British 2015 Round by Round

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
NickFaulks
Posts: 8453
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: British 2015 Round by Round

Post by NickFaulks » Fri Aug 07, 2015 9:57 pm

David Sedgwick wrote: Stockfish on Chessbomb suggests that 24 ... Rfd8 was a serious error, with 24 ... Qg5 being best.
You don't need Stockfish to see that taking a defender away from f7 might turn out badly. Judging that 24...Qg5 has nothing wrong with it is harder.

I've never understood these Sicilians where you exchange off the dark squared bishops and put all of your pawns on light squares, but some people make them work.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.

Mark Hannon
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 9:53 am

Re: British 2015 Round by Round

Post by Mark Hannon » Fri Aug 07, 2015 10:11 pm

I just looked up some interesting comparisons.
When David Howell was 8 he beat John Nunn, When Jonathan Hawkins was 20 years old he was rated 164
When Howell became a GM Hawkins was 132.
Funny old game chess.

User avatar
John Saunders
Posts: 1717
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:10 pm
Location: Kingston-upon-Thames

Re: British 2015 Round by Round

Post by John Saunders » Fri Aug 07, 2015 10:41 pm

For the record, Jonathan Hawkins on Facebook says that Keith Arkell's last move of their game was actually 26...Rd4 and not 26...R5d7 as given on the live games display. And Black resigned, he didn't lose on time.

Here's Jonathan's exact quote:
Jonathan Hawkins on Facebook wrote:Keith played 26...Rd4 and resigned. I guess he can still hope for Rxf7?? Bxg2 though
I was watching when the game ended and the move 26...Rd4 did appear briefly before being replaced by 26...R5d7, for some reason. Anyway, here is the score of the game as it would appear to have been played...

Personal Twitter @johnchess
Britbase https://www.britbase.info
(I prefer email to PM - contact me via this link - https://www.saund.org.uk/email.html)

Angus French
Posts: 2151
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am

Re: British 2015 Round by Round

Post by Angus French » Fri Aug 07, 2015 10:48 pm

Congratulations also to Akshaya Kalaiyalahan who scored 6.5/11 (for a 2335 performance vs. current rating of 1999) and is now, I believe and at age 13, British Women’s Champion for 2015.

Edit: age 13 r.t. 14.

Alan Tate
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:33 am

Re: British 2015 Round by Round

Post by Alan Tate » Sat Aug 08, 2015 12:44 am

Haven't read any of the 53 pages here but are there any plans to invite some Scots next year? You can't really call it the British the way it is now.

Ian Thompson
Posts: 3551
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Awbridge, Hampshire

Re: British 2015 Round by Round

Post by Ian Thompson » Sat Aug 08, 2015 1:35 am

Alan Tate wrote:Haven't read any of the 53 pages here but are there any plans to invite some Scots next year? You can't really call it the British the way it is now.
Why not? Chess Scotland has the right to nominate four players to take part, and all other Scottish players can qualify through the numerous other qualification routes, like everyone else.

Alan Tate
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:33 am

Re: British 2015 Round by Round

Post by Alan Tate » Sat Aug 08, 2015 2:21 am

Ian Thompson wrote:Why not? Chess Scotland has the right to nominate four players to take part, and all other Scottish players can qualify through the numerous other qualification routes, like everyone else.
By invite I mean conditions, like the top 10 or so players would have received.

Keith Arkell
Posts: 928
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:10 am

Re: British 2015 Round by Round

Post by Keith Arkell » Sat Aug 08, 2015 5:04 am

David Sedgwick wrote:
NickFaulks wrote:Do we know how Hawkins won today? One minute it looked equal, the next it was over.
Stockfish on Chessbomb suggests that 24 ... Rfd8 was a serious error, with 24 ... Qg5 being best.

It's curious that, in the two key games, Arkell lost with Rf8-d8 and Hebden almost lost with Rd8-f8.
Yes, I just checked Chessbomb and I made one error - 24..Rfd8? It was based on a miscalculation. I mistakenly thought I had time to improve my Rook from f8 to d7 via d8. Basically I thought Jonathan couldn't reply with 25 Ref1 because 25...Qg5, hitting e5 twice and threatening ...Rxd3, would win for me. I totally overlooked the( some might say obvious) reply 26 Qf2. A time pressure blind spot.

