International Round Up 25/08/09

[LozCooper]

International Round Up 25/8/09

The 2nd JESSIE GILBERT Celebration International Chess Festival:

http://www.ccfworld.com/Chess/Results/2 ... tional.htm

IM norm event: Keith Arkell and Alexy Slavin lead with 2.5/3.
Challengers: James Foster is in the lead with 3/3.

Porto San Giorgio:

http://www.italychess.eu/public/manifes ... sstbl.html

Gawain Jones has 3.5/4, Stephen Gordon has 3 and Lawrence Trent has 2.5.

Dieppe:

http://echecsdieppefestival.over-blog.c ... 40772.html

Mark Hebden, Lorin D'Costa, David Eggleston and Yang-Fan Zhou are playing in an IM norm all-play-all. Simon Williams, Glenn Flear, Sarah Hegarty and Sabrina Chevannes are playing in the open. Sarah Hegarty is also playing a match against Salomé Neuhauser.

Acropolis 2009 Chalkida, Greece:

http://acropolis-en.skakistikiakadimia. ... ageID=401/

Peter Sowray finished on 5.5/9. There was a tragic occurance in round 1 of the event:

http://www.chess.com/news/a-deadly-game-3163

French Championships:

http://www.echecs.asso.fr/Default.aspx?Cat=15/

Tony Kosten, who is now registered for France, played in the B Tournament and finished on 6/11.

16th Vienna International Open:

http://www.vienna-chess-open.at/
http://chess-results.com/tnr19376.aspx

In the A Section Ian Thompson finished on 6/9, ahead of Kemal Ozeren and David Shaw on 5.5, Kieran Smallbone on 5, Chris Duggan on 4, Daniel Cotterill, Chris Majer and Jeremy Fraser Mitchell on 3/5 and Sebastian Pozzo on 2.5.
In the B Section Tim Thurstan finished on 6/9, ahead of Ian Cross on 4/5 and Dominic Pozzo on 3.5.

Abudhabi Chess Festival 2009 (Open Tournament):

http://www.chess-results.com/tnr24519.a ... 1&wi=1000/

Paul Dargan finished on 6/9 and Nicolas De Peyer on 4.

In addition to the individual tournament websites the latest international chess news can be found at the following link: http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/twic772.html

Lawrence Cooper
Alternate Director of International Chess 25/8/09
[email protected]

[Leonard Barden]

I tried to find results and/or games of the IM tournament on the confusing Dieppe website but was unsuccessful. Can anybody do better? It should be remarked that Yang-Fan Zhou has apparently chosen to try for his second IM norm there rather than play for the £2,000 first prize at the date-clashing UK Chess Challenge, where he and Ynojosa would have been joint favourites.

[John Saunders]

It is a baffling website, isn't it? More photos than you can shake a stick at but results are very hard to come by. Eventually I came across this - http://pagesperso-orange.fr/philippe.do ... Berger.htm which gives the round 3 standings. I found this via Philippe Dornbusch's 'Chess and Strategy' website - http://www.chess-and-strategy.com/

[Roger de Coverly]

Eventually I came across this - http://pagesperso-orange.fr/philippe.do ... Berger.htm which gives the round 3 standings. I found this via Philippe Dornbusch's 'Chess and Strategy' website - http://www.chess-and-strategy.com/

Live games (free) at http://pagesperso-orange.fr/echecs-gonf ... VE/tfd.htm

Also from the website

L'expérimenté Mark Hebden (2468) affronte le jeune Thomas Saatdjian (2312) pour une 4ème ronde explosive.

It's actually a Spanish exchange with Mark's normal Bd6.

[Jonathan Rogers]

I am altogether a bit confused by the decisions of the organisers at Dieppe. Don't they want anyone to make an IM norm in their all-play all? Hebden and d'Costa are not exactly fodder for IM norm aspirants, and Eggleston, if he continues his form at the British (and who is no doubt playing in earnest to get to 2400), might not help their cause either.

