Peter Lalić says the key to doing well when you give a simul is to bore your opponents to defeat. Here he explains how he approached one he gave recently at Kingston
As part of Kingston’s Summer Programme, a number of our strongest players have kindly consented to give simultaneous displays (“simuls” in chess parlance). First up was IM Ameet Ghasi, who annihilated all-comers, helped by what he felt was an overly generous time differential. For the second simul, given by CM Peter Lalić (pictured above), the clock settings were adjusted and the play was a little less one-sided.
Peter had an hour and a quarter with no increment; his 15 opponents had 20 minutes with a 10-second increment. Peter eventually emerged triumphant, with 14 wins, a single draw and no losses. But there were a few hiccups along the way: Peter only realised late on that he had no increment and had to start running between the three or four boards where his time was in danger of running out.
Several games were won with seconds to spare on his clock. He conceded a draw to Kingston stalwart Ed Mospan, which was a source of great satisfaction – to Ed and the rest of us, if not to Peter. Ed was ecstatic and punched the air in delight, saying he would frame the scoresheet. Peter has an ECF rating close to 2300. Ed’s is more than 700 points lower, so this was a significant achievement.
It is the nice point about simuls that players who do well remember their games forever. I was in touch recently with a 67-year-old club player now retired from over-the-board chess. He sent me a game he had played almost 50 years ago against Britain’s first GM, Tony Miles. My correspondent hadn’t won or even drawn the game, but he had played well and Miles had congratulated him. That memory burned bright half a century later.
Peter takes such exhibitions very seriously and, to my surprise, said afterwards that he was “more proud of this performance than of any of my classical games, especially because I played with the black pieces and had no increment”. I asked him to explain why it mattered so much to him. “I thought I had an increment, but I was watching one of the kids and when I watched the clock I panicked because I realised I didn’t have an increment and all of a sudden I thought ‘I can lose half of these on time’. I had only minutes left on some of them., and when I managed to be unbeaten it was a great relief.”
Peter had opted to play Black in all the games, and says his strategy was to bore his opponents to defeat. He played 1…d6 in all games, regardless of White’s opening move, and says that he was generally able to control the pawn structure which ensued. Eighty per cent of the games had the pawn structure shown in the first diagram below; a third of the games had the structure shown in the second diagram, with queens exchanged (a Lalić speciality); in a third of the games White advanced a pawn to d5 (diagram 3), and in a fifth of the games Black was able to construct the pawn chain shown in diagram 4.
“I was able to race around the room on the opening moves because I was playing the same thing,” Peter explains. “They are the equivalent of pre-moves. Even after five moves, 33 per cent of my games had the same position (see diagram 2 above). It’s the Lalić system! I’m sure that if I’d played anything that was less systematic I would have dropped a couple of losses. It could even have been worse than that because if you have a couple of difficult games there can be a domino effect. I could easily have scored only 60 per cent with a different opening. It’s the fact that the games are so boring that excites me!”
Peter Lalić working the room at his simul at the Willoughby Arms, He ended with 14 wins, a draw and no losses
Peter says calculation is difficult in a simul and it’s easy to lose the thread of a game. He had asked his opponents to keep score and says he sometimes had to remind himself what had been played by sneaking a look at their scoresheets – and this is a player with a phenomenal memory! “That’s why I had to play on autopilot,” he says. “I wanted to avoid chaos, and my study of these opening structures and my ability to force my opponents on to my territory meant I had virtually no chaos.”
He says the only player who brought him close to the anarchy he was seeking to avoid was John Bussmann, as shown in the game below. ” It’s no coincidence that he, being the most highly rated player, was the only one to create chaos,” says Peter. “He knew good simul technique and shows what a challenger should do.”
Ed Mospan was justifiably proud of the game he played against Peter and deserves his framed scoresheet:
Peter notes the two players’ accuracy in this game was down at 91 per cent. In the game against Emma Buckley, his accuracy level was 99 per cent! Emma’s accuracy level was a more than creditable 93 per cent, she battled on for 64 moves, and in the course of the game set this nice trap:
Emma played 25. c5 here, which appears to invite Kc3. The latter would lose the knight to b4 – easy to overlook in a simul. Peter dodged the bullet and went on to win the endgame. Emma is Peter’s half-sister, which made the competition all the more intense; on move 22 she told Peter the position was “dead drawn” – familial trash talking!
Generally Peter’s “boring is beautiful” strategy worked. “I tried to make sure there was nothing going on,” he says, “and the games hinged on one or two static weaknesses in my opponents’ positions.” This is often what happens in simuls: the master-level player isn’t necessarily looking to blow you away over the board, but instead to gain a technical advantage and then squeeze. So when you’re next facing a superstar in a simul, be ready to trade blows and create as much chaos as possible. Even if you lose you will have a lot of fun and, who knows, you might even win.
Peter makes the point that Dutch grandmaster and acclaimed writer and aphorist Jan Hein Donner was on to this more than half a century ago. “Play aggressively,” Donner advised. “Ninety-five percent of all victims in simultaneous displays usually owe their defeat to their own passivity. The simul-giver lacks the time to work out variations, but doing so is more important when defending than in an attack. On psychological grounds, too, aggressively approaching the simul-giver is a sound and very effective strategy.”
Peter is now looking forward to the simuls which will be given at Kingston by his friends and team-mates Vladimir Li and David Maycock in the next month. It would surely be too cynical to suggest that he is offering this advice to their potential opponents in order to make life harder for them. Peter just doesn’t think in that Gore Vidal-type way. (Vidal’s famous quip was “It is not enough to succeed. Others must fail.”) At Kingston we value togetherness, and such oneupmanship simply doesn’t enter our leading players’ calculations. At least I don’t think it does….
Forty years ago, Kingston player Mike Tebb died at the board while playing for Kingston. It took a surprise visit from his widow Kate to recall that dreadful night – and to remind those who knew him of what was lost
A couple of weeks ago a woman dropped by at a chess mentoring session for under-11s which Kingston president John Foley and I were running at a local library. She had a pile of old chess books, mostly dating from the 1970s, so ancient they used descriptive notation. But they had clearly been carefully chosen and included Nimzovich’s My System and other classic texts which suggested the owner has been a discriminating book buyer and serious player.
As we talked to our visitor, whose name was Kate Tebb, an extraordinary story emerged. Her husband Mike Tebb (pictured above with his son in the year of his death) had played for Hampton in the 1970s, Kingston in the 1980s and also represented Surrey. John Foley did some research later and found old Surrey team lists which showed him keeping very respectable company in high-level county championship matches, and in the starting line-up for the Surrey Congress in the summer of 1976 his grade is given as 169. He was clearly a very capable player.
