Bexhill 3 —-0-4 —Hastings & St.L. 4
Division 3 Fri 6th Feb 2026 00:00 Winner: Away
Result from Sussex League LMS
| Board | Rating | Bexhill 3 | V | Hastings & St Leonards 4 | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1791 | Blewitt, Stephen DG | 0 – 1 | G Orsborne, Sarah | 1722 |
| 2 | 1760 | Kimber, John DN | 0 – 1 | G Rooney, Caelan | 1664 |
| 3 | 1707 | Swain, PhilipG | 0 – 1 | G Bryant, Marc A | 1565 |
| 4 | 1557 | Balp, OliverG | 0 – 1 | G Woodhams, Mason | 1567 |
| Average | 1704 | 0 – 4 | 1630 |
The result was a more complex story than the results would suggest. Steve had a great battle from his Czech Pirc Defence ( c6, d6, e5 ) against an Austrian attack formation ( pawns d4, e4, f4). White allowed Steve’s Q x b2 so that White’s centre was hanging, though Steve’s King ( having castled Q-side ) was somewhat exposed to White’s strong bishops. Steve went into complications on the K-side, attempting a mating combination which involved a Q sacrifice ..Q x Bg4. He missed White’s counter Q sacrifice when it interposed between the Black Rook’s check on the h-file. After Rx Qh3+ the recapture on h3 meant Steve was battling the exchange down. White’s material advantage in the endgame paid off despite Steve’s prolonged resistance.
John made a bold pawn sacrifice for activity early in his game as follows :
- d4 d5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. e4 dxe4 4. Bg5 Bf5 5. f3 exf3 6. Qxf3 Bc8
After the continuation, John’s active play ( though with the questionable early handing of 2 bishops to Black) left John with only a -0.77 evaluation . The game continued.7. Bxf6 exf6 8. O-O-O Be7 9. Bd3 Nc6 10. Bb5 Bd7 11. Bxc6 bxc6 12. d5 cxd5 13. Nxd5 O-O 14. Nh3 Re8 15. Rhe1 Rb8 The computer did not like John’s next move in this position, preferring exchanges on e7
16. Qg3 The continuation showed the power of the bishops on this open board .. Bd6 17. Rxe8+ Bxe8 18. Qf2 Be5 19. Nc3 Qe7 20. Qxa7 Qb4 21. Rd3 Qxb2+ 22. Kd2 Qb4 23. Ke2 Bxc3 24. Rxc3 Qe4+ 25. Qe3 Qxg2+ 26. Nf2 Bb5+ 27. Kd2 Rd8+ 28. Kc1 Qd5 29. Ra3 Qc4 30. Rd3 Rxd3 31. Nxd3 Qxa2 32. Qe7 Qa1+ 33. Kd2 Qa5+ 34. Kc1. The final stage of the endgame involved the advance of the Black phalanx of K-side pawns. John’s ambitious play may have stretched into overreach, but it was one of those marginal decisions which made the difference, but which also made for good chess.
In Phil’s game, the rarely played Grob Attack!
- g4 d5 2. Bg2 Bxg4. This is playable, with the complications following , but the majority of games continue more safely with 2..c6, to avoid the pressure on d5 and the weakness left on b7.
- g4 d5 2. Bg2 Bxg4 3. c4 Nf6 4. Nc3
Here the computer favours .4…d4 or ..c6.
4… e6 5. Qb3 Qc8 – returning the pawn. 6. cxd5 c6 7. f3 The computer likes this last move, strange as it looks, blocking the long diagonal
7… Bh5 8. dxe6 Na6 9. Bh3 Qc7 10. exf7+ Bxf7 The computer now favours Black.
11. Qc2 Bd6 12. Ne4 Nxe4 13. Qxe4+ Kf8 14. b3 Re8 15. Qc2
In this position, Black could gain the upper hand with ..Nb4
Instead Black continued ..Bxh2 16. Ba3+ Kg8 17. O-O-O Bd6 18. Bb2 Nb4 $17 19. Qb1 Qa5 (19… c5 is preferred by the computer ) 20. a3 Qc5+ 21. Bc3 Nd5 22. b4 Qc4 23. Qc2 Bg6 2 (23… Nxc3 maintains the pressure) 24. e4 Rxe4?? (24… Nxc3=) 25. fxe4 Bxe4 26. Be6+( The resource Phil must have overlooked … Kf8 27. Bxg7+ Kxg7 28. Qxc4 and Phil resigned. In such a tactical swamp it is easy to go wrong and Phil had good chances in this game and full credit to his opponent. It was engaging chess by both!
Oli played a sound formation in a Classical King’s Indian
- d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Bd3 Bg4 7. h3 Bxf3 8. Qxf3 Nc6 9. Be3 e5 10. d5 Nd4=11 11. Qd1 after which he could have left the N on d4 and pushed his Q-side pawns. Instead , choosing to exchange on d4 Oli was left with a thorny pawn in his centre which became inflamed.
11… h6 12. Bxd4 exd4 13. Ne2 Nd7 14. O-O Qe7 15. Re1 Rae8 16. b4 b6 = (16… a5 17. bxa5 Nc5) 17. Qd2 (17. a3 =) 17… Qh4 18. Rad1 Kh8 19. Bc2 Ne5 I’m not sure why Oli chose not to eliminate the pawn while he had the chance in this position . Maybe he thought the loss of the c4 pawn in exchange was a worse prospect.
20. Bd3 ? (20. Nxd4 Nxc4 21. Qe2 Bxd4 22. Rxd4 Ne5 23. Qd2 g5 24. Bd1 is evaluated at +0.75 for White ) 20… Nxd3 21. Qxd3 Rxe4 22. Ng3 Re5 23. Rxe5 (23. Re4) is better 23… dxe5 24. a4 Re8 25. Re1 f5 26. Ne2 e4 27. Qd2 e3 28. fxe3 dxe3 29. Qd1 Qxc4 30. b5 At this point I wasn’t able to follow Oli’s game much further but it was clear that the mass of Black pawns would prevail. However, the crucial decision was in essence just a marginal one in the moment at the board.
In conclusion, while overall disappointment is natural at such a match score, each game was not a case of being outclassed. There was some very good chess throughout the evening and our thanks and congratulations are due to the Hastings team.