A glorious queen sac can be irresistible and fans will always applaud it. But winning the game is even better – a lesson I learned the hard way in this totemic position from early in my playing career
Michael Healey
An instructive position! Context later, but what would you, as White, do here? Do you long for the security of exchanged queens? Qxb8, Ne4, Rhe1 or maybe even f4 straightening out the doubled pawns? White is after all a pawn up; the rest, as they always say, should be a matter of technique.
Should White keep the queens on with Qg5, then point everybody at g7? Surely Black’s kingside couldn’t survive the firepower of White’s entire army? Or is this a mirage?
Is Rd6 your choice, preventing the queen exchange with an awkward self-pin? Dominating Black like a sumo wrestler sat on a cat?
Or is there something else – something which makes your heart beat faster, dreaming of glory. A taste of immortality. A portal in time to the great chess romantics of the past. To be included in great tomes of tactics books and legendary sacrifices. A kiss from Caissa herself? Can White play Qxf6?!?!
Let’s split the options into four:
The Dull – f4
The Daring – Qg5
The Dominating – Rd6
The Dramatic – Qxf6
Bet bet bet now! (Obligatory Banzai! music). Betting ends.
Now for some background.
A long time ago, I had started work as a chess teacher. In an effort to test this new-found professionalism, having spent most of my chess life up to this point hacking and worshipping the g5 square, I entered a proper chess tournament (as did future team-mate FM Julian Way). The tournament went bizarrely well. I finished joint fourth with IM Chris Baker in a very strong field. GM Keith Arkell came first, netting the princely first prize of £100.
In round seven I was paired with White against FM (and future GM) Michal Matuszewski, the pre-tournament dark horse. I had been having a strange tournament, scoring my first ever win against an IM, but also suffering in a couple of terrible games. I was very, very nervous, and then shocked to find myself in the above position having played some offbeat nonsense and invested very little time. Here I sank into thought. What to do?
Thanks to my friend and chess history devotee Kevin Henbest, I was thoroughly familiar with the game Nezhmetdinov-Chernikov, surely one of the most beautiful queen sacrifices ever played:
Nezhmetdinov - Chernikov 1962
Analysis by Jonathan Hinton [“A Gnat May Drink”] and Michael Healey1.e4c52.Nf3Nc63.d4cxd44.Nxd4g65.Nc3Bg76.Be3Nf67.Bc4O-O8.Bb3Ng48…Na5?9.e5!Ne8?10.Bxf7+!Kxf711.Ne6!!Fischer-Reshevsky 1958/599.Qxg4Nxd410.Qh4Qa5!11.O-OBf612.Qxf6!!“This is the thunderbolt lurking in the depths of such a ‘dull’ position. Nezhmetdinov’s sacrifice of queen for just bishop and knight was played after 45 minutes’ thought.” [JH]12.Qg4d613.Qd1Nc614.Qd3=Fischer-Reshevsky 196112.Qh6Bg713.Qh4Bf6=12.Qg3Qxc3!13.bxc3Ne2+12…Ne2+!If your opponent thinks for 45 minutes, you probably have time to think of the correct response!12…Nxb313.axb3Qxa1!14.Qxe7!!Qa515.Bh6Qd816.Nd5!!13.Nxe2exf6“If we take stock of the position after White’s spectacular sacrifice, it is apparent that he has compensation in the form of (a) a large lead in development; (b) control over the dark squares; (c) active minor pieces and in particular the two bishops; and (d) no weaknesses in his own position compared with several in Black’s.” [JH]14.Nc3Re814…d5!?15.Nxd515.Bd4!?15…Be616.Nxf6+Kg717.Bd415.Nd5!Re616.Bd4Kg717.Rad1d618.Rd3Bd7!19.Rf3Bb520.Bc3Qd821.Nxf6!Be2!21…Bxf122.Ng4+!Kg823.Bxe6fxe624.Nh6#22.Nxh7+!!Kg8!22…Kxh723.Rxf7+Kh623…Kg824.Bxe624.Bxe6Bxf125.Bd2+!g526.Bf5!Qh826…Qg8?27.Rf6+Kh528.g4+Kh429.Rh6#27.h4!!Be2!27…Rg828.hxg5+Kh529.Kxf1!Rg730.Bc3!28.Bxg5+!Kh529.f3!Bxf330.gxf3Qd4+31.Kg2Rh832.Rf6!!23.Rh3!Re5!24.f4Bxf1?24…Rh5!!25.Nf6+Kf826.Nxh5Qb6+!27.Rf2gxh5!∞25.Kxf1!Rc8?25…Rh5!!26.Nf6+Kf827.Nxh5gxh528.Rxh5Ke729.Rf5!Qb630.Rxf7+Ke8∞26.Bd4?26.fxe5!dxe526…Rxc3?27.bxc327.Bd526…b5?26…Rh5!27.Nf6+27.Ng5?Rc7!27…Kf828.Nxh5gxh529.Rxh5Ke727.Ng5!Rc728.Bxf7+!!Rxf7!!29.Rh8+Kxh830.Nxf7+Kh731.Nxd8Rxe432.Nc6Rxf4+33.Ke21–0
Now, back to my game. Somehow I was a pawn up against an FM, but here I was with a chance to emulate the great SuperNezh himself. My usual calculation was failing me completely; the sacrifice was like a black hole drawing my thoughts away from every other line. Qg5 and Rd6 looked good, then dangerous, then drawish and seemingly dissipating my advantage, then a blur of lines I couldn’t concentrate on because THEY WEREN’T THE GLORIOUS QUEEN SAC!
After attempting to consider the alternatives I returned to stare longingly at Qxf6. I couldn’t see the win, but felt it must be there. Surely only a coward would shy away from such a move? Having taken nearly an hour, I punted.
