------ From mathwft@math.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Taylor)
========================================================================
Here are the commented games of the final (championship) round of WIPCC,
the internet progressive chess championship; and stats report.
============================================================================
The comments are by the winners, unless otherwise stated. wft = me, Bill.
============================================================================
white: Galvin black: Gordon
1. d4
2. c5 cxd4
3. e4 Bd3 Ke2 en passant mate
4. dxe3 e.p. Qc7 Qf4 Qxf2++ ---------------
0-1
Er, that *was* legal, wasn't it? Was this the first e.p. capture in the
tournament? Is there any prize for that?
--------------
WHITE: Hugh Brodie (cchb@musica.mcgill.ca)
BLACK: Norbert Geissler (norbert.geissler@mch.sni.de)
1. e4
2. Nc6 d5
3. Qg4 Qxc8 Qxd8+
4. Kxd8 dxe4 Nf6 h5
5. f3 fxe4 e5 exf6 Be2 Rook prong mate
6. Nd4 Nxe2 Ng3 Rh6 Rxf6 Rf1# ===============
0-1
--------------
WHITE: Juraj Lorinc (juraj.lorinc@st.fmph.uniba.sk)
BLACK: Norbert Geissler (norbert.geissler@mch.sni.de)
1. d4
2. c5 cxd4
3. Qxd4 Qb6 Qxd8+
4. Kxd8 d5 e5 Bb4+
5. Bd2 Bxb4 f4 fxe5 Bd6 assisted back-rank mate
6. Nf6 Ne4 d4 d3 dxc2 c1R# -----------------------
0-1
--------------
WHITE: Fred Galvin (galvin@math.ukans.edu)
BLACK: Hugh Brodie (cchb@musica.mcgill.ca)
1. d4
2. e5 d5
3. Bg5 Bxd8 Bxc7
4. exd4 d3 dxc2 cxd1(Q)+
5. Kxd1 Bxb8 Bd6 Bxf8 Bxg7
6. a5 a4 a3 axb2 bxa1(Q) Qxg7
7. h4 h5 h6 hxg7 gxh8(Q) Rxh7 Kc2
8. f5 f4 f3 fxe2 exf1(Q) d4 Be6 Rxa2++
0-1
--------------
WHITE: Juraj Lorinc (juraj.lorinc@st.fmph.uniba.sk)
BLACK: Juha Kivijarvi (juhkivij@utu.fi)
1. d4
2. d5 c5
3. dxc5 Qxd5 Qxd8+
4. Kxd8 Kc7 e5 Bxc5 (note the danger in Kc7 ! leads to...) N & R mate
5. Bh6 Nc3 Rd1 Rd6 Nb5# ==========
1-0
------
WHITE: Juha Kivijarvi (juhkivij@utu.fi)
BLACK: Hugh Brodie (cchb@musica.mcgill.ca)
1. e4
2. e5 d5
3. d4 Bg5 Bxd8
4. Bg4 Bxd1 Bxc2 Bxe4 3-piece mate
5. Nc3 Nxd5 O-O-O dxe5 Nxc7X ============
1-0
--------------
WHITE: Fred Galvin (galvin@math.ukans.edu)
BLACK: Juraj Lorinc (juraj.lorinc@st.fmph.uniba.sk)
1. d4
2. c5 cxd4
3. e4 e5 Na3
4. d5 Bg4 Bxd1 Kd7
5. Kd2 Kd3 Kxd4 Kxd5 e6+
6.
7. X certain
1-0
6. Ke8+ 7. Kc5 Bd3 Bg6 Bxf7++
6. Kc7+ 7. Kc5 Bb5 Bd7 Nb5++
6. Kc8+ 7. Kc5 Bd2 Ba5 Rxd1 Rxd8++
6. fxe6+ 7. Kc5 Bf4 Bxb8 Nb5 Nd6 Bb5++
------
Elkies-Lorinc
1. d4
2. c5 cxd4
3. e4 e5 Na3
4. d5 Bg4 Bxd1 Kd7
5. Kd2 Kd3 Kxd4 Kxd5 e6+
6. Black resigns
7. X certain
1-0
(Which apparently is identical to Galvin-Lorinc of the present round!) [above]
At last I have a legitimate reason to win this way...
