British Rapidplay Chess Championships 2014

After last weekend’s huge event in Scarborough, Yorkshire plays host to back-to-back huge events as the British Rapidplay Championships take place in Leeds this weekend on Saturday 1st and Sunday 2nd November.

Once again, it takes place at the Great Hall at Leeds Met University.

Here are the current top ten players from each section:
Open

1 Hawkins Jonathan 258 Leam Lane
2 Ameet Ghasi K 256 4NCL
3 Bates Richard 236 Hackney
4 McPhillips Joseph 229 Bolton
5 Adair James 228 York University
6 Mannion Stephen 222 Paisley
7 Batchelor Peter 219 Willesden & Brent
8 Horton Andrew P 216 3C’s
9 Gantner Matthias 215 Leeds University
10 Mayhew Andrew 215 Gravesend

Major (<171) 

1 Whitehead Mark 169 Rochdale
2 Batchelor Guy 167 Willesden & Brent
3 Ibrahimli Nihad 167 Azerbaijan
4 Crow Steve 164 St Andrews
5 Day Paul 164 Bradford Central
6 McCarthy Damian 163 Padgate
7 Moreby James 163 Gosforth
8 Connor Michael 162 Great Levers
9 Malik Faraz 162 South Birmingham
10 Heald Carl 160 Morecambe

Intermediate (<146)

1 Coe Laurence 145 Stockport
2 Clegg Robert 144 Huddersfield
3 Hartley Dean 144 Amber Valley
4 Bovtramovics Vladimirs 143 Russia
5 Carter Mark 143 Spondon
6 Desmedt Ricahrd 143 Wombwell
7 Morello Reven 143 Chorlton
8 Ashcroft Graham 142 Preston
9 Kelly Mike 142 Grimsby
10 Kent Paul 142 Hastings

Minor (<121)

1 Edgar Barry 119 Consett
2 Friar Colin 119 St Helens
3 Evdokimov Alexander 118 London
4 Mitchell Robert 118 New Zealand Kent CCA Side Up
5 Hemingway Miles 116 SASCA
6 Horman Paul 116 Morecambe
7 Glover Gordon 115 Crusaders Blackburn
8 Neale George 115 Sussex Juniors, Worthing
9 Sullivan Terry 114 Hebden Bridge
10 Willow Hambel 114 West Nottingham


Features editor for the Yorkshire Chess website. I collate and write atricles about all the latest chess activities in Yorkshire and beyond. I've also been known to shove some pieces myself from time to time!

Advertisement

47 Responses to “British Rapidplay Chess Championships 2014”

  1. Matt

    Oct 31. 2014

    I’ve decided not to rely on this live boards this year, they can be somewhat misleading :-)

    I shall therefore be heading to watch many of the games on Saturday afternoon, and perhaps Sunday too. I hope to see many of you there.

    Reply to this comment
    • Martin Carpenter

      Nov 01. 2014

      Live boards seem rather happier so far this year :)

      I’ve actually always been (oddly perhaps) slightly intimidated by this event . Somewhat prone to hanging material in rapidplay and the Open isn’t a forgiving place!

      Reply to this comment
  2. Martin Carpenter

    Nov 02. 2014

    Hawkins having to get two point downfloats to find someone he hasn’t beaten yet. As early as round 8 too. Yikes!

    Reply to this comment
    • Eric Gardiner

      Nov 02. 2014

      Without checking, it seems there are fewer entries in the Open this year so that might explain the big downfloat? Strange – 5 rounds felt too short for Scarborough but 11 rounds looks too long to determine the winner. Predicting who will come second looks tough though!

      Reply to this comment
      • Eric Gardiner

        Nov 02. 2014

        Correction: insert ‘here’ after ‘winner’

        Reply to this comment
        • Martin Carpenter

          Nov 02. 2014

          Maybe. He is also racking up a quite enormous score :) Ghasi hardly struggling himself mind so still chances.
          (Although I suspect that game vs Bates might have seen them come and go somehow.).

          All the extra rounds should at least sort out the intermediate places/grading prizes quite nicely. They’re often hugely random in a five round swiss.

          Reply to this comment
          • Martin Carpenter

            Nov 02. 2014

            3 points down in the final round :) Still they’re finding good opponents for him and Ghasi so no real issues.

  3. Matthew Parsons

    Nov 03. 2014

    Was pleased with my game vs ghasi, still wish i played the line i analysed, after e4…. ba6, a3 bf1, bf1 rc3! bc3 ne4, ab nc3, qc2 ne2, qe2 ba1, which i think against most i could have won, against ghasi who knows.