The game went as follows:
Healey, M - FM Matuszewski, M 2011
Annotated by Michael Healey
1.e4c52.Nf3d63.Nc3Nf64.e5Anand, Viswanathan – Topalov, Veselin, 1-0, Corsica Masters, 2003. An offbeat variation I think picked up from the above Anand game. 4.e5 has been used by several English players over the years, especially IM Jack Rudd.4…dxe55.Nxe5a66.Be2e67.b3Bd68.Nc4Bc79.Bf3O-O10.Ba3?!Overambitious10…Nbd711.d4Ba5?12.Bb2cxd413.Nxa5?!Qxa5?!14.Qxd4Ne515.O-O-O!In those days I was even more dismissive of niceties like the bishop pair and doubled pawns than I am now.15…Nxf316.gxf3e517.Qd6!Good – a brave step forwards, not back.17…Be618.b4!Qd819.Qxe5Qb820.Qxf6?!20.Qg5Keeps most of White’s significant advantage20…Ne821.Nd521.Rhg1f622.Qe321…f622.Qe3Bxd523.Rxd5White is certainly better, but it’s a confident player who would back themselves against an FM here.20.f4A pure +1 advantage20.Rd6!The key move.20…Ne821.Ne4!Black is completely stuck! Something a grandmaster (or computer) would realise instantly, but mere mortals would assume is a failed line. There is no explicit win, just squishing.21…Kh821…Bf5?intending Bg622.Qxf5!Nxd623.Nf6+gxf623…Kh824.Qxh7#24.Rg1+Kh825.Bxf6#22.Rg1Rg823.a4Qc724.Rd2!Qxe525.Bxe5Bf526.a5f627.Bf4g528.Be3h629.Rgd1This position is +4!20…gxf621.Rhg1+?!21.Rdg1+!False memory or not, I remember wondering about this move. Why on earth?? Because the h-pawn is now defended!!21…Kh822.Nd5Qe522…h523.Rg5!+−See why we wanted h2 defended now?23.Bxe5fxe524.Nf6⩲21…Kh822.Ne422.Nd5?h523.Nxf6Qf4+24.Rd2!24.Kb1Qf5∓24…Qh424…Qc4??25.Rd4!25.f4!a526.Rg5axb427.Rxh5+Qxh528.Nxh5+Kh729.f5!Bxf530.Rd5!Bg631.Nf6+Kh632.f4Rac833.Ng4+Kh734.f5Bh535.Nf6+Kh636.Kb1Kg537.Nh7+Kh438.Nxf8Rxf839.Rd4+⩲All terribly obvious…22…h523.Nxf6Qf4+24.Kb1?24.Rd2!24…Qxf3?24…Qh4!25.Rd3!Qc6?25…Qf526.Rc3!Qb5?After a few bad Queen flights, glory is back on!26…Qxc3!27.Bxc3±27.Rc5Qe228.Ng4+?!28.Rxh5+Qxh529.Nxh5++−f629…Kh730.Nf6+Kh831.Ng8+!Kh7?32.Rg7+Kh833.Rg6+Kh7??34.Rh6+Kxg835.Rh8#30.Nxf6Rxf631.Bxf6+28…Kh729.Rxh5+?29.Nf6+Kh829…Kh630.Bc1+Qd231.Bxd2#30.Rxh5+29…Kg630.Nf6+?Time running out, decisions go awry again.30.Rh6+!Kf531.Ne3+!Ke432.Rh4+Kf333.Rg3+Kxf234.Rf4+Ke135.Bc3+Qd236.Rg1+Ke237.Rg2+Kxe338.Bxd2#30…Qg4!30…Bg431.h4!!31.Nxg4Kxh532.Nf6+Kh433.Rg3Rfd834.Be5Rac835.Bf4Rd536.Nxd5Bxd537.c3Re838.Bg5+Kh539.Be3f540.Rg5+Kh441.Rg741.Rxf5??Be4+41…Kh342.a4Low on time and nerves shattered, a draw was proffered. It was accepted. The insanity was over.
A few months later, proudly showing this game to my friend, FM Thanasis Tsanas, he responded with utter disgust. “You were winning! Why would you play this? Karpov would never play such a move!”
I had been fully expecting praise, maybe even light applause, for my bravery. Yet here was an FM telling me off! Something in me, a crazed romantic, got a lesson that day. Rare and entrancing as a queen sacrifice is, it should not come at the expense of the position. Chess wins are not the result of hit and hope.
What would I do today? Well, older and wiser, I now realise many games between strong players are decided not by tactics or queen exchanges, but by domination – controlling the board and not allowing your opponent’s pieces space to breathe. Rd6 is the key move, and the computer agrees. While the other moves should win with perfect play, Rd6 is the truly brave move – self-pinning, calculating to see that everything is working tactically, and having faith in one’s pieces (and scorn for your opponent’s prospects).
Kingston v Wimbledon, Alexander Cup final, Adelaide pub, Teddington, 16 June 2022
This was the board 2 clash in the Alexander Cup Final between Wimbledon stalwart Russell Granat, a noted attacking player with an ECF rating of 2260, and 18-year-old Kingston star David Maycock, whose ECF is close to 2300 and which will no doubt soon enter the stratosphere. Maycock first rebuffs Granat’s Worrall Attack in the Ruy Lopez and then occupies the centre with a phalanx of pawns. It is a wonderfully controlled display by a young player of enormous promise who has helped to transform Kingston’s fortunes this season.
Granat, Russell
Maycock Bates, David Henry
Alexander Cup final
2022 – Adelaide pub, Teddington
Annotated by David Maycock
Before the game I felt well rested and confident since I had the opening ideas fresh in my head. I also had been exercising lately, which is known to benefit your chess. The game started1.e4e52.Nf3Nc63.Bb5a64.Ba4Nf65.O-OA tricky move order.5.Qe2was what I expected, and after5…b56.Bb3Bc5I was well prepared5…Be75…b5trying to transpose to the previous move order is not ideal since after6.Bb3Bc5White has many options, resulting in an impractical decision.7.Qe27.Nxe5Nxe58.d4another common reaction7.c3following Archangel main lines7…O-Owould have been my preparation6.Qe2now my bishop is already on e7, which changes things a bit. With Qe2, White has officially declared he will go for the Worrall Attack. The idea is to quickly develop the rook to the centre with Rd1 and play c3-d4 or d3 depending on Black’s reaction. Also, it creates the immediate threat of Bxc6 and sometimes White can use the tempo for castling in other ways.6…b57.Bb3O-O8.c3d5striking in the centre8…d69.Rd1Na510.Bc2c5is another set-up.9.d39.exd5!?Nxd510.Nxe5Nxe511.Qxe5Nf6Black has sacrificed a pawn for initiative, White has to develop his pieces on the queenside or he will get destroyed. Even though the computer defends this position, a human is going to be very uncomfortable.9…Re8natural moves in the Ruy Lopez, also x-raying the queen on e2.9…Bb7is very likely to transpose10.Rd1h6This move is always useful. In this position it also keeps the c8 bishop flexible and avoids future Bg4-Bxf6 ideas.11.Nbd2Bb711…Bf8was another approach, where after the natural moves12.Nf1Na513.Bc2c514.Ng3Nc615.h3the main difference is that the bishop comes out on e615…Be60-1 (35) Kundin, A (2328) v Ben Artzi, I (2350) Israel 202112.Nf1Na5!?giving White an extra option12…Bf813.Ng3Na5was apparently more natural, but following the same plan of playing c5-d413.Bc213.Bxd5could have been played, but the Spanish bishop is always difficult to trade.13…Nxd514.exd5Bxd515.Qxe5Bxf316.gxf3Bd6and Black must have sufficient compensation13…Bf814.Ne3c5This position has been reached 19 times in different move orders. During the game, I was quite familiar with the position because it’s similar to the Ruy Lopez with d3, where Black’s reaction is similar with d5-Qc7-c4. This position is the first critical moment of the game.15.c4!?A very compromising move15.Nf5was chosen by most of the players, but this position has a great score for Black following natural play with Qc7 and connecting rooks.15…Qc7⩱15.h3another sensible move15…d4gaining space16.Nd5Nxd517.cxd517.exd5?e418.dxe4Nxc4∓17…Bc8regrouping my minor pieces to better squares17…f5!was the engine move, very concrete18.Bd218.b3restricting the knight is faced by18…fxe419.dxe4Rc820.Bd2c421.b4d3and again, Black solves all his problems18…fxe419.dxe4Nc4and the knight comes back to play18.Bd2Nb719.a4Typical pawn break in this structure. Usually White maintains the tension until there is a concrete line where breaking the tension works on his favour.19…Bd720.Ne1This is a good move, forcing Black to be accurate. It is intending f4, and if Black doesn’t react quickly enough he might let White accommodate himself.20…f5necessary