Answers.Body: <p>I do not know if this term is used in other countries, but in the U.S., a “tornado” is a swiss chess tournament with four rounds in one day, typically at a sudden death in 60 minutes time control. It was probably given that nickname because your mind is spinning from so much chess in one day.</p>
  
  <p>I played in the “Queen City Tornado” yesterday, and there were rounds at 10 a.m., 1 p.m., 3:30 p.m., and 6 p.m.. It makes for a very long day.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-02T03:07:15.180Z
Answers.Text: Why the downvotes? Seriously? http://nhchess.org/
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-02T03:08:54.567Z
Answers.Text: IMHO, having 5 hour rounds where I have to roam around a strange city for hours is a much longer day than having something to do.  Your definition of a long day is directly opposite of mine.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Mike Jones
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-02T03:12:55.457Z
Answers.Text: And THAT is why you downvoted? The day started before that, and ends at about 9 p.m. To me, 13-14 hours of chess is a long day.
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-02T04:50:44.977Z
Answers.Text: I kinda like this format. It's just about the only thing available around here anymore - we don't call them "Tornado" anymore, but we used to. Either 4 rounds SD/60, or maybe 5 rounds SD/45. We used to have full weekend tournaments with time controls like 40/90, SD/60, 5 rounds - 1 round Friday night, 2 rounds on Saturday and Sunday (sometimes with an alternate 2 day schedule with different time controls for the first 3 rounds and merges on Sunday). The problem we find is nobody has a full weekend (plus Friday night) to devote to chess. Including me...  I do miss the weekend events, though.
Answers.UserDisplayName: patbarron
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-02T04:52:19.143Z
Answers.Text: That being said ... I do tend to play fast, so in long time control events, I usually finish way early and end up with a lot of time to kill between rounds. And when I can carve out one day in a weekend to devote to chess, I want to get in as many rounds as possible.  :-)
Answers.UserDisplayName: patbarron
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-02T07:23:52.830Z
Answers.Text: @patbarron in my area we often see those kind of weekend events, the last one I entered was a 2 hour drive for me, my opponent for game 2 (saturday morning) didn't show up, and there was no point in driving all the way home and back. That really put me off, I think I'd quite enjoy a day like the one described in this answer
Answers.UserDisplayName: Darren H
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-02T08:38:39.787Z
Answers.Text: Having to sit at the board for an hour with a clock running (assuming USCF rules), waiting for an opponent who's probably not going to show up, for the first round of the day, is absolutely the worst... :-(  Like, I woke up early for this?
Answers.UserDisplayName: patbarron
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-02T10:18:13.897Z
Answers.Text: @patbarron Thanks for the comments. I glad you seem to like the question. I know it is strange asking and answering my own question, but at least I am not using a second account to cheat by asking it, and then upvoting and accepting my own answer. I have always liked the longer time controls myself, and as I get older, that extra time is even more welcome. That said, the funny thing is that, with the exception of my poor opening versus a GM in the 3rd round, I felt like I played my best chess ever start to finish in that tournament, despite the fast control.
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-02T17:15:32.937Z
Answers.Text: `Why the Downvotes?` - Some people are jerks. Give them a red button and they will press it just to watch it burn. Don't give them attention.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Mindwin Remember Monica
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-02T17:20:08.927Z
Answers.Text: @Mindwin Thank you. I think it is more that they do not like people asking and answering their own questions, so they take that out on the person asking. Instead, a better way is to just not vote at all, or only vote for either question or answer. I posted because SE Chess has been dead for a few days, and I wanted to liven it back up. The only alternative is to cheat, and create a sock-puppet account to post, and then most cheaters upvote and accept their own answer. Clearly, I am not the type to do that.
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-02T17:26:07.360Z
Answers.Text: We live in the age off skimming and making up your own truth. People just don't bother to learn the rules. The purpose of the StackExchange is to create a repository of information. Self-answering is as selfless as one can be. Just do your thing and remember that an upvote is worth five downvotes.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Mindwin Remember Monica
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-02T17:28:11.070Z
Answers.Text: @Mindwin Frankly, it really is not about the points. I often hit the 200-point limit anyway, as I did by the time I woke up this morning. It just detracts from good questions/answers that maybe someone might have read if the vote totals were better.
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-02T01:26:46.480Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-03-02T01:26:46.480Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Body: <p>I am going to ask and answer this question since I played in one for the first time in almost 40 years yesterday, and because I find it surprising that no one has asked this previously.</p>
  
