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.
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.
This was the position, I think, in Bill Luxton’s game just before 40.Rg5?!. Bill had played a white-square blockade in a Pirc defence. against an Austrian Attack ( White pawns on d4,e4, f4 – a K-side pawn roller.) He had come under pressure from a heavy piece battery on a weak pawn on h7. Bill had made a sensible decision to liquidate the pawn by advancing it to h6, to make room for a counter battery on the ( now White!) h6 pawn with his own rooks on h7, h8. Bill’s bishop had squares it could cover on the K-side, whereas White’s ‘bad’ bishop was hemmed in. White offered the exchange on g5, to connect the passed pawns. 40.Rg5, Bxg5 41.fxg5, Qb6. Bill not only blocked the pawns but shortly gave a discovered check, with …f4. The King had to hide on h1 and the pawn structure had ( you will notice) created a back row mating net because the bishop could no longer save a mate threat with Bc1. Bill was able to exchange Qs and a pair of rooks, during which time the bishop had been deflected from c1 and Bill’s rook gave a back rank mate.
Bilk Tracey had a good game with Black against a London system opening, progressively winning more material.
Lawry lost after gaining ground in the centre but overlooking some resources his opponent had more carefully thought through.
Jo had a tough opponent who gave nothing away against Jo’s careful flank opening and I didn’t see how the game swung in Black’s favour.
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.
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.
On Tuesday 13 Jan, we travelled to Lewes. We were outrated and outmatched, apart from Janis on top board who proved a King and Bishop’s pawn on the 7th rank can draw against a King and Queen by offering the pawn to gain stalemate in the corner. The rest of the team, out-rated, lost after full-distance struggles. Results ( from Sussex Chess) :
L-R: Andrew, Lawry, Michael Hayward, Rose, Bill T., Bill L., Steve
.( photo thanks to Nick Burgess)
Here is Chairman Bill Tracey’s report :
“The Weekend Congress was great fun with generally good performances by Bexhill members.
In the Open section Michael Hubbard was 1.5 from 5 one win one draw and Luke was 2 from 5 one win and two draws.
In the Major section Andrew performed very well to gain 3.5 points from 3 wins and 1 draw and finished joint 4th.
Rose had a fine performance starting as the 19th ranked player she came 7th with 3 points including 2 wins against much higher rated players.
In the Inter section Oliver, playing at Hastings for the first time had a fine tournament finishing joint 8th with 3 points from a possible 5.
I too was in this section which had 43 entrants and also came joint 8th with 3 points.
I, perhaps had the oddest day as in the 4th round I played possibly my worst ever game with the computer analysis showing that I played with only 61% accuracy! Then in the afternoon winning in round 5 with an accuracy of 96.2%!
During the whole 8 days of competition a total of 10 Bexhill members played in at least one of the Congress events.
This meant that we were second only to the Hastings club in terms of numbers.
