Last week I published the result and an express report on the derby clash between Hebden Bridge Chess Club’s ‘A’ and ‘B’ teams. They currently occupy opposite ends of the Division 1 table so it was no surprise to see the ‘A’ team win by such a convincing margin. For those lucky readers who may have been on annual leave last week, I set you some homework in the form of a position from each game with a question to answer. (Thanks to those who did submit comments against the article. All the answers were correct so well spotted.) You’ll find those answers in the full game commentaries below.
In the event the match could have been much closer because two ‘B’ team players succeeded in gaining significant advantages before letting their more illustrious opponents wriggle free. The ‘B’ team was slightly under strength due to the absence of board 3 regular Andy Leatherbarrow but the ‘A’ team fielded their strongest side.
The first test I posed in the express report was from John Kerrane’s game against Matthew Wedge Roberts on board 4. John e-mailed me the day after the game to say that, after analysing the game again, he thought he had accepted the draw in a position of some dominance. Indeed, he thought he was winning. The game viewer below is set to show the final position but you can play through the whole game as well if you like. I’ve added some further commentary.
I asked readers to assess the final position and the answer to the question appears to be that White is better, probably winning. But there would still have been much work to do even if John had been able to find the tricky line given above. Ultimately, I suspect that, as he was playing an opponent in good form and with a far superior grading, he was more than happy with a draw and therefore wasn’t really looking for a win. He wasn’t the only one I don’t think!
The second position from the post earlier this week was from the board 3 game between the two team Captains. As you’ll see from the game and commentary below, Martin Syrett acquitted himself very well indeed in the opening and obtained a very good advantage going into the middle game. The viewer below is set to start at the crucial position with Martin (White) to play. This one was a move order trick. Martin simply picked the wrong piece to capture with on c5 and allowed Alastair to sacrifice his rook for Martin’s rampant knight and powerful bishop. In this case the two pieces were definitely worth more than the rook.
Position three was from the top board encounter between Pete Olley and Dave Wedge. This game (like the last one) also saw Black employ Alekhine’s Defence, but this time Black got the better of the opening and Dave capitalised with a nice combination early in the middle game. This is given in the viewer below and the whole game is also available to play through. Unfortunately, Pete never really got a foot hold in the game and Dave played clinically to convert the single pawn advantage to the full point.
Our fourth featured game (for they really were all rather interesting encounters in their own ways) was played between Neil Bamford and Nick Sykes. Neil had played the role of “super sub” in the ‘B’ team’s last match away to Halifax where his win on board 5 was the foundation for a creditable drawn match. On this occasion Nick had too much for him although he fought gamely and with no little ingenuity. The full game is given below and again I’ve set the viewer to display the puzzle I set earlier this week. On this occasion I was asking you to find Nick’s move 1…Qe7 and also the improvement that he overlooked which was 1…Rc8!?.
So, finally, let’s look at the other drawn game in the match between Dave Shapland and Matthew Parsons. Matthew surprised Dave with his choice of opening which yielded a similar type of position to those encountered in closed Ruy Lopez. It’s fair to say that Matthew was more familiar with the strategic ideas than Dave was and, as a result, he developed some strong pressure as the middle game progressed. In the position I gave last week I wanted you to find 1…Bb5! which wins Black the exchange. There are a couple of variations depending on whether White responds with 2.Bd1 or 2.Ba4 so I hope you managed to find the right continuations in each line.
As the game progressed Dave just managed to hold off Matthew’s direct attack on his king and even obtained a mathematically favorable ending which is quite instructive to play through the sub variations of. The computer provides the best lines of course but some of the technique it indicates is interesting. Ultimately the ending seems to have been theoretically drawn although it is never quite as easy as it looks. Dave, like John before him, was certainly happy to take a draw off Matthew who is yet to lose a game in Calderdale this season. The notes in the game viewer below are Dave's.
All of this means that the ‘A’ team re-took the lead in the Division (Huddersfield were scheduled to play last Thursday but I haven't seen a result published) and the ‘B’ team stayed rooted in the relegation zone. It looks to me like they must now make wins against Todmorden ‘A’, Belgrave and Brighouse if they are to have any hope of surviving. Their other fixture is away to Huddersfield and whilst they could do their colleagues in the ‘A’ team a huge favour by getting a result there, I don’t think they’ll be holding their breath!
The ‘A’ team will play their match in hand at home to Halifax ‘A' tonight and the ‘C’ and ‘D’ teams will also be in action in Division 2. Stay tuned for more action next week then.
