Alexander Cup board 1 game played at Streatham on 3 October 2023
A remarkable victory by David Maycock over FM Venkat Tiruchirapalli in the opening match of the season. The game features two exchange sacrifices and ending with a beautiful zugzwang. One observer called the game “grandmasterly”, and it certainly underlines the 19-year-old’s great potential.
Alexander Cup first round played over 10 boards at St Thomas’s Church, Streatham on 3 October 2023
Kingston, playing away to Streatham & Brixton, won 7-3 in the first round of the Alexander Cup, which is the knockout competition for teams in the Surrey League. This was the opening fixture of the season for Kingston’s first team, which won impressively on the top five boards. In spite of the summer break, the team has come back refreshed and ready for action. No doubt the fact that most of the top players participated in the Kingston Invitational has helped to expand their opening repertoires, strengthen their positional nous and sharpen their tactics. Although the final result was convincing, during the match the games ebbed and flowed and after two and a half hours Kingston was only edging ahead 4-3.
The highlight of the match was the win on board 1 for Kingston by David Maycock (ECF-rated 2289) against Venkat Tiruchirapalli (2320). This was their second encounter in the Alexander Cup this calendar year – David also beat Venkat in last season’s semi-final in January. Venkat played the Breyer Variation against David’s Ruy Lopez, but soon got into trouble. David, who had prepared for the encounter, made not one but two exchange sacrifices to leave Venkat in zugzwang with queens still on the board. This was a sublime game which the team members praised afterwards as being among David’s best so far in his promising career.
On board 2, Streatham’s Phil Makepeace (2176) avoided early complications by going for a double fianchetto in a queen’s pawn opening. Vladimir Li (2263) put his queen’s bishop outside the pawn chain and waited for White to do something. Sure enough, White opened up the position, after which the Vladimir’s more actively placed pieces dominated the board. At 9:01pm our on-site commentator Stephen Moss sent an update on WhatsApp to the club faithful: “Vladimir’s position against Phil Makepeace is wild. Monster calculation required.” Two minutes later he was obliged to issue a correction, “Ignore my last message. My stupidity. For wild read complex, but Vladimir had it under complete control and his opponent has just resigned.” This is the burden upon a chess commentator – how to rapidly assess a complex position between strong players.
Kingston’s Mike Healey (2236) against James Toon (2097) on board 3 was the first game to finish in just over an hour and notched the first point to Kingston. Mike belied his reputation as a purveyor of chess anarchy by playing a splendidly practical game. He thought it was dull; we found it delicious. He went a pawn up, traded off pieces and that was that. He could take the early train home.
The board 4 game between Streatham’s Robin Haldane (2076) as White and Silverio Abasolo (2226) was a delight to watch. Robin advanced his pawns in the middle and on the kingside with aggressive intent. Silverio was completely calm about the situation and to while away the time watched some other games until Robin finally launched his attack. Silverio was fully prepared and had massed several pieces against Robin’s f4-pawn in an obverse strategy to overprotection. Once the position opened up, it was clear that Silverio held the upper hand. However, Robin had some tricks up his sleeve and, although down to just a few minutes, he reeled off some fancy moves. Silverio had seen it all and won a piece for two passed pawns. The endgame was blitzed out by both players. Whereas ordinary players might try to stop the passed pawns, Silverio opted to go for checkmate directly. It was not obvious how he was going to mate with rook and bishop against a king on the flank, but with the reinforcement of the king into the fray he achieved victory in the nick of time.
Matthew Tillett (1988) of Streatham put up strong resistance in the Pirc Defence to Peter Lalić (2251) on board 5. Peter described the game as uneventful, by which he meant there were no sacrifices or wild attacks. Peter focused on improving the position of his pieces and sidelining the enemy knight on the queenside. As the pieces were gradually exchanged, the relative advantage of Peter’s pieces became evident. It was a slow and systematic victory.
