Author Archives: Melvin

Grading fees don’t apply to games played while you’re an ECF member?

Posted on by
Reply

Wrong! -It is intuitive to expect any benefit or condition of being a member of ECF to apply throughout the period of membership, and this used to be so – until ECF introduced ‘rolling membership‘, causing much confusion. So, if you’re not already aware why there can be a liability for some of the games you play whilst a member, I hope the following explanation can help clarify.

How so? – Traditionally, when you joined ECF (or renewed) membership applied to the whole of the current playing season regardless of when you paid. Membership included free grading of all games played throughout that season. Prior to 2011 new grades were calculated annually, at the end of each season, then twice yearly (Jan and July) until 2020 when grades started to be revised monthly. Any grading fees (also called game fees) were invoiced to the league shortly after the end of each playing season with clubs sorting their share with their players.

|<=================== playing season =======================>|
|<================= membership period ======================>|
|<================ free grading period =======================>|

If you were not an ECF member, your club would encourage you to join (or renew a previous membership) if likely to play more than 3 graded games in the season (a quota, freely graded regardless of membership). Paying a membership subscription up front is preferable to later having to cover invoiced grading fees (equal to a bronze membership) for each player exceeding quota. Clubs can’t guarantee a non-member will join/renew, but could delay inclusion in teams until ECF membership is assured. If an application was shown to be in process it’s completion was taken on trust, otherwise any occasional delays on this tended to be only a SHORT period of uncertainty before everyone knew where they stood. This was the situation for many years so it was only natural to continue to expect no grading fee for games played while you’re a member.

Under ‘Rolling Membership‘, Introduced in 2023, you are called a ‘member’ for 12 months from when you join/renew (actually 12 months from from the beginning of the month in which you join/renew) which can now generally span more than one playing season. ECF regarded this as fairer because it allowed players to get “a full year membership”, though that was already the case for grading purposes (just not for ‘benefits’ such as discounts on goods from partnering sites, so was business value the driver of change?). However, ECF considered it inconvenient to shift the grading period in line with the new period of membership – so they stayed with the traditional system of free grading of all games played in the season of joining/renew!

|<======= playing season 1 ======>||<======= playing season 2 =======>|
………………|<===== membership period 1 =====>|
|<===== free grading period 1 =====>||<== ?? grading period 2 ?? …..

Membership period 1 above covers games played in the free grading period 1 – but does NOT cover ANY graded games played in playing season 2. This is where the issue begins! LONGER periods of uncertainty now arise with players who join/renew mid-to-late-season. It also means more uncertainties and hence more liabilities, likely to arise at certain times during a season.

Liability for potential game fees starts from the beginning of playing season 2, until the start of membership period 2 (if that takes place). Some ‘liable members’ find this hard to accept. I use the term ‘liable members’ for players in playing season 2 still in membership period 1. Their memberships expire on or before 30th June of season 2. For game fee purposes, we have to regard them the same as non-members during playing season 2, so their game counts are also shown on the website to help clubs track this, until they renew.

Impact? – Now we have longer periods of uncertainty. If a player doesn’t eventually renew, who should fund payment of the invoice for grading period 2? ECF clearly hold the league responsible. Item 2 of their invoicing policy says:-
“By submitting game results to the rating server, organisations accept liability for any pay to play or game fee that is incurred.”
This ‘liability’ is questionable when a league can no longer ensure a player will be a membership at a future date (30th June of season 2). Somehow, the league has to secure invoice funding when neither league, club nor player can absolutely guarantee a future renewal – and expiry of a current membership may be several months away. Clubs no longer have the former leverage as it is no longer practical to await renewal before picking liable members for team matches. Also, players would not expect to be asked to pay for membership period 2 in advance, to cover fees for the period 2 games they are now playing. Even if they did want to assure certainty of covering this, ECF currently do not even allow it, insisting that
“Membership can be renewed on the existing level from 28 days before the membership expires“.
In a scenario of say 50 non-renewals @£21 the league would be liable for £1050.
Measures became needed to limit league liability, requiring extra work.

