Quick Links:

 Home

Activities Menu

 Knockout 2010

Rapidplay Knockout 2010 - Match Details

Preliminary Round

Round 1

Ten draws out of 12 games at Rapidplay must be some kind of record. Upminster put up a heroic performance to cancel out some large grading differences, particularly at the top and had Barking playing for a Board Count result.

Here is John White’s report:

Matches between Barking and Upminster are always close with results tending to favour Barking. With the current and previous Essex Lightning champions on boards 1 and 2 respectively, I was confident of Barking not being outscored on these boards.

Round 1

At half-time, the score was 3-3 and it was a surprise to myself and some of the other players that none of the games had been decisive.

Round 2

The deadlock was broken with Colin Ramage clinching a point against David Brock. However, Upminster pulled one back with Ray Purse losing to Aidan Corish.

With Barking now ahead on tie-break, the Barking players on boards 1 and 3 were happy to accept draws in unclear positions.

On board 4, the players cancelled each out and a draw was agreed just as a critical position had been reached on board 2. In this position, Jeff Goldberg was slightly ahead in material and had an advantage on the clock but his opponent had strong pressure against the Barking player’s king position.

Knowing that a draw would clinch the match for Barking on board count, Jeff offered a draw.

See also essexchess Blog post with comment(s)

Comments by Ivor Smith:

Peter Laundy had apparently struggled to field a team so the unexpected return of Josiah Lutton after a lengthy break from the game was clearly a welcome surprise, at least from the point of view of the home team. Round 1 turned out to be something of a disaster for Writtle as the Basildon players overturned a grading deficit to achieve an impressive victory, albeit by the narrowest of margins.

With both Josiah and his father clearly playing well it was with some trepidation that the Writtle players started the second round knowing that a further four points could well be needed.  I don't know whether it was the tea and coffee, the half time team talk or simply a question of knowing what was needed but things went decidedly better for Writtle after the break.  Indeed it was with some relief that I discovered that we were 5-0 ahead allowing me to agree a draw with Josiah without having to try to win from a position with just the slight advantage of an extra doubled pawn.

Just two draws in the match was in marked contrast to the Barking v Upminster fixture where no less than ten of the twelve games were drawn !

A third 6-6 in this year's competition! This one needs some explanation as there was a crucial 'win on time' situation which would have reversed the result if circumstances were different.

Gavin Strachan:

"Both games were a draw, but Ilford won on board count. It was a close run thing as in the first match Rob Killeen had a clear win v Syd Kalinsky and managed to blunder to a draw, then in the second match needing only one win to seal the match from the final few games, both Rob Killeen and David Gambardella had completely lost games. David Gambardella's opponent lost on time and the position was K+Q v K+N so technically a draw. In this game David had to promote his final pawn to a knight otherwise he would have been checkmated; unfortunately it also meant that he could not win."

Tom Barton:

"In the final 2nd round game to finish, Gambardella v Pelling, Pelling (Ilford) queened a pawn first giving him K+Q v K+N. Pelling’s flag fell first, but as Gambardella didn’t have mating material the game was agreed drawn. Ilford won the match on board count."

Webmaster's comment:

An interesting situation and in such a critical match position!

I think the right result was reached, but not necessarily for the right reason. Our two reporters say: '...didn't have mating material' (Tom Barton), and '...meant that he could not win' (Gavin Strachan), but I wonder whether these are simple statements or informed statements? What's the difference? Well, the relevant passage of the FIDE Laws of Chess, when it comes to a win on time, says:

"However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves."

The presence of an opposing piece means that it may be possible to reach a mate by a 'possible series of legal moves'. If this were the case, then the player with the knight, i.e. the opponent of the player whose flag fell, could nonetheless get the win on time. This is of interest because a situation very similar to this - but with a crucial difference - occurred in the Ilford Congress a few years ago. In that case, if memory serves, one player had a knight and his opponent had a knight and rook's pawn when the player with the knight and pawn exceeded the time limit; the player with the lone knight claimed a win under the above Law and got it. Correctly.

However, in the situation of K and Q v K and N, I believe it is NOT possible to mate by ANY series of legal moves, in which case a draw is correct. The only place the knight can deliver 'checkmate' is with the opposing king in a corner and the other king two squares away (on rank or file) while the queen occupies the king's other flight square. (e.g. White: K on h8, Q on g8, Black: K on h6, Black knight gives check on f7 or g6. In this situation, however, it cannot be mate as the queen will be forced to capture the knight. I cannot find a situation where this would not be the case.

