SUSSEX CHESS NEWS GAMES
Donaghy, Daniel (1712) - Fryer, David William (1886)
[...] 1.e4 e5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¥c4 ¤f6 4.¤g5 d5 5.exd5 b5 [#] 6.¥f1
6.¥e2 was played by Daniel without success in the previous encounter between the players: 0-1 Donaghy,D-Fryer,D Crowborough Club Championship 20236...¤d4 7.c3 ¤xd5 8.cxd4 £xg5 9.¥xb5+ ¢d8 10.£f3 ¥b7 11.£xf7?? [#] (11.O-O is the main line) 11...¥e7??
11...¤f6! with the threat of 12...Qxg2 and 12...exd4 while covering d7 and e812.£e6 ¤b6 13.¥c6²13...¥xc6 14.£xc6 exd4 15.O-O £d5 16.£c2 c5 (16...d3 17.£d1 £f5 18.¤c3²) 17.d3±17...¦c8 18.¥f4 ¦f8 19.¥g3 g5 20.¦e1 h5 21.£e2ќ21...£f7 22.h3 h4 23.¥h2 c4 24.¤a3 cxd3 25.£xd3 £xf2+ 26.¢h1 £xb2 27.¤b5 ¥c5 28.¦ab1 £xa2 29.¤xd4 ¥xd4 30.¦xb6 £d5 31.¦d6+
Nicholas, MD. - Rendle, TE.
[...] 1.d4 f5 2.c4 ¤f6 3.g3 d6 4.¤f3 g6 5.¥g2 ¥g7 6.O-O O-O 7.¤c3 c6 8.d5 e5 9.e4 cxd5 10.cxd5 ¤a6 11.¤g5 ¤c5 12.exf5 gxf5 13.b4 ¤a6 14.¤e6 ¥xe6 15.dxe6 e4 16.£b3 £e7 17.¥f4 d5 18.¦ad1 £xe6 19.¥h3 ¦ad8 20.¤b5 ¤g4 21.¥xg4 fxg4 22.¥e3 ¦f3 23.¤d4 £d6 It is unclear from the scoresheet to which square the queen moved. 24.¤xf3 gxf3 25.¦xd5 £xd5 26.¦d1 ¤xb4 27.¦xd5 ¤xd5 28.¥g5 ¦d6 29.£c4 h6 30.¥e7 ¦d7 31.£c8+ ¢f7 32.£xd7 ¤xe7 33.£xb7 ¥d4 34.£xe4 ¥b6 35.£xf3+ ¢e6 36.£h5 ¤f5 37.£g6+ ¢e5 38.¢g2 ¥d4 39.f4+ Source for game: M D Nicholas. The scoresheet does not tell us the date of the game or the competition. However, we know that Mike Nicholas won against Thomas Rendle on board one of a Mid-Sussex League match between The Holt and Hastings 1 on 10th January 2005.
Nicholas, MD. - Hawes, SON.
[...] 1.e4 e5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¥b5 ¤d4 4.¤xd4 exd4 5.O-O c6 6.¥a4 ¥c5 7.d3 d6 8.¤d2 £f6 9.£f3 £g6 10.b4 ¥xb4 11.¦b1 ¥c3 12.e5 dxe5 13.¤c4 ¤e7 14.¥a3 b5 15.¤d6+ ¢f8 16.¥xb5 ¥g4 17.£xc6!17...¤xc6 18.¥xc6 a5?19.¤f5+ ¥b4 20.¦xb4 axb4 21.¥xb4+ ¢g8 22.¤e7+ ¢f8 23.¤xg6+ ¢g8 24.¤e7+ ¢f8 25.¥xa8 ¢e8 Sources: M D Nicholas, T Woo, and 'Sussex Chess News' of July 1985. Mike Nicholas was representing Brighton I and Stephen Hawes Horsham.
Gallagher, JG. - Nicholas, MD.
