2017 Idaho Scholastic Champion of Champions

The players at the 2017 Idaho Scholastic Champion of Champions tournament. L-R: Forrest Zeng, Dylan Porth, Kevin Xu, Bryan Li, Seth Machakos. Photo credit: Jeffrey Roland.

The first-ever event of this kind in Idaho. Five players played for the Idaho Scholastic Championship title in downtown Boise, Idaho on May 27, 2017 at the Foerstel building at 249 South 16th Street in Boise, Idaho. These players qualified to play by being the top three finishers in both the Scholastic K-8 Championship (held in Boise, March 11, 2017) and the Scholastic 9-12 Championship (held in Boise, March 4, 2017), with one player from the 9-12 Championship, Thomas Connelly Reisig, not playing.

It was a round robin Game/45;d5 event, rated by US Chess Federation. Jeffrey Roland was Chief Tournament Director. Alise Pemsler and Adam Porth were assistant TD’s.

Seth Machakos won the event with a perfect score of 5.0/5 and is now officially the 38th Annual Idaho Scholastic Chess Champion.

http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?201705274692

Oregon Kids event report

From Facebook post of Coquillle Chess Club

Coquille Chess Club

Oregon Scholastic State Championships
It was a sunny weekend but in Seaside, nearly 400 chess players were indoors contending for the Oregon Scholastic State Championships at the Seaside Convention Center. Coos County had nine Coquille, two Myrtle Point and one North Bend player participating.
Joshua Grabinsky rated 2099 and listed as an Expert was the #1 seed stumbled early in the Middle School Platinum section as he drew Victor Dossin rated 1609 in the second round. Then all hope for becoming the national Barber candidate was dashed during the fourth round when he missed a good move for his opponent and he lost to Jack McClain rated 1717. Joshua won all his other games and slid into fifth place. His nemesis and friend Owen McCoy from Eugene won the Barber nomination.
Josiah Perkins rated 1880 was the #3 seed drew during the second round against William Adriance rated 1700. Then he lost in the fourth round as well against Venter Simon rated 1791 and drew his final round. He slid into honorable mention. Seth Talyansky from Portland won the Denker nomination.
A surprise crept up in the Elementary Cobalt section as Sawyer Bergstedt rated 958 had only two draws and also beat his teammate Riley Jones rated 863 to win second place in his division. He won a huge cup trophy filled with salt water taffy that he shared with his teammates and coach.
There were also some fun side events the prior evening. In the Blitz competition (speed chess), Zebadiah Zimmerman Coquille 5th grade won first place in his division. In the Bughouse competition (another fun variant of chess that is fast and made up of teams of two), Riley Jones and Daniel Carter with their team called Four Squares won first place as well as Josiah Perkins and Joshua Grabinsky with their team called Castel Insect-icide. Mavrick Macalino from North Bend won the crazy hat competition.
All players gained some valuable experience and want to attend again next year. Other players were Coquille: Jordan Henderson, Bridget Perry, Jordyn Westfall. From Myrtle Point: Margie Harris and Jonathan Padgett. From North Bend Mavrick Macalino.

CLICK HERE for USchess crosstable for the event.

CLICK HERE for NW Ratings tables

Next South Coast Chess tournament will be June 24th at LaVerne Park and is open to all players of all ages and experience. It will be a potluck with hot dogs supplied. There is a $5.00 registration fee and outdoor toy prizes for winners. Watch for announcements or check out Coquille Chess Club on Facebook. Questions or more info: Nancy Keller 541 290-8479 or drnancykeller@yahoo.com.

Introducing the newbie NWC blogger

Hey!

So this is blogging. Hmm. It’s easy enough to share your news and opinion in a blog, I suppose. The real question is not whether you can write it, but whether anyone will read it. I like to write, and as an ego-inflated chessplayer, I know I’m pretty good at it. Judging by the quality of some rather successful internet writers I’ve seen, though, being good at it isn’t really necessary. The average reader doesn’t seem to care much about the quality of the writing or the coherence of the argument. (It’s not fair to pick on internet writers exclusively, of course. The quality of many best-sellers is also abysmal.)

