On 24 April we travelled to Harrow for a first division Middlesex fixture. Given that Ealing One is facing a relegation battle, it was particularly important to win this match. With an average rating advantage of 180+ points per board, we started as firm favourites.
In my own game, I secured a middlegame position in which a spatial advantage plus an extra pawn provided an enduring edge. My opponent sacrificed the exchange and lost quickly thereafter.
The next game to finish was Jonathan’s. He writes: ”My opponent met my Leningrad Bird with a rather slow plan based on exchanging the g2-bishop. This gave me a significant lead in development and pressure on his uncastled king. Even after an exchange of queens, I had a number of mating threats and was able to use them to win a decisive material advantage.”
John, on board three, had recently returned from a successful trip to Poland where he represented his country in a European senior event. Reflecting on his game, he states: “My opponent played 2. c3 against my Sicilian defence. I equalised out of the opening but then went astray in the early middle game, playing an unnecessary defensive move which gave him an advantage. Then in the key position, rather than the correct c5 followed by Bxf4, I played Bxf4 followed by c5 which lost a piece due to the pin along the b-file combined with his queen acting along the h2 to b8 diagonal. White duly went on to win.”
Alan gained our third victory of the evening with a convincing win. He comments: “My opponent played the KIng’s Indian and I replied with the Samisch Variation. He misplayed the opening. After 14 moves, with all pieces still on the board, the c to h files were blocked because of the pawn chains but I had a positionally won game. My pawns were all on white squares: c4, d5, e4, f3, g4 and h5. Black’s pawns were mostly on black squares: c5, d6 e5, f7, g5 and h6. I enjoyed a spatial advantage and the potential to land a knight on f5 from where it would attack his weak pawns on d6 and h6. He had no such possibility. I was able to open the queenside by playing b4 and infiltrate down the b-file. It was impossible to defend such a cramped position. I created a passed pawn which cost him a knight and a few moves later I won another piece, at which point he resigned.”
On board one, Martin, in a rook and three pawns versus rook and two pawns ending, tried to win a drawn position and unfortunately lost.
The last game to finish was Mark’s. With characteristic frankness he notes: “I played the opening terribly, losing a pawn and the ability to castle. He managed to hold on to get to an ending of bishop and 4 pawns vs knight and 3; but I missed a chance to win his bishop with a knight fork and subsequently lost.” So the match ended in 3-all draw.
Without doubt this was a disappointing team performance given the rating differential between the sides. We will need to do better in the remaining two games if we are to have a chance of first division chess next season.
| Harrow One | Rating | Result | Ealing One | Rating |
| WFM Bodhana Sivanandan | 2150 | 1-0 | Martin Smith | 2166 |
| Jagdeep Dhemrait | 1963 | 0-1 | Alan Perkins | 2146 |
| Atreya Mandnikar | 1823 | 1-0 | John Quinn | 2076 |
| Tom Sharp | 1805 | 0-1 | Jonathan White | 2020 |
| Clive Heidrich | 1750 | 1-0 | Mark Winterbotham | 1845 |
| Haobo Yang | 1484 | 0-1 | Simon Healeas | 1825 |
| 3-3 |