What would you do? Part 2 continued

Below is the game continuation from the position given in "What would you do? Part 2". White declined the draw and did go onto win the game - but, while it worked out, it is not clear that this was the right decision - the time spent calculating had made had made it clear that with this continuation White was playing two losing sacrifices to try and swindle a win.

[Event "NECL Division 2 2014/15"] [Site "?"] [Date "2014.10.22"] [Round "?"] [White "Barnes, Nathan"] [Black "Coughtrey, Mike"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "A24"] [WhiteElo "146"] [BlackElo "120"] [Annotator "Barnes, Nathan"] [SetUp "1"] [FEN "r3r3/pp4np/2p1bR2/2PpP1k1/1P4P1/3P1B2/P6P/4R1K1 w - - 0 31"] [PlyCount "19"] [EventDate "2015.02.18"] [WhiteTeam "Colchester A"] [BlackTeam "Clacton B"] {A24: English Opening vs King's Indian: Lines without ...Nc6} 31. h4+ $2 {An unsound sacrifice. Technically, this is a ? move but if you are going for a win as White playing sensible moves will result in a draw at best.} (31. Kf2 $142 Rf8 32. h4+ Kxh4 33. g5 Rxf6 34. exf6 (34. gxf6 $2 Nf5 $19) 34... Kxg5 35. fxg7 $15 {but if White is going to go down this line it would be best to accept the original draw offer.}) 31... Kxh4 $19 32. g5 $2 {Unsound sacrifice - again this is really a ? move but Black's king is exposed.} Kxg5 33. Kf2 Nf5 $2 (33... h5 $1 {was the only move that leads to an advantage for Black and shows that White's play was unsound - it gives an escape route for the king behind the h pawn.}) 34. Rg1+ $1 $15 Kf4 {the only sensible move} (34... Ng3 35. Rxg3+ Bg4 36. Rxg4+ Kh5 37. Rg1+ Kh4 38. Rh6#) (34... Kh4 35. d4 Re7 36. Rh1+ Kg5 37. Rh5+ Kf4 38. Rh4+ Kg5 39. Rg4+ Kh5 40. Rg8+ Kh4 41. Rxa8 {and White is winning easily}) 35. d4 {the only move that keeps the position as roughly equal - White must protect the pawn on e5.} Rg8 {Pushing the pawn to h5 was slightly better - but either way White is not much worse anymore.} (35... -- 36. Rg4# {was White's threat.}) 36. Rh1 $1 $11 { Every other move leads to an easy win for Black.} Rg4 $4 {Prevents mate but leads to an easy win for White.} (36... -- 37. Rh4+ Kg5 38. Rg4+ Kh5 39. Rg7+ Kh4 40. Rxh7+ Kg5 41. Rh5+ Kf4 42. Rh4+ Kg5 43. Rg4+ Kh5 44. Rxg8+ Kh4 45. Rg4+ Kh3 46. Rg1 Kh4 47. Rfg6 Ng3 48. R6xg3 a5 49. Rh1+ Bh3 50. Rhxh3# {is a forced mate - it is unlikely that all this could be calculated but it is easy to see that 37.Rh4+ would lead to an easy win.}) (36... Rg6 {is the only move that saves Black} 37. Rh4+ Kg5 38. Rh5+ Kf4 39. Rh4+ Kg5 40. Rh5+ Kf4 41. Rh4+ { with a draw by repetition. White can't play Rg4+ instead of Rh5+ as the king will be able to escape via h6-g7 leading to a win for Black.}) 37. Bxg4 $18 Kxg4 38. Rxe6 Nxd4 39. Rf6 $1 Kg5 $2 {Not that it really matters anymore} 40. Rg1+ {Black then actually played 40...Kh6 (an illegal move as the king moves into check) and White played 41.Rf5 (not noticing the illegal move). Black then resigned as the knight can't be saved due to the threat of mate.} (40. Rg1+ Kh5 41. Ke3 Ne6 42. Rxe6 d4+ 43. Kf4 Rf8+ 44. Rf6 Rxf6+ 45. exf6 d3 46. b5 cxb5 47. f7 d2 48. Rh1+ Kg6 49. f8=Q h5 50. Rg1+ Kh7 51. Qg7#) 1-0

