PDA

View Full Version : 2010 NZ Congress



Tony Dowden
01-01-2010, 10:11 AM
With one day to go here is the Championship field:

IM Paul Garbett 2302 (Auckland)
FM Bob Smith 2289 (Auckland)
FM Bruce Watson 2270 (Auckland)
FM-elect Mike Steadman 2263 (Auckland)
Ralph Hart 2244 (Auckland)
NM Leonard McLaren 2227 (Auckland)
Daniel Han 2200 (Auckland)
Leonard Steffenello 2184 (BRAZIL)
Gino Thornton 2167 (Auckland)
Brian Nijman 2165 (Wellington)
Matthew Barlow 2161 (Auckland)
Daniel Shen 2142 (Auckland)
Mario Krstev 2103 (Auckland)
Gavin Marner 2039 (Wellington)
Benji Lim 2075 (Auckland)
NM Peter Stuart 2041 (Auckland)
Neil Gunn 2040 (Auckland)
Antonio Krstev 2040 (Auckland)
Fuatai Fuatai 2022 (Auckland)
Ross Jackson 2008 (Wellington)
Hilton Bennett 2003 (Hamilton)
Peter Fraemohs 1981 (Christchurch)
wf Helen Milligan 1972 (Auckland)
Michael Nyberg 1955 (Wellington)
Justin Davis 1939 (Palmerston North)

This is a very ordinary line-up with few name players, only one visitor (of dubious strength) and over-representation by Aucklanders (at least the top Aucklanders have entered though).

There's no indication the event is weaker due to players defecting to the concurrent Australian Championship. Hopefully there will be some last minute entries from Congress stalwarts like IM Anthony Ker (Wellington) and NM Graeme Spain (Te Awamutu). And just maybe, other likely suspects such as IM Russell Dive (Wellington), FM Roger Nokes (Christchurch), FM Stephen Lukey (Christchurch), Mark van der Hoorn (Wellington) and Daniel Baider (Wellington) will enter tomorrow. Note that GM Murray Chandler (Auckland) is 'inactive' on the latest FIDE rating list, so perhaps he has retired for now.

Interestingly the title of NZ Women's Champion will go to the best female player in the Major. But the top rated (and by far the best performed) female player is Helen Milligan (wf) who is competing in the Championship field - go figure! In addition, Sue Maroroa (wi) is competing in the Australian Major.

Predictions?

The easy one first: Mike Steadman (99 not out) will get the single master point he needs for a National Master title.

And a much harder one: unless IM Ker or IM Dive enter late, Mike could take the title. He's a confidence player with the ability to win a lot of games. Mike is also a class player with some good form in 2009, so if he starts well he's a strong chance.

Another prediction: players rated under 2000 (like Justin Davis) will be out of their depth, so the NZCF could rethink the eligibility rules for Championship.

Capablanca-Fan
01-01-2010, 10:16 AM
Good points all.

It's absurd that a strong female player can be deprived of the women's title because she entered the Champs rather than the Reserve.

I think they made a mistake in abandoning the 12-player round robin that worked well for decades.

Adamski
01-01-2010, 10:32 AM
I agree with Tony too, though I think top-seed and friend IM Paul Garbett should be a good chance in that rather weak field. And Helen should challenge the rules on the Women's Champ title.

Tony Dowden
01-01-2010, 11:04 AM
Good points all.

It's absurd that a strong female player can be deprived of the women's title because she entered the Champs rather than the Reserve.

I think they made a mistake in abandoning the 12-player round robin that worked well for decades.

A 12 player field would make particularly good sense this year as the cut-off would come after Daniel Shen (who, as a strong up-and-coming junior, is probably worthy of entry).

Tony Dowden
01-01-2010, 11:05 AM
I agree with Tony too, though I think top-seed and friend IM Paul Garbett should be a good chance in that rather weak field. And Helen should challenge the rules on the Women's Champ title.

Yes, one can never write off Paul's chances but he's in his mid-fifties now ...

Capablanca-Fan
01-01-2010, 02:20 PM
Yes, one can never write off Paul's chances but he's in his mid-fifties now ...
Sarapu won his 20th title in his mid-sixties. Steadman is playing the best chess of his life in his late-forties. It's a fair point though; for a long time, a player's peak was meant to be mid thirties, and for the last decade or two it's a lot younger.

Tony Dowden
01-01-2010, 04:05 PM
Sarapu won his 20th title in his mid-sixties. Steadman is playing the best chess of his life in his late-forties. It's a fair point though; for a long time, a player's peak was meant to be mid thirties, and for the last decade or two it's a lot younger.

Yes, but ...

1. Sarapu was noticeably weaker by the time he won his 20th title. (He was probably close to or at GM strength in the 1960's - think of his play at the Sousse Interzonal)

2. Steadman has hardly played any chess for about 25 years. Other than in the last half dozen years the last time I remember him playing seriously was in an Upper Hutt Congress - um, 1979/1980?) when he sacced a rook for five pawns against one Jonathan Sarfati ...

3. The peak of professional players might be younger these days but there's no evidence this is so for amateurs. And the peak may be later for individuals who didn't get coaching as a junior - like myself.

Tony Dowden
01-01-2010, 04:26 PM
IM Anthony Ker 2321 (Wellington)
IM Paul Garbett 2302 (Auckland)
FM Bob Smith 2289 (Auckland)
FM Nic Croad 2271 (Wellington)
FM Bruce Watson 2270 (Auckland)
FM-elect Mike Steadman 2263 (Auckland)
Ralph Hart 2244 (Auckland)
NM Leonard McLaren 2227 (Auckland)
Daniel Han 2200 (Auckland)
Leonard Steffenello 2184 (BRAZIL)
Gino Thornton 2167 (Auckland)
Brian Nijman 2165 (Wellington)
Matthew Barlow 2161 (Auckland)
Daniel Shen 2142 (Auckland)
Mario Krstev 2103 (Auckland)
----------------------------
Benji Lim 2075 (Auckland)
NM Peter Stuart 2041 (Auckland)
Neil Gunn 2040 (Auckland)
Antonio Krstev 2040 (Auckland)
Gavin Marner 2039 (Wellington)
Fuatai Fuatai 2022 (Auckland)
Ross Jackson 2008 (Wellington)
Hilton Bennett 2003 (Hamilton)
Peter Fraemohs 1981 (Christchurch)
wf Helen Milligan 1972 (Auckland)
Michael Nyberg 1955 (Wellington)
Justin Davis 1939 (Palmerston North)

The field looks better now but I still think the tail is too long. As depicted by the dotted line a sensible cut-off might be FIDE 2100 or NZCF 2150. (The current rules are FIDE 2100 and NZCF 2000 but are clearly out-of-date because compared to FIDE ratings the NZCF ratings are inflated at the higher end)

I guess multiple National title holder IM Anthony Ker has to be favourite but I'll stick with Mike Steadman :)

Qbert
02-01-2010, 10:44 AM
The gaps at the top of the field are a bit surprising considering it is an Olympiad year. I can't find any live games either so far - hopefully that will get sorted out soon.

CivicChessMan
02-01-2010, 11:40 AM
Here's the ranking of the Championship players according to the NZCF rating list.

3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 21, 27, 30, 32, 38, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 56, 58, 61, 62, 63 and 66.

Only 1 from the top 5 but one can probably rule out Chandler and Wang leaving Dive and Nokes as absentees. 5 out of the top 10 with Wastney at 7 missing. 10 out of the top 20 isn't so bad, is it?

My favourites are Ker, Smith, Garbett, Steadman with Shen the outsider.

Tony Dowden
02-01-2010, 12:24 PM
Here's the ranking of the Championship players according to the NZCF rating list.

3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 21, 27, 30, 32, 38, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 56, 58, 61, 62, 63 and 66.

Only 1 from the top 5 but one can probably rule out Chandler and Wang leaving Dive and Nokes as absentees. 5 out of the top 10 with Wastney at 7 missing. 10 out of the top 20 isn't so bad, is it?


Yes ... when you put it like that I guess its not so weak. (And, I have to admit, it looked a lot better once Ker and Croad entered).

Living in Aussie its easy to forget that NZ chess isn't exactly strong! Maybe that sounds a bit harsh but if I was playing I'd be in the top half of the field :lol:

Tony Dowden
02-01-2010, 12:26 PM
The gaps at the top of the field are a bit surprising considering it is an Olympiad year. I can't find any live games either so far - hopefully that will get sorted out soon.

Hi Q,

Happy New Year! If you find a site with live games it would be good if you posted a link.

Cheers, Tony

Qbert
02-01-2010, 12:43 PM
Hi Q,

Happy New Year! If you find a site with live games it would be good if you posted a link.

Cheers, Tony
Hi Tony,
Happy New Year to you! I'm still looking for a link I'm afraid - Hamish is also keen to see the live games (he rang me a few minutes ago) - so I sent him the link to the Aussie chp to assuage his cravings for now.

tho' 10 of the top 20 are playing there is only one member of the last NZ Olympiad team. Playing in the chp is usually a sign of interest in the Olympiad, so we may see some new names in the team this year.

Tony Dowden
02-01-2010, 12:57 PM
Here's the ranking of the Championship players according to the NZCF rating list.

3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 21, 27, 30, 32, 38, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 56, 58, 61, 62, 63 and 66.

Only 1 from the top 5 but one can probably rule out Chandler and Wang leaving Dive and Nokes as absentees. 5 out of the top 10 with Wastney at 7 missing. 10 out of the top 20 isn't so bad, is it?

My favourites are Ker, Smith, Garbett, Steadman with Shen the outsider.

On second (or third?) thoughts, I think I exaggerated! Maybe seeing some of the same names for 20-30 years influenced me ...

Boy you have a lot of favourites! I agree with Ker, Steadman and Garbett. I don't rate Smith (despite his work ethic) and Shen is too raw (despite the 'halo' effect thanks to Puchen Wang and Bobby Cheng)

CivicChessMan
02-01-2010, 01:25 PM
Despite being ranked second, Bob Smith is perhaps a dark horse. I think he will want to prove that he is still worthy of Olympiad selection. With only 5 players in a team, it's tough competition. Chandler and Wang, if available, must be certainities. Smith has to go all out to capture the automatic place. Otherwise, the competition for the last 2 places could be too strong this time around.

lost
02-01-2010, 02:35 PM
With one day to go here is the Championship field:

IM Paul Garbett 2302 (Auckland)
FM Bob Smith 2289 (Auckland)
FM Bruce Watson 2270 (Auckland)
FM-elect Mike Steadman 2263 (Auckland)
Ralph Hart 2244 (Auckland)
NM Leonard McLaren 2227 (Auckland)
Daniel Han 2200 (Auckland)
Leonard Steffenello 2184 (BRAZIL)
Gino Thornton 2167 (Auckland)
Brian Nijman 2165 (Wellington)
Matthew Barlow 2161 (Auckland)
Daniel Shen 2142 (Auckland)
Mario Krstev 2103 (Auckland)
Gavin Marner 2039 (Wellington)
Benji Lim 2075 (Auckland)
NM Peter Stuart 2041 (Auckland)
Neil Gunn 2040 (Auckland)
Antonio Krstev 2040 (Auckland)
Fuatai Fuatai 2022 (Auckland)
Ross Jackson 2008 (Wellington)
Hilton Bennett 2003 (Hamilton)
Peter Fraemohs 1981 (Christchurch)
wf Helen Milligan 1972 (Auckland)
Michael Nyberg 1955 (Wellington)
Justin Davis 1939 (Palmerston North)

This is a very ordinary line-up with few name players, only one visitor (of dubious strength) and over-representation by Aucklanders (at least the top Aucklanders have entered though).

There's no indication the event is weaker due to players defecting to the concurrent Australian Championship. Hopefully there will be some last minute entries from Congress stalwarts like IM Anthony Ker (Wellington) and NM Graeme Spain (Te Awamutu). And just maybe, other likely suspects such as IM Russell Dive (Wellington), FM Roger Nokes (Christchurch), FM Stephen Lukey (Christchurch), Mark van der Hoorn (Wellington) and Daniel Baider (Wellington) will enter tomorrow. Note that GM Murray Chandler (Auckland) is 'inactive' on the latest FIDE rating list, so perhaps he has retired for now.

Interestingly the title of NZ Women's Champion will go to the best female player in the Major. But the top rated (and by far the best performed) female player is Helen Milligan (wf) who is competing in the Championship field - go figure! In addition, Sue Maroroa (wi) is competing in the Australian Major.

Predictions?

The easy one first: Mike Steadman (99 not out) will get the single master point he needs for a National Master title.

And a much harder one: unless IM Ker or IM Dive enter late, Mike could take the title. He's a confidence player with the ability to win a lot of games. Mike is also a class player with some good form in 2009, so if he starts well he's a strong chance.

Another prediction: players rated under 2000 (like Justin Davis) will be out of their depth, so the NZCF could rethink the eligibility rules for Championship.

Just a quick question to our friends from NZ: Can Sue Maroroa win the best women's player at all or can Helen Miligan win it as well, or simply, is it just the best woman player in the NZ Major?

lost

Tony Dowden
02-01-2010, 02:36 PM
Despite being ranked second, Bob Smith is perhaps a dark horse. I think he will want to prove that he is still worthy of Olympiad selection.
Yes, Bob always wants to prove himself! And he should be desperate to improve on his last olympiad (perf of about 1800 wasn't it?)

When I say I 'don't rate' Bob, I mean it in the narrow sense as a likely winner of the Silver Rook. No one would doubt his grittiness but I don't think he has quite the same class or talent as various other NZ players. For instance in the last half dozen or so games I've played against him - all in NZ Congresses - I've scored +2 with no losses (or even looked like losing) yet other players - notably Dive, Garbett and Ker - have given me a much tougher time.

flukey
02-01-2010, 03:15 PM
Hi all,

My main reason for not playing was simply not having enough leave due to my oldest boy now being 5 and thus off school for 6 weeks holiday.

But the format off the champs is also very poor, and i know it caused some frustration to the main organisor Mike Stedman. Since the NZCF rerated 3 or so years worth of games against juniors thus giving most players a 50-100 point bost, many more players are over 2000 and hence have no option but to play in the champs (as opposed to the reserve). This leads to a tourney with a ridiculous "tail". The main contenders will meet in rounds 3 to 6 and then it will be who clobbers the remainder best. Put simply there is not enough guaranteed games against 2250 plus opposition when compared to an event such as the George Trundle Masters were you get 9 out of 9 games against good players.

The champs should revert to 12 player round robin say 1 in every 2 years (an olympiad year maybe).

Any way, rant over, my prediction is that Ker, Croad, Steadman, and Garbett each have an equal chance in theory, but of course Ker usually wins in practice!

flukey

Capablanca-Fan
02-01-2010, 03:57 PM
My main reason for not playing was simply not having enough leave due to my oldest boy now being 5 and thus off school for 6 weeks holiday.
Fair enough.


The champs should revert to 12 player round robin say 1 in every 2 years (an olympiad year maybe).
Yeah, it was absurd to switch to the swiss in 85/86 in an olympiad year. Even some of the players who made it in opposed it, and it was back to round robins for some time after that.


Any way, rant over, my prediction is that Ker, Croad, Steadman, and Garbett each have an equal chance in theory, but of course Ker usually wins in practice!
Yeah, in theory, theory and practice should agree; in practice, they don't. Ker is more tenacious, and will not drop much against the lower players.

Tony Dowden
02-01-2010, 04:04 PM
See Auckland Chess Centre pages ... http://www.aucklandchesscentre.co.nz/news/2010/01/2010-congress-round-1-results

Interesting that FM Chris Depasquale (originally from South Australia) is playing in the Championship.

Also notable that a couple of the girls has upset wins in the Major

Tony Dowden
02-01-2010, 04:07 PM
Just a quick question to our friends from NZ: Can Sue Maroroa win the best women's player at all or can Helen Milligan win it as well, or simply, is it just the best woman player in the NZ Major?

lost

Only the best women (actually they are all schoolgirls) from the Major ...

Capablanca-Fan
02-01-2010, 04:08 PM
Yes, Bob always wants to prove himself! And he should be desperate to improve on his last olympiad (perf of about 1800 wasn't it?)

When I say I 'don't rate' Bob, I mean as a likely winner of the Silver Rook. No one would doubt his grittiness but I don't think he has quite the same class or talent as various other NZ players. For instance in the last half dozen or so games I've played against him - all in NZ Congresses - I've scored +2 with no losses (or even looked like losing) yet other players - notably Dive, Garbett and Ker - have given me a much tougher time.
I tend to agree, although Smith tied in 1995/96. FWIW, in NZ Champs, I had +2-1=? against Smith, +4-1=2(?) v Garbett, +4-1=? v Dive, +2-3=? against Ker, and =2 against TonyD ;)

Tony Dowden
02-01-2010, 04:11 PM
My main reason for not playing was simply not having enough leave due to my oldest boy now being 5 and thus off school for 6 weeks holiday.

You have my full sympathy (my kids are 13 and 11) - now you know why I only play in Congress every so often ...



But the format off the champs is also very poor, and i know it caused some frustration to the main organiser Mike Steadman. Since the NZCF rerated 3 or so years worth of games against juniors thus giving most players a 50-100 point bost, many more players are over 2000 and hence have no option but to play in the champs (as opposed to the reserve). This leads to a tourney with a ridiculous "tail". The main contenders will meet in rounds 3 to 6 and then it will be who clobbers the remainder best. Put simply there is not enough guaranteed games against 2250 plus opposition when compared to an event such as the George Trundle Masters were you get 9 out of 9 games against good players.

The champs should revert to 12 player round robin say 1 in every 2 years (an olympiad year maybe).



I absolutely agree Stephen. It looks like it was a significant oversight by NZCF not to align the rerating exercise with appropriate rule changes. (I wonder how many other strong/established players agree?)

Tony Dowden
02-01-2010, 06:18 PM
Another prediction: players rated under 2000 (like Justin Davis) will be out of their depth, so the NZCF could rethink the eligibility rules for Championship.

OK, so Davis beat McLaren in Rd1! He's still got 10 more games to play before I'm convinced he's up to Championship standard.

Qbert
02-01-2010, 06:52 PM
OK, so Davis beat McLaren in Rd1! He's still got 10 more games to play before I'm convinced he's up to Championship standard.
I think Davis might do ok for the bottom ranked player - he played some tough opponents in the 2008 SI chp (draw vs IM Toth) and acquitted himself pretty well. Two players I thought might do well before the event, Croad and Shen both seem to have faltered at the 1st hurdle. In these swisses Ker has shown the key to winning in the past: massacre the tail in the early rounds - get a tiny lead - draw with the most dangerous opposition and be first to start diving back down the field for opponents in the last few rounds having played all the contenders. An early draw/loss makes it much harder.
from http://www.aucklandchesscentre.co.nz/news/2010/01/2010-congress-round-1-results

Results from Round 1 on Saturday the 2nd of January.

Championship

1 Anthony Ker 1:0 Brian Nijman
2 Matthew Barlow : Robert Smith
3 Paul Garbett 1:0 Hilton Bennett
4 Gavin Marner 0:1 Michael Steadman
5 Nicholas Croad : Benjamin Lim
6 Neil Gunn 0:1 Bruce Watson
7 Ralph Hart : Peter Stuart
8 Antonio Krstev 0:1 Chris Depasquale
9 Leonard McLaren 0:1 Justin Davis
10 Michael Nyberg 1:0 Daniel Shen
11 Gino Thornton 1:0 Peter Fraemohs
12 Fuatai Fuatai 0:1 Daniel Han
13 Leonard Steffenello 1:0 Helen Milligan
14 Ross Jackson 1:0 BYE
15 Mario Krstev :0 BYE

Major Open

1 Karl Holdo 0:1 Andrea Rivas Villanueva
2 Ian McNally 1:0 Neil Cruden
3 Robert Mitchell 1:0 Edward Tanoi
4 William Forster 1:0 Sharon Wu
5 Shirley Wu 1:0 Henry Vital
6 Philip Hair : Philip Mukkattu
7 Simon Lyall 0:1 Eachen Chen
8 Alan Ansell 0:1 Nicole Tsoi
9 William (Xiang Wei) Li 0:1 Richard Taylor
10 Wayne Power 1:0 Brian Liu
11 Thomas Chen 1:0 David Evans
12 Don Eade 1:0 Winston Yao-Jen Yao
13 Mana Garland 1:0 Arthur Casilang
14 Roy Seabrook 0:1 Luke Li
15 Jiapeng Li 0:1 Hans Gao
16 Andrew Michael -:+ George Chen
17 Sean Tang : Don Stracy
18 Anthony Booth 1:0 Cathy Fan
19 John Ansell 0:1 James Cater
20 Brett Rider 1:0 Lynton Rudkins
21 William Zhang 0:1 John Pakenham
22 Nigel Cooper 1:0 Andrew Geng Li
23 David Rong 0:1 Johan Vosloo
24 Hugh MacLeod 1:0 Olivia Dong

Adamski
02-01-2010, 07:22 PM
The gaps at the top of the field are a bit surprising considering it is an Olympiad year. I can't find any live games either so far - hopefully that will get sorted out soon.Hi Quentin. Are you in Auckland for the NZ champs? And yes, happy new year!

