|
AUSTRALIAN CHESS FEDERATION |
|
|
OLYMPIAD SELECTIONS: 39th FIDE Chess
Olympiad, Applications
are now open for the Australian Open and Womens Olympiad Teams for the 39th
Chess Olympiad to be held in An Open
team and a Women’s team, each consisting of five players and a non-playing
captain, will be selected to represent APPLYING FOR SELECTION Those
wishing to be considered for selection as players must apply by email by 28
April 2010. Please refer to item 5 of the ACF Selection By-Laws before applying, and for details of material required in an
application (item 5.4) and optional in an application (items 5.6 and 5.7).
The full Selection By-Laws are available online in PDF form here
- a text copy will be emailed on request. Please
send all applications by email to Kevin Bonham k_bonham@tassie.net.au If
an emailed application has not been acknowledged as received within seven
days, please phone 0421 428 775. The
names of known applicants will be released progressively, either on the Chesschat
forum or on the Olympiad Appeal website as applications are received. Applicants'
supporting statements and results summaries, and ratings and results
information to be made available to the selectors, will all be published
online at an address to be announced, and available for public scrutiny,
after applications close. Any corrections or additions to this material must
then be submitted by 5 May 2010. Provisional selection results will be
advised to all applicants and made public shortly after selections are
finalised, on or about 19 May 2010.
IMPORTANT NOTES FOR APPLICANTS: 1.
Please, if possible, send your application from an email address that you
will check regularly (preferably at least weekly) from the time of your
application until the end of June.
If you will not be contactable in the week after the selection deadline,
please apply well in advance of the deadline. 2. All
applicants should keep a copy of their application. Any claims for late
application on the grounds of email transmission problems will not be
accepted unless accompanied by a copy of the application and a letter from
the sender's ISP confirming that the application was sent. Evidence may be required for other
claims for late applications, and no application more than a week late will
be accepted for any reason. 3.
Activity Rule: All applicants must have completed 20 games that have been, or
will be, rated by the ACF, FIDE or another approved organisation, in the time
period 28 April 2009 - 28 April 2010 and at a normal (non-rapid) time limit.
However, it is not required that all 20 games have been rated or even
submitted for rating by 28 April, so long as they will be rated at some
stage. If you have not yet reached your 20 games when you submit your
application, please say so, and advise which events you intend to play in to
reach 20 games by the deadline. CAPTAINCIES Applications
for captaincies will be called for in April with a closing date a few days
after selections are made public. Unsuccessful applicants for the teams are
entitled to apply for a captaincy. Team captains will then be selected by the
ACF Council, taking into account (but not necessarily bound by) the
preferences and comments of team members. Exact dates and processes for
captaincy applications will be announced closer to this stage. PROVISIONAL SELECTION SCHEDULE 11 Feb
Applications Open 28
April Applications Close 5 May
Deadline for Corrections / Material to Selectors 19 May
Deadline for Selectors' Votes - provisional selection results advised ASAP to
all applicants and published. This
notice has also been posted on Chesschat and to the ACF Email list. Please
feel free to pass this information on to anyone who may be interested. - Kevin
Bonham ACF
Selections Director |
|
The calendar has been slightly revised since the last
newsletter – see the current version below. Due to the possibility of future changes it is advisable
for anyone interested in participating in these events to check http://www.australian-junior-youth-chess.blogspot.com/
for latest versions and links, and for selection information where relevant. AusJCL Calendar
(National as well as International) Please note that applications for
selections as Australian junior representatives for International events has
to be in on or before 31st
March 2010. The 2010 Junior
Calendar: April 1-5 Doeberl Cup April 7-11 http://www.chessaustralia.com.au/index.cfm?site=open April 12-16 WA Junior Championships April 15-16 City of May 9-19 Commonwealth Championships (including age groups) June 4–13 Asean+ Age Group Championships June 14-24 (NEW
DATE) Asian Junior U/20 Championships http://www.indianchessfed.org/tournamentcalendar.asp June 28 JETS Mini-squad meeting Gold Coast June 28-July 3 QLD Junior Gold Coast July 5-10 JETS Camp July 8-18 (NEW
DATE) Asian Youth Chess Championships July 11-16 NSW Junior July 15-16 SA Junior Championships July 24-Aug 1 World Youth U/16 Chess Olympiad July 25 –Aug 2 World Schools Individual Championship Aug 2-17 World Junior (U/20) Open Ch.and Girls September 1-8 Malaysian Open Oct 19-31 World Youth Championships December 4-5 Australian Schools Championship Dec 16-23 Asian Schools Chess Festival The AusJCL website is down at the moment and I do not
have access to the existing forms. I [WNS] propose to use the ACF Selection
by-laws as a guide for any application. Please send applications by email to wengnian.siow8@gmail.com
or by post to PO Box 474 Gladesville NSW 1675 (Attention: Weng Siow
(AusJCL)). Note: Applications
must be in writing and must be in by 31st March 2010. Selectors are expected
to make selections by 20th April 2010, after the Doeberl Cup and the SIO. 5.4 Applications
must include the following information: 5.4.1 Full Name 5.4.2 Address 5.4.3 Email
address 5.4.4 Fax 5.4.5 Phone number 5.4.6 Nationality 5.4.7 Date of
Birth 5.4.8 FIDE Rating 5.4.9 ACF Rating 5.4.10 FIDE Titles
held 5.4.11 Current ACF
Titles held 5.4.12 Passport
number (if held), date of issue and expiry date (for overseas events only) 5.4.13 Where the
event for which selection is sought is comprised of categories, whether
defined by age or other criterion, the category or categories for which
selection is sought. 5.6 Applicants
shall be allowed to provide a list or summary of their game or tournament
results over the previous 2 years for submission to the selectors. 5.7 Applicants
shall be allowed to provide up to 400 words of comments in support of their application for submission to
the selectors. In addition please note: 5.5. Where an application does not contain all of the
information required by clause 5.4, the applicant shall, within 7 days of
receipt of the application, be advised and requested by the Selection
Co-ordinator to provide the missing information within 7 days so that the
application may be considered valid. If the applicant does not receive such a