Clearly Black has only four legal moves, all of which
are cross-checks. Three allow easy short mates (e.g.
6.Kc7+ 7.Kc5 Bb5 Bd7 Nb5#) but for a while I thought
that after 6.fxe6+ seven moves would not suffice and
I would have to force a second cross-check with either
7.Ke5 h4 Rh4 Rc3 Bb5+ or 7.Kd4 Nb5 Nf3 Ne5+ to win.
But I later did find a few 7-move mates, for instance
Kc5, B->a5, N->d6, N->e5#. I wonder if there are
any examples before the "endgame" where either one side
survived a forced cross-check or someone had to win
by forcing two cross-checks in a row.
------
WHITE: Fred Galvin (galvin@math.ukans.edu)
BLACK: Noam Elkies (elkies@math.harvard.edu)
1. d4
2. c5 cxd4
3. e4 e5 f4
4. e6 d3 dxc2 cxd1/Q+
5. Kxd1 f5 fxe6 e7 exd8/Q+
6. Kxd8 d6 dxe5 b5 Kc7 Bg4+
7. Be2 Bxg4 Bf3 Bxa8 Ke2 Nc3 Nd5+
8. Kd7 Nf6 Bb4 Rc8 Rxc1 Rxa1 Nxd5 Nf4+
9. Kf3 a3 axb4 b3 Ne2 Nxf4 Nh3 Rxa1 Rxa7+
10. Ke6 Kf5 Nc6 Nxa7 Nc8 Nb6 Nxa8 Nb6 h6 e4+
11. Ke3 Nf2 Nxe4 Nc3 Na4 Nxb6 Na4 Nc3 Ne2 Kf3 h3
12. resigns
13. X for certain (wft)
1-0
-------
WHITE: Norbert Geissler (norbert.geissler@mch.sni.de)
BLACK: Juha Kivijarvi (juhkivij@utu.fi)
1. d4
2. c5 cxd4
3. e4 e5 Bd3
4. e6 Qg5 Qxc1 Qxd1+
5. Kxd1 Nf3 Nxd4 Nxe6 Nxf8
6. Nc6 Nxe5 Nxd3 Kxf8 Ke7 Ke6
7. cxd3 d4 Nc3 Ne4 Rc1 Rc5 Re5#
1-0
------
WHITE: Juha Kivijarvi (juhkivij@utu.fi)
BLACK: Noam D. Elkies (elkies@math.harvard.edu)
1. d4
2. c5 cxd4
3. e4 f4 Bd3
4. d5 Bg4 Bxd1 Kd7
5. exd5 d6 dxe7 exf8Q Qxd8+
6. Kxd8 Nd7 Ne7 Bxc2 Bxb1 Bxd3
7. Bd2 Rc1 Rc7 Rxb7 Rb6 Ba5 Rb8X
1-0
Neither player realized that en passant would have been possible in move 4.
