English Chess Forum

I think Chris Dorrington has a win 32. Rh6 Qg7 33. Qxf5+ Kg8 34 R(1)e6

Nick Pert analysing now on the live stream.

Looks like Dorrington has taken the repetition.

Anybody got the results other than the top six?

Commentary finished for the day.

Matthew Turner wrote:Anybody got the results other than the top six?

The results page is being updated here:

http://www.britishchess2010.com/events/championship.htm

Ouch, bandwidth needed in the last 4 Hours was 881.7 MB

To Alex / Adam,

I wondered why Tarun Malhotra shows in the Major Open as 1986* (which I assume means unrated) when he has a FIDE rating of 1838? http://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=5020549

Regards,

Sean

Just checked out the photos for the first round. Couldn't bigger tables have been found, at least for the top 4 boards!

Matthew Turner wrote:I think Chris Dorrington has a win 32. Rh6 Qg7 33. Qxf5+ Kg8 34 R(1)e6

Seems to me Black has absolutely no moves apart from ...a6 so maybe just 32. h5 or perhaps 32. a4!? to undermine the knight first.

Pairings now available and I notice Ian Snape got a draw against Jovanka. I don't really see many upsets in round 2 either, but James Adair might prove to be a difficult opponent for Danny Gormally. The accelerated pairings have led to an all GM pairing on board 1.

Matthew Turner wrote:Pairings now available and I notice Ian Snape got a draw against Jovanka. I don't really see many upsets in round 2 either, but James Adair might prove to be a difficult opponent for Danny Gormally. The accelerated pairings have led to an all GM pairing on board 1.

Hebden-Howell (or possibly the other way around) proved to be the crucial game from Torquay 2009. That was round 2 wasn't it?

What's the need to accelerate the pairings in a tournament of this length?

There are some odd looking pairings for round 2 - is this some sort of special accelerated swiss system to try and root out the lower rated players (I dont really like to call them 'weak' since almost all of them are quite strong by normal standards)?

Eoin Devane >What's the need to accelerate the pairings in a tournament of this length?<

'Need' is not a useful word in this context. Change it to 'desirable'.
1. The standard seeded Swiss Pairing System is very much to the disadvantage of players at the top of the second half.
2. The system was designed to avoid huge mismatches as much as possible.
It is perfectly true that the accelerated system is not 'needed' for 11 rounds to sort out less than 500 players.

Joey Stewart >is this some sort of special accelerated swiss system?<

You do not say what has caught your eye. But probably it is that lower rated players with 0.5 are paired with players from the top half with 0. This is standard practice in longer events. The idea is to avoid having a large number of low rated players on very high scores in round 3 and 4. Failure to use this practice and discontinuing the acceleration after just two rounds is what led to the debacle in Dresden for the Olympiad (just as I predicted). That also used a basically inferior Accelerated System.

Of course I am biased in favour of the Accelerated Pairing System used, as I devised it. That was by accident, I had misunderstood the original system from Canada.

The main problem with our Accelerated System is that it has never been computerised. ANY VOLUNTEERS? For the first 3 rounds the pairings will be done by hand.

Stewart Reuben