Whereas on the top half of the team list, Kingston scored 5/5, on the more evenly matched bottom half Kingston scored only 2/5. Peter Andrews (board 8) and Alan Scrimgour (board 10) took draws, having checked the match position. On board 6, Ben Simpson (1977) defended well against Will Taylor (2091), who left himself with too little time to prosecute the attack. When Ben forced the exchange of queens, Will’s attack was bust and Streatham took the point. On board 9, Kingston’s Julian Way essayed the Three Knights Game a little too casually, leaving his king stranded in the middle unable to castle. Mark O’Neill finished off the game with a sacrificial flourish.
David Rowson was making no progress on board 7 and his offer of a draw was refused by Azizur Rahman. As the game drifted into completely drawn territory, David adopted a stoic demeanour. Suddenly, out of the blue, David complicated matters by sacrificing the exchange for a couple of pawns and an advanced outpost for his knight. Nobody could work out who was winning as the worn-out players entered a time scramble. In the dramatic finale, they each had a minute left on the clock. Rahman allowed a knight fork against king and rook. David picked up his knight and played it to the wrong square, but before he released his finger he switched squares to deliver the fatal blow. The victory came after two hours and 50 minutes of intense concentration.
The time control was 75 minutes plus 10 seconds for each move. This match was the first played under the new arrangements for three-hour matches in the Surrey League. Both teams had non-playing captains – John Foley for Kingston and Martin Smith for Streatham. During the match, the captains conducted detailed discussion about how to interpret the new arrangements whereby the clocks are stopped after three hours of play and the result of each game is to be “determined” by agreement between the captains and the relevant players, with the default being adjudication. Fortunately all the games were completed with 10 minutes to spare, so the new arrangements did not need to be activated.
Kingston has won the Alexander Cup for the past two seasons. We will now face Coulsdon at home in the semi-final, with Epsom or Wimbledon waiting should we progress to the final. On a personal note, Martin Smith kindly purchased a copy of my new book for beginners, Checkmate!, which has just been published. It is to be an addition to the Streatham chess library and a recommendation to Streatham juniors. To be fair, I had previously purchased a copy of Martin’s magisterial history of Streatham and Brixton Chess Club. Authors in the chess sphere provide support to each other.
John Foley, Kingston Alexander Cup captain
A touch of New York chess hustler style comes to Kingston with the hugely popular unveiling of three concrete chess tables at Fairfield in the town centre
The official opening of the Chess Corner at Kingston Fairfield took place on Thursday 28 September. The event was a great success, bringing together a large number of players young and old, chess club members and council officials. The three chess tables were sporting impressive chess sets provided for the occasion by Kingston Chess Club.
The opening formalities were led by John Sweeney, the local councillor for central Kingston, who had stepped in at the last moment to replace the chess project initiator Nicola Nardelli, another councillor from central Kingston, whose flight back to the UK was delayed. After a brief speech he handed over to John Foley, president of Kingston Chess Club, who thanked Kingston Council for funding this splendid project and hoped it would mark a resurgence of chess in the royal borough.
The ribbon was cut to the applause of the company present. The contingent of juniors who had waited patiently finally got their chance to play chess. The tables had been wiped down and the sets were ready for action. Soon everybody was playing chess, taking phone pics of the chess or just watching the action. Spectators were arriving continually throughout the afternoon into the evening. John Saunders, the noted chess journalist, who lives in Kingston, took some splendid photographs.
The photographs below were taken by Leila Raivio.
Several people came along who would like to pursue chess competitively – they were duly signed up by Kingston Chess Club. We were also delighted to meet two teachers from nearby Kingston Grammar School, whose pupils are likely to use the facility. Two chess players who had known each other at university in Moscow (!) 15 years ago discovered that they both lived in Kingston. The children present came from a wide variety of schools in and around Kingston.
After the event, several of the participants repaired to the Albion pub, where we commandeered two tables on which blitz chess was played with clocks through the evening.
Anybody wishing to play on the tables in Chess Corner should bring their own sets. We are working on arrangements whereby sets can be borrowed from nearby Kingston Library or the Albion pub.