Kate told us that Mike had died from cardiac arrest at the board while playing for Kingston in November 1984. She had kept his books for 40 years and now wanted to donate them to the club. What was remarkable was that John Foley, who has been part of the Kingston club for almost 30 years, had never heard a word about this dramatic and appalling night when a routine home match against Slough had ended in tragedy. I have been associated with Kingston for 20 years and had certainly never heard it spoken of. Somehow this tragic event had been hidden away, too grim to contemplate or even recall. Now, on the 40th anniversary of Mike’s death and prompted by Kate Tebb’s visit and her donation of Mike’s beloved chess books, we want to properly remember him.
We turned to Peter Roche, who is a life member of Kingston and has given more than 50 years of dedicated service to the club, and asked him what he remembered about Mike Tebb. Not only did he remember him well and very fondly, but he had been playing alongside him on that fateful night in November 1984. Here are his recollections, spurred by Kate’s visit but perhaps suppressed for all these decades because he felt the remembrance so painful.
“Yes I remember Mike Tebb very well,” says Peter. “He joined Kingston from Hampton and quickly became a popular and well-regarded member. He played mainly in the first team and was very dependable. He helped arrange the summer programme (he was a devotee of five-minute chess). I am sure he shared the captaincy duties. I was present when Mike collapsed. We were playing Slough at Kingston and much to my surprise we had to start without him (he being very reliable). After about 20 minutes he rushed in [the match was being played at the now demolished Quaker Hall in central Kingston] with a hurried apology. He had thought the match was at Slough, where he worked. He started his game. Suddenly there was a commotion as he collapsed at the table.
“Immediately people sprang into action. One of the Slough players attempted resuscitation. We roused the caretaker to get an ambulance and from what I remember it came very quickly. There was a meeting in the next room and some senior police officers came to see if they could help. We contacted his wife to warn her that she must go to the hospital immediately. She had a young family so she had to arrange for them to be looked after.
“John Adams, a member of the club though not playing that evening, was a good friend of Mike’s, and he rang to tell me that Mike had passed away and asked what had happened, so I gave the description I have set out here. A number of us including Chris Clegg, James Pattle and Richard Harris, and I think Chris Carr attended the funeral. Your enquiry has prompted a very sad memory, though I should say that I have often thought over the years about the catastrophe and what a terrible waste of a fine life it was.”
Peter’s recollection of the evening chimed with what Kate had told us. Mike had been feeling slightly fluey a couple of days earlier, and an inquest suggested this had made him susceptible to cardiac arrest. The coroner’s report gave the cause of death as viral myocarditis, which can develop when the flu virus (on very rare occasions) attacks the heart muscle. He had played squash on the day of the Slough match and this, plus the need to rush to Kingston when he discovered the match was not being played in Slough, may have increased the susceptibility, though Kate says this is a moot point.
She says Mike was effervescent, exuberant, enthusiastic, ebullient – “all the E words!”, as Kate puts it. He was clearly dynamic: who else would play a game of squash so soon after feeling fluey? This assessment of Mike’s personality is borne out by Kingston stalwart (and current first-team Thames Valley captain) David Rowson’s recollections of him.
“It is very touching that Kate Tebb brought the books,” says David. “I didn’t know Mike very well as I went to work in Spain in 1981, but I still remember him quite distinctly as a very warm and sociable character with a great sense of humour. In particular I remember that when I returned to the club in the summer after my first year in Spain he joked about how annoying it was that I followed every move with a shout of ‘Ole!’ ” Kate says David Rowson’s anecdote is “absolutely typical of Mike’s humour”.
A few days after that first meeting, at my suggestion Kate visited the small group of us who meet every Wednesday morning to play some friendly social chess at All Saints Church next to Kingston Market Place. Kate talked with Peter Roche for the first time in many years and also gave me a batch of Mike old scoresheets, from which I have extracted the game shown later in this article. The other document she brought was a set of testimonials to Mike she had gathered after his death, and again what comes across is his exuberance and joie de vivre – qualities which make his loss all the more poignant and painful.
“I was really shaken at the dreadful news of Mike’s death,” wrote Hampton player David Mabbs. “Unusually for a chess player, Mike always found time to take an interest in other players as people, He wasn’t one of the intense or introverted players, as are so many of us. He was friendly, gentlemanly and good-humoured. He was also a good player and enjoyed his chess, and he will be greatly missed by his chess counterparts.”
Malcolm Groom, another former Kingston stalwart who now turns out for neighbouring club Surbiton, wrote: “Mike was one of those rare people who are somehow able to inject a sense of good humour and fun into any group of people. He even made turning up on a dark winter’s night after a hard day at the office in order to spend three-and-a-half hours playing chess enjoyable (well almost). I shall miss him very much.”
The then Kingston chair Bill Waterton, in a letter of condolence to Kate, referred to Mike’s “exuberant personality”, and that seems to have been the key to his character. As David Mabbs says, some chess players can be myopic and mean-spirited, soulless and self-obsessed. Mike was the opposite: full of energy and delighting in the game for its own sake, which perhaps explains his love of blitz chess.
Now we have firmly put Mike back in the club’s collective memory bank, we shall continue to celebrate his life and will set up a blitz tournament in his memory. Here are two games – both played at classical time controls – which show how good and resourceful a player Mike was. The first game, a victory in 1970 over the very strong Stephen Berry (who later became a Fide master), is taken from John Saunders’ collection on BritBase. The second I selected from the pile of scoresheets handed to me by Kate Tebb. The succinct annotations in the latter game, written in pen in a small, neat hand on the scoresheet, are Mike Tebb’s own.
The opening blitz tournament of the summer was a cracker, with Peter Large, Vladimir Li and Peter Lalić tie-ing on 4/5
They say quality will out, and that was certainly the case at the first Kingston Blitz tournament of the summer at the Willoughby Arms. The three titled players in the field – FM Vladimir Li, CM Peter Lalić and IM Peter Large (pictured above, left to right) – could in the end not be separated, each finishing on 4.5.
The three took games off each other: Vladimir beat Peter Large in an exciting duel; Peter Lalić was at his mesmerising best in overcoming Vladimir; and in the final round Peter Large toppled his namesake, who was leading the tournament at that point, with a beautifully played game (complete with neat exchange sac) as Black.