CivicChessMan
02-01-2010, 07:45 PM
I think it is refreshing to see some new blood in the Championship mix. The following ten players are making their debut (excluded the Queenstown Classics): Marner, Lim, Davis, Nyberg, Shen, Fraemohs, Han, Milligan, Jackson and Mario Krstev. Other than the Queenstown Classics, this is the highest number of players in the Championship for years. I expect there will be a few more upsets along the way.

Chris Depasquale won the Championship in 2001 with 8.5 ahead of the likes of Wastney, Garbett, Dive and Ker.

Championship upsets in round 1 are McLaren 0-1 Davis, Nyberg 1-0 Shen while surprises are Barlow 1/2 Smith and Croad 1/2 Lim.

Major Open upsets are Mitchell 1-0 Tanoi, Wu 1-0 Vital, Ansell 0-1 Tsoi, Chen 1-0 Evans and Seabrook 0-1 Li. Alan Ansell is expected to do well so hopefully this is just a hiccough in round 1.

Capablanca-Fan
02-01-2010, 07:46 PM
OK, so Davis beat McLaren in Rd1! He's still got 10 more games to play before I'm convinced he's up to Championship standard.
And if he doesn't play so well, this could be an example of what I see as a problem in Swisses; a relatively freaky result could distort the standings.

Tony Dowden
02-01-2010, 08:23 PM
I think it is refreshing to see some new blood in the Championship mix. The following ten players are making their debut (excluded the Queenstown Classics): Marner, Lim, Davis, Nyberg, Shen, Fraemohs, Han, Milligan, Jackson and Mario Krstev. Other than the Queenstown Classics, this is the highest number of players in the Championship for years.

:hmm: Sorry I don't think its 'refreshing' to have lots of comparatively weak players in the Championship field.

With reference to earlier postings by flukey, Jono and myself: a high number of entries in the 2010 Championship is hardly surprising - because compared to the recent past the current eligibility policy has an approximate benchmark of what used to be NZCF 1900. That is, the new NZCF rating of 2000 is more or less the old NZCF 1900.

Apart from Daniel Shen, a promising junior who won the NZ Major in 2008, the only worthy debutants are Daniel Han and Mario Krstev who are both over FIDE 2100 and have a recent pedigree as very strong juniors. With all due respect the rest are no more than 1800-1900ish journeymen (plus one woman) all of whom would be worthy aspirants for the Major title.

Tony Dowden
02-01-2010, 08:36 PM
I think Davis might do ok for the bottom ranked player - he played some tough opponents in the 2008 SI chp (draw vs IM Toth) and acquitted himself pretty well.
Toth is really strong so I have to say I'm very impressed that Davis has improved so much! I played him in a 'friendly' training game when visiting Palmerston North about three years ago but back then he didn't seem to be any stronger than about 1800.


In these swisses Ker has shown the key to winning in the past: massacre the tail in the early rounds - get a tiny lead - draw with the most dangerous opposition and be first to start diving back down the field for opponents in the last few rounds having played all the contenders. An early draw/loss makes it much harder.

You are essentially saying the same thing and Jono and flukey: when there's an appreciable range of strength in the field these Championship Swisses do indeed become a bit of a lottery ...

... Maybe not ideal when automatic Olympiad selection is at stake. After all, that's how I managed to get to two Olympiads!! :lol:

Garvinator
02-01-2010, 09:56 PM
Hi Q,

Happy New Year! If you find a site with live games it would be good if you posted a link.

Cheers, Tony
It is practically a written rule of tournaments with live games coverage that this coverage is not supplied on the first day ;)

gambitcrazy
03-01-2010, 10:17 AM
Board one is now live at:

http://www.aucklandchesscentre.co.nz/wp-content/livescores/tfd.htm

Game started a couple of minutes ago. More boards might go live tomorrow if we can get past all the technical problems they are causing!

Desmond
03-01-2010, 10:27 AM
Board one is now live at:

http://www.aucklandchesscentre.co.nz/wp-content/livescores/tfd.htm

Game started a couple of minutes ago. More boards might go live tomorrow if we can get past all the technical problems they are causing!
thanks for the link

Tony Dowden
03-01-2010, 12:04 PM
Board one is now live at:

http://www.aucklandchesscentre.co.nz/wp-content/livescores/tfd.htm

Game started a couple of minutes ago. More boards might go live tomorrow if we can get past all the technical problems they are causing!

Thanks :)

Ker looks very comfortable as Black after only a dozen moves - and a huge extra pawn to boot

UP-DATE: Ker won easily against Han. His pawn push d5-d4! was an attractive breakthrough.

Tony Dowden
03-01-2010, 03:45 PM
OK, so Davis beat McLaren in Rd1! He's still got 10 more games to play before I'm convinced he's up to Championship standard.
Justin Davis beat IM Paul Garbett in Rd 2!! :clap: :clap: :clap:

He's still got 9 games to play ... but pass me the humble pie just in case ;)

Capablanca-Fan
03-01-2010, 04:38 PM
Thanks :)

Ker looks very comfortable as Black after only a dozen moves - and a huge extra pawn to boot

UP-DATE: Ker won easily against Han. His pawn push d5-d4! was an attractive breakthrough.
Agreed. Anywhere with PGNs?

Oepty
03-01-2010, 04:45 PM
Justin Davis beat IM Paul Garbett in Rd 2!! :clap: :clap: :clap:

He's still got 9 games to play ... but pass me the humble pie just in case ;)

How old is Davis?
Scott

Qbert
03-01-2010, 05:23 PM
How old is Davis?
Scott
Hard to say precisely, as he doesn't look after himself healthwise - at least mid 30s upwards is my guess i.e a mature player. I hope that is not hideously unflattering if he ends up reading this.

Qbert
03-01-2010, 05:26 PM
Justin Davis beat IM Paul Garbett in Rd 2!! :clap: :clap: :clap:

He's still got 9 games to play ... but pass me the humble pie just in case ;)
At least I feel somewhat vindicated in my vote of confidence. I think Justin has been putting in a lot more work on his game in the past few years.

Oepty
03-01-2010, 05:29 PM
Hard to say precisely, as he doesn't look after himself healthwise - at least mid 30s upwards is my guess i.e a mature player. I hope that is not hideously unflattering if he ends up reading this.

Okay not someone you would expect to be improving greatly, like some one in the early 20s or younger.
Scott

Qbert
03-01-2010, 05:30 PM
Hi Quentin. Are you in Auckland for the NZ champs? And yes, happy new year!
Hi Jonathan. No - just watching from home while wallpapering the lounge :wall: - back to work on Tuesday I'm afraid.

Good effort on the Aus champs by the way.:clap:

Qbert
03-01-2010, 05:32 PM
Smith is another Rd2 casualty - looks like Ker and Steadman are already the leading contenders.

Results from Round 2 on Sunday the 3rd of January.

Championship

1 Daniel Han 0:1 Anthony Ker
2 Justin Davis 1:0 Paul Garbett
3 Michael Steadman 1:0 Gino Thornton
4 Bruce Watson : Leonard Steffenello
5 Chris Depasquale 1:0 Ross Jackson
6 Robert Smith 0:1 Michael Nyberg
7 Mario Krstev 0:1 Nicholas Croad
8 Benjamin Lim 0:1 Ralph Hart
9 Peter Stuart : Matthew Barlow
10 Peter Fraemohs 0:1 Leonard McLaren
11 Daniel Shen : Neil Gunn
12 Brian Nijman 0:1 Antonio Krstev
13 Hilton Bennett 1:0 Fuatai Fuatai
14 Helen Milligan 1:0 Gavin Marner

Major Open

1 Andrea Rivas Villanueva 1:0 Nigel Cooper
2 John Pakenham 0:1 Ian McNally
3 Johan Vosloo 1:0 William Forster
4 Eachen Chen 1:0 Hugh MacLeod
5 Richard Taylor 0:1 Robert Mitchell
6 Shirley Wu : Wayne Power
7 Nicole Tsoi 0:1 Don Eade
8 Hans Gao 1:0 Thomas Chen
9 Luke Li 0:1 Anthony Booth
10 James Cater 1:0 Mana Garland
11 George Chen 1:0 Brett Rider
12 Don Stracy : Philip Hair
13 Philip Mukkattu 1:0 Sean Tang
14 Edward Tanoi 1:0 William (Xiang Wei) Li
15 Henry Vital 1:0 Brian Liu
16 Winston Yao-Jen Yao 0:1 Alan Ansell
17 David Evans 1:0 Jiapeng Li
18 Arthur Casilang 1:0 John Ansell
19 Cathy Fan 0:1 Roy Seabrook
20 Lynton Rudkins 0:1 Andrew Michael
21 Andrew Geng Li : Karl Holdo
22 Neil Cruden 1:0 William Zhang
23 Sharon Wu 1:0 David Rong
24 Olivia Dong 0:1 Simon Lyall

Tony Dowden
03-01-2010, 05:34 PM
Hard to say precisely, as he doesn't look after himself healthwise - at least mid 30s upwards is my guess i.e a mature player. I hope that is not hideously unflattering if he ends up reading this.

I don't know either. I'd guess mid 30s (say within 33-37) but I've only met him once or twice and haven't seen him for a few years.

Whatever his age beating two seasoned Championship players in a row is very impressive. It's also very unusual for a mature-age player from a regional area who also wasn't once a strong junior to then become so competitive at the top level (off hand I can't think of a single other example)

But as I posted earlier, he has nine more games to play ...

Tony Dowden
03-01-2010, 05:43 PM
Smith is another Rd2 casualty - looks like Ker and Steadman are already the leading contenders.



Yes, the favourites group is being whittled down in size. Basically its Steadman and Ker.

Oh, and Davis :lol:

[ UP-DATE: And Nyberg :lol: ]

Then again, I suppose Croad should be in the mix. He's on 1.5 and has plenty of class - just a question in my mind on how well he handles pressure. And, to keep hedgebetting, Watson can't be ignored either :)

Smith is on 0.5 so it will be a huge ask for him to bounce back - yet many have written him off at their peril ...

CivicChessMan
03-01-2010, 05:57 PM
Save room for a second helping of that pie, Tony. Michael Nyberg knocked off Bob Smith. Otherwise, results were pretty much as expected.

Standings: Ker, Steadman, Depasquale, Davis and Nyberg on 2 points.

In the Major Open, Vosloo 1-0 Forster and Taylor 0-1 Mitchell were the round 2 upsets.

Standings: Villaneuva, McNally, E Chen and 7 others on 2 points.

Tony Dowden
03-01-2010, 08:12 PM
Save room for a second helping of that pie, Tony.

Thanks CCM (hmm, Alan? Mark?) ...

... It looks like I'll be putting on weight then :eek:

CivicChessMan
03-01-2010, 11:15 PM
I don't think Mark ever played at Civic. I would not have expected Nyberg to beat Smith given Nyberg's recent results. Now he faces Staedman in round 3.
Ker vs Despasquale looks to be the match of the round. The other giantkiller, Davis has Croad.

Qbert
04-01-2010, 03:34 PM
Event: 117th NZ Chp
Site: Auckland
Date: 2010.01.04
Round: 3
White: Ker, A
Black: Depasquale, C
Result: 1-0

1. e4 c5 2. c3 d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. d4 g6 5. Nf3 Bg7 6. Na3 cxd4 7. Bc4 Qe4+
8. Be3 Nh6 9. Nb5 O-O 10. Bd3 Qe6 11. cxd4 Na6 12. O-O Nf5 13. Bg5 Bf6 14.
Re1 Qb6 15. Bxf6 Qxf6 16. Qd2 Rd8 17. Rac1 Be6 18. a3 Bd5 19. Qf4 Nd6 20.
Qxf6 exf6 21. Nxd6 Rxd6 22. Be4 Rad8 23. Bxd5 Rxd5 24. Re7 R5d7 25. Rxd7
Rxd7 26. Rc8+ Kg7 27. Kf1 Nc7 28. Ke2 h5 29. Nd2 Ne6 30. Nb3 Nf4+ 31. Kf3
Nd3 32. Nc5 Nxc5 33. dxc5 Rd3+ 34. Ke4 Rb3 35. Rb8 f5+ 36. Kd4 Rxb2 37. c6
Rd2+ 38. Kc3 Rd6 39. cxb7 Rb6 40. a4 a5 41. Kc4
1-0

Ker beats Depasquale on bd 1 - still on target

Qbert
04-01-2010, 03:59 PM
Round 3 results: Croad finally ended Davis' run. Ker & Steadman tied for the lead and playing each other tomorrow.
Results from Round 3 on Monday the 4th of January.

Championship

1 Anthony Ker 1:0 Chris Depasquale
2 Michael Nyberg 0:1 Michael Steadman
3 Nicholas Croad 1:0 Justin Davis
4 Ralph Hart 1:0 Bruce Watson
5 Leonard Steffenello 0:1 Paul Garbett
6 Leonard McLaren 1:0 Hilton Bennett
7 Gino Thornton 1:0 Peter Stuart
8 Ross Jackson 1:0 Daniel Han
9 Matthew Barlow 0:1 Helen Milligan
10 Antonio Krstev 1:0 Daniel Shen
11 Benjamin Lim 0:1 Robert Smith
12 Neil Gunn : Mario Krstev
13 Fuatai Fuatai 1:0 Brian Nijman
14 Gavin Marner : Peter Fraemohs

Major Open

1 Anthony Booth 1:0 Andrea Rivas Villanueva
2 Ian McNally : James Cater
3 Johan Vosloo : Eachen Chen
4 Don Eade 1:0 George Chen
5 Robert Mitchell 0:1 Hans Gao
6 Wayne Power 0:1 Philip Mukkattu
7 Edward Tanoi 0:1 Shirley Wu
8 William Forster 1:0 John Pakenham
9 Nigel Cooper 0:1 Henry Vital
10 Philip Hair 1:0 Neil Cruden
11 Alan Ansell 1:0 Sharon Wu
12 Hugh MacLeod 0:1 Richard Taylor
13 Simon Lyall 1:0 David Evans
14 Thomas Chen 0:1 Arthur Casilang
15 Roy Seabrook 0:1 Nicole Tsoi
16 Andrew Michael 1:0 Luke Li
17 Mana Garland 0:1 Don Stracy
18 Sean Tang 1:0 Andrew Geng Li
19 Karl Holdo 1:0 William (Xiang Wei) Li
20 Brian Liu 1:0 John Ansell
21 William Zhang : Winston Yao-Jen Yao
22 Jiapeng Li 0:1 Lynton Rudkins
23 David Rong 1:0 Cathy Fan
24 Olivia Dong 1:0 BYE
25 Brett Rider 0:0 BYE

Adamski
04-01-2010, 04:40 PM
I don't think Mark ever played at Civic. I would not have expected Nyberg to beat Smith given Nyberg's recent results. Now he faces Staedman in round 3.
Ker vs Despasquale looks to be the match of the round. The other giantkiller, Davis has Croad.Is this Alan Aldridge? Hi from Jonathan and thanks for your updates.

Just noticed this is my 2000th post here.

Also, pleased to see Ross Jackson had a win. I have known him since our Otago University Chess Club days. Don't ask either of us how long ago that was!

CivicChessMan
04-01-2010, 04:58 PM
Championship leaderboard after 3 rounds

Ker, Steadman 3
Croad, Hart 2.5
9 players on 2

Major Open leaderboad

Eade, H Gao, Booth 3
McNally, Eachen Chen, Cater, Vosloo, Shirley Wu, Mukkattu 2.5
13 players on 2

CivicChessMan
04-01-2010, 05:15 PM
Hi Jonathan, long time no see. Apart from here of course. No, I'm not Alan Aldridge :). I did play at Civic though. Good to see the Wellingtonians doing ok. Shame that Russell Dive didn't make it. He scored 8.5/9 in the 2009 Wellington A grade only conceding a draw to Gavin Marner.

Championship round 4 highlights:
Steadman vs Ker, Hart vs Croad plus a whole heap of 2 point wannabees trying to make up ground on the leaders.

Major Open highlights:
H Gao vs Eade, Eachen Chen vs Booth, Mukkattu vs McNally and Cater vs Shirley Wu.

CivicChessMan
05-01-2010, 03:49 PM
Anthony Ker defeated Mike Steadman and is now outright leader on 4 points. He will play clubmate Nic Croad in round 5 after Croad beat Ralph Hart.

Leaderboard: Ker 4, Croad 3.5, Steadman, Depasquale, Thornton, A Krstev 3

Garbett and McLaren lost in upsets to A Krstev and Han respectively so are now two points behind Ker.

CivicChessMan
05-01-2010, 04:07 PM
The Major Open is lead by a junior and a senior, Hans Gao (15th seed) and Tony Booth (18th). They beat Eade and Eachen Chen respectively and will meet in round 5.

Leaderboard: Gao, Booth 4; Vosloo, Shirley Wu 3.5, McNally, Forster, Ansell, Eade, Mukkattu 3.

Wu vs Vosloo, McNally vs Ansell, Forster vs Mukkattu occupy boards 2, 3 and 4.

Tony Dowden
05-01-2010, 09:26 PM
Anthony Ker defeated Mike Steadman and is now outright leader on 4 points. He will play clubmate Nic Croad in round 5 after Croad beat Ralph Hart. .

I thought Steadman pushed much too hard for a win against Ker - his pieces were never going to get enough activity to justify an exchange sac (esp. considering his passive bishop). Ker pulled in the point very nicely from around move 35 onwards.



Leaderboard: Ker 4, Croad 3.5, Steadman, Depasquale, Thornton, A Krstev 3

Garbett and McLaren lost in upsets to A Krstev and Han respectively so are now two points behind Ker.

Sadly I suspect Paul Garbett is out of the reckoning now - he has a poor record in events where things go badly early on (I vividly remember a Championship in the mid 1970s where he had something like 3/4 and ended up with 3.5/11). On the other hand Bob Smith relishes a challenge so with +1 now I'm guess he'll manage to visit Board 1 at least once.

Oh, there's less chance I'll be eating too much humble pie - now that Davis and Nyberg have lost their last couple of games ;)

Kevin Bonham
05-01-2010, 09:28 PM
I thought Steadman pushed much too hard for a win against Ker - his pieces were never going to get enough activity to justify his exchange sac (esp. considering his spectator).

If I remember from what we were discussing in the shoutbox he was going a pawn down if he didn't sac the exchange there so it was getting all a bit desperate anyway.

Capablanca-Fan
06-01-2010, 01:24 AM
I thought Steadman pushed much too hard for a win against Ker his pieces were never going to get enough activity to justify an exchange sac (esp. considering his passive bishop). Ker pulled in the point very nicely from around move 35 onwards.
It seemed that Steadman made the early running, but maybe his space advantage was a bit loose.


Sadly I suspect Paul Garbett is out of the reckoning now -
Probably so.


he has a poor record in events where things go badly early on (I vividly remember a Championship in the mid 1970s where he had something like 3/4 and ended up with 3.5/11).
Your recollection is correct; he collapsed after Sarapu demolished him with a sharp but unsound Alekhine gambit (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1305914). But the "Garbett has a glass jaw" is a myth based on that one glaring example. About 10 years later, I beat him quickly in an early round (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1450684), yet he still won the championship in good style.


Oh, there's less chance I'll be eating too much humble pie now that Davis and Nyberg have lost their last couple of games ;)
My theory looks good too: that outsiders distort the tournament results, since anyone can lose an occasional game to someone he'd normally beat.

CivicChessMan
06-01-2010, 04:40 AM
Only 4 rounds so early days yet. Anyway, this is the top 12 ranking-wise: 1, 5, 4, 8, 11, 12, 21, 7, 6, 2, 23, 22. Of the three outside the top 12, it's quite possible that Davis and Nyberg will disappear from this list after round 5. I'd expect Garbett to bounce back and beat Nyberg while Barlow vs Davis is anyone's guess.

Tony Dowden
06-01-2010, 07:19 PM
I think Wellington are out-pointing Auckland at this stage :cool:

Adamski
06-01-2010, 08:50 PM
I think Wellington are out-pointing Auckland at this stage :cool:As an ex-Wellingtonian, who played at both Wellington and Civic clubs, I also think that is cool!

Qbert
07-01-2010, 06:07 AM
Oh, there's less chance I'll be eating too much humble pie - now that Davis and Nyberg have lost their last couple of games ;)
I 'm pleased to see that Davis has earned another half point to stay on 50% after 5 rounds - not exactly a contender but more than a tail-ender. On the other hand Antonio Krstev on 4/5 is another argument that ratings don't always match performance.:)

Adamski
07-01-2010, 07:52 AM
Anyone know what the problem was with the live board yesterday? It still showed the previous round Ker - Steadman game. Hope the organisers and arbiters can get it working.

Capablanca-Fan
07-01-2010, 08:50 AM
I think Wellington are out-pointing Auckland at this stage :cool:
Hardly surprising these days, and they haven't even got Dive and Lukey.

