Alan Scrimgour shows the sacrifice which led to victories against Peter Lee and Bob Wade

Allow me to compare the only two games in which I have beaten British champions. It was a long time previously that they held the title – Peter Lee (1965) and Bob Wade (1970). I played them when they were past their prime, but then again so was I. There is always a certain satisfaction in beating a title-holder. In both cases I won the game with a Nxd5 sacrifice.

The most recent win was against Peter Lee, who was playing for Epsom’s second team visiting Kingston’s second team in the second division of the Surrey League.

The win against Bob Wade was in the London League in 2004, when I was playing for Cavendish 2 against Athenaeum.

A case study based on the performance of the CSC/Kingston first team in the 4NCL in the 2024/25 season, by John Foley

Our first team, having been promoted in 2023/24 to the first division of the Four Nations Chess League (4NCL), managed to stay up and achieved a creditable mid-table seventh place in 2024/25. The season comprises 11 rounds over five weekends of exciting and exhausting chess. The start of the 2024/25 season was ominous as we lost our first three matches. In mid-season, with two wins from six matches, the team management even contemplated the unthinkable – making this our last campaign – but our players rallied and, in a final glorious weekend, we drew one match and won two matches against our rivals to secure our survival.

Ten years ago, I was team manager when (under a different team name) we were last promoted. I kept the players together as a reward for their efforts – allowing them to play the cream of the chess world. Whilst my intentions were noble and regarded as fair by the team members, this was not the mindset to achieve glory. There is no room for complacency at the top; one needs a ruthless attitude. During the course of the 2024/25 season, we strengthened the composition of the team as it became clear that obtaining promotion from division 2 is one thing, but staying up in division 1 is something else completely.

The team managers deserved tremendous credit for keeping the show on the road. Each weekend requires considerable planning in terms of team selection, logistics and accommodation. Complications are multiplied because we also have a second and third team, and not all the teams play on the same weekend nor at the same venue. The first team is eight boards and the lower teams are six boards. Nightmare! We did not default a single game out of the 220 played during the season. The person at the centre of the operation is Kate Cooke, who should receive a medal from the 4NCL organisers. 

We have one of the youngest teams in the first division, with an average age of around 21. They liked playing for us and a good team spirit developed both over the dinner table and through watching and analysing the games. The matches were written up by Stephen Moss, who doubled as the shadow team captain and guardian angel, always solving problems in the background and ensuring that we had the right resources to deploy competitive teams.

Four measures

The team’s success depends upon the contribution by its members. We use four measures to analyse different aspects of individual performance: 

• Commitment
• Competitiveness
• Combativity
• Decisiveness

1. Commitment

Commitment can be measured by the number of games played in the campaign. Playing a game implies that one was available and selected. Three players participated in all 11 matches: Vladyslav Larkin, David Maycock and Supratit Banerjee. Vladyslav, a young man from Ukraine, made a considerable effort to come to the Midlands hotels in which 4NCL matches are played. Supratit was only 10 years old, so his parents also had to make a significant commitment. David Maycock not only played in the 4NCL, but is a vital member of the Kingston first team which won eight trophies. Liwia Jarocka and Roland Bezuidenhout each played nine games, for which they also deserve recognition.

2. Competitiveness

The traditional measure used to recognise performance is the percentage score. To be eligible, a minimum number of games must be played to be fair to other players who may have turned up more often, even if they have not been so successful. Turning up on two weekends out of five seems a reasonable cut-off point – equivalent to four games out of 11. There were two players who played at least five games and obtained a positive percentage score: Supratit Banerjee had 6.5/11 (59.1%) and Liwia Jarocka 5/9 (55.6%). Zain Patel and Ulysse Bottazzi both scored 50% from six games.

3. Combativity

The Tour de France has a special prize for the most combative cyclist – the participant who animates the race by their aggression, attacking flair and will to win. The equivalent in chess is to find the players who perform well beyond their rating. This can be measured as the ratio between their actual performance and their expected performance. The expected performance is derived from the difference in the elo ratings of the players. A 100-point gap confers a two-thirds winning chance for the stronger player; a 200 points gap confers a three-quarters winning chance for the stronger player, and so on. 

The most combative player was Supratit Banerjee, whose combativity score was 1.34. One way of looking at this is that the average return on a bet across all the games on Supratit would have returned 34%. This was a tremendous performance from a seriously talented junior. Supratit’s best result was in round 3 against the higher-rated Tomasz Sygnowski, in a match in which Kingston were trounced 6.5-1.5 by Wood Green Youth. 

Competitiveness and combativity are correlated and Supratit is the most competitive player, so, to share the honours, we can look to the next highest combative player, Ulysse Bottazzi (then rated 2320) achieved a combativity score of 1.18 from six games. Ulysse had a formidable run in rounds 6, 7 and 8, where he beat IM Stefan Macak (2305) and took draws from IM Rajat Makkar (2413), and GM Daniel Alsina Leal (2490).

If we want to recognise more players who contributed to the final team standing, or to recognise outstanding performance, we can widen the net to those who played just three games. On this criterion, the most combative player was Turkish IM Eray Kilic, who scored 2.5/3 (83%) on the final weekend to gain a combativity score of 1.42. This was largely on account of having beaten GM Keith Arkell in round 9 in the match which we drew against Cheddleton, one of the stronger teams in the competition (Cheddleton were fifth in the final table).  

4. Decisiveness

The measure of decisiveness recognises that some games are more important than others. In a tight match, an individual result can make the crucial difference: converting a lost into a drawn match or a drawn match into a won match. Using an idea by the Nobel prize-winning game theorist Lloyd Shapley, we can identify the player who has made the greatest difference to the team result by winning or drawing in critical matches. 

Think of the sort of person who holds their nerve when under a lot of pressure. They pay attention to the balance of games in each match and try to get the right outcome, eg taking a draw to win the match or trying to get a positive result from a hopeless position. With a minimum of four ranking games, we can rank the players who made the most decisive impact:

David Maycock               21.0%
Vladyslav Larkin             20.7%
Liwia Jarocka                  20.6%
Supratit Banerjee          19.9%
Roland Bezuidenhout 17.9%

David Maycock made an impact when the team won or drew. He scored four points in these six matches, perhaps most valuably in round 10 when there was a small margin between the teams. Liwia was also in the running and might have pipped David, but she participated for one fewer weekend. In the game below, David converts a lost ending to a decisive victory.

To summarise, we have navigated through the team result numbers to identify the valuable contributions made by individual players. We identified the most committed player, the most competitive player, the most combative player and the most decisive player. Putting these together, the player who made the overall greatest impact on the team’s performance – the most valuable player – was Supratit Banerjee.

I am grateful for computational support from Dr Lawrence Liao in preparing this article.

Michael Healey has christened a new opening – the Baboon, which hinges on an early b5 as Black and is a kind of mirror image of the Orangutan opening. But is it any good? Photograph by Leila Boujnane

The Orangutan (1. b4) is a beautiful, rare, fascinating opening. And animal. Yet there is its mirror image – b5 as Black. First of all, what to call this? The Polish Defence? Bit of an insult to Poles. The St George? Bit of an insult to St George – and it specifically requires a6 as well, à la Basman and Miles.

What is the opposite of an Orangutan – a big, smiley, mostly calm, orangey ape known for its large, plate-like, grey, flanged face, which denotes male status to females? A Baboon (specifically it turns out I was picturing a Mandrill, but never mind)! A vicious scowling monkey with a blue, stripey face known for advertising to females with its bright red … bum.

