PDA

View Full Version : Burnie Shines Weekender 2008 25-26 October



Kevin Bonham
12-09-2008, 08:11 PM
Entry form details as supplied by the organisers:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Burnie Shines Weekender 2008
Class One Myer Tan Australian Chess Grand Prix event
Hosted by Burnie Chess Club

VENUE: Havenview Primary School, Mariott St, Burnie

FORMAT: 6 round Swiss or Accelerated Swiss. 60 minutes plus 10 seconds per move per player.

ROUNDS START: Saturday 25th October 10:30 am, 1:30 pm, 3:45 pm, 7:00 pm

Sunday 26th October 9:00 am, 11:45 pm.

ENTRY FEES: $50 waged, $45 conc, $30 U18, $25 U12, $5 discount for entries received by 15th October. Entries on the day close 10 am sharp – if considering entering on day please let us know.

PRIZES: 1st c. 40%, 2nd c. 20%, 3rd, U1700, U1400 c. 10% of prize pool, Women’s Prize $50, U18 prize $60, U12 prize $50 (subject to at least three entries per division). Prize pool is entry fees less running costs and levies.

ARBITERS: TBA.

ENQUIRIES: Telephone: Neville Ledger (03) 6431 1280; Russell Horton hortons@bigpond.com

NOTES:
FIDE Laws 2008 apply – ringing mobiles will incur automatic loss of game.
Requested byes will be awarded zero points.
Entrants agree to abide by all decisions of the organisers and arbiters.
The organisers reserve the right to make any changes required.
Moves to be recorded until 5 minutes remain. Juniors and novices welcome.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


ENTRY FORM

Name:

Address:

Phone: Email (optional):


Please tick here if you would like your entry acknowledged by email: ___

Please detach this form and post it with payment to Neville Ledger, P.O Box 837, Burnie 7320. Cheques and money orders to be made payable to BURNIE CHESS CLUB and will be cleared.

Tony Dowden
12-09-2008, 09:14 PM
Entry form details as supplied by the organisers:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ROUNDS START: Saturday 25th October 10:30 am, 1:30 pm, 3:45 pm, 7:00 pm

Sunday 26th October 9:00 am, 11:45 pm.



Hmm, that late night round on Sunday will be a killer after four rounds on Saturday :eek: And, given my recent inability to beat anything stronger than a wet paper bag, can I take - say - three half-point byes over the last three rounds? ;)

Kevin Bonham
12-09-2008, 10:49 PM
Looks like a typo, I'll let them know about that (another one is the correction of "FIDE Laws 2005" to "FIDE Laws 2008" when there have actually been no updates to FIDE Laws since 2005). Actually they'll probably find the 3:45 pm time for round 3 needs moving as that's the same as for the Hobart Weekender and we had to move it; I think I'd forgotten about the increment when working out the round times. Then again it might be that all the games finish well before the end of the round.


And, given my recent inability to beat anything stronger than a wet paper bag, can I take - say - three half-point byes over the last three rounds?

Apparently no half point byes at all!

Garvinator
13-09-2008, 01:30 AM
Looks like a typo, I'll let them know about that (another one is the correction of "FIDE Laws 2005" to "FIDE Laws 2008" when there have actually been no updates to FIDE Laws since 2005). Actually they'll probably find the 3:45 pm time for round 3 needs moving as that's the same as for the Hobart Weekender and we had to move it; I think I'd forgotten about the increment when working out the round times. Then again it might be that all the games finish well before the end of the round.
For 60 + 10, allowing 2 hr 30 mins between rounds is a pretty safe bet.

Tony Dowden
13-09-2008, 08:44 AM
For 60 + 10, allowing 2 hr 30 mins between rounds is a pretty safe bet.

True, but 4.00pm would be safer bet

Garvinator
13-09-2008, 03:04 PM
True, but 4.00pm would be safer bet
Ok we have some mis-communciation here :hmm: but who is responsible for the mis-communciation.


10:30 am, 1:30 pm, 3:45 pm, 7:00 pmIf round two starts at 1:30pm, then 2 hr 30 mins later is 4pm, isn't it. It is chesschat, so sometimes things are not quite as they seem ;)

10:30am, 1pm, 4pm, 6:30pm would not be the worst round times. Allows everyone to get something to eat between rounds two and three.

Kevin Bonham
13-09-2008, 06:01 PM
10:30am, 1pm, 4pm, 6:30pm would not be the worst round times. Allows everyone to get something to eat between rounds two and three.

Tassie arbiters generally have a standing practice to allow players whose games go late at least 15 mins break before they start their next game (delaying the start of their next games specifically as required) so that's not an issue - except that for events with 4 rounds/day players need to have something ready to eat between rounds 2 and 3 should they want to do so.

This is especially an issue at this particular venue which is some distance (about 4 km I think) as a car travels from the nearest shops.

Tony Dowden
14-09-2008, 08:12 PM
Ok we have some mis-communciation here :hmm: but who is responsible for the mis-communciation.

If round two starts at 1:30pm, then 2 hr 30 mins later is 4pm, isn't it. It is chesschat, so sometimes things are not quite as they seem ;)

10:30am, 1pm, 4pm, 6:30pm would not be the worst round times. Allows everyone to get something to eat between rounds two and three.

OK, mea culpa! I didn't do the maths properly - yes, 4.00pm does seem to equal 2 hrs 30 mins later.

Trent Parker
24-09-2008, 01:08 PM
If one from interstate was thinking about playing in this tournament how would he/she get to burnie?