move21.f321.f4fxe422.dxe4c4∓is good for Black21…Nd6The Black knight has reached his optimal square, in front of a passed pawn.22.Bb3Kh8Prophylaxis.23.Rdc1Qb623…Rc8!?was my main alternative during the game, but after24.axb5axb525.Ra7it gives White a bit of counterplay, although it’s not clear at all after lines like25…c4!?25…Be7?loses funnily to26.Ba526.dxc4bxc427.Bxc4Rxc428.Rxc4Bb5∞24.axb5?!I don’t think White should have broken up the tension for nothing.24…axb525.Rxa8?!Now he gifts the a file. He probably wanted to take on e5 at the end of the line, but, as you are about to see, it would have been good for Black.25…Rxa826.exf5Bxf5After all these captures, the only thing that would make sense is if White took the pawn, but I think he realised here that it wasn’t good and therefore went for something different.27.g4At this point my opponent lost objectivity over the position. From this point it is downhill for White.27.Qxe5?Re828.Qg3c4!29.dxc429.Bc2c329…bxc430.Bxc4d3+31.Kf1Qxb2∓and Black is winning27…Bh7to keep g5 ideas available28.Kg228.Qxe5?still not good28…Re829.Qf4g529…c4is also winning, but a bit more complicated30.Qg3Re231.Rc2c4and Black is all over White.28…Re8Here Black is basically saying, “My pieces are better placed than yours and your king is in danger.”28…c429.Bc229.dxc4bxc430.Bxc4Nxc431.Qxc431.Rxc4Qb532.Qf1Qxd531…Qxb229…Qc530.dxc4bxc431.Bxh7Kxh732.Nd3Qxd533.Qxe5Qxe534.Nxe5Ra229.Qf2c4Finally achieving this pawn break.30.Bc2Qb731.Bb4Strong players never give up easily. Here White is trying to defend dynamically, but it doesn’t quite work.31…Qxd532.Bxd6Bxd633.dxc4bxc434.Bxh7This is what White had in mind when he played Bb4 a few moves earlier, but he now realises that it doesn’t work.34…Kxh7and the rest, as they say, is technique.35.Rd135.Qc2+was his original plan, but after35…d336.Qxc4Qxc437.Rxc4d2Black is promoting35…Rb836.Kh3d336…Rb3also possible37.Ng2Rxb238.Ne3Rxf239.Nxd5e440.f4Bxf441.g5h542.Nxf4Rxf443.Kg3Rf3+44.Kh4Rf4+I have to be careful with stalemate ideas like44…Kg645.h3c346.Rxd3exd345.Kg3Rg4+46.Kf2c347.Ke3c248.Ra1Rxg5and my opponent resigned because he is four pawns down and I will queen eventually. A game where I kept control once I had the space advantage, and placed my pieces on active squares.0–1
Alexander Cup final between Kingston and Wimbledon, played at the Adelaide, Teddington, on 16 June 2022
The match in full swing in the elegant playing room at the Adelaide pub in Teddington
This match meant so much to Kingston. The club had not won the Alexander Cup, Surrey’s premier knockout competition, since 1976 – 46 long, often frustrating years. We had come through the earlier rounds at a canter and were now up against Wimbledon in a match played at the neutral venue of the Adelaide pub in Teddington, home of Richmond and Twickenham Chess Club, to whom thanks are once again due for hosting the final.
Before the start of the match, Wimbledon’s Russell Granat paid tribute to his long-time team-mate Nick Keene, whose death had been announced on the very day of the match. Keene was a strong player who had been associated with Wimbledon for many years. His playing style was highly original – early cramped positions suddenly bursting into life, as Granat explained – and he was noted for his sporting and gentlemanly approach to the game. The players stood and observed a minute’s silence in Keene’s honour.
Wimbledon’s Russell Granat pays tribute to Nick Keene, with tournament controller Huw Williams seated
Wimbledon had brought a strong team to the final, spearheaded by IM Alberto Suarez Real on board 1. So strong, in fact, that John Foley, who had intended to be non-playing captain, decided at the eleventh hour to play himself, exchanging roles with Jon Eckert, who, freed from playing responsibilities, captained Kingston on the night. Eckert also won an important toss, giving Kingston’s board 1, Mike Healey, White against Wimbledon’s IM.
We had hopes of picking up points on the lower boards, where we outrated Wimbledon, but as so often those hopes were to be confounded. Indeed, we were quickly in trouble on board 8, where Ivan Georgiev was struggling against rising star Shahvez Ali. A recent win against Coulsdon’s Chino Atako tells you just how good young Ali is, and his official Surrey rating of 1773 (set back in August 2021) gives no clue as to his true strength. His live ECF rating is 1988 and he is clearly a 2200-plus player in the making.
Ali played a mainline closed Catalan and, by advancing his b and c pawns, exerted early pressure. Georgiev went wrong, was forced to give up a piece for a pawn, and by move 23 was effectively busted. He bravely fought on, blitzing out another 40 moves, but the game was up, and Wimbledon had first blood. Captain Eckert and the Kingston contingent who had come along to support were aghast.
Wimbledon’s rising star, Shahvez Ali (right), played a tactically astute game to defeat Ivan Georgiev
Things were not going according to plan. Foley was doing well on board 7 and so was Alan Scrimgour on board 9, until he missed a combination that would have netted two pieces for a rook. But Vladimir Li, whom we had considered our banker on board 4, was in trouble in the opening, most of the other games were level and the rarefied proceedings on board 1 were largely impenetrable.
Still, accentuate the positive. Foley, who this week was elected president of Kingston Chess Club, opted for the mildewed London System and played a beautifully controlled game, picking up a couple of pawns before polishing off his opponent with what we can only call a “cheapo” that either won a piece or forced mate. His opponent, Oliver Weiss, decided to fall on his sword: 1-1 and match on.
Kingston’s John Foley, resplendent in a Hawaiian shirt on a hot evening, played beautifully to beat Oliver Weiss
On board 10, once Scrimgour had missed (or, as it later transpired, deliberately chosen not to play) his early tactical shot, the game had turned somewhat and, if anything, it was Wimbledon’s Sean Ingle who held a small edge as the game moved towards the endgame. Ingle, though, who was outrated by a fair margin, sought peace, and Scrimgour, with an expert assessment of how the game stood, concurred. All square at 1.5 to 1.5.
Wimbledon’s Sean Ingle is a study in concentration and secured a good draw against Alan Scrimgour on board 10
The match was in the balance and Kingston backers were still far from happy. Vladimir Li was in what looked like terminal trouble, Wimbledon’s Suarez Real was turning the screw on board 1, and the other games were too close to call. Where were Kingston’s points going to come from? Board 3 possibly, where Peter Lalić was playing a tricky anti-Dutch system against the experienced Dan Rosen. Eckert, himself a keen Dutch player, reckoned Rosen was playing a Dutch that had gone wrong. A “double Dutch”, one wag suggested.
On board 6, Julian Way’s game against Haridas Girinath was very tight. Girinath played a solid Modern Defence, and a draw was agreed after 24 moves, but Way – distracted by his opponent’s draw offer – missed a neat tactic in the final position that would have given him an advantage of +3 (the exchange and a pawn). One that got away for Kingston, and, with the scores tied at 2-2, it still felt as if Wimbledon had a slight edge in the remaining games.