Ah, that’s always a good way to start: insult your readers. Guaranteed to generate positive word of mouth. But of course you, dear reader, are not the average internet surfer, but rather are chess-blog readers of distinction and erudition (there, definitely getting back on track). So rather than shoveling any more, let me explain why I’m going to write the occasional post on the NWC blog, and why you should read it.

About two years ago, as I was winding down my most recent stint as editor of the print version of NWC magazine, I began working on an editorial. This was a labor based on one of my pet peeves (a fertile subject for bloggers in general), and in order to support my arguments I asked Rusty Miller to gather some data from back issues of NWC. He kindly took some time away from his genealogical research to dig into 30-year-old issues (probably stored in 30-year-old boxes, for all I know), and in general he confirmed my supposition.

In a nutshell: tournament prize funds and entry fees in Washington and Oregon today are substantially the same as they were 10, 20, and even 30 years ago. Chess money in the Pacific Northwest has not adjusted for inflation.

Well, that wasn’t very difficult. Why didn’t I write that editorial a couple years ago? What’s the trouble here? It doesn’t seem a very controversial conclusion — it’s really just a simple fact, right?

Yes… if that was all there is to it. It’s the side-effects, the unintended consequences, the well-meaning, knee-jerk, populist tournament organizers and chess clubs, the political repercussions… (Huh? What’s he going on about now?)

Here’s what’s been happening. Adult tournament participation has been declining. One reason for this is the internet, of course. You can go online to any number of free or fee sites to play games any time of the day or night. It’s mostly blitz, but there’s always someone there to play, more or less at your level, no driving to a club at hours of their convenience, no parking, no waiting for a game. Heck, if you want you can play naked, no one will know. Go ahead and scarf that pizza, you’ll only smear your own computer, and if you just want to watch there are probably some very strong players duking it out. It’s not exactly tournament chess. Prizes are rare and difficult to win, and you can’t go out to lunch with your buddies or your opponent to post-mortem the game. Every so often you get whomped by a computer cheat… But I digress.

The point is that when fewer people come out to play at the local club tournament, the state or regional championship, or what have you, the tournament organizers try to figure out how to get the numbers back up, or at least hold onto the players that they have. And the very first knee-jerk impulse is this: lower entry fees. Yes, by making it cheaper to play chess, it becomes more accessible to more players. More people will come, right?

Wrong. For two reasons.

First, lower entry fees means lower prizes. Second, if you lower the cost, you make it more accessible… to whom? People who have little money.

Not everyone plays for prize money, of course. A vast majority really can’t expect to win prize money at most tournaments, right? So, does it matter if there are prizes? Many chessplayers play for the love of the game. Yes, but many don’t want to invest a bunch of money as well as their time just for the love of the game. As it also pertains to the lack of inflation in entry fees and prizes at relatively high-end events, it’s important to note the principle is not the expectation of winning, but the reasonable (read: optimistic) possibility of winning. And the amount your inflated ego says you have a semi-realistic chance at must be about double, or at least more than, what it would take to cover all expenses including entry fee, travel, and lodging. More on this later, complete with actual tournament data, but suffice to say that tournaments that might have seemed worthwhile to travel to a few decades ago now fail the test due to inflation.

Second, if you lower the cost, you make it more accessible… to whom? People who have little money. Like, college students, the unemployed, the homeless. People who spend all their cash on alcohol and cigarettes… (Nope, no stereotyping here.) I’m not saying there should not be events that cater to people with no money. However, keep in mind that millionaires rarely socialize at soup kitchens. (Huh? Let me elucidate.) If your club or tournament is designed to attract the dregs, don’t expect a lot of cream. (Oh yeah, sure, that was much more clear.) One last try: rich people don’t hang out with the unwashed. (Oh. So?)

Despite the large number of chessplayers who never do really amount to much in the world of business outside of chess (such as myself), there’s a small subset of players who actually get, you know, jobs and careers and the like. They usually disappear from chess for years or even decades while they make their way in the world, then they find some leisure time or start taking some of their three years of accumulated vacation time, and they look at playing in tournaments again. They are not, repeat, not, going to end up playing in the free-entry-no-prizes special at the club with 10 members who all smoke and play pinochle.

