English Chess Forum

Maybe it's time to look forward to the World Senior Individuals, Acqui Terme, Italy (10-21 November; travel dates 9 & 22 Nov).

The entry lists for the 50+ and 65+ posted at

http://www.chess-results.com/tnr174984. ... t=0&wi=821
have not been updated for a couple of weeks so possibly the information below is not fully accurate.

The closing date is mid-October.

So far there is no sign of the strong British contingent that played last year in Greece, but there are some notable entries already.

65+ includes Oliver Jackson, Anthony Ashby, Kenneth Norman, Ian Reynolds (who also played last year) and Julian Farrand, plus from Ireland
Patrick Daly and myself. No Scots or Welsh yet.
There are already nearly as many entries as last year, and September is possibly the peak month for entries.

Dinah Norman is in the Women's tournament.

50+ entries are much fewer so far. They include Brian Hewson & Meyrick Shaw (ENG) and one Irish player (Jim Murray).

Anybody else entered but not listed yet, or who intends to go?

me!

Keith Arkell wrote:me!

Good; I saw your other posting also. I won't be going to the Pokerstars - saving up for Gibraltar instead.

Ideally I'd play in both, but I have to go where the conditions are offered, so it's back to the Poker Stars, at which I had such a great time last year.

After a delay of a month, the list of entrants has been updated today at
http://www.chess-results.com/tnr174983. ... t=0&wi=821

The closing date for entries is 15 October.

So far there are only 19 entries for the women's tournaments which will probably be combined as last year (though with separate prizes). Dinah Norman is the only British entry.

The field for the +50 Open event is not as strong (yet) in terms of GMs compared with 2014 but is already comparable in size. The 65+ is larger than last year when I seem to remember there were about 91 players. There are already twenty more than that. The GMs who played last year are mostly in again except for Vaisser who won last year (and won the 60+ previously).

There are 53 entries in the 50+ so far, including two from England and one from Ireland. Last year there was a strong English challenge headed by Arkell, Nunn, Hebden, and Chapman, none of whom appear on the list as yet. The current World and European champion Sturua also has not yet entered but presumably will as I think he gets free hotel etc.

In the 65+ there are already 112 entries including six from England (Kenneth Norman among them), two from Ireland (including myself) and three from Scotland including IM Craig Pritchett. He's the only British player over 2200 who has so far entered.

The arrangements are somewhat different from last year, when everyone had to stay in the hotel venue at a rather remote Greek seaside resort. This time the venue is a conference centre near the perimeter of a spa town north of Genoa, and the players will be in various hotels.

Links for people considering entering:
http://www.scaccomattissimo.it/seniores ... el-booking
http://www.arcoworldchess.com/wp-conten ... le2015.pdf

Looking forward to seeing some of you there.

Tim Harding wrote: There are 53 entries in the 50+ so far, including two from England and one from Ireland.

There's also former Welsh Olympiad player, IM David Cummings, who played most of his chess in England before moving to Canada and playing under CAN. He's in those old photos of Spassky etc. taking on the English juniors when they were headed up by Nigel and Julian.

Roger de Coverly wrote:

Tim Harding wrote: There are 53 entries in the 50+ so far, including two from England and one from Ireland.

There's also former Welsh Olympiad player, IM David Cummings, who played most of his chess in England before moving to Canada and playing under CAN. He's in those old photos of Spassky etc. taking on the English juniors when they were headed up by Nigel and Julian.

Yes they seem to have added a few more names. Now 59 in the 50+ including Cummings, and 119 players in the 65+. Also 20 women between the two sections.

You could also list Harandi who was listed as ENG for a year or two.
It was a flag of convenience when chess was banned in Iran.
Craig Pritchett lived for a long time in London.

I may well play.

Hope to see you there, Stewart.

I'm not happy that they're using that awful 'Buchholz -1' tie-break again.

I can't pretend I'm not slightly biased, but it just seems so random. Last year it meant waiting until the last game in the whole building finished, in order to find out whether or not I had won gold. IM Kalegin (2474), against whom I had played, ended up losing to IM Bruno (2422), against whom GM Sturua had played, and so I lost out.

The problem isn't only the randomness, it's not having much idea how you stand during play. Why not something more straightforward like rating performance? Or, to refine that slightly, rating performance -1, and not including the games between players involved in the tie?

Keith Arkell wrote:I'm not happy that they're using that awful 'Buchholz -1' tie-break again.

I don't like that either, but at some point we must face the fact that there is no fully satisfactory tie-break. If the schedule does not permit any sort of playoff, then the title should be shared or the players spin a coin. If they are sufficiently opposed to that, they may find that they have time for a blitz game after all.

I don't like rating performance at all. Titles should depend upon the results of the games and nothing more. By the way, the calculation of rating performance once again reared its head in Abu Dhabi. I think my own Commission has been given the task of producing a universal definition, but we shall not do so because it cannot be done.

I've never understood why people seem to be quite so reluctant to allow for tied titles.

NickFaulks wrote: Titles should depend upon the results of the games and nothing more.

I agree. And the bigger the title, the more strongly I agree.

MartinCarpenter wrote:I've never understood why people seem to be quite so reluctant to allow for tied titles.

I think a shared title is better that a coin toss, or one of the many tie-breaks which amount to a coin toss.

Best of all is a play off at classical time-controls, but the modern world seems to have sped up too much to tolerate such a thing.

Only in Britain are tiebreak systems abhorred. Joe Gallagher explained to me why they are preferred in many countries. It enables the treasurer to write the cheques in advance and then add in the names after the tournament has finished.
Hastings 2013-2014 was bad. 7 players tied for first.
I started being opposed to tiebreaks in 1964. In about 1980 I said that Sonneborn-Berger is less accurate than tossing a coin.
I dont so much mind:
Playoff. {But it can be a lot of work.}
Personal encounter
Greater number of blacks {That is very unpopular, but very objective.}
Sum of Progressive Score. {It is too simple for most 'experts'. But it is true that it can be illogical, perhaps once in a thousand.}
Ra isn't too bad. Eliminate the lowest rated opponent if you wish. BUT if the players involved in the tie have met, then you have also to eliminate those games. Otherwise the lower rated player has an advantage.
{TPR has no place in a tiebreak system. It is excellent for awarding rating prizes for improved TPR.}
How objectionable would it have been for Keith and Zurab Sturua to have had an Armageddon playoff?

Arpad Elo 1963, 'There is no fair tiebreak system'.
Harry Baines about 1980, 'The players should know what they have to achieve before the start of the last round'.

Nick Faulks wrote" By the way, the calculation of rating performance once again reared its head in Abu Dhabi. I think my own Commission has been given the task of producing a universal definition, but we shall not do so because it cannot be done."

Nick , I am shocked at your inability to do the impossible.

Perhaps you should seek inspiration from the Simpsons movie. odd and several options with the President able to choose the middle one?