[...] 1.e4 ¤f6 2.e5 ¤d5 3.d4 d6 4.¤f3 g6 5.¤g5 f6 6.c4 ¤b6 7.e6 fxg5 8.d5 ¥g7 9.h4 gxh4 10.¥d3 ¤8d7 11.exd7+ ¥xd7 12.¦xh4 e6 13.¦xh7 O-O 14.¥xg6 £f6 15.£h5 £xf2+ 16.¢d1 £f1+ 17.¢c2 ¥a4+ 18.b3 £xc4+ 19.¢d2 ¦f2+ 20.¢e3 £d4# Sources: 'Sussex Chess News' of late March 1984 and Birmingham Evening Mail of 14.7.1984.
Mansson, James C (2070) - Savill, Jordy (1792)
Time control: 65 minutes plus 30 second increment
[...] 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 ¤g4 Black adopts the Budapest Gambit, aiming for sharp piece play. The danger is that this is neutralised, leaving Black with a passive position.19.¦f3! White brings the rook up into the attack. The threat is f5 and Rh3. 19...£c8 Black threatens .. .Bg4, but this is easily met.21.¤f6+!21...gxf6 (21...¢h8 22.£xh7#)
3...¤e4 is the sharper Fajarowicz Gambit, best met by 4.a3 to eliminate tricks based on ...Bb4+.4.e3 White adopts a less common approach against the Budapest. (4.¥f4 is the main line.) (4.¤f3 is a popular alternative.) 4...¤xe5 5.¤h3 White aims to control d5 by placing knights on c3 and f4. 5...¥c5 6.¥e2 ¤bc6 7.O-O O-O 8.¤c3 ¦e8 9.¤f4 a5 Black aims to bring his rook on a8 over to the kingside via a6, but White manages to cross his plans. 10.¤a4 ¥f8
10...¥a7 would stop the rook emerging via a6; there is the additional issue that White may be able to play c5, entombing the bishop, at some point.11.b3 ¤e7 12.¥b2 ¤7g6 13.¤d5 ¦a6? Black persists with his plan, but he should abandon it as not viable, and complete his development instead. (13...d6 was more solid, although rather passive.) 14.f4! This is often a strong thrust for White against the Budpest, as it helps gain space and restrict the Black pieces, in particular the knights. 14...¤c6 15.c5! White not only forces the rook back, but also frees c4 for the bishop, from where it puts pressure on the Black kingside. 15...¦a8 16.¥c4 d6 17.£h5! White creates threats on the kingside, while freeing d1 for the rook on a1. There is no reason to worry about the pawn on c5, as taking it opens the d-file, allowing White to put greater pressure on the Black position. 17...dxc5 18.¦ad1 ¥d7 This passive move runs into all sorts of trouble.
18...¥d6 seemed the critical try, although Black still seems in difficulties against accurate play by White. 19.¤f6+ gxf6 20.¥xf7+ ¢g7
20...¢xf7 21.£xh7+ ¢f8 22.£xg6 ¦e6 23.¤xc5 £e8 24.£h6+ ¢e7 25.¤xe6 ¥xe6 26.¥xf6+ ¢d7 27.¥e5 £f8 28.£xf8 ¦xf8 29.¥xd6 cxd6 30.e4ќ and the rook and three pawns outweigh the bishop and knight.21.f5 ¤ce5
21...¦e7 22.fxg6 hxg6 23.£xg6+ ¢f8 (23...¢h8 24.£h6#) 24.£g8#22.¥xe8 £xe8 23.¤b6 cxb6 24.¦xd6 £e7 25.fxg6 hxg6 (25...£xd6 26.£xh7+ ¢f8 27.¥xe5 £xe5 28.£f7#) 26.£d1ќ White has a material advantage as well as a strong attack.
19...¤d4 is an interesting try, but does not seem to work after 20.exd4 b5 21.¤xc7!21...bxc4 (21...£xc7 22.¥xf7+!22...¢xf7 23.f5ќ) 22.¤xe8 £xe8 (22...cxb3 23.¤xg7ќ) (22...¥xa4 23.¤xg7ќ) 23.f5ќ20.¦g3 White meets the threat in the simplest way. (20.f5 intending Rh3, is also strong.) 20...¥d6? This allows an immediate finish. However, Black's position is already very bad.
