Hastings & St.L. 5 —1-3—Bexhill 5

Division 4 Thu 19th Feb 2026 00:00 Winner: Away   

Result from Sussex League LMS

Board	Rating	Hastings & St Leonards 5	V	Bexhill 5	Rating
1	1533	Cosens, DerekG	0 – 1	B Carthew, Jo	1662
2	1528	Hosannah, AaronG	0 – 1	G Luxton, William H	1669
3	1419	Fletcher, Martin GG	0 – 1	G Rhodes, Lawrence	1632
4	1374	Hosannah, AmirG	1 – 0	N O Niell, Thomas	0000
Average	1464		1 – 3		1241

A good result at Hastings. Tom, playing one of his first games as a new member with the Black pieces battled hard against a rising junior but came off worst in the R + P ending.

Bill, also with Black soon levelled the team score, gaining multiple pawns in a double rooks and pawns ending.

I didn’t get to see Jo’s game but a glimpse or two showed solid control.

I had an interesting, if hair-raising, game. on board 3. Having pushed pawns to squeeze the opponent on both wings, I pressed with a K-side attack, while I left the Q-side hanging.. The game was flawed, we both missed opportunities. We reached this position ( which had morphed from an English opening to a Saemisch formation against an Old Indian structure) after 25…Bd7

The Rc3 both cut off the entry points for the Black Q and protected a3. This would mean several moves to break open the Q-side and while the Black Q is off-side, the Black’s K-side is vulnerable. I was down to 5 mins or less on the clock and there were some interesting tactics which swung back and forth but eventually in my favour.

Th game concluded ( analysis by Fritz 19 ) :

26. Rg1 (26. Bxh6! gxh6 27. Nf5+ Kf8 28. Nxh6 Rg7 29. Qf2 Nxc4 !) 26… Nxc4 Now Black is better 27. Bxh6 (27. Rxc4 Bb5 28. Ke1! Bxc4 29. Nf5 Qxa3 30. Qg6 Qc3+ 31. Kf2 Qc2+ 32. Kg3 Rxf5 33. Qxf5 Rf8 34. Qe6+ Rf7 35. Bxh6 Qe2 36. Qe8+ Rf8 37. Qe6+ Rf7 =) 27… Bb5 (27… Nxa3 28. Ra1 Qb5+ 29. Kf2 Nc4 30. Bg5 Qxb4 31. Rac1 Na5 32. Kg1) 28. Kf2 +- Nd2 29. Nf5 Nxf3 30. Qxf3 Bd7 31. Bxg7 (31. Rxg7+ Rxg7 32. Bxg7) 31… Bxf5 32. exf5 (32. Bf6+ Kf8 33. Qxf5 Qd7 34. Qg6 Rxf6+ 35. Qxf6+ Qf7 36. Qxf7+ Kxf7 37. Rxc7+) 32… Rxg7 (32… Qd7 33. f6 e4 34. Qxe4 Qe8 35. Qg6) 33. Rxg7+ Kxg7 34. f6+ Kf8 35. Qg4 Qe8 36. Qg7# 1-0

The result leaves us well placed and undefeated near the top of Div.4 :

League table for Division 4 (top section)

Team	Play	Won	Draw	Lost	For	Against	Points	SP	MP	IM
Worthing 3	8	4	2	2	20½	11½	10	0	0	0
Bexhill 5	6	4	2	0	16	8	10	0	0	0
Lewes 2	6	4	1	1	16½	7½	9	0	0	0
Uckfield 2	6	3	2	1	13	11	8	0	0	0

The final match against Lewes 2 on 16 March looks as if will be the key one.

Uckfield 1 —2-2— Bexhill 3

Division 3 Wed 18th Feb 2026 00:00 Winner: Draw   

Result from Sussex League LMS

Board	Rating	Uckfield 1	V	Bexhill 3	Rating
1	1933	Airlie, ArranB	0 – 1	G Petersons, Janis	1832
2	1721	Stockham, MichaelB	1 – 0	G Hayward, Michael	1584
3	1557	Archbold, BeaudenG	0 – 1	G Tracey, William F	1616
4	1593	Hill, JaydenB	1 – 0	N O Niell, Thomas	0000
Average	1701		2 – 2		1258

The result leaves our 3rd team in a solid position :

