Hastings

[Jonathan Rogers]

My apologies Richard! What with there being a plethora of English players in the competition, there were a few players who gained some points, including Simon Ansell and Jovanka Houska too. Well done all

I wrote on the assumption that most members of this forum are mainly interested in players who might lift English chess back to the levels it took for granted twenty years ago (perhaps that is a wrong assumption?). Anyway, my point was that we saw little at Hastings to suggest that any major resurgence is under way, even though the trio Howell, Jones and Gordon all played. (Of course after their next tournaments we might revise that.)

[Richard Bates]

My apologies Richard! What with there being a plethora of English players in the competition, there were a few players who gained some points, including Simon Ansell and Jovanka Houska too. Well done all

I wrote on the assumption that most members of this forum are mainly interested in players who might lift English chess back to the levels it took for granted twenty years ago (perhaps that is a wrong assumption?). Anyway, my point was that we saw little at Hastings to suggest that any major resurgence is under way, even though the trio Howell, Jones and Gordon all played. (Of course after their next tournaments we might revise that.)

Well Gawain managed to gain 4 rating points so it was hardly disastrous. Rather than be disappointed, it is surely extremely encouraging that somebody can be critical of two very young English stars performing at 2573 and 2580 respectively! Assuming they keep playing then I would say that England have the best chance of moving back into contention for international tournaments for many years. I also don't think it's balanced to dismiss every good performance because "that's where their strengths lie" or "it's hardly unexpected", and focus only on (relative) disappointments.

Stephen was rather harshly dealt with by the pairing system which left him with few prospects of a GM norm from a very early stage.

Of course twenty years ago we only had to compete with one Russian School team, not about 30!

[Jonathan Rogers]

I was quite positive about Howell's performance, if you reread my original post. As for Gawain, I'd have been more impressed if I thought he could have done better, but he was struggling to draw with Hunt and the win over Gordon was not convincing.

Anyway, I wasn't that critical was I? This only started because no one had been discussing Hastings at all and I was suggesting that this might have been because none of the trio had a dazzling tournament as many of us were hoping, and there was no other newsworthy item. Note the word newsworthy - I noted Conquest and Williams achievements and only meant to say that they were not newsworthy (they were still impressive).

Maybe Gibraltar will be newsworthy for some of our best players instead....?

I agree that we should not look at the 1980s with rose tinted glasses, btw. Many of our rivals back then (e.g the USA team, I gather) said that our successes would not last and we were just fortunate to have four or five outstanding players who had virtually taught themselves to compete at the highest levels. In the junior tournaments at Oakham in 1990 and 1992 the Russians were apparently aghast at our lack of training for our best upcoming players. So yes, thinking only of Olympiad results in the 1980s is likely to cause (perhaps excessive) disappointment today.

[Richard Bates]

I was quite positive about Howell's performance, if you reread my original post. As for Gawain, I'd have been more impressed if I thought he could have done better, but he was struggling to draw with Hunt and the win over Gordon was not convincing.

Was it not? It seemed pretty impressive watching,, especially considering he is not exactly noted for a vast amount of experience playing the Catalan. It all seemed to start going (relatively) wrong when his Grand Prix attack ran into trouble.

I assume you meant couldn't have done better, btw...

Anyway, I wasn't that critical was I? This only started because no one had been discussing Hastings at all and I was suggesting that this might have been because none of the trio had a dazzling tournament as many of us were hoping, and there was no other newsworthy item. Note the word newsworthy - I noted Conquest and Williams achievements and only meant to say that they were not newsworthy (they were still impressive).

OK, fair enough. Perhaps your comment about the weather generated the wrong impression...

[Jonathan Rogers]

Stephen went wrong with ...Ba6, I think. He would have been fine after something else like ...Rc8. I also thought it was a good game by Gawain at first, but then noticed criticism over ...Ba6 from the reports by Stephen Giddins and that seems to be right. Perhaps it was the nice finish (e6!) which also contributes to the misleading impression.

Generally though it is good to see Gawain play other openings with White.

I keep forgetting that Stephen is not a GM yet!

[Justin Hadi]

Jonathan,

I am mystified, nay, offended, that you don't consider my game above to be newsworthy .

[Paul McKeown]

I am mystified, nay, offended, that you don't consider my game above to be newsworthy .

1. e4 c5 2. c3 Nf6 3. e5 Nd5 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nf3 Nc6 6. cxd4 e6 7. Bc4 Nb6 8.
Bb3 d6 9. exd6 Bxd6 10. O-O O-O 11. Nc3 a6 12. a3 Bd7 13. Bc2 f5 14. Re1 Qc7 15. Bb3 Rae8 16. d5 exd5 17. Be3 Ne7 18. Bxb6 Qxb6 19. Rxe7 Bxe7 20. Nxd5 Qa5 21. Nxe7+ Kh8 22. Qxd7 Qb6 23. Bf7 Rd8 24. Qxf5

Nice demolition job, Justin. Not sure about 13... f5, seems pointless and weakening. Not sure about 16. d5, either, but I'm sure you had fair compensation for the pawn, though. 17... Ne7 was surely a blunder - which you punished in excellent style - but 17... Kh8 might have left you with "just a game", you've given up a pawn, but have good activity and Black has some weaknesses. Well done!