20...¥e6 is met by 21.f5 ¥xf5 22.¦f1 (22.¤ab6 cxb6 23.¤xb6 £c7 24.£xf5ќ) 22...¥e6 23.¦xf7!!23...¢xf7
23...¥xf7 24.¤f6+!24...gxf6 25.¦xg6+ hxg6 26.£xg6+ ¥g7 27.¥xf6ќ24.£xh7 ¤ce7 (24...¤ge7 25.¦xg7+ ¥xg7 26.£xg7#) (24...¤ce5 25.¥xe5 ¤xe5 26.£h5+ќ) (24...¤ge5 25.¥xe5 ¤xe5 26.£h5+ќ) 25.¤xc5ќ and Black can't meet the various threats.
21...¢f8 22.¤xh7+ ¢g8 (22...¢e7 23.£g5+ f6 24.¥xf6+ gxf6 25.£xf6#) 23.£xg6ќ forces mate.22.¦xg6+!22...¢f8
22...hxg6 23.£xg6+ ¢h8 (23...¢f8 24.£xf7#) 24.¥xf6#(22...¢h8 23.¥xf6#) 23.£h6+! This is the quickest. Black resigned, rather than be mated on the next move. (23.£h6+!23...¢e7 24.¥xf6#)
Britnell, Jonathan (1924) - Mansson, James C (2084)
Time control: 65 minutes plus 30 second increment - Match played at Horsham
[...] 1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 ¤c6 6.¥g5 e6 7.£d2 a6 8.O-O-O ¥d7 9.f4 b5 10.¤xc6 My opponent was obviously unfamiliar with the theory of this line, as he spent a while deciding on this innocuous move and its dubious follow-up. (10.¥xf6 gxf6 leads to the complex main lines.) 10...¥xc6 11.e5?! This does not work, as is demonstrated in the game. White should choose a less forcing move.(11.£e3 ¥e7›) 11...dxe5 12.£xd8+?! This just leads to a bad endgame, as White cannot exploit the pin on the knight.
11.¥d3 b4 12.¥xf6 gxf6 transposes to a line usually reached after 10 Bxf6 gxf6. 13.¤e2 £b6›
11.£e1 ¥e7 12.e5
12.¥d3 ¤d7 13.¥xe7 £xe7 14.£g3 O-O 15.f5 b4 16.¤e2 ¤c5 17.fxe6 fxe6³12...¤d5 13.¥xe7 £xe7 14.¤e4 dxe5 15.fxe5 O-O 16.¥d3 ¤f4 17.¦f1 ¤g6 18.£g3 £h4
12.fxe5 £xd2+ 13.¦xd2 ¤d7 14.¥f4 ¥e7³ followed by ...0-0 gives Black a preferable endgame, but less advantageous than the game, as White is better placed to defend his weaknesses.
12.£e1 £c7 13.fxe5 ¤g4 14.¥f4 ¥c5 15.¦d2 ¦d8³ gives Black the initiative.12...¦xd8 13.¦xd8+ ¢xd8 14.fxe5 h6! This is why 11 e5 and 12 Qxd8+ is wrong. Black breaks the pin on the knight. 15.¥h4
15.¥xf6+ gxf6 16.exf6 ¦g8 Black is temporarily a pawn down, but will regain it because of his pressure on g2.
15.exf6 hxg5 16.fxg7 ¥xg7 Black has the bishop pair and strong pressure on the White queenside.15...g5 16.¥f2
16.exf6 gxh4 Black's pawns are split, but he has the bishop pair. Also, White's pawns, particularly his g-pawn, are vulnerable. Black threates ...h3, or ...Rg8 and ...Bxg2. Moving the rook to g1 can be met by ...Bc5.16...¤d7 17.¥d3 ¥g7 Black decided to complete his development before taking either the e- or g-pawn. 18.¦d1 ¢c7 Black has a decision where to go with the king. The move played looks to guard the queenside.