------
WHITE: Norbert Geissler (norbert.geissler@mch.sni.de)
BLACK: Scott Gordon (sgordon@zippy.sonoma.edu)
1. d4
2. d5 e5
3. dxe5 Qxd5 Qxd8+
4. Kxd8 Nc6 f5 Bb4+
5. c3 cxb4 Na3 Nf3 Bg5+
6. Kd7 h6 hxg5 Rxh2 Rxh1 Nxb4
7. e4 exf5 f6 f7 f8Q Nd4 e6#
1-0
--------------
White: Juraj Lorinc
Black: Jouni Tolonen
1.e4
2.d5 Nc6
3.Qg4 Qxc8 Qxd8+
4.Kxd8 h5 dxe4 Nf6
5.Bb5 Bxc6 Nf3 Ng5 Nxf7+
6.Kc8 bxc6 Kd7 Ke8 Kxf7 g6
7.d3 dxe4 Kd2 Kc3 Bg5 Bxf6 Bxh8
8.a5 a4 e5 Rd8 Rd4 Bb4X
0-1
--------
Gordon-Elkies
1. e4
2. Nc6 d5
3. Qg4 Qxc8 Qxd8+
4. Kxd8 dxe4 h5 Nf6
5. Nc3 Nxe4 Nxf6 Nxh5 f4
6. Kc8 Rxh5 Rxh2 Rxh1 Rxg1 Rxf1+
7. Kxf1 f5 f6 fxe7 Ke2 d4 e8/Q+
8. Nd8 Ba3 Bb2 Bxa1 b6 Kb7 Nc6 Rxe8+
9. Kf1 g4 g5 g6 gxf7 fxe8/Q d5 Bd2 dxc6+
10.Ka6 b5 b4 b3 b2 b1/B Bxa2 Bf7 Bxe8 Kb6
11.Bc3 Bxg7 Bxa1 Ke2 Kd3 Kc4 c3 Kb4 Bb2 Bc1 Ba3 (??)
12.Kxc6 Kd6 Ba4 a5+
13.Kc4+
14.c5 Bd1 a4 Be2#
0-1
Comments: Curiously White's 5th has not been tried yet in this
tournament, but it looks like a critical test of the
variation. Move 7 seems essentially forced except for the interesting
idea of substituting Rb1!? for d4. After the natural, and
possibly optimal, continuation on 8-10, I was expecting the
game to peter out to one of WIPCC's rare draws; note that once
White eliminates g7 and Ba1 he can hold with Kb2+Pc3 even without
the dark-squared Bishop! But Scott, who expected to win and was
annoyed at missing the B-underpromotion on move 10, blundered
on move 11 and let me steal a half-point. If on move 13 White
tries Kxa4(a5)+ then Black wins prosaically by taking on c3,
Queening on c1, and mating on b5.
----------------
WHITE: Jouni Tolonen (jtol@rieska.oulu.fi)
BLACK: Norbert Geissler (norbert.geissler@mch.sni.de)
1. d4
2. Nc6 d5
3. c4 cxd5 Nc3
4. e5 Qxd5 Qxd4 Qxd1+
5. Kxd1 b4 b5 bxc6 e4
6. bxc6 f5 Kf7 Nf6 Nxe4 Nxc3+
7. Kd2 Kxc3 Ba6 Bb7 Bxa8 Nf3 Nxe5+
8. Kf6 Kxe5 Ba6 Bc5 Rb8 Rb2 Bd4#
0-1
-----------------------------
Noam D. Elkies - Norbert Geissler
1. Nf3
2. Nc6 d5
3. Nd4 Nxc6 Nxd8
4. Kxd8 Bf5 Bxc2 Bxd1
5. Kxd1 e4 Ba6 Bxb7 Bxa8
6. d4 d3 a5 e5 Bd6 Ne7
7. a4 Bc6 Ra3 Rxd3 Rh3 Rxh7 Rxh8+
8. resign
(game length quite indeterminate)
1-0
The rare 1.Nf3 scores as Black's 2.Nc6 lets White start a capturing
race with a head start.
-----------------------------
Brodie-Elkies 0-1
1. d4
2. d5 Nf6
3. e4 e5 Bb5+
4. Nc6 Bg4 Bxd1 Qc8
5. Ba6 Bxb7 Bxc8 Kxd1 Ke2
6. Rxc8 Nxe5 Nd3 e5 exd4 Nxc1+
7. Kd2 Nh3 Rxc1 Rd1 Nc3 Nxd5 Nxf6+
8. Kd8 d3 dxc2 gxf6 Rg8 Rg3 Bb4+
9. Kxc2+
10.Rd3 Rxd1 Rxa1 c5 c4 Rc5 Re5 Re2#
0-1
While the experimental Qc8 on move 4 may not bear closer scrutiny,
White's reply in this game seems to leave Black in a strong position
after move 6. On move 7 White inadvertently formed a Royal battery
and suffered the usual consequence. There are other, possibly shorter,
mates along similar lines, but we get no extra points for brevity.