Is calling this opening the Baboon an insult to b5 as Black? Or Is b5 an insult to baboons? Let’s find out!

For several years I tried to make b5 work as Black, particularly against White openings I found too “dull” – the Reti, the London System and the Nimzowitsch-Larsen “Attack”. Unfortunately against the similarly boring English 1.c4 b5 was too insane, even for me. It was an attempt to kick sedate White players out of their comfortable armchair from the first few moves, and get them actually thinking rather than lazily scanning the board, remote control in hand, until they found some positional weakness in Black’s set-up to focus in on.

It is quite possible to get relatively “normal” openings – White can allow transposition into various Sicilians, and the Reti is sometimes met by an early b5 and Bb7. If Black manages to create an Orangutan a tempo down, that suits me down to the ground – or up to the trees rather.

The biggest problem: unlike the Orangutan, the Baboon is a tempo down. And that tempo is massive. White gains development and the centre. Black gains space on the queenside, but b5 (and the squares a5 and c5) are too weak early on. Black has to react to too many threats after the initial shock. The Baboon overturns the comfy armchair and tries to tear the fabric to bits; meanwhile the intended victim slips away to get their safari hat, net and stun gun. 

If White stays calm, Black often just ends up in trouble, as this game against Barry Hymer from 2018 shows:

Sure, Black had more central pawns, but White had everything else and I was extremely lucky to scrape a draw. Here is another desperate draw from a grim position, this time against Gavin Lock in an Alexander Cup match in 2019:

There are multiple ways to approach the opening. White can go for a King’s Indian Attack, as Ameet Ghasi did here at the King’s Place Rapidplay in 2017:

This was a miniature so embarrassing it ended up in the Times. Alternatively, White can go for a reversed main-line Orangutan a tempo up (1. b4 e5 2. Bb2 Bxb4), as Jonathan Nelson did here in 2017:

Or White can go for a double fianchetto, open the b-file and wait for Black’s feral attack to wear off, as IM Lorin D’Costa did here against me in 2017:

The top players favour a quick Bg5 taking out the f6 knight. This is GM Keith Arkell against me in 2019:

So is it all bad? Well, when I had a bit more vim to my game, I could get the occasional result. If White chooses to meet bared teeth with bared teeth, titled players who should beat me every time found themselves in a brawl with a Baboon. Here, in 2019, I halved with Swedish FM Drazen Dragicevic:

I also got a fighting draw with French GM Paul Velten in 2019:

Black has to work very hard to mix things up, and even then, after trades, tends to be positionally busted. In the games below I went completely rabid, with mixed results. First, a game against Thomas Bonn from 2023:

The second of my “rabid” Baboons, against FM Jonathan Rogers in 2019, is one of my favourites from among my own games. I was reading Alexei Shirov’s Fire on Board at the time and had lost all concept of the value of pieces.

There is, however, one move against which I recommend the Baboon – 1. b3. Partly from psychology – “You push one square and develop the bishop; I go TWO and do the same!” Partly from genuine strategy – one problem with b3 is that it weakens the c3 square long term; if the Baboon pawn gets to b4, White can end up strangely uncomfortable. My friend, colleague and occasional blitz rival Donny Muter has even stopped playing 1. b3 against me. He had zero experience of b5 because in thousands of bullet games online no one seems to play it, and the blitz games we have tend to go my way (which is the opposite story from every other opening). Maybe it’s also the gentle, civilised nature of 1. b3. No one expects the Baboon inquisition!

This was my first Baboon in a crucial game in the late stages of a tournament. It was played against Akito Oyama in 2016, and helped to win me a Weekend Open at the London Classic:

And finally here is another of my favourite games, against Robert Willmoth in 2017. I had been reading R N Coles’ book on Sultan Khan at the time, and was very pleased with my powerful retreating bishop on a8 supporting wild flailings of pawns and knights on the kingside.

So, to sum up, the Baboon isn’t all bad. Just a bit mad. And very hard work. Stick to the Orangutan!

International master John Hawksworth (pictured left, above) on his return to competitive action at the Kingston Invitational after a break of 35 years

After a short gap of 35 years, I played my first rated tournament since the 1990 British Championship at the Kingston Invitational Open in mid-August. Thanks very much to Stephen Moss for inviting me and for the excellent organisation by Stephen, the arbiters and others who helped the event run efficiently and professionally throughout.

Going into the event, I was quite apprehensive, not really knowing what to expect but hoping for a plus score and some improvement in my ECF rating, even if my 1990 vintage Fide rating of 2350 was likely to take a battering. Because nine games in five days seemed like a tall order for a returning pensioner like me, I arranged to take two half-point byes, which turned out to be a smart move to conserve energy.

On the first day, I was happy to start with a reasonably well-played draw (on both sides) against FM Rick McMichael, who I first encountered in junior tournaments in the late 1970s. I then had a quick draw against a promising youngster, Jai Kothari, who went on to win the junior title on tie-break after having led the whole event after six rounds.

After a bye in the third round, however, I was somewhat taken aback to be paired as Black against Qixiang Han, who is only 12 years old but already has a higher ECF rating (2263) than me, even if he is very underrated on the Fide list (2070). Luckily, he didn’t have his best game, blundering a pawn in the opening and allowing me a relatively easy win despite one inaccuracy near the end.

In the fifth round, I was back in the veterans’ enclosure with White against Surrey county captain Clive Frostick, whom I actually played in the 1982 Varsity match (we drew) as well as in earlier junior events. Being a morning game, I was able to prepare in depth for Clive’s a6 Queen’s Gambit Declined, meaning that my first 14 moves were all homework. This gave me only a slight advantage on the board, but a big lead on the clock.

Nonetheless, Clive defended very actively in the middle game to generate counterplay and the fairest result would have been a draw after some swings and roundabouts in the computer evaluation. But luckily for me, Clive was down to just a minute on the clock and made an unsound piece sacrifice that allowed me to win, despite him coming close to a perpetual with a queen sacrifice at the end that only just failed, nearly giving me a heart attack in the process!

After another energy-preserving half-point bye in the sixth round, I had 4/6 and was promoted to third board, where I had Black against 19-year-old German WFM Luisa Bashylina (pictured above), who had played for Kingston/CSC in the 4NCL earlier this year. In my preparation, I noticed some potential weak points in how she played against the Nimzo-Indian, where she generally went for lines with 4. e3. I therefore prepared in some depth against that move, only to see her confidently play 4. f3, which I had only looked at briefly! Fortunately, things still worked out well in what turned out to be my best game of the event.

Rather unexpectedly, I therefore found myself with 5/7 and playing on top board of the Open section in the penultimate round. My opponent was the co-leader on 5.5/7, Norwegian FM Jacob T Grave, who at 2366 was not just the highest rated in the event but also the strongest player (based on Fide ratings) that I had faced since returning to competitive chess last September. It’s fair to say I was happy with a draw and indeed offered one with White after only about 10 moves, but he decided to play on. This turned out to be justified as he gradually outplayed me to reach a queen and bishop ending with equal pawns but a clear advantage to him due to the weak dark squares in my position.

Jacob sacrificed his bishop to get two connected passed pawns but then, playing just on increment, allowed me a trick to win one of the advanced pawns and block the second one after it reached the seventh rank. The position was then equal, but he kept on trying to win until I found a perpetual check to force the draw.

A lucky escape for me and pretty nerve-wracking to have to play on increment for the only time this event. My hands were shaking too much to record the final moves, which the arbiter told me off for afterwards. I was used to club games where you don’t have to record moves after you are down to less than five minutes, but apparently this does not apply to Fide events with 30-second increment. Of course, there were no increments when I last played a serious tournament in 1990 as we were still using analogue rather than digital clocks in those days. In fact, we would have adjourned after 40 moves in those days, often after a crazy time scramble, but then got an extra hour for your next 20 moves, which generally led to more precise endgame play than you see today.

