2016 Irish Championships

Nikita999

Daly - Jessell maybe 23.e4 was not ideal.

23. h4!? intending h5-h6 with initiative. The pawn on e3 does a useful job.

ComDubh

Yes... 23. e4 and 24. e5 seems to leave Black's Knights with no squares, but then Jessel found a lovely plan to swap one Knight and get an c5 outpost for the other. After that it was White's Knights that never found good homes. The game was a tale of equine cruelty really.

cdeb

reunion wrote: »

Get a €20 three pre pay sim card unlimited data.

Second this - we had a similar problem with the Irish Juniors, and a USB internet stick did the trick. Pop into any Vodafone/Three/whoever else shop and get one.

must have a jest

Live boards are working again today.

Tim Harding

It looks like Stephen Jessel is already winning.
Maybe when Kevin Butler played 15 Nf5 he overlooked that after 15...exf5 16 Nxd5 Black has 16...Nb3 check followed by Nxd2 with check.

Gerry O'Connell is also busted after only an hour. I know from the Cork congress how disconcerting it is to play against Mustakim-ul Haque blitzing out his moves. Fortunately the last (about 20th) rapid move he made against me was a mistake. Gerry doesn't seem to have been so lucky.

Though, actually, if the online clock is right, Gerry was playing at least as fast as his opponent. That is one of the dangers of playing against such juniors; you get caught up in their tempo.

Tim Harding

No live coverage today of Eamon Keogh's game, or has somebody withdrawn? I couldn't get out to UCD as planned but hope to do so tomorrow.

Results online so far at 5.45pm:
Scott 0 Butler 1
O'Neill 1 Mustakim-ul Haque 0
Mirza-Beatty drew
O'Connell 1 Thee 0

Daly-Delaney in double rook ending after the time control.
Jessel-Fox in time pressure at move 30.
Tirziman two pawns up v MacElligott around move 23; big time pressure there.

Tim Harding

As of 6.10pm: Jessel beat Fox and is likely to go a point clear with two rounds to go.
Tirziman and MacElligott have made the time control so there are two games still running.

HaraldSchmidt

Tim,
I think there are only 7 boards actually working, so board 8 has never been transmitted.

Tim Harding

HaraldSchmidt wrote: »

Tim,
I think there are only 7 boards actually working, so board 8 has never been transmitted.

OK, so I have no idea about what's happening on that board 8 Melaugh-Keogh.
I suppose the result will be available before too long at
http://chess-results.com/tnr229125.aspx?lan=1&art=2&rd=7&wi=821

Colm Daly has apparently won a drawish ending, or Killian Delaney (who was a pawn up at move 40) has thrown it away with his 57th move if the online engine is correct. There must have been easier ways to play it.

Tirziman has also beaten MacElligott.

So now the leaders are:
Jessel 6.5; Daly and Delaney 5; Butler 4.5; O'Neill 4; Beatty, Fox and Scott 3.5.

So Jessel will play Paul O'Neill.
Daly has not played Butler yet so that also looks like a forced pairing.
The pairing software will have to go down to the group on 3 points to find an opponent for Killian Delaney.

CORRECTION: I overlooked that Gerry O'Connell also has 3.5/7 so he plays Delaney in round 8.
Full pairings as follows:
Round 8 on 2016/07/09 at 14:00

1 Jessel Stephen (6½) v O'Neill Paul (4)
2 Butler Kevin (4½) v Daly Colm (5)
3 Delaney Killian (5) v O'Connell Gerard (3½)
4 Fox Anthony (3½) v Beatty Ross (3½ )
5 Scott Luke (3½) v Tirziman Rudolf (2)
6 Keogh Eamon (2½) v MacElligott Gerard (3)
7 Haque Mustakim-Ul (3) v Thee Bernd (2)
8 Mirza Diana (3) v Melaugh Shane (1½)

There will inevitably be further gross points discrepancies in the round 9 draw. We could even get the leader playing somebody with less than 50%.
While there is little doubt we are going to get a worthy champion, those who have argued in another thread that this tournament needs major reform have been given a lot of ammunition.

brilliantboy

Tim Harding wrote: »

,those who have argued in another thread that this tournament needs major reform have been given a lot of ammunition.