Qbert
07-01-2010, 10:25 AM
Lukey is Chch-based these days - one of the few to migrate in the other direction

CivicChessMan
07-01-2010, 10:58 AM
Anthony Ker and Nic Croad played out a 55-move draw in round 5 and so Ker retains his half-point lead over Croad. Also on 4 points are Antonio Krstev who upset Mike Steadman and Gino Thornton who beat Chris Depasquale. Two players are on 3.5, Bruce Watson who beat Bob Smith and Ralph Hart who beat Daniel Han. Six rounds to go and Ker is already looking good for the championship. He would need to go badly astray to lose this one.

Junior beat senior as Hans Gao overcame Tony Booth in the Major Open to take the outright lead on 5 points. Shirley Wu is alone on 4.5 after her win over Johan Vosloo. Gao and Wu meet in round 6. Bill Forster joins Booth on 4 points with another 7 players on 3.5.

CivicChessMan
07-01-2010, 11:13 AM
Top 12 ranking: 1, 21, 5, 11, 7, 6, 4, 8, 12, 3, 22, 13.

Kevin Bonham
07-01-2010, 11:39 AM
Also on 4 points are Antonio Krstev who upset Mike Steadman and Gino Thornton who beat Chris Depasquale.

Nice going Gino! Gino is a member here, rarely posts but sometimes pops up in the shoutbox.

Capablanca-Fan
07-01-2010, 12:55 PM
Lukey is Chch-based these days - one of the few to migrate in the other direction
But he was from there originally, so this means he has returned to his roots. Much like me and Tony D.

CivicChessMan
07-01-2010, 04:55 PM
Anthony Ker defeated Gino Thornton to maintain his half-point advantage over Nic Croad. Bruce Watson beat Paul Garbett and is in clear third place, one point behind Ker. Strangely, Ker does not play Watson in the next round, instead he will play Antonio Krstev who has 4 points. Croad meets Watson. I would have expected Ker vs Watson and Croad vs Steadman. Surely, out of contention now are Garbett (3), and Bob Smith (3) who drew with Helen Milligan.

Leaderboard: Ker 5.5, Croad 5, Watson 4.5, Steadman, A Krstev, Thornton and Han 4.

Rankings of top 12: 1, 5, 6, 4, 21, 11, 12, 7, 13, 10, 8, 3.

Kevin Bonham
07-01-2010, 05:09 PM
I would have expected Ker vs Watson and Croad vs Steadman.

What is the pairing program being used?

Swiss Perfect does this kind of "double downfloat" thing now and then, in my view almost always wrongly. Perhaps there is an explanation in this case but I am suspicious of such examples.

CivicChessMan
07-01-2010, 05:14 PM
Hans Gao has a one point lead over Bill Forster after their respective wins in round 6. They will meet in round 7. Four players are tied for third place, 1.5 points behind Gao. They include promising junior Alan Ansell who is still trying to make up ground after his first round loss.

Leaderboard: Gao 6, Forster 5, Shirley Wu, Vital, Taylor and Ansell 4.5.

CivicChessMan
07-01-2010, 05:21 PM
What is the pairing program being used?

Swiss Perfect does this kind of "double downfloat" thing now and then, in my view almost always wrongly. Perhaps there is an explanation in this case but I am suspicious of such examples.

NZCF use Swiss Perfect. The pairings just don't make sense and I'm surprised that it hasn't been changed. I'm sure Ker is happy to avoid the challenge of Watson in this round. The pairings definitely give an advantage to Ker. Ideally, Ker will want to win his game and hope Croad and Watson draw, giving him a one point cushion.

flukey
07-01-2010, 06:21 PM
Having just played through some of the games, it seems that the there have been a few "knife-edge" moments where things could have gone either way:

1. In Steadman-Ker white's opening is a little too commital for my taste but it seems he was doing fine. On move 26 he can play f5! Black can either win an exchange with 26 ... Nd3, allowing 27 f6 with a highly promising (probably just winning attack), or try to stop f6 with 26 ... f6 but then white can play 27 fg followed by the queen coming to g4. Either way white looks to be winning and other moves just allow the f6 bind for free.

2. Krstev-Steadman was just Mike not putting away a winning position clinically enough and then allowing a freak move Qc6 that overturned everything.

3. Ker-Croad was a game of two halves ... it seems Anthony could have played Nd7 on a couple of occassions depriving black of the two bishops and having move active rooks. Nic then took the initiative with the very cunning 37 ... Bb5! leaving the g7 pawn to its fate. But if white goes 38 Ng7, black would be too fast with 38 ... Bd4! 39 Bd4 Kd4 followed by Kd3, Kc2, Kb2, and Ka3. An amazing idea! To his credit Ker didn't take the bait and held on well for the draw.

Other interesting moments were Garbett-Krstev which if you played through without knowing who was which colour you would put any amount of money that Garbett was black.

Ralph Hart has played some mighty impressive attacking games in the last couple of years. But interspersed with these are some horrible missfires and Hart-Croad was a good example of this.

I think Ker should have the tourney in the bag as Croad has the uneviable prospect of black v Watson while he is white v Krstev. But strange things could still happen as in the last couple of rounds Ker could face Garbett and Smith while Croad might avoid them as Garbett and Smith have so many of the top players still to play.

flukey
07-01-2010, 06:38 PM
Having just scanned some other games, I notice Davis-Garbett was just a one move blunder by Paul ruining a good position. Justin had played pretty passively not attempting too much but this is just the sort of time you can let your guard down (I do it all the time!).

Smith-Nyberg featured a pretty optimistic bishop sacrifice by Bob but Michael's defence was pretty impressive with a sweet series of moves leading to an excellent mating attack at the end. A game to be proud of.

Bill Gletsos
07-01-2010, 06:44 PM
NZCF use Swiss Perfect. The pairings just don't make sense and I'm surprised that it hasn't been changed. I'm sure Ker is happy to avoid the challenge of Watson in this round. The pairings definitely give an advantage to Ker. Ideally, Ker will want to win his game and hope Croad and Watson draw, giving him a one point cushion.Watson v Croad is the correct pairing as is Ker v is Krstev.
As such there is no valid reason for the arbiter to change it.

CivicChessMan
07-01-2010, 08:02 PM
Watson v Croad is the correct pairing as is Ker v is Krstev.
As such there is no valid reason for the arbiter to change it.

Not doubting that these are the pairings that Swiss Perfect has calculated. Just seems strange that Ker isn't playing Watson. Before Swiss Perfect became the pairing software, NZCF used its own Swiss pairing rules. They would have given the following pairings. Ker v Watson, Croad v Steadman, Krstev v Han, Thornton v Hart and Steffenello v Shen. More logical IMHO. Can someone explain why Swiss Perfect generated what it did?

Bill Gletsos
07-01-2010, 08:32 PM
Not doubting that these are the pairings that Swiss Perfect has calculated.That wasnt my point.
I was pointing out they are the correct pairings according to the FIDE swiss pairing rules as shown here (http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook?id=83&view=article).

Just seems strange that Ker isn't playing Watson.Not at all.

Before Swiss Perfect became the pairing software, NZCF used its own Swiss pairing rules. They would have given the following pairings. Ker v Watson, Croad v Steadman, Krstev v Han, Thornton v Hart and Steffenello v Shen. More logical IMHO. Can someone explain why Swiss Perfect generated what it did?Because it followed the FIDE swiss pairing rules.

To explain it without showing all the maths calculations for w,b,q,x,p is as follows:

Ker is in a score group all by himself so he drops to the next score group.
The score group of Ker and Croad cannot be paired as they have already played.
Therefore they both drop to the next score group.

This creates a score group of 3 players comprising of Ker, Croad and Watson. The maths gives a requirement of creating one pairing if possible from these 3 players.
Watson & Croad can be legally paired.
Ker therefore drops to the next score group and ends up paired with Krstev.

It is that simple.

Tony Dowden
07-01-2010, 08:32 PM
Having just played through some of the games, it seems that the there have been a few "knife-edge" moments where things could have gone either way:

1. In Steadman-Ker white's opening is a little too commital for my taste but it seems he was doing fine. On move 26 he can play f5! Black can either win an exchange with 26 ... Nd3, allowing 27 f6 with a highly promising (probably just winning attack), or try to stop f6 with 26 ... f6 but then white can play 27 fg followed by the queen coming to g4. Either way white looks to be winning and other moves just allow the f6 bind for free.

2. Krstev-Steadman was just Mike not putting away a winning position clinically enough and then allowing a freak move Qc6 that overturned everything.

3. Ker-Croad was a game of two halves ... it seems Anthony could have played Nd7 on a couple of occassions depriving black of the two bishops and having move active rooks. Nic then took the initiative with the very cunning 37 ... Bb5! leaving the g7 pawn to its fate. But if white goes 38 Ng7, black would be too fast with 38 ... Bd4! 39 Bd4 Kd4 followed by Kd3, Kc2, Kb2, and Ka3. An amazing idea! To his credit Ker didn't take the bait and held on well for the draw.

Other interesting moments were Garbett-Krstev which if you played through without knowing who was which colour you would put any amount of money that Garbett was black.

Ralph Hart has played some mighty impressive attacking games in the last couple of years. But interspersed with these are some horrible missfires and Hart-Croad was a good example of this.

I think Ker should have the tourney in the bag as Croad has the uneviable prospect of black v Watson while he is white v Krstev. But strange things could still happen as in the last couple of rounds Ker could face Garbett and Smith while Croad might avoid them as Garbett and Smith have so many of the top players still to play.

Thanks for the commentary. 26.f5! in Steadman-Ker is impressive. It is extremely logical but perhaps hard to play when 26...Nd3 forking the rooks is staring at you.

And I laughed about Garbett-Krstev because I was thinking exactly the same. Maybe Paul didn't envisage a pawn coming to f5 and then it somehow all turned to a nightmare - especially that horrible bad bishop ending.

flukey
07-01-2010, 08:47 PM
Yes the ending of Garbett's was suffering you wouldn't wish on anyone.

Gino's win against Despasquale was interesting ... incredible meltdown, can only imagine time trouble was the villian.

Kevin Bonham
07-01-2010, 09:09 PM
That wasnt my point.
I was pointing out they are the correct pairings according to the FIDE swiss pairing rules as shown here (http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook?id=83&view=article).

I don't think it's actually possible to be sure what the unambiguously correct pairings are in this instance because Section B is so badly written and the relationship of Section B to Section C is not explicitly established, although in my view Section B should be read as overriding Section C.

In my view the pairing given, while doubtless the one generated by number-crunching through section C, violates the spirit of B3 as viewed through the principle of top-down pairing. Why downfloat a leader 1.5 points instead of 1 to save the player who is second from downfloating 1 point instead of 0.5 points? After all, in the merged scoregroup (Ker, Croad, Watson) it is possible to legally pair Ker vs Watson and drop Croad, so I don't care what section C says, I would do that rather than downfloat a leader who is already in a scoregroup with two lower scoring players.

I tend to override pairings like this when the computer comes up with them. It's not such a big deal for one to crop up several rounds from the end but I've had a tournament trashed by this sort of thing giving a leader a gimme point in the final round.

Capablanca-Fan
07-01-2010, 09:16 PM
[Event "NZ Championship 2010"]
[Site "Auckland"]
[Date "2010.01.03"]
[Round "2.6"]
[White "Smith, Robert"]
[Black "Nyberg, Michael"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C10"]
[WhiteElo "2368"]
[BlackElo "2033"]
[PlyCount "92"]
[EventDate "2010.01.02"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[SourceDate "2010.01.03"]

{Nyberg was a junior at the Wellington Chess Club when I was there in the Dark Ages. This is a good scalp.} 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Be7 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Bd3 c5 6. exd5 exd5 7. dxc5 Bxc5 8. O-O O-O 9. Bg5 Be6 10. Qd2 Nc6 11. a3 a6 12. Qf4 Be7 13. Rfe1 Re8 14. Rad1 h6 15. Bxh6 gxh6 16. Qxh6 Bf8 17. Qh4 Bg7 18. Ng5 Bg4 19. Rxe8+ Qxe8 20. f3 Qe3+ 21. Kf1 Be6 22. Re1 Qd4 23. Qg3 Nh5 24. Qc7 Nd8 25. Qe7 Nf6 26. Nxe6 fxe6 27. Bg6 Qc4+ 28. Kg1 Qc6 29. Qb4 Rc8 30. Qh4 Qc4 31. Qh3 Qd4+ 32. Kf1 Qc4+ 33. Kg1 Qc6 34. g4 Qb6+ 35. Kh1 Nf7 36. Bxf7+ Kxf7 37. g5 Rh8 38. Qg3 Nh5 39. g6+ Kg8 40. Qb8+ Bf8 41. Qe8 Qc7 42. Qxe6+ Kg7 43. Nxd5 Ng3+ 44. Kg1 Bc5+ 45. Kg2 Rxh2+ 46. Kxh2 Nf1+ {White resigns} 0-1

[Event "NZ Championship 2010"]
[Site "Auckland"]
[Date "2010.01.07"]
[Round "6.5"]
[White "Depasquale, Chris"]
[Black "Han, Daniel"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C39"]
[WhiteElo "2274"]
[BlackElo "2200"]
[PlyCount "62"]
[EventDate "2010.01.02"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[SourceDate "2010.01.03"]

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. h4 g4 5. Ng5 {the Allgaier Gambit is unsound; Black should play 5... h6 right away} 5... d5 6. d4 h6 7. Nxf7 Kxf7 8. Bxf4 Nf6 9. e5 Nh5 10. Bd3 Kg7 11. g3 Be7 12. O-O Be6 13. Nc3 Nc6 14. Be2 Qd7 15.Kh2 Raf8 16. Be3 Rxf1 17. Qxf1 Nb4 18. Qd1 c5 19. dxc5 d4 20. Bxd4 Nxc2 21.Qxc2 Qxd4 22. Qe4 Qf2+ 23. Qg2 Bxc5 24. Qxf2 Bxf2 25. Ne4 Bd4 26. Rc1 Rc8 27.Rxc8 Bxc8 28. Nd6 Be6 29. Ne8+ Kf8 30. Nc7 Bf5 31. e6 Be5 {White resigns} 0-1


[Event "NZ Championship 2010"]
[Site "Auckland"]
[Date "2010.01.07"]
[Round "6.3"]
[White "Garbett, Paul"]
[Black "Watson, Bruce"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B12"]
[WhiteElo "2350"]
[BlackElo "2297"]
[PlyCount "56"]
[EventDate "2010.01.02"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[SourceDate "2010.01.03"]

{White shouldn't have collapsed}1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. dxc5 Nc6 5. Nf3 Bg4 6. Nbd2 e6 7. h3 Bxf3 8. Nxf3 Bxc5 9. Bd3 Nge7 10. O-O Ng6 11. Qe2 O-O 12. c3 f6 13. b4 Bb6 14. exf6 Qxf6 15. Bg5 Nf4 16. Bxf4 Qxf4 17. Qxe6+ Kh8 18. Qxd5 Qh6 19. Rae1 Rad8 20. Qe4 Rf4 21. Qe2 Rdf8 22. b5 Nd8 23. Be4 Ne6 24. Bxb7 R4f6 25. Bc6 Nf4 26. Qe7 Nxh3+ 27. gxh3 Qxh3 28. Qxf6 gxf6 {White resigns} 0-1

[Event "NZ Championship 2010"]
[Site "Auckland"]
[Date "2010.01.06"]
[Round "5.3"]
[White "Thornton, Gino"]
[Black "Depasquale, Chris"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A50"]
[WhiteElo "2214"]
[BlackElo "2274"]
[PlyCount "69"]
[EventDate "2010.01.02"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[SourceDate "2010.01.03"]

{A good scalp by Gino, also the best Bejewelled player I know, although aided by his opponent's collapse} 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 Nc6 3. Nc3 e5 4. d5 Ne7 5. g3 Ng6 6. Bg2 Bc5 7. Rb1 d6 8. Qc2 O-O 9. e3 a5 10. Nge2 Bd7 11. O-O Qc8 12. Na4 Ba7 13. Nec3 Bh3 14. Qe2 e4 15. Nxe4 Nxe4 16. Bxe4 Bxf1 17. Qxf1 Qg4 18. Bg2 b5 19. Nc3 Qxc4 20. Nxb5 Qxa2 21. Bd2 Bb6 22. f4 Qb3 23. Nc3 Rfe8 24. Qd3 Nf8 25. Bf3 Nd7 26. Bd1 Qb4 27. Bc2 Nf6 28. Ra1 Qxb2 29. Ra2 Qb4 30. Ra4 Qc5 31. Rd4 c6 32. g4 cxd5 33. g5 Re4 34. gxf6 gxf6 35. Rxd5 {Black resigns} 1-0

[Event "NZ Championship 2010"]
[Site "Auckland"]
[Date "2010.01.06"]
[Round "5.2"]
[White "Krstev, Antonio"]
[Black "Steadman, Michael"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "E20"]
[WhiteElo "2057"]
[BlackElo "2337"]
[PlyCount "71"]
[EventDate "2010.01.02"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[SourceDate "2010.01.03"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. f3 d5 5. a3 Be7 6. e4 dxe4 7. fxe4 e5 8. d5 Bc5 9. Bg5 a5 10. Nf3 h6 11. Bh4 Qe7 12. Bd3 O-O 13. Na4 Ba7 14. c5 Bd7 15. b4 Bxa4 16. Qxa4 Nbd7 17. Bxf6 Nxf6 18. Qd1 b6 19. Qc2 axb4 20. axb4 bxc5 21. b5 c4 22. Qxc4 Ng4 23. Qc3 f5 24. Qc4 Kh8 25. Ke2 Ne3 26. Qc3 Nxg2 27. Nxe5 Qg5 28. exf5 Nf4+ 29. Kd1 Nxd5 30. Qc6 Ne3+ 31. Ke2 Qh5+ 32. Kd2 Nxf5 33. Ng6+ Kg8 34. Qd5+ Kh7 35. Nxf8+ Rxf8 36. Rxa7 {Black resigns} 1-0

[Event "NZ Championship 2010"]
[Site "Auckland"]
[Date "2010.01.05"]
[Round "4.3"]
[White "Garbett, Paul"]
[Black "Krstev, Antonio"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "D05"]
[WhiteElo "2350"]
[BlackElo "2057"]
[PlyCount "114"]
[EventDate "2010.01.02"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[SourceDate "2010.01.03"]

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. d4 d5 3. e3 e6 4. Bd3 c5 5. b3 cxd4 6. exd4 Nc6 7. O-O Bd6 8. Bb2 O-O 9. Nbd2 Nb4 10. Be2 Ne4 11. a3 Nc6 12. Bd3 f5 13. c4 b6 14. Rc1 Ne7 15. cxd5 Nxd2 16. Qxd2 Nxd5 17. g3 Bb7 18. Qe2 Qf6 19. Ba6 Bxa6 20. Qxa6 f4 21. Qd3 h5 22. Rce1 Rae8 23. Qe4 Qf5 24. Qxf5 Rxf5 25. Kg2 g5 26. Ne5 Bxe5 27. Rxe5 f3+ 28. Kg1 Rxe5 29. dxe5 Rc8 30. Rc1 Rxc1+ 31. Bxc1 g4 32. Kf1 Kf7 33. Ke1 Kg6 34. Kd2 Kf5 35. Kd3 Kxe5 36. Bh6 Ne7 37. Bf4+ Kd5 38. a4 e5 39. Bg5 e4+ 40. Kd2 Nf5 41. Bf4 a6 42. Bc7 Kc5 43. Bd8 Kb4 44. Bxb6 Kxb3 45. a5 Kc4 46. Ba7 Kd5 47. Bb6 Nd6 48. Bd8 Nc4+ 49. Ke1 Kd4 50. Bf6+ Kd3 51. Bd8 e3 52. fxe3 Nxe3 53. Bb6 Nc4 54. Kf2 Kc3 55. h3 Kb4 56. hxg4 hxg4 57. Ke1 Nxa5 0-1

[Event "NZ Championship 2010"]
[Site "Auckland"]
[Date "2010.01.06"]
[Round "5.1"]
[White "Ker, Anthony"]
[Black "Croad, Nicholas"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "B22"]
[WhiteElo "2423"]
[BlackElo "2332"]
[PlyCount "110"]
[EventDate "2010.01.02"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[SourceDate "2010.01.03"]

1. e4 c5 2. c3 Nf6 3. e5 Nd5 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nf3 Nc6 6. cxd4 d6 7. Bc4 Nb6 8. Bb3 dxe5 9. d5 Na5 10. Nc3 Nxb3 11. Qxb3 e6 12. Nxe5 a6 13. O-O Bd6 14. Bf4 O-O 15. Rad1 exd5 16. Nxd5 Nxd5 17. Qxd5 Bc7 18. Qc5 Bb6 19. Qb4 Qf6 20. Bg3 a5 21. Qb5 a4 22. Nf3 Qc6 23. Qxc6 bxc6 24. Ne5 Ba6 25. Rfe1 Ba5 26. Re4 Rfd8 27. Rxd8+ Rxd8 28. h3 Bb5 29. Nf3 Bb6 30. Be5 Re8 31. Re1 f6 32. Bc3 Rxe1+ 33. Nxe1 Bc4 34. a3 Kf7 35. Nc2 Ke6 36. Nd4+ Kd5 37. Nf5 Bb5 38. g4 g6 39. Ne3+ Ke6 40. Kg2 f5 41. gxf5+ gxf5 42. Kf3 Bd3 43. Kf4 h6 44. Kg3 Bc7+ 45. f4 Bb6 46. Kf3 Kf7 47. Be5 Kg6 48. Nd1 Kh5 49. Bf6 Bc2 50. Nc3 Kg6 51. Be5 Kf7 52. Ke2 Bb3 53. Kd3 Ba5 54. Ne2 Bb6 55. Nd4 Bxd4 {Draw agreed} 1/2-1/2