Expertly organised by Kingston’s new secretary, David Bickerstaff, the event included a host of good performances from lesser-ranked players: Dominic Fogg’s 3/5 demonstrated his great promise; Robin Kerremans. following on from his fine performance at the London Clubs Championship the previous week, again showed that he is ludicrously underrated; and new member Ye Kwaw and welcome returner Aziz Sanni also performed well.
Further down the list Mark Sheridan, Homayoom Froogh (another newbie), Alicia Mason (back from the US) and Jaden Mistry also had their moments, and it was great to see some of the club’s new juniors getting involved against expert players. An excellent event played in the garden of the Willoughby in the warmest weather of the summer so far. Well played everyone and thanks to David for organising so brilliantly. The second summer Blitz is scheduled for Monday 15 July.
Final standings – top 7
Peter Large 4/5 Vladimir Li 4/5 Peter Lalić 4/5 Dominic Fogg 3/5 Robin Kerremans 3/5 Aziz Sannie 3/5
Q&A with Epsom Chess Club’s president Marcus Gosling (pictured above). Kingston’s Stephen Moss, Marcus’s friend and arch-foe in the fight for Surrey club honours, asks the questions
Kingston play in two local leagues – Surrey and Thames Valley. All our rivals in division 1 of each league are dangerous, but some are more dangerous than others. Epsom are more dangerous than most, and in the 2023/24 season they pipped us to the Surrey League title. Their triumph was remarkable in several ways. They had been promoted from division 2 the previous season, so won it at the first attempt. But even more startling is the fact that the club has only existed in its modern form for six years. It was refounded in 2018 by the then 23-year-old Marcus Gosling , the old Epsom club having foundered (like many other clubs) decades previously. In this Q&A, I ask Marcus how he managed not just to get Epsom up and running again, but to turn it so quickly into a powerhouse of Surrey chess.
Q: Cast your mind back to 2018, Marcus. Why did you decide to refound Epsom Chess Club and what did you hope to achieve?
I have always believed I am a creative person, but I probably lack the raw talent, and in truth probably the self-discipline, to be really competent in a particular field. I am always adamant to do things my own way, and that attribute is mainly a curse, but it can also be a blessing. A person’s greatest strength and biggest weakness are rarely far apart. In a competitive sense, my ambition in 2018 was for Epsom to reach Division 1 of the Surrey League within five years. This seemed laughably unlikely, not least after finishing next-to-last in our first season in Division 4.
Q: I believe the old Epsom club had originally been founded in 1929. How long did it exist, what had it achieved, and when and why did it fold?
That’s right. Here, I must pay tribute to the late Surrey League archivist Martin Cath, who was instrumental in helping me delve a little into the history of the original Epsom club, which existed from 1929-67. These records actually dated back to 1931, and it was only thanks to Streatham & Brixton Chess Club sending us a local newspaper cutting from December 1929, heralding the arrival of a new club in Epsom, that we actually managed to trace the club back to source.
The original Epsom club was led almost throughout by a legend of Surrey chess, Hector Marshall. He was quite a strong player by all accounts and was still playing despite failing eyesight until shortly before his death in 2000. I managed to get in touch with his granddaughter, who was pleased to hear that we had reformed. By an unusual twist of fate, the flat where I am living at the moment was built on the site of a large house formerly owned by Hector Marshall. When I looked through the plans before moving in, I could hardly believe my eyes. The only regret is that we don’t have a picture of Hector to hang up somewhere prominent at the club.
It doesn’t sound as though the original Epsom club won much in the way of silverware, only thrice winning the “Waechter Shield” (which may have been the third or perhaps fourth tier of the Surrey League at the time, and is now the trophy awarded to the winners of the Surrey Border League). We certainly never won the Surrey Trophy [the Surrey Div 1 title], our best finish being third in the top tier, or the Alexander Cup, where our best effort was losing to Battersea in the final in 1939.
As far as I am aware, our downfall began when a new chess club in Stoneleigh entered the fray in the 1960s, masterminded by “an ambitious and flamboyant man with a penchant for self-promotion”. Hmm, sounds familiar…
Q: Was there a community of chess players in Epsom eager for the club to be reformed, or were you taking a shot in the dark?
I had no idea, but I figured that there must be dormant chess players lurking somewhere. There are plenty of chess aficionados, and surely Epsom was no exception. The initial plan was to rely on a mixture of loanees from other clubs and home-grown players to get the club off the ground, before gathering enough momentum to stand on our own two feet. Within a couple of seasons, we were able to wean ourselves off the multi-club players and greatly expand our number of teams. We recommended this approach to Chessington Chess Club when their club was launched during the pandemic, and that has brought them moderate success too.
A very hirsute Gosling with some key early Epsom members, including the late Mike Basman (far left)
Q: I believe there you have one member who played for the old Epsom club. He must be very happy to see the club back in business.
Yes, that man is Mike Wickham, who is an absolute delight. Mike played briefly for the original club in the 1960s when it met at the Cricketers pub on the fringes of Epsom, before heading off to university. By the time he’d completed his degree, the club had folded. A mere 52 years later (surely some kind of record), Mike attended our reformation celebration at the Rising Sun pub and played in our first match in 2018 against Dorking. I am pleased to say that Mike has been instrumental in our rise as a club, overseeing our monthly blitz events as tournament controller, captaining various league teams, representing his county, attending the occasional congress and generally being as reliable and supportive a member as any club could hope for.
Q: You could have joined another club and happily played there. Why did you feel the need to start (or perhaps restart) a new club?
After returning from Russia [Marcus speaks and teaches Russian] a second time in 2017, I swiftly joined Surbiton Chess Club on the recommendation of Chris Briscoe, who had run the lunchtime chess club at my school. Surbiton are a fantastic entity, led by the inspirational Paul Durrant and supported by a host of other aficionados. I consider the one season I played for them in 2017-18 to have been an important step, as I was able to observe from the backbenches how a successful chess club is run. Midway through that season, the thought of setting up a new club was already germinating in my mind.
Q: Did you find other local chess clubs unsatisfactory in some way? Best not to name names – we want to keep on friendly terms with all our rivals! But was there really no other Surrey club that suited you?
Surbiton were great, but I would say that almost half the clubs in the Surrey League are poorly run and deeply unappealing to potential newcomers. I could probably go on a long rant here, so here is a short one instead.
