Hastings

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Leonard Barden
Posts: 1670
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:21 am

Re: Hastings

Post by Leonard Barden » Sun Jan 03, 2010 6:12 pm

Jonathan Rogers wrote: Ansell may get to 5.5/7 - an excellent score, aided perhaps by rather friendly pairings of late but let's not go into that again ...
It looks if there will be a 7-way tie on 5.5/7 with up to another 7 players on 5/7 with two rounds left, so the excellence is relative....
Last edited by Leonard Barden on Sun Jan 03, 2010 7:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Matt Harrison
Posts: 129
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 4:51 pm

Re: Hastings

Post by Matt Harrison » Sun Jan 03, 2010 6:39 pm

Jonathan Rogers wrote:Not sure that Anderson has beaten many, or any, GMs, as opposed to IMs...
I'm fairly sure that John Anderson beat Cherniaev at Bury St Edmunds back in October. I was watching that game.

LozCooper

Re: Hastings

Post by LozCooper » Sun Jan 03, 2010 6:49 pm

Jonathan Rogers wrote:Commiserations to Jack from me too. At least (to look at the positives) he wrapped up his IM title before the recent decline. (Since I only see Jack play in the 4NCL, where he regularly beats IMs and GMs, including during 2009, it is quite a mystery to me how any sort of decline has happened).

There seem to have been two nervous collapses on the "demo" boards today. I feel quite sure that Anderson would have played ...Ba2 against most opponents, and so I think that ...Bxf5 was an unfortunate case of "trusting the GM" (not sure that Anderson has beaten many, or any, GMs, as opposed to IMs). (Since writing this I have seen David's post, with which I agree). As for Hawkins' unsound piece sac (also unnecessary since he may have stood slightly better at the time) - well, I think that is the Howell effect. He knew that David would fight to the last even if he was a bit worse, and so copping out with a timely draw offer was not an option. But that is just what he has been doing of late - Hawkins has played draws in his last four games! - and I don't think he was ready for a long hard fight with Howell. Thus he tried to force a quick conclusion, with a predictable result.

Ansell may get to 5.5/7 - an excellent score, aided perhaps by rather friendly pairings of late but let's not go into that again ...
I think Jack will always be an unpredictable player, alternating between good and bad results. At least it makes for more interesting chess than being permanently stodgy like I am! I'm also sure that there aren't many GMs and IMs who look forward to playing him whereas lower rated players may feel they have a chance of an upset when they play him.

My own feeling was that David was better when Hawkins sac'd the piece. He had control of the d5 and square and once he plays Ne3 black is saddled with a backward d pawn. The h6 pawn also looks a problem. Hence I thought the sac was played to avoid being a fair bit worse. I'm not saying it should have been played, but that was probably the reasoning behind it. Hopefully it won't stop Hawkins completing his IM title, although it will make a GM norm a bit harder.

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 4138
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: Hastings

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Sun Jan 03, 2010 7:29 pm

The Talsma-Williams game could well end up in R+B v R. Does Williams know how to draw that?

Matthew Turner
Posts: 3178
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am

Re: Hastings

Post by Matthew Turner » Sun Jan 03, 2010 7:46 pm

I agree with Loz on the Hawkins game. I think Hawkins just made a mistake with c5 when he seemed to me to be doing quite well and had lots of interesting possibilities. The piece sac was a consequence of that earlier error. The sac itself might have been a pragmatic punt, but obviously it didn't work out at all well.

Jonathan Rogers
Posts: 4146
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm

Re: Hastings

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Sun Jan 03, 2010 8:01 pm

Well, we all seem to have overlooked that Anderson beat a GM ... yesterday! (Simon Williams). And as a further self-correction, Hawkins did win yesterday, albeit against a weaker player, after three draws.

So I'll cease the psychological claptrap now, I think. I still believe there were psychological aspects behind the ways in which they both lost today, but that is true of so many fatal errors.

User avatar
Anthony Higgs
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Cloud Nine

Re: Hastings

Post by Anthony Higgs » Sun Jan 03, 2010 9:48 pm

The bottom boards can produce some great chess - check out 36...Nf1! leaving every black piece en prise on the way to victory in Devoille-Campbell...
http://www.horshamchessclub.org.uk - ECF Club of the Year 2010

Matthew Turner
Posts: 3178
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am

Re: Hastings

Post by Matthew Turner » Mon Jan 04, 2010 9:10 am

It looks like Mark Hebden has had the luck of the draw in round 8. The rule that someone in the top half cannot get a downfloat seems to have produced a less equitable draw (I have noticed this before). Is there any real justification for this rule?