  <p>So, "what is a "tornado" in chess?"</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-03-02T13:30:36.060Z
Comments.Text: Not to be confused with the Tornado UCI chess engine.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Mast
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-03-02T13:32:48.290Z
Comments.Text: @Mast Thanks. I have never heard of that one.
Comments.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-03-02T16:43:47.570Z
Comments.Text: "I am going to ask and answer this question since I played in one for the first time in almost 40 years yesterday, and because I find it surprising that no one has asked this previously." For the sake of keeping the Q&A illusion, is this sentence necessary? (same with the other questions)
Comments.UserDisplayName: Quintec
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-03-02T16:46:16.350Z
Comments.Text: Maybe not, but it was a personal decision. Otherwise, it was too short anyway, and I would have to find other filler to meet the minimum requirements for length. And to be honest, how strong is that "illusion" anyway since my name is listed for both the question and an answer?
Comments.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-03-02T19:06:10.447Z
Comments.Text: I think it would be better to remove that sentence and instead insert a sentence or two about the context in which you heard the word "tornado" that made it confusing or surprising. If someone just asked "What is a tornado in chess", that would not be a very good question, and the same standard applies to self-answered questions. Adding some context makes it easier to understand, and easier to find from a search engine. I've proposed an edit to that effect.
Comments.UserDisplayName: amalloy
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-03-03T01:06:17.907Z
Comments.Text: That sentence was a bit confusing to me, because I assume that it was some kind of sequence of moves on the board.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Michael
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-03-03T01:09:08.363Z
Comments.Text: @Michael What sentence?
Comments.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-03-03T01:11:22.637Z
Comments.Text: about "playing in one"
Comments.UserDisplayName: Michael
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-03-03T01:15:34.670Z
Comments.Text: Well, I, purposely, did not want to give away the answer the question. If you do not know what a tornado is in this context,  the question should pique your interest, and by its nature, might confuse a bit if you are not familiar with the idea. That is precisely what the answer is for.
Comments.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Tags: <tournament><terminology>
Title: What is a "tornado" in chess?
ThreadText: # What is a "tornado" in chess?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2020-03-02)
  
  I am going to ask and answer this question since I played in one for the first time in almost 40 years yesterday, and because I find it surprising that no one has asked this previously.
  
  So, "what is a "tornado" in chess?"
  
  **Tags:** tournament, terminology
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Not to be confused with the Tornado UCI chess engine.  
  > **username_0**: @username_1 Thanks. I have never heard of that one.  
  > **username_2**: "I am going to ask and answer this question since I played in one for the first time in almost 40 years yesterday, and because I find it surprising that no one has asked this previously." For the sake of keeping the Q&A illusion, is this sentence necessary? (same with the other questions)  
  > **username_0**: Maybe not, but it was a personal decision. Otherwise, it was too short anyway, and I would have to find other filler to meet the minimum requirements for length. And to be honest, how strong is that "illusion" anyway since my name is listed for both the question and an answer?  
  > **username_3**: I think it would be better to remove that sentence and instead insert a sentence or two about the context in which you heard the word "tornado" that made it confusing or surprising. If someone just asked "What is a tornado in chess", that would not be a very good question, and the same standard applies to self-answered questions. Adding some context makes it easier to understand, and easier to find from a search engine. I've proposed an edit to that effect.  
  > **username_4**: That sentence was a bit confusing to me, because I assume that it was some kind of sequence of moves on the board.  
  > **username_0**: @username_4 What sentence?  
  > **username_4**: about "playing in one"  
  > **username_0**: Well, I, purposely, did not want to give away the answer the question. If you do not know what a tornado is in this context,  the question should pique your interest, and by its nature, might confuse a bit if you are not familiar with the idea. That is precisely what the answer is for.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_0 on 2020-03-02. Score: 13 | Accepted answer
  
