Stewart Reuben provided a daily commentary on the 77th Hastings Congress.

7. 1. 2002

Hebden (4½) ½ - ½ Harikrishna (6)
Zhang Zhong (4) ½- ½ Sasikiran (6)
Gallagher (3½) ½-½ Kiriakov (4)
Krush (1) 0-1 Barsov (5½)
Wells (2) 1-0 Pert (3½)

I suppose Joe Gallagher thought there was little to play for, but an 8 move draw was most disappointing. There are only 45 games and this meant 2% of the tournament was non-chess.

The draw between Mark Hebden and Pentala Harikrishna was a fair one.

The other three games went somewhat longer. Krishnan said he was winning but went wrong on the 34th move when he should have guarded against a sharp check which he overlooked.

Peter Wells nearly went wrong in the first time scramble against Nicholas Pert. However, all it meant was that the game was prolonged.

Irina provided us with the longest game of the whole congress. She was once again ground down in the endgame due to an accretion of small advantages.

That game continued even beyond the bishop, knight and king against bare king endgame between Irina Tetenkina and Wu Li. The lad defended, she found the win, but too slowly. He claimed a win by the 50 move rule when she had mate in one.

CHALLENGERS

1-5 Keith Arkell (England), Sergei Azarov (Belorussia), Glenn Flear (England, resident in France), Zvonko Stanojoski (Macedonia), Vitaly Tseshkovsky (Russia) 7½/10

Thus the Macedonian gained a grandmaster norm. Heather Richards won with Black in the last round against Ed Formanek (USA) who first started playing in the Challengers in about 1970, although it is many years since he played here. Thus Heather secured her final woman international master result, over-scoring the requirement substantially.

6. 1. 2002

Harikrishna (5) 1-0 Zhang Zhong (4)
Kiriakov (5) 1-0 Krush (1)
Barsov (4½) 1-0 Gallagher (3½)
Pert (3½) 0-1 Hebden (3½)
Kiriakov (3½) ½- ½ Wells (1½)

An engrossing round. As an organiser I like to see games which nobody in the audience understands. We have had a number of these in this tournament. Perhaps also there have been some the players have not understood either.

People usually assume draws must be less interesting. This is nonsense as was demonstrated today. The only draw was possibly the game of the tournament with pieces all over the place. They only agreed a draw when one move away from having only bare kings on the board.

Joe Gallagher had a difficult position against the Uzbekistani. He was well out of his problems, but blundered dreadfully on move 34. Surely 34…Qe7 would have drawn?

Irina is not too despondent about her score. She feels she is not playing badly. She is just being slowly outplayed. Again, today hers was the last game to finish. She was just gradually outplayed by Kiriakov. This suits the Indian down to the ground, accruing small advantages and grinding out a win.

Zhang’s opening play looks suspect. His centre seemed too top-heavy. 18 Nd4 was a nice move, but surely 18…0-0 was just losing? Kf7 instead would have left him just a bit worse.

Nick Pert came seriously unstuck against Mark Hebden. White had no counter-play against Black’s kingside onslaught.

Thus the two Indians remain firmly in the lead with only Barsov able to join them in the top places going into the last round.

Challengers

Danny Gormally was unable to beat Stanojoski, ending up drawing with rook and bishop v rook. Both Tseshkovsky and Flear showed their class, winning with the White pieces.

5. 1. 2002

Round 7

Pert (3) ½- ½ Harikrishna (4½)
Hebden (2½) 1-0 Kiriakov (3½)
Wells (1½) 0-1 Barsov (3½)
Gallagher (3½) 0-1 Sasikiran (4)
Krush (1) 0-1 Zhang Zhong (3)

Harikrishna, Sasikiran 5, Barsov 4½, Zhang 4, Gallagher, Hebden, Kiriakov, Pert 3½, Wells 1½, Krush 1

I was puzzled by Pert v Harikrishna. Presumably it was highly theoretical in an Anti-Meran. Of course they reached an extremely unbalanced position, but then they agreed a draw. I suppose it is all well-documented.

Peter Wells had a poor position when he again impaled himself on the clock. At the start of the time scramble he actually had more time left.

