Capelle La Grande International Open 26th Feb - 5th March

[LozCooper]

Accelerated pairings in round 7

[IM Jack Rudd]

Accelerated pairings in round 7

That's usual in this system - Accelerated pairings for all rounds bar the last two.

[LozCooper]

If anyone stumbles on a link to the live games that works I'd love to know about it. The one I have been using is http://cappelle-chess.fr/live2011/tfd.htm but stopped working for me towards the end of round 6 and hasn't worked since. The live link on the site helpfully provides me with games from 2010

[Jonathan Rogers]

I'm pleased to be alerted (by Richard) to Neil Berry's results (indeed, even to his participation). Perhaps they can be included on the next results round-up? We're generously minded here, aren't we ....

[LozCooper]

I'm pleased to be alerted (by Richard) to Neil Berry's results (indeed, even to his participation). Perhaps they can be included on the next results round-up? We're generously minded here, aren't we ....

If he gets a norm then I'll be happy to report on a British success

[David Sedgwick]

If anyone stumbles on a link to the live games that works I'd love to know about it. The one I have been using is http://cappelle-chess.fr/live2011/tfd.htm but stopped working for me towards the end of round 6 and hasn't worked since.

That link is working for me now.

[Phil Neatherway]

The link works for me too.

[LozCooper]

The link works for me too.

Must be my computer then. The DGT box turns red and no games appear

I finally got the link working in time to see Mark's game agreed drawn

[Stewart Reuben]

Richard Bates >Is it perhaps true that different pairing systems favour players in different parts of the draw?<

Certainly. All pairing systems based on rating will demonstrate bias. e.g. The second highest rated player must always have an advantage over the highest. In normal seeded Swisses the players at the top of the second half will be severely disadvantaged. The only solution is a lottery draw thus not based on preconceived ideas.
But a seeding system is far more efficient at finding the fairest winner.

I take it as meaning we want players on higher scores to achieve higher TPR than those on lower. You can even disagree with that. If your priority in a Swiss with few GMs is to get GM norms, then the GMs should all be the highest ranked players, irrespective of their rating.
Stewart Reuben

[Peter Turner]

Mixed fortunes today, a fine win for Lateefah, draws for Mark & Sarah and a loss for Sam. Neil was still playing when I left the venue.

[Peter Turner]

Round 8 - Much sympathy for Sam who now is paired with an opponent rated 910 points less than the previous round. He’s right at the bottom of the top half of his score group. Lateefah, on the same points, has a 2307 rated opponent – but that’s how it goes. Neil Berry, Sam’s Barbican team mate, is online for an IM norm with a current perf of 2477 – all the best to Neil.
Mark on a live board again for a 1pm start. Last round tomorrow is at 9am (10am here in Cappelle)

BRUNNER Nicholas IM 2478 FRA v HEBDEN Mark 2558 ENG (5)
FRANKLIN Samuel 2185 ENG (4) v SAUVAGE Thierry 1490 FRA
HEGARTY Sarah 2096 ENG (3.5) v LEMOUR Aurele 1781 FRA
MESSAM ~ SPARKS Lateefah 1904 ENG (4) v VALUET Bertrand FM 2307 FRA
VAN OVERDAM Jan 2041 NED v PARFETT Gerald 1647 ENG (3.5)
BERRY Neil 2331 SCO (& Barbican) (4.5) v SZABO Kristian GM 2517 HUN

[Alan Walton]

Round 8 - Much sympathy for Sam who now is paired with an opponent rated 910 points less than the previous round. He’s right at the bottom of the top half of his score group

I know people recommend that Capelle is a great tournament, but personally I think good tournaments are those where you don't get these massive mismatches. I do accept that they can happen every so often, but when you are entering a tournament with over 500 players you have to expect to have these massive variances in multiple rounds if you are only performing around plus or minus one

[LozCooper]

Round 8 - Much sympathy for Sam who now is paired with an opponent rated 910 points less than the previous round. He’s right at the bottom of the top half of his score group

I know people recommend that Capelle is a great tournament, but personally I think good tournaments are those where you don't get these massive mismatches. I do accept that they can happen every so often, but when you are entering a tournament with over 500 players you have to expect to have these massive variances in multiple rounds if you are only performing around plus or minus one

I agree. Cappelle can be a great tournament if you manage to be on the right score at the right time. The same is true of many big opens. Happily, despite these frustrations, the three young English players have got to play in a big tournament with coaching from a Grandmaster and all seem to be performing well although Sarah has had the frustration of yo-yoing between 1900s and 2300s. Both Lateefah and Sam have performed well above their rating and Mark has managed another 2600 performance despite coaching in the mornings.

[Jonathan Rogers]

As far as I can see, if you are anywhere near mid-table, and want at least some (some!!!) games against players of your own strength or a bit above - which is the best way to gain rating points - then Capelle is a terrible tournament, as the pairings of Samuel and Sarah seem to be demonstrating.

[Roger de Coverly]

As far as I can see, if you are anywhere near mid-table, and want at least some (some!!!) games against players of your own strength or a bit above - which is the best way to gain rating points - then Capelle is a terrible tournament, as the pairings of Samuel and Sarah seem to be demonstrating.

Along the coast, the Dutch like dividing up their tournaments into Open A, Open B etc. They do have a high qualification standard for Open A though, you may need to be 2100 plus. We no longer do this for Hastings and the Major Open although to some extent the parallel un-rated events do it automatically.