PDA

View Full Version : Victorian Masters



Javier Gil
14-04-2004, 10:05 PM
Does anybody have any news about this tournament? Round 1 was today. I'm surprised there's so little information on the internet on a chess tournament of this category.

The Victorian Masters is an invitational tournament devised to create opportunities for local players to compete for FIDE titles and ratings. The 2004 Masters will run from April 14 to 23 and will again be conducted on behalf of the Association by chess retailer and coaching service provider Chess World.

Rhubarb
14-04-2004, 11:39 PM
Does anybody have any news about this tournament? Round 1 was today.

Average FIDE 2321, which is a shame since if it was over 2325 the IM norm would be 6/9 rather than 6.5.

Round 1:
Lukey - Solomon 1-0
Levi - Froehlich 0.5-0.5
West - Canfell 0-1
Tindall - Puchen Wang 0.5-0.5
Lim Yee Weng - Abdul Wahab 0.5-0.5

I don't know what the Web coverage is likely to be for the rest of the tournament but I'll provide updates when I get online (if I'm still winning :) ).

chesslover
14-04-2004, 11:47 PM
Average FIDE 2321, which is a shame since if it was over 2325 the IM norm would be 6/9 rather than 6.5.

Round 1:
Lukey - Solomon 1-0
Levi - Froehlich 0.5-0.5
West - Canfell 0-1
Tindall - Puchen Wang 0.5-0.5
Lim Yee Weng - Abdul Wahab 0.5-0.5

I don't know what the Web coverage is likely to be for the rest of the tournament but I'll provide updates when I get online (if I'm still winning :) ).

you beat West. WOW. well done mate :clap: :clap:

Interesting to see how Olympiad contenders Solo and Froelich go.

jase
14-04-2004, 11:50 PM
Greg, thanks for your post [and Javier also for initiating this thread].

This is the strongest tournament currently in progress in Australia, however there is nothing on the ACF website. There is nothing on the VCA site. And nothing on the Chess World site.

Congrats on racking up a victory against Guy.

chesslover
14-04-2004, 11:55 PM
greg

any chnace of posting your win against Guy???????

And when are you playing Solo???

Rhubarb
15-04-2004, 12:44 AM
greg

any chnace of posting your win against Guy???????

And when are you playing Solo???

Playing Solo in round 5.

West,G - Canfell,G
Victorian Masters 2004 (1)

1.g3 Nf6 2.Bg2 d5 3.d3 e5 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.0-0 Be7 6.c3 a5 7.a4 0-0 8.Na3 h6 9.Nb5 Be6 10.Qc2 Re8 11.e4 dxe4 12.dxe4 Bc5 13.h3 Qe7 14.Re1 Rad8 15.Nh4 Rd7 16.Nf5 Qd8 17.Bf1 Bxf5 18.exf5 e4 19.Be3 Bxe3 20.Rxe3 Rd2 21.Qb3 Qd7 22.Na3 Qxf5 23.Re2 e3 24.Rxd2 exd2 25.g4 Nxg4 26.hxg4 Qxg4+ 27.Kh2 Re1 0-1

Javier Gil
15-04-2004, 01:35 AM
This is the strongest tournament currently in progress in Australia, however there is nothing on the ACF website. There is nothing on the VCA site. And nothing on the Chess World site.


Exactly. This is very shameful.

By the way, congratulations Greg :clap: and thanks for your report on the first round.

Rincewind
15-04-2004, 08:17 AM
Thanks for posting the game Greg, nice win. Guy's knight play seemed a little cryptic to a mere mortal like me. Seemed to spend a lot of tempi on them. Is the knight that useful on b5 in that position? And the knight on f5 just got swapped off and allowed the e-pawn battering ram that allowed you to win the game so nicely. Perhaps when you have more time you could comment a little on the game too.

Good luck in the rest of the tourny.

chesslover
15-04-2004, 09:08 PM
Greg good game

you did not play like a Feeble Master at all - in this game an Impressive Master standard were thou :p

good luck with the rest of the games and I will barrack for you in this tournament

Rhubarb
15-04-2004, 11:56 PM
you did not play like a Feeble Master at all

Sadly, I played more like a feeble non-master today. I've just got home so I assume the round 2 results haven't been posted elsewhere.

Puchen Wang (NZ) - Canfell 1-0
Solomon - Lim Yee Weng (MAL) 1-0
Froehlich (GER) - West 0.5-0.5
Tindall - Lukey (NZ) 1-0
Krstic - Levi 0.5-0.5

Abdul Wahab (IRQ) has withdrawn due to illness, replaced by Krstic, who is to be commended for stepping in such short notice. I believe the category and norm requirements remain the same.

Tindall, Wang 1.5/2
Froehlich, Solomon, Canfell, Levi, Lukey 1.0/2
Krstic 0.5/1
West, Lim Yee Weng 0.5/2

(Abdul Wahab 0.5/1)

Rhubarb
16-04-2004, 12:09 AM
Thanks for posting the game Greg, nice win. Guy's knight play seemed a little cryptic to a mere mortal like me. Seemed to spend a lot of tempi on them. Is the knight that useful on b5 in that position? And the knight on f5 just got swapped off and allowed the e-pawn battering ram that allowed you to win the game so nicely.
This is pretty much right, Barry. Guy played a reverse Pirc, so my classical set-up in reply means his extra tempo is not so critical, and I think I equalised. The knight didn't necessarily have to go to b5 straight away either, as sometimes it is more effective on c4 (after dxe4 by Black). The Nh4-f5 plan wasn't bad per se since 16...Bxf5 17.exf5 e4 is met by 18.Bf4 and White will eventually get the e-pawn. After 16...Qd8, Guy completely forgot about the f5 capture and 17.Bf1 just makes it that much worse for him. 22.Na3 was just a time-trouble mistake, although after 22.g4 Ne5, he's got Nf3+ and Q onto the b8-h2 diagonal at some point to contend with.

Machiavelli
16-04-2004, 12:13 AM
Hey Greg, is/are your IM norm(s) still in existence, or has it/have they expired?

Rhubarb
16-04-2004, 12:45 AM
Hey Greg, is/are your IM norm(s) still in existence, or has it/have they expired?
My understanding is that norms no longer expire after six years, and that all norms have been retrospectively reactivated, in which case I have a 12-game norm from 1990. The difference is that it requires 30 games worth of norms rather than 24, so it's now practically impossible to do it in two norms, and for some people may even require four norms. The IA's can probably confirm this. Of course, after today this is looking a little academic for me, but Brett must be some kind of chance to get to 6.5.

jase
16-04-2004, 12:58 AM
My understanding is that norms no longer expire after six years, and that all norms have been retrospectively reactivated, in which case I have a 12-game norm from 1990. The difference is that it requires 30 games worth of norms rather than 24, so it's now practically impossible to do it in two norms, and for some people may even require four norms. The IA's can probably confirm this. Of course, after today this is looking a little academic for me, but Brett must be some kind of chance to get to 6.5.

Yes, no time period any more.

You're not quite dead in the water yet for an IM norm, though this result is awful in terms of tournament management. Solo and Froehlich loomed as danger games, the others as win/draw matches, in terms of making 6.5.

Still, you have the goods to combat Solo [hopefully you learnt from your Doeberl experience!] and have stay alive with a 1.5 margin for error from here on in.

Bill Gletsos
16-04-2004, 01:11 AM
Sadly, I played more like a feeble non-master today. I've just got home so I assume the round 2 results haven't been posted elsewhere.

Puchen Wang (NZ) - Canfell 1-0
Solomon - Lee Yin Weng (MAL) 1-0
Froehlich (GER) - West 0.5-0.5
Tindall - Lukey (NZ) 1-0
Krstic - Levi 0.5-0.5

Abdul Wahab (IRQ) has withdrawn due to illness, replaced by Krstic, who is to be commended for stepping in such short notice. I believe the category and norm requirements remain the same.

Tindall, Wang 1.5/2
Froehlich, Solomon, Canfell, Levi, Lukey 1.0/2
Krstic 0.5/1
West, Lee Yin Weng 0.5/2

(Abdul Wahab 0.5/1)
Abdul Wahab is FIDE rated 2296 whereas Krstic is only 2111.
A difference of 185.
This would drop the average rating by 18.5 points but if the average was 2321 then its still above 2300 at 2302.
Hence that is why it makes no difference to the norm requirements.

jenni
16-04-2004, 01:32 AM
Sadly, I played more like a feeble non-master today. I've just got home so I assume the round 2 results haven't been posted elsewhere.

Puchen Wang (NZ) - Canfell 1-0
)

I wouldn't feel too bad about losing to Puchen - he is a talented boy who finished 5th I think when he played the Under 10 in the WYCC in Oropesa a few years ago.

Rhubarb
16-04-2004, 01:36 AM
Abdul Wahab is FIDE rated 2296 whereas Krstic is only 2111.
A difference of 185.
This would drop the average rating by 18.5 points but if the average was 2321 then its still above 2300 at 2302.
Hence that is why it makes no difference to the norm requirements.
I think FIDE have changed all the category requirements anyway to more closely reflect the 2450 and 2600 PR for IM norms and GM norms. So for an IM norm of 6.5/9 the average only needs to be above 2285.
P.S. Just to correct what I said earlier, it's 27 games in total, not 30 games, so three norms will generally do it.

