at the mercy of the arbiter

Keith Arkell · Post by **Keith Arkell** » Mon May 25, 2009 1:24 am

Yup - can't argue with that one

) - and it required quite a sophisticated grasp of the rules,so well played Sean!....but,will it be a case of all roads leading to Rome? (meaning will Mark Hebden and I meet in the last round for the 4th consecutive event? - the previous 3 being the Wawrickshire Open,Blackpool and Southend International).

Keith Arkell · Post by **Keith Arkell** » Mon May 25, 2009 1:28 am

oops - didn't mean for that ''surprised'' face to appear there! It should have been a

or a

or even a

Carl Hibbard · Post by **Carl Hibbard** » Mon May 25, 2009 10:11 am

Keith Arkell wrote:Yup - can't argue with that one ) - and it required quite a sophisticated grasp of the rules,so well played Sean!....but,will it be a case of all roads leading to Rome? (meaning will Mark Hebden and I meet in the last round for the 4th consecutive event? - the previous 3 being the Wawrickshire Open,Blackpool and Southend International).

Hmm, Hebden against Williams in round 4 is a horrible crush isn't it...

[Event "Amersham Open"]
[Site "Latimer Place Hotel, England"]
[Date "2009.05.24"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Hebden, Mark L"]
[Black "Williams, Simon K"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "2510"]
[BlackElo "2512"]
[PlyCount "36"]
[EventDate "2009.??.??"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 d5 3. c4 e6 4. Bg5 dxc4 5. Nc3 c6 6. e4 b5 7. e5 h6 8. Bh4 g5
9. Nxg5 Nd5 10. Nxf7 Qxh4 11. Nxh8 Bb4 12. Qd2 c5 13. dxc5 Nd7 14. Be2 Nxe5 15.
O-O Bb7 16. f4 Bxc5+ 17. Kh1 Ne3 18. Bf3 N3g4 0-1

John Upham · Post by **John Upham** » Mon May 25, 2009 10:32 am

15 00 looks awful and 16. f4 is just a blunder surely?

I thought 9..Sd5 was very iffy anyway. I assume Simon had prepared an improvement?

There is something to be said for punting "busted" lines I guess. SW is now playing both sides of the Semi-Slav which is good for all fans of these messy positions!

John Saunders · Post by **John Saunders** » Mon May 25, 2009 11:08 am

If you believe database stats (which I do, but only up to a point), 14 Be2 could be the first questionable move as it has scored 0% from two games, whereas 14 g3 has scored 25% from four and 14 0-0-0 100% from two. Going back a further move, 13 0-0-0 and 13 a3 also score rather better than 13 dxc5. But I wouldn't criticise 9...Nd5 simply because it is not played as often as 9...hxg5. In the hands of someone like Simon it is bound to be a very dangerous weapon. What makes it all the more deadly here is that Simon knew Mark was very inexperienced in this line and in shaky form at the moment. Mark tried this line in the last round of the 4NCL and came a cropper there too.

P.S. Why Sd5 and not Nd5? This isn't 'der Deutsche Schachforum'...

Carl Hibbard · Post by **Carl Hibbard** » Mon May 25, 2009 11:14 am

John Saunders wrote:P.S. Why Sd5 and not Nd5? This isn't 'der Deutsche Schachforum'...

Drives me potty as well, the argument is it's quicker to write down

John Upham · Post by **John Upham** » Mon May 25, 2009 11:44 am

John Saunders wrote: P.S. Why Sd5 and not Nd5? This isn't 'der Deutsche Schachforum'...

I've always used shortened German Algebraic since I operated the demonstration board for Miles - Hubner at the Anglo-German match played at Elvetham Hall on February 3/4 1979. Nice memories....

Tony recorded the moves in Russian shortened algebraic and wrote his moves in advance. He also hid them under an enormous watch.

He signed my score sheet and we all received a signed copy of Pachman's Decisive Games.

From then on I have used shortened German algebraic.

Keith Arkell · Post by **Keith Arkell** » Tue May 26, 2009 12:46 pm

The Birmingham player Nigel McSheehy(now also sadly deceased) often used to write his moves in Algebraic,but substituting R U Y L O P E Z for A B C etc.
Both Nigel and Tony were very nervous players at the board. Nigel also wrote his moves down before he played them.

James Toon · Post by **James Toon** » Tue May 26, 2009 1:12 pm

In the Hebden-Williams game, I agree that 15.0-0 is bad (four losing outings so far - nothing else played but 0-0-0 suggests itself) and 16.f4 is losing. As it happens, 18.Bf3 is the first new move of the game (the position was reached once before and White tried 18.Rf3, which also loses). Simon must have known this.

I don't think the problem lies with 14.Be2 but with 12.Qd2. Instead 12.Rc1 seems better. Leaving the queen on d1 means that after White plays Be2, there is a threat of Bh5+ which disrupts Black's position. After 12.Rc1, Vigorito's book on the Semi-Slav gives 12...c5 13.dxc5 Nd7 14.Be2 Nxe5 15.0-0 Bb7 16.Bh5+ as winning for White, but 12...Qe4+ 13.Be2 Nf4 is more challenging.