Garvinator
24-09-2008, 02:35 PM
If one from interstate was thinking about playing in this tournament how would he/she get to burnie?
Great difficulty, you would have to fly from Sydney to Melbourne, then from melbourne to burnie. It is about $120 from Melbourne to Burnie.

I think you would then need to take the bus shuttle from Wynyard airport to Burnie as it is quite a distance from the main part of Burnie.

From reading earlier in the thread, the playing venue is quite far away from shops, eating areas etc.

Kevin Bonham
24-09-2008, 08:26 PM
Great difficulty, you would have to fly from Sydney to Melbourne, then from melbourne to burnie. It is about $120 from Melbourne to Burnie.

Another option is fly Melbourne-Launceston then get a bus from Launceston, though it would be much more time-consuming and I'd be surprised if it saved any great amount of money.


From reading earlier in the thread, the playing venue is quite far away from shops, eating areas etc.

It's actually only about 1.5 km to the shops in Upper Burnie on foot through the Romaine Reserve but you may as well go into the city by car if you have that option because the road route is so roundabout.

Would be a good idea for anyone coming from interstate to contact the organisers and try to arrange a lift up to the venue in the mornings. (I really enjoy walking up Mount Street and through Romaine to the venue (c. 4 km) but I realise most will regard this as an extreme form of masochism.)

charleschadwick
10-10-2008, 01:11 PM
Is there a list of players for this tournament as yet? I'm a maybe at this stage.
cheeers C

Kevin Bonham
10-10-2008, 07:26 PM
Is there a list of players for this tournament as yet? I'm a maybe at this stage.
cheeers C

I have not seen one. The link on Phil's BCC website just goes straight to an entry form download at the moment.

I have entered (posted today) and am going up with Tony Sturges. I think Nigel Frame is going up and also believe Tony Dowden to be playing.

Saragossa
10-10-2008, 11:55 PM
I shall also be attending. at the moment though I am away from tassie so I'll have to pay and everything when i get back.

Tony Dowden
11-10-2008, 01:47 PM
I ... believe Tony Dowden to be playing.

Maybe 'believe' is too strong - I'm leaning towards playing but haven't decided yet :cool:

Miranda
11-10-2008, 10:06 PM
I'm thinking about playing... it's either that or a horse competition.

Basil
11-10-2008, 10:10 PM
I'm thinking about playing... it's either that or a horse competition.
I've checked. The Burnie Shines weekender is definitely a chess comp.

Miranda
11-10-2008, 10:14 PM
lol

but seriously

nah, i'm not going to play. too much effort to travel to tassie!

kawa
13-10-2008, 10:16 PM
There is now an interim listing on the BCC site.

Tony Dowden
16-10-2008, 07:48 PM
I've sent my entry in :)

Adamski
17-10-2008, 09:37 PM
I've sent my entry in :)Good luck, Tony. I hope you win back some of those rating points "sacrificed" earlier this year!:)

Tony Dowden
18-10-2008, 10:32 PM
Thanks Jonathan. It will be an interesting event. KB, Nigel Frame, Ian Rout and Alastair Dyer are all dangerous contenders.

I'm assuming you spotted my rating dipped under 2000 (the first time since I was a teenager). The Glicko system doesn't work for me so well down here in Tassie - I'm too lazy ;) And getting older :( At the last event I was simply very tired and could (should?) have lost 2 or 3 games.

I've got several wins from 2008 club play yet to rated. I think I'm +15 =0 -0 so if I can hold the line in Burnie my rating should 'gyrate' back up over 2000

GoodNite
21-10-2008, 07:19 AM
Thanks Jonathan. It will be an interesting event. KB, Nigel Frame, Ian Rout and Alastair Dyer are all dangerous contenders.

I'm assuming you spotted my rating dipped under 2000 (the first time since I was a teenager). The Glicko system doesn't work for me so well down here in Tassie - I'm too lazy ;) And getting older :( At the last event I was simply very tired and could (should?) have lost 2 or 3 games.

I've got several wins from 2008 club play yet to rated. I think I'm +15 =0 -0 so if I can hold the line in Burnie my rating should 'gyrate' back up over 2000

Hi Tony,

I don't think you should do too much navel gazing about the ratings. When you refer to your rating as a teenager, which rating are we talking about exactly?

I am quite convinced that there is no parity between OZ ratings, FIDE and all the others. Not sure about NZ ratings. While an attempt may have been made to update the OZ ratings to the level of FIDE, a quick look shows that for most players, the OZ rating is significantly lower than the FIDE rating. When comparing ratings, it is really important to look at the mid-range, say within the first standard deviation. My estimate is that FIDE=AUS+100. Furthermore, FIDE+100=USCF. When I was playing regularly in Australia, back in the 70s, my rating was about 1900. I moved to Boston and gained a USCF rating of 2200. I would be interested in Bill's viewpoint on this.

In my books you are clearly a FIDE 2100+ player. We always drop rating points when playing juniors who have much lower ratings. The trouble with Tassie is that there are very few opportunities to gain many rating points. You can only lose them!

PS As I speak, Vladimir Kramnik seems to be in the same boat.

Cheers.

David

Tony Dowden
21-10-2008, 07:50 AM
Hi Tony,

I don't think you should do too much navel gazing about the ratings. When you refer to your rating as a teenager, which rating are we talking about exactly?

I am quite convinced that there is no parity between OZ ratings, FIDE and all the others. Not sure about NZ ratings. While an attempt may have been made to update the OZ ratings to the level of FIDE, a quick look shows that for most players, the OZ rating is significantly lower than the FIDE rating. When comparing ratings, it is really important to look at the mid-range, say within the first standard deviation. My estimate is that FIDE=AUS+100. Furthermore, FIDE+100=USCF. When I was playing regularly in Australia, back in the 70s, my rating was about 1900. I moved to Boston and gained a USCF rating of 2200. I would be interested in Bill's viewpoint on this.

