Canadian Open U 2000 Blog (Armstrong)

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Pairing Problems, etc.

What happens in such a case? Will he get an unrated default? Can he play in the next round? etc.

Hi Nigel:

If he gave no notice to the arbiter of not attending, and so was paired, and forfeited, then re his CFC rating, it is rated and he will lose rating points. I just this evening spoke with Paul Leblanc, the CFC Rating Auditor on this. He moved a motion, at the early July CFC AGM (Outgoing Members'), which I seconded, that clarified that the Canadian policy is that forfeits get rated. The SwissSys program we use has now been modified for a Canadian option to do this (FIDE and USCF do not rate forfeits). It is effective from the date passed in July.

But life is messy. It is recognized a player may have a legitimate excuse why he did not show, and could not give notice (we at Scarborough CC had a player in an accident on the way to the club, and they had no cell phone). So the TD also has discretion to direct CFC that the forfeit not be rated, if he accepts the excuse.

As to the rule the FQE follows, I do not know. I won by forfeit tonight in the CO in Rd. 4. I have an FQE rating from having played in the 2008 Can. Op in Montreal. So I'd like to know if I'll be awarded points towards my FQE rating. I'll let you know.

But if someone is familiar with FQE policy on forfeits, maybe they could post here and save me the effort.

Bob

[Roman Sarrazin Gendron]

Re : Re: Pairing Problems, etc.

Hi guys,

Bob's blog for day 2 is live ! I think the game viewer is pretty beneficial to the format.
http://echecsmontreal.ca/co/blogEN.html

Good night !

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Re : Re: Pairing Problems, etc.

I don't want to sound rude, but Bob, you are putting way too much faith in computers. When the position gets to plus 5 or more, the best way to win, for a human being, is the the way that requires less calculation. Not that complicated computer line that delivers mate in 26 moves.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Re : Re: Pairing Problems, etc.

I don't want to sound rude, but Bob, you are putting way too much faith in computers. When the position gets to plus 5 or more, the best way to win, for a human being, is the the way that requires less calculation. Not that complicated computer line that delivers mate in 26 moves.

Hi Mathieu:

Thanks for reading the game. And for weighing in with your comment - it is exactly what I am hoping to do with the blog - generate interest in the CO, let English Canada know about the FQE, and cause controversy as much as possible, with gentlemanly/womanly debate - not the slagging that is so familiar here on CT.

You likely know this is not the first time I have been told this........and lots of other things about my own "Comprehensive Annotation System (CAS)". And your comment definitely does have a point.

But I am dealing with this in my Blog # 4 (for Monday), which should be out later this Tuesday afternoon (by 3:00 PM at the latest).

I hope you will weigh in again after you have read my blog presentation on my annotation method. And that others do too. I would like to hold a discussion about the effect of computers on chess!

Bob the Blogger

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Re : Re: Pairing Problems, etc.

Hi Mathieu:

I would like to hold a discussion about the effect of computers on chess!

Bob the Blogger

Computers certainly had a serious effect on how we play chess. I'd say we're in the realm of totally pragmatic play, especially in the opening. However counterinuitive it can be, if a specific move has some practical benefit, the computer will see it. Analyzing with computers, we then tend to develop a feel for these moves.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Re : Re: Pairing Problems, etc.

But I am dealing with this in my Blog # 4 (for Monday)

Just make it a new thread.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Re : Re: Pairing Problems, etc.

Just make it a new thread.

Good suggestion, Egis. When Blog # 4 comes out, I will copy it into a new sub-thread of its own. Thanks.

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

Blog # 4 Pt. I - Day 3/ Rd. 4 – Monday, July 21

2014 Canadian Open U 2000 Blog (Armstrong)

Blog # 4 - Pt. I - Day 3/ Rd. 4 – Monday, July 21

NOTE

1. This blog is duplicate posted: a) on the FQE Canadian Open website ("Follow the tournament"); b) on the CMA Chesstalk. But the FQE website has the great advantage that it includes a game-viewer. So my Rd. 2 game, and that of Mario’s, that are in the text, can be immediately played over. The URL for the blog there is: http://echecsmontreal.ca/co/suivre_en.html .
2. The advantage of the Chesstalk site, is that there is capacity for anyone to comment and discuss any CO matters.