Joe Gallagher says he had a mediocre position and thus used a great deal of time. Then the older Indian really surprised him and played, he thought, an inferior line. Now he was equal but had no time left. At the end when he resigned he had lost too many pawns.

Mark Hebden achieved a pleasant rook and pawn endgame against the Russian. The ending was never really in doubt, but took a long time and considerable technique.

Irina was the last to finish against the young Chinese player. Again, she was starved of counter-play in the endgame and the result was never really in doubt.

The slippery slope now seems never ending for Irina and Peter and no doubt they will be relieved when the tournament comes to a close. Parting will not be sweet sorrow for them on Sunday.

Stanojoski beat John Shaw. At the time of writing at 9pm, it looks as if Tseshkovky will win against Cherniaev. This will put them back in the sole joint lead, having already met.

4. 1. 2002

Harikrishna (3½) 1-0 Krush (1)
Zhang Zhong (2½) ½- ½ Gallagher (3)
Sasikiran (3) 1-0 Wells (1½)
Barsov (3) ½- ½ Hebden (2)
Kiriakov (3) ½- ½ Pert (2½)

Irina failed to follow Chris Ward’s advice in his book on the Queen’s Gambit Accepted. When she blundered on move 20, she was almost certainly lost.

Barsov - Hebden was a non-game. Mark must have been relieved to have such a quick draw, he seems to have lost ambition in this event.

Kiriakov and Pert had one of the most blocked positions I have ever seen. I thought they at first were going to finish without any exchanges at all.

Zhang Zhong v Joe Gallagher was one where the China-man (can’t resist that in a cricket pavilion) stood a tiny bit better. Joe forgot about the force of 48 Ra2 and had to draw the game all over again. He was never in danger in an endgame rook and knight against rook. It was played on futilely for more moves than necessary.

Peter Wells is having a horrible tournament. We are used to the young Indian playing rather boringly and avoiding taking chances. Then the position became extremely murky and the Englishman, resident in Hungary, started to get ideas of winning. Then he got into time trouble and Krishnan’s piece sacrifice was rather nice. I suppose for most of us it was a swirling mess, but the Indian probably always had everything under control.

Thus the two Indians have taken the lead. Zhang has not succeeded in taking control of the event at all. Even his sole win did not inspire confidence.

Challengers

The general feeling among the players in the Challengers seems to be quiet confidence that Vitaly Tseshkovsky is going to win the tournament. After each round various players join jim in the lead. The likelihood of anybody achieving a gm norm recedes, but there are still chances.

As you would expect, TV turned up to film David Howell after his triumph against Colin McNab in a messy, rather poorly played game. David does not seem to mind the attention of the media. Graham Buckley was having no nonsense and won an endgame where he had rook and 4 pawns against rook and 3.

3. 1. 2002

Premier Round 5
Kiriakov (2½) ½- ½ Harikrishna (3)
Hebden (1½) ½- ½ Sasikiran (2½)
Wells (1½) 0-1 Zhang Zhong (1½)
Gallagher (2) 1-0 Krush (1)
Pert (2) ½- ½ Barsov (2½)

It was a little surprising Mark Hebden went down a line which has previously led to a draw. Kiriakov versus Harikrishna was another fair draw.

Peter Wells was quite unable to control his clock and thus the young Chinese player finally won a game. It was another which was a most satisfying, sweltering mess from the point of view of the spectators. Apologies, but I thought he had resigned. It now seems more likely he lost on time and I misunderstood. Anyway, he would never have made the last 8 moves in the 8 seconds he had left.

The other two games were real humdingers. Alexei Barsov was in time trouble from about move 20. Perhaps it was foolish of him to offer such an early draw. But thereby hangs a tale. He used another piece of advanced technology which is yet another innovation for this congress.

At each board there is a card showing: ½-½?. The idea of this is that the player should show this to his opponent when making the offer. The spectators should also be able to see the action. Thus there should be no ambiguity. Normally, of course, a draw is virtually by mutual instant osmosis.

Later on they were both in time trouble and Nick was annoyed that he almost certainly missed a win when the Uzbekistani had less time left.

