English Chess Forum

Could think where else to put this, but thought that Bodhana Sivanandan playing James Sherwin today (an 82 year age difference) deserved its own thread.

Reg Clucas wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 13, 2025 8:04 pm

He played in the UK Blitz qualifier today at Cardiff, where one of his opponents was Bodhana Sivanandan - an 82 year age difference!

Reg Clucas wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 13, 2025 8:10 pm

https://s1.chess-results.com/tnr1240762 ... 0&SNode=S0

Screenshot from 2025-09-13 20-08-51.png

Photo here. Bodhana won.

If you add up the ages of all the female players in the tournament, it still falls short of James's age by about 30 years.

In a Central Lancs League fixture last season we had a 10year old against a 92 year old. I can't think of any other area of human competition where players of such age disparity can compete on equal terms.

Paul Ashton wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 14, 2025 10:28 am

I can't think of any other area of human competition where players of such age disparity can compete on equal terms.

It's a bit surprising a 91 year old (Sherwin's not 92 until next month) can compete at 3+2 blitz chess. Most players of that age, even if mentally able to compete, would lack the manual dexterity to move the pieces quickly enough.

"It's a bit surprising a 91 year old (Sherwin's not 92 until next month) can compete at 3+2 blitz chess. Most players of that age, even if mentally able to compete, would lack the manual dexterity to move the pieces quickly enough."

I agree, especially as 3+2 is quicker than old-style 5-minute chess (unless you play more than 60 moves).

Kevin Thurlow wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 14, 2025 12:00 pm

I agree, especially as 3+2 is quicker than old-style 5-minute chess (unless you play more than 60 moves).

I experimented in a session at the 3+2 move rate by checking the move counter at the end of each game. Generally it showed 30 to 40 moves. Conclusion is that 3+2 is more akin to 4 minute chess than 5 minute, unless you get involved in long endings.

3+10 can be rated as rapidplay although it's difficult to think of it as anything other than as buzzer chess with an extra 3 minutes at the start or as reserve time.

I managed to capture a few photos, and that one's definitely the best that someone has kindly linked to. Yes, round 11 board 2, with the board 3 players in the background correctly identified. I did think even before round 1 started there was a really high chance of them meeting, and planned on capturing it. Derrick Walker also took a few photos.

While there is, rightly, huge interest in Bodhana vs Jim. Not to be out done is Lucas Zheng, also 10, who played Jim in Round 1.

As to my photo's, Jim and Bodhana had lost interest in smiling for (or looking at) the camera by then, so they have been consigned to the deleted items box. And yes, as Alex H messaged me after he seen the photo's, Jim's knight and bishop are transposed. And that is the difference between us mere mortal arbiters and the FIDE Green Panel elite - either that or he has too much time on his hands.

Derrick Walker wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 14, 2025 5:39 pm

either that or he has too much time on his hands.

I wish

Alex Holowczak wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 15, 2025 6:16 pm

Derrick Walker wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 14, 2025 5:39 pm

either that or he has too much time on his hands.

I wish

You want to know if the game started with the pieces in the wrong position, don't you Alex? (I do.)

That sort of thing is normally spotted by the players and quietly corrected. Does anyone know of examples where the rules have been strictly applied?

For the record, although Lucas Zheng (seeded 30th) did lose his game against James T. Sherwin, he (Lucas Zheng) scored a very creditable 8/15 to finish 16th, half a point ahead of Sherwin.

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 15, 2025 6:22 pm

You want to know if the game started with the pieces in the wrong position, don't you Alex? (I do.)
That sort of thing is normally spotted by the players and quietly corrected. Does anyone know of examples where the rules have been strictly applied?

I did once have a game at the Lloyds Bank Masters against Tony Kosten that began 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3. On reaching for my knight on b8 I noticed that it was on c8 whilst the bishop was on b8. I did briefly wonder if to play c6 defending my e pawn but decided to point out the wrongly placed pieces and switched them around before playing Nc6 and going on to lose.

I was originally (wrongly) taught how to play chess by a fellow primary school pupil who had the N and B positions reversed. Not long after I encountered someone else (a teacher!) who insisted on starting games with the K and Q switched around.

(apparently the latter is - or at least was - quite a common chess variant in some parts of the world)

Matt Mackenzie wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 15, 2025 7:05 pm

(apparently the latter is - or at least was - quite a common chess variant in some parts of the world)

I don't see how that makes any difference - it does in 960, because of the castling rules.

At school, at the end of a brief game, I would say "I'll keep the white pieces, you go first". Surprisingly confusing.

I have always fancied the idea of starting with just Black's K and Q reversed, which feels as though it might make for more exciting games. If all games were played like that, how long would it take for opening theory to develop to its current state? Computers would do it in no time, but human players would take longer to adapt.

Talking of dexterity, did Sherwin use his pinky?
James