Tuesday, March 9, 2010


So I think I'm done with this tournament for the Club Championship Qualification. Apparently one of the members of my qualification group, who also happens to be the Club President is being seeded into the finals without having to play a single game! The format which we all have been following consisted of two fairly-evenly matched groups where the top four scores for each group would move onto the next round.

One member has been sick and missed his first six or seven matches. He assured us that he would make them up (like anyone of us would have to do in his situation) "even if he has to play 7 games in 7 nights" I believe those were his words. I have now found out that he doesn't in fact have to play any of these games and he is being seeded into the finals. As a rule, the club has generally seeded the previous reno club champion into the finals, this would be Edwin Straver whom is in fact already seeded into the finals.

On top of this injustice, our group now will only get three members into the next round instead of the prescribed four. Someone whom played a good tournament is going to left out simply because one member is getting special treatment.

Chess is supposed to be fun and the tournaments should be fair as possible. I rarely get involved with the politics of the club but this is one case where influence is giving an unfair advantage to another member, in full contrast to the prescribed rules which we all accepted when we set aside our thrusday nights for this tournament.

I'm not blaming anyone for this mishap, I just can't conscientiously continue playing when the rules are so blatently being manipulated to the advantage of the select. This will probably(paradoxically) turn me into the bad guy, so be it...


  1. Your thoughts about this are completely valid. When you think about the grander scheme of things; i.e., your gradual improvement as a player when you get opportunities to play stronger and weaker players, club members with full-time jobs or who are retired and sickly, etc. etc., I hope you will agree that it serves you a long-term purpose to play the rated games and not worry about these silly little tournaments at the Reno Chess Club.
    I actually stopped coming to the club for a few years after I grew weary of antics such as the one that is your grievance above, as well as drunken bullies and general rudeness.
    Now that I'm a bit older and both more AND less patient (more likely to call BS on the spot and show the offender why), it seems easier to deal with this crap and just go and kick @$$ on Thursday nights. For a tournament result to be based on how hard your week was, or how drunk/sick/back at the gym your opponent was on one night, can only be eliminated statistically via playing as many rated games as possible.
    It would be interesting if we could convince a number of players - particularly the highest-rated ones - to quit the tournament in protest. For "little" 1600 players like ourselves to do it means nothing; for some experts to join in, thus making any championship victory a hollow one, carries some weight. I can tell you from years of knowing the people involved, that this would mean nothing to the particular offender: he'll take it any way he can get it.

  2. Nice post. Unfortunately no experts are willing to stand up for anything. They feel content that they will still qualify and f%#$ the rest of us...right?

    Might equals right....

  3. It's the definition of conservative versus progressive: if you already have what you want/need, why bother expending energy to alter things?