We traveled to our first tournament earlier this month (Nov 4th). I must say it was very interesting. However after traveling to American International College, also known as A.I.C. for the second time, for an open tournament, as opposed to a scholastic tournament I noticed that the first tournament we went to was a joke. The tournament was run poorly; furthermore the competition just wasn't there, save Ada of course. I have referred to my sources on how a tournament is run and the way they did it was just idiotic, Don't get me wrong I am "content" with second but if I am going to be in a tournament I would like it to be run properly. You might be curious why the tournament was messed up. Well I will tell you. The pairings were fine and everything was going fine until there was a massive tie for third. This included Club member Eric Robinson, Dave Rosenberg, and Nathan Krach. I had to break a tie with Ada, which I lost by a humiliating backrank checkmate (Cried myself to sleep that night =). ) Eric out of those three scored the best, walked away with third. Dave, Former Grandmaster Dave placed lower than Eric with second place unrated. Nate was right below Dave in the tournament standings. After the day was done and my coke gone I reflected and thought that it was good for our first tournament. I was also proud of my fellow members, considering they aren't chess freaks like me, they did great. (Maybe I should take some time off chess and work on grammar and punctuations?) Good luck with your games!

There's been an excessive amount of confusion over the rating system so I figured an editorial on the subject would be appropriate.

First, I'd like to address those who are familiar with the United States Chess Federation's rating system that say our ratings are too high and that our masters and senior masters don't deserve their titles. The reason why we have a rating system is so that members can effectively gauge their skill against fellow members. Our ratings are in no way connected to other rating systems and only apply to Chess Club members, therefore, the title of Senior Master means only that a member is highly skilled in comparison to other members, not that they can go out and beat Garry Kasparov.

Next, I'd like to address those who say the rate at which ratings are adjusted isn't fair. This subject is generally divided into two sections, the normal ratings and the Over 300 Rule.

Normal rating adjustments go up and down in relation to the difference between ratings. Obviously, if two members are rated one point apart their rating adjustments should be different from two members who are rated one hundred points apart. Another complaint is that when higher rated members lose, they lose more points then when a lower rated member loses. This is simply because a member rated 1700 should almost always win against a member rated 1450 and should therefore not receive a great reward for doing so. On the other hand, if the1450 were to win, this would be quite the feat, meriting a "large" point adjustment.

The Over 300 Rule states that if the difference between two members' ratings is greater than 300, the rating adjustment is 300 if the lower rated member wins and 3 if the higher rated member wins. For example, if a member rated 1400 beat a member rated 1800, the rating adjustment would be 300 points, if the member rated 1800 won, the rating adjustment would be 3 points. This rule was created for two reasons. Since Chess Club meets only once a week and since most members can't attend each meeting, the Over 300 Rule allows new members to develop ratings that reflect their skill quickly. The rule was also created to prevent higher rated members from preying on the low rated members simply for points without having to make matches of this kind totally illegal. For example a member rated 2500 could play a member rated 1300 every week, multiple times a week and increase their rating without actually proving a higher skill level. Some members disagree and say that the member rated 1300 should be able to make that choice; this is not so. One must realize that the number of points in circulation is fixed, therefore, the farther a member's rating gets from the rest of the club, the more inaccurate the other ratings become. An extreme example would be if the CC Grand Master lowered all of the Lower Tier's ratings to Zero. If this happened the CC Grand Master would not only appear to be much stronger than the CC Master, but the Lower Tier members would be indistinguishable from one another. In an extreme example such as this, the Steward would put a "ceiling" on the CC Grand Master or member involved, this would prevent the annihilation of the fragile balance between ratings. Since ceilings are a rather extreme measure themselves, one would only be implemented if a member became more than approximately 500 points above the rest of the club.

In conclusion, I'd like to remind everyone that we as a club exist to have fun and only fun... well, maybe a little friendly competition, but that's another story!

I invite all members to comment on this editorial, especially since the topic is so closely related to the heart of Chess Club.

When I became grandmaster I had a realization. I realized that there was only one thing I would be doing for the rest of the time I am a G.M. fending off those below me. This did not sit well with me. As the people below become stronger in theory I will become weaker. I know throwing a game against Dave would be very unwise, I have nothing more to accomplish. Attaining the rank of Grandmaster was my main priority, now that it is finished what shall I do with myself? Maybe I should resign to Dave so I can have a challenge again, I do not want to become weak because of being in this position. I will have to come to some sort of conclusion until then your Grandmaster, Pete.

This Thursday at the weekly meeting of the AHS Chess Club, something rather historic and important happened. An incident arose that our advisor, Mr. O’Brien, did not know how to handle. Though Mr. O’Brien not having an answer to a question is rather rare, it is not the aforementioned historic event. Mr. O’Brien wanted to have officers of the club vote on the issue and a ruling body was finally formed. The incident in question involved Oleg Surzhokov and Mike Kelly, both members of the Top Tier and quality players. Oleg challenged Mike to a match, which Mike declined at first. Mr. O’Brien was brought in and ruled that, since Mike had not been present for two weeks, he was obligated to play Oleg in a match. Mike played well, but fell victim to Oleg’s infamous blitz attacks, losing by checkmate. Oleg jumped up and celebrated as only Oleg can, but Mike quickly stopped him. He argued that the match did not count because he had considered it a friendly match. Mr. O’Brien was at a NHS meeting at the time, so there was no one present to really keep control. Oleg and Mike fought for about ten minutes before he finally came back. Both players proceeded to tell their sides of the story to our advisor. After hearing about the game, Mr. O’Brien walked over to Grandmaster Scott Wojcik (who was playing a match with me at the time) and asked him his opinion on the subject. Scott, who is friends with Mike, seemed to hesitate with his answer. It was obvious he was torn between his friend’s point of view and Oleg’s point of view (a member who Scott, to put it lightly, does not really like). I, seeing my opportunity to right the wrong, argued that Scott shouldn’t be placed in that position because his friendship with Mike would cause him to be biased. Mr. O’Brien dismissed my ideas at first, at which point I argued that since I’m friends with Oleg (and probably biased), I should be given a say to balance out Scott’s bias. Mr. O’Brien agreed to give both myself and Scott a say in what happened. He called us the "Chess Commission", forming a ruling body consisting of: the Master, the Grandmaster, and the Advisor. He handed out small sheets of paper and we all voted. The vote was unanimous. The match was declared a formal "challenge match" and Oleg moved up in the rankings. I hope that in the future the Chess Commission will be used to settle all problems within the club. It gives lower-placed members something to shoot for besides the ranks that, up until this time, really had no true meaning. It gives prestige to the ranks and, in my opinion, will benefit the entire club.