Rhubarb
16-04-2004, 01:39 AM
I wouldn't feel too bad about losing to Puchen - he is a talented boy who finished 5th I think when he played the Under 10 in the WYCC in Oropesa a few years ago.
Yes he's a great talent. I was more upset by the way i played. Just sent an email to my folks where I described him as "NZ's greatest hope since .... well since forever", but that may be a tad unfair on Murray Chandler...

Rhubarb
16-04-2004, 02:33 AM
Right then, since there's no other online coverage of the Vic Masters, I might as well turn this thread into my own bloody tournament diary. Unfortunately, this requires putting in my game today. :eek:

I'll ask the other players if they want to give me any of their games. Maybe I should also ask chessworld.com.au to put a link on their home page to CK Forum???

Wang, Puchen - Canfell, Greg A45
Victorian Masters Melbourne (2)

1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 Ne4 3.Bf4 d5 4.f3 Nf6 5.e4 e6 (5...dxe4) 6.e5 Nfd7 7.c3 c5 8.Be3 Nc6 9.f4 Qb6 10.Qd2 a5!? 11.a4! Qb3? (11...c4 followed by Qc7, Na7, Nb6, Bd7, Be7 and maybe 0-0-0 is a typical French plan but I don't understand these positions very well) 12.Nf3! cxd4?! (12...c4) 13.Nxd4 Nxd4 14.Bxd4 b6?? (14...Bc5 15.Bxc5 Nxc5 16.Bb5 Bd7 17. Ra3 Bxb5 18.Rxb3 Nxb3 19.Qf2 Bxa4 with some chances) 15.Qc1! (completely missed that one) 1-0

GregLover
16-04-2004, 09:46 AM
Right then, since there's no other online coverage of the Vic Masters, I might as well turn this thread into my own bloody tournament diary. Unfortunately, this requires putting in my game today.
Please don't post games like that. Please don't play like that. It was more like chesslover than greglover. :wall:

arosar
16-04-2004, 09:50 AM
This is pretty much right, Barry. Guy played a reverse Pirc, so my classical set-up in reply means his extra tempo is not so critical, and I think I equalised. The knight didn't necessarily have to go to b5 straight away either, as sometimes it is more effective on c4 (after dxe4 by Black). The Nh4-f5 plan wasn't bad per se since 16...Bxf5 17.exf5 e4 is met by 18.Bf4 and White will eventually get the e-pawn. After 16...Qd8, Guy completely forgot about the f5 capture and 17.Bf1 just makes it that much worse for him. 22.Na3 was just a time-trouble mistake, although after 22.g4 Ne5, he's got Nf3+ and Q onto the b8-h2 diagonal at some point to contend with.

This is the sort of stuff that completely mersmerised me mate that I was tellin' you about once. Remember? You're his greatest hero ever man. I reckon you should write more - like for ACFo or somethin' or do some teaching stuff.

AR

Garvinator
16-04-2004, 10:34 AM
who is this greglover person?

Bill Gletsos
16-04-2004, 12:03 PM
[abuse deleted]
AR
Of course it could be asked who cares what you think AR.

arosar
16-04-2004, 12:08 PM
Of course it could be asked who cares what you think AR.

Anyone who runs for NSWCA Prez or other office in Council. Problem, of course, is that most of youse are incestuous basta.rds.

AR

Garvinator
16-04-2004, 12:11 PM
Anyone who runs for NSWCA Prez or other office in Council. Problem, of course, is that most of youse are incestuous basta.rds.

AR

racist and incestuous, that is an impressive list you are building up, how about corrupt, cl threw that one in, would you like to add that to your vocabulary too? :whistle: :whistle:

Bill Gletsos
16-04-2004, 12:19 PM
Anyone who runs for NSWCA Prez or other office in Council. Problem, of course, is that most of youse are incestuous basta.rds.

AR
And if your views are in the minority then what.
Shouldnt we listen to the majority.

Also your contribution to NSW and Australian chess is what?
Critic?
Bloodsucker?

Or dare I say it goose.

arosar
16-04-2004, 12:32 PM
And if your views are in the minority then what.
Shouldnt we listen to the majority.

The majority? You mean the majority of the 20 octogenarians that you've basically bludgeoned into submission? Gimme a break you jack-a.s.s.

AR

Javier Gil
16-04-2004, 12:45 PM
Thanks for including your game against Wang, Greg.
I for one read your chess "diary" with interest.

Greetings.

Lucena
16-04-2004, 12:49 PM
when does the tournament finish greg?

Bill Gletsos
16-04-2004, 01:15 PM
The majority? You mean the majority of the 20 octogenarians that you've basically bludgeoned into submission? Gimme a break you jack-a.s.s.
The only ass around here is you AR.
In fact you are proof of the saying "Keep quiet and let everyone think your a fool or open your mouth and prove it".

The more you sqwark the more you confirm it.

arosar
16-04-2004, 01:20 PM
Oh yeah that's right . . . Cos you like to do all the talkin' don't you? There's plenty of peeps out there Bill who reckon you behave like the last King of friggin' Westphalia. You're an ossified sofa in the back of a granny flat that needs a good kickin' Bill.

AR

Feldgrau
16-04-2004, 05:49 PM
Thanks for the diary Greg, following your games with interest.

If you haven't allready could you dig up the undoubtedly painful solomonized experience you suffered at Doeberl? A book needs to be written about his crimes so the whole world can be warned.

On another matter perhaps the intellectual cross thread could be moved to another section (personal abuse?) perhaps.

Garvinator
16-04-2004, 05:52 PM
Thanks for the diary Greg, following your games with interest.

If you haven't allready could you dig up the undoubtedly painful solomonized experience you suffered at Doeberl? A book needs to be written about his crimes so the whole world can be warned.

On another matter perhaps the intellectual cross thread could be moved to another section (personal abuse?) perhaps.

or deleted :whistle:

Garvinator
16-04-2004, 05:58 PM
If you haven't allready could you dig up the undoubtedly painful solomonized experience you suffered at Doeberl? A book needs to be written about his crimes so the whole world can be warned.
at the risk of looking like cl even more :wall: :whistle: here you go feldgrau

Solomon - Canfell

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6 6. Be2 Be7 7. O-O O-O 8. f4 Nc6 9. Be3 Qc7 10. Kh1 a6 11. Qe1 Nxd4 12. Bxd4 e5 13. fxe5 dxe5 14. Qg3 Bd6 15. Rxf6 exd4 16. Qxd6 Qxd6 17. Rxd6 dxc3 18. b3 Be6 19. Kg1 Rac8 20. Rad1 Rfe8 21. Kf2 f5 22. R1d4 fxe4 23. Ke3 Bf5 24. g4 Bg6 25. h4 Re7 26. Rd8+ Rxd8 27. Rxd8+ Be8 28. Bc4+ Kf8 29. Bd5 g5 30. hxg5 Rg7 31. Bxe4 Rxg5 32. Bxb7 Ke7 33. Rd4 Bg6 34. Bxa6 Bxc2 35. Bd3 Re5+ 36. Re4 Rxe4+ 37. Kxe4 Bd1 38. Ke3 h6 39. Bf5 Kf6 40. Bc8 Ke5 41. Kd3 c2 42. Kd2 Kd4 43. Bf5 Ke5 44. Bd7 Kd4 45. Bf5 Ke5 46. Bxc2 Bxg4 47. Ke3 Kd5 48. Bd3 Kc5 49. a3 Be6 50. b4+ Kd5 51. a4 Bd7 52. a5 Kd6 53. Be2 Bc6 54. Kd4 Bg2 55. b5 Bh1 56. Bd3 h5 57. Be4 1-0

chesslover
16-04-2004, 06:58 PM
Sadly, I played more like a feeble non-master today. I've just got home so I assume the round 2 results haven't been posted elsewhere.

Puchen Wang (NZ) - Canfell 1-0


Tragic indeed is thy fate my dear sir

from an Impressive Master, thou have fallen far

not even a Feeble Master, far worse is thy destiny

a Feeble Non-Master, oh the shame of it, oh the shame of it

Please please please rise up my dear sir

and show the mexicans what we in NSW are capable of

the prayers and hopes of NSW on thy shoulders doth rest

chesslover
16-04-2004, 07:06 PM
And if your views are in the minority then what.
Shouldnt we listen to the majority.

Also your contribution to NSW and Australian chess is what?
Critic?
Bloodsucker?

Or dare I say it goose.

grave and serious exception to this post i taketh
for calling my kind hearted and wonderful friend thus

a joke this is not
but something serious
for calling my wonderful kindhearted mate arosar thus

Arosar is nice, he is kind
he helps a lot, and is fair of heart
I am proud to call him my mate
and I see a sensitive side of him that the world doth not see

calling him a goose, critic and bloodsucker
is not right, is not true and is not just

so I ask thee nicely
withdraw and apologise to my dear friend

for your remarks doth him a lot of disservice
my wonderful friend who contributes a lot to chess

so be fair, be nice, be just, be kind my leader
Leader of the Supreme kind
withdraw and Apologise to my dear friend arosar

for not only doth your words hurt him, it hurteth me
to have such a kind and sensitive soul hurt
the pain in my heart and the tears in my eyes
only your apology and withdrawel will heal

Bill Gletsos
16-04-2004, 07:14 PM
grave and serious exception to this post i taketh
for calling my kind hearted and wonderful friend thus

a joke this is not
but something serious
for calling my wonderful kindhearted mate arosar thus

Arosar is nice, he is kind
he helps a lot, and is fair of heart
I am proud to call him my mate
and I see a sensitive side of him that the world doth not see

calling him a goose, critic and bloodsucker
is not right, is not true and is not just

so I ask thee nicely
withdraw and apologise to my dear friend

for your remarks doth him a lot of disservice
my wonderful friend who contributes a lot to chess

so be fair, be nice, be just, be kind my leader
Leader of the Supreme kind
withdraw and Apologise to my dear friend arosar

for not only doth your words hurt him, it hurteth me
to have such a kind and sensitive soul hurt
the pain in my heart and the tears in my eyes
only your apology and withdrawel will heal
Ha ha ha.
Very clerver CL but you must be joking.
AR a sensitive soul.
I think not.

