PDA

View Full Version : Tas Open and Lightning 2004



Kevin Bonham
12-06-2004, 09:15 PM
After two rounds in the Tas Open, Lim Yee Weng, FM Lee Jones, Peter Knight and strong unrated local Peter Billam are on 2/2. Kevin Bonham, John Slidziunas, Charles Chadwick and Janice Martin are on 1.5/2. There are 24 players and a pretty strong field by Tassie standards.

Scores from the 2004 Tasmanian Lightning Championship played tonight (8 player double round robin):

12/14 FM Lee Jones (ineligible)
11 Nigel Frame, Kevin Bonham (joint champs)
8 Milutin Ivkovic
7 Thomas Hendrey
3 Alex Shaw
2 Zak Frame, Catherine Shaw

It's the sixth time from six attempts in the past eight runnings that Frame has won the title; the other five were outright. It's the first time Bonham has ever even shared the title, and the last time he is ever likely to.

Garvinator
12-06-2004, 10:34 PM
After two rounds in the Tas Open, Lim Yee Weng, FM Lee Jones, Peter Knight and strong unrated local Peter Billam are on 2/2. Kevin Bonham, John Slidziunas, Charles Chadwick and Janice Martin are on 1.5/2. There are 24 players and a pretty strong field by Tassie standards.

Scores from the 2004 Tasmanian Lightning Championship played tonight (8 player double round robin):

12/14 FM Lee Jones (ineligible)
11 Nigel Frame, Kevin Bonham (joint champs)
8 Milutin Ivkovic
7 Thomas Hendrey
3 Alex Shaw
2 Zak Frame, Catherine Shaw

It's the sixth time from six attempts in the past eight runnings that Frame has won the title; the other five were outright. It's the first time Bonham has ever even shared the title, and the last time he is ever likely to.

i rate how you can refer to yourself in third person so easily :owned:

Jai
12-06-2004, 10:40 PM
i rate how you can refer to yourself in third person so easily :owned:
What do you rate it as?

Kevin Bonham
13-06-2004, 10:57 PM
With one round to go there is still a four-way tie for the lead. Lim Yee Weng, Lee Jones, Peter Billam and Kevin Bonham are on 4/5, followed by Glen Gibbs on 3.5 and seven players on 3.

It was a very impressive day for Billam who drew with both the top seeds and beat John Slidziunas in twelve moves, but it could have been even better as Billam was winning against both Jones and Lim; indeed Jones was on the brink of resignation but decided to play on and managed to save.

A very lucky escape for Gibbs against Hendrey. Gibbs picked up his knight and was about to make a losing capture but realised it was a mistake just in time to pull his knight away from the offending enemy pawn and only connect with his own pawn on an adjacent square instead. Gibbs eventually won the game. Not so lucky for Nigel Frame who blundered a queen in a probably won ending in probably the day's biggest upset.

The final round top board games are

Jones (4) Bonham (4)
Billam (4) Gibbs (3.5)
Chadwick (3) Lim (4)

Rule 10.2 reared its head several times today. As noted before in Arbiter's Corner threads here I completely disagree with IA Gijssen's interpretation that says you don't consider the final position where the claimant is told to play on and their flag later falls. (For three reasons - 1. In a borderline situation it might force a player to make multiple draw claims, 2. Nothing in the rules even points towards this interpretation, 3. It defeats the purpose.)

In Hendrey-N Frame, White had claimed a draw and his flag later fell in this position.

8/p1p3bP/1p1p3k/1P1P1B2/P3P2K/8/8/8 w - - 0 60

The game was ruled drawn.

In O'Mara-Richards, White had claimed a draw and his flag later fell in this position.