John Foley
Three members of the club, Peter Andrews, Stephen Moss and John Foley along with another contemporary decided to visit their their old college one summer’s day to enjoy the atmosphere and to recapture some of their past. Another member of the club, David Maycock, filmed the day. The resulting video provides a diverse set of personal stories. These are not to be taken as representative of current college life. One of the themes is how different student life was half a century ago compared with now. Some viewers found the video insightful and even delightful.
Other videos from the day are in the pipeline. We are also contemplating producing a video about chess players.
The event was held at Monty’s Nepalese Restaurant in Kingston on 29 June 2023
One week after our AGM, 21 members gathered for the annual club dinner, this time at a Nepalese restaurant in a central location in Kingston, to celebrate the best season in our history. To facilitate conversation, there was a seating plan which placed members alongside others of a similar age and rating. This technique seems to have worked because a memorable evening was enjoyed by all.
The highlight of the proceedings was the prize-giving. This year we dispensed with our former categories, such as the player who achieved the best performance. Instead we focused on one captain and one player who made the crucial difference. David Rowson received the prize for Captain of the Year for having steered our first-team players to win both Surrey League Division 1 and Thames Valley League Division 1. The prize for Player of the Year went to Silverio Abasolo. His results during the season were admirable, but the crucial one was his game against IM Chris Baker which he managed to win from a rather dubious position to enable Kingston to retain the Alexander Cup – the premier knockout cup for the Surrey League.
This season Kingston also won the knockout cup for the Thames Valley League, as well as Division X in the Thames Valley League under the stewardship of Stephen Daines. To add icing to the cake, our 4NCL team, having started the season in Division 4, won promotion to Division 2 (a third-division team having pulled out, allowing accelerated promotion).
The prizes were handed out by club president John Foley. Unfortunately the new secretary had forgotten to bring the glittering baubles, so a bar of chocolate was handed over as an exchangeable token instead. The president made an engaging and witty speech setting out the facts above. When he finally sat down after 15 minutes, there was relief amongst those assembled who had been warned by the secretary to expect a speech lasting at least an hour.
It is time to modernise the way players are valued. Their contribution to the team’s performance should take into account the importance of the game given the margin of victory. I examine the recent Alexander Cup victory by Kingston
John Foley
This was the most successful season in our history. At our recent annual general meeting, the number of games played by each player was praised. Each person’s contribution over the season makes a difference. Traditionally there have been prizes awarded for the best performance over the season. At Kingston, we have trophy dedicated for that purpose – the elusive Silver Queen. However, this year we did not award the prize or pore over the game statistics, which was a welcome relief. Instead, we paid tribute to the effort made by our players. There were no defaults – we managed to get a full team out each match. This season we had 60 matches, double that of last season. Each match is a challenge in terms of assembling the team and travel logistics, quite apart from fretting about the chess itself.
We can reflect on what went well. Most of all, credit goes to the players. According to our club survey, most of our members are seeking to improve their chess. This is why we try to give each member as many games as possible. Even a draw can make a difference in a tight match. We want our players not only to perform well, but also to have a fighting spirit. No accepting draws to save some Elo points, but instead strive for a team victory. Several matches turned on just one game. If only there were a way to place a precise value on each player’s results, taking into account the importance of their game towards the overall result. Fortunately, there is a rigorous way of doing this – the Shapley value of a game.
Lloyd Shapley was a game theorist who won the Nobel Prize for Economics in 2012. His big idea was to find a way to unravel the contributions made by each member of a team towards a result. This problem could happen in many diverse contexts, for example sharing the cost of a taxi after a chess match where people travel home to different destinations, or indeed the cost of a celebratory meal.
To illustrate the Shapley concept, consider the relative contribution made by members of our victorious Alexander Cup team, captained by Ljubica Lazarevic. We got a bye in the first round and won all three matches from the quarter-final. To keep things simple, I include only the five players who played in each round. Others made sterling contributions – one person winning both the two games they played – but we cannot evaluate their contribution to a match in which they did not participate.
