Kingston 1 v Ashtead 1, Surrey League division 1 match played at the Willoughby Arms, Kingston on 10 March 2025
Going into this match, Kingston knew that a win here and a draw at Guildford at the end of the month would win the Surrey Trophy. But a loss at Guildford, who have turned out some very strong sides at home, where they are unbeaten, would mean that they could catch us on match points. So it was important to achieve a big win against Ashtead, in case the season’s honours are decided on game points.
That incentivised us to field a stronger team than would normally be necessary against the bottom club, while it was clear when team sheets were exchanged that Ashtead had struggled to raise a team. There were rating differences of over 500 points on some of the boards, suggesting that a big win should be achievable. Nevertheless, several of the games went the distance, with the visitors showing their fighting spirit.
First to finish was Mike Healey (pictured above right, sitting beside Peter Lalić). Mike had Black on board 4 against Ashtead captain Bertie Barlow, and the game crystallised with White objectively holding but in practice under some pressure.
Board 7, where Jasper Tambini had White against young (and probably significantly underrated) Tom Vinall, was less straightforward. Jasper tried a gambit against the Caro-Kann, and at one stage I relayed to the crowds in the bar anxiously waiting for news that it looked dodgy. A few minutes later I returned to the arena to find that Jasper had won!
Board 8 was more relaxing for the captain, although no doubt less exciting for other viewers. Julian Way, with Black against Peter Grabaskey, accumulated material and won risklessly.
John Hawksworth’s win with Black against Chris Perks on board 6 was similar: advantages accumulated, and then some classy play to force the decision.
On board 5 Ash Stewart, with White, had to decide what to do with a big advantage in space against Daniel Richmond.
So we had a clean sweep of boards 4 to 8. But boards 1 to 3 were still in progress with time running short. On board 3, playing Black against Tom Barton, David Maycock was in the uncharacteristic role of sacrifice acceptor.
Then came our first frustration. On board 1 Peter Large, with White, and Phil Brooks played an accurate – 98% on each side, according to Stockfish – but uneventful game in which the evaluation never reached 0.5 in either direction. We give the concluding position.
A draw was agreed here. It is not clear why now rather than on move 39, when the last chance for a pawn break or king penetration disappeared. Perhaps it was influenced by the decision to limit the new Kingston Chess Club scoresheets to 50 moves; neither side wanted to consume a second sheet unnecessarily.
On board 3 Peter Lalić, with White, had a winning kingside attack for a long time, but his opponent was difficult to nail down.
The game continued, with Peter steadily developing his advantage. He was, though, very short of time by now, so built time with a little shuffling in order to visualise the winning idea.
Thus the match finished 7.5-0.5. A 4-4 draw at Guildford would seal the Surrey title for us, and a narrow defeat would set them a very demanding target when they play at Coulsdon before Easter. Not that we can afford to go to Guildford envisaging a narrow defeat. We go there hoping to overturn their proud home record this season.
Peter Andrews, Kingston captain in Surrey League division 1
Epsom 1 v Kingston 1, Surrey League division 1 match played at Epsom Christian Fellowship Hall on 17 February 2025
Photograph above by John Foley: front David Maycock (left) v Graeme Buckley; second game is Peter Lalić v Susan Lalić
Home advantage has been a notable factor in Surrey League division 1 this season, so a visit to defending champions Epsom promised a tough match. We were missing our two IMs, Peter Large representing England at an international seniors event and John Hawksworth ill, but were still formidably strong, with the captain able to play a watching brief after driving half the team down. Epsom were missing a likely future IM in Zain Patel, at another overseas tournament (if the Solent counts as overseas).
The absence of Peter Large resulted in an intriguing mother v son clash between the Lalićs on board 2. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this ended in a quick draw. The players played some friendly moves afterwards in which mother established an advantage over son, and before I noticed that the clocks had stopped and the result sheet filled in, I was concerned, but I was soon able to move on.
Peter Hasson could make little headway on board 5 against the solid Chris Wright, with exchanges down to a bishop ending in which neither side could penetrate the other’s position. On board 6 Jasper Tambini quickly established a winning advantage against Epsom president Marcus Gosling, a pawn up and having wrecked the white kingside, albeit with some damage to his structure. Marcus then sensibly decided to sacrifice a piece for two pawns to take the initiative and pose concrete threats. The sacrifice was not sound for a machine, but for a human chess player it wasn’t easy to find an accurate defence, and the game quickly went downhill for Jasper.
