BRITISH CHESS CHAMPIONSHIPS - THE GAMES

[Matthew Turner]

Palliser has got some coordination and Mickey has to be careful

[Matthew Turner]

45 Bc4 looks good for Adams to tuck the King away on d3

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Gordon has just beaten R. Pert. Anyone able to predict the round 10 draw on the top boards if Adams wins? Not sure which of those on 6.5 (Howell, Jones, N. Pert, Wells, Hawkins) gets the downfloat, or which one of them plays Adams (probable 7.5/9) and Short (7/9). Adams can only play Wells and N. Pert. Short can only play Wells, so I'm guessing that means Adams plays N. Pert. Of Howell, Jones and Hawkins, the two that haven't played are Howell and Hawkins. So if the colours work, I'm guessing they play and Jones gets the downfloat to play someone on 6 points. Not a clue what happens if the colours mess things up.

[LozCooper]

Gordon has just beaten R. Pert. Anyone able to predict the round 10 draw on the top boards if Adams wins? Not sure which of those on 6.5 (Howell, Jones, N. Pert, Wells, Hawkins) gets the downfloat, or which one of them plays Adams (probable 7.5/9) and Short (7/9). Adams can only play Wells and N. Pert. Short can only play Wells, so I'm guessing that means Adams plays N. Pert. Of Howell, Jones and Hawkins, the two that haven't played are Howell and Hawkins. So if the colours work, I'm guessing they play and Jones gets the downfloat to play someone on 6 points. Not a clue what happens if the colours mess things up.

I would estimate: Pert-Adams, Short-Wells, Hawkins-Howell & Jones black against possibly Gormally. As Palliser is still playing it's a bit early to speculate

[LozCooper]

Regarding norms:

I believe Maria Yurenok needs a draw against a 2386+ or a win against a 2026+ for a WIM norm but it must be a titled player.
Jonathan Hawkins needs a win against a 2369+ for a GM norm. There may be some IM norms possible with 2/2 but much will depend on the ratings of their opponents.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Jonathan Hawkins needs a win against a 2369+ for a GM norm.

Can Hawkins afford to draw tomorrow and try and get a result in round 11, or does he have to go for a win? Or to put that a slightly different way, if he loses tomorrow, would a win against a 2369+ in round 11 still be enough? (I think for an 11-round norm, he needs a titled player in both the last two rounds to meet the 2/3 requirement).

[IM Jack Rudd]

Jonathan Hawkins needs a win against a 2369+ for a GM norm.

Or to put that a slightly different way, if he loses tomorrow, would a win against a 2369+ in round 11 still be enough?

No, because the loss in round 10 would knock his TPR down.

[LozCooper]

Jonathan Hawkins needs a win against a 2369+ for a GM norm.

Or to put that a slightly different way, if he loses tomorrow, would a win against a 2369+ in round 11 still be enough?

No, because the loss in round 10 would knock his TPR down.

I think 1.5/2 would need a minimum average of 2487. His likely opponent tomorrow is David Howell, rated 2625, so a win against David or 1.5/2 against David + a 2349 seems the likely target.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I would estimate: Pert-Adams, Short-Wells, Hawkins-Howell & Jones black against possibly Gormally. As Palliser is still playing it's a bit early to speculate

Safe to speculate now. Adams 1-0 Palliser (move 52). And Adams moves into an outright lead on 7.5/9. Can Pert do something tomorrow (round 10) to upset Adams' defence of his title? Will Wells play Adams in the last round (round 11) this year as he did last year? Will Andrew Ledger go the entire tournament undefeated? (OK, that last question might not be the most pressing one).

[Jonathan Bryant]

Can Pert do something tomorrow (round 10) to upset Adams' defence of his title?

Pert drawing with Adams and Nosher beating Wells seems not beyond the bounds of possibility. That would make for an interesting last round.

[IM Jack Rudd]

(I think for an 11-round norm, {Hawkins} needs a titled player in both the last two rounds to meet the 2/3 requirement).

With six titled opponents so far, Hawkins has already met the titled player requirement for an 11-round norm.

[Simon Ansell]

I didn't miss the mate, no, I'm busted anyway!

Ridiculously complicated position to play off the increment only... Haven't analysed yet but I guess ...Bb7 keeping the a6 pawn instead of Rb1 is best, when we might get some weird kind of mutual zugzwang. My computer will discover the truth later! Credit to David for playing the risky Kd6 as a winning attempt, he also mentioned ...h5 instead of ...hg5 earlier, which - hadn't considered at all but looks interesting.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

(I think for an 11-round norm, {Hawkins} needs a titled player in both the last two rounds to meet the 2/3 requirement).

With six titled opponents so far, Hawkins has already met the titled player requirement for an 11-round norm.

Oh, oops. Is it 50% titled players needed? 2/3rds must have been me remembering something else.

I see now I was thinking of:

"1.44a A maximum of 3/5 of the opponents may come from the applicant’s federation and a maximum of 2/3 of the opponents from one federation. For exact numbers see the table in 1.7."

I've always assumed that the above doesn't apply for national championships, but the FIDE regulations don't seem to specify that. Oh, hang on, they do. It's in 1.2

"1.2 Titles achieved from International Championships:
1.21 As indicated below, a player may gain a
(a) title from such an event or
(b) gain a single title result (norm). Then the requirements in 1.42 - 1.49 shall apply.
(c) gain a single performance norm. Then the requirements in 1.22, 1.42, 1.46-1.48 shall apply."

What is the difference between a "single title result (norm)" and a "single performance norm"?

EDIT: Oh, $£$%! I've misread "International Championships" for "national championships". I'm thinking of "The finals (but not preliminaries) of national men’s championships and also national women’s championships." (1.43a). But I still don't understand where it says that 1.44a doesn't apply to national championships. I'm guessing that 1.44a applies only to the "normal foreigner requirement" bit mentioned in 1.43f. If so, then 1.44 and 1.44a should be a subset of 1.43f. I am now going to take my advice at the start of this post and ignore anything to do with title norms until I've read that page forward and backwards several times.

[LozCooper]

Round 9 results all in, so hopefully the pairings will be appearing shortly: http://www.britishchess2011.com/events_ ... p_2011.htm

I notice the women's title has become quite close: http://www.britishchess2011.com/events_ ... p_2011.htm

[Daniel Young]

Round 9 results all in, so hopefully the pairings will be appearing shortly: http://www.britishchess2011.com/events_ ... p_2011.htm

I notice the women's title has become quite close: http://www.britishchess2011.com/events_ ... p_2011.htm

I've been looking at them for the last 5 minutes.