British Championship Thread

[Ben Purton]

David Defo deserves to win, but hard and easy draws are all part of tourn

[Alex Holowczak]

keith pich and putt does not bring you rating points back !!!. Graham buckley today well iam expecting you to beat him you normally do.

10 Buckley, Graeme......... 2398 (4½) 1 - 0 Arkell, Keith C......... 2521 (5)

Ian, I think you're putting the mockers on him!

[Jonathan Bryant]

Conq coming back from first round loss would be cracking stuff.

I thought that too ... but when I looked at who he's actually played since Eggleston in the first round ...

(Eggleston 2341 -)
Birtwistle, 2186 +
Fitzsimons 2167 +
Hawkins 2325 =
Constantinou 2264 =
Storey 2279 +
Sowray 2235 +
Gormally 2490 =
Littlewood 2358 +

... I changed my mind.

Good players by most standards of course - and certainly by mine - but not British champion quality opposition I would suggest. Certainly nothing like Howell's 6 GMs and 3 IMs.

Howell will also have played both of his main rivals (Jones and now Conquest) with Black. Hard to see how this tournament could have been any tougher for him.

[James Toon]

Howell was also Black against Williams, who now lurks in second place. I agree, Howell has certainly had the toughest tournament, and he would be a worthy winner.

[Alex Holowczak]

I thought the number 1 seed was supposed to get an advantage in seeded swisses?

[Sean Hewitt]

I thought the number 1 seed was supposed to get an advantage in seeded swisses?

He does. He always plays opponents weaker than himself

[Ben Purton]

but not British champion quality opposition I would suggest

What does this actually mean. I totally agree with the fact Howell has had the toughest draw, also he deserves it so much after Turkey.

But the fact is you can't claim Conquest winning the title would not be justified because of rounds 1-9 opposition, its tournament chess, not a beauty contest.

The best example of this is NFL 2007-2008 Season, the New England patriots won 16-0, they played amazing, they had some luck V Baltimore(V Hebden/Wells?) they broke alot of records(highest rating performance), this was not only accredited to their offense but also their incredible defense(V Williams). They looked truly unbeatable, they had done it the hard way, they went 18-0 to get to the superbowl. Some still call them one of the greatest teams, most certainly the best not to win the Superbowl.

But when they look back at this season its the New York Giants who will be remembered , not the beautiful Patriots trick play V Pittsburgh. But the David Tyree freak catch and the Superbowl winning TD a few plays later.

What has this to do with British? Well if Conquest wins the British, which is doubtful , he would have had to have won when it counts. Like the Giants he did not get in contention the prettiest way, but he would have to beat Howell(who has not lost) and then Williams with Black(who is on fire Swiss Open to the British) , in order to win the title.

As the New York Press put it "You can break all the records but you have to know how to eat Captain Crunch" regarding Brady only scoring 14 in Superbowl. Howell has done amazing but he has to finish the job, if Conquest finishes the job better he is champion.

Kind regards

Ben

[Ian Lamb]

nice comments ben i can see conquest v Howell being a big time scramble today both like to use a lot of time in there games but iam going for David howell to beat u Stu conquest today in a timescramble game. Is my tip.

[Alex Holowczak]

Not sure what to make of this from "kingscrusher" on Twitter: "Anyone know what to play against IM James Cobb with white against his french defence"

What do we know that Chessbase doesn't? Or are his 351 followers going to become his new seconds? Though to be fair, he's having an excellent tournament so far on 5/9.

[Ben Purton]

He should play d4 and get the 1/2 .