Without wishing to appear ageist, many clubs, both in Surrey and around the UK, are in desperate need of a fresh perspective. Many seem to be run by middle-aged men, probably ex-bank clerk types, Luddites trapped in loveless marriages, lacking liveliness, libido and enough holes on their belts, angry at what they believe the world owes them. They use chess as a counterbalance – a way of taking out their frustration and disdain for everyone and everything. Running a chess club is, for them, a power trip rather than a community project and God forbid that anyone should try to challenge them. Everything they touch turns to ice. Now imagine a twentysomething woman in this environment. How long before she turns around and walks straight back out the door? This sounds harsh I know, and I am playfully exaggerating, but I really do think there are clubs who exist like this.
Q: What were your founding principles?
To be the polar opposite of what I have mentioned above. It is very important to me that Epsom Chess Club is a hospitable place with community spirit at its very essence. When a new player rocks up, we try to welcome them with open arms.
Q: What makes a good chess club?
That is certainly a harder question. I think it has to be something to do with meeting the needs of all members and this is certainly an area that Epsom can improve. Some clubs are very competition-orientated with no social element, whilst others are effectively social clubs who happen to play chess. The key is finding a good balance and regularly consulting members to hear what they have to say.
Q: Your Surrey League success has, I think it’s fair to say, been founded on having three IMs – Peter Large, Graeme Buckley and Susan Lalić – on boards 1, 2 and 3. Did you go out of your way to recruit what might be called these “bedrock players”?
It was quite funny when IM Peter Large walked into the club one day, modestly introducing himself and telling us he “played a bit online”. After challenging him to a handful of games and losing all of them, I dared to ask who was the strongest player he had faced in a tournament. “I drew with Smyslov once” was the reply. Safe to say we had a talent on our hands and it wasn’t long before the unfortunate board ones in the Surrey fourth division were finding that out too.
Graeme and Susan are more recent acquisitions, who were perhaps attracted to the story behind our revived club and wanted to be part of it. I would imagine they also saw Peter in our ranks and realised we had at least one player who would give them both a decent game. The trouble is bridging the gap between the IMs and the mere mortals, although with Peter leaving the club soon there may not be a gap to bridge.
Q: You also lured former British champion Peter Lee, who is now 80 years old, back into chess after a 50-year gap in competitive play. How did you manage that?
That was mainly down to Graeme and Susan, who know Peter quite well and live close to where he does. Many thanks to them for their efforts, not least with providing the former British champion (of both bridge and chess) with a lift to matches. As I mentioned previously, strength tends to attract strength, so having three well-known top-class players at Epsom probably had some positive effect.
I am proud that Epsom Chess Club has been able to welcome Peter and reignite his passion to compete as part of a team. He even played on top board for the Surrey Open team earlier in the season, albeit off a Fide rating dating from the early 1970s. For an octogenarian, this is nothing short of magnificent.
Key members of the Epsom committee: David Flewellen, Marcus Gosling and Lucy Emery
Q: Was your intention to grow through proactive recruitment or organically – waiting for players to come through the door?
With the exception of Peter Large, strong players rarely just walk through the door of any club. I reckon in another life I could have been a football scout – part of the fun of running a club is sourcing talent. This is helped by the fact that I am just looking for chess enthusiasts, not necessarily master-level players.
Personally, I enjoy playing in tournaments outside of the Surrey League umbrella, so get to meet quite a few players that way. In the first round of one Kensington Rapidplay event, I was paired with the brilliantly shirted and effervescent GM Stuart Conquest. The game quickly went south, but of course I did not pass up the opportunity to try to reel him in. A bit of a long shot, given that I think he lives somewhere near Heathrow airport (and was probably tempted to jump on a plane following our conversation, or even in front of it), but I would like to think I was playing the long game. Not on the board though of course.
Q: What marketing methods did you use?
A mixture of 21st- and 20th-century methods. It is of paramount importance for a modern chess club to have a strong online presence, including good SEO (search engine optimisation) and this is an area I was keen to get on top of back in 2018. Thanks to another keen member, Anthony Hunter, our website has recently been revamped, and we also have an active Twitter/X feed and a Facebook page. That said, we need to start uploading match reports like Kingston do. Maybe setting up TikTok and Instagram pages will be next.
But equally, we have relied a little on printed flyers and strategically placed banners outside the club on match nights, as well as the occasional public event. Last summer, we set up a few boards in Epsom town centre, but that wasn’t particularly successful. However, one of our most active and supportive members, David Flewellen, was recruited at a sort of village fête.
Q: What innovations did you introduce? I recall your club videos and also your electronic scoreboard at matches. Were you always determined to do things differently?
We can certainly do more in this area, but for sure I am determined for Epsom to remain a lively and innovative club. I always imagine myself as a new member stepping through the door for the first time – would I see a vibrant group of people or a glorified morgue? When I enter the club, would I be warmly greeted and introduced to other members or just ignored? From next season, we hope to bring back a projector screen and also a “welcome board” by the front door, explaining in writing what is going on at the club that night. I also want to introduce club merchandise for extra publicity, which is something that London clubs such as Battersea and Hammersmith do well. Maybe we could even shell out on the odd DGT board.
Q: With so many very strong players, where does that leave the rest? How does a club satisfy the needs of both the elite player and the less strong player? How can a club appeal successfully to IMs, 2000-strength players and 1500-strength players. Can it be one club, or is it a club with two or even three layers which in reality rarely intersect?
In all honesty, that is something Epsom is yet to master and we have paid the penalty by losing one of our IMs [Peter Large] and a few of our beginner-level members. I think Kingston are the gold standard in the Surrey League in this area, in the sense that top players are catered for with invitational events and all other members can attend lectures on a fairly regular basis. Our most successful whole-club events have been our blitz tournaments and Christmas meals, which bring together the whole club. A big thank you to Mike Wickham and Susan Lalić (and not forgetting her husband Graeme Buckley), who have been in charge of those events.
Q: Where do juniors fit in the club? I know you have a junior club and teach chess yourself. Are you satisfied with the club’s junior offering – something which at Kingston we are still striving to get right. Do you feel you have cracked the puzzle?
From unveiling a new Epsom Junior Chess Club with barely a dozen children in October 2019, we now have over 70 pupils attending our junior sessions, which I run with support from our punctilious club secretary David Flewellen and upcoming teenager Maya Keen on Thursday evenings. Both classes have been fully booked every term since the pandemic, and there are even more pupils on the waiting list. I am constantly staggered by the amount of interest, and without wishing to toot my own bugle I am immensely proud of this – it is a very pleasing endorsement of my chess teaching.