The league treasurer now has to manage a grading fee reserve fund, made up of transfers-in from club treasurers. The webmaster facilitate this in the on-line accounts as well as the means to easily identify liable members for monitoring by club and league treasurers.
A list of players at-or-over quota in league or club games is shown here, which also shows the status of any league reserve fund payments. If/when players renew, their reserve is transferred back to their club account.
Club agreement was formalised at NECL AGM with rule 22b rule amended by appending:-
…. “Any players incurring a pending fee to ECF via NECL will be ineligible whilst
their club has insufficient credit to cover all of such players’ fees.“
The rule was meant as a deterrent, but when clubs overlook this and game points are lost due to the ineligible player, the played game is still graded, so it doesn’t change any liability.

How could ECF help?
1. Revert to previous system – unlikely now the step has been made?
2. Redefine free grading period to be in line with each players membership period to restore a) the status quo to what players intuitively expect! and b) previous club leverage – implies invoice process change from annual to monthly? – also unlikely?
3. Provide a means to pay part/extended renewals to help players to synchronise to an early-season cycle – which would help reduce periods of uncertainty and ease the required size of club floats at no extra long-term expense to players. I have asked ECF but they will not allow this – so it is destined to perpetuate!! Not a positive influence on league chess?

What else could NECL do? – failing any ECF actions, NECL could consider;
1. Ring-fence a set amount (or defined proportion of the league balance?), to be used as a general grading fee reserve float and just recover any end of season liabilities from clubs? – avoids many in-season dialogs and ‘toeing-and-froing’ of pending reserves.
2. Delay submission for grading of results for all games that involve a new or liable-member player who has already reached quota – until such date that membership status as of 30th June of the current season is verified. This is because the stated assertion of league liability by ECF seems based on the action of the league making the grading submission – so no submission – no liability!
This would of course delay the normal grading process for opponent-players, who may have got used to expecting to see grade details change on a monthly basis (and due to previously clarifying with ECF that ‘events’ be submitted in entirety or not at all, the full match result should possibly be delayed?) – with a knock-on effect of causing small differences in published grades during the season, compared to there being no delay. This would dispense with the need for a grading reserve fund, though tracking is still needed.
3. A more drastic measure is to not submit games for ECF grading at all and instead use a local equivalent calculation. Again, no submission – no liability! – but contentious – as it depends on what value club members place on having an ECF authenticated grade? No doubt some would consider it essential (and be members anyway) whilst others may appreciate not needing to pay an ECF membership. This has happened in the past, e.g. Yorkshire had it’s own system until 2018 (despite issues raised as to formula being patentable or data it produced being copyrighted, with the BCF attempting to charge local leagues for this). About 185 players are registered to play NECL league – worth about £4k annual revenue to ECF – typically about a dozen may have a potential game fee liability at any one time.
4… Other suggestions?


2017 Peter Keffler Shield Update

Posted on by
Reply

The annual 8 round Swiss competition will run from 6th to 27th June 2017.
Two Rapid play games per night through June with a time control of 40mins per player.
A maximum of 2 half point byes may be awarded to absent players.
A full point bye will be given to non-paired players and count as a played game.
If leaders are tied, a winner will be decided by the results of direct encounters.
If that does not provide a winner the trophy will be shared.
From this season, results from the shield no longer count towards the club ladder.
The outright winner will be awarded the Peter Keffler Shield and be “Club Champion”.
An Improver shield will be awarded for the best player performance relative to grade.
Players need 6 played games to qualify. No player can win both trophies.
Follow progress here.