In my books you are clearly a FIDE 2100+ player. We always drop rating points when playing juniors who have much lower ratings. The trouble with Tassie is that there are very few opportunities to gain many rating points. You can only lose them!

PS As I speak, Vladimir Kramnik seems to be in the same boat.

Cheers.

David

Hi David,

Some answers to your points (in no particular order):

When reminiscing about teenager-hood I was talking about NZ (Elo) ratings. (Mind you, I think I was 18 or 19 before I cracked 2000 - I wasn't like these 12 year olds that beat advanced verisons of Fritz with one hand tied behind their back).

My current FIDE rating is in fact 2158 - but I can't say I play any where near to that strength when I have to rattle off 3 or 4 games per day in a weekender!

In general the best Aussie juniors are better coached and have more opportunities to play strong opponents than NZ - so large numbers of them are dangerous and likely to be up to 200 rating spoints stronger than their rating - or so it seems. (Puchen Wang and Daniel Baider are the two exceptions that prove the rule).

I haven't really got a handle on the Glicko system yet. And I suspect I'd have a different rating if I was playing in, say, Melbourne all the time.

But as you say, ratings shouldn't be that important - not at our age anyway :lol:

Cheers, Tony

PS Go Vishy Anand :clap: :clap:

Kevin Bonham
21-10-2008, 08:59 AM
While an attempt may have been made to update the OZ ratings to the level of FIDE, a quick look shows that for most players, the OZ rating is significantly lower than the FIDE rating.

Indeed. The ACF has aimed and adjusted for parity at the higher end of the scale for several years now but for the midrange and lower range of the dually-rated players the FIDE ratings tend to be much higher. One reason for this is that FIDE used to have very high ratings floors which led to some lower-end players getting good FIDE ratings on the basis of unusually strong performances but not getting bad ones for bad performances (just remaining unrated). So it was common for an ACF 1750-ish player to stay FIDE-unrated until they cracked a 2000+ performance and suddenly they were FIDE 2000. This then had flow-on effects that increased the ratings of the (genuine) 2100-2300s who were beating these overrated players.

With the FIDE ratings floors being lowered this is likely to wash out of the FIDE system eventually but it could take a long time to do so.

Adamski
21-10-2008, 11:39 AM
Thanks guys for interesting contributions. I also think that for some curious reason Oz ratings are lower than NZ ones. Not sure why. As anecdotal evidence (not enough for any sort of reasonable case) my best NZ rating was a little over 1700 but in Aus I have yet to crack the 1650 barrier, and am currently below 1600 here - 1572:( . But I don't think I was a better player in those 1700 days (may they return!).

I am hopeful, however, of acquiring a FIDE rating from the current Ford Memorial at Norths and have reason to hope that it will be higher than my current Aus rating. Most of my opponents have had FIDE ratings.

With this thread title I can't help but think of that movie Weekend at Bernies. Hopefully, nobody at Burnie faces the fate of Bernie who was dead for the duration of the movie (and thereafter)!!

No doubt, guys, it will be a good tournament and I look forward to reading the results.

Kevin Bonham
27-10-2008, 10:52 PM
1-2 Dowden, Tony 1963 5
Steward, Julian 1597 5
3-5 Bonham, Kevin 1927 4.5
Dyer, Alastair 1753 4.5
Bretag, Marcus 4.5
6 Frame, Nigel 1724 4
7-9 Rout, Ian C 1881 3.5
Chadwick, Charles 1789 3.5
Horton, Russell 1432 3.5
10-14 Kuzmic, Carey 1347 3
Bretag, Lawrence 1370 3
Hendrey, Kevin 1337 3
Ivkovic, Milutin 1385 3
Fifield, Andrew 1290 3
15-20 Richards, Graham 1287 2
Carter, Adam 1088 2
Sturges, Tony (Thelston) 1188 2
Carter, Mason 1430 2
Fitzallen, Ashton 2
Hunn, Nick 651 2
21 Wood, Daniel 1



1. Dowden, Tony 1963 11:W 6:W 4:W 8:W 2:D 5:D
2. Bonham, Kevin 1927 12:W 7:W 3:W 5:D 1:D 19:D
3. Rout, Ian C 1881 13:W 8:W 2:L 17:W 5:D 7:L
4. Chadwick, Charles 1789 14:W 21:W 1:L 19:L 10:W 8:D
5. Dyer, Alastair 1753 15:W 10:W 6:W 2:D 3:D 1:D
6. Frame, Nigel 1724 16:W 1:L 5:L 15:W 11:W 12:W
7. Steward, Julian 1597 17:W 2:L 13:W 11:W 12:W 3:W
8. Horton, Russell 1432 18:W 3:L 15:W 1:L 17:W 4:D
9. Carter, Mason 1430 19:L 15:L 14:L 13:L :W 21:W
10. Ivkovic, Milutin 1385 20:W 5:L 19:L 21:W 4:L 16:W
11. Bretag, Lawrence 1370 1:L 16:W 21:W 7:L 6:L 14:W
12. Kuzmic, Carey 1347 2:L 19:W 20:W 18:W 7:L 6:L
13. Hendrey, Kevin 1337 3:L 18:W 7:L 9:W 19:L 17:W
14. Fifield, Andrew 1290 4:L 17:L 9:W 20:W 15:W 11:L
15. Richards, Graham 1287 5:L 9:W 8:L 6:L 14:L :W
16. Sturges, Tony (Thelston) 1188 6:L 11:L 17:L :W 20:W 10:L
17. Carter, Adam 1088 7:L 14:W 16:W 3:L 8:L 13:L
18. Hunn, Nick 651 8:L 13:L :W 12:L 21:W 20:L
19. Bretag, Marcus 9:W 12:L 10:W 4:W 13:W 2:D
20. Fitzallen, Ashton 10:L :W 12:L 14:L 16:L 18:W
21. Wood, Daniel :W 4:L 11:L 10:L 18:L 9:L