Yang-Fan, the only apparent norm seeker, will be deserving indeed if he makes a norm in that company.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Maybe Eggleston entered the IM norm all-play-all before the British had happened (i.e. when he was still looking for his third norm).

[Roger de Coverly]

I am altogether a bit confused by the decisions of the organisers at Dieppe. Don't they want anyone to make an IM norm in their all-play all?

Information is a bit scattered on the website but the move rate appeared to be 40/100 + 30 with 30 second increments. This move rate was outlawed by FIDE for title purposes from 1st July 2009 at the instigation of the ACP.

http://www.fide.com/component/content/a ... y-1st-2009

Changes in the Title Regulations from 1.7.2009

Registration of Tournaments

All tournaments have to be pre-registered, as described in the Rating Regulations.

Allowed Rates of Play

From 1.7.2009 only a certain set of rates of rates of play are valid for title results. This was a requirement by the players' organisation to have less variation in the tournaments.

The allowed time controls are as follows:

* 90 minutes with 30 seconds cumulative increment for each move starting from first move (This time control is valid only until 30.6.2010.)
* 90 minutes for 40 moves + 30 minutes with 30 seconds cumulative increment for each move starting from the first move
* 100 minutes for 40 moves followed by 50 minutes for 20 moves, then 15 minutes for the remaining moves with 30 seconds cumulative increment for each move starting from first move
* 40 moves in 2 hours followed by 30 minutes for the rest of the game
* 40 moves in 2 hours followed by 60 minutes for the rest of the game
* 40 moves in 2 hours followed by 20 moves in 1 hour followed by 30 minutes for the rest of the game

[Jonathan Rogers]

Jack, no doubt you are right, and it might still make sense for David to play even now, since he still seeks Elo points. But I still think the composition of the event is an odd one if the production of norms is any kind of priority.

Not of course that I advocate Hungarian style all-play-alls or other events where one invites three players over 60 who have not played for over 20 years. But making the norm much harder than necessary does not seem sensible either.

Roger's point is interesting ... possibly the tournament was organised on the basis of the old regulations and no one noticed the necessity to change the time limit? Or perhaps there are transitional arrangements which can be agreed for tournaments organised well in advance of such changes?

[John Saunders]

Interesting! So that means any norms achieved there would be invalid? But will the games be rateable?

Allowed Rates of Play

From 1.7.2009 only a certain set of rates of rates of play are valid for title results. This was a requirement by the players' organisation to have less variation in the tournaments.

The allowed time controls are as follows:

* 90 minutes with 30 seconds cumulative increment for each move starting from first move (This time control is valid only until 30.6.2010.)
* 90 minutes for 40 moves + 30 minutes with 30 seconds cumulative increment for each move starting from the first move
* 100 minutes for 40 moves followed by 50 minutes for 20 moves, then 15 minutes for the remaining moves with 30 seconds cumulative increment for each move starting from first move
* 40 moves in 2 hours followed by 30 minutes for the rest of the game
* 40 moves in 2 hours followed by 60 minutes for the rest of the game
* 40 moves in 2 hours followed by 20 moves in 1 hour followed by 30 minutes for the rest of the game

Thanks for posting those time controls, Roger.

The first one just seems ludicrously quick for one game a day events - I'm glad to see they are phasing it out. The second one is obviously a bit better - it amounts to 2½ hours for a 60-move game - but, again, it seems inadequate for serious one game a day chess. It was the time control used at the Dresden Olympiad.

The third one adds up to 3 hours for a 60-move game. It seems acceptable. It is the control being used at the 2010 Gibtelecom Festival (now that the one-minute increment has been outlawed - a pity, that, as it struck me as a more suitable increment). The fourth one seems unacceptable to me - you would have to save some time from the first tranche of time in order to safeguard yourself from having too little time after move 40 and the mental process involved in making that adjustment (especially amongst us mathematically-challenged types) is too distracting. If they are chucking out the first option in a year's time, shouldn't they also jettison this one?