Kingston’s Julian Way (right) drew with Haridas Girinath, but missed a neat tactic which was potentially winning
We were in the middle of a spate of draws. Peter Andrews, playing his trusty English against Wimbledon veteran Paul Barasi (not a man to sit in his seat if he can be having a cigarette outside the pub), had had the worst of the opening exchanges and overlooked a tactic that allowed Barasi to grab a pawn. He said later that the oversight affected his confidence and, despite outrating Barasi, was happy to take a draw with the position level. Kingston’s ratings advantage on the bottom boards had not yielded the hoped-for dividends, and now we had to look at the top boards, where fierce battles were raging.
Peter Andrews, playing on board 9 for Kingston, suffered an early setback and was happy to settle for a draw
In many ways, or so it seemed in retrospect, the crucial game was board 4, where Kingston’s Vladimir Li had been struggling from the start against another Wimbledon veteran, Ian Heppell. Heppell played the Alapin variation against Li’s Sicilian, and enjoyed a tiny edge in the opening which quickly built into something more substantial in the middle game.
That resolved into an endgame where Heppell had knight and six pawns against Li’s bishop and five pawns. Some observers thought Li was a goner, but Ljubica Lazarevic, who was tweeting and what’s apping the match for Kingston, reckoned the long-range capabilities of Li’s bishop gave him a fighting chance, and Heppell clearly agreed. With a time scramble beckoning, he bailed out, and a draw was agreed. The engine suggests Heppell was almost +2 in the final position.
With that unexpected draw, Kingston started to believe, especially as the four players left to get us over the line – Mike Healey, David Maycock, Peter Lalić and Will Taylor – all had youth on their side. Draws are on the whole not in their vocabulary – they would be pushing for wins. At least that was what the exhausted and sweltering Kingston contingent in the bar hoped.
Kingston’s Vladimir Li (left) secured a vital draw in a game where Ian Heppell had an edge throughout
The first crack in the Wimbledon dam came on board 3, where Peter Lalić – a towering presence in Kingston’s first team all season – was up against Dan Rosen. Lalić established an early advantage; Rosen fought back to equality; Lalić, playing beautifully (as so often) with the bishop pair, re-established his advantage and had what looked like a decisive pawn on the a-file, with Rosen’s remaining rook and black-squared bishop (pitted against Lalić’s rook and white-squared bishop) tied down. Rosen resigned.
But, as a post mortem in the bar quickly revealed, the resignation was premature. The engine, despite the fact that Rosen was in a near-zugzwang, only gives Lalić plus 0.5 in the final position. Psychology may have been the key. Lalić has a reputation as a ferocious blitz player, and Rosen is in effect saying “In a time scramble, I know you will win this.” Lalić’s win made it 4-3 to Kingston, and suddenly the door was open – though whether dams have doors is a moot point. The heat was getting to the match reporters as well as the players.
Kingston’s Peter Lalić scored a crucial win over Dan Rosen to make it 4-3 and suddenly the door was open
The news got even better a few minutes later when David Maycock, playing Black, won a magnificent game against Russell Granat, a highly rated and very attacking player who has been a mainstay of a succession of strong Wimbledon sides for decades. Granat had played the very sharp Worrall attack in the Ruy Lopez, which Maycock had first neutralised and then, with a flamboyant set of pawn pushes, repelled.
Granat’s pawns became uncoordinated, Maycock consolidated his advantage with some lovely tactics, and on move 48, faced with a phalanx of unstoppable pawns, Granat resigned. Maycock and Lalić have been galvanising figures for Kingston all season and here they were again, delivering against very strong and experienced players when it really counted.
David Maycock, left, played superbly to beat Wimbledon’s Russell Granat to take Kingston to the brink of victory
On the subject of counting, that was exactly what the Kingstonians were now trying to do. With the score at 5-3 in our favour, would we win on board count even if the final two games went against us? Happily, the maths were not tested, because Kingston soon recorded their third victory in the space of 10 minutes when the rock-solid Will Taylor, playing Black on board 6, defeated Anthony Hughes – another triumph of youth over experience.
Hughes had played the Botvinnik System of the English, with an early e4; Taylor easily equalised and then traded pieces to leave himself in a middle game where a better pawn structure gave him an edge. It was still defensible with best play, but time pressure, the occasion and the heat were starting to take their toll, and Wimbledon’s Hughes blundered horribly, dropping a rook for nothing.
The game, the match and the Alexander Cup were, in an instant, all gone. Or as Lazarevic put it on the club What’s App: “Will wins on board 6! Kingston have done it! Winners of the Alexander Cup!” We do not stint on exclamation marks on these historic occasions. And, as we discovered, where there’s a way there’s a Will.
The rock-solid Will Taylor scored the decisive win that ensured the Alexander Cup was coming to Kingston
The match was won, but on board 1 Mike Healey and Alberto Suarez Real were still locked in an epic struggle. Healey, ever inventive, had responded to Suarez Real’s Sicilian with the so-called Chameleon variation (1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nge2 Nf6 4.g3 g6 5.Bg2 Bg7 6.d3 d6 7.O-O O-O). Suarez Real won the exchange, and Healey’s love of knights looked unlikely to save him. But even IMs make mistakes, and Suaraz went wrong in time trouble, handed the exchange back to get rid of a troublesome knight on e7 supported by a pawn that had been planted on f6 all game, and stumbled into a theoretical draw.
IM Alberto Suarez Real (left) and Kingston’s Mike Healey on board 1 settle for a draw in the last game to finish
That made it 6.5 to 3.5 to Kingston and the celebrations in the bar could start in earnest. Even the abstemious David Maycock had a half of bitter. Let’s hope this is not the start of a slippery slope to perdition for the immensely talented 18-year-old. We need him firing on all cylinders next season, along with the rest of this terrific team if we are to have any chance of retaining this much-vaunted trophy.
The whiteboard introduced at Kingston’s semi-final makes a reappearance, confirming the club’s historic successAlan Scrimgour’s name was hopelessly mangled on the whiteboard, so it’s only fair we show a photograph of him
This was Kingston’s first win in the Alexander Cup for 46 years, and the club’s fifth victory in the competition overall in its 100-year history. We won it previously in 1932, 1946, 1975 and 1976. In 1932, Kingston did the “double”, winning the Alexander Cup and the Surrey Trophy (division 1 of the Surrey League). This is the only time so far that Kingston have managed that.
Remember that this season we won Surrey’s premier knockout trophy as a second-division club – we had already wrapped up the second-division title. John Saunders, who was at the final taking the terrific photographs which adorn this report, likened it to Sunderland beating Leeds in the 1973 FA cup final, a second-division club downing a strong first-division side. Kingston, who a few years ago were going nowhere, had suddenly emerged to claim the crown.
Now what? Do we have the spirit and the strength in depth to compete for the title in division one next season? Could we even hope to repeat that achievement of 1932 and do the double again, with all the effort, stress and pain that will require? Even in triumph, you feel a certain sense of anti-climax, a sense of “Is that it; is that all there is?” And there is a nagging fear that maybe the only way now is down. This season Kingston were the insurgents; next year we are the targets.
