British 2015 Round by Round

[Martin Benjamin]

Whilst typing the above, Glenn Flear seems to be back in it! Error-strewn game, but entertaining

[John McKenna]

Just rewinding Flear-Richards, can someone explain why Black could not simply have recaptured the piece on move 27 with fxe4 rather than 27....Rae8?

Engine says that 27... fxe4 is about even, so much better than 27... Rae8.

Question is why didn't she play it?

[Roger de Coverly]

Glenn Flear seems to be back in it!

Engine says draw. The line indicated shows both sides Queen, Black giving up the Rook to restrict the number of new Queens to one. It's then Queen and Bishop against Queen and Pawn, but it's either repetition by perpetual check or the Queens are forced off. As always an inaccuracy could change the verdict.

[Alan Walton]

if I am looking at a correct feed after Kg5; isn't a4 just winning; black queens first and white is left with a g pawn

edit : maybe it is a draw, maybe

[Roger de Coverly]

if I am looking at a correct feed after Kg5; isn't a4 just winning; black queens first and white is left with a g pawn

[FEN "7r/7P/6B1/pp4K1/3k4/8/6P1/8 b - - 1 53"]

The Stockfish at chessbomb gives four lines, all drawn.

(edit) I've added the moves to the end of the game. They played down the most obvious of the engine's ideas. (/edit)

Flear-Richards
1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nc6 3. e3 e5 4. dxe5 d4 5. a3 a5 6. Nf3 Bc5 7. Be2 dxe3 8. Qxd8+ Kxd8 9. fxe3 h6 10. Nc3 Nge7 11. Kf2 Be6 12. b3 Kc8 13. Rd1 g5 14. Ne4 Ba7 15. Bb2 Rf8 16. Rac1 Nf5 17. Rd3 g4 18. Nfd2 Nfe7 19. c5 Ng6 20. Nc4 Bxc4 21. bxc4 Ncxe5 22. Rd5 f6 23. Kg1 c6 24. Rd6 Kc7 25. Re6 f5 26. Bxe5+ Nxe5 27. Rxe5 Rae8 28. Rxe8 Rxe8 29. Ng3 Rxe3 30. Kf1 Re5 31. Bd3 Bxc5 32. a4 f4 33. Nf5 Bb4 34. Nxh6 g3 35. h3 Re3 36. Rd1 Kb6 37. Ng4 Re7 38. h4 Bc3 39. h5 Rg7 40. Be2 Kc5 41. h6 Re7 42. Rd3 Kb4 43. Rf3 Rf7 44. Rxc3 Kxc3 45. Bd3 Re7 46. Nf2 gxf2 47. h7 Re8 48. Bg6 Rh8 49. Kxf2 Kxc4 50. Kf3 Kd4 51. Kxf4 b5 52. axb5 cxb5 53. Kg5 a4 54. Kh6 b4 55. g4 b3 56. Bf7 Kc3 57. g5 a3 58. g6 a2 59. g7 Rxh7+ 60. Kxh7 a1=Q 61. g8=Q Qh1+ 62. Kg7 Qg1+ 63. Bg6 Qd4+ 64. Kh7 Qh4+ 65. Kg7 Qd4+ ½-½

[John McKenna]

It was a nice find. And so are his moves immediately following. I'm banking my win from rd 9 last May, and hope our paths don't cross again

Last year I was not so lucky -

[Event "CPII-Ashtead II (Ellam)"] [Site "?"] [Date "2014.03.10"] [Round "?"] [White "McKenna, John R"] [Black "Golding, Alex"] [Result "*"] [Annotator "JRM"] [SetUp "1"] [FEN "1r4k1/5p1p/4pnp1/3p4/2pP3q/2P1PP2/Q5PP/1N2R1K1 w - - 0 28"] [PlyCount "3"] 28. g3 (28. Re2) 28... Qh5 29. Kg2 $2 (29. Nd2 {How did I miss this? I had to make 7 moves in 9 mins. I had been waiting all game to develop the N from b1 to d2 and completely missed it here. Unbelievable!!}) *

Well, there was on reflection a slight distraction. It was not Alex disappearing to avoid the tedium when it was my turn to move - I was playing slowly and he like greased lightning. No, not that - it was that he was constantly replaced by one of his adult team members standing behind his empty chair with an expression of expectation.... and he got what he was looking for, to my lasting regret.

Now young Alex is one of the joint leaders on 2/2.

Good luck to him tomorrow.

[John McKenna]

Major Open R2 -

Bd. 1 [Sno.12] Moreby James 1997 (1) ½ - ½ (1) GM Fodor Tamas Jr. 2491 [Sno. 1]

[Tim Harding]

Could have been another king and pawn ending tonight if Hebden had played 56...Rd6 against McKenna. Probably wisely he went for Re1 and a long rook ending.
Hebden's more than an hour ahead on the clock but Chess24's engine says 0.00.

Jason McKenna (no direct relation) just played 62.g6 (still O.00) and may be hoping for the draw.

Edit: Or maybe more as it's easy for Hebden to go astray.

If you go back to the second page of the thread and read my late edit, you'll see that 62 g6 was a good move and objectively equal if the engines are right (but I'd like to take a closer look).
Hebden's reply 62...Ra1 was either a blunder or (more likely) a gamble based on his huge clock advantage and opponent's much lower rating, and unfortunately Jason turned a win into a loss with his next move.