FredG: Points? All you care about is POINTS? Elegance is not worth
pursuing for its own sake? Then don't read this:
8. Ke7 Kxf6 d3 Rd8 Ba3 Bxb2 Rhe8 Re2++
P.S. Also, 10. Bd2 c5 c4 Rb8 Rgb3 Rxb2++
--------
WHITE: Norbert Geissler (Norbert.Geissler@mch.sni.de)
BLACK: Fred Galvin (galvin@math.ukans.edu)
1. d4
2. c5 cxd4
3. e4 e5 Bd3
4. e6 Qg5 Qxc1 Qxd1+
5. Kxd1 Nf3 Nxd4 Nxe6 Nxf8
6. Kxf8 Ke7 Nc6 Nxe5 Nxd3 Nxb2+
7. Kd2 h4 h5 h6 hxg7 gxh8/Q Qe5+
8. Kd8 d6 dxe5 Bh3 Bxg2 Bxh1 Kd7 Rb8
9. Nc3 Nb5 Nxa7 Rxh1 Rxh7 Rh8 Rxg8 Rxb8 Rxb7+
10. Kd6 Nd3 Nxf2 Nd3 Nc5 Nxb7 Na5 Nc6 Nxa7 Kd5
11. Kc3 Kb4 Ka5 Ka6 Kxa7 Ka6 Ka5 Kb4 Kc3 Kd3 c3
12. f5 f4 Kc5 Kb5 Ka4 Ka3 Kxa2 Ka3 Ka4 Kb5 Kc5 Kd5
13. resign
...
16. X for certain (wft)
0-1
My move 10 was good enough to win, but my son David found the better move
10. Kd6 Na4 Nb6 Nc8 Nxa7 Kc6 Kxb7 Nc6 f5 f4.
----------------------------------
white: Scott Gordon
black: Hugh Brodie
1. e4
2. e5 d5
3. d4 Bg5 Bxd8
4. exd4 d3 dxc2 cxd1(Q)+
5. Kxd1 e5 e6 e7 exf8(Q)+
6. Kd7 Nf6 Ne4 Rxf8 Rxd8 Nxf2+
7. Ke2 Kxf2 Ke3 Kd4 Kxd5 Nf3 Ne5+
8. Ke7+
9. Nd7 Bb5 Re1#
1-0
I still haven't found adequate play for black after move #5.
FredG: 7. Kc1 Nf3 Bd3 Re1 Re6 Bf5 Ne5++
P.S. Also, 10. Bd2 c5 c4 Rb8 Rgb3 Rxb2++
------------------------
White: Fred Galvin Black: Jouni Tolonen
1. d4
2. c5 cxd4
3. Bd2 Nf3 Nxd4
4. d5 e5 Kd7 exd4
5. Bg5 Qxd4 Qxg7 Qxf8 Qxd8+
6. Kc6 f6 fxg5 Ne7 Rxd8 d4
7. Kd2 h4 hxg5 Rh4 Rxd4 Rxd8 Rxc8+
8. Kd7 Kxc8 b5 b4 b3 bxc2 cxb1/Q Qxa1
9. Kc2 b4 g3 g6 gxh7 h8/B Bxa1 Bg2 Bxa8
10. Nf5 Nxg3 Nxe2 Nc1 Nd3 Nxf2 Na6 Nc7 Nxa8 Kb7
11. Kc3 Kc4 Kc5 Kd6 Kd7 Be5 Bc7 b5 a4 a5 a6X
1-0
------------------------------------------
WHITE: Jouni Tolonen (jtol@rieska.oulu.fi)
BLACK: Scott Gordon (sgordon@zippy.sonoma.edu)
1. d4
2. d5 e5
3. Bg5 Bxd8 Bxc7
4. Bf5 Bxc2 Bxd1 Kd7
5. e4 Kxd1 Ba6 Bxb7 Bxa8
