Pass the can opener

Let's have de bait!

Lets start this post with a quote from the man who created chess ratings.

“The process of rating players can be compared to the measurement of the position of a cork bobbing up and down on the surface of agitated water with a yard stick tied to a rope and which is swaying in the wind.”
Arpad Elo, Chess Life, 1962

Yorkshire chess players might want to add a response to the quote above:

“Yes, but having three different ways of measuring the cork’s position isn’t going to make the task any easier is it?”

I recently posted on the new YCA grading list for 2011 and made some observations about them. In particular I said that I felt that, in light of the availability of these new grades alongside the YCA live rating and the proposed new monthly ratings, the Calderdale League needed to clarify it’s position on which of these statistics team captains should be using to help them decide on board order. I asked readers for feedback.

It seems that I have inadvertently opened a can of worms because I got lots of feedback! Thanks to all who took part in the discussion which was the most active we’ve ever had on the blog. Having allowed the comments to roll on for a little while I feel like now would be an appropriate time to try and summarise some of the opinions that have been expressed and maybe to make some recommendations to the league in advance of the AGM which takes place on Monday the 18th of July at the Lee Mount Working Men’s Club in Halifax.

What’s the problem?

The main challenge in my view is how best to ensure that team captains can continue to construct their teams in strength order in a consistent fashion. If some use the live ratings and some use the annual ratings then there may end up being disputes about board sequence.

Why is this important?

You may well ask. Some people are saying that I’m creating an issue that doesn’t exist. To a certain extent they are right. The issue doesn’t exist right now but I think when the new season begins it could start to cause problems and I’m keen to avoid disputes between team captains who may end up using different standards to sequence their board order.

The issue is important because it creates a consistent framework for us to carry out match play. Nearly everyone I know who plays league chess wants to feel that their team is deployed using the same standards as their opponents.There is a perfectly justifiable element of status involved too. If you are a board 1 player you want to be pitted against the other team’s strongest player. Many of the best players in the league are participating in matches because they want to test themselves against the best players at other clubs and if they didn’t feel that was happening then they might decide to stop playing in the league. In the same way, board 5 players want to know that they are playing their opponents weakest player and would feel picked on if they weren’t.

This is why the various new ratings (annual/monthly/live) cause us a potential problem. Which rating should captains be using to help them decide who is their strongest and weakest player and will the opposing team captain (and players) feel compelled to agree when they present their team sheet?

What are the rules?

The current League regulations state that…

“All players must be listed in order of known playing strength. Yorkshire grades used for reference.”

Generally, there is nothing wrong with this regulation. Captains should be (and are) using the YCA ratings to help them determine a player’s strength and justify their board order. If they believe that a player is actually slightly stronger or weaker than his grade (which can be the case when a player’s grade has been calculated from a small number of games played in the previous year) then he can use his judgement and present his team in way to reflect this.

All of this is fine but it is based on captains using the current annual grades as their guide and also assumes that the captain is best placed to understand his players’ current form and strength. The live grades have fundamentally changed this situation because now anyone can get a very accurate idea of any players current form and strength simply by referring to the YCA website and I believe this gives captains less room for latitude in their team selections than previously.

Next season I’ll be captaining Hebden Bridge’s ‘A’ team and will be wanting to ensure that our strongest player is playing on board 1 against our opponents strongest and our weakest player is playing on board 5 and confronting the other team’s weakest. I’ll use the live grades to help me judge the form of my players and if I need to change the board order during the season to reflect the form then I will do so. Likewise I’ll also be studying the opposing team’s form and will want to make sure that this is reflected in their board order. If I don’t think that is being done then I’ll speak to the other team captain before the start of the match and discuss it. The live grades enable me to do this when previously the annual grades did not. Naturally, other team captains may adopt the same approach.