David Rowson v James Pooler on board 7 was also looking good for some time, but also went downhill after an opportunity had been missed. David’s effort to break through with a pawn advance left holes around his king, which his opponent belied his relatively modest rating to exploit.
Thankfully Mike Healey almost immediately hit back on board 3 against Robin Haldane. The queens were exchanged early on, and Mike backed his bishop against Robin’s knight, together with a lead in development and central pawn mass. His judgement was right, and the queenless middle game was a smooth squash with no big tactics. According to Stockfish, White was 95% accurate.
So with three games left in play, Kingston were 3-2 down. We had been slightly better in all three for much of the game, but by the closing stages all looked objectively drawn, and with all six players short of time, anything could happen.
Board 4 was a clash between the oldest player in the match, the former British champion Peter Lee, and the youngest, Luca Buanne. Luca exploited a classic Sicilian pin down the c-file to win a pawn.
On board 8, John Foley dodged a bullet when his opponent declined to make a very promising piece sacrifice.
So scores were level and the match would be decided by board 1, Maycock v Buckley, who were predictably in a time scramble – David had been playing on the increment for some time. Although he had an advantage out of the opening, he missed several chances to cash in. The one he regretted most, although it required great visualisation in several lines, occurred at move 20.
This was a fantastically complicated game for which we owe the players thanks. The match finished 4-4, leaving both sides feeling rightly that they could have done better, and Epsom feeling justifiably that they had outperformed the ratings.
The result of this match means that if both Kingston and Guildford win their other matches (by no means a certainty), Kingston may need another 4-4 draw at Guildford to be sure of the title, although the game points may be sufficiently in our favour that a narrow loss would suffice.
Peter Andrews, Kingston captain in Surrey League division 1
Kingston 1 v Coulsdon 1, Surrey League division 1 match played at the Willoughby Arms, Kingstonon 19 January 2025
Kingston 1’s only dropped match point so far this season was in the opening match at Coulsdon, so the return fixture was eagerly awaited. Our new GM Ameet Ghasi had agreed to play, and we knew in advance that our Thames Valley League team-mate Supratit Banerjee would be on board 1 for Coulsdon, so there were a few spectators as well as 14 boards crammed into the match room at the Willoughby.
However, the exchange of team sheets revealed that Coulsdon were missing several players from the team which had fully extended us in October. Some of their talented juniors, in particular, find it difficult to travel on a school night.
Three of the games were clearly in Kingston’s favour before the crowd had settled. First to finish on board 3 was David Maycock, whose opponent Ian Calvert had made a small slip in the Scandinavian Defence and found himself being pushed off the board. David was able to play his trademark g4 on move 14 and the game was soon over.
On board 8, Julian Way had won a pawn early on with Black against Ben Ruiz, and had a lead in activity as the endgame crystallised.
Peter Large’s opponent Timur Kuzhelev had tried the Vienna Game, but the position soon had the unmistakable look of a King’s Gambit gone wrong, with Black a pawn up and a tidal wave of pawns filling the holes around the beached white king.
Peter Lalić’s game with Black against Venkata Kilambi on board 4 was a well-balanced King’s Indian Defence until White allowed a winning sacrifice on move 18. Soon afterwards, there was an even more spectacular opportunity and the game was quickly over.
That took Kingston to a 4-0 lead, but before the match points could be sealed, Will Taylor had fallen into a tactic with Black against Anuj Venkatesh on board 6. He had chosen an active line against the Catalan which was objectively level but dangerous, and then found his queen being chased when it had multiple responsibilities.
Readers not familiar with the Catalan might like to note that Ng5 threatening mate on h7 by a queen on c2 while discovering an attack by the Catalan bishop on g2 is quite a common theme.
Mike Healey, very modestly positioned on board 5 (showing the great strength of this Kingston team), brought home the bacon despite stalwart resistance by Coulsdon captain Nick Edwards in a Caro-Kann in which Black was cramped but solid. It was difficult to withstand the pressure on the clock and the board, and Black eventually lost on time with a spectacular forced mate available to White on the board.
David Rowson faced even tougher resistance with White against Paul Jackson on board 7. In a semi-blocked French Defence position, Black had opened the h-file against the white king before White could make progress on the queenside, giving him the advantage. But eventually the weakness of f7 told, and David was able to attack in front of his own king with two black pieces out of the main action on the queenside. An exchange sacrifice gave him time for a decisive penetration with his queen.
