Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Ice on Lake Michigan Swiss (Jan. 7-21)

January 14, 21 & 28: 3-Round Swiss in Two Sections (Open and U1600)

62 comments:

Robin said...

The Club's first tournament of the year. Come join us for some chess!

Anonymous said...

Anything important happened?

Robin said...

Round 1 results of the Open Section. There were a few upsets. There were also a couple of players with first round byes who will be joining next week.

Grochowski,R v Williams 0-1
Veech v Mhaskas 0-1
Schneider v Hildeman 0-1
Sagunsky v Becker 0-1
Coons v Joachim 1-0
Itskovich v Hendrickson 1-0

Jonathan said...

I have to mention that my "upset" was due to luck, or more specifically a large blunder by my opponent after I was in a losing position, and not to a sudden increase in my playing skills. In my mind the game counts as a loss even though it gave me a win on paper.

Anonymous said...

Looks like Becker is going to win another one because his competition is dropping off.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Hildeman - Thanks for your comment on our game. Actually, after I equalized with white :), I thought it was a really good game until of course I made the "last error" - and it was a big one!! I thouight we both played pretty well until that point. Thanks for the game and good luck next week. Tommy

JB said...

Good sportsmanship gentlemen! Good luck to all.

Anonymous said...

Noooooooo! Veech never do that again.

Anonymous said...

Do what? Lose to an underrated youngster? Well, that's how many of us felt playing him when he was 2-300 pts. lower than his actual strength. Plenty to lose and nothing to gain...

Anonymous said...

Its funny how Veech will still vs. Hendrickson.

Anonymous said...

Veech is still underrated. Kudos to him and other highly rated players for coming to the club and putting their rating on the line with few points to gain even if they win the events. They must do it because they love to play chess.

Anonymous said...

I don't think Veech is underrated at all anymore. True, in the opening he plays at 2300 strength, but just because he has memorized many opening variations. Give him an equal middlegame however, and he plays class A chess at best. His endings are lacking also. Give almost any player an advantage in the opening every time and they will perform at expert level. Very sharp tactically, most likely due to umpteen hours playing ICC, but very little positional sense.

Anonymous said...

Every chess player has things to work on - strengths and weaknesses, and every game is just that - a chess game, from preparation to the game completion.

Yury said...

Just curious what the results for the reserve section were.

Anonymous said...

@anonymous 9:23
Thanks for the scouting report! I'll keep it in mind the next time I play myself! I'll leave it up to other people to point out the obvious flaws in your reasoning but I will say that it is clear that you do not anything about chess or about me.

John Veech

1810 said...

Now about Paul Morphy...

Anonymous said...

Good for you John - and good humor. Some great players improved by playing themself, right? I'm sure you'll figure out what it will take to improve, and it won't have anything to do with anonymous 9:23's simplistic assessment of you or your chess.

Anonymous said...

Yeah like I heard Paul Morphy was an amateur.

troy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
troy said...

I can't believe how many people post negative comments anonymously (This means you Anon 9:23).

Anonymous said...

Anyone going to Team Tourn.?

Jerry said...

What happened in U1600?

Robin said...

Reserve Section Results Round 1:
Gaddameed v. Adavi 1-0
Odom v. McKee 0-1
Neumann v. Burgin 1-0
Jester v. Vootkur,S 1-0

Anonymous said...

Team tournament looks like fun. Are there any masters or grandmasters playing?

I am not sure if @anonymous 9:23's comments are all that negative, but it would be nice to know his credentials. If he is one of the top players in the state, then fair enough. If he is an A class players, then it's questionable that he would know much about 2300 prep, but he definitely needs to work on HIS openings to become an expert (logical, right?). An if is any lower, then it would be like me assessing a professional painter or a singer. lol.

On the other hand, I ain't sure how one can say that "Veech is still underrated". Look at his rating curve. It's a flat line. Numbers like these don't lie, so John needs to figure what's up. Maybe coaching might help, but I can imagine how challenging a student someone like John would be. He is bright and talented, so he probably has strong opinions.

Anonymous said...

As far as the team tournament, I'm sure Alex would be all over this blog (he has shamelessly promoted himself and his events on this blog). If there were any players of note preentered... particularly if any GM's were entered, count on Alex to be the first to let you know!

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure it is possible to understand Anon @6:14 am's comments. Maybe he should: (a)Proofread before he posts, or (b)Don't post at all.

Anonymous said...

