Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Irish Championship 2018

12357…11

Comments

  • #122
    Tim Harding
    Closed Accounts Posts: 954 ✭✭✭Tim Harding


    On the English Chess Forum there has been some discussion since the weekend. Apparently ICU and ECF will probably liaise in future to prevent a recurrence.
    If their dates unavoidably clash, and somebody tries to enter both championships, then hopefully both federations will tell them to choose, or refuse a double entry,


  • #123
    Retd.LoyolaCpt
    Registered Users Posts: 624 ✭✭✭Retd.LoyolaCpt


    Tim Harding wrote: »
    On the English Chess Forum there has been some discussion since the weekend. Apparently ICU and ECF will probably liaise in future to prevent a recurrence.
    If their dates unavoidably clash, and somebody tries to enter both championships, then hopefully both federations will tell them to choose, or refuse a double entry,

    Yeah, I know Alex pretty well. I’ll liaise with him in future - not nice for him to lose a player after 7 rounds (or the guys who got subsequent byes).


  • #124
    Joedryan
    Registered Users Posts: 479 ✭✭Joedryan


    Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »
    Tim Harding wrote: »
    On the English Chess Forum there has been some discussion since the weekend. Apparently ICU and ECF will probably liaise in future to prevent a recurrence.
    If their dates unavoidably clash, and somebody tries to enter both championships, then hopefully both federations will tell them to choose, or refuse a double entry,

    Yeah, I know Alex pretty well. I’ll liaise with him in future - not nice for him to lose a player after 7 rounds (or the guys who got subsequent byes).
    I think the byes are not the main issue but I know what you are you are aiming at.
    It was Jack Killane who famously said only reason for withdrawing from a tournament was "death". I took that to heart as a young lad but soon realised it was rubbish. There are many reasons for withdrawing and all are valid. Chess is good but people also have lives.
    What is more worrying is the idea of withdrawing from one tournament but just to play in another.
    That does seem a bit off, I would be frankly embarrassed to even try that.


  • #125
    Retd.LoyolaCpt
    Registered Users Posts: 624 ✭✭✭Retd.LoyolaCpt


    Joedryan wrote: »
    I think the byes are not the main issue but I know what you are you are aiming at.
    It was Jack Killane who famously said only reason for withdrawing from a tournament was "death". I took that to heart as a young lad but soon realised it was rubbish. There are many reasons for withdrawing and all are valid. Chess is good but people also have lives.
    What is more worrying is the idea of withdrawing from one tournament but just to play in another.
    That does seem a bit off, I would be frankly embarrassed to even try that.

    Oh to have the free time to even consider 2 events in a row


  • #126
    sodacat11
    Registered Users Posts: 1,297 ✭✭✭sodacat11


    I remember a couple of t1mes playing in the Gibraltar Challengers in the mornings and the Masters in the afternoons , twenty games in ten days. I could barely remember my own name after it.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    macelligott
    Registered Users Posts: 382 ✭✭macelligott


    The moves on board 4: Collins v Carroll are scrambled :-(


  • #128
    Tim Harding
    Closed Accounts Posts: 954 ✭✭✭Tim Harding


    Is the game still in progress?


  • #129
    Retd.LoyolaCpt
    Registered Users Posts: 624 ✭✭✭Retd.LoyolaCpt


    I'll be there in an hour - have asked Ivan to have a look in the time being, noticed it myself


  • #130
    Ciaran
    Registered Users Posts: 905 ✭✭✭Ciaran


    macelligott wrote: »
    The moves on board 4: Collins v Carroll are scrambled :-(

    The moves seem to be fixed now.


  • #131
    cdeb
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,125 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    What on earth is going on in Cafolla v Short?

    I think white is lost, but...?

    Looks like Gerry was doing well against Tom O'Gorman as well before getting hit with a tactic


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Joedryan
    Registered Users Posts: 479 ✭✭Joedryan


    The Petroff from Alex Lopez today??

    Not sure what that is about.


  • #133
    Tim Harding
    Closed Accounts Posts: 954 ✭✭✭Tim Harding


    cdeb wrote: »
    What on earth is going on in Cafolla v Short?

