What Are The Odds Of This Happening?

A CURIOSITY from the weekend's 23rd 4NCL congress.
In round two of the U2000/175 section I was paired against Rob Tokeley of Burnley, who has an ECF grade of 152 and a Fide rating of 1840.
The remarkable thing about this - and I really think "remarkable" is not too strong a word - is that a grade of 152 converts exactly to a Fide elo of 1840.
The current conversion formula, which was introduced by the ECF in February 2014, is:
ECF grade x 7.5 (+700) = Fide elo
So 152 x 7.5 (+700) = 1840.
Usually when a grade and a rating match in this way it is because a tournament organiser has converted a grade for an English player who does not have a rating (and sometimes a conversion is made from a rating to a grade for a foreigner who is not registered with the ECF).
But in the case of RT, his grade and rating are separate entities.
I cannot recall having ever played anyone before whose ECF and Fide exactly matched (but it may well have happened without me noticing).
My ECF of 168, for example, converts to 1960, although my actual Fide is 1927.
That is a reasonably close match - many players, especially juniors, have much greater discrepancies.
The main reason for these discrepancies is undoubtedly that most people who are registered with the ECF play many more graded games than rated ones.
The situation is changing.
The vast majority of league chess that comes under ECF auspices continues to be graded and not rated. That used to be also the case with tournaments, particularly weekend swisses.
However, increasing numbers of congresses are submitting results to Fide, and not only of open sections. Adam Raoof's near-monthly Hampstead congresses, for example, now feature three sections, each of which is sent for grading and rating.
My experience of playing this year, while by no means typical of most players, is illuminating.

MONTH...EVENT...…………….NUMBER OF GAMES...ECF GRADED...FIDE RATED
January.......Hastings...………………………..6...………………..Yes...…………….Yes
January.......Leagues...………………………...5...………………..Yes...…………….No
January.......Mariánské Lázně…………………9...………………..No...……………..Yes
February.....Leagues...………………………..11...……………….Yes...…………….No
February.....Hampstead...……………………...5...………………..Yes...…………….Yes
March.....…Leagues...………………………....4.............................Yes........................No
March.........Hampstead......................................5..............................Yes.......................Yes
March.........Bad Wörishofen..............................9..............................No........................Yes
April...........Leagues...........................................2..............................Yes.......................No
April...........Jersey..............................................7..............................Yes.......................Yes
April...........Southend.........................................7..............................Yes.......................Yes
April...........Hampstead......................................5..............................Yes.......................Yes
May............Leagues...........................................6..............................Yes.......................No
May............Bad Wiessee...................................9...............................No........................Yes
May............Gloucester.......................................6..............................Yes.......................No
May............Newmarket.....................................5...............................Yes......................Yes
June............Leagues...........................................6..............................Yes.......................No
June............Hampstead......................................5...............................Yes......................Yes
June............Bristol.............................................5...............................Yes......................Yes
July.............Leagues..........................................3...............................Yes......................No
July.............Bridgend.........................................9...............................Yes......................Yes
July.............Telford............................................5...............................Yes......................Yes
July.............British.............................................7...............................Yes......................Yes
August........Olomouc.........................................9...............................No........................Yes
August........Newcastle.......................................9...............................Yes.......................Yes
August........Livermead.......................................9...............................Yes.......................Yes
September...Leagues..........................................3...............................Yes........................No
September...Bradford.........................................5...............................Yes........................No
September...Crewe.............................................5...............................Yes.......................Yes
October.......League............................................1...............................Yes........................No
October.......South Normanton...........................5...............................Yes........................Yes
"Leagues" includes internal club games and the Pimlico summer tournament organised on a one-game-a-week basis

If I have got the numbers right (I found the table to be quite a tricky construct, as can be seen!) I have played 187 games in 2019.
Of those, 151 are/will be graded and 135 rated, so both my ECF grade and my Fide rating can be regarded as fairly accurate, which is no doubt why they are in rough alignment.
Returning to the weekend's 4NCL congress, here is the list of prizewinners:

Placing	Open	Points	Prize £
1st	Merriman John	4½	£500.00
2nd	Burrows Martin P	4	£250.00
3rd=	Arkell Keith C	3½	£25.00
	Hebden Mark L	3½	£25.00
	Willow Jonah B	3½	£25.00
	Stepanyan Henrik	3½	£25.00
	Verma Aditya	3½	£25.00
	Turner Max N	3½	£25.00
	Makkar Rajat	3½	£25.00
	Gardiner Eric D	3½	£25.00
Performance	Tom Leah	3	£50.00
Placing	Major	Points	Prize £
1st=	Spanton Tim R	4	£375.00
	Taylor Robert P	4	£375.00
3rd=	Davies Peter L	3½	£28.57
	Brown Geoffrey M	3½	£28.57
	Garnett John S	3½	£28.57
	Bryant Richard Be	3½	£28.57
	Tokeley Rob	3½	£28.57
	Dean Robert A	3½	£28.57
	Clegg Robert	3½	£28.57
Performance	Davies Sam	3½	£50.00
Placing	Minor	Points	Prize £
1st=	Salisbury Paul	4	£375.00
	Adamski Tomasz D	4	£375.00
3rd=	Dhillon Tas	3½	£33.33
	Fisher Neal	3½	£33.33
	Walker Kate	3½	£33.33
	Bridgeman Matthew R	3½	£33.33
	Fraser Chris A	3½	£33.33
	Morris Nigel W	3½	£33.33
Grading Prize	Hilditch-Love Daniel	3½	£50.00

The performance that stands out is that of John Merriman (2201/214) winning the Open ahead of a field that included two GMs, one IM and three FMs.
Incidentally, the Sam Davies who won the U2000/175 performance prize had a fairly useful coach in attendance - his father, grandmaster Nigel Davies.
The prize money in each section totalled £1,000, so £3,000 in all.
The number of entries was 125, according to the 4NCL website, although only 121 players actually took part.
Multiply the number of entries by the entry fee of £30 (ignoring pay-to-play fees that presumably go completely to the ECF) and you get £3,750.
In other words, 80% of the entry fees were returned in prize money.
The playing hall - all games were played in a single room at a Holiday Inn in Derbyshire - was spacious, if rather overheated.
It seems to me the 4NCL has found a winning formula for weekend tournaments as well as its better-known league chess.

Has White A Win?

THE key position from the top-board game in round five of the 23rd 4NCL U2000/175, which finished today at a Holiday Inn on the outskirts of South Normanton, Derbyshire.

White to make his 23rd move in Geoffrey M Brown (1861/172) - Spanton (1927/168)

*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
23.Kf2
This is liked by Stockfish10 and Komodo10. But I breathed a sigh of relief when the move was played as 23.f5!? surely entombs the black bishop, eg 23...exf5 24.gxf5 Rfe8 25.Rf3 Re5 26.Rg3+ Kf8 27.d4 Re4 28.Bd3. Am I missing something, or are the engines unable to evaluate the position properly because the effect of the bishop's entombment is beyond their horizons?
23...f5! 24.Rg1
If 24.g5, then 24...hxg5 25.fxg5 f6 with equality.
24...fxg4 25.Rxg4+ Bg6 26.Ra1 Kh7 27.Rag1 Rg8 28.Bf3 f5 29.R4g3 Bf7 30.Rxg8
30.e4 is slightly better for White, according to the engines.
30...Rxg8 31.Rxg8 Kxg8 (½–½ , 40 moves).
My final score of +3=2-0 saw me gain 11.4 Fide elo, and was an ECF grading performance of 185. I shared first place with one other player, and we should each receive £375.

Morphing The French III

HAD a third chance to try playing against the French Defence à la Paul Morphy in this morning's top-board game in the fourth round of the 23rd 4NCL U2000/175.
Spanton (1927/168) - Michael Dunkley (1732/152)
French Exchange
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.Nf3 Bd6 5.Bd3 Nc6
This has been tried by aggressive players such as Morozevich and So.
6.0-0 Nge7 7.Re1 0-0 8.c3
Not 8.Bxh7+?? Kxh7 9.Ng5 Kg8 10.Qh5 Bf5.
8...Bf5 9.Nh4!?
This may be a novelty. The idea is to oblige Black, if he wants to exchange off White's 'good' bishop (based on the central pawn-structure), to do so in a way that develops the white queen to a good central square. Another way of trying to accomplish this is 9.Bg5, which is the most popular move in the position, but I rejected it because of 9...f6, when it is not clear White has achieved much.
9...Bxd3 10.Qxd3 Qd7 11.Nd2 Qg4?!
This looks aggressive, but the queen will be driven back with loss of time.
12.Ndf3 h6 13.h3 Qd7
Black loses his queen after 13...Qh5?? g4.
14.Ne5

