+- Forums (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Members Only (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-16.html)
+--- Forum: General Chess Chat (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: SNCL 27th Oct 2013 (/thread-746.html)
Re: SNCL 27th Oct 2013 - Andy Howie - 18-10-2013
Provisional Divisions (still 1 team to confirm)
Div 1
Edinburgh 1
Edinburgh West
Hamilton A
Dundee City A
Edinburgh University
Cumbernauld
Greenwood
Glenrothes Kings
Div 2
Giffnock and Clarkston
Forth Valley
Edinburgh 2
East Kilbride
Dundee City B
CS Bos 1
Dunfermline Knights
North Ayrshire Crusaders
Div 3
Kilmarnock
Inverclyde
Oban
Lanark
Forth Valley B
Dumfries and District
Wandering Dragons
Pentland Hills
Div 4
Hamilton B
Irvine
CSBos2
Mussleburgh (TBC)
Corstorphine
Dunfermline Knaves
Dundee City Juniors
Woodmill Warriors
Perth
SCDAD
Prestwick
Stepps Warriors
Thistles
Re: SNCL 27th Oct 2013 - Glynis Grant - 18-10-2013
Thx Andy
Okau folks if your team is not there or TBC you have unyil midnight tonight to let us know.
Contact Andy or myself either by email or by message on this board
GG
Re: SNCL 27th Oct 2013 - andyburnett - 30-10-2013
Will the scores from Sunday be posted anytime soon? As I was involved in one of the last games to finish I didn't get a chance to see any of the results
Thanks in advance,
Andy
Re: SNCL 27th Oct 2013 - amuir - 30-10-2013
Andy , did you beat Craig Pritchett ? a change from Neil Farrell ?
I am staying out of SNCL for the moment - ELO & cash protection
Re: SNCL 27th Oct 2013 - Phil Thomas - 30-10-2013
I saw the end of that game - I was the arbiter hovering nearby in anticipation of a 2 minute draw claim.
The result was a win for Andy Burnett.
One of those endings where finishing the game at 5 seconds per move - one of the FIDE changes happening from summer 2014 I believe - would have been a fair way to resolve the outcome.
Re: SNCL 27th Oct 2013 - andyburnett - 30-10-2013
amuir Wrote:Andy , did you beat Craig Pritchett ? a change from Neil Farrell ?
I am staying out of SNCL for the moment - ELO & cash protection
I did indeed - I recovered from a seriously dodgy opening 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.d4 Bb4+ 4. Bd2 c5!? 5. Bxb4 cxb4 6.g4?! I looked at this strange move a couple of years ago and decided white had decent attacking chances in many of the positions which arise, but during the game I simply couldn't remember/see where those chances lay.
Craig couldn't see the point of the move 6.g4 at all. The g4 'spike' is seen in many different openings (Sicilians/Slavs/Philidor etc.) - here I felt that because black had already 'lost' his c-pawn, it wouldn't be so easy for him to fully counter-attack in the centre. I'm probably mistaken though and doubt I would play the idea again.
It was a long game and I haven't entered it into ChessBase yet. When I do, and get the pgn, I'll post it here in full.
ELO protection I understand, but cash protection?! It's a very cheap day out I would have thought - much cheaper than staying at home with eBay/Dominos/Amazon etc. all vying for a share of one's attention!
EDIT: OK, here's the game; Andy Burnett - IM Craig Pritchett, SNCL Rd 2, 2013. Technique at the end was a bit sloppy, surely this ending is easier to win than that (notwithstanding the position after 69.Rd8 seems drawn to me if black plays 69...Ra7 'rook on the long side draws' according to Hamish Olson!)
[pgn]1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. d4 Bb4+ 4. Bd2 c5 5. Bxb4 cxb4 6. g4 d5 7. g5 Ne4 8. Rg1 Nc6 9. e3 O-O 10. Nbd2 f5 11. Bd3 Bd7 12. cxd5 exd5 13. Rc1 Qe7 14. Rxc6 bxc6 15. Ne5 Be8 16. f4 c5 17. Bxe4 dxe4 18. Nb3 cxd4 19. Nxd4 Rc8 20. Rg2 Rc5 21. Rc2 Rxe5 22. fxe5 Qxe5 23. Rc8 Bf7 24. Qc2 g6 25. Qc7 Qxc7 26. Rxc7 Ra8 27. a3 bxa3 28. bxa3 a5 29. Nc6 a4 30. Ne5 Be6 31. Re7 Ra6 32. Kf2 Bb3 33. Nd7 Bf7 34. Kg3 Re6 35. Nf6+ Kf8 36. Ra7 h6 37. h4 hxg5 38. hxg5 Be8 39. Ra8 Kf7 40. Nxe8 Rxe8 41. Rxa4 Ke6 42. Ra6+ Ke5 43. Rxg6 Ra8 44. Rb6 Rxa3 45. Rb5+ Ke6 46. Kf4 Ra1 47. Re5+ Kf7 48. Kxf5 Rf1+ 49. Kxe4 Kg6 50. Kd5 Rd1+ 51. Ke6 Ra1 52. e4 Ra6+ 53. Kd5 Ra5+ 54. Kd4 Ra4+ 55. Ke3 Ra1 56. Rf5 Re1+ 57. Kf4 Rf1+ 58. Ke5 Ra1 59. Rf6+ Kxg5 60. Rd6 Re1 61. Rd4 Kg6 62. Ke6 Ra1 63. e5 Kg7 64. Ke7 Ra7+ 65. Rd7 Ra5 66. e6 Ra6 67. Ke8+ Kf6 68. e7 Ra8+ 69. Rd8 Ra6 70. Kf8[/pgn]
Re: SNCL 27th Oct 2013 - andyburnett - 30-10-2013
Phil Thomas Wrote:I saw the end of that game - I was the arbiter hovering nearby in anticipation of a 2 minute draw claim.