No doubt it needs major reform but if anything the tournament is once again proving that, as completely arbitrary cutoff points go, 1900 is as ridiculous as it gets.

Tim Harding

Note that round 8 starts at noon today and round 9 is at 11am tomorrow Sunday.
I intend to visit this afternoon so will not be posting comments during the games.

zeitnot

brilliantboy wrote: »

No doubt it needs major reform but if anything the tournament is once again proving that, as completely arbitrary cutoff points go, 1900 is as ridiculous as it gets.

Eh?

Qualifying rating undermined by vast array of exceptions and loopholes -- results in disaster -- blame the qualifying rating!

cdeb

brilliantboy wrote: »

No doubt it needs major reform but if anything the tournament is once again proving that, as completely arbitrary cutoff points go, 1900 is as ridiculous as it gets.

2900 would be more ridiculous, I'd have thought.

Or 1871.4.

I don't see why 1900 is any more or less ridiculous than, say, 1800/1850/1950/2000 to be honest

ComDubh

Whatever about the quality of the field, Stephen Jessel is a worthy new champion. He won the event outright with a round to spare which is a rarity, and never seemed in serious trouble during the event. He's a strong enough player that he could have come first even if the field included all the top players.

2bts

One place better than his second on 2006...http://www.irlchess.com/irlch2006_allfiles/pairings_irlch2006.html

Nikita999

well done to Stephen Jessell!! congraulations, well earned and deserved. A new Irish champion!

sorry I posted this in the wrong thread earlier

Ballynafeigh Chess

Congratulations Stephen

CafollasCat

ComDubh wrote: »

Whatever about the quality of the field, Stephen Jessel is a worthy new champion. He won the event outright with a round to spare which is a rarity, and never seemed in serious trouble during the event. He's a strong enough player that he could have come first even if the field included all the top players.

Agree, save for one thing. He was lost in round 5, after having been outplayed comprehensively from the opening right through to middle game and endgame with Queen , Rook and good Knight against Queen, Rook and poor bishop, resulting in a lost position on move 58, but instead was gifted a win after White blew his chance to win and then failed to hold the draw, which was to be had, if thoughts of winning for White had been abandoned in time.

His game today was also saw a nice combination but came after Black had been equal for the entire game up until move 38 and the moment White gifted a pawn by allowing Bxa3.

He also scored a very impressive 8 from 9 and came outright second in 2014 when there there were many more serious contenders than the single other contender this year. Last year he lost to this same player and the year before beat him so there is no question that it was always going to be two horse race on which the victor in their individual encounter would win. Deservedly so. Now we can look forward to seeing how Stephen does in his Olympiad debut for Ireland in September. He is surely the Irish player of the moment and the "One to watch" now.

CafollasCat

ComDubh wrote: »

Whatever about the quality of the field, Stephen Jessel is a worthy new champion. He won the event outright with a round to spare which is a rarity, and never seemed in serious trouble during the event. He's a strong enough player that he could have come first even if the field included all the top players.

Agree, save for one thing. He was lost in round 5, after having been outplayed comprehensively from the opening right through to middle game and endgame with Queen , Rook and good Knight against Queen, Rook and poor bishop, resulting in a lost position on move 58, but instead was gifted a win after White blew his chance to win and then failed to hold the draw, which was to be had, if thoughts of winning for White had been abandoned in time.

His game today also saw a nice combination but came after Black had been equal for the entire game up until move 38 and the moment White gifted a pawn by allowing Bxa3.

He also scored a very impressive 8 from 9 and came outright second in 2014 when there there were many more serious contenders than the single other contender this year. Last year he lost to this same player and the year before beat him so there is no question that it was always going to be two horse race on which the victor in their individual encounter would win. Deservedly so. Now we can look forward to seeing how Stephen does in his Olympiad debut for Ireland in September. He is surely the Irish player of the moment and the "One to watch" now.