    I think white is lost, but...?

    Looks like Gerry was doing well against Tom O'Gorman as well before getting hit with a tactic

    I think Peter was channelling his inner Grischuk with the berserk attack from an Advanced French but miscalculated something. I am not looking at this with an engine but maybe he intended 25 Bxf5 which seems to fail to ...Qe7, 26 Bxc8 Qxg5 but there was certainly a lot of crazy stuff. Then 36 Be5 was a clever shot, maybe overlooked by Short in time trouble?
    I thought 39...Ng4+ (instead of Nc4) followed by ...b4 was an immediate win but maybe the position is wrong. Since the half hour has been added but the online display shows only 39 moves made so there may be something wrong with what we are seeing.


  • #134
    Tim Harding
    Closed Accounts Posts: 954 ✭✭✭Tim Harding


    Again without benefit of engine... Gerry's position may have been deceptive for a long time. He was getting nowhere with that a-pawn while Black had a central majority so the a8Q tactic looked clever. However it led by force to the position after 27...c4 where White's pieces are discoordinated.
    The obvious 28 Bb2 alas fails to ...Qa6 trapping the rook (otherwise White would be doing great) but 28 Ra7 might be playable.
    After 28 Qa4? White's heavy pieces both become targets and you'd need a computer to see if there is an escape from all the short-term threats. Gerry couldn't find one. I suppose 32 Qa5 was a better try but there's probably something to refute it?


  • #135
    Tim Harding
    Closed Accounts Posts: 954 ✭✭✭Tim Harding


    Another good result for Stephen Moran today, but it looks like we are in for a long one on top board and also in Daly-Delaney.

    O'Donnell v Murphy looks like the one to watch for quick action once White makes move 41. There could be a perpetual check but somehow I doubt it.

    Cafolla-Short has no more moves but White clock ticking down. Maybe White really lost on time? I suppose we shall find out eventually.


  • #136
    Tim Harding
    Closed Accounts Posts: 954 ✭✭✭Tim Harding


    Since Conor O'Donnell was willing to give away his b7 pawn with check and it wasn't taken, and he's now interposed his Q on e1, we have to assume he is the one playing for a win.

    I suppose both players are trying to win in Daly-Delaney, given what we know of their indomitable fighting spirit. But maybe a draw will happen nonetheless?

    It would be really good if someone on the spot could please clarify the end of Cafolla-Short. The result is now showing 0-1 after 39...Nc4 which as I said above may not have been the best move (surely Rxb5 is playable). Was it a clock thing?


  • #137
    cdeb
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,125 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    Looks like Murphy has his draw now? Still a rook down; amazing stuff.

    Edit - another twist; Murphy declines the draw! We had two-fold repetition; now Murphy goes for the win with 53. ... QxP, allowing 54. B8=Q but I presume Re4 is lethal (54. ... Be7 55. K moves RxQ 56. RxR+ can't be any good)


  • #138
    Joedryan
    Registered Users Posts: 479 ✭✭Joedryan


    O'Donnell-Murphy I have a feeling Black is doing well now. What a game.


  • #139
    Joedryan
    Registered Users Posts: 479 ✭✭Joedryan


    cdeb wrote: »
    Looks like Murphy has his draw now? Still a rook down; amazing stuff.

    ...Qxd3! He wants more, and I think he is right.

    ...Re4+ is coming so White will have to give the Queen, maybe he can hang on though the b7 pawn is awkward


  • #140
    cdeb
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,125 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    Back to the bishop checks! Has he chickened out in time trouble? Not that you could blame him in fairness; both players on increments for a while now


  • #141
    Joedryan
    Registered Users Posts: 479 ✭✭Joedryan


    Probably taking the Queen with ...Re4+ was also a draw?

    I was tring to figure out the ending if Black gives the Bishop for the b7 pawn. Q+ 3 pawns v 2 rooks + Bishop, Black is not risking anything I think as there will be checks all over the place, maybe thats a draw also...