Starting the Day Off Right – Mid-Morning

After 3 hrs. (?) sleep, I was wide awake at 5:30 AM. So I checked e-mails, posted on the 4 FB chess sites I manage/co-manage, and looked at the other 2 non-chess FB pages I manage. Then I continued analyzing my Rd. 2 game for Sunday’s blog # 3. About 7:00 AM I went to Timmies to bring back a coffee to help me welcome a new day, where a win is still a possibility!
Mario got up at 9:00 AM, and went to his laptop to see what he could do on his game, for the blog #2. We later went to breakfast, and there were no standings for section C when we returned, neither hard copy outside the playing hall, nor on the Results website.
We decided that since the first two days had been somewhat hectic, especially with the U 2000 Section administration, we needed a downtime, quiet day – so no tourism today. Mario then continued on his Rd. 3 game annotations, and I did my Game 3, both for Blog # 3.

Afternoon

So I just waited for the pairings for the U 2000, the only thing I needed to complete the blog, once I got our games in. We continued annotating our games.
Mario and I then went down to the food court under the hotel, for a walk around to get a break. We got some lunch to bring up to the room. The games were then entered into the draft blog # 4 and the blog # 4 games database.
At 2:00 PM, I went down to the playing hall, hoping there might be some hard copy standings on the bulletin board. There was nothing. But then I saw Pierre Denomme, one of the arbiters, to my knowledge, and asked about the U 2000 Standings. He seemed to say there was some problem re access to the computer in the playing hall, because the room was locked. So he could not advise at what time the U 2000 standings might appear. So I went back upstairs and just waited.
At about 2:30 PM, Mario and I went out for a bit of exercise before me issuing the blog. We walked down Rue Rene Levesque West – it was getting hot – air conditioning is surely nice. In prior Canadian Opens, Mario and I had often gotten our rooms at a University residence (modest budgets) – but no A/C. Ottawa in 2013 was sweltering. This was the reason we went for splitting a hotel room this time!
On the way back, I checked outside the playing hall – still no hard copy standings. So back upstairs to wait. On the FQE CO website – Section B stuff, but not section C. So, at three o’clock, I sent the blog out to Roman to post, and I posted it on Chesstalk. While I was doing this, Omar Shah (also in the U2000 section & plays at the same Toronto club as Mario and I) came to join us while waiting for Rd. 4 @ 6:00 PM. (he is not staying at the hotel).
I then started my draft of Blog # 4 for Monday. Mario worked on his games. But while we were doing this, we got into a big, heavy discussion about how computers have changed chess! The issue arose because of my Comprehensive Annotation System I have developed and use in my blog, and in Toronto Chess News (TCN), an independent Canadian chess e-newsletter. My system is very computer analysis oriented. Ever since I went public with it, it has caused controversy. I am constantly asked why I use it…….isn’t just annotating the very critical positions good enough? Why signify every minor change in valuation – for example, if nothing is really happening, is white going, by an inferior move, from having a “clear” advantage, to having a “slight” advantage, really relevant? Is it important that we know this? Is it not too overwhelming in the aggregate, to be told every time the computer signifies a minor evaluation change? I am told my system puts too big a burden on the human player. Is studying it worth the effort? You have now seen 3 of my games annotated this way in prior blogs. You also now, in Blog # 3, have an example of the more common annotation method, in Mario’s annotations of his Rd. 3 game in Blog # 3. You can compare my system to the annotated games you have seen in various chess books. What do you think (if you are the type that likes to discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin  )? I would like to get some public feedback on what I am inflicting on my blog viewers and my TCN subscribers. And you need not be gentle – I am a regular CMA Chesstalk participant, and am regularly drawn and quartered for my opinions. I have developed a somewhat tough skin (though I may be a very gentle and sensitive individual, as are all us chessplayers……Hmmmm).
At 5:30 PM, we still had no pairings on the net. So we decided to go down to see what was going to happen this time….a bit apprehensive given the U 2000 admin track record.
Now Mario, my roomie, says he definitely is not superstitious. But…….for some unknown reason, based on his having a near-death experience in Rd. 3 (see his game in Blog # 3), and feeling that he was on a roll now, determined that this one pen of his was….his “lucky pen”! So he scooped it up and down we went. You’ll have to wait a bit to see how the universe unfolds.
Amazingly, the U 2000 pairings were there…on the bulletin board…at the start of the round! So we happily trooped in to kick butt!
We started our section round 4 right at 6:00 PM.