A scene from what passed for the Adelaide after-party: Julian Way and John Foley try out a supersized chessboard
Kingston have been very strong twice in our history: in the 1930s and the 1970s. We may now be entering a third golden age. But success comes with a warning. Mitcham dominated Surrey chess in the 1980s and 90s; Redhill in the first 15 years of this century. Both those clubs no longer field teams in the Surrey League. Sic transit gloria mundi.
Saunders was a member of the Mitcham team which won eight Alexander Cups in 10 years. A fantastic achievement. They must have been utterly knackered. So knackered, in fact, that within a few years the key organisers had left and the club was on the way out. Becoming so dominant, winning eight Alexander cups in so short a space of time, is a great aspiration. But the fate of once-mighty Mitcham is also a memento mori. Roman generals returning in victory supposedly had slaves whispering in their ear “Remember you must die.” For the moment we will celebrate, but we will not forget how fragile success is. We have had the luckiest and most memorable of seasons. Next year we will discover if that success is etched into granite or founded on sand.
Lauder Trophy final between Kingston and Chessington, played at the Adelaide, Teddington, on 14 June 2022
Kingston v Chessington: The two teams and their non-playing captains united just before the match
This match was always a potential banana skin for Kingston. Chessington are an ambitious new club which has done very well in its first season – beating the Lauder Trophy holders South Norwood in the semi-final of the competition was surely the shock of the season. Their pool of players is small and we outrated them substantially, but that made it something of a no-win situation for Kingston. When David meets Goliath, who wants to be the big guy?
Meena Santhosh and her Chessington teamStephen Moss and his Kingston team, minus Jake Grubb, who was en route
The two teams were meeting at the neutral venue of the Adelaide pub in Teddington, home of Richmond and Twickenham Chess Club. Many thanks to Richmond for hosting, and to Huw Williams for setting up and overseeing a match played in a great spirit. Thanks, too, to John Saunders for taking the photographs that accompany this report, and for collating game scores.
The match started in the worst possible way for Kingston. Jake Grubb was up against the talented junior Harvey Li on board 6 and was quickly drawn into a tactical melee which saw him go the exchange down. Worse was to follow as the eight-year-old Li played a neat combination that gave Grubb the unenviable choice of losing queen for rook and knight or being mated. Grubb took the third option – resignation. Well played Harvey Li, clearly a name to look out for. First blood to Chessington.
Eight-year-old Harvey Li got Chessington off to a flying start with a nicely calculated victory on board 6
Black to play and win (solution at the end)
The special feature of the Lauder Trophy is that the collective ratings of the six players cannot exceed 10,500 ECF points (an average rating of 1750 across the team), so you have to strike a balance between strong players and relative novices. It’s always fascinating to see how captains slice the cake. A junior such as Li is perfect for the Lauder because he gets into the team with a rating of 1350, but his true strength as a fast-improving player will be several hundred points above that.
David Rowson (left) and James McCarthy played out a cagey draw on board 1
By contrast, on board 1 were two vastly experienced players, Kingston’s David Rowson and Chessington’s James McCarthy. Their 2000 rating strength has been tested over decades, they knew each other’s games inside out, and unsurprisingly perhaps they played a short and cagey draw that ended with a repetition of moves. On the surface, a decent result for Kingston, as David had been Black, but one that still left the team in deficit, at a time when two of the remaining games were even and Kingston’s board 3, Vladimirs Bovtramovics, had a very passive position and looked like he was being squeezed. Frankly, as Kingston’s Lauder captain I was worried, though not as worried as England football manager Gareth Southgate, whose team had just gone 4-0 down at home to Hungary in a match that was being avidly followed by the regulars in the bar downstairs who seemed oblivious to the drama unfolding in the chess room upstairs.
Yae Chan Yang (left) overwhelmed Niroshun Nadesalingam on board five to level the match for Kingston
Gradually, things started to improve – at Teddington, that is, not Wembley. On board 5, Kingston’s Yae Chan Yang – a key figure and banker winner in the Lauder team throughout the season – had been on top all game, and his opponent succumbed to a crushing attack that ended in checkmate. Now it was 1.5 to 1.5, with boards 2 and 4 level and Vladimirs fighting for equality on board 3. Thoughts of what would happen in the event of a 3-3 draw – board count and, if it was still drawn, bottom-board eliminator – started to enter my head.
Kingston’s Vladimirs Bovtramovics had a passive position against Kevin Martin, but traded pieces to equalise
Looking at the board 3 game afterwards, Chessington’s Kevin Martin’s apparent advantage was largely visual. His rooks dominated the e-file and his queen was lurking menacingly, while Vladimirs’ heavy artillery was entirely committed to defence and he was forced into some ugly manoeuvres with his knight. But the engine suggests he was never worse than 0.5, and after Martin, in his frustration to make his space advantage tell, had lashed out with g4 the position quickly became level. By the time they agreed a draw on move 48, with queens and rooks exchanged to leave knight v knight and an equal number of immobile pawns on each side, it was dead drawn.
Kingston’s fate was now in the experienced hands of Scottish international Alan Scrimgour on board 2 and Jon Eckert, who had been lauded at the club’s AGM the previous evening for a season in which he had scored 14.5/18 for Kingston, on board 4. They did not let us down.
Scrimgour, with the bishop pair, had a small edge for most of his game, but his opponent, Visagan Ravindran, had turned the tables by move 34 and looked like he could go into an endgame a pawn up. Scrimgour perhaps realised the tide had turned more quickly than his opponent, and cannily offered a draw, which the heavily outrated Ravindran accepted after a minute’s consideration.
Alan Scrimgour had an edge for most of the game on board 2, but with the tide turning he offered a draw
That left Jon Eckert’s game on board 4 against Murugan Kanagasapay. The ever enterprising Eckert had played the Vienna Gambit and managed to get a small edge in the opening. But Kanagasapay fought back to equality, with both having queen, rook and potentially dangerous advanced pawns. The big difference was time: Eckert had 10 minutes left, while Kanagasapay was virtually playing on the increment. Kanagasapay blundered away a rook, and Eckert pressed home his advantage and forced checkmate.
In the end it all came down to board four, and Jon Eckert kept a cool head to secure the trophy for Kingston
Kingston had won the match 3.5 to 2.5 to regain the trophy they won in 2018/19 and then lost in the final to South Norwood the following season. That latter final was actually played in the autumn of 2021 after an 18-month Covid delay, which might make a nice quiz question: which was the season in which Kingston managed to both lose and win the Lauder Trophy? Answer: 2021/22.
Kanagasapay (who, in another ironic twist, had played for Kingston in that previous Lauder final) looked devastated by his loss in the decisive game. He co-founded the Chessington club with his sister (and captain on the night) Meena Santhosh, and knew how much this meant in its debut year. But the enterprising Chessington club, which has a booming junior section, will be back and are well on the way to being a force in Surrey chess.
The end of the game produced a round of applause, and Eckert calmly took the plaudits from his delighted team-mates. Had it been me, I would have insisted on a lap of honour along Park Road, which runs alongside the Adelaide, but Eckert was the very model of modesty. On the hottest evening of the year so far, his cool under extreme pressure was admirable.
