Seafair Open 2018

The Seafair Open is a tournament with a very long pedigree (I think I first played in it when I was in my teens) but a somewhat problematic structure.  It's traditionally a single-section event, and it's also quite large--the biggest Seattle Chess Club event of the year.  This leads to strange pairings--it's not uncommon never to play anyone within 200 points of your own rating.  But it's my comeback anniversary tournament--I first started playing competitively again at Seafair 2014--so I was pretty keen to play. The pairings issue was in full display this year, even with a smaller than average field of 47 players.  We have so many tournaments lately that the player base is spread among them, I think.

Some drama was added by Jason Yu, who was rated 2183 and would turn 12 a few weeks after the tournament.  This was therefore his last chance to become a master at age 11, and he wanted it badly.  To his disgust, his first round opponent was a no-show, so no points for him that round.

Myself, I was stressed and overheated (this was, by Seattle standards, a long hot summer) and just hoped not to disgrace myself.   I brought my secret weapon, a "cooling bandana"--a fabric tube filled with water-absorbing crystals, meant to be soaked in cold water and then worn around the head or neck.  It was actually somewhat helpful.

In round 1 I faced a young player who turned out to have a FIDE rating but no USCF, probably because he had recently moved to the area.

We had a very good analysis session after this game.  Definitely a kid to watch out for.  I will be saying that a lot in this blog....

I was paired down again, and felt somewhat nervous given how much trouble Saket had caused me:

When I was playing in the 1980's, this kind of game was the usual outcome of a big rating mismatch.  But in Seattle in 2018 it's a rarity to have an easy game against any opponent, especially when kids are involved;  the previous game is more typical.  (Ashwin should not be discouraged, though.  I like the aggression he showed after his problems in the opening.)

After two wins it was clear the mismatch would now be in the other direction.  I was pleased to find I was playing NM David Bragg rather than, say, Anthony He; I felt I had some chances against him, as our previous games had gone pretty well for me.  However, I was overtired and oblivious to my opponent's threats.  (This was the main conclusion of my summer camp report card, and it's definitely on display in this tournament.)

I wasn't very happy about this game, for obvious reasons.  I just was not tactically accurate; furthermore, my opponent wasn't either, which meas I missed a sterling chance to beat a master.  I doubted I'd get another.

We were also seeing a problem that has become endemic to SCC tournaments:  noisy, distracting behavior from a minority of the kids, and occasionally from a minority of the adults as well.  I think it was this tournament where an elderly and somewhat hard of hearing player claimed a repetition draw, and her elderly and also slightly hard of hearing opponent insisted, loudly and at some length, that he did not accept her draw offer.  The TD had to be called, and by the time this was sorted out everyone was quite distracted.  The kids were worse than this, though, both in the main club and in the skittles room.  I am quite frustrated with the club's inability to address this problem, which has been a constant irritation at almost every tournament lately.  (The one tournament which was completely free from it was the Women's Championship, which was so quiet you could hear a pin drop.  Hm.)

The strange pairings continued with a game against Daniel Qian, the alarming sort of young player whose rating graph goes from 1100 to 1750 in under three years.  One is never comfortable that the current rating of such a player means anything, so I knew I should be careful.  Not careful enough, as it turns out:  my difficulties seeing my opponent's threats continued.

The segment of summer camp which I found the most difficult was the one on exchanging wisely, and that problem was critical here.  It often is in the Stonewall Dutch; this pawn structure has such a strong personality that ending up with pieces that don't gel with it can easily lead to catastrophe. 

My last round opponent was rated in the 1500's USCF but the 1700's NWRS.  The two systems supposedly differ by about 100 points (so that NWRS 1700 would be USCF 1600) but I haven't been convinced of this.  The fact that the game started with 10 moves of a clearly prepared opening left me even more suspicious.  Northwest players can get a bit paranoid about juniors, and with reason!

So that's two narrow escapes in a row, and a rating drop from 1921 to 1907--at least I was still 1900, which has some emotional weight for me.  Not a great result though.

It's said that positional play is "what to do when there's nothing to do."  That's what I need to work on:  I did not find adequate plans in several of the games when no attack was available.  I did recognize critical situations, and spent considerable (and sometimes alarming) amounts of time on them, but I didn't get good plans to emerge.  I don't know how much of this was ignorance and how much was fatigue--certainly some of both.

I think I would advise my young opponents not to take draws in situations like the ones in the last two games.  Declining the draw will mean that you sometimes lose--I have had a string of nasty comebacks against lower-rated players recently--but it's more educational, and sooner or later you are going to have to beat strong players.  Might as well start now.  When Jason Yu offered me a tacit repetition draw a few tournaments ago, I took my own advice and nearly lost, but I still think it was the correct way to go.  So I am willing to stand by it--up to a point!  I think if I had such a position against Roland Feng or Jim Tarjan, I'd probably take the draw....

Speaking of Jason, he ran up against FM Anthony He in round 4, which was the end of his ambition to be an 11-year-old NM.  Anthony won the tournament handily with 5-0.  There was a strange five-way tie for second (4-1) among David Bragg (2200), Jason (2100), and players rated 2000, 1900, and 1800.  (The 1800 player was eligible for a whole lot of different prizes, but alas, this isn't allowed....)