True enough. I must apologize if my comments were misunderstood. They were not meant to be taken as anything personal as I have not spoken one-on-one to the young man. Just an observation from seeing many games and hearing the analysis of other games. Also due to the fact that, yes, there hasn't been a great deal of improvement over the course of the last year. Yes, I know it's not particularly nice of me, but is it really in his best interest to coddle him and constantly tell him that he's the greatest thing since sliced bread with no flaws?? I think not.
As you can see from John's response he already has a very high opinion of himself, so no need for me to heap more flattery upon him. I admire what he has accomplished so far, as can be said of many of the fine young players such as Troy, Evan, Reid, Awonder etc.
Perhaps John will become Wisconsin's first Grandmaster! If that is his goal, I support him all the way, but he must be coached critically and told realistically what needs to be done to reach those heights. As far as a "simplistic" assessment is concerned, I believe concise would be a better term. I could have explained in much more detail where there could be improvement, but when the post was made I had neither the time nor the inclination to go into depth. I also made the comments with another motive and the results were as expected.
Immediately a hue and cry arose because someone dared to criticise one of the best young players instead of blindly heaping adoration. Yet, where is the indignation when some of our best and most dedicated lifelong players are hung out to dry? When people insult and denigrate Mr. Hayes or Mr. Williams or Mr. Penkalski among others, where is the outrage then?? If it doesn't come from the same people that leapt to John's defense, then that is nothing but hypocrisy. Such players have spent a lifetime dedicated to the game.
As far as "love of the game" is concerned my respect goes equally to the lifelong 1400 player who comes to play as often as possible, with no hope for real improvement. Someone who has a job or two, a family to raise, bills to pay, perhaps poor health and failing eyesight or memory and yet still finds time to play. Think of the many players who didn't learn the game until later in life, when they had all these responsibilities and more. Is it ok to criticise them because they didn't have the time or opportunity of youth to become a great player? Young players should cherish the time they have available, with no worries about work or family or income or bad health. I really don't see how it's possible not to become a great player if you start early enough.
As a final note about my credentials, I hasten to note that an Art critic rarely is a professional artist. The same holds true for endeavors such as music, theater etc. Then why would a chess critic need to be superior to the players he comments upon? Who could coach Kasparov or any of the world champions in their time? Nobody by that reasoning, yet they all had numerous coaches. And just for your information I am a Life Master. Victories over Penkalsi, Betanelli and Santarius to start with. Can John say that yet? Perhaps soon, but yes, John I do know my chess. (anon 9:23)

Alex said...

Life master from WI who has beaten me AND Erik? And Dave? This narrows it down to one. Too bad he cannot spell my last name.... after all those years.

As for "shameless promotion".... the owners of the blog WANT me to advertise events. So, whatever man.

Alex

Anonymous said...

Alex,
Didn't say I was from Wisconsin.;) Also, there may be games against those opponents that you are not familiar with.
p.s. sorry I misspelled your name, but I am not the person you were thinking of, I assure you.
p.s.p.s. I am also sick and tired of people disrespecting you too!!

Alex said...

OK. :-)I learned not to take stuff personally, so I don't care much about lack of respect. It's America after all.

Erik and Dave come from different chess eras, so it's very hard to think of an out-of-state player who has beaten all three of us and know enough about WI junior players now. Unless one has beaten Erik on ICC of course. :-) Dave and Erik have lost only a handful of live games to out of state masters, so perhaps I can guess your identity. :-)

Alex

Anonymous said...

Well, it's not really important who I am anyway, what I am concerned about are the points I brought up in my rather lengthy post earlier. Anyway, don't let your detractors (spelling?) get you down. In my opinion you have never had to prove anything to anybody. Gracious in victory as well as defeat as well as in life.
p.s. hope you had a great time overseas!

Robin said...

Open Round 2 Pairings (tentative):
Williams(2205) v Mhaskar(1701)
Becker(2011) v Itskovich(1581)
Hildeman(1625) v Coons(1824)
Grochowski,A(1781) v Munoz(1824)
Demler(1541) v Veech(2064)
Joachim(1514) v Schneider(1863)
Hendrickson(1859) v Grochowski,R(1720)
Sagunsky, David L (661) Please Wait

Robin said...

Reserve Round 2 Pairings (tentative):
Mckee(1361) v Gaddameedi(1438)
Vootkur,M(633) v Neumann(1203)
Synowicz(903) v Jester(823)
Adavi(790) v Odom(557)
Vootkur,S(787) v Burgin(520)

Robin said...

Round 2 pairing changes to Open Section, not effecting Boards 1-3.

Munoz(1824) v Pokorski(1685)
Demler(1541) v Grochowski,A(1781)
Grochowski,R(1720) v Veech(2064)
Joachim(1514) v Schneider(1863)
Hendrickson(1859) v Sagunsky(1661)

Anonymous said...

Updates? Did Veech lose again?

Southwest Chess Club said...

Robin will update us on all the results, but here are a few notes from last night:
Hildeman beat Coons, Mhaskar beat Williams, and Becker beat Istkovich.
Veech took a bye last night.

troy said...

Updates? Did Anonymous lose again? (Yes)

Robin said...

Open Section results:
Williams v Mhaskar 0-1
Becker v Itskovich 1-0
Hildeman v Coons 1-0
Munoz v Pokorski 1-0
Demler v Grochowski,A 0-1
Joachim v Grochowski,R 1-0
Hendrickson v Sagunsky 1-0

Reserve Section:
McKee v Gaddameedi 0-1
Vootkur,M v Neumann 0-1
Synowicz v Jester 1/2-1/2
Adavi v Odom 1-0
Vootkur,S v Burgin 1-0

Jonathan said...

Ack. Does that mean I have to play Becker? Again? Sigh. Well, I had him sweating the last time we met over the board, so I know he's beatable, and I'm on a roll here. Bring 'em all on. I'm tied for first in a tourney after the second round, and that is something that has never happened to me before. With any result, I have broken new ground in my game. Plenty of reason to smile.