League table for Division 3

Team	Play	Won	Draw	Lost	For	Against	Points	SP	MP	IM
Hastings & St Leonards 4	7	4	1	2	16½	11½	9	0	0	0
Brighton & Hove 4	6	4	1	1	15	9	9	0	0	0
Eastbourne 3	7	4	0	3	15½	12½	8	0	0	0
Uckfield 1	7	3	1	3	15½	12½	7	0	0	0
Bexhill 3	6	3	1	2	12½	11½	7	0	0	0
Brighton & Hove 3	6	3	0	3	13	11	6	0	0	0
Bexhill 4	6	2	2	2	11	13	6	0	0	0
East Grinstead 3	5	2	1	2	11	9	5	0	0	0
Horsham 5	8	1	2	5	10½	21½	4	0	0	0
Eastbourne 4	5	2	0	3	7½	12½	4	0	0	0
Haywards Heath 2	5	1	1	3	8	12	3	0	0	0

SP = Season Penalties, MP = Match Penalties, IM = Incomplete Matches,

Bexhill 2 —1.5-2.5 — Crowborough

Division 1 Fri 13th Feb 2026 00:00 Winner: Away   

Results from Sussex League LMs.

Board	Rating	Bexhill 2	V	Crowborough	Rating
1	1911	Lumsden, JamesG	½ – ½	G Freeman, Luke	2042
2	1877	Fleming, Andrew SJG	½ – ½	G Lawrance, Jon AN	1928
3	1831	Petersons, JanisG	½ – ½	B Michaud, Gerald	1879
4	1747	Kimber, John DN	0 – 1	G Blythe, Douglas	1645
Average	1842		1½ – 2½		1874

Bexhill 4 —2.5-1.5 —- East Grinstead 3

Division 3 Fri 13th Feb 2026 00:00 Winner: Home   

Results from Sussex League LMS

Board	Rating	Bexhill 4	V	East Grinstead 3	Rating
1	1693	Swain, PhilipG	0 – 1	G Wall, Robert	1756
2	1648	Kuzmanoski, OliverG	1 – 0	B Amarasinghe, Asanka	1747
3	1582	Hayward, MichaelG	½ – ½	G Waldock, Adrian DP	1661
4	1610	Tracey, William FG	1 – 0	G Holmes, Thomas	1454
Average	1634		2½ – 1½		1655

Match reports may follow. This is bare news.

Div.3 result is encouraging.

Div.1 result looks as though the line held in the pairings where our team was out-rated.

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 :

1. 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!

1. 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.
2. 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

1. 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.

Crowborough —2-2— Bexhill 1

Division 1 Fri 6th Feb 2026 00:00 Winner: Draw   

Result from Sussex League LMS

Board	Rating	Crowborough	V	Bexhill 1	Rating
1	2038	Freeman, LukeG	½ – ½	B Tebbs, Howard L	2069
2	1928	Lawrance, Jon ANG	½ – ½	G Lumsden, James	1914
3	1866	Michaud, GeraldB	1 – 0	G Chapman, Luke	1990
4	1655	Blythe, DouglasG	0 – 1	G Kuzmanoski, Oliver	1638
Average	1872		2 – 2		1903

Without a full match report, this looks a sound result and good to see Oliver taking the full point.

The updated league table shows our 1st team in contention at the top end

Brighton & Hove 1	6	4	1	1	17	7	9	0	0	0
East Grinstead 1	5	4	0	1	13½	6½	8	0	0	0
Bexhill 1	6	3	2	1	13	11	8	0	0	0
Hastings & St Leonards 1	5	3	2	0	11½	8½	8	0	0	0

Brighton & Hove 1 — 3.5 -0.5 —Bexhill 2

Division 1 Mon 2nd Feb 2026 00:00 Winner: Home   

Result from Sussex League LMS

Board	Rating	Brighton & Hove 1	V	Bexhill 2	Rating
1	2236	Rutherford, Luke EN	1 – 0	G Hubbard, Michael	1916
2	2191	Brewer, Callum DG	1 – 0	G Lumsden, James	1914
3	2127	Rogacewicz, MikolajB	½ – ½	G Fleming, Andrew SJ	1871
4	1931	Batchelor, Paul AG	1 – 0	G Hayward, Michael	1584
Average	2122		3½ – ½		1822

With a major disparity in ratings, the result – for our 2nd team’s first season in the top division – is foreseeable against the strongest teams such as Brighton. On the face of it, without a match report from team members, Andrew looks to have done very well to achieve a draw. Our thanks to Brighton for hosting.