For some reason unknown to me the unofficial BCC page webmaster has reported this simply headlined as "Tony Dowden wins the Burnie Shines" when quite obviously the co-winners were Tony Dowden and Julian Steward, the 1992 state champion continuing his impressive recent return to tournament chess after a break of a mere 15 years.

Steward's win over Rout in the last round was very spectacular and at one stage Steward was a rook and bishop down on the board but with forcing lines that produced a position with QB+pawns vs RRB+pawns, only the rooks were disconnected. Steward almost forced a draw but was able to win after Rout had to give up his rook for bishop (not sure if this was forced the move before) and then Rout's own bishop was loose and quickly picked off.

Alastair Dyer's win over Nigel Frame was pretty incredible (even by the standards of the latter now and then rushing in won positions). Frame was exchange and three pawns up with about 35 minutes vs 3 and Dyer's counterplay while present seemed modest (apparently he should have been able to win the exchange back but no more). I left the room assuming Alastair was surely lost and when I came back he was no longer material down and had queen and rook lined up on Nigel's king in a mating net. Nigel still had the option of trying checks with his queen to either look for a perpetual or maybe force Alastair to dismantle the mating net and it was not obvious to me (or Alastair!) that there wasn't anything in that, but instead he resigned.

Another amazing game was Adam Carter vs Sturges in which a game that started as a Grob ended up with all the surviving white pieces lining up at the black queenside while black's attacked the white kingside. Apparently Tony missed a win; Adam won.

Marcus Bretag, playing his second rated adult tournament, was a star of the event, exploiting a rare positional error by Chadwick and drawing a hard-fought game with Bonham in the final round. Marcus's only loss was to Carey Kuzmic who met a strong field and deservedly won a ratings prize. (Marcus also had an escape of sorts against Kevin Hendrey who was in such extreme time trouble that he lost on time despite the 10-second increment in what Marcus reckons was a won position for Kevin.)

The post-mortem of the very messy draw Dyer-Bonham (with numerous contributions from Tony Dowden and the odd infallibly correct remark from Russell Horton!) was one of the most hilarious pieces of fun I have ever been involved in at a chess tournament; I wish we had recorded it for posterity!

Numbers were a bit down because of the interschool finals today but it was a friendly tournament played in excellent spirit with no incidents.

Will put some of my games up soon and hope to get some by others.

Adamski
27-10-2008, 11:19 PM
Congrats Tony and Kevin - better by both of you. Well done.

Kevin Bonham
27-10-2008, 11:29 PM
Ta, but still a rather nondescript result on my part although I very much enjoyed the event.

Tony Dowden
28-10-2008, 06:38 PM
Congrats Tony and Kevin - better by both of you. Well done.

Thanks Jonathan,

I was only able to implement one half of my cunning pre-tournament plan of (1) getting a few decent sleeps the week before and (2) doing 1000 hours of deep preparation ;) I was pleased to play some reasonable chess and remain unbeaten (of course not counting being decisively beaten in the Dyer-Bonham post-mortem). In part I have to thank Lawrence Bretag - a talented young player from St Helens on the East Coast - for giving me a tough game first up and reminding me it would not be all beer and skittles.

Congrats to Julian Steward making an amazing comeback to competitive chess after winning the 1992 Tasmanian Championship. :clap: :clap: (Maybe we will get to play each other some time soon?)

:hmm: Incidentally I hold the Tassie trophy (yes, it needs a polish) and I see that Adrian Flitney (still a strong player on the large dry landmass immediately to the north) won the event in 1981, 1982, 1983 (shared) and 1987. Michael Lucht 1989 (shared) is the only other player I know of prior to 2001 - when none other than Kevin Bonham won (then again in 2002) - who is still active. Are there any other ex-Tassie champions out there who are still active?

:hmm: Actually, I know Burnie stalwart Neville Ledger won once (1964 maybe?) and he's still an active player. Anyone else?

Kevin Bonham
28-10-2008, 10:22 PM
Are there any other ex-Tassie champions out there who are still active?

I have a post at http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=157922&postcount=6 which I update whenever news of the activity levels of former (or present!) Tas champions comes to hand.

Eleven are still active according to the ACF rating list: Ledger (1965), Cloudsdale (1972-3), Swift (1974, 78), Flitney (1981-3, 87), Lucht (89), Rothlisberger (91), Steward (92), Bonham (2001-2), Knight (2003, 07), Chadwick (2004) and Dowden (2006-8). Of these Cloudsdale, Swift, Flitney and Rothlisberger all play outside Tasmania.

Tony Dowden
29-10-2008, 07:25 AM
I have a post at http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=157922&postcount=6 which I update whenever news of the activity levels of former (or present!) Tas champions comes to hand.

Thanks for this KB - I should have guessed :)

Garvinator
29-10-2008, 09:01 AM
Thanks for this KB - I should have guessed :)
Tony, I think you will find that there is a thread on almost everything somewhere on here. Search is your friend :)

Kevin Bonham
29-10-2008, 07:35 PM
Additionally I see that Mike Stubbs is still active in correspondence.