But you must excuse me, I have some serious chess studying to do, two kids to watch, and an entry door to replace in the dead of winter. And I still have failed in finding anything resembling a career (anyone hiring?). Nothing but fun ahead!

Anonymous said...

You made Becker sweating???? I highly doubt that.

peter said...

For the most part, we've all met, spoken, and played chess with one another. As anonymous rightly pointed out in his lengthy post, chess skill and ELO rating do not form the basis for respect. I would like to suggest that people enter a name when posting on this blog.

Jonathan said...

"You made Becker sweating???? I highly doubt that."

I certainly hope that your chess skill is better than your grammar. Also, as I have no idea who you are, I have not idea if you were there. I assure you that I was, however. I also must remind you that for almost everyone there is someone with a higher rating. Why is this true? Because everyone makes errors in their game. Just because a 2000 rated player makes fewer mistakes perhaps than a 1600 player, does not mean that his play is error free or that the higher rated player automatically wins before the game is played. I think my last two games prove that! Also, anyone who has been paying attention would notice that my rating jumped more than 100 points over the course of the past year. :-) Maybe I've hit my plateau, and maybe not. We will just have to wait and see.

Jonathan said...

Just ran a few numbers, and it seems at a glance that no matter who I play if I sweep my preformance rating for this little tourney would be at least 2250 and my rating would jump to at least 1740. Even if I lose the third round, my preformance rating would be close if not past 2000, and my rating jumps up at least about 50 points. :-) Chess is a great game!

Anonymous said...

You only won once. You barely increase any rating. Trust me, you have to beat more than one person to increase 100 points. Beside Nolan only lost to you because he wanted to end your game quick.

Jonathan H said...

Something has to be done about these annonymous chicken posts by people who don't know what (or who) they are talking about. Put down your name or walk away.

e-no-ee-mousse said...

There is no way to prevent people from posting anonymously. Your rise to fame should not have to cause others to be punished. I respect you for your results, but anonymous posting will keep on going whether you like it or not. One cannot fully appreciate chess unless he sits at the computer posting anonymously, insulting fellow chess players who have come farther then they ever have. :)

Jonathan's mistake said...

He's right. You should not just be mad at people just because you won your first game in a druple years.

Call me Ref. said...

Hey, we should play a game between Anonymous and "real people".

Robin said...

Open Section Round 3 Pairings (tentative):

Mhaskar(2.0,1701) v Becker(2.0,2011)
Hildeman(2.0,1625) v Munoz(1.5,1824)
Grochowski,A(1.5,1781) v Williams(1.0,2205)
Joachim(1.0,1514) v Hendrickson(1.0,1859)
Coons(1.0,1824) v Itskovich(1.0,1581)
Pokorski(0.5,1685) v Demler(0.5,1541)
Grochowski,R(0.0,1720) v Sagunsky(0.0,1661)

Robin said...

Reserve Section Round 3 Pairings (tentative):

Gaddameedi(2.0,1438) v Neumann(2.0,1203)
Jester(1.5,823) v Mckee(1.0,1361)
Vootkur,S(1.0,787) v Synowicz(1.0,903)
Adavi(1.0,790) v Vootkur,M(1.0,633)
Burgin(0.0,520) v Odom(0.0,557)

Anonymous said...

predictions are
Mhaskar(2.0,1701) v Becker(2.0,2011)0-1
Hildeman(2.0,1625) v Munoz(1.5,1824) 0-1
Grochowski,A(1.5,1781) v Williams(1.0,2205) 1/2
Joachim(1.0,1514) v Hendrickson(1.0,1859)0-1
Coons(1.0,1824) v Itskovich(1.0,1581)1/2
Pokorski(0.5,1685) v Demler(0.5,1541)1/2
Grochowski,R(0.0,1720) v Sagunsky(0.0,1661)1-0

Anonymous said...

Pokorski vs. Demler 0-1

Anonymous said...

Come on, Mr. Demler, who are you trying to fun here by predicting your own win over Pokosky.

Vote the next move said...

d4

Anonymous said...

d5

Vote for the Next move said...

c4

Anonymous said...

e6

Robin said...

Please find another site to play your game, as this site (Blog) is not suited for that. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Black resigns due to suspension

Robin said...

Round 3 Results:
Mhaskar v. Becker 0-1
Hildeman v. Munoz 1-0
Grochowski, A. v. Williams 0-1
Joachim v. Hendrickson 0-1
Coons v. Itskovich 1-0
Pokorski v. Demler 0-1
Grochowski, R. v. Sagunsky 1/2-1/2

Reserve Results:
Gaddameedi v. Neumann 1-0
Jest v. McKee 0-1
Vootkur, S. v. Synowicz 0-1
Adavi v. Vootkur, M. 1-0
Bugin v. Odom 1F-0F

Robin said...

Becker and Hildeman win the Open Section with 3 points each.

Gaddameedi wins the Reserve Section with 3 points.

Congratulations to the winners.

Anonymous said...

Predictions way off as usual!