English Chess Forum

J T Melsom wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 27, 2018 11:54 am

Christopher

Thanks - the fifth ICCD player wasn't showing on the list I saw as that was only results of players selected thus far. I understand the existence of the state of Israel and its territorial boundaries are contentious, and I wouldn't rush to defend the policies enacted but if teams don't want to play them in a global sporting event, then perhaps those who wish to boycott shouldn't attend in the first place.

I think the point here is that the Saudi Arabia player defaulted when presented with an Israel opponent (on the ICCD team), and the Israel player from the IPCA team presumably chose not to play when his team was paired with Palestine. Would the Palestine player have defaulted if the Israel player had played? I am not sure how that works. Or was this a diplomatic choice by the IPCA not to field the Israel player in their team? Or would the Israel player have refused to play (i.e. defaulted) if selected? One wonders how much was (and is still) being said behind the scenes and how much negotiating goes on, or whether there are last-minute decisions being taken?

I see Jobava is at it again. 1.b3 followed by 2.a4 and then castles queenside soon after.

MJMcCready wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:29 pm

I see Jobava is at it again. 1.b3 followed by 2.a4 and then castles queenside soon after.

To be fair, Jobava's opponent (Sarunas Sulskis) did play 1...a5 (probably not the best reply to 1.b3), so 2.a4 is reasonable in that context.

I would expect to see such moves at club level but not amongst strong GMs.

"Since Makro very recently bought Arab votes with the promise of future GM titles I'm sure it is a matter of complete indifference for the current FIDE administration. I'm sure once Malcolm is deputy president all that will change."

You would hope so, but awards of dodgy titles has gone on so long, that it is difficult to see it stopping. I watched most of the opening ceremony yesterday (and it was really good in places). Makro did look a bit shifty and made an electioneering speech, which I thought was a bit off, but then the Georgian President and the Georgian Minister, of Education, Sport, Science and something else unrelated, made speeches saying, "Welcome everybody, we hope Georgia wins"(!)

I was also completely unaware that FIDE had an anthem. Who wrote it?

Jonathan Rogers wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 27, 2018 11:53 am

And this is the line that Adams has recently taken up, and indeed played yesterday.

Correct call then. It's worth mentioning that the same idea can be used to avoid the QGD Exchange variation by 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. cxd5 Nxd5

Shame to see two Berlins with no actual Walls: David snubbing the 4...d6 I prefer in favour of the weaker 4...Bc5 that the top players favour, and Luke choosing 5 Re1 which takes most of the fun out of it (unless you're Magnus Carlsen).

There's one in Sasikiran-Shankland if you're desperate!

Kevin Thurlow wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 27, 2018 9:18 am

"Chiburdanidze also mentioned an interesting way of avoiding loads of opening theory while still playing regular chess (as opposed to Chess960). She said that a tournament had already been held in Georgia, where each player picks a random position after 10-15 moves, which is equal according to the computer. "The most talented players win, and everyone was happy that preparation wasn’t needed!"

Back in the 70s, John Sargent (Westminster Chess) ran "Selected Openings" Tournaments, admittedly usually only half a dozen moves in and not always equal. It's good to know the idea has gone a long way.

On the sensory board issue, wouldn't it be easier to have a little display, showing 1-0, draw, 0-1 and you move a switch to the right position?

Thematic events are almost as old as organised chess itself, of course.

Thomas Rendle wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:01 pm

There's one in Sasikiran-Shankland if you're desperate!

Rock and roll. No Nc3, that's interesting.

File under what else were you going to do

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:36 pm

MJMcCready wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:29 pm

I see Jobava is at it again. 1.b3 followed by 2.a4 and then castles queenside soon after.

To be fair, Jobava's opponent (Sarunas Sulskis) did play 1...a5 (probably not the best reply to 1.b3), so 2.a4 is reasonable in that context.

Those who know me will not be surprised but I have pondered in the past the vexed question of how best to meet 1 b3 a5

Roddy McKay appears to have blundered a piece early on Board 4 in the Scotland match.

For anyone who is out and about today, in possession only of a tablet which will not show live games very easily, we are under some pressure. We have made nothing of both Whites, and Adams, while Ok according to the first line of the computer, must avoid plausible errors or will simply be losing. Howell stands somewhat worse according to SF, but take that with a pinch of salt, along with its granting him only a small edge yesterday: in practice the outcome remains unclear.

There might in fact be a repetition soon in Naiditsch v Howell, with a real possibility of four draws in the match, but board one remains the one to watch