As AR would say:
FMD, you must be friggin' joking mate.
You dopey goosey b.stard.

chesslover
16-04-2004, 10:50 PM
Oh yeah that's right . . . Cos you like to do all the talkin' don't you? There's plenty of peeps out there Bill who reckon you behave like the last King of friggin' Westphalia. You're an ossified sofa in the back of a granny flat that needs a good kickin' Bill.

AR

mate I think you are out of line. I have supported you and think that you are a misunderstood soul who has done a lot for chess and who is a benefit to it.

But attacking Bill liek this is not on, so please do not do it

Bill has done an outstanding job as teh Ratings Officer and also as our Supreme Leader. He stands up and does not back down where our interests are concerned and looks after us. He does that not for his personal glory or power or enrichment, but for what he feels is the right way to go for NSWCA chess. :clap: :clap:

Sure Bill does not stand fools lightly, and if you dissent with his view, you have to prove some logical rational rebuttals. Thta is fair enough,

NSWCA is also unlike other states, where a collegiate type of leadership works best. For some reason there are a lot of powerful and forceful personalities in NSWCA, and teh feuds and bad blood between certain key individuals run very deep. To be an effective NSWCA Supreme Leader, you need some oen who can stand up to these special interests or forceful persoanlities, and not take a backward step. Bill has done that, and has ensured that NSWCA chess is not beholden to any factions or personalities or bullied by them

Bill does all this for free and in addition to being our president, he is also the ratings officer. His job is probably the hardest in australain chess, for he is leader of the most powerful and populas chess state, where there are lot of persoanlities, who all think that their view of australian chess is right. A lot of them have occupied positiosn of power in NSWCA chess, and even been presidents, and thus think thatthey know what is best for NSW chess. As ratings officer, Bill can never ever make 100% of the people happy, and everytime he makes changes there are whinges.

It is a tribute to Bill, that he is not intimidated and sticks to what he thinks is right, even when some of Australia's elite players all blast his system. Many people would have caved in to the elite players and done what they have said, even if overall it is not in the interests of the majority of (non elite) players.

and finally, Bill does not rule alone. The NSWCA Supreme Council have to also agree with what he does, so it is not just Bill but also the NSWCA Supreme Council that you are attacking when you attack Bill's actions as NSWCA Supreme Leader. And lest you think that NSWCA Council is bullied by Bill, I can assure you that it is not. It has people like Matt, Kerry, Norm, Richard, Peter, Steve, Ralph, etc etc - people who are very respected (well maybe not in Matt's case ;) )and who will not cave into anyone (and this includes Matt)

Rhubarb
17-04-2004, 01:05 AM
Round 3

Levi - Solomon 0-1
L. Weng - Tindall 1-0
S.Lukey - P.Wang 0.5-0.5
West - Krstic 1-0
Canfell - Froehlich 0.5-0.5

Solomon, Wang 2/3
West, Froehlich, Tindall, Lukey, Canfell, 1.5/3
Weng 1/2
Levi 1/3
Krstic 0.5/2

The round 1 draw between Weng and Abdul Wahab will be discounted (I don't know if it's still rated). Weng and Krstic will play this round 1 game on Sunday the rest day. Froehlich and Solomon will also play their later-round game on the rest day.

The games from the first three rounds are in the process of being digitised and they may appear at chessworld.com.au soon but I'll keep posting till then.

Comments coming in the next hour...

Rhubarb
17-04-2004, 01:09 AM
Please don't post games like that. Please don't play like that. It was more like chesslover than greglover. :wall:

It's not as if I enjoyed posting that game but I wouldn't want to get a reputation as a fair-weather poster. :hand:

Rincewind
17-04-2004, 01:13 AM
grave and serious exception to this post i taketh

a joke this is not


Is it my imagination or has CL now adopted the persona of Yoda?

Rhubarb
17-04-2004, 01:22 AM
Thanks for including your game against Wang, Greg.
I for one read your chess "diary" with interest.
Javier, it started as mere info but now I'm really getting into this diary concept. Despite losing in 15 moves yesterday, it's probably better for my chess that I post the game rather than my usual form of doing everything possible to obliterate it from memory.

P.S. I did the rook vs. 2 pawns test on chessnia.com and was pleased to find that I was quite competent in this ending (2415 :eek: ). Let me know when the next test is up.

Rhubarb
17-04-2004, 02:26 AM
The analysis of this game is probably best left to Herr Fritz. I spent hours this morning preparing the Sozin Attack (not that I'd ever played it before) as I figured it would give Peter the shits after his last round loss to Sorokina in Ballarat. http://www.auschess.org.au/columns/columns.htm. But I couldn't find any way to any kind of advantage at all, and then it was too late to prepare anything else. So I turned up 10 minutes late and thought, bugger it, I'll play the Sozin anyway. The bluff worked in that he didn't repeat the Sorokina game, even though the whole line is fine (if not better) for Black. We were both pretty much on our own from move 10 onwards.

Didn't have time to look at the other games as I was actually calculating variations for once in my life. Lukey and Wang took a 'rest day' and were finished before I arrived.

Canfell,G - Froehlich,P
Victorian Masters 2004 (3)


1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bc4 e6 7.Bb3 Be7 8.0-0 b5 9.f4 b4 (9...Bb7) 10.Na4 0-0 (scabbing the e-pawn is playable in other lines but not here) 11.e5!? dxe5 12.fxe5 Nfd7 13.Qg4 Nxe5 14.Qe4 Bf6 15.Be3 (15.Qxa8?? Qxd4 16.Kh1 Nbc6) 15...Qc7 16.Rxf6! gxf6 17.Bh6! (17.Qxa8?! Ng4 18.Qf3 Qxh2 19.Kf1 e5! and if 20.Ne2 Qh1 21.Bg1 Nh2) 17...Bb7! (17...Nbc6? 18.Qf4 Qa7 (18...Nxd4 19.Qg3 Ng6 20.Qxc7) 19.c3 Rd8 20.Rd1 winning; 17...Ra7 18.Bxf8 Kxf8 19.Qxh7 looks completely unclear bit I favour White) 18.Qf4 Qd8! 19.Nc5 Ng6 20.Qf2 Bd5 21.Bxd5 Qxd5 22.Qxf6 Qe5 23.Qxe5 Nxe5 ˝-˝ (24.Bxf8 Kxf8 25.a3! bxa3 26.Rxa3 with a slight advantage for White)

GregLover
17-04-2004, 08:40 AM
It's not as if I enjoyed posting that game but I wouldn't want to get a reputation as a fair-weather poster.
Then the only solution is to play better. Seems you're doing that.

Your game against Solo reminds me of Lane-Solomon from the Oz Champs.
No shame to play like the Oz champion. Seems you need 5/7 and must beat Solo. Double celebrations could be in order.

Your game against Froehlich was also a return to good chess. 11 c3!? as in Pavlovic-Rashkovsky, Vrnjacka Banja 1988 (not same move order/position but close) is also interesting. Paul Broekhuyse has featured some games in the Qf3+Bg5 (instead of the older 8. f4 line of Sozin. 8. Qf3 is the newer line from -eg- Short-Kasparov world champs match.) Check the ACF Bulletin archives for the swedish championship.

keep up the good chess.

Rhubarb
17-04-2004, 08:35 PM
Round 4:

Solomon - West 1-0
Lukey - L. Weng 1-0
Krstic - Canfell 0-1
Tindall - Levi 0-1
P.Wang - Froehlich 0.5-0.5

Solomon 3/4
Canfell, Lukey, P.Wang 2.5/4
Froehlich, Levi 2/4
West, Tindall 1.5/4
L. Weng 1/3
Krstic 0.5/3

Krstic,S - Canfell,G
Victorian Masters 2004 (4)

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.Nc3 a6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 d6 6.Be3 Nc6 7.Bc4 Nf6 8.Bb3 Be7 9.0-0 0-0 10.f4 Qc7 11.Kh1 Na5 12.Qe2 b5 13.a3 Nxb3 14.cxb3 Bb7 15.Rac1 Qd7 16.Bg1 Rac8 17.Rcd1 Qc7 18.Rd3 Qb8 19.e5 Nd5 20.Nxd5 Bxd5 21.Qh5 Qb7 22.Rg3 g6 23.Nf3 dxe5 24.fxe5 Bd8 25.Qh6 f5 26.b4 Qg7 27.Qf4 Rc4 28.Bd4 h6 29.b3 Rc2 30.Ne1 Re2 31.Qc1 f4 32.Rg4 g5 33.Bc5 Rf5 34.Nf3 h5 35.Nd4 hxg4 36.Nxe2 f3 37.gxf3 Rxf3 38.Kg1 Qxe5 39.Ng3 Rxg3+ 0-1

Feldgrau
17-04-2004, 09:17 PM
Well done!

