English Chess Forum

David Sedgwick wrote:

JustinHorton wrote:I don't suppose the principal actors and events in this drama can be identified for the benefit of those of us not physically present?

An investigative journalist like you should be willing to do some investigative journalism.

That's why I'm asking the question, David.

JustinHorton wrote:

David Sedgwick wrote:

JustinHorton wrote:I don't suppose the principal actors and events in this drama can be identified for the benefit of those of us not physically present?

An investigative journalist like you should be willing to do some investigative journalism.

That's why I'm asking the question, David.

Okay. I'll send you a PM.

Roger de Coverly wrote:
I don't think it happens, or if it does, it isn't reported.

On the contrary, a few years ago it was claimed that a cottage industry had developed wherein players were demanding payment in return for refraining from this practice. Some minor tweak was made to the Title Regulations in response.

Lets be honest, Gormally the 'peoples champion' is the one I want to see win from here..

I'd quite like Simon Williams to win it. He seems like a nice guy from the very brief exchange I had with him once

Jonathan Bryant wrote:

Jonathan Rogers wrote:Jonathan B, do you want one more day before making your prediction?

That goes for the rest of you too...

I am going to say "Howell on Saturday".

Nope after the draw on board 1 I’m going to go Gormally on Friday. He’ll have two Whites in a row now and he’s already seen off the three highest rated players in the tournament.

Of course I’m invariably wrong in these matters.

Do we normally expect 8.5/11 for a playoff and 9/11 for outright first? If yes, the above look the most likely scenarios

I'd like to see Keith win, but he has a tough task today

Given how many of the top players have played each other, it is possible the pairings will be crucial - Danny hasn't played Keith yet, but David appears to have played all the other top seeds

Are there reasons why Nick Pert can't win it? Like Gormally, he has the advantage of actually having that extra half point. The pairings will be crucial, as will the colour assignments. On balance, I think a tie for first and a play-off is the most likely result. Who would be in such a tie, I don't know, but it could well be more than two players. What are the provisions here for 2 players and 3-or-more players in a play-off?

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:... What are the provisions here for 2 players and 3-or-more players in a play-off?

In the case of more than two players, let's just hope they are much improved since 1997 (re: the extremely embarrassing conclusion in Hove).

I'd be happy to see either Simon or Danny win too. But Simon is still playing catch-up, and it's not just David Howell against whom he has a very bad record - there is Jonathan Hawkins too and he has yet to play him.

The only thing I know about the play-off is the time control is g/20 plus 10 sec increment

Going back to the possibility of norms, and looking at the women (and girls) playing in the Championships, has it been confirmed what result Akshaya Kalaiyalahan would need today against Richard Weaving (2257) for a WIM norm? Or indeed any other norm opportunities at this stage for any of the players?

In terms of who might win the title of Women's Champion, those in contention are: Akshaya Kalaiyalahan, Sarah Hegarty and Heather Richards, all on 4.5 points. I think the only other female players are Sabrina Chevannes (not paired today) and Katherine Shepherd, both on three points.

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: On balance, I think a tie for first and a play-off is the most likely result. Who would be in such a tie, I don't know, but it could well be more than two players.

Covering quite a lot of bases. You could have added "unless, of course, somebody has a really good run in the last three rounds".

Well yes, the winning score will be either 9.5 (probably an outright winner), 9 (probably a winner, but maybe a tie) or 8.5 points (very likely a tie). I suppose it might be 8 points, but can't be bothered to work out if that is possible. That is a further base to cover: a large number of draws and a bunch of players tying on 8 points. But that is unlikely. If players get nervous and don't go for it, then a tie is more likely. I have no idea which of those in contention are more likely to go for it or play safe.

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:Going back to the possibility of norms, and looking at the women (and girls) playing in the Championships, has it been confirmed what result Akshaya Kalaiyalahan would need today against Richard Weaving (2257) for a WIM norm?

She cannot get it today, because she still needs a fifth titled opponent. She has been rather unlucky in the pairings of the last three rounds - Jackson, Storey, Richards, Hegarty, Lewis and Cooper have all been in her vicinity but she has missed them. Tomorrow will do. Half a point from the last two rounds is likely to be sufficient.

She couldn't be paired against Storey or Cooper because she has already played them.

I have a feeling that Akshaya may join my position of thinking that CMs should count as half a titled player for norm purposes.