The reason the Ilford Congress game was correctly given to the player with the knight (to the distress of his young opponent) is that it is possible to reach a mate when the opponent has a knight (let alone a knight and pawn) - e.g. White: K on h8, N on g8, Black: K on g6 N on f7 mate - and that this position can be arrived at by a series of legal moves (the Laws in effect mean help-mate).

Semi-Finals

Report by Jef Page

Ilford win again on board count! Another very tight and hard fought match against a tough Wanstead team.

Andrew Lewis led Ilford strongly to victory 2-0 against Larry Marden pushing up hard for a K-side win in the first game, and getting the better development for sacrificed pawns in the second. But Tom, Syd, and Tony all found the going hard. Tom suffered Ilford's only 0-2 loss, his first game's Leningrad Dutch drifiting into a losing endgame. Syd struggled to hold Ian Hunnable, his defence quickly falling apart in the second game (Hunnable-Kalinsky), and Tony found Mark Murrell no easier. In the first game the pawns locked into a rather dull draw, but in the second Mark won pawns and if there were chances to draw, Tony played a disasterous R+P ending sealing his own fate.

But both Jason Klimach and John Hodgson did well scoring 1½ points. Jason got into Dave Smith's defence early in the first game and never let the advantage slip but the 2nd game was tighter and Jason did well. At one point missing that he was in check, Jason touched another piece only to be told that he had to move his king. The penalty for that error was an extra two minutes added onto Smith's time and that advantage almost worked for David as Jason was forced to take a draw. John finally secured the match for Ilford by easily winning the first game but struggled to make headway in the 2nd as his pieces were rather hemmed in, even though he was a pawn up. At one point he was nearly 5 minutes up on the clock, but the time advantage quickly disappeared as he ran out of ideas and Spearman tried to infiltrate his R, John to was forced to seek a draw by repetition so giving us the half we needed.

Unusually, we have reports from both captains for this extraordinary match:

Report by John White

Barking were outplayed by the visitors on several boards but Bill Stirling pulled a point back to keep Barking's chances alive. However Jeff Goldberg's loss on time meant things looked bleak for Barking at half-time.

On board 6, Ray Purse blundered a pawn early on and was expecting to be finishing early but then his opponent returned the compliment but this time it was the queen that was lost.

Report by Ivor Smith

Writtle snatch defeat from the jaws of victory

A convincing first half performance saw Writtle leading 4½-1½ and, with the added advantage of a very positive board count, overall victory seemed a mere formality. However the Barking players, quite rightly criticised by Bill Stirling for their disappointing start, set about putting things right. This period of the match was painful to watch as the Writtle players, perhaps buoyed by over-confidence, began to fall apart. The early blunder of a queen, when two pawns up, started the rot and things hardly improved.

The next two games to finish were draws so at this stage of the match, with boards 1, 4 and 5 still in play, the score was Barking 3½ Writtle 5½. Now, with board count favouring Writtle, Barking needed to win all three games. Two of these games clearly favoured Barking but the third, where the Writtle player was two pawns up, looked more than promising. However, in perhaps trying too hard to win, the position fell apart and Barking achieved what must surely be the most remarkable turnaround in the ten years of this competition. Congratulations to them but this was surely a match thrown away by some inappropriate play.

WM Comment: Remarkably, this exact pair of scores has been recorded once before, but in the reverse sequence. In the 2004 Final, Barking v Wanstead, Barking scored 5-1 in the first round but Wanstead just failed to reverse the favour, scoring 4½-1½ in round 2 for a near miss. Details

Final

Report by John White:

Having made a relatively poor start (v Upminster) in the first round (with very few decisive games in this match), Barking produced their best performance for the final with all but three games being decisive.

Expecting Ilford to be very strong on the top boards, Barking made sure they had a strong board 6 as a replacement for Ray Purse who was not available.

As it turned out, Barking outgraded Ilford on all boards with board 2 being the most closest matched in grades.

Round 1

Barking scored early victories on boards 3 and 5 but Ilford clawed one back on board 2.

On board 4 the Ilford player initially had a slight advantage but this was not enough to win and the point was eventually split.

Dave Sands was clearly winning on board 1 and managed to force mate before his time ran out.

On board 6, in mutual time-trouble the Barking player blundered material when better but in the later time-scramble, John Davenport's extra pawns were starting to look better than Black's knight when Jeff Page lost on time.

At half-time Barking enjoyed a large lead, but, as they themselves showed in the semi-final, it's possible for the underdog to win 5-1 in the second round.

Round 2

Barking improved on their first round performance with Jeff Goldberg winning [Hodgson-Goldberg] and John Davenport drawing this time.

Essex Chess Association

About| Clubs| Links| Site Map| Contact us