Mario’s “Lucky Pen” (contributed kindly to this blog by Mario Moran-Venegas)

It was shortly after 6 pm (U2000 section round started on time) and my lucky pen (MLP) was comfortably laying down on my score sheet. Murmuring to itself "this is my time. Let the show begin.. I did it the last round I can do it again" .
The first few moves were relaxed as sometimes happens with the Sicilian 2.c3 variation. MLP was not busy as my opponent took close to one hour for 15 moves. But as that center pawn was pushed into the entrails of my position, I noticed MLP started to tremble.
My calculations showed my opponent unable to win material immediately. So I thought: "I will patiently wait, then exchange or dislodge the intruders". I waited but the initiative never came to my pieces!! MLP was not happy: "What is this? Someone changed my ink while I slept?".
It took 30 moves to disprove the talisman. The last straw was when that pawn arrived at d6 and allowed a knight to perch itself menacingly, squeezing any hope.
The fact that THAT d pawn became a queen, killed all superstitions ...for now.

My Games

(Because new readers come to the blog from time to time, I want them to have the following information, and so I am repeating the template of it each day – I’d ask the daily readers of the blog to tolerate the repetition)

As I’ve said in prior year’s blogs, I like to think “class” games, like those in the U 2000 section, down in the middle of the bowels of the tournament, have some interest. I believe in some ways they are more educational to class players than GM games, if properly annotated. They are understandable, because we all think similarly – GM moves are many times incomprehensible to us class players.
For years now, I’ve used a chess website, Chess5 (http://www.chess5.com ), as my own personal chess games blog and back up storage site – I have gotten to know the owner/administrator Eydun, quite well over the years. I introduced Canada to his website, after I first saw it. Canada is now one of the main posters to this on-line databank. I post all my games, using what I call my “Comprehensive Annotation System (CAS)”, hoping that this makes them even more helpful to viewers. In prior years, this is where I have posted my Open games for those interested to play over. Click on the heading link “public games”, and you get a list of games posted this month so far. There is an option to go back and look at posted games from prior months. In past years, my Can. Op. games have been posted there during the tournament. But I am not doing that this tournament, since I am now blogging on the FQE website, and there now is a gameviewer in my blogs.
My games may not be dramatic, but I am told I am a somewhat messy and adventurous player (I lose a lot!), and that my games, win or lose, are often interesting to play over (some friends say, so they’ll learn how not to play chess…sigh). However in this tournament so far, I must admit I have played quite conservatively, even passively, before this game 4. Hopefully I’ll get more usually aggressive as the tournament progresses.

Continued in Part II below

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Blog # 4 Pt. II - Day 3/ Rd. 4 – Monday, July 21

Blog # 4 - Pt. II - Day 3/ Rd. 4 – Monday, July 21

Continued from Part I above

The 7 U 2000 Leaders Post Rd. 3

1/ 2. – 4 pts. – 2 players – Germaine, Michel (1947 – QC); Moore, Ronald (1751 – QC)
3/ 7. – 3 ½ pts. – 5 players - Langlois-Remillard, Alexis (1860 – QC); Miettinen, Eric (1854 – ON); Thanabalachandran, Kajan (1798 – ON); Baumgartner, Christopher (1766 – USA); Cashin, Ken (1690 – NS).

Our section started with 12 top players who I termed the “favourites”. They were all in the 1900’s. Here are the 11 non-leader favourites and their scores – I kind of like to keep tabs on them since, though they may not be doing well early on, they are quite capable of suddenly again rising to the top – it is a long tournament (due to lack of published standings before the blog went to press, some information is missing):

1. Shah, Omar – 1999 – ON– 3 pts. (See picture in Blog # 2)
2. Gauthiers, Dennis – 1999 – QC – 1 ½ pts. (withdrawn?)
3. Villeneuve, Robert – 1993 – QC –2 pts.
4. Have, Didier - 1992 – QC – 3 pts.
5. Liard, Serge - 1984 – QC – 2 ½ pts.
6. Weston, Paul – 1963 – QC – 2 pts.
7. Pomerantz, Daniel – 1937 – QC– 3 pts.
8. Ingram, Richard – 1929 – QC – 2 ½ pts.
9. Desjardins, Michel – 1925 – QC –0 pts.
10. Chang, Michael – 1912 – QC – 3 pts.
11. Sarra – Bournet, Marc – 1911 – QC – 3 pts.

