Two matches

Bexhill 2 – 1-3 – Horsham 1

Division 1 Result via Sussex Chess   

Board	Rating	Bexhill 2	V	Horsham 1	Rating
1	1958	Hubbard, MichaelG	0 – 1	G Lock, Gavin R	2185
2	1886	Fleming, Andrew SJG	0 – 1	G Broom, Mark	2134
3	1899	Lumsden, JamesG	½ – ½	G Mansson, James C	2065
4	1793	Blewitt, Stephen DG	½ – ½	G Higgs, Anthony RJ	2025
Average	1884		1 – 3		2103

This was always going to be a tough match, given the disparity in ratings. Andrew, with White on Board 2, played a cautious , solid variation of the Petroff 1.e4, e5 2.Nf3, Nf6 3.Nxe5, d6 4.Nf3, Nxe4 when, instead of claiming space the centre with d4, Andrew played for early Q exchanges after d3, and Qe2+ answered by Qe7. The resulting symmetrical structure saw both sides develop innocuously until, after the exchange of a pair of rooks on the only open (e)-file , the symmetry was broken. A black pawn had recaptured to e6 from f7, adding support to Black’s d5 pawn, which became the left flank of a q-side pawn roller. Black eventually created a passer on d3 with an active black squared bishop ready to support its advance. Andrew lost a pawn in forcing the exchange of this bishop for Andrew’s strong knight on d6. While Andrew was forced to take his King to deal with the Black passed pawn, Black’s K and R got into the 3 White K-side pawns and Andrew resigned.

James , on Board 3, played a Scandinavian opening, retreating the Q to d6 after the exchange of pawns on d5 and Nc3 . At a later point, White used the tempo to be gained at the Queen’s expense by playing Nb5 and c4, expanding on the Q side. White had the 2 Bishops v B and N.. In the later middlegame, White had sacrificed ( or lost?) 2 K-side pawns and both White rooks dominated the open files facing Blacks compact doubled-pawn formation of ..e6-f7-g7-g6. White’s Q-side pressure did not break through and White’s K was in a vulnerable position on d3, being harassed by James’ Queen. Being a pawn down , and no breakthrough plan appearing, White decided to repeat moves by pursuing James’ Queen on the g and h files alternately and thus a draw was agreed.

Michael, on Board 1, as Black, played a French Defence, Tarrasch variation .3…c5. This was a bold choice for active open play but which can often result in Black having an Isolated Queen’s Pawn on d5. However, Michael chose to recapture on d5 with the Q ( White having played the N to d2 not c3.).After Bc4, Michael retreated the q to d7 which looked awkward as it left his bishop hemmed in at c8. Michael unravelled this eventually, with.. Q c7 and looked as though he might be able to equalise against the pressure from White’s more active development and Q-side pawn majority. In the later endgame, White’s more active bishops and a R penetrating to the 7th was decisive as Michael’s R was overloaded defending both of his bishops. and one of them would fall.

Steve on Board 4, with White, played a cautious opening which evolved largely symmetrically to Black’s. Both sides manoevred for position on the K-side, with Black seeking first a break with ..h5 against Steve’s fianchettoed castled position. When Steve deterred progress, Black switched to the ..f5 break. Matters came to a head after pawn exchanges leaving both sides’ K-side pawns shattered but with a slim majority there for Black, while Steve had connected central pawns. Steve was able to turn the pressure in his favour by using the Black pawn on f4 as a shield for his King on f3 , while creating a double-rook battery along the h-file. As his central pawns pushed the centre, Steve was able to puck up the pawn with K x f4. The ensuing R and P endgame was complex – Steve threatening Black’s Q-side pawns with King, as Black’s Rook counterattacked the Q-side pawns from behind. Still a pawn ahead, with the odds in Steve’s favour, at the end of a long evening, as the outcome of the match would be unaffected by the result, Steve offered a draw which I heard the word “generous” mentioned by a spectator from the opposing side, which was immediately accepted. . I therefore think it justified in saying the final match result did not tell the full story.

Bexhill 4 – 2.5 -1.5 – Brighton & Hove 3

Division 3 Fri 16th Jan 2026 00:00 Winner: Home   

Results via Sussex Chess :

Board	Rating	Bexhill 4	V	Brighton & Hove 3	Rating
1	1704	Swain, PhilipG	1 – 0	G Kelly, Ian G	1758
2	1680	Carthew, JoB	½ – ½	G Selby, Paul R	1738
3	1660	Luxton, William HG	1 – 0	B Counsell, Robert W	1728
4	1630	Kuzmanoski, OliverG	0 – 1	G Edwards, Paul	1725
Average	1669		2½ – 1½		1738

This was an exciting match, with some twists and turns, where a great result was achieved in the face of the apparent rating odds.

Jo, on Board 2, playing his signature Nimzo-Larsen opening ( b3 with f4 ) had a struggle against a pawn wedged on d4, supporting a N on e3.. Jo’s King was vulnerable in the centre, his Q-side pieces were hemmed in and it seemed Black was close to a breakthrough. Exchanges on e3 left Black with a monster passed pawn and a R on the 7th keeping the White K on the back rank . Jo fought determinedly to stop the passer and counter-attack ( pushing a Q-side pawn majority). The initiative slipped away from Black and Jo forced a draw.

Oliver on Board 4, with White, had an open board for his bishops, but had a shattered pawn structure with doubled f-pawns and an isolated d-pawn. Eventually, Oliver’s K-side attack missed a tactical point when a recapture on h7, unexpectedly with the Black Q, left White a piece down. With multiple threats on Oliver’s King from the Black Q and Ns against the broken K-side, there was little Oliver could achieve in the long rearguard action which followed.

With the match in doubt, eyes turned to Bill’s game on Board 3, where he was facing a space disadvantage- pawns locked in the centre ( White pawns d4,c5 and Black pawns d5,c6). Exchanges ion the e-file resulted in an ending where there were R,N versus R,N. Although White’s N had looked dominant for most of the game, it was White’s pawns that were the more vulnerable. Bill picked up one of them and played accurately – his more efficient use of time throughout the game was telling as White struggled to prevent the pawn’s promotion. Bill forced the win in short order thereafter. It was an impressive win.

This evened the match score and attention transferred to Phil’s now crucial game on Board 1. With Black, Phil had faced pressure from the opening with a White Maroczy Bind formation ( e4,c4) versus Phil’s fianchetto – ‘Dragon’ structure ..g6,f7,e7,d6. When a piece exchange on e6 left doubled pawns on e6,e7, it looked as though Black’s structure would be vulnerable, and White had also wedged a Bishop on the black squares from b6. Phil defended patiently and actively, countering in the centre with ..e5. In the endgame which ensued White was the exchange ahead but Phil had connected passed pawns on the Q-side. As he steadily pushed them, and his King joined in actively on the K-side to pick up pawns, Phil gained a 3rd dangerous passer on the g-file. While the White King was tied down covering the q-side pawns it became a cat-and-mouse game as White tried to check the King and stop the g-pawn promoting. Phil worked out a plan to use the bishop to mask the checks with the Bishop, despite involving thge loss of one of the q-side pawns. Once the King could gain shelter it was ‘Game Over’. Well done, Phil, in this performance which clinched the match.

It was an enjoyable experience to follow all 8 games on this occasion. Our thanks also to Brighton for travel and competitive chess.