YORKSHIRE LEAGUE DIVISION ONE 2017/2018.SHEFFIELD ‘B’ v HULL & D.C.A. ‘A’.

25 th November 2017.

Woodhouse Cup 25th November 2017.

Home Team Away TeamSheffield ‘B'. Hull & D.C.A. 'A'.

Board. YCA YCA Home Result Away YCA YCA

Code GradeGrad

e Code1 5495 198 Jim Burnett 0 - 1 John G. Cooper 194 38752 4662 190 Peter Ackley ½ - ½ Eric Gardiner 184 19723 3709 189 Ivan David ½ - ½ Steve R. Hodge 184 77944 4627 181 Peong Wei Jie 1 - 0 Douglas Vleeshhouwer 170 44465 4376 173 John Fletcher 1 – 0 Ian C. Bell 159 11126 3797 172 Khaled Muflehi 1 - 0 Bryan Hesler 152 65067 6732 164 Andrew J. Mort ½ - ½ Dave Stothard 139 48458 4628 160 Mohd. S. Hidayatullah 0 - 1 Richard O. Callis 141 1162

Home Team Score 4½ - 3½ Away Team Score

Predicting the result of an ‘A’ against ‘B’ team match is usually fairly straight forward. Although one or two members of the ‘B’ team may produce a surprise, there are limited prospects of an upset in respect of the match result overall. Occasionally, a match bucks the trend when specific factors come into play and this was a such case. Sheffield, with York, Leeds and Bradford, has great depth in chess ability. Consequently, the Sheffield ‘B’ squad compares favourably with several Division One outfits. Add to that the absence of several Hull & D.C.A. ‘A’ regulars and each member of the away team contingent faced a higher graded opponent. Given that they were outgraded by more than 100 points in total, it is remarkable that our ‘A’ team came so close to taking something from the fixture. In that context, the performances of Dave Stothard and Richard Callis are particularly commendable.

A glance at the Hull & D.C.A. ‘B’ team fielded on the same date begs the question why one of the higher graded players was not promoted to the ‘A’ team. The explanation is simple. A member of the scheduled ‘A’ team fell ill on the morning of the match and had to be replaced at very short notice. David Stothard moved up to the ‘A’ team and I took his place in the ‘B’ team. Transport considerations meant that this was the only viable arrangement.

My thanks to Eric Gardiner who collected copies of the games, provided copious notes to his own encounter which are very instructive and described events on board 3 that raise several questions. The matter that interests me most concerns the use of 20th century (i.e. mechanical) clocks. From comments on various chess websites, mechanical clocks seem to have virtually disappeared from use in the South of England and possibly the Midlands to a large extent. Digital clocks are now very cheap, yet there is hostility in many parts of the North to them being made obligatory for local and county chess. Is it that we are too tight to make provision for their use or is there some other reason?

Next fixture is the home match on 9th December 2017 against Leeds. This match will be staged at the Anlaby Park Methodist Church Hall, 256, Hull Road, Anlaby Common, Hull HU4 7RR as the Anlaby Park Community Library is not available.

(1) John G. Cooper. - Jim Burnett. [C05]Woodhouse Cup. 25.11.2017.1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Ngf3 c5 6.c3 Nc6 7.Bd3 g6 8.h4 h6 9.Qe2 cxd4 10.cxd4 Nb4 11.Bb1 b6 12.a3 Ba6 13.Qe3 Qc7 14.Qc3 Qxc3 15.bxc3 Nd3+ 16.Bxd3 Bxd3 17.Ng1 f6 18.f4 fxe5 19.fxe5 Be7 20.Ne2 0–0 21.Nf3 Bxe2 22.Kxe2 Kg7 23.a4 Rac8 24.Ba3 Bxa3 25.Rxa3 Nb8 26.a5 b5 27.a6 Rc6 28.Rb1 Rxa6 29.Rxa6 Nxa6 30.Ra1 Nb8 31.Rxa7+ Rf7 32.Ra1 Rb7 33.Ne1 Kf7 34.Nd3 Nd7 35.Kd2 g5 36.h5 Ke7 37.Ra8 Kf7 38.Ra1 Ke7 39.Kc2 Kf7 40.Kb3 Ke7 41.Ra8 Kf7 42.Nc5 Nxc5+ 43.dxc5 Ke7 44.Rh8 Kd7 45.Rxh6 Rb8 46.Kb4 Rf8 47.Rf6 1–0

