Hastings
-
- Posts: 1758
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 8:52 pm
Re: Hastings
IM Norm Possibilities (subject to confirmation)
C Murphy achieved a 9 round norm
a draw today will mean a 10 round norm is achieved
V Stefansson needs to win today for a 10 round norm
C Murphy achieved a 9 round norm
a draw today will mean a 10 round norm is achieved
V Stefansson needs to win today for a 10 round norm
-
- Posts: 1139
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 6:33 pm
Re: Hastings
I want Gormally to win outright. He's shown a bit of desire.
I also like the fact that he's made playing the focus of his chess, not coaching. I realise that coaching gives a more secure income, but there's a problem: when coaching becomes the focus of your chess, you almost inevitably become weaker as a player!
I also like the fact that he's made playing the focus of his chess, not coaching. I realise that coaching gives a more secure income, but there's a problem: when coaching becomes the focus of your chess, you almost inevitably become weaker as a player!
-
- Posts: 348
- Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:23 pm
Re: Hastings
Anyone know what has happened in Shreyas Royal's game - showing as a win for him in 15 moves when the position is near equal? Phone?
-
- Posts: 1758
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 8:52 pm
Re: Hastings
Still playing - being looked at now.
-
- Posts: 7226
- Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am
Re: Hastings
0-1 was showing from the start of the game so suspect a technical glitch. Both chess-results and the live board now show a draw.Andy Stoker wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 3:27 pmAnyone know what has happened in Shreyas Royal's game - showing as a win for him in 15 moves when the position is near equal? Phone?
-
- Posts: 1139
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 6:33 pm
Re: Hastings
The Gormally effort appears to be fizzling out. Shame. He deserved to win this.
-
- Posts: 1356
- Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:52 am
Re: Hastings
Will there be a play-off if more than one winner ?
-
- Posts: 7226
- Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am
Re: Hastings
Not that I'm aware of. There are four players on 7/9 with the possibility of a fifth (from the Lalic-Sulskis game).Barry Sandercock wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:31 pmWill there be a play-off if more than one winner ?
-
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 1:42 pm
Re: Hastings
Cherniaev looks likely to end up on 7 points too, so that will mean a 6-way tie for first place (assuming Sulkis wins too).
-
- Posts: 7226
- Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am
Re: Hastings
Yes, you're right. Six joint winners, a great result for Conor Murphy.Chris Goddard wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:44 pmCherniaev looks likely to end up on 7 points too, so that will mean a 6-way tie for first place (assuming Sulkis wins too).
-
- Posts: 4656
- Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm
Re: Hastings
A great result for Conor, agreed.
But for Hastings as a tournament, it is no great reflection that no one made anything more than a high 2500+ TPR. One of the six winners (Petrov) even had a TPR of less than 2500. Surely some further decline there?
(I don't know where I am going with this. Obviously if the tournament can still continue, it should - its glamorous history should not prevent even a shadow of the event continuing, if it is still well supported. The problem this year, as already noted, is that none of the top players was actually in very good form - and that is when the general decline really shows itself).
But for Hastings as a tournament, it is no great reflection that no one made anything more than a high 2500+ TPR. One of the six winners (Petrov) even had a TPR of less than 2500. Surely some further decline there?
(I don't know where I am going with this. Obviously if the tournament can still continue, it should - its glamorous history should not prevent even a shadow of the event continuing, if it is still well supported. The problem this year, as already noted, is that none of the top players was actually in very good form - and that is when the general decline really shows itself).
-
- Posts: 665
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 11:01 pm
- Location: North of England
Re: Hastings
Anyone think the Hastings tournament might benefit from switching to faster time limits? I was just reading Greg Shahade's blogpost on "Slow Chess Should Die A Fast Death" (which has probably been discussed here on here before). I guess it would mean a shorter tournament in terms of days, with potentially a bit more drama. Would a shorter tournament be more attractive to 2600+ players, or is it just a question of the prize money on offer?
-
- Posts: 2720
- Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:16 pm
- Location: NW4 4UY
Re: Hastings
There are so many things wrong with that blog post I don't know where to begin.AustinElliott wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:23 pmAnyone think the Hastings tournament might benefit from switching to faster time limits? I was just reading Greg Shahade's blogpost on "Slow Chess Should Die A Fast Death" (which has probably been discussed here on here before). I guess it would mean a shorter tournament in terms of days, with potentially a bit more drama. Would a shorter tournament be more attractive to 2600+ players, or is it just a question of the prize money on offer?
Adam Raoof IA, IO
Chess England Events - https://chessengland.com/
The Chess Circuit - https://chesscircuit.substack.com/
Don’t stop playing chess!
Chess England Events - https://chessengland.com/
The Chess Circuit - https://chesscircuit.substack.com/
Don’t stop playing chess!
-
- Posts: 9085
- Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
- Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Re: Hastings
I think his main premise - that if we invented chess today we would expect the game to last 30-40 minutes - is more or less spot on; I wouldn't expect it to be more than an hour.Adam Raoof wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:33 pmThere are so many things wrong with that blog post I don't know where to begin.AustinElliott wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:23 pmAnyone think the Hastings tournament might benefit from switching to faster time limits? I was just reading Greg Shahade's blogpost on "Slow Chess Should Die A Fast Death" (which has probably been discussed here on here before). I guess it would mean a shorter tournament in terms of days, with potentially a bit more drama. Would a shorter tournament be more attractive to 2600+ players, or is it just a question of the prize money on offer?
-
- Posts: 3556
- Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
- Location: Awbridge, Hampshire
Re: Hastings
One might start by asking him why he thinks everyone who plays in the US Open doesn't choose the 4 day schedule (6 games of rapid chess and 3 games of slow chess), instead choosing either the 6 day schedule (9 games of slow chess over 6 days) or the 9 day schedule (9 games of slow chess over 9 days).Adam Raoof wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:33 pmThere are so many things wrong with that blog post I don't know where to begin.AustinElliott wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:23 pmAnyone think the Hastings tournament might benefit from switching to faster time limits? I was just reading Greg Shahade's blogpost on "Slow Chess Should Die A Fast Death" (which has probably been discussed here on here before). I guess it would mean a shorter tournament in terms of days, with potentially a bit more drama. Would a shorter tournament be more attractive to 2600+ players, or is it just a question of the prize money on offer?