Nicola Bradford and Eric Cheatham	A clever multi-player chess clock does wonders.

Still Short of the Mark ...

Admittedly, Tikal reached a new low in attendance in 2011, probably due to the introduction of chess clocks. But more on that later. This official write-up of TIKAL, this GM's eighth, will be broken down into four distinct areas: Demonstration and Chess Clocks, Initial Heats and Scheduling, the semi-finals, and the Final, complete with strategy tips.

Demonstration and Chess Clocks: Let us start off with the Demonstration activity, scheduled right before the first heat at 1 o'clock on a Friday. As usual, there was an enthusiastic turnout despite the game's age, with about a dozen newbies seeking to learn their ways through the jungles of Central America. Tikal, like many Euros, is easy to learn and difficult to master. It can be taught in ten minutes, which allows for a sample game to be played up through the first scoring round in the allotted time.

To play, a player places a tile, and then allocates ten Action Points (APs) in his turn as he sees fit on the map board. Scoring is also simple: In a scoring round, (four in the game), each player receives the usual ten action points, without the tile placement, and then they score. The last scoring round is done in reverse order, meaning whoever is in last place at the final scoring round gets to go first in the last scoring round, often an advantage.

The WBC version uses the bidding rules of the game in which players bid on the right to choose the tile they place, some tiles having more perceived value to one player than another. Bidding provides more strategy to the game, and also prevents the ubiquitous whining about poor tile selection. Bidding also allows a player to go last in one round, and then first in the next, allowing them, in effect, 20 action points in a row, something that actually happened in the Final. Don't forget in bidding: A bid of "0", or a pass, while potentially allowing a player the right to choose and play a tile, prevents a player from re-entering the bidding in this round. (In other words, you cannot bid 0, and then jump back into the current bid.)

Introduced this year for the first time were multi-player chess clocks, designed in Europe for use with Euros. One of the strong criticisms of Tikal is the analysis paralysis problem, whereby a player, or players, spends far too much time analyzing the board searching for the perfect move. Determined to meet this problem, the GM introduced the chess clocks (cubes, actually!), which while intimidating at first, are remarkable easy to use. If you'd like information about these fantastic 6-player chess cubes, feel free to contact the GM or search The DGT Cube on-line. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_NWuj7G-8I ... its worth a look.

Initial Heats and Scheduling: There were three heats scheduled for the game, and the general rule is win one and you're in! Social Tikal should be a 90-minute game, and through the use of clocks, the GM allowed exactly two hours for each round. As a result, all of the games were finished in less than two hours.

The Friday morning heat had five games, the afternoon heat had six, and the Saturday evening heat had only three games. Most heats used 4-player games if possible. Heats were scored on cards, with each individual disclosing his final score, finish place, and reserve pieces for a tie-breaker. This information would be used to move on to the semis.

The semi-finals: With 14 individual heat winners, the potential arose for semis scheduling that definitely included some alternates. Exactly 16 people appeared for the semis on time, including two alternates. Since everyone was by this time familiar with the chess clocks, there was no need to explain their use. From a scoring perspective, none of the semi-finals was that close, with John Min winning the first table, Greg Thatcher the second, Randy Buehler the third, and Jack Jaeger taking the fourth. Due to a prior scheduling conflict, Randy was unable to attend the Final, so the runner-up at his table, Kevin Broh-Kahn, took his place.

The Final: The qualifiers all appeared on time Sunday morning at 9. After the first volcano, it was still a close game, with John in the lead at 27, followed by Kevin at 26, Jack at 23 and Greg at 22. Could John hold on to his precarious lead? Before the second volcano, something strange happened: Kevin was now in first at 22, John at 20, Greg down to 17, but Jack had bid himself down to 9. In all his history, this GM has never seen a score that low! How could Jack dig himself out of such a hole?

Well, quite easily, as it turned out. Jack scored 26 points on the second volcano, compared to 16 for the two leaders and 21 for Greg. So surprisingly, after the second volcano, the scores were remarkably close: 38; 38; 38 and 35. After that, Jack's obvious investment started to pay off handsomely, as he scored 34 points for the third volcano, simultaneously moving from last to first with 68 points. After that, it was academic accounting; as new leader Jack nailed an astounding 48 points on the last round, scoring 113 points, well over the runner-up, Greg with 100. Kevin came in third with 95 and poor John, the original leader, brought up the rear with 74 points.

All in all, Tikal 2011 can be judged a success, based on the number of players (although slightly lower than recent years), the quality of the competition (intense, as usual) and the introduction of the chess clocks, which have to be called a success. The quality of play if not bidding at the Final was as crazy as any game I have ever seen, but when it was over, the four finalists shook hands, knowing full well that they would probably meet again at some future tournament. Next year, with the anxiety of the chess clocks out of the way, the tournament easily has the potential to attract over 50 participants again. So we'll see you at Tikal 2012, if it gets voted back in! Vote early!

Andrew Emerick, Ian Streeb and Roni Breza	Jack Jaeger, Barb Flaxington, Rob Flowers and Jarett Weintraub