Post by admin on Jan 27, 2014 10:17:38 GMT
HSL 2 v Brighton 1
(time control 42 moves in 90 minutes)
Board 3 is an expected win for us, making the match 2-3.
This was not far off the strongest team we could field. With our average grade of 171 however, our opponents were 20 pips each more (our top board would not have got into their team!). We knew from the outset it would be a tough day.
Steve had a sound position from a 2 c3 Sicilian, having stabilized the pawn centre and exchanged two pairs of minor pieces. He could easily have played for and got a draw, but as we appeared to be losing on at least two of the boards, he tried a speculative piece sac that gained an initiative but one his opponent was able to repel. At the end Steve was a piece down with no compensation, so had to resign.
Paul played slowly in the opening, a Steinitz Deferred to the Lopez. However, when Paul tried to speed the game along, his opponent was able to isolate Paul's pawns, and Paul went into an endgame two pawns down. His opponent found the winning move (a pawn sac back, deflecting Paul's King), guaranteeing promotion to Queen three moves before Paul. Without that move, a draw was a highly likely outcome.
2 nil down: here is a comment from Bernard:
"I was cramped in a typical Indian Def. formation, and after (my opponent) played the thematic c4-c5, I had to sacrifice the exchange for a pawn, but my two bishops and a strong N on c5 gave some hope of counter chances.
In the time scramble, each side having four minutes for ten moves, I positioned my two bishops on good squares. Some inaccuracies on both sides, such as my missing a win on move 40, led to position where I forced the exchange of queens on the e-file. We adjourned after 42 moves, in a won position for Black, whose three remaining pieces were better placed than the adversary's."
Ollie played a modern Benoni, but Luke took him down a sideline that was unfamiliar but still typical, requiring the defence of the backward d pawn. Ollie had defended well and offered a draw at move 36. Luke felt he had a much stronger position than he actually had, and declined as the game moved into a drawn Queen and opposite bishop endgame. The pawns were all broken and fragmented and the kings exposed. Luke's aggressive Queen threatened to rampage, but Ollie was precise in defence, and soon Luke's Queen moved to the wrong square where it was unable to defend his King, and Ollie moved in and snatched up two quick pawns without reply. With the forced swap of Queens imminent, Luke resigned.
Howard played an excellent game of chess against his higher rated opponent, reaching a completely winning position. He negotiated some tricky tactics to reach a superior position and a slight time advantage over his opponent (although they had around 9 moves to make with 10 minutes left). Howard had a number of ways to achieve a win, but spent too much time on an ultimately unfruitful line, and in his words "had an aberration". A win turned to a draw, that soon turned into a loss as Howard realised his error, and was unable to find the precise drawing move with only seconds on the clock.
So an afternoon of twists and turns. A match that was lost, was drawn, was won, then lost again at the last. Such is chess.
Gary Willson
(time control 42 moves in 90 minutes)
| 1 Ollie Willson | 1 - 0 | Luke Rutherford |
| 2 Howard Tebbs | 0 - 1 | Brian Denman |
| 3 Bernard Cafferty | A - A | Paul Batchelor |
| 4 Paul Kelly | 0 - 1 | Geoffrey James |
| 5 Steve Blewitt | 0 - 1 | John Henshaw |
Board 3 is an expected win for us, making the match 2-3.
This was not far off the strongest team we could field. With our average grade of 171 however, our opponents were 20 pips each more (our top board would not have got into their team!). We knew from the outset it would be a tough day.
Steve had a sound position from a 2 c3 Sicilian, having stabilized the pawn centre and exchanged two pairs of minor pieces. He could easily have played for and got a draw, but as we appeared to be losing on at least two of the boards, he tried a speculative piece sac that gained an initiative but one his opponent was able to repel. At the end Steve was a piece down with no compensation, so had to resign.
Paul played slowly in the opening, a Steinitz Deferred to the Lopez. However, when Paul tried to speed the game along, his opponent was able to isolate Paul's pawns, and Paul went into an endgame two pawns down. His opponent found the winning move (a pawn sac back, deflecting Paul's King), guaranteeing promotion to Queen three moves before Paul. Without that move, a draw was a highly likely outcome.
2 nil down: here is a comment from Bernard:
"I was cramped in a typical Indian Def. formation, and after (my opponent) played the thematic c4-c5, I had to sacrifice the exchange for a pawn, but my two bishops and a strong N on c5 gave some hope of counter chances.
In the time scramble, each side having four minutes for ten moves, I positioned my two bishops on good squares. Some inaccuracies on both sides, such as my missing a win on move 40, led to position where I forced the exchange of queens on the e-file. We adjourned after 42 moves, in a won position for Black, whose three remaining pieces were better placed than the adversary's."
Ollie played a modern Benoni, but Luke took him down a sideline that was unfamiliar but still typical, requiring the defence of the backward d pawn. Ollie had defended well and offered a draw at move 36. Luke felt he had a much stronger position than he actually had, and declined as the game moved into a drawn Queen and opposite bishop endgame. The pawns were all broken and fragmented and the kings exposed. Luke's aggressive Queen threatened to rampage, but Ollie was precise in defence, and soon Luke's Queen moved to the wrong square where it was unable to defend his King, and Ollie moved in and snatched up two quick pawns without reply. With the forced swap of Queens imminent, Luke resigned.
Howard played an excellent game of chess against his higher rated opponent, reaching a completely winning position. He negotiated some tricky tactics to reach a superior position and a slight time advantage over his opponent (although they had around 9 moves to make with 10 minutes left). Howard had a number of ways to achieve a win, but spent too much time on an ultimately unfruitful line, and in his words "had an aberration". A win turned to a draw, that soon turned into a loss as Howard realised his error, and was unable to find the precise drawing move with only seconds on the clock.
So an afternoon of twists and turns. A match that was lost, was drawn, was won, then lost again at the last. Such is chess.
Gary Willson