But there have been problems with our section administratively due to the Mini-COC. I have been contacted by a reader of my blog, who is in my section, Richard Ingram. The organizers seem aware of his situation and he is no longer in our section and is not paired for round 5. But to give some background on one specific case, his e-mail to me is instructive and may help understand some of the administrative glitches. Here is his e-mail:

“I am writing with a small contribution of information. I am one of the players listed as a "pre-tournament favourite," [in my Blog # 1] but in fact I was playing in the Mini-COC. Almost everyone who entered the Mini-COC has been listed under the Quebec Federation, but my province is actually BC.
As an aside, I came to help with coaching of BC juniors during the CYCC. My coaching duties were both enjoyable and highly rewarding. I didn't know about the Mini-COC beforehand, and only entered on Friday. Having a chance to play some games has been an unexpected bonus. There was an extra round for the Mini-COC on Saturday evening, which I won. My final score was therefore 3.5/4.
It appears that I will not know whether my final score was sufficient for a place in the top 3 before my return flight to Vancouver this evening (Tuesday). The technological difficulties that have hampered Section C - and consequently also the Mini-COC - make me nostalgic for the days of Wall charts with everyone's progress documented manually.”

Thanks Richard for being willing to get involved a bit in examining some of the Section C administrative problems.

My Round 4 Game

The time control is 40/90 min. SD/30 min, with a 30 sec increment from move 1.
For Rd.4, it seems my CFC rating was used for the pairing, rather than the FQE rating that was improperly used in earlier rounds. I was to play white against Michel Desjardins of Quebec (1925). He had had a very bad tournament so far, and also had 3 losses like me. But I was thrilled to play him, even if it meant I was going to have 4 consecutive losses! This is the very reason I played up – to meet stronger players I normally, with my rating, would not get to play. Unfortunately, because of the reason mentioned above, I had played 2 players in the 1600’s, and one in the 1700’s. They were all higher rated than my CFC rating, and I did lose to them. But I had hoped to play somewhat stronger players – for some unknown reason, I do play well against players 200-300 pts. higher than me (even though I may lose; but sometimes I get upsets too). So I was ready to do battle, win or lose.
Michel didn’t show. I won by forfeit. In fact there were 9 forfeits in our section, out of 48 boards, and many in the top quarter, of players in contention! What was going on?? This seemed most unusual and I had not seen this happen before in my last 8 annual major tournaments.
It is rather ironic that this happened to me….because I have recently been dealing with this issue. Can I go on a bit of a rant here?…..since I have no game 4 to present?
My local club had a problem with discourtesy. Players were not giving notice of not attending, not requesting byes, and were simply not showing up, despite being paired (no one told us they were not coming). Now we had always thought CFC rated forfeits – that was the case years ago. But the policy had changed some time ago, and it seems it was under the radar and few knew that now, they were no longer being rated (FIDE and USCF do not rate forfeits). When I discovered this, I contacted my friend in BC, who is the CFC Rating Auditor, Paul Leblanc. He confirmed that this did indeed seem to be the case, though he had understood that the Canadian policy was supposed to be to rate them. I explained our problem and our view that there had to be some penalty, to try to get compliance with etiquette and our club rules of notice, even if it was just a few rating points. We would deal with adding conditions about whether the player continued in the tournament. It turned out that one aspect of the problem was that SwissSys, the pairing program used mostly in Canada, had been set to the USA option. Thad Suits, who we deal with, quickly instigated the Canadian option of rating forfeits. But Paul felt our CFC Handbook regulations also were part of the problem – they were somewhat ambiguous. So he proposed that he would bring a motion to the CFC Annual General Meeting earlier this month, to make the made-in-Canada policy clear. He asked if I, who at the time was still a CFC Governor (I had been for over 5 consecutive years), would second it. I indicated for sure, and couldn’t wait to vote for the motion. Well, it passed, and the program is now corrected, and as of the motion being passed, this is clearly the policy now in effect (there is also a discretion in the TD to accept legitimate reasons for non-notice - one of our club players had been in an accident on the way to the club, and had to deal with that and had no cell phone – in this situation, the TD can direct that CFC not rate this particular special case forfeit). So for my Rd. 4 forfeit, Michel is going to donate to me some CFC points – I was quite unhappy about coming from Toronto to play 9 games, and being deprived on one of them. For me, I don’t care about the one scoring point I will receive. I don’t care about the few CFC rating points I may receive. I just love to play tournament chess, and I was left alone, pathetically sad, at the altar! I believe it is a discourtesy, and not worthy of gentlemanly/womanly chess etiquette. I do hope in this case, there is some legitimate problem of which I am not aware. And I hope that there are legitimate reasons for the other 8 forfeits – otherwise I feel, the discourtesy rate is much too high in this tournament. And I hope other sections are not suffering a similar fate.
But I am unaware of what will happen to my FQE rating when it is rated there. Does Quebec also rate forfeits, as does ROC? If someone knows for sure, I’d love to have you comment on the Chesstalk version of this blog.
So my game ended at 7:00 PM and I was a free birdie!

