English players finish in style

Peter Walker 2002

The 16 players who represented England in the World Youth Championships in Crete during the past 12 days have repaid amply the confidence placed in them by Peter Turner, the BCF's Director of Junior Chess. It is only since Peter took over at the helm of British Junior Chess that this country has been properly represented at events such as this. Under numerous previous Directors, England took up only a fraction of the places to which they were entitled, and the situation was especially bad amongst the Girls' and younger players' sections. This was a very strange policy considering that the BCF does not pay for the players to travel out to whichever country hosts the event: that privilege invariably falls to the parents concerned who, unless they can persuade someone to sponsor their offspring, may well end up with a bill in excess of 1000 for air fares and accommodation. However, we live in more enlightened times now and it is the sort of experience that our top players get, battling it out against the best in the world, which makes them even stronger and raises the standard for the rest of their colleagues to aim for.

There were two Essex players representing different age groups. George O'Toole (Southend, not E. London as Malcolm Pein put in the D. Telegraph) would have been disappointed with his finish in the under 11 section, managing just a single draw from his last three games, but nevertheless can be proud to have finished on 50%, having been in the top half of the draw for most of the Championships and still young enough to take part next year. Li Wu (Redbridge) moved to Essex from Warwickshire only a few weeks before the Championships and his 6½/11 in the under 14 included 3½ from the last 5 rounds. His record with White was superb, yielding 5½ and rivalling that of Luka Lenic (YUG), the eventual Champion, but Lenic also managed 4½ with Black. There will be no question that Li's training schedule in the future will involve a good deal of work on his openings as Black.

The best performance by a member of the England party was that of David Howell (Sussex), who achieved the Bronze Medal in the under 12. David lost twice, once to the Russian Gold Medallist Ian Nepomniachtchi in round 5, and in round 8 to Ngoc Truong Son Nguyen (VIE) who will have been heartbroken to have lost in rounds 9 and 10, thereby finishing without a medal after being amongst the leaders throughout the Competition.

It is very pleasing that almost all of the players scored 50% or more and their final round haul of 12½ / 16 was a remarkable achievement.

The England Team Statistics

Section Name Score / 11 Pos No. in
section
Boys' u18 Craig Hanley 26 86
Boys' u18 Simon Buckley 6 36 86
Girls' u18 Teresa Khoo 42 58
Boys' u16 Ameet Ghasi 7 16 90
Boys' u16 Gawain Jones 7 17 90
Girls' u16 Jessie Gilbert 19 69
Boys' u14 Thirumurugan Thiruchelvam 11 99
Boys' u14 Li Wu 28 99
Girls' u14 Katie Martin 46 83
Girls' u14 Poppy Aarons 49 83
Boys' u12 David Howell 3 117
Boys' u12 James Hanley 62 117
Girls' u12 Selina Khoo 9 84
Girls' u14 Molly Moruzzi 68 84
Boys' u10 George O'Toole 54 107
Girls' u10 Amisha Parma 6 30 69

This represents a team total of 106 points from a possible 176, or 62%

Howell,D (2224) - Susilodinata,A (2242) [C02]
WORLD YOUTH CHESS 2002 - B12 (10.4), 23.11.2002

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Qb6 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Be2 Bd7 7.0-0 cxd4 8.cxd4 Nge7 9.Na3 Nf5 10.Nc2 Be7 11.Bd3 Nh4 12.Nxh4 Bxh4 13.Qg4 Be7 14.Qxg7 0-0-0 15.Qxf7 h5 16.Qf4 Rhg8 17.Qe3 Rg7 18.Kh1 Rdg8 19.Rg1 h4 20.b3 Bg5 21.f4 Be7 22.Bd2 Kb8 23.g3 Qd8 24.gxh4 Bxh4 25.Rxg7 Rxg7 26.Rg1 Rf7 27.f5 Qh8 28.f6 a6 29.Qf4 Ka7 30.Rg4 Bxf6 31.exf6 Rxf6 32.Qg3 Rf8 33.Rh4 Qf6 34.Bg5 Qf3+ 35.Qxf3 Rxf3 36.Bg6 e5 37.dxe5 Nxe5 38.Be3+ Rxe3 39.Nxe3 Nxg6 40.Rd4 Bc6 41.Kg1 Kb6 42.b4 Ne7 43.h4 Kc7 44.h5 Kd6 45.h6 Ng6 46.h7 Bd7 47.Rxd5+ Ke6 48.Rg5 Nh4 49.Kf2 Kf6 50.Rg8 Ng6 51.Rxg6+ Kxg6 1-0

See British Chess Federation website for further details.

4NCL Rounds 1 & 2

The Four Nations Chess League kicked off in its new four-division format. Wood Green are the favourites in Division 1, and to prove it they notched up two 7 - 1 wins, firstly against South Wales Dragons and they followed this up with a merciless display against their own second team. Barbican I, led by Essex top player Jonathan Rogers, were the only other team to win their opening two fixtures. Again, their own second team were the victims in the first round, although the score of 5 - 3 was a little more respectable for the underdogs. David Coleman beat Sam Collins in a remarkably brief Sicilian Dragon in which White launched an enormous king-side attack before Black had castled so, at the right moment, he coolly castled queenside. Richard Palliser scored an impressive point against Lawrence Trent's King's Indian, White's winning plan being based upon taking control of the open h-file (see below).

