Page 1 of 1

Coventry congress

Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2017 12:46 pm
by Jonathan Rogers
Overshadowed by the European team chs, I suppose, and seemingly lacking a broadcast of live games, but this is the event which will decide one (or is it two?) qualifiers for the big prize money knock out in December. Notable results yesterday include Sarah Longson beating Hebden in round 1, before losing to Alan Merry in round 2; and James Jackson beating James Adair in round 2, before in turn losing to Alan Merry in round 3. Alan leads on 3/3 but plenty of IMs and GMs on 2.5/3.

Re: Coventry congress

Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2017 1:02 pm
by IM Jack Rudd
Two qualifiers.

Re: Coventry congress

Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2017 1:39 pm
by Richard Bates
IM Jack Rudd wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 1:02 pm
Two qualifiers.
One.

Unfortunately no very slow starter prize.

Re: Coventry congress

Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2017 1:43 pm
by IM Jack Rudd
Ah right, I stand corrected. It was two last year.

Re: Coventry congress

Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2017 2:10 pm
by LawrenceCooper
Jonathan Rogers wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 12:46 pm
Alan leads on 3/3 but plenty of IMs and GMs on 2.5/3.
Now 4/4. Sowray on 3.5 so Merry-Sowray for the qualifying place in the final round as no one else has more than 3/4.

Re: Coventry congress

Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2017 2:33 pm
by NickFaulks
LawrenceCooper wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 2:10 pm
Now 4/4. Sowray on 3.5 so Merry-Sowray for the qualifying place in the final round as no one else has more than 3/4.
Either would be an excellent story.

Re: Coventry congress

Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2017 2:54 pm
by Jonathan Rogers
I'll have to postpone the Barbican newsletter a few hours more, evidently! :D :mrgreen:

Re: Coventry congress

Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2017 4:08 pm
by Jonathan Rogers
Turns out that I can write it already. Well done to both players!

Re: Coventry congress

Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2017 4:33 pm
by LawrenceCooper
Jonathan Rogers wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 4:08 pm
Turns out that I can write it already. Well done to both players!
Seconded! :D

Re: Coventry congress

Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2017 10:06 pm
by Mike Truran
Five GMs, six IMs and seven FMs. Not too bad for a weekend congress. :D

Many thanks to Malcolm and congratulations to Alan for offering and winning the BKO place.

Re: Coventry congress

Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:09 pm
by Matthew Turner
Strange tournament with quite a few uncharacteristic mistakes from the top players. Of no doubt though, the player who played the best won. Well done to Alan.

Re: Coventry congress

Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 11:07 am
by Clive Blackburn
Sarah Longson's win against Mark Hebden in Round 1



PGN code taken from Tim Wall's post:- https://www.chess.com/blog/timpeterwall ... ark-hebden

Re: Coventry congress

Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 11:43 am
by Roger de Coverly


That's a position from the Smyslov Defence to the Spanish except that usually it's White to move. Mark should be familiar with it, as he had the same position against Nigel Short in 1984. Then as now, he played the d5 liquidation and play was the same as the Coventry game until this position at move 20.



Sarah took on e4. Nigel on the other hand played Bb2 and lost quickly after 20. .. Re5 21 f3 Rg5 22. Nf1 Rxg2



According to an engine if Nigel had played Ng3-f5 instead of Ng3-f1, he's doing OK as the f1 square is available as an escape for the King , so .. Rxg2 doesn't work.

Mark's mistake seems to have been at move 22



After 22 .. Rxe5 23 Bxh6 is assessed at plus 3 by an engine. Offering to sacrifice the Queen for a pile of wood with 22. .. Qxd4 has been played a couple of times before although it's not comfortable for Black and a verdict of "a bit worse" perhaps needs to be sustained by engine calculation of all the pitfalls.

So over the board inspiration or deep preparation by the Longsons?

Re: Coventry congress

Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 1:09 pm
by David Shepherd
Roger de Coverly wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 11:43 am


Mark's mistake seems to have been at move 22
Or maybe it was the move before when playing Rxe4 rather than Bb4 seems ok

Re: Coventry congress

Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 2:29 pm
by Roger de Coverly
David Shepherd wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 1:09 pm

Or maybe it was the move before when playing Rxe4 rather than Bb4 seems ok
Abandoning the defence of g7 from f8 makes Bxh6 a mating threat rather than just picking up a pawn. Engines don't think .. Bb4 directly a loser though, but that can be misleading as they presume when entering dubious complications that they can solve their way through them.

21 .. Bxe4 22. Rxe4 was played in a 2008 game between Svidler and Jakovenko, whilst 21. .. Rxe5 offering an exchange sacrifice after 22. Bh7+ has also been tried. The tactic are nice for Black if accepted as after 22. .. Kxh7 23. Rxe5 Nc6 pins and hits the d4 Knight. Then 24 Re4 Qd5 with the threat of a mate on g2.