The hangover is over...

Colorado Open 2004

Uggg...3 days of chess can wipe a person out. Yesterday, I had a scalding headache and no will to live. Thanks to some freezie stuff Michele gave me, I woke up a little more fresh-faced this morning. Headache and back strain gone. Yeah!

They've posted the results of the tourney. I really need to send a letter to the Editor of Chess Life to voice my concerns over tournament scoring. It's insane. Just like with every other tournament, if you look at the standings in the Colorado Open you'll find some discrepencies.

Here are some points:

1) I'm not complaining about my finish...I deserved it...BUT...I had to play both of the top 2 finishers as Black! The second place finisher for to face the 1 and 3 as White. As it turns out, I have no problem playing the French as Black, but if you look at my results with White in this tournament you'll find that my 3 best games were with those pieces.

2) Despite having to face the 1 and 2 finishers, I had to win the final game to claim 3rd place from a fellow who would have otherwise claimed third place without ever having to face 1 or 2. The point here is that losing the first game is not all bad as it allows you to play sub-par competition and hope for some losses on the top to get you to the top of the standings the "easy way."

3) In the Premier Section, Thomas Corbett played against Joshua Suresh for FIRST PLACE...he loses...he finishes 10th??? Meanwhile, the 2nd place finisher in that same tournament didn't have to face anyone who finished above 7th in the standings. If Thomas faced the last place finisher, for example, he'd have won and finished clear 2nd. He was punished for going for the title. I know that when I watch the Super Bowl that these are the top two teams in the sport, and not the 1st and 10th.

The problem with chess standings is that your score doesn't reflect your competiion. It's flawed. You ear 1 point for a win against the 1 seed in your section, but lose to a 10 and you're back even again. Meanwhile, anyone merely has to beat the punching bag of the section and they have as many points as you.

Think about it. If our ratings increased/descreased linearly as we won and lost, no matter what the competition, everyone would be rated 3 million because they'd just keep playing a patzer. But it doesn't work that way. Our ratings increase/descrease based on who we play, and their ratings. So why does a tournament hand out a 1.0 for a win, no matter who it's against, or what color you were, etc.? Why does one top player get to face the stiffest competition as white while another goes in with black? Why do other players get "rewarded" for losing an early game? Why doesn't Thomas Corbett get to finish slightly higher than another person with a 4.0 score because he had to face a tougher level of competition?

Perhaps the points you earn for a win or loss should be determined by the circumstance of the game. If I face a top-flight player, as black, i should be rewarded a little extra for a draw or win. If someone misses a round, is it fair that their 1-point bye is the same value as perhaps a win against a Grandmaster??? These questions sound absurd, but in fact that's how it works.

Does anyone else have any input or ideas on this out there?