Re: British Championship Congress 2019
Posted: Sun Aug 04, 2019 7:12 am
I think that his average is too low for 5.5/9. Approx 2363 and it needs to be 2370.
English Chess Forum
The independent home for discussions on the English Chess scene.
https://www.ecforum.org.uk/
British Championship Congress 2019
Page 26 of 37
Re: British Championship Congress 2019
Posted: Sun Aug 04, 2019 7:15 am
I thought that a draw was enough for Storey, his average being over 2370.IM Jack Rudd wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2019 11:19 pmI think Toma and Storey both get IM norms with a win, but that's about it.
Re: British Championship Congress 2019
Posted: Sun Aug 04, 2019 9:40 am
It is indeed. I'd made that post last night assuming he'd drawn with Lane, but it turns out he won.
Re: British Championship Congress 2019
Posted: Sun Aug 04, 2019 9:59 am
Talking of Gary Lane, my Facebook Memories this morning happened to produce a note I wrote about a Spectator column (11 December 2004) in which Ray reviews his book on the Bishop's Opening, including the following comment:
"Sadly, the book exhibits signs of haste in compilation".
Ho ho.
"Sadly, the book exhibits signs of haste in compilation".
Ho ho.
Re: British Championship Congress 2019
Posted: Sun Aug 04, 2019 10:07 am
A reasonable enough assumption until Lane hung his bishop. A three move draw this morning completes the norm.IM Jack Rudd wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 9:40 amIt is indeed. I'd made that post last night assuming he'd drawn with Lane, but it turns out he won.
Re: British Championship Congress 2019
Posted: Sun Aug 04, 2019 11:08 am
Am I right that Ravi Haria would have been in with a GM norm chance, but it appears that he will be unable to meet the minimum TPR (even with raising his lowest rated opponent to 2200) of 2600? I am not sure what score out of nine he would have needed to get, but a win against Emms in the final round would have got him to 6.5/9, which I am presuming would not have been enough either as the average means he would have needed 7/9 I think (see calculation below).
21,825 is the sum of his opponents' ratings, when you raise his lowest-rated opponent (round 3, 2157) to 2200. So the average is 2425. The rating bands given in the FIDE handbook indicate that for an average 2380-2433, the required 9-round score is 7/9. To bring this down to 6.5/9, Ravi would have had to had an additional 81 rating points somewhere to add to the sum of his opponents' ratings (i.e. one of his 2450-ish GM opponents to be rated 2550-ish instead). This would also have helped raise his TPR to more than the current approx 2554 after 8 rounds. Doing the full calculations for 6.5/9 (i.e. win against Emms) and his round 3 opponent rated at 2200, then the TPR would have been (dp=166) 2435+166 = 2601.
That actually looks just OK for me, though was I wrong to raise his opponent's rating to 2200 for this calculation? i.e. Would a win against Emms have achieved a TPR of 2601? And does that mean that Ravi would have had a norm chance if he had faced slightly higher rated opposition?
Overall, does this mean that the relatively-speaking low average rating of GMs in the British make it harder to get norms? And how rare is it to get the required TPR (2600) but miss out when the average rating of opponents pushes the required score too high? Another way to look at it is that if Ravi had drawn with Simon Williams (instead of losing) or had beaten Richard Pert (instead of drawing), then he would have had a chance to get a norm with 7/9 (this still all presumes a win against Emms in the final round, and there has probably been a different result there while I typed this - currently Emms has a comfortable edge from the opening).
What I am trying to get a feel for is how close Ravi was to a chance for a second GM norm - a slightly higher score or slightly higher opponents would have been enough, I think. Anyway, his two draws against Adams and Howell bode well for the future, and maybe points to Ravi being among those most likely to get GM norms in the near future?
(Jovanka Houska, also on 5.5/8 has a lower TPR, so I think the same calculations for her show the same problems. Essentially, it appears that a score of 7/9 tends to be a minimum required to get GM norms at the British - though maybe someone can dig out examples of lower-scoring norms when the British was 11 rounds, not sure about the recent period when it has been 9 rounds.)
(Adams finishes with two Whites and looks comfortable against Stephen Gordon.)
21,825 is the sum of his opponents' ratings, when you raise his lowest-rated opponent (round 3, 2157) to 2200. So the average is 2425. The rating bands given in the FIDE handbook indicate that for an average 2380-2433, the required 9-round score is 7/9. To bring this down to 6.5/9, Ravi would have had to had an additional 81 rating points somewhere to add to the sum of his opponents' ratings (i.e. one of his 2450-ish GM opponents to be rated 2550-ish instead). This would also have helped raise his TPR to more than the current approx 2554 after 8 rounds. Doing the full calculations for 6.5/9 (i.e. win against Emms) and his round 3 opponent rated at 2200, then the TPR would have been (dp=166) 2435+166 = 2601.
That actually looks just OK for me, though was I wrong to raise his opponent's rating to 2200 for this calculation? i.e. Would a win against Emms have achieved a TPR of 2601? And does that mean that Ravi would have had a norm chance if he had faced slightly higher rated opposition?
Overall, does this mean that the relatively-speaking low average rating of GMs in the British make it harder to get norms? And how rare is it to get the required TPR (2600) but miss out when the average rating of opponents pushes the required score too high? Another way to look at it is that if Ravi had drawn with Simon Williams (instead of losing) or had beaten Richard Pert (instead of drawing), then he would have had a chance to get a norm with 7/9 (this still all presumes a win against Emms in the final round, and there has probably been a different result there while I typed this - currently Emms has a comfortable edge from the opening).
What I am trying to get a feel for is how close Ravi was to a chance for a second GM norm - a slightly higher score or slightly higher opponents would have been enough, I think. Anyway, his two draws against Adams and Howell bode well for the future, and maybe points to Ravi being among those most likely to get GM norms in the near future?