Black to decide what to do about the knight on e5

*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
14...Bxe5!
The problem with 14...Nxe5 15.dxe5 Bc5 16.Be3 is that White's 4-3 kingside majority could form the basis of a dangerous attack.
15.dxe5 g5!?
Clearly this weakens Black's king, but MD has a specific idea in mind.
16.Nf3 Qf5 17.Qxf5?!
I thought 17.Qb5 left my kingside weak, but Black has no real attack.
17...Nxf5 18.g4 Ng7 19.Nd4?! Nxd4 20.cxd4 Ne6 21.Be3
Now White has two central pawns on the same-coloured squares as the bishop, which is severely restricted, and Black has a fine blockading square for his remaining knight. However, the bishop is not completely toothless as it has pressure against Black's g and h pawns.
21...a5
I felt 21...f6 was more promising for Black, but the text is fine.
22.Kg2 Kg7 23.h4 b6
Preparing ...c5.
24.Rac1?
Playing to stop ...c5, but it does not! Better was 24.Rad1, which prevents ...c5 because of the latent threat to Black's d pawn.
24...a4
Black could have played 24...c5 as 25.dxc5 is met by 25...d4 26.Bd2 bxc5, with a good position for Black.
25.Rh1 Rg8 26.hxg5 hxg5 27.Kg3 Ra5 28.Rhd1 Rb5 29.Rd2 Rh8 30.f4!?
Fighting for the initiative as my position has become very passive.
30...gxf4 31.Bxf4 Rb4 32.Be3 Rb5
This was another good time to play ...c5.
33.Rf1 Rh7
Black has a small edge after 34...Kf8, according to Stockfish10 and Komodo10.
34.Rf6 Rb4?
Again ...Kf8 was best, according to the engines.
35.g5!?
Putting another pawn on a dark square, but menacing Black's kingside. However, possibly even stronger was 35.Rfd2. I missed that 35...Kf8 can be well-met by 36.Bh6, which threatens to win with 37.Rxe6! fxe6 38.Rf8#.
35...Nf8?!
35...Kg8 is probably better, although White has the advantage after 36.Kg4.
36.Rc2
Even stronger is 36.Rdf2 Kg8 37.g6! I missed that 37...Nxg6? fails to 38.e6. That leaves 37...Rg7 38.Rxf7 Rxg6+ 39.Kh4 Ne6 40.Re7 with much the better game for White, according to the engines. One likely line, in what is a sharp position, runs 40...Nxd4 41.Re8+ Kg7 42.Kh5 Re6 43.Rxe6 Nxe6 44.Rf6 Nc5 45.Bh6+ Kg8 46.Rf8+ Kh7 47.Rf7+ Kh8 48.Re7 Rxb2 (not the best, but illustrative of Black's difficulties) 49.Kg6 Rg2+ 50.Bg5 Rxg5+ 51.Kxg5, and White wins the rook-v-knight ending despite being two pawns down.
36...c5! 37.dxc5 d4?
The engines give 37...Re4 as equal.
38.Bd2 d3 39.Rc3?
Stronger is 39.Rc1, threatening to win the exchange, as 39...Rxb2 is met by 40.c6.
39...Rxb2?
Black should have tried 39...bxc5 40.Rxd3 Rxb2, when 41.e6! Nxe6 (not 41...fxe6? 42.Rd8) 42.Bc3 Rc2 43.Rf2+ Rxc3 44.Rxc3 is certainly good for White, but the game is not over.
40.c6 Rxd2
Not much better is 40...Rh8 41.Rxd3 (41.c7 is also strong) Rc2 42.Rdf3 etc.
41.c7 Rdh2 42.c8=Q Ne6 43.Rxf7+ Kxf7 44.g6+ Kxg6 45.Qxe6+ Kg5 1-0

One Hiccup

A KEY moment from this afternoon's round three of the 23rd 4NCL U2000/175 congress:

Black has just played 18...Qd8-d7 in Robert Clegg (1741/151) - Spanton (1927/168)