Match Rules – draft proposals

Posted on by
Reply

Below is a summary of draft content being proposed for consideration at AGM/LCM.
Refinements may appear here on an ongoing basis, but clubs need to submit basic proposals by 1st. July (rule 27). Please consider these and offer any comments or suggested rewording to details that would be required to make these acceptable to your club. Indicating support or identifying objections/issues may help shorten/ease later discussions when raised at AGM/LCM.
Updates:-
1/7/2016: rules 3,11,13,15,16 & 22 submitted by Billericay/Clacton/Colchester/Writtle.
7/7/2016: AGM confirmed for 19:45 on 27th July 2016 in Witham Library.
Aug/2016: amendments from feedback   text in red requires deeper discussion
Sep/2016: New League and Knockout rules published.

Rule 3
Frank Seeley/Maldon and John Lambert/Clacton independently proposed extending the season to include the whole of May as more games are being played in May, the weather is better and it helps the clubs who play in more than one league. Subject to approval of a new rule 22, the suggestion by Nathan Barnes/Colchester would also apply (part g).
draft rule 3:
Match play in League Competitions shall take place between 1 October, or earlier if 22(g) applies, and 31st May in each season.
[ v “as soon as clubs have completed player registrations and are ready to play their agreed pairings. Matches will be completed by” ?]

Rule 11
Nathan Barnes/Colchester suggests we dispense with tossing for colours,
draft rule 11:
Matches in all Divisions shall be played over four boards. The away team shall play white on the odd-numbered boards and the black pieces on the even-numbered boards.

Rule 13
Add requirement/courtesy to notify opponents about known defaults.
draft rule 13:
A reserve player may be introduced at any time up to 8.15 p.m. If a player is not available at or before 8.15 p.m., the board is defaulted. No player can play more than one game on the same occasion. If a captain has a known default, this must be notified to the opposing captain as soon as possible to avoid unnecessary travel.

Rule 15
Writtle are proposing alternative time controls with a Fischer timing.
draft rule 15:
All  matches will  be played to a finish. The rate of play will  be 30  moves  in 75  minutes and then the clocks will be set back 15 minutes and the game completed in the remaining time. Alternatively, subject to mutual agreement and availability of digital clocks, Fischer timing at a rate of all moves in 80 minutes with 10 seconds increment per move from the start. All four boards in a match will be required to use the same rate of play.

Rule 16
Confirm the expected method to submit and confirm a result.
draft rule 16:
Match results  shall,  not  later  than  five  days  after  play  is  completed, be submitted on-line by one team and confirmed on-line by the other team. Teams with no web access may inform the event Secretary by other means.

Note, this also drops mention of the levy of £1 for each result not submitted on time as It has never been applied, though an AGM reminder may be appropriate. Process reminder; where only one side has submitted a result this is deemed to stand (by ‘auto-confirming’ on-line on the 6th day – or not before 24hr after a previous submission, to give further opportunity to confirm/change that result). If neither side has submitted a result after 10 days the match is automatically moved from the imminent table to a “non-notified-postponement” table on the latest results page. The number of matches not directly confirmed over the last 5 years averages 17%, which would have been about £30/yr in fines. See necl.org.uk/monitor now extended to show these counts.

Rule 22

Current Rule 22 has 9 clauses (a) to (i). Prior to changes made in 2013 it ran to more than an A4 page and was then recognised to be in need of further change as it didn’t adequately address data issues or cover today’s processes. The below draft rewrite is offered to address this. It incorporates (f) as proposed by Billericay plus parts of (c), (d), (g) and (h) as proposed by Colchester. (indicated by respective text colouring)

