British Championship Thread

[IM Jack Rudd]

Will the Championship event be using accelerated or hyper - accelerated pairings for the entire event?

No; they stopped after round three, when all the bottom half players were on 2/3 or lower.

[Ian Thompson]

No; they stopped after round three, when all the bottom half players were on 2/3 or lower.

As were 33 out of the 38 top half players. So what has accelerated pairings achieved? Nothing as far as I can see. You get games with large differences in the ratings of the two players in round 4 instead of round 1.

[Ben Purton]

By Key game you mean that 2/3rds of the Howell, Gordon , Jones triangle is complete. But there are alot of GM's who might make late headway etc. Howell might need to perform at 2750+ to win the event.

Ben

[Ian Thompson]

Will the Championship event be using accelerated or hyper - accelerated pairings for the entire event?

Does this explain why most of the key games have already happened?

Will the final week be a series of anti - climax type pairings?

I guess I am missing something here?

J.

No, I don't think you are missing anything. I don't think accelerated pairings have any merit.

I'm sure someone will tell me if I'm wrong. I thought accelerated pairings were designed to give modestly rated players a better chance of getting a title norm if they got off to a good start than they would have with normal pairings. I don't think this is a good reason to mess around with the pairings. If someone's good enough to get a title they'll get it eventually anyway, and if the only way they can get one is with assistance from accelerated pairings then they don't deserve to have it.

I think its also questionable whether tournaments using accelerated pairings are valid for title norms. Title regulation 1.42g says "Tournaments that make changes to favour one or more players shall be excluded." Is that not exactly what accelerated pairings are doing?

[JustinHorton]

Aren't they better suited to tournaments with rather fewer rounds and rather more competitors?

[Ben Purton]

Yeah Justin, this tournament is far too long for such a system. Tournaments like Cappelle NEED them , we really don't have any need.

[JustinHorton]

Interesting openings today include Palliser's Modern Benoni and Storey's Nimzowitsch-Larsen. Also Greet playing the Berlin against an opponent 200 points below - when people do that I always wonder what they've got planned against the drawish 6.de5 and 7.a4 line.

[Ben Purton]

Greet , Ben Savage, there's a list of players who must admire Kramnik, I admire him off the board....Loves a drink(like my team).

I think this grind really suits Andy's style so not surprised, I can see him outplaying Sugden over like 60+ moves.

Ben

[Ben Purton]

You just now Gawain's game is going to be some sort of crushing king side attack now

[Ben Purton]

know(sorry level 3 dyslexic here, also im standing up)

[Ian Lamb]

anbody got moves on boards 11 -19 i have none what so ever!!

[Carl Hibbard]

anbody got moves on boards 11 -19 i have none what so ever!!

Works here Ian, try F5 in your browser or close your browser and try connecting again

[James Coleman]

I had nothing earlier on 11-19 either despite refreshing/closing but it works now.

[John Upham]

The game Varnam - Houska features the TN 13. Db3 which had happened in Spencer - Upham, 4NCL, Round 11, 2009.

Both games continued the same way until Liam plays 16. Sge4.

Both myself and Jovanka should have found 15..Dd5 and I think Black is at least equal. I never thought I'd see 13. Db3 again...

[Carl Hibbard]

I had nothing earlier on 11-19 either despite refreshing/closing but it works now.

I wasn't here sorry (bit busy...) but looks like an issue on site uploading files rather than anything else