(Jovanka Houska, also on 5.5/8 has a lower TPR, so I think the same calculations for her show the same problems. Essentially, it appears that a score of 7/9 tends to be a minimum required to get GM norms at the British - though maybe someone can dig out examples of lower-scoring norms when the British was 11 rounds, not sure about the recent period when it has been 9 rounds.)
(Adams finishes with two Whites and looks comfortable against Stephen Gordon.)
Re: British Championship Congress 2019
Posted: Sun Aug 04, 2019 11:19 am
A IM norm under a cloudLawrenceCooper wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 7:15 amI thought that a draw was enough for Storey, his average being over 2370.IM Jack Rudd wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2019 11:19 pmI think Toma and Storey both get IM norms with a win, but that's about it.
Re: British Championship Congress 2019
Posted: Sun Aug 04, 2019 11:21 am
Does anyone know what happened in Ledger-Wall and Villers-Modi.
Re: British Championship Congress 2019
Posted: Sun Aug 04, 2019 11:24 am
What happens if he's defaulted?John Reyes wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 11:19 amA IM norm under a cloudLawrenceCooper wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 7:15 amI thought that a draw was enough for Storey, his average being over 2370.IM Jack Rudd wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2019 11:19 pmI think Toma and Storey both get IM norms with a win, but that's about it.
Re: British Championship Congress 2019
Posted: Sun Aug 04, 2019 11:25 am
Richard Palliser agrees a quick draw with White, which is more than slightly disappointing.
Why would he be?Nick Burrows wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 11:24 amWhat happens if he's defaulted?John Reyes wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 11:19 amA IM norm under a cloudLawrenceCooper wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 7:15 am
I thought that a draw was enough for Storey, his average being over 2370.
Re: British Championship Congress 2019
Posted: Sun Aug 04, 2019 11:37 am
I think the point being made is that the norm Charlie Storey has achived has a (very slight) question mark over it because it effectively includes a default (whether you call it a phone default or whatever) rather than being achieved by winning at the board. It is not Charlie's fault that this happened - the blame for the default lies squarely with Lorin who should not have had his phone in the bag he was carrying when he left the board.
The irony is that it is entirely possible (likely) that some competitors do still carry their phones around with them, switched off, and think it is OK (saying to themselves "but I am not and have no intention of using the phone"), and haven't yet cottoned on to the fact that it is having the device on you away from the board that triggers the default. Hopefully any reporting of this incident can help raise awareness of this (plus both verbal and written warnings to all competitors). Might it be time for competitors to be asked to sign something saying they are aware of these requirements?
(There does need to be a debate on this, as some people have lives centred around their phones as the way they communicate with the world and with lots of private and personal information and contact details - it should all be backed up, but I have a great deal of sympathy for those who would not be happy going to the toilet or to get a coffee while leaving the phone at the board at risk of being stolen, or to leave their phone in their hotel room, etc. It seems that if you are in that situation, you need to arrive at the board and not leave the board until the game is over, though toilet breaks are still a problem.)
Not even sure if I have this right - are you allowed the phone with you in a bag, switched off? Or has that changed now? I presume in FIDE elite events, that competitors are not allowed anything on their person at all, and rely on their family/friends to look after their personal effects for them.
EDIT: Alex McF correctly points out that the win by Charlies Storey was a 'win by forfeit', not a win by default, so addding this correction to what I said above.
The irony is that it is entirely possible (likely) that some competitors do still carry their phones around with them, switched off, and think it is OK (saying to themselves "but I am not and have no intention of using the phone"), and haven't yet cottoned on to the fact that it is having the device on you away from the board that triggers the default. Hopefully any reporting of this incident can help raise awareness of this (plus both verbal and written warnings to all competitors). Might it be time for competitors to be asked to sign something saying they are aware of these requirements?
(There does need to be a debate on this, as some people have lives centred around their phones as the way they communicate with the world and with lots of private and personal information and contact details - it should all be backed up, but I have a great deal of sympathy for those who would not be happy going to the toilet or to get a coffee while leaving the phone at the board at risk of being stolen, or to leave their phone in their hotel room, etc. It seems that if you are in that situation, you need to arrive at the board and not leave the board until the game is over, though toilet breaks are still a problem.)
Not even sure if I have this right - are you allowed the phone with you in a bag, switched off? Or has that changed now? I presume in FIDE elite events, that competitors are not allowed anything on their person at all, and rely on their family/friends to look after their personal effects for them.
EDIT: Alex McF correctly points out that the win by Charlies Storey was a 'win by forfeit', not a win by default, so addding this correction to what I said above.
Re: British Championship Congress 2019
Posted: Sun Aug 04, 2019 11:39 am
Ah OK, is the "he" Lorin?Christopher Kreuzer wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 11:37 amI think the point being made is that the norm Charlie Storey has achived has a (very slight) question mark over it because it effectively includes a default (whether you call it a phone default or whatever) rather than being achieved by winning at the board.
Re: British Championship Congress 2019
Posted: Sun Aug 04, 2019 11:42 am
Jonah Willow doing exactly what people are hoping to do when they play the Kan
Re: British Championship Congress 2019
Posted: Sun Aug 04, 2019 11:44 am
Who knows, he might carry his phone off by mistake
Re: British Championship Congress 2019
Posted: Sun Aug 04, 2019 11:48 am
Please lets not add another layer of red tape. I agree with Ian, and think we should be looking for more leniency when it is obvious there is no possibility of cheating.Christopher Kreuzer wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 11:37 amMight it be time for competitors to be asked to sign something saying they are aware of these requirements?