One thing I should mention is that I have always run the junior club independently, ie as a business opportunity, and parents pay me directly. I then feed the strongest juniors into the adult club setup (without saturating it). Currently we have around half a dozen children regularly competing in the Surrey League and doing very well. All the adults are immensely supportive of the juniors who play alongside them. This is different to at many clubs, where the junior wing is more closely tied to the adult club and is used as a money-making scheme for it, while the person in charge of teaching the kids is often an underappreciated volunteer.
I have enjoyed writing chess books for children too – probably the best ones I have written are Rambunctious Rooks and Quixotic Queens and Lunar Octopuses Can’t Play Chess.
Q: You have been successful at attracting women players. How have you achieved that?
Yes, I think we have more female players than the rest of the league combined. Just treat women with respect, involve them fully in club events, listen to what they have to say, meet at a comfortable venue in a well-lit area and they are more likely to enjoy coming along regularly. We are pleased that our club treasurer and diversity officer, Lucy Emery, has been asked to join the Surrey League board – a long overdue decision – and I am satisfied that positive steps are being taken to diversify the decision-makers in the SCCA.
Q: What can chess clubs – and the sport generally – do to become more female friendly?
Shut down the bigots more effectively. Unless misogynistic and abusive players and fans are identified and excluded, progress will remain slow and insignificant.
Q: How has running the club affected your own chess? My sense is that you haven’t progressed quite as much as you would have done if you were just concentrating on your own game.
It is certainly true that my own game stagnated some time ago, although that is in part due to teaching chess for a living. After teaching the beloved game five days a week, studying it in the remaining hours feels like a busman’s holiday. That said, I do immensely enjoy playing and I think there is progress still to be made, if only I could be bothered to set my mind to it. I know I won’t reach master level, but I enjoy the game nonetheless.
Q: Do you ever think you made the wrong choice: that you should have concentrated on your own play rather than on running a club?
Chess has never been the most important thing in my life – I have a number of other interests and hobbies – but it is somewhat true that I have neglected many of these to put plenty of effort into running Epsom Chess Club. That said, I get almost as much pleasure out of seeing my students and team-mates play well as I do from my own games. This is probably because my games aren’t especially pleasant to witness.
Q: What are your ambitions now for your own game? To get to 2000 ECF? To beat your eternal rival Peter Lalić?
Yes to both. Reaching 2000 ECF is a realistic target and I am almost within touching distance now. Whether I get there in the near future is another question, but I reckon it can be done. As for failing to beat Peter Lalić, that is surely one of the three certainties of life, along with death and taxes. It is a rivalry that dates back many years to our school days and Friday-evening matches in the Briant Poulter League. Peter and I are similar in some ways (other than sharing a birth year, 1994): I think he is very creative on the board but I am much more creative away from it.
Gosling playing in the Lauder Trophy final against Kingston’s Peter Andrews. Photograph: John Saunders
Q: You are very much all or nothing when it comes to running Epsom. You have high standards and want it to succeed. You have strong administrative allies at the club, but I think it is fair to say that much of the dynamism at the club relies on you. You have admitted that this can be draining. Does the amount it is taking out of you worry you?
I don’t particularly see the point in accepting mediocrity. Creating a chess club was the easy part, but making it successful is a different kettle of fish. I could take the easy way out and leave the dirty work to everyone else, but that isn’t really my style. However, the Epsom committee is superb. I have already mentioned Mike Wickham’s evergreen tendencies, but David Flewellen is absolutely tremendous at putting the club philosophy into practice and engaging with members in a positive way. I should not forget Lucy Emery too, for her hard work behind the scenes, namely managing the club’s finances. I could also mention many more members.
If I were to have a meltdown and step away from Epsom, there would be a plethora of dynamic members willing to drive the club forward. That is immensely reassuring and allows me to delegate responsibility a whole lot more these days, which is a lot better for my own well-being.
Q: Running a club and really trying to push it forward is something of a Faustian bargain: one enjoys the challenge but knows that it is exhausting and often frustrating. Do you ever reach a point of wondering if it’s all worth it?
Winning trophies brings a lot of joy to members, as everyone at the club is invested in how all of our teams are getting on, no matter what level they are. Usually at least one person is able to provide live updates on a particular match via our club WhatsApp group, and members regularly chip in with humorous and encouraging comments. I am fortunate not to be the only Epsom member with drive and determination, so together we are able to share the workload and continue to push the club forward.
Q: The Dutch GM Hans Ree said chess was a game “worth wasting your life on”. Can the same dictum be applied to running a chess club?
I don’t feel I am wasting my time at all, and in fact I am hugely proud of the community that has flourished at Epsom Chess Club – a group of people who otherwise would never have met or be playing chess at all. What matters most to me is that members look forward to attending the club – for some it is perhaps the highlight of their week. As for chess itself, I regularly dream about those cursèd 64 squares and playing in imaginary tournaments in made-up places that have been amalgamated in my mind – I cannot escape chess’s grip for long. I sometimes even “sleep-teach”, where I start reciting the Lucena position to an imaginary audience whilst half-asleep. Perhaps I should be worried!
Q: You have suffered considerable problems with venues since the clubs was reformed. Can you briefly explain the problems and do you feel you now have a venue, the Epsom Christian Fellowship, which will offer long-term stability for the club.
Yes, we have been round Epsom more times than Lester Piggott. The struggle to find a suitable venue is an issue that every chess club knows all too well. Until recently, I was of the opinion that pubs were the most natural stomping ground for chess clubs, with serious matches played in a separate function room and casual games in the bar. However, pubs tend to be more profit-orientated than places like church halls and community centres and of course chess players are naturally ascetic and stingy when it comes to buying drinks.
We were initially hampered by a lack of funds, having opted to keep our annual membership fees low, so I often orbited Epsom searching for quid pro quo agreements with down-at-heel pubs, who were desperate for extra trade. This once led to an embarrassing situation where we spent less than a month at one venue, which turned out to be entirely unsuitable for our needs. However, things are finally looking up, as our current venue – Epsom Christian Fellowship – is ideal.
Q: Is it fair to say that half (perhaps even more than half) the secret of running a chess club is finding a good venue?
Yes, that is probably true. An ideal venue would be close to the town centre and a railway station, quiet, well-lit, not too expensive, accessible to disabled players, junior-friendly, with separate areas for serious and casual games. But of course, it can be nigh-on impossible to tick all those boxes. “The Fellowship” (as we call it) is as close to perfect as we are likely to get.
