British 2015 Round by Round

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Post Reply
Martin Benjamin
Posts: 268
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:54 pm

Re: British 2015 Round 2

Post by Martin Benjamin » Tue Jul 28, 2015 7:26 pm

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

John McKenna
Posts: 4393
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: British 2015 Round 2

Post by John McKenna » Tue Jul 28, 2015 7:30 pm

Martin Benjamin wrote: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?
To find a for(u)m that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. (Samuel Beckett)

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19261
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: British 2015 Round 2

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Jul 28, 2015 7:32 pm

Martin Benjamin wrote: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
Posts: 1326
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
Location: Oldham

Re: British 2015 Round 2

Post by Alan Walton » Tue Jul 28, 2015 7:34 pm

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
Last edited by Alan Walton on Tue Jul 28, 2015 7:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19261
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: British 2015 Round 2

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Jul 28, 2015 7:39 pm

Alan Walton wrote: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


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

John McKenna
Posts: 4393
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: British 2015 Round 2

Post by John McKenna » Tue Jul 28, 2015 9:13 pm

David Robertson wrote: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 -



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.
To find a for(u)m that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. (Samuel Beckett)

John McKenna
Posts: 4393
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: British 2015 Round 2

Post by John McKenna » Tue Jul 28, 2015 10:18 pm

Major Open R2 -

Bd. 1 [Sno.12] Moreby James 1997 (1) ½ - ½ (1) GM Fodor Tamas Jr. 2491 [Sno. 1]
To find a for(u)m that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. (Samuel Beckett)

Tim Harding
Posts: 1967
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:46 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Contact:

Re: British 2015 Round 2

Post by Tim Harding » Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:20 pm

John McKenna wrote:
Tim Harding wrote: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
Historian and FIDE Arbiter

Author of 'Steinitz in London,' British Chess Literature to 1914', 'Joseph Henry Blackburne: A Chess Biography', and 'Eminent Victorian Chess Players'
http://www.chessmail.com

Tim Harding
Posts: 1967
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:46 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Contact:

Re: British 2015 Round 2

Post by Tim Harding » Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:23 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote: Flear-Richards
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.)
Tim Harding
Historian and FIDE Arbiter

Author of 'Steinitz in London,' British Chess Literature to 1914', 'Joseph Henry Blackburne: A Chess Biography', and 'Eminent Victorian Chess Players'
http://www.chessmail.com

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19261
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: British 2015 Round by Round

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:30 pm

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
Posts: 4393
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: British 2015 Round by Round

Post by John McKenna » Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:57 pm

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?
To find a for(u)m that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. (Samuel Beckett)

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 4223
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: British 2015 Round by Round

Post by Stewart Reuben » Wed Jul 29, 2015 1:17 am

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
Posts: 1255
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 7:23 pm

Re: British 2015 Round by Round

Post by Brian Towers » Wed Jul 29, 2015 10:14 am

Stewart Reuben wrote: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?
Ah, but I was so much older then. I'm younger than that now.

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

Re: British 2015 Round by Round

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Wed Jul 29, 2015 10:51 am

They're using CAA pairings.

Michael Flatt
Posts: 1235
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: British 2015 Round by Round

Post by Michael Flatt » Wed Jul 29, 2015 10:55 am

Brian Towers wrote:
Stewart Reuben wrote: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.

Post Reply