Dundee Chess Congress 2024

As I mentioned in my blog a couple of weeks ago, the Dundee Chess Congress has a strong claim to being the best Chess Congress in the Scottish calendar; if it isn't, then it's up there. How fortunate I am to have this virtually on my doorstep now (20 minutes' drive). As someone with a published grade of 1773 Chess Scotland, I just made the cut for the Major event - U 1800. (For context, anyone graded over 1700 Chess Scotland is easily above 2000 on the chess.com scale).

As you can see, this was a very tough Under 1800 event; the field being littered with players just graded too low to be required to enter the Premier event, and a great deal of 1600s and 1500s besides. On top of that, anyone entering this event with a grade Under 1400 - the grade isn't worth the paper it's written on; they will definitely be at least a few hundred points higher skill-wise, if they're bothering to enter this event. A true "anyone can get any result against anybody else" type of field.

You might ask: "Did you not fancy your chances testing yourself against top-quality opposition in the Premier?" To which I would reply: "Why?". For one thing, I did not feel my grade was a true reflection of my strength; a true CS Grade for me would be somewhere between 1500 and 1700. So I could "test" myself all I like; I know how that's going to go - I'd be lucky to finish on anything other than 0 points. The Major event would be plenty testing enough - I thought 3 out of 5 would be a good weekend's work. Furthermore, places in the Premier event were limited to 36; it would be irresponsible of me to take the place of someone 1800+ who would be otherwise unable to take part, or someone Under 1800 who was genuinely good enough to be competitive in that field - for example, Jan Klingelhoefer, who has featured in this blog previously.

As I said in my post about the Scottish Championships, the work for an event like this begins well beforehand. Preparation is everything. There are no (or limited) opportunities to prepare against specific opponents, but ensuring the opening preparation is on-point is important. You've heard the mantra that "Opening Theory doesn't matter below 1500" - which is true to an extent. But the converse is even truer: It DOES matter above 1500! Or as I phrased it this weekend: "Knowing Opening Theory will probably not win you the game at this level, but not knowing it will lose you the game." Case in point:

The above was supposed to be my game from Round 1 of last year's Dundee Congress - a game where I debuted my new opening in tournament play, and my opponent chose a sideline, quickly crushing me when I forgot a basic point in the theory. Unfortunately, I can'd find the scoresheet for that, so I've given the start of a game which also shows my underpreparation in a new opening and, in a roundabout sort of way, was pivotal in the tournament I'm writing about today. More on that later.

Unlike the Scottish Championships, I tend to play the Friday night match in the Dundee Congress. Being "local", there's no reason not to (even when I wasn't, I had accommodation for 2 nights, so I would always play it). This is a double-edged sword: a win can set you up well for the weekend; a loss puts you on the back foot from the get-go. I arrived with a decent amount of time to spare, and got chatting to my opponent. The subject of theory came up - I joked about going to the effort of working on it for hours only to forget it at the board; he joked about "knowing what the first move would be". Here is the game:

I guess my opponent wasn't kidding. As I said in the analysis, just because your opponent knows the theory, that isn't a reason to avoid the theory. This is a theme I will be returning to. But for now, the "blog" element of the blog! What, you thought this was all about chess? There's more to chess tournaments than - well, the tournament. An epic Round 1 struggle, followed by the common courtesy of analysing afterwards, meant it was pushing midnight by the time I got home. As I said to one of the arbiters, this was not a complaint: the time controls were generous, the start time for a Friday night reasonable; a late finish was the price. There's nothing else for it, and I wouldn't recommend any changes. I'm late to bed anyway, which led me to wonder if I'd get enough sleep, but that's on me. Besides, I had revision to do.

Chess tournaments don't just affect us (the players); they affect the people around us. In my case, my wife KB was taking on a lot for me to play in this. Currently even more disabled than she usually is, me being away all day would mean that she had to get the shopping in, and our dog would probably demand exercise. That was a lot of effort to leave her with - the best I could do was ensure she had everything she needed, just in case she was press-ganged into walkies by the death stare of a 7-year-old puppy.

Meanwhile, I spent a lot of Friday night and what time I had on Saturday morning trying to refine my White repertoire. In my last post, I showcased some of my old preparation. A trouble I've been having recently is that I had a lot of ideas about how to play as White in King's pawn games, but hadn't refined them into a coherent strategy, leaving me unsure what I was doing when Black met 1.e4 with 1...e5. Consequently, that was where I had been focusing a lot of my efforts. If Black played - well, pretty much anything else - I knew what I was doing. You want to surprise me as Black? Play the Lemming. I don't have prep for that. Would the prep pay off? Spoiler alert: emphatically yes.