Stephen Moss, Kingston Lauder Trophy captain
Grubb v Li, Teddington, 14 June 2022 1… Nde2+! wins the queen. If 2. RxN then Qb1#. In the game, Li played the intermezzo 1…Rxd4 2. cxd4 with the same continuation as above 2…Nde2++
Kingston v CCF (Coulsdon), Alexander Cup semi-final, Willoughby Arms, Kingston, 30 May 2022
Kingston’s latest star player, Vladimir Li, won this crucial game playing on board 5 in the recent Alexander Cup semi-final against CCF (Coulsdon), but you might not think it reading his annotations to this game in which he thwarted David Ian Calvert’s Scandinavian. “Poor opening preparation, shallow reasoning, irrational time budgeting, wishful thinking, poor calculation discipline” … Li is extremely hard on himself. But he is a perfectionist who detests weak moves, and his annotations can teach us a huge amount about the potential depth of chess thinking.
Li, Vladimir2130
Calvert, David Ian1866
Alexander Cup
April 12, 2022 – Kingston
Annotated by Vladimir Li
1.e4d52.exd5Qxd53.Nc3Qd64.Nf3Nf65.d4c6Embarrassingly, I could not remember anything in the 5…c6 line (which is one of the mainlines of the entire Scandinavian). For example, both 5…a6 and 5…c6 were played multiple times by Magnus Carlsen.6.Ne5The main line, as my opponent kindly explained after the game. I arrived at this move via some superficial logic (calculated lines shown below): I originally wanted to play 6. g3 (which would have been much more reasonable given the memory lapse). Despite liking the arising position (spatial and development advantage thanks to the pawn on d4 and likely winning a tempo against the queen with Bc1-f4, respectively), I thought: “It would be even better to develop the f1 bishop to c4, where it would not be blunted by the c6 pawn.” Then I looked at 6. Bc4, but did not like 6…Bg4. As there is no Bxf7 trick, Black gets a solid slightly worse Slav-type position without any weaknesses, and having solved the main issue in Slav – the development of the c8 bishop. Finally, I decided to “switch the order of moves” starting by 6.Ne5, then developing the f1 bishop. I did not care much about Nbd7, thinking that Bc1-f4 would be reasonably pleasant (as I said, quite a superficial logic) .6.g3g66…Bg47.Bg2e68.O-O7.Bg2Bg78.O-O6.Bc4Bg47.Bxf7+?Kxf78.Ne5+Qxe5+9.dxe5Bxd16…Nbd77.Bf4?I made this optically good-looking move almost instantly – as explained above, I had it planned. As my opponent enlightened me after the game, both 7.f4 and 7.Nc4 are serious moves (both superior to 7.Bf4)7.f4⌓7.Nc4⌓7…Nd5And here came the struggle: I calculated three candidate moves: 8. Nxd5, 8. Bg3 and 8.Ne4 (in this order). I could not find anything after any of the three (calculated lines shown below). By that moment, I had not yet realised that White could not claim any considerable edge here and that I should have done a better job preparing as well as thinking on moves six and seven. Instead, I worked hard searching for a non-existent black cat in a dark room.8.Bg3I calculated this move second – after 8.cxd5. I was mostly concerned about 8… Qb4 (or 8…Nxe5 9.Be5 Qb4) 9.a3 Nxc3 (9…Qxb2 10.Na4) 10.axb4 Nxd1 11.Kxd1 and something like 11…Bd7. Looked dull and close to equal. I realised that if I was forced to make a such move, that means that I was no longer claiming any opening edge.8.Nxd5was the first move that I calculated. During the first pass of calculation, I was not even very happy (I certainly had unreasonably inflated expectations) with White’s position after 8.Nxd5 cxd5? (which is a serious concession from Black) At least, I understood that I am somewhat better in all the lines after 8…cxd5? It was mildly annoying that all knights were getting exchanged and the game would become more linear. Thus, I set 8.Nxd5 aside and started examining other candidate moves. At some point, I came back to 8.Nxd5 to discover 8…Qxd5 and to finally realise that this line was just leading to equality (I underestimated 9.Nf3 though).8…Qxd58…cxd5?9.Bd3!more principledA safe option is9.Qd29…Qb4+9…Nxe510.Bxe5Qb611.O-Oall knights are gone, but White has a huge edge in development10.c3Qxb211.O-OI was a bit worried about going two pawns down, but common sense suggested that White should be doing quite well here9.Qd29.Nf3⌓I saw it, but almost instantly rejected it. According to Stockfish, 9.Nf3 is the best move in the position; however, Stockfish points out a cute reply9…e5!?9.f3Looked ugly9…Nxe510.dxe5Qa5+11.Qd2=same9…Nxe510.dxe510.Bxe5Bf5there is absolutely no edge for White here10…Qxd2+11.Bxd2Bf5this is just equal8.Ne4?!This is where I imprudently burnt ~30 minutes. I really wanted to make it work – see the calculated lines below. At least, my calculation was accurate (expectations were not).8…Qe6!8…Qb4+?9.c3Qxb2?10.Nc4+−seeing this cooperative line made it a bit harder to give up on 8.Ne49.Bg39.Ng5I saw that I would be in dire straights after9…Qf6or9…Qf510.Ngxf7Qxf411.Nxh8Nxe5the h8 knight won’t get back9…f6!that was the “only” problem10.c410.Qh5+?g611.Nxg6Qxe4+10.Qg4?Qxg411.Nxg4f510…N5b610…Nb4?11.a3Na612.d5or10…Nc7?!I could not see the difference between this and 10…N5b6. There is a difference, but Black is still better here.11.d5cxd512.cxd5Qxd512…Nxd5?13.Bc4N7b614.Bb5+I even saw this before realising that 12…Qxd5 is much stronger13.Qxd513.Qh5+g613…Nxd5∓and I correctly concluded that I would not have any compensation for the pawn. “Just” should not have re-checked this line multiple times.8…Nxc3!I calculated8…Qb49.a3Nxc39…Qxb2?10.Na4traps the queen10.axb4Nxd111.Kxd1Nxe512.Bxe5Bd7?!which is not the best move for Black, but even this didn’t seem too attractive. Still, it was best from what was available and I was prepared to play this endgame.Stockfish:12…a6⌓13.b5cxb514.Bxb5+Bd715.Bxd7+Kxd7seemed pleasant to me, but again, it is not much13.c3or8…Nxe59.Bxe5Qb410.a3Qa511.Bc4Nxc312.Qd29.bxc3Nxe5!this totally slipped my attention10.Bxe5Qg6!One relevant detail: my opponent was still blitzing out all these strong moves – not having spent a minute. I was down by about 40-45 minutes (~30 min on move eight). Here, I was quite uncomfortable – the position is close to equal. My opponent was still annoyingly in his preparation (and I had no idea where it would end). I spent another 15 minutes here considering the following moves: 11.h4, 11.Rb1, 11.Bg3 and 11.Qf3. Because of an annoying Qg6-e4+ in many variations, it looked like I needed to sacrifice a pawn to develop quickly.11.Qf3?!This is somewhat dubious but principled – ready to sac the pawn trying to fight for initiative (some calculated lines shown below)11.Rb1this is quite a reasonable move (better than what I played) but I could not find any plan after11…b612.Qd312.Qf3Bg412…f612…Qxd313.Bg3Be611.Bg3this is just such an ugly/slow move, which protects g2 but still runs into11…Qe4+11.h4it is a common move, but since Rh1-h3 is not available anyway (because of the c8 bishop) I did not see much benefit; also it runs into the same annoying check 11…Qe4+11…Bf5I was really relieved to see this. I thought that after 12.Bd3, I would be just pleasantly better11…Qxc2?12.Bc4Qf512…Qg613.O-O13.Qe3Here, White’s initiative/development gives sufficient compensationI was mostly worried about11…Bg4!12.Qe312.Qg3?Qxc213.Bc413.Qe3Qb213…Qe4+12…Bf5!12…Qxc213.Bc4is OK for White13.Rb1I stopped here when calculating 11.Qf3. There is certainly nothing concrete, but looked like White should have enough compensation13.Be2Qxg214.Bf3Qg6looked scary13…b6I thought maybe14.Be2or 14.h4, nothing concrete though12.Bd3Bxd313.cxd3⩲White is pleasantly better thanks to his development advantage13…f6I noticed that defending b7 might be awkward for Black after 13…e6 14.Rb113…e614.O-OI figured that this was stronger since after 14.Rb1 Black had 15…Bd614.Rb1O-O-O15.O-OBd615…Rd7?16.Qxc6+a common trick14…Be7?