Of course we mustn’t be too pedantic. If there is a very small difference in the live grades of two players then I think it doesn’t matter too much what order they play in. In the same way if a newish player is in the line up then it wouldn’t be right to insist they play in a position merited only by their live grade because it won’t be robust enough to be totally reliable and in this instance the opposing team captain’s judgment should be respected.

What should we change?

I don’t think we need to change very much. In fact I think the current wording in the league regulations is fine (besides that it will be real torture to amend the league's consititution). However, I do think the league should offer some guidelines to team captains at the start of the season which should include:

• Clarification that where the current regulations say “Yorkshire grades” they mean the most up to date grades available i.e. the live grades.
• Guidance on how to raise concerns about board order. This should be done between the captains before the match starts. In this way if one captain isn’t aware of the current live grades then he can be informed by his counterpart and the two can then have a sensible discussion before play begins. If neither captain is aware of the current lives grades then there won’t be an issue!
• Confirmation that once play has begun it will be assumed both captains are happy with their opponent’s board order. Subsequent protests to the league can be viewed as bad form unless voiced before play began.
• An indication that some latitude be allowed for a player who is being played out of strict rating order when that player’s grade has been calculated from a small number (less than 10?) of games or when two players with a marginal difference in grade (3 points or less?) are played out of sequence.

This will ensure that some consistency and common sense prevails throughout the season and will enable players to play their matches knowing that they’ve been pitted against the right member of the opposing team.

Of course there is a whole separate issue around which grades to use for the Calderdale Individual Championship. This competition is unusual in that it adopts the same format as a weekend congress but takes place over 5 months and not 3 days. This gives rise to some interesting challenges where live grades are concerned. However, in this case I can’t see how live grades can be used because a Swiss System tournament has to have a static list of players in rating order before the first round draw and that list cannot be re-drafted based on the players’ new lives grades after each round has taken place. Let’s not go there!

I hope that this proposal sounds sensible, rational and fairly straightforward to implement and I also hope that it will enable the league to make the best use of the new rating system. What do you think? Please post a comment below to make your views known.

Like the view?

This post is primarily a test to see what readers think of this new game viewer I'm trying out. Personally, I think this is superb and it is also quite easy and quick to use.

Update 15/07/11: After early feedback I've now tried loading up multiple games into the viewer (one advantage that it has over the previous one I was using) they are all in the Two Knights Defence which continues a recent theme. I've tinkered  with the default colours a bit purely for aesthetics (I think it looks nice anyway!) and have a couple of the games with notes in to see how people think the comments are working.

Some early lessons.

1. You need to have Java installed on your computer to see the viewer. If you don't have it your browser should prompt you but if it doesn't and you can only see a blank space below then you can download it for free here. I promise it's worth the effort.
2. I'll need to learn some lessons about putting in the game annotations as this viewer displays them slightly differently to Fritz. As a note for anyone wanting to send me games in future, it only displays annotations if you add them "after move" and not "before move". It also doesn't work very well if you intersperse single words between moves in sub variations which is a style that works very well in Fritz and Chessbase but not here.
3. Finally, please ignore the error message that is displayed on some of the boards when you bring them up. One you start playing through the games they work fine and I haven't been able to figure out what the error message actually means yet!

Please feel free to feedback more now that I've updated this.

End of season review - part 3

Welcome to the Hebden Bridge Chess Club website's 100th post! As we pass this auspicious milestone we also enter the second half of our four-part end-of-season review where we will cover the performance of Hebden Bridge Chess Club’s league 2 teams. Here are the final standings in the league table.

It was a bit of a roller-coaster for the ‘C’ team and the ‘D’ team (‘D’ stands for “Development”) struggled as much as had been expected and ended the season on a doughnut.

Peter Rawlings guided his
team resolutely as always

The ‘C’ team’s “none-player-Captain”, Pete Rawlings, has kindly provided us with his perspective on the performance of his charges during the season.

"It was a happy season, with some impressive results, very impressive individual records and a respectable third place in division 2.

