The British itself!

[Jonathan Rogers]

Understandably, Hawkins played safe. I think his decision to play the rather passive Rhf8, f6 and ...e5 was already a sign that he wanted to clarify the position to minimise the risk of losing. In turn that is what prompted Howell to try f2-f4, which was very risky and he ended up offering a draw while he thought it might still be accepted.

My guess is that Hawkins is prepared to halve out. It would make a lot of sense, and surely the worst that would then happen would be that he would be joint champion. But we shall see...

Daniel Fernandez is now second equal! Sean Hewit must be dreaming of what he and Justin Tan might do for his 4NCL team next season. But Fernandez is the only youngster really making any kind of breakthrough, it seems. The other juniors seem mainly just to be having the odd good game here or there. (Eg Ravi Haria played a nice game today).

Amy Hoare and Akshaya Kalaiyalahan are now on the same number of points. It would be appropriate if the womens' title could be decided in a head to head encounter.

[IM Jack Rudd]

I think Michael Fernandez at +3.12, Anthony Zhang at +2.12 and Adam Taylor at +1.63 might have something to say about Jonathan's conclusions there.

[John McKenna]

With regard to Pert v Pert, I don't see how it could have been broken without breaking a score group.
Given that GM Pert v Hawkins would have raised more than a few eyebrows (and possibly FIDE questions) then we have the following situation.
White seekers Hebden & Zhou, Black seekers the others but neither Emms nor Fernandez should get three Whites in a row so IM Pert is the one to move across. Fernandez has played Hebden and Pert so must play Zhou, Emms and Pert have already played - therefore Pert v Pert is the only pairing left!!!

No, I guess not, but why not avoid pairing siblings if humanely possible?

Go on then, John, try your hand at pairing those top scoregroups.

Jack, I'd break the score group and risk the raised voices and possible FIDE (f)ire (see Alex M's post).

1. IM Pert,R (5) v. IM Hawkins,J (6.5)
2. GM Howell,D (5.5) v. GM Pert,N (5.5)

But then again nobody would put an anarchist in charge of the pairings.

The following historical posts may be worth remembering -

Stewart Reuben Tue Aug 13, 2013 6:58 pm Re: The Latest GM/IM Norm Scam
... Look at the games of the Kosintseva sisters if you want to see pre-arranged draws. I think 1 e4 e5 draw agreed would be much better.

Christopher Kreuzer Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:27 pm : Re: Women's World Championship
Nadezhda won the battle of the Kosintseva sisters...

The said sisters (born in consecutive years) came in for some flack over their persistent concocted draws. Yet, they managed a proper (decisive) game when it mattered, or so it seems.

Some here seem to favour a more laid back approach when it comes to twins in a national championship. So be it, all I am saying is that blood is not always thicker than water.

[IM Jack Rudd]

No, I guess not, but why not avoid pairing siblings if humanely possible?

Go on then, John, try your hand at pairing those top scoregroups.

Jack, I'd break the score group and risk the raised voices and possible FIDE (f)ire (see Alex M's post).

1. IM Pert,R (5) v. IM Hawkins,J (6.5)
2. GM Howell,D (5.5) v. GM Pert,N (5.5)

Good grief. That's an absolutely terrible pairing. I'd rather create the three-whites-in-a-row Fernandez v Emms pairing than do that.

(If I were determined to keep the Perts apart - which I wouldn't be in round 8, although I might be persuaded to in round 11 -, then I'd go with Pert N v Hawkins, Howell v Emms, Hebden v Pert R, Zhou v Fernandez. It's not as good as the actual pairing, but it doesn't needlessly break score-groups or give someone three whites in a row.)

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Nadezhda won the battle of the Kosintseva sisters...

The said sisters (born in consecutive years) came in for some flack over their persistent concocted draws. Yet, they managed a proper (decisive) game when it mattered, or so it seems."

The event was a knockout, so they were forced to actually play!

As for Pert-Pert, it is much better to have that pairing a few days ago than potentially in the last round. I know they wouldn't agree for the "right" one to win, but others might be suspicious if a sudden blunder occurred.

