English Chess Forum

Geoff Chandler wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 05, 2019 7:56 pm

Prize winners.

Rapidplay
1st= Andrew Lewis (Manningtree); James Sherwin

Is that the same James Sherwin who is game one in Fischer's 60MG's.

That player settled in England around two decades ago. Though if it is him he is in his mid 80s now, so any prize is impressive.

Geoff Chandler wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 05, 2019 7:56 pm

Prize winners.

Rapidplay
1st= Andrew Lewis (Manningtree); James Sherwin

Is that the same James Sherwin who is game one in Fischer's 60MG's.

Yes, born 1933.

This one

Thanks lads,

Thought it might be. Just being sure.

Geoff Chandler wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 05, 2019 7:56 pm

Is that the same James Sherwin who is game one in Fischer's 60MG's.

Yes, he now lives in the UK, Bath area I believe.

He made regular appearances in the 4NCL and Congresses a few years ago, but appears mostly retired from regular play with just a rapidplay or two recorded on the ECF grading site.

Tweet with pictures of James Sherwin and Andrew Lewis as joint Rapidplay winners.

So those on +1 in the Championship qualify. Those on 50 percent do not. No wonder the absence of the top players and lack of significant sponsorship. Is the press on rules LIKELY to encourage sponsorship for the next CHAMPIONSHIP.

Nick Grey wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 06, 2019 12:32 am

So those on +1 in the Championship qualify.

If the 2019 rules apply in 2020, it's the top 20 players and ties who qualify for next year.

1 GM Adams Michael ENG 2690 None 7,5
2 GM Howell David Wl ENG 2697 None 7,0
3 IM Haria Ravi U21 ENG 2430 Wood Green 4ncl 6,5
IM Palliser Richard Jd ENG 2399 Eagle & Child 6,5
5 GM Gordon Stephen J ENG 2516 None 6,0
GM Tan Justin Hy AUS 2513 None 6,0
IM Houska Jovanka w ENG 2422 None 6,0
8 GM Emms John M ENG 2481 Wood Green 5,5
GM Arkell Keith C ENG 2461 Cheddleton 4ncl 5,5
IM Wadsworth Matthew J U21 ENG 2418 Maidenhead 5,5
IM Eggleston David J ENG 2399 None 5,5
FM Willow Jonah B U18 ENG 2343 West Nottingham 5,5
IM Bradbury Neil H ENG 2322 None 5,5
FM Derakhshani Borna U18 ENG 2300 Wood Green 5,5
FM Storey Charles H ENG 2261 Chess Fun Clubs 5,5
16 GM Williams Simon K ENG 2468 Drunken Knights 5,0
IM Pert Richard G ENG 2430 Brentwood 5,0
GM Ward Chris G ENG 2418 Wood Green 5,0
FM Ashton Adam G ENG 2323 3cs 5,0
FM Claridge-Hansen William U21 ENG 2297 None 5,0

I think they all qualify by title or rating except for Charlie Storey and William Claridge-Hansen

Nick Grey wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 06, 2019 12:32 am

So those on +1 in the Championship qualify. Those on 50 percent do not. No wonder the absence of the top players and lack of significant sponsorship. Is the press on rules LIKELY to encourage sponsorship for the next CHAMPIONSHIP.

I don't really follow. How are the last two sentences related to the first two?

I think Sherwin's demeanour is affected by the result - when he won against me about 20 years ago, he was quite affable, but when he lost to somebody, he was furious.

Richard Bates wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 06, 2019 8:03 am

Nick Grey wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 06, 2019 12:32 am

So those on +1 in the Championship qualify. Those on 50 percent do not. No wonder the absence of the top players and lack of significant sponsorship. Is the press on rules LIKELY to encourage sponsorship for the next CHAMPIONSHIP.

I don't really follow. How are the last two sentences related to the first two?