6. Kxc7 Ba3 Bxb2 Bxa1 exd4 dxe4
7. Nh3 Ng5 Nxf7 Nxh8 Bxe4 Bxh7 Bxg8
8. Na6 Nb4 Nxa2 Nc1 Ne2 Ng3 Nxh1 Nxf2+
9. Ke2 Bd5 Nf7 h4 h5 h6 hxg7 g8Q Qd8X
1-0
-------------
WHITE: Jouni Tolonen (jtol@rieska.oulu.fi)
BLACK: Juha Kivijarvi (juhkivij@utu.fi)
1.d4
2.c5 cxd4
3.Bd2 Nf3 Nxd4
4.f5 Qc7 Qxc2 Qxd1+
5.Kxd1 Ne6 Nxf8 Ng6 Nxh8
6.e5 d5 Nf6 Nc6 Be6 a5
7.e4 Bb5 Nc3 Nxd5 Rc1 Rxc6 Rc8X
1-0
--------------------
WHITE: Juha Kivijarvi (juhkivij@utu.fi)
BLACK: Fred Galvin (galvin@math.ukans.edu)
1. d4
2. d5 e5
3. Bg5 Bxd8 Bh4
4. g5 gxh4 Nc6 Bb4+
5. Qd2 Qxb4 dxe5 Qxh4 Kd2
6. Nh6 Nf5 Nxh4 Bh3 Bxg2 Bxh1
7. e4 exd5 dxc6 cxb7 bxa8/B Bxh1 Na3 <--- 2 white bishops on board!
8. Rg8 Rxg1 Rxh1 Rxf1 Rxa1 Rxa2 Rxa3 Rf3 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
9. b4 b5 b6 bxc7 c8/N Nxa7 Nc6 Nd4 Nxf3
10. f6 fxe5 e4 exf3 Kd7 Kd6 Kd5 Nf5 h5 h4
11. Kc3 Kb4 Ka5 Kb6 Kc7 Kd8 Ke8 Kf7 Kg6 Kxf5 Kf4
12. Kc4 Kc3 Kxc2 Kd2 Ke2 Kxf2 Kg2 Kxh2 Kg2 h3 h2 f2
13. resign
14. mate for sure
0-1
wft - A fascinating slo-mo ending!
-------------------
white: Juha Kivijarvi
black: Scott Gordon
1. d4
2. c5 cxd4
3. e4 e5 Bd3
4. e6 Qg5 Qxc1 Qxd1+
5. Kxd1 Nf3 Nxd4 Nxe6 Nxf8
6. Nc6 Nxe5 Nxd3 Kxf8 Ke7 Nxf2+
7. Ke2 h4 h5 h6 hxg7 gxh8Q Qxg8
8. d5 Bf5 Rg8 Rxg2 Rg1 Rxb1 Rxa1 Nxh1
9. b4 b5 b6 bxa7 a8Q Qh8 Qxa1 Qxh1 Qh4+
10. Ke6 b5 b4 b3 bxc2 c1Q Qh1 Qxh4 Qa4 Qxa2+
11. resigned
12. mate for sure
0-1
----------
White: Scott Gordon (sgordon@zippy.sonoma.edu)
Black: Juraj Lorinc (juraj.lorinc@st.fmph.uniba.sk)
1. d4
2. e5 e4
3. Bg5 Bxd8 Kd2
4. Kxd8 Nh6 d5 Bb4+
5. c3 Qc2 Qxe4 Qxh7 Qxh8+
6. Ke7 Bh3 Bxg2 Bxh1 Nd7 Rxh8
7. e4 e5 e6 exd7 d8(R) Rxh8 cxb4
8. Ke6 a5 axb4 b3 bxa2 axb1Q Qxa1 Qxb2+
9. resign??????
0-1
Real surprise for me. I was closely analysing position after 7th white move and
I felt myself defeated - I saw no chance to escape the mate on the next move.