After that drama, I was hoping to play a quiet game in my final round as Black against Tom Villiers, but the gods were not wanting to let me off that easily. My opponent seemed to blunder a pawn in the opening but, rather than acquiesce to this, he went all in by sacrificing an exchange and a pawn to get a knight to a dangerous attacking square on d6. This more or less forced me to sacrifice my queen for three pieces, after which I had a notional material advantage (rook, bishop and knight vs queen) but my king was still stuck in the centre.

I really had no idea what was going on in this final position but, fortunately, my opponent felt the same and offered a draw, which I gratefully accepted as I had only 30 minutes on the clock and didn’t want to spoil a good tournament with a last-round loss if I blundered something later. The computer actually says White is slightly better in the final position, so I felt slightly vindicated in chickening out.

Overall, therefore, I finished with an unbeaten 6/9 (or 5/7 excluding byes) and equal fourth place in the event, which certainly exceeded my expectations. I still lost a few Fide rating points but not nearly as many as feared, while probably gaining about 25 ECF rating points. More importantly I played at least a couple of decent games, as well as having my fair share of luck. Hopefully this good form (and luck) will carry over into club and county games in the coming season!

Michael Healey on when to take an apparently free pawn – and, more important, when not to. Photograph by Roddy Mcgillivray

Before the start of a chess game I feel like giving an inspirational speech to the pieces: “We’re all going into battle together, and some of us might not live to see the end of it. Especially you little guys!”

I absolutely love sacrificing pawns. Opening up lines, gaining momentum, it puts all the obligation to calculate and defend and re-coordinate on the opponent. If your opponent has choking pressure on you it can suddenly be relieved with a pawn sacrifice, and the change of character from static to dynamic will completely throw some players. Sometimes you accidentally miss a pawn dropping and it turns out to be accidentally brilliant. Plus your opponent takes so much time thinking about whether the grab is “on” that it can be worth it long term. If there are enough open lines (and knights) something will usually turn up in the eternity that extra pawn takes to cross the board, and you get to look cool doing so; but it’s incredibly lazy.

Looking over grandmaster games in recent years, it seems that many games turn on taking or not taking a pawn. Oftentimes this appears to be a notable and critical decision in a game, assigned either a dramatic ! or ??; moreover it seems the pawn captures are almost always the ??s. A player like me has to force himself to take a pawn; being material up is complete anathema, especially if one loses that ethereal concept of the initiative.

Intuitively I believe most pawn grabs only lead to trouble. Yet some players have to restrain themselves from snatching pawns. Pawns make prizes after all. Some pawns look ripe for plucking; others look most poisonous. Most of the time we’re all trusting years of built-up intuition, because the consequences can be very hard to assess. Sometimes it comes down to a matter of taste. Unless you’re a computer – or a grandmaster.

As a chess teacher, my main experience of pawn grabbing is gut-wrenching – seeing queens en prise turned down while pawns are gobbled, or watching stalemate after stalemate when players refuse to win by checkmate. Yet to become a strong player pawn grabbing is a necessary skill, one might even say an art.

One player I really should have studied more by now is Victor Korchnoi (indeed website editor Stephen Moss and GM Vladislav Tkachiev gave me Chess Is My Life many years ago for defeating the latter in a simul). Korchnoi was notorious for snatching pawns, calculating and defending tenaciously whilst he voraciously gathered those loose crumbs. Such is the attitude of someone who survived the siege of Leningrad – take nourishment where you can get it, and enjoy doing so! Here he snacks on Fischer’s pawns and pieces to victory:

The most famous pawn grab of all time is probably Fischer’s 29…Bxh2 from game one of the 1972 world title match against Spassky:

The analysis and psychology of that move have been pored over ever since. Possibly Fischer was trying to prove he could play unbelievably and still draw. An ordinary chess mortal would just say – “Nope, not taking that one.” A genius attempts the impossible.

The youngest wave of supergrandmasters have grown up with supercomputers – computers like pawns, and can swat away emotional attacks with cold calculation. Modern grandmasters have seen enough computer lines to give them confidence to do the same. They are prepared to do the incredibly hard work of defending because, like computers, they are so very good at it. Here a tiny Rameshbabu Praggnanandhaa coolly takes on f6 and faces down Gawain Jones’ vicious attack:

A game from the recent Women’s World Championship had a big effect on me. It was very much a fire and ice match: Tan Zhongyi tried to complicate and produce chaos whenever possible; Ju Wenjun was cool and calm at all times:

On move 20 of game 5 Ju Wenjun, with White, has a beautiful position – a pawn up and everything looks pretty rosy. Suddenly she snatches a pawn on a6. There is a short-term tactic making the move possible (Bxa6 Qxa6 Bxc5 Qc4+), but she is willing to suffer the de-coordinating of her pieces and opening of lines for her opponent for a mere weak isolated pawn when she already has an edge. There is of course a deeper point – to defang the dangerous bishop at b7 pointing at White’s king. The move looked horrific to my eyes, but Ju Wenjun goes with the “ugly” pawn capture. She went on to win an incredibly calm game (and the match).

However there was also a moment earlier in the game where the unnatural but best move was not to take the pawn:

Here Ju Wenjun captured with bxc3, whereas the incredibly brave Qd4 promises far more. The queen is centralised and primed for kingside attack, but joins the king on the pinned diagonal from a7 to g1. The c3 pawn is a bystander, unwilling to capture on b2 for fear of adding the c1 bishop to the attack. A human winces, a computer shrugs. The best move is the best move.

In the recent Alexander Cup Final I had an extremely tough battle with Guildford’s Clive Frostick. The game itself is very interesting, played to a fairly high standard, only suffering towards the end from time trouble-induced dubious moves (and the distractions of two fascinating games either side, on boards 5 and 7). It was a very unusual game for me (not least because I’m playing a new opening this season) where I tried to refrain from complications and play calmly for as long as possible (alas, I failed). The theme seemed to be the question of pawn grabbing: could pawns be grabbed, and more importantly should they be? Here are 12 positions from the game. Please have a quick ponder of each and judge whether you would snatch or not.

Diagram 1: 7…Nxe5

Diagram 2: 12. Bxd5 exd5 13. Qxd5

Diagram 3: (Analysis move 15…Na6) 16. Bxb7

Diagram 4: 17…Bxb2

Diagram 5: 18…Bxa3

Diagram 6: 22…Bxa3

Diagram 7: 23. Bxa3

Diagram 8: 33. Bxc6 Qxc6 34. Qxa7

Diagram 9: 34. Qxa7

Diagram 10: 36. Qxa5

Diagram 11: 40. Bxb7

Diagram 12: 41. Bxb7

Are we all ready? Hands ready to grab? On to the game!

A sad end to a good game, which White really deserved to win. One spectator summarised my own game to me as I took one pawn, then another, and I was never really in trouble. I think we’ve put paid to that. It also serves as a lesson to us all in pawn grabbing. By my count, of the 12 possible pawn captures in the diagrams, five were for Black, seven for White; eight were incorrect and only four were correct captures (diagrams 4, 5, 7 and 9). Of the 11 possible captures (one was from later analysis), the players chose correctly on nine occasions. Not bad for board six of an evening match!