Joe Gallagher had a real marathon with Irina. I must admit sometimes to feeling, “never mind the quality, feel the length.” He felt he went wrong at about move 34, overlooking Bh4 to make matters difficult for himself.

In the Challengers, the big news of the day was the win by David Howell over Colin McNab. Colin blundered his queen, but they all count. This is a British record, breaking Luke McShane’s record a few days short of his 12th birthday at Hastings, against a certain Colin McNab!

2. 01. 2002

Harikrishna (2) 1-0 Gallagher (2)
Krush (½) ½-½ Wells (1)
Zhang (1) ½-½ Hebden (1)
Sasikiran (1½) 1-0 Pert (2)
Barsov (2) ½-½ Kiriakov (2)

Some trivial draws are always to be expected on New Year’s Day. However, it is likely Barsov and Kiriakov would always have had a non-game. This is hard to eradicate in round robins, but it is much better since the old days of the Soviet Union. Players realise the commercial advantage of aggressive play.

Irina Krush did something new to me. She rushed to her game, played her first move and, in the process, knocked over her king. This was accidental I believe. Then she realised she had played on the wrong board. This meant the whole game had to be set up again and this was aggravating as it was one of the electro-sensitive boards connected direct to ICC. Once she settled down, her preparation kicked in and she had seen the position after 17 moves at home. But Peter had never played the variation before. Irina said she had never even heard of the variation until she read Peter’s article on ChessBase about it.

Sasikiran finally got under way. He beat Nicholas Pert where the young Englishman seemed to suffer from the endemic problem of a weak white squared bishop in a Dutch.

Harikrishna beat Joe Gallagher in a game where the Anglo-Swiss player flung up his pawns against the young Indian. They then gradually fell of the board.

Mark Hebden felt he was fortunate to draw against Zhang Zhong. This was an engrossing game with Mark’s kingside completely bereft of pawns. At the New Year’s Eve dinner I hosted, the Chinese player explained the mystery of his name. We know the first name is the patronym. However, the Zhong is his matronym, to coin a new word.

Tseshkovsky wrested the lead in the Challengers once again by beating Devaki. He now has 4½/5

PIG IN PARADISE PAIRS

The reason I was busy last night was that I ran an event at The Pig in Paradise Pub which they sponsored. This was a team of two tournament, alternate moves, no consultation. The rate of play was all the moves in 5 minutes, add on 5 seconds after each move from the first. There were 16 teams. This was just as well, because 18 would have been a squeeze. The total rating of the two teams was not allowed to exceed 4100. As far as I know, this was the first such formal tournament.

Atomrod Imposters: Keith Arkell and Sarah Hegarty

Hanley2: Craig and James Hanley

The Gambiteers: Nicholas Pert, Mark Rush. All scored 4/5 to win £66.67 each. However, I did not have the change and had to break down and give them £67 each. The munificence of this congress knows no bounds.

The Atomrod Imposters also won the £10 prize for best score by a team of mixed gender.

Ali’s Gaiter consisted of Simon Williams and Aly Wilson. They won the £25 best name prize.

1. 01. 2002

Penning this on New Year’s Eve, I just got lucky. I noticed the heading read Hatings, not Hastings. That was not a Freudian slip.

Premier Round 3

Barsov (1½) ½-½ Harikrishna (1½)
Kiriakov (1½) ½-½ Sasikiran (1)
Pert (1½) ½-½ Zhong (½)
Hebden (½) ½-½ Krush (0)
Wells (1) 0-1 Gallagher (1)

To the casual observer this must look as if it was a boring round. That was only possibly true of Barsov’s game which, in any case, he says, “had interesting points”.

Sasikiran had a small edge, but it was inadequate for a win.

The young Englishman, Pert, had a stern contest with the Zhang Zhong, but that also resulted in a fair draw. The Chinese player feels he concentrated completely on the World Championship in Moscow and has not had sufficient time to prepare for this event. They take their preparation very seriously there.

Irina had much the better of the draw against Mark. However, she was unable to convert her pawn into a winning advantage. Naturally she is relieved to have got started, but she never plays defensively, hoping for a draw.

Joe said he would have been quite happy with a draw before the game, but was even happier to win. This was another stern contest between two players well-acquainted with each other’s play.

