Chess is, in theory, a game involving no luck. There are no dice, no spinner, and no other mechanism that alters the course of events other than a player’s moves. Apart from occasionally randomizing who plays which color, there’s no actual randomness to the game.
But there is a lot of pseudo-randomness. Events that look and feel random, but actually are not. For example, who a player is paired up against. There’s a long section in the rulebook on how this is determined, but to players it feels like luck.
There are also unexpected events that we attribute to luck. I’ve talked about these in past updates, and we had more today. We always do.
One such bit of luck at today’s tournament was the speed in which kids are playing. The lower sections are supposed to end by 1pm, and usually end a bit earlier. The higher sections by 3pm. But all four sections were playing fast today, so we opted to add an extra round to the tournament. We wouldn’t have done this for a big name tournament with thousands of dollars at stake, but for a local tournament with two unrated sections? Sure, it’s fun for them to get in an extra game.
For starters, we had 48 kids registered for today’s tournament. Every section had an even number of players, a fortunate occurrence that always makes everyone happy. And then Murphy’s Law kicked in. One player called out sick and two others failed to show up. Three sections suddenly had an uneven number of players so byes would be a major issue.
Section 1 (K-2, unrated games) was our youngest group with five players. Not having developed much in the way of patience yet, the kids usually play extremely fast. I was therefore surprised in game one to find Srujan Pansare and Gabriel Kanter using far more of their time than usual. An investigation revealed the reason why -- the players were becoming confused as to whose turn it was, and so they’d both sit for periods of time waiting for the other to make a move. It wound up being the section’s longest game of the day, but eventually Srujan pulled off a win. Srujan went on to win three out of his four games, losing only to Yuvaan Nai.
Yuvaan started the event with a bye. Byes are a mixed blessing. They’re good for winning awards, in that they’re an extra point. But they have no tiebreaking value, so ties almost always favor the player who did not receive a bye. Also, the players came to play chess. Turns out the random factor of earning a bye didn’t heavily affect Yuvaan. He went on to win two of his next three games and drew the other for a first place win of 3.5 points. Well played, sir!
In Section 2 (K-4, unrated games) nine kids duked it out for those oh-so-shiny trophies. Prisha Sampat and Asher Yarmush started with an impressive two wins in a row, but Asher couldn’t hold onto the momentum and lost the next two games. Still, this is quite good for a first tournament. Well done, Asher!
Prisha Sampat and Carter Monyati were playing their final game of the day. If Prisha won she’d win first place. If Carter won he’d win second or third place. The two were ignoring defense in favor of aggressively trying to checkmate each other. A crowd of kids gathered around the table to watch. That’s when it happened. A spectator blurted out something like, “if you move the rook there it’s checkmate!”
This was the situation: White led on material, but it was Black’s turn. If Black moved their rook to the 1st rank it was checkmate. Any other move would extend the game. Prisha, playing Black, insisted she had seen the move before the spectator spoke up. Carter, playing White, said there’s no way of knowing if she would have seen it. The move itself was highly obvious, although both were novice players so one never quite knows.
After conferring with the other tournament director, we ruled the game to have a split result. The game would stand as a win for Prisha, but would also count as a draw for Carter. This is a highly unusual but legal way of handling such a situation, especially for an event at this level. The result also meant Prisha would come in first and Carter would not earn a trophy, although we didn’t know that at the time.
Section 3 (K-8, under 800, rated games) was our big section of the day with 25 players. Winning a trophy against this much competition would be a true challenge. Several kids immediately raced to 2.0 points after the first two rounds -- Akshaj Jindal, Greyson Wallace, Daniel Lee, Ayush Saxena, Ezra Yarmush, and Fay Pingel (who had a bye in round one). These would be our likely contenders for the top awards although it was still possible for others to catch up.
Ezra suffered the same fate as his younger brother in section 2, losing his third and fourth game. (In larger sections winners usually play winners as the rounds progress, meaning the difficulty of the games goes up. So a progression of win-win-loss-loss is quite common in a four-round event). Faye Pingel lost her third and fourth games as well, in part prompting her to visit the tournament director desk and declare that she wanted to learn how to be a tournament director. (I told her I’d start teaching her when she turns ten years old. I’ll honor my promise when you’re ready and are ready to learn, Faye. I remember these things.)
In addition, we hope Alan gets his act together and creates the ICA TD test now that his semester is ending!
At the end of round four Akshaj had a perfect four points making him the first place winner. Arhaan Rao, who wasn’t even in the pack of leaders, came from behind to clinch second place with 3.5 points. And there were a whopping six players who tied for third place with 3.0 points. At the awards ceremony six players all hoped they’d be the lucky player to win the tiebreak. Only one could win, and that went to Greyson Wallace.
Section 4 (K-12, under 1400, rated games) has six players ranging from 824 to 1248 in ratings. This section had the least luck and chaos to it, in part because they’re mostly older kids who practice proper decorum at tournaments, and partially because they play in a small side room partially blocked by our tournament directing desk. (As in, no bored bystanders walking in and out.)
The section was won by Ethan Karni who won four games in a row!
In my eyes, Ruvishka Gupta was a different sort of winner. A very young player, she initially registered for the K-2 section. But she also has a provisional rating of 838, making her way overqualified for that section. Indeed, she’s even too high to play in the Under 800 section. After talking over the issue with her and her family, she decided to give the Under 1400 section a try. Our logic was simple: If she did well, then she’s appropriately placed in that section. If she didn’t do well, then her rating would drop below 800 allowing her to play more competitively in that section in the future.
She had a rough time of her games in the room, but she did draw one game. And she emerged smiling from the experience. It was a very different sort of tournament from any she’d ever played in before. Gone was the chaotic behavior and fast-paced style of play. Instead, she had lots of time to think over her moves, and plenty of examples around her of players, focusing on their game in thoughtful silence.
Put another way, she had the fortune to play chess with the “big kids” and she loved every minute of it. And regardless of how she did, that makes her a winner in my book.
Thanks to everyone who attended today, regardless of what your luck was like. We hope to see you at our next event.
Today’s list of winners:
Section 1: Yuvaan Nai (1st), Srujan Pansare (2nd), and Dylan Tsui (3rd)
Section 2: Prisha Sampat (1st), Aarav Patel (2nd), Arooban Ravichandran (3rd)
Section 3: Akshaj Jindal (1st), Arhaan Rao (2nd), Greyson Wallace (3rd)
Section 4: Ethan Karni (1st), Nivaan Shrivastava (2nd), Joshua Chernin (3rd)
Congratulations to all winners: click HERE to view rating reports!
Our next event in Livingston will be held Sunday, June 25. Click HERE to register!
Follow us on Instagram and Facebook for updates on tournaments, classes, and other information.
Visitors: 766