That left Kingston 6-1 ahead, with Ghasi v Banerjee on board 1 still in progress. This was a slow burner, with most of the tactics in the lines that were not chosen, and both sides trying to test the other by asking them to make decisions requiring some longer-term evaluation. The traps were all avoided, and eventually a little tactic by Supratit left a level major-piece ending. With both sides down to around a minute on the clock, it would have been possible for either to play on in the hope of an error, but with the match already decided the players’ mutual respect was such that they agreed a draw and resumed the discussion downstairs.
A crowded post-mortem: Supratit Banerjee and Ameet Ghasi analyse as team-mates and spectators look on
Supratit is of course very much one of the Kingston gang (he plays for us in both the Thames Valley League and 4NCL), and he had a friendly post-mortem with Ameet and several of our other leading lights for over half an hour, although the nature of their game was such that few definitive conclusions were reached.
Meanwhile, Kingston extended their lead in Surrey division 1. We are still the only club to have scored any match points away from home, suggesting that our visits to Epsom in February and Guildford in March will be critical.
Peter Andrews, Kingston captain in Surrey League division 1
Ashtead 1 v Kingston 1, Surrey League division 2 match played at the Peace Memorial Hall, Ashtead on 10 December 2024
A somewhat depleted Kingston team nevertheless outrated newly promoted Ashtead on all boards. We are, however, far too experienced to expect an easy match, and this was confirmed by the early results – there weren’t any, and it became clear that most games were heading for time trouble, where, as we have already seen this season, anything can happen.
On board 5, David Rowson had conceded a space advantage against Ashtead captain Bertie Barlow, who had also played for Richmond against our TVL first team the previous night. He found a good sequence of exchanges to get to a slightly better endgame (queen, rook and bishop each), but the position was blocked and with progress unlikely a draw was agreed.
Alan Scrimgour struck our first blow on board 7. A couple of inaccuracies as White had allowed his opponent Tom Barton to equalise. He prepared a kingside attack which induced his opponent to weaken on that side, pounced on the opportunity to open the h-file for his rooks, and quickly won decisive material.
Peter Large has been in tremendous form for Kingston, but got no change out of Phil Brooks’ French Defence on board 1. Computer post-mortem analysis found a couple of opportunities to establish a +1 edge, but requiring an indifference to the pawn count which is difficult for human beings. No one can accuse these top players of a grandmasterly draw – the battle ended with bare kings.
The highlight of the match was Peter Lalić’s game on board 2 as Black against Dan Rosen, who is able to play for Ashtead in division 1 this year now that Wimbledon are in division 2. After characteristic early exchanges, Peter had the advantage in the early endgame based on White’s doubled e-pawns. In trying to defend those, the white rook became trapped in a box on the queenside, only able to extricate itself by means of an exchange which ruined his queenside structure. Despite getting down to a minute on his clock, Peter was able to set up a prolonged zugzwang, starting on move 36.
On board 6, Ian McLeod accepted my offer to go into an unbalanced middle game, in which he gave up bishop for knight to double my f-pawns.
My judgement was that the resulting big centre and two bishops would outweigh the doubled pawns and the difficulty in finding a safe place to put my king. The final position illustrates the success of that strategy, with White immobilised by the black pawn rush.
By now White was almost on the increment and struggling to find sensible moves to play. Material is still level, but the e3 pawn is about to fall, and after Black plays e5 white will be almost paralysed. So White resigned. I had had some amusement in the game from making my first move with my king’s bishop on move 25. But this was misleading, as the bishop had protected several important squares from its initial position and had retained the choice of diagonal on which to emerge until the last minute. Motionless but not inactive.
That took us to four points, with three games still in play. Unfortunately, Jasper Tambini had drawn a short straw on board 4. As an overseas newcomer, James Allison’s estimated ECF rating is derived from his Fide rating, and (to judge from the usual difference between Fide and ECF) is at least 150 points too low. For a long time the post-mortem computer evaluation was that White had little more than his starting edge, but Jasper found his activity limited against white’s Catalan structure, tried a sacrificial approach to break out, and conceded defeat a rook down when it became clear that black’s counterplay had been thwarted.