Kevin Bonham
17-04-2004, 09:57 PM
Your game against Solo reminds me of Lane-Solomon from the Oz Champs.

L-S was more a case of endgame genius, I don't know how Solo pulled that off. This time most of the damage was done a bit earlier on.

Kevin Bonham
17-04-2004, 10:38 PM
Cute game, one moment Krstic has a peashooter attack on the king side and a few moves later he's being devoured there, largely by pieces that picked up tempo repelling the aggressors.

Lim's a student here in Tas, I'll be interested to see where he finishes up.

chesslover
17-04-2004, 11:15 PM
Skerrovich, is that you? Damn, I was hoping GregLover was some young hot female...

that is the trouble with groupies....they can be male or females

chesslover
17-04-2004, 11:20 PM
Round 4:

Solomon - West 1-0
Lukey - L. Weng 1-0
Krstic - Canfell 0-1
Tindall - Levi 0-1
P.Wang - Froehlich 0.5-0.5

Solomon 3/4
Canfell, Lukey, P.Wang 2.5/4
Froehlich, Levi 2/4
West, Tindall 1.5/4
L. Weng 1/3
Krstic 0.5/3


well done Mate

2.5 from 4 in such a strong field :clap: :clap:

you are an Impressive Master indeed

good luck on the game with Solo. Win and next time I see you I'll buy the first drink okay??

thanks for also allowing us home to follow your epic journey. I think you should be a chess journalist, and submit this for publication

Lucena
18-04-2004, 12:01 AM
at the risk of looking like cl even more :wall: :whistle: here you go feldgrau

Solomon - Canfell

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6 6. Be2 Be7 7. O-O O-O 8. f4 Nc6 9. Be3 Qc7 10. Kh1 a6 11. Qe1 Nxd4 12. Bxd4 e5 13. fxe5 dxe5 14. Qg3 Bd6 15. Rxf6 exd4 16. Qxd6 Qxd6 17. Rxd6 dxc3 18. b3 Be6 19. Kg1 Rac8 20. Rad1 Rfe8 21. Kf2 f5 22. R1d4 fxe4 23. Ke3 Bf5 24. g4 Bg6 25. h4 Re7 26. Rd8+ Rxd8 27. Rxd8+ Be8 28. Bc4+ Kf8 29. Bd5 g5 30. hxg5 Rg7 31. Bxe4 Rxg5 32. Bxb7 Ke7 33. Rd4 Bg6 34. Bxa6 Bxc2 35. Bd3 Re5+ 36. Re4 Rxe4+ 37. Kxe4 Bd1 38. Ke3 h6 39. Bf5 Kf6 40. Bc8 Ke5 41. Kd3 c2 42. Kd2 Kd4 43. Bf5 Ke5 44. Bd7 Kd4 45. Bf5 Ke5 46. Bxc2 Bxg4 47. Ke3 Kd5 48. Bd3 Kc5 49. a3 Be6 50. b4+ Kd5 51. a4 Bd7 52. a5 Kd6 53. Be2 Bc6 54. Kd4 Bg2 55. b5 Bh1 56. Bd3 h5 57. Be4 1-0

That all book in the opening? What's the theoretical verdict?

Feldgrau
18-04-2004, 10:19 AM
Gareth,

It looks like Greg was following a suggested equalizing line suggested in the book "e6 and d6 systems" (or something similar) by Kasparov-Nikitin. They give the line 18.bxc3 Be6 and Rfc8 as equal which seems fair enough. However as Monosolovich has proven before (I seem to recall) the move 18.b3! and bringing everyone of your pieces to the centre quick just means black has a somewhat unpleasant endgame, especially against someone who revels in that area of the struggle :)

Feldgrau.

Lucena
18-04-2004, 10:39 AM
Gareth,

It looks like Greg was following a suggested equalizing line suggested in the book "e6 and d6 systems" (or something similar) by Kasparov-Nikitin. They give the line 18.bxc3 Be6 and Rfc8 as equal which seems fair enough. However as Monosolovich has proven before (I seem to recall) the move 18.b3! and bringing everyone of your pieces to the centre quick just means black has a somewhat unpleasant endgame, especially against someone who revels in that area of the struggle :)

The culprit appears to be Bd6?! and black should prefer the other equalizing variation suggested by K-N of Bc5! which does appear entirely decent for black.

Hope that helps.

Feldgrau.

I hate to say it but doesn't 16...Bc5 walk into Bxe5 winning? Or is it some other variation? I admit I don't have the book you mention.

Lucena
18-04-2004, 10:46 AM
I hate to say it but doesn't 16...Bc5 walk into Bxe5 winning?
ok so obviously you agree with me because you edited that bit out from your post :D

Lucena
18-04-2004, 10:53 AM
Gareth,

It looks like Greg was following a suggested equalizing line suggested in the book "e6 and d6 systems" (or something similar) by Kasparov-Nikitin. They give the line 18.bxc3 Be6 and Rfc8 as equal which seems fair enough. However as Monosolovich has proven before (I seem to recall) the move 18.b3! and bringing everyone of your pieces to the centre quick just means black has a somewhat unpleasant endgame, especially against someone who revels in that area of the struggle :)

Feldgrau.

I can only find the Solomon-Canfell variation in NCO (by transposition) as far as move 14, where it says, after 14Qg3 Bd6, 15Be3 Ne8 16Rf2 is "+" over "-". Not quite sure why. Looks like Solo's choice is also good and suits him as he gets an endgame. By the way, I checked it up and Steven has indeed played this before, against Andrew Allen, and he seemed to win pretty clinically.

Feldgrau
18-04-2004, 10:53 AM
Made the mistake of relying on my memory for that :)

I can't find the pesky book either. Actually that whole position looks juicy for white now. The Kasparov-Nikitin suggestion was without the moves ..a6 and Kh1 included (then Bc5 is a good move). There are a few games with 18...Bd6 in my database, including a nice win by Greg against GM McDonald (he was an IM then I think).

chesslover
19-04-2004, 07:09 PM
anyone know what happen to Greg's fifth game

I have been frantic trying to find out. Hopefully he wins, but I think he loses
if anyone know post and put me out of suspense

Garvinator
19-04-2004, 07:38 PM
anyone know what happen to Greg's fifth game

I have been frantic trying to find out. Hopefully he wins, but I think he loses
if anyone know post and put me out of suspense
perhaps a rest day yesterday?

Rhubarb
19-04-2004, 11:12 PM
On yesterday's rest day, two games were played:

Round 1: L. Weng - Krstic 1-0

Round 6: Solomon - Froehlich 1-0

Round 5 (today)
L. Weng - P.Wang 1-0
West - Tindall 0.5-0.5
Levi - Lukey 0-1
Canfell - Solomon 0.5-0.5
Froehlich - Krstic 1-0

Standings
Solomon 4.5/6
Lukey 3.5/5
Canfell, L.Weng 3/5
Froehlich 3/6
P.Wang 2.5/5
West, Levi, Tindall 2/5
Krstic 0.5/5

Garvinator
19-04-2004, 11:16 PM
Canfell, 3/5

does this mean that an im norm is now unachievable for this tournament? Also does this tournament qualify you for anything?

Bill Gletsos
19-04-2004, 11:21 PM
does this mean that an im norm is now unachievable for this tournament? Also does this tournament qualify you for anything?
I think he needs 3.5 from his remaining 4 games for an IM norm.

jase
19-04-2004, 11:21 PM
does this mean that an im norm is now unachievable for this tournament? Also does this tournament qualify you for anything?

Well if 6.5/9 earns an IM norm, and Greg is placed at 3/5... :doh:

Rhubarb
19-04-2004, 11:24 PM
The IM norm is 6.5/9. Clearly the Kiwi Lukey, who is having a blinder and was unlucky to lose the one game he did, has the best chance, although he's yet to play West and Froehlich. My aspirations to get 3.5/4 will clash with Weng's in round 8 if we both still have a chance by then. Fourteen-year-old Wang needs 4/4, which is not impossible as I jagged exactly that for my one and only norm.

Canfell-Solomon game incoming...

Rhubarb
20-04-2004, 12:02 AM
Canfell - Solomon
Victorian Masters (5)

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.d3 d6 6.f4 e6 7.Nf3 Nge7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Be3 Nd4 10.Bf2 e5 11.Nxd4 exd4 12.Ne2 d5 13.e5 b6 14.c3 dxc3 15.Nxc3 Be6 16.d4 c4 17.g4 Qd7 18.h3 f5 19.exf6 Bxf6 20.Re1 Rfe8 ˝-˝

The Closed Sicilian was probably a good choice against Solo as he has vast experience with White in the Open Sicilian. In fact, he was prepared for another Sozin Attack, but I'd had more than enough complications against Froehlich to last me a while.

Sure enough, 10...e5 may be playable but looks dodgy to me. 11...exd4 looks to be a positional error (after 11...cxd4 12.c3 [EDIT: of course I meant 12.Ne2 followed by c3] White's game is preferable but it may not be too much). After 13.e5 I must have a sizeable advantage and Solo pointed out I should have played 14.b4! further softening up the Q-side, and if now 14...Be6 like in the game (14...cxb4 15.Nxd4 with an even bigger advantage[EDIT: on reflection, not such a big advantage]) 15.bxc5 bxc5 16.c3 dxc3 17.Bxc5 and then rounding up the c-pawn.