GM John Nunn reminiscences about his formative years at Kingston Chess Club

Photo: John Nunn, Oriel College, Oxford 1970

I joined Kingston Chess Club in 1967, just after my victory in the British Under-14 Championship in August of that year. At the time the club met in an upstairs room at the Kingston Working Men’s Club. The club room was relatively small, but when a match was in progress a larger adjacent room was used to separate the “serious” chess from friendly games.

The club provided a friendly and welcoming atmosphere, but in common with many clubs of the time was not especially suitable for juniors. You had to sneak past the bar, dodging the licensing laws, and the club room itself was heavy with tobacco smoke. At least this had the benefit of putting me off any kind of smoking for the rest of my life. Later the club moved to a larger ground floor room, which was noisier but had better ventilation.

I reckon that I played 45 games altogether for Kingston in various competitions, mainly in the period 1967-73. There were also many games in internal events such as the club championship, which I won in 1969 and 1970. After I went to Oxford in 1970 my appearances became less frequent since I could only play in the university vacations, and soon international appearances started to occupy even those.

I played a couple of games in 1975 and made a special appearance in 2018, but it’s the years 1967-73 that I most closely associate with the club. I went every week I could, and I think that the strong opposition I met in the Surrey competitions was helpful to my chess development. Here’s one of the last games I played for Kingston, published here for the first time. It is typical for my style at age 17.

Kingston lynchpin Peter Large (pictured above) relives personal and team triumph in the recent World Senior Team Championship in Prague, where the England 1 team came first in the over-65s section and he won an individual gold medal on board 4

The World Senior Team Chess Championship took place in Prague in the Czech Republic from 17 to 26 February 2025. There were two events, one for those over 50 (the juniors), and one for those over 65. England usually send a number of teams to these events, and were the current holders of the title in the 65+ event, having won it in Krakow in Poland the previous year.

I started playing in these team events a few years ago, but to my great chagrin I did not get selected for the England 65+ first team which had won in Krakow, Paul Littlewood and Terry Chapman getting the nod ahead of me. I was desperate to get picked this time. Teams can be made up of four or five, with four playing in each round, and with my rating having gone up a bit after Reykjavik last year I happily scraped into the England 1 team for Prague, which consisted of, on board 1, GM John Nunn (an honorary life vice-president of Kingston, as well as a several-time winner of the individual world 65+ title, among his many other achievements); 2: GM Glenn Flear (captain); 3: GM Tony Kosten; 4: IM Peter Large; 5: FM Terry Chapman.

Not a bad line-up, but we went into the event as only second seeds. The top seeds (by average rating) were the mighty Lasker Schachstiftung GK (hereinafter referred to as “Lasker”), basically the German national team, comprising 1: GM Rainer Knaak (the reigning 65+ world champion); 2: GM Artur Yusupov (formerly of the USSR and a living legend of the game); 3: GM Jakob Meister; and 4: Gerhard Koehler. Super-strong, but we felt we might have a chance because Koehler (Fide rating 2215) on board 4 could perhaps be a weak link.

We were therefore a bit disappointed when, a few weeks before the event, they added a fifth member to their team, in the shape of GM Sergey Kalinitschew, putting them even further ahead. In the event, though, and whilst we scanned the pairings anxiously every round for his name, Kalinitschew never actually turned up. France, Italy and a few others also had strong teams led by strong GMs, and even the England second team was pretty good.

I had a great and quite successful time in Prague. Although they have both lived in France since the 1980s, I know Glenn Flear and Tony Kosten of old (I went to university with Tony) and it is always nice to meet up again. In fact the whole team soon bonded, and we made a point of eating together as a team in the evenings, in some of Prague’s many decent restaurants, discussing chess, cosmology and philosophy, and who should be in the team for the next match.

Here are a few memories of the event from a personal perspective – not necessarily the best games, but ones I saw (or played) and remember. I can only cover the 65+ event. The juniors (with England led by Michael Adams) played in a different venue, and I saw none of their games live.

Round 1

England 1 3.5-0.5 Sweden 2

In a Swiss tournament, in the first round, the top half is paired against the bottom half, With no less than 54 teams competing, that meant Lasker would play against the team seeded 28^th, and we would get the team seeded 29^th – which turned out to be Sweden 2. This could be expected to be the easiest match of the event for us, and we duly won, Nunn and Kosten scoring crushing wins on boards 1 and 2. I blundered a pawn on board 3, but I had taken the precaution of winning a pawn earlier in the game, so material was still equal after my mistake and my opponent then played the endgame very weakly and lost.

Much more significant than that, though, was what happened on the top table in Lasker’s match against VychodoCesi, a local Czech team whom they might expect to beat 4-0.

And that’s not all. Artur Yusupov won for Lasker on Board 2. But on board 1 Knaak (2464) could only draw with Black against FM Jaroslav Mojzis (2089) and board 4 also ended in a draw. 2-2!

This was a hugely significant and unexpected bonus for us. Instead of chasing Lasker, and hoping that they made a mistake or that we could beat them in our individual match, roles were now reversed – they were chasing us, and had to hope that we made a mistake, or that they could beat us. (Spoiler alert – we didn’t, and they didn’t). And we got to play our matches on the top board!

Round 2

Schach-Club Kreuzberg 1-3 England 1

No fewer than 23 teams won in the first round, so in round 2 we were paired with a German team, Schach-Club Kreuzberg, seeded 16th. Again, this should have been a relatively easy match, but on board 1 IM Manfred Glienke found a way to force a repetition of moves as White against John Nunn’s Kings Indian, and on board 4 Terry Chapman as White was unable to demonstrate an advantage in a Maroczy bind. I was able to win as Black against Norbert Sprotte on board 3, so whether we won or drew the match would depend on Glenn Flear, who was White against Christian Weiss (confusing) on board 2.

This game was, as they say, a “fluctuating struggle”. In the position below, Glenn has allowed Black (Weiss) to capture on g2, expecting this would allow him to force a better ending with 22. Nab6!

Round 3

England 1 2.5–1.5 Sweden 1

Normally, before the start of every round, a prize is given to the player of the best game in the previous round. But today that was replaced by a minute’s silence. The Finnish top board in the 50+ event, Ari Issakainen, had passed away overnight. Very sad, especially for his family, his loved ones, his friends and his team-mates. But perhaps it’s a bit surprising that in an event for older players this sort of thing doesn’t happen more often. And I couldn’t help thinking that when my time comes, it would be good to go during a tournament. Or even during a game. At least that way, like Ari, I would have kept it going to the very end.

As it turned out, the next day the prize for the best game played in round 3 unfortunately, but deservedly, went to Nils-Gustaf Renman for his game against Glenn on board 2 of our match against Sweden 1.

Nunn won impressively on board 1, and I won as Black in a Three Knights Opening on board 4. But our prospects on board 3 didn’t look too good at one stage. Tony Kosten had played his favourite English Opening as White, but sitting next to his board after Magnus Wahlbom’s 16…b5 it seemed to me Black was already getting an advantage, and I couldn’t see what Tony was going to do.

Round 4

Italy 1.5–2.5 England 1

In round 4 we faced one of our closest rivals, Italy, the fourth seeds. John Nunn drew as black against GM Carlos Garcia Palermo on board 1, and Tony drew as black with FM Ivano Ceschia on board 3. That left Glenn and me to do the business with the white pieces. I, however, had stupidly decided this was the right time to experiment with the Trompowsky, equipped with a theoretical knowledge derived from a book. As might be anticipated, the experiment was not a 100% success, and I dropped my first half point, offering a draw on move 20 before my position turned too bad. Still, they say you have to play new things if you want to improve.