Todmorden ‘C’, who finished the season beneath us, were our downfall, beating us 4-0 and 3-2, though we managed to beat their ‘B’ team, winners of the division, once. Huddersfield ‘B’, second in the division, we beat twice, 3½-1½ and 3-2.

This year’s ‘C’ team was notable for being so reliable: they scarcely needed to be reminded of the next fixture. Then they all turned up early and played in a sporting manner. Each one is also a good loser although this quality was not sorely tested as you can see from their results below.

Much intelligent chess was played, along with some effectively dogged stuff, while a calm inscrutable manner and largely well-managed clocks, prevailed on our side of the board."

Individual performances excelled. These were:

Dave Sugden – Board 1

Rating (at start of season): 127
New 2011 Rating: 137
Score: 11½/16

Dave’s score in league 2 (9½/13 - one result was a default) placed him third in the end of season individual standings. This result also meant he was the highest board 1 scorer in the league. In particular Dave showed excellent form with the White pieces as he scored 7½/9. He also contributed a score of 2/3 for the ‘B’ team in division 1 and these results are also represented in the table below (I haven't included the default). A really good season for Dave who I imagine may well get a berth in the ‘B’ team next season as a result of his excellent performance this year.

Analysis of Dave Sugden's league games in 2010-11

As his best game I've selected this spirited draw with Nick Sykes which he might well have won on another day. I know that Nick was certainly very concerned about his position for much of this game and felt lucky to escape with the draw.

Josh Blinkhorn – Board 2

Rating: 121
New 2011 Rating: 136
Score: 8½/13

Another good performance from Josh in this his second season of competitive play. His style is sharp and he does particularly well in complicated positions. As a result many of his games are interesting to watch. This style also means that he doesn’t tend to play many draws and this is reflected in his results for the season which also show that he has performed equally well with both colours even though, from a grading perspective, his White results have netted him more points. I should also mention that Josh had a decent run in the Calderdale Individual Championships where he scored 3/5 losing only to top seed Chris Booth in the first round and then Scott Gornall in round 4. Excellent results in other competition's he has participated in outside Calderdale have led to him increasing his grade by 15 points this season. That's no mean feat. If he can keep improving at his current rate Josh really will be a force to be reckoned with in another few years.

Analysis of Josh Blinkhorn's league games in 2010-11

I have once again selected a draw in order to best demonstrate Josh's style of play. His Captain waxed lyrically and at length to me about this game after it had finished and so I didn't feel I could shirk from publishing it. It is indeed very exciting and well calculated.

Stephen Priest – Board 3

Rating: 121
New 2011 Rating: 120
Score: 11/15

Stephen must be the club’s busiest player. As well as participating in the Calderdale league he also plays in the Bradford, Leeds and Huddersfield competitions. This season alone he has played 84 (!!) competitive games. Here in Calderdale league 2 his individual score (10/13) was good enough to place him second behind Tom Webster (Todmorden) in the end of season individual standings. He also secured 1/2 for the ‘B’ team in league 1. This represents an excellent contribution from Stephen. The reason for his relatively modest points gain in the table below is due simply to the volume of games he has played this season. The more you play the smaller the increments of loss or gain on your rating as increasing quantities of data enable the rating system to lower it’s margin for error.

Analysis of Stephen Priest's league games in 2010-11

I've selected his win from round 2 of the Calderdale Individual Championship as his best game although he may well have played several others. I only have a limited base to chose from. In this game he plays nicely against his higher graded opponent and capitalises brutally on a terrible error to put the game away.

Neil Bamford – Board 4

Rating: 108
New 2011 Rating: 112
Score: 8½/13

Neil also put in a solid and workmanlike performance this season scoring heavily for his team and ending the year on 7½/11 in league 2 and 1/2 for the ‘B’ team in league 1. He is another player who seems to do better with the Black pieces than he does with the White ones and his rating certainly suffered as a result of his defeats with White. That said, his performance with Black has lifted his results and Neil will continue to do stirling service for which ever team he is selected for next season.