Carl Hibbard · Post by **Carl Hibbard** » Tue May 26, 2009 1:14 pm

James Toon wrote:In the Hebden-Williams game, I agree that 15.0-0 is bad (four losing outings so far - nothing else played but 0-0-0 suggests itself) and 16.f4 is losing. As it happens, 18.Bf3 is the first new move of the game (the position was reached once before and White tried 18.Rf3, which also loses). Simon must have known this.

I don't think the problem lies with 14.Be2 but with 12.Qd2. Instead 12.Rc1 seems better. Leaving the queen on d1 means that after White plays Be2, there is a threat of Bh5+ which disrupts Black's position. After 12.Rc1, Vigorito's book on the Semi-Slav gives 12...c5 13.dxc5 Nd7 14.Be2 Nxe5 15.0-0 Bb7 16.Bh5+ as winning for White, but 12...Qe4+ 13.Be2 Nf4 is more challenging.

Mark is a forum member if you manage to get a post out of him?

Andy Burnett · Post by **Andy Burnett** » Tue May 26, 2009 3:23 pm

James Toon wrote:In the Hebden-Williams game, I agree that 15.0-0 is bad (four losing outings so far - nothing else played but 0-0-0 suggests itself) and 16.f4 is losing. As it happens, 18.Bf3 is the first new move of the game (the position was reached once before and White tried 18.Rf3, which also loses). Simon must have known this.

I don't think the problem lies with 14.Be2 but with 12.Qd2. Instead 12.Rc1 seems better. Leaving the queen on d1 means that after White plays Be2, there is a threat of Bh5+ which disrupts Black's position. After 12.Rc1, Vigorito's book on the Semi-Slav gives 12...c5 13.dxc5 Nd7 14.Be2 Nxe5 15.0-0 Bb7 16.Bh5+ as winning for White, but 12...Qe4+ 13.Be2 Nf4 is more challenging.

This line was analysed in a couple of articles for CHESS magazine back in 1979/80 by George Botterill under the catchy title of The Anti-Anti-Meran -Alatortzev's Variation Rediscovered

Of one of his games (vs SR Gillam, L.A.R.A. Open 1979) he writes "15.0-0?! This is really pretty silly-just castling right into it. 15...Bb7 16.a3 {Necessary if he is to try for any sort of control over f4 in view of the terrible massacre that ensues after 16.f4 Bc5:+ 17.Kh1 Ne3} This is the exact position from Hebden-Williams!

I looked at these lines again a few years back from the black side, tempted by their aggressiveness, but quickly concluded that they are just losing. The other line 12.Rc1 Qe4+ 13.Be2 Nf4 was supposed to have been pretty much refuted in 1980 by Timman's move 14.a3! vs Ljubojevic and I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary since

Another critical game which put me off was Gulko-Vera from the Torre Memorial 1999 (which appeared in CHESS round about that time) where black got horribly mangled - Vera being the only strong player who seemed to be playing this line at all). I imagine it'll have to stay hidden for another decade or 2 to have any practical value as the Hebden-Williams game will surely appear everywhere.
Andy Burnett

Stewart Reuben · Post by **Stewart Reuben** » Tue May 26, 2009 5:18 pm

>The Birmingham player Nigel McSheehy(now also sadly deceased) often used to write his moves in Algebraic,but substituting R U Y L O P E Z for A B C etc.
Both Nigel and Tony were very nervous players at the board. Nigel also wrote his moves down before he played them.< Keith Arkell.

Writing the move in advance was allowed by the Laws of Chess until 2005. Using Ruy Lopez would have been against the Laws, because it would not have been a recognised form.
Erik Teichman went further. In an early Lloyds Bank Masters he used the Udeman (I think that is its name) Code. Thus 11 referred to a1. 1 e4 is written 25-45. that is useful with telex. So, what was the problem, even if not recognised by the Laws? Well, he translated the numbers to binary. Bernard Cafferty pointed this out to me and I then told Eric that it was not permitted by the Laws.

Stewart Reuben

John Upham · Post by **John Upham** » Tue May 26, 2009 6:22 pm

Stewart Reuben wrote: Erik Teichman went further.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Erik Oscar Michael Charles Teichmann : a great character who I was fortunate enough to know in the late 1970s.

He played very inventive chess!

I think he moved out to Australia and I then lost touch. Anyone know where EOMCT is now?

J.

James Toon · Post by **James Toon** » Tue May 26, 2009 8:49 pm

I knew Erik Teichmann in the early 1980s when we played in the same Oxford University team in the local league. We were quite good friends until we fell out over a woman. I lost touch with him after that.

A Google search suggests he's still in Australia and is currently playing in the City of Melbourne Open.

Keith Arkell · Post by **Keith Arkell** » Wed May 27, 2009 1:53 am

I wonder if he still plays 1. 27-47 (I say this in ''Udeman'' notation in case anyone of a sensitive disposition is reading it).

English Chess Forum

at the mercy of the arbiter

Re: at the mercy of the arbiter

Re: at the mercy of the arbiter

Re: at the mercy of the arbiter

Re: at the mercy of the arbiter

Re: at the mercy of the arbiter

Re: at the mercy of the arbiter

Re: at the mercy of the arbiter

Re: at the mercy of the arbiter

Re: at the mercy of the arbiter

Re: at the mercy of the arbiter

Re: at the mercy of the arbiter

Re: at the mercy of the arbiter

Re: at the mercy of the arbiter

Re: at the mercy of the arbiter

Re: at the mercy of the arbiter