Monday, 28 February 2011
Wednesday, 23 February 2011
Derby double for the 'A's: Express Report
John Kerrane reports on the second Division 1 derby clash between our ‘A’ and ‘B’ teams.
"On Monday evening at the Trades Club, Holme Street, Hebden Bridge Chess Club’s B team faced their toughest challenge of the season when they played at home against their own A team, the current Calderdale League First Division leaders.
Realistically, if the B team could expect to beat the A team, there would be something wrong with the selection, but the result was closer than the scoreline, a 4-1 win to the A team, might suggest. All the games were close, and the two draws by Dave Shapland on board 2 against Matthew Parsons, and between John Kerrane and Matthew Wedge-Roberts on board 4, were well-deserved."
The individual results were:
"On Monday evening at the Trades Club, Holme Street, Hebden Bridge Chess Club’s B team faced their toughest challenge of the season when they played at home against their own A team, the current Calderdale League First Division leaders.
Realistically, if the B team could expect to beat the A team, there would be something wrong with the selection, but the result was closer than the scoreline, a 4-1 win to the A team, might suggest. All the games were close, and the two draws by Dave Shapland on board 2 against Matthew Parsons, and between John Kerrane and Matthew Wedge-Roberts on board 4, were well-deserved."
The individual results were:
Hebden Bridge ‘B’ – Hebden Bridge ‘A’
P. Olley 0 – 1 D. Wedge
D. Shapland ½ - ½ M. Parsons
M. Syrett 0 – 1 A. Wright
J. Kerrane ½ -½ M. Wedge-Roberts
N. Bamford 0 – 1 N. Sykes
1 – 4
I plan to post the games in full with some more detailed commentary on Friday but in the meantime (it being half term and some of you having nothing better to do!) here are some interesting positions from the match. In each case I've set a little problem for readers to assess the situations themselves.
First up, here is the final position from Kerrane vs. Wedge-Roberts. A draw was agreed here with White to move. How would you assess the situation below? Should White continue playing for a win, is a draw the best he can hope for, or is Black better?
![]() |
| White (John Kerrane) to play |
The next position is from Syrett vs. Wright. It's White to play and he has managed to obtain a good positional advantage. What is the right continuation?
![]() |
| White (Martin Syrett) to play |
Next, on board 1, Pete Olley and Dave Wedge reached the position below with Dave to play. How did he obtain a material advantage?
![]() |
| Black (Dave Wedge) to play |
Here is an interesting position from the board 5 encounter between Neil Bamford and Nick Sykes. Black is winning but he must proceed with care owing to his pinned bishop. Nick considered both 1...Qb6 and also 1...Qe7. Which of these two moves is correct and why? Can you find anything better for Black?
![]() |
| Black (Nick Sykes) to play |
Finally, from Shapland vs. Parsons. White has just played 20.Ne2 to which Matthew responded with 20...Qf6. He has a better move. What had both players overlooked?
![]() |
| Black (Matthew Parsons) to play |
The answers and full moves for all these games will be revealed on Friday. Please feel free to add comments to this post if you think you know the answers. No prizes, just a bit of fun.
Tuesday, 22 February 2011
Opening theory aids digestion
In today’s post we welcome back Colonel Walter Polhill (RTD) to our humble blog. The Colonel wrote a series of erudite articles for The Independent on Sunday back in the late 90’s and yours truly has excavated them, dusted them down and now presents once more for your enlightenment. In this article the Colonel tackles the knotty issue of opening theory and reveals the real reason why so many Grand Master games follow the opening books for so many moves.
“The true value of opening theory is not generally understood. Studying the opening to such a degree that one may reel off a dozen or 20 moves by rote is, above all, an aid to digestion. Some tournament organisers, for reasons best known to themselves, insist on starting play in the very early afternoon. This presents a stark choice: forgo lunch, risk indigestion by attempting to think too soon after a meal, or rely on opening theory until the meal is digested.”
![]() |
| Valeri Salov: "Not a man who takes his luncheon seriously." |
“The true value of opening theory is not generally understood. Studying the opening to such a degree that one may reel off a dozen or 20 moves by rote is, above all, an aid to digestion. Some tournament organisers, for reasons best known to themselves, insist on starting play in the very early afternoon. This presents a stark choice: forgo lunch, risk indigestion by attempting to think too soon after a meal, or rely on opening theory until the meal is digested.”