Top four boards in the match, with Jasper Tambini (left) and talented newcomer James Allison in the foreground
Peter Hasson’s game against Jonathan Hinton on board 3 had so much in it that it would justify its own blog, and we are grateful to him for reconstructing it despite having stopped recording well before the end of the game. Peter had White and opening subtleties had given him a big advantage by move 23, when he missed a lovely combination.
Last to finish was John Bussmann on board 8. John had built an advantage in the middle game, won a pawn, and then sacrificed the exchange for a second pawn to maintain the initiative. Strictly the sacrifice was not necessary, but he rebuilt his advantage after it. In the position below, he had a clear win.
So in the end we scraped home by the minimum margin. Well done Ashtead for outperforming their ratings; let’s hope they can repeat that fighting spirit in their other home games and nick some points off other teams, which would help us in the title race. Thanks to the Kingston players for making the journey, especially Peter Hasson, whose trip home to Farnham was delayed by a road closure, completing what for poor Peter (one of our four Peters!) was a very frustrating evening.
Peter Andrews, Kingston 1 captain in the Surrey League
Kingston 1 v Guildford 1, Surrey League division 1 match played at the Willoughby Arms, Kingston on 25 November 2024
To judge by the teams Guildford have been able to field this season, they will be close rivals in this season’s Surrey competitions. Kingston had a rating advantage on seven of the eight boards, but many of the differences were small and easily offset by the advantage of playing White. I was under too much pressure in my own game to see much of the others. Spectators reported a tense match, and in each of the games on boards 4 to 7 we had losing positions at one point. We eventually scored 2.5 points from those four games, so the final result gave a rather misleading impression of the course of the match.
When title contenders meet, the first goal is often crucial, and Peter Large scored it against FM Jon Ady, recently returned to England from Hong Kong. As the game emerged into the endgame, Peter had a useful initiative. That may have induced Jon to grab a hot pawn, leading quickly to his knight become trapped on one side of the board and his king on the other.
Luca Buanne, with Black on board 5, came under pressure out of the opening. His opponent missed a sequence which would have transitioned to a winning ending, and Luca needed no second invitation to activate and equalise.
Next to finish was Mike Healey on board 4 against Guildford’s new captain James Toon. Mike came out of the opening two pawns down and objectively lost, but with the kind of wild position in which a game can turn quickly. That is what happened in this position after White’s 23rd move.
In the rare moments I could spare from my own game, I had followed some of the twists and turns of John Foley’s game on board 8, next to me. With kings castled on opposite sides, John had built a strong attack using the open h-file. But Black had sacrificed a pawn to block that, and then changed the nature of the game by giving up two rooks for queen and pawn. Both sides had attacking chances after White had played move 38, but Black’s response led to defeat.
On board 7, the computer evaluation of my position proved later to be roughly equal most of the way through, but I had been short of space, which usually makes it harder to play. In the position below, my opponent missed an opportunity. We both missed that White could have played 22. Ng6, with a big advantage; to save the exchange, Black must play 22 …fxg6 after which 23. Qxe6+ regains the piece with Black’s kingside wrecked. I am sure we would both have seen that had Ng6 captured a pawn against a kingside fianchetto rather than being a sacrifice on an empty square. Then, just before a draw was agreed, it was my turn to miss a winning opportunity, after White’s 29th move, when Re4 would give Black a big advantage.
That gave Kingston a 4-1 lead, or “dormie three” in golf parlance. But it was hard to assess the remaining games. Julian Way’s game on board 6 probably had the most reversals. Julian had come out much worse from the opening. Facing a kingside attack on his castled king, he responded with a kingside attack on Black’s castled king. At one point, both sides could have lost a piece to pins down the g-file in quick succession. After Black’s 31st move, this was the position.
That half-point got us over the line. Could David Maycock or Peter Lalić (pictured above) add the extra point? David, playing Black against 2340-rated Gwilym Price and suffering the after-effects of a cold (though he would be the last person to make excuses), liked his position from the opening. The key position arose after White’s 18th move.
In the encounter between Clive Frostick v Peter Lalić on board 3, unlike the other games in the match, there were no significant fluctuations in the advantage until after Black’s 31st move.
So we took the chequered flag, the spectators got their money’s worth, and Kingston have a good chance of being top of the Surrey League division 1 table at Christmas. But all the top teams, including ourselves, are stronger at home than away, so the trips to Epsom and Guildford in the spring will be serious challenges.