[Event "NZ Championship 2010"]
[Site "Auckland"]
[Date "2010.01.05"]
[Round "4.1"]
[White "Steadman, Michael"]
[Black "Ker, Anthony"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B07"]
[WhiteElo "2337"]
[BlackElo "2423"]
[PlyCount "122"]
[EventDate "2010.01.02"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[SourceDate "2010.01.03"]

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Be3 c6 5. h3 Nbd7 6. a4 b6 7. f4 Bg7 8. g4 Bb7 9. Bg2 Qc7 10. Nge2 a6 {Wh: 1h17m; Bl: 0h59m} 11. Ng3 h6 12. Nce2 e5 13. c3 c5 14. O-O O-O 15. Qd2 cxd4 16. cxd4 exd4 17. Bxd4 Rae8 18. Rac1 Qb8 19. Nc3 Nc5 20. Qd1 a5 {Wh: 31m; Bl: 25m} 21. Re1 Rd8 22. h4 Ba6 23. g5 hxg5 24. hxg5 Nfd7 25. Bxg7 Kxg7 26. Qd4+ f6 27. gxf6+ Nxf6 28. Rcd1 Ne6 29. Qd2 Qc8 30. f5 Qc5+ 31. Qe3 Ng4 32. Qxc5 Nxc5 33. Nd5 Nd3 34. Rxd3 Bxd3 35. Nf4 Bc4 36. Bf1 Bb3 37. Nxg6 Rg8 38. Bh3 Ne5 39. Re3 Bxa4 40. Ne7 Rh8 41. Ne2 Kf7 42. Nd5 Rdg8+ 43. Kf2 Bc6 44. Ndf4 b5 45. Nd4 Bd7 46. Rc3 Rc8 47. Rg3 Rhg8 48. Ra3 a4 49. Bf1 b4 50. Rh3 Rh8 51. Rg3 Rh2+ 52. Bg2 Rg8 53. Rxg8 Kxg8 54. Nd5 b3 55. Kg3 Rh8 56. Bf1 Kf7 57. Nb6 Rb8 58. Nc4 Rb4 59. Nxd6+ Ke7 60. N4b5 Bxb5 61. Nxb5 Rxb5 {White resigns} 0-1

flukey
07-01-2010, 09:27 PM
Actually, after mentioning Hart's genius / lunatic modes it is only fair to point out the very nice game Hart - Watson. 26 f5! is an extremely attractive move by Ralph (a diagram would be good but I have failed at the FEN thing before ...) Though a pawn down with queens off Ralph showed his passed pawns were the more relevant factor. It seems like Watson went crazy with 37 ... Ne6 but the plausible alternative 37 ... Ng6 lost to the thematic blow 38 d6!.

Bill Gletsos
07-01-2010, 09:58 PM
I don't think it's actually possible to be sure what the unambiguously correct pairings are in this instance because Section B is so badly written and the relationship of Section B to Section C is not explicitly established, although in my view Section B should be read as overriding Section C.

In my view the pairing given, while doubtless the one generated by number-crunching through section C, violates the spirit of B3 as viewed through the principle of top-down pairing. Why downfloat a leader 1.5 points instead of 1 to save the player who is second from downfloating 1 point instead of 0.5 points? After all, in the merged scoregroup (Ker, Croad, Watson) it is possible to legally pair Ker vs Watson and drop Croad, so I don't care what section C says, I would do that rather than downfloat a leader who is already in a scoregroup with two lower scoring players.

I tend to override pairings like this when the computer comes up with them. It's not such a big deal for one to crop up several rounds from the end but I've had a tournament trashed by this sort of thing giving a leader a gimme point in the final round.Actually A6 is the culprit.
When Ker & Croad downfloat to the next group they both end up in S1 with Watson in S2. So p=2 according to A6 with x = 0. Of course 2 pairings can never be made with 3 players, so eventually you hit C14 which reduces p to 1 and you can make a valid pairing of 1 player from S1 and 1 player from S2 that is a valid colour match (note Ker - Watson is not a colour matchas they both have a white colour preference). that happens to be Croad & Watson.

CivicChessMan
07-01-2010, 10:26 PM
Smith-Nyberg featured a pretty optimistic bishop sacrifice by Bob but Michael's defence was pretty impressive with a sweet series of moves leading to an excellent mating attack at the end. A game to be proud of.

Rybka came up with the following:

30 Qh4 Black can play Qb6+ and grab both a and b pawns.

36 Bxf7+ Better is f4 Ne4 Nxe4 dxe4 Bxe4 Bxb2 g5 Kg7

45 Kg2 loses quickly whereas Re3 gives white some chances.

Kevin Bonham
08-01-2010, 12:40 AM
Actually A6 is the culprit.
When Ker & Croad downfloat to the next group they both end up in S1 with Watson in S2. So p=2 according to A6 with x = 0. Of course 2 pairings can never be made with 3 players, so eventually you hit C14 which reduces p to 1 and you can make a valid pairing of 1 player from S1 and 1 player from S2 that is a valid colour match (note Ker - Watson is not a colour matchas they both have a white colour preference). that happens to be Croad & Watson.

Unless I'm missing something here the colour preference issue comes from B4. If not for B4 then when you got to C6 after being restarted at C4 from C14, you would pair Ker (top of S1) and Watson (top of S2) and downfloat Croad irrespective of colour preference issues since p (now =1) pairings are obtained in compliance with B1 and B2. But because of B4 it is permitted to make an exchange in S1 for a better colour match.

However B3 overrides B4 so the question is how B3 is applied to this situation. If you apply it to the merged scoregroup in isolation then B3 says to pair Croad and Watson (if possible) and downfloat Ker even before you consider the colour differences. I find it difficult to believe it is meant to be applied in isolation specifically because of this kind of perverse outcome where the leader is guaranteed an even larger score difference and might end up downfloating any number of score groups so that the player in second gets a closer game.

Capablanca-Fan
08-01-2010, 12:45 AM
Actually, after mentioning Hart's genius / lunatic modes it is only fair to point out the very nice game Hart - Watson. 26 f5! is an extremely attractive move by Ralph (a diagram would be good but I have failed at the FEN thing before ...) Though a pawn down with queens off Ralph showed his passed pawns were the more relevant factor. It seems like Watson went crazy with 37 ... Ne6 but the plausible alternative 37 ... Ng6 lost to the thematic blow 38 d6!.

[Event "NZ Championship 2010"]
[Site "Auckland"]
[Date "2010.01.04"]
[Round "3.4"]
[White "Hart, Ralph"]
[Black "Watson, Bruce"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B19"]
[WhiteElo "2276"]
[BlackElo "2297"]
[PlyCount "95"]
[EventDate "2010.01.02"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[SourceDate "2010.01.03"]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5 5. Ng3 Bg6 6. Nf3 Nd7 7. h4 h6 8. h5 Bh7 9. Bd3 Bxd3 10. Qxd3 e6 11. Bf4 Qa5+ 12. Bd2 Qc7 13. O-O-O Ngf6 14. Ne4 O-O-O 15. Kb1 Nxe4 16. Qxe4 Bd6 17. Qe2 Rhe8 18. g3 Kb8 19. Rh4 f6 20. Re4 Nf8 21. Bc1 Qf7 22. Nd2 Bc7 23. f4 Rd5 24. c4 Rxh5 25. Nf3 Qg6 26. f5 Qxg3 27. fxe6 f5 28. Re3 f4 29. Re4 Rh3 30. Rd3 g5 31. Ne5 Qh2 32. Qxh2 Rxh2 33. d5 Bxe5 34. Rxe5 Kc8 35. b3 c5 36. a4 a5 37. Rf5 Nxe6 38. dxe6 Rxe6 39. Rxc5+ Kb8 40. Rd8+ Ka7 41. Rxa5+ Kb6 42. b4 Kc7 43. Rad5 Re1 44. a5 Rhh1 45. b5 Rxc1+ 46. Kb2 Rb1+ 47. Ka3 Rxb5 48. R8d7+ {Black resigns} 1-0

Bill Gletsos
08-01-2010, 12:54 AM
Unless I'm missing something here the colour preference issue comes from B4. If not for B4 then when you got to C6 after being restarted at C4 from C14, you would pair Ker (top of S1) and Watson (top of S2) and downfloat Croad irrespective of colour preference issues since p (now =1) pairings are obtained in compliance with B1 and B2. But because of B4 it is permitted to make an exchange in S1 for a better colour match.As has been noted on here previously numerous times, C6 as written is rubbish as you do not stop there without trying to meet B3-B6. Reuben's highlighted this when he changed the numbers in the 2nd edition of his handbook.

However B3 overrides B4 so the question is how B3 is applied to this situation. If you apply it to the merged scoregroup in isolation then B3 says to pair Croad and Watson (if possible) and downfloat Ker even before you consider the colour differences. I find it difficult to believe it is meant to be applied in isolation specifically because of this kind of perverse outcome where the leader is guaranteed an even larger score difference and might end up downfloating any number of score groups so that the player in second gets a closer game.It has nothing to do with B4.
It is the x = 0 that is the killer.
That means the pairing must be a colour match if at all possible.
The only colour match is Watson - Croad.

Kevin Bonham
08-01-2010, 01:01 AM
As has been noted on here previously numerous times, C6 as written is rubbish as you do not stop there without trying to meet B3-B6.

Agreed.


It has nothing to do with B4.
It is the x = 0 that is the killer.
That means the pairing must be a coloir match if at all possible.
The only colour match is Watson - Croad.

OK, fair enough and thanks for the explanations.

In that case the rules are fundamentally silly and should be changed.

CivicChessMan
08-01-2010, 02:24 AM
Agreed.



OK, fair enough and thanks for the explanations.

In that case the rules are fundamentally silly and should be changed.

And ignored when they create silly pairings as in round 7!

Qbert
08-01-2010, 08:59 AM
Gino looked to be winning for a long time against Ker in R6 and rightly declined the draw offer, but then he dithered too much and let Anthony activate his rooks.
[Event "NZ Championship"]
[Site "Auckland"]
[Date "2010.01.07"]
[Round "6.1"]
[White "Thornton, Gino"]
[Black "Ker, Anthony"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B07"]
[WhiteElo "2214"]
[BlackElo "2423"]
[PlyCount "90"]
[EventDate "2010.01.02"]
[SourceDate "2010.01.03"]

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Be3 c6 5. f3 b5 6. g4 h6 7. Qd2 Bg7 8. h4 h5 9.
g5 Nfd7 10. Nge2 Nb6 11. Ng3 Qc7 12. Bd3 N8d7 13. Nce2 a6 14. f4 c5 15. c3 Nc4
16. Bxc4 bxc4 17. f5 Qb7 18. O-O cxd4 19. cxd4 Rb8 20. Nf4 Nf8 21. Rab1 Bd7 22.
b3 Bc6 23. bxc4 Qxb1 24. Rxb1 Rxb1+ 25. Kh2 Nd7 {(=)} 26. fxg6 O-O 27. gxf7+
Rxf7 28. Qc2 Rb4 29. Qe2 Rf8 30. a3 Rb3 31. Ne6 Rfb8 32. Nxg7 Rb2 33. Bd2 Kxg7
34. Nxh5+ Kg8 35. Ng3 Ra2 36. Nf1 Rb1 37. Kg2 Rxa3 38. Qg4 Nf8 39. Kf2 Bd7 40.
Qh5 Bh3 41. Nh2 Rh1 42. Bf4 Ra2+ 43. Ke3 Rb1 44. d5 Rb3+ 45. Kd4 e5+ {
White resigns} 0-1

flukey
08-01-2010, 09:36 AM
Yes Gino certainly was winning for quite awhile ... in his defence there never seemed a completely obvious knockout ... but still should have been pretty easy. If Gino had of won (or even drawn) the tourney would have been wide open.

Given both Gino amd Mike Steadman got good positions against Ker's pirc with early g4s, maybe this is a bit of a weak spot.

Qbert
08-01-2010, 09:47 AM
Hi Stephen,
Yes I can't say I saw an obvious knockout, but 29 Qe2 looks suspect (why not just 29 Ngxh5 getting rid of the g7 bishop) and 30 a3 just seems to cede the 3rd rank for no reason.

flukey
08-01-2010, 09:57 AM
Yeah Q they were both obvious "dithering" moves ... poor old Gino probably got too worked up and emotional after rightly declining the draw ....

And on a second look, 29 Nfh5 is crushing ... 3 points up on the material count and continuing the attack while black's rooks still uncordinated.

Qbert
08-01-2010, 10:30 AM
Maybe there was time-trouble involved as well (possibly caused by a well-timed draw offer! :) ), as those moves seem quite aimless unless the clock was hanging...

flukey
08-01-2010, 10:38 AM
Yeah whether time trouble or too excitable, Gino still needed to win the game rather than hope it would just win itself. But taking an h pawn with Nh5 and then taking a bishop on g7 on moves 29 and 30 was obvious especially if he was in time trouble ... two no brainer moves killing a pawn and removing the defensive bishop.

I can only imagine what Gino was like after the game!!!!!!

BTW, Garbett-Watson was a shocker ... Paul 2 pawns up for virtually nothing and then falling asleep at the wheel ....

Qbert
08-01-2010, 11:12 AM
I can only imagine what Gino was like after the game!!!!!!
I don't doubt the injustice was of it was made clear to anyone present...


BTW, Garbett-Watson was a shocker ... Paul 2 pawns up for virtually nothing and then falling asleep at the wheel ....
His play has been unrecognisable in this tournament - the self-imposed bishop trap against Davis, the bizarrely passive game against Krtsev and that Watson debacle are so at odds with his usual standard. Perhaps the early loss against a low-ranked player sapped his confidence.

flukey
08-01-2010, 11:15 AM
Looking at Croad-Krystev, it seems as well as spuring the draw, Krystev missed a win with 55 ... d3! 56 Rd2 Bb3 57 Nd3 c4 58 Ne5 Re5! 59 fe Ba4 and I don't think white can cope with the black pawns.

Qbert
08-01-2010, 11:24 AM
Looking at Croad-Krystev, it seems as well as spuring the draw, Krystev missed a win with 55 ... d3! 56 Rd2 Bb3 57 Nd3 c4 58 Ne5 Re5! 59 fe Ba4 and I don't think white can cope with the black pawns.
I haven't looked closely at that one - here is the game:
[Event "NZ Championship 2010"]
[Site "Auckland"]
[Date "2010.01.07"]
[Round "6.2"]
[White "Croad, Nicholas"]
[Black "Krstev, Antonio"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D35"]
[WhiteElo "2332"]
[BlackElo "2057"]
[PlyCount "121"]
[EventDate "2010.01.02"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[SourceDate "2010.01.03"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 e6 5. cxd5 exd5 6. Qc2 Bd6 7. Bg5 h6 8. Bh4
Be6 9. e3 Nbd7 10. Bd3 O-O 11. O-O Re8 12. Rab1 a5 13. Rfe1 Qc7 14. Bg3 Rac8
15. a3 Bxg3 16. hxg3 Qd6 17. Qa4 Ra8 18. Rbc1 b5 19. Qc2 Bg4 20. a4 b4 21. Ne2
Rac8 22. b3 Ne4 23. Bxe4 Rxe4 24. Nf4 Bf5 25. Nd3 Re7 26. Qd2 f6 27. Nc5 g5 28.
Nxd7 Rxd7 29. Rc5 Ra7 30. Rec1 h5 31. Qe2 Bg6 32. Nd2 Kg7 33. Qf3 g4 34. Qf4
Qe6 35. f3 Be8 36. e4 Rd8 37. e5 Bd7 38. Re1 Re8 39. fxg4 hxg4 40. exf6+ Qxf6
41. Rxe8 Qxf4 42. gxf4 Bxe8 43. Rc1 Re7 44. Kf2 g3+ 45. Kf3 Bh5+ 46. Kxg3 Re3+
47. Kh4 Be8 48. g4 Rd3 49. Re1 Bf7 50. Re2 Rxd4 51. Kg5 c5 52. Nf3 Re4 53. Rd2
d4 54. Rc2 Re3 55. Ne5 Rc3 56. Rh2 Re3 57. Rc2 Rc3 58. Rh2 Bxb3 59. f5 Kf8 60.
Kf6 Kg8 61. Ng6 1-0

Nice idea - saccing the d-pawn to get 3 passers and breaking up the white pawns. He even had 2 chances to carry it out - the moves chosen instead look more like a helpmate

Tony Dowden
08-01-2010, 06:22 PM
Gino looked to be winning for a long time against Ker in R6 and rightly declined the draw offer, but then he dithered too much and let Anthony activate his rooks.
[Event "NZ Championship"]
[Site "Auckland"]
[Date "2010.01.07"]
[Round "6.1"]
[White "Thornton, Gino"]
[Black "Ker, Anthony"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B07"]
[WhiteElo "2214"]
[BlackElo "2423"]
[PlyCount "90"]
[EventDate "2010.01.02"]
[SourceDate "2010.01.03"]

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Be3 c6 5. f3 b5 6. g4 h6 7. Qd2 Bg7 8. h4 h5 9.
g5 Nfd7 10. Nge2 Nb6 11. Ng3 Qc7 12. Bd3 N8d7 13. Nce2 a6 14. f4 c5 15. c3 Nc4
16. Bxc4 bxc4 17. f5 Qb7 18. O-O cxd4 19. cxd4 Rb8 20. Nf4 Nf8 21. Rab1 Bd7 22.
b3 Bc6 23. bxc4 Qxb1 24. Rxb1 Rxb1+ 25. Kh2 Nd7 {(=)} 26. fxg6 O-O 27. gxf7+
Rxf7 28. Qc2 Rb4 29. Qe2 Rf8 30. a3 Rb3 31. Ne6 Rfb8 32. Nxg7 Rb2 33. Bd2 Kxg7
34. Nxh5+ Kg8 35. Ng3 Ra2 36. Nf1 Rb1 37. Kg2 Rxa3 38. Qg4 Nf8 39. Kf2 Bd7 40.
Qh5 Bh3 41. Nh2 Rh1 42. Bf4 Ra2+ 43. Ke3 Rb1 44. d5 Rb3+ 45. Kd4 e5+ {
White resigns} 0-1

Thanks Q, A very cute finish!

Tony Dowden
08-01-2010, 06:25 PM
No sign of Round 7 today :(

Adamski
08-01-2010, 07:07 PM
No sign of Round 7 today :(Yes, can't find anything at http://www.aucklandchesscentre.co.nz/2010-nz-chess-congress. And it is not the rest day!

Bill Gletsos
08-01-2010, 08:46 PM
Yes, can't find anything at http://www.aucklandchesscentre.co.nz/2010-nz-chess-congress. And it is not the rest day!Try here (http://www.newzealandchess.co.nz/NZChamp117/NZChamp117.html).

Adamski
08-01-2010, 09:50 PM
Try here (http://www.newzealandchess.co.nz/NZChamp117/NZChamp117.html).Thanks, Bill. Ker a point ahead.

CivicChessMan
08-01-2010, 10:00 PM
Anthony Ker should be pleased with the results of round 7. He duly beat Antonio Krstev while his two closest rivals, Nic Croad and Bruce Watson drew their encounter. This gives Ker a one-point lead over Croad with another half-point back to Watson and Daniel Han who upset Mike Steadman. Watson will now play Ker in round 8 and I think this is a must-win game for Watson to have any chance of stopping Ker.

Leaderboard: Ker 6.5; Croad 5.5; Watson, Han 5; Thornton, Shen 4.5.

Honours were even on the top two boards of the Major Open. Hans Gao and Bill Forster drew as did Henry Vital and Richard Taylor. Moving ominously up the table has been Alan Ansell. With his win over Shirley Wu, he is now just one point behind Gao. Gao and Ansell will meet in round 8 in what well could be the title decider.

Leaderboard: Gao 6.5; Forster, Ansell 5.5; Vital, Taylor, Cater, Tanoi 5.

