Hastings thread

[LawrenceCooper]

Final scores: http://www.chess-results.com/tnr251584. ... =30&wi=821

[Mick Norris]

Impressive performance from Ravi taking his rating over 2400

[Roger de Coverly]

Impressive performance from Ravi taking his rating over 2400

Thanks in part to Glenn Flear leaving a rook en prise, shared second and highest placed ENG player.

Hasn't his rating been past 2400 before?

Answering my own question, this time last year!

http://www.chessgraphs.com/?name%5B0%5D ... mit=Submit

[Nick Grey]

Congrats to Ravi.
Yes we remember the increase in grading, having K-40. Thought at time he would not catch up with Alan Merry.

As for Oliver Howell fantastic score (same as Koby K) & half point ahead of Chris Rice. A big ask to get anything out of his last round game but no doubt will find improvements when analysing that game.

I suspect he is on the sort of rapid growth path as Alex Golding. Look forward to catching up with Howell's at 4NCL.

Nice coverage all.

[Chris Rice]

Just a footnote on Ollie's 8th round win by default. As I understand it the draw came out, then his opponent withdrew for whatever reason and it was too late to change the draw. A couple of the Germans, of which there were a substantial number playing in Hastings, I spoke to today were livid about this though I did insist that there was no likely to be no way they could prove it was deliberate and simply to avoid facing a 1575 player playing clearly hundreds of points above his grade. Interestingly, they mentioned that in French tournaments they have played they have had to give the tournament organisers a deposit of 50 Euros in case they withdraw in such circumstances or presumably if they just withdraw without telling the organisers.

Anyway very much enjoyed the tournament and kudos once again to a magnificent arbiting team.

[Roger de Coverly]

As I understand it the draw came out, then his opponent withdrew for whatever reason and it was too late to change the draw.

It's a code of conduct thing for players. If you want to withdraw or request a half point bye, the correct time to request this is when your game in the previous round has just finished.

Checking my archives, I haven't played Chris Howell (the dad) since 2001.

That featured an amusing sequence of preparation or anti-preparation. It was a 4NCL game in Birmingham, but I had previously won in a Trompovsky at the Thanet Congress a few years earlier. So the game went 1. d4 c5 2. d5 (It occurred to me that 2. .. Nf6 3. Bg5 was a transposition) So 2. .. d6 3. Nc3 Again 3. .. Nf6 can be met with 4. Bg5. Thus 3. .. e6 4. e4 leading to a Schmidt Benoni that I eventually won.

[Kevin Thurlow]

Richard started the thread and he deserves a mention for his great start, and only one loss (in a complicated ending).

I only mention it now as I didn't want to be the source of "commentator's curse"!

[Reg Clucas]

A couple of the Germans, of which there were a substantial number playing in Hastings, I spoke to today were livid about this though I did insist that there was no likely to be no way they could prove it was deliberate and simply to avoid facing a 1575 player playing clearly hundreds of points above his grade.

I don't understand the significance of this (and I'm not referring to the fact that the sentence appears slightly garbled!). Why were the Germans livid about it?

[Jonathan Rogers]

They have empathy! Presumably they thought it was terribly unfair on Ollie that he didn't get a game at all (because he could not be repaired) if (if) it were the case that his scheduled opponent did not want to risk his rating by playing him. (I don't know whether they had any particular reason to suspect this was the motivation: the rating disparity does not seem enough by itself to me. But that is presumably what they did suspect. And it made them livid).

[LawrenceCooper]

They have empathy! Presumably they thought it was terribly unfair on Ollie that he didn't get a game at all (because he could not be repaired) if (if) it were the case that his scheduled opponent did not want to risk his rating by playing him. (I don't know whether they had any particular reason to suspect this was the motivation: the rating disparity does not seem enough by itself to me. But that is presumably what they did suspect. And it made them livid).