Romain 5.5 (2620) - Hracek 5.5 (2624)
Hebden 5.5 (2522) - Philippe 5 (2430)

Wouldn't this be better?

Hebden 5.5 (2522) - Hracek 5.5 (2624)
Romain 5.5 (2620) - Philippe 5 (2430)

Richard Bates
Posts: 3139
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: Hastings

Post by Richard Bates » Mon Jan 04, 2010 9:58 am

Matthew Turner wrote:It looks like Mark Hebden has had the luck of the draw in round 8. The rule that someone in the top half cannot get a downfloat seems to have produced a less equitable draw (I have noticed this before). Is there any real justification for this rule?
What is this rule? I have never heard of it.
Romain 5.5 (2620) - Hracek 5.5 (2624)
Hebden 5.5 (2522) - Philippe 5 (2430)

Wouldn't this be better?

Hebden 5.5 (2522) - Hracek 5.5 (2624)
Romain 5.5 (2620) - Philippe 5 (2430)
Well that would presumably require the introduction of a new rule allowing the pairing of two opponents twice! :D

Alex McFarlane
Posts: 1554
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 8:52 pm

Re: Hastings

Post by Alex McFarlane » Mon Jan 04, 2010 10:18 am

Matthew,
If you think the published draw is bad the computerised version was worse it had 1 v 2.

Anyway to stir up the acceleration debate again we have 11 players with norm chances. Obviously 4 have good chances of achieving them.

HASTINGS MASTERS
Norm Opportunities
GM Norms
Jonathan Hawkins needs 2/2 and 2510 opponent in round 9
Christophe Philippe needs 2/2 and 2444 last round
Simon Ansell needs 2/2 and 2620 last round
IM Norms
Jonathan Hawkins needs ½/2 v 2275
Martin Mitchell needs 1/2 v 2316 or 1½/2 v 1900
Robert Eames needs 1½/2 v 2400
Elias Demac needs 1/2 v 2456 or 1½/2 v 2042
Andrew Green needs 2/2 v 2394
Samuel Franklin needs 2/2 v 2147
James Jackson needs 2/2 v 2180
Peter Williams needs 2/2 v 2271
Clement Sreeves needs 2/2 v 2188

The above are all subject to confirmation.

Matthew Turner
Posts: 3178
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am

Re: Hastings

Post by Matthew Turner » Mon Jan 04, 2010 10:19 am

OK, I didn't look at previous pairings, but we could have

Hebden (5.5) 2522 - Howell (5.5) 2597
Drozdrovskij 5.5 (2625) - Philippe 5 (2430)

This seems 'fairer' to me than

Drozdrovskij - Howell
Hebden - Philippe

because the two 2600's are kept apart. However, this is impossible because someone in the top half (in this case the number 1) cannot be floated down.

Matthew Turner
Posts: 3178
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am

Re: Hastings

Post by Matthew Turner » Mon Jan 04, 2010 10:22 am

Alex,
I am sure that the draw is 'correct'. I am just posing a question whether a change in the Swiss pairing rules could produce a 'fairer' draw.

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 4138
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: Hastings

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Mon Jan 04, 2010 10:24 am

Alex McFarlane wrote:Matthew,
Clement Sreeves needs 2/2 v 2188
This would be an IM norm performance, but not a norm - he's not faced enough titled opponents.

Alex McFarlane
Posts: 1554
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 8:52 pm

Re: Hastings

Post by Alex McFarlane » Mon Jan 04, 2010 10:28 am

Why does downfloating the top seed give a better pairing? I think most would consider this to be a worse option, but I'm willing to be convinced.
(But probably after I've had my flat tyre repaired!!!)

User avatar
Wilf Arnold
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 9:36 pm
Location: Munich
Contact:

Re: Hastings

Post by Wilf Arnold » Mon Jan 04, 2010 10:43 am

by Alex McFarlane » Mon Jan 04, 2010 10:28 am
Why does downfloating the top seed give a better pairing? I think most would consider this to be a worse option, but I'm willing to be convinced.
(But probably after I've had my flat tyre repaired!!!)
I'm sure you always carry a spare tyre around - most (male) arbiters do.

Post Reply