To keep personalities out of this, I shall call the players Albert, Bill, Colin, Dylan and Ethan, A, B, C, D, E. Their results were as follows:
The traditional way of valuing contributions is to conclude that players B and C performed best because they got the best percentage results. There are two issues with such a inference. Firstly, the higher the board, the stronger the opponent. Of course, this is also a problem with the traditional method. A mitigating factor is that the players are in strength order so, at least in well-matched teams, the ratings of the opposing players are correlated. A more practical consideration is that we want to keep our assessments amenable to simple calculations. If we wanted to be precise, and take into account the expected likelihood of winning based upon Elo ratings, then our calculations would become unwieldy. The second issue is that securing a result in a tight match is more important than winning a game in a match in which one team thrashes the other – the winning point is diluted. This is where we can use the Shapley approach.
We start by considering all the possible combinations of the results of the players. With five players, there are 31 different combinations comprising five single results, 10 pairs, 10 triples, 5 quadruples and one quintuple. In each case, the test is if that combination of players’ results would have secured a victory. If you want to perform a similar calculation yourself, the combination listing for five players is set out at the foot of the column.
Against each combination you indicate whether it would have won the match. The results of the other five “irregular” players remain the same – they are not being evaluated. If a match could have been won, then all the players named in that combination are given a score of 1, otherwise zero. A drawn match can be ignored in the context of a knockout cup – we are only interest in results which contribute to a victory.
Having carried out the calculations, the rankings are as follows:
This shows quite a different picture from the traditional format. Perhaps the most notable difference is in relation to player D, who has been ranked equally with players B and C. This can be explained by what happened in the semi-final when player D only scored a draw and players B and C won their games. Our “irregular” players had racked up three points out of five games so that the five regular players needed to score 2.5 points. In fact, they won four games and drew one. Under this scenario, any combination involving results from only one or two players would be insufficient. However, if we look at combinations of three games, then whether we score 2.5 or 3 Kingston achieves victory. Hence, the contribution of Player B is worth the same as for players B and C. We can recognise D as equally deserving praise.
Another aspect of the Shapley approach is that it is a fairer description of the relative contribution of each player. On the traditional approach, B and C are given all the plaudits. However, under systematic scrutiny we can see that the contribution of all the players is much closer: each player contributes around one-fifth to the success of the team, with relatively small differences, which places three players at 21%, with the other two players being slightly below 20%. This is surely more reflective of how the team members and captain felt about their relative contributions.
Shapley values are different from Elo ratings. Both depend upon performance, but Shapley takes into account the state of the match, whereas Elo ratings only take into account the two players concerned. Shapley is about co-operative teams, whereas Elo is about competing individuals.
Chess should start to rank team players according to game theory. Each chess league, as a service to their constituent clubs, could publish the Shapley rankings for each of the players. Other sports can follow. This is what happened with Elo ratings, which other sports such as football adopted after several decades.
Combination table for five players
Kingston Summer Blitz, Willoughby Arms, 19 June 2023
The summer blitzes at Kingston have proved popular, attracting players from other local clubs. The giantkiller prize in the tournament on 19 June went to Kingston president John Foley, who defeated Peter Lalić in round 3 (in the game shown below) and David Maycock, who lost on time, in round 4.
Peter Lalić wins the inaugural event in a thrilling Armageddon play-off with close friend (and deadliest rival) David Maycock
Thirty players and assorted spectators gathered for the inaugural Kingston Easter Blitz played on Easter Monday. Gregor Smith, whose brainchild the event was, controlled the evening impeccably. The time control was 7 minutes per game plus 3 seconds increment per move. This is equivalent to 20 minutes per game, which is the maximum allowed for a game to qualify as a blitz. Gregor, as an official English Chess Federation ratings officer, will submit the games to the national listing.