Labels:
Chess Ethics,
Colonel Walter Polhill (RTD),
Humour
Friday, 18 February 2011
Chess lovers mate on Valentine's night!
![]() |
| A bacchanalian orgy did not take place at the Trades Club on Valentine's night! (Auguste Leveque ca. 1890-1910) |
No, not some depraved bacchanalian orgy at the Trades Club, just round 4 of the Calderdale Individual Chess Championships! Sorry, I couldn’t resist the temptation to post a gross and unsuitably sordid headline and accompanying image as the lead for this most sombre of occasions.
Seriously though, someone must have a word with the League Fixtures Secretary who deemed it fit to locate this event on the 14th of February and thus place the chess players of the Calder Valley on collision courses with their other halves. Your editor (who is not playing in this year’s championship) therefore took the opportunity, along with several participants, to pursue his “romantic” interests. Yes, that’s right, I stayed at home to study the games of Labourdonnais, Staunton, Anderrsen and Morphy.
Enough of the light humour! Round 4 is traditionally the point at which the really critical encounters in the competition start to take place. This year was no exception. Event Organiser, John Kerrane, provides the story of the night’s events in his column for the Hebden Bridge Times.
“Attention was focused on the match on board 1, between Matthew Parsons and Dave Wedge, both of Hebden Bridge. The game was the last to finish, and the situation looked like a draw until, with both players short of time, Wedge made an error in the endgame, and Parsons emerged the winner with a score of 4/4 in the competition so far. In the fifth and last round on 14th March, he must face John Morgan (Courier) who beat Angel Gonzalez of Belgrave to bring his score to 3½. Only a win will do for Morgan, while a draw will secure the championship for Parsons, which should guarantee an exciting finish. On the lower boards, John Whitehead of Courier continued his strong showing with a draw against Mike Barnett of Belgrave, rated 60 points above him.”
No doubt about which game was the main event then! Here is the eagerly anticipated match up between Hebden Bridge’s top 2 players. I make no apologies for focusing my efforts on providing some sort of commentary on this game to the neglect of the others.
On board two, John Morgan made fairly light work of Angel Gonzalez who can be an obdurate opponent on his day (as I know from my own experience).
What this should mean is that John will have the White pieces in the last round against Matthew who essentially plays the game with draw odds for the title. It should be another tense affair and it will be interesting to see how the two combatants approach the contest.
Elsewhere, John Kerrane mentions in his commentary about John Whitehead’s good form in this competition. From what I’ve been able to observe he has consistently found ways of stirring up trouble in his matches and has reaped the rewards with a nice win against Adrian Dawson in round 3 and, below, a very creditable draw with Mike Barnett on Monday night.
Some of the other interesting games from the round included an almost inevitable draw between old adversaries Alastair Wright and Nick Sykes. These two must have played hundreds of times in friendly games at the club and although the result was therefore no surprise, this shouldn’t give the impression that they chopped wood and agreed an early peace. In fact Alastair chanced his arm by playing a sort of Pseudo-Orangutan (2.b4!?) and although Nick secured an excellent position out of the opening as a result he ultimately couldn’t make it pay.
Former Champion, Andy Leatherbarrow continued in his resurgent form since the season’s Christmas break by executing a smooth win over John Aldridge. He now joins a group of 5 players occupying 3rd-7th places behind Parsons and Morgan.
Robert Sutcliffe (Huddersfield) has had an excellent tournament this season. He also sits in the 3rd-7th placed group and, thus far, his only defeat has been to the tournament leader who he pushed to the very limit in round 3. On Monday he also won in a Sicilian Defence, although this time with the Black pieces, against Hebden Bridge’s Dave Sugden.
That game brings round 4 coverage to a close. Full results for the round are given on the Calderdale Individual Championship page of this site. Current standings after 4 rounds are therefore as follows:
4 points: M.Parsons
3½ points: J.Morgan
3 points: D.Wedge, A.Leatherbarrow, S.Gornall, R.Sutcliffe, M.Syrett
2½ points: C.Booth, A.Wright, M.Barnett, M.Wedge-Roberts, N.Sykes, P.Edwards, A.Gonzalez, J.Whitehead
2 points: D.Sugden, A.Dawson, S.Priest, J.Blinkhorn, M.Shah, J.Aldridge, B.Corner, N.Bamford, T.Webster
1½ points: P.Olley, C.Edwards, D.Milton
1 point: J.Nicholson, J.Todd, B.Wadsworth, J.Gilhooley, C.Greaves, P.Dearden
½ point: D.Crampton, D.Pugh
0 points: M.Levy, J.P.Ellis, T.Whelan
Withdrawn: T.Sullivan, D.Ursal, M.Webster, H.Webb, C.Velosa
Of course there will be coverage of the final and decisive round shortly after it takes place on the 14th of March. Next week we return to Division 1 action as the Hebden Bridge ‘A’ and ‘B’ teams meet for the second derby clash of the season.
