30 Jul 08
2 edits
Some great pairings for round 4:
Bd White Result Black --No--
1 Hebden, Mark............ 2520 [2½] ..... Davies, Nigel R......... 2478 [3] 5 12
2 Jones, Gawain C......... 2549 [2½] ..... Gordon, Stephen......... 2508 [2½] 1 7
3 Gormally, Daniel........ 2504 [2½] ..... Pert, Nicholas.......... 2547 [2½] 9 2
4 Conquest, Stuart........ 2536 [2½] ..... Arkell, Keith C......... 2506 [2½] 3 8
I understand that Gawain Jones and Stephen Gordon have been rivals for ten years, when they were both talented ten year olds!
So far I've been most impressed with Jones and Conquest, though I'm still sticking with my original guess, Gormally, as the eventual winner.
Our own Lee Davis has White against 19 year old Simon McCullough (graded 158).
30 Jul 08
Originally posted by JieI don't think it's the databases and books that count in correspondence chess so much as the ability to analyze the position by moving the pieces around and assessing the resultant position.
Those databases and books must be worth their weight in gold. 😴
Databases and books only take you so far.
30 Jul 08
Originally posted by Fat LadyI agree.
My favourite game of the day has been Andrew Ledger vs Gawain Jones. Ledger has been under tremendous pressure all the way through, but he has managed to find a safe path through all the tactics and at the moment he's a pawn up. I still think Jones will find a way to win though.
If there was a 'best game' prize then this would surely win it. A sustained attack despite material loss shows great confidence and emphasises the huge gap between top players and us 'wood pushers'.
😕
31 Jul 08
Originally posted by Rene-ClaudeI was quite pleased he didnt cop out and try those drawing tactics I was thinking about earlier - it goes to show what a will to win these masters have.
I agree.
If there was a 'best game' prize then this would surely win it. A sustained attack despite material loss shows great confidence and emphasises the huge gap between top players and us 'wood pushers'.
😕
I wonder if any of the masters ever look through chess websites to see what people have posted about them? If I ever became a master, I would spend most of my time reading peoples comments about my play.
31 Jul 08
Originally posted by Fat Ladythanks for informing me, i enjoyed his tips for young players book very much, seems like one of the only strong players that isnt an Ahole
As far as I know, Matthew Sadler hasn't played competitive chess for more than seven years. I think he became a computer programmer instead (working for HP in Holland? I may have made that bit up).
31 Jul 08
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexYeah I always wonder about that as well. I was intrigued by a similar question today actually. There was this post that had a lot of analysis about the position 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 Nc6 8. Qd2 0-0 9. Bc4 Bd7 10. 0-0-0 Ne5 11. Bb3 Rc8 12. Kb1 a6!? on www.chesspublishing.com (which I was a little bit involved in). Yesterday I get home and check the games and Carlsen had played this move against Lenier-Dominguez! I wonder how much strong players peruse well known chess sites but just don't tell anyone. It's not like the move 12...a6 is known, or has even been played that much. Much more normal are 12...Re8 and 12...Nc4. The chessgames.com database has one game with 12...a6. Coincidence?
I was quite pleased he didnt cop out and try those drawing tactics I was thinking about earlier - it goes to show what a will to win these masters have.
I wonder if any of the masters ever look through chess websites to see what people have posted about them? If I ever became a master, I would spend most of my time reading peoples comments about my play.
31 Jul 08
Originally posted by irontigranI've only met a few of the British Grandmasters (Jon Speelman, Aaron Summerscale, Nick Pert, Peter Wells, Stephen Gordon), but they were all very friendly, down-to-earth people. The only one I don't like is Nigel Short, mainly because of his shoddy behaviour after the death of Tony Miles.
thanks for informing me, i enjoyed his tips for young players book very much, seems like one of the only strong players that isnt an Ahole
There are plenty of a-holes further down the pecking order, but in my experience the ones at the very top have enough confidence in themselves not to have to boost their egos by putting others down.
31 Jul 08
Originally posted by SquelchbelchWhen Aagard can't be bothered to defend the title then there's something wrong.
The whole Championships are a joke anyway.
No Nigel Short, Michael Adams, David Howell, John Speelman...
Of course by nearly every standard he's incredibly strong but in elite terms he's just an 'ordinary' grandmaster. It's a great shame the very strongest won't compete in the British (mind you - this conversation has been going on since the late 80s at least and probably before then).
btw: the whole depth of the british seems a little light this year. Not just at the top but at all levels. I'm sure in the old days you wouldn't have got 160s and 150s playing in the main event. There seemed to be more players back in the 80s/early 90s too.
31 Jul 08
They probably enter knowing a few good victories will push their ratings up but if they lose they dont lose any rating really.Its nice to see a few non titled players playing the titled players and getting a few results..Yes shame aagard aint here it should be compulsory to defend your title 🙂.
31 Jul 08
Originally posted by JonathanB of LondonThe problem is the money just isn't particularly good:
When Aagard can't be bothered to defend the title then there's something wrong.
Of course by nearly every standard he's incredibly strong but in elite terms he's just an 'ordinary' grandmaster. It's a great shame the very strongest won't compete in the British (mind you - this conversation has been going on since the late 80s at least and pro ...[text shortened]... ing in the main event. There seemed to be more players back in the 80s/early 90s too.
Prizes: - £5,000; £2,500; £1,500; £1,200; £900; £700; £500; £300.
Even a top player like Adams or Short would have less than 50% chance of winning the tournament. If, for example, they managed to finish =2nd, they might go away with less than £2000 for two weeks hard work (and that's not counting preparation time).
Most Grandmasters are professionals, they like guaranteed appearance fees rather than a small chance of winning a large first prize. You can't blame them, they have mortgages and other bills to pay, just like us. If they enter the British and then perform badly their reputation suffers and they are less likely to receive invitations to other tournaments with do pay appearance fees.
I agree that there are far too many weaker players in this year's Championship. I assume they qualified from other tournaments - does anyone know if there is a list of the qualifying tournaments and who qualified from them?
Having said that, there are some great players in this year's tournament, including some very young Grandmasters and International Masters. To me it's more exciting having a relatively open tournament with lots of interesting games than seeing if a very highly rated player can justify his top seed.