English Chess Forum

J T Melsom wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 31, 2018 8:02 pm

Alan Walton only spoke from personal experience, I doubt that the endgame in question is common enough to draw conclusions for a wider body of players.

On the contrary, databases produce a large number and a few years ago Alex Baburin wrote a series of articles showing how GMs had frequently failed to defend them. It seems likely that Alan's opponent did not fully exploit the possibilities in the position.

I think that my substantive point remains, although I've not seen the evidence from the databases and from GM practice. I've no recollection of having the position myself. There are many trends and developments in higher class chess that have limited relevance to the wider body of players and go un-noticed. How often will club players defend position that are known to be bad at top levels, but are playable if the opponent is lass skilled or less familiar.

Yep, my opponent pointed out the "draw" afterwards, although he was not sure if it was drawn.
I've written it up at my blog:
https://beauchess.blogspot.com/

I wonder whether Jonathan Hawkins broke the world record today for maintaining an 'Irish Pawn Centre' ( to use it's politically incorrect name) intact? He established pawns on d3,d4 and d5 on his 14th move, and they were still there in the final position, after his 52nd move!

https://www.chessbomb.com/arena/2018-ha ... ric_Stefan

Chernaiev v Gormally is drawn leaving 5 on 4.5/6. All to play for.

Nick Grey wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 02, 2019 8:40 pm

Chernaiev v Gormally is drawn leaving 5 on 4.5/6. All to play for.

1 1 GM HAWKINS Jonathan ENG 2583 4,5
4 GM GORMALLY Daniel W ENG 2478 4,5
6 IM PETROV Martin BUL 2472 4,5
7 IM LEENHOUTS Koen NED 2470 4,5
10 GM CHERNIAEV Alexander RUS 2393 4,5
15 FM MURPHY Conor E IRL 2331 4,5

Thanks 6. I think 9 on 4.

Nick Grey wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 02, 2019 11:11 pm

Thanks 6. I think 9 on 4.

2 GM KORNEEV Oleg ESP 2560 4,0
3 GM SULSKIS Sarunas LTU 2525 4,0
8 GM LALIC Bogdan CRO 2420 Wood Green 4,0
11 IM BATES Richard A ENG 2372 4,0
12 GM DJURIC Stefan SRB 2371 4,0
13 IM PETROV Vladimir Sergeev BUL 2365 4,0
16 FM TAYLOR Adam C ENG 2331 4,0
18 FM DERAKHSHANI Borna ENG 2325 4,0
19 FM LYELL Mark ENG 2317 4,0
21 FM STEFANSSON Vignir Vatnar ISL 2271 4,0

Pics: https://brendanogorman.smugmug.com/Ches ... gs-2018-19

9 Round Norm Possibilities (subject to confirmation)
GM Norms
M Petrov needs 2/2 and a 2358 opponent in round 9
C Murphy needs 2/2 v 2460 in rd 9

IM Norms
C Murphy needs ½/2 v 2448, 1/2 v 2043 or 1½/2 v 1674
J Willow needs 1½/2 v 2537 or 2/2 v 2132

Other norms may be available over 10 rounds eg AC Taylor needs to meet 2 titled players in rounds 9 and 10.
In round 10 some 9 round norms may be available by discarding a win against a player’s lowest rated opponent.

Fried Liver alert in the Petrov game.

Tim Spanton wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 01, 2019 11:46 am

Hi Tim,

Good Blog, you say this is the 30th consecutive time of playing in the congress over New Year. Is this a record for Hastings.

Oh dear - a fried liver that soon fizzled out.

A lot of draws from the Hawk too - almost as though he's not even trying to win with the Black pieces.

Nick Ivell wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 04, 2019 3:20 pm

Fried Liver alert in the Petrov game

Pffft!! Steward's inquiry called for there - draw in 14, by repetition. Sure, I gather Petrov is after a GM norm, and maybe has his reasons. But even so, he's repeated in a very strong position.

The game, as played up to 9...Ke6, has been played at Hastings once before - in 1950 by Leonard Barden (v. Weaver Adams, 1-0 quickly). Barden chose the best response (6. d4 - the Lolli attack) and the best line thereafter (10. Qe4!? rather than 10. OO). When I last researched these lines a few years back, I concluded (with others, following engine-support) that the Fried Liver can be defended against everything but the Lolli.

Of course, the Fried Liver should never be played. One should always play the Traxler!!

Nick Ivell wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 04, 2019 3:45 pm

Oh dear - a fried liver that soon fizzled out.

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Nxd5 6. d4 Bb4+ 7. c3 Be7 8. Nxf7 Kxf7 9. Qf3+ Ke6 10. O-O Na5 11. Qg4+ Kf7 12. Qf3+ Ke6 13. Qg4+ Kf7 14. Qf3+


It's the Barden v Weaver Adams game from Hastings 1950, except that White preferred 10. 0-0 to Barden's 10. Qe4 . Engines slightly prefer 0-0.

In the game today, instead of taking the repetition, engines prefer to play 11. Bd3 claiming advantage to white. Perhaps there's something lurking outside the search depth, or did Petrov not trust his memory or judgement?