But Glenn came back from the previous day’s disappointment to win us the match. The position below is Flear v GM Lexy Ortega, after Glenn’s 15. Qd4.

Lasker faced England 2 in this round, scoring a narrow 2.5-1.5 win. It was a creditable performance by the English second team, with Paul Littlewood holding Knaak, and Tony Stebbings defending well to draw with Yusupov. But it could have been even better. The position below was reached in Knaak v Littlewood after 29. Rg4, when Paul, having played the black side extremely well against Knaak’s Bf4 line in the Queen’s Gambit Declined, accepted Knaak’s offer of a draw.

But the position, despite appearances perhaps, is not equal. If Black had played 29…Qc2! he would surely have won – White is quite unable to defend his second rank. 30. Qxh6 fails to 30…Qxd1+ and 31 …Qxg4, and 30. Kh1, hoping to defend g2 with a rook on g1, loses to 30…Qxd2 31. Rxd2 Re1+ 32. Kh2 Rc1, and the rook on g4 keeps the king locked in. White’s best is something like the abject 30. Rf4 Re2 31. Qxc2 Rcxc2 32. Kf1 Rxg2, when Black should win comfortably. A narrow escape for the Germans – nearly another dropped match point.

Round 5

England 1 2–2 Lasker Schachstiftung GK

After round 4 we were in a clear lead, with eight out of eight match points. Lasker and Israel both had seven. But today it was our turn to face Lasker. Obviously a crunch match, so we put out our strongest team, and the pairings were Nunn v Knaak, Yusupov v Flear, Kosten v Meister, and Koehler v Large. As they were half a point behind us, we felt a drawn match would leave us in a good position.

Nevertheless, and although I was Black, I felt obliged to try to beat Koehler. He is a strong player of course, but not of the same earth-shattering calibre as the rest of their team, and mine was the only board where we had a significant rating advantage. I was therefore pleased to be allowed to play a Hedgehog, an opening in which White has no easy route to a dead position.

In the Hedgehog, Black is usually at least equal if he can achieve one or both of the pawn breaks b5 and d5. The game proved to be a perfect illustration of this principle. In the position below, White has already gone a bit wrong.

Meanwhile, on board 3, things took a comical turn in Kosten v Meister.

Later that evening over dinner, Dr Nunn patiently explained. After 13. …Ke8, White should play 14. Qxb5+! Qd7 15. Nxd5! exd5 (15. …Qxb5 16. Nc7+) 16. Qd3!, where with queens on the board and Black’s king stuck in the centre, White has an advantage. (A game Shevchenko v Saric continued 16. …Bb4+ 17. Kf1 f6 18. Kg2 Kf7 19. Bf4 Rhe8 20. Rac1 Kg8 21. Rhd1 Rad8 22. Rc7. Qe6 23. Rxa7 Qe2 24. Rc7 Qxb2 25. Rb1 Qa3 26. Qf5 Bd6 27. Bxd6 Qxd6 28. Rbb7 Qf8 29. Qg4 1-0). Why doesn’t everyone play Qxb5+ on move 12 then if this line is so good, instead of wasting time with 12. Qc6+ and 13. Qc5+? Because, of course, in the position after 12. Qxb5+ Black can still castle! After 12. Qxb5+ Qd7 13. Nxd5 exd5 14. Qd3? Bb4+ 15. Kf1? Qh3+ 16. Kg1 0-0 (now legal, which it wasn’t in the Shevchenko v Saric game), Black is much better. We live and learn.

Tony and I left the playing hall with Glenn fighting hard to save a draw in a difficult ending against Yusupov, and John fractionally worse against Knaak. John was made to work hard for his draw by Knaak, but accurate play in the ending secured the half point. Glenn eventually succumbed to his Illustrious opponent on move 65. But we had made 2-2!

Rest day

There was a rest day after round 5. I hadn’t seen much of Prague up to this point, so I considered taking this opportunity to explore the city. But I was expecting Glenn to rest me in at least one of the next few rounds, when I could explore, and I like playing chess. So I decided to play in the blitz tournament which the organisers had put on.

I assumed it would be like the Wednesday morning events at All Saints, but it wasn’t. It was much stronger than I expected it to be, with a number of strong GMs from the 50+ event participating, including the famous Jaan Ehlvest, and Igor Glek (both formerly of the USSR and now playing for the USA and Belgium respectively), Aleksandr Shneider and Alexander Reprintsev from Ukraine, and Jurij Zezulkin from Poland. I don’t pretend to be any good at blitz, so I was pleased just to get to play big names like Ehlvest, Glek and Zezulkin. I lost to those three, and got 7/8 in my other games. Ehlvest won the tournament with 9/11, and I finished seventh on 7/11.

Round 6

England 1 3–1 Israel

In round 5 Israel, ranked 11th, had scored an extremely impressive 3-1 win against Italy. That meant we were equal first with Israel on nine match points out of 10, and now we had to play them. Glenn rested himself for this match, and therefore I was on board 3, facing IM Leon Lederman, who I remembered watching play an entertaining game 43 years ago against Viktor Korchnoi in the Lloyds Bank Open in 1982.

I was lucky to win a second brevity in a row, winning my opponent’s queen in 25 moves. I say “lucky” with no false modesty, because sometimes there is a kind of luck in chess. My opponent played straight into a line which I knew very well, and which is lost for Black. In my preparation, I noticed that in a previous game Lederman had played 4. …g6 in a favourite line of mine (1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nd4 4. Nf3 g6). There is nothing wrong with 4. …g6, but you do have to know how to defend in some tricky tactical lines. I didn’t expect him to play it again, but just in case he did I refreshed my memory on the theory that morning. He did play it, he didn’t seem to know the theory well, and after 13 moves we reached the following position:

When I finished, John and Tony had both already drawn, and only Terry Chapman’s game against Moshe Gal on board 4 was left. I was slightly worried that he might be in trouble in the position below. White is to move, and black’s pawn on a7 is loose.

Round 7

France 1 1-3 England 1

Our win in round 6 left us in the lead with 11 match points out of 12. Lasker were keeping up with the pace in second with 10, while France, England 2, Israel, Hungary and a Norwegian team all had 9. So with three rounds to go we were still a long way from winning the tournament, and now we had to play the very strong French team, the third seeds.

Fortunately, John Nunn chose this moment to play his best game of the event (probably THE best game of the event) against the French board 1 GM Anatoly Vaisser. Nunn usually plays the King’s Indian Defence if given the chance (I think he might have lost a bit of faith in the Benoni), and Vaisser always seems to play the Four Pawns Attack against the KID.

On board 4 I won my third miniature in a row, against IM Louis Roos (a former French champion and the strongest player I faced in the event). I had to be a bit more creative this time. In the position below, from a well-known line in the French Defence, I normally play 7. g3.

So we were 2-0 up, but on boards 2 and 3 Glenn and Tony had a lot of tough defending to do. Glenn eventually found a perpetual check from a position where he had been much worse against Aldo Haik, and Tony managed to find a lot of resources to draw a worse ending against Sharif. 3-1.

Round 8

England 1 2.5-1.5 England 2

Our win against France left us in a fantastic position, with 13 match points from 14. But Lasker were still keeping up the pressure on 12. Behind them were no less than six teams on 10 – Saxonia, Italy, Sweden, England 2, Israel and Hungary. Having played our main rivals, we were paired with England 2.