Q: As you know, Kingston has just completed a hat-trick of victories in the Alexander Cup. Four other clubs have completed that hat-trick – Clapham Common, Richmond, Mitcham and Redhill. Of those, only Richmond still exists and even they are now based in Teddington. I sometimes dwell on this memento mori. Chess clubs come and go. Does that worry you and how does one future-proof them? What is the secret of creating a sustainable club?
Ultimately it comes down to how many people are willing to shoulder the administrative burden. If one key member leaves, does the club have enough cylinders to run on, or will it conk out and splutter to a halt? Moreover, as I have mentioned previously, involving younger members in running the club and listening to their ideas is the best way to prevent stagnation. At Epsom, we also fundraise whenever possible – for example, we regularly make £40-£50 in donations at our blitz events and cleared £70 with an impromptu raffle at our AGM last month.
In the space of just six years, President Gosling has created a very successful and highly competitive club
Q: You have said that winning the Surrey League is just the beginning for Epsom. What are the club’s ambitions now?
Next up is the 4NCL, which is a decidedly tougher world to conquer. The club has agreed to fund the entry fee and there are quite a few takers already. We will have to start at the bottom, but should rise fairly quickly if our stronger players are keen to take on the challenge.
However, we are looking at what other clubs in the Surrey League are doing better than us. For sure, there will be an Epsom Invitational event sometime in the next couple of years, following in Kingston’s footsteps, and we have plans to launch an Epsom Congress in 2025 to counter Guildford’s latest venture.
I also think it should be possible to re-establish a national club knockout competition, perhaps with regional early rounds and culminating with a semi-final and final at a central location. No doubt there are other ideas I have neglected to mention.
Q: You are on the verge of turning 30. Will you be running Epsom with the same energy and will to succeed at 40, or will others have to step up with their own vision for the club? I sometimes jokingly refer to you in match reports when we play you as President-for-Life, but are you?
I never like to look too far ahead actually. I don’t like the feeling of being on train tracks towards a specific goal – my interests and ideas change on a daily basis. I did laugh when you called me “president-for-life” in a recent match report, although I think that is less true nowadays with such an armada of brilliantly supportive members at Epsom. When we reformed in 2018, the joke was that everyone would vote on something and then I would make the final decision. Nowadays, I try to refrain from being too precious about my vision for the club. Maybe one day I will get off the Epsom merry-go-round for good. I just hope I don’t morph into the bitter, cantankerous ex-bank clerk type that I mocked earlier on. If I do, just shoot me.
Fourth-round game played in the Wimbledon Congress (under-1700 section) at Hillside Church, Wimbledon on 25 May 2024
Archive photo by John Saunders
This was a crucial win by 12-year-old Kingston junior Jaden Mistry (pictured above playing in an outdoor event in Kingston) in his fourth of five games at the Wimbledon Congress in late May 2024. It was Jaden’s first Fide-rated classical tournament, and thanks to his triumph in this no-holds-barred game he managed to win the competition. Four players finished on 4/5, but Jaden took the spoils on tie-break. A great achievement by young Jaden, who really came of age in this tournament.
Kingston A v Richmond A, Thames Valley division 1 match played at the Willoughby Arms, Kingston, on 20 May 2024
This was 10-year-old prodigy Supratit Banerjee’s (pictured) second game for Kingston and his second win. He shows tremendous maturity and positional control against Richmond’s Maks Gajowniczek, who is a very capable player. This may also be Supratit’s first ever self-annotated game, in which case it will be a historical document as the young man rises towards titled status, as we all hope he will.
A trio of victories concludes the Thames Valley Div X season in style
What a finish to the season by Kingston C in Thames Valley division X. They won their final three matches to finish second in the table to a strong Maidenhead C side. Kingston C actually ended with a sequence of six wins in a row – testimony to the way in which new players found their feet in the course of the season.
These three games were played over the course of eight days in the final week of the season – away to Hounslow C on 13 May, home to Ealing D on 20 May and away to Richmond E on 21 May – and on each occasion the match was won by 2.5-1.5.
Leon Mellor-Sewell (pictured standing above, in a match played earlier in the season) and David Bickerstaff, both crucial additions to the club this season, starred with wins at Hounslow. Robin Kerremans, another new member, and Colin Lyle enjoyed wins against Ealing, with Jaden Mistry securing an important draw. And Greg Heath got the crucial point in a tight match against Richmond, though Leon again deserves special praise for his draw with the very capable Alex Shard.
A tremendous late run by the Div X team, expertly captained by Stephen Daines, to whom mighty congratulations are due. Stephen is now stepping down from captaincy duties, and will be a very hard act to follow.
Kingston A v Richmond A, Thames Valley division 1 match played at the Willoughby Arms, Kingston, on 20 May 2024
This was an important win for Kingston’s board 1, David Maycock (pictured above), against IM Gavin Wall in the Kingston v Richmond match which decided the fate of the Thames Valley title for the 2023/24 season. Kingston’s 4-2 victory over Richmond meant that we won the league for the second season in a row, pipping Hammersmith. When he played this game, David was enjoying a superb run of form in which he won six games out of six, all against very strong opponents. This remarkable string of successes took him to a Fide rating of 2290 – tantalisingly close to the Fide master title.
An extraordinary and stressful final 4NCL weekend of the season saw CSC/Kingston 1 win promotion to division 1 and CSC/Kingston 2 go down to division 4, leaving tricky questions for the squad for next season.
What drama there was in Daventry and Telford at the denouement of the 2023/24 4NCL season. At Daventry, CSC/Kingston 1 played superbly to win all three of their matches and secure second place in the final table and promotion to division 1 of the league, where teams with clusters of GMs await. Anyone fancy playing Alexei Shirov next season? Actually all our leading players will fancy it – and will give a very good account of themselves.
IM Vladyslav Larkin, who made a brilliant debut for CSC/Kingston 1, beating GM and three-times British champion Jonathan Mestel and scoring 2.5/3, would certainly be up for the challenge. As would CM David Maycock (pictured above), who scored 3/3 over the final weekend to complete a tremendous 4NCL season in which he scored 9.5/11 and racked up a rating over the 11-round competition of 2550-plus. It was more than enough for a nailed-on IM norm, except that one of the opposing teams at the final weekend managed not to give him the titled player he needed to satisfy that requirement. Very disappointing for David, and indeed infuriating for the entire team. That we did not let our fury destabilise us and kept our eye on the promotion prize made the success all the more admirable.