Ben

[Ian Lamb]

1 Conquest, Stuart........ 2572 (6½) ..0-1... Howell, David W L....... 2614 (7½) 2 1
2 Wells, Peter............ 2498 (6½) ..0-1... Williams, Simon K....... 2527 (7) 7 5
3 Hebden, Mark............ 2468 (6½) 1-0..... Rendle, Thomas.......... 2377 (6½) 10 19
4 Hawkins, Jonathan....... 2325 (6) .draw.... Jones, Gawain C......... 2554 (6) 25 3
5 Gordon, Stephen......... 2537 (6) ....1-0. Greet, Andrew N......... 2443 (6) 4 12


6 Palliser, Richard JD.... 2413 (6) .draw.... Summerscale, Aaron...... 2454 (6) 14 11
7 Littlewood, Paul E...... 2358 (5½) ..0-1... Gormally, Daniel........ 2490 (5½) 20 8
8 Rudd, Jack.............. 2326 (5½) ...0-1.. Trent, Lawrence......... 2471 (5½) 24 9
9 Zhou, Yang-Fan.......... 2265 (5½) draw..... Buckley, Graeme......... 2398 (5½) 31 15
10 Lane, Gary.............. 2379 (5½) ...1-0.. Fitzsimons, David....... 2167 (5½) 18 45


black to have a good day at the top

[Ben Purton]

1 Conquest, Stuart........ 2572 (6½) .1-0... Howell, David W L....... 2614 (7½) 2 1
2 Wells, Peter............ 2498 (6½) ..0-1... Williams, Simon K....... 2527 (7) 7 5
3 Hebden, Mark............ 2468 (6½) 0-1..... Rendle, Thomas.......... 2377 (6½) 10 19
4 Hawkins, Jonathan....... 2325 (6) .0-1.... Jones, Gawain C......... 2554 (6) 25 3
5 Gordon, Stephen......... 2537 (6) ....1-0. Greet, Andrew N......... 2443 (6) 4 1


These are the results I think, it won't happen it would be well over 100/1 in an accer.

Conq to win is like 3/1
Williams to win is 6/4
Rendle to win is 11/1?
Jones would be 5/4 ish
Ste similiar.

Ben

[John Philpott]

Today's update on the Seniors. With eight players tied for the lead on 3½ out of 5, some hopes were expressed last night that the top four boards should all be drawn in order to allow some of the players on 3 out of 5 a chance to catch up with the leaders in advance of the last round. Boards 2, 3 and 4 were all duly drawn. However, there was an unfortunate development on board 1. Alan Barton, who was due to play White against David Anderton, phoned in ill after the round had started: it is not clear whether Alan will be fit enough to play in the last round. David agreed to play against Michael Dean who had been due to take a bye: this game continues.

[Tim Lunn]

Today's update on the Seniors. With eight players tied for the lead on 3½ out of 5, some hopes were expressed last night that the top four boards should all be drawn in order to allow some of the players on 3 out of 5 a chance to catch up with the leaders in advance of the last round. Boards 2, 3 and 4 were all duly drawn.

Thanks for the updates. I'm following my team mate in the Seniors, though he was on 2.5 going into this round (having just lost).
There seems to be an awful lot of draws for a swiss competition.
Are all the games fully played out, or are there many relatively short draws?

[Jonathan Bryant]

but not British champion quality opposition I would suggest

What does this actually mean. I totally agree with the fact Howell has had the toughest draw, also he deserves it so much after Turkey.

But the fact is you can't claim Conquest winning the title would not be justified because of rounds 1-9 opposition, its tournament chess, not a beauty contest.

Keith Arkell made a similar point (twice) on our blog when I've discussed Conquest's victory last year.

I think the NFL analogy doesn't quite hold here though ... it's not so much that Howell has led from the front that I'm arguing, it's that as things stand he's faced (much) stronger opposition than Conquest.

Of course you can argue, as Keith does, that if you win according to the rules of the competition then you deserve to win. Fair enough I suppose. As you say, soft draws are part of tournament play. What I'm saying suppose is that it would be better if they were not (for the British Championship at least).


The short answer to your "what does this mean?" question is that I'm arguing it would be best if our system for deciding the British champion produced a winner who was "deserving" of the title; that strength of opposition is one aspect of what makes a "deserving" champion and that if Conquest wins from here then he would not be "deserving" (unlike last year when I argued, for similar reasons, that it was "justice" that he won the play-off).