Wimbledon B 2 Ealing B 3
: Created:06 Jan 2010 , by Alastair JohnstoneEaling B emerged with a creditable 3-2 lead from Monday's visit to Wimbledon. But will it be enough...? More details within.
| Thames Valley League Division 2 | 4th January 2010 | ||||
Bd | Wimbledon B | Result | Ealing B | ||
1 | 177 | Gregory, Philip J | p | Wells, Tony D | 182 |
2 | Default | 0-1 | Greenshields, Chris | 175 | |
3 | 172 | French, Angus J | 1-0 | Lamb, H Michael | 171 |
4 | 168 | Keene, NR | 1-0 | Healeas, Simon | 151 |
5 | 169 | Archer, Paul R | 0-1 | Gibbons, C Dale | 148 |
6 | 162 | Ivanishchak, Ivan | 0-1 | Winterbotham, Mark | 147 |
7 | 159 | Cheng, Tommy | p | Torrance, John | 138 |
2-3 | |||||
Chris Greenshields reports on a close encounter in South London:
With Alastair's absence and myself denied a game because my opponent failed to turn up, I decided to put myself to good use by writing a report on the night's events. It is disappointing to note that the match started some 20 minutes late, even though all of Ealing's players were ready to play at 7.30. With a 2½ hour playing session and no quickplay finish, the match perhaps inevitably was unresolved when time was called.
On board 1, Tony played 4... Qh4 against the Scotch and after the common response 5. Nc3 Bb4 6. Ndb5, rather than grabbing the pawn on e4, Tony played the interesting 6... Ba5. After 7. Bd3, Tony tried a rapid attack on his opponent's king. (I fancied 6... a6 7. Na3 b5 and the white knight probably has to head for b1, looking stupid). After a period of some pressure, his opponent steered the game into an ending with a small advantage. The game is adjourned but Tony remains hopeful of securing a draw.
On board 2, I got the white pieces for the first time this season but my opponent defaulted. Brilliant!
On board 3, we were treated to a full blooded Winawer from Mike. As expected, there was a complex middlegame with both kings in the centre of the board. At a critical moment, Mike played a move that gave his opponent a tempo or two, when he probably needed to exchange off his opponent's very strong knight on d4. The game was then extremely tough for Mike and he was unable to hold the position.
On board 4, Simon's opponent played an Old Indian which began as a very slow, turgid affair without a piece leaving the board until well into the middlegame. Black found some better squares for his pieces than white but then suddenly played a piece sacrifice for two pawns that seemed a bit speculative. However, with a shortage of time on his clock, Simon could not consolidate his piece advantage and was beaten by a strong attack by his opponent.
On board 5, Dale appeared to struggle for a plan against his opponent's King's Indian Attack. However, he first contained his opponent's attack on his king, then moved his pieces out on the queenside, playing a neat pawn sacrifice to open the position. He found good squares for his pieces, creating a lot of threats, and regained the pawn with the advantage of the bishop pair. That proved too strong and his opponent finally lost on time in a lost position.
On board 6, Mark responded to the Petroff by playing the Four Knights and it looked like he was going to face a tough defence when his opponent dropped a pawn in the early middlegame, leaving Mark with a passed a-pawn. Mark then put in a strong performance and his opponent's position fell apart as he tried to generate counterplay to get something from the game.
On board 7, John played a Sicilian Defence and found himself a little behind in development and with his opponent having 2 strong central pawns. His opponent forced weaknesses in John's position and exploited them well, to get to an endgame 2 pawns up, one of them passed on d6. Reaching the 30 move time control, his opponent then waited, apparently for time to be called, when it seemed a fairly simple task to win the ending. The game was nonetheless adjourned to be played on later. Perhaps John has drawing chances.