marketwire and since I work in the mainstream media I'll make a couple of points. There was quite a good release that I saw a couple of weeks ago -- but it was issued too early. A couple weeks beforehand if I recall correctly. Overworked assignment editors are deluged with releases and ones that talk about events 2-3 weeks away get lost in the shuffle. That sort of thing should go out on the Thursday before the event when assignment editors are deciding on weekend coverage. Given the appetite on mainstream media websites for good weekend stories you might have attracted more coverage. It was a good idea to put out news releases during the event. One I saw sort of buried the lead at bit -- Hambleton's win over two GM's. Rather than a headline in the release like Canadian Open halfway through, how bout: "Canadian teen steamrolls over grandmasters in upset shocker." Building your news release around Hambleton gives a ready-made story for news outlets. Naturally you'd have to make sure he'd be prepared to do interviews.
Looking at it objectively, the various: I don't like the pairings/a sandbagger got better pairings/a master threw the game/I didn't get my norm/ complainers are being far too harsh on the organizers. Nor am I overly impressed with rapturous praise for what was a solid, but not overly amazing event. Based on my experience this was about on par with a "second string" European open. It certainly doesn't compare with Biel, which is the gold standard for opens in my view, or Gibraltar, the Isle of Man or even Hastings. But it was no worse than some of the opens I've played in in Denmark, Holland or Prague. But I would agree with Gordon Ritchie, Brian I hope you keep organizing, Toronto chess badly needs you.
Comment