(Do you see any chance ?) So I decided to play the way I did - the possible
checkmate is:
9. Ke3 Kf4 Kg5 Bb5 Nf3 Nd2 Nc4 Re8#
Again - the resignation of my opponent is surprise for me...
Scott: you're not going to believe this...(I can barely believe it), but,
I studied this position a long, long time, but with a BLACK rook
at h8. I set it up on a board and just didn't bother to replay the game.
There must be a hundred different ways to win the final position (with
the white rook on h8). I can almost with even with a black rook on h8!
Now I feel very silly indeed!
wft - to cries of derision, I'll stat this as a white 9-win...
----------
WHITE: Hugh Brodie (cchb@musica.mcgill.ca)
BLACK: Jouni Tolonen (jtol@rieska.oulu.fi)
1. d4
2. c5 cxd4
3. Qxd4 Qb6 Qxd8+
4. Kxd8 h5 e5 d5
5. Nf3 Nc3 Nxd5 Nxe5 Bg5+
6. f6 fxg5 Nc6 Nxe5 Nf6 Nxd5
7. h4 hxg5 g6 Rxh5 Rxe5 Rd1 Rexd5
8. Bd6 Bf5 Bxc2 Rh5 Rxd5 Rxd1X
0-1
-----------
White: Elkies Black: Tolonen
1.d4
2.c5 cxd4
3.e4 e5 Na3
4.e6 Qg5 Qxc1 Qxd1+
5.Rxd1 h4 Rxd4 Rc4 Rxc8+
6.Ke7 d5 Kd7 Kxc8 Bxa3 Bb4+
7.c3 cxb4 Be2 h5 h6 hxg7 gxh8Q
8.h5 h4 h3 hxg2 gxh1Q Qxh8 Qxe5 f5
9.f4 fxe5 b5 b6 bxa7 axb8N Na6 Nc7 Nxa8
10.Kb8 Kxa8 Nh6 Ng4 Nf2 Nh3 Nxg1 Nxe2 Ng3 Ne4
11.Ke2 Ke3 a4 a5 a6 axb7+
12.Kxb7 Nf2 Nd3 Nxb2 Nd3 Nxe5 Nd3 Nf4 Kc6 Kd6 Ke5 d4+
13.White resigns
14. mate
It's mate next move. So I finish the WIPCC final with a barely
positive 4-3 score, still much better than I expected after getting
2-2 plus one forfeit in the second round. [Actually he got 5-2, not 4-3]
Black 6 is very strong -- I hadn't considered taking on c8 with the
King -- with the final check also avoiding "surprises" with exd6 e.p.
White has to worry about back-rank mates, not only with the promoted
a-pawn but also with Nd4,Ne4,Rc1. This probably refutes White 5, and
is probably part of why (as Galvin reports) the mysterious f4 is
now preferred to Na3 on White 3 in this line.
0-1
-----------
White: Hugh Brodie (cchb@musica.mcgill.ca)
Black: Juraj Lorinc (juraj.lorinc@st.fmph.uniba.sk)
1. e4
2. Nc6 d5
3. Qg4 Qxc8 Qxd8+
4. Kxd8 dxe4 Nb4 Nxc2+
5. Kd1 Kxc2 f3 fxe4 d4
6. Kd7 a5 a4 a3 axb2 bxc1(Q)+
7. Kxc1 a4 a5 a6 axb7 bxa8(Q) Bb5+
8. c6 cxb5 e5 Bc5 Bxd4 Nh6 Rxa8 Rxa1
9. g4 g5 gxh6 hxg7 g8(Q) Nf3 Nxd4 Nc2 Nxa1
10.f5 f4 f3 f2 f1(B) Bc4 Bxg8 Bd5 Bxe4 Bxh1
11. Nc3 Nxb5 Nd4 Ne2 Ng3 Nxh1 Kd2 Ke3 Nf2 Nb3 Nd2
12. Resigns
(no clear length - wft)
1-0
wft - IMHO this game is a classic indicator of the folly of 2.d5 in reply
to 1.e4; it leaves white with that very cheap and easy 3.