Post Rd. 4

Well, now that I’ve got that off my chess, I guess you are somewhat disappointed you don’t have a game to look over. Well, all is not lost.
First of all, I have a picture of the playing hall at the start of round 4!



Continued in Part III Below

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Blog # 4 Pt. III - Day 3/ Rd. 4 – Monday, July 21

Blog # 4 - Pt. III - Day 3/ Rd. 4 – Monday, July 21

Continued from Part II above

Post Rd. 4 (Continued)

In addition, I am trying to present games of other players in the section, in addition to myself. And I am being modestly successful. In Blog # 3, you got to see Mario Moran-Venegas’ salvation draw. Well, today I have another treat. The game of the # 3 Canadian in the U 8 Open Section, Aiden Zhou,



who is playing up in the U 2000 section (who I had the pleasure of playing in the CO in Ottawa last year, as well as his slightly older sister, Annika – it was a tactical melee that I barely won). He was at that time in the 1100’s. He’s gained 300 pts. since then! He’s now 1485.
And he wins his round 4 game, playing up, and initially down material!
What happened was that I was at the scoreboard for our section, gathering info for this blog, when this small, young junior asked me where he should mark his score. So I explained and he did it. Then I saw his name. So I asked if we had played in Ottawa. And he said, are you Bob Armstrong? He remembered then. So he then asked if I would go play over his game with him. Now isn’t that an offer one can’t refuse! Of course, I said. Well as we went over the game (he was about a trillion times faster out of the gate analyzing than me), I saw the game was a great one to play over. So I explained to him about my blog (but he did know about it), and that I’d like to use his game. But since some junior parents hide their children’s games, he had to get me a parent to consent. His dad was there, and so I explained my dilemma re junior games to him. So….he turns to Aiden and asks what he wants to do. And Aiden smiled and said “yes”. So in exchange for him presenting me with his game, I explained that in return I’d analyze his game (I didn’t mention how controversial my system has become ) and maybe that might help him to learn something more about his game. But….the scoresheet was a bit of a disaster. So I said that another condition of this earth-shattering deal, was that he had to get me a nice, readable clean game scoresheet by copying it out, and checking it on the board that all moves were accurate. No problem he indicated. So the next thing I see, is him sitting with Annika, his slightly older sister, him with his tablet, and her playing secretary, copying down the moves – you should see this scoresheet now! The printing could have come right off a Middle Ages printing press, it was so neat. So I thanked them both, got nice smiles all around, and suggested they check the FQE blog late Tuesday afternoon to see Aiden’s game.

Other Games from the U 2000 Section

So here is the game, and I think you will thoroughly enjoy playing it over (using CAS annotation, and Fritz, and me):

Robichaud,Nicolas (1715) - Zhou,Aiden (1485) [B23]
Canadian Open (U2000) (4), 21.07.2014

In copying a Fritz game into Chesstalk, some symbols change. Here they are:

2 = plus/= (CT cannot print the plus sign)
3 = =/plus
U (with a tail) = - over plus

1.e4² [0.54]

1...c5 2.Nc3 d6 3.f4?!= [The Grand Prix Attack]

[3.d4 cxd4 4.Qxd4 Nc6²]

3...Nc6 4.Nf3 g6 5.Bc4 Bg7 6.0–0 e6 7.d3 Nge7 8.Qe1 0–0 9.f5 [ ]

[9.Bb3 Nd4 10.Nxd4 cxd4 11.Ne2 Qc7=]

9...d5 10.Bb3 [ ]

10...Nd4?± [Nicolas gets a "clear" advantage]