Kevin Bonham
29-10-2008, 10:07 PM
Here's most of my games from this weekend (though they are not as interesting as some).

Bonham - C. Kuzmic

1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.f4 Bg7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 A bit quiet really. Bd3 is the main line. 6...Nbd7 [Here 6...c5 was thematic.] 7.e5 Ne8 8.Be3 [8.Bd3] 8...c6 9.0-0 Nb6 10.Qe1 d5 11.Qh4 Nc4 12.Bxc4 [12.Bc1!] 12...dxc4 13.Ng5 h6 14.Nge4 f5 15.Nd2 b5 [I was expecting 15...Be6 which is hardly wonderful for black anyway, but the move played weakens the long diagonal.] 16.Qg3! Kh7 17.Qf3 Qd7?! [17...Bd7 18.b3 cxb3 19.Nxb3 leaves white very strongly placed.] 18.Nxb5! cxb5? Black decides to throw the exchange for some play against white's queen but there is really not much there. [Against 18...Bb7 I intended 19.Nc3 c5 20.d5;
and against 18...Qb7 19.Na3] 19.Qxa8 Bb7 [19...Ba6 with a little play for the material] 20.Qxa7 c3!? 21.bxc3 Qc6 22.Nf3 Nc7 23.Qc5 Qe4 24.Qxc7 Qxe3+ 25.Kh1 Qe4 26.Qxe7 Rc8 27.Qh4 Qxc2 28.Qe1 Bf8 29.Qd2 Qe4 30.Qb2 Ba6 31.Qb3 Kg7 32.Qe6 Qc6 33.Qxc6 Rxc6 34.d5 Rxc3 35.Rfc1 Rc4 36.Rxc4 bxc4 37.d6 Kf7 38.Nd4 Bc8 39.Rc1 1-0

Steward - Bonham

1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 d5 3.Nf3 Bf5 4.e3 e6 5.Bd3 Bxd3 6.Qxd3 c6 7.Nbd2 Be7 8.Bf4 Nbd7 9.0-0 0-0 10.c4 c5 11.Rfd1 Nb6 12.Rac1 cxd4 13.exd4 dxc4 14.Nxc4 Nbd5 [14...Nxc4 15.Rxc4 Nd5=] 15.Bg3 Nh5 16.Qe4 Nxg3 17.hxg3 Rc8 18.a4 Bg5 19.Rc2 Bf6 20.b3 Nb4 21.Rcd2 Qd5 22.Qb1 Qh5 23.Nd6 Rb8 [The temporary pawn sacrifice 23...Rc6 is another option] 24.Ne4 Nd5 25.Rc1 Rfc8 26.Rdc2 Rxc2 27.Qxc2 h6 [27...Be7 holds everything together without the need for a structural weakness.] 28.Nxf6+ gxf6 29.Qc5 b6 30.Qd6 Rf8 31.Qd7 a5 32.Qc6 Qg6 33.Qc4 Qg4 34.Re1 Kh8 35.Qc2 Kg7 36.Re4 Qg6 37.Nh4 Qh7 [Here I missed 37...Rc8! eg 38.Qxc8 Qxe4 39.Qc4 Qe1+ 40.Qf1 Qb4 and black is clearly better] 38.Nf3 Kh8 39.Qe2?? An irritating pin on the rook and the onset of time trouble bring a close game to an unexpected end. [39.Nd2!] 39...Nc3 It is much to Julian's credit that he won his next four games after this blunder; I probably would have spent the rest of the tournament sulking. 0-1

Bonham - Rout

1.Nf3 c5 2.e4 d6 3.Bb5+ Bd7 4.Bxd7+ Qxd7 5.0-0 g6 6.c3 Nf6 7.Re1 Bg7 8.d4 0-0 9.Bg5 h6 10.Bf4 Qg4!? Nobody had ever tried this sort of thing against me in this line and I was very startled to see it. I burnt up something like 12 minutes here under the illusion that I was actually going to lose a pawn. I finally worked out this was actually not the case but I totally missed the best reply to the nasty surprise. 11.Bc1 [And here it is: 11.h3! and the queen must retreat since if 11...Qxf4 12.g3 traps the queen! 12...Qxe4 13.Rxe4 Nxe4 14.Qb3 the rook and bishop aren't really enough for the queen.] 11...Nc6 12.h3 Qh5 13.Nbd2 cxd4 14.cxd4 Rac8 15.a3 Nd7 16.Nb3 I didn't think much of my position here and was way behind on the clock so I was rather relieved to see 16...a5?! as at least it gave me a pawn to grab and try to hold onto 17.d5 Nce5 18.Nxe5 Qxd1 19.Rxd1 Bxe5? [19...Nxe5 is correct for reasons that will soon be apparent] 20.Nxa5 Nc5 21.Bxh6 Bxb2? Insufficiently calculated - black would be better off just staying a pawn down. 22.Bxf8 Bxa1 23.Bxe7 Be5 24.Nc4 Nxe4 25.Nxe5 dxe5 White is only one pawn up, but it just happens to be unstoppable 26.d6 Nc5 27.d7 1-0

Dyer - Bonham. Ihave forgotten all the fantastic lines from the post-mortem, some of them were utterly ridiculous.