Tony Locke Rapidplay - round 6 draw

The draw for round six (of seven) of the Tony Locke Rapidplay has been made (first named player has white):

Nathan Barnes (5)	v	Mark Johnson (4)
Clive Bellinger (3.5)	v	Ed Goodman (4)
Phil Daley (2)	v	Svein Kjenner (3.5)
Martin Harris (3.5)	v	Alex Welge (3)
Luke Tatchell (2.5)	v	Dave Chatfield (2)
John Duff-Cole (2)	v	Matt Stemp (2)
Pete Smith (2)	v	John King (1)
Denzel Gonzales (0.5)	v	Simon Denney (0.5)

Where previous round games have not been played both players have been given half a point for the purpose of making the 4th round draw - when the games have been played both player's scores will be updated. These half-points are shown in player scores above - so some scores could potentially go down as matches from previous rounds are played. The number after the player's name indicates their current (provisional) score. Matt, Simon and Denzel joined the competition at the round 4 stage.

Due to moving away from the area, four players have withdrawn from the competition (Mohammud, Shazia, Nadia, Zahra) - this means that a number of players have been given wins by default which have increased their scores.

The following games from earlier rounds still need to be played:

Pete Smith	v	John Duff-Cole
John King	v	Simon Denney
Denzel Gonzales	v	Phil Daley
Luke Tatchell	v	Pete Smith

 

Results on the top boards in round 5 saw Nathan Barnes beat Svein Kjenner and a draw in the match between Mark Johnson and Clive Bellinger. With two matches to go Nathan Barnes has a one point lead and a win in round 6 is likely to be enough to win the competition. However, there are still a number of other players who can win the competition if results go their way in the last two rounds - Mark Johnson, Ed Goodman, Clive Bellinger, Svein Kjenner and Martin Harris.

What would you do? Part 2.

Here is a position reached in a league game this season:

Black is a piece for two pawns up but his king is a bit exposed. Black made his move 20 minutes ago and offered a draw. You, playing White, have used this 20 minutes to calculate the various possibilities and it is now decision time.

The clock situation is that White has now got 3 minutes left for the rest of the game, Black has 30 minutes.

The team situation is that the scores are 1.5-1.5 so the result of this game will determine the result of the match. White is the higher-graded player and based on grades the match result would be expected to be in the 4-0 area.

Would you:

1. Agree a draw - thus ensuring the team don't lose?
2. Consider the position as slightly better for Black but approximately equal, blitz a few moves (perhaps starting with Kf2 or Rf1) to see what happens - hoping that if the position stays equal Black will accept a draw offer at a later stage? If so, what would you play?
3. Consider the position as slightly better for Black but play for a win anyway? If so, what would you play?

Remember, you have had a lot of thinking time so you have as much time to calculate lines as you like - but you have only got 3 minutes left if you decide to play on!! Did you choose correctly?

New ECF grades

The January 2015 ECF Grading List has been published. The standard play grades for active Colchester players are:

Ref	Name	Age	Standard	Previous
295637J	Lachinov, Eldar		198D	198D
256466L	Gooding, Ian		183C	185C
140673F	Barnes, Nathan		152B	146D
297026A	Orava, Aleksandr		148F
120924D	Wagstaff, Michael		148D	147D
250046C	Bellinger, Clive		138D	139D
155695C	Daley, Phil		123C	123C
150405J	Harris, Martin		121A	120A
213710A	Smith, Peter		119D	123C
268163J	Denney, Simon		114D	115D
117812L	Remmer, Brian		109D	110D
298130A	Jaufarally, Mohammud		99A
297586F	Jaufarally, Nadia	10	97A
227455D	Duff-Cole, John		87C	90B
297619F	Jaufarally, Shazia	13	77D
283272A	Harris, Peter	16	76D	69E
256466L	Goodman, Ed		73C	71C
293018D	Johnson, Mark		71D	69D
297620B	Jaufarally, Zahra	8	46D
286563E	King, John		25E	26E
290797F	Wood, David		20A	19A

There are also a number of other Colchester players - like Javier Ruano Marco, Svein Kjenner and Matt Stemp - who have played some standard play graded games in the last half-season (but not enough to have a grade yet).