Qbert
09-01-2010, 08:16 AM
Davis moved back to 50% courtesy of the weakest possible move by Fuatai
[Event "NZ Championship 2010"]
[Site "Auckland"]
[Date "2010.01.08"]
[Round "7.11"]
[White "Fuatai, Fuatai"]
[Black "Davis, Justin"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A00"]
[WhiteElo "2020"]
[BlackElo "2035"]
[PlyCount "110"]
[EventDate "2010.01.02"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[SourceDate "2010.01.03"]

1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qd6 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. h3 g6 6. d4 Bg7 7. Be3 a6 8. Qd2
O-O 9. Bh6 Nc6 10. Bxg7 Kxg7 11. Be2 Rd8 12. O-O-O b5 13. h4 b4 14. Na4 Qd5 15.
b3 Qa5 16. h5 Bf5 17. hxg6 Bxg6 18. Qh6+ Kg8 19. Nh4 Nxd4 20. Bc4 Nf5 21. Rxd8+
Rxd8 22. Qg5 Qe5 23. Nb2 Ne4 24. Nxg6 Qxb2+ 25. Kxb2 Nxg5 26. Ne5 a5 27. Rh5 h6
28. f4 Ng7 29. Rxh6 N5e6 30. g4 Rd4 31. f5 Ng5 32. Ng6 Ne8 33. Rh8+ Kg7 34.
Rxe8 fxg6 35. Rxe7+ Kf6 36. Rxc7 gxf5 37. Rc6+ Kg7 38. gxf5 Ne4 39. Ra6 Nc3 40.
a3 Rd1 41. axb4 axb4 42. Ra1 Rd4 43. Bd3 Rf4 44. Re1 Rh4 45. Re7+ Kf8 {(=)} 46.
Rb7 Rg4 47. Bc4 Nd1+ 48. Kc1 Nc3 49. Kb2 Nd1+ {(=)} 50. Ka1 Ne3 51. Bd3 Nd1 52.
Kb1 Nc3+ 53. Kc1 Rg2 54. Rc7 Rg1+ 55. Kd2 Rd1+ {White resigns(??)} 0-1

Qbert
09-01-2010, 08:28 AM
Shen, who I expected to do well after his performance in Queenstown last year is finally moving up the table after a slow start. He beat Hart after turning down the latter's desperate looking piece offer - winning quite easily. But it seems Hart would have lost due to cellphone rules anyway.
[Event "NZ Championship 2010"]
[Site "Auckland"]
[Date "2010.01.08"]
[Round "7.5"]
[White "Hart, Ralph"]
[Black "Shen, Daniel"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C85"]
[WhiteElo "2276"]
[BlackElo "2221"]
[PlyCount "88"]
[EventDate "2010.01.02"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[SourceDate "2010.01.03"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Bxc6 dxc6 7. Qe1 Nd7 8.
b3 O-O 9. Bb2 Bf6 10. d3 Re8 11. Nbd2 b5 12. Qe3 c5 13. a4 {See note at end of
game} c6 14. Rfd1 Qe7 15. Ba3 Bb7 16. h3 g6 17. Rab1 Bg7 18. Nf1 Rad8 19. Ng3
b4 20. Bb2 Nf8 21. Rf1 Qd6 22. Nh2 Ne6 23. Ng4 Nd4 24. Qd2 Bc8 25. Nh6+ Kf8 26.
Rbc1 a5 27. Ng4 f5 28. Bxd4 cxd4 29. f4 exf4 30. exf5 fxg3 31. f6 Bxg4 32.
fxg7+ Kxg7 33. hxg4 Qe7 34. g5 Qe3+ 35. Qxe3 Rxe3 36. Rf4 Rd5 37. Rg4 c5 38.
Rf1 Rf5 39. Re4 Rxg5 40. Rxe3 dxe3 41. Rf3 Re5 42. Kf1 Rf5 43. Ke2 Rxf3 44.
Kxf3 Kf6 {White resigns. ---- White switched off his cellphone on move 13 -
however it beeped while he was doing so. The game was ruled a win for Black,
but White disputed the meaning of the rule. The game was continued on the
basis there being a small chance that White could win his appeal. White lost
anyway, so there was no point in any appeal.} 0-1

Qbert
09-01-2010, 08:36 AM
Steadman lost again to Han when he never got enough compensation for hi pawn sac. Both sides missed a instant win for Han at one point after Steadman blundered into a fork on move 30.

[Event "NZ Championship 2010"]
[Site "Auckland"]
[Date "2010.01.08"]
[Round "7.3"]
[White "Han, Daniel"]
[Black "Steadman, Michael"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A43"]
[WhiteElo "2200"]
[BlackElo "2337"]
[PlyCount "69"]
[EventDate "2010.01.02"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[SourceDate "2010.01.03"]

1. d4 g6 2. c4 Bg7 3. Nc3 c5 4. d5 e6 5. e4 exd5 6. cxd5 d6 7. Nf3 Ne7 8. Bd3
O-O 9. h4 Bg4 10. Qc2 Bxf3 11. gxf3 a6 12. a4 Nd7 13. h5 Ne5 14. Be2 f5 15.
hxg6 hxg6 16. Bg5 Nf7 17. Bd2 b5 18. axb5 axb5 19. Rxa8 Qxa8 20. Nxb5 Qa1+ 21.
Bc1 Rb8 22. O-O Qa5 23. Bd2 Qd8 24. Ra1 Ne5 25. Kg2 Bf6 26. Ra6 Nc8 27. Qa4 Qd7
28. Bc3 f4 29. Ra8 Rxa8 30. Qxa8 Kf7? 31. Qb8? [31.Qxc8! +-] 31.... Ke7 32. Nc7 c4 33. Ne6 Nc6 34.
dxc6 Qxe6 35. Qc7+ {Black resigns} 1-0

Qbert
09-01-2010, 08:55 AM
Croad missed a win against Watson's piece sac for 3 pawns in the tricky N vs Ps ending.

[Event "NZ Championship 2010"]
[Site "Auckland"]
[Date "2010.01.08"]
[Round "7.2"]
[White "Watson, Bruce"]
[Black "Croad, Nicholas"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "A30"]
[WhiteElo "2297"]
[BlackElo "2332"]
[PlyCount "97"]
[EventDate "2010.01.02"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[SourceDate "2010.01.03"]

1. c4 c5 2. Nf3 b6 3. g3 Bb7 4. Bg2 Nf6 5. O-O e6 6. Nc3 a6 7. d4 cxd4 8. Qxd4
d6 9. Rd1 Qc7 10. Bf4 e5 11. Nxe5 Bxg2 12. Nxf7 Kxf7 13. Kxg2 Nbd7 14. Kg1 Rc8
15. b3 Qc5 16. Bxd6 Qxd4 17. Rxd4 Bxd6 18. Rxd6 Ke7 19. Rad1 Rhd8 20. e4 b5 21.
e5 Nxe5 22. Rxd8 Rxd8 23. Re1 Kd6 24. Rd1+ Kc7 25. Rxd8 Kxd8 26. cxb5 a5 27. f4
Neg4 28. h3 Ne3 29. Kf2 Nfd5 30. Nxd5 Nxd5 31. Kf3 Nb4 32. a4 Nd3 33. Ke3 Nc5
34. Kd4 Nxb3+ 35. Kd5 Kc7 36. f5 Kb6 37. g4 Nc5 38. g5 Nxa4 39. h4 Kc7?! [39....Kxb5! 40.f6 gxf6 41.gxf6 Nc5 42.f7 Nd7 43.Kd6 Nf8 44.Ke7 [44.h5 h6] 44....Ng6+ 45.Kf6! Kc6! 46.Kg7 Kd7! 47.h5 Nf4 48.Kxh7 Ne6 49.Kg8 Ke7 50.h6 Nf8 -+] 40. h5!
Nb6+? {= 40....Kd7! still wins} 41. Ke6 a4 42. f6 gxf6 43. gxf6 a3 44. f7 Nd7 45. b6+ Kc8 46. b7+ Kxb7 47.
Kxd7 a2 48. f8=Q a1=Q 49. Qc8+ {Draw agreed} 1/2-1/2

Qbert
09-01-2010, 09:07 AM
Ker-Krtsev was all over in 8 moves after an insane pawn move by Black. Not sure what he could have been thinking.

[Event "NZ Championship 2010"]
[Site "Auckland"]
[Date "2010.01.08"]
[Round "7.1"]
[White "Ker, Anthony"]
[Black "Krstev, Antonio"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C02"]
[WhiteElo "2423"]
[BlackElo "2057"]
[PlyCount "79"]
[EventDate "2010.01.02"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[SourceDate "2010.01.03"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Bd7 6. Be2 f6 7. Bf4 g5?? 8. Nxg5
Nge7 9. Bh5+ Ng6 10. Nxh7 Rxh7 11. Bxg6+ Rf7 12. Bxf7+ Kxf7 13. Qh5+ Kg8 14.
Qg6+ Bg7 15. Bh6 Qf8 16. exf6 Qxf6 17. Qxg7+ Qxg7 18. Bxg7 Kxg7 19. dxc5 Ne5
20. Na3 Nd3+ 21. Ke2 Nxb2 22. Rab1 Na4 23. Rxb7 Nxc5 24. Rc7 Rc8 25. Rxc8 Bxc8
26. Ke3 Kf6 27. Rb1 Na4 28. Rb8 Ba6 29. Rf8+ Ke5 30. f4+ Kd6 31. Kd4 Be2 32.
Ra8 a6 33. c4 Nc5 34. cxd5 exd5 35. Rd8+ Nd7 36. Rh8 Bf1 37. g4 Bg2 38. Nc2 Nc5
39. f5 Na4 40. Ne3 {Black resigns} 1-0

Tony Dowden
09-01-2010, 11:57 AM
Hart-Shen (Rd 7)

The PGN file had this note attached to it:

"White switched off his cellphone on move 13 - however it beeped while he was doing so. The game was ruled a win for Black, but White disputed the meaning of the rule. The game was continued on the basis there being a small chance that White could win his appeal. White lost anyway, so there was no point in any appeal."

I think this is quite an interesting case study for arbiters. What do Bill and Kevin think?!

[POSTSCRIPT: I see this message is embedded in the game posted by Qbert earlier. Sorry for doubling up.]

Tony Dowden
09-01-2010, 12:00 PM
Ker-Krtsev was all over in 8 moves after an insane pawn move by Black. Not sure what he could have been thinking.

[Event "NZ Championship 2010"]
[Site "Auckland"]
[Date "2010.01.08"]
[Round "7.1"]
[White "Ker, Anthony"]
[Black "Krstev, Antonio"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C02"]
[WhiteElo "2423"]
[BlackElo "2057"]
[PlyCount "79"]
[EventDate "2010.01.02"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[SourceDate "2010.01.03"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Bd7 6. Be2 f6 7. Bf4 g5?? 8. Nxg5
Nge7 9. Bh5+ Ng6 10. Nxh7 Rxh7 11. Bxg6+ Rf7 12. Bxf7+ Kxf7 13. Qh5+ Kg8 14.
Qg6+ Bg7 15. Bh6 Qf8 16. exf6 Qxf6 17. Qxg7+ Qxg7 18. Bxg7 Kxg7 19. dxc5 Ne5
20. Na3 Nd3+ 21. Ke2 Nxb2 22. Rab1 Na4 23. Rxb7 Nxc5 24. Rc7 Rc8 25. Rxc8 Bxc8
26. Ke3 Kf6 27. Rb1 Na4 28. Rb8 Ba6 29. Rf8+ Ke5 30. f4+ Kd6 31. Kd4 Be2 32.
Ra8 a6 33. c4 Nc5 34. cxd5 exd5 35. Rd8+ Nd7 36. Rh8 Bf1 37. g4 Bg2 38. Nc2 Nc5
39. f5 Na4 40. Ne3 {Black resigns} 1-0

Presumably he didn't consider a sac! I feel sympathetic because I did almost exactly the same thing against Tasmanian junior Vincent Horton in 2008 (but miraculously held on to draw a piece down in the ending).

Bill Gletsos
09-01-2010, 12:46 PM
Hart-Shen (Rd 7)

The PGN file had this note attached to it:

"White switched off his cellphone on move 13 - however it beeped while he was doing so. The game was ruled a win for Black, but White disputed the meaning of the rule. The game was continued on the basis there being a small chance that White could win his appeal. White lost anyway, so there was no point in any appeal."

I think this is quite an interesting case study for arbiters. What do Bill and Kevin think?!Assuming he did not have the permission of the arbiter to have his phone on in the first place then it is a clear loss of the game for White in accordance with Article 12.3b as soon as his phone made a noise.

Without the permission of the arbiter a player is forbidden to have a mobile phone or other electronic means of communication in the playing venue, unless they are completely switched off. If any such device produces a sound, the player shall lose the game. The opponent shall win. However, if the opponent cannot win the game by any series of legal moves, his score shall be a draw.

Kevin Bonham
09-01-2010, 01:48 PM
Yes this is a clear loss under the rules as written and again highlights the absurdity and inflexibility of the current mobile phone rules.

I think the correct procedure in this instance is for the player to inform the arbiter that they have inadvertently left their mobile phone on and to request permission to turn it off somewhere outside the playing venue (or else the phone could be handed to the arbiter to be turned off so that the player would no longer "have" it in their posession.)

Most likely the process of requesting and carrying this out will cause at least five times more disturbance than the beep made when turning the thing off.

Tony Dowden
09-01-2010, 03:40 PM
Assuming he did not have the permission of the arbiter to have his phone on in the first place then it is a clear loss of the game for White in accordance with Article 12.3b as soon as his phone made a noise.
Yes, but about allowing the game to continue? Are there other precedents for this kind of decision?

Tony Dowden
09-01-2010, 03:43 PM
Yes this is a clear loss under the rules as written and again highlights the absurdity and inflexibility of the current mobile phone rules.

I think the correct procedure in this instance is for the player to inform the arbiter that they have inadvertently left their mobile phone on and to request permission to turn it off somewhere outside the playing venue (or else the phone could be handed to the arbiter to be turned off so that the player would no longer "have" it in their posession.)

Most likely the process of requesting and carrying this out will cause at least five times more disturbance than the beep made when turning the thing off.

I agree the rules are absurd but I've never understood why players feel the need to have mobile phone on their person in the first place ...

Tony Dowden
09-01-2010, 04:05 PM
The race for the Silver Rook ...

In Rd 8 Watson beat Ker and Croad joined Ker as a front-runner by beating Han. Shen and Steadman also gained ground. Nice to see Hilton Bennett win another game. See http://www.aucklandchesscentre.co.nz/news/2010/01/2010-congress-round-8-results for more.

Here's the all the players with over 50% after Rd 8. Krstev is the only lower ranked player to show out. McLaren and Smith have reappeared on the positive side of the ledger. Davis and Nyberg have faded so the 'humble pie' is on ice at present ;)


1 Ker, Anthony 6.5
2 Croad, Nicholas 6.5
3 Watson, Bruce 6
4 Shen, Daniel 5.5
5 Han, Daniel 5
6 Steadman, Michael 5
7 Krstev, Antonio 4.5
8 Hart, Ralph 4.5
9 Thornton, Gino 4.5
10 Steffenello, Leonard 4.5
11 Garbett, Paul 4.5
12 Smith, Robert 4.5
13 McLaren, Leonard 4.5

Bill Gletsos
09-01-2010, 05:39 PM
Yes, but about allowing the game to continue? Are there other precedents for this kind of decision?The arbiter had made his ruling. The player disputed it and appealed. An appeal committee hearing should have been held immediately and not continue the game with an appeal decision pending.

Garvinator
09-01-2010, 05:47 PM
The arbiter had made his ruling. The player disputed it and appealed. An appeal committee hearing should have been held immediately and not continue the game with an appeal decision pending.Having the game continue is also unfair on the opponent, who could quite well be uncertain about what exactly is happening, or whether they are going to get a 'free' point.

CameronD
09-01-2010, 05:50 PM
The arbiter had made his ruling. The player disputed it and appealed. An appeal committee hearing should have been held immediately and not continue the game with an appeal decision pending.

If all the games are in progress, then how can an appeal committee be formed.

The 2 minute rule in guilotine finishes allows postphoned decisions, thats probably where the arbiter thinks its acceptable.

Kevin Bonham
09-01-2010, 05:52 PM
One common problem with major events is that the appeals committee consists of players who are busy with their games and who cannot hear the appeal until their own games are determined.

For this reason it is always best to have appeal committee options that include people who are not playing in the tournament, if possible (that answers Cameron's question).


Having the game continue is also unfair on the opponent, who could quite well be uncertain about what exactly is happening, or whether they are going to get a 'free' point.

It can be unfair on the appellant too. If the appellant has a valid case but isn't sure their appeal is going to be granted, then with the prospect of a loss hanging over them they may play badly, whereas with the appeal immediately resolved in their favour they can focus on the game without worrying about it.

Kevin Bonham
09-01-2010, 05:57 PM
The 2 minute rule in guilotine finishes allows postphoned decisions, thats probably where the arbiter thinks its acceptable.

It does but that is only because otherwise the arbiter has to make a definite decision in real time, with the prospect that the player very short of time will exploit the time taken to make that decision if the clocks are stopped.

Also while 10.2 allows a postponed decision by the arbiter, it doesn't allow for a postponed appeal; in fact, it allows for no appeal at all.

Garvinator
09-01-2010, 05:59 PM
There is also another appeals committee's, especially in these type of scenarios of relying on other players in the tournament, they have decide on a result that is less in line with the fide laws of chess than the original arbiter decision. :eek:

Bill Gletsos
09-01-2010, 07:00 PM
One common problem with major events is that the appeals committee consists of players who are busy with their games and who cannot hear the appeal until their own games are determined.

For this reason it is always best to have appeal committee options that include people who are not playing in the tournament, if possible (that answers Cameron's question).Exactly.

CivicChessMan
09-01-2010, 07:49 PM
I thought it was a must-win game for Watson. It offers new possibilities for the chasing pack.

Looking ahead to round 9 matches.
Ker (6.5) v Shen (5.5). Shen has won five in a row. Can he continue the momentum and surprise Ker?
Croad (6.5) v Steadman (5). Croad is now the only unbeaten player so can Steadman change that. It's a must-win game for him.
Han (5) v Watson (6). Watson has never won the NZ Championship. A win over Han would keep him very much in contention.

Garvinator
09-01-2010, 07:58 PM
If there is a tie for first, are they off to playoffs?

CivicChessMan
09-01-2010, 08:48 PM
The top of the table clash between Hans Gao and Alan Ansell ended in a draw. Gao retains his one point lead as Bill Forster lost to Henry Vital. Edward Tanoi won for the fifth time in a row after defeating Richard Taylor.

Leaderboard: Gao 7; Vital, Tanoi, Ansell 6; Forster, Casilang, Evans 5.5.

Although Gao does have a one-point lead, it is definitely not over. Vital will put Gao to the test in round 8 while the other main contenders, Tanoi and Ansell meet on board 2.

CivicChessMan
09-01-2010, 09:41 PM
If there is a tie for first, are they off to playoffs?

There is no playoff.

Arcadios Feneridis and Rodney Phillips shared first place in 1956/57. Peter Stuart wrote this in his article "Play-offs had always been held to resolve first-place ties but in this case the play-off proved difficult to arrange and the two winners were later declared joint champions. Subsequently, playoffs were abolished altogether, allowing for joint tenure of the title." Phillips lived in Auckland and Feneridis in Wellington.

There have been 4 three-way ties: 75/76 Lev Aptekar, Murray Chandler and Ortvin Sarapu; 79/89 Ewen Green, Sarapu and Vernon Small; 80/81 Roger Nokes, Sarapu and Small; 95/96 Russell Dive, Martin Dreyer and Bob Smith. There was a three-way tie in 1912/13 which was resolved by a playoff.

Ralph
10-01-2010, 07:54 AM
Hi guys

FYI ... this is what happened.

I didn't realise that I had taken my cellphone into the hall (I "always" leave it in the car).

On about move 13 I noticed it was on, and thought I should turn in off, and off course it momentarily "rang" as it did. Of course I didn't realise it would make a noise when I turned it off or I would have asked the DOP to take care of it for me.

The DOP came over a few minutes later and quietly told me that he intended to default me because it rang. We then had a quick look at the handbook.

The DOP's Fide handbook he had said it was a loss if you cell phone "rang" (a bit different from what is quoted on another post (maybe the other one is more up to date?). My appeal was going to be along the lines of my phone did not actually ring as stated in the rules. The rules also said it was fobidden to bring a cell phone into the hall, though didn't say what the penalty was for doing this (just a loss if it rings).

I suggested to the DOP that we complete the game as to convene an appeals committee immediately would disturb the people on the committee, Daniel and myself. So mostly a suggestion of being the lessor disturbance.

The other reason was also that I guess we were there to play chess. Most everyday chess players (non professional), just want to play a game and don't pay too much attention to wiring up the bathroom or devices in the teeth etc. I thought since I was here I was happy to have a game with Daniel for its own sake.

As for the rule itself, I agree with it, so would not really have a problem with being defaulted if that was the rule.

The game itself was well played by Daniel. The Qe1 move comes from an old chessbase article, and normally black plays Bd6 which lets white play Nh4 and also play on the queenside with Qa5 ideas.