R1n5/2r1n2k/2p1Bppp/PpP1p3/1P2P2P/4BPPK/8/8 b - - 0 60

The game was ruled a win on time for Black - although White has an overwhelmingly strong position, there is still play left, even if White would need to be very inaccurate to concede a draw, let alone lose.

shaun
14-06-2004, 08:23 AM
I know this belongs in an Arbiting thread but ....

a) Was Black just shuffling the bishop in this position? If not I would have been inclined not to award the draw on the "If there are pawns still on the board ..." rule of thumb.

b) Is it common practice in Tasmania to ask for a draw under 10.2 in any position? Maybe this is why you have to regularly deal with this problem?
Just because you are unable to convert a winning position in the time available you shouldn't have a second bite of the apple. I would have found it difficult to keep a straight face when ruling on this claim.

jay_vee
14-06-2004, 09:12 AM
I know this belongs in an Arbiting thread but ....

b) Is it common practice in Tasmania to ask for a draw under 10.2 in any position? Maybe this is why you have to regularly deal with this problem?
Just because you are unable to convert a winning position in the time available shouldn't give you a second bite of the apple. I would have found it difficult to keep a straight face when ruling on this claim.

As with all 10.2 claims it of course depends on the play between the first claim and the flag fall. But in this particular position black can't really do anything but repeat moves (of course, he could have sacced something just to unbalance the position a few seconds before the flag fall, but apparently he hasn't done that). So if black has just been shuffling his king or knight back and forth (really, what else is there to do for him?), a 10.2 draw might not be entirely unreasonable. After all, the question for the arbiter is, has black tried to win between the claim and the flag fall? And the position doesn't look like it to me. We can't be sure, of course, without knowing the moves.

With regard to position a), again, the position doesn't look as if black has made any winning attempt recently, so most likely the draw ruling was reasonable, even with pawns on the board.

Kevin Bonham
14-06-2004, 08:37 PM
a) Was Black just shuffling the bishop in this position? If not I would have been inclined not to award the draw on the "If there are pawns still on the board ..." rule of thumb.

He was still doing things other than blatant piece-shuffling. Whether he was trying to win by normal means in that sort of position was a bit unclear. The problem with rules of thumb is that every arbiter has their own thumbs and their own rules. For instance Reuben's book gives "Would a loss on time in this position bring the game into disrepute?" which I think is somewhat different to the above.

I really wish FIDE would formally clarify this rule. Surely not too much to ask to actually define what "normal means" consists of?


b) Is it common practice in Tasmania to ask for a draw under 10.2 in any position? Maybe this is why you have to regularly deal with this problem?
Just because you are unable to convert a winning position in the time available you shouldn't have a second bite of the apple. I would have found it difficult to keep a straight face when ruling on this claim.

We have two or three repeat offenders who habitually run themselves short of time in G60s or G90s and claim draws in positions that are even to favourable. After being told to play on (we do reject some of the silliest cases, like when someone tried to claim one while exchange down) the position nearly always resolves itself before flagfall - the claimant either loses, becomes lost, or gets all the bits off the board and a draw is agreed. Cases like this one are rare.

Kevin Bonham
14-06-2004, 08:44 PM
As with all 10.2 claims it of course depends on the play between the first claim and the flag fall. But in this particular position black can't really do anything but repeat moves (of course, he could have sacced something just to unbalance the position a few seconds before the flag fall, but apparently he hasn't done that). So if black has just been shuffling his king or knight back and forth (really, what else is there to do for him?), a 10.2 draw might not be entirely unreasonable. After all, the question for the arbiter is, has black tried to win between the claim and the flag fall? And the position doesn't look like it to me. We can't be sure, of course, without knowing the moves.

There was quite a lot of play between the claim and the flagfall and Black was playing quite actively given that he had a lost position. White's rook had cleaned up the a-pawn then been hemmed in by Black's knights, and White had just played Be6 in response to this.

Kevin Bonham
14-06-2004, 09:11 PM
Lim and Jones tied for first, Lim winning crushingly against Chadwick and Jones getting over the line after Bonham's position fell apart as time trouble approached (see game below). Peter Billam missed out after an excellent first five rounds, losing a very tricky ending against Gibbs in time trouble.