After 16...c4! it turns out Black can hold on the K-side (18...f5 to meet the threatened 19.Bh4 was forced but fine) and in the final position White's advantage has all but disappeared because of the d4 weakness.

An interesting try which I almost played during the game was 17.b3!? (DOP Leonid Sandler criticised this during the post-mortem as playing on the wrong side of the board, Still, since he's an IM, he should know a thing or two about the rules not applying in every case.) 17...Rc8 18.bxc4 Rxc4 19.Qb3 Qd7 20.Nb5, intending Nd6 and followed by wresting the c-file, but 20...Nc8 seems OK for Black.

Rhubarb
20-04-2004, 11:14 PM
Round 6

Solomon – Froehlich 1-0 (played on Sunday)
Lukey – West 0-1
L.Weng – Levi 1-0
Tindall – Canfell 0.5-0.5
P.Wang – Krstic 1-0 (not 100% sure about this result, will confirm tomorrow)

Standings

Solomon 4.5/6
L. Weng 4/6
Canfell, Lukey, P. Wang 3.5/6
Froehlich, West 3/6
Tindall 2.5/6
Levi 2/6
Krstic 0.5/6


As the rounds go by the task of the norm hopefuls becomes ever more difficult. Weng has started stringing together the wins but plays West, myself and Froehlich in the last three rounds. The three in third place need 3/3 for the hallowed norm, or at least to put pressure on Solo, who continues his outstanding form in Victorian tournaments in recent times.

The following game and quote is from the bulletins, which started appearing after round 3.

"A surprisingly easy win for Solomon. Black’s mistake was probably allowing e4-e5. Clinical display by Stephen!"

Solomon – Froehlich
Victorian Masters Melbourne (6)

1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Be2 0-0 6.0-0 c6 7.h3 Nbd7 8.Be3 b5 9.a3 Bb7 10.e5 Ne8 11.e6 fxe6 12.Ng5 Nc7 13.Bg4 e5 14.Be6 Kh8 15.f4 exd4 16.Bxd4 c5 17.Bxg7 Kxg7 18.Bd5 Bxd5 19.Nxd5 Rf6 20.Nxf6 Nxf6 21.Qf3 h6 22.Rae1 Rb8 23.Ne6 Nxe6 24.Rxe6 Qd7 25.Rfe1 Re8 26.f5 g5 27.h4 g4 28.Qe3 Ng8 29.f6 Nxf6 30.Rxf6 Kxf6 31.Qxh6 Kf7 32.Rf1 Kg8 33.Qg6 1-0

Tindall – Canfell game to come (maybe).

chesslover
20-04-2004, 11:20 PM
Greg 3.5/6 in such a very strong field is a amazing result mate :clap: :clap:

If you win I might be able to convinve Bob Carr to give you a ticker tape parade when you come back :)

Just 3 rounds to go and keep up the good work mate :clap:

Rhubarb
20-04-2004, 11:23 PM
For Christ's sake give it a rest CL, I'm barely performing above my FIDE rating. :wall:

chesslover
20-04-2004, 11:46 PM
For Christ's sake give it a rest CL, I'm barely performing above my FIDE rating. :wall:

i was geniuinely happy for you

3.5 from 6 is 59% in a strong field and you are coming 3rd after drawing with 2 IMs who are Olymopiad candidates

I would be ecstatcic if after 9 rounds I had 3.5 points

Rhubarb
20-04-2004, 11:51 PM
I would be ecstatcic if after 9 rounds I had 3.5 points

and the rest of us would be apoplectic...

jase
21-04-2004, 12:01 AM
For Christ's sake give it a rest CL, I'm barely performing above my FIDE rating. :wall:

Greg has played all three IMs, so his tourney management to get to 3/5 has been reasonably good. With Weng on the horizon, today [v Brett] looked a must-win.

3/3 remains achievable, but about 8/1 would be a fair price.

Rhubarb
21-04-2004, 12:20 AM
Greg has played all three IMs, so his tourney management to get to 3/5 has been reasonably good. With Weng on the horizon, today [v Brett] looked a must-win.

3/3 remains achievable, but about 8/1 would be a fair price.

Jase, I'd say 8/1 would be a fair price if you were a bookie... (Not sure I'd take 15/1 about myself!)

The run home is:
Solomon B vs. Krstic, B vs. Wang, W vs. Tindall
Weng B vs. West, W vs. Canfell, B vs. Froehlich.
Canfell W vs. Lukey, B vs. Weng, W vs. Levi.
Lukey B vs. Canfell, W vs. Froehlich, B vs. Krstic
Wang B vs. Levi, W vs. Solomon, B vs. West.

Kevin Bonham
21-04-2004, 01:44 AM
A note on Lim Yee Weng's name - Lim is a family name and Yee Weng is the given name part, so I think if referring to him by surname "Lim" is correct. (I haven't asked him in as many words, but I think I've got that right.)

Rhubarb
21-04-2004, 02:20 AM
A note on Lim Yee Weng's name - Lim is a family name and Yee Weng is the given name part, so I think if referring to him by surname "Lim" is correct. (I haven't asked him in as many words, but I think I've got that right.)

Kevin, thanks for the extra info and I'll ask him myself tomorrow. I'm not totally unaware of the family name/given name cultural differences. I went for L. Weng in my later reports because that's how it appeared in the belated bulletins and I assumed they knew what they were doing?!? Meanwhile, he is only searchable under Chessbase when the entire string Lim Yee Weng is in the surname field. To top it off, FIDE, the site of which is currently down, includes a hyphen for unknown reasons.
If I don't get a straight answer tomorrow, I'll just say Lim Yee Weng from hereon in.

Kevin Bonham
21-04-2004, 02:26 AM
Kevin, thanks for the extra info and I'll ask him myself tomorrow. I'm not totally unaware of the family name/given name cultural differences. I went for L. Weng in my later reports because that's how it appeared in the belated bulletins and I assumed they knew what they were doing?!?

Maybe they've got it right and I've got it wrong, who knows? I think he's used to people putting his name in all sorts of orders.

Rhubarb
21-04-2004, 02:48 AM
Maybe they've got it right and I've got it wrong, who knows? I think he's used to people putting his name in all sorts of orders.
Actually, I wouldn't mind participating in a non-chess thread about worldwide naming conventions when I get back to Sydney. At the moment, I'm still procrastinating about what to play against Stephen Lukey tomorrow and shouldn't be on the CK Forum at all (it's like when Bazza said something like: "Please disconnect me immediately.")

Rhubarb
21-04-2004, 10:35 PM
Round 7

Levi - P.Wang 1-0
Krstic - Solomon 0-1
West - Lim Yee Weng 1-0
Canfell - Lukey 1-0
Froehlich - Tindall 1-0

Standings after round 7

Solomon 5.5
Canfell 4.5
Lim Yee Weng, Froehlich, West 4
Lukey, Wang 3.5
Levi 3
Tindall 2.5
Krstic 0.5


Canfell - Lukey
Victorian Masters (7)

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.d4 g6 3.c4 Bg7 4.Nc3 0-0 5.Bf4 This pesky system was recommended to me by Johansen a couple of years ago. 5...d6 6.h3 Nc6 7.Bh2 Nd7 8.e3 e5 9.Be2 Re8 10.0-0 a6 11.Rb1 f5 12.b4 e4 13.Nd2 Kh8 14.c5? This fails tactically. I offer as an excuse that I was off my face on codeine and psuedoephedrine (bloody Melbourne weather - it was unseaonably warm, then there was a vicious cold snap, and now it's unseasonably warm again). After 14.a4 or 14.Qb3 or 14.Qc2 or any reasonable Q-side move, White has a large and comfortable advantage as Black has no intelligent plan on the K-side. 14...dxc5 15.Nd5 Nde5! 16.Nxc7 Qxc7 17.bxc5 Qa5 18.Nb3 Qxa2 19.dxe5 Nxe5? [19...Rd8 20.Nd4 Nxe5 followed by ...Qf7 is a better way] 20.Ra1! Qb2 21.Bb5 This manoeuvre is really annoying for Black as he can't quite consolidate. 21...Be6?? [21...Nc6 22.Nd4 Rd8 (22...Bd7 23.Rb1 Qc3 24.Bxc6 Bxc6 25.Nxc6 bxc6 26.Qd7)(22...Nxd4 23.Bxe8 Ne2+ 24.Kh1 Qxa1 25.Qxa1 Bxa1 26.Rxa1 f4 (26...Be6? 27.Be5+ Kg8 28.Bb5) 27.exf4) 23.Bxc6 bxc6 24.Bd6 with play for White in all cases.] 22.Bxe8 Bxb3 23.Bxe5 Stephen simply missed this shot. 23...Bxe5 24.Qd7! Bc4 [24...Qxa1 25.Rxa1 Bxa1 26.Qxb7 The only chance was to stop Rb1. White still has a lot of work to do after 24...Bc2 25.Qf7 Qb3 26.Rac1] 25.Rab1 Qe2 26.Rfe1 Qh5 27.Rxb7 Bb5 28.Qf7 Rxe8 29.Rxb5 Rg8 30.Rb7 Qh4 31.c6 f4 32.c7 fxe3 33.Qxg8+ 1-0

jay_vee
22-04-2004, 03:28 AM
I think FIDE have changed all the category requirements anyway to more closely reflect the 2450 and 2600 PR for IM norms and GM norms. So for an IM norm of 6.5/9 the average only needs to be above 2285.