[Tim Harding]

Flear-Richards
1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nc6 3. e3 e5 4. dxe5 d4 5. a3 a5 6. Nf3 Bc5 7. Be2 dxe3 8. Qxd8+ Kxd8 9. fxe3 h6 10. Nc3 Nge7 11. Kf2 Be6 12. b3 Kc8 13. Rd1 g5 14. Ne4 Ba7 15. Bb2 Rf8 16. Rac1 Nf5 17. Rd3 g4 18. Nfd2 Nfe7 19. c5 Ng6 20. Nc4 Bxc4 21. bxc4 Ncxe5 22. Rd5 f6 23. Kg1 c6 24. Rd6 Kc7 25. Re6 f5 26. Bxe5+ Nxe5 27. Rxe5 Rae8 28. Rxe8 Rxe8 29. Ng3 Rxe3 30. Kf1 Re5 31. Bd3 Bxc5 32. a4 f4 33. Nf5 Bb4 34. Nxh6 g3 35. h3 Re3 36. Rd1 Kb6 37. Ng4 Re7 38. h4 Bc3 39. h5 Rg7 40. Be2 Kc5 41. h6 Re7 42. Rd3 Kb4 43. Rf3 Rf7 44. Rxc3 Kxc3 45. Bd3 Re7 46. Nf2 gxf2 47. h7 Re8 48. Bg6 Rh8 49. Kxf2 Kxc4 50. Kf3 Kd4 51. Kxf4 b5 52. axb5 cxb5 53. Kg5 a4 54. Kh6 b4 55. g4 b3 56. Bf7 Kc3 57. g5 a3 58. g6 a2 59. g7 Rxh7+ 60. Kxh7 a1=Q 61. g8=Q Qh1+ 62. Kg7 Qg1+ 63. Bg6 Qd4+ 64. Kh7 Qh4+ 65. Kg7 Qd4+ ½-½

Black's 50...Kd4? wasted a vital tempo giving White the extra move he required to get his king up the board. Stockfish on Chess24 said the immediate 50...b5 was winning but here too I would like to check it at leisure.

(By now you'll have gathered I'm becoming something of an endgame nerd. It's my anti-Alzheimer's policy.)

[Roger de Coverly]

I've changed the Subject title, rather than create a Round 3 thread.

The pairings for Round 3 are now available
http://chess-results.com/tnr179427.aspx ... =30&wi=821

with the top 10

1 1 GM Howell David W L 2698 2 2 GM Gormally Daniel W 2484 6
2 7 GM Emms John M 2460 2 2 GM Pert Nicholas 2562 2
3 3 GM Hawkins Jonathan 2554 2 2 GM Summerscale Aaron P 2416 12
4 63 Golding Alex 1963 2 2 GM Arkell Keith C 2502 4
5 5 GM Hebden Mark L 2500 2 2 Paterson Andrew I 2039 53
6 9 IM Pert Richard G 2440 2 1½ CM Coleman David J 2231 20
7 29 Wadsworth Matthew J 2160 1½ 1½ GM Flear Glenn C 2450 8
8 35 WIM Richards Heather S 2141 1½ 1½ GM Williams Simon K 2426 10
9 11 GM Ward Chris G 2423 1½ 1½ Mason Donald J 2145 34
10 13 FM Jackson James P 2343 1½ 1½ Eagleton Greg T 1994 58

But what pairing system are they using? Being a tournament with Norms available, wouldn't you expect the usual FIDE rule of floating the highest/lowest rated player to apply? So rather than Richard Pert, Alex Golding would have got the downfloat. By the same principle, wouldn't Glenn have got the upfloat?

[John McKenna]

Only thing I can think of is - I've heard it rumoured that GM Flear may be, or may have been, his coach.

Is there any special dispensation allowed for that?

[Stewart Reuben]

There ia currently NO reuirement that a norm Swiss tournament be run on an accepted Swiss Pairing Computer Program. There is a requirement that it be possible to justify the pairing according to the rules. The British have long used the principle of floating the median to the median. That seems to have happened here.
N and R Pert intensely dislike playing each other. In the British that pairing often occurs. They consulted me on the 'issue' some years ago and I responded that I thought there was nothing to be done about it. They always have a quick draw. In my experience, twins dislike being paired together more than any other relationship. 25 years ago it used to be common practice to avoid certain pairings. That has died away.

[Brian Towers]

N and R Pert intensely dislike playing each other. In the British that pairing often occurs. They consulted me on the 'issue' some years ago and I responded that I thought there was nothing to be done about it. They always have a quick draw. In my experience, twins dislike being paired together more than any other relationship. 25 years ago it used to be common practice to avoid certain pairings. That has died away.

I thought the arbiter had the power to override the pairings in such cases? Is that no longer the case? Or is it just a power they choose not to exercise nowadays?

[IM Jack Rudd]

They're using CAA pairings.

[Michael Flatt]

N and R Pert intensely dislike playing each other. In the British that pairing often occurs. They consulted me on the 'issue' some years ago and I responded that I thought there was nothing to be done about it. They always have a quick draw. In my experience, twins dislike being paired together more than any other relationship. 25 years ago it used to be common practice to avoid certain pairings. That has died away.

I thought the arbiter had the power to override the pairings in such cases? Is that no longer the case? Or is it just a power they choose not to exercise nowadays?

Whoever makes the pairings will follow the appropriate rules so as to be fair to all competitors.

In the early rounds, where titles and prizes are not an immediate issue, it may be possible to make a minor adjustment so as to avoid an undesirable pairing as in this year's round 3 of the British Open. Later in the competition it is undesirable and unlikely that pairings will depart from the normal rules.

Sometimes, the Arbiter might simply have made a mistake and would appreciate competitors bringing it to his or her attention. In these days of computer pairings the incidence of mistakes is much reduced.

Regardless of whether the pairings are made manually or by computer pairing program, the Arbiter should always be prepared to explain how he or she arrived at a particular pairing.