| | Bury St Edmunds | 19/10/23 | Manningtree |
| 1 | Newton, Peter | 1710 | 0 - 1 | Webber, Simon | 1739 |
| 2 | Jones, Robert L | 1711 | ½ - ½ | Stephens, Robert W | 1728 |
| 3 | Pugh, Daniel | 1646 | 0 - 1 | Jones, Graeme | 1722 |
| 4 | Harrison, Danny | 1639 | 1 - 0 | McAllister, John WF | 1652 |
| | | | 1½ - 2½ | | |
|
You might be interested in a little history here. When we won this trophy in 2016-17 (as the U145 Cup) we did so with a prior
record of not having won a single match in this competition in any of the six seasons we had entered it. And since then we
have finished bottom or joint bottom every year except for last year. Furthermore, we would not have won it at all had it
not been for two unexpected results in the final matches of that season where we stood half a point above Bury in the table,
but where Bury were poised to overtake us. Bury´s bottom board outgraded his opponent by over 50 points but had somehow
managed to lose, while our dear, late Alan Story turned down a draw offer in a completely dead, bishop of opposite colour
ending with a couple of pawns each. Half a dozen moves later his opponent´s bishop had disappeared and Alan went on
to win. Maybe this year it will be our turn again.
Bob was playing Bob again in a fairly closed game in which both players were content to exchange pieces and keep the boat
from rocking. After several exchanges there were stll fourteen pawns on the board and as neither side could take control of
the open file a draw seemed almost inevitable.
Graeme played the exchange variation of the Ruy Lopez giving him a very strong centre after the opening. However, he
blundered whilst manoeuvring his pieces to form an attack, which led to another exchange variation, i.e. the loss of his
rook for a bishop. His attack however still had some impetus, but it lacked ammunition, particularly as his opponent
focused on exchanging pieces to reduce material. He then witnessed what he described as "the poorest move I have seen
in my 42 year chess career" when his opponent offered to exchange queens - except he´d placed his queen on an
unprotected square. So Graeme just took it and his opponent resigned.
John had faced a typical QGD and reached the point where he felt a thrust through the centre was in order. But when his
opponent exchanged a knight on a crowded board, for some reason John thought his opponent had captured a protected pawn
instead and initiated a sacrificial attack of his own that he calculated would leave him a pawn up with his opponent´s
pawns scattered, all the minor pieces off the board, and his opponent´s king still uncastled. When the flurry of
exchanges ended he was surprised to find that his opponent still had a piece left. There was a little compensation,
although not much, but a few moves later, in order to prevent a smothered mate he made a move that would rival Graeme´s
opponent´s for the poorest move ever and lost his queen for nothing.
With the match score level we now turned our attention to Simon, who had been excelling himself once again on board one.
In a QGD his opponent had played e5 too early, allowing Simon to win the pawn, but at the cost of giving up both bishops
for black´s knights. Simon figured he could hold onto the pawn but the bishop pair was certainly reasonable compensation
for black, who managed to find a way to equalise through a series of exchanges that left Simon with isolated a and c pawns,
and it proved difficult to hold them both. Simon managed to exchange all the queenside pawns and the rooks, but at the cost
of king activity, and although still a pawn up, it led to a theoretically drawn but complex pawn ending, due to the fact that
the black king could get among the enemy pawns first. Simon played with precision while his opponent appeared more concerned
with Simon´s threatening pawns than the need to advance his own h pawn, and having wasted a tempo by advancing his g pawn
he came second in the ensuing pawn race.
|
|