Analysis of Neil Bamford's league games in 2010-11

In this game he defeated a higher rated player in the form of Ray Cully from Halifax and thereby helped the 'B' team gain a valuable and much needed drawn fixture.

Pete Leonard – Board 5

Rating: UG
New 2011 Rating: 158
Score: 6/7

What can we say about Pete's season? He joined the club late in the campaign and Captain Rawlings used him to devastating effect on the bottom board of the 'C' team. It was always going to be hard to gauge his true strength after a (very!) lengthy sabbatical from competative chess but the club is certainly pleased to have him. Pete is dedicating himself to reaching his previous rating heights when he managed to acheive a rating in the 170's. His results for the 'C' team were blemished only by a defeat to Tom Webster of Todmorden and this has led to a new rating that will be put to the sternest of tests in the new season, whichever team he is selected for.

Analysis of Pete Leonard's league games in 2010-11

Pete provided glimpses of his historical strength on several occasions during the season and I've selected this utter rout of Huddersfield's dependable Stuart Oliver as his best of the year.

It should also be mentioned that several others contributed points to the ‘C’ team’s cause this year. Terry Sullivan scored 1/2 and Pete Rawlings and Trevor DeLuca both scored 1/1.

As far as the ‘D’ team goes, very little was expected of them this season. As I mentioned above our ‘D’ team has traditionally been the place to blood club players who are new to league chess and still developing their game. The team performance was always going to be fairly humble and so it would seem unfair to focus too much attention on each individual’s performance for the year. Instead let me quickly record each hard won point gleaned by our spirited and determined squad.

• ‘D’ team Captain Danny Crampton scored 2½ points this season. The best score in the squad.
• The team’s board 1, James Todd, beat Brian Corner in round 2 of the Calderdale Individual Championships and also Brian Donkersley in the league.
• Dave Pugh also scored a full point on board 1 against L.Innes of Todmorden ‘C’.
• Matt Levy beat J.P Ellis, also of Todmorden 'C' in the league.
• Chris Greaves drew with Richard Bottomley.

The pick of these results must be James Todd’s win against Brian Corner.

Hopefully these results will give all of these players some further confidence for next season. We’ll see whether they can improve enough to climb off the bottom of the table which just might be possible if Wheatley field another team this year.

Thanks to all those who contributed content to this post. Please do feedback your comments on the performances of the two teams and their players as all of this will help us to pick the teams for next season.

The thick end of the Wedge

Dave Wedge has left for
pastures new

Hebden Bridge Chess Club members may well be aware that during the course of the summer break we have lost one of our very best and most experienced players. Dave Wedge has taken up an exciting career opportunity that means he will be down in Cambridge during the week and unable to continue playing for us. He will be sorely missed. Dave has been the ‘A’ team’s top board player for a lengthy period of time and has collected multiple honours both with the team and individually. We wish him the best of luck with his career and hope to see him out and about in Hebden Bridge when he’s home at the weekends.

Shortly before he left I asked Dave if he would be so good as to send me some of his most memorable Hebden Bridge and Calderdale games from his archive. I’m delighted to be able to present the first two of those games today. Dave is hoping to send me a further two games later in the summer and I look forward to being able to publish those here as well. I’ll let Dave introduce these exciting games in his own words.

“I’ve attached the first game, which is a short miniature that I played in 2005, when representing Calderdale ‘A’ on board 2 against Bradford in the Woodhouse Cup. My opponent was James Dannenburg who was graded 175 at the time (his current grade is 186). In terms of grade this must be one of the ‘best’ games I’ve played. I was reluctant to count it as one of my best games, however, since the play is flawed and many of my moves were fairly obvious. The deciding consideration was its entertainment factor – I think your readers might enjoy the game and it shows that strong opponents can sometimes be soundly thrashed with very little effort!”



A fine swashbuckling effort with the White pieces there. Time for another.

