London Chess Classic 2013

[Richard Bates]

Comp has b7 as the error. It's no1 line was Kb7! The ingenious point being that then the second queen queens with check!

[Jonathan Rogers]

... the pool which the qualifiers would hope for would probably have both Caruana and Short

Very prescient, Jonathan.

All you have to do now is enter the Open and make sure that you qualify second rather than first.

If only I had the time

[Jonathan Rogers]

This must have been mentioned already, and is no doubt easy enough to look up, but others too may be curious to be reminded - what is the tiebreak for all those who are still on 4/4 tomorrow? Clearly there will be more than two of them on 4/4: there are nine players on 3/3 already and the round has not finished. (I am guessing that no one quite imagined there would be so many, but perhaps the high number of decisive results in rounds two and three were unexpected and has presumably been caused by a number of optimists all gunning for 4/4 and unwilling to agree draws at any price)

[Andrew Stone]

Highest rating is the tiebreak. Seems to have been a disappointing day for the 2600's but still likely to be two of them taking the spots. A cracking day on the live boards, helped no doubt by the differences in ratings and as JR has said the need to try and get to 4/4

[Roger de Coverly]

A cracking day on the live boards, helped no doubt by the differences in ratings and as JR has said the need to try and get to 4/4

All the results are on the website, but as yet no pairings. Still a wild card or two in the running, which should prevent short draws amongst the highest rated.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

You would think that two from Istratescu, Sutovsky and Hammer would win to take the two spots. But I'm wondering how much of a switch it will be from 1 round/day standardplay to 2 rounds/day rapidplay. Though I suppose the players they have to play against will not have been able to prepare, so that helps.

[Paul Dargan]

@ Roger - there were never going to be any quick draws - they were always going to need 4/4, just a question of where you think the rating cut-off will land. Despte some excellent efforts by lower rated players it does seem that if you were <2600 coming in then you wuld never be able to beat the tie-break.

Paul

[Keith Arkell]

I was beating Sutovsky today, but that's life. Anyway, I didn't deserve anything after playing the awful Re1? instead of h3 in the opening.

[Mick Norris]

Round 4 pairings
http://www.classic.livechess.co.uk/2013 ... index.html

[John Cox]

Well, on the theme of hard luck stories, I had agreed with my wife before starting to take a half-point bye in round four in order to wait in this afternoon for some tradesman who no doubt won’t appear, and having mislaid my mobile phone, didn’t receive her messages and Sean’s offering to cancel the request in time. Otherwise all I would have needed was to beat, say, Sutovsky with Black, plus a couple of miracle results on the other top boards, and I’d have been in for the pairing of a lifetime against Nigel.

Oh well, on the other hand at least I can say I’m not divorced and I am presently the clubhouse leader on 3.5/4.

On a more serious note it’s a shame Grachev’s out of it; he’d be the most likely to cause ripples in the main event, I’d say. Well, and Sutovsky, perhaps, who thanks to the efforts of Keith and myself in our different ways now looks likely to make it.

[John Cox]

By the way, it’s really no concern of mine, but I do think this tie-break sucks. At least make it a blitz play-off between qualifiers. Anyone of my strength who had made it to 4/4 would have had to beat two or even three 2550+ GMs, whereas Istratescu hasn’t had to play any, by virtue of being top seed. If by some miracle I or Simon or Richard or Peter or Keith (less of a miracle to be sure) had done that – unlikely but not impossible -, then I’d have felt pretty sad not to get a chance, at least.

I suppose it’s necessary perhaps as a carrot to attract the number of strong GMs they have done, which of course is far more likely to benefit the likes of me than a tie-break system which gives us a chance, but still, it’s a bit of a shame.

[Andrew Stone]

By the way, it’s really no concern of mine, but I do think this tie-break sucks. At least make it a blitz play-off between qualifiers. Anyone of my strength who had made it to 4/4 would have had to beat two or even three 2550+ GMs, whereas Istratescu hasn’t had to play any, by virtue of being top seed. If by some miracle I or Simon or Richard or Peter or Keith (less of a miracle to be sure) had done that – unlikely but not impossible -, then I’d have felt pretty sad not to get a chance, at least.

I suppose it’s necessary perhaps as a carrot to attract the number of strong GMs they have done, which of course is far more likely to benefit the likes of me than a tie-break system which gives us a chance, but still, it’s a bit of a shame.

Yes well done on getting to 3/3 John! I guess you would have also have had a chance at a GM norm. The tiebreak does seem very unfair to any lower rated player who gets to 4/4, but is still relying on the 1,000 to 1 chance that all the higher rated players above them drop something. Assume that they were concerned that there would be too high a rating gap if a lower rated player qualified (I see a 2214 player is on 3/3). This though would have its' attractions to the paying public. Also the blitz play off may present practical problems. It would have been feasible that 10 players would get to 4/4 and some mammoth blitz tourney then continues into the early hours of Wednesday. Hardly ideal preparation for playing someone like Anand! Would also mean early winners getting to 4/4 having to hang around for ages. Expect there may be a fairer solution without these drawbacks. Any thoughts anyone?

[Graham Borrowdale]

Oh well, on the other hand at least I can say I’m not divorced and I am presently the clubhouse leader on 3.5/4.

That's no mean feat, John, and, most importantly, you also get that boiler/fence or whatever fixed.

I would agree that the tie-break system does seem to make the idea that 'anybody' could qualify for this once in a lifetime chance a bit of a hollow promise, but it will give more players a chance of a good prize in the open, once two of the top seeds are out of the way.

[Jonathan Rogers]

I agree completely with John (and Graham). It is actually likely to be impossible for anyone under 2580 or whatever to qualify, and that can't be right.

I don't understand all of Andrew's reservations about a play-off. There couldn't be as many as ten players on 4/4, surely. If you wanted a round robin with the six players or so, it should be possible; and you could at least say that if they are more than two players still tied, then the top rated players go through. But at least the dreaming IM/lower rated GM still gets his chance that way. Or you could divide the players into two pools and get them to play smaller round robins, with the winner of each pool qualifying - basically all this could be decided when the arbiters know how many players there are and how much time there is, in order to make sure that it shouldn't have to continue to midnight.

As to some early finishing players having to hang around - it seems to me that those players on 3/3 would start the day very nervous. The prospect of winning quickly and then having more time to prepare for the likely play-off opponents would not draw too many complaints!

[NickFaulks]

I assumed that the whole point of the tiebreak method was to ensure that the two qualifiers were highly rated players, so as not to lower the tone of the main event. Of course, that does make the "anyone can win" spin a bit dubious.