(2) Peter Ackley. - Eric Gardiner. [C10]Woodhouse Cup. 25.11.2017.This isn't the most entertaining game to play through but is an example of defending a slightly worse position against an opponent who chose a safe line to minimise his chances of losing. Although it is a quiet positional game, the tactics are there bubbling under the surface! 1.e4 A surprise. I'd expected to play Peter or one other player and had prepared for both. However, I was expecting Peter to play either1. g3, 1. f4 or 1. d4, as he'd played against me two months earlier. 1...e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nc6 A slightly off-beat response to 3. Nc3, with the attractive name the Hecht-Reefschaeger Variation! 4.Nf3 Nf6 Now 5. Bd3 or 5. e5 can lead to a double-edged game but ... 5.exd5 exd5 Not only has Black been tricked into the Exchange Variation but he has also been tricked into a symmetrical knight formation! 6.Bb5 Bg4 7.h3 Bxf3 8.Qxf3 Be7 9.Bg5 a6 I would have preferred to make the developing move 9. ... 0–0 but rejected this because of 10. Bxf6 Bxf6 11. Nxd5 Nxd4 12. Nxf6+ Qxf6 (However my engine points out the remarkable 12. ... Kh8!! which I didn't see. Black gets his piece back, keeps his pawn structure intact and keeps some dynamism in the position. 12. ... gxf6 13. Qg4+ Kh8 14. 0–0–0 is a "don't go there" variation for Black.) 13. Qxf6 gxf6 14. Bd3 and White has a better endgame with no danger of losing. 10.Bxc6+ bxc6 11.0–0 0–0 So far we have been following Game 9 of the 1971 Fischer-Petrosian Candidates Final match, which Fischer won to win the match. Here Fischer played 12. Rfe1. At least I fared better than Petrosian! 12.Rad1 Rb8 13.b3

Position after 13. b3.

Realising now that White had an edge in a quiet position, I took some time over my next few moves. Black has to play carefully to avoid ending up in a lost position. 13...Re8 13. ... Ne4 14. Bxe7 Qxe7 15. Nxe4 dxe4 (or first exchanging queens on e4) were two other endgames I decided to avoid. Black's pawns simply looked too weak and (in comparison to the game) my pieces don't have any targets. 14.Rfe1 Nd7 I eventually decided that ... Nd7-f8-e6 was a more flexible route than ... Nh7-f8-e6. On d7, the knight controls the strategically important c5 square. 14. ... h6 15. Bh4 Nh7 16. Bxe7 Rxe7 was another plan I considered but Black will have to spend a bit of time getting his knight back into the game. 15.Bxe7 Rxe7 16.Kf1 I didn't expect this. The point is to keep control over the e-file which would have been lost after the immediate Rxe7. However, it does not directly threaten anything and gives Black time to improve his position. Black also has the hope of causing annoyance by getting his queen to h2. It is just a hope for now but it is a relevant factor in positions like this with queens and many pawns on the board where the queens will try to invade on diagonals. On 16. Na4 with my knight covering c5, I was intending something like 16. ... Rxe1+ 17. Rxe1 Qf8 18. Qd3 Qb4 19. c3 Qb5 although my engine indicates that 20. Qg3 is now very strong for White; 16. Qd3 is also natural (I think I would have played this as White) and forces me into passive defence for now with 16. ... Ra8. 16...Nf8 17.Na4 Rxe1+ 18.Rxe1 Ne6 Black concedes but then blocks the e-file and also makes a threat! 19.Qe3 I was expecting 19. Qc3 when 19. ... Qd6 illustrates the hope of coming into h2 getting closer to reality, although White can simply play 20. Kg1. 19...Kf8 Allowing the queen and knight a little more mobility. With White's pieces lined up on the e-file Black has to be careful of back rank mates. 20.g3

Position after 20. g3.

Possibly White thought he was slowly improving his position while I couldn't do anything active. However, this move creates targets for me: the h3 pawn and f3 square. White won't lose a pawn but I might get a tempo to get my pieces to more active squares. 20. Qd3 is a double attack which I needed to consider before playing ... Kf8 but I can just go back 20. ... Kg8 and if 21. Qxa6 then 21. ... Nxd4; 20. Qc3 might be best. 20...Qf6 20. ... Ng5 21. Nc5 Nxh3 22. f4 is not the way to do it!; 20. ... Qd7 21. Kg2 is perhaps the sort of continuation White had in mind and my queen is now poorly placed on d7. 21.c3 The d4 pawn is now securely defended but a square for the knight on a4 is lost.

21...a5 I wasn't really sure what to do here so played this move on the basis that it would now take White longer to win this weak pawn. (c2-c3 has also cut off the d2-a5 diagonal for White's queen. I would have liked to play 21. ... Ng5 and onwards to e4 but unfortunately the knight has to keep the c5 square under guard: 22. Nc5 and White is winning, e.g. 22. ... Rd8 23. Nd7+! 22.Nc5 I'm not sure why Peter played this move, voluntarily damaging his own pawn structure. I'd assessed the queen and rook endgame as drawn. 22. Nb2 seems the best try to keep the game going, particularly as my having to defend for some time had meant Peter had built up quite a lead on the clock. 22...Nxc5 23.dxc5 g6 Black still has to watch out for back rank mates before he gives up control of the e7 square and starts chasing White pawns with his queen. I wasn't sure whether ... h6 was better (it might not matter) but was going for the desirable f7-g6-h5 formation in rook endgames. 24.Qd4 24. Qh6+ isn't dangerous for Black. 24...Qxd4 I rejected 24. ... Kg7 because of 25. Re5 followed by Qe3.White has swapped his queen and rook round and will be able to create more threats. 25.cxd4 Rb4 26.Rd1 a4 Getting rid of one weak pawn. 27.Rd3 I was expecting 27. bxa4 Rxa4 28. Rd2 when White at least has a passed pawn although I think this is drawn too. 27...axb3 28.axb3 Ke7 29.Ke2 h5 30.Kd2= And a draw was agreed. Black has time to protect his pawns with his king if White ever gets his rook to the 8th rank, e.g. Rc8, Kd7; Rf8, Ke7 etc.. ½–½