Wednesday, 16 February 2011
The Miracle of Alwoodley
![]() |
| H.G.Wells, a chess miserablist |
Lucky Sweatshirt Chronicles - Chapter 2
Readers may well remember that last November I posted my theory about an old grey sweatshirt that I possess which I believe may have mysteriously acquired magical properties. On that occasion I published some statistical analysis that seemed to indicate that my thesis was more than a passing fancy. At the time I also suggested that, having made my madcap ideas public, I would surely go down in flames in my next match whilst wearing the sweatshirt. As it turned out it wasn't the next game but it did happen shortly afterwards and I consigned my superstitions to the waste paper basket of history.
How could I have been so rash? I have surely paid the price for my lack of faith. Since this poor result in the sweatshirt back in December I have had a pretty awful run of results which, I ashamed to say, has seen me score a miserable 4 out of 9. This sequence included a series of games where I scored a mere ½ point from 5 games. Such misery has befallen me and I have surely brought it upon myself!
Within this rather glum period though, there has been one bright spot. In January I played another round of the Leeds Rapidplay League and, feeling that a change in time limits might be just the thing to bring about a change of form as well, I donned the old grey sweatshirt (with no expectations whatsoever) and sallied forth to do battle against the league leaders, Hepworth Browne. With an International Master on board 1 and two very strong players on boards 2 and 3, our opponents were clear favorites for victory and indeed they did win comfortably in the event by a score of 4-2. But, guess what? I scored the two points and with a couple of nice efforts as well.
| It's back and it smells of concentration! |
In the first game I had the Black pieces and straightaway could sense that I might be about to have a good night when my opponent allowed me to play one of my pet openings, the Budapest Gambit. The game continued in a fairly thematic fashion but White allowed me to grab first his h and then his e-pawns as I got a decent advantage. This came at a cost however as I got behind on the clock with plenty of complexity still in the position. In the game viewer below we join the action in the critical position after White has played his 31st move but the whole game can be played through from the start if you wish to see how the story unfolded.
The second game began shortly afterwards and at this point I realised that our opponents had been particularly cunning because my adversary from the first game now deferred to another player who now conducted the Black pieces against me. There is nothing in the rules to prevent a team from doing this, the only question was, would this fresh player have an advantage of not having had to suffer the stress of game one, or would he come to the game a bit cold? As it turned out I got yet another opening line that I felt comfortable with (this time the White side of a Petroff's Defence) and when my opponent played a little inaccurately in the opening I was able to build up a decent advantage which I converted much more attractively than I could have expected to had I not been in the sweatshirt. Once again the critical position is shown in the game viewer below but the whole game is also available.
The power of the lucky sweatshirt had inspired me that evening at Hepworth Browne but this was a rapidplay game and I stubbornly passed off my success in the garment as being a fluke. In my next few standard time limit league matches my poor form continued. And then, last Wednesday night, the incident that will become known only as "The Miracle of Alwoodley" happened.
On this occasion I deliberately took the sweatshirt to work with me so that I could change into it before my Leeds League match against Alwoodley A who are top of the division and very strong. I had played my board 3 opponent in the corresponding home fixture earlier in the season and he had pasted me. The likelihood was that he would do so again and so I thought "I may as well put the sweatshirt on. I'll need all the luck I can get". Boy oh boy, did I get some luck!
The game viewer below shows the position at time control on move 35. I had strained every sinew to withstand my opponents nagging pressure and had got into severe timetrouble. I just made the time control but by that point I had lost control of the position on the board and all looked lost. What is more, the rest of my team, having mostly been soundly thrashed, were loitering in the bar and had left me to my agonies. They probably thought I'd be dead in another 5 minutes.
How to explain this extraordinary turn around? I was even winning at the end but we both had seconds on our clocks and I didn't want to risk losing the whole point again. Surely, the only explaination for my opponents uncharacteristic meltdown was the lucky sweatshirt. A happy impertinence indeed! Watch this space for further adventures with the dirty old sweatshirt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)