CafollasCat

2bts wrote: »

One place better than his second on 2006...

And don't forget the far more impressive 2014 with 8/9

Tim Harding

CafollasCat wrote: »

And don't forget the far more impressive 2014 with 8/9

When in round one the late Bernard Palmer agreed a draw in a won position. Sometimes you need a little luck!

It was the same this year against Colm Daly but he was only returning the favour received from Stephen Jessel in last year's championship.

Stephen is a worthy winner and it will indeed be interesting to see how he gets on in the olympiad.
I also hope he soon reaches the necessary rating mark soon. Having to play so many low-rated opponents in this year's championship was a big risk for him in that regard, so he had to go for the maximum.

He might well have won the event whatever the strength of the field.

CafollasCat

Tim Harding wrote: »

When in round one the late Bernard Palmer agreed a draw in a won position. Sometimes you need a little luck!

Agreed but I understand it was very tricky and Bernard had not seen or appreciated that he was even winning. So if you don't see or understand it , then surely it does not count? A draw was a fair enough result. Stephen was not lucky. Bernard was just unlucky

Tim Harding wrote: »

It was the same this year against Colm Daly but he was only returning the favour received from Stephen Jessel in last year's championship.

How so? How can you even make such a comparison? This year White outplayed Black and after 58 moves had a clear chance to win fairly easily? Failed to strike and then soon
after was only equal, worse and then lost. Fair win but yes a lucky one and a lucky escape too.

Last year the position was equal from the opening all the way through to the endgame and after the game was heading for a draw Black tried, around move 40 something, to create complications and winning chances, and in doing so took a big risk of creating losing chances too.

But in the tense time scramble Black saw more and calculated better, seeing a beautiful Knight fork that won a promoting queen. I played last year and saw the players looking at the game afterwards and thought it impressive that Stephen very graciously remarked that he had seen less and it was a deserved win as even though White was better and maybe winning at some point it was some computer like moves that needed to be found that caused problems for Black.

Don't think there was any favors here. Furthermore, the win by Stephen in 2014 was a very one sided crush in which Stephen played excellent chess that blew White off the board and there was no luck involved at all.

Tim Harding wrote: »

Stephen is a worthy winner and it will indeed be interesting to see how he gets on in the olympiad.

Agree totally. I think he will do very well

Tim Harding wrote: »

I also hope he soon reaches the necessary rating mark soon. Having to play so many low-rated opponents in this year's championship was a big risk for him in that regard, so he had to go for the maximum.

He might well have won the event whatever the strength of the field.

Again fully agree Tim and have to say that it is no less impressive that the number two seed has been having to play so many "low-rated opponents" for years and even decades in these championships and still was able to put in a half decent performance that with a bit of that luck, and a second or two more focus, on move 58, in round 5, would have seen a swap between seeds one and two.

In the end Stephen was the more deserving and it is nice to see a new champ

Nikita999

Rd 9 - Butler-Fox was interesting. ....Nxb4 as played by Nigel Short against Epishin is well worth a punt and very difficult to deal with in a practical game.

brilliantboy

zeitnot wrote: »

Eh?

Qualifying rating undermined by vast array of exceptions and loopholes -- results in disaster -- blame the qualifying rating!

What disaster? The low turnout? As far as I can see only one person has thusfar stated that the fluidity in the qualifying rating was their reason for not playing. I'd imagine there are a variety of different reasons keeping stronger players away.

I'm saying that the contention that 1900 is where the proverbial men are separated from the boys and that anyone who hasn't reached that rating hasn't reached the skill level required to participate isn't borne out by the reality of <1900 players performing just as well if not better than most players in the 1900-2000 bracket.

zeitnot

brilliantboy wrote: »

What disaster? The low turnout?