Challengers Round 4

The leading games in the Challengers were all drawn, while most of those involving players with 2/3 had positive results.

A Rizouk (Algeria), V Tseshkovsky (Russia) 3½/4

Arkell, Azarov, Barua, Berg, Cherniaev, Flear, Gormally, Konguvel, Mas, McNab, Plaskett, Prasad, Shaw, Simutowe, Stanojoski ¾

Stop press final results

Vijayalakshmi 2 ½ Lock 2

Barton 2 ½ McDonald 1

Vikoulov 1 1-0 Parker 1½

31. 12. 2001

PREMIER ROUND 2

Harikrishna (½) 1-0 Wells (1)
Gallagher (½) ½- ½ Hebden (0)
Krush (0) 0-1 Pert N (½)
Zhang Zhong (0) ½- ½ Kiriakov (1)
Sasikiran (½) ½- ½ Barsov (1)

Two of the games were rather brief draws. Sasikiran had stomach trouble and thus was happy to draw in only 13 moves. Joe Gallagher has now recovered from his food poisoning, but seemed happy with a brief draw against the other veteran of the tournament. Well, perhaps not quite. I remember being quite aggrieved when described as such when only 40. Of course, I would not reveal a player’s ill-health until after s/he has recovered. I am the arbiter for the Premier.

Irina could have claimed a draw by repetition earlier in the game. Nicholas feels she tends to impale herself on her opponents by over-pressing. Thus it was here. She had to bale out with a draw, allowing repetition late in the game. She was simply too weak on the white kingside squares to hope to win. Then she blundered horribly in time trouble.

Peter Wells knew he was losing for an extremely long time. A break involving White pushing f4 at the most opportune moment was inevitable. David Bronstein has said games she be played much more rapidly. It was clear in this game White had a winning advantage which was simply a matter of technique. Thus why him the luxury of a great deal of time. I believe the new FIDE practice of playing what amounts to all the moves in two hours is going too far. There should be a happy medium. High quality games should be a principal objective of such an event as this.

The top two games are being shown live on ICC using electro-sensitive boards. Kibitzers are able to make live comments and ask questions. This is not as easy to set up as some think. Today it will be done virtually by remote control. Let us hope it works. Most users of the service are American. Thus Irina’s games are more interesting to them.

Challengers Round 3 Results

Tseshkovsky Russia (2) 1-0 Vijayalakshmi India (2)

Williams England (2) ½ - ½ Gormally England (2)

Rizouk A Algeria (2) 1-0 Hanley England (2)

McNab Scotland (1) 1-0 Woodward England (2)

Mannion Scotland (1½) ½ - ½ Barua India (1½)

Aarthie India (1½) 0-1 Konguvel India (1½)

Harholm Denmark (1½) 0-1 Prasad India (1)

Cherniaev Russia (1) 1-0 Dhar-Barua India (1½)

Lock England (1½) ½ - ½ Thipsay P India (1)

Patterson Canada (1½) 0-1 Thipsay B India (1)

Mishra India (1) 1-0 Trzaska Germany (1)

Isherwood England (1) 0-1 Mohota India (1)

Roussel-Roozmon Canada (1) 1-0 Spanton England (1)

Avari India (1) ½ - ½ Wu England (1)

Pickersgill England (½) 0-1 Ravi India (½)

Wilson England (½) 0-1 Ross Canada (½)

Parr D England (½) ½ - ½ Meenaskshi India (½)

Broomfield England (0) 0-1 Swati India (1)

Tseshkovsky basically ground down the young Indian woman im/wgm with faultless technique.

Those trying to follow the logic of the pairings will be relieved to learn tat the fourth round will be the last of Accelerated Pairings. Some people are under the impression the pairings are done randomly. This is a foul calumny. We stand at the top of the stairs with our backs to them and throw the cards over our shoulders. Those that go furthest are paired together.