[10...dxe4= 11.dxe4 exf5 12.Qh4 Qa5=

a) 12...fxe4= 13.Ng5 h6 14.Bxf7 Rxf7= (14...Kh8= 15.Ngxe4 h5= (15...Bf5?! 16.Bxh6 Rxf7 17.Rad1 Bd4 18.Rxd4 Nxd4 19.Bf4 Kg8 20.Be5 Rg7 21.Qh6 Ne6 22.Ng5 Qd2 23.Bxg7 Qxg5 24.Qh8 Kf7 25.Qxa8 Kxg7 26.Qxb7 Bxc2 27.Qxa7 Kh6²) ) 15.Nxf7 Qd4 16.Kh1 Nf5 17.Nxh6 Bxh6 18.Rxf5 Bxf5 19.Qxh6 Qg7=;

b) 12...a5= (verified depth 20);

13.Be3 h5

a) 13...Bxc3 14.bxc3 Qxc3=;

b) 13...c4 14.Bxc4 h6= (14...Bxc3? 15.bxc3 Qxc3± (verified depth 26)) ;

14.Nd5 Nxd5 15.exd5 Ne5=]

11.Qh4?µ [For the first time in the game, Aiden gets the advantage, and it is a "clear" advantage.]

[11.Nxd4 Bxd4 12.Kh1 exf5 13.Bg5 f6 14.Bh6 Re8 15.Nxd5 Kh8 (15...Nxd5 16.Bxd5 Kh8±) 16.c3 Be5±]

11...Nec6?= [Aiden loses his advantage]

[11...exf5 12.exf5 Ndxf5µ]

12.Ng5 [ ]

[12.Bg5 f6 13.Bc1 c4=]

12...h6 13.f6 hxg5 14.Bxg5 [Aiden is up N vs P]

14...Bh8 15.Qh6
[15.Rae1? c4 16.dxc4 dxe4 17.Nxe4 Nf5µ]

15...e5?? plus– [a blunder; Nicholas now gets a "winning" advantage]

[15...c4?? – 16.Rf4 Re8 plus–; 15...dxe4 16.Nxe4 Nf5=; 15...Ne5?? 16.Rf4 dxe4 17.dxe4 Re8 plus–]

16.Nxd5 [Aiden is up N vs 2 P's]

16...Nxb3 [temporarily, Aiden is up B N vs 2 P's]

17.Ne7 Nxe7 18.fxe7 Qd4 19.Be3?!± [19.Kh1 Be6 20.exf8Q Rxf8 21.axb3 Qxb2 plus–]

19...Bg7?! plus– [19...Re8 20.Bxd4 Nxd4±]

20.exf8Q Bxf8 plus– [3.16 Aiden is up B N vs R P temporarily]

21.Qg5 Be7 22.Qg3? plus– [2.18]

[22.Qxe7 Qxe3 23.Kh1 Be6 24.axb3 b6 – 5.48]

22...Qxb2 23.cxb3 [Nicolas is up the exchange. But Aiden has the B pair. Watch as the game unfolds, the dynamic use of the two B's made by Aiden, eventually forcing a return of material.]

23...Be6 24.Qf2?!± [24.h4 Qe2 25.Bg5 Bxg5 26.Qxg5 Qxd3 27.h5 Qxe4 plus–]

24...Qxf2 25.Kxf2 Rd8 26.Rfd1 f5 27.g3 g5?! –plus

[27...Kg7 28.h4 Rf8±]

28.Bc1??= [Nicolas loses his "winning" advantage, and gives up his win.]

[28.Rac1 b6 29.exf5 Bxf5 –]

28...fxe4 [Nicloas is up the exchange, but Aiden has a P compensation]

29.Ke3?!³ [Aiden gets back the advantage]

[29.Bb2 exd3 30.Bxe5 Bg4=]

29...Bf5 30.Bb2 exd3 [this passed P, though in enemy territory, has lots of potential for Aiden]

31.Bxe5 [ ]

31...Rd5 32.Bc3?!µ [Aiden now increases his advantage - he now has a "clear" advantage]

[32.Bc7 Rd7 33.Be5 Bd8³]

32...g4 33.a3?!–plus [Aiden gets a "winning" advantage]

[33.Kf2 Bg5 34.Bd2 Bf6µ]

33...Bg5 34.Kf2 Be4 35.Bd2 Bf6 36.Rab1? –plus [- 4.61]

[36.Ra2 b5 37.Re1 Rf5 38.Bf4 Be5 –plus 5.54]

36...Bd4 37.Ke1 Bf3?–plus [- 2.38]