draft rule 22:
(a) It is a condition of membership that player data (limited to name, club, ECF grading/membership references) and game results may be kept on computer and published. Members may optionally provide an email address so as to be included in NECL distribution lists. Club secretaries will maintain venue and basic contact data on their NECL-club web pages which also form the on-line directory. Officers can alternatively opt for their own contact data to be restricted to a view which is only visible via a login by other officers.
(b) At least 24 hours before the first fixture within a season, each club shall send all fees due to NECL to the treasurer, and send the names of intended players to both the General Secretary and Treasurer. Clubs may optionally overpay to create a credit balance towards any later new registrations.The treasurer will mark payment and registrations on-line and assign a player eligibility date of no later than the day after receipt. This will be visible in the NECL-accounts, registrations and nominations sections of each club.
New player registrations during a season will similarly require at least 24 hours notice before the players first fixture.
(c) Nominations will be formed starting from the top of the grade-ordered list with a number of players equal to one fewer than the number of boards in the club’s ‘A’ team shall be nominated for that team; the number of players next on the list equal to one fewer than the number of players in the club’s ‘B’ team shall be nominated players for that team, and so on. There may also be additional nominated players to the above due to 22h.
Nominations will be revised accordingly if affected by (i) new registrations added during the season or (ii) a performance-based-revision of the estimated grade of a non-graded player. A club changing nomination ordering based on mid-season official grade updates should do so within two weeks of a grading list being published, or can opt to not do so where this affects driver availability. A player shall not be eligible to play in any team below the category of team for which they are nominated.
(d) The maximum number of games a player may play in the League Championship in one season is equal to five in excess of the maximum number of matches scheduled for any team at the start of the season minus the number of matches already completed by his nominated team by the fixture list at the time when his name first appears on his club’s list of players. In this clause the ‘nominated team’ is that team to which a player is nominated by the first list submitted by his club on which his name appears.
 Default wins do not contribute to a player’s game count for this purpose.
e) If a team plays an ineligible player then his/her game will be  lost by default, and an additional ½ point  will  be  deducted  from  the  team’s  total.  Individual game results will stand for grading purposes only. Incomplete teams should default on the lowest board(s).
(f) Teams will play in descending ECF grading order from board one downwards:
Any exceptions to this cannot differ in the official ECF grading by more than 10 grading points or: (i) Where a reserve player is substituted for a listed player who has failed to arrive, the reserve must be of the same or lower-grade than the player originally listed. (ii) Where a higher graded player is listed downwards to occupy a board defaulted by the opposing team.
(g) Pairings from the same club should be played first, which may be before 1st October.
[v “as soon as the club can arrange” ?]
(h) If a nominated player does not play in any matches during a season then if they are nominated again the following season then they must be nominated for the same team as in the previous season and that team must have an additional player nominated.

Many parts will require further discussion and agreement on some details. In particular the question of nominations, discussed at the 2014 AGM where no decision was reached nor minuted (though DM declared July would be assumed unless clubs opt for January). The current status quo seems an unsatisfactory compromise? Clubs have opted to base playing order on either a) January based list;  b) July based lists;  or c) a list that is neither. This directly affects clauses (c) and (f) and should be revisited for a more definitive answer in anticipation of grading frequency becoming monthly or real-time.

More change comparison notes:-
Aspects not covered by the present rule 22 include reference to
(i) player data and club venues/contacts (into a)
(ii) process has to involve treasurer to ensure visibility of NECL-accounts, registrations and nominations (into b + drop g & i).
[a previously unused registration marking facility was moved from gen-sec to treasurer key with payment facility added when accounts were put on-line. Nominations are now updated on-line by JL when he receives a list from DM. Both keys can edit nominations]
(iii) incorporate present option to adopt mid-season grade updates, or not
(iv) effect of new player additions to nominations (into c, drop d)
(v) performance-based-revision for estimated grades (into c) – though criteria yet to be specified (e.g.   performance – estimate > 10 after 5 games ?)
(vi) that max game-count excludes default-wins (into new d)
(vii) incomplete teams default to the lowest boards, (into e) (discussed sometime but not minuted or put into rules?)