The fifth of the listed time controls, Stewart tells us, is the one favoured by his senior player squad. I can understand that in some ways as at least you know that you will not be playing on into a seventh hour as in the case of the sixth option. It also has the advantage of being simple and comprehensible. The sixth option is the one commonly referred to as "classical" and is the non-incremental equivalent of the third option. These two seem the best options for higher-level chess as played by the young, professional and/or ambitious. If I were choosing a time control to suit me personally, with my flagging energy levels, I think I would vote with Stewart's 'Last of the Summer Wine' squad and say goodbye to the seventh hour of play, although I don't think this time control is really appropriate to serious norm-generating events.

[IM Jack Rudd]

The fourth one is a good one for two-rounds-a-day events; it's the one used by the Wellington College and South Wales internationals. The CCF internationals don't use it, but their two-rounds-a-day events are all-play-alls, and you have somewhat more leeway to start individual games late with all-play-alls than you do with Swisses.

[Roger de Coverly]

The fourth one is a good one for two-rounds-a-day events; it's the one used by the Wellington College and South Wales internationals. The CCF internationals don't use it, but their two-rounds-a-day events are all-play-alls, and you have somewhat more leeway to start individual games late with all-play-alls than you do with Swisses.

If you run an event with two rounds a day or even just two rounds on one day only, then you need to decide a session length. Six hours can lead to an unacceptably early start or late finish, so you use 5 hours. If you are stuck with "40 moves in", then you've just got 40/90 + 60 or 40/105 + 45 or 40/120 + 30. As a player you have to decide whether to play at 4NCL pace and then accelerate if the game continues past move 40 or build up some time in hand, so you reach move 40 with 30 minutes or more remaining. 40/120 + 30 seems a reasonable approach if you are prepared to allow norms in 5 hour events.

[John Saunders]

I still don't like the look of option four - this business of having to pace yourself to use less time in the first time control strikes me as an unnecessary distraction. Five hours is simply not long enough for a sensible game of chess.

Perhaps FIDE should have come up with some more time control options or variations that are specifically designed for two-games-a-day chess only. It is possible to allow players rather more than five hours in most circumstances. I played in the 1997 Cardiff Masters, a ten-player all-play-all at two rounds a day for the first four days. The time control was 40/100, then all/40 with 30 second increments from the start (I think this might have been the first rated British tournament ever to use incremental time controls). Though on reflection it is difficult to see how such a time control could be used for two games a day, the Cardiff time control (Adams Raoof's invention, I think) was surprisingly workable in practice though I think the arbiter Kevin Staveley found it a bit difficult (as one or two morning games went on a long time into the afternoon). In an a.p.a., with only five games a round to worry about, it is possible to have a bit of flexibility as regards starting times, though it is a bit annoying when you have to wait for your afternoon opponent to finish the morning game (arguably worse for them, of course). It is close to the third legal FIDE option, with something short of 3 hours each for 60 moves. The tournament produced three IM norms - for James Cobb, Luke McShane and Danny Gormally. But perhaps Adam and/or Kevin had second thoughts - for the 1998 Newport Masters, the time control was 40/2, all/1 (which also seemed OK).

[Ian Thompson]

Or perhaps there are transitional arrangements which can be agreed for tournaments organised well in advance of such changes?

Not according to the organisers of the just finished Vienna open, who changed the time limit from 120 minutes + 30 seconds a move to 90 minutes/40 moves + 30 minutes/rest game + 30 seconds a move shortly before the tournament began, much to my annoyance.

[IM Jack Rudd]

The specifics of Coulsdon's 2-rounds-per-day all-play-alls are as follows:

Morning rounds start at 10:15.

Afternoon rounds start at 15:30, provided both players' games have finished by 14:30. If they have not, they start an hour after the later game's finishing time.

(Players may mutually agree to start before, but not after, their stated starting time.)

[Jonathan Rogers]

I guess that in an English Chess Forum, there is no particular reason to mention Ketevan's excellent result in St Petersburg this week

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5718

but I'd like to mention it anyway.

I didn't know that she has now switched her chess allegiance from Georgia to Scotland.