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 I have had this position 66 times in rated games going back to 1987 and played the Winawer in every single one of them. But I'm a bit tired of opponents knowing I will always play it and hence preparing for me to do so, so I've decided to start mixing it up a bit: 3...Nf6!? 4.Bg5 dxe4 5.Nxe4 Be7 6.Bxf6 Bxf6 7.Nf3 Nd7 8.Bd3 This didn't even rate a mention in Watson. I assumed it was safe to attack the centre immediately since this is supposed to be the point of my previous move 8...c5 9.Qe2 [9.Nd6+ Ke7 10.Ne4 is really not worth the waste of time on white's part.] 9...Qe7?! [I think I rejected 9...Qb6 because of 10.dxc5 Nxc5 11.Nxf6+ gxf6 but really the pawn structure is not a major issue] 10.dxc5 Nxc5 11.0-0-0 Nxd3+?! 12.Qxd3 [12.Rxd3 concerned me more] 12...0-0 13.h4 [13.g4!?] 13...b6? [Fritz likes 13...e5! ; I'll get back to you when I've worked out exactly why!] 14.g4? [14.Nfg5 g6 15.Qa3! forcing 15...Re8 which allows white to threaten to gain tempo on d6 16.Qe3 etc certainly looks strong for white] 14...Bb7 15.Nfg5 Bxe4 16.Nxe4 Rfd8 17.Nxf6+ Qxf6 18.Qg3! Draw agreed. Perhaps black is actually a bit better here but I was mistrustful of white's 3-2 queenside majority. ˝-˝

Bonham - Dowden would probably only be of interest to the author of the Chicken Factor calculator.

M Bretag - Bonham

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.Nf3 Bd6 5.Nc3 c6 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Qd3 Bg4 8.Be2 Nbd7 9.Nd2 Bxe2 10.Nxe2 0-0 11.0-0 Qc7 12.Ng3 Rfe8 13.c4 dxc4?! [13...Ng4! with advantage since if 14.c5? Bxg3 15.hxg3 Rxe3 winning] 14.Nxc4 This knight becomes a serious nuisance. 14...Bf4 15.Bxf4 Qxf4 16.Rfe1 Ng4? 17.f3! Ngf6 [My original intention had been 17...Nxh2 but after the pretty obvious 18.Ne2 my knight is simply stuck on h2 and I will continually have pieces tied down defending it.] 18.Ne4!? [18.Nf5!?] 18...Re6 [18...Nxe4 19.Rxe4 Rxe4 20.Qxe4 Qxe4 21.fxe4 and I thought the white hanging pawns might be more a strength than a weakness.] 19.Nxf6+ Qxf6 20.d5 Rxe1+? [20...cxd5 21.Qxd5 Rd8 is OK.] 21.Rxe1 h6 22.dxc6 [22.d6! would be a nuisance for black to deal with] 22...Qxc6 23.Re7 Qc5+ 24.Qe3 Qxe3+ [24...Qxc4 25.Rxd7 Qxa2 26.Rxb7 Qb1+ 27.Kf2 Qc2+ draw] 25.Nxe3 Rd8 26.Kf2 Kf8 27.Re4 Nc5 28.Rc4 Nd3+ 29.Kg3 b5 30.Rc2 Nb4 31.Rc5 a6 32.a3 Nd3 33.Rc2 Re8 34.Ng4 f5 35.Nf2 f4+ 36.Kh3 Nxf2+ I hoped the good squares for my rook on the 6th rank would be useful here but while white's rook is not so active in the ending his king is a nuisance. [36...Ne1! 37.Rd2 Re5 38.Kg4 Nxg2 etc seems to leave black slightly better.] 37.Rxf2 Re3 38.Kg4 g5 39.h4 Re5 40.Rc2 a5 41.hxg5 hxg5 42.g3 fxg3 43.Kxg3 Kf7 44.f4 gxf4+ Draw Agreed. ˝-˝

Tony Dowden
30-10-2008, 04:38 PM
Bonham - Dowden would probably only be of interest to the author of the Chicken Factor calculator.


My excuse is that both the tournament and Grand Prix situations dictated that a draw with Black was just fine :D

Capablanca-Fan
30-10-2008, 06:13 PM
Steward - Bonham

1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 d5 3.Nf3 Bf5 4.e3 e6 5.Bd3 Bxd3 6.Qxd3 c6 7.Nbd2 Be7 8.Bf4 Nbd7 9.0-0 0-0 10.c4 c5 11.Rfd1 Nb6 12.Rac1 cxd4 13.exd4 dxc4 14.Nxc4 Nbd5 [14...Nxc4 15.Rxc4 Nd5= but it still seems the best way to play: exchanging Ns should be good for the side with the IQP. It's better than exchanging it for the bad B. Black could continue with ... Qa5 then ... Rac8, and White has fewer pieces with which to make trouble..] 15.Bg3 Nh5 16.Qe4 Nxg3 17.hxg3 Rc8 18.a4 Bg5 19.Rc2 Bf6 20.b3 Nb4 21.Rcd2 Qd5 22.Qb1 Qh5 23.Nd6 Rb8 [The temporary pawn sacrifice 23...Rc6 is another option] 24.Ne4 Nd5 25.Rc1 Rfc8 26.Rdc2 Rxc2 27.Qxc2 h6 [27...Be7 holds everything together without the need for a structural weakness.] 28.Nxf6+ gxf6 29.Qc5 b6 30.Qd6 Rf8 31.Qd7 a5 32.Qc6 Qg6 33.Qc4 Qg4 34.Re1 Kh8 35.Qc2 Kg7 36.Re4 Qg6 37.Nh4 Qh7 [Here I missed 37...Rc8! eg 38.Qxc8 Qxe4 39.Qc4 Qe1+ 40.Qf1 Qb4 and black is clearly better] 38.Nf3 Kh8 39.Qe2?? An irritating pin on the rook and the onset of time trouble bring a close game to an unexpected end. [39.Nd2!] 39...Nc3 It is much to Julian's credit that he won his next four games after this blunder; I probably would have spent the rest of the tournament sulking. 0-1

