British 2015 Round by Round

[John McKenna]

Nick, read my lips - "I take it that..."

Now you've said what your position is and that's fine by me.

Permission to leave the vessel, sir!?

[NickFaulks]

That's better, off you go!

Just so it's clear to everyone else ( if they care ), I think there are many events where the CAA pairing rules regarding floats are better than the FIDE ones, and none where they are worse. I realise that I have just discovered something well known to some here for years.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Whichever system is used it should be used consistently.

The question of modifying pairings is a secondary question and should be dealt with on a case by case basis.

An Arbiter should always be able to explain and justify his or her pairings.

Well I certainly agree with that last point. As for the first two, though, it seems to me that you can be consistent or you can deal with exceptions on a case by case basis but you can be both.

If you can be tempted to return to the thread briefly - were you saying earlier that the cause of the adjusted pairing was a switch from the usual system to another system?


As for cases involving Israel as raised by others, that seems to me to be a rather different matter. It's one thing to be told by your govt (threat of violence or other coercion) you can't play someone. It's quite another to prefer to avoid a particular fellow competitor - However understandable that preference might be.

[Keith Arkell]

I'm not saying I particularly agree or disagree with any of this, but at Blackpool a few months ago I was paired with my Brother Nick, in round 2, when there were an endless pile of players on 1/1 against whom we could have been paired instead. Ironically this technically correct pairing was followed by a blatantly incorrect pairing in round 3 when there were only 4 of us on 2!

[Roger de Coverly]

Ironically this technically correct pairing was followed by a blatantly incorrect pairing in round 3 when there were only 4 of us on 2!

I looked this up at
http://www.blackpoolchess.org.uk/images ... xtable.pdf

Ranking order was Mark (seeking Black), Matthew (seeking White), Keith (seeking Black), Richard (seeking White)

I would have thought the normal top down rules would have given

Matthew v Mark
Richard v Keith

Instead it was the other way round.

I see Blackpool was using Tournament Director. That's one of the few programs that supports CAA rules.

[David Robertson]

How/Why is Keith Arkell posting at [2.58pm] when he should be head-down sweating on his Taimanov v. Alex Golding?

Just asking.

[edit] oh, the time changed just now to [1.58pm]. But my post says [3.16pm] and it's in fact [4.16pm]

[Jonathan Rogers]

seems to me that there is something for him to sweat about at the moment

[David Robertson]

Yes, indeed. Alex didn't know much about the Taimanov when we played in May. He told me he was 'nervous' of the ...Bb4 pin and ...Bxc3, so delayed Nc3, defending e4 with f3 instead. Not good. That left me time to get busy, and he went down quickly. Looks like he's done a little homework since then. Nice young lad too; and very strong

[Roger de Coverly]

They're taking a long time over the opening in Howell v Gormally. They've just varied from a game between Clarke and Penrose from York in 1959. Penrose preferred 10. .. Bg4 .

1 d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Be2 e5 7. O-O c6 8. d5 Na6 9. Bg5 h6 10. Bh4 Bd7

[Mick Norris]

seems to me that there is something for him to sweat about at the moment

In Keith we trust, but it doesn't look great at the moment and his clock time might indicate he thinks the same

[Simon Ansell]

seems to me that there is something for him to sweat about at the moment

In Keith we trust, but it doesn't look great at the moment and his clock time might indicate he thinks the same

Looks like it's been drawn, but isn't Keith completely busted there (move 29)? I'm not sure exactly how but Nb7 at some point, or even simply 29. Nd3 is a large safe advantage with little risk.

[Matt Mackenzie]

So we have reverted to one thread for the whole event, and given up day to day ones?

If so, maybe it could be possible to merge the "Day 1" thread into this

[Simon Ansell]

41... Nc2 from Danny on board 1 is clever.

[Mick Norris]

seems to me that there is something for him to sweat about at the moment

In Keith we trust, but it doesn't look great at the moment and his clock time might indicate he thinks the same

Looks like it's been drawn, but isn't Keith completely busted there (move 29)? I'm not sure exactly how but Nb7 at some point, or even simply 29. Nd3 is a large safe advantage with little risk.

Chessbomb analysis gives 29 Qc8 or Nxe6 or Qa8 or Nb7

here

[Roger de Coverly]

41... Nc2 from Danny on board 1 is clever.

It's been the top engine move at chessbomb for a few minutes. The engine still claims an edge for White in the ending with Black eventually sacrificing a pawn by e5-e4 to give the dark square Bishop activity.

(edit) David didn't take the Knight, the engine now thinks .. Nd4 is level (/edit)

[FEN "6k1/1p2b2r/3p3q/p1pPp1p1/P1P1N1P1/5PB1/1Pn1QK2/4R3 w - - 7 42"]