    Reply to this comment
    • Martin Carpenter

      Nov 03. 2014

      Always rather annoying to not trust yourself when you’ve seen something interesting/good :)

      Would need to keep playing well at this sort of speed mind. Hawkins didn’t always seem to get great positions early on, but he really was also obviously just out calculating absolutely everyone fairly easily later on!

      Oh, crosstables up: http://www.chessnuts.org.uk/ny5/events.php?season=15&eventype=Congress&eventid=26

      The open really was a viscous place. The same sort of top end from previous years but a smaller entry lower down. Anyone getting around fifty per cent doing very well I think.

      Reply to this comment
  4. Matthew Parsons

    Nov 03. 2014

    Reply to this comment
  5. Matthew Parsons

    Nov 04. 2014

    Yes i wasn’t disappointed with 5/11. Lowest I’ve got in the open is 4, and the highest is 6.5 so was about par for the course.

    Reply to this comment
    • Matt

      Nov 04. 2014

      I think you’re hampering yourself playing d4, Bf4, d3, c3 to anything especially, given your affinity to start lobbing down the g-pawn!

      Against strong players someone with attacking flare like yourself should aim to pose constant tactical and strategically problems to your opponent, I don’t see how this set up can offer anywhere need the level of complexity you require to outplay strong players on a regular basis.

      In your game against Jim Burnett for example; you did well to make the game as sharp as possible, but unfortunately you seemed to run out of resources, I don’t think this is anything to do with your ability, merely the lack of venom in the structure you’re adopting.

      My own problem has always been trying to avoid fighting it out on pure technique, here I believe is where the stronger player always shines through. In fact, I am absolutely certain Jim would beat me hands down on pure technique as his positional understanding is far superior to my own.

      Reply to this comment
      • Martin Carpenter

        Nov 04. 2014

        Well see someone like Hebden :) Or a few GMs who have used this sort of thing.

        Pragmatically, I really don’t think getting that many instant moves out, with a known solid position at the end of it all, can hurt in quickplay.

        The only thing I would say about this sort of system opening is that it must be a bit self limiting in terms of development if you never play anything else.

        Reply to this comment
  6. Matt

    Nov 04. 2014

    Well of course, I’ve had the pleasure of working with Mark and asked him many questions around a similar topic….

    Worth noting is the level of depth he and many top players have analysed these “side lines” – it is absolutely incredible to see. In fact, I still have 20 pages of quality analysis of one rare side line I used to play in the modern, all courtesy of Mark.

    If someone like him plays this, you can bet your bottom dollar he is striving for a very particular middle game and/or adding some variety to his “database repertoire”. I’m confident any player of a similar calibre wouldn’t play this against any opponent who was expecting it.

    It’s an opening which I feel lacks any real strategic depth, I doubt you would find Kasparov and his team wheeling out some subtle yet brilliant novelty. Also, thinking about Carlsen’s approach, why wouldn’t he play it? I think the answer is the lack of difficulty it poses your opponent, black may well be slightly worse for long periods of the game but, would have to go quite significantly wrong to be turned over for the full point.

    Matthew is obviously very tactically sharp, it would therefore make more sense to adopt a repertoire which lends itself to his strengthens, rather than trying to artificially create complications where the structure really doesn’t lend itself well to this.

    If Matthew did a little bit of work and played 1. e4 he would comfortably add 20 points + to his playing strengthen in the next year or two.

    Reply to this comment
    • Martin Carpenter

      Nov 04. 2014

      Oh yes, it takes a lot of work to play these things properly – more than main lines really as much less to copy and you’ve got to invent whole new plans rather than just refining them.

      I’m absolutely sure Hebden puts lots of work into optimising how to beat 2200’s time after time. You don’t win a million congresses without doing that :)

      20 pts just from switching white openings would be an awful lot! (40 pts/white game?!) Especially for someone who actually seems to score quite well with white from chessnuts…..

      Reply to this comment
  7. Matthew Parsons

    Nov 04. 2014

    You think so?

    I’ve always been put off simply by the amount of material i would need to pick up,

    Though i have noticed that my results with black are tending to be better than with white,

    Reply to this comment
    • Martin Carpenter

      Nov 04. 2014

      Ah, now *that* really isn’t a good reason :) Seriously it is very easy to play reasonably main line 1 e4 in Yorkshire without carrying huge theory around.

      For one thing, very, very, few black players will play absolutely critical main lines. Aggressive main line 1 d4 is entirely fine too of course.