[37...Rh5 38.h4 gxh3–plus - 7.04]

38.Bf4 Bxd1 39.Rxd1 [Aiden is up a P and now clearly going to win]

39...Bc3 40.Kf2 b5 41.Ke3 c4 42.bxc4 bxc4 43.Ke4 Rb5?– [- 2.90]

[43...Rd4 44.Ke3 Rd7–plus - 5.48]

44.Bd6 [-plus 3.75]

[44.Rc1 d2 45.Rd1 Kf7–plus - 3.25]

44...Rb2??=

Aiden mis-plays the ending; he loses his "winning" advantage]

[44...Kf7 45.Bb4 Bxb4 46.axb4 Rxb4–plus - 3.60]

45.Kf4??–plus [Nicolas gives Aiden back the win!]

[45.Kd5 Bf6 46.Kxc4 Rxh2 47.Kxd3 Kf7=]

45...Re2 46.Bb4??–plus [leads to mate]

[46.Bc5 Bd2 (46...d2 47.Kxg4 (47.Be3 Kf7–plus - 10.78) 47...Re1–plus - 9.79) 47.Kxg4 c3–plus - 12.25]

46...Bxb4 47.axb4 [ ]

47...d2 [mate in 32 moves]

48.Kxg4 [Nicolas achieves material equality....to no end. He is done like dinner as we say.]

48...c3 49.Kf3 Re1–plus [mate in 23 moves]

0–1

Continued in Part IV Below

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Blog # 4 Pt. IV - Day 3/ Rd. 4 – Monday, July 21

Blog # 4 - Pt. IV - Day 3/ Rd. 4 – Monday, July 21

Continued from Part III Above

Later Evening

I spent the evening watching games for a while, and going up to the room to check e-mails, a few websites, and continuing on with the preparation of this blog # 4. I also called my wife back in Ontario to see how she was doing, and to confirm I was having a good “chess holiday”, subject to the forfeit. Then I called my adult daughter, who has lived here in Montreal for years now (consequence of Ontario French Immersion). I left a message for us to get together when she had time.
I then went back down to continue updating the U 2000 Rd. 4 results from the hard copy results mark-up sheet (to the extent I could – in case the results/standings are somehow delayed tonight/tomorrow). I was not able to get the top section leaders as well for Rd. 4 – the top players tend not to mark up their scores. They leave the scoresheet on the table, and let the TD enter the result for them. But that section’s results and standings have always been posted in a timely way, and so I should be OK on this.
I watched Mario’s game (my CO roomie). And I took in a number of other games of friends of mine. And then went back up to the room to stay. Mario (who lost – his MLP seemed to have been MIA Missing In Action, a military term) and Omar (one of the top 2 seeds in our section, who won) then joined me in the room. They then went out for a late dinner. When Mario returned, and Omar had left, he worked on what went wrong in his game (“it was lost almost immediately”, he wept to me while rolling around on the floor, frothing at the mouth, with his eyes rolling up into his forehead……..OK,OK, a bit of an exaggeration!) I did as much of the draft blog # 4 as I could, and then started on analyzing my Game 4. We hit the sack about 1:30 AM.

Mid-morning Tuesday

Tuesday morning, I managed to get 3 1/2 hrs. sleep. Not great for my health, but not bad for a tournament. I checked e-mails, posted on the 4 FB chess sites I manage/co-manage, and looked at the other 2 non-chess FB pages I manage. Then I continued preparing the blog, and analyzing Aiden’s Rd. 4 game for this blog # 4. Mario rose about 8:00 AM. So I offered to go get us both a Timmies’ coffee. The coffee really helps us welcome a new day, where a win is still a possibility (and hopefully not by forfeit)!
And on the way back, with faint hope, I went to the playing hall to see if there might be U 2000 standings/pairings. And, to my delight, who do I see but Richard Berube, FQE ED, and Alexandre Ber, in charge of pairings. I asked them if they ever slept…they were non-commital. So I tried again……lots of coffees? They denied it. So I asked about “uppers”…I got a laugh…but interesting that they didn’t answer! Anyway, lo and behold, they produced a miracle – 2 nice, computer-generated sheets – one the pairings (with points of players); the other the standings! At 8:00 AM! But not on the internet, I inquired? Oh, for sure on the internet…go to the Results website or Chesstalk! I suggested, somewhat kindly, that they seemed to again be getting control of the ship….they nodded agreement. So I went back up with the coffee to inform Mario.
Mario had gone to his laptop to see what the computer had done overnight on his game 4. He was ahead of me and already knew about the great “return to the net” of the U 2000! So I was now able to fix the holes in the draft of this blog # 4, and go back to analyzing Aiden’s most interesting game.
At X:00 AM, I sent the blog out to Roman to post, and I posted it on Chesstalk.