The result was a win for Andy Burnett.
One of those endings where finishing the game at 5 seconds per move - one of the FIDE changes happening from summer 2014 I believe - would have been a fair way to resolve the outcome.
I have heard rumour about this rule Phil. Why on earth it would be a fair way to resolve the outcome is beyond me however? We both started with the same amount of time, I used mine more efficiently. Does the rule mean that we are both put on a lightning buzzer-type affair? Would I lose the extra minutes I had over Craig in this instance? Hmmm, I'm not too keen on this idea at all!
Incidentally, is there anything in the rules regarding what players should do when there is a clock 'malfunction'. More specifically in this case, if a player makes an illegal move, and there is a delay of several minutes in re-setting the clocks, should the player/s be allowed to sit at the board analysing while they wait? It didn't affect the outcome this time, but it certainly could have. Food for thought and discussion perhaps?
Re: SNCL 27th Oct 2013 - Clement Sreeves - 30-10-2013
69...Ra7 looks far from a draw after 70. Rd6+ Kg7 71.Re6
66...Ra6?? is the culprit- if I remember my Dvorestsky right any other move on the a-file draws, but Ra8! is the simplest.
Re: SNCL 27th Oct 2013 - andyburnett - 30-10-2013
Clement Sreeves Wrote:69...Ra7 looks far from a draw after 70. Rd6+ Kg7 71.Re6
66...Ra6?? is the culprit- if I remember my Dvorestsky right any other move on the a-file draws, but Ra8! is the simplest.
Unfortunately my 'Dvoretsky' book was written by Simon Webb
Ok, I'm sure the position after 49. Kxe4 is winning. If the 'almost final' position is drawn, where did I go wrong?
Re: SNCL 27th Oct 2013 - Phil Thomas - 30-10-2013
andyburnett Wrote:Phil Thomas Wrote:I saw the end of that game - I was the arbiter hovering nearby in anticipation of a 2 minute draw claim.
The result was a win for Andy Burnett.
One of those endings where finishing the game at 5 seconds per move - one of the FIDE changes happening from summer 2014 I believe - would have been a fair way to resolve the outcome.
I have heard rumour about this rule Phil. Why on earth it would be a fair way to resolve the outcome is beyond me however? We both started with the same amount of time, I used mine more efficiently. Does the rule mean that we are both put on a lightning buzzer-type affair? Would I lose the extra minutes I had over Craig in this instance? Hmmm, I'm not too keen on this idea at all!
Incidentally, is there anything in the rules regarding what players should do when there is a clock 'malfunction'. More specifically in this case, if a player makes an illegal move, and there is a delay of several minutes in re-setting the clocks, should the player/s be allowed to sit at the board analysing while they wait? It didn't affect the outcome this time, but it certainly could have. Food for thought and discussion perhaps?
I had anticipated Craig playing 69 ...Ra7 and claiming a draw under the two minute rule with 5 seconds left on the clock. Almost every arbiter would take the same initial decision = have the players continue the game (this buys some thinking time for the arbiter) until Black's flag fell and then make a decision. At this point the result can becomes a lottery (unless result had become crystal clear by then ) because different arbiters would reach different conclusions. The rules have, I recall, been changed recently to disallow appeals against decisions in draw claims - can someone confirm or deny that point?
As I understand the new rules if Black claims the draw then White gets an extra 2 minutes before the 5 seconds per move shoot out. So the time saved up by White still counts for much and if both players were down to 5 seconds then Black acquires a significant time advantage.
Will arbiter use this optional solution (not compulsory as far as I know) after the rule comes into force next summer?
Interesting question and I really don't know the answer. Any arbiters out there want to comment?