Peter Andrews, Kingston 1 captain in the Surrey League
Kingston 1 v Epsom 1, Surrey League division 1 match played at the Willoughby Arms, Kingston, on 11 November 2024
The clash of the 2022/23 and 2023/24 Surrey division 1 champions promised to be a critical match in the 2024/25 season, and there was a real sense of occasion, Epsom having brought additional players to take part in our regular rated friendlies, and with a gaggle of home spectators there to support us (I am grateful to FM Vladimir Li for his impressions as the games were in progress).
The line-ups revealed that Kingston would have a rating advantage on every board, but the differences on boards 1 and 3 were small, and (after the toss had to be repeated because my lightweight 20p coin escaped behind the Willoughby’s heating system; I was more careful with the pound used for the replay) Epsom would have White on the odd boards, so those boards were likely to be critical.
None of the opening phases suggested much advantage for either side in any game. But there was a sudden finish on board 6. Luca Buanne and Chris Wright had reached a tense queenless middle game when Chris miscalculated, and Luca quickly won decisive material.
Next to finish was board 7, where Peter Hasson had Black against Epsom president Marcus Gosling. Peter had hoped to make something out of a flaw in White’s pawn structure, but after the major pieces were exchanged on the open a-file, White was able to straighten the pawns out, leaving a blocked position in which progress could not be made. This was the final position, with White set to recapture Black’s light-squared bishop.
By this stage we seemed to have a clear advantage on board 4, and probable advantages on boards 2 and 8, the other games in which we had White. Even with David Maycock apparently under some pressure against IM Graeme Buckley on board 1 (although analysis subsequently showed that the position was just level but difficult for both sides), Peter Lalić’s draw with Black on board 3 v Zain Patel was therefore a good result. Against strong juniors, small rating advantages do not mean much. Peter steered into the sort of queenless middle game with which he is more familiar than most of us, and did have one momentary opportunity on move 17.
Epsom played the French Defence on three of their four black boards. The Kingston players had three different responses, all of them successful. In David Rowson’s game on board 8, the kings castled on opposite wings, and after his opponent’s 30th move David was ready with a crushing pawn sacrifice.
On board 4, Mike Healey took a different approach against James McCarthy, offering an early gambit. Mike has annotated this characteristically imaginative and dynamic game in the Games section, but we will show the denouement here. We join the action after Black’s 22nd move, Ba4, giving White a decision. Mike’s choice was spectacular. Standing back with the benefit of hindsight, what made it work? The black pawn on f7 is overloaded, defending the pawn on e6 and the hole on g6 which are both under fire. Black’s queen’s bishop, which might have defended those squares, is absent on a queenside raid. White’s king’s bishop might also appear to be absent on the queenside, but even from b1 it can attack the hole. Fasten your seatbelts.
The last three games finished almost simultaneously. Peter Large showed a third contrasting response to the French Defence on board 2 against Susan Lalić. Where David Rowson and his opponent had castled on opposite sides and pushed pawns against their opponent’s king, Peter and Susan castled on opposite sides and pushed pawns in front of the own king; counter-intuitive but equally good for White.
Perhaps as might be expected in a game between two such strong players, there were few significant mistakes, as measured by jumps in the computer evaluation. White won because he was able to develop his initiative on the kingside while Black’s on the other wing was blocked. In this position below, after Black’s 21st move, the player with White following the standard recipe of opening files against the enemy king might have tried b3. But this loses White’s advantage; after 21. b3 cxb3 22. Bxb3 Nb6, Black can get a knight to c4, which matters more than the open file. Instead 21. f5 was the key breakthrough.
So Kingston had won all four games with White. What of the remaining games in which our players had Black? On board 5, IM John Hawksworth had Black against FM and former British champion Peter Lee, a measure of the quality in depth of Surrey League chess these days. The latter played an enterprising pawn sacrifice 11. b4 in the position below, aiming to play against the weak pawn on d6.
That draw made it four wins with White and three draws with Black. The last game to finish, and the hardest to evaluate in play, was the board 1 match-up between IM Graeme Buckley v hungry wannabe David Maycock. The opening was characterised by masterly play on both sides which created an imbalance: Black had an extra pawn, but at the price of a broken kingside structure which would allow White attacking chances. White was faced with a critical choice at move 25.