(which is certainly not forced)15.Rab1+−14.Bg3h515.Rb115.h3is also a move but I thought 15.Rb1 was better – creating a counter-threat against b7 and bothering my opponent15…O-O-O15…h416.Bf4±As pointed out by Stockfish16.Bc7!+−16.Rxb7hxg317.Qxc6+Kf718.Qd5+=is only a draw16.O-OI think that this is ideologically better than 16.h3same story, I saw that I am better after16.h3but decided to create a counter-threat 17.Rxb7. I saw some useful tactics after 16.0-0 h416…Qg4Here, I noticed that ideas after 16…h4 worked here as well (with a couple of intermediate checks). I actually did not originally consider 16…Qg4, but luckily I did not impulsively blitz out 17. Qe3 and remembered that my original idea was 17.Rxb7I calculated16…h417.Rxb7Rd518.Rfb1or18.Rb8+Kd719.Bf4my spare option was18.Rc7+Kd819.Rxc618…hxg319.fxg316…e5□was needed16…Rd7?17.Qxc6+is a common motif17…bxc618.Rb8#17.Rxb7Qxf318.Rc7+Kb819.Rb1+Ka820.gxf3+−White has a clearly winning position as Black cannot develop his kingside20.Rd7??Qd1+would overdo it20…h421.Rd7unnecessary but sets up a silly little trap, potentially improves my rook and liberates c7 for the bishopor21.Bf421…Re821…Rc822.Rbb722.Bf4g523.Be3Rb8□24.Rxb8+Kxb825.a425.h3, 25.Kf1, 25.f4 were also all fine. I just wanted to create a direct threat of a4-a5-a625…e6Again, 26.h3 or 26.f4 looked good. I just noticed that Black won’t be able to develop the bishop after 28.Ra826.a5a6forced as allowing a5-a6 is not an option27.Rd8+!Kc728.Ra8h328…Bg729.Ra7+the point of 26.a528…Kb729.Re8or this29…Bg730.Re7+29.Bc1I saw29.d5?cxd530.Bc5Bg731.Ra7+Kc6surprisingly, Stockfish reads +3.0 even here29…Rg830.Ba3just wanted to cash in30.c430.Kf130…Bxa331.Rxg8Bb232.Rg7+A final unnecessary finesse – worsening the position of Black’s king32…Kb832…Kd633.Ra733.c4I saw that33.Re7Bxc334.Rxe6Kb735.Rxf6Bxa536.Kf1would be equivalently good33…Bxd434.Re7Bc335.Rxe6Kb736.Re7+Kb837.Rf7Bxa538.Rxf6Kb739.Kf1Bc740.Ke2Bxh241.Rh6a542.Rxh3Bf443.Kd1Kb644.Kc2Kc545.Rh1Kb446.Rb1+Kc547.Re1a448.Kc3Bc749.d4+Kd650.Ra1c551.d551.dxc5+Kxc552.Rxa451…Ke552.Rxa4Kf453.Ra7Be5+54.Kd3Kxf355.Rf7+Kg256.Ke4Bf457.Rxf4To sum up: poor (non-existent) opening preparation, shallow reasoning on move six, playing by hand the move seven, irrational time budgeting (wishful thinking, poor calculation discipline) on move eight (15-20 minutes max should have been enough, I spent some extra time re-checking 8.Ne4 really hoping to make it work, not willing to accept 8.Bg3 Qb4, which was not even the strongest reply). After 11…Bf5 12.Bd3, White is pleasantly better. Thankfully, I was able keep focus till the end of the game.1–0
Epsom’s failure to secure a draw in their final match against South Norwood mean they fall at the final hurdle, allowing Adam Nakar’s team to snatch promotion
In a way, this was the sweetest triumph of all in a season in which there have been plenty. Kingston’s second team had started off the season using the Centenary Trophy (division 4 of the Surrey League) as a testing ground for the new players who had joined in the wake of the pandemic – people who had got the chess bug online and now wanted to play some over-the-board chess. It was only halfway through the season when we suddenly realised “We can win this”.
In the end, we were a little lucky. Excellent wins away to South Norwood and Richmond put the team captained by Adam Nakar in the hunt, but we needed other results to go our way. In particular, we needed long-time league leaders Epsom 3 to stumble away to South Norwood 2. That trip was always going to be a tricky proposition for Epsom, but they only needed a draw to seal the division and seemed confident of getting it.
The match stood 3-2 to South Norwood on the night, but the game between South Norwood’s Ken Chamberlain and Epsom’s David Flewellen was adjourned, with the higher-rated Flewellen pressing for the win which would level the match at 3-3 and give Epsom the trophy. When they resumed a few weeks later, Flewellen carried on pressing, but Chamberlain is noted for his doughty defence and the issue was still undecided when they adjourned again. Because it was so late in the season, no third session was permitted under league rules, thwarting Epsom’s bid and handing the trophy to Kingston.
Flewellen sent the Kingston captain a note offering hearty congratulations, which was an extremely generous and sporting gesture in the circumstances. At every stage this season, Kingston and Epsom have been locked together in tough tussles, and it speaks volumes that the camaraderie between the two rival clubs has remained intact.
Kingston, Epsom and South Norwood all finished on 3.5 match points, and even the game points were tight, with Kingston 2 winning the division by a mere half-point from Epsom, with South Norwood close behind in third. A wonderful and unexpected end to the league season. Congratulations to Adam and his team.
Kingston v CCF (Coulsdon), Alexander Cup semi-final, Willoughby Arms, Kingston, 30 May 2022
This was the board 3 game in the semi-final of the Alexander Cup, Surrey’s premier knockout competition, which pitted a strong Kingston side against a Coulsdon team that was slightly weaker on paper but had a good blend of experience and youth and fought very hard on the night. Kingston won 7-3, but the scoreline masked some tense individual battles, including this one, which was level for most of the evening. This was the game which took Kingston past the magical five-point mark, and Peter Lalić shows both his endgame skill and customary steeliness in a time scramble. His exploitation of his opponents’ hanging pawns is particularly instructive. As ever, his annotations capture the excitement and uncertainty of the moment. Peter never pretends omniscience; he tells you what it is really like to be there at the chessboard with all its boundless possibility … and potential for pain.
