Scholastic Chess and the MCC: A Winning Combination

 

Like experimenting with an opening that one has never played before, the MetroWest Chess Club in Natick for the first time organized a summer scholastic tournament with high hopes but few well founded expectations. It proved to be a summer full of surprises and unpredictability, but in the end nearly everyone agreed that it was a great success.

 

A Tournament Designed by Faith

 

The initial challenge for the MCC was how to organize the event. Hoping to leverage the success of numerous school programs in the area, and to provide continuity for their participants, we decided to sponsor an event over 11 weeks to serve as a bridge between school years. We defined the tournament as a novice event (ratings under 1100, with a G/30 time control), aimed at filling a gap in the area tournament offerings. Optimistically we announced two sections: one for players 14 years old and younger, and one for players 15 years old and older, thinking that we might foster some bi-generational family participation. Finally, we agreed to offer some pre-game instruction if interest among the participants was sufficient.

 

With the paramount objective of encouraging participation, the MCC departed from several of its normal policies. The cornerstone decision was to sponsor a single event of ten rounds (the players were given the 4th of July off), rather than conducting a separate tournament each month. Recognizing the demands of vacations and other hazards of the summer season, however, we waived the usual limit on half-point byes and allowed a player as many as he wanted, as long as he notified the club in advance of his absence.

 

As a further inducement, points were awarded for attendance as well as game results for purposes of competing for first- through sixth-place trophies. Because of this no player left the club “empty handed”: even if he lost his game, he scored a full point for showing up to play. (Awarding points for attendance proved popular with both players and their parents and in the end produced a different order of finish from what would have resulted from game results alone.)

 

The MCC took a novel approach to pairings also. Although this was a ten-round event, pairings were done as though it comprised two five-round tournaments. Moreover, when the “second half” started on July 25, the players were to be ranked according to their “post” ratings from rounds 1 through 5, eliminating all unrateds. By permitting players to play each other a second time and by using accelerated pairings, we expected to see more equitable match-ups among the less advanced players and more exciting competition for the top spots.

 

Despite all our planning, however, the real question was whether the tournament would happen at all, and we were concerned that the project might fall short of “critical mass.” It wasn’t encouraging that on the day before the tournament was scheduled to begin, we had only four entries (three of whom wanted first-round byes) and two or three other “commitments” — a lean field indeed for a ten-round event! But by the time we were ready to start the clocks on that first Tuesday evening, June 13, we had more than 20 scholastic players entered. Although the adult section never materialized (only one adult registered), we picked up a few more scholastic players in later weeks to bring the total to 27, including 14 who are first-time USCF members.

 

Unpredictable Play, Plot Twists, Exciting Finish

 

These unrated players introduced an intriguing element of unpredictability into the tournament, and several did quite well. Trevor Biller, in particular, methodically defeated his first four, highly-seeded opponents. Trevor, it turns out, is studying with three-time and current Massachusetts State Champion (and MCC regular), Master Igor Foygel.

 

Our tournament plot took its first twist when Trevor met Greg Siciliano in round 5. Greg, a student of another MCC regular and active area coach, Larry Eldridge, became the only player to defeat Trevor in this event. Three weeks later in round 8, Greg defeated Trevor a second time, virtually assuring himself of a first-place finish.

 

But here our plot took its strangest twist. Obviously a player who loves a challenge, Greg had entered the regular MCC event at the beginning of August, and for two weeks he shuttled back and forth across the hall playing two games at once! He decided that this was too confusing and, opting for the stiffer competition, withdrew from the scholastic tournament with two rounds to go. Making things even more interesting, Trevor announced that he was taking a last-round bye. This put the first place trophy very much up for grabs in round 10 and opened the door to a cluster of other players.

 

In a key last-round match-up, Jeffrey Salemi and Derek Gavelis were paired against each other. Derek choose this inopportune time to experiment with his opening, and Jeffrey capitalized on it quickly for a big win. The other leading contenders, Matthew Vaughan and Jason Stoll (also students of Larry Eldridge), both won their games. As a result, by the time the last clock stopped, four players ended up tied for first place, with 17 of a possible 20 points. When the tie breaks had been sorted out, Matthew Vaughan emerged with the first place trophy, getting a critical boost from his perfect attendance for all ten rounds. Despite his last-round bye, Trevor Biller held on for the second-place trophy, while Jason Stoll and Jeffrey Salemi (also with perfect attendance) claimed the third- and fourth-place trophies respectively.

 

Derek Gavelis wound up alone in fifth place, and Andrew Mui claimed sixth. Falling just a half-point short despite last-round wins were David Karman and Sam Rabe. Although only six players went home with trophies, medals were awarded to all participants.

 

Thanks to all the players, parents, and organizers who made this possible. At the MCC we’ll be following the fortunes of our summer veterans as they compete in the upcoming season of tournaments.

 

Post-Tournament Analysis

 

In retrospect we seem to have been more concerned about attendance than was warranted. Attendance throughout the summer averaged 18.3, gratifyingly high, given all the distractions that summer brings to this age group. One thing that became clear is that the youngsters who were showing up to play were coming not for the attendance points, and not because they felt obligated to a summer-long happening, but because they wanted to play chess. It is noteworthy that some players were coming regularly from as far away as Lincoln and Lexington. One objective for the future is to provide more chess — more than one rated game per night — and a flexible program that more easily accommodates families’ summer schedules.

 

We hope also to build on this summer’s success to attract even more players next summer, to make it possible to have multiple sections. This will not only enhance the level of competition for everyone, but also make it feasible to have different time controls, more reasonably calibrated to the skill level and playing style of the players in each section.

 

The issue of offering instruction is a difficult one. Some parents emphasized their preference that instruction be offered in addition to games, and the pre-game classes were fairly well attended. Although some players thought highly of them (one credited them for his near perfect execution of a rook-and-king checkmate), others were clearly disappointed. It was a challenge to devise and present material that appealed to and benefited players ranging in age from 6 to 13, with a corresponding range of skill and knowledge, some studying with coaches and some not. A tournament of this sort is clearly not the best context for providing useful chess instruction, especially in a one-size-fits-all format, but the question remains where and how, other than through individual lessons with coaches, to provide a place for novices and less experienced players to learn how to play or improve their game. A local chess club should have a role in that, but defining and realizing that role will not be easy.

 

Overall, survey responses and other feedback volunteered by players and their parents made it clear that the MCC Summer 2000 Scholastic Tournament was a great success. The response of the players has already spurred discussion about how the MCC can continue to support scholastic play. Tournaments during the school year and another summer program in 2001 are under consideration. Our experience this summer should lead to some new and improved opportunities in the future.

 

Picture caption:

 

Here are the trophy winners from the MetroWest Chess Club’s Summer 2000 Scholastic Tournament: Matthew Vaughan (1st), Jason Stoll (3rd), Jeffrey Salemi (4th), Derek Gavelis (5th), and Andrew Mui (6th). Not pictured is 2nd-place winner Trevor Biller.