Final scores:

5 Lim Yee Weng (Malaysia), Lee Jones (NSW)
4.5 Glen Gibbs
4 Kevin Bonham, Peter Billam, Peter Knight, John Slidziunas
3.5 Phil Donnelly (U1700), Graham Richards (U1500), Nigel Frame
3 Nick Chapman, Charles Chadwick, Thomas Hendry (best junior on tiebreak
over Hooper), Milutin Ivkovic, John O'Mara, Aaron Hooper
2.5 Tony Sturges, Janice Martin
2 David Christian, Leo Minol, Erin Frame
1 Catherine Shaw, Duncan Berry
0 Alex Shaw

Here's my last round loss against Lee Jones, quite an up-and-down sort of game with a few little errors by each until my position just fell apart after 41.Nc1? and 42.Ke6??. In case you're wondering why I allowed Bxh6 and then played Kh7, I had forgotten that Bg5 was discovered check. :doh:

More games coming soon.

Jones - Bonham

1.d4 e6 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 c6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Qc2 Bd6 7.Be2 0-0 8.0-0 dxc4 9.Bxc4 a6 10.Rd1 Qe7 11.e4 e5 12.d5 cxd5 13.Bxd5 Nb6 14.Bg5 Bb4 15.a3 Bxc3 16.Qxc3 Nbxd5 17.exd5 Bg4 18.h3 Bxf3 19.Qxf3 Rfd8 20.Rac1 Rd6 21.Rc3 Rad8 22.Re3 h6 23.Bh4 g5 24.Bg3 Rxd5 25.Rxd5 Rxd5 26.Qe2 Nd7 27.f4 f6 28.h4 gxf4 29.Bxf4 Qc5 30.Bxh6 Kh7 31.Qh5 e4 32.Bg5+ Kg8 33.Qg6+ Kf8 34.Bh6+ Ke7 35.Kh2 Qd6+ 36.Kh3 Qe6+ 37.g4 Nc5 38.b4 Nd3 39.Kg2 Re5 40.Re2 Qc6 41.Be3 Nc1 42.Qg7+ Ke6 43.Rf2 Kd5 44.Rxf6 Qc2+ 45.Rf2 Qc3 46.Qd7+ 1-0

shaun
14-06-2004, 09:37 PM
He was still doing things other than blatant piece-shuffling. Whether he was trying to win by normal means in that sort of position was a bit unclear. The problem with rules of thumb is that every arbiter has their own thumbs and their own rules. For instance Reuben's book gives "Would a loss on time in this position bring the game into disrepute?" which I think is somewhat different to the above.

I really wish FIDE would formally clarify this rule. Surely not too much to ask to actually define what "normal means" consists of?


If it was me, I would have rejected claim (a) as well then. And this would be my reasoning: A)Given that Black is not just shuffling the bishop it is not my place to try and predict a likely outcome of the game. In time trouble anything could happen. and B) Why should White derive a double benefit from using more time than Black, in both using the extra thinking time to reach a better position and then preventing Black from cashing in his extra thinking time by claiming a draw.
Like it or loathe it, when you play sudden death you have to accept that time management is an intergral part of your thinking process. Running yourself short of time is just the same as sacrificing material as far as I'm concerned. Sometimes it pays off, other times it doesn't. And you just accept the consequences of your decision.

Kevin Bonham
14-06-2004, 10:08 PM
If it was me, I would have rejected claim (a) as well then. And this would be my reasoning: A)Given that Black is not just shuffling the bishop it is not my place to try and predict a likely outcome of the game.

He was doing things like alternating which of the K and the B covered the queening square, moving his K towards White's K as if threatening to get through down the R file (it was clear White was aware of this and had it covered) and so on. I think when the draw was first claimed there were a couple of pawns over that side which then got exchanged off.


In time trouble anything could happen. and B) Why should White derive a double benefit from using more time than Black, in both using the extra thinking time to reach a better position and then preventing Black from cashing in his extra thinking time by claiming a draw.

I think of it like this: the clock is a device to make the game of finite length for both players. Whether you require players to end the game completely before their flag falls, to put their not losing beyond mathematical doubt before their flag falls, or to put their not losing beyond practical doubt doesn't matter - the situation is still the same for both players.