Qbert
10-01-2010, 07:58 AM
Presumably he didn't consider a sac! I feel sympathetic because I did almost exactly the same thing against Tasmanian junior Vincent Horton in 2008 (but miraculously held on to draw a piece down in the ending).
I agree that he can't have considered the sac - but my point is that when constructing a position that bears more than a passing resemblance to Fool's Mate you have to consider any possible sac!:doh:

Garvinator
10-01-2010, 08:04 AM
The DOP's Fide handbook he had said it was a loss if you cell phone "rang" (a bit different from what is quoted on another post (maybe the other one is more up to date?). My appeal was going to be along the lines of my phone did not actually ring as stated in the rules. The rules also said it was fobidden to bring a cell phone into the hall, though didn't say what the penalty was for doing this (just a loss if it rings).
From seeing the later part of this quote, I am certain that part of the issue here is that the arbiter was looking at the 2005 rules, to which you refer to. In the 2005 version, part of the issue was, what is a ring, as you point out. So in the 2009 version, fide rules committee decided to end all debate about what is a ring with:


12.2 b. Without the permission of the arbiter, a player is forbidden to have a mobile phone or other electronic means of communication in the playing venue, unless they are completely switched off. If any such device produces a sound, the player shall lose the game. The opponent shall win. However, if the opponent cannot win the game by any series of legal moves, his score shall be a draw.

Link to the 2009 Fide laws of chess: http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook?id=124&view=article

Qbert
10-01-2010, 08:13 AM
Hi Ralph,
thanks for the explanation - it reminds me of the incident when Nigel Short's phone was turned off but still emitted a 'low battery' beep - he forfeited immediately. I agree the draconian rule is necessary because of the potential cheating using handheld devices that are readily available these days. Not like the other draconian FIDE rule about turning up to the board on time (fine for professional tennis, and maybe chess once we get individual dressing rooms and arbiters for every game and 'pawn boys' to pick up the pieces off the floor etc etc.)

CivicChessMan
10-01-2010, 08:27 AM
It's probably one of those phones running Windows Mobile. For some strange reason, Windows thinks you should know that you have shutdown a device by playing the window signature tune.

Tony Dowden
10-01-2010, 01:48 PM
Thanks for the feedback guys.

This is pretty much what I was thinking too. In this case there was potential to unnecessarily distress a young player (Daniel Shen is only 12 or 13 years old)

Cheers, Tony

Tony Dowden
10-01-2010, 01:51 PM
I agree that he can't have considered the sac - but my point is that when constructing a position that bears more than a passing resemblance to Fool's Mate you have to consider any possible sac!:doh:
In my case I saw Nxg5 the instant I let go of the g-pawn. And, yes, I felt like a complete fool :lol:

Tony Dowden
10-01-2010, 01:55 PM
Hi guys

FYI ... this is what happened.

I didn't realise that I had taken my cellphone into the hall (I "always" leave it in the car).

On about move 13 I noticed it was on, and thought I should turn in off, and off course it momentarily "rang" as it did. Of course I didn't realise it would make a noise when I turned it off or I would have asked the DOP to take care of it for me.

The DOP came over a few minutes later and quietly told me that he intended to default me because it rang. We then had a quick look at the handbook.

The DOP's Fide handbook he had said it was a loss if you cell phone "rang" (a bit different from what is quoted on another post (maybe the other one is more up to date?). My appeal was going to be along the lines of my phone did not actually ring as stated in the rules. The rules also said it was fobidden to bring a cell phone into the hall, though didn't say what the penalty was for doing this (just a loss if it rings).

I suggested to the DOP that we complete the game as to convene an appeals committee immediately would disturb the people on the committee, Daniel and myself. So mostly a suggestion of being the lessor disturbance.

The other reason was also that I guess we were there to play chess. Most everyday chess players (non professional), just want to play a game and don't pay too much attention to wiring up the bathroom or devices in the teeth etc. I thought since I was here I was happy to have a game with Daniel for its own sake.

As for the rule itself, I agree with it, so would not really have a problem with being defaulted if that was the rule.

The game itself was well played by Daniel. The Qe1 move comes from an old chessbase article, and normally black plays Bd6 which lets white play Nh4 and also play on the queenside with Qa5 ideas.

Thanks a lot Ralph.

Rest assured no one - least of all me - is questioning your sportsmanship (which has always been to an impeccable standard to my knowledge).

Its just that its a really fascinating case study in terms of (quasi-) legal precedent.

Cheers, Tony

Oepty
10-01-2010, 06:02 PM
Daniel Shen beat Anthony Ker.
Makes things very interesting with Croad now leading by half a point from Ker, Shen and Watson. Shen and Croad play tommorrow and it is a real chance for Shen who has now won 6 in a row, after 0.5/3 start. Remarkable recovery and would be even more remarkable if he wins tommorrow. Exciting to see a junior doing so well.
Scott

CivicChessMan
10-01-2010, 06:22 PM
Nic Croad drew with Mike Steadman but that was enough to take the outright lead in the Championship. Daniel Shen made it six wins in a row as he inflicted Anthony Ker's second straight loss. Despite only drawing with Daniel Han, Bruce Watson remains firmly in contention.

Leaderboard: Croad 7; Ker, Watson, Shen 6.5; Han, Hart, Steadman, Smith 5.5.

Croad takes on Shen with everything to play for. Ker will look to bounce back and keep the pressure on when he meets Ralph Hart. Watson will have a tough match against Steadman. Bob Smith plays Daniel Han and a win for either could even put the winner in contention if the results are favourable.

Capablanca-Fan
10-01-2010, 06:32 PM
[Event "NZ Championship 2010"]
[Site "Auckland"]
[Date "2010.01.09"]
[Round "8.1"]
[White "Watson, Bruce"]
[Black "Ker, Anthony"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A21"]
[WhiteElo "2297"]
[BlackElo "2423"]
[PlyCount "81"]
[EventDate "2010.01.02"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[SourceDate "2010.01.03"]

{White's opening was not up to much, but eventually his K-side Ps were the only mobile ones on the board} 1. c4 d6 2. g3 e5 3. Bg2 f5 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. d3 Be7 6. e4 fxe4 7. dxe4 O-O 8. Nge2 Be6 9. b3 c5 10. O-O Nc6 11. Nd5 Qd7 12. f4 Bg4 13. f5 Nd4 14. Ndc3 a6 15. h3 Bxe2 16. Nxe2 b5 17. Qd3 Kh8 18. Bd2 Rab8 19. Rac1 Bd8 20. Rfe1 a5 21. Nxd4 cxd4 22. cxb5 Rxb5 23. Bf1 Rc5 24. Rxc5 dxc5 25. Qb5 Qxb5 26. Bxb5 Bb6 27. Kg2 Ra8 28. g4 h6 29. Kf3 Kg8 30. h4 Ne8 31. g5 hxg5 32. hxg5 Nd6 33. Bc6 Ra7 34. Rh1 Kf8 35. Rh8+ Ke7 36. Rg8 Nf7 37. g6 Nd8 38. Rxg7+ Kf6 39. Rxa7 Bxa7 40. Bd5 Bb6 41. Bh6 {Black resigns} 1-0

[Event "NZ Championship 2010"]
[Site "Auckland"]
[Date "2010.01.10"]
[Round "9.1"]
[White "Ker, Anthony"]
[Black "Shen, Daniel"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C45"]
[WhiteElo "2423"]
[BlackElo "2221"]
[PlyCount "128"]
[EventDate "2010.01.02"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[SourceDate "2010.01.03"]

{a most surprising collapse by the tournament leader from a much superior position} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nxc6 bxc6 6. e5 Qe7 7. Qe2 Nd5 8. c4 Nb6 9. Nc3 a5 10. Qe4 g6 11. Bd3 Bg7 12. O-O O-O 13. f4 f5 14. Qe2 Re8 15. Be3 d6 16. c5 Nd5 17. Bc4 Bb7 18. Qf3 dxe5 19. Nxd5 cxd5 20. Bxd5+ Bxd5 21. Qxd5+ Qe6 22. Rad1 Qxd5 23. Rxd5 Rad8 24. Rfd1 Bf6 25. fxe5 Rxd5 26. Rxd5 Rd8 27. Rxd8+ Bxd8 28. b3 c6 29. a4 Kf7 30. Bd2 Bc7 31. b4 axb4 32. Bxb4 Ke6 33. a5 Bb8 34. a6 Kd5 35. Kf2 Kc4 36. Ba3 Kb5 37. Ke3 Kxa6 38. h3 Bxe5 39. g4 Kb5 40. gxf5 gxf5 41. Kd3 Ka4 42. Bc1 Kb4 43. Be3 Bf6 44. Ke2 Be7 45. Kf3 Bxc5 46. Bd2+ Kc4 47. Kf4 Kd3 48. Ba5 Be3+ 49. Kxf5 c5 50. Ke6 c4 51. Kd5 h5 52. Bb4 Bd4 53. Ke6 Ke4 54. Kf7 Kf5 55. Bd2 c3 56. Bc1 c2 57. Ke7 Be5 58. Kd7 Bf4 59. Bb2 h4 60. Kc6 c1=Q+ 61. Bxc1 Bxc1 62. Kd5 Kf4 63. Kd4 Kg3 64. Ke4 Bf4 {White resigns} 0-1

[Event "NZ Championship 2010"]
[Site "Auckland"]
[Date "2010.01.09"]
[Round "8.2"]
[White "Croad, Nicholas"]
[Black "Han, Daniel"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D44"]
[WhiteElo "2332"]
[BlackElo "2200"]
[PlyCount "133"]
[EventDate "2010.01.02"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[SourceDate "2010.01.03"]

{Croad takes the lead with a good win in a sharp variation leading to the same sort of material balance as Xie–Smirnov; R+2B+strong passed P v 2R+N} 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 e6 5. Bg5 dxc4 6. e4 b5 7. e5 h6 8. Bh4 g5 9. Nxg5 hxg5 10. Bxg5 Nbd7 11. g3 Qb6 12. exf6 Bb7 13. Bg2 c5 14. d5 O-O-O 15. O-O b4 16. Rb1 Qa6 17. b3 bxc3 18. bxc4 Nb6 19. Qg4 Qxc4 20. Qxc4 Nxc4 21. Rxb7 Kxb7 22. dxe6+ Kc8 23. e7 Bxe7 24. fxe7 Rd6 25. Bh3+ Kb7 26. Rc1 f6 27. Bh6 Re8 28. Bf8 Ne5 29. Bf5 Nc6 30. Bg6 Rxe7 31. Bxe7 Nxe7 32. Be4+ Kb6 33. Rxc3 f5 34. Rb3+ Ka5 35. Rb7 fxe4 36. Rxa7+ Kb4 37. Rxe7 Rd4 38. Rb7+ Kc3 39. h4 c4 40. h5 Kd3 41. h6 c3 42. h7 Rd8 43. Rd7+ Rxd7 44. h8=Q c2 45. Qh6 Kc3 46. Qc6+ Kb2 47. Qxd7 c1=Q+ 48. Kg2 Qc4 49. Qd2+ Ka3 50. Kg1 Qd3 51. Qa5+ Kb2 52. a4 Qd1+ 53. Kh2 Qf3 54. Qb4+ Kc2 55. Qc4+ Kd2 56. Qa2+ Kc1 57. Kg1 Qd3 58. Qa1+ Kd2 59. a5 e3 60. Qa2+ Kd1 61. fxe3 Qxe3+ 62. Qf2 Qe6 63. a6 Qg8 64. a7 Kc1 65. Qf1+ Kb2 66. Qg2+ Kb1 67. a8=Q {Black resigns} 1-0

[Event "NZ Championship 2010"]
[Site "Auckland"]
[Date "2010.01.09"]
[Round "8.9"]
[White "Depasquale, Chris"]
[Black "McLaren, Leonard"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A45"]
[WhiteElo "2274"]
[BlackElo "2258"]
[PlyCount "62"]
[EventDate "2010.01.02"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[SourceDate "2010.01.03"]

{24.Qxa7 blundered a piece. But after around move 14, White's Q-side attack looked strong} 1. d4 Nf6 2. Bg5 d6 3. Bxf6 exf6 4. e3 g6 5. g3 Bg7 6. Bg2 f5 7. Ne2 Nd7 8. c4 c6 9. Nbc3 Nf6 10. O-O O-O 11. Qc2 Re8 12. b4 Be6 13. b5 Qc7 14. bxc6 bxc6 15. Qa4 Rac8 16. Rab1 Bd7 17. Rb3 c5 18. Nb5 Bxb5 19. cxb5 Ne4 20. Ra3 cxd4 21. Nxd4 Nc3 22. Rxc3 Qxc3 23. Nc6 Qc5 24. Qxa7 Rxc6 25. Qxc5 Rxc5 26. a4 d5 27. Rb1 Rec8 28. Bf1 Bc3 29. b6 Rb8 30. b7 Kf8 31. Rb6 Ba5 {White resigns} 0-1

[Event "NZ Championship 2010"]
[Site "Auckland"]
[Date "2010.01.09"]
[Round "8.6"]
[White "Smith, Robert"]
[Black "Stuart, Peter"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B21"]
[WhiteElo "2368"]
[BlackElo "2057"]
[PlyCount "73"]
[EventDate "2010.01.02"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[SourceDate "2010.01.03"]

{These two have been leading Kiwi players and fierce rivals for two or three decades. Here, White gained a strong plus on the K-side and Black had no counterplay, except for a little White needlessly gave him by opening the centre and Q-side, before returning to the K-side where he belonged} 1. e4 c5 2. d3 Nc6 3. f4 d6 4. Nf3 g6 5. Be2 Bg7 6. O-O Nf6 7. Qe1 Nd4 8. Nxd4 cxd4 9. Qh4 O-O 10. Nd2 Nd7 11. Nf3 e5 12. Qg3 f6 13. Bd2 Qe7 14. Rae1 a5 15. f5 g5 16. h4 h6 17. c3 dxc3 18. bxc3 Rd8 19. d4 Kf8 20. Bc4 Nb6 21. Bd3 Nd7 22. Rb1 Qf7 23. d5 Nc5 24. Bc2 Bd7 25. Rb6 Ba4 26. Bb1 Qc7 27. Rb2 Be8 28. hxg5 hxg5 29. Nxg5 fxg5 30. Bxg5 Rd7 31. f6 Rf7 32. Rbf2 b5 33. fxg7+ Kg8 34. Rxf7 Bxf7 35. Bf6 Bh5 36. Qg5 Qf7 37. Qh6 1-0

[Event "NZ Championship 2010"]
[Site "Auckland"]
[Date "2010.01.09"]
[Round "8.8"]
[White "Davis, Justin"]
[Black "Hart, Ralph"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C68"]
[WhiteElo "2035"]
[BlackElo "2276"]
[PlyCount "134"]
[EventDate "2010.01.02"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[SourceDate "2010.01.03"]

{Hart does well after that unfortunate mobile phone incident to win with Black in the exchange Ruy. But he was worse after the opening; surrendering his B-pair compensation for the doubled Ps. White was probably too eager to exchange and surrendered the d-file. But Black won only after a risky breakthrough (59. Rg3)} 1. e4 Nc6 2. Nf3 e5 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 dxc6 5. O-O Bd6 6. d4 exd4 7. Qxd4 f6 8.
b3 Be6 9. Nbd2 Ne7 10. Nc4 Bxc4 11. Qxc4 b5 12. Qe2 O-O 13. Bb2 Re8 14. Rad1
Qc8 15. Qd3 Qg4 16. h3 Qh5 17. Nd4 c5 18. Nf5 Rad8 19. Qf3 Qxf3 20. Nxe7+ Rxe7
21. gxf3 Red7 22. Rd5 c6 23. Rd3 Be5 24. Rxd7 Rxd7 25. Bxe5 fxe5 26. Rc1 g5 27.
Kf1 Kf7 28. Ke2 {(=)} Kg6 29. c4 b4 30. a4 Kh5 31. Rg1 Rd6 32. Rb1 Kh4 33. Rg1
Rd7 34. Rb1 a5 35. Ra1 Kh5 36. Rg1 Rd6 37. Ra1 Kh6 38. Rg1 Rd8 39. Ra1 Rd7 40.
Rg1 Rd6 41. Ra1 Kg6 42. Rb1 Kf6 43. Ra1 Rd7 44. Rb1 Rg7 45. Rd1 Ke7 46. Rg1 h6
47. Rd1 Rf7 48. Rg1 Rf4 49. Rg4 Rf8 50. Rg1 {(=)} Ke6 51. Rg2 Kf6 52. Rg1 Rd8
53. Rb1 h5 54. Rg1 Rd7 55. Rg2 Rh7 56. Rg1 g4 57. fxg4 hxg4 58. hxg4 Rh3 59.
g5+ Kg6 60. f4 exf4 61. Rf1 Re3+ 62. Kf2 Rxb3 63. Rd1 Rc3 64. Rd6+ Kxg5 65.
Rxc6 Rxc4 66. e5 b3 67. Rd6 b2 {White resigns} 0-1

[Event "NZ Championship 2010"]
[Site "Auckland"]
[Date "2010.01.08"]
[Round "7.2"]
[White "Watson, Bruce"]
[Black "Croad, Nicholas"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "A30"]
[WhiteElo "2297"]
[BlackElo "2332"]
[PlyCount "97"]
[EventDate "2010.01.02"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[SourceDate "2010.01.03"]

1. c4 c5 2. Nf3 b6 3. g3 Bb7 4. Bg2 Nf6 5. O-O e6 6. Nc3 a6 7. d4 cxd4 8. Qxd4
d6 9. Rd1 Qc7 10. Bf4 e5 11. Nxe5 Bxg2 12. Nxf7 Kxf7 13. Kxg2 Nbd7 14. Kg1 Rc8
15. b3 Qc5 16. Bxd6 Qxd4 17. Rxd4 Bxd6 18. Rxd6 Ke7 19. Rad1 Rhd8 20. e4 b5 21.
e5 Nxe5 22. Rxd8 Rxd8 23. Re1 Kd6 24. Rd1+ Kc7 25. Rxd8 Kxd8 26. cxb5 a5 27. f4
Neg4 28. h3 Ne3 29. Kf2 Nfd5 30. Nxd5 Nxd5 31. Kf3 Nb4 32. a4 Nd3 33. Ke3 Nc5
34. Kd4 Nxb3+ 35. Kd5 Kc7 36. f5 Kb6 37. g4 Nc5 38. g5 Nxa4 39. h4 Kc7 40. h5
Nb6+ 41. Ke6 a4 42. f6 gxf6 43. gxf6 a3 44. f7 Nd7 45. b6+ Kc8 46. b7+ Kxb7 47.
Kxd7 a2 48. f8=Q a1=Q 49. Qc8+ {Draw agreed} 1/2-1/2

CivicChessMan
10-01-2010, 06:59 PM
Hans Gao drew for the third straight round, this time with Henry Vital. His lead has been cut to half a point by Alan Ansell. Ansell beat Edward Tanoi. Vital is a point behind Gao and has been joined by Arthur Casilang and David Evans.

Leaderboard: Gao 7.5; Ansell 7; Vital, Casilang, Evans 6.5; Tanoi, Eade, Rivas Villanueva 6.

Gao meets Evans in round 10 while Ansell plays Casilang. Casilang has done well considering his last rated tournament was in 1998. Vital meets Andrea Rivas Villenueva from Chile. As in the championship, it's down to the wire with several players still in contention.

Tony Dowden
10-01-2010, 09:01 PM
Nic Croad drew with Mike Steadman but that was enough to take the outright lead in the Championship. Daniel Shen made it six wins in a row as he inflicted Anthony Ker's second straight loss. Despite only drawing with Daniel Han, Bruce Watson remains firmly in contention.

Leaderboard: Croad 7; Ker, Watson, Shen 6.5; Han, Hart, Steadman, Smith 5.5.

Croad takes on Shen with everything to play for. Ker will look to bounce back and keep the pressure on when he meets Ralph Hart. Watson will have a tough match against Steadman. Bob Smith plays Daniel Han and a win for either could even put the winner in contention if the results are favourable.
Fascinating prospects! A wonderful endgame display by Shen :clap: :clap:

Bob Smith might yet make it to Board 1 :lol:

CivicChessMan
10-01-2010, 09:40 PM
The Bob Smith dream scenario:

Smith 1-0 Han, Watson 0-1 Steadman, Ker 0-1 Hart, Croad 1/2 Shen

Croad 7.5; Shen 7; Ker, Smith, Watson, Steadman, Hart 6.5.

Bob Smith is on board 1!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Anthony Ker dream scenario:

Smith 1/2 Han, Watson 0-1 Steadman, Ker 1-0 Hart, Croad 0-1 Shen

Ker, Shen 7.5; Croad 7; Steadman, Watson 6.5; Smith, Han 6.

Bob Smith is on board 1!

Qbert
11-01-2010, 04:52 AM
Smith will almost certainly face Croad or Ker in the final round - the other will probably play Garbett or McLaren. Curious that these high-seeded players who have been out of the running from almost the beginning will end up playing a key role in deciding who wins.

Tony Dowden
11-01-2010, 06:41 PM
Yes, we are all most prescient. Smith is on Board 1 in the final round :lol:

It will be interesting to see if Bds 1 & 2 are real fights or short draws. I think the former is more likely - but only just. Another triple tie is certainly a possibility.

And unless I've confused myself, a history making five-way tie is possible if Ker and Croad both lose, Shen doesn't win and Steadman wins ;)

Tony Dowden
11-01-2010, 06:47 PM
I don't if anyone else has mentioned it here but Helen Milligan (Championship) and Shirley Wu (Major) have had very impressive results. In both cases both perf ratings must be well above their expected rating perfs.

