"Those who say they understand chess, understand nothing" -- Robert HUBNER

Match Result


Season 18/19
Date Wed 03 Oct 2018
Competition:Middlesex League Division 2
Fixture West London '1' v Ealing 'B'
Result L: 1-7

Scorecard


BoardGradeWest London '1'
v
Ealing 'B'Grade
1177Staller, Ecco
0.5-0.5
Jason Obihara
2177Burke, John
1-0
Trevor Bates
3171Hayler, Andy
1-0
Christopher Yapp
4134Tobisch, John
1-0
David Housego
5154Campbell, Russell
1-0
Alex Richards
6115Pooler, James
1-0
Neville T Rowden
7NoneBrown, Sam
1-0
Amars Sachdev
880Winter, Stuart
0.5-0.5
Michael J Smith
Total
7-1

Captains Comment


Trevor was captain on the night and writes, ‘A number of the games were a lot closer than the result suggests and a few of us were very unlucky not to do better. Note also that we were outgraded on nearly every board. West London had a 177 on boards 1 and 2, and even their board 5 was graded 154.  Our board 1 faced a deficit of around 40 grading point, boards 2 and 3 had deficits around 55 points, and boards 4 and 5 faced deficits of nearly 70 grading points!’

Playing black on board 1, Jason writes, ‘I was playing the black pieces. My opponent played the King’s Indian Attack against my French defence. However he found himself fairly cramped for space and with no kingside attack or centre play, he found himself just moving a couple of pieces in the back. He had also advanced his h pawn to h6 which was later picked up. I had an open f file with both rooks on this file. I maintained the initiative and was creating and generating chances with 2 central pawns also on the 5th rank. My opponent kept asking for a draw about 4 times, each time refused. The clock had to be stopped and have 2 mins added to my clock for an illegal move by my opponent. Opponent wasn't happy with this, and being quite rude verbally during the match. However with a time scramble of about couple of minutes left, I made an inaccuracy after being a piece up, and the end result was a draw. Should be noted when put in the computer I was about +5.6 at certain points and should have won more material earlier.

On board 2 as White, Trevor Bates played the Torre Attack. With cat-and mouse manoeuvering on both sides Black spent a lot of time thinking and, by the first time control at move 30, Trevor had a small plus and his opponent was thirty minutes behind on the clock. With an exchange of pieces Trevor offered a draw in a level position which was declined (Fritz rated this position at 0.00) but he then immediately overlooked a backward Bishop move which resulted in the loss of a pawn and, eventually, the game. A very hard result to swallow.  

Christopher on board 3 writes, ‘Fairly standard French defence stuff - closed centre with me trying to pressure the white pawn on d4. Unfortunately I lost a pawn on move 17 after blundering with b5. However I fought on and made life quite difficult for my opponent, whose dark squared bishop wasn’t really participating on b2. He was better throughout, until he played Rd1 and Qc2 - I had an opportunity to draw on move 30 and 31, if I had played Be2. I looked at this as a candidate move both times and must have miscalculated. Both lead to draws (computer says 0.000!). Frustrated to miss this against such a strong player. The path I chose instead was crushing for white.

David, playing white on board 4 writes, ‘The opening was the French defence by black to my e4. Black played the exchange variation and the middle game saw both bishops, a knight and queens exchanged without much incident. However in the endgame, black was able to bring more pressure onto white’s pawns, initially on the queenside, but then with an adroit knight fork to capture a kingside pawn. Black then switched to a kingside attack capturing a further pawn and then advancing linked passed pawns on the ‘e’ and ‘f’ files. After 60 moves and with time running out I resigned when I couldn’t prevent black from promoting his passed pawn. An interesting game against a more skilled opponent.

Neville on board 6 writes, ‘My game was an inauspicious start to the season. It seems that West London were much stronger than we were although I am not sure how strong my opponent was. I played white and opened with the Queen's Bishop Game. We both castled short and, although, I was positionally on the back foot quite soon after the start, my defence was solid and my opponent couldn't find a way through. Having secured a strong defensive position, I attempted to attack his "a"-file, which was quite weak, with my queen and potentially gave me the opportunity of attacking his king. Unfortunately, this also exposed my rook from which my opponent took advantage and I wasn't able to recover. Most of the game was quite close but, in the end, I succumbed to a better player especially after my blunder.

Michael on board 8 writes, ‘I was lucky to get a draw tonight. I had an advantage more than once but blundered. He blundered too, but not as much as me. At the end, we both had passed pawns and he had a worrying attack on my king together with promotion possibilities. I only had 5 minutes left on the clock while he had 10, so I was pretty sure I would lose on time. However, when his attack resulted in his frustration rather than mate, I took the opportunity of offering a draw and he accepted.’