If my opponent reads this, I hope he will feel consoled, if not totally vindicated, by what follows in some of the other games - there's a theme developing. We all have blind spots in our theory. As you can see from the game above, it was actually a loss as Black against the Scotch Gambit that inspired me to take it up for White. These things can happen to anyone; I am no exception - and as the notes show, it was not a flawless victory. However, the quick win had an away-from the board upside: I was able to go home, get the shopping in and walk the dog, before returning for the afternoon session!

I say that like it was simple; I had a medical issue of my own to deal with on Saturday, which resulted in a Carlsen-esque late arrival both times (although, we're talking a few minutes). That aside, my target of 3/5 was within reach. I was one of only three players on maximum points. One of them was graded 1300 (remember what I said about players being under-rated?), but I was playing Charles Gunn-Russell, a prizewinner at last year's Congress, and the other player on 2/2. Something had to give.

So, I ended Saturday on 2.5, and tantalisingly close to my 3 point target. If I could avoid a defeat in either of my last two games, I'd get there. But, as previously stated, the field was tough. The aforementioned 1300 had also drawn; nobody was leaving this event with a 100% record (which I could have predicted prior to the start). Time to go home, make dinner, and analyze/prepare for tomorrow's game, where I would be playing White again. The last-minute revision was very helpful.

Target reached! However, I couldn't just say "well, that's that then", and call it a day! I was still in 1st equal position, with FOUR other players! It was looking like a tie for 1st place, but between whom? Winning would guarantee a share of the spoils. A draw might win some money. Losers go home. Except for 15-year-old Matthew Hunter, who I have somehow got this far without mentioning. He was having a terrific tournament. Graded only 1365, he would earn a grading prize if nothing else. But his eyes were on the main prize - rightly so.

If by now you are, for some reason, still not buying my assertion that this was a tough field where anybody could beat anybody (and thus it was remarkable that we could guarantee at this point the winning score would be at least 4 points, but probably 4.5!), then here is the final proof: four of the five players on 3.5/4 were Black-seekers (i.e. played White is Round 4). That's the sort of thing that happens when matches are not going with grading form. I was paired against Ian G Matthew, 2nd seed, and highest graded player in the current 1st equal position.

I had sat next to Ian in Round 4, as he was playing White on Board 1 against Jan Barron-Majerick. That game would be Jan's only defeat, playing a Caro Kann against a gambit sideline that I happened to be familiar with. Jan went on to beat the aformentioned underrated 1300 player to earn a grading prize. If I had been Black against Ian, I would have played a Caro Kann, because I knew that gambit, and had the antidote. But as the highest graded player, he gets the colour he's seeking (I believe that's the rule), so I was White for a third time.

Like I said, my target was 3 points; I'd have bitten your hand off for 4.5! So a share of the prize money was assured, and all that remained was to find out who I'd be sharing it with. It was too much to hope for that results would go my way on both Boards 2 and 3. Board 3 did end in a draw, which knocked the only player on 3.5/4 to be paired against someone on less points out of the running. However, I needed a draw on Board 2 - the match between Charles and Matthew - to end in a draw too, if I was going to win outright.

I can't deny (because nobody would believe me if I did) that my primary reason for wanting a draw was competitive. But I will honestly say that completely separate to that, I just didn't want either of them to lose. They'd both had a great tournament, and both deserved to finish it unbeaten. Unfortunately, that was not to be the case. Matthew played very impressively, in particular in the endgame, where he promoted a pawn despite his passers starting further back than Charles'. Commiserations to Charles, but there can be no doubt that Matthew deserved his place on the top step if the podium. I'm lucky I wasn't playing against him! I do have a 100% record against Matthew, which will continue to be the case as long as I never play him again.

All that remains is to thank Keith Rose, Ray Noble, Ray Flood, Jim Anderson, Daniel Coleman and all the arbiters and other volunteers for all the work they put in to the weekend. I'd try to name them all, but I'd definitely miss some out (not intentionally!) Thanks also to the Chaplaincy Centre, who have been fabulous hosts, both to the Congress, and Castlehill Chess Club, for many years. It was another great success, and I look forward to failing to defend my (shared) title next year!