Round 4 Pairings

Rizouk A Algeria 3 Tseshkovsky Russia 3

Stanojoski Belorussia 2½ Flear England 2½

Gormally England 2½ Konguvel India 2½

Berg Sweden 2½ Williams England 2½

Flower Wales 2½ Plaskett England 2

Suez-Panama France 2½ McNab Scotland 2

Barua India 2 Mishra India 2

Mohota India 2 Azarov Belorussia 2

Prasad India 2 Weisbuch Israel 2

Vijayalakshmi India 2 Lock England 2

Thipsay B India 2 Poley Belorussia 2

Thipsay P India 1½ Roussel-Roozmon Canada 2

Ravi India 1½ Hebbes England 2

Ross Canada 1½ Richards England 1½

Dhar-Barua India 1½ Marchand France 1½

Spence England 1½ Aarthie India 1½

Swati India 1 Rendle England 1½

Meenakshi India 1 Avari India 1½

30. 12. 2001

PREMIER ROUND 1

Krishnan Sasikiran India ½-½ Pentala Harikrishna India

Alexei Barsov Uzbekistan 1-0 Zhang Zhong China

Petr Kiriakov Russia 1-0 Irina Krush USA

Nicholas Pert England ½- ½ Joe Gallagher Switzerland

Mark Hebden England 0-1 Peter Wells England

A rip-roaring, edge of your seats round. The big surprise was Barsov’s fine win against the young Chinese, pre-tournament favourite. As you will see, the game was definitely one for the spectators. Peter Wells still gets into dreadful time trouble. This he managed to do twice in this game.

Mark would have quite liked to resign about three hours earlier, but the position was never quite lost enough for that. Indeed, the final bishop of opposite colours endgame was quite tricky.

Petr Kiriakov ground out a technical win against Irina Krush. It just gradually got better and better.

Some might have expected the Indians to have a quick, meaningless draw, as did the Soviets in days of yore. However the younger Indian probably had a winning position with queen and knight against queen and bishop at one stage. It is possible the Indians have set themselves a deliberate policy of playing proper games. This certainly increases their commercial value.

The only quick draw was that between Nicholas Pert and Joe Gallagher. The youngster was pleased to get off the ground in his first really big round robin. Joe had a 48 hour virus, from which he has now recovered. Thus a draw suited both players.

STOP PRESS

Krishnan Sasikiran drew in 14 moves with Alexei Barsov in Round 2.

CHALLENGERS RESULTS

Round 2

Oleg Kirsanov Russia 0-1 Vita Tseshkovsky Russia

Dibyendu Barua India ½ Jochen Kountz Germany

Danny Gormally England 1-0 Neeraj-Kumar Mishra India

Emanuel Berg Sweden ½ Weisbuch Udi Israel

Craig Hanley England 1-0 Sergei Azarov Belorussia

Praveen Thipsay India 0-1 Simon Williams England

Ed Formanek USA ½ Jim Plaskett England

Nisha Mohota India 0-1 Aimen Rizouk Algeria

Zvonko Stanojoski Macedonia ½ Ramaswamy Aarthie India

Subbaraman Vijay India 1-0 Bjorn Thorfinsson Iceland

Being Accelerated, most other pairings were between players with different scores. Only one player from the bottom groups managed to win a second game, Timothy Woodward.

Optically it seemed that Kirsanov stood better against the older Russian, but Tseshkovsky won a pawn and then Kirsanov fell into a mating net.

With 135 players, it may seem surprising there are only 7 left with 2/2, but this is the nature if Accelerated Pairings. The 8 grandmasters have found that life in an English open Swiss is not all that easy. Only one has 100%.

Round 3 Top Pairings

Tseshkovsky 2 Vijayalakshmi 2

Williams 2 Gormally 2

Rizouk A 2 Hanley 2

McNab 1 Woodward 2

29. 12. 2001

The congress got under way in the traditional manner with a low-key Opening Ceremony. There will be a proper one today in the presence of the Deputy Mayor and local Member of Parliament. The Premier starts today.

It turns out there are 8 grandmasters, 24 international masters (including one who is a woman grandmaster) and 7 woman international masters competing in the 134 player Challengers. In addition, im Matthew Turner acted as a filler in Round 1. The pairings are heavily accelerated at the start of this tournament. This resulted in quite a number of upsets. The players were not expecting to meet such strong opponents right from the off.

