Hastings International Chess 29 Dec 2014 - 6 January 2015

The very latest International round up of English news.
Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19011
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Hastings International Chess 29 Dec 2014 - 6 January 201

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Dec 30, 2014 4:31 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:Traditional acceleration in the UK uses quarters; so you get something like 1 v 3, 4 v 2, 5 v 7, 8 v 6 in round 1. Why quarters?


In the 1970s with plenty of practical examples with which to experiment, Stewart Reuben tried a variety of methods. Whilst quarters was the eventual outcome, I don't know the reasoning. For a while in the 1990s the then Hastings Challengers divided itself into four natural quarters, so you had "established" players, potential seekers of Norms, other rated players and players in search of ratings. Ratings cut off was 2000 in the period I was thinking of. Earlier than that, perhaps only half the field had ratings with only the top eighth having established titles, so a top quarter v second quarter pairing was necessary to preserve Norm chances.

It's been the case that mass events in the style of the London Classic Rapidplay were rarely organised in the UK with players of lesser standard being discouraged from the main event by rating based entry fees and encouraged to enter parallel events.

Alex Holowczak wrote: The Dutch System, used by FIDE, already has top-up bottom-down floating, so this isn't something they need to spend time on.
If it's accepted as a premise that giving a bye to the lowest rated player on the lowest score group is undesirable, there's a fix available in the Dutch System without having to resort to theexplicit float of the median. You have fictional "arbiter's friend" who is always seeded last. This hypothetical player is only placed in the pairings when there is otherwise an odd number of players. I believe the computerised pairings would always pair this player against the lowest ranked median. Perhaps you need one potentially for each round to stop any colour bias.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Hastings International Chess 29 Dec 2014 - 6 January 201

Post by Alex Holowczak » Tue Dec 30, 2014 4:39 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Alex Holowczak wrote: The Dutch System, used by FIDE, already has top-up bottom-down floating, so this isn't something they need to spend time on.
If it's accepted as a premise that giving a bye to the lowest rated player on the lowest score group is undesirable, there's a fix available in the Dutch System without having to resort to theexplicit float of the median. You have fictional "arbiter's friend" who is always seeded last. This hypothetical player is only placed in the pairings when there is otherwise an odd number of players. I believe the computerised pairings would always pair this player against the lowest ranked median. Perhaps you need one potentially for each round to stop any colour bias.
Actually, I'm not completely sure it is accepted. However, your solution is pretty much exactly what Sean does at e2e4 events. It is a role that from memory, both David Sedgwick and I are acquainted. Sean would extend this to putting me in the draw on my rating, so I wasn't necessarily bottom seed, I was just a part of the scoregroup. This has all sorts of other advantages, like remembering colour history.

This sort of trick is very useful. We used it in a congress last year where we had a bye in the Open and the Major, but because it was round 4, the bye went to a player on 2/3. So we stuck the Major bye in the draw, and so the two players on 0.5/3 played each other, and the player on 2/3 played someone else on 2/3, which was a far better solution for the sake of the tournament!

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

Re: Hastings International Chess 29 Dec 2014 - 6 January 201

Post by Barry Sandercock » Tue Dec 30, 2014 4:45 pm

Hebden-Reinwald. I don't see why black resigned, a bit early surely.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19011
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Hastings International Chess 29 Dec 2014 - 6 January 201

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Dec 30, 2014 5:14 pm

Barry Sandercock wrote:Hebden-Reinwald. I don't see why black resigned, a bit early surely.
The chessbomb engine scores the final position as +2, but perhaps resigning is being excessively respectful.

http://www.chessbomb.com/arena/2014-has ... ld_Patrick

At move 14, the engine reckons Black failed to play a Nxf2 hack. Even without that, not giving away a pawn by just playing 14. .. a6 stays equal.

User avatar
David Shepherd
Posts: 857
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:46 pm

Re: Hastings International Chess 29 Dec 2014 - 6 January 201

Post by David Shepherd » Tue Dec 30, 2014 7:15 pm

Was board 16 a win on time (Kirk - Waddington)? I think black is ok maybe ahead in the final position.

Alex McFarlane
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 8:52 pm

Re: Hastings International Chess 29 Dec 2014 - 6 January 201

Post by Alex McFarlane » Tue Dec 30, 2014 7:58 pm

Don't think it was a win on time.

Jonathan Rogers
Posts: 4098
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm

Re: Hastings International Chess 29 Dec 2014 - 6 January 201

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Tue Dec 30, 2014 9:03 pm

David Shepherd wrote:Was board 16 a win on time (Kirk - Waddington)? I think black is ok maybe ahead in the final position.
Black was thematically outplayed and is losing a rook in the final position.

