English Chess Forum

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

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!

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?

Still playing - being looked at now.

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.

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

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

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).

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).

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.

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).

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?

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.

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.

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).