English Chess Forum

Good Morning,

having played in the weekend Open event, I would like to thank everyone who contributed towards a really enjoyable weekend - the venue was spacious, plenty of toilets and refreshments, did I get those in the right order? All of the officials worked tirelessly with good humour and all the players looked to be enjoying the chess.
Lady Luck was with me, as I survived a couple of dodgy positions to finish with a decent score and in the prizes, I also managed to have a chat with a couple of chess players I hadn't seen for a long time, and even had time to walk into Canterbury High Street where I indulged in a cherry pancake!

For me though the highlight of the weekend was meeting the remarkable Clare Furness, who next month will be cycling from London to Paris to raise funds for the Motor Neurone Disease Association if you can support her please visit - http://www.justgiving.com/clares-tourdefrance

The only Low of the weekend, for me, was that the bookstall wasn't open on the Sunday - I found this very strange and frustrating as I had promised myself a book if I scored 50%, still at least I had cash in my pocket when i found those delicious cherry pancakes

Good luck to everyone playing in the events this week

Regards
Trefor

Yeah, I was in the U140, and managed to escape unbeaten with 3/5 The bookstall was a little dissapointing admittedly, as it shut quite early on the night-times, and I'm now gutted I missed those cherry pancakes

Aha, the pancakes were a closely guarded secret - the advantage of being a local

Congratulations on your performance, the graded sections can be really tough, so tough in fact that I notice the Under 180 was won by a 189 graded player and the weekend Under 125 won by a player graded 145!!

Confusing but well within the rules, as I believe last year's grades are used, well played to both players.

At least I easily understood the weekend Open and Under 150 events won by 201 and 125 players respectively

cheers
Trefor

Trefor Owens wrote:Aha, the pancakes were a closely guarded secret - the advantage of being a local

Congratulations on your performance, the graded sections can be really tough, so tough in fact that I notice the Under 180 was won by a 189 graded player and the weekend Under 125 won by a player graded 145!!

Confusing but well within the rules, as I believe last year's grades are used, well played to both players.

At least I easily understood the weekend Open and Under 150 events won by 201 and 125 players respectively

cheers
Trefor

You're right, last year's grades were used. Look up the grading history of the winner of the U150 though. His 125 was only an estimate given by the organisers, and he too won within the rules.

Just looking through your last round game now, Trefor. What a highly exciting tense struggle it was...

Alex Holowczak wrote:Just looking through your last round game now, Trefor. What a highly exciting tense struggle it was...

I can't disagree Alex
I admit that being having black against a higher graded opponent and knowing a draw would be enough for the grading prize influenced my decision - although of course my opponent didn't have to accept my offer and could have played a sharp line against my French.

To be fair, we were both tired and wanted to finish the event unbeaten.

If it helps my reputation we did have a very interesting chat after the game, about football Simon is a Villa fan and I am a happy Hammer, so fingers crossed our respective sides will play out a more exciting match first day of the new season.
It may be a draw too but won't be as brief as our chess game granted

Trefor

The low for me was trying to find something to eat on Sunday. The only place open which allegedly sold proper food had sold out and myself and Dominic Mackle spent 25 minutes running around the campus trying to find something edible before stealing a packet of crisps from a passing student. We were 8 minutes late for our rapidplay games and both lost.

There wouldn't have been a problem yesterday had the shop not been shut for a stock take. That messed my eating plans up...

Alex Holowczak wrote: You're right, last year's grades were used. Look up the grading history of the winner of the U150 though. His 125 was only an estimate given by the organisers, and he too won within the rules.

Bit of an oversight there me thinks.

Sean Hewitt wrote:

Alex Holowczak wrote: You're right, last year's grades were used. Look up the grading history of the winner of the U150 though. His 125 was only an estimate given by the organisers, and he too won within the rules.

Bit of an oversight there me thinks.

It wasn't an oversight. When it was questioned, it was made clear to me that it was a conscious decision.

Sean Hewitt wrote:

Alex Holowczak wrote: You're right, last year's grades were used. Look up the grading history of the winner of the U150 though. His 125 was only an estimate given by the organisers, and he too won within the rules.

Bit of an oversight there me thinks.

I don't think thats correct, the winner of the under 125 comp had an official "A" grading from Sept 2009 of 121. This season he has risen to 145 over 98 games!

J. Moore wrote: I don't think thats correct, the winner of the under 125 comp had an official "A" grading from Sept 2009 of 121.

Exactly. This is why he was eligible for the Under 125 section. End of argument. It doesn't matter if his grade was 240 in the new list.

I mentioned the Under 150 section, not the Under 125 section. This was a totally different competition, but subject to the same rules.

Alex Holowczak wrote:

Sean Hewitt wrote:

Alex Holowczak wrote: You're right, last year's grades were used. Look up the grading history of the winner of the U150 though. His 125 was only an estimate given by the organisers, and he too won within the rules.

Bit of an oversight there me thinks.

It wasn't an oversight. When it was questioned, it was made clear to me that it was a conscious decision.

Interesting. Given that he was 176 (in old money) just 4 years ago it's no surprise to me that he scored 5/5!

Sean Hewitt wrote:Interesting. Given that he was 176 (in old money) just 4 years ago it's no surprise to me that he scored 5/5!

I was assured that there was good reason for it. Nothing to do with me though.

I don't think there was a problem with his grade; here's his record...

(Date / Category / Standard / Category / Rapid)

2006 E 176
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999 E 130
1998 SP A 135
1998 RP
1997 A 134
1996 A 143
1995 A 131
1994 A 113