22f – Strictness of Board-ordering – Current rule says:-
       “Players nominated for a team will be expected to play in their listed order.
       However minor alterations in playing order can be made according to current form.”
The extent of alteration is not defined. (deliberately?) though a 10 point grade difference has often been spoken of as the ‘allowed’ margin, as though this was a rule – but can only be a ‘notion’ as it has not been documented in NECL rules, nor in any AGM/LCM minutes (that I know of). Nor is the rule clear that the ‘list’ referred to is of ‘nominees’, or ‘eligible players’ – but has to be the latter if it is to cover non-nominated players.
[Note: our monitoring tool shows (amongst other things) how often teams have played out of order (by grade at the time of a match). For the nominal margin of 10 points, this shows 17 such instances during the current season (edit the url for other margins/seasons)
– but of course the difficulty in checking if some/all of these are ‘allowed’ requires you to refer to the list of nominations active at the time of each match! ]

22h – Example from Nathan:  if one of the three players nominated for Colchester A (Player X) does not play all season but Colchester register Player X again the following season then whichever Colchester A must have four nominated players (not three) – one of who must be Player X. Match rule 22d should be modified to be subject to this new clause; match rule 22b should also be subject to this new clause as well as clause d.

Rules 20/24
Subject to approval of the above rule, dropping rule 20 could be considered.
This seems unnecessary, due to ordering covered in new 22f, and refers to impractical penalties that have never used despite many examples.
Also Rule 24 seems unnecessary due to becoming a legal constraint since 2007.

Rule 26
Nathan Barnes/Colchester has raised a query, saying that in the quickplay finish to games NECL rules do not make it clear what procedures are being followed if a player tries to claim a draw in the last two minutes due to not being able to win on normal means / not trying to win by normal means. If this is done does rule G6 apply and if so who is the arbiter? NECL rules should also state if rule G4 applies or not.

This is more of a request for clarification in case this problematic situation arises, so may best be addressed by incorporating an answer into a draft rule 26, such as the following:-

The FIDE Laws of Chess will apply to all games unless superseded by these Rules, unless not practical to do so.  e.g. current FIDE rules G4, G5 &G6 (claims made when less than two minutes left on clock) that require a ‘designated arbiter’ will not apply, though both captains may choose to reach agreement, or to raise a dispute under rule 2.

Current rule 26 says:-
“Except where they are inconsistent with the foregoing, the Laws of Chess as published by the British Chess Federation shall be deemed to form part of these Rules.  The FIDE Laws of Chess allow the use of an assistant by a visually handicapped player. The League will also allow the use of an assistant by any player, as and when required.”
Is outdated due to BCF->ECF, who no longer publish FIDE rules and only link to FIDE.
Visually disabled players and assistance are already extensively covered in Appendix D.

 

2016 Peter Keffler Shield Update

Posted on by
Reply

This is an 8 round Swiss competition held from 17th May to 14th June (excl. 7th Jun).
Two Rapid play games per night, with a time control of 40mins per player.
A maximum of 4 half point byes may be given to absent players.
A full point bye will be given to non-paired players and count as a played game.
5 played games are needed to qualify.

The outright winner will be awarded the Peter Keffler  Shield and be “Club Champion”.
Another shield will be awarded to the best improver, based on performance in excess of grade during the competition. No player can win both trophies.

Competition results  will also count towards the club ladder (ends 28th June).
Eight games throughout the season are needed in the ladder to qualify.
The ladder winner is awarded the Bullwinkle trophy board.

Updated 14/06/2016 after round 8

Championship Leader-board (game points with cross table)