Is this calculated once for the tournament or individually for each player? While the average in the tournament is 2302, Greg is actually only playing opponents rated 2292 on average, whereas Krstic's average is 2324. Granted, it doesn't make a difference here, but if the old 2300 limit was still in effect, would Greg need more points (against a weaker field) for the norm than Krstic would?

Sutek
22-04-2004, 11:00 AM
Well done Keg!
Another good win with Sf3 :)

Regards
Sutek

Bill Gletsos
22-04-2004, 02:25 PM
Is this calculated once for the tournament or individually for each player? While the average in the tournament is 2302, Greg is actually only playing opponents rated 2292 on average, whereas Krstic's average is 2324. Granted, it doesn't make a difference here, but if the old 2300 limit was still in effect, would Greg need more points (against a weaker field) for the norm than Krstic would?
You can achieve what is called a performance norm or a category norm.
With a performance norm you need to determine the average rating of your opponents.
For a category norm you need to determine the the average rating of your opponents and yourself.

In a 9 round tournamnet where 6.5 is an IM performance norm then the average rating of your opponents must be between 2285-2325.

For a category norm in a tournament where the average rating is 2276-2300 then the required score is 7/9 for an IM norm. If the average rating is 2301-2325 then 6.5/9 is sufficient for an IM norm.

Sutek
22-04-2004, 02:48 PM
You can achieve what is called a performance norm or a category norm.
With a performance norm you need to determine the average rating of your opponents.
For a category norm you need to determine the the average rating of your opponents and yourself.

In a 9 round tournamnet where 6.5 is an IM performance norm then the average rating of your opponents must be between 2285-2325.

For a category norm in a tournament where the average rating is 2276-2300 then the required score is 7/9 for an IM norm. If the average rating is 2301-2325 then 6.5/9 is sufficient for an IM norm.

Hi Bill,

Greg already has a round robin IM norm from Misjolc 1990 which I think was 12 games. If he gets a norm from this tournament he will then have played 21 games so he will still be short and need another norm.

Regards
Sutek

jase
22-04-2004, 02:52 PM
The difference is that it requires 30 games worth of norms rather than 24, so it's now practically impossible to do it in two norms, and for some people may even require four norms. The IA's can probably confirm this.

1.50 Requirements for award of the title, having achieved norms
1.50a Two or more norms in events covering at least 27 games

1.50c To have achieved at some time or other a rating as follows:
IM 2400

1.50c1 Such a rating need not be published. It can be obtained in the middle of a rating period, or even in the middle of a tournament. The player may then disregard subsequent results for the purpose of their title application. However the burden of proof then rests with the federation of the title applicant. It is recommended that players receive a certificate from the Chief Arbiter where they achieve the rating level during an event.

Bill Gletsos
22-04-2004, 03:06 PM
Hi Bill,

Greg already has a round robin IM norm from Misjolc 1990 which I think was 12 games. If he gets a norm from this tournament he will then have played 21 games so he will still be short and need another norm.

Regards
Sutek
You are correct.

However I was simply answering jay-vee's specific question regarding norms and not whether Greg would actually meet the the requirements for an IM title.

Rhubarb
22-04-2004, 10:29 PM
Round 8
P. Wang - Solomon 0-1
Tindall – Krstic 0.5-0.5
Levi – West 0.5-0.5
Lim Yee Weng – Canfell 1-0
Lukey – Froehlich 0.5-0.5

Solomon has won the tournament with a round to spare. Lim Yee Weng leapfrogged me after I blundered away everything in a winning position (as per f***king usual in such a situation - perhaps I'm forever destined to be a Feeble Master :( ).

Standings after round 8
Solomon 6.5
Lim Yee Weng 5
Canfell, West, Froehlich 4.5
Lukey 4
P.Wang, Levi 3.5
Tindall 3
Krstic 1

Round 9 pairings
West – P.Wang
Solomon – Tindall
Krstic – Lukey
Froehlich - Lim Yee Weng
Canfell - Levi


Lim Yee Weng - Canfell
Victorian Masters (8)


1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bg5 Nbd7 4.f3 h6 5.Bh4 e6 6.e4 dxe4 7.fxe4 Bb4 8.Bd3?! [8.e5; 8.Qd3; 8.Qf3] 8...c5! 9.a3 Bxc3+ 10.bxc3 Qa5 11.Qd2 c4! 12.e5 g5! 13.Bg3 cxd3 14.exf6 dxc2 15.Qxc2 b6 16.Ne2 [16.Nf3 Ba6] 16...Bb7 17.0-0 Qd5 18.Rf2 0-0! 19.Nc1 [19.c4 Rac8 20.Rc1 Qe4] 19...Rac8 20.Na2 Qe4 21.Qd2 Qg6! 22.Bd6 [22.Be5 Nxe5 23.dxe5 Rfd8;
22.Raf1 Ba6 are also clearly better for Black] 22...Nxf6 23.Bxf8 Ne4 24.Qe3 [24.Qc2 Nxf2 25.Qxg6+ fxg6 26.Bxh6 Ne4 27.Rf1 Bd5 28.Nb4 Rxc3] 24...Nxf2 25.Bd6 Ne4 [25...Nd3 intending ...Nf4 after just about anything is also easily winning] 26.Be5 Bd5 27.Nb4 Nxc3 [27...f6! 28.c4!? (28.Bg3 Rxc3) 28...Rxc4 29.Bb8 a5; and 27...Rxc3! 28.Rc1! Rxc1+ 29.Qxc1 f6 30.Nxd5 exd5 31.Qc6 Qf7 are both winning] 28.Rf1 Qe4?? time [28...Ne4] 29.Nxd5! [29.Qf2 Ne2+ 30.Kh1 Nf4] 29...exd5 [29...Qxd5 30.Qh3] 30.Qh3 Rc4?? [30...Re8 31.Qxh6 Rxe5 32.dxe5 Qxe5 33.Qf6±; 30...Rc6 31.Qd7. EDIT: Oh Jesus, it's much worse than that. I just put this in Fritz and of course it instantly saw 30...Ne2 31. Kh1 Rc2 still comfortably winning for if 32.Qxh6 Ng3] 31.Qxh6 Qh7 32.Qxg5+
1-0

Sutek
23-04-2004, 12:49 AM
:(

Kerry Stead
23-04-2004, 01:02 AM
:(
I second that!

Greg, how could you?? :doh:

chesslover
23-04-2004, 06:03 PM
Alas dear mate
my heart is full of sorrow at this loss

Alas dear mate
my heart is broken

Alas dear mate
Even though a Feeble Master thou art
thy efforts should make thee proud
For played well have thou in Mexico

arosar
23-04-2004, 06:16 PM
Ow mate! After reading that I feel like I've just taken a dip in a vat of melted of blue cheese.

I got a bit of an idea for you CL mate. How's about you write in verse for any topic you post on in the next 10 posts? Seems like you got a real talent for this.

AR

Lucena
23-04-2004, 09:30 PM
Ow mate! After reading that I feel like I've just taken a dip in a vat of melted of blue cheese.

I got a bit of an idea for you CL mate. How's about you write in verse for any topic you post on in the next 10 posts? Seems like you got a real talent for this.

AR

errr...no. :hand:

Lucena
23-04-2004, 09:41 PM
perhaps I'm forever destined to be a Feeble Master :( ).

No :naughty: you can make the IM title-just have to keep persevering and plugging away

Rhubarb
24-04-2004, 01:06 AM
Round 9
Solomon – Tindall 1-0
West – Wang 0.5-0.5
Canfell – Levi 1-0
Krstic – Lukey 0-1
Froehlich – Lim Yee Weng 1-0

Final Standings
Solomon 7.5
Canfell, Froehlich 5.5
Lim Yee Weng, West, Lukey 5
Wang 4
Levi 3.5
Tindall 3
Krstic 1

After, losing the first round to Lukey, Solo steamrolled his way to another superb victory, with a massive 2-point margin in the end. He seems to be stronger than ever in his forte, the endgame.

Froehlich made up some late ground after a slow start to more or less save his rating.

Myself, well it’s a good result for me I guess, but naturally I’m extremely disappointed to let such a golden opportunity for a norm slip through my fingers. Anyway, thanks to everyone here on CKF for your support. It occurs to me my reports were a little egocentric, but I did say it was a diary, and I didn’t actually have the scores of the other games till late in the piece.