And it's true that in time trouble anything can happen, but people generally agree that KR vs KR should be ruled drawn under this rule. Yet people who get into KR vs KR in extreme time trouble do sometimes manage to lose it, so maybe by that line of argument KR vs KR shouldn't be ruled drawn either - I even blundered my rook and lost in a KR vs KR in blitz many years ago.


And you just accept the consequences of your decision.

What annoys me (and this applies to any defensible interpretation of the rule) is that some players don't understand, no matter how many times it's explained, that they don't automatically get a 10.2 because the position is drawn with best play, or even because they're winning.

Might copy this stuff to the arbiters' thread soon.

Meanwhile, here's a nice little hack-and-slay for your quickies file. White proves that playing the Pirc can always get you into trouble if you're not careful - even if you play it with a move in hand. :eek:

Slidziunas-Billam 1.Nf3 d5 2.g3 Nc6 3.Bg2 e5 4.d3 Bg4 5.0-0 Qd7 6.Re1 0-0-0 7.Nbd2 e4 8.dxe4 dxe4 9.Ng5 e3 10.fxe3 Bc5 11.Kf2 Bxe3+ 12.Kf1 Bxg5 0-1

Kevin Bonham
14-06-2004, 10:17 PM
The great escape ... this game is brought to you by United Swindlers Against Resigning. :cool:

Billam-Jones 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.e4 d5 4.e5 d4 5.exf6 dxc3 6.bxc3 Qxf6 7.d4 c5 8.Nf3 h6 9.Bd3 cxd4 10.cxd4 Bb4+ 11.Bd2 Bxd2+ 12.Qxd2 Nc6 13.Be4 g5 14.Bxc6+ bxc6 15.0-0 0-0 16.Rfe1 Rd8 17.Qe3 Ba6 18.Ne5 Rac8 19.Rac1 Qf5 20.Qa3 Bb7 21.Qxa7 Ba8 22.Rc3 g4 23.Nxg4 Kh7 24.Ne5 Rb8 25.Rf3 Rb7 26.Qa5 Qg5 27.Qc3 f6 28.Nxc6 Rc8 29.Qd3+ Qg6 30.Qxg6+ Kxg6 31.d5 e5 32.Rb3 Rbc7 33.Na5 Rc5 34.Rb5 Bxd5 35.Rxc5 Rxc5 36.cxd5 Rxa5 37.Rd1 Rxa2 38.d6 Ra8 39.d7 Rd8 40.f3 Kf7 41.Kf2 Ke6 42.g4 Rxd7 43.Rxd7 Kxd7 44.Ke3 Ke6 45.Ke4 h5 46.h3 h4 47.f4 Draw

Garvinator
28-06-2004, 12:15 PM
Lim and Jones tied for first, Lim winning crushingly against Chadwick and Jones getting over the line after Bonham's position fell apart as time trouble approached (see game below). Peter Billam missed out after an excellent first five rounds, losing a very tricky ending against Gibbs in time trouble.

Final scores:

5 Lim Yee Weng (Malaysia), Lee Jones (NSW)
4.5 Glen Gibbs
4 Kevin Bonham, Peter Billam, Peter Knight, John Slidziunas
3.5 Phil Donnelly (U1700), Graham Richards (U1500), Nigel Frame
3 Nick Chapman, Charles Chadwick, Thomas Hendry (best junior on tiebreak
over Hooper), Milutin Ivkovic, John O'Mara, Aaron Hooper
2.5 Tony Sturges, Janice Martin
2 David Christian, Leo Minol, Erin Frame
1 Catherine Shaw, Duncan Berry
0 Alex Shaw

Kevin, listed on the 2004 grand prix calendar is an event from tasmania, played on 12th-14th june. Is this the tournament results for that event?

Kevin Bonham
28-06-2004, 04:42 PM
Kevin, listed on the 2004 grand prix calendar is an event from tasmania, played on 12th-14th june. Is this the tournament results for that event?

Yes.

Kevin Bonham
30-06-2004, 11:38 PM
Full report including numerous games and fragments now online at http://www.tased.edu.au/tasonline/taschess/open04_rep.htm