In 2011 the Portland Chess Club with their Centennial celebration tournament showed the way to bring some of these successful-type semi-retired former players out of the woodwork. They ran an event with $10,000 in prizes. The total number of players was significantly larger than a standard Oregon Open, which is normally the biggest event of the year in the Portland area, and there were quite a few faces returning to chess after extended absence.

Woo hoo! That Centennial was big, right? Huge prizes, way more than regular tournaments… Well, no, actually. Yes, it was bigger than anything seen recently (this was the year before the US Open came to the greater Portland area). But… Consider the Oregon Open. Over 30 years ago, the Oregon Open prize fund was $3000. Today, the Oregon Open prize fund is… $3000. If it had kept up with inflation, the Oregon Open would be offering something like $11,000. In other words, the Centennial was what the Oregon Open should be every year. The Centennial, in order to really be a big contrast, should have offered prizes on the order of $35,000.

The only tournaments that have, in fact, adjusted prizes (and entry fees) upward in the last 30 years (I’m not kidding) are the ones that got brief corporate sponsorship from Inside Chess back in the 1990s. Not to toot my own horn (too much), but in fact these were all events that I organized, and the sponsorship was my idea. I was wearing multiple chess hats back then, serving as WCF President as well as working at International Chess Enterprises, the publisher of Inside Chess. Starting with the 1992 Washington Chess Convention (featuring the Washington Open), and continuing with the Washington Class Championships, we upgraded these events from rather tiny local tournaments to gatherings worth traveling to play. That was the good news. The bad news is that since the mid-1990s, these events have also stagnated.

So, what’s the problem? Why don’t organizers just increase the entry fees and prizes? The risk (and every tournament involves risk to the organizer) would be proportionately the same as it was decades ago, right? Why not just go for it?

Inland Empire Open article

Posted by Spokane Chess Club on facebook:

HAVRILLA, CAMBARERI WIN INLAND EMPIRE OPEN
April 29-30
Top seeds Michael Cambareri and Mark Havrilla won this year’s Inland Empire Open with scores of 4.0. Mark beat Michael in round four, but was held to a final round draw while Michael scored a comeback victory in a fascinating game where his opponent had four pieces for a queen! Michael had the only perfect score after the first day’s action while Mark took a Saturday night bye to enter their showdown battle one half point behind.
A total of 29 players (and one house player) took part in this year’s installment of Spokane’s oldest weekend tournament. While Michael had the perfect score after the first day and Mark was the only returning player at 2.5, there were nine other players who finished the first day with 2.0 scores. That made for a bunch Wallaceof closely contested games on the final day — and the bunched up standings reflected the close nature of the competition. Four players finished third with scores of 3.5: Brad Bodie, Jonathan Geyman, Dan McCourt, and Karl Reutter. Jonathan, a rapidly rising provisionally-rated player, was also the top score in class C, while the other three also shared the class A prizes. The class B prizes were shared by Jason Cross and Kevin Korsmo with scores of 3.0. Second place in class C was shared by Walter van Heemstede Obelt and Ron Weyland, both of whom scored 2.5. Walter’s accomplishment was particularly impressive in that he was only able to play the first day due to work commitments.
Steve Wallace(3.0) won the class D first prize. Second in that section (at 2.5) was shared by Logan Faulkner and Rob Harder. Rob also scored a 606 point upset victory in the first round to claim the top upset prize. The tourney also featured six unrated players participating in their first USCF tourney.

CLICK HERE for USchess crosstable

Note: Jonathan Geyman also won the open division at the small unrated Lou Domanski Chess Festival in early April, beating James Stripes in round four. The last round had two teenagers on board one. Jonathan and Benjamin Nylund, who recently moved to Idaho from New Zealand. The Lou Domanski Chess festival had been known as the Sandpoint Community Chess Festival until renamed three years ago. It was started by Lou Domanski 26 years ago. Stripes has been the event’s TD since 2009.