With 4 matches outstanding, the team still has chances of staying up, being placed 3rd from the bottom of the table, just above East Grinstead followed by Crowborough.

Bexhill 1– 2-4 — Hastings & St Leonards

McArthur Cup Fri 30th Jan 2026 19:30 Winner: Away   

Result From Sussex County Chess Association LMS

Board	Rating	Bexhill 1	V	Hastings & St Leonards	Rating
1	2079	Tebbs, Howard LB	0 – 1	G Lowe, Daniel	2139
2	2031	Nguyen, AnhG	0 – 1	G Rayner, Francis	2078
3	2075	Chapman, LukeG	1 – 0	G Sugden, John N	2019
4	1958	Hubbard, MichaelG	½ – ½	G Hoxey, Terry	1924
5	1899	Lumsden, JamesG	½ – ½	G Cove, Henry	1894
6	1768	Kimber, John DN	0 – 1	G Wheeler, James M	1832
Total	11810		2 – 4		11886

It was an exceptionally busy Friday as we hosted Hastings in the McArthur Cup. Despite close contention- -the ratings were comparable – our hopes were dashed.

I missed the games on Boards 5 and 6, which resulted early in the evening – being otherwise employed in the Division 4 match adjacent!

When I could , I found Andy suffering as Black in this position I think :

The N is overloaded wanting to block the b-pawn as well as masking the e7 pawn from the White R , while the White Q+B battery exploits the weak white-coloured squares. The Black Q is overloaded defending against Qf7+ so cannot harass the R away. The finish ( with 2 minutes on the clock) went like this :

1….Rd8 ( If ..Nb6, then Qe6 . If 1…Qd8 then 2. Qc6, Nb8 3.Be6 and black doesn’t have a good move. Or 2…Nf8, 3.b6)

2.Qe6, Kh6 3. b6,Nxb6 4.Rxe7, Qf8 5.Rf7, Qh8 6.Qg4, g5 7.Be2, Kg6 8. Qh5#

Howard, White on Board 1 suffered from a “pesky knight” in this position, I think, despite pushing a serious passed pawn.

Howard played 1.Rd3, which continued 1..Qxd2 2. R3 x d2, Nc4 3.Bb7? Rb8 4. Rd3, Rxb7 0-1

Mreanwhile, Luke achieved a fine, fluent win, with 2 connected passed pawns advancing to b6 and a7 while containing Black’s passers in the centre.

Michael, with Black on Board 4 was a pawn down for some time in an open middle-game position, where his 2 bishops v B+ N were his compensation. In the endgame Michael gained material advantage in pawns, in return for White gaining the exchange. Michael eventually pressed with 2 passed ( but isolated) Q- side pawns. The White R had to fall as a pawn promoted. Michael had K,B,P v K+ P,P. Whilst Michael could force the capture of the 2 White pawns, the Black h pawn would not be able to promote as White’s K would cover the promotion square which was out of reach by Michael’s black-squared bishop. It would be a stalemate. Although there was a dispute as White had stopped writing the game score in time-trouble, and the game could have been forfeited, there was no formal claim for a win by Black and a draw was agreed.

It was a disappointing match outcome for us, but we congratulate Hastings for their deserved victory.

Bexhill 5– 2-2 –Uckfield 2

Division 4 Fri 30th Jan 2026 00:00 Winner: Draw   

Result from Sussex League LMS

Board	Rating	Bexhill 5	V	Uckfield 2	Rating
1	1675	Carthew, JoB	0 – 1	B Stockham, Brian	1592
2	1682	Luxton, William HG	0 – 1	G Archbold, Beauden	1486
3	1624	Rhodes, LawrenceG	1 – 0	B Hill, Jayden	1667
4	1608	Tracey, William FG	1 – 0	G Archbold, Saxon	1185
Average	1648		2 – 2		1483

On 30 January we hosted Uckfield 2.

Our captain Bill Tracey had a good game to save the match. Under pressure in a heavy pieces endgame from a pawn roller on the Q-side, Bill countered effectively and picked off 2 pawns. He exchanged the last pair of rooks into a won King and pawn ending.

