English Chess Forum

Because they both decided on the first night that boards one and two were going to be tough, and the other two volunteered to play one one and two

David Sedgwick wrote: Nigel Freeman is an avid reader of this Forum.

I do wonder sometimes how widely the forum is read. I have seen some suggestions and points made about other websites, with corrections made rather quickly soon after. These sites range from the BBC to Chessbase.

Maybe Kirsan reads this forum, or even Putin and Trump!

[I am just winding John McK up, though in China this sort of surveillance would be a reality]

Jonathan Rogers wrote:Setbacks for the English teams, though again 3Cs had some bright spots. Most of them seem to have had some good results, and playing Ashton and Quillan on boards 3 and 4 seems to have been a well judged decision. But as ever, how well the event will be remembered in competitive terms is likely disproportionately to depend on the last round.

Adam is certainly in contention for a board medal: http://chess-results.com/tnr302878.aspx ... =30&wi=821 although it doesn't look like he has played sufficient IM/GMs for what would have been a deserved norm opportunity.

No, he'd need to play an IM in round 7, and Dardania don't have one.

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:

David Sedgwick wrote: Nigel Freeman is an avid reader of this Forum.

I do wonder sometimes how widely the forum is read. I have seen some suggestions and points made about other websites, with corrections made rather quickly soon after. These sites range from the BBC to Chessbase.

Maybe Kirsan reads this forum, or even Putin and Trump!

[I am just winding John McK up, though in China this sort of surveillance would be a reality]

It would be surprising if it hadn't come on the Iranian authorities' radar

IM Jack Rudd wrote:No, he'd need to play an IM in round 7, and Dardania don't have one.

Have the rules changed on this at some point? I have some vague memory (and may be confusing with something else) that at one time you only needed to play 2GMs or 3IMs for IM norm purposes (1GM counted as 1.5IMs or something?).

Richard Bates wrote:

IM Jack Rudd wrote:No, he'd need to play an IM in round 7, and Dardania don't have one.

Have the rules changed on this at some point? I have some vague memory (and may be confusing with something else) that at one time you only needed to play 2GMs or 3IMs for IM norm purposes (1GM counted as 1.5IMs or something?).

Your recollection is correct, but the Regulations have indeed changed.

For an IM norm, it used to be possible to play 2 GMs rather than 3 IMs. That ceased to apply with effect from 1st July 2013.

David Sedgwick wrote:

Richard Bates wrote:

IM Jack Rudd wrote:No, he'd need to play an IM in round 7, and Dardania don't have one.

Have the rules changed on this at some point? I have some vague memory (and may be confusing with something else) that at one time you only needed to play 2GMs or 3IMs for IM norm purposes (1GM counted as 1.5IMs or something?).

Your recollection is correct, but the Regulations have indeed changed.

For an IM norm, it used to be possible to play 2 GMs rather than 3 IMs. That ceased to apply with effect from 1st July 2013.

Which led to me stopping organising title norm all-play-alls because of the increased cost (needing to pay for an extra titled player and receiving one less entry fee).

LawrenceCooper wrote:

David Sedgwick wrote:

Richard Bates wrote: Have the rules changed on this at some point? I have some vague memory (and may be confusing with something else) that at one time you only needed to play 2GMs or 3IMs for IM norm purposes (1GM counted as 1.5IMs or something?).

Your recollection is correct, but the Regulations have indeed changed.

For an IM norm, it used to be possible to play 2 GMs rather than 3 IMs. That ceased to apply with effect from 1st July 2013.

Which led to me stopping organising title norm all-play-alls because of the increased cost (needing to pay for an extra titled player and receiving one less entry fee).

In Adam's case the old rule wouldn't have saved him as he hasn't been paired against the FM he could have legally played in the opposing team.

?? 4 Title holders, that's enough, no? For some reason I've never understood, all women's titles count for the purposes of non-women's title norms. Alhtough clearly no issue anyway with WGM given that a WGM has met the criteria for FM by default.

Richard Bates wrote:?? 4 Title holders, that's enough, no? For some reason I've never understood, all women's titles count for the purposes of non-women's title norms. Alhtough clearly no issue anyway with WGM given that a WGM has met the criteria for FM by default.

I think that you are correct on this point. 3 IMs and 1 WFM would have met the titled player requirements.

David Sedgwick wrote:

Richard Bates wrote:?? 4 Title holders, that's enough, no? For some reason I've never understood, all women's titles count for the purposes of non-women's title norms. Alhtough clearly no issue anyway with WGM given that a WGM has met the criteria for FM by default.

I think that you are correct on this point. 3 IMs and 1 WFM would have met the titled player requirements.

Apologies, yes you are both correct. I even looked this up a couple of days ago and found it was four, not five. I can only plead "temporary amnesia"

LawrenceCooper wrote:

Jonathan Rogers wrote:Setbacks for the English teams, though again 3Cs had some bright spots. Most of them seem to have had some good results, and playing Ashton and Quillan on boards 3 and 4 seems to have been a well judged decision. But as ever, how well the event will be remembered in competitive terms is likely disproportionately to depend on the last round.

Adam is certainly in contention for a board medal: http://chess-results.com/tnr302878.aspx ... =30&wi=821 although it doesn't look like he has played sufficient IM/GMs for what would have been a deserved norm opportunity.

Adam has won again; impressive performance; good performance by 3Cs overall too

chess.com report from which it appears that Vlad won't play yo try and qualify to the Candidates by rating

Mick Norris wrote:

LawrenceCooper wrote:

Jonathan Rogers wrote:Setbacks for the English teams, though again 3Cs had some bright spots. Most of them seem to have had some good results, and playing Ashton and Quillan on boards 3 and 4 seems to have been a well judged decision. But as ever, how well the event will be remembered in competitive terms is likely disproportionately to depend on the last round.

Adam is certainly in contention for a board medal: http://chess-results.com/tnr302878.aspx ... =30&wi=821 although it doesn't look like he has played sufficient IM/GMs for what would have been a deserved norm opportunity.

Adam has won again; impressive performance; good performance by 3Cs overall too

Whilst not a medal, still a very fine performance: http://euroclubcup2017.tsf.org.tr/en/co ... w&kid=1026