M Bretag - Bonham

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.Nf3 Bd6 5.Nc3 c6 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Qd3 Bg4 8.Be2 Nbd7 9.Nd2 Bxe2 10.Nxe2 0-0 11.0-0 Qc7 12.Ng3 Rfe8 13.c4 dxc4?! [13...Ng4! with advantage since if 14.c5? Bxg3 15.hxg3 Rxe3 winning] 14.Nxc4 [This knight becomes a serious nuisance. But need not have. 14... Bxg3 15. hxg3 Nd5 heads for the same favourable good N bad B game that suits the side playing against the IQP] 14...Bf4 15.Bxf4 Qxf4 16.Rfe1 Ng4? 17.f3! Ngf6 [My original intention had been 17...Nxh2 but after the pretty obvious 18.Ne2 my knight is simply stuck on h2 and I will continually have pieces tied down defending it.] 18.Ne4!? [18.Nf5!?] 18...Re6 [18...Nxe4 19.Rxe4 Rxe4 20.Qxe4 Qxe4 21.fxe4 and I thought the white hanging pawns might be more a strength than a weakness.] 19.Nxf6+ Qxf6 20.d5 Rxe1+? [20...cxd5 21.Qxd5 Rd8 is OK.] 21.Rxe1 h6 22.dxc6 [22.d6! would be a nuisance for black to deal with] 22...Qxc6 23.Re7 Qc5+ 24.Qe3 Qxe3+ [24...Qxc4 25.Rxd7 Qxa2 26.Rxb7 Qb1+ 27.Kf2 Qc2+ draw] 25.Nxe3 Rd8 26.Kf2 Kf8 27.Re4 Nc5 28.Rc4 Nd3+ 29.Kg3 b5 30.Rc2 Nb4 31.Rc5 a6 32.a3 Nd3 33.Rc2 Re8 34.Ng4 f5 35.Nf2 f4+ 36.Kh3 Nxf2+ I hoped the good squares for my rook on the 6th rank would be useful here but while white's rook is not so active in the ending his king is a nuisance. [36...Ne1! 37.Rd2 Re5 38.Kg4 Nxg2 etc seems to leave black slightly better.] 37.Rxf2 Re3 38.Kg4 g5 39.h4 Re5 40.Rc2 a5 41.hxg5 hxg5 42.g3 fxg3 43.Kxg3 Kf7 44.f4 gxf4+ Draw Agreed. ˝-˝

Capablanca-Fan
30-10-2008, 06:23 PM
My excuse is that both the tournament and Grand Prix situations dictated that a draw with Black was just fine :D
And with a half-point lead, and against your strongest opponent ...

Ian Rout
06-11-2008, 08:33 PM
Here is my last round game described by KB above.

[Event "Burnie Shines"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2008.10.26"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Steward, Julian"]
[Black "Rout, Ian"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A46"]
[WhiteElo "1597"]
[BlackElo "1881"]
[PlyCount "91"]
[EventDate "2008.11.06"]
[SourceDate "2008.11.06"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. Bg5 e6 3. e4 h6 4. Bxf6 Qxf6 5. Nf3 d6 6. Nc3 Nd7 7. Nb5 Qd8 8. c4
a6 9. Nc3 Be7 10. Bd3 O-O 11. Qe2 c5 12. dxc5 Nxc5 13. Bc2 Qc7 14. Rc1 Bf6 15.
Bb1 Rb8 16. O-O b6 17. Qc2 g6 18. h4 h5 19. Ng5 Nd7 20. f4 Qxc4 21. e5 dxe5 22.
fxe5 Qd4+ 23. Kh1 Qxh4+ 24. Nh3 Nxe5 25. Ne4 Bg7 26. Rf4 Qe7 27. Rcf1 Ng4 28.
Qe2 Bb7 29. Neg5 Bf6 30. Rxg4 hxg4 31. Qxg4 Kg7 32. Nxf7 Qxf7 33. Ng5 Rh8+ 34.
Kg1 Qe7 35. Nxe6+ Qxe6 36. Qxg6+ Kf8 37. Rxf6+ Qxf6 38. Qxf6+ Kg8 39. Qg6+ Kf8
40. Qf6+ Kg8 41. Bf5 Re8 42. Qg6+ Kf8 43. Be6 Rxe6 44. Qxe6 Rg8 45. Qd6+ Ke8
46. Qb8+ 1-0

The attack looks like it really shouldn't work and sure enough Fritz points out that the unobvious 32...Rxf7 is much better. Then 33.Qxg6 Kf8 escapes or 33.Bxg6 Rh8 and White has no useful discovered check.

One reason I missed this, apart from it being too hard for me, was that I had intended to answer 33.Ng5 with 33...Rh8+ 34.Kg1 Bd4+ 35.Qxd4 Rh1+ 36.Kxh1 Qxf1+ 37.Kh2 Qxg2 mate.

It was only after 33.Ng5 was played that I found two flaws in this. One is 37.Qg1 but this is minor as it's still mate with Rh8+ and Rxh3. More seriously, 35.Qxd4 is check. So I was a little flustered at that point.

Notwithstanding that, Black is still not dead, he evidently is still winning with 35...Kg8 which I possibly should have seen or the amazing 34...Rh2 which I think I can be forgiven for missing.

Black doesn't have to immediately give away the exchange (43...Rxe6), Ke7 is a better practical chance but White still eventually wins material with 44.Bf7 or 44.Qf7+.

