And although you refrained from saying much about the Greek Gambit fiasco, probably on grounds of good taste, I expect we are heartily in agreement there as well. It’s typical of the mess that can result when ‘authorities’ start tinkering with a perfectly good rule. I couldn’t get to Helsinki for the '06 Euros, but apparently no fewer than seven of the qualifiers had to be re-played due to mix ups and protests arising from this asinine redefinition of the Gambit.
Thank goodness the 2nd Revised International Edition of Official Tournament Rules (Bonn & Askernas, 2008) settled the matter once and for all and got things back on track. As they so elegantly proved, the Gambit never needed to be ‘improved’ in the first place. The so-called ‘Fairlop problem’ can be worked around perfectly satisfactorily simply by recognising that although, yes, Gants Hill and Grange Hill are both ‘GH’ within one loop, which might be thought to give rise to problems arising from the shared letters rule not involving points of the compass, it is impossible to shift from one to the other without involving either a bridge or a park, thereby eliminating any possible ambiguity as to ‘direction, intention or strategy’ as defined within Tournament Rules. So simple really!
Those revised rules led to a huge excitement about using the Hammersmith-Euston opening gambit. Everyone was talking about it, but I have yet to see anyone actually win a game with that opening. Anyone here willing to take the challenge?
Lynne - it’s true that winning ‘Hamston’ Gambit examples are rare, but they do exist in the literature. Fass won her quarter-final match in Zagreb in '83, and against the formidable Snaresby-Houghton too, although to be fair he was getting on a bit by then and no longer the force he once was. Also, ‘Biffy’ Worthington won with it against Assioto in the third round of the 2001 Geneva Masters, which although not on the official tour as such is still a well-regarded comp that attracts some pretty strong players.
Actually, for MC trivia fans, Worthington is the only player known to have played the Hamston against the same opponent in three different consecutive tournaments! He and Nezhmetdinov clashed in the Euro Championship qualifiers and the French Open in '03, and then again the following January in the Tel Aviv Invitational event. Three Hamston openings, and three straight defeats for poor Biffy! I don’t think he used it much after that.
I’m always ready. And besides the Hammersmith-Euston gambit is merely a variation on the tried and true Hammersmith-King’s Cross with a great emphasis on mid game eligibility.
So here we go. I declare stirrups and street fog, and
Forgive this poor colonial’s ignorance, but my recently ordered copy of the 2nd Revised International Edition of Official Tournament Rules (Bonn & Askernas, 2008) has been held up by customs (and caused me to be placed on the no-fly list - LONG story), but was there a recent codicil I’m unaware of? I mean, stirrups and street fog are declared, wouldn’t Arnos Grove be an immediate foul (surface station and all that)?
Zakalwe - your puzzlement is understandable and would be shared by many. However, note that we are clearly playing at the weekend, and that ‘Skeezix’ contains a double vowel. Hence, no foul if the surface station is two words with a shared vowel. (‘Commentaries on the MC New International Rules’, ed. Goss and Zynska, Crescent Press, 1998).
That’s the trouble with these new AI-enabled buses, they’re too damn smart for their own good. I bet the bus driver’s jaw dropped when he heard the announcement.
Wait, wait, wait…
… Are we talking professional, international amateur, or recreational rules? I’ve got all my books and periodicals out here and nobody’s even explained the context.
This isn’t a formal tournament, let alone a ranking one, so we’re playing Recreational Rules. If we need adjudications or anything, then we’ll either sort them out informally or, if we must, refer to Bonn & Askernas, 2008. But I don’t think we need to get too hung up on the rules. After all, it’s a fairly simple, straightforward game, and this is just a friendly match played for fun on the Boards.
I was assuming that we were playing the 1986 revised standard rules for binding international pro-am play, the Hughes and Hopcroft edition, the Marythew Blackford is far far too lax on the finer points of the game.
Perhaps not directly on point, but may I remind one and all of the 1967 All-Haiti Invitational, where Jules Poutine tried to use Aldwych Station in a rather desperate double straddle against the Caribbean Champion of 1966, Luc de la Trine. Poutine claimed that the move was legal under the old Marble Arch rules, which had held sway in the Caribbean since 1937.
After much discussion, the proctors ruled the Marble Arch rules invalid, supplanted by the rules promulgated in 1998 at the Lofoten conference (the so-called “Iceberg Ageements”)
Poutine refused to accept this decision, and threats of voodoo were mooted, and the invitational broke up in disarray.
The next day the rules committee backed off, and passed a one-time exception for Aldwych Station, and Poutine triumphed. He never showed up for the presentation ceremonies, however, and the trophy was awarded to la Trine. Those present remarked on the unusual number of bats in the tournament area, but nothing more was said or done. Poutine was never seen again, except for an unconfirmed rumor that he was running a Mornington Crescent school in Paraguay.
Yeh. Can we agree on that? Given there are so many international players here, I think we’ll end up with all sorts of problems if we use Bonn & Askernas - they don’t even mention Colonial Zone! I kid you not. Go and check if you don’t believe me!
I admire you, Red Skeezix. You took the challenge of that really hard opening, and part of me wants you to win for that reason. However, most of me doesn’t. I want the glory!
Paddington. And before you all scream “Scrabster, 2003!” let me declare Colonial Zone and save you the time zone calculations - it’s evening here.
I declare Frying Bacon and play the three-cushion shot. Flashy I know but as it’s only a Sunday kickabout I’m sure no-one will mind. Allowing for the repechage (Harrington and Gorsnak, 1986c) that puts me straight to Upminster.
I do wish we could get away from this mildly tiresome pre-occupation with this or that set of rules. Part of MC’s eternal appeal is the essential simplicity of the game, and most of the so-called rules are just common sense anyway. Sure, we all want a level playing field and some matters need to be clarified before the game, but it can sometimes get a little out of hand.
You play with great flair, Malacandra! The line you’re developing is similar to the Ottoman variation of the Hamidati Defence, if I’m not mistaken. A very solid line, I’ve always thought, although I’ve had little joy with it myself over the years.
I interpret the ‘Up-’ part of Upminster to be ‘signification of direction’, thereby allowing me to play Hounslow East.
Lynne - If I may offer a gentle correction. You’re obviously referring to the '2nd Revised Internationale Edition of Official Tournament Rules (Bonn & Askernas, 2008), which did indeed omit the Colonial Zone as it was an edition specifically produced for European tournaments. We were referring to the 2nd Revised International Edition of Official Tournament Rules (Bonn & Askernas, 2008), which does include Colonial Zone amendments, although in abridged form.
Paddington was a good move, BTW. If you check Straker’s fascinating article on the Jade Gambit in the Spring '09 edition of MC Quarterly Review, you’ll find a rather elegant variation that allows passage from Paddington to Ravencourt Park in two, without falling foul of the ‘consecutive parallels’ rule. I know that sounds impossible, but she offers a ‘robust’ theoretical argument that has so far not been shown to have any significant flaws.
While everyone is praising your sheer cheek for Upminster, if you had bothered to consult the annotated notes from the 1938 Konigsberg Invitational, you’d know you just committed the same error as one Sir Wilhelm Paternstein, who lost his semi final reduction play due to a too great emphasis on Upminster. Largely because his astute and most appropriately European strategy, the reigning champion, William Rothfordshire-Holmes was able to cross token and secure Westham for an upstart lead on the exclusionary busfare count.