request, the application shall be deemed to be valid even if it is
subsequently shown that some information was not provided. 5.8. Applications must be received before the advertised
deadline. If an applicant is able to satisfy the Selection Co-ordinator that
circumstances beyond his or her control prevented the application being
received before the deadline, then the application will also be considered. 5.9. All applicants must be Australian citizens or be
able to satisfy the same residential requirements as apply for the Australian
Championship. Please note there are additional by-laws for juniors: 5A Application and Selection for Certain Junior Events 5A.1 This clause applies to applications for selection
for FIDE junior events such as the World Youth Championships that permit more
than one person to be endorsed by their national federation to enter
that event (“a FIDE junior event”). 5A.2 A person will not be endorsed by the ACF to enter a
FIDE junior event unless that person has applied for selection
under this By-law. 5A.3 Before voting under clause 7 on applications for
selection for a FIDE junior event the selectors are to determine, in
respect of each applicant for selection, if that applicant is strong enough
to play in the event. 5A.4 Each selector is to make that determination within
a time fixed by the Selection Co-ordinator when the information is provided
to the selectors under clause 6. 5A.5 The Selection Co-ordinator is immediately to inform
an applicant, who is determined by a majority of the selectors not to be
strong enough to play in the event, of that determination. 5A.6 A determination under clause 5A.3 and 5A.4 is not
subject to appeal under clause 9. 5A.7 The remaining applicants for selection are to be
ranked in accordance with clause 7. 5A.8 The applicant ranked first is to be endorsed by the
ACF as its official selection entitled to receive free accommodation and
other benefits provided by the host federation under the FIDE rules applying
to the event. 5A.9 Each other ranked applicant is entitled to
endorsement by the ACF as an official selection to enter the event at his or
her own expense. |
|
GM Zhao at Dubbo Organisers of the Dubbo Open (March 20-21) have advised that New NSWCA website Well not a new address, it’s still at http://www.nswca.org.au/ but it has been
extensively redesigned by new webmaster Quentin Reitmans. Gary Lane simul at Parramatta
|
|
Oceania and The
Canterbury Chess Club in Christchurch NZ are organising the 2010 NZ Seniors’
Chess Championship incorporating the Oceania Seniors from April 23rd to
26th. The top Oceania player will
be Oceania Seniors' Champion and qualifies as the Oceania representative in
the World Seniors (in The
Championship will be a 7-round swiss-system tournament with a time control of
90 minutes + 30 second increment per move. Eligibility is limited to males
born before 1st January 1950 and females born before 1st January 1960.
Players must be registered with their national federations. A number
of airlines offer attractive deals for direct flights to Commonwealth Chess Championship (May
9–19) The All
India Chess Federation on behalf of FIDE and Commonwealth Chess Association cordially
invites your Federation to participate in the Championship to be held at Ian
Rogers has pointed out this link
with more information. In 2010
A
healthy prize structure is offered for an Open division as well as a number
of junior divisions. Individual scores for each tournament accumulate over
all 4 events to determine the grand prizes and winners of the perpetual
Billanook College Chess Championship cups, to be presented at the conclusion
of the last event on August 21st. More
details will be made available shortly and posted here. For up to date
information (prizes, entry fees and how to register online) please visit this
site. Note
that the BCCCC is a joint venture between Billanook College
and Northern Star
Chess. Recent GP weekend results Newcastle Open,
Newcastle NSW, (Feb 13-14) Raul Samar won with 5.5/6 from FM Vladimir Smirnov and
David Castor 5. (40 players). Launceston Cup,
Launceston, Tas (Feb 13-14) Alastair Dyer 5/6 won from Kevin Bonham, Lawrence
Bretag, Thomas Hendrey, Nigel Frame and Vincent Horton. (17 players). Other results Tin Cup, Gold Coast,
Qld, (Feb 13-14)
This rating-limited event was won by Louay Al-Zahar 5.5/6 from Alexander
O’Flynn 5 and a number of players on 4.5. (49 players) 2010 Tasmanian Championships (March
6-8) 2010
CAQ Teams Competition (Interclub) (March 6 – April 24) DATES
AND VENUES: Round 1: Saturday, March 6 Gardiner Chess Centre 11
Hardys Road, Mudgeeraba Division One will be fide rated. Complete information can be found here: http://www.caq.org.au/htm/2010CAQTeamsCompetition.pdf 2010 Dubbo Open (March 20-21) When:
20 & 21 March 2010 Where:
Dubbo RSL Club Entry
fees: Adult $50, Concession $35, Junior $25 Prizes:
First $750; Pool exceeds $3000 Time
control: 1 hour + 10 sec Contact:
Alexander Aich 0408 200 564 alexander.aich@gmail.com Link to
Flyer on website: http://home.exetel.com.au/dubbochessclub/ |
|
Grand Prix events Mar 6-8 Begonia Open [3], Ballarat,
Vic link Mar 6-8 Tasmanian Championship[1], Mar 20-21 10th Anniversary
Dubbo RSL Open [3], Dubbo, NSW link
Apr 1-5 Doeberl Cup [5], Apr 2-5 Queensland Open [3], Toowoomba,
Qld link Apr 4-5 Gufeld Cup [1], Apr 7-11 Sydney International Open [5], Apr 24-26 Anzac Day Weekender [1],
Melbourne, Vic link
2010 GP calendar link Queensland Queensland
Interschools various
venues; February - March. link
Gold Coast Active
Championship Gardiner
Chess Centre, Mudgeeraba; 28 March. Details tba. link Victoria Billanook College
Cup I Mooroolbark,
20 March. link Billanook College
Cup II Mooroolbark,
1 May. link Please
notify forthcoming tournaments to auschessnews@gmail.com |
|
Linares Linares 2010 (13 - 24 Feb, Spain) has, like many post-GFC
events, been reduced to a six-player round robin. Although lacking such
obvious big names as Carlsen (Nor), Kramnik (Rus) and World Champion Anand
(Ind), it does include four top ten players, namely Topalov (Bul), Gelfand
(Isr), Aronian (Arm) and Gashimov (Aze), plus Grischuk (Rus). Vallejo Pons
(Esp) is the local representative, and also over 2700 in his own right. Veselin Topalov, in a useful warm-up for his World Championship
challenge in April, has opened up a lead in the middle stages. See link for the official
site. Cappelle-la-Grande Yaroslav Aherebukh (Ukr) won this monstrous (653 players) French
event (12 – 21 Feb) with 7.5/9 from nine players on 7. See link for the official
site (in German). European Senior Team Championship Russia (Tseshkovsky, Vasiukov, Pushkov, Petrushin and Chernikov)
won this event in Dresden, Germany (9 – 18 Feb) with 18 match points
(29 game points, though tie-breaks were not required) from nine rounds.