With two extra passed pawns on the queenside and a time advantage, David converted smoothly, the only winner with the black pieces on the night. It gave Kingston a margin of victory which seems flattering given how tense the games were. Early matches this season suggest that home advantage is considerable, and the race may be close, so it is useful to have put a strong net run rate/goal difference in the bank.
Peter Andrews, Kingston captain in Surrey League division 1
Coulsdon 1 v Kingston 1, Surrey League division 1 match played at Coulsdon on 21 October 2024
Our Surrey League division 1 season started with an away match at Coulsdon. On paper we had a modest rating advantage on most of the boards, but Coulsdon invariably field a crop of fast-rising juniors, rendering such comparisons unreliable. Peter Large, John Hawksworth, Ash Stewart and Jasper Tambini made their league debuts for Kingston; congratulations and many thanks to all of them.
In the early skirmishes, Peter Lalić (pictured above) quickly gained a winning advantage against Timur Kuzhelev on board 4. The critical position came after 11. Rg5.
Board 7 saw Black fall into an opening trap in the Giuoco Piano. Unfortunately the setter of the trap was a 12-year-old uniformed schoolboy, and the victim was our own seasoned veteran David Rowson.
There was more bad news on board 3, where Ash Stewart’s opponent gained a massive amount of space in the centre and also won the exchange. The games on boards 5 and 6 were well-contested battles but always looked like being draws, so we would have to make a plus out of boards 1, 2 and 8.
I stood objectively better for most of my game, against a rather older junior, but it could easily have gone wrong. We join the action after 16 moves. I had played 16. Bh3, aiming at the hole on e6 and the rook on c8, but deserting the defence of e4. Black had responded with 16…c4, leaving both sides with a bewildering choice of pawn captures.
On board 2, it had seemed for some time that John Hawksworth had a slight edge against our Thames Valley League clubmate Supratit Banerjee, playing against an isolated queen’s pawn in a Queen’s Gambit Declined set-up. But in trying to turn that into something concrete, he ran short of time and of plans. Supratit combines a fine instinct for where the pieces should go, which reminded John of the 1980s Michael Adams, with resourcefulness and a very quick sight of the board, and took control, eventually putting one of John’s knights in a fatal pin.
So we needed a win from Peter Large on board 1, playing Black against Rahul Babu, who, with an ECF rating of 2298, is now England’s number 6 rated under-18 (Supratit is number 8 on that list). Peter rebutted a dodgy-looking innovation in the Closed Sicilian, and already had a slight edge when the critical position arose after 23. Qa1.
So a well-contested match finished 4-4. Several of the sides in this division do not always travel well, and it may be difficult for some of the juniors to play an away match finishing at 10.30pm (are we clutching at straws here?). But it confirms that the title race is wide open. Coulsdon look credible challengers, after Epsom won in 2023/24 and Guildford had been our main challengers in 2022/23.
* In case anyone is waiting in suspense for Peter Lalić’s finish: 17. Rg8+ Ke7 18. Bg5 pinned and won the black queen. If you failed to spot it, console yourself that Peter’s opponent, who presumably also missed it, is rated around 2100.
Peter Andrews, Kingston captain in Surrey League division 1
The second of an occasional series in which Kingston members and friends of the club choose the player who has most inspired them. Illustration by Theo Esposito Bennett
Like many partially prepared exam students and politicians, my entry into this series on favourite players answers the question I choose to answer, rather than the one suggested by the examiner. As a child (in chess terms) of the early 1970s, I admired Bobby Fischer, who seemed to play the best and most exciting games, and broke the apparent monopoly of the eastern bloc on top-level chess. But he was not the player, or rather writer, who most strongly influenced my development.
Svetozar Gligorić was born in Belgrade in what had recently become Yugoslavia in 1923. He learned to play chess at the age of about 11 from a boarder in his mother’s house. The family was poor, and his mother disapproved of chess, so he carved his first set with a razor blade out of pieces of cork. During the second world war he joined the Yugoslav partisan army, and ended the war – when he was still only 22 – with the rank of captain and two medals.