Several players appear on the list for the first time: Aleksandr Orava, Mohammud Jaufarally, Nadia Jaufarally, Shazia Jaufarally and Zahra Jaufarally.

A few players have increased their grades - with Peter Harris (+7) and Nathan Barnes (+6) having the most significant increases.

 

The top 3 "biggest scalps" achieved by current Colchester Club players in standard play games in the January 2015 grading period:

1. Graham Moore (197) v Ian Gooding (185)
2. Nathan Barnes (146) v Jonathan Burrows (164)
3. Nathan Barnes (146) v Ed Kirkham (155)

The top 3 "biggest grading upsets" achieved by current Colchester Club players (players with estimated grades not included, wins only) in standard play games in the January 2015 grading period:

1. Martin Harris (120) v Mark Johnson (69) - grading difference of 51
2. Simon Denney (115) v Paul Seymour (134) - grading difference of 19
3. Nathan Barnes (146) v Jonathan Burrows (164) - grading difference of 18

 

The rapidplay grades for active Colchester players are:

Ref	Name	Age	Rapidplay	Previous
295637J	Lachinov, Eldar		159F
140673F	Barnes, Nathan		153F
293018D	Johnson, Mark		103D
297586F	Jaufarally, Nadia	10	100A	80D
298130A	Jaufarally, Mohammud		97A
150405J	Harris, Martin		96E
213710A	Smith, Peter		85E	113E
297619F	Jaufarally, Shazia	13	74A	71E
297620B	Jaufarally, Zahra	8	58A	14E
290797F	Wood, David		45A	43A
295877G	Welge, Alex	11	35D	34D
297977K	Tatchell, Luke	12	15F

There are also a number of other Colchester players - like Phil Daley, Clive Bellinger, Svein Kjenner, John Duff-Cole and Ed Goodman - who have played some rapidplay graded games in the last half-season (but not enough to have a grade yet).

Several players appear on the list for the first time: Eldar Lachinov, Nathan Barnes, Mark Johnson, Mohammud Jaufarally and Luke Tatchell.

A few players have increased their grades - with two juniors, Zahra Jaufarally (+44) and Nadia Jaufarally (+20), having the most significant increases.

Three recent games

A choice of three recent games to view today:

• A Martin Harris miniature from the CRGS/Colchester C match - showing how to play a gambit
• John Duff-Cole's win from the Maldon C/Colchester C match - featuring a killer pin
• A Nathan Barnes game from a recent Suffolk League match (playing for Clacton) - against an opponent with a FIDE rating of 2027

Select a game from the pull-down list.