A great game by Julian which kept the gallery entertained and gave him equal first in the event.

Tony Dowden
09-11-2008, 09:16 PM
Here is my last round game described by KB above.

A great game by Julian which kept the gallery entertained and gave him equal first in the event.

Hi Ian,

On the day I thought Black was winning easily (when kibitzing around move 26 or so), so I was surprised when I came back several moves later (it must have been move 38) to see White's monster queen sitting on f6 and Black's queen no where to be seen!

The amazing 32...Rxf7 move Fritz suggests is no doubt valid but maybe only if you also have silicon chips! I reckon that in these unbalanced positions computers aren't always that helpful because they just say one side is winning easily (due to all the extra material) - but of course over the board one has to work out a sensible plan.

I think you had other defensive resources involving doing something before White's attack gathers toomuch momentum. Looking at it again it seems to me that 28...e5! puts a spanner into white's attack and may be enough to turn back the attack without much trouble. It has the tactical idea of 29.Rf4 Bb7 (threatening ...f5) and the positional idea of unmasking the Bc8 so it controls the c8-h3 diagonal. Later on Black will try to play f7-f5 but will have to time it carefully so that a Ng5 won't hurt.

There are probably other plans too - most likely earlier on - that will cut across White's ideas.

Like you, though, I admired Julian's spirited attack. It was very nice the way he kept burning more and more material before finally getting his reward :clap: :clap:

Kevin Bonham
10-11-2008, 11:34 PM
There is something strange going on with the version of the Steward-Rout game that appears on the unofficial Burnie Chess Club website. The version that appears there differs from the one posted above by including an extra two queen checks. After moves 1-40 as in Ian's post (and thanks very much to Ian for posting the game) there comes:


41.Qg6+ Kf8 42.Qf6+ This is a draw by 3 fold repetition but perhaps neither player noticed it?

42...Kg8 43.Bf5 Re8 44.Qg6+ Kf8 45.Be6 Rxe6 46.Qxe6 Rg8 47.Qd6+ Ke8 48.Qb8+ 1-0

I was watching the game very closely towards the end and I am absolutely certain there was no draw and that the claimed 41st and 42nd moves of the unofficial BCC site version did not occur (as if a claimable repetition that blatant would be not seen by players of this strength anyway.) Indeed I clearly remember Julian repeating once then pausing for quite a lot of his remaining time, thinking about whether to repeat again and draw, but then seeing the win. Looks like Phil Donnelly has either inputted the game incorrectly or else obtained an incorrect version from somewhere.

Ian Rout
11-11-2008, 01:28 PM
I don't know the origin of the alternative version but I am fairly sure there was no repetition. I didn't see one and as I was recording moves as they happened, not catching up later, it's unlikely I would miss two moves.

I do recall noticing the repeat on move 40 and being surprised that White might be thinking of a draw. It seemed more likely that he was just gaining a bit of time but as I assessed Black's position as lost or at best no chance of winning I was certainly watching to claim a repetition if it happened.

As Tony said there may have been other defences, though Fritz was happy with most of my moves at least on a short examination; I was contemplating ...f5 somewhere between move 25 and 30 but I thought it best on general principles to leave the pawns as they were.

Kevin Bonham
12-11-2008, 09:04 PM
Thanks to Tony Dowden for sending me L. Bretag - Dowden. As this ...Qc7 system is one of my pets (albeit a somewhat erratic one with which I have had many nice wins but also a few too many spectacular losses!) I have thrown in a few quick comments. I think ...Qc7 can be a difficult system for opponents to grasp the ideas of quickly if they have not seen it before, that said black has to be prepared for all kinds of things as there are some messy attacking lines and inaccurate defence leads to revolting positions (see eg my games from the Tas Champs!)

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Qc7 7.Nf3 b6 8.Be2 [Tony notes that 8.a4 is the main line here; this often continues 8...Ba6 9.Bxa6 Nxa6 10.Qd3 (or 10.Qe2 ) 10...Nb8 11.0-0 and there are some lines where white tries sacrificing pawns.;
A move I have seen quite a lot of is 8.Bb5+!? with the idea of disrupting black's attempts to swap bishops after 8...Bd7 9.Bd3] 8...Ba6 9.0-0 Ne7 10.a4 Bxe2 11.Qxe2 As Tony noted after the game this is the main line with 10.Qe2 but with black to move not white, so black's queenside play gets going quickly. I have found in these lines that time is extremely important for white in particular. 11...Nd7 12.Ba3 Rc8 13.Rfc1 [13.Ra2!? with the idea Rb2 - TD] 13...0-0 14.Qb5 Nc6 15.Re1 Rfd8 16.Rab1 Na5 17.Nd2 Black was a little bit better anyway and able to maneuver without risk but now black picks up a pawn. 17...cxd4 18.Bd6 Qc6 [Nothing wrong with 18...Qxc3 here but getting queens off makes sense as these endgames with queens off are often excellent for black even without a pawn advantage.] 19.cxd4 Qxb5 20.axb5 Rxc2 21.Nf3 [21.Nb3 offers more hope as it challenges black's queenside supremacy - TD] 21...Rdc8 22.Kf1 Ra2 23.Rec1 Rcc2 24.Rxc2 Rxc2 25.Ne1 Ra2 26.Nd3 Nc4 27.Bb4 f6 28.Rc1 fxe5 29.dxe5 g5 Locking in white's e5 weakness without allowing counterplay - TD. 30.g3 g4 31.Nf4 Kf7 32.Kg1 Ndxe5 0-1