IMHO again, black was already behind at move 4, and just inexorably got
further and further behind as the game wore on. I don't think he
made any further mistakes, but was never really in the game after 2.
=========================================================================
=========================================================================
FIRST WIPCC - GRAND FINAL - ROUND ROBIN - FINAL STANDINGS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
------------------------------------------------------
1. Hugh Brodie XXX 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2/7 -- 2
2. Norbert Geissler 1 XXX 0 1 1 1 1 0 5/7 -- 5
3. Fred Galvin 0 1 XXX 1 1 1 1 1 6/7 -- 6
4. Jouni Tolonen 1 0 0 XXX 1 1 1 1 5/7 -- 5
5. Scott Gordon 1 0 0 0 XXX 0 1 0 2/7 -- 2
6. Juraj Lorinc 0 0 0 0 1 XXX 1 0 2/7 -- 2
7. Juha Kivijarvi 1 0 0 0 0 0 XXX 1 2/7 -- 2
8. Noam D. Elkies 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 XXX 4/7 -- 4
* Fred Galvin won the event!! Congratulations!! Fierce competition for
second place results in a tie between Geissler and Tolonen. Elkies comes
clear 4th, then half the field comes in a populous tie with 2/7.
-----------------------------
Some further comment by Bill:
Using SODOS as a tie-break, we get this ordering...
Pts SODOS
Fred Galvin 6 20
Norbert Geissler 5 13
Jouni Tolonen 5 12
Noam D. Elkies 4 11
Hugh Brodie 2 8
Juha Kivijarvi 2 6
Juraj Lorinc 2 4
Scott Gordon 2 4
...with the last two still inseparable, (though L beat G individually).
However, using my own favored method of tie-breaking, namely MINIMAL UPSETS,
we get the following ordering with 4 UPSETS as shown:-
__________________
| |
v |
gal gei tol elk lor gor kiv bro
^ ^ | ^ | |
| | | | | |
| `----------' `-----------------' |
`------------------------------------------'
However, none of this makes any difference to the key result:- Fred Galvin
is the winner and 1996 WIPCChamp. Congratulations again to Fred!
---------------------------------
Thanks for all for participating, congratulations to all who made it to
the finals! Hope to see you again in next years WIPCC!!
-- Norbert, Timo, Bill.
=========================================================================
As before, I have artificially completed some of the resigned games in order
to obtain extra data on match length. Tough biccies to those who can't
stand to be mated in email! (The resignation data are still there in the
game-scores section; so you can make up your own tables if you like.) Alas,
there is a stat-messing "blunder-game" where white resigned instead of mating.
This time there are 2 resigned games whose lengths are still indeterminate.
Other notable points:
(1) This time, there is close to black/white equality!
(2) There are almost no "irregular" openings, i.e. outside e4 & d4;
(3) d4 openings are way up.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
STATISTICS
==========
Number of games per opening/length.
e4 d4 else tot
------------------------========
4 1 1
5 1 1 2
6 1 1 2
7 6 6
8 1 3 4
9 1 2 3
10 1 1
11 1 1
12 1 1
13 1 1
14 1 2 3
15 .
16 1 1
resignations...
W win 1 1 Nf3 2
B win .
W 3 11 1 15
B 3 10 . 13
tot 6 21 1 28
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IMHO still, 1.d4 is *not* the best opening; the *best* reply to it (IMHO)
2. c5 cxd4 was played 13 times, all in the final (expert) round.
These experts managed 6 black wins (of 13) with 2.c5 cxd4; so MHO looks weak.
Maybe I shouldn't be giving MHO at all, as I didn't even make the cut!
But be it noted... I was one of the ONLY THREE people in the whole tourney
who beat the eventual champ, Fred! ;-)
=========================================================================
There's a vote for best/most brilliant/horrible/other game of the tourney.
If you have a game you want to nominate, please do so by sending it to me.
-- Bill Taylor. wft@math.canterbury.ac.nz
------ End of Forwarded Article