Eachen Chen could still pip Shirley at the post for the NZ title though.

NZer
11-01-2010, 09:50 PM
The original PGN for Ker-Shen ( Rnd 9 ) has a serious error ( if one wishes to make sense of the B-ending ) - on move 26 Black played NOT 26...Rd8?? but in fact 26...Rxe5 and after the forced 27. Rxe5 Bxe5, the game proceeds - except that the white pawn on e5 is no longer on the board. Apparently, Anthony's last chance to draw was on the following move - 28. b3? was played.

Also, it is not likely to be known that Daniel Shen had a serious head cold at the start of the tournament, picked up on a school trip. He turned 14 in December last year. Not a bad performance in this Championship ( understatement... ) - though given his previous year's performance in Queenstown ( 2nd= NZ player ), hardly a total surprise. Very little chess in 2009 - busy being a top student at top school in his first year at high school.

Rnd 10 comments:
Daniel Shen's defence vs Croad in a dangerous R+3 vs R+4 ending was excellent. Drawn.
Ker did a good N+3P vs R+P endgame grind vs Hart, after probably ( certainly!? ) missing clearer winning lines earlier, when he was 2P up for not much ( if anything ).
Bruce Watson blew his title chances on the 40th move vs Steadman.
Bob Smith by his own admission played his first decent game of the tournament. His last round game will be the first time he has met anyone of the top six seeds.

Rnd 11 comments:
The SwissPerfect pairing program has come up with a contentious pairing ( or two ) for the leading players in the final round. Contestable? Probably not, at this late stage.

Garvinator
11-01-2010, 09:59 PM
Rnd 11 comments:
The SwissPerfect pairing program has come up with a contentious pairing ( or two ) for the leading players in the final round. Contestable? Probably not, at this late stage.
Well, put up the pairings and the pairing info table from sp and lets do the math.

Bill Gletsos
11-01-2010, 10:01 PM
Rnd 11 comments:
The SwissPerfect pairing program has come up with a contentious pairing ( or two ) for the leading players in the final round.Which specific pairings are you referring to.

NZer
11-01-2010, 10:06 PM
The pairings for the final round are now available at the usual sites ( with possible mis-spellings ):
www.newzealandchess.com
and
www.aucklandchesscentre.co.nz

Bill Gletsos
11-01-2010, 11:14 PM
The pairings for the final round are now available at the usual sites ( with possible mis-spellings ):
www.newzealandchess.com
and
www.aucklandchesscentre.co.nzSo which specific pairings according to you are supposedly contentious.

CivicChessMan
12-01-2010, 04:18 AM
The Bob Smith dream scenario just about happened in round 10. Nic Croad and Daniel Shen drew allowing Anthony Ker to join Croad on 7.5 after his win over Ralph Hart. Shen is alone in second half a point back. Mike Steadman and Bob Smith beat Bruce Watson and Daniel Han respectively to join Watson a point behind the leaders.

Leaderboard: Ker, Croad 7.5; Shen 7; Smith, Steadman, Watson 6.5; McLaren 6.

The top four boards of the final round feature the championship contenders. Smith is finally on board 1, black against Ker. Croad avoids Leonard McLaren and plays black v Chris Depasquale! Watson v Shen and McLaren v Steadman are the other games.

The 5-way tie: Smith beats Ker, Croad loses, Shen draws and Steadman wins. All of the mentioned players finish with 7.5 points. An alternative 5-way tie is Smith, Ker, Croad, Watson and Steadman.

Good luck!

Qbert
12-01-2010, 04:59 AM
I don't if anyone else has mentioned it here but Helen Milligan (Championship) and Shirley Wu (Major) have had very impressive results. In both cases both perf ratings must be well above their expected rating perfs.

Eachen Chen could still pip Shirley at the post for the NZ title though.

Thanks for pointing that out Tony. I had noticed that Helen Milligan had been going very well - chalking up some great results. I see Shirley Wu lost to Eachen Chen (the top ranked female in the Major) three rounds ago after competing well at the top of the table, and has since overtaken Chen again by beating 1900 players while Chen has had a couple of draws.

CivicChessMan
12-01-2010, 05:27 AM
Three decisive results on the top three boards means there is a new leader of the Major Open. Alan Ansell beat Arthur Casilang to move to 8 points, half a point ahead of former leader Hans Gao, David Evans and Henry Vital. Evans beat Gao and Vital beat Andrea Rivas Villaneuva.

Leaderboard: Ansell 8; Gao, Vital, Evans 7.5; Edward Tanoi 7

Final round and all to play for with the Major Open winner being decided on the top 3 boards. Ansell v Vital, Tanoi v Evans and Gao v Arthur Casilang. A win for Ansell will give him the Major Open title, a draw allows Gao and/or Evans to share the title if they can win their respective games, a loss gives Vital the title, possibly sharing with Gao and/or Evans.

Good luck!

Tony Dowden
12-01-2010, 07:52 AM
Also, it is not likely to be known that Daniel Shen had a serious head cold at the start of the tournament, picked up on a school trip. He turned 14 in December last year. Not a bad performance in this Championship ( understatement... ) - though given his previous year's performance in Queenstown ( 2nd= NZ player ), hardly a total surprise. Very little chess in 2009 - busy being a top student at top school in his first year at high school.



That explains his very ordinary start then.

Qbert
12-01-2010, 08:39 AM
I don't if anyone else has mentioned it here but Helen Milligan (Championship) and Shirley Wu (Major) have had very impressive results. In both cases both perf ratings must be well above their expected rating perfs.

Here are some NZ Elo perfs after 10 rounds using the calculator at http://paxmans.net/performance_calc.php
Chp
Ker 2438
Croad 2416
Shen 2329
Milligan 2256
Major
Alan Ansell 2024
Shirley Wu 2013

flukey
12-01-2010, 10:00 AM
My prediction for the last round:

1. Ker fails to break down Bob and agrees draw
2. After seeing Ker finish, Croad offers Depesquale a draw from a slightly better position which is accepted.
3. Watson should beat Shen comfortably with white.
4. Steadman will take risks to beat McLaren with black, he will get in trouble then grovel a draw.

flukey
12-01-2010, 10:47 AM
Oh, and on the play of Daniel Shen one has to admire his comeback. He seems to be quite a steady player though from what I have seen his play is not nearly aggressive and purposeful enough (incidentely even Puchen Wang was a bit like this at this age).

My humble view is that Shen could follow the Spassky route ... Spassky was a cautious positional player at the age of 12 or 13 ... he was then assigned the fierce attacker Tolush as a coach and he was told that unless he sacrificed something in everygame he would be belted!!!! Spassky did as he was told and by the age of 16 or so was well on his way to becoming the perfect universal player.

Obviously Sue Bradford has ensured we can't actually belt Daniel but honing his attacking game would give him the best chance of a serious rise in the ranks.

Tony Dowden
12-01-2010, 01:04 PM
My prediction for the last round:

1. Ker fails to break down Bob and agrees draw
2. After seeing Ker finish, Croad offers Depesquale a draw from a slightly better position which is accepted.
3. Watson should beat Shen comfortably with white.
4. Steadman will take risks to beat McLaren with black, he will get in trouble then grovel a draw.

I agree with 1 & 2 - very predictable ;) - but I'm going to punt that:

3. Shen will nearly win but only draw.

4. Steadman will take hideous risks with the outcome he has a 90% chance of losing, 10% winning and 0.01% drawing - so on balance, he will lose. (But I hope Mike wins because I haven't seen Leonard take a risk against any kind of opposition for a few years ...)

NZer
12-01-2010, 05:22 PM
Championship leading final scores : Ker 8.5 ; Croad 8; Shen 7.5; Watson, Steadman 7

Ker 1 - 0 Smith
Depasquale 1/2 - 1/2 Croad
Watson 1/2 - 1/2 Shen
Steadman 1/2 - 1/2 McLaren
Thornton 1 - 0 Hart

etc.

Tony Dowden's prediction for Watson - Shen near the mark, Steadman never in danger but was held out. No idea what happened on top two boards.

PGN will probably not appear until tomorrow ( Wednesday 13th )

NZer
12-01-2010, 05:35 PM
12-y-o Alan Ansell clear winner on 8.5, 2nd= Edward Tanoi, Henry Vital, 11/12-y-o Hans Gao on 8/11.

Last round:
Ansell 1/2 - 1/2 Vital
Tanoi 1 - 0 Evans
Gao 1/2 - 1/2 Casilang
etc.

Tony Dowden
12-01-2010, 05:50 PM
Championship leading final scores : Ker 8.5 ; Croad 8; Shen 7.5; Watson, Steadman 7

Ker 1 - 0 Smith
Depasquale 1/2 - 1/2 Croad
Watson 1/2 - 1/2 Shen
Steadman 1/2 - 1/2 McLaren
Thornton 1 - 0 Hart

etc.

Tony Dowden's prediction for Watson - Shen near the mark, Steadman never in danger but was held out. No idea what happened on top two boards.

PGN will probably not appear until tomorrow ( Wednesday 13th )

Thanks NZer. Ker collects titles like postage stamps - its his eleventh one!

Well done Anthony! :clap: :clap: :clap:

Capablanca-Fan
12-01-2010, 06:19 PM
My prediction for the last round:

1. Ker fails to break down Bob and agrees draw
I think Smith will spoil his position by trying too hard to win. They are both "fighters", but Ker is about 10 years younger and makes fewer mistakes.


2. After seeing Ker finish, Croad offers Depesquale a draw from a slightly better position which is accepted.
But with Black, it's hardly a foregone conclusion that he would be better. An


3. Watson should beat Shen comfortably with white.
I haven't met Shen and haven't seen Watson in a quarter of a century, so no idea.


4. Steadman will take risks to beat McLaren with black, he will get in trouble then grovel a draw.
In the champs which Chandler won, Steadman did quite well but lost a shocker to McLaren (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1482807), who was only too happy to punish such outlandish play.

PS: I honestly wrote the above before seeing the "shout" [12-01-2010 05:50 PM] Tony Dowden: IM Anthony Ker won the Kiwi title

Tony Dowden
12-01-2010, 06:48 PM
PS: I honestly wrote the above before seeing the "shout" [12-01-2010 05:50 PM] Tony Dowden: IM Anthony Ker won the Kiwi title

And the posts immediately above of course ;)

flukey
12-01-2010, 07:23 PM
Ok, so my predictions were abysmal! By all accounts Ker-Smith was a crush. This is unusual because Ker has a minus score v Smith and hardly ever wins!

Anyway, I am in Auckland now ready for the rapid and lightening. Mike Steadman tells me Garbett and Smith aren't playing.

Oh and well done Anthony and hard luck Nic.

Tony Dowden
12-01-2010, 07:44 PM
Final crosstables: http://newzealandchess.co.nz/results.html (scroll down)

NZer
12-01-2010, 07:50 PM
The Championship and Major Open crosstables are updated to include the final round's results on the www.newzealandchess.com site ( as at late Tuesday 12th Jan ). WFM Helen Milligan is the webmistress there, and she deservedly picks up 50-plus ELO points for her excellent performance in the Championship.

The NZ Women's Championship was also decided - in the Major Open. Shirley Wu ( 6.5 ) edged out Eachen Chen ( 6 ), as both lost their final game. Nicole Tsoi followed closely on 5.5 ( also losing her final round ). As well as Shirley, Helen is *very* likely to be invited to join the Womens Olympiad team, of course. Or just possibly, the Open team!?

CivicChessMan
12-01-2010, 08:11 PM
Congratulations to Anthony Ker for retaining the New Zealand title with 8.5/11 and racking up his 11th title! Second only to the late great Ortvin Sarapu, Ker has won the championship in 1989, 91, 93, 94, 95, 2002, 03, 04, 05, 09 and now 2010. Nic Croad finished second, half a point behind and was the only unbeaten player in Congress! Daniel Shen overcame a slow start and rattled home for third on 7.5 while Bruce Watson and Mike Steadman tied for fourth with 7 points. Special mention of Justin Davis who belied his low ranking to finish 10th equal.

Congratulations to Alan Ansell for winning the Major Open. He must surely be one of the youngest, if not the youngest to win the title. A draw with Henry Vital was enough for Ansell to finish half a point clear of Vital, Hans Gao, also a junior, and Edward Tanoi. David Evans with 7.5 held on for fifth place.

Capablanca-Fan
12-01-2010, 08:44 PM
[Event "NZ Championship 2010"]
[Site "Auckland"]
[Date "2010.01.11"]
[Round "10.1"]
[White "Shen, Daniel"]
[Black "Croad, Nicholas"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "B13"]
[WhiteElo "2221"]
[BlackElo "2332"]
[PlyCount "157"]
[EventDate "2010.01.02"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[SourceDate "2010.01.03"]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Bf4 Nf6 6. Bd3 Bg4 7. Qb3 Qc8 8. Nd2 e6 9. Ngf3 Be7 10. h3 Bh5 11. O-O O-O 12. Rac1 Rd8 13. Rfe1 Bg6 14. Bxg6 hxg6 15. c4 dxc4 16. Nxc4 Nd5 17. Bg3 Qd7 18. Nce5 Nxe5 19. Nxe5 Qe8 20. Nd3 b6 21. Rc4 Bg5 22. Re2 Rac8 23. Rec2 Bf6 24. Be5 Be7 25. Bg3 {(=)} Rxc4 26. Qxc4 Bf6 27. Be5 Qd7 28. g4 g5 29. Qc6 Ne7 30. Qxd7 Rxd7 31. Bxf6 gxf6 32. Ne1 Rxd4 33. Rc7 Nd5 34. Rxa7 Rd1 35. Kf1 Rb1 36. b3 Kg7 37. Ra4 Nf4 38. Rc4 Nd3 39. Re4 Ra1 40. a4 Rb1 41. Re3 Nxe1 42. Rxe1 Rxb3 43. Kg2 Kg6 44. Ra1 f5 45. a5 bxa5 46. Rxa5 f4 47. Rc5 f6 48. Rc6 Kf7 49. Rc7+ Kg6 50. Rc6 e5 51. Rc4 Rb6 52. Ra4 Re6 53. Kf3 f5 54. gxf5+ Kxf5 55. Ra5 Rc6 56. Rb5 Rc3+ 57. Kg2 Rd3 58. Ra5 Rb3 59. Ra4 e4 60. Ra5+ Kg6 61. Ra6+ Kh5 62. Ra4 e3 63. fxe3 Rxe3 64. Ra8 Rg3+ 65. Kh2 Rb3 66. Kg2 Rb2+ 67. Kf3 Rb3+ 68. Kg2 Rb2+ 69. Kf3 Rd2 70. Rg8 Rd3+ 71. Kg2 Kh6 72. Ra8 Rg3+ 73. Kh2 Kg6 74. Rf8 Re3 75. h4 Kh5 76. hxg5 Kxg5 77. Kg2 f3+ 78. Rxf3 Rxf3 79. Kxf3 {Drawn} 1/2-1/2

[Event "NZ Championship 2010"]
[Site "Auckland"]
[Date "2010.01.11"]
[Round "10.2"]
[White "Hart, Ralph"]
[Black "Ker, Anthony"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B07"]
[WhiteElo "2276"]
[BlackElo "2423"]
[PlyCount "122"]
[EventDate "2010.01.02"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[SourceDate "2010.01.03"]

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. g3 Bg7 5. Bg2 O-O 6. Nge2 Nbd7 7. O-O c5 8. h3 Rb8 9. a4 b6 10. Be3 a6 11. f4 cxd4 12. Bxd4 Bb7 13. e5 Ne8 14. exd6 Nxd6 15. Bxb7 Rxb7 16. Bxg7 Kxg7 17. Nd5 Kg8 18. Nd4 Nb8 19. f5 Nc4 20. b3 Qxd5 21. bxc4 Qxc4 22. Ra3 Rd7 23. Rd3 Rfd8 24. Rf4 Qxa4 25. Qd2 Nc6 26. Ne6 Qa1+ 27. Rf1 Rxd3 28. cxd3 Qe5 29. Nxd8 Qxg3+ 30. Qg2 Qxg2+ 31. Kxg2 Nxd8 32. fxg6 hxg6 33. Ra1 Ne6 34. Rxa6 Nf4+ 35. Kf3 Nxd3 36. Rxb6 Kg7 37. Rb7 Kf6 38. Rb3 Nc5 39. Ra3 e6 40. Kg4 Nd7 41. Rf3+ Kg7 42. Ra3 f5+ 43. Kg3 Kf6 44. Ra7 Nc5 45. Ra8 Ne4+ 46. Kf3 Ng5+ 47. Kg3 e5 48. Rf8+ Kg7 49. Ra8 Ne6 50. Ra6 Kf6 51. Rb6 e4 52. Ra6 f4+ 53. Kg4 f3 54. h4 f2 55. Ra1 e3 56. Kf3 Nd4+ 57. Kg2 Kf5 58. Ra5+ Ke4 59. h5 gxh5 60. Rxh5 Kd3 61. Re5 Ke2 {White resigns} 0-1

[Event "NZ Championship 2010"]
[Site "Auckland"]
[Date "2010.01.11"]
[Round "10.3"]
[White "Steadman, Michael"]
[Black "Watson, Bruce"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B12"]
[WhiteElo "2337"]
[BlackElo "2297"]
[PlyCount "101"]
[EventDate "2010.01.02"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[SourceDate "2010.01.03"]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. Ne2 Nc6 5. c3 e6 6. Be3 Nge7 7. Ng3 Qb6 8. Qd2 cxd4 9. cxd4 Bd7 10. Nc3 Rc8 11. Be2 Na5 12. O-O Nc4 13. Bxc4 Rxc4 14. Rfd1 h5 15. h4 Kd8 16. Rac1 Kc8 17. Nce4 Rxc1 18. Rxc1+ Nc6 19. Nc5 Bxc5 20. Rxc5 Kb8 21. a3 a5 22. Qc2 g6 23. Ne2 Rc8 24. Qd2 a4 25. Bg5 Qb3 26. f3 Na7 27. Nc1 Qb6 28. Be7 Bb5 29. Na2 Bc4 30. Nc3 Bb3 31. Bd6+ Ka8 32. Qf4 Qd8 33. Qxf7 Qxh4 34. Rxc8+ Nxc8 35. Qxe6 Qxd4+ 36. Kh2 Qh4+ 37. Qh3 Qxh3+ 38. Kxh3 Nxd6 39. exd6 Kb8 40. Kh4 d4 41. Nb5 Kc8 42. Nxd4 Bc4 43. Kg5 Bd3 44. Ne6 Bf1 45. g3 Bg2 46. f4 Kd7 47. Nf8+ Kxd6 48. Nxg6 Bf3 49. f5 Be4 50. f6 Bd5 51. Kxh5 {Black resigns} 1-0

[Event "NZ Championship 2010"]
[Site "Auckland"]
[Date "2010.01.11"]
[Round "10.4"]
[White "Smith, Robert"]
[Black "Han, Daniel"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C83"]
[WhiteElo "2368"]
[BlackElo "2200"]
[PlyCount "85"]
[EventDate "2010.01.02"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[SourceDate "2010.01.03"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Nxe4 6. d4 b5 7. Bb3 d5 8. dxe5 Be6 9. c3 Be7 10. Nbd2 O-O 11. Bc2 Nxd2 12. Bxd2 d4 13. Be4 Bd5 14. Qc2 Bxe4 15. Qxe4 dxc3 16. Bxc3 Qd7 17. Rac1 Rad8 18. e6 Qxe6 19. Qxe6 fxe6 20. Bxg7 Kxg7 21. Rxc6 Bd6 22. Ng5 Rfe8 23. Rxa6 h6 24. Ne4 Be5 25. Rc6 Rd4 26. Re1 Kf7 27. g3 Re7 28. b3 Rd5 29. a4 bxa4 30. bxa4 Ke8 31. Rc4 Rf7 32. Kg2 Bd4 33. Re2 Kd7 34. Rec2 Bb6 35. Nc5+ Ke7 36. Na6 Kd8 37. Nb4 Rdf5 38. f4 h5 39. Nc6+ Kc8 40. Rb2 Rg7 41. a5 Bxa5 42. Rb8+ Kd7 43. Rd8# 1-0

CivicChessMan
12-01-2010, 09:22 PM
The top four climbers in the NZ Championshp are: Justin Davis, Helen Milligan, Antonio Krstev and Daniel Han. The top four fallers are: Paul Garbett, Peter Fraemohs, Ross Jackson and Gavin Marner.

In the Major Open, the top five climbers are: Luke Li, David Rong, George Chen, Shirley Wu and Bian Lui.

Qbert
13-01-2010, 04:48 AM
Ok, so my predictions were abysmal! By all accounts Ker-Smith was a crush. This is unusual because Ker has a minus score v Smith and hardly ever wins!

Anyway, I am in Auckland now ready for the rapid and lightening. Mike Steadman tells me Garbett and Smith aren't playing.