From a casual glance, it is apparent there were 46 winners. However, only 20 belong from the top fraction, so that 26 winners are playing opponents with ½ or 0 in Round 2. Thus it is unlikely there will be more than 10 players with 2/2. A normal top half v second half Swiss would have led to 24 with 100%.

LEADING PAIRINGS FOR ROUND 2 OF THE CHALLENGERS

Kirsanov Russia Tseshkovsky gm Russia
Barua gm India Kountz Germany
Gormally im England Mishra im India
Berg im Sweden Udi Israel
Hanley England Azarov im Belorussia
Thipsay gm India Williams im England
Formanek im USA Plaskett gm England
Mohota wim India Rizouk A im Algeria
Stanojoski im Macedonia Aarthie wim India
Vijayalakshmi im India Thorfinsson Iceland

Other events take place in the morning. They start off with five day events, called Christmas Specials. Thus, at Hastings, Christmas comes but twice a year. It may seem that therefore we are behind the times. Nothing could be further from the truth. Read my later notes to discover where we are in the vanguard of new chess ideas.

The Pig in Paradise Pub is supporting the congress. Their first event was a simultaneous display by grandmaster Zhang Zhong of China, the highest rated player in the whole competition. He, of course, is playing in the Premier which starts today. He won 15, lost to Richard Almond, a strong local player, and drew with Victor Rumsey, Martin Lichte and Victor Benzoni. He had only arrived the day before from China. Although very young, it is likely the journey took more out of him than he realised. Francis Bowers provided a number of special prizes, in addition to The Pig in Paradise.

HASTINGS CONGRESS 2001-2 INTRODUCTION

If it’s 27 December, we must be on our way to Hastings. Indeed, it seems the whole chess world is joining us. There are 30 countries represented this year, and possibly more to come. They are: Algeria, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Byelorussia, Canada, China, Denmark, England, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, India, Macedonia, Malaysia, Netherlands, Nigeria, Russia, Scotland, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, USA, Uzbekistan, Wales, Zambia. India have 18 players, half of whom are female. By comparison, England is only represented by six female players in the Challengers. Hastings has a long and honourable tradition of encouraging female participation in the congress. This goes back at least to the days of Vera Menchik.

There are 135 players so far in the Challengers. That’s nearly a 40% increase on last year. Often there are fillers to make certain the numbers are kept even. For this reason it is impossible to state the total numbers until after the last round starts. Players are now obviously convinced we finally have a venue worthy of the event. 9 gms are playing and I’ve lost count of the number of ims. Perhaps also they accept maintaining an event year after year is a great achievement. This is the second year the long-standing Groningen Congress has not taken place. Although it has always clashed, we wish it well and hope to see it reincarnated next year.

With the event starting on a Friday, it seemed silly not to have a Challengers of 10 rounds. Equally well, since the Premier only has 9 rounds, we decided to start that on Saturday and forego a rest day in order to save money. Perhaps this is a mistake. Half the players are arriving 27th anyway. A rest day on 1 January would probably have led to brighter chess.

Zhang Zhong is of course hot favourite to win the Premier. (He is giving a simul at the Pig in Paradise on the 28th.) He was the only player here who reached Round 3 of the World Championship, Krishnan Sasikiran having made it to Round 2, as did Nisha Mohota in the Women’s. Alexei Barsov, Dibyendu Barua, Pentala Harikrishna, Aimen Rizouk, Amon Simutowe all made a quick exit in Round 1, as did Ramaswamy Aarthie and Subbaram Vijayalakshimi in the Women’s.

The participation of so many Indians reminds us of the early days after travel became easy from the then Soviet Union. Due to the fact that Viswanathan Anand was World Champion in 2001, the Indian government has increased its support for chess and helped substantially with the travel costs for their players here. One interesting fact: 15 year old Pentala Harikrishna was given a house in honour of his winning the Commonwealth Championship in the Ron Banwell Masters last August. He and his family now reside there. A similar explosion can be predicted for China. Indeed their strength has already blossomed enormously, especially in women’s chess.

The Challengers is a wide open event. We expect to see many thrills and spills along the way. We can spy many candidates for norms. At least the leisurely rate of play, where games can go for seven hours, does not favour players who are little more than children. There should be a host of games to feed on.