Switzerland, led by Viktor Korchnoi was second with 14 followed by Heikki
Westerinen’s Finland team. In total there were 78 participating teams – multiple teams
per country were permitted and teams were not required to represent
countries, for instance St Petersburg finished equal fourth. See link for the official
site (in German). World Blitz Championship Qualifying stages of this event have been conducted recently via
the Internet as reported in previous newsletters, with a qualifier to join
other top players at the final in Moscow following the Tal Memorial in
November. Dimitry Kokarev (Rus), Hrair Simonian (Arm) and Anton Kovaljov
(Arg) have apparently earned the right to compete in a face-to-face playoff
for the qualifying place. The official tournament site here has the results and
a report which decodes the names used by some of the participants. No
Australians reached the final but Gawain Jones (Eng), who plays here
regularly, not only reached it but came close to winning. The site shows him
playing under a New Zealand flag though this may reflect where he was located
rather than a change of nationality. An additional in-the-flesh event for a further six finalists was
held in Moscow (18 Feb), resulting in qualification for Vachier-Lagrave
(Fra), Bu (Chn), Nepomniachtchi (Rus), Mamedov (Aze), Savchenko (Rus) and
Grachev (Rus). |
|
For
chess tourists The date listed is
the start date, see the link for the full schedule. This is a small sample of
world chess - see the FIDE calendar
for many more). See above for junior events. World
Amateur Championship: 17 Mar, Skokie/Chicago, USA 26th
Budapest Spring Festival Open: 19 Mar, 4th
G. Agzamov Memorial: 22 Mar, 16th
Schloss Open: 22 Mar, 12th
Thessalonika
Open:
5
Apr, 10th
BCC Commonwealth
Championship: 9 May, World
Club Cup: 11 Jul, Czech
Open:
15
Jul, Chess Olympiad: 19
Sep, |
|
2010 Australian Championships, by
Charles Zworestine This proved to be a very successful Championships:
one must commend the organising team from North Sydney Leagues Club Chess
Club for putting on such a well run and enjoyable event. Overall the festival
attracted 187 players – 28 in the Championships, 96 in the Major, 42 in
the Minor and 21 in the Classic – a superb turnout! They all played at
a time control of 40 moves in 90 minutes, then 30 minutes to finish, plus a
30 second increment from the start (Fischer) – one of the new FIDE
approved time controls, which went down fairly well with the players. Despite
the absence of GM David Smerdon, most of the other top Aussies were there:
from top seeded GM Zong-Yuan Zhao to former and current Olympiad players IM
Alex Wohl (seed 3), GM Darryl Johansen (seed 4), IM George Xie (seed 5),
defending champ IM Stephen Solomon (seed 6) and IM Gary Lane (seed 8). Add to
this a third GM in visiting Englishman Gawain Jones (the second seed), and
you had the makings of a superb tournament – let’s see how they
all fared! Round 1: GM Ian Rogers added a special touch
to the event by being present every day for game commentary; he also did a
daily bulletin, thus making my job of writing this report much easier! It is
nice to have excellent GM analysis to help with such things... As Ian put it,
the favourites mostly had an easy time of it in the first round. Zong-Yuan
Zhao beat the dangerous Max Illingworth after an early miscalculation by
Sydney’s top junior; while Gawain Jones had a much longer game before
beating Chris Wallis in an endgame. Wohl, Johansen, Xie, Solomon and Lane all
won, as did seventh seed Vlad Smirnov who beat Eugene Schon via two powerful
bishops and a tactical oversight resulting in the win of a piece in an
ending. Vlad Feldman was a bit luckier, sacrificing a pawn unsoundly but
confusing Michael Morris enough to register a win. Upsets lower down saw Moulthun Ly unable to
beat Yi Yuan in a theoretical rook endgame – despite two extra pawns!
