British 2015 Round by Round

[David Clayton]

I've now posted the 2015 British Championship games on Britbase:

http://www.saund.co.uk/britbase/pgn/201 ... iewer.html

A second reminder that Hawkins-Arkell, Rd 11, ended 26...Rd4 resigns (1-0). I note that this correction has now also been made to the chess-results website PGN. Mark Crowther is aware so it should also be correct on the next TWIC.

If anyone detects any other British Championship games afflicted with LMS (last move syndrome: where a nonsensical last move is generated by the electronic board when the arbiters or players attempt to record the result; or else the players move pieces on the board after the game ends but before the result is thus recorded), please let me know.

120...Ke4 was not played in Howell-Gormally round 3.

Yes, I corrected several games each round in which LMS had occured, which is why those who broadcast live games wish players just to leave their score sheets on the table after completion of the final move. Then the arbiter or the live games broadcaster can enter the result of the game for the live broadcast audience before the score sheet goes to the arbiter.

The DGT boards are only a tool for the automated collection of game scores and the production and accuracy of the pgn file still remains with the pgn inputters team. Its just so easy for a player to play what is a valid king move after the end of the game whilst trying to indicate the result of the game. Putting the kings in the middle of the boards is not the best solution to indicating the completion and result of the game.

Hopefully I managed to correct the vast majority of LMS issues, along with a few missed moves and some miss recorded moves.

[Roger de Coverly]

Its just so easy for a player to play what is a valid king move after the end of the game whilst trying to indicate the result of the game. Putting the kings in the middle of the boards is not the best solution to indicating the completion and result of the game.

Quite why the designers of the DGT Boards and software thought that indicating the result using the Kings was a better solution than three buttons 1-0 1/2 and 0-1 is one of life's mysteries, perhaps on a par with why they won't display the internal press counter.

[Stewart Reuben]

I did suggest to Albert Vasse, then Mr DGT, that there be 3 cubes: one displaying 1-0, one ½, one 0-1. Placing the appropriate cube on the board would end the transmission and display the result. He said that would be quite easy, but has never implemented it.

Removing a pawn from the board, making the game illegal, is a good way to freeze the game. Then put the kings in the centre and replace the pawn. Of course, if there is no pawn on the board, that doesn't solve it.

I think Albert wouldn't allow the option of displaying the push counter throughout the game was because he thought it was illegal to provide this information. Of course he was wrong. Even if correct at the time, the Laws were easily altered to allow it. 6.13 is specific about this.

Many internet sites declare the game drawn after a position has occurred three times or there have been 50 moves without a capture or pawn move. This could be implemented otb, but would require vigilance by the arbiter when a warning light went off. Better still would be if a hammer came down and struck the player. But some might regard that as too extreme. It would require a change to 12.9.

[David Robertson]

I really don't understand this (as I see it) mawkish hand-wringing over Pert v Pert. What exactly is the problem? I'm not insensitive to the fact that they're brothers, and twins (?)...<snip>...Why my hard line? Precedence and good example. I may have my details wrong here, but not the substance. Some years back, John Littlewood faced a similar problem, paired in the last, or penultimate, round with his brother Norman Littlewood. A draw would have delivered John the title. But there was never any question: they were there to play chess; and so they did. John lost. He never won the British title. Norman would do so one day

Just tidying up the record from my story, cited above, from p.45 of this thread where errors were pointed out.

I've now consulted my source for the story (John Carleton). The following is the case:

* Norman didn't defeat John. John defeated Norman
* John wasn't about to win the Championship. Norman was.
* Neither ever won the Championship. Norman was runner-up several (six?) times

Apart from that, I got everything right

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Close, David, but only a smidgeon of a cigar.

Would be nice to have stats for those who were runner-up many times.

Reviewing the lists at John Saunders's site and at the ECF site:

http://www.saund.co.uk/britbase/britchamps.html
http://www.britishchesschampionships.co ... ners-list/

I see that Jonathan Hawkins went off with £6500, which is four times as much as the next-largest prizewinners (those who shared 2nd place). (I do wonder if this disparity is reasonable, though it is inflated by Jonathan winning the title of English Champion as well.) There were GMs sharing 5th place who only got £150 each (winning the Major Open won Fodor £600) and some GMs went home empty-handed.

Congratulations also to the other prize-winners:

Akshaya Kalaiyalahan was Women's Champions for the second time (having shared the title in 2013).
Peter Batchelor won the U21 title and Matthew Wadsworth the U18 title.

Quick quiz question: name the five people who have won the title of British Chess Champion more then 3 times (including shared wins).

Is there a list of English Champions anywhere, and when did that start to be awarded?

[NickFaulks]

I see that Jonathan Hawkins went off with £6500, which is four times as much as the next-largest prizewinners (those who shared 2nd place). (I do wonder if this disparity is reasonable

Given that Danny Gormally, at least, seemed content to finish with three unexciting draws rather than take a real risk in search of first prize, you might argue that it still isn't enough.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Penrose, Adams and Hodgson are three of them. I'll have to think about the others.

[JustinHorton]

Atkins

[Mike Truran]

Yates.

[Jonathan Bryant]

I thought Ray had won 20 or so titles so he must be in there.

[Roger de Coverly]

I thought Ray had won 20 or so titles so he must be in there.

More recently Jonathan Rowson clocked up three wins in a row.

Including shared titles, David Howell has also already won it three times.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Speelman and Mestel (who each had a win the 1970s as well as two each in the 1980s).

And can it really be that no one has said Short? (1984, 1987, 1998?)

[Mike Truran]

The original challenge was 3+.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Penrose, Adams and Hodgson are three of them. I'll have to think about the others.

And as correctly stated already, Atkins and Yates were the others.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Silly me, yes. I skimmed the page, saw the reference to Rowson and wrongly assumed that three was enough.

Here is something perhaps worthy of note - Hawkins achieved the unusual feat of defending his title after winning it for the first time. Rowson and Hodgson did that too but it is very rare and I cannot remember other examples in the modern era. (Admittedly it is still not quite on the level of the Crucible curse in snooker).