He became a journalist, both as a writer, in Serbo-Croat and later in English, and as a broadcaster for Radio Belgrade. Despite his professional career, he was able to become a grandmaster in 1951. He won the Yugoslav championship on 12 occasions, and reached the Candidates tournaments in 1953, 1959 and 1968. Although he progressed no further in world championship cycles, he did have some individual successes against the elite: +4 -6 =8 v Fischer, for example, and +6 -8 =28 against Vasily Smyslov, a near contemporary. Gligorić was known for sportsmanship, sympathy and integrity. He was a rare player able to have good relations with Fischer, perhaps after showing kindness towards the raw 16-year-old at his first Candidates in 1959, and in 2019 Fide named its fair play award after him. He died in 2012 in Belgrade, aged 89.
How did Gligoric influence my chess? In my early teens, I had very few chess books, and none on openings. So unsurprisingly, although I had been primary school champion of Southampton at the age of eight, I improved very slowly by today’s standards. Hampshire was still in the Southern Counties Chess Union in the early 1970s (it had moved to the West of England Chess Union by 1974). Rather strangely, it happened that the 1971 SCCU championships were held in Bournemouth, a remote corner of the southern counties, which enabled me to tie for the under-14 championship with a rating of not much over 1600 in modern terms; all the far stronger London juniors of the same age were presumably deterred by travel distance and accommodation costs.
My prize was Gligorić’s Selected Chess Masterpieces, a collection of his monthly articles for the American periodical Chess Review (his name is spelt Gligorich in the book, but I prefer to use the more common spelling). With very few chess books to read, I devoured this new one, and soon realised that it was an unusual and remarkable book.
Gligorić was noted for his own deep expertise in the King’s Indian Defence, but he brought the same thoroughness to the opening phase of all the games he presented. He would comment on individual moves by reference to multiple games played in other recent tournaments, which for me at that age was a more effective way of learning mainstream lines than seeing a specialist opening book with tabulated variations; my memory followed the logic of the games.
Sometimes these annotations were taken to extremes; he gave 1. e4 an exclamation mark in Larsen-Portisch, Porech 1968, commenting: ”In the middle stage of the match, Larsen came to the conclusion that he could not do much against Portisch’s excellent preparations for the Queen’s Gambit. So here he starts with the king pawn once more in the most important game of the match, even though the open systems are not his forte”. And he commented extensively on each of White’s first five moves in a game starting 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d3 Na5 5. Nge2 Nxc4. In the very next game in the book, Keres-Schmid, Bamberg 1968, he gave Keres, who normally played 1. e4, an exclamation mark for 1. d4, to avoid Lothar Schmid’s French defence. I remember thinking that even I could earn an exclamation mark or two if that was the standard.
This was the peak period for the poisoned pawn variation in the Najdorf Sicilian. Juniors like me were imitating Fischer and playing it with either colour. So I very much enjoyed the following two games from the book, played around six months apart. In the first game, Fischer, who had already won the tournament, came unstuck against Efim Geller, in a game played in Monte Carlo in 1967.
A few months later, IM Rajko Bogdanovic repeated the line for Black against Mikhail Tal, who was ready with an improvement.
There was real excitement for me – we might nowadays call it a sense of jeopardy – in the idea that in these very sharp positions the evaluation was unclear (in the days before computers, of course), and new discoveries could be made which would change the result. But what if Black did not go for the poisoned pawn? Gligorić showed a brilliancy in ostensibly a quieter line.
Here is the 1959 Candidates game cited by Gligorić. Fischer was only 16 at the time, but even so, it confirms that Gligorić was no mug. Characteristically, he was too modest to mention in Selected Chess Masterpieces that he had won the game, although g4 would have been less likely to become part of the canon had he not done so.
Those sorts of games appealed greatly to me. So when in May 1974, in a tournament at Bournemouth, by now rated about 1850, I sat down opposite Marshall Thompson, then the champion of Hampshire, rated 2180 having been 2200 for several years, I knew what to do when he played down the Parma-Bogdanovic line.
That was the most exciting game I had ever played. The time limit was 42 moves in 1¾ hours, and I recorded that at the end my opponent had half a minute remaining for seven moves, while I had less than 10 minutes. That was time trouble by my standards at that age, and I recall in my excitement banging the coffee cup at my right hand rather than the clock at my left, to the mirth of the crowd of spectators which had gathered round the board.
The round was played in the morning, and as a hungry teenager I raced off to get some lunch before the afternoon round. When I arrived back in the tournament hall half an hour later, I found Thompson still analysing the game with the remaining spectators. The rest was anti-climax. In the afternoon, I played a boring draw on the black side of an English with a 1750-rated player. And it was infuriating that Thompson’s grade had just slipped below 200 (in old money, 2200 now). It was nearly six years before I managed to beat someone of that strength, and by then I was 2100 myself so there was not the same underdog triumph about it.