It seems an English attitude to want to fiddle the draw to stop such pairings, but the trouble is you affect other people's pairings. It is fairer to do the right pairing. Having said that, I have had occasions where two brothers have been the only players on 0/3 in a Minor tournament, and I have floated both of them as it doesn't affect the prizes.

[John McKenna]

Go on then, John, try your hand at pairing those top scoregroups.

Jack, I'd break the score group and risk the raised voices and possible FIDE (f)ire (see Alex M's post).

1. IM Pert,R (5) v. IM Hawkins,J (6.5)
2. GM Howell,D (5.5) v. GM Pert,N (5.5)

Good grief. That's an absolutely terrible pairing. I'd rather create the three-whites-in-a-row Fernandez v Emms pairing than do that.

I did say, "But then again nobody would put an anarchist in charge of the pairings".

(If I were determined to keep the Perts apart - which I wouldn't be in round 8, although I might be persuaded to in round 11 -, then I'd go with Pert N v Hawkins, Howell v Emms, Hebden v Pert R, Zhou v Fernandez. It's not as good as the actual pairing, but it doesn't needlessly break score-groups or give someone three whites in a row.)

Just above you say (regarding the round 8 pairings), "... Pert,N v Hawkins, Howell v Emms, Hebden v Pert,R... not as good as the actual pairing, but it doesn't needlessly break score groups..."

Alex McFarlane wrote -
Given that GM Pert v Hawkins would have raised more than a few eyebrows (and possibly FIDE questions)... Pert v Pert is the only pairing left!!!

So, the alternative pairing that you say was "not as good as the actual pairing" seems to be disallowed by Alex M. Do you agree with the grounds on which he does that or do you think the alternative pairing would have passed muster?

Thanks to Kevin Thurlow for pointing out the knockout nature of the Kosintseva sisters' decisive encounter and for the other observations he makes above.

[Alex McFarlane]

I think that Jack and I are in agreement.

What is now being debated is the least bad pairing if you avoid the Perts playing each other.

The unnecessary colour switch on top board is very easy to spot if FIDE were to carry out a check on the pairings.

[Michael Flatt]

In a tournament such as the British there is no good reason to 'fiddle the draw' to keep siblings apart.

In fact, if the opportunity arose it might be better to force them to play in an early round to avoid any accusations of concocting a result in later rounds when it might affect the title and top positions.

If the players themselves wish to avoid playing each other the simple solution is not to enter the same tournament!

[John McKenna]

Thanks Alex and Michael Flatt, above, I'll not wait for Jack to confirm that - I am sure he agrees with you.
Suffice it to say that the Pert twins were probably destined to be paired at some point in these championships.
Whether they would actually "play each other" is another matter. In the end it's their decision.

[Jonathan Rogers]

I think Michael Fernandez at +3.12, Anthony Zhang at +2.12 and Adam Taylor at +1.63 might have something to say about Jonathan's conclusions there.

No doubt I should look at their games more closely but really ... you have to be careful with these "+1.72" business. In the case of many juniors around the age of 16, the fact is that they are already known to be under-rated and their rating gains are more or less in line with expectations (well, admittedly, +3 is rather good). But are we learning anything really new about them, are they suddenly knocking over IMs? It is Daniel Fernanadez who is making waves at the moment, and I say that without having any idea what his elo gains are ....

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Have the Perts not played each other in the British before? Any predictions for opening and result in Hawkins-Hebden? And if it is drawn, will someone else reach 7 from the other pairings?

[Ian Kingston]

Have the Perts not played each other in the British before? Any predictions for opening and result in Hawkins-Hebden? And if it is drawn, will someone else reach 7 from the other pairings?

They've played each other three times before in the British, and all three were drawn: 2001 (8 moves); 2010 (23 moves); and 2011 (9 moves).

Curiously, there are no other games between the two in Mega Database, but I imagine they must have met in junior competitions.

[Michael Bennett]

Hawkins is playing Nick Pert today, not Hebden.

[Jonathan Rogers]

perhaps the more sensible question is whether anyone can name chess playing twins who don't draw quickly when forced to play each other? (Northern readers of a certain age may recall the talented Akehurst twins too).

[IM Jack Rudd]

Owen and Rhys Bennett played a proper game against each other at e2e4 Torquay a while back.