Lawry’s opponent overlooked a tactic early in the game by making a discovered attack which rebounded on him because of an intermediate check -forcing the loss of a bishop which was en prise.

The match draw preserved our unbeaten status in the Division. With half of our matches still to play it leaves us in a sound position near the top of the pack :

League table for Division 4

Team	Play	Won	Draw	Lost	For	Against	Points	SP	MP	IM
Worthing 3	7	4	2	1	19	9	10	0	0	0
Bexhill 5	5	3	2	0	13	7	8	0	0	0
Uckfield 2	6	3	2	1	13	11	8	0	0	0
Lewes 2	5	3	1	1	13	7	7	0	0	0
East Grinstead Bookshop	6	3	1	2	11½	12½	7	0	0	0
Eastbourne 5	6	2	1	3	11	13	5	0	0	0
Hastings & St Leonards 5	5	0	2	3	7½	12½	2	0	0	0
Brighton & Hove 5	4	1	0	3	6	10	2	0	0	0
Worthing 4	4	1	0	3	4½	11½	2	0	0	0
Haywards Heath 3	4	0	1	3	5½	10½	1	0	0	0

UCKFIELD—3 -1—BEXHILL

Wednesday 28 January we were hosted warmly at Uckfield. Results as follows:

Board BEXHILL Rating UCKFIELD Ratimg

1 Andrew Fleming 1886 0-1 Arran Airlie 1927

2 Janis Petersons 1837 0-1 Joseph Wright 1750

3 Oliver Kuzmanoski 1630 Draw Brian Stockham 1581

4. Lawrence Rhodes 1626 Draw Beauden Archbold 1442

We had White on Boards 1 and 3. Tough matches, though hard fought as always.

Andrew came under great endgame pressure in defence of his 2nd rank.

Janis worked hard to defend against 2 disconnected pawns in a Rook endgame.

Oliver lost a pawn through a discovered attack in the early middlegame, but, with some isolated pawns, achieved activity in compensation.

Lawry, against a rising 13-year old with a high online rating, achieved 2 bishops v 2 knights in the endgame, with a Q-side pawn majority. It was felt that opportunities to convert that advantage were missed as pawn structure was exploited by the active knights.

Horsham 5 –2-2 –Bexhill 4

Division 3 Tue 27th Jan 2026 00:00 Winner: Draw

Results from Sussex League LMS  

Board	Rating	Horsham 5	V	Bexhill 4	Rating
1	1744	Lanzer, Robert AG	1 – 0	G Swain, Philip	1716
2	1586	Taylor, JonathanB	0 – 1	G Kuzmanoski, Oliver	1631
3	1562	Turvey, GuyG	0 – 1	G Rhodes, Lawrence	1616
4	1533	Denning, Julie LP	1 – 0	G Hayward, Michael	1596
Average	1607		2 – 2		1640

Phil on top boards had a great battle in a French Defence, Winawer Variation ( 1.e4, e6 2.d4, d5 3. Nc3, Bga4 4.e5, Bxf3 5.bxc3) which deprives Black of a bishop covering black squares on the K-side, but compensation with White’s weak Q-side. Phil said , after a ‘crushing’ advance on the K-side with pawns wedged in black squares at h6, f6, he said he ‘couldn’t find the winning move’. The Q-side weaknesses supervened.

Oliver battled really hard, as black after a N for B exchange on g6 which doubled K-side pawns ; they were on h5 ,g6, g7 – looking weak. But Oliver took the open f-file, and castled Q-side, and took advantage and pawns with his active pieces in the endgame. He was the last to finish after a full session and clinched the draw for the team. Well done, Oliver!

I had a tricky struggle on Board 3 – English Opening as White. Gained early space on the flanks. A breakout by Black in the centre had to be countered, which I managed by the ‘skin of my teeth’ and the game went into an endgame where I had N,N,B v R, B. I was able to co-ordinate the pieces against a rook invasion and blockade Black’s passed pawn on d4 ( which Black’s black-squared bishop was tied down to defending) . Eventually I cut down the rook’s scope, and advanced my King and picked up pawns to force promotion of a passer.

Michael had a solid opening – a Czech Pirc Defence. However White ( with a classic pawn centre e4,d4) put middle-game pressure on with bishops on b5, g5 and e5 and exploited an overload on Michael’s f6 N , which could not move without deserting its buddy N on d7.