# Name Points R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8
1 Martin Alvin 6.5 +W7 +B9 +W4 -B3 +W10 =W2 +B5 +W8
2 Robert Stephens 6.5 =BYE =BYE +W12 +B7 +W3 =B1 +W6 +B5
3 Andrew Salmon 6.5 +B15 +W8 +B5 +W1 -B2 +W4 +B12 =W9
4 Melvin Steele 5 +B18 +W10 -B1 =W5 =B17 -B3 +W7 +W12
5 John Lambert 4.5   +W6 +B12 -W3 =B4 +W9 +B10 -W1 -W2
6 Paul McCarthy 4.5 -B5 +B11 +W9 -W10 +B18 =W12 -B2 +BYE
7 Mike Coughtrey 4 -B1 +W14 +B13 -W2 =BYE =BYE -B4 +W19
8 Marek Ciorga 4 +W16 -B3 =BYE =BYE =BYE =BYE +W14 -B1
9 Nigel Lake 4 +B14 -W1 -B6 +W13 -B5 =W18 +BYE =B3
10 Warwick Estlea 4 +W19 -B4 +W16 +B6 -B1 -W5 =BYE =BYE
11 Andrew Todd 4 -B12 -W6 -B14 +W19 +B13 +W17 =BYE =BYE
12 Denis Brown 3.5 +W11 -W5 -B2 +B16 +W15 =B6 -W3 -B4
13 John Rowe 3.5 =BYE =BYE -W7 -B9 -W11 =B19 +B18 +W14
14 Alex O’Brien 3 -W9 -B7 +W11 +W15 =BYE =BYE -B8 -B13
15 John White 3 -W3 -B16 +W19 -B14 -B12 +BYE =BYE =BYE
16 Richard O’Brien 3 -B8 +W15 -B10 -W12 =BYE =BYE -B19 +W18
17 Danny Hardman 2.5 =BYE =BYE =BYE =BYE =W4 -B11 — —
18 Dennis McCarthy 2.5 -W4 +B19 =BYE =BYE -W6 =B9 -W13 -B16
19 Haydn Hughes 2.5 -B10 -W18 -B15 -B11 +BYE =W13 +W16 -B7

Improver Leader-board (performance over grade)

Points Name Grade Perf Perf-Grade
6.5 Robert Stephens 141 160 19
4.5 Paul McCarthy 80 99 19
3.5 Denis Brown 75 93 18
3 Alex O’Brien 60 74 14
6.5 Martin Alvin 135 147 12
3.5 John Rowe 65 71 6
2.5 Haydn Hughes 45 51 6
6.5 Andrew Salmon 145 150 5
4 Mike Coughtrey 89 93 4
4 Warwick Estlea 96 98 2
4 Marek Ciorga 100 100 0
3 Richard O’Brien 65 65 0
4.5 John Lambert 124 120 -4
5 Melvin Steele 126 120 -6
4 Nigel Lake 97 91 -6
2.5 Danny Hardman 100 88 -12
4 Andrew Todd 100 73 -27
2.5 Dennis McCarthy 85 55 -30
3 John White 90 46 -44

Peter Keffler

Posted on by
Reply

Many players will be saddened to hear that Peter Keffler passed away on Tuesday 22nd December 2015 at 92 years of age.
The funeral will be held on Monday 18th January, 2016,  2pm at Weeley Crematorium.

For many years Peter was a strong player of Clacton club who also played county chess for Essex, Suffolk and in his earlier days for Somerset.

Following WWII, as RAF aircrew Peter worked as an interpreter, having completed a combined services course in Russian at Cambridge University. He obtained an honours degree  in French and Russian at Oxford University and then did a postgraduate year for MA. He took up an academic career teaching languages in the Bath/Somerset area and later moved to the Essex area as Senior lecturer at St Osyth College.

At the peak of his chess playing Peter had good scores against many well known players with many of his games and ideas being quoted in the chess literature of the day. He made contributions to Openings such as the Two Knights Defence that were acknowledged by authoritative writers.

Peter would often combine his chess knowledge and experience to teach chess to juniors and many of us have been grateful for the time he often spent to analyse our games and encourage less experienced players to improve their game. He kept a large stock of chess literature and for many years ran a bookstall at most local and some national tournament events.

In his later years Peter succumbed to ill health and reduced mobility. He also had difficulty adapting to his gradually failing eyesight, but we will best remember him for the many years when he was a formidable opponent who played with great ‘style’.