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Joedryan
    Registered Users Posts: 479 ✭✭Joedryan


    Oh dear. ...e2 was a howler, isnt White just winning now after Qc6

    Got to hurt losing this.

    That b7 pawn is left like a monster now


  • #143
    cdeb
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,125 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    Black is out of checks now!

    (Move 64)


  • #144
    Joedryan
    Registered Users Posts: 479 ✭✭Joedryan


    Tragic that.


  • #145
    cdeb
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,125 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    Yep; win for white.

    53. ... Be7+ was a draw on the spot; 3-fold repetition. That'll hurt alright.

    But a great game nonetheless


  • #146
    Joedryan
    Registered Users Posts: 479 ✭✭Joedryan


    cdeb wrote: »
    Yep; win for white.

    53. ... Be7+ was a draw on the spot; 3-fold repetition. That'll hurt alright.

    But a great game nonetheless


    He was right to push though, I think.


  • #147
    Joedryan
    Registered Users Posts: 479 ✭✭Joedryan


    Meanwhile Alex Lopez has ground out the win in the ending, so thats why he played Petroff :)

    It looks like Peter's bookie skills are not as bad as we thought.


  • #148
    sodacat11
    Registered Users Posts: 1,297 ✭✭✭sodacat11


    No I didn't lose on time but might as well have. I got into frantic time trouble and after deciding to play Nxe6 my hand decided to make a different move Rxf5??. We analysed it after and it seems I was completely winning but our post mortem was as chaotic as the game so maybe we are wrong.


  • #149
    sodacat11
    Registered Users Posts: 1,297 ✭✭✭sodacat11


    Tim Harding wrote: »
    Since Conor O'Donnell was willing to give away his b7 pawn with check and it wasn't taken, and he's now interposed his Q on e1, we have to assume he is the one playing for a win.

    I suppose both players are trying to win in Daly-Delaney, given what we know of their indomitable fighting spirit. But maybe a draw will happen nonetheless?

    It would be really good if someone on the spot could please clarify the end of Cafolla-Short. The result is now showing 0-1 after 39...Nc4 which as I said above may not have been the best move (surely Rxb5 is playable). Was it a clock thing?

    No. Iresigned, Nc4! was the best move, I played Rxb5 but after c2 it's all over.


  • #150
    Tim Harding
    Closed Accounts Posts: 954 ✭✭✭Tim Harding


    Thanks for clarifying what happened. Yes (without benefit of engine again) it does look like Nxe6 (instead of Rxf5) would have been strong. Pity, as the build-up was interesting.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    Tim Harding
    Closed Accounts Posts: 954 ✭✭✭Tim Harding


    Joedryan wrote: »
    He was right to push though, I think.

    That is one way to look at it. I tend to see it the other way, as implied in my earlier post.

    Conor O'Donnell didn't have to play Qe1; that was a conscious decision to take a risk rather than allow an immediate draw, in the belief that he could hold if things got a bit tricky, and the hope that the opponent would go wrong sooner or later if he pressed too hard for a win.

    As indeed happened.

    I have been running Stockfish9 on this for a while. The only line that might give Black some winning chances was the 54...Re4+ 55 Qxe4 Qxe4+ 56 Kb3 Qd3+(or Qe6+) which leads pretty much by force to a position where the b-pawn gets swapped on b8 for the Black bishop.

    Then White has two rooks and a bishop, but no pawns, against queen and three pawns. There's even a variation which ends up with Black losing his f- and g-pawns but queening the e-pawn, leaving R+R+B v two queens and no pawns on the board.
    Stockfish couldn't make any sense of that, still saying =+, but the Lomonosov tablebase says drawn. White can keep his pieces protecting each other and shielding the king, and has quite a lot of checks. The black queens don't get a chance to weave a mating net and one of them may have to sacrifice itself for a rook to avoid Black getting mated. That leaves a clear Q v R+B draw.

    Another line where Black tries to crawl down the board with the f- and g-pawns and king, while giving up the e-pawn, is likely to be drawn also.

    It's a pity we didn't get to see such crazy stuff but instead a rather sad blunder.


Advertisement