      The London is fine to have as an option, but getting stuck playing it 24/7 isn’t a good idea. Too limited in terms of plans.
      (Although if you want to attack, Jobava is having some enormous fun with 3 Nc3 ^ f3 etc :))

      Reply to this comment
  8. Matthew Parsons

    Nov 04. 2014

    Yes, well I guess that’s true.

    I just cant stand playing people who get a good position 20 moves in because they’ve learned off some theory by rote.

    And playing 1.e4 tends to lead people into their theory they’ve memorised.

    Still the above points do ring true with me.

    Funny thing about chess, I’ve got to 180-190 standard, which so many players dream about getting too, and yet I’m fully aware so many facets of my game are so weak.

    Reply to this comment
    • Martin Carpenter

      Nov 04. 2014

      That really doesn’t happen. Well maybe once to me semi recently against a correspondence GM when I forgot my intended set up in a Soltis dragon ;) A bit of a special case that!

      People round here just don’t, as a rule, memorise lots of theory. If they do they rarely keep it up to date. You simply *can’t* carry tons of complex theory around with you in day to day life :)

      Basically if you’re sensible and play just slightly off main line 1 e4/d4 stuff you can get away with being really quite aggressive without terribly much concrete knowledge.

      Different if you’re playing Hoppers :) Some of the 200+ folk are very well prepared too – especially those playing 4NCL – as they really do have to be there.

      I rather doubt there’s a stage where self aware players stop feeling rubbish…. I mostly just want to not annoy myself nowadays.
      (not always achieved recent years.).

      Reply to this comment
  9. Dave

    Nov 04. 2014

    This is a very interesting discussion! First point is that of course the stronger you get the more able you are to recognise your weaknesses.

    I’m not qualified to comment on what it takes to win games at the kind of level you guys are talking about but I can give you a perspective on what it’s like to play Matthew as (he pointed this out to me just today) we’ve played about 8 times at classical limits and I’ve managed just two draws with a single win at rapidplay.

    The first point to make (as a player rated 30 odd points below him) is that it’s easy to predict what opening you’ll get when you play Matthew. I’ve had the chance to think about and prepare for meeting his London System (and that has actually really helped me to play others who deploy the London against me) and generally I think I’ve done fine from the opening. However, as Matty has already pointed out when playing a superior opponent, you need to create chaos to increase your chances, and against the London that’s very hard too do. Therefore I have struggled to get anything at all from my games with Black.

    On the flip side, I suspect that if Matthew is going to take on and beat his superiors then the London won’t offer the platform he needs for similar reasons. It’s not a complicated and chaotic opening most of the time.

    Now, when Matthew plays the Black pieces it’s different. I know my best chance of beating Matthew is when I can challenge and test his chosen systems and dictate the play trying for something disruptive and unsettling. I’ve come close a few times and managed it in rapidplay once when he light heartedly let me play a Velimirovic Attack in a Classical Sicilian (not his regular choice!)

    Matthew says he scores better with the Black pieces and he plays the Sniper and the Kings Indian. Both entail more risk and also offer more potential for reward against higher rated players if we follow Matty’s advice on what’s needed.

    So it makes sense to me that Matthew’s White repertioire currently helps him dominate and control lower rated players but doesn’t help create chances to beat higher ones, whilst his Black repertoire offers lower rated players a chance to beat him but also helps him gain a better platform to beat stronger opponents. All this suggests an approach tailored to lower and higher rated opponents with both colours would be useful. I think…

    Reply to this comment
  10. Matthew Parsons

    Nov 04. 2014

    Thats very interesting david, and has given me much to ponder.

    Reply to this comment
    • Matt

      Nov 04. 2014

      I think Dave has worded what I was trying to say rather perfectly!

      This incidentally highlights a good point where I should have lost at the back end of last season playing Kevin Winter, the key point being he was the lowest graded player I’d played all year, I blundered a whole piece in the opening playing way too aggressively. This was a very unwise decision and a very lucky escape.

      I also agree with Martin with regards to opening theory, I’ve found out first hand that there is a huge HUGE difference between knowing the theoretical move orders and understanding the plans of a particular opening. The latter means you’ll never need to memorise any theory as your understanding will guide you through and help you find the right moves, you may surprise yourself how much theory you play when you start making instinctive logical moves in a main line. The former however may get you to a better position, even a winning one, but this certainly does not mean you’ll know how to follow it up and more often than not won’t be!