Cheers,
Greg

Canfell - Levi
Victorian Masters (9)

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.c4 Be7 6.Nc3 Nxc3 7.dxc3 0-0 8.Bd3 Nc6 9.Qc2 h6 10.Be3 Bg4 11.0-0-0 Bf6 12.h3 Bxf3 13.gxf3 Ne5 14.Be2 Re8 15.Rhg1 Kh8 16.f4 Nd7 17.Qf5 Nf8 18.Qh5 Qe7 19.Bd3 a6 20.Rg3 Nh7 21.Rdg1 Rg8 22.Qf5 Nf8 23.Bd2 (An almost typical position from this particular back street of the Petroffs. To compensate for his structural deficiencies, White has enormous pressure, but it's a hell of a tough nut to crack. I had spent the past couple of moves trying to provoke Eddy into ...g6?, which would give me a target for my crappy f- and h-pawns, but he was hanging tough. Then, all of a sudden, with Eddy already under time pressure, he simply hung a piece.) 23...Qd7?? (23...Qe6 24.Qh5 Nh7 (otherwise Qxh6) 25.Bxh7 Kxh7 26. f5 Qxc4 27.Rg6 fxg6 28. fxg6+ Kh8 29.Bxh6 Qh4 is a good example of Black’s defensive resources if White tries to bludgeon his way through) 24.Qxf6 1-0

Rhubarb
24-04-2004, 01:19 AM
Lim is a family name and Yee Weng is the given name part
Yes, confirmed this with Yee Weng at the post-tournament dinner.

Alan Shore
24-04-2004, 01:38 AM
Thankyou for posting the games and reports Greg, they were enjoyable viewing, congrats on the =2nd and good luck with future tournaments.

Rhubarb
24-04-2004, 01:41 AM
Thankyou for posting the games and reports Greg, they were enjoyable viewing, congrats on the =2nd and good luck with future tournaments.
No probs, DS. Does this mean I'm still invited for dinner?!?

Alan Shore
24-04-2004, 01:51 AM
No probs, DS. Does this mean I'm still invited for dinner?!?

Haha, any time :)

Javier Gil
24-04-2004, 11:00 AM
Thanks for your coverage of the tournament Greg, results couldn't be found anywhere else and I don't think anyone can blame you for doing all the work and putting your games (including your losses).
After the break you had taken from chess, I think this can be considered as a possitive result, and you were close to the IM norm.

On another note, I find it very hard to understand that this tournament, which obviously cost money, had so little internet coverage. I mean, don't the sponsors want to get something in return? :hmm:

Same goes for the victorian chess association, one of whose obligations should be to inform its members of what goes on in victoria. :wall:

Garvinator
24-04-2004, 11:18 AM
Thanks for your coverage of the tournament Greg, results couldn't be found anywhere else and I don't think anyone can blame you for doing all the work and putting your games (including your losses).
After the break you had taken from chess, I think this can be considered as a possitive result, and you were close to the IM norm.

On another note, I find it very hard to understand that this tournament, which obviously cost money, had so little internet coverage. I mean, don't the sponsors want to get something in return? :hmm:

Same goes for the victorian chess association, one of whose obligations should be to inform its members of what goes on in victoria. :wall:

at the risk of being wrong, was the victorian masters a cv or club run tournament?

ursogr8
24-04-2004, 02:22 PM
at the risk of being wrong, was the victorian masters a cv or club run tournament?

gg''

I don't know how to answer this.
Do you not allow other options?

I am fairly sure it is not a CV event, because I have never heard it reported on at the AGM.

And ChessGuru's enterprises are not affiliated. So it is nor an affiliated Club event.

Probably best to say that it is a Chess Promoter's event.

Can any Mexican help more?

starter

ursogr8
24-04-2004, 02:28 PM
Same goes for the victorian chess association, one of whose obligations should be to inform its members of what goes on in victoria. :wall:

The victorian chess association has been re-named Chess VICTORIA. It publishes a weekly newsletter which is advertised on this BB. I have never seen NSW, ACT, QLD, SA, NT, TAS, Cocos Is, WA, match it by publishing here.
Those who read the newsletter are well informed.

Kevin Bonham
24-04-2004, 04:32 PM
I enjoyed the games and reports Greg, thanks very much. I was a bit surprised how many games were decided by ??s given the class of the field. Commiserations on missing the norm.

Yee Weng's result is about what I was expecting. He was lucky to swindle Greg, but my feeling from playing him quite a bit is that although he has only just got his rating over 2300, he is stronger than several of the lower-end Aussie FMs.

Rhubarb
25-04-2004, 12:51 AM
at the risk of being wrong, was the victorian masters a cv or club run tournament?
In the final bulletin, the thankyou list is
Comedy Power (sponsor)
Chess Victoria (sponsor)
Chess World (venue)
Leonid Sandler (arbiter)

To be fair to David Cordover, he was probably just too busy to provide online coverage, and maybe it wasn't his responsibility anyway. I asked both him and Leonid Sandler whether they minded me posting my own reports here, and they said no, not at all.

Rhubarb
25-04-2004, 12:55 AM
I was a bit surprised how many games were decided by ??s given the class of the field.

Playing through my games you might get the impression that the tournament was something of a blunderfest, but I don't actually remember any other notable blunders in games not involving me. I'm sure I have a far higher blunder rate than most people of my rating...

Rhubarb
26-04-2004, 07:12 PM
Now that I’m back in Sydney and on my crappy 56k modem and el cheapo ISP, I’ve noticed how long the games take to load in this thread. Does anyone else have this problem?

My question is, should I have posted the games in the actual games section, and separate from the tournament report, so that people with slow connections can read all the text news in a thread, and go to the games section later, or is it better to keep it all together?

Certainly, when posting quotes that contain games, the games should be edited out.

P.S. Jeo, if you get a chance, can you look at the in-game text commentary. It doesn’t like apostrophes, and adds a backslash. Thanks.

Garvinator
26-04-2004, 07:14 PM
Now that I’m back in Sydney and on my crappy 56k modem and el cheapo ISP, I’ve noticed how long the games take to load in this thread. Does anyone else have this problem?

My question is, should I have posted the games in the actual games section, and separate from the tournament report, so that people with slow connections can read all the text news in a thread, and go to the games section later, or is it better to keep it all together?

Certainly, when posting quotes that contain games, the games should be edited out.

P.S. Jeo, if you get a chance, can you look at the in-game text commentary. It doesn’t like apostrophes, and adds a backslash. Thanks.

yes i did notice that it takes ages to load this thread and i have broadband too :eek:

Bill Gletsos
02-05-2004, 02:20 PM
Was there a Vic Masters Reserves event run at the same time as the masters. Gary Bekkers Oceania web site implies that at least one was scheduled.

Rhubarb
03-05-2004, 01:18 AM
That was the original intention but it didn't eventuate (don't know why).

skip to my lou
06-05-2004, 11:35 PM
yes i did notice that it takes ages to load this thread and i have broadband too :eek:

Sorry for the late response, I only check up on the forums when I get a PM.

Loading time depends on your internet connection speed and computer processing power. My 1.2 Ghz AMD / 384MB RAM on 512k ADSL loaded fairly quickly (5 seconds). My 3.2 P4 / 2GB RAM on Cable loads it in 1 or 2 seconds at most. The client side core is coded in Javascript, which is weak compared to C++ etc. This is necessary so you can view the game dynamically right on the post.

How long is it taking for you to load each game?


P.S. Jeo, if you get a chance, can you look at the in-game text commentary. It doesn’t like apostrophes, and adds a backslash. Thanks.

That is PHP automatically guarding against potentially harmful input. I can strip the slashes right before output though, which i'll do when I get a chance. I might increase its stability aswell and then release a new version in the holidays.

Thanks for the input.

ursogr8
07-05-2004, 11:04 PM
In the final bulletin, the thankyou list is
Comedy Power (sponsor)
Chess Victoria (sponsor)
Chess World (venue)
Leonid Sandler (arbiter)

To be fair to David Cordover, he was probably just too busy to provide online coverage, and maybe it wasn't his responsibility anyway. I asked both him and Leonid Sandler whether they minded me posting my own reports here, and they said no, not at all.

Wow. how does ChessGuru do that?
Chess Victoria (sponsor)

Now let me try to understand this. Earlier in the year we had a long thread on Box Hill (an affiliated Club in Victoria) applying to the State Association, Chess VICTORIA for a $500 grant to assist in running the VIC Championship for their first time. A seeding grant. A grant to recognise a Club having its first try in a long time running a State Championship.
And then we had another affiliated Club, Whitehorse Juniors, applying for $500 for a new coaching initiative.

Both of these were knocked back.

But now we read that a non-affiliated promoter gets sponsored to the tune of $1000 to run an event that has stabilised on the calendar over a number of years.
Looks like the lessons to be learned are
> be non-affiliated
>> ask for twice as much.


starter

Bill Gletsos
08-05-2004, 12:02 AM
Wow. how does ChessGuru do that?
Chess Victoria (sponsor)

Now let me try to understand this. Earlier in the year we had a long thread on Box Hill (an affiliated Club in Victoria) applying to the State Association, Chess VICTORIA for a $500 grant to assist in running the VIC Championship for their first time. A seeding grant. A grant to recognise a Club having its first try in a long time running a State Championship.
And then we had another affiliated Club, Whitehorse Juniors, applying for $500 for a new coaching initiative.

Both of these were knocked back.

But now we read that a non-affiliated promoter gets sponsored to the tune of $1000 to run an event that has stabilised on the calendar over a number of years.
Looks like the lessons to be learned are
> be non-affiliated
>> ask for twice as much.


starter
Ar the next AGM you could ask why that was the case.
One would like to think that the Guru abstained when the decision was put to a vote. Perhaps you should request a copy of the minutes.

ursogr8
08-05-2004, 08:57 PM
At the next AGM you could ask why that was the case.

