British 2016 Round by Round

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Jonathan Rogers
Posts: 3818
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm

Re: British 2016 Round by Round

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Fri Jul 29, 2016 6:01 pm

Howell in trouble now (move 30). Perhaps we have been overestimating his position (or underestimating Keith's position, as in the past), though I would have thought that Howell did have reasonable compensation for the exchange?

Clive Blackburn

Re: British 2016 Round by Round

Post by Clive Blackburn » Fri Jul 29, 2016 6:04 pm

IM Jack Rudd wrote:
Clive Blackburn wrote:I see that Jack lost again, not a good start to the championship for him
Er, I'm gaining rating points so far.
Sorry Jack!

NickFaulks
Posts: 4966
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: British 2016 Round by Round

Post by NickFaulks » Fri Jul 29, 2016 6:09 pm

IM Jack Rudd wrote:
Clive Blackburn wrote:I see that Jack lost again, not a good start to the championship for him
Er, I'm gaining rating points so far.
Yeah, but we know you're better than 2213.

Jonathan Rogers
Posts: 3818
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm

Re: British 2016 Round by Round

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Fri Jul 29, 2016 6:11 pm

I am assuming computers will find improvements on Keith's play since move 30, but it's been a fun game to watch

Jonathan Rogers
Posts: 3818
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm

Re: British 2016 Round by Round

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Fri Jul 29, 2016 6:14 pm

Nice win for David Coleman over Marcus Harvey. Again, it is not obvious where the IM norms will come from (Batchelor apart).

NickFaulks
Posts: 4966
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: British 2016 Round by Round

Post by NickFaulks » Fri Jul 29, 2016 6:16 pm

Jonathan Rogers wrote:I am assuming computers will find improvements on Keith's play since move 30, but it's been a fun game to watch
Without a computer, I fancied 32...Bf2. Easier to play in somebody else's game, of course.

LawrenceCooper
Posts: 5016
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am

Re: British 2016 Round by Round

Post by LawrenceCooper » Fri Jul 29, 2016 6:16 pm

Jonathan Rogers wrote:I am assuming computers will find improvements on Keith's play since move 30, but it's been a fun game to watch
I think that's a much fairer assessment than some of the drivel being spouted on Chess24 albeit they did have a point that 32...Bf2 looked strong.

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: British 2016 Round by Round

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Fri Jul 29, 2016 6:18 pm

Jonathan Rogers wrote:Nice win for David Coleman over Marcus Harvey. Again, it is not obvious where the IM norms will come from (Batchelor apart).
Well, after today's result, Payne must be in with a shout.

Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: British 2016 Round by Round

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Fri Jul 29, 2016 6:46 pm

I had assumed our own Peter Farr had not in fact been thinking about his 50th move for 10 minutes but rather the game had been agreed drawn. Apparently not.

I’m all for the 'going around and around' technique as an attempt to win games that can’t/shouldn't really be won, but Black’s continuing here seems unduly optimistic.

PeterFarr
Posts: 586
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 11:20 pm
Location: Horsham, Sussex

Re: British 2016 Round by Round

Post by PeterFarr » Fri Jul 29, 2016 7:02 pm

Jonathan Bryant wrote:I had assumed our own Peter Farr had not in fact been thinking about his 50th move for 10 minutes but rather the game had been agreed drawn. Apparently not.

I’m all for the 'going around and around' technique as an attempt to win games that can’t/shouldn't really be won, but Black’s continuing here seems unduly optimistic.
I'm fairly sure you've got the wrong Peter there.

Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: British 2016 Round by Round

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Fri Jul 29, 2016 7:04 pm

PeterFarr wrote:
Jonathan Bryant wrote:I had assumed our own Peter Farr had not in fact been thinking about his 50th move for 10 minutes but rather the game had been agreed drawn. Apparently not.

I’m all for the 'going around and around' technique as an attempt to win games that can’t/shouldn't really be won, but Black’s continuing here seems unduly optimistic.
I'm fairly sure you've got the wrong Peter there.
Oh so I have. It was Peter Shaw. Which explains how you were able to simultaneously post this comment and agree a draw, I suppose.

PeterFarr
Posts: 586
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 11:20 pm
Location: Horsham, Sussex

Re: British 2016 Round by Round

Post by PeterFarr » Fri Jul 29, 2016 7:18 pm

Jonathan Bryant wrote:
PeterFarr wrote:
Jonathan Bryant wrote:I had assumed our own Peter Farr had not in fact been thinking about his 50th move for 10 minutes but rather the game had been agreed drawn. Apparently not.

I’m all for the 'going around and around' technique as an attempt to win games that can’t/shouldn't really be won, but Black’s continuing here seems unduly optimistic.
I'm fairly sure you've got the wrong Peter there.
Oh so I have. It was Peter Shaw. Which explains how you were able to simultaneously post this comment and agree a draw, I suppose.
:shock:

Barry Sandercock
Posts: 1356
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:52 am

Re: British 2016 Round by Round

Post by Barry Sandercock » Fri Jul 29, 2016 7:36 pm

David Howell wins an exciting ending against Keith Arkell.


Mike Truran
Posts: 2386
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:44 pm
Contact:

Re: British 2016 Round by Round

Post by Mike Truran » Fri Jul 29, 2016 7:58 pm

PS What on earth is the massive box to Gawain's right in the photo doing?

1. An arbiter in disguise?

2. Gawain's undercover Cray Supercomputer assistance?

3. Dave Clayton's live games transmission equipment?

Gawain's nonchalant whistling would suggest 2.

And what on earth is the thing sitting on top of the disguised arbiter/supercomputer/live games transmission kit?

Post Reply