British Championship Thread

[John Philpott]

Paul McKeown commented, in relation to John Upham

John, I like the way you leave a double space between sentences, thought I was the only dinosaur left alive

If you look back at my earlier postings, you will see that there is a third non-extinct dinosaur on the Forum.

[John Upham]

On a serious note, why can't the ECF do more of this sort of thing? Not just the chess, but "around the venue" aswell?

OK, here goes :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GVG9TVz5KI&ref=nf

[Alex Holowczak]

On a serious note, why can't the ECF do more of this sort of thing? Not just the chess, but "around the venue" aswell?

OK, here goes :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GVG9TVz5KI&ref=nf

I hope the people at the ECF say thanks to Tryfon for all his efforts at making this sort of video. You'd like to think that someone like CJ from Eggheads turning up to Torquay would have led to some sort of official interview, rather than a player doing it "off his own back". He has spoken to players and even got them to analyse a good game from last year in one case. I'd like to think that his videos would be linked-to from the British Championship site.

If he has no restrictions with video using an iPhone, the earlier reason cited on here from the officials at the tournament - a dodgy Internet connection - does not seem to be a good reason. If he can do it, why can't they?

[Ian Lamb]

nice game from sarah in round 10 yeasterday ending with a pretty mate seem to get a good opening there against the tromposky. and playing rybka fave line as well in the opening reply for black

[John Upham]

If he can do it, why can't they?

The explanation is easy : Tryfon is a natural innovator, he has a great imagination and he loves chess!

[Keith Arkell]

Jonathan bryant Wrote:

''The Conq's had a really soft tournament compared to Howell. It will be a tragedy if Conquest wins tomorrow.''

Ben Purton wrote:

''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''.

Jonathan Bryant wrote:

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

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)''.


I (Keith)responded to points made this year and last year,on the S%B forum,that it was 'justice that Stuart won the play-off'(ie it would have been an injustice had I won). I don't have any particular views on the rights and wrongs of winning swisses having played weaker opposition than your rival/s,but my point was that, although the actual playing strength of my opponents was weaker than the playing strength of stuart's opponents,it wasn't by a significant enough amount to warrant using it as an example of this.
Now,had I somehow wormed my way into a play-off this year(lets say by beating Buckley in round 9,winning with White in round 10,and then beating Howell with Black,while results at the top went my way),then it WOULD been an excellent example of the so-called ''injustices of the swiss system''.In that case I would have fully agreed that I didn't deserve to win,and probably my performance would have been something like 250 or 300 points less than Howells,not the 25 points,which was the approx difference between Stuart's opponents and mine strength wise last year(ie if for example you counted Hawkins at his actual playing strength rather than use his 2230 ELO).
Furthermore,in this hypothetical example,it would have been fair enough to say that David played the best chess(I have played some appalling moves this year!),whereas,on the contrary,it is impossible to say last year who played the better chess out of Stuart and myself.Stuart played great chess in his exciting style,but our styles are very different.

[Ben Purton]

I feel bad for Sarah as she has played very well this tournament just does not have the results. A win today and everything is OK.

[Ian Lamb]

well Keith we all have bad tournys once in a while get back home and get the practice board out and try and get back some points you lost here at uxbridge in bucks tourny.

[Paul McKeown]

well Keith we all have bad tournys once in a while get back home and get the practice board out and try and get back some points you lost here at uxbridge in bucks tourny.

You're telling Keith Arkell, International Grandmaster, to get the practice board out

Gasp

I think you've just managed to embarrass everyone on this board.

[Struggling to breath here...]

[Ian Lamb]

keith knows me so he knows iam joking with him.

[Ian Lamb]

wow howell playing a queenless middle game already after 13 moves .

[Ian Lamb]

looks like howell playing to win this game which is a suprise i thought he have bailed out with a early draw

[Ian Lamb]

palliser looks like in his game against wells its all home prep what he play so far. looks like he spent a few hours on this idea at home what you think?

[Ian Lamb]

briscoe first down the motorway with a draw v ynojosa lasted 1o moves !!

[Ian Lamb]

mmm i wondering has howell offered a draw and lane turned it down ?