At Telford, valiantly though CSC/Kingston 2 battled, all the results went against us and we were relegated from division 3 (knights) to division 4. Having such a gulf between the two teams makes squad management difficult, and it is imperative that we work hard to get a team back into division 3 next year. Division 3 is perfect for players rated 2000-plus – highly competitive, with good games guaranteed in every round. Division 4 can be more hit and miss, with a big gap between the strong teams and the rest.
A word for CSC/Kingston 3, who performed creditably all season in division 4 and ended in the top half of the 27-team table (might there be scope for making 4NCL a five-division league?). Jon Eckert should be mentioned in dispatches: he played every round and drove thousands of miles to ensure that he and his team-mates were at the venues in good time. On a given Saturday or Sunday, especially when the team was playing in Telford, he would spend five hours playing and more than that driving up from London and back. Utterly exhausting and truly selfless. It is not just the first team that has heroes.
The three teams were as always excellently managed by team captains Kate and Charlie Cooke, who handled the logistics of getting 20 players per round to distant motorway hotel locations with aplomb. How they do it I have no idea. It requires the motivational powers of Alex Ferguson and the operational nous of a food distribution company. Well done to them and well done to the players who got CSC/Kingston 1 to the top of the mountain. Now, how do we set about establishing a serious foothold there?
All the results from the weekend’s three rounds are shown below, as well as the final tables.
Kingston v Wimbledon, Alexander Cup final, played at the Willoughby Arms, Kingston, on 2 May 2024
As far as Kingston are concerned, Alexander cups are like buses. Until 2022, in our post-pandemic golden period, we hadn’t won one since 1976. Now, with this 7-3 victory over a strong Wimbledon team, we have chalked up three in a row.
This is the first hat-trick of Alexander cups (Surrey’s premier knockout competition) in our history, a feat which suggests this may be Kingston’s strongest ever side. A bold claim to make, given that the club had tremendous teams in the 1930s (the era of J H Blake and R G Michell) and the 1970s (when a certain John Nunn was let loose upon the world). What we can say for sure is that this is the Kingston club’s third great side.
A hat-trick of Alexander cups has only been achieved by four other clubs: Redhill (2000s), Mitcham (twice – 1980s and 1990s), Richmond (1960s) and Clapham Common (1930s). Clapham Common and Mitcham are now defunct, and Redhill are inactive. Sic transit gloria mundi and all that. But Richmond are still going strong, and we fervently hope to follow their example and survive.
Mitcham won the trophy eight times in 10 years before collapsing in exhaustion. On the evening of the final, John Saunders – a key member of that Mitcham side – was taking photographs and collating results for his wonderfully researched BritBase website. He doubted whether we would emulate Mitcham’s achievement, and frankly I’m not sure we want to. It seems that too much success can kill you.
We had assembled a strong team for the final, played at the Willoughby Arms because Wimbledon kindly waived their right to claim a neutral venue, and were confident until we saw the Wimbledon side. They were about as strong as they could be, with IM Alberto Saurez Real on 1, Russells Granat and Picot on 2 and 3, the sturdy Dan Rosen on 4, dangerous young players in Shahvez Ali and Girinath Haridas in the middle order, and doughty fighters all the way down to the veteran Tony Hughes on board 10. This was not going to be a straightforward night.
Will Taylor had Black on board 7 and decided an early draw would serve our interests. Photograph: John Saunders
There was a result on the board – the whiteboard on the stage in the upstairs playing room at the Willoughby to be precise – almost straightaway. Will Taylor, with Black against Ian Heppell on board 7, agreed a draw in 10 moves in a book Petrov’s Defence position. Solidity personified from Will and a good result to begin, despite Will’s rating advantage. Ian is in any case almost certainly stronger than his rating suggests. This was the pleasingly bishop-heavy position in which peace was declared:
Rather less peaceful events were unfolding on board 4, where the wonderfully fluid and attacking Silverio Abasolo, with White, was giving Dan Rosen a very hard time. Dan boldly played a Pirc, but erred in this position:
Silverio Abasolo played a wonderful attacking game to defeat Dan Rosen on board 4. Photograph: John Saunders
Silverio’s terrific early win put us 1.5-0.5 up, but it was followed by a couple of hours of slog. I was worried for Julian Way, playing a King’s Indian Defence against Sean Ingle on board 9, in the cramped position below after Sean’s 17. f4:
Julian Way had what looked a cramped position, but it quickly resolved itself. Photograph: John Saunders
So far so good. That made it 2-1. Vladimir Li was playing Black on board 1 against Wimbledon’s Spanish IM, Alberto Suarez Real. Alberto opted for a Scotch and a characteristically intense and theory-heavy battle ensued. These two players have met each other on several occasions and clearly have great respect for each other. Black gained a tiny edge, but Alberto equalised and a draw was agreed on move 22 in the level position below:
Alberto Suarez Real (left) and Vladimir Li showed each other great respect and drew. Photograph: John SaundersDavid Rowson gained an edge against Girinath Haridas, but a draw was always likely. Photograph: John Saunders
We were in a draw-dominated period of the match, with only Silverio’s quickfire win keeping us ahead. David Rowson gained a tiny edge against Girinath Haridas’s Modern Defence, but nothing significant and it was certainly legitimate to take a draw in the position below where David’s apparently superior coordination is largely illusory:
That made it 3-2 and not long after the score became 3.5-2.5 when Peter Andrews and Tony Hughes also agreed a draw. Peter and Tony know each other’s games well – so well that Peter, with White, departed from his usual opening repertoire and strayed into less familiar lines. This cost him time and he fell behind on the clock, as well as being slightly worse on the board in the final position he recorded (see diagram) before the five-minute rule kicked in:
But Peter is a doughty defender, didn’t panic and held the position with reasonable comfort. We were still only marginally ahead and the final result of the match was far from clear, but there wasn’t the same anxiety as in our previous two Alexander Cup finals – against Battersea last year and Wimbledon the year before. It felt as if we were playing like a professional unit. Perhaps we are getting better at handling these big matches.
Peter Andrews (left) survived time pressure to secure a draw – an important save. Photograph: John Saunders
The Wimbledon fortress was in any case about to be breached. In the space of a few minutes Kingston’s two youngest players – David Maycock on board 2 and Luca Buanne on board 6 – secured the wins that took us beyond five game points and ensured that we would retain the Alexander Cup and complete the much-vaunted hat-trick of titles.