The games were played on spacious modern trestle tables with new competition boards and sets. The time between rounds was only five minutes – enough to order a drink at the bar and look at the standings, which were displayed on a large screen at the end of the room. We used pairing software that we had first encountered last month at the London Chess Conference, which its developers attended. After each game finished, a hand signal (usually a polite one) was sufficient to notify Gregor of the result, which he then immediately updated on the pairings screen.
One participant said that he had an alternative blitz he could have attended, but he preferred Kingston because of our efficiency – there are no delays between rounds. The modern pairing software and the large screen make all the difference.
There were plenty of exciting games. In the final round, as if preordained, to force the tournament to extra time David Maycock, on 4/5, had to beat Peter Lalić, who was on 5/5, which he duly did. The play-off was then held surrounded by the biggest crowd seen upstairs at the Willoughby Arms since England were involved in a penalty shoot-out. (This is a football-loving pub – hence the flags and memorabilia which festoon the playing room.) The Armageddon format meant that the players bid to be White by giving away some time. They settled on Peter (four minutes) v David (five minutes).
Peter won convincingly with a sacrificial attack and collected the first prize of £50. What does Peter play in the position below?
An engine suggests 12. Nxd5, with some neat tactics to follow: 12…Bxg5 13. h4 Bh6 14. Qe4 g6 15. Ne7+ Qxe7 16. Qxb7, giving White a small plus, but in blitz (and certainly in Armageddon with no increment – a recipe for chess chaos!) the route-one approach can be more effective. Peter needs no second invitation to sac a piece, and played 12. Bxh7+!? Objectively the position is level, but in blitz the initiative counts for a lot. The game proceeded: 12…Kxh7 13. Qh4+ Kg6 14. Qe4+ f5 15. Qxe6+ Kh7 16. Nxd5 Bxg5 17. Nc3 Bf6 18. Qxf5+ Kh8 19. Rd3 Qe8 20. Re1.
David is in trouble here, but far from lost. 20… Qd8 or 20… Qc8 just about hold, but he is worrying about keeping control of the e8-h5 diagonal and plays 20… Qf7??, which pretty well loses on the spot to 21. Ne5! To avoid mate, Black has to relinquish his queen. An intense game played in great spirit, and after the rivalry the two players (who have done so much to galvanise Kingston over the past two seasons) could revert to being friends. Armageddon, as the name suggests, is not, however, recommended for the faint-hearted.
The under-2000 rating prize (a chocolate confection) went to JoJo Morrison on countback over Lucy Buckley with a commendable 4/6. Greg Heath won the U1500 grading prize. The giant-killer prize (beating someone 400 Elo points higher) went to Jaden Mistry, who beat Byron Eslava in the first round. Stephen Moss would have been the recipient had he kept his nerve (or perhaps lost his moral compass) against IM Graeme Buckley. This is all the more remarkable given that Stephen was playing on the increment with only a few seconds to make his moves for much of the game.
Stephen agreed a draw in the final position.
Stephen had nothing to lose by capturing the g-pawn, leaving him with three pawns against a knight. According the the endgame tablebase, this is a win for White. As Graeme pointed out, there was no rush even to capture the pawn; simply advancing the a-pawn wins.
Stephen explained that he would not have felt comfortable taking the point given that he had been penalised one minute for an earlier infringement in the game. This saintly level of piety will see Stephen gain fast-track entry at the pearly gates (though not to the British blitz championship). However, Stephen had a point because earlier he was about to lose on time as he dithered over a move. Having decided not to move the piece to the tentatively chosen square – he realised he was moving his king into check, which is itself illegal of course – he returned it to its starting point and pressed the clock. This was also illegal and so the arbiter was called over.
During the intervening time, Stephen managed to compose himself and find a move. This is a rare example of someone being penalised for an illegal non-move. During a later game, Stephen declined a draw offer with a grumpy “No”, which also immediately made him feel guilty. Methinks Stephen is never going to break into the world’s top 10,000 players unless he is prepared to lower his ethical standards.