Unfortunately, by the mid-1970s, perhaps influenced by a crushing win by Spassky against Fischer in the 1972 match, fewer players chose the Najdorf with Black, and players on the White side were playing less critical lines against it. In more humdrum lines the Gligorić book was less help, and my progress stalled. But its impact at a time when I was starting to play stronger adult opposition was unforgettable.
Played at All Saints Church, Childs Hill, London NW2 on 24 February 2024 on board 14 in the SCCU Open category county match between Middlesex and Surrey
This was a game of high drama played in a crucial encounter between Middlesex and Surrey. Middlesex had home advantage and a substantial ratings plus, but the Surrey players performed superbly and ran out winners in the 16-board match by 9.5 to 6.5. That meant Surrey ended the regional stage of the county championships top of the table, unbeaten on 6/6, and progressed to the quarter-finals against qualifiers from other regions. This was a rollercoaster encounter between Peter Andrews (pictured), playing for Surrey, and his Middlesex counterpart Christopher Skulte. Peter said he felt dizzy by the end, while Chris admitted there were times in the game when he found it difficult to breathe. Remind me why we play chess when we could be relaxing on a Saturday afternoon.
Wimbledon 1 v Kingston 1, Surrey League division 1 match played at St Winifride’s Church Hall, Wimbledon on 15 February 2024
Confidence in advance of this match was not high, given the depleted team we were able to field: Thursday is an inconvenient evening for several regulars, and illness took out Vladimir Li and Julian Way in the 24 hours before the match. Some team-mates thought our situation resembled that of Henry V before Agincourt:
O that we had now hereBut one ten thousand of those men in England that do no work today. What’s he that wishes so? …. The fewer men the greater share of honour.
That was perhaps an exaggeration: Kingston Chess Club does not yet have 10,000 members; Nick Grey and Charlie Cooke, stepping in at short notice, ensured we had as many players as Wimbledon; and the ratings of the two sides were almost equal. But if the thought helped stiffen our sinews it was a good one.
Charlie Cooke faced an uphill battle on board 8 with Black against the higher-rated John Polanyk. Having neutralised a dangerous-looking attack, a small slip allowed an exchange sacrifice which eventually won at least a piece. Jon Eckert and Nick Grey on boards 6 and 7 drew relatively early. Nick was frustrated that his edge from a better pawn structure did not crystallise into a win, but his was one of the boards where we were outrated, so this was nevertheless an important contribution.
Alan Scrimgour had found himself in a line of the French Defence known better by his opponent. Kings castled on opposite sides, and Alan sacrificed the exchange to try to drum up an attack; he accepted a draw offer when he realised that there was not much there. John Foley equalised the score with a convincing win with black against Wimbledon secretary Gordon Rennie. He has analysed this in more depth in the Games section. From my observation point on the next board, he built up the pressure impressively to reach this position after 22 Re3.
My own game finished shortly after John’s. At the time, I thought it had been an anodyne draw, with my opponent successfully neutralising the slight disadvantage of an isolated pawn. Imagine my frustration when Stockfish showed me three distinct winning opportunities I had missed, each of them instructive.
That left the scores level at 3-3, with Kingston apparently slightly worse on both remaining boards. Luca Buanne, on his league debut, faced Dan Rosen’s Grand Prix attack. This game, which was a tense but fairly balanced struggle from the outset, is provided in full in the Games section, with annotations by Luca and John Foley. The rest of the team started to focus on his game around this critical moment, after 37. Rc1 by White.
So it all came down to board 1. Peter Lalić, against the IM Alberto Suarez Real, played a trademark queenless middle game. Around the point the other games were over, he was a pawn down but solid and with reasonable activity, and his chances to hold were improved because his opponent was down to a minute on the clock while Peter still had more than five.
Thus we won the match, securing our position in division 1 and (such is the closeness of the race) keeping us in with an outside shot at the title. To beat a 2400+ IM in that ending starting from a pawn down was an epic performance. Peter will remember with advantages what feats he did that day[1].
Peter Andrews, Kingston captain in Surrey division 1
[1] Shakespeare was of course expert in the pressures and rewards of Surrey League chess.
