e2e4 London Diamond Jubilee Congress

[AustinElliott]

Collins-Williams definitely proving worth a watch (with un-takeable Rook offer 17 ...Ne5 just played by SW ...but does he have enough left after, say, 18 Bg2 ...?), and some of the other games too. Plenty of knock 'em down - drag 'em out stuff.

[Edit: 18 Ne3 -Collins offers back the piece to make an escape square for his King on d1]

Interestingly, boards 2 & 3, bearing on the top three prizes, are all cagey manoeuvring.

[AustinElliott]

Simon Williams has indeed sac-ed a a whole Rook. Anyone see a mate?

[Graham Borrowdale]

Simon Williams has indeed sac-ed a a whole Rook. Anyone see a mate?

Not yet, but 22..Nd2 prevents the queen check on e4 and threatens the bishop on f1. 23 Qg2 might be answered by Bf3 followed by Qd5

[Simon Ansell]

Yeah 22...Nd2's a great move, I think Simon's winning at least a piece back but White might be ok somehow. At the time I thought 20.Nc4 was better than taking the rook, but I could be wrong.

edit: could be that it finishes in a draw after Black takes on f1 and White has a perpetual on e4 an a8. again, I could be (very) wrong!

[AustinElliott]

Meanwhile, Voyk-Brown has surreptitiously morphed into a Grunfeld, and Hebden's opponent seems to be playing a real game of chicken, with his King looking like it's almost in a mating net. Why didn't Hebden play 29 ...Be5 threatening ...Bf6+ ... last move (instead of 29. ..Rf1)? Or even 29. ...Nf6 threatening ...g5 mate. Did his opponent have an escape? Enough Rook checks to avoid getting mated?

Edit: Collins-Williams still grand entertainment - Collins offered a piece w 23. Bd4 (presumably to get a perpetual after 23. Bd4 Bd4: 24. Qc7:+ ...? but Williams has rejected the offer with 24...Bf3 attacking the White Q. /edit

Edit #2:

24. Bc5+ (still aiming for a perpetual by the look of it) ...Kf6

...??! Williams' King has gone walkies!


Edit #3: Got Mark Hebden and his opponent back to front - now edited to make some sort of sense (ish)

[Jonathan Rogers]

Kanwal now has excellent compensation for her pawn on board 10 v Buckley ... Graeme is understandably starting to seem flustered at move 35.

[Simon Ansell]

...

...??! Williams' King has gone walkies!

I wasn't exactly expecting this turn of events! Draw now, knight checks on d2 and c4 for ever?

edit: well, it probably should have finished like that. 32...Qxe3 looks a bit optimistic to me, even by Simon's standards.

[Jonathan Rogers]

why do Simon Williams' attacks seem to last for the whole game?!

[Jonathan Rogers]

I presume that white accidentally allowed three fold repetition in what looks to be a totally won position in Byron v Sowray ...

[Jonathan Rogers]

why do Simon Williams' attacks seem to last for the whole game?!

although it has petered now and looks losing. One wonders what is the ratio of brilliant wins to glorious losses for Simon?

[AustinElliott]

why do Simon Williams' attacks seem to last for the whole game?!

although it has petered now and looks losing. One wonders what is the ratio of brilliant wins to glorious losses for Simon?

I see he held the draw in the end - which is good, as it would have been a sickener to have played a game like that and then lost.

Of course, players who. faced with those kind of choices, will almost always 'Go for it', are popular with spectators and ordinary wood-pushers - many examples spring to mind, perhaps most famously the early Tal. Apart from just the excitement of watching them at work, I think a lot of players identify with the sort of sentiment that I might characterise as:

'I couldn't take a draw there - I wanted to find out how the game ends'.

David Bronstein is another player that I would associate with this kind of thinking. Would we put any of the modern super-GM brigade in this category? Ivanchuk, maybe? Or Carlsen?

[Matt Mackenzie]

Carlsen? Not really - it surprises me how so many seem to overlook that lots of his games are long positional grinds

Ivanchuk may be more on the money there......

[AustinElliott]

Carlsen? Not really - it surprises me how so many seem to overlook that lots of his games are long positional grinds

Ivanchuk may be more on the money there......

I suppose with Carlsen part of his 'spectator value' is less about going for the attack and more to do with 'never wanting to take the draw' - so the analogy there would be with someone like Fischer rather than Tal or Bronstein.

Fischer would famously play on and on in dead drawn or even inferior positions rather than take half a point. Of course, with Fischer that was likely because he believed himself to be so much better a player than his opponents that he reckoned he could win even when he stood worse.

[William Metcalfe]

Were any Norms gained at the event Sean

[John McKenna]

IM norms for D. Eggleston & M. Brown?