Peter Lalić v Chris Howell
Lalić, Peter2267
Howell, Chris2051
Kingston - CCF; Alexander Cup
May 30, 2022
Annotated by Peter Lalić
[Time control: 75 minutes per player for all moves, plus 10 seconds added per move]1.h3!?For the past three months, 1. h3 has been my only opening with the white pieces. On 2 March, I played 1. Nc3 for Wallington against Ashtead, in division three of the Surrey League. I drew with 2100 ECF-rated Sebastian Galer, after lazily trading queens on move five. I tried in vain to break the symmetry for 55 more moves, but gave up in a rook ending. That disappointing game, among others, made me vow to change my openings. Since then, as of 1 June, I have played nine classical, ECF-rated games with White. I have won all of them, thanks to 1. h3.1…d52.Nf3c53.e4!?3…e6My opponent declined the Budapest gambit with reversed colours. After the game, he explained that he never played 1. d4, and certainly not 1…Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5. Furthermore, he did not want to cooperate with my presumed preparation. Howell was correct, since I had won two Fide-rated games with the Budapest Fajarowicz within the last year: one with Black and one reversed with White. Instead, he preferred a French structure with which he was more familiar.4.Nc3d45.Bb5+Bd76.Bxd7+Qxd77.Ne2Nc68.d3Bd69.O-ONge7Both my opponent and I were content with this pawn structure, which I had learnt from 1. Nc3 d5 2. e4 d4 3. Nce2. Black’s spatial advantage was counterbalanced by his inferior bishop, being on the same colour of square as his central pawns. More importantly, both sides could easily finish development.10.c3White had 59 minutes remaining.10…dxc3Black had 61 minutes remaining.I expected10…e5, doubling down on the spatial advantage but also the bad bishop. It was a matter of preference, just like all the opening moves of this game. Until the 19th, Stockfish did not flag any move for attention. Indeed, only 3. e4!? caused the numerical evaluation to deviate far from 0. That is a testament to the quality of this game – at least the opening thereof!11.bxc3Rd812.d4cxd413.cxd4O-O14.Bb2I overprotected the d-pawn with four pieces. Since f2-f3 was implausible and undesirable, d4 and e4 were basically hanging pawns. Because I do not want to write over 2,000 words, like I have done many times for the Kingston website, instead I will quote two grandmasters. Boris Spassky: “The shortcoming of hanging pawns is that they present a convenient target for attack. As the exchange of men proceeds, their potential strength lessens and during the endgame they turn out, as a rule, to be weak.” Yasser Seirawan: “Throughout chess history, great debates have raged about the pros and cons of hanging pawns. The debates are nonsense; the answer is cut and dried. If the pawns can be attacked and forced to move forward, they are weak. If they can be defended and remain where they are, they are strong.” Therefore the pawn break …f5 was thematic, and I feared it for the next half a dozen moves.14…Ng615.Rb1Nf416.Ng3Rfe817.Qd2Bc718.Rfd1Na5!?19.Ba1!?b5?This was the first significant mistake of the game, and only one move could have refuted it. Hint: the bishop was overloaded defending both knights.20.Ne5!![13.06]20…Nc4![14.07]20…Bxe521.Qxa5Black could not have saved both his bishop and b-pawn simultaneously.21.Nxc4?!I spent about half of my remaining 13 minutes on the forcing variation21.Qxf4?!Nxe522.dxe5Qxd1+23.Rxd1Rxd1+24.Kh2Rxa125.Nh5I could not foresee a defence for Black against my kingside attack. However, I did not know whether the reason was that he was losing or that my visualisational abilities were failing me. I did not want to find out the answer at the board, in case it was the latter. Later the computer justified my fears:25…Bd8!26.Qg3g627.Nf6+Bxf628.exf6Rxa229.Qg5Kh830.Qh6Rg8= (0.00)!Believe it or not, I forgot that I was attacking the queen, so I never considered21.Nxd7Nxd222.Rxd2Rxd723.Rxb5. The dust would have settled on a pawn advantage to White.21…bxc422.Qc3?Still the pawn should have been captured by22.Rdc1Qa423.Rb4Qa524.Rcxc422…Qa4!23.Rdc1[3.57] White stopped recording.23…Qxa2[11.16]24.Qxc4Qxc425.Rxc4Bb6Black offered a draw. It would have been a fair result, given the engine’s evaluation of 0.00. However, as my time had fallen below five minutes, I could legally stop recording. Thus I put the lid on my pen, moved my scoresheet aside, and entered blitz mode. I looked forward to the excitement of the 10-second increment.26.Kf1h527.Ne2Nxe228.Kxe2Rc829.Rbc1Rxc430.Rxc4Rd831.Kd3f632.Bc3e5?!This pawn break made my heart stop metaphorically. Suddenly I realised that I had blundered the f-pawn, in the event of 33. d5. Then my heart sank when I calculated that 33. f3? Bxd4 34. Bxd4?? Rxd4+ 35. Rxd4 exd4 would have been a losing king and pawn endgame, as a result of the outside passed pawn. By the process of elimination, I had to push the pawn.33.d5!33.f3?Bxd434.Bxd4??Rxd4+35.Rxd4exd433…Bxf234.Rc7Bb635.Rb7Alan Scrimgour pointed out jokingly that I was winning even after “sacrificing” a pawn in an endgame. The connected passed pawn, helped by the rook on the seventh rank, was enough compensation for me to be confident. However, with precise play, technically an engine could have defended.35…g5??36.Bb4Ra837.Be7?The correct technique would have been37.Kc4Rc8+38.Kb5before pushing the pawn decisively to d7.37…Bd8?37…Kf7!would have improved the king, since the discovered check was harmless.38.Bxd8Rxd839.Rxa7??39.Kc4!was the only winning move. With only a minute or two remaining on my digital clock, I did pause for thought. Alas, I remember distinctly asking myself, “what’s the difference?”39…f5??39…Rc8!was the only move that would have drawn. By cutting off the king, Black could have stopped it from advancing alongside the d-pawn.40.Re7Behold the hanging pawns! The rest was a matter of technique, unlike the previous five moves, which required finesse in time trouble.40…fxe4+41.Kxe4g442.h4Kf843.Rxe5Ra844.Rxh5Ra245.g3Ra4+46.Kf5Rd447.Rg5[1]47…Rxd5+[5]48.Kxg4I have not bothered trying to reconstruct the finale. I knew that this ending was infamously difficult to win, especially with only a 10-second increment. Indeed, Howell told me afterwards that he had failed to win it in the British championships, where 30 seconds were added per move. That is why I made literally countless passing moves, in order to accumulate time on the clock. I estimate around 150 moves in total. I was careful not to give away a draw by threefold repetition or the 50-move rule, though nobody was recording the moves. Whilst I was confident that they could not be enforced, I practised good technique anyway. Howell managed to surprise me with a stalemate trick, but I did not allow one that was inescapable. White checkmated with approximately three minutes vs 10.1–0