[Event "Suffolk League Division 2"] [Site "?"] [Date "2015.01.27"] [Round "?"] [White "Feavyour, John"] [Black "Barnes, Nathan"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "D02"] [Annotator "Barnes, Nathan"] [PlyCount "96"] [EventDate "2015.??.??"] {D02: 1 d4 d5 2 Nf3 sidelines, including 2...Nf6 3 g3 and 2...Nf6 3 Bf4} 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 {I hadn't expected this - in preparation for this match I had looked up some of John's games and saw that he normally played the mainline against the Slav and that is what I had prepared for.} Nf6 3. g3 Bf5 4. Bg2 c6 5. O-O e6 6. Nbd2 Na6 $146 {I had been trying to transpose to a Slav, but having failed to do so I decided to play a move that would be okay but not in the book - thus reducing any advantage my opponent would have from playing an opening I was not familiar with. According to my database it is a novelty - but probably not one that will have many future adherents!} (6... Bd6 {is the normal move in this position.}) 7. a3 {Not necessary, ...Nb4 is harmless.} Be7 8. Ne5 Nd7 9. Ndf3 f6 10. Nxd7 Qxd7 11. b4 $6 {Looks agressive but it creates a hole on c4 and a backwards pawn on c2.} Nc7 {The correct response - rerouting the knight to take advantage of the new weak point in White's setup.} 12. Bb2 {The bishop doesn't do much here but White's plan is to open up the centre when the b2 bishop could support a kingside attack.} Nb5 13. Nd2 Nd6 { The knight has already moved 4 times.} 14. f3 Bg6 {The e4 pawn push can't be prevented but moving the bishop back first means that play isn't as forced. This also frees up the f5 square for the knight - threatening to win the exchange with the knight fork on e3 (if White doesn't play e4).} 15. e4 b5 16. Qe2 Nc4 {I was a bit unsure what to do here and decided to stick with my original plan of occupying c4 - if White captures then there is an imbalance in the pawn structure which keeps the game interesting. I also considered the sensible option of castling kingside - which the computer prefers.} 17. Nxc4 bxc4 18. Rae1 Kf7 $1 {While Bf7 is okay, Kf7 is the best way of shoring up the defences.} (18... -- 19. exd5 $1 {was the main move I was worried about} (19. Bh3 $1 {was another decent move.} f5 $1 {the only move that keeps Black in the game} 20. exd5 exd5 21. Qe5 {looked uncomfortable for Black.}) 19... cxd5 ( 19... exd5 20. Bh3 Qb7 {I didn't like the Black position here - the open e-file looks very dangerous.} (20... Qxh3 $4 21. Qxe7#)) 20. Qxe6 {White has won a pawn and has a better position}) 19. Bh3 f5 $1 {Played instantly - all other moves lead to a winning advantage for White. I had planned this move - and also my next three moves before playing 18...Kf7. The speed these moves were played at meant I was able to build up a good advantage on the clock.} ({ For example,} 19... Qb7 $2 20. Bxe6+ $1 Kxe6 21. exd5+ Kf7 22. Qe6+ Kf8 23. d6 Bd8 24. d7 Bc7 25. Qe7+ Kg8 26. Qe8+ Rxe8 27. dxe8=Q+ Bxe8 28. Rxe8+ Kf7 29. Rxh8 {is one line that shows how White can obtain a decisive advantage.}) 20. Bc1 Rae8 21. g4 Rhf8 22. Qf2 $2 Kg8 $6 {Completing a manual castle but missing a chance to gain an advantage on the board - though the speed the last few moves were played at had allowed me to gain a good advantage on the clock.} ( 22... fxe4 $1 23. g5 Kg8 24. Qh4 {Black will hold onto the pawn advantage - I had seen this line, but (incorrectly) felt that the position was a bit dangerous for Black. I am not convinced I would have stayed on the right path in this line - too many chances to go wrong.}) 23. e5 $6 {Taking some of the tension out of the position - but more importantly this move increases the power of the Black bishop on g6 considerably.} Qd8 {Reasonable, but the computer points out that ...fxg4 was the best choice in this complicated position - eventually Black will win a pawn.} 24. Qe3 (24. -- Bh4 $1 {was the threat White had to deal with, skewering the queen and rook.}) 24... Bh4 {... fxg4 was still best} 25. Re2 f4 26. Qc3 a6 {A move that I knew was completely innocuous - played very quickly to try and increase my time advantage.