(3) Steve R. Hodge. - Ivan David. [A00]Woodhouse Cup. 25.11.2017.1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nbd7 4.Nf3 e5 5.Bc4 Be7 6.0–0 c6 7.a4 Qc7 8.h3 h6 9.Qe2 Nf8 10.dxe5 dxe5 11.Be3 Ng6 12.Rfd1 b6 13.Nd2 0–0 14.Na2 a6 15.b4 b5 16.Bb3 Nf4 17.Qf1 Be6 18.Bxe6 Nxe6 19.a5 Nd7 20.c4 Bg5 21.Bxg5 Nxg5 22.cxb5 cxb5 23.Rac1 Qb7 24.f3 Ne6 25.Nb3 Rac8 26.Nc3 Nf6 27.Nd5 Nxd5 28.Rxd5 Rxc1 29.Qxc1 Nf4 30.Rd2 Rc8 31.Nc5 Qe7 32.Qd1 Rc6 33.Kh2 Qh4 34.Nd3 Nh5 35.Qe1 Qe7 36.Nc5 Nf4 37.g3 Ne6 38.Rd7 Qf6 39.Nxe6 Qxe6 40.Qd1 Qc4 41.Rd8+ Kh7 42.Qd2 Qb3 43.Rd3 Qb1 44.Qe3 Qxb4 45.h4 Qxa5 46.f4 Rc2+ 47.Kh3 Qa2 48.Ra3 White is completely lost but Steve played on, knowing that he needed to win for us to draw the match. The players ended up in a rook ending where Steve was three pawns down and had less than a minute on his clock but somehow managed to get enough counter play to force a repetition of moves. Ivan was also getting short of time and at one point knocked one of his own passed pawns off the board! Neither player noticed and they carried on until Steve was able to queen his last pawn and at this point offered a draw which was accepted after a little thought. He probably only had a few seconds left on his clock but it was impossible to tell accurately as they were playing with 20th century clocks. A good argument for the use of digital clocks and increments I think! ½–½

(7) Dave Stothard. - Andrew J. Mort. [A34]Woodhouse Cup. 25.11.2017.1.c4 c5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.Nc3 Nc7 6.e3 Nc6 7.Nge2 e5 8.0–0 Be7 9.d4 cxd4 10.Bxc6+ bxc6 11.exd4 Bh3 12.Re1 0–0 13.dxe5 Qc8 14.Nf4 Bg4 15.f3 Bf5 16.Qe2 Qb7 17.Be3 Rab8 18.Na4 g5 19.Nh5 Ne6 20.Rac1 Bg6 ½–½

(8) Mohd. Sazlee Hidayatullah. - Richard O. Callis. [A00]Woodhouse Cup. 25.11.2017.1.d4 d6 2.c4 Nd7 3.Nc3 Ngf6 4.Bf4 e5 5.dxe5 dxe5 6.Bg3 c6 7.e3 Bb4 8.Qc2 Qe7 9.Nf3 0–0 10.Be2 Re8 11.0–0 e4 12.Nd4 Nf8 13.a3 Bd6 14.b4 Ne6 15.Nxe4 Nxd4 16.Nxf6+ gxf6 17.exd4 Bxg3 18.Bd3 Bf4 19.Bxh7+ Kh8 20.g3 Bh6 21.Rfe1 Qxe1+ 22.Rxe1 Rxe1+ 23.Kg2 Bd7 24.Bf5 Bxf5 25.Qxf5 Kg7 26.Qg4+ Kf8 27.Qh3 Bg7 28.Qd7 Re7 29.Qd6 Rae8 30.Qc5 a6 31.b5 axb5 32.cxb5 cxb5 33.d5 Kg8 34.d6 Rd7 35.Qxb5 Red8 36.a4 Bf8 37.Qb2 Bg7 38.Qb5 Rxd6 39.Qxb7 R6d7 40.Qb5 Ra7 41.h4 Rda8 42.Qf5 Rxa4 43.Qf3 Re8 44.Qc6 Raa8 45.Kh3 Rac8 46.Qd7 Rcd8 47.Qb5 Rb8 48.Qd7 Re2 49.Qd3 Rxf2 50.Qe3 Rbb2 51.Qe8+ Bf8 52.Qd8 Rf3 53.Qd4 Rbb3 54.Qg4+ Bg7 55.Qc8+ Kh7 56.Qc2+ Rbd3 57.Qe2 Rxg3+ 58.Kh2 Rh3+ 59.Kg2 Rdg3+ 0–1

Eric Gardiner.

David G. Mills – Match Captain.