John Foley, president of Kingston Chess Club
Kingston’s second team draws three tough matches in quick succession to kickstart a so far frustrating season and give hope in two tricky division 2 relegation battles
For Kingston’s second team, the season so far has been characterised by a tough struggle in division 2 of both the Surrey and Thames Valley League. We cruised to victories last season, resulting in our first team being promoted. Our second team stepped up to the plate, but lacks the elo firepower. Nevertheless, we are still keeping our heads above water.
By a strange quirk of timetabling, we had plenty of match-free Mondays early in the season but now the fixtures are piling up. It’s been an intense period, with three games in eight days, all of which ended in draws.
Kingston B v Hounslow B: Thames Valley League division 2 played at the Willoughby Arms, Kingston on 20 February 2023
The first drawn match took place at the Willoughby Arms – the return match against Hounslow B following our victory the previous week in the Thames Valley League. Hounslow turned up with some reinforcements this time and proved a stern test.
Alan Scrimgour was first to finish with a quickish draw on the top board. Hounslow’s impressive junior Vibhush Pusapadi claimed another Kingston victim, defeating Charlie Cooke on board 5, but Adam Nakar – making his second-team debut this season – won nicely on board 6 with a powerful attack against Barry Fraser.
Meanwhile, I was again miserably succumbing to time pressure on board 4 and was dispatched by the quick and accurate Eugene Gregorio, who dismantled my pawn structure and forced home the victory. However, young Max Selemir won smoothly on board 3 against JJ Padam, who the previous week had held John Foley to a draw.
This left Peter Andrews and Frank Zurstiege playing until lights out on board 2. The game was stopped and an adjournment was agreed, with Peter sealing his next move. After analysing the position with silicon assistance, a draw was agreed. “The computer evaluation is drawn,” Peter explained. “I made rather a mess of a good position by expecting him to succumb to my attack, but he missed a clear win as he fought back in my time trouble so I can’t complain.” Match drawn 3-3.
South Norwood 1 v Kingston 2: Surrey League division 2 match played at West Thornton Community Centre, Thornton Heath on 23 February 2023
With barely time to sleep and eat cornflakes, we were off to South Norwood three days later for an unaccustomed Thursday match. Acting second-team captain Alan Scrimgour assembled a strong seven-board- team to face off against our fellow Beaumont Cup basement strugglers.
Peter Andrews wasn’t in the mood to hang about this time, and won swiftly with White on board 3 against Paul Dupré, deploying a neat tactical sequence that resulted in a loss of a queen or checkmate. A welcome 1-0 to Kingston.
A series of draws followed – from captain Scrimgour, Max Selemir and myself, who, again in time trouble, panicked and took the easy way out. Nick Grey was beaten on board 7 by Kaddu Mukasa, and the match was again all square. Jon Eckert was unable to convert a promising-looking attack, expertly defended by opponent Roy Reddin and a draw was agreed.
Everything hinged on the top board, where John Foley at one point held the advantage against Marcus Osborne but let it slip as they reached the time control. The players had agreed in advance to adjudication and the game position was duly noted. The engine could not find a decisive win in home analysis, so a draw was declared without having to reach the adjudicator. John had lost his previous two encounters with Marcus and was pleased to have secured a draw on this occasion. Another solid drawn match for Kingston.
The adjourned position. White (Kingston) to play – h4 should draw.
Kingston B v Maidenhead A: Thames Valley League division 2 played at the Willoughby Arms, Kingston on 27 February 2023
Having downed some breakfast tea and toast, four days later, we were back on the treadmill for an action-packed Monday night at the Willoughby Arms, where our first team were also playing in a vital eight-board match against CCF (Coulsdon). We used all our fancy competitive sets, which had been purchased for exactly an evening like this – two big matches conducted simultaneously. A tight squeeze between the tables, but a great atmosphere as we welcomed our opponents, Maidenhead A, who are flying high, unbeaten, at the top of Thames Valley division 2.
