Why will might have a new board 1 for the olympiad team.

[Ben Purton]

David Howells chess at Corus deserves the most praise by far out of all the English players there. Yes Nigel Short is winning Section B and Micky Adams is holding his own in Section A. But Since losing his first two hes won 5 of the 7 games.

Its not if he gets to 2700, its When.



Ben

[JustinHorton]

One for the future then?

[Ben Purton]

Yeah once he sorts out his nerves he will be a group A player. Short regains form. All we need is a 4th and a 5th and we are olympiad contenders.

Today he should win from here, great position

[Ben Purton]

Think it should be a 1/2 now

[JustinHorton]

You are aware of the title of this forum?

[Leonard Barden]

I disagree with the optimistic analysis of Howell's play above. Fact is. his performances in the last four months or so are inconsistent (certainly so by 2600 standards) and show only two real successes, the British Rapidplay (not Fide rated) and the Olympiad.

Otherwise, there was a tournament in Spain where he hung a rook in the final round, the World Junior where he blew the gold medal game with a horribly passive Giuoco Pianissimo, the World U18 where he was top seed but finished out of the medals, Hastings where again his lousy GP cost the point against the tournament winner, and now Corus C where he was No 2 seed.

His wins in rounds 3 and 4 at Wijk were fortuitous, especially against Nijboer who with R+N v R+B+P blundered the knight by a one-mover. His only really convincing game has been in round 5 against Romanishin. Then he lost to Gupta, his nemesis in the World Junior, after being the exchange ahead but messing up in zeitnot. Today the optimistic forecasts above turned out misplaced as he seemed unsettled when the previously draw-seeking Harika suddenly turned nasty with sharp counterplay. Missing one clear chance for advantage (axb5! instead of dxc4) David was crushed into mincemeat by the Indian girl's counter-attack.

I don't know about nerves but he is showing three clear technical weaknesses (1) some openings which are too simplisitic to be mainline weapons at 2600 level ( Pianissimo, 2 c3 Sicilian) (2) poor clock management-I watched live his World Junior game against the Azerbaijani where he took nearly half an hour in the openingfor a simple strategic decision in the Grunfeld and as a result was later in horrid zeitnot for a fiendishly complex middle game with both kings on the brink. There are many other examples of this, and I do fear he is in danger of becoming a time pressure addict. (3) especially in Wijk against Bosboom, Gupta and Harika he has been vulnerable when the opponents turned the positions into chaotic street brawls, no doubt aware of David's dubious clock handling.

So rather than onwards and upwards to 2700 and taking out Mickey and Nigel, I think he really needs to work objectively on the weaknesses which have appeared in his game around 2600.

[Neill Cooper]

Yeah once he sorts out his nerves he will be a group A player. Short regains form. All we need is a 4th and a 5th and we are olympiad contenders.

Today he should win from here, great position

and what if he goes to University?

[Ben Purton]

I don't know about nerves but he is showing three clear technical weaknesses (1) some openings which are too simplisitic to be mainline weapons at 2600 level ( Pianissimo, 2 c3 Sicilian) (2) poor clock management-I watched live his World Junior game against the Azerbaijani where he took nearly half an hour in the openingfor a simple strategic decision in the Grunfeld and as a result was later in horrid zeitnot for a fiendishly complex middle game with both kings on the brink. There are many other examples of this, and I do fear he is in danger of becoming a time pressure addict. (3) especially in Wijk against Bosboom, Gupta and Harika he has been vulnerable when the opponents turned the positions into chaotic street brawls, no doubt aware of David's dubious clock handling.

Firstly Leonard , I don't really understand your criticism here. Surely 2 and 3 are the same thing. So his main problems are time and so called simplistic openings. I think you really dont get the point here. Firstly the Gupta game he was better(Corus one) , therefore he just got nervous and blew it , probaly due to the Indians arrogance at the Worlds when winning.
So time might be something he needs to improve, thats clear. However simplicity of openings????? What does this mean, some of the most simplistic openings if known well can be very powerful weapons. Lets take the most obvious example being Kramnik's Berlin Defense. The c3 stuff, is Tviakov not a strong advocate of such openings and got to around 2710 with such openings, writing in NIC yearbooks about them.

If you look at a large number of his loses , especially in world juniors(both) he often has draws but declines them to go for the wins, this is unique chess. He is playing to learn not to win and has still got to 2622, almost 100 points higher than any of the gap year crew whos progress has been draw-ridden and slow.

Ben

[Matthew Turner]

Ben,
It is perhaps hard for you to believe that once Leonard's views were almost sacrosanct. He may now appear a rather peripheral and sad character, but his views should not be dismissed so lightly. David has an issue with time management and has struggled with crucial games. Leonard, having never been a good player himself, will perhaps not realise that David always strives for victories and that although this sometimes leads to losses is gaining him an extremely positive reputation amongst his peers (Magnus Carlsen has the same thing - admittedly, presently at a higher level). There is no doubt that David will reach 2700, the question is whether he can push beyond that level.

[Ben Purton]

I of course know who Leonard is, hes probaly the most famous chess journalist Britain ever have/will have. I also see the time management as a fine statement. I just don't see the complexity of openings as being an issue in his game.

[Paul McKeown]

Ben,

I think we all like it that you fly the flag for up-and-coming English stars. Blind faith though is fine a supporter, but I suspect David Howell and his coaches/training partners (including Speelman I believe) prefer to work hard, addressing whatever issues they find.

Leonard was the BCF's Manager of the National Junior Squads for the best part of two decades, I think he was also a selector at once stage or another (couldn't swear to it). He represented the BCF in 4 Olympiads and in other team and individual events. He won the British championship in 1954, jointly with Alan Phillips, tied for first again in 1958, but lost the play-off to Penrose. He won several other strong tournaments and scalped some noted players. In his time he was a respected theoretician.

Today, he would have undoubtedly have earned the IM title, back then that was very difficult to achieve. His British Master title is, in any case, an equivalent, if not even better.

His eye for the faults and strengths of a rising English player is beyond question and his opinion is valuable and ought not to be cast aside willy-nilly; I doubt Speelman will.

One final point, what is this thread doing in the Chess History forum?

Carl, could you move it to General Chat, please?

[Ben Purton]

I don't think David thinks he has many clear weaknesses except maybe time and nerves.

[Ben Purton]

Rodstein V Howell - Tell me thats not 2700 standard chess and Ill tell you that you dont have a clue. That game is against a player who will also probaly make it to 2700 and see's himself as almost unbetable with White.

Ben

[Ben Purton]

Do you think Luke Mcshane would be 2700 standard? I think he would. I think David might give up and go to university but I hope he doesnt and I think if he does chess will be 2700.

[Paul McKeown]

Tell me thats not 2700 standard chess and Ill tell you that you dont have a clue.

Ben - I don't think I ventured an opinion one way or another.