      My eureka moment with regards to opening theory was playing a main line open Sicilian against a 2650 in Bilbao (former World Top 20), I was “out of book” on move 6 (.. e6) yet thinking for myself I was never worse until I approached the move 40 time control with about 30 seconds left, I blundered. This was evidence enough for me to never worry about learning opening theory or panicking when I am surprised early on in the game. We seem to have developed a fear of using our brain before move 10 and automatically assume we’ll play badly because it’s an unfamiliar position.

      Reply to this comment
      • Martin Carpenter

        Nov 04. 2014

        Yup :) Basically starting from a sound main line position and knowing where you’re meant to be going is usually more than enough with white.

        You do have to be sensible and dodge super critical/committal stuff without real knowledge.

        A bit different with black if you want to play sharp chess. Generally need at least something plausible vs the critical main lines. Won’t often (ever?) come up but still useful for peace of mind :)

        Reply to this comment
  11. Nick Sykes

    Nov 04. 2014

    Well Matthew as a bit of an openings enthusiast I must say I completely agree with Webby and Shaplando.

    I have said MANY times to you that the London is a safe opening that will beat players like Dave Patrick, but doesn’t offer as many chances to outplay stronger players.

    It was interesting to look at Hawkins and Ghasi’s White games where they consistently maintained a high degree of tension late on in the game and seem to do so with closed systems where they fianchetto the K bishop. Remember you had a great win against Pete adopting the same strategy as White a couple of years ago, surprised you have not played it since.

    Anyway I a not very good so my opinion doesn’t really count

    Reply to this comment
  12. Matthew Parsons

    Nov 04. 2014

    Of course your opinion counts Nick, with the exception of Leo Keely, I’ve probably spoken to you more about this than anyone else.

    Perhaps the time has come….

    I used to play 1.g3 all the time as a junior!

    Reply to this comment
  13. Matt

    Nov 04. 2014

    I think this is a debate that is has no real bearing on each our playing strength, only where it is relative to an opponent you are referring too (higher or lower).

    As we’re not concerned with specific variations everyone’s opinion and experience is no lesser or greater than anyone else’s, I’d never get involved in an actual theoretical debate as I know next to nothing about actual theory.

    Also, it feels a little like we’re ganging up on Matthew – ha! Just to clarify, this isn’t the case, we’re just *constructively* pointing out that the London System is not a great weapon for beating stronger players (relative to your own rating) and we’d like to see you throw the kitchen sink at an IM or GM where you’re the one finding all the wild, crazy tactics!

    (* I’ve just had to correct about ten typos – sorry! *)

    Reply to this comment
    • Martin Carpenter

      Nov 04. 2014

      Although, just to be pedantic here, Matthew is actually doing really quite well with white vs stronger players :) It is always well worth confirming prejudices nowadays with the evidence.
      (Chessnuts, or ecf online nowadays, even when no actual data.).

      Past two years, White >175, +2,-1,=5 @192. White 175, +3,-2 @196, Black <175 +8, -2,=2 @171 or so.

      The black result is a bit random of course – very small data set!

      To be honest, if really trying to improve ideally need rather less games vs weak players and more real tests. Quickest way to up grade would be learn how to beat weaker players really efficiently. This is hard for a lot of us :)
      (Mostly seems to need wonderful concentration levels.).

      All those games vs weaker players do offer a good solution if wanting to learn mainline ish 1 e4/d4 though – book it up then start playing it vs them, where there isn't much to lose! Keep stodging as white vs the stronger ones until you've got some confidence in what you're doing otherwise.

      May as well learn a second/third line as black while at it. The variety all helps.

      And yes, London system probably too many draws to be really healthy. Want to be stretching yourself when you get the chance.

      Reply to this comment
  14. Martin Carpenter

    Nov 04. 2014

    Oh, I do have to dissent slightly from the idea that you need wild complication to beat stronger players.

    That’s only really very much stronger ones, and the sane ones of those won’t allow them :)

    Some losses too of course but I’ve got plenty of (at times very) good positions from just playing chess. Haven’t finished quite as many off as I might at times, but that’s me really rather than the approach.

    Reply to this comment
  15. Eric Gardiner

    Nov 05. 2014

    Interesting discussion. I would imagine that playing a ‘system’ such as the London, or g3, Bg2, Nf3 etc. against everything does put a limit on your chess potential because you don’t get exposed to such a wide variety of positions. Would Mark Hebden have been even stronger if he’d had a wider opening repertoire, I wonder?