  I do not know if this term is used in other countries, but in the U.S., a “tornado” is a swiss chess tournament with four rounds in one day, typically at a sudden death in 60 minutes time control. It was probably given that nickname because your mind is spinning from so much chess in one day.
  
  I played in the “Queen City Tornado” yesterday, and there were rounds at 10 a.m., 1 p.m., 3:30 p.m., and 6 p.m.. It makes for a very long day.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Why the downvotes? Seriously? http://nhchess.org/  
  > **username_5**: IMHO, having 5 hour rounds where I have to roam around a strange city for hours is a much longer day than having something to do.  Your definition of a long day is directly opposite of mine.  
  > **username_0**: And THAT is why you downvoted? The day started before that, and ends at about 9 p.m. To me, 13-14 hours of chess is a long day.  
  > **username_6**: I kinda like this format. It's just about the only thing available around here anymore - we don't call them "Tornado" anymore, but we used to. Either 4 rounds SD/60, or maybe 5 rounds SD/45. We used to have full weekend tournaments with time controls like 40/90, SD/60, 5 rounds - 1 round Friday night, 2 rounds on Saturday and Sunday (sometimes with an alternate 2 day schedule with different time controls for the first 3 rounds and merges on Sunday). The problem we find is nobody has a full weekend (plus Friday night) to devote to chess. Including me...  I do miss the weekend events, though.  
  > **username_6**: That being said ... I do tend to play fast, so in long time control events, I usually finish way early and end up with a lot of time to kill between rounds. And when I can carve out one day in a weekend to devote to chess, I want to get in as many rounds as possible.  :-)  
  > **username_7**: @username_6 in my area we often see those kind of weekend events, the last one I entered was a 2 hour drive for me, my opponent for game 2 (saturday morning) didn't show up, and there was no point in driving all the way home and back. That really put me off, I think I'd quite enjoy a day like the one described in this answer  
  > **username_6**: Having to sit at the board for an hour with a clock running (assuming USCF rules), waiting for an opponent who's probably not going to show up, for the first round of the day, is absolutely the worst... :-(  Like, I woke up early for this?  
  > **username_0**: @username_6 Thanks for the comments. I glad you seem to like the question. I know it is strange asking and answering my own question, but at least I am not using a second account to cheat by asking it, and then upvoting and accepting my own answer. I have always liked the longer time controls myself, and as I get older, that extra time is even more welcome. That said, the funny thing is that, with the exception of my poor opening versus a GM in the 3rd round, I felt like I played my best chess ever start to finish in that tournament, despite the fast control.  
  > **username_8**: `Why the Downvotes?` - Some people are jerks. Give them a red button and they will press it just to watch it burn. Don't give them attention.  
  > **username_0**: @Mindwin Thank you. I think it is more that they do not like people asking and answering their own questions, so they take that out on the person asking. Instead, a better way is to just not vote at all, or only vote for either question or answer. I posted because SE Chess has been dead for a few days, and I wanted to liven it back up. The only alternative is to cheat, and create a sock-puppet account to post, and then most cheaters upvote and accept their own answer. Clearly, I am not the type to do that.  
  > **username_8**: We live in the age off skimming and making up your own truth. People just don't bother to learn the rules. The purpose of the StackExchange is to create a repository of information. Self-answering is as selfless as one can be. Just do your thing and remember that an upvote is worth five downvotes.  
  > **username_0**: @Mindwin Frankly, it really is not about the points. I often hit the 200-point limit anyway, as I did by the time I woke up this morning. It just detracts from good questions/answers that maybe someone might have read if the vote totals were better.  
  
  ---
  
  