OK Bill I will do that.
I will ask why two affiliated Clubs have requests for $500 for new initiatives are turned down, but a non-affiliated promoter asks for twice the amount and it gets approved by the Executive.
BTW, it this same Executive that says things are so tight that it is also cutting back on expenses reimbursed to Interschool coaching workers.
The AGM is in November.



One would like to think that the Guru abstained when the decision was put to a vote.

Who is this 'one'. Is he trying out for a goose norm?




Perhaps you should request a copy of the minutes.

Even Jammo cannot get a copy.


starter

Rhubarb
09-05-2004, 04:20 AM
an event that has stabilised on the calendar over a number of years.

I'm not 100% sure, but I think this was only the second-ever Vic Masters, as opposed to the long-running Australian Masters, the 2004 edition of which is to be held by MCC? (not sure of this - can you confirm this starter?)

For the record, I paid $120 to enter the Vic Masters since I was an untitled player (the joke 'FM' title notwithstanding).

ursogr8
09-05-2004, 08:06 AM
I'm not 100% sure, but I think this was only the second-ever Vic Masters, as opposed to the long-running Australian Masters, the 2004 edition of which is to be held by MCC? (not sure of this - can you confirm this starter?)

For the record, I paid $120 to enter the Vic Masters since I was an untitled player (the joke 'FM' title notwithstanding).

Greg
Thanks for your great daily reports on the VIC Masters BTW.

If an event runs twice, that is stable to me. Actually, my debating point was that a new initiative from an affliliated Club should stand in priority support before the funding grant to a non-affiliated promoter.

Your entry fee of $120 is twice what will be charged for the upcoming VIC OPEN. Would it be true to say that the reason youwere willing to pay such a high price for the MASTERs is that you wanted to be assured of competitive chess (and an OPEN SWISS gives less than a CLOSED MASTERS)?

starter

ursogr8
09-05-2004, 08:21 PM
I have made clear my ambitions to become an International Master, on this board and elsewhere. It annoys me that I continue to pay absolute premium entry fees for every single tournament that I enter, as I consider myself to be a 2300-2400 player, but this is further fuel to make sure that I will eventually reach my goal.



Greg

I for one wish you good luck for your ambition to become an I.M.
The forthcoming VIC OPEN week-ender certainly has a lower entry fee and you would be most welcome; although I understand that a similar w/e'r is held in NSW at the same time.

best wishes
starter

ursogr8
09-05-2004, 08:27 PM
It is useful for a chess promoter to reflect on why each player entered for the Victorian Masters given its very high entry cost..
Possible reasons include
> chasing qualification for titles
>> prize-money
>>> guaranteed competitive games given that the standard deviation of ratings was extremely low
>>>> loyalty to the promoter
>>>>> establish credentials for Olympic selection
>>>>> like playing chess against top quality field.
We cannot contemplate that we will know the exact reasons for each entrant of the Victorian Masters. A possible distribution from among Solomon, Lukey, Canfell, L.Weng Froehlich P.Wang West, Levi, Tindall, Krstic would make fascinating information.

ursogr8
10-05-2004, 09:17 AM
....to the long-running Australian Masters, the 2004 edition of which is to be held by MCC? (not sure of this - can you confirm this starter?)



Greg

I cannot confirm this either way.
My guess is that it is likely to be run by ChessGuru or the Melbourne Chess Club. You could e-mail them.



Or you could try e-mail to the VIC newsletter (managed by Vhess VICTORIA)
via
http://www.chessvictoria.com/CVnews_0(4)1.htm

starter

ps
And I notice that 'jase' has asked similar on the 'Preliminary Qualifier for the Aus Masters thread'. Perhaps the answer will emerge there.

Rhubarb
11-05-2004, 02:09 AM
Greg

I for one wish you good luck for your ambition to become an I.M.
The forthcoming VIC OPEN week-ender certainly has a lower entry fee and you would be most welcome; although I understand that a similar w/e'r is held in NSW at the same time.

best wishes
starter

Not sure I'll be even playing in the NSWCA weekender this weekend, but good luck with the VIC Open.

Rhubarb
11-05-2004, 02:26 AM
It is useful for a chess promoter to reflect on why each player entered for the Victorian Masters given its very high entry cost..
Possible reasons include
> chasing qualification for titles
>> prize-money
>>> guaranteed competitive games given that the standard deviation of ratings was extremely low
>>>> loyalty to the promoter
>>>>> establish credentials for Olympic selection
>>>>> like playing chess against top quality field.
For me, that would be: yes, yes, maybe, no, no, yes.
Of course, there's a whole bunch of other reasons for playing competitive chess, and no two people's reasons may be exactly alike. So for example, I would also name a wish to play well (i.e. win at) a game that I love - and the stronger the opposition one beats, the better. If I was being perfectly honest, I would say that status and fame are motivators as well (I'm sure that almost all masters would be at least partly motivated by this), but then I'm sure they would also be partly motivated by more noble reasons such as to create a game of beauty or to play a brilliant combination.

Rhubarb
11-05-2004, 02:36 AM
Greg

I cannot confirm this either way.
My guess is that it is likely to be run by ChessGuru or the Melbourne Chess Club. You could e-mail them.

Starter, sorry for the confusion which was my fault. I meant I wasn't sure if it was the second-ever Vic Masters, not whether MCC was running the Aus Masters (which they are, and I've already been in touch with them).

btw, Jase, last I heard (two weeks ago) the dates for the Aus Masters are yet to be finalised and may be moved from August to September, which may be why the American FM hasn't got a reply from MCC.

ChessGuru
12-05-2004, 02:32 PM
Written by Puchen Wang (NZL)

Today i would like to write a brief report about my recent tournament in Melbourne from 13th to 23rd April. The following are just my personal opinion and i try hard to be as objective as possible.

David Cordover, the Australian chess guru and Garry Bekker, the Oceanania chess president, invited me to play in the Victorian Masters Chess Tournament from April 13 to 23rd 2004. I accepted it with excitement and trepidation as i will probably suffer heavy losses in this strong chess event. Yet, i would rather not give up the opportunity, because i am sure i could learn a lot from it.

On April 13, i set off from Auckland airport early in the morning. As soon as i arrived at Melbourne airport, i met my kiwi compatriot Stephen Lukey. Togather we were warmly welcomed by David who also kindly settled me up at James' family. James is a very promising Australian chess junior who has won plenty of chess titles under his belt already. James' mum, Rowena, treated me like an important guest with good food and a nice separate room. i felt snug and totally relaxed at their family.

On April 14, the battle started at 2:00pm. My first opponent is Aus FM Brett Tindall. As expected, Brett kicked of with e4. i responded with d5. The game went on smoothly but not without much tussle. i sacrificed a piece for three pawns and a draw lookes a definite result. i am pretty happy with the result, after all my rating is lower than Brett.

The second round proved lucky for me. Perhaps Greg is not in form in that particular round, so i got a win in the end.

i met our kiwi master Stephen in the third round. We are very familiar with each other and perhaps neither of us wanted to hurt each other and a draw is the outcome.

On April 17, i felt hard to move to the competition venue and i trust German IM Peter Frochlich is fully ready to take a whole point from me. i knew Peter, he was the first Howick Pakuranga International Open Champion two years ago and he defeated a number of our New Zealand top players that year.
Well, i started with e4 and he answered me with c5. A fierce battle is
predictable. I made an error and a pawn is lost without any compensation, but i managed to hold on till a draw is achieved. This is the game i am most satisfied with.

Waterloo occurred to me from after a day's break. i did quite well with my Scandinavian Opening in New Zealand. Therefore, i resorted to it again in the second game against e4. Malaysian FM Lim Yee Weng got a strong initiative in the opening and i could hardly come up after that. An easy loss.

i had a good game against Slobodan Krstic the next day.

it is very silly of me to use Scandinavian opening to be against AUS FM Eddy Levi once more. Eddy used Stephen Soloman's novelty to overpower me convincingly and comprehensively. This is simply disastrous round for me.

i am doing Ok in my game aginst AUS IM Stephen Soloman. i used Colle system to achieve equality in at least the first half of the game as far as i
think. But Stephen is much much better and it is not of much a disgrace to
lose to him.

i learnt my lessons for my monotonous Scandinavian openings, so in the last round i used French Defence to reply to AUS IM Guy West's e4. As a matter of fact, i used to play heaps of Sicilian and French defence in the past. i managed to hold a draw in the end.

This tournament proves valuable to me. What i learnt from it is that i need to varify my different openings each round to avoid being prepared. Next time, perhaps i should do Sicilian, French, Caro-Kann, Spanish or Modern Defence or Petroff to puzzle my opponents. But i would like to admit the fact that my opponents are better than me. i thank them for their games. Instead of being disappointed, i felt motivated to close the gaps and continue to improve my chess skills.

Fianlly, i want to add: my sincere thanks to David. He arranged everything from picking up to sending off, from arranging the accommodation to offering me book discounts etc etc. (i noticed perhaps Australian chess or at least Victorian chess benefited greatly from his diligent work). i felt grateful to Terry and Rowena and James and India. I had a lot of fun with Terry, a computer master who bewildered me with his magic skills. If there is a computer GM, he definitely deserves the title. My thanks to Rowena for feeding me so well with the numerous tasty food; my thanks to Jenny Oliver's continuous care about my chess progress.

In all, i brought back plenty of happy memories and i am looking forward to another tournament in Australia if my schoolwork allows me to do so.