Yi defended the ending well, and Moulthun had to settle for a draw... A
bigger upset came in another all junior battle, when Andrew Brown maintained
his good record over James Morris with a shock win. Brown scored an early
opening advantage as Black, but James fought hard as ever, found an excellent
defence and could perhaps have drawn with more accurate play; instead he
allowed a powerful passed g2 pawn and Andrew’s two bishops to slowly
suffocate and eventually kill him! The only other upset was registered by yet
another junior, Laurence Matheson remaining solid in drawing with Black
against veteran Eddy Levi. Round 2: In a tightly packed field, the top
seeds began to meet already this round; the top board clash between Zhao and
Lane promised much, and did not disappoint... Well up on the clock, Zhao
appeared to be cruising, but then allowed Lane a nasty attack – which
Gary pursued too eagerly! Instead of forcing an ending the exchange up with
good winning chances, Lane tried to keep attacking; but Zhao consolidated and
went on to register a win. Board 2 saw Gawain Jones “comprehensively
demolish Vlad Smirnov’s eccentric opening idea” (Ian
Rogers’ words); while Darryl Johansen had a brilliant win over Tomek
Rej by first sacrificing a pawn in the opening, then launching a winning
attack out of nowhere! George Xie outlasted Vlad Feldman when his queen got
in to the latter’s position in a queen and bishop ending; after the
queen swap, Vlad resigned when about to lose two pawns in a bishop ending,
leaving George as the only IM on 2/2. And so, what of the upsets? Well, it was the
youngsters wreaking havoc as always, Junta Ikeda beginning their fun by
beating Alex Wohl. After a good start, Wohl lost track of things and went
down to defeat while trying to take advantage of Junta’s time pressure.
An even bigger upset was registered when Andrew Brown continued on his giant-killing
ways, knocking over Stephen Solomon. Andrew’s advanced passed b2 pawn
proved to be the winner there… Moulthun Ly was again frustrated, having
to settle for a draw in a king and pawn ending against Eddy Levi; while
bottom seed Michael Morris got off the mark with an upset draw with Barak
Atzmon-Simon. Round 3: Ian Rogers predicted that the top
board game between George Xie and Gawain Jones would be a cracker – and
it was! After gaining an opening advantage George won two pieces for a rook
via a clever idea that Gawain missed; but the GM, always a fighter, then
drummed up counterplay against George’s king. Having missed serious
drawing chances, Gawain then saved us a long ending by blundering close to
the time control to give George an upset win. George was joined as the only
players on 3/3 by the other two GMs, Zhao converting constant pressure to a
win against Junta; while Andrew Brown went down to Darryl in a hedgehog-style
pawn structure where Darryl won two pawns. Meanwhile the battle of the Vladimirs
(Feldman and Smirnov) went to Smirnov, whose constant pressure was soon
rewarded. He was joined on 2/3 by Lane, who benefited from Eddy Levi’s
creative self-mate in an endgame of rook and knight vs rook and two pawns;
and Gene Nakauchi, who upset a frustrated Moulthun Ly in a seesawing battle. But wait a minute, what about the players on
2.5/3? Well, Yi Yuan was the only one, taking care of Alex Wohl in a huge
upset to relegate Alex to 1/3 and near the tail of the field! A curious queen
manoeuvre by Wohl came badly unstuck; and despite severe time pressure, the
14 year old Yi remained determined, never letting Alex back into the game.
Another 14 year old, James Morris, nearly put paid to the chances of the
defending champion as well; fighting back from his first round loss, James
had Solo in huge trouble when Solo not only ruined his opening gambit but
then indulged in some later extravagance to leave himself two pawns down. All
that was needed was accuracy from the junior IM; instead the winning rook
ending was spoilt by careless play, resulting in a blockade and a draw! Lower
down saw a fighting draw between Tomek Rej and Max Illingworth; while Michael
Morris continued his run by drawing with Eugene Schon. Round 4: Our first all GM battle saw Zhao
defeat Darryl for the first time ever – in a game which justified all
the pre-game hype! I quote Ian Rogers:“Zhao had never beaten Johansen
in 8 previous tries, but he broke his duck today. Zhao’s risky play
might have been punished a number of times – most notably by 20.a4! and
the e5 break on move 28 or 36 – but when the players were down to their
last minutes before the first time control, it was Zhao who was
sharpest”. Xie joined Zhao on 4/4 by defeating Yi Yuan after the latter
turned a roughly equal ending into a loss with a series of indecisive moves.
Yi’s fellow ACT youngsters, Andrew Brown and Junta Ikeda, fared no
better. Junta’s attempt to avoid main lines as Black resulted in him
being crushed by Gawain Jones; while Andrew may have done better if he had
played the correct bishop check with two rooks and two bishops vs queen, rook
and knight against Vlad Smirnov. Instead he blundered tactically, losing a
piece and the game to leave Smirnov equal third on 3/4. Lane joined the group on 3/4 when his passed
c-pawn proved too powerful for Gene Nakauchi; while Solomon recovered with a
win against Tomek by successfully defending an attack and winning a piece.