    Of course, there is a risk that widening your repertoire will lead to a short term loss of grading points – not necessarily because of being outgunned in sharp lines but because it takes time to get familiar with new structures, positions etc. This is where talent & hard work come in – more talented players will get to know the right plans for the new types of position more quickly!

    Btw one way of getting exposed to new structures is to get paired against Mike Surtees (my most frequent opponent!) … it would interesting to know if Matthew Parsons has played him !

    Reply to this comment
    • Martin Carpenter

      Nov 05. 2014

      Depends what you mean by strength I think :) Beating weaker players very efficently/reliably is often subject to slight snobbery. It shouldn’t be of course – it is NOT easy and an entirely legitimate facet of chess strength.

      Hebden has been playing and winning countless weekend congresses vs weaker players so naturally focused on being as ruthless vs them as possible.

      At a more modest level, look at say Jim Nicholson for York A.

      Reply to this comment
      • Andy Bak

        Nov 05. 2014

        In recent years, Jaunooby and Surtees clean up a lot of Opens, with Surtees in particular developing a radical style to get wins against the lower rated players that are required to take 1st prize in these events.

        Reply to this comment
      • Eric Gardiner

        Nov 05. 2014

        “Depends what you mean by strength I think”

        Higher best grading/rating was what I had in mind. But yes it’s sufficient to be 2500-2600 strength rather than 2650-2700 (which perhaps he might have achieved with a wider opening repertoire?) if your aim is to win a lot of weekend congresses :)

        Reply to this comment
        • Martin Carpenter

          Nov 05. 2014

          More of a function of the type of chess played I guess?

          Basically many/most of the not quite top UK players would be very likely to have been a bit stronger in the end had they been full time, playing strong GMs on a regular basis etc. Just can’t do it in the UK.

          Once you’re playing endless weaker players in congresses it is immediately quite hard to improve, except of course by becoming ever more efficient at squashing them :)

          Reply to this comment
  16. Andy Bak

    Nov 05. 2014

    Very interesting discussion! I’ve got a few points I want to make so I’ll try not to ramble too much.

    Nicholas Mahoney made a forum entry about a similar subject some time ago which raises some interesting points:

    http://yorkshirechess.org/forums/topic/boredom-tactics-shock-tactics/

    If you’re aspiring to become a strong player, playing a limited range of openings (no matter what these openings are) will stunt your growth as you simply aren’t exposed to a wide enough variety of middlegames to enable to you to be successful consistently.

    However we are all amateur players, and like Matthew P has pointed out, learning a new opening does involve remembering some theory and like Eric said, you won’t usually get instant success. Fortunately we have internet chess where you can try new openings without any fear of losing competitive games.

    Personally I’m always chopping and changing my openings simply because I get bored with playing the same stuff all the time! This probably isn’t good for my chess, but I play chess primarily for fun and being involved in a variety of different middlegames with different plans and ideas keeps my interest up.

    Reply to this comment
    • Martin Carpenter

      Nov 05. 2014

      Same here really :) Actually sticking with just a few openings strikes me as fundamentally limiting your experience for no real reason.

      Reply to this comment
    • Nick Sykes

      Nov 05. 2014

      I’m the same as you Andy!!

      That’s my problem! I probably chop and change my openings too much with both Black and White, purely because I get bored and haven’t got the time or desire to improve like Matty or Matthew.

      I play lots of different openings because I enjoy doing so, whether it is objectively good for my chess is another matter.

      Against 1.e4 last season I played the French, Caro-Kann, Najdorf and 1..e5 is that a bit much??

      Reply to this comment
      • Martin Carpenter

        Nov 06. 2014

        Well if its a choice between boredom and giving the game up and not scoring quite as well over time but enjoying it there isn’t very much to think about :)

        4 in one year is quite a lot mind! I generally run with stuff (and a back up) and then switch it over on a periodic basis.

        Reply to this comment
      • Dave

        Nov 06. 2014

        Ha ha! Nick I think there aren’t very many people out there who deploy quite so many openings as you. Maybe Andy comes close. You didn’t mention that you also play 1.e4, 1.d4, 1.c4 and 1.Nf3!

        On a serious note. I’ve found it difficult to move beyond two ‘whole systems’ with Black. I’ve played Sicilian Dragon and Sveshnikov and now play three systems against the Spanish but I’ve found it very hard to get enough game time in for a third systnin my repertoire (although I do have a perfect score of 2/2 using the dreaded Frog! ;)

        Reply to this comment
        • Nick Sykes

          Nov 06. 2014

          Dave, your preparation is second to none and you have the ability to make outstanding opening choices that suits your style well.