In the second round Barbican I were underdogs against Guildford-ADC but overcame their impressive adversaries as Richard Palliser scored a magnificent win against Danny Gormally and Sam Collins beat Tony Kosten, who chose to play on while three pawns down in an ending with no appreciable counterplay. Both these wins were with Black.

In Division 3, the "Southern County Stars", including Basildon players Ezra & Josiah Lutton, were thoroughly eclipsed by Guildford-ADC 3, in which the score was 5½-2½ but they were a transformed side for round 2, winning by an even larger margin against a team that outgraded them significantly. This enormous change of fortunes cannot be entirely explained by the replacement of Ezra with Kyle Bennett.

Collins,S (2372) - Coleman,D (2239) [B93]
4NCL/Div1/BARB1-BARB2 West Bromwich ENG (1.5), 2002

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.f4 Qc7 7.a4 b6 8.Bd3 g6 9.Nf3 Nbd7 10.0-0 Bg7 11.Qe1 Bb7 12.Qh4 e6 13.f5 gxf5 14.exf5 e5 15.Bh6 Bxh6 16.Qxh6 Rg8 17.Ng5 Qc5+ 18.Kh1 Qe3 19.h4 Qg3 20.Rf3 Bxf3 21.gxf3 d5 22.Rg1 Qf4 23.Nxd5 Nxd5 24.Be4 N7f6 25.Bxd5 0-0-0 26.Bxf7 Rd2 27.Rg2 Rd1+ 28.Rg1 Rgd8 29.Bc4 Rxg1+ 30.Kxg1 Qg3+ 0-1

Palliser,R (2455) - Trent,L (2254) [E92]
4NCL/Div1/BARB1-BARB2 West Bromwich ENG (1.1), 2002

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.c4 Bg7 4.Nc3 0-0 5.e4 d6 6.Be2 e5 7.d5 a5 8.Bg5 h6 9.Bh4 Qe8 10.Nd2 Na6 11.0-0 Nh7 12.a3 h5 13.f3 Bd7 14.Kh1 Bh6 15.b3 Be3 16.Qc2 Bc5 17.Bf2 Bxf2 18.Rxf2 f5 19.exf5 gxf5 20.Re1 Qg6 21.f4 e4 22.Nd1 Nf6 23.Ne3 Ng4 24.Nxg4 hxg4 25.Nf1 Rfe8 26.Ne3 g3 27.Rff1 Nc5 28.b4 axb4 29.axb4 Na6 30.Rb1 Qf6 31.hxg3 Qd4 32.Qc1 Re7 33.Kg1 Rg7 34.Kf2 Qf6 (=) 35.Rh1 Qg6 36.Rh3 Qf6 37.Qh1 Nb8 38.Rh8+ Kf7 39.Rh6 Qd4 40.Qh5+ Ke7 41.Qh4+ Kf7 42.Bh5+ 1-0

Gormally,D (2502) - Palliser,R (2455) [B93]
4NCL/Div1/GUI-BARB1 Rd01-West Bromwich (2.1), 2002

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.f4 e5 7.Nf3 Nbd7 8.Bc4 b5 9.Bd5 Rb8 10.fxe5 dxe5 11.Ng5 Nxd5 12.Qxd5 Qe7 13.Be3 b4 14.Ne2 Bb7 15.Qd3 f6 16.Nf3 Qe6 17.Ng3 Nc5 18.Bxc5 Bxc5 19.0-0-0 0-0 20.Kb1 a5 21.Nd2 Rfd8 22.Qf3 a4 23.Nf5 g6 24.Ne3 f5 25.Qh3 Rxd2 26.Rxd2 Bxe4 27.Rhd1 Bd4 28.Rxd4 exd4 29.Rxd4 b3 30.axb3 axb3 31.Kc1 bxc2 32.Nc4 Ra8 33.Kd2 Qf6 34.Rd7 Ra1 35.Qxh7+ Kf8 36.Rf7+ Qxf7 37.Qh8+ Ke7 38.Qe5+ Qe6 39.Qg7+ Ke8 40.Qh8+ Kd7 0-1

See 4NCL website for full details and downloads.
Forsyth:8/2P5/1K1r4/32/k7 Forsyth: 8/K1P4R/8/k7/8/8/2r4p/8
White to play and win. An old study (107 years 8 months give or take a few days) but still one with with huge historical interest and great significance in practical play. Last week's solution (Fahrni v Alapin 1917): An exercise in triangulation & the theory of corresponding squares. As long as Black can maintain the blockade he is OK but White has a greater choice of moves. 1.Kd5 Kc8 2.Kc4 [2.Kd6 Kd8; 2.Kc5 Kc7] 2...Kd8 3.Kd4 Kc8 4.Kd5 Kc7 5.Kc5 Kc8 6.Kb6 and wins It is clear that if White plays Kc5 at any point, Black's must be able to reply Kc7; and if White ever plays Kd6, black must play Kd8. These are Corresponding Squares. Since d5 is the only square from which White's king has a choice of Kc5 and Kd6, it therefore follows that if White plays Kc5, Black must be able to play Kc8, as the only available square from which to play Kc7 and Kd8. Therefore d5 and c8 are, in this position, corresponding squares. Black loses because White is able, through a triangular king manouevre using d4 and c4, to return to d5 while Black's king is already on c8. He therefore reaches the diagrammed position but with Black having the move.

Peter Walker 2002


Back to Index Page

Valid HTML 4.01!