As you said yourself, "no doubt it needs major reform". Even more than the low turnout--which was disappointing--the problem was the handful of higher rated players, just 4 above 2100 FIDE, 2 above 2300 FIDE.

brilliantboy wrote: »

I'm saying that the contention that 1900 is where the proverbial men are separated from the boys and that anyone who hasn't reached that rating hasn't reached the skill level required to participate isn't borne out by the reality of <1900 players performing just as well if not better than most players in the 1900-2000 bracket.

That's not quite what you said before, which was that 1900 was "as ridiculous as it gets", surely a contender for wildest and most unsupported assertion of the year.

brilliantboy

zeitnot wrote: »

As you said yourself, "no doubt it needs major reform". Even more than the low turnout--which was disappointing--the problem was the handful of higher rated players, just 4 above 2100 FIDE, 2 above 2300 FIDE.

And where is the evidence that this was the result of flexibility in the entry requirements? One ~1900 player has stated he declined to enter because he feels the tournament is being watered down and he's not guaranteed interesting/challenging games of chess. How many others decided not to enter because of work/family commitments, or because of the venue, or the structure of the tournament, or they didn't want to pay Dublin accommodation prices for 9 days, or because they just had something else they would rather be doing? The tournament does need reform but there's no point drawing up plans for it's restructuring until all the facts are known.

All I'm saying is that the idea that an 1900 can provide a quality, Irish Ch. worthy game of chess while an 1800 can't is pure fantasy.

surely a contender for wildest and most unsupported assertion of the year.

So you do understand hyperbole after all :pac:

ComDubh

Brilliantboy is absolutely correct that we don't know the cause (and I'm sure there are many) for the low turnout, and people are inclined to attribute it to whatever suits their purpose, usually the number of lowly-rated players.

Also, the data posted by Reunion earlier suggests that while this year's Irish was a very weak one, the overall trend is not a total downward spiral. Some recent Irish Championships have been pretty strong.

The top Irish players (say 2250+) won't find playing 1800s appealing, nor will they find 1900s or 2000s players too appealing either. Winning is expected and losing is a disaster -- you're on a hiding to nothing. So moving up the rating requirement to e.g. 2000 may not help too much.

While this year's Irish was on, two of our top players were playing in norm events. If the Irish were a norm event, they may well have chosen to play in it instead. The Irish Championship is the one realistic opportunity we have to create a norm event without the expense of bringing in foreign players. Let's give it a go!

zeitnot

brilliantboy wrote: »

And where is the evidence that this was the result of flexibility in the entry requirements? One ~1900 player has stated he declined to enter because he feels the tournament is being watered down and he's not guaranteed interesting/challenging games of chess. How many others decided not to enter because of work/family commitments, or because of the venue, or the structure of the tournament, or they didn't want to pay Dublin accommodation prices for 9 days, or because they just had something else they would rather be doing?

I think you have this the wrong way around. Two years ago there was an excellent championship, in Dublin, with 30 players, of whom 15 were rated over 2100 FIDE. Last year it was 19 players, of whom 9 were rated over 2100 FIDE. This year the numbers were 16, of whom 4 were rated over 2100 FIDE. So the natural first step that I believe almost anyone would ask is "what changed?" One item that changed was the 2014 AGM's expansion of eligibility for the event, so it seems a reasonable candidate. In contrast attributing it to the cost of accommodation in Dublin is implausible, unless costs have changed drastically in the last two years. Blaming the structure of the tournament is grasping at straws: it's been a 9-round Swiss for close to half a century.

brilliantboy wrote: »

All I'm saying is that the idea that an 1900 can provide a quality, Irish Ch. worthy game of chess while an 1800 can't is pure fantasy.

Where to start? The current rules don't specify 1800 anywhere. Even if they did, a 100 rating point difference is not something to be waved away as if it meant nothing. As it is, there are no minimum rating requirements at all for up to a dozen or so nominees.

All this is not to say that adding many exceptions to the rating requirement is the only problem the championship has. Far from it, unfortunately. But deleting them seems a step in the right direction, judging by the evidence of the past three years.