December results for Ealing 2 in Middlesex League Div.2
: Created:06 Jan 2010 , by Alastair JohnstoneEaling 2 had mixed fortunes in two matches played before Christmas, suffering a first defeat of the season away to Willesden before bouncing back strongly to win at home vs Imperial College. Details inside.
Middlesex League Division 2 | 4th January 2010 | ||||
Bd | Willesden | Result | Ealing 2 | ||
1 | 190 | D Foord | 1 - 0 | A Wells | 182 |
2 | 165 | A Fulton | 1 - 0 | C Greenshields | 175 |
3 | 159 | G Batchelor | 1 - 0 | S Tserendorj | 174 |
4 | 156 | P Batchelor | 0.5-0.5 | N Grozdanic | |
5 | 160 | D Fanning | 0.5-0.5 | M Stevic | |
6 | 146 | K Jones | 0.5-0.5 | C D Gibbons | 148 |
7 | 140 | A Rawlings | 0.5-0.5 | S Healeas | 151 |
8 | 128 | Â S Share | 0.5-0.5 | A Johnstone | 133 |
5.5-2.5 |
Chris Greenshields reports: Tonight was really one of the strangest matches in which I have captained the 2nd team. We were playing a Willesden team that was (I guess) little better than us on paper. Certainly we performed quite well against them both home and away two seasons ago so had nothing to fear.
My game was the first to finish, in which I allowed my opponent too much time to attack, and got into big trouble and lost. Sainbayar then also lost so we were 2-0 down early on.
Alastair, already a pawn down, then offered his opponent a piece. In case his opponent failed to notice, Alastair got up and started shaking his head. His opponent failed to take the piece. More on this game later.
The new players, Nevenko Grozdanic and Malinko Stevic, both found themselves in very drawish positions, as did Simon, and all games inevitably petered out to draws. 3.5-1.5. The remaining matches all seemed level. How were we going to get back into the match?
Suddenly Tony spotted a pawn grab in a 2B + 5P ending and was winning against a strong opponent. Dale agreed a draw, but then Alastair seemed to be making progress in a 5 pawn ending. Suddenly Tony seemed in the clear, his opponent must drop a bishop and lose? By now Alastair had a won K + P v K ending. We were going to DRAW the MATCH.
Then... horror! Tony missed something in time pressure and went from a win to a draw to a loss while Alastair failed to convert his winning K + P v K ending.
So Willesden managed to win 5.5-2.5. I just don't know how that happened. I guess it was just one of those nights...
Middlesex League Division 2 | 10th December 2009 | ||||
Bd | Ealing 2 | Result | Imperial College | ||
1 | 175 | C Greenshields | 0.5-0.5 | P Casaschi | 172 |
2 | 174 | S Tserendorj | 1-0 | S Ghoussain | 171 |
3 | 147 | M Winterbotham | 0.5-0.5 | A Osa-Afiana | 144 |
4 | 148 | C D Gibbons | 1-0 | A Luo | 136 |
5 | 136 | R Jhooti | 0.5-0.5 | A Castillo | |
6 | S Sarna | 1 - 0 | P da Rocha Pinto | ||
7 | 138 | J Torrance | 0.5-0.5 | J Wong | |
8 | 133 | A Johnstone | 0.5-0.5 | S Wood | |
5.5-2.5 |
Three nights later and Chris's horrors were absolved by a convincing win at home to Imperial, who have administered some dreadful thrashings to us in the past. On this occasion however, a steady performance by the whole team averted further embarassment.
Sainbayar returned to form with a typically assertive perfomance on two, Dale launched a successful attack on four and Sam continued his tremendous debut season with a further win on six. Although Alastair enjoyed strong pressure on his opponent's position, accurate defence prevented Ealing from recording a clean sweep with the White pieces.
The real 'story' of the night however, took place on board three. In a frantic quickplay finish (is there any other kind?) Mark captured a pawn with a knight, (letting go of the knight and removing the pawn from the board), leaving the Imperial player with no pieces (apart from his king). The Ealing player had a knight and a pawn on the board. The Imperial player then announced the Ealing player's flag had fallen before the Ealing player had pressed his clock.
It should be said that there was no animosity from either side nor any dispute about the sequence of events, merely genuine confusion as to the interpretation of the rules. After referring the matter to 'higher authorities', it was deemed that, in accordance with FIDE article 6.9, the game was indeed drawn, viz.:
"Except where one of the Articles: 5.1.a, 5.1.b, 5.2.a, 5.2.b, 5.2.c applies, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player. 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."
Under Article 4 (touch move and hand off done) any move other than the capture of the final pawn would not be legal.'