User avatar
David Shepherd
Posts: 857
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:46 pm

Re: Hastings International Chess 29 Dec 2014 - 6 January 201

Post by David Shepherd » Tue Dec 30, 2014 9:17 pm

Why would they lose a rook? 38 .... Bxd5+ looks at worst unclear

Ian Thompson
Posts: 2545
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Awbridge, Hampshire

Re: Hastings International Chess 29 Dec 2014 - 6 January 201

Post by Ian Thompson » Tue Dec 30, 2014 9:28 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:(1) Where the event has more players than the natural limit for a Swiss. A Swiss can handle as many players as you want - this isn't the problem. The problem is having more than one person on 100% at the end.
If accelerated pairings decrease the chances of multiple players tying for first place on a 100% score, doesn't it follow that they increase the chances of multiple players tying for first place on a lower score? Is that an improvement on more than one person scoring 100%? Doesn't it also follow that there are likely to be more players involved in the tie, and that the standard of opposition they've played is likely to vary more than it would with normal pairings? Are either of these desirable?
Alex Holowczak wrote:(4) Another reason for acceleration could be attracting a sponsor. The more 'big' clashes you have then the greater the number of hits on the website and the more attractive the event becomes to a sponsor. I suspect that given the pairings of an Open are only known the night before, you probably would watch the following day whatever the pairings were. I suspect the names of the players in the tournament are a far bigger attraction, rather than who they actually play.
I would have thought that what a sponsor would want is for the as many players as possible to be in with a realistic chance of winning the tournament for as long as possible. What they wouldn't want is for most of the top players to have played each other several rounds before the end so people would be saying that whichever of them was in the lead at that point was the likely winner of the tournament, unless they slipped up against some lesser player.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19011
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Hastings International Chess 29 Dec 2014 - 6 January 201

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Dec 30, 2014 9:32 pm

David Shepherd wrote:Why would they lose a rook? 38 .... Bxd5+ looks at worst unclear
Better for Black according to the chessbomb engine.

http://www.chessbomb.com/arena/2014-has ... ton_Mike_P

Did Black overlook that 38. .. Bxd5 was check and thus d7xe8=Q+ not possible as an intermezzo?

User avatar
David Shepherd
Posts: 857
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:46 pm

Re: Hastings International Chess 29 Dec 2014 - 6 January 201

Post by David Shepherd » Tue Dec 30, 2014 9:45 pm

Yes I suspect that was the case as the white bishop had been on g2 where a pawn might normally have been and there is so much happening on the board it would be hard not to just focus on stopping the pawn if short on time. It would be interesting to know what percentage of chess games are lost by not looking at all possible captures/not looking at all possible captures correctly.

User avatar
Matt Mackenzie
Posts: 3378
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
Location: Millom, Cumbria

Re: Hastings International Chess 29 Dec 2014 - 6 January 201

Post by Matt Mackenzie » Tue Dec 30, 2014 10:04 pm

Whoops!

Black will be kicking themselves over that for some time to come :oops:
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)

Alan Walton
Posts: 1312
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
Location: Oldham

Re: Hastings International Chess 29 Dec 2014 - 6 January 201

Post by Alan Walton » Tue Dec 30, 2014 11:12 pm

Sorry but after Bxd5+, then Qxd5, Black has to move the rook and the fxe5, this seems to me winning

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19011
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Hastings International Chess 29 Dec 2014 - 6 January 201

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Dec 30, 2014 11:38 pm

Alan Walton wrote:Sorry but after Bxd5+, then Qxd5, Black has to move the rook and the fxe5, this seems to me winning
It's a hidden tactic, the d7 pawn is hanging with Rd8xd7 defending the f7 Rook which in turn defends the d7 Rook.



Chris Rice
Posts: 3071
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:17 am

Re: Hastings International Chess 29 Dec 2014 - 6 January 201

Post by Chris Rice » Wed Dec 31, 2014 5:48 am

Round 2 provided quite a lot of upsets, too many to list individually in fact as you'll see from the results though John Anderson on board 12 despite being outgraded by 319 Elo beating Danny Gormally was clearly the outstanding one of note.

It's the last round of the accelerated pairings today and we have 14 players on 2/2. Here are the top pairings for round three and there are some huge mismatches:

1 GM Vakhidov, Jahongir 2.0 UZB 2502 - GM Edouard, Romain 2.0 FRA 2659
2 GM Arkell, Keith C 2.0 ENG 2489 - GM Zhao, Jun 2.0 CHN 2585
3 GM Lagarde, Maxime 2.0 FRA 2576 - GM Hebden, Mark L 2.0 ENG 2523
4 Anderson, John 2.0 ENG 2180 - GM Sengupta, Deep 2.0 IND 2566
5 GM Hawkins, Jonathan 2.0 ENG 2552 - IM Gledura, Benjamin 2.0 HUN 2450
6 Low, Zhen Yu Cyrus 2.0 SIN 2028 - GM Fier, Alexandr 1.5 BRA 2592
7 GM Rodshtein, Maxim 1.5 ISR 2676 - Baterdene, Tsogbayar 2.0 MGL 1981
8 GM Mista, Aleksander 1.0 POL 2614 - Othman, Mustapha 2.0 NGR 1973
9 GM Bogner, Sebastian 1.5 SUI 2586 - Liang, Jake Z 2.0 ENG 1953
10 IM Bellin, Robert 1.5 ENG 2338 - GM Flear, Glenn C 1.5 ENG 2460
11 IM Hunt, Adam C 1.5 ENG 2437 - FM Cafferty, Bernard 1.5 ENG 2095
12 Armstrong, Malcolm J 1.5 ENG 2086 - IM Galyas, Miklos 1.5 HUN 2428
13 IM Kjartansson, Gudmundur 1.0 ISL 2451 - WFM Norinkeviciute, Rasa w 1.5 LTU 2009
14 FM Sowray, Peter J 1.5 ENG 2365 - ter Steeg, Marcus, Dr. 1.5 GER 2000
15 Slade, Theodore 1.5 ENG 1869 - GM Gormally, Daniel W 1.0 ENG 2499

and here are the rest http://www.hastingschess.com/2015/SMWSite/

Live game link for round 3 http://www.hastingschess.com/live-games-1415-iii/

Post Reply