} 27. a4 Be7 28. Ba3 a5 $5 {Not the best move in the position, but one designed to try and unbalance the game so that I could try and increase the small advantage I had and go for the win.} 29. bxa5 {Move 29 and we have the first pawn capture of the game} Bxa3 30. Qxa3 Qxa5 {Time control reached - White has 17 minutes left for the rest of the game, Black about 25.} 31. Rb1 { White has a passed pawn - but I thought that Black's pawn on c4 was stronger than the a-pawn due to White's weak c-pawn.} Qa7 $1 {Found after a bit of thought - much better than my original plan.} (31... Rb8 {was my original plan when I played 28...a5. However, I now saw that after the White queen moves into d6 there is no advantage for Black.} 32. Rxb8 Rxb8 33. Qd6 $11) 32. Rd2 { White must protect the pawn on d4} Qa5 $5 {The queen is better on a7 than here but this move was played for psychological reasons. White was the higher-graded player and would probably want to avoid a draw by repetition so I played this move to see if it might provoke a mistake - I prefered my position but (correctly) did not think I had a winning advantage. I could still return my queen to a7 again without creating a three-fold repetition.} 33. Qb4 $2 {The ploy worked - this is the losing mistake} Qxb4 $1 34. Rxb4 Rb8 (34... c3 $1 {was even better} 35. Re2 Rb8 36. Rxb8 Rxb8 37. Bf1 {and White will lose at least two of the pawns on c2, a4 and d4}) 35. Rxb8 Rxb8 36. g5 $6 (36. c3 {would make the win more difficult.}) 36... Kf7 37. c3 Rb3 38. Ra2 Rxc3 39. a5 Rb3 (39... Bb1 $1 {was a move I considered. It does lead to a quicker win but by this point I was starting to run short of time - I had already calculated that ...Rb3 was sufficient to win.}) (39... Rxf3 $4 {the a-pawn is too strong and Black will struggle to hold on for a draw}) 40. a6 Rb8 41. a7 Ra8 42. Kf2 Ke7 43. Ke2 Kd7 44. Kd2 Bf7 45. Kc3 Kc7 46. Kb4 Kb7 47. Bf1 Rxa7 48. Rxa7+ Kxa7 {I stopped recording moves here - the game went on for quite a few more moves but the endgame is a fairly straightforward one for Black.} 0-1 [Event "NECL Div 3: Maldon C v Colchester C"] [Site "?"] [Date "2015.02.01"] [Round "?"] [White "Duff-Cole, John"] [Black "Perfect, John"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "B06"] [Annotator "Duff-Cole, John & Barnes, Nathan"] [PlyCount "45"] [EventDate "2015.01.23"] 1. e4 g6 2. Nf3 Bg7 3. d4 e6 4. Bg5 f6 {first positional weakness, but not fatal} 5. Be3 c6 6. Be2 Ne7 7. O-O O-O 8. Nbd2 d5 9. c4 e5 {a pawn stand-off} 10. dxe5 fxe5 11. cxd5 cxd5 {this is how I had predicted the sequence to go} 12. Qb3 {a pin on the pawn} Be6 $2 {protecting the pawn with the bishop} 13. Ng5 $1 Qd6 $2 {NB: letting the pawn go with ...Bc8 was better (though still losing)} 14. Nxe6 Qxe6 15. exd5 Nxd5 16. Bc4 {pin restored} Rd8 17. Ne4 Kh8 18. Bg5 Nc6 {NB: looks like an error - but is actually Black's best choice (though White still has a huge advantage)} 19. Bxd8 Rxd8 20. Bxd5 Rxd5 {fear of Na5 attacking queen and bishop prompted this exchange} 21. Qxb7 Rd4 22. Ng5 Qd6 $4 {thank you} 23. Nf7+ $1 {Black resigned a few moves later} 1-0 [Event "NECL Division 3: CRGS v Colchester C"] [Site "?"] [Date "2015.01.29"] [Round "?"] [White "Harris, Martin"] [Black "Hirani, Shivan"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "C21"] [Annotator "Harris, Martin & Barnes, Nathan"] [PlyCount "35"] [EventDate "2015.01.29"] 1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Bc4 cxb2 5. Bxb2 Bb4+ 6. Nc3 Nf6 7. Nge2 { The computer says Black is winning already - but White has a significant lead in development} Nxe4 8. O-O Nxc3 9. Nxc3 O-O 10. Nd5 Nc6 $4 (10... Qh4 $1 {the only move that keeps Black alive}) 11. Qg4 g6 12. Nf6+ Kg7 13. Qh4 h6 14. Ng4+ Kg8 15. Nxh6+ (15. Qxh6 {leads to mate} Bc3 16. Bxc3 Ne5 17. Bxe5 Qf6 18. Nxf6# ) 15... Kh7 16. Qh3 Qg5 17. Ng4+ {missing a quicker mate - but the move played is more than sufficient to win} (17. Nxf7+ Qh5 18. Qxh5+ gxh5 19. Bd3+ Kg8 20. Nh6# {is an attractive finish}) 17... Qh5 18. Nf6+ 1-0