“Here’s the second of my ‘best’ games. Again the play was flawed (on both sides) but this game was one of a series of memorable tactical encounters with David Firth and shows why the Benoni is seen as a fighting defence for Black.”



Personally I think this second effort really shows what Dave's game is all about. He sets himself up actively and grabs the initiative when the opportunity arises before finishing the game off in an attractive fashion. I can also vouch for the resiliance of his Benoni Defence as I have myself failed to score against it on multiple occasions!

Many, many thanks go to Mr Wedge for taking the time to prepare these for publication. I hope readers will enjoy them and be able to learn something from them. Flawed they may be (how many perfect games have any of us ever played?) but they are still of a high standard and offer plenty of food for considered thought.

It's a knockout!

"And... ha, ha, hah! Here come the Hebdens!"

The summer knockout competitions have begun. Huzzah! Well, perhaps that much enthusiasm is not quite warranted but if these contests don't give us the chance to dress up in huge and cunbersome rubber costumes then they do at least allow some of us to keep our little grey cells ticking over during the long summer months without league competition.

For those who don’t know, the main point of interest in both the team and individual knockout contests is that they are played using a time handicap system. Basically you calculate the difference in grades between the two players and add that number to the weaker players’ clock and take the same amount of time off the stronger player. This gives the weaker players some hope of causing an upset but it does therefore also have the disadvantage of not being much of an incentive for stronger players to take part even though the games aren’t graded.

Last Monday night Hebden Bridge ‘A’ began their campaign and also began to adjust to life without Dave Wedge on board 1. They travelled to Todmorden where their hosts had put out a fairly weak team and that meant that Hebden were giving away a lot of time on most of the boards. Despite that, they still managed to produce a win, albeit by the narrowest possible margin as Alastair Wright finally vanquished the spirited challenge of Chris Edwards on board 2 at 10.45pm in the dramatic denouement below.



This anxious finale was preceded by a mixed bag of results. On the down side poor old Steve Priest was forced to play with only 10 minutes on his clock on board 5 and although he won his opponent’s queen he ran out of time before he could win the game. Meanwhile on board 1 Dave Shapland was having a disaster against Paul Edwards. Dave didn’t lose a game with Black all season in the league but in this game he got caught out in the opening and got a terrible position. Paul converted the full point very efficiently without much need for the extra time his clock afforded him.



Hebden won on boards 3 and 4 to level the score and set up the nail biting climax to the fixture. Nick Sykes and Josh Blinkhorn both won comfortably. Nick’s effort in particular was smoothly impressive.



The final scorecard for the match then was:

Todmorden ‘A’ vs Hebden Bridge ‘A’

P.Edwards 1 – 0 D.Shapland

C.Edwards 0 – 1 A.Wright

M.Huett 0 – 1 N.Sykes

J.P.Ellis 0 – 1 J.Blinkhorn

B.Joyce 1 – 0 S.Priest

2 – 3

The individual competition has also started. Unfortunately the Calderdale League website doesn’t seem to have any of the results displayed as yet but fortunately for our readers one of our members has kindly sent me his game from the first round to share with you. Pete Leonard was unlucky enough to draw Halifax’s top player Darwin Ursal in round 1 but the difference in points between them meant that Pete was able to put his illustrious opponent under pressure. I’ll let him take up the story.

If I get drawn against Darwin in the first round of a third tournament, I shall know the draw's been fixed! (Pete also played Darwin in round 1 of the recent Spanish thematic tournament at the club – Ed.) We actually had a very close game, spoiled by me missing a fork but redeemed by my struggling on ‘til time pressure proved too much and he offered me a draw. I have been estimated a very generous grading (for handicap purposes) of 112, which gave me 2 hours 31 minutes to his 29 minutes. And still he should have won!



I’m not sure what will happen when these two meet to replay this match with the colours reversed because since this first try the new YCA grades have come out and Pete’s grade is 158 so he may have to play with a much smaller advantage on the clock.