Meanwhile the all-junior battle between Max Illingworth and James Morris was
a thriller! A pawn up, Max seemed to have things under control, but got
greedy and took a second pawn; he then had to defend, but Morris erred to
allow a rook invasion and an Illingworth win. Moulthun won a game at last,
against Andrew Bird; while Wohl also pulled back to 50%, with a nice finish
against Chris Wallis. Malcolm Pyke scored an upset draw with Vlad Feldman;
while everyone was off the mark after Gareth Charles drew with Laurence
Matheson. Round 5: The critical game between the
hitherto perfect Zhao and Xie saw Zhao extend his 10 year domination of Xie
by smoothly outplaying his rival in a relatively quiet game, eventually
converting pressure into the win of a pawn and the game. The next 3 boards
were draws as the other two GMs had a harder time, Gawain and Darryl trying
and failing to break down opponents Lane and Smirnov respectively, who were
determined to play solidly with White. Lane always kept control in a drawish
heavy piece ending; while Darryl’s failure to spend a move on 34... h5
(preventing g4 counterplay) cost him any winning chances. So, Zhao 5/5, Xie
4, and Jones, Johansen, Smirnov and Lane all on 3.5/5; already a little bit
of a gap was opening up at the top... Board 4 saw one of the great fighting games
of the event, by Stephen Solomon against Yi Yuan. Solo was completely
dominating soon after the opening, but found himself returning his extra
piece and then more in order to keep winning chances alive. The last part of
the game saw Solomon with only a bishop for Yi’s queen, yet still he fought
on for the win! It took some accurate play and trick avoidance from Yi to
finally force the draw. Meanwhile a strong initiative saw Junta crush Max
Illingworth; while a trademark attack from nowhere saw Wohl beat Gene
Nakauchi. Moulthun continued his recovery by grinding down Doug Hamilton;
Andrew Brown lost to Eddy Levi; and Michael Morris scored his first win with
an upset against James Morris. Round 6: Ian Rogers described this as a quiet
round, establishing the 2010 Champs as a two horse race. The first board
match-up between the top two seeds saw Zhao accept an early draw offer from
Gawain Jones; and Johansen vs Lane ended in the same result after only 21
moves. Xie took full advantage of this by beating Smirnov in 63 moves to
close the gap to half a point, despite having to take risks to do so after a
dubious opening. Wohl moved back into contention with his third win in a row,
another mating attack against Eddy Levi; but Solomon slipped further back
when he could only draw with Moulthun despite constant pressure throughout
their game. This round was a good one for King’s
Gambits, Junta Ikeda beating Yi Yuan when Junta’s opponent, for once,
used too much time; and Michael Morris scoring a second consecutive upset by
beating Tomek Rej. In a battle of the youngsters, Chris Wallis won with a
very original sacrifice against Max Illingworth. Inaccuracies followed, as
Max fought back; but in the end, a trick scored Chris the full point anyway.
Meanwhile a draw with Eugene Schon effectively ended James Morris’
chances. But another youngster, 13 year old Laurence Matheson, scored his
first win, Malcolm Pyke pushing too hard to win a drawn pawn ending and so
losing instead! Round 7: The two horse race continued here,
as Zhao and Xie easily overcame what many thought would have been serious
obstacles! Despite being 0-6 against Alex Wohl, Zhao rather convincingly
outplayed his former nemesis as Alex was unable to defend an unpleasant
double rook endgame. Xie, meanwhile, put in a very smooth performance to
score a powerful win against Darryl Johansen, after the latter had chosen to
leave his king in the centre – and did not manage to get away with it!
Zhao probably could not believe that he had reached 6.5/7 – a
sensational score – and still only led by half a point... Meanwhile the
upsets continued, as Junta Ikeda scored a typically fighting win having been
defending for most of his game against Gary Lane. A surprise checkmate was
the result, leaving Junta on 5/7 and in outright third place... And what about the chances of our second
seed, GM Gawain Jones? Well, they were just about done in by an amazing game
from Stephen Solomon, a fantastic combination eventually earning the
defending champion the Best Played Game Prize. An epic battle with loads of
tactics then ended up with another combination, this one based on a passed a7
pawn ... Meanwhile Smirnov kept his IM norm hopes alive by outplaying
Moulthun; while Eddy Levi got lucky in a pawn down endgame against Michael
Morris. Andrew Bird could have won a problem-like endgame against Chris
Wallis, but missed his chance and had to settle for a draw; Yi Yuan also
missed an opportunity, spoiling a brilliancy to end up losing to Illingworth;
and Gareth Charles suffered an equally demoralising fate, losing on time in a
position where he had a perpetual check! Round 8: A thrilling finish was in prospect
after Smirnov, as White, played for a draw against Zhao – and
succeeded! Zhao could have caused some anxious moments, but missed a possible
winning chance on move 48 and had to settle for a draw. This enabled Xie to
catch Zong Yuan in the lead on 7/8 after pulling off a great escape against
an unlucky Junta. A mistaken central exchange put Xie under all sorts of
pressure, and Junta soon had a winning position with only the clock to worry
about – but it ended up costing him... What you do not want in time
pressure is tactics; and Xie complicated things just enough for Junta to
blunder and hand him the win... In the meantime, most of the top seeds won
this round, starting with Solo’s smooth win against Vlad Feldman.
Gawain Jones won a rook and knight vs rook and bishop ending against Levi;
while Darryl used the advantage of the two bishops to finish with a neat
mating combination against a pawn-grabbing Moulthun. Meanwhile the game of
the round saw Gary Lane use a brilliant attack to score an upset win against
Alex Wohl. Michael Morris continued his good tournament when he used a mighty
passed e-pawn and a mating attack to upset Chris Wallis; while Andrew Brown
seemed headed for his sixth consecutive loss when he reached an endgame with
three pawns less against Gareth Charles. Amazingly, Brown’s active king
eventually turned the tables – he won! James Morris would have felt
almost as bad after failing to win his overwhelmingly won ending against
Laurence Matheson; despite a powerful bishop and several pawns for the
exchange, a series of errors enabled a fighting Laurence to escape with a
draw. Round 9: Today Zhao played the last of the
top 8 seeds; and for a while Solo’s subtle opening play looked to be
working well against him. Eventually, however, the top seed liquidated to an
endgame which he won with surprising ease by running his a-pawn home to
victory. Xie, not to be denied, joined him on 8/9 with a nice win against Gary
Lane’s heavy duty Pelikan Sicilian. Despite being 4 pawns down, George
took advantage of Lane’s offside knight and the potential of his own
central pawns to eventually win a piece and the game. Amazingly, this left
both Zhao and Xie 2.5 points clear of the pack of players tied for third,
with 2700+ performance ratings and both with a chance to equal Darryl’s
record 10/11 score at an Australian Championship! On Board 3, our last all GM pairing of
Darryl Johansen vs Gawain Jones turned into a thriller, with Johansen
sacrificing a pawn for positional pressure and Jones finding enough tactical
counterplay to earn a draw when it looked as if he would be overwhelmed. The
battle between Ikeda and Smirnov would see the winner rewarded with an IM
norm; but sadly for both the game was mostly in balance and ended in a draw.