I'm not going to try to explain the subtleties of the position, but the engines say all was well up until this point. After the mistake, and with seconds left, I panicked and played 26...Rd4, but then immediately resigned because of Rxd4 followed by Qxf7+. We didn't do the King thing properly so when we began a brief post mortem the technology treated 26...Rd7 as if it was a continuation of the game.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: British 2015 Round by Round

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sat Aug 08, 2015 7:15 am

Alan Tate wrote: By invite I mean conditions, like the top 10 or so players would have received.
There was a row a few years ago, I think it was for Liverpool in 2008, which was that the ECF basically said that if it found money for conditions, it would spend it on English players. If other Federations wanted their top players to be subsidised to appear, they should raise the financing.

Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3452
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: British 2015 Round by Round

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Mark Hannon wrote:Arkell's resistance was woeful IMHO compared to Hebden's and Richard Pert's (vs his brother) showings in round 11
Compared to a guy who blundered a pawn to an elementary tactic that even a chesser as lowly as I would have been embarrassed to have missed, you mean?

I was watching Hawkins - Arkell with Angus French. I must admit I hadn’t much liked Black’s position for most of the game (feelings similar to Nick Faulks’ perhaps), but it seemed to me that Black had made his way to safety by the time the cafe closed and we had to leave. The last move we saw was Black’s 21 ... Rd5.

I admit that by the time I got home I was surprised to see Arkell had lost so soon afterwards, but for most of the game I thought Black defended well. (Angus and I had been considering the plan of ... Rf8-d8-d7 in an earlier position, btw, so I don’t think the idea is outrageously bad per se even though it obviously fails in the specific circumstance of the game).

In truth: Hebden drew and Arkell didn’t because Howell botched his winning chance and Hawkins didn’t.


Pert v Pert was a good game, I grant you.

David Sedgwick
Posts: 5249
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: British 2015 Round by Round

Post by David Sedgwick » Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Alan Tate wrote: By invite I mean conditions, like the top 10 or so players would have received.
Roger de Coverly wrote:There was a row a few years ago, I think it was for Liverpool in 2008, which was that the ECF basically said that if it found money for conditions, it would spend it on English players. If other Federations wanted their top players to be subsidised to appear, they should raise the financing.
As you say, that was a few years ago.

My understanding is that all active British GMs, including the Scottish GMs, are now invited to apply for the conditions on offer to the first ten or so to do so.

The reason that there were no Scottish GMs participating is that none of them chose to apply.

I stand to be corrected if the above is not accurate.

David Sedgwick
Posts: 5249
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: British 2015 Round by Round

Post by David Sedgwick » Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:14 am

Keith Arkell wrote:We didn't do the King thing properly so when we began a brief post mortem the technology treated 26...Rd7 as if it was a continuation of the game.
And the databases are likely to be wrong for evermore.

Richard Bates
Posts: 3338
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: British 2015 Round by Round

Post by Richard Bates » Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:29 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Alan Tate wrote: By invite I mean conditions, like the top 10 or so players would have received.
There was a row a few years ago, I think it was for Liverpool in 2008, which was that the ECF basically said that if it found money for conditions, it would spend it on English players. If other Federations wanted their top players to be subsidised to appear, they should raise the financing.
I may be wrong but i thought the issue in 2008 was that the individual who provided the money for the conditions stipulated that they be spent on English players. The only decision the ECF (as organiser of the Championships) had was whether to accept the money on that basis, it wasn't a policy decision to only seek funding for English players. Had the funding been provided to players privately and unofficially, the row with the Scots might never have occurred.

Alan Tate
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:33 am

Re: British 2015 Round by Round

Post by Alan Tate » Sat Aug 08, 2015 1:48 pm

The 2008 British is obviously not the only issue but there's no point in revisiting all this again. Ill feeling has certainly evolved into non-participation.

It's not like nothing can be done. One idea: Make it policy to personally invite a top Scottish and Welsh player (>2400 for instance).

User avatar
Matt Mackenzie
Posts: 5206
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
Location: Millom, Cumbria

Re: British 2015 Round by Round

Post by Matt Mackenzie » Sat Aug 08, 2015 4:06 pm

Alan Tate wrote:The 2008 British is obviously not the only issue but there's no point in revisiting all this again. Ill feeling has certainly evolved into non-participation.

It's not like nothing can be done. One idea: Make it policy to personally invite a top Scottish and Welsh player (>2400 for instance).
How many would fall into that category, out of interest?
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)