A first-team match on the same evening meant we lost our top boards, Alan Scrimgour and John Foley, who had stepped up to the first team following a couple of withdrawals for medical reasons. It was going to be a tough task, our second team being outrated on five of the six boards. However, Charlie Cooke had other ideas and won impressively on board 4, taking advantage of an open centre with a neat tactic to win a piece and put Kingston one up.
Hayden Holden, who for the second time in a fortnight had filled in at the last minute on board 6, lost but put up a brave fight against his far higher-rated opponent. Hayden was proud of his performance, despite feeling he had let his advantage slip away. Adam Nakar was also left frustrated on board 5, feeling he too had let an advantage slip as he succumbed to William Castaneda. That loss put Maidenhead 2-1 up.
On boards 2 and 3, Max Selemir and I both drew, which left Peter Andrews playing a crazy game on top board and needing to win to draw the match. With just eight seconds left on the clock at one point, Peter sacrificed a piece in order to go in hot pursuit of his opponent’s king. Through a series of checks, he forced his opponent’s king on to the seventh rank, first winning back the piece and then delivering a memorable mate, with Qf1 being the final blow. Has anyone else ever delivered checkmate with a piece on your own first rank?) Thus was gained a spectacular point, securing Kingston a well-earned 3-3 draw against the league leaders.
So, there it was. Three drawn matches in a busy eight days. Thanks to all who played. Particular recognition goes to Peter Andrews with 2.5/3 and Max Selemir with 2/3 across the three matches.
Gregor Smith, Kingston B captain in the Thames Valley League
Thames Valley League division 1 match played at the Mindsports Centre, Dalling Road, London W6 on 21 February 2023
This was a famous victory that potentially sets up Kingston for a historic double this season – winning division 1 of the Surrey League and the Thames Valley league in the same year. Kingston have certainly never achieved this, and as far as we can see only Wimbledon (twice – in 2016/17 and 2017/18) have managed it.
Last season Hammersmith won division 1 of the Thames Valley League, winning nine and drawing one of their matches. Clearly, this would be Kingston’s biggest challenge yet in our bid to win both this league and the Surrey League. Hammersmith had the edge on rating, but a close match was anticipated and so it proved. I had the dual role of chauffeur and reporter on the night – keeping the club updated on WhatsApp. There was a delayed start while the Leap digital clocks were reset, but eventually all the games were played at 65 minutes for all moves with a 10-second increment.
On board 1, David Maycock defended against a Catalan, while on board 2 Peter Lalić found himself playing Ali Hill, whom he had faced in a recent tournament. Silverio Abasalo played a French on board 4, while David Rowson was facing an early charge by Bajrush Kelmendi’s g- and h-pawns.
The match was finely balanced after 90 minutes’ play, with Peter Lalić a pawn down and David Maycock a pawn up but with tripled pawns. The match continued tensely over the next hour, with Kingston club members from far and wide (the website editor was on holiday in Florida feeling very deprived of chess news) hanging on the next WhatsApp update.
By 10pm David Maycock was playing on the increment, while Peter and his opponent were down to three minutes each. The breakthrough came with a win for Vladimir Li on board 3, followed a minute later by one for Silverio on board 4. David Rowson’s draw on board 5 left Kingston close to success.
On board 2 a flurry of tactics transformed Peter’s pawn deficit into a winning rook and pawn ending, which he duly converted to win the match. On board 6, John Foley’s bishop was trying to stop two knights from escorting the remaining pawn to promotion, but Christof Brixel played the endgame flawlessly. David Maycock was last to finish, successfully holding a tricky rook and pawn ending. 4-2 to Kingston.
The turning point of the match was Peter Lalić’s game. Peter was in an inferior position for most of the game and was reduced to moving a rook up and down on the same squares. However, his patience paid off when he spotted spectacular rook sacrifice. 41. Rxf7+ wins in all variations. The rook cannot be captured because 42. Bxe6+ wins the queen.
A tremendous move to win a memorable match.
Alan Scrimgour