Other articles about Peter:
Peter Keffler Celebrates 90th birthday
Peter Keffler Celebrates 88th Birthday
Peter Keffler again wins the Club Handicap
Peter Keffler wins the Club Handicap Tournament
Peter Keffler & Jonathan Hills win Club Swiss Quick Play Tournament
Peter Keffler wins newly introduced Club Handicap Tournament to mark 80th birthday
Comments from Colleagues (English Chess Forum)

_____________________________________________________
References and Game samples:-

‘Chess Openings for the Average Player’ – T. D. Harding, Leonard Barden – 1976
Section:  How Openings Evolve,  p12
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IMHskoEyxiUC&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=Keffler+chess&source=bl&ots=lbG2FI5dnM&sig=AEVHPRqJhVHQqhdwKkKXEwoNaH0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjrtpyQ-PTJAhULQBQKHV8uCdsQ6AEILTAC#v=onepage&q=Keffler%20chess&f=false

Similar content also in ‘Openings for the Club Player’ by same authors, p221.
Leonard Barden also mentions Peter on p235 of Chess Treasury of the Air by Terence Tiller, published by Penguin Books in 1966, in an article about his favourite game against American master Weaver Adams.

‘The Two Knights Defence’  I︠A︡kov Ėstrin  Anova Books, 1983
Aitkin v Keffler  ·  0-1
Edinburgh 1954
Peter (black) arrived at this position where he saw he had a 4 move mate.
Would you spot this against the clock in a real game?
https://gameknot.com/comment.pl?t=2&k=7415
also quoted at http://www.chessedinburgh.co.uk/chandlerarticle.php?ChandID=274
and published in ‘Build Up Your Chess with Artur Yusupov 2’ p9

Peter Keffler v Ernst Kotzem  ·  1-0    http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1233484
corres ICCF (1969)  ·  Scotch Game: Göring Gambit. Bardeleben Variation (C44)
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 ed4 4. c3 dc3 5. Nc3 Bb4 6. Bc4 Nf6 7. O-O Bc3 8. bc3 d6 9. e5 de5 10. Qb3 O-O 11. Rd1 Bd7 12. Ba3 Na5 13. Qb4 Nc4 14. Qc4 Re8 15. Ng5 Qc8 16. Qf7 Kh8 17. Be7 Ng8 18. Bf8

Gerhard Niemand v Peter Keffler  1970
http://clactonchess2.org.uk/wordpress/peter-keffler-celebrates-90th-birthday/
+ http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1224960
Italian Game: Two Knights Defense. Traxler Counterattack Bishop sac line (C57)  ·  0-1
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 Bc5 5. Bf7 Ke7 6. Bb3 Rf8 7. O-O d6 8. Nc3 Qe8 9. Nd5 Kd8 10. Nf6 gf6 11. Nh7 Rh8 12. Nf6 Qg6 13. Nd5 Bg4 14. Qe1 Bf3 15. g3 Qxg3

Keffler P v Kocem E    · 1-0   http://www.chess.com/games/view?id=196127
World Tournament (corr.),  1972
Opening: Scotch Game: Goering Gambit, Main Line (C44)
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. c3 dxc3 5. Nxc3 Bb4 6. Bc4 Bxc3+ 7. bxc3 d6 8. O-O Nf6 9. e5 dxe5 10. Qb3 O-O 11. Rd1 Bd7 12. Ba3 Na5 13. Qb4 Nxc4 14. Qxc4 Re8 15. Ng5 Qc8 16. Qxf7+ Kh8 17. Be7 Ng8 18. Bf8 Rxf8 19. Rxd7