Either that or they were competing with Ollie for the rating prize

[Mike Truran]

because he could not be repaired

Metatron: she can rebuild you. she has the technology. (Dogma)

[Chris Rice]

They have empathy! Presumably they thought it was terribly unfair on Ollie that he didn't get a game at all (because he could not be repaired) if (if) it were the case that his scheduled opponent did not want to risk his rating by playing him. (I don't know whether they had any particular reason to suspect this was the motivation: the rating disparity does not seem enough by itself to me. But that is presumably what they did suspect. And it made them livid).

As I heard it Jon the rumours were flying that once the draw came out the prospective opponent looked up Ollie's results, realised he was no true 1575 and given this person wasn't doing so well decided not to lose a boatload of Elo playing and losing to him. This can be enough motivation if you only play two or three Elo rated tournaments a year as it might take a year to get the lost Elo back, if you ever do. The Germans, bless 'em, were to a man behind Ollie and were horrified that such things could go on in England. If they only knew half of the things that tournament organisers have to go through in an English weekend tournament on a Sunday morning....

[David Sedgwick]

Anyway very much enjoyed the tournament and kudos once again to a magnificent arbiting team.

Thank you. Such tributes are appreciated, both by the individuals concerned and by the Congress Committee.

Presumably they thought it was terribly unfair on Ollie that he didn't get a game at all (because he could not be repaired (sic)) ...

For the record, I offered to play him as a filler. Ollie opted to take the win by default. His father said that he had homework to do.

As I heard it Jon the rumours were flying that once the draw came out the prospective opponent looked up Ollie's results, realised he was no true 1575 and given this person wasn't doing so well decided not to lose a boatload of Elo playing and losing to him.

Those were indeed the rumours that were circulating.

Interestingly, [the Germans] mentioned that in French tournaments they have played they have had to give the tournament organisers a deposit of 50 Euros in case they withdraw in such circumstances or presumably if they just withdraw without telling the organisers.

Suppose that there are 300 players at a tournament. One withdraws in this fashion and forfeits the 50 Euro deposit.

Doesn't that mean that the other 299 will be queuing up at the end to get their 50 Euros back?

I don't think that Hastings could cope with this and I would be interested to know how French organisers do.

Or do the French only charge the deposit to dastardly Germans?

[Christopher Kreuzer]

If you look at Ollie Howell's tournament record here, he played and beat two Germans (a 2046 and a 2028) in rounds 3 and 7, so clearly the Germans were by the time of the round 8 draw primed and aware of this wunderkind. Maybe they were relishing the prospect of watching a dastardly Frenchman suffer the same fate? The hero of the story did lose to two Englishmen (well, one was another junior, about 5 years older) and a Dane, so there may be a moral there. Or not. No draws over the board, either.

[Ian Thompson]

For the record, I offered to play him as a filler. Ollie opted to take the win by default. His father said that he had homework to do.

The effect of this walkover on winning rating prizes has been mentioned above. If he had played you, would it have counted for this purpose?

Interestingly, [the Germans] mentioned that in French tournaments they have played they have had to give the tournament organisers a deposit of 50 Euros in case they withdraw in such circumstances or presumably if they just withdraw without telling the organisers.

Suppose that there are 300 players at a tournament. One withdraws in this fashion and forfeits the 50 Euro deposit.

Doesn't that mean that the other 299 will be queuing up at the end to get their 50 Euros back?

The organisers of the Rilton Cup, that I have just played in, made the following statement on this subject after Round 8:

The organiser Stockholm's Chess Federation has noticed some dropouts among the players during the tournament.
...
Possible [future] regulations are:
- If you don’t attend to a chess game because of illness we will demand that you show the chief arbiter a medical certificate with a phone number to the doctor.
- If you leave walkover without any reason you run the risk of a fine.

I did wonder how practical it is for a foreign player to get a medical certificate if the condition they have is bad enough that they can't play chess, but not so serious that they need immediate medical attention. Presumably, it would be private treatment that you'd have to pay for, and it wouldn't be covered by travel insurance.