Both Nunn and myself were due, and wanted, a rest this round, having played in all the seven rounds so far. There was consequently a decision for Glenn as captain to take. He reasoned that we still had to keep winning and that John, as our best player, should therefore play against whichever of the two remaining opponents we would have to face was the stronger. We were likely to play Saxonia or Hungary in the final round, having played everybody else, and they were both weaker than England 2. So I got my rest, and John gracefully abided by the captain’s decision before resting in the last round. I did a bit of tourist stuff, and visited the old city centre (beautiful) and the Franz Kafka museum (very interesting), but I was back later in the afternoon to watch most of our games online (spectators not being allowed in the tournament hall).

I think we were all a bit worried that something would go wrong against England 2 (who comprised Paul Littlewood, Anthony Stebbings, Chris Baker and Ian Snape for this match, captain Nigel Povah resting himself). Obviously the right thing for them to do would be simply to concede the match to their betters, so that we could win the tournament. This was, after all, a Fide World Championship, which surely every patriotic Englishman would want England to win. But that didn’t seem to be their approach at all. Over breakfast they tried to trick us by making deliberately misleading remarks about who would be in their team, and when it came to the match itself they made every effort to beat us, and didn’t miss by much.

On board 1, Nunn v Littlewood, a draw was agreed after 22 moves of a Spanish, both players demonstrating 97% accuracy according to the engine. But England 2 were making the most of the white pieces on boards 2 and 4. On board 2 Stebbings achieved a very promising-looking position against Flear, and on board 4 Ian Snape threw the kitchen sink at Chapman, in the line 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. h4 h5 5. Bd3 Bxd3 6. Qxd3 Qa5+ 7. b4!?

Spectating, I therefore thought our best chance of a win lay on board 3. This is the position in Kosten v Baker after Chris’s 10. …g6?

On board 4 Terry found all the right moves to defend against Ian Snape’s initiative, and I thought he was going to win. He eventually took a perpetual, I think for the team, when he was somewhat better. By that time Glenn had managed to break out of Stebbings’ bind, at the cost of accepting the worse side of a R+4 v R+3 ending, which, with the pawns all being on the kingside, he was eventually able to draw fairly comfortably. So 2.5-1.5. That result meant we could be sure of winning the title if we won in the last round.

But I was getting excited by events in Lasker’s match against Italy. Koehler was very much worse against Ceschia on board 4, and on board 1 Garcia Palermo seemed to be obtaining an advantage as black against Knaak. If Italy could win the match, we would win the title today!  This was the position in Knaak v Garcia Palermo after Black’s 25…f5!

It wasn’t all bad though. Italy did manage to win on board 4, and with the other two games drawn, Lasker had dropped another match point. We hadn’t won yet, but we would only need to draw in the last round.

Round 9

Saxonia 2-2 England 1

I’m not going to pretend anything of interest happened in this match. Saxonia were the ninth seeds going into the event, but they had come through from nowhere and after a great win against Hungary in the previous round were now sitting alone in third place, behind ourselves and Lasker. I was slightly worried that they would risk everything to try to beat us, to support their compatriots, but they were about as patriotic as England 2. In fact they were even more anxious to draw than we were (and one of them said afterwards they would rather see England win than Lasker!).

We had agreed before the match that we needed to avoid a situation where three of us agreed a quick draw, only to leave one of us defending a bad position. So when my opponent, having played the ultra-tedious London System, offered a draw on move 3, I reluctantly declined, feeling I needed to see what was happening elsewhere. Tony soon got a very good position though, so by move 11 I thought it was safe to offer a draw myself, which was immediately accepted. Terry, Glenn and finally Tony followed suit, and we had won. Yay! In the event, Lasker failed to win in their match against France anyway, so we could even have afforded to lose in the last round. Lasker failed to defeat any of their main rivals – ourselves, Italy and France – and that, rather than their cock-up in the first round, ultimately proved to be the difference.

The final standings were:

1. England (16 match points)
2. Lasker Schachstiftung GK (14)
3. Saxonia (13)
4. Israel (13)
5. England 2, France 1, Italy, Sweden 1, Switzerland and Czech team Coriolus (12)

I won the gold medal for the best score on board 4, and I got to shake Yusupov’s hand several times during the prize-giving, so that was all good. As I said at the outset, I had been desperate to get into the England team for this event, and I was desperate to win and to be able to say I was a world champion (of sorts). When we did win therefore, I was elated for a couple of days. But I find that if you want something really badly, and then you get it, before too long you get a bit of a flat feeling. As Peggy Lee sang, “Is That All There Is?” If you’re a chess player, you need another tournament, and another win. And as it happens I am now in Poland for the European Senior Team Championship….

John Foley

The Alexander Cup semi-final match on 5 February 2025 started with a one-minute silence following the sad news of the death of Stewart Reuben, a stalwart of English chess and a former resident of Twickenham. He was on a cruise when he died in Jamaica.

Stewart played an enormous role in the development of British and then English chess. He introduced Swiss tournaments to the UK where previously all-play-alls were standard. He built relationships with sponsors and got City funding for several major tournaments. He professionalised the governance of chess as president of the British Chess Federation. He wrote the book on how to organise chess tournaments. He introduced the titles of Candidate Master, International Organiser and International Arbiter. Prior to arbiters, chess had “judges”. 

Stewart was responsible for drafting many of the official Laws of Chess. As a small example, it was at his behest that the rules require players to write a “=” on the scoresheet whenever a draw offer is made. His contributions are too numerous to mention. He was a strong player in his own right and sparred with Bobby Fischer when he lived in New York in the early 1960s. Apart from his chess career, Stewart was a professional poker player. He wrote many books on both chess and poker.

He did have his detractors, perhaps due to his tendency to dominate conversations and make his interlocutors feel somewhat inferior. On the other hand, he had a wealth of anecdotes with which he entertained colleagues during the evenings at chess events.

Stop blundering, get better at time management, study openings, study endgames, study anything, be a different sort of player, be a different sort of person, win a world championship, find God … Kingston members outline what they hope to achieve this year. Illustration by Andrew Brook

David Rowson: Like a few other veteran Kingston members I’ve been playing chess for almost as many years as there are squares on the board, so maybe it’s a bit late to start learning some “proper” openings, but it’s finally hit me that that’s what I need to do. Maybe then, instead of struggling in the middle game to repair the damage my unchallenging openings have done, I might actually sometimes get a good position from the opening. Teaching chess recently has also made me more interested in the endgame, so I’d like to investigate this much more too.

Peter Hasson: My play is too peacefully inclined, so I need to find a way to cut down the number of draws. My resolutions are:

1. Turn down the first draw offer made by my opponent in any game.

2. Achieve a higher average number of moves per game than Peter Lalić over the course of 2025. My repertoire with White is already sufficiently dull to give myself a decent shot at this, but this second resolution will only be possible if I stop my quick Pirc defeats with Black, so my final resolutions are:

3. Acquire a (semi?) solid opening for Black against e4.

4. To play a bit quicker earlier in the game rather than spending ages selecting between moves that have imperceptible differences in outcome.

Hopefully all this will increase my strength, if not my rating!

Alan Scrimgour:

1. To stop making one-move blunders. (Following year – two move blunders.)

2. To research a completely new opening repertoire as White, starting with 1. d4. (Following year – new repertoire as Black.)

Alicia Mason: Stick to my training plan of half an hour on chess exercises, one 15+10 rapid game and analysis of said game every day, and keep trusting in myself and the work I’m putting into my chess.

Ian Mason: I satisfied at least one of my resolutions from last year, which was actually to read a chess book. I read Ben Johnson’s Perpetual Chess Improvement, which I would highly recommend. For 2025:

1.  Read another chess book. Maybe the Yusupov series or a Jeremy Silman book.

2.  Much of my chess time is spent playing correspondence chess online. On ICCF, I have now reached a record rating for me of 2438 and am a correspondence chess master. I would like to reach a 2450 rating next year. 