‘The Spectator’ 1979, Vol 242, p63

Peter Keffler v Tim Lunn   ·  1-0  http://clactonchess.org.uk/games/samplegames.htm
Ipswich A v Clacton A, Suffolk League Match, 15.12.2003
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5 3.e3 e6 4.Bd3 c5 5.b3 Nc6 6.Bb2 Bd6 7.0-0 0-0 8.Nbd2 Qc7 9.c4 cxd4 10.exd4 Re8 11.c5 Bf8 12.Re1 b6 13.cxb6 Qxb6 14.Rc1 Ba6 15.Bb1 Rec8 16.a3 Rab8 17.Re3 Ng4? 18.Bxh7+ Kxh7 19.Ng5+ Kg8 20.Qxg4 g6 21.Qh4 Bg7 22.Qh7+ Kf8 23.Nxe6+ fxe6 24.Rf3+ Ke7 25.Qxg7+ Kd6 26.Rf7 Rb7 27.Qe5+ Nxe5 28.dxe5#

2015 Peter Keffler Shield Update

Posted on by
Reply

Updated 16/06/2015

This season’s 9 round Swiss is being held from 19th May to 16th June.
As last season, this is no longer handicapped and the award of the shield will again be based on performance in excess of grade. Time controls are 40 minutes per player.
A ½ point bye  may be given to absent players, to a maximum of 5.
A full point bye will be given to non-paired players and count as a played game.
5 played games are needed to qualify.

Game points after round 9

# Name Points 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 Andrew Salmon 7.0 +B6 -W4 +B2 =W7 +B3 =W5 +B9 +W8 +W10
2 Warwick Estlea 7.0 -B3 +W11 -W1 +B18 +W12 +B7 +B4 +W5 +W6
3 Martin Alvin 7.0 +W2 =B10 =W5 +B12 -W1 +W4 +B6 +B20 +W7
4 Melvin Steele 6.0 +W8 +B1 +W12 +B5 +W7 -B3 -W2 -B6 +W18
5 John Lambert 5.5 +B18 +W8 =B3 -W4 =B10 =B1 +W7 -B2 +BYE
6 Mike Coughtrey 5.0 -W1 =W7 =B9 +B11 +W8 +B10 -W3 +W4 -B2
7 Nigel Lake 4.0 +W9 =B6 +W10 =B1 -B4 -W2 -B5 +W12 -B3
8 Denis Brown 4.0 -B4 -B5 +W18 +W9 -B6 +W12 =BYE -B1 =BYE
9 Richard O’Brien 4.0 -B7 =BYE =W6 -B8 +W18 =BYE -W1 =BYE +B12
10 Andrew Todd 3.5 +B11 =W3 -B7 =BYE =W5 -W6 =BYE =BYE -B1
11 John Rowe 3.0 -W10 -B2 +BYE -W6 =BYE =BYE =BYE =BYE —
12 Haydn Hughes 3.0 +BYE +W18 -B4 -W3 -B2 -B8 +W20 -B7 -W9
18 Alex O’Brien 2.0 -W5 -B12 -B8 -W2 -B9 =BYE +W19 =BYE -B4
19 Kassey Spendlove 1.5 — — — — — — -B18 +BYE =BYE
20 Ryan Spendlove 0.5 — — — — — — -B12 -W3 =BYE

 

Standings ordered by ‘performance minus grade’ after round 9

# Points Name Grade Perf Perf – Grade
2 7.0 Warwick Estlea 80 122 42
9 4.0 Richard O’Brien 50 67 17
6 5.0 Mike Coughtrey 92 101 9
8 4.0 Denis Brown 68 76 8
3 7.0 Martin Alvin 132 135 3
12 3.0 Haydn Hughes 45 47 2
4 6.0 Melvin Steele 118 118 0
7 4.0 Nigel Lake 99 95 -4
5 5.5 John Lambert 119 113 -6
1 7.0 Andrew Salmon 152 143 -9
19 1.5 Kassey Spendlove 30 20 -10
10 3.5 Andrew Todd 111 94 -17
11 3.0 John Rowe 65 42 -23
20 0.5 Ryan Spendlove 50 18 -32
18 2.0 Alex O’Brien 70 35 -35