January summary

The current top ten players in the club grand prix are:

		Points
1st	Nathan Barnes	10.5
2nd	Mohammud Jaufarally	6
3rd	Svein Kjenner	5.5
4th	Martin Harris	5.5
5th	Mike Wagstaff	5
6th	Aleksander Orava	4.5
7th	Clive Bellinger	4.5
8th	Simon Denney	4
9th	Mark Johnson	4
10th	Matt Stemp	3

Games played in the club championship, Tony Locke rapidplay and the NECL league/knockout count for points in the grand prix. Where points are equal percentage score is used as a tie-breaker.

In the last month, no games have been played in the club championship. In the Tony Locke Rapidplay there are a number of players who have not played all their first four games yet so the current standings are not clear. Nathan, Svein, Clive, Mark, Nadia and Zahra have all played more than one game and are currently unbeaten.

In NECL Division 2, Colchester A are in 1st place having won three matches and drawn one. Colchester B are in 8th place (a win and two losses) - but have played the three teams currently at the top of the table. In Division 3, Colchester C are in 1st place after winning two matches, drawing two and losing one - though they have played more games than most teams; Colchester D are in 3rd place with three wins and one loss. In the NECL Plate, Colchester have reached the final where they will play Maldon B.

 

In the first match of the new year, Colchester had a comfortable win in the semi-final of the NECL Plate competition. Fielding what was probably the strongest team the club have put out this year there were wins on boards 2-4. Javier, playing his first match of the season, had a slightly better position in the endgame but did not have enough time on the clock to find a win (if there was one) and had to force a draw by repetition in a rook and pawn endgame.

Date: Jan-2015
NECL Plate semi-final
Brd	Col	COLCHESTER A	Result		BADDOW B	Col
1	b	Javier Ruano Marco (e189)	½	½	Michael Spurr (152)	w
2	w	Ian Gooding (183)	1	0	Steven Robinson (118)	b
3	b	Matt Stemp (e165)	1	0	Tony Rawlins (93)	w
4	w	Mike Wagstaff (148)	1	0	David Gold (70)	b
		(avg=171)	3.5	0.5	(avg=108)

 

Colchester C have played three matches this month - the first was a draw against Braintree C.

Date: Jan-2015
NECL Division 3
Brd	Col	COLCHESTER C	Result		BRAINTREE C	Col
1	w	Clive Bellinger (138)	½	½	Greg Mantle (134)	b
2	b	Martin Harris (121)	½	½	Ollie Martin (105)	w
3	w	Simon Denney (114)	1	0	Peter Copsey (89)	b
4	b	John Duff-Cole (87)	0	1	Alan Rutland (67)	w
		(avg=115)	2	2	(avg=98)

 

Colchester B had a very close match against Chelmsford B - one of the strongest teams in Division 2. Clive drew after a quiet game on board 3, Martin went for a material advantage of a pawn but this ended up being insufficient compensation for the positional weaknesses that resulted from this. There was an interesting game on board 1 where Alex obtained a better position but then had to play very carefully following, a probably dubious, piece sacrifice. He found a series of strong defensive moves and returned some of the material at the right time to dissipate his opponent's attack and start a decisive one of his own. Mike's game went to a rook and 3 pawn vs rook and 2 pawn endgame which was drawable but in time trouble it was not easy to find the drawing line.

Date: Jan-2015
NECL Division 2
Brd	Col	COLCHESTER B	Result		CHELMSFORD B	Col
1	w	Aleksander Orava (148)	1	0	Egor Latypov (145)	b
2	b	Mike Wagstaff (148)	0	1	Ed Porter (143)	w
3	w	Clive Bellinger (138)	½	½	John Constantine (125)	b
4	b	Martin Harris (121)	0	1	Peter Brander (110)	w
		(avg=138)	1.5	2.5	(avg=130)

 

Maldon C fielded a stronger team than they had in the match earlier this season against the D team. On board 1, Martin Harris played a higher-graded opponent and was probably a bit tired in his second match of the week. Simon beat Doug Mothershaw - who had beaten him in the Maldon C v Colchester D match earlier in the season. Simon again showed his predilection for sacrificing material. His knight and pawn sacrifice may have have been unsound but was difficult to play against and an error by his opponent allowed him to finish the game off. Brian got into early positional difficulties meaning he used up too much time on the clock. John Duff-Cole had a return to form, comfortably beating his opponent who turned up late and made some quick moves resulting a poor positonal start which John was able to capitalise on.

There were issues in the match caused by incorrectly set digital clocks - if you need advice on how to use digital clocks or on how to check they have been set up correctly please speak to Nathan or John.

