Blogs
Recap Of The ANU Chess Festival - Open

Recap Of The ANU Chess Festival - Open

Avatar of Cosmic_Pikachu
Cosmic_Pikachu
| 5

Recently, I played in a classical (60|30) tournament called the the ANU Chess Festival. This weekend of chess consisted of two separate tournament - the open section and under-1600 section. The field in the open was the strongest it had been in years - maybe even decades, boasting 11 titled players including 3 CMs, 2 WFMs, 3 FMs, 2 IMs and 1 GM. Wanting to challenge myself, gain experience and potentially have a good underdog run, I decided to play in the open section. This blog will summarise the games I played and lessons I learnt.

In case you don't know how most open classical tournaments are run, the field is split into halves, and the highest rated player of the top half plays the highest rated player of the bottom half, second of top plays second of bottom, etc. Eventually, the highest rated people and best performers play each other and a deserving winner emerges. There are a total of 6 rounds and losing a game doesn't knock you out of the tournament. Also, the first named player is white and second named is black.

I should also mention that usually, I'm a very slow player in classical who overthinks in positions that aren't too critical, but playing fast this tournament was a big shift in my playing style.

Round 1: Opponent (2148) vs. Me (1839)  

In the first round, I played a very strong player rated 2148 FIDE - one of those untitled players who possess the strength of one. Since he's higher rated than me, it is clear that I am in the bottom half of the tournament and am the massive underdog.

Overall, I played a nice game in round 1, but my opponent outplayed me in a very complicated endgame where he simply had a better understanding of the position.

Round 2: Me (1839) vs. Opponent (1698)

In the second round, I played a 1698 FIDE rated player who's also 2000 Blitz and a very difficult player to face when on 0/1.

I believe that I played this game at quite a high level and am quite proud about that. I was also very relieved to get a win, as there was a very risk of me beginning the tournament on 0/2.

Round 3: Opponent (1881) vs. Me (1839)

In round 3, I played a friend who I admired for a very long time. My opponent is very experienced for his age with great positional and dynamic understanding, and blistering speed (2500+ chess.com blitz rating).

In this game, my opponent was applying lots of pressure for a while and I didn't have many chances to play for a win, but fortunately, the game ended in a draw. 

Round 4: Me (1839) vs. Opponent (1970) 

In the fourth round, I got paired against an opponent rated 1970 FIDE. I felt quite confident prior to the game because a few of my friends had played and either beaten or drawn him. However, I was quite comprehensively outplayed and lost with the white pieces.

Even though my opponent played very good chess and deserved to win, I was very disappointed in myself following this game. I lost with the white piece and now the highest score I could get was 3.5/6. I also felt like if I knew a better line against the Petrov that I may have been able to put up more of a fight.

Round 5: Opponent (1690) vs. Me (1839)

In the penultimate round, I found myself playing against my third companion, and with the black pieces. I didn't prepare much for this round and relied on our position getting out of theory early.

My thoughts on this game are as follows - I would've been happy to win and get a chance to get 3.5/6, but I think I played good dynamic chess and could be considered lucky to have drawn the endgame with the passed a-pawn.
.
Round 6: Me (1839) vs. Opponent (1739)
.
In the final round, I find myself playing against my fourth companion this tournament. Neither of us prepared against each other so I was looking forward to just playing chess without the burden of theory.
Winning in the final round and moving up to 50% (3/6) was a nice ending to my underwhelming tournament. However, I will take this tournament as a lesson on how I should move forward.
.
This tournament made me realise the importance of a few things. Openings do matter, and reaching a comfortable middle game with play is how to play for a win in long-time tournaments. I also realised that effective time management is very important. This includes not spending too much time in the opening, not being a perfectionist and only spending time in critical moments, such as when figuring out the middle game plans.
.
Following the tournament, I got advice from an International Master (rated around 2400, who actually ended up winning the tournament and taking home a cash prize of $1,200), and a Fide Master (rated around 2100). I asked their opinions on the following questions, and their answers really helped me look at chess improvement from a different perspective. 
.
Q1: What separates a player like me, rated around 1700-1800, from a player like you?
A1: Stronger players usually have way more experience, practice and wider pattern recognition. Chess is 90% pattern recognition, so training that is very beneficial. Stronger players are also better at middlegames. This comes from playing positions you are comfortable with and have experience playing. If you can substantially improve at middlegames, you can easily gain 300 ELO!
.
Q2: If your playing strength and rating reset to 1500, what would you do to reach 2,000?
A1: Study only 2 openings (enough where you reach similar positions every time) and train a bunch of calculation.
.
Overall, the ANU chess festival was a very fun and competitive tournament that I was glad to be a part of, and I expect to be a totally different player in my next classical tournament.