<
|
|
Results Form December 17 | ||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| Date of Match | Division / Competition | 2 | |||||||||||||
| 19-Jan | |||||||||||||||
| Home | Team | Away | Team | ||||||||||||
| Eastbourne | 2 | Hastings | 3 | ||||||||||||
| Grade | Player | Player | Grade | ||||||||||||
| 1 | 162 | Reddie, Michael J | 1/2 | – | 1/2 | Blewitt, Stephen D | 161 | ||||||||
| 2 | 154 | Weiss, Oliver | 1/2 | – | 1/2 | Wheeler, James M | 159 | ||||||||
| 3 | 146 | Butt, Laurence A | 1 | – | 0 | Bryant, Marc A | 136 | ||||||||
| 4 | 142 | Pannett, Matthew | 0 | – | 1 | Hann, Chris N | 136 | ||||||||
| 5 | 130 | Elgin, Michael R | 0 | – | 1 | Willson, Gary | 129 | ||||||||
| 2 | 3 | ||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| Board | Name | Home Away | Estimated Grade | Comments | |||||||||||
a
Division 2 Results
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | plyd | MP | GP | DP | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hastings & St Leonards 2 | xxx | 4.5 | 4.5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 17 | 0 | ||||
| 2 | Horsham 2 | xxx | 3.5 | 4 | 2.5 | 4.5 | 4 | 3.5 | 14.5 | 0 | ||||
| 4 | Crowborough | 0.5 | 1.5 | xxx | 2 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 5 | 2 | 11 | 0 | |||
| 3 | Hastings & St Leonards 3 | 0.5 | 1 | 3 | xxx | 3 | 2 | 3.5 | 6 | 3 | 13 | 0 | ||
| 5 | Eastbourne 2 | 1 | 1.5 | 2 | xxx | 2.5 | 5 | 5 | 1.5 | 12 | 0 | |||
| 6 | Horsham 3 | 1 | 2.5 | 3 | xxx | 3 | 1.5 | 6.5 | 0 | |||||
| 7 | Woodpushers 1 | 1.5 | xxx | 4.5 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 0 | ||||||
| 8 | Uckfield 1 | 0.5 | 2.5 | xxx | 2 | 0.5 | 3 | 0 | ||||||
| 9 | Lewes 2 | 1.5 | 0 | 0.5 | xxx | 3 | 0 | 2 | 1 |
Hastings white on odds, and win 3:2.
Teams were evenly matched, so a close result was assured.
Marc went into a variation that lost material but promised an attacking advantage that never ultimately materialised due to Laurence’s innovative counter. Laurence powered his advantage through with a relatively quick win.
Steve (in his last game for us as he is now nominated out) got into a drawn position with no imbalances, requiring a lot of work and risk to make something of it. When a draw was offered, even though 1 – 0 down at that time, his assessment of Board 4 & 5 looking good for us made his decision easy.
I swapped of my bad “good” bishop for his good “bad” bishop, and in doing so locked his “good” light squared bishop, and a rook, out of the game with a pawn chain ending on E6. Effectively material up, I could choose my method of execution: I forced the swap off of his only active pieces, and went for strangulation. The curtain came down as the lady was half way through her final aria.
Chris went up an exchange and retained a significant initiative until move 42 when the 3 hours was up. Matthew was defending well but ultimately was running out of good defensive moves as Chris, rather than wait for the time control, tried to find a win over the board. Beaten only by the clock, Fritz had Chris at plus 6 pawns in the final analysis.
Jim and Oli had a close tactical game that Jim turned in his favour decisively around move 35 when he won Oli’s key central pawns. With a rook and minor piece each, and Jim’s 4 connected passed pawns in the centre, Jim was spoilt for choice for winning moves. Move 40 however and he had overlooked the simple pin of his rook to his knight, and dropped a piece. Despite this it looked to all the world that 4 central passed pawns ought to be enough to win anyway a piece down, but those engines (and Bernard and Howard) could not find a way, so a draw has been agreed. Oli’s king would have been more active, and Jim would not have been able to stop it centralising.
Excellent team performance, puts on on 3 match points out of 6 with 2 games to go, and safety in division 2 is pretty much assured.
Gary