David’s board 2 opponent Russell Granat, a formidable attacking player, had been caught in traffic and arrived just after the half-hour default time. In the circumstances we did not enforce the default, wanting to win fair and square, a decision applauded by our opponents, in particular Russell Picot, who made a point of thanking me. But playing David Maycock is not easy at the best of times, and playing him with Black when you are 35 minutes down on the clock was too much for Russell. David, essaying a Ruy Lopez, did nothing spectacular (unusually for him); he just played immaculate, implacable chess. One over-ambitious pawn push in the position below sealed Russell’s fate:
David Maycock is in superb form and played immaculately against Russell Granat. Photograph: John Saunders
Luca Buanne, with White on board 6, also played a powerful game against Neil Cannon’s Alekhine’s Defence, and was always ahead in the game despite Neil’s valiant attempts to get counterplay. After 35 moves Luca had reached this winning queen and pawn endgame, though it still had to be won, as indeed it was almost 20 moves later.
The wins by David and Luca came in quick succession and secured Kingston’s historic hat-trick of titles – greeted perhaps with relief rather than euphoria by the team’s supporters. That it was achieved by two young players who have only been representing the club since the end of the pandemic was especially satisfying. The Covid shutdown now feels like it facilitated a rebirth. Before then we bumbled along; since then we have been motoring. It could all end tomorrow – “O my MItcham and my Redhill long ago” – but for the moment we savour the success.
Luca Buanne’s superbly played game helped to secure Kingston”s hat-trick of titles. Photograph: John Saunders
That left two games still in progress. Mike Healey, with Black on board 5 against the dangerous junior Shahvez Ali, eschewed his usual creative flights of fantasy, realising that a draw with Black was just what the doctor ordered. He offered a draw in the position below:
It is completely level, but White realised his team needed a win – we had not established an unassailable lead by this point – and persisted in trying to establish an advantage for a dozen more moves. Mike played with great precision, other games went against Wimbledon, and a draw was finally agreed.
Mike Healey eschewed his love of fantastic tactics and secured a vital draw with Black. Photograph: John Saunders
That, inevitably, left Peter Lalić still playing. Peter was under the weather and had spent much of the evening blowing his nose in the storage cupboard. Most players, if they felt unwell, would seek a quick exit, but Peter is sui generis and persisted in trying to win against the wonderfully urbane Russell Picot for more than three hours and precisely 142 moves. If this is Peter ill, imagine Peter well. Long games, for better or worse, are becoming his signature. The game went on late into the night and I was in the bar celebrating, so I must defer to my esteemed colleague Peter Andrews, who was by this point scoring the game in case a threefold repetition was claimed. Peter A takes up the story.
The last game to finish was on board 3. Peter [Lalić] described it as his “Immortal Game”. Anderssen-Kieseritzky (1851) was so named because the memory of the brilliant final combination was immortal. This time it was not the memory, although Russell Picot may carry the scars for some time, but the game itself which threatened to last for ever.
Friend or foe? One would love to know what Russell Picot’s expression here signifies. Photograph: John Saunders
On the black side of a Botvinnik English, Peter achieved by move 20 the kind of blocked position in which he revels, and skilfully exploited White’s overextended queenside structure to launch a raid with his queen which won the a pawn on move 59 (see diagram below).
But he had to extricate his queen to ensure that it was not trapped, and with the position still blocked it seemed that a draw was inevitable – White offered a draw at least twice. However, the situation was ideal for Lalićian timebuilding – more or less indefinite woodshifting starting with both players on the increment, in which although there should be no breakthrough the under-pressure side has to exercise a little care, in this case to ensure that (1) the black a-pawn could not be pushed or (2) the black queen could not come to f4 without being opposed by the white queen. Not difficult in principle, but the combination of boredom and the requirement for care through an indefinite number of moves at 10 seconds a move may cause tiredness and a momentary loss of concentration.
That eventually occurred on White’s 120th move. Playing on 10-second increments, it may not have been clear what Black’s concentration on the c-file was intended to achieve, with no way to sacrifice the bishop for two pawns and a rook sacrifice being too high a tariff. However, Peter had used his accumulated time for a nice bit of visualisation in the position below:
Thus ends Peter Andrews’ superb analysis of his namesake’s game. I can hear every reader asking, “Why can’t Andrews do all the game analysis rather than the other bloke?” Because frankly he is far too expensive and has better things to do.
The Picot-Lalić epic ended at around 10.45pm. An odd coda in some ways – Peter L, coughing and spluttering but characteristically determined to win a game that had no material impact on the result of the match other than to ensure we won by the in the end comfortable margin of 7-3. In a rapidly emptying playing room, as holders we presented the Alexander Cup to ourselves, with president and non-playing Alexander Cup captain John Foley cradling it . Three years’ hard work was complete. What now? Should we weep for there are no more worlds to conquer? In Surrey anyway.
Club president John Foley displays the trophy in front of the legendary whiteboard. Photograph: John Saunders
Stephen Moss, Secretary, Kingston Chess Club
This was also a league match!
Kingston’s Surrey League division 1 captain, Peter Andrews, writes:
The top eight boards of the Alexander Cup doubled as our postponed home league match against Wimbledon (a future quiz question might be: “How can a chess player be in two places at the same time?” Answer, a home league match and an away cup match are twinned.) Our 6-2 win over those boards meant that we finished with six match points out of eight, half a point (and also half a game point) behind Epsom.
It was naturally disappointing not to repeat last season’s championship and unbeaten record. The early defeats at Guildford, when we were missing some key players, and at home against Epsom, when our very strong side slightly underperformed, left us with too much ground to make up in the second half of the season, despite a fantastic team effort to pull off a win at Wimbledon when we were so depleted that some evoked the spirit of Agincourt. And we had a sense that as defending champions we had targets on our backs, and other clubs did their best to put out their strongest possible sides against us. So six points out of eight was a good effort, and it was particularly satisfying to beat Epsom fairly comfortably in the return match.
We drew on the resources of the whole club: 17 different players turned out at least once. Our mainstays were once again David Maycock (4.5/6) and Peter Lalić (4/7). Having two such consistent performers on high boards was crucial, and they were aided by the willingness of our other less regular leading lights, Vladimir Li, Silverio Abasolo and Mike Healey, to be flexible around board order so as to facilitate our preparation and frustrate our opponents’.
But we tended to have a greater rating edge slightly lower down, where David Rowson, liberated from the captaincy, scored 3.5/6, and John Foley 3/5. There were many other solid performances, and Luca Buanne [2.5/3] made an immensely promising debut late in the season. He will be a key component as we refresh the squad next season.