Illingworth ended Michael Morris’ run with an endgame win; while Wohl
was rather luckier to escape from a bad position and beat Tomek Rej. Levi won
a good attacking game against Andrew Bird; James Morris gave Chris Wallis so
many ways to win that he became confused and lost instead; and Yi Yuan and
Vlad Feldman drew a seesawing game. Doug Hamilton won an extraordinary epic
against Andrew Brown when Andrew correctly sacrificed back his extra piece to
neutralise Doug’s pawn chain, but then missed one key move and ended up
losing! Gareth Charles registered his first win of the tournament against
Barak Atzmon-Simon with a pretty endgame combination. Round 10: Could anyone stop our two runaway
leaders? This round they both reached 9/10, Xie beating Illingworth and Zhao
defeating Levi. In the process, George wrapped up his second GM norm –
what a tournament... Mind you, he had a tough time against the 17-year-old
Max, an opponent who had defeated him in their only two encounters in 2009.
Illingworth looked to be doing well, forcing George to sacrifice the
exchange; but then he mistakenly took Xie’s advanced passed e-pawn, and
what looked like a sensible decision turned sour when George was able to
advance his connected passed queenside pawns unstoppably to victory! Zhao had
an even harder time with Levi, but came through in the end in a rather
scrappy affair. Eddy definitely had compensation for his sacrificed pawn, but
missed some very real chances to equalise; and in the end he just gave away
more material, with Zong Yuan then able to consolidate for a vital victory. Third place remained shared at this stage,
with Darryl tied with Gawain and Smirnov after a win against Solo. Darryl
took everything Solo sacrificed and repelled his attack; while Gawain enjoyed
a smooth victory over Alex Wohl. Smirnov made it a great day for Australian
chess by registering his second IM norm with a hard-fought win against Gary
Lane, eventually out-combining him but only after a massive struggle! One
missed check was the difference between an IM norm and despair for Junta
Ikeda in his game against Tomek; while Michael Morris’ queen sacrifice
should have worked, but later inaccuracies resulted in an unfortunate loss to
Yi Yuan. Round 11: So to the exciting final round
– and which of Zhao or Xie (or both!) could win? Zong Yuan kept his
part of the bargain with a fairly easy win against Tomek Rej after repelling
Tomek’s queen sacrifice; he then sat back and awaited the result of
Xie’s game against Stephen Solomon to see if George could join him.
Sadly for Xie, the answer was no, as he faltered at the final hurdle with a
loss to a very well-prepared Solo. Varying from his spectacular win against
Gary Lane, George ended up in trouble after allowing his pawns to be
blockaded, and Solo went on to register a convincing win. Still, after
scoring 9/11 – a score good enough to win the event most years –
and outright second place, George could only be happy; while Zong Yuan
equalled Darryl’s record score of 10/11 in becoming the new Australian
Champion, amazingly (given his recent success) winning the title for the very
first time! Third place outright was won by Gawain Jones
on 7.5/11, beating Yi Yuan after some anxious moments surviving Yi’s
attack; while Darryl had to be content with outright fourth on 7/11 after
accepting Junta Ikeda’s draw offer rather than risk everything in what
was looming as a massive time scramble. Like Xie, Vlad Smirnov faltered at
the last hurdle with a loss to Max Illingworth, who consolidated well and
showed excellent technique after Vlad had lost/sacrificed a pawn early in the
game. Still, Vlad could be more than content with his IM norm; he was joined
in fifth place on 6.5/11 by Max and Solo. Gary Lane gained some
respectability with a smooth sacrificial victory over Vlad Feldman; he was
joined on 6 points by Doug Hamilton, who won a piece to beat Eddy Levi, and
Alex Wohl, who convincingly beat Michael Morris. Gene Nakauchi should also
have joined them, but spoilt a winning endgame and could only draw against
James Morris. The official site with tables, games etc is here. Charles has also
written reports on the Australian Juniors and on the Major, Minor and Norths
Classic, which will appear in the subsequent Newsletters. 2010 Ranges Summer Sizzler (6-7
February), by Scott Humphreys The Inaugural Ranges Chess club weekender, the Ranges Summer
Sizzler attracted 43 entries - including 21 juniors - some even coming from
across the other side of Melbourne to enjoy a sunny two days and friendly
atmosphere. The Sunday BBQ was well attended, and we had a minute silence at
noon (clocks paused!) to remember the Black Saturday victims and those
affected - an especially relevant item as we are located in a fire risk area,
and each of us probably knew someone affected by last year’s events. We are especially grateful to NY Wong for the excellent job he
did in guiding the competition with clear, calm and fair adjudication. Thank you, NY! To the winners, our Congratulations - Guy West 1st place on 5.5,
It took Carl Gorka to hold Guy to a draw in the exciting final round. Carl tied with David Flude on 5. David also had an excellent
tournament. Among the juniors Nathan Hibberd performed well above his
rating, taking the Under 1600 prize with a score of 4.5. The same applies to Joseph Wong and
Jamie Yung who shared the U1400 1st and 2nd place on 4 points. Another very
promising junior is Ari Dale whose score of 4 gained him the U1100 prize with
Cameron Yung coming 2nd on 3.5.
