Monday, November 19, 2007

Doubles

"There are games in chess won by the same style, same manner, same number of moves and even same moves. There are doubles. I think any chess master has his own experience with these doubles."
- Ljubomir Kavelek, quoted in James Plaskett's, Playing to Win

Recently I wrote a lengthy account of a game I won in a particularly pleasing (i.e. unusual) manner several years ago.

Compare that game with another I played against the same opponent 18 months later:-











PS:-
In the original post I forgot to mention the similarities between my game and
Leko-Gurevich from the Elista Candidates matches in the summer, so I thought I'd make amends here.

12 comments:

ejh said...

I've twice nearly lost the same game to Ray Ilett and in October at the third attempt I finally succeeded...

Anonymous said...

Off topic. Forme Streatham memeber Ken Coates (I think) is on BBC2 Eggheads now.
Andrew

Anonymous said...

They lost. They got to the tiebreak where the 5 of them missed out on £32,000. Julian Shepley whom some might have come across was also in the team.
Andrew

ejh said...

He's my 4NCL captain and a regular reader.

Anonymous said...

Didn't know that. Hard lines Ken!
Andrew

Anonymous said...

CJ (in the Eggheads team) used to be a regular chess player, e.g. he's listed in the 98/99 grading book with a grade of 119 playing for Hammersmith.

Mike G.

Jonathan B said...

Mike,

you've kept all your old grading books????

That's statistical dedication :-)

Anonymous said...

I am/have been a grader, so they come in useful for that occasional query: "I haven't played for n years, can you tell me what my grade used to be?".

(Although this information is now available online from the ECF website, so I suppose I could throw all those old grading booka away.)

ejh said...

Yeah but funnily enough, they don't always say the same thing. I'm sure my published grading a few years ago was different to that which now appears on the ECF site (though if you look it up, it'll probably say exactly the same and I'll look like I've gone mad...)

Anonymous said...

Up until recently grades were recalculated in September to correct any mistakes that had been made in the original (printed) list which appeared in the 1st half of October. A separate printed list of corrections was issued at this time, although one suspects that it didn't usually receive as wide a circulation as the book. In the old days you could spot this by looking up your grades in next year's book. If this years's version of last year's grade has changed, it's probably a correction (ditto the website).

Mike G.

Anonymous said...

I meant to say: the printed list appeared in the first half of August ... doh!

Mike G.

ejh said...

Yeah, I never saw the correction. But I always reckoned 193 was an exaggeration....