3.  Once I return to the UK permanently (current plan is end of November 2025), to play more OTB games, Alicia [Ian’s daughter – see above] and I have in mind playing in some international tournaments, eg Reykjavik Open and Wijk aan Zee.

Michael Healey: Having spent much more time studying Japanese than playing chess this season, I had my best run of results for a long time (7/8). Feeling incredibly stupid learning new things may have helped the tired old neurons fire a bit. For the New Year I intend to keep up progress with my gesticulating infant-level language skills, in the faint hope of further chess gains.

Edward Mospan: Am I allowed eight resolutions for 2025? I hope so, because here they are:

1. Have a target ECF rating; this year the target is 1650.

2. To think longer over my chess moves before playing them.

3. Not be too bothered about time trouble. Best not get into time trouble, but time management will improve the more games I play.

4. I think the secret to improving is to play more OTB rated games over the year; the more games, the more chance of improving.

5. Think about reaching the endgame from move five and not be too bothered about delivering checkmate in the first 20 moves. It’s all about the long play.

6. Always play openings that make me happy. Stay away from deep theory. That’s for 2500+ players.

7. Meet more varied and interesting chess opponents/players. This is the best part of playing the game.

8. Don’t cry in my soup when a losing streak hits. There is always the next game. Never give up, even when having lost nearly 100 rating points, as happened this year. With a little hard work and study, you will bounce back. I am now on a roll, and I feel my new target ECF rating of 1650 is reachable.

Will Taylor: I aim to become “ambidextrous” – able to play both 1. e4 and 1. d4 confidently.

Graeme Buckley: I resolve to stop making excuses when I lose. My losses are all my own fault somewhere along the line. And to congratulate the opponent. They simply played the better game.

David Maycock: I have two New Year resolutions:

1. Continue working on calculation with Mark Dvoretsky‘s books.

2. Learn tons of theory.

Jaden Mistry, 13: I achieved a few of my resolutions that were set for 2024. While my rating in the classical format did not improve much, I did improve my endgames and that helped me to win some close games or draw games where I was down on material. In addition, my time management in various game formats also improved, and my classical games usually lasted longer compared to earlier seasons. For 2025, my main resolution is to reach a Fide rating of 2000 in standard format. It will be challenging as I don’t get to play many Fide-rated tournaments, especially in the classical format. 

Malcolm Mistry, 47: 2024 ended up being an extremely busy year at work. Despite my best efforts, it left me with little time to become familiar with the anatomy of chess algorithms. For 2025, I would like to stick to last year’s resolutions – to read up on the progress made by artificial intelligence in modern chess and understand chess algorithms such as AlphaZero – but also examine the correlation between number of GMs by country and the corresponding economic development (GDP or some other indicator) historically.

Aziz Sannie: Here are my chessolutions for the New Year. My first goal will sound a little tame, but it will be a big deal for me as my memory is pretty shocking by most (chess) standards. I have ADHD and aphantasia, and have generally accepted that memory and calculation are not my strong suits. However, in 2025 I’m going to really commit to seeing how far I can level up these weaknesses.

1. Memorise a notable game (such as the Paris opera box game or the Evergreen game) and record a demonstration of it.

2. Linked to the first, develop the skill/ability to reliably recall my own games after I’ve played them.

3. Increase my rating to 1750 by setting aside time for chess study each week, whereby I will be sharpening up my Catalan and English, diving into the deep waters of the Ruy Lopez and strengthening my limited acquaintance with the Caro-Kann.

4. Last one will be to compete in a chess boxing bout – or the less bloody option, compete on the BBC’s new show, Chess Masters.

Paul Seymour: I have two main resolutions:

1. To play more serious long-play games. I didn’t even make an average of a single game per month in 2024. Instead, I seem to have spent far too much time on bullet chess online, despite the fact that I play poorly, even by my standards.

2. To start playing a new opening in serious games. I have never been in a hurry to study or try out new openings, but now that I have retired it’s time to bite the bullet (no pun intended).

Jimmy Kerr: 2024 was my first season playing for the club and was full of instructive chess, including a very enjoyable experience playing in the Wernick Cup [a section of the Surrey Individual] in the summer. Unfortunately, work and life got in the way of my chess after that, so my 2025 resolution is a simple one: get back to playing regular chess. If time permits, I’d also like to spend time studying endgames.

Peter Large: In order of difficulty:

1. To get my published rating above 2400 at some point in the year.

2. To win a world title. This may seem unrealistic, but wait and see!

3. To play a game with the Trompowsky as White. This sounds easy, but I don’t play 1.d4, so I’m going to have to do a lot of work in case they play 1…d5. I’m planning to play it like Julian Hodgson did back in the day.

4. To win the prestigious John Hawson Trophy, Surrey’s premier tournament. This is probably a bridge too far. I am currently way behind the big boys (Groom, Alcock, Wickham, Foley).

John Hawksworth: My resolution is to try to win a competitive game, which would help build my confidence and so hopefully lead to more wins. Since returning to competitive play in September I have got some decent positions from the opening and early middle game, but have not calculated quickly and confidently enough at critical moments to convert them into wins. I don’t think there’s any magic solution to this other than to keep trying, and hopefully more success will come.

Robert Waller: As a non-playing member, my resolution is not to play any chess at all in 2025! But to continue to watch, including at as many away venues as I can get to.

Charlie Cooke: I will avoid all quickplay games, except the club championship [which Kingston plans to introduce in 2025 – a club resolution!], and I will stop playing the Petrov against weak opponents.

Peter Andrews: Last year I resolved not to miss backward diagonal moves, having had a couple of disasters in 2023 through doing so, most notably against Marcus Osborne. I can’t remember missing one of comparable scarring effect in 2024, though that is a high bar. Looking ahead I had a lot of fun taking more risk than usual in my last two games – the pawn sacrifices v Richmond and the doubled pawns and exposed king against Ashtead. Perhaps taking risks forces me to play better, so I should resolve to do that. But there’s no point being silly about it.

Rob Taylor: My resolutions fall into four categories:

1. Puzzles: I recently started doing puzzles, from not having done any ever, to doing them every day.  After three weeks my blitz rating on Lichess improved by 70 points.  After four weeks it was over 100 points better. Resolution: keep doing puzzles on a daily basis.

2. Opening training: I have recently resurrected learning an opening repertoire.  All thanks to Kingston club secretary David Bickerstaff taking me apart in the opening of a game, with something I hadn’t seen before and had no idea how to deal with.  Resolution: keep on top of opening training.

3. Rapid chess: I used to play rapid chess on Lichess, 15+10.  Then I saw an article say play blitz 5+3, to get more games in and therefore have more practice. I swapped over and am now not so bad at 5+3 online, having been dreadful when I started. However, I realise that I never really analyse anything in depth; I don’t have the time! Now I have started playing a few rapid games again, I notice my opponent in 15+10 has about eight minutes left on the clock, and I have 16!  So I feel I don’t switch out of blitz mode very well. Resolution: play at least seven games of rapid a week.

4. Kingston third/fourth team: I would like to get good enough to be able to play for the team above Div X.  Hopefully the other resolutions above will help with that. I also thought I should have a resolution saying I will achieve a rating of X. But then I thought if I put in this effort I think it is inevitable that I get there, and if I don’t then I was being unrealistic and shouldn’t beat myself up about it.