Also on 3.5 was the U800 1st prize winner, Karl Zelesco, and Jack
Puccini was 2nd on 3. We look forward to the Ranges Spring Break
Weekender in September, and hope you will all come back for more mountain
hospitality! 2010 Bundaberg Fun Weekender (13-14
February), by Allan Menham (This report is
reprinted from the ChessChat bulletin board). There was a great weekend of chess at the Bundaberg Fun
Weekender Chess Tournament held at the Central State School on the weekend of
13/14 February 2010 Australian Juniors Problem
Solving, by Nigel Nettheim Nigel’s report includes statistics on
the results plus the problems (and solutions of course). You can read the
whole report on the ACF web site here (PDF 540k). 1. This
was the fourth year of the event, following Canberra 2007, Sydney 2008 and
Adelaide 2009. 2. The
number of junior solvers was 62, comprising 60 of the 117 players and 2 who
had not entered the main tournament; thus over 50% of the juniors
participated. That is a record number and percentage. It is considered quite
a good rate for the still somewhat novel event held on a rest day. The entry
fee was $10. In addition, five adults participated, also a record (here one
should bear in mind that many of the adults associated with the tournament
naturally value their rest day as such). 3. Each
solver was provided with a board and men, and many with a clock which could
be set to two hours. 4. The
time taken was noted when each question sheet was returned, to be used if
needed to break ties. It was scarcely needed this time, as also last time. It
might seem that the timing could be dispensed with, but it is important to
make sure that Champions can be determined, ties not being acceptable
(playoffs are held to break ties in the playing events). Few competitors left
particularly early, and quite a large number stayed for the whole two hours. 5. The
questions and solutions, with diagrams, might be made available on the 2010
Championship’s web site or elsewhere. I also have
plenty of spare copies on paper that may be requested. They are also included
at the end of this file. 6. My
article entitled “A Quick Introduction to Chess Problems and End-game
Studies”, which I had originally prepared for the 2007 Championship,
was made available on the present Championship’s web site. Just before
solving started, I asked competitors whether they had read that article, and
this time a fair proportion had. The article is of some value in making sure
that all competitors know in advance what problems and studies are, and that
they have been exposed to a suitable introduction to them, with examples. 7. The
format of the question sheet continues to work well: a single A3 sheet folded
over to take up A4 size, with only the instructions on the front page so that
the sheet could be placed unopened on the tables in advance. 8. During
the solving period, Peter Wagg and I acted as invigilators and were available
to answer questions from the competitors. Only a few questions were asked. 9.
Marking was carried out by Peter Wagg and myself. We each marked each answer
independently on marking sheets prepared in advance as blank sheets. It took
about an hour and a half just to enter all competitors’ names in
age/gender groups for each of the two papers and the three ages within each
paper. It was important to have the results ready for the presentation on the
last day of the Championships, so about three days were available for
marking, but various limitations of availability meant that less time could
actually be used; nevertheless the marking was completed in time. A few
errors, generally of a clerical nature, by each marker were resolved. The two
markings differed very little generally, but small differences of partial
credit were allowed to remain in cases where they could not affect prizes. It
is very valuable to have the two independent markers, both in ensuring
accuracy, in resolving matters of judgment, and in providing confidence to
the competitors and their parents. In the selection of tasks one should keep
in mind easy marking, which was effective this time as previously. The
constant number of marks per task (10) worked well (total marks for each
paper was 120). 10. It
may be worth while pointing out that the running of a direct-mate solving
competition is relatively straightforward. The running of an endgame study
solving competition is much less straightforward. Some studies might be
capable of complete computer testing, others not. It may not be enough for
the person running the event to know the intended solution and the main
branch lines and false lines. A solver might put forward a different,
unanticipated, analysis of the set position, in which case that analysis has
to be evaluated in the limited time available at the event. Probably no human
or computer is capable of guaranteeing perfection in handling all such
situations. We naturally do our best, and the studies are a very valuable
component of the competition, but it will be healthy to realise that it can
only be our best. The selection of studies suitable for our purpose is also
not easy and is very time-consuming. 11. The
markers’ job is assumed to be finished when the total marks have been
reported in each of the 12 age-group/gender sections. Then the organizers
apply a method of determining prizes according to a scheme published here. The same scheme is used also
in the playing Championships. (That scheme seems to have much complexity and
some disadvantages. There is a “butterfly effect” in which a tiny
difference can cause substantial repercussions to ripple through the system.
The scheme implies that 1st place in U16 is preferable to second place in
U18, which seems debatable. Although the scheme might benefit from a review,
it is right that this matter is handled by the tournament officials, not the
problemist markers.) The problemist markers do have a role to play in
breaking ties and in recommending special awards. 12. An
error was made in determining the prizes, and a revised list was published
some days later. The various affected solvers did not complain, except for
one parent. The task where the error arose involved processing an
alphabetical list of solvers whose marks and age had been indicated for each
gender. (It may be pointed out that the task of processing such a list
according to the scheme used here is not trivial, and demands much care and
patience. Each step should be checked carefully before proceeding to the next
step, for otherwise serious errors can occur. All the careful work done in
connection with the event can be vitiated by any undue haste at this stage.) 13 .The
list of prize-winners is available on the Championship web site at
http://www.chesstasmania.org.au/AJCC/awards_problems.html . Many prizes were
presented. The official prizes were trophies for the top places in the
Championship and medals for other places in the age/gender groups. The
special (unofficial or private) ones were a cash prize of $150 to be shared
by any solvers scoring 100% or near approaches kindly donated by Dennis Hale,
six subscriptions to Australasian Chess kindly donated by Brian Jones, and
four books kindly donated by Peter Parr. All entry fees were included in the
prize fund. The prizes are greatly appreciated, and this event has since its
beginning increased the likelihood of people going home happy. The
possibility of including special prizes for girls could be considered, though
the smaller number of girl solvers might lead to a disproportion. 14. Very
many thanks indeed are offered to Geoff Foster for carrying out the
time-consuming expert job of setting the tasks and preparing the solutions.
