British Knockout Championship

[Chris Rice]

Armageddon it is. Let's get ready to rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrumble

[Richard Bates]

6 mins vs 5 mins with 3secs per move from move 61!? Is this a common time control for these things? How the hell do you know when you can stop blitzing and start building some time up again (since it's a bit difficult to count moves)?

[Roger de Coverly]

6 mins vs 5 mins with 3secs per move from move 61!? Is this a common time control for these things?

Adams had one in the World Cup, though I think that might have been 5 v 4. In any event, he won both on time and position at around move 30.

I would suspect having increment from move 1 makes it too easy for the draw seeker, whilst not having an increment at all may give the arbiter potential Appendix G claims to rule on.

[Richard Bates]

Pretty surprised Jonathan didn't choose black.

[Carl Hibbard]

Ouch

[Roger de Coverly]

Just tuned in to the playoff, not exactly what you want with White in a must draw situation

Nick giving a Simon Williams impersonation. According to the chess24 engine, White was busted once he took on g4 allowing the open h file. That was far from obvious to the spectators, where it looked as if White could pocket all the pawns and survive.

[Stewart Reuben]

I am pretty convinced all Armageddon games favour black. Draw odds are quite considerable. 6-4, with an increment with draw odds might be fairer.
I like the Vardapetian concept of 'First Blood'. The players play with equal time. Player 1 has white in game 1. Player 2 has white in games 2 and 3. Player 1 then has white in games 4 and 5. This continues until there is a winner, which may of course come after game 1. That could be FIDE Rated.
The problem of course is how long should you let that continue. The Isner match at Wimbledon which continued for 3 days was ridiculous and I am surprised that the rules weren't changed.
'First Blood' has never caught on. An increment is necessary, even in Armageddon, otherwise an absurd situation like K+N v K+N can occur, as it did in the Women's World Championship.

[Jesper Norgaard]

Pretty surprised Jonathan didn't choose black.

Exactly, after 2-0 for Black in the two Rapid games between them, should be a big hint. Besides 6-5 is advantageous for black, because Black can use any advantage to kill all life in the position, instead of trying to win.

I am pretty convinced all Armageddon games favour black. Draw odds are quite considerable. 6-4, with an increment with draw odds might be fairer.

One option is to let the 2 players bet on black, the lowest bet wins. If one bets 6-4 and another bets 6½-3½ then the latter will get black and 3½ minutes, the other will get white with 6½ minutes. That seems better than making the organizer guess what are the right odds.

I like the Vardapetian concept of 'First Blood'. The players play with equal time. Player 1 has white in game 1. Player 2 has white in games 2 and 3. Player 1 then has white in games 4 and 5. This continues until there is a winner, which may of course come after game 1. That could be FIDE Rated.
The problem of course is how long should you let that continue. The Isner match at Wimbledon which continued for 3 days was ridiculous and I am surprised that the rules weren't changed.

Isner is a pretty good counter argument against 'First Blood' in chess. I'm surprised too that Wimbledon didn't embrace tiebreaks after the Isner marathon.

'First Blood' has never caught on. An increment is necessary, even in Armageddon, otherwise an absurd situation like K+N v K+N can occur, as it did in the Women's World Championship.

Agreed. Besides K+N vs. K+N should always be a draw even after flag fall IMHO, as in ICC and USCF. Nobody will play helpmate in that kind of position - we know it because it never happened in the history of chess.

In my view a lone knight or a lone bishop should never win (by flag fall) against any material unless the arbiter considers there is a realistic chance for the minor piece to checkmate, like in Stamma's mate (w:Kc2,Nc1 b:Ka1,a3 - 1...a2 2.Nb3#). It is also possible to ask that it is a draw at flag fall unless there is a forced win - but that requires somebody to confirm or deny that there is a forced win, and the arbiter is not always a strong enough player to be able to judge this.

In 1% of all games one player ends up with a lone knight or a lone bishop, and in all these games a flag fall of the opponent is a win for the minor piece according to FIDE. I found 12 games with a lone knight or a lone bishop in my 1200+ games collection.

[Mick Norris]

6 mins vs 5 mins with 3secs per move from move 61!? Is this a common time control for these things?

Adams had one in the World Cup, though I think that might have been 5 v 4. In any event, he won both on time and position at around move 30.

I would suspect having increment from move 1 makes it too easy for the draw seeker, whilst not having an increment at all may give the arbiter potential Appendix G claims to rule on.

Yes, the World Cup rule was that White had 5 minutes and Black had 4 minutes, with an increment of 3 seconds/move starting from move 61

Last 16 - Naka beat Nepo with black in 56 moves
Last 32 - Mickey beat Laznicka with white in 27 moves
1st round - Sargissian drew with black against Bartel

[Mick Norris]

6 mins vs 5 mins with 3secs per move from move 61!? Is this a common time control for these things? How the hell do you know when you can stop blitzing and start building some time up again (since it's a bit difficult to count moves)?

I think it has developed over the years, looking at this 2008 article
John Saunders

I have read that 6v5 favours black and 5v4 is fairest, both with increments from move 61, but I haven't seen any proper stats - some would depend on style of play, who your opponent is etc

[Mick Norris]

Sem-finals game 1 underway
Howell-Jones
Pert-McShane

Any predictions? Other than Howell getting into time trouble

[Barry Sandercock]

My prediction is David Howell will win the final.

[LawrenceCooper]

Sem-finals game 1 underway
Howell-Jones
Pert-McShane

Any predictions? Other than Howell getting into time trouble

Luke will also be in time trouble

[Roger de Coverly]

Any predictions?

Howell v Jones has followed the same idea in the Kings Indian Petrosian system as Rowson v Jones yesterday. It's a line Mark Hebden has been employing for twenty years or more.

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Be2 e5 7. d5 Na6 8. Bg5 h6 9. Bh4 g5 10. Bg3 Nxe4

[FEN "r1bq1rk1/ppp2pb1/n2p3p/3Pp1p1/2P1n3/2N2NB1/PP2BPPP/R2QK2R w KQ - 0 11"]

The idea is that you regain the piece with f5 and f4. If you regard positions with the blockading Knight on e4 against a Kings Indian Bishop as favourable to White, it looks a very poor idea, but Mark and others including Gawain have made it work. The combination of being at move 19 with a clock time reading 1:28 would suggest some pre-game preparation by David.

[MartinCarpenter]

Other than Howell getting into time trouble

I'm starting to doubt this slightly(!). He's got to move 21 with 1:27 left and an edge on the clock...... No doubt he'll find a way