[Justin Hadi]

Thanks for the critique. Yes, 17...Kh8 I think is pretty level, I was probably going to take on d5 after that.
...f5 he was worried about the Bxh7 sac, which doesn't work after Ng5+ Kg6 although it looks a bit scary for black. The last post was a joke if anyone didn't get it..

[Mark Howitt]

Yes I did start this thread to stimulate discussion about chess at Hastings so glad it's finally happening.

Overall the English players did OK. I hoped for a little more, but motivated players from overseas, some young and underrated, are always going to be a challenge. Our young players will have to train hard and be focused to beat them!

[Matthew Turner]

Mark,
Perhaps there has been so little discussion of the Hasting Chess here because it didn't throw up anything new, it was just the continuation of existing trends

1. Very good preformance from David Howell
2. Exceptional performance from Stewart Conquest
3. Slide in performance from Danny Gormally
4. Failure from Stephen Gordon to push ahead from 2500
5. Zero coverage of a major British event on the ECF webpage
6. Development of the coverage of lie games to twenty boards - very good

I think we are all waiting for Stephen Gordon or Stewart Haslinger or Gawain Jones or Lawrence Trent (who was not at Hastings) to win a major International tournament so that we can get excited about a new wave of English talent.

[Carl Hibbard]

6. Development of the coverage of live games to twenty boards - very good

Well yes and no, some excellent work by David Clayton on site and thanks to the ECF for supplying the boards etc.

However the cost of hosting such bandwidth is really going to be a problem in the future

The free service I provide just didn't handle the numbers (this time only...) and we need to look at alternates for next time

It's not the bandwidth that is the issue but the way the DGT stuff works means a massive number of requests

For those people in the "know" at peak times during Hastings this was perhaps 600,000 per hour

Thoughts welcomed...

[Mark Howitt]

Mark,
Perhaps there has been so little discussion of the Hasting Chess here because it didn't throw up anything new, it was just the continuation of existing trends

1. Very good preformance from David Howell
2. Exceptional performance from Stewart Conquest
3. Slide in performance from Danny Gormally
4. Failure from Stephen Gordon to push ahead from 2500
5. Zero coverage of a major British event on the ECF webpage
6. Development of the coverage of lie games to twenty boards - very good

I think we are all waiting for Stephen Gordon or Stewart Haslinger or Gawain Jones or Lawrence Trent (who was not at Hastings) to win a major International tournament so that we can get excited about a new wave of English talent.

Yes that is a very good analysis Matthew.

However Howell will have lost some rating points in this tournament- people should remember that the players will be rated on their January 2009 ratings for this tournament and I'm a little surprised the official site didn't update this although it would have involved extra work.

When I saw twenty boards were promised I thought WOW English chess is finally aiming to compete at a high level in terms of internet coverage. Sadly, for me anyway, often a number of these boards were missing coverage. This is an area which would be very useful to work on, although again I accept it will cost money and work. Then again, what are 'game fees' for ?

[Mick Norris]

6. Development of the coverage of live games to twenty boards - very good

Well yes and no, some excellent work by David Clayton on site and thanks to the ECF for supplying the boards etc.

However the cost of hosting such bandwidth is really going to be a problem in the future

The free service I provide just didn't handle the numbers (this time only...) and we need to look at alternates for next time

It's not the bandwidth that is the issue but the way the DGT stuff works means a massive number of requests

For those people in the "know" at peak times during Hastings this was perhaps 600,000 per hour

Thoughts welcomed...

Carl

The EU Champs at Liverpool seemed to work fine, I remember - was there a technical issue with Hastings that didn't apply in Liverpool?

[Tim Spanton]

Mark,
Perhaps there has been so little discussion of the Hasting Chess here because it didn't throw up anything new, it was just the continuation of existing trends

1. Very good preformance from David Howell
2. Exceptional performance from Stewart Conquest
3. Slide in performance from Danny Gormally
4. Failure from Stephen Gordon to push ahead from 2500
5. Zero coverage of a major British event on the ECF webpage
6. Development of the coverage of lie games to twenty boards - very good

I think we are all waiting for Stephen Gordon or Stewart Haslinger or Gawain Jones or Lawrence Trent (who was not at Hastings) to win a major International tournament so that we can get excited about a new wave of English talent.

Yes that is a very good analysis Matthew.

However Howell will have lost some rating points in this tournament- people should remember that the players will be rated on their January 2009 ratings for this tournament and I'm a little surprised the official site didn't update this although it would have involved extra work.

When I saw twenty boards were promised I thought WOW English chess is finally aiming to compete at a high level in terms of internet coverage. Sadly, for me anyway, often a number of these boards were missing coverage. This is an area which would be very useful to work on, although again I accept it will cost money and work. Then again, what are 'game fees' for ?

Surely not - October ratings were in force when the tournament began ...

[Matthew Turner]

I appreciate david lost rating points, but he had a couple of years at around 2500 and now in the last year he has suddenly shot up. Consolidating 2600 would be a success, but I suspect we may see more than that. The fact the he went all out for the win against Kurnosov suggests to me that Hasting is just another stepping block on quite a steep upward curve.