          You now have few opening systems and deploy the specific one depending on your opponent.

          One of the massive benefits playing many different openings is you can sidestep certain lines that you don’t enjoy playing. I have seriously benefited from this as I know you have too Dave! For example your game with Dave Sugden as Black and your games with John Kerrane as White.

          For example is play 1…e5 frequently, however I am not so comfortable in the King’s Gambit, so against a player like Mike Huett who is a very dangerous player with the White pieces with the King’s Gambit, I played the Sicilian and won easily. I doubt I would have against the KG.

          Another example is my recent game with Robert Clegg, I play 1.e4 more often then not, but would have been an idiot playing 1.e4 against Robert meticulously prepared French. So I played 1.c4 got a White side of a King’s Indian and won a really nice game form knowing the opening better than he did (the plans NOT the book moves).

          Playing one system all the time means you miss out on this huge benefit, although I suppose it means a bit more study on openings, which I know you love to do Mr Shapland!!

          Reply to this comment
  17. Martin Carpenter

    Nov 05. 2014

    Oh, about 180 and 190, as well as always feeling useless in comparison to someone :), you do have to remember they moved the boundaries back in 2009.

    Old style 180 was quite a target I think, and 190 where the really serious (local, ameteur of course!) players started.

    Post changes, 180 now is old style 169, so roughly where the bulk of the old U175 team got to in a good year. Still a healthy strandard of course but not quite the same.

    180 turned into 189, so 190 now :) 200 is much easier to reach.

    Reply to this comment
  18. Matthew Parsons

    Nov 05. 2014

    The grading issue is another debate I guess, are grades accurate? Still that could go for a long time if we started talking about that.

    Would just mention another point, i’m not so sure that my opening play with white limits me ability to beat stronger players,

    Its not the opening – its my latter play that needs improving,

    For instance, the best player who plays like this with white is Gata Kamsky,

    He would beat everyone with ease at the weekend, including Hawkins, playing the London, but it would have been nothing to do with the opening.

    Reply to this comment
    • Martin Carpenter

      Nov 05. 2014

      Hawkins might almost have an outside shot nowadays…..

      I think the argument is that if you play something very sharp you get more chance to win as a mistake will cost so much more. Probably true, but then it goes for both sides so much more likely to lose with it too!

      In all honesty, you’re scoring fine vs stronger players with both colours :) The games vs weaker ones might be worth considering.

      If your concentration over long games isn’t great then playing fairly direct main line stuff can definitely help there by giving you a lot of fairly short wins.

      I’m fundamentally lacking in patience/consistency, so quite good vs weaker players with white, black much more so/so. Fine vs stronger players with both.

      Jim Nicholson has masses of both, and is to some extent the other way round with black – very effective vs weaker players, but a little less so vs stronger ones. Fine vs either with white.

      Reply to this comment
  19. Matthew Parsons

    Nov 05. 2014

    Limits my ability… not ‘me ability…’ tsk…

    Reply to this comment
  20. Dave

    Nov 05. 2014

    Hi Matthew,
    Good point about Kamsky but my contention was not that there is anything wrong with the London (there isn’t) nor that it can’t be used to beat players of any strength (it can) it was that it is a better tool for stronger players to beat weaker ones rather than the other way round and, yes, Kamsky would certainly have mopped up with the London at the BRPC but could he use it to any great effect against players rated higher than him? I’d suggest not. Though he might not lose loads either.
    Dave

    Reply to this comment
    • Martin Carpenter

      Nov 07. 2014

      I dunno. Here’s me playing devils advocate :)

      York congress back in 2006. Playing Paul Wallace – long time 200(+) from Lichfield and definitely a better player than me – I started with 1 Nf3, accidentally transposed to a Colle vs KID style set up. Lame right?

      Well I finishing up winning in a position with 3 connected passed pawns (2 on the seventh, one sixth) beating 2 extra rooks. Openings don’t always determine that much about a game :)

      Not that I’d do it on purpose, but looking super solid, or even slightly dull, can definitely work well if it makes stronger players try to wipe you out, and you’re sharp enough to fight back when it happens.
      (In fact, looking at the opening now, a certain Grischuk has used it the odd time recently.).

      Reply to this comment
  21. Matt

    Nov 09. 2014

    I think tip number 5# is what we’re all referring to here, watch below:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMaaHd7aFIs&feature=youtu.be

    Ps. watch the bloopers, highly amusing indeed!

    Reply to this comment

Leave a Reply