Reading between the lines - the four sentences seem to me to be a critique of the relatively low quality of the field in the national Championship due to the lack of sponsorship, which is likely to be further disincentivised by the bad publicity of anomalies and disputes centred on the rules.

And, reading the tea leaves, all likely to lead to a further downward spiral that will eventually result in a greatly devalued Championship.

This one could be seen as a catalogue of failures - of Rudd to upset Adams, Smith to keep winning, Palliser to get games, D'Costa to strictly follow the rules, Storey to accept the forfeit graciously, various GMs to win won games, Howell to share top spot, etc, etc.

Even Adams' performance was slightly tarnished by a lack of something new with black.

John McKenna wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 06, 2019 9:55 am

Even Adams performance was slightly tarnished by a lack of something new with black.

Oh, come on. At this stage of Mickey's career nobody should complain if he simply keeps doing what he's doing, and he did that exceedingly well.

Only echoing what others have said, Nick.

There was a strong element of Adams just going through the motions.

In such a relatively weak field he might have shown us something new.

Nick Ivell wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 04, 2019 2:11 pm

I'm not consulting an engine - I never do - but I'm getting worried about Howell's position.

My last round encounter with David was very complex. We both found a number of unusual engine first choices, but also threw in a few howlers (excuse the pun). A typical engine move I failed to find was 28...Nb3! which seems to force a draw after sacrificing my b8 Rook. After the 'time scramble' I should probably exchange Rooks with 41...Rh1+, 42...Rxe1 and then 42...Qb2 when it is hard to imagine Black can lose. For David's part he could have put me on the ropes had he played g4! one or two moves earlier.

Of course It's easy to say all of this afterwards, but at the end of the day the stronger player won.

However, it was nice to still be fighting up there on board 2 after all the other games had finished, at the end of the tournament, and given that I was too ill to even turn up to play in round 4.

Congrats to Mickey on yet another smooth collection of games, and to Both Mickey and David for demonstrating that they are a class or two above the rest of us.

David Howell v Keith Arkell

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Qc2 c5 5. dxc5 Nc6 6. Nf3 Bxc5 7. Bf4 a6 8. e3 Nh5 9. Bg3 f5 10. Be2 O-O 11. Rd1 Nxg3 12. hxg3 g6 13. a3 Be7 14. e4 Rf7 15. exf5 gxf5 16. Bd3 Rg7 17. Nd5 b6 18. Kf1 Rb8 19. b4 Qf8 20. Ne3 Qf6 21. Re1 d6 22. g4 fxg4 23. Bxh7+ Kf7 24. Nd2 Nd4 25. Qd1 Bb7 26. Be4 g3 27. Qh5+ Kf8 28. f3 Rg5 29. Qh7 Rg7 30. Qh5 Rg5 31. Qh3 Bc8 32. Bd3 Bb7 33. Be4 Bc8 34. Ng4 Qg7 35. Qxg3 Nf5 36. Qf2 Bd7 37. Rh3 Kf7 38. Bd3 Rh8 39. Ne4 Rgh5 40. Rxh5 Rxh5 41. g3 Nd4 42. Kg2 Qh8 43. Qd2 e5 44. Nef2 Be6 45. a4 Qa8 46. Qd1 a5 47. bxa5 bxa5 48. Be4 Qc8 49. Qb1 Kg7 50. Bd5 Bxd5 51. cxd5 Qc3 52. Re3 Qb4 53. Qe4 Nf5 54. Re1 Qxe4 55. fxe4 Nd4 56. Rb1 Bd8 57. Rb8 Rh8 58. Ne3 Rf8 59. Nf5+ Nxf5 60. exf5 Kf6 61. g4 e4 62. Nxe4+ Ke5 63. Kf3 Kxd5 64. Ng5 *

1-0

John McKenna wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 06, 2019 10:12 am

Only echoing what others have said, Nick.

There was a strong element of Adams just going through the motions.

Strong sense of Adams showing us what he can do, more like.