It is clear from the results, presented later in this report, that the range
of difficulty of the tasks was well suited to this competition. Other (more
whimsical) types of questions could also be included in some sections, but
that is subject to debate. It is best to make the tasks set as obscure as can
be managed, so that no solver is likely to have seen them before. 15. The
question of the number of separate papers to set is still worth discussing.
In Canberra 2007 we had just one paper for all, in Sydney 2008 and Adelaide
2009 three, and in Hobart 2010 two (the playing Championships are divided
into U18 and U12 as the main age divisions, and the same was done for the
solving). If a single paper having the full range of difficulty increasing
throughout is used, the youngest solvers will expect just to work on the
early ones, which will take only a little time for the older ones to solve.
Certainly the younger ones might feel overwhelmed by presence of all the
harder tasks. But the single paper could be divided into clearly marked
sections considered appropriate for the various age groups. Another factor in
favour of a single paper is that there are fewer tasks in total to set (see
especially (10) last sentence). 16.
Adults were invited this time as last time. Five took part, including to our
great delight Stephen Solomon, a former Australian Champion across the board,
who was in Hobart as a coach. He scored 100% in 1hr 22min. Some interest has
been expressed for a solving competition in adult events – when time is
available for organizing it, it would be interesting to try this. 17. The
general impression from their comments was that competitors enjoyed the
event. The administrators also seemed very satisfied with it. It has been
reported that parents like the examination atmosphere of the event, making it
seem somewhat similar to school exams and thus suggesting that chess is not
just a matter of their children playing games – an unforeseen
favourable effect. 18. I
asked some of the excellent young solvers how it came about that they were so
good at this – they generally answered that their coaches gave them
some to solve. Some had trained specifically for this event, a welcome
tendency that is increasing now that the event is becoming well-known. Some
had even tried their hand in a preliminary way at composition. Indeed, the
hope for that was one of my motivations in introducing this event in 2007. In
my short presentation speech I suggested that competitors might ask their
coaches to include some problems and studies, as indeed some coaches already
do; I also foreshadowed composition as a possible later pursuit of interested
solvers. 19. A few
comments on the past of the running of the event. I introduced the event in
2007. My motivation was that I had greatly enjoyed playing in early junior
championships, wanted to do something in return, and noticed the absence of a
solving event combined with the fact that there were some rest days during
the event. I had suggested it for some years earlier, meeting with universal
courteous opposition to the idea, even from within the problemist community.
Finally I mentioned it to Ian Rogers who approved of it, which eventually led
to the first event. In that and all the following events Geoff Foster has
been an indispensable collaborator. 20. A few
comments on the future of the running of the event. I am not seeking any
long-run personal ownership of the event, and am satisfied to have set it in
motion as well as I could. I will also continue as long as that is desired.
Geoff Foster has indicated that he is happy to continue as well. When a
replacement is needed, the main requirements seem to me to be as follow. (i)
A close familiarity with the world of solving direct mates and endgame
studies (not just via local newspapers). (ii) A willingness to spend a lot of
time liaising with the organizers of the main event and setting and marking
the tasks. (iii) A willingness to travel to the venue – however, we are
presently looking into ways to run the event remotely in case that is needed.
Expertise in endgame studies is not widespread, and is perhaps limited to the
top senior players who however would generally not be in a position to take
on this job. Some
Statistics of the Marks (Please see the Tables in the full report.) 21. As
always, our policy has been not to release individual results. The reasons
for this include the following. (i) No disparagement was ever intended
towards those scoring low marks; some may never have seen a formal problem or
endgame study before. (ii) Requests for revision might lead to prolonged
correspondence for which there simply isn’t time, and the marking has
already been done with all care (see paragraph 9). (iii) In cases where it
was already clear that prizes would not be affected, less attention might be
given to the awarding of partial credit or the resolving of differences
between markers, as a purely practical matter. 22. The marks scored have meaning only in relation to
the particular tasks set and their difficulty, so that comparisons from year
to year, or to school-work exams, would not have full validity. Comparisons
between the two columns of Table 2 also have little meaning. Comparisons
could be made within any one Championship event between playing and solving
results, and a fairly close correlation has been informally observed. The
relationship between the percentage marks scored and the difficulty as
estimated in advance (according to the maximum marks allotted to each task)
was observed to a fair extent (see Table 2). Any tendency for endgame studies
to be solved more easily or less easily than direct-mate problems could only
be investigated informally; no particular preference or difference seems
apparent. The comparison of tasks set in more than one paper (see the
asterisks in Table 2) showed that the Hawes #2 was, not surprisingly, a good
deal more difficult for the younger solvers. |
|
Next issues Tuesday
9 March (deadline Friday 9 March) Tuesday
23 March (deadline Friday 19 March) Tuesday
13 April (deadline Friday 9 April) To
subscribe to the newsletter go to
http://www.auschess.org.au/ To
unsubscribe click the link which should appear at the bottom of the
newsletter. To change your address do both. |
Useful addresses Newsletter
contact: auschessnews@gmail.com ACF web
site: http://www.auschess.org.au/ Newsletter
Archive: http://www.auschess.org.au/bulletins/acfbt.htm Thanks
to our contributors to this issue including Charles Zworestine, Nigel
Nettheim, Scott Humphreys, Allan Menham, Hilton Bennett, Ian Rogers, anyone
else I overlooked and those whose information I purloined from other
sources. |