The U 2000 Leaders’ Rd. 5 Pairings

Round 5 on 2014/07/19 at 10h10
Bo. No. Name Rtg Pts. Result Pts. Name Rtg No.
1 53 Baumgartner Christopher 1766 3½ 3½ Langlois-Remillard Alexis 1860 26
2 43 Thanabalachandran Kajan 1798 3½ 3½ Zhou Jiehan 1735 60
3 56 Moore Ronald 1751 3½ 3½ Petit Raymond 1789 46
4 1 Shah Omaray M. 1999 3 3½ Miettinen Eric 1854 28

My Rd. 5 Pairing

32 30 Armstrong Robert J. 1845 1 1 Robichaud Nicolas 1715 67

The Top Section Leaders After Rd. 4

First prize is $ 4,000. There are 42 registered players (one shown actually in U 2400).
Here are the 8 Leaders:

1/ 2. – 3 ½ pts. - GM Tiviakov, Sergei (2656 – Netherlands) – picture in Blog # 2;
GM Van Kampen, Robin (2636 – Netherlands) – picture in Blog # 3
3/ 6. – 3 pts. – GM Kovalyov, Anton (2636 – Canada – top FIDE-rated Canadian, playing
for Canada) – picture in Blog # 3
GM Hansen, Eric (2596 – Canada)



Eric

GM Moradiabadi, Elshan (2593 – Iran)
GM Sambuev, Bator (2526 – Canada – current Can. Champion)



Bator

GM Fedorowicz, John (2422 – USA)
FM Cao, Jason (2177 – Canada)

The Top Section Leaders’ Pairings

Round 5 on 2014/07/22 at 18
Bo. No. Name Rtg Pts. Result Pts. Name Rtg No.
1 3 GM Van Kampen Robin 2636 3½ 3½ GM Tiviakov Sergey 2656 1
2 2 GM Kovalyov Anton 2636 3 3 GM Sambuev Bator 2526 7
3 4 GM Hansen Eric 2596 3 3 GM Moradiabadi Elshan

Invitation.

Unfortunately, the website format FQE uses, does not allow for any comments, questions, etc. concerning the blog material. This is why it is being duplicate posted on the Chess ‘n Math Association national chess discussion board, Chesstalk. There this can be done. So, I'd like again to invite everyone to join into the discussion on Chesstalk by making comments, suggestions, questions, constructive criticisms  , etc. Anything to do with the Can. Open is welcome. I will try to respond on Chesstalk if that seems appropriate.

Bob Armstrong, the unhappy (read “forfeit) U 2000 Blogger 

[Wilf Ferner]

Re: Blog # 3 - Pt. I - Day 2/Rds. 2 & 3 - Canadian Open U 2000 Blog (Armstrong)

Hi BoB: Great stuff as usual. Hope you win a game soon. If not, try a power nap, no more than 15 minutes, it could help.

Wilf Ferner

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Blog # 3 - Pt. I - Day 2/Rds. 2 & 3 - Canadian Open U 2000 Blog (Armstrong)

Hi Wilf:

I just had a 10 min. semi-doze a few minutes ago!

We'll now see if it works.

Thanks for the encouragement on the blog - some work involved, but fun and it seems worth it.

I"ll try to get a win for you!

Bob

[Ken Kurkowski]

Re: Blog # 3 - Pt. I - Day 2/Rds. 2 & 3 - Canadian Open U 2000 Blog (Armstrong)

Is it not possible to give games in your blog allowing us to play over online? Maybe I'm lazy but there is no way I'm going to print off the game and play it out on a physical board.

[Felix Dumont]

Re: Blog # 3 - Pt. I - Day 2/Rds. 2 & 3 - Canadian Open U 2000 Blog (Armstrong)

Hi Ken,
We (the organizers) like very much his blog and offered to host it on our website : http://echecsmontreal.ca/co/blogEN.html
You can replay the games there and see some pictures. The last blog is not updated yet, but it should be done soon.