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.