Date: Jan-2015
NECL Division 3
Brd	Col	MALDON C	Result		COLCHESTER C	Col
1	w	Malcolm Savage (137)	1	0	Martin Harris (121)	b
2	b	Doug Mothershaw (115)	0	1	Simon Denney (114)	w
3	w	Frank Sealey (103)	1	0	Brian Remmer (109)	b
4	b	John Perfect (90)	0	1	John Duff-Cole (87)	w
		(avg=111)	2	2	(avg=107)

 

CRGS are the only team to have beaten the D team so far this season, but the C team ran out comfortable winners in their 3rd match of the month. Clive drew on board 1 against a higher graded opponent. On board 4, it was good to see Denzel Gonzales winning in his first graded match. Martin played one of his sharper openings and won with a classic sacrificial attack. Martin missed a few mating chances to win more quickly but the game was still wrapped up within 18 moves. Simon unleashed a bolt from the blue against a seemingly solid set-up against Peter Harris that completely tore the position apart. After losing his first NECL match, Simon has now won four games in a row; including all who have played 3 or more games, he is currently in 12th place in the NECL player of the season rankings (80%) - one place ahead of Mohammud Jaufarally (75%). Nathan Barnes is currenly in 1st (100%), with Aleksander Orava (88%) in joint 4th and Svein Kjenner (83%) in joint 8th. Ian Gooding and Clive Bellinger have also scored more than 60% having played 3 or more games.

Date: Jan-2015
NECL Division 3
Brd	Col	CRGS	Result		COLCHESTER C	Col
1	w	Jeremy Hadcock (149)	½	½	Clive Bellinger (138)	b
2	b	Shivan Hirani (102)	0	1	Martin Harris (121)	w
3	w	Peter Harris (76)	0	1	Simon Denney (114)	b
4	b	Lakdinu Peries (82)	0	1	Denzel Gonzales (e80)	w
		(avg=102)	0.5	3.5	(avg=113)

Tony Locke Rapidplay - Round 5 Draw

The draw for round five (of seven) of the Tony Locke Rapidplay has been made (first named player has white):

Nathan Barnes (4, 0)	v	Svein Kjenner (3.5, 1)
Mark Johnson (3, 1)	v	Clive Bellinger (2.5, 2)
Zahra Jaufarally (2.5, 2)	v	Martin Harris (2.5, 0)
Nadia Jaufarally (2.5, 2)	v	Ed Goodman (2, 2)
Mohammud Jaufarally (2, 0)	v	Alex Welge (2, 2)
Pete Smith (1.5, 1)	v	John Duff-Cole (1.5, 0)
Dave Chatfield (1.5, 0)	v	Phil Daley (1.5, 1)
Shazia Jaufarally (1, 2)	v	Luke Tatchell (1.5, 1)
Matt Stemp (0.5, 1)	v	Denzel Gonzales (0.5, 1)
John King (0.5, 0)	v	Simon Denney (0.5, 1)

Where previous round games have not been played both players have been given half a point for the purpose of making the 4th round draw - when the games have been played both player's scores will be updated. These half-points are shown in player scores above - so some scores could potentially go down as matches from previous rounds are played. The first number after the player's name indicates their current (provisional) score, the second number indicates the number of games from earlier rounds not yet completed. Matt, Simon and Denzel joined the competition at the round 4 stage.

With a number of games from earlier rounds not played yet the exact state is not totally clear. However, the top two matches involve four unbeaten players and with only two rounds to go the results of these will have a big impact on the final standings. Nathan is the only player on 100% who has played all their games, though Svein is on 100% from his three completed games. Mark and Clive have both drawn one game meaning a decisive result will move the winner of this match into contention for first place. Zahra and Nadia are currently the leading juniors having both won and drawn, both have two matches not yet completed.

The following games from earlier rounds still need to be played:

Simon Denney	v	Matt Stemp
Denzel Gonzales	v	Phil Daley
Alex Welge	v	Nadia Jaufarally
Nadia Jaufarally	v	Clive Bellinger
Luke Tatchell	v	Pete Smith
Svein Kjenner	v	Clive Bellinger
Ed Goodman	v	Zahra Jaufarally
Zahra Jaufarally	v	Mark Johnson
Nadia Jaufarally	v	John King
Shazia Jaufarally	v	Alex Welge
Shazia Jaufarally	v	Ed Goodman