Oh and well done Anthony and hard luck Nic.
Congratulations Anthony - by the sounds of it pulling a great final game out of the bag. Also to Alan Ansell & Shirley Wu.:clap:
Good luck for the Rapid, Stephen.

Adamski
13-01-2010, 07:25 AM
Congratulations Anthony - by the sounds of it pulling a great final game out of the bag. Also to Alan Ansell & Shirley Wu.:clap:
Good luck for the Rapid, Stephen.And ditto to all of that from me. Congratulations also to the other prize-winners and WFM Helen Milligan on her terrific (above rating) performance.

Capablanca-Fan
13-01-2010, 08:57 AM
And the posts immediately above of course ;)
Yes. Open a reply window, compose part of it, look elsewhere to check something, get distracted by something else, then finish. By this time, things have transpired; I didn't realize the game were almost finished; after all, the Aussies still had one more round to go. Some of my predictions did not go as expected anyway, e.g. that Steadman could overpress and get crushed again.

CivicChessMan
14-01-2010, 05:19 AM
Looking at the top 8 finishers of the championship, Anthony Ker played all seven for 4 wins, 1 draw and 2 losses. Watson played six of the top 8 while Croad, Steadman and Han played five. Ker had the best score with 4.5 followed by Watson with 3.5, Croad and Shen with 3. Spare a thought for Ralph Hart who played the top 7 finishers for 2 wins and 5 losses. Hart finished 12th.

Of the original top 12 ranked players, only one, Paul Garbett, failed to finish in the top 12. The player replacing him was Justin Davis. Is this reason enough to return to the 12 player round robin? Possibly. Should the Major Open be split into two grades if numbers permit? Probably not. It should be sufficient to accelerate the first round to bypass the rabbit munching round.

Capablanca-Fan
14-01-2010, 12:50 PM
Looking at the top 8 finishers of the championship, Anthony Ker played all seven for 4 wins, 1 draw and 2 losses. Watson played six of the top 8 while Croad, Steadman and Han played five. Ker had the best score with 4.5 followed by Watson with 3.5, Croad and Shen with 3. Spare a thought for Ralph Hart who played the top 7 finishers for 2 wins and 5 losses. Hart finished 12th.
There were some distortions as I had said, but there is no question of the worthiness of the winner since he also played the strongest field.


Of the original top 12 ranked players, only one, Paul Garbett, failed to finish in the top 12. The player replacing him was Justin Davis. Is this reason enough to return to the 12 player round robin? Possibly. Should the Major Open be split into two grades if numbers permit? Probably not. It should be sufficient to accelerate the first round to bypass the rabbit munching round.
Yes it is. The same happened with the 1985–86, when NZCF decided to abandon the then-standard 12 player round robin against the wish of the players (including some who would have missed out). At the time, it was an achievement in itself to reach the top-12.


Should the Major Open be split into two grades if numbers permit? Probably not. It should be sufficient to accelerate the first round to bypass the rabbit munching round.
With a large Swiss, the top few places should be fairly accurate.
Probably not.

CivicChessMan
14-01-2010, 03:43 PM
If NZCF were to revert to the 12 player round robin for the Championship then it would need to be a closed championship. It might be hard to justify giving places away to foreign players.

NZer
14-01-2010, 06:52 PM
The full PGN of all 11 rounds ( Champs and Major Open ) is now available at
www.newzealandchess.co.nz/results.html ( scroll down past Rapid x-table and Junior x-table, or go to Congress page ). No fault at all of Helen's for the delay.

Rapid Championship: 1st Nic Croad, 2nd Daniel Han

Tony Dowden
14-01-2010, 09:35 PM
If NZCF were to revert to the 12 player round robin for the Championship then it would need to be a closed championship. It might be hard to justify giving places away to foreign players.

I agree, the 12-player event was good while it lasted but bringing in talent from outside is vital to improving NZ chess. But as I suggested before event the rating threshold for entry needs to more like FIDE 2000 (or even 2050) and NZCF 2100. Otherwise weird distortions like Hart finishing below Davis yet playing a much stronger field (and much better chess in the main) will continue to occur.

By the way, the longer I play on this side of the Tasman the more I notice that not all FIDE-ratings are equal. I'm reasonably convinced that the average Australian player with a FIDE 2000 rating is a much more fiercesome proposition than his/her Kiwi counter-part with a FIDE 2000 rating. I'd be interested to know if others agree/disagree (especially from those with experience playing on both sides of the Tasman).

Tony Dowden
14-01-2010, 09:38 PM
And ditto to all of that from me. Congratulations also to the other prize-winners and WFM Helen Milligan on her terrific (above rating) performance.
Can I ditto this ditto? I forgot yesterday, sorry.

Well done to all title holders and place-getters from the classic events. And to Nic Croad for winning the Rapid title. :clap:

Capablanca-Fan
14-01-2010, 09:58 PM
[Round "11.1"]
[White "Ker, Anthony"]
[Black "Smith, Robert"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B06"]
[WhiteElo "2423"]
[BlackElo "2368"]
[PlyCount "71"]
[EventDate "2010.01.02"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[SourceDate "2010.01.03"]

{White alertly saw 14.Bxh6! Bxh6 15.Ne5 winning material} 1. e4 c5 2. c3 d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. d4 g6 5. Nf3 Bg7 6. Na3 cxd4 7. Bc4 Qe4+ 8. Be3 Nh6 9. Nb5 Na6 10. cxd4 O-O 11. O-O Bg4 12. Nc3 Qc6 13. Bd5 Qd7 14. Bxh6 Bxh6 15. Ne5 Bxd1 16. Nxd7 Bg4 17. Nxf8 Rb8 18. h3 Bc8 19. Nxh7 Nc7 20. Rfe1 Kxh7 21. Bxf7 e6 22. d5 Bd2 23. d6 Na6 24. Red1 Bxc3 25. bxc3 Bd7 26. Re1 Nc5 27. Re5 Nd3 28. Re4 Kg7 29. Bxe6 Nc5 30. Rae1 Nxe4 31. Rxe4 Bc6 32. Rf4 Rf8 33. Rxf8 Kxf8 34. f4 b6 35. g4 Kg7 36. d7 {Black resigns} 1-0

[Event "NZ Championship"]
[Site "Auckland"]
[Date "2010.01.12"]
[Round "11.2"]
[White "Depasquale, Chris"]
[Black "Croad, Nicholas"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "A45"]
[WhiteElo "2274"]
[BlackElo "2332"]
[PlyCount "68"]
[EventDate "2010.01.02"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[SourceDate "2010.01.03"]

{White was a clear P up but then allowed too much counterplay} 1. d4 Nf6 2. Bg5 e6 3. e4 h6 4. Bxf6 Qxf6 5. c3 d6 6. Bd3 Nd7 7. Ne2 g5 8. O-O Qe7 9. Nd2 b6 10. a4 Bg7 11. a5 bxa5 12. Rxa5 O-O 13. Qa1 a6 14. Bxa6 Rb8 15. Bxc8 Rfxc8 16. Ra7 c5 17. Rc1 g4 18. Nc4 cxd4 19. cxd4 h5 20. Rc3 Qd8 21. Qc1 Nf6 22. Qf4 e5 23. Qe3 exd4 24. Qxd4 d5 25. Ne3 Nxe4 26. Qxd5 Qxd5 27. Rxc8+ Rxc8 28. Nxd5 Rc2 29. Ndf4 Rxb2 30. g3 Ng5 31. Ra8+ Kh7 32. Ra5 Bh6 33. Kg2 Nf3 34. Rxh5 Rb1 {Draw agreed} 1/2-1/2

[Event "NZ Championship"]
[Site "Auckland"]
[Date "2010.01.12"]
[Round "11.3"]
[White "Watson, Bruce"]
[Black "Shen, Daniel"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "A13"]
[WhiteElo "2297"]
[BlackElo "2221"]
[PlyCount "83"]
[EventDate "2010.01.02"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[SourceDate "2010.01.03"]

1. c4 Nf6 2. g3 e6 3. Bg2 d5 4. Nf3 Bd6 5. O-O c6 6. cxd5 exd5 7. d3 Nbd7 8. e4 O-O 9. Nc3 dxe4 10. dxe4 Ne5 11. Nxe5 Bxe5 12. Be3 Qe7 13. h3 b6 14. Qc2 Bb7 15. a4 Bxc3 16. bxc3 c5 17. f3 Rac8 18. Rad1 Rfd8 19. Rxd8+ Rxd8 20. Rd1 Bc6 21. Rxd8+ Qxd8 22. Bf1 Qc7 23. Bf2 Qd7 24. a5 b5 25. Qd3 Qxd3 26. Bxd3 Nd7 {(=)} 27. f4 a6 28. e5 Bd5 29. Bf5 Bc6 30. g4 g6 31. Bc2 Bd5 32. Kh2 Kg7 33. Kg3 f6 34. h4 Kf7 35. f5 fxe5 36. fxg6+ hxg6 37. h5 gxh5 38. gxh5 Nf6 39. Bg6+ Kg7 40. Be1 Be4 41. Bxe4 Nxe4+ 42. Kg4 {Draw agreed} 1/2-1/2

[Event "NZ Championship"]
[Site "Auckland"]
[Date "2010.01.12"]
[Round "11.4"]
[White "McLaren, Leonard"]
[Black "Steadman, Michael"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "B03"]
[WhiteElo "2258"]
[BlackElo "2337"]
[PlyCount "81"]
[EventDate "2010.01.02"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[SourceDate "2010.01.03"]

{Steadman was fortunate here. With a bit more care, White's extra strong passed cP would have won} 1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. c4 Nb6 4. d4 d6 5. exd6 cxd6 6. Nc3 g6 7. a4 Bg7 8. Be3 O-O 9. a5 N6d7 10. Nf3 Nf6 11. h3 d5 12. c5 Nc6 13. a6 bxa6 14. Bxa6 Rb8 15. Bb5 Bd7 16. Qa4 Qc7 17. O-O e6 18. Nd2 Rb7 19. Rfb1 Rfb8 20. Bxc6 Bxc6 21. Qa3 Nd7 22. b4 e5 23. Nf3 exd4 24. Bxd4 Ne5 25. Nxe5 Bxe5 26. Bxe5 Qxe5 27. Re1 Qg5 28. b5 Bxb5 29. Nxb5 Rxb5 30. Qxa7 d4 31. c6 Qc5 32. Qd7 Qf5 33. Qxd4 Rd5 34. c7 Rc8 35. Qb6 Rb5 36. Qd6 Rd5 37. Qa6 Rd2 38. Re2 Rxe2 39. Qxe2 Rxc7 40. Qe8+ Kg7 41. Qe3 {Draw agreed} 1/2-1/2

[Event "NZ Championship"]
[Site "Auckland"]
[Date "2010.01.12"]
[Round "11.5"]
[White "Thornton, Gino"]
[Black "Hart, Ralph"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A84"]
[WhiteElo "2214"]
[BlackElo "2276"]
[PlyCount "85"]
[EventDate "2010.01.02"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[SourceDate "2010.01.03"]

1. Nf3 e6 2. c4 b6 3. g3 Bb7 4. Bg2 f5 5. O-O Nf6 6. d4 g6 7. Nc3 Bg7 8. Bg5 O-O 9. Re1 Qe8 10. Bxf6 Rxf6 11. e4 a5 12. d5 f4 13. a3 Na6 14. Nb5 e5 15. Rb1 Bf8 16. Qc2 Bc5 17. g4 Qe7 18. Kh1 Re8 19. Red1 Bc8 20. d6 Bxd6 21. g5 Re6 22. Bh3 Bc5 23. b4 axb4 24. axb4 Bxb4 25. Bxe6+ dxe6 26. h4 Bd6 27. Nxd6 cxd6 28. Rxb6 Nc5 29. Nh2 h6 30. Rg1 hxg5 31. Rxg5 Kf7 32. f3 Rh8 33. Rg2 Rxh4 34. Qd2 Nb7 35. Qb4 Rh8 36. Kg1 Qc7 37. Qb5 Rd8 38. Rc6 Qe7 39. Qb6 Nc5 40. Ng4 Bb7 41. Rc7 Rd7 42. Rxc5 dxc5 43. Nxe5+ {I presume Black resigned although the file has "draw agreed"} 1-0

[Event "NZ Championship"]
[Site "Auckland"]
[Date "2010.01.12"]
[Round "11.6"]
[White "Han, Daniel"]
[Black "Milligan, Helen"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "E34"]
[WhiteElo "2200"]
[BlackElo "2018"]
[PlyCount "127"]
[EventDate "2010.01.02"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[SourceDate "2010.01.03"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Qc2 d5 5. cxd5 Qxd5 6. Nf3 Qf5 7. Qxf5 exf5 8. Bf4 Nd5 9. Bd2 Be6 10. e3 Nd7 11. Bd3 N7f6 12. h4 c6 13. Ng5 O-O 14. h5 h6 15. Nf3 Rfe8 16. Kf1 Bd6 17. a3 Nb6 18. Kg1 Nc4 19. Bc1 Nb6 20. Nh4 Nxh5 21. Nxf5 Bxf5 22. Bxf5 Nf6 23. Bd3 Nfd5 24. Ne4 Nc8 25. Bd2 Bc7 26. Rc1 Nd6 27. Nc5 f5 28. Rh5 Nf6 29. Rh3 Nfe4 30. Be1 Nxc5 31. Rxc5 Bb6 32. Rc1 Rad8 33. Rf3 Rf8 34. Bb4 g6 35. Rh3 Kh7 36. g3 Rfe8 37. Kg2 Ne4 38. Bb1 Nf6 39. Rch1 h5 40. Rh4 Kg7 41. R4h3 Rd7 42. Rc1 Nd5 43. Bd2 Nf6 44. Bb4 Nd5 45. Be1 Nf6 46. Rh1 Ng4 47. Bc3 Nf6 48. Rhd1 Kh7 49. Bb4 Nd5 50. Bd2 Nf6 51. Bd3 Ne4 52. Bb4 Nf6 53. Rc2 Nd5 54. Bd2 Nf6 55. b4 Ne4 56. Bc1 a5 57. b5 c5 58. f3 Nf6 59. dxc5 Red8 60. cxb6 Rxd3 61. Rc7+ Kg8 62. Rxd3 Rxd3 63. Rxb7 Rb3 64. a4 {Black resigns} 1-0

[Event "NZ Championship"]
[Site "Auckland"]
[Date "2010.01.12"]
[Round "11.7"]
[White "Krstev, Mario"]
[Black "Garbett, Paul"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "A60"]
[WhiteElo "2122"]
[BlackElo "2350"]
[PlyCount "103"]
[EventDate "2010.01.02"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[SourceDate "2010.01.03"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 e5 4. dxe6 fxe6 5. Nc3 d5 6. cxd5 exd5 7. g3 d4 8. Nb1 Be6 9. Bg2 Bd5 10. Nf3 Be7 11. O-O Nc6 12. e3 dxe3 13. Bxe3 O-O 14. Nc3 Bc4 15. Re1 Nd5 16. Nxd5 Bxd5 17. Ng5 Bxg2 18. Qxd8 Raxd8 19. Kxg2 Bxg5 20. Bxg5 Rd5 21. h4 h6 22. Bf4 Nb4 23. Re6 Nd3 24. Be3 b6 25. Rb1 Rd7 26. a4 Rf5 27. a5 Kf7 28. Rc6 Ne5 29. Rc8 Nc4 30. axb6 Nxe3+ 31. fxe3 Rd2+ 32. Kh3 axb6 33. Kg4 g6 34. Rc7+ Ke6 35. Rc6+ Rd6 36. Rxd6+ Kxd6 37. Rd1+ Ke6 38. Rd2 h5+ 39. Kh3 Rf3 40. Rd3 Rf2 41. Rb3 Kf5 42. Rxb6 Rc2 43. Rc6 c4 44. g4+ hxg4+ 45. Kg3 Rc1 46. Rc5+ Ke4 47. Kxg4 Rg1+ 48. Kh3 Kf3 49. Kh2 Rg2+ 50. Kh3 Rg3+ 51. Kh2 Rg4 52. Kh3 {Draw agreed} 1/2-1/2

[Event "NZ Championship"]
[Site "Auckland"]
[Date "2010.01.12"]
[Round "11.8"]
[White "Davis, Justin"]
[Black "Stuart, Peter"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "E45"]
[WhiteElo "2035"]
[BlackElo "2057"]
[PlyCount "39"]
[EventDate "2010.01.02"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[SourceDate "2010.01.03"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 b6 5. Nge2 Ba6 6. a3 Be7 7. Nf4 d5 8. cxd5 Bxf1 9. dxe6 Ba6 10. exf7+ Kxf7 11. e4 c5 12. e5 Qxd4 13. e6+ Kf8 14. Qf3 Qe5+ 15. Be3 Nc6 16. Qxc6 Rd8 17. Qa4 g5 18. Nh3 Bb7 19. Nxg5 Bxg2 20. Nf7 {Black resigns} 1-0

NZer
14-01-2010, 11:14 PM
Winner: Ralph Hart
2nd: Mike Steadman

Adamski
15-01-2010, 06:20 AM
Winner: Ralph Hart
2nd: Mike SteadmanCongratulations, Ralph! The winner has been around the NZ chess scene for some years now and it is good to see him win a title. (Might help make up for that mobile phone sound made loss.)

CivicChessMan
16-01-2010, 03:04 AM
I agree, the 12-player event was good while it lasted but bringing in talent from outside is vital to improving NZ chess. But as I suggested before event the rating threshold for entry needs to more like FIDE 2000 (or even 2050) and NZCF 2100. Otherwise weird distortions like Hart finishing below Davis yet playing a much stronger field (and much better chess in the main) will continue to occur..

Currently, the NZCF rating limit is 2000 and FIDE rating limit is 2100. If the NZCF limit was increased to 2100 then 16 players would have competed for the championship. Certainly, this would have made for some interesting matchups in the last 2 or 3 rounds.

Alternative is to limit the size of the Championship to 24 players. Of the 24 places, 3 "wildcard" entries would be reserved for the highest rated woman, junior and senior players with the proviso that they had an NZCF rating of at least 2000. If applied to this championship, then Messrs Jackson (27th), Fraemohs (28th), Fuatai (19th) and Nyberg (22nd) would be in the Major Open. Helen Milligan, despite a lower rating, gets one of the wildcard entries. The number of foreign players would be limited to 6 or 8.

The above 24-players would be the norm with the obvious exception of tournaments like the Queenstown Classic.

Tony Dowden
16-01-2010, 12:11 PM
.

If the NZCF limit was increased to 2100 then 16 players would have competed for the championship. Certainly, this would have made for some interesting matchups in the last 2 or 3 rounds.


... which would hardly be conducive to a good sporting outcome so in a case like this the rules should be relaxed somewhat :)

The only real problem with Championship, as I see it, is when the rules are so lax they let too many people in (after all, it would be unethical to exclude anyone if the rules state they qualify).

As a rule of thumb I think people around my rating/strength should be struggling to make the grade - not find they are ranked in the top half. I'm fairly confident that at poll of the top 30 or so players in NZ would agree with me.

Tony Dowden
17-01-2010, 12:58 PM
Does anyone know what happened to Championship debutant Justin Davis in the NZ rapid event?

He scored a very poor 2/9 - 1 win, 2 draws and 6 losses (including forfeits in his last two games), finishing 54th in a field of 57 players :eek:

CivicChessMan
18-01-2010, 07:29 AM
According to Justin, he suffered a meltdown which he primarily attributes to exhaustion from his intensive efforts in the championship.

Qbert
18-01-2010, 09:13 AM
According to Justin, he suffered a meltdown which he primarily attributes to exhaustion from his intensive efforts in the championship.
Understandable - I think it is a mistake to run the rapids at the end of a long Standard tournament. At last year's South Island Chp, (and the previous one organised by Otago in 2004) we reversed the usual order and ran the Rapid first as a warm-up to the main event. That way players who only come for the Rapid don't get a big advantage of of fresh legs over those that ground through the slow games.

CivicChessMan
19-01-2010, 06:46 AM
I think it is a mistake to run the rapids at the end of a long Standard tournament. At last year's South Island Chp, (and the previous one organised by Otago in 2004) we reversed the usual order and ran the Rapid first as a warm-up to the main event. That way players who only come for the Rapid don't get a big advantage of of fresh legs over those that ground through the slow games.

I agree. The rapid would be a good warmup for the main event. It may also give an indication of who to look out for. Send the suggestion to NZCF.

Tony Dowden
30-01-2010, 02:44 PM
According to Justin, he suffered a meltdown which he primarily attributes to exhaustion from his intensive efforts in the championship.

Thanks CCM (you mystery man)

Tony Dowden
30-01-2010, 02:47 PM
Understandable - I think it is a mistake to run the rapids at the end of a long Standard tournament. At last year's South Island Chp, (and the previous one organised by Otago in 2004) we reversed the usual order and ran the Rapid first as a warm-up to the main event. That way players who only come for the Rapid don't get a big advantage of of fresh legs over those that ground through the slow games.

I agree with this (as does CivicChessMan). In addition if held closer to New Year (maybe even over Jan 1-2) some players could compete during their normal holiday without having to take time off.