Hastings

The very latest International round up of English news.
Alex McFarlane
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 8:52 pm

Re: Hastings

Post by Alex McFarlane » Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:43 am

IM Norm Possibilities (subject to confirmation)


C Murphy achieved a 9 round norm
a draw today will mean a 10 round norm is achieved

V Stefansson needs to win today for a 10 round norm

Nick Ivell
Posts: 249
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 6:33 pm

Re: Hastings

Post by Nick Ivell » Sun Jan 06, 2019 10:42 am

I want Gormally to win outright. He's shown a bit of desire.

I also like the fact that he's made playing the focus of his chess, not coaching. I realise that coaching gives a more secure income, but there's a problem: when coaching becomes the focus of your chess, you almost inevitably become weaker as a player!

Andy Stoker
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:23 pm

Re: Hastings

Post by Andy Stoker » Sun Jan 06, 2019 3:27 pm

Anyone know what has happened in Shreyas Royal's game - showing as a win for him in 15 moves when the position is near equal? Phone?

Alex McFarlane
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 8:52 pm

Re: Hastings

Post by Alex McFarlane » Sun Jan 06, 2019 3:36 pm

Still playing - being looked at now.

LawrenceCooper
Posts: 5054
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am

Re: Hastings

Post by LawrenceCooper » Sun Jan 06, 2019 6:45 pm

Andy Stoker wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 3:27 pm
Anyone know what has happened in Shreyas Royal's game - showing as a win for him in 15 moves when the position is near equal? Phone?
0-1 was showing from the start of the game so suspect a technical glitch. Both chess-results and the live board now show a draw.

Nick Ivell
Posts: 249
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 6:33 pm

Re: Hastings

Post by Nick Ivell » Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:20 pm

The Gormally effort appears to be fizzling out. Shame. He deserved to win this.

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

Re: Hastings

Post by Barry Sandercock » Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:31 pm

Will there be a play-off if more than one winner ?

LawrenceCooper
Posts: 5054
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am

Re: Hastings

Post by LawrenceCooper » Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:36 pm

Barry Sandercock wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:31 pm
Will there be a play-off if more than one winner ?
Not that I'm aware of. There are four players on 7/9 with the possibility of a fifth (from the Lalic-Sulskis game).

Chris Goddard
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 1:42 pm

Re: Hastings

Post by Chris Goddard » Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:44 pm

Cherniaev looks likely to end up on 7 points too, so that will mean a 6-way tie for first place (assuming Sulkis wins too).

LawrenceCooper
Posts: 5054
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am

Re: Hastings

Post by LawrenceCooper » Sun Jan 06, 2019 8:47 pm

Chris Goddard wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:44 pm
Cherniaev looks likely to end up on 7 points too, so that will mean a 6-way tie for first place (assuming Sulkis wins too).
Yes, you're right. Six joint winners, a great result for Conor Murphy.

Jonathan Rogers
Posts: 3875
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm

Re: Hastings

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:19 pm

A great result for Conor, agreed.

But for Hastings as a tournament, it is no great reflection that no one made anything more than a high 2500+ TPR. One of the six winners (Petrov) even had a TPR of less than 2500. Surely some further decline there?

(I don't know where I am going with this. Obviously if the tournament can still continue, it should - its glamorous history should not prevent even a shadow of the event continuing, if it is still well supported. The problem this year, as already noted, is that none of the top players was actually in very good form - and that is when the general decline really shows itself).

AustinElliott
Posts: 645
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 11:01 pm
Location: North of England
Contact:

Re: Hastings

Post by AustinElliott » Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:23 pm

Anyone think the Hastings tournament might benefit from switching to faster time limits? I was just reading Greg Shahade's blogpost on "Slow Chess Should Die A Fast Death" (which has probably been discussed here on here before). I guess it would mean a shorter tournament in terms of days, with potentially a bit more drama. Would a shorter tournament be more attractive to 2600+ players, or is it just a question of the prize money on offer?

User avatar
Adam Raoof
Posts: 2364
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:16 pm
Location: NW4 4UY
Contact:

Re: Hastings

Post by Adam Raoof » Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:33 pm

AustinElliott wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:23 pm
Anyone think the Hastings tournament might benefit from switching to faster time limits? I was just reading Greg Shahade's blogpost on "Slow Chess Should Die A Fast Death" (which has probably been discussed here on here before). I guess it would mean a shorter tournament in terms of days, with potentially a bit more drama. Would a shorter tournament be more attractive to 2600+ players, or is it just a question of the prize money on offer?
There are so many things wrong with that blog post I don't know where to begin.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 8910
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Hastings

Post by Alex Holowczak » Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:52 pm

Adam Raoof wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:33 pm
AustinElliott wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:23 pm
Anyone think the Hastings tournament might benefit from switching to faster time limits? I was just reading Greg Shahade's blogpost on "Slow Chess Should Die A Fast Death" (which has probably been discussed here on here before). I guess it would mean a shorter tournament in terms of days, with potentially a bit more drama. Would a shorter tournament be more attractive to 2600+ players, or is it just a question of the prize money on offer?
There are so many things wrong with that blog post I don't know where to begin.
I think his main premise - that if we invented chess today we would expect the game to last 30-40 minutes - is more or less spot on; I wouldn't expect it to be more than an hour.

Ian Thompson
Posts: 2129
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Awbridge, Hampshire

Re: Hastings

Post by Ian Thompson » Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:53 pm

Adam Raoof wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:33 pm
AustinElliott wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:23 pm
Anyone think the Hastings tournament might benefit from switching to faster time limits? I was just reading Greg Shahade's blogpost on "Slow Chess Should Die A Fast Death" (which has probably been discussed here on here before). I guess it would mean a shorter tournament in terms of days, with potentially a bit more drama. Would a shorter tournament be more attractive to 2600+ players, or is it just a question of the prize money on offer?
There are so many things wrong with that blog post I don't know where to begin.
One might start by asking him why he thinks everyone who plays in the US Open doesn't choose the 4 day schedule (6 games of rapid chess and 3 games of slow chess), instead choosing either the 6 day schedule (9 games of slow chess over 6 days) or the 9 day schedule (9 games of slow chess over 9 days).

Post Reply