Ameet Ghasi: My ambition for 2025 is to quit the game one less time than deciding to return to it. The reality is I am far more emotionally tied to the result of games than I should be, and no doubt during the course of 2025 there will be some good moments and some setbacks. Hopefully, I can continue to learn to understand that this is a process, and most importantly still be playing the game by the end of the year, with a perspective that there are very few boundaries or goals that cannot be achieved in future.

Mark Sheridan: My chess resolution for 2025 is stay positive and focused throughout my games, manage my time better (especially in the later stages), and BRING A PEN to matches!

Jasper Tambini: I have three resolutions:

1. Improve my mental health as this has been impacting my chess and ability to concentrate. I think my ability will be much greater when I can focus more.

2. Vary my openings to avoid people being able to prepare against me.

3. Play more to re-familiarise myself with key patterns and tactics.

John Foley: Last year I felt that four of my games were worthy of publication on the website, the same as in 2023: against Roger de Coverley in the 4NCL (February); Gordon Rennie in the Surrey League (February); Colin McKenzie of Middlesex in a county match (March); and Salim Kriman of Essex in a county match (December). I have played 26 games in the past 12 months, compared with 34 in the same period last year. I am playing less chess because I run the Kingston Chess Academy on Mondays and am unavailable for away games. Furthermore, the club has recruited several strong new players, which means that I am not required quite as much.

As club president, I need to take a broader view than focusing on my own chess prowess, especially regarding chess outreach activities: children, community and celebration. My focus is on developing the junior wing of the club. The academy is less than a year old, meets in Tiffin Boys School on Mondays at 5pm and has a core of around 10 children who enjoy meeting and playing regularly. In addition, we have juniors who are ready to play for the club. The academy is in start-up mode and the intention is to be able to offer instruction and practice to all levels of juniors in due course.

Aymeric Housez: In 2025 I intend to:

1. Apply an anti-blunder checklist before every move – to fight against my tunnel vision.

2. Do five puzzles a day.

3. Learn to mate with bishop and knight.

Nick Powell: Having had a long history of unresolved resolutions I’m going to keep it simple for 2025 and try to get my first chess rating.

Stephen Moss: I finally gave up the wretched Scandinavian in 2024 and will never play it again. I have embraced the Sicilian Dragon, and 2025 will be the year the Dragon roars. I hope so anyway. At the moment, it mainly seems to lead to me being smashed up on the kingside by a posse of advancing g- and h-pawns, backed up by dark-squared bishop, queen and rook. I am not playing it with sufficient dynamism and need to read Gawain Jones’s books on the subject, but I do not intend to give it up. I plan to play double-edged openings come what may.

Generally, I will try to play a bit more in 2025. Most of my time is devoted to club admin, leaving very little time to play myself (thank God, chorus my clubmates). I will return to playing some tournaments in resort towns – much nicer, I feel, that evening chess on wet evenings in London suburbs. A chance to get properly absorbed in a game – and indeed a tournament. I am also now old enough to play in seniors-only sections, which is very attractive. Anything to avoid 10-year-old calculation monsters who beat you without using any of their time and look throughout as if no other result is conceivable.

Akintola Ejiwunmi: My resolution is to focus on chess openings and study opening books.

David Shalom: My resolution is to study some endgames.

Ye Kyaw: While trying to relax one evening  watching a recap of Ding vs Gukesh, desperately looking for some inspiration after three successive losses in OTB chess, I received an email from the Kingston club captain demanding my New Year Chess resolutions. Helpfully, the captain provided some hints: “What sort of player do you intend to become?” (Definitely not the present sort!) After uncountable numbers of previous failed/forgotten New Year resolutions, I was initially reluctant to produce any new ones. But the email was very persuasive, so here goes:

1. To solve 12 chess puzzles a day.

2.  To do more calculation exercises.

3.  Not to buy any more chess books. (I will delete this one as the captain told us to be truthful.)

Peter Lalić: I will try to be a good Christian. I need God.

David Rowson recounts a visit to Kingston by the great José Raúl Capablanca in 1919, two years before he became world champion, and shows two of the games he played in a 40-board simultaneous display

Like most chess clubs, Kingston from time to time invites leading players to give simultaneous displays. Last summer, for example, our newly entitled grandmaster (then still an IM) Ameet Ghasi, defeated all his challengers, and other strong club members, such as Peter Lalić, David Maycock and Vladimir Li, have performed almost as spectacularly.

Much of Kingston’s remote history (ie pre-the 1970s) is obscure, as few records have survived, but some accounts of past simuls do sometimes emerge from research or are even recalled by the participants. In 1975 Leonard Barden gave an exhibition as part of the club’s centenary celebrations, and the scores of the draws achieved by the two Bills, Waterton and Booth, are on the club website.

Decades before that, in 1934, the London Evening News reported that R P Michell, the club president, “is giving a simultaneous display on the condition that the loser of each game shall make a contribution to the funds. Mr Michell, too, will ‘pay up’ for every game he loses and also for his share of every drawn game … Another display on similar conditions will be given by Mr R N Coles, the club secretary.”

It is not known how much members had to contribute to play against the starriest simultaneous performer in the club’s history, but whatever it was, it must have been worth it for the experience, as the player in question was José Raúl Capablanca (pictured above). Although still two years away from winning the title of world champion from Emanuel Lasker, he was already generally considered to be the strongest player in the world. The club was then known as the Thames Valley Chess Club. The event took place at an unrecorded venue in Kingston on 29 October 1919, and the results are included in this list of Capablanca’s simultaneous displays by the British Chess Magazine.

If these figures are accurate, it seems that the Kingston players performed better than most of Capablanca’s other opponents, though the record of the first group of Dubliners is the most impressive. What was it like to face Capablanca over the board? A report about the Guildford event in the Surrey Times for 7 November 1919 describes him as having “a quiet unostentatious manner. During the progress of the games he rarely spoke to an opponent. Before making a move he invariably glanced at his opponent as if reading his thoughts.”

Edward Winter, on his Chess History website, quotes from the December 1919 Chess Amateur: “Unusual interest was aroused amongst Kingston chess players when Señor Capablanca, the world’s champion [sic], paid a visit to Kingston under the auspices of the Thames Valley Chess Club … Prior to the play, Señor Capablanca was entertained to dinner by the committee, the Rev. Father O’Sullivan, vice-president, occupying the chair…”

Father O’Sullivan, who was the Catholic parish priest of New Malden and the chess correspondent for the Tablet, distinguished himself by drawing with Capablanca. This was the game:

Father O’Sullivan’s 22 November 1919 column in the Tablet reported: “At a simultaneous (40 boards) display given by Capablanca last week, under the auspices of the Thames Valley Chess Club, Father Morgan, of Ashford, Middlesex [Edward Winter gives his name as Reverend W Morgan], put up an excellent fight [as Black]. The game went over 40 moves. After White’s 15th move, the position was as shown in this diagram:”

So it appears that two of the participants in the simul were priests. In the same report Father O’Sullivan is probably referring in a covert way to himself when he writes: “I shall be able to give next week a lively and highly interesting game which a Southwark Catholic drew recently with Capablanca. The game will be given with many notes, which should be of great help to novices and players of moderate strength.” However, as Edward Winter notes, this game was not published in the Tablet at the time. It did eventually appear in the chess column written by Father O’Sullivan’s successor, D M Davey, on 20 August 1949.

Sadly, I have been unable to discover anything more about Capablanca’s visit to Kingston in 1919. When we host Magnus Carlsen or Gukesh Dommaraju at the Willoughby Arms in the near future, we will make sure to preserve all the scores of the games.

David Rowson, Kingston A captain in the Thames Valley League