*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
The position is typical of ones arising from the Exchange Variation of the Queen's Gambit Declined. White's minority attack is progressing on the queenside, while Black usually hopes to create problems for the white king.
19.f4!?
Threatening to fork on f5 is very tempting. But the engines Stockfish10 and Komodo10 prefer 19.Nce2, with what Stockfish10 reckons is the upper hand for White, but Komodo10 evaluates as White being just slightly better.
19...Bxh3!
19...Qd6 was the 'safe' way to play, but better for White.
20.f5?
White probably should have played the 'obvious' 20.gxh3, when 20...Rxe3 gives a strong attack, although 20...Qxh3 is also possible. White could also have played 20.Bxg6!?, when 20...Rxe3 again seems good.
20...Rxe3
Also good was 20...Nh4.
21.Nce2
Or 21.fxg6 Rxg3, when Black emerges at least a pawn up and with a continuing attack.
21...Bxg2 22.Kxg2 Nh4+ 23.Kf2
The engines prefer 23.Kh1, but reckon Black is winning. Stockfish10's mainline runs 23...Ng4 24.Rf4 h5 25.f6 g6 26.Ra3 Rae8 27.Qc1 Qe6, when material is roughly level - Black has three pawns for a bishop - but Black's much better piece-coordination and White's endangered king mean Stockfish10 reckons Black is +7.25.
23...Ng4+ 24.Ke1 Qd6
With threats against b4 and g3.
25.Nh1 Rae8 26.Kd2 Qh2 27.Rae1 Nf3+ 28.Rxf3 Rxf3
Now Black has rook and three pawns for bishop and knight, but there was more drama to come.
29.Kc1 Rfe3 30.Qd2 Qh6 31.Kc2 Qd6 32.Rg1 h5 33.Nhg3 Nf6 34.Nf1 R3e7?
Careless. 34...Rxd3 wins easily, according to the engines, eg 35.Kxd3 Ne4, when material is again roughly even but Black's better piece-coordination and king safety are big factors.
35.Kd1?
Missing 35.Qh6, which draws, according to the engines, after 35...Rxe2+ 36.Bxe2 Kf8! 37.Qxg7+ Ke7 38.Rg6!? Qxb4 39.Qxf6+ Kd7, when White cannot stop Black from giving perpetual check.
35...Ne4
The danger to Black has gone, and the game finished:
36.Qe1 Qf6 37.Nfg3 Nxg3 38.Qxg3? Re3 0-1

Black To Play And Draw

FROM this morning's second round of the 23rd 4NCL U2000/175.

Black to make his 33rd move in Spanton (1927/168) - Rob Tokeley (1840/148)

*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
33...cxb4!
Everything else loses, eg 33...axb4 34.dxc5+ bxc5 35.cxb4 cxb4 36.Nxb4, and the passed pawn will win. Also no good is trying to keep the position closed with 33...c4, eg 34.Nb2 axb4 35.cxb4! In this line, 34...Be6 is met by 35.f5 Bd5 36.b5 Kc7 37.Kf4, eg 37...Kd6 38.Nd1 Bf3 39.Nf2 Ke7 40.Ne4 Bd1 41.d5 Ba4 42.d6+ Kxd7 43.Nxf6+ Kxd6 44.Nxh5 etc. This last line is not all forced, but Black loses because 33...c4 creates a serious weakness.
34.cxb4
Not 34.axb4?? a4.
34...Bxd3 35.Kxd3 axb4 36.axb4
The ending is drawn because White's king cannot get into Black's position.
36...Kd5 37.b5
White loses after 37.f5?? b5.
37...f5 38.Kc3 Kd6 39.Kc4 Ke6 40.d5+ Kd6 41.Kd4 f6 42.Kc4 Kd7 ½–½

Can You Save White?

AM playing in the U2000/175 section of the 23rd 4NCL weekend congress, which is being held in a Holiday Inn beside junction 28 of the M1 in Derbyshire.

Black has just played 24...Ra8-e8 in Robert Dean (1750/148) - Spanton (1927/168)

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

Material is level, and at first glance it could seem like a fairly innocuous queenless middlegame position. But White is lagging in development, and Black's minor pieces are much better than their white counterparts, as is the black queen's rook.

The engines Stockfish10 and Komodo10 reckon best play goes 25.Bd3 Nb2 26.Na3 Rd8 27.Be2 Nxd1 28.Rxd1 Rxd1+ 29.Bd1 Rd7 30.Ke2 Bxf2, when Black is the exchange and a pawn up - clearly hopeless for White.

The game saw 25.Nd2 Re2 26.Ne4 (26.Nxc4 Rxf2+ 27.Kg1 bxc4 does not help) Rxc2 27.Rd7+ Kh6 28.Nf6 Rf2+ 29.Kg1 Rd2+ 0-1