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.
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 :
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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 :
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.