18...¢e7 is the alternative, looking to support the central pawns with the king.19.¤e4 ¥xe5 20.g3 f5 Black starts to get his pawns moving. 21.¤c5 ¤xc5 22.¥xc5 ¦e8 This is a good square for the rook, supporting the advance of the pawns in the centre. 23.a4!? White tries to mix things up. 23...bxa4 24.¥xa6 ¦b8 25.c3 ¥d5 26.¦e1 ¥f6!? (26...¥d6 27.¥xd6+ ¢xd6 is a simpler approach.) 27.¥a3 ¥b3 28.¥b4 e5 29.¥a5+ ¢c6 30.c4 White intends Bc3xe5 as well a the more obvious Bb5+. 30...g4 This is one way to deal with the threat, which also prepares to support the advance of the e-pawn. 31.¥c3 ¥g5+ This is the point; Black unpins the e-pawn, allowing it to advance. 32.¢b1 e4 33.¦f1 ¦d8 Black sets up the threat of ...Rd1# should the White rook leave the back rank, e.g. by playing Rxf5. This leaves White totally tied up. 34.¥b5+ ¢b6 This is the most accurate as it holds up the advance of the c-pawn. 35.¥e5 e3 White has no defence against ...e2 and ... Rd1+, and so resigned.
David Graham - Mark Broom
David Graham is a good friend of mine and we have played many times. Most have been drawn, but all of the decisive games have been in his favour; until this one!
[...] 1.e4 e5 2.¤f3 ¤f6 3.¤xe5 d6 4.¤xf7 ¢xf7 the Cochrane gambit 5.d4 ¥e7 6.¤c3 ¦e8 7.¥c4+ d5 8.¤xd5 ¥e6 9.O-O ¥xd5 10.exd5 ¥d6 11.¥g5 ¤bd7 12.¥d3 ¢g8 13.c4 ¥e7 14.£f3 ¤f8 Up until now both sides have played sensible moves. We both thought that white's next was a mistake 15.¦fe1 ¤xd5 16.¥xe7 White has a better alternative here, which seems to lead to a draw by repetition (16.¦e2 ¤b4 17.¦ae1 ¤xd3 18.£xd3 ¤g6 19.¦e6 £d7 20.£e4 ¢f8 21.£f5+ ¢g8)
A. Martinez-Sykora - J. Wilson
[...] 1.c4 ¤f6 2.¤f3 e6 3.g3 b6 4.¥g2 ¥b7 5.O-O ¥e7 6.¤c3 O-O 7.£c2 7.d4 transposes into the Queen's Indian, while 7.Re1 is apparently very popular with a view to playing e4. 7...d5 8.¤e5 c5 9.d3 ¤c6 10.¤xc6 ¥xc6 11.e4 dxc4 11...d4 wins a tempo, but I wasn't so keen to close the centre. 12.dxc4 £c8 13.¥f4 £b7 14.¦ad1 ¦ad8 15.f3 h6 A useful waiting move, but it seems there is little happening. 16.b3 ¦d7 17.¦xd7 ¤xd7 18.¦d1 ¥f6 Another bishop gravitates to a long diagonal. 19.¥c1 The key moment. After a move like 19.Be3 there is nothing but now I get a chance to go on the attack. 19...¥d4+ 20.¢h1 f5 The black pieces come to life, though it's by no means decisive. 21.¦e1 ¤f6 22.¥b2 fxe4 23.¤xe4 ¤xe4 Simpler than the computer suggestion of 23...Bxe4 24.fxe4 Ng4. 24.fxe4 ¦f2 25.¦e2 ¦xe2 26.£xe2 ¥xb2 27.£xb2 ¥xe4 28.¥xe4 £xe4+ 29.¢g1 And my opponent resigned in gentlemanly fashion while I was calculating the pawn endings after 29...Qd4+.
Mark Broom (200) - Luke Rutherford (204)
Site: Board 2
[...] 1.¤f3 c5 2.c3 ¤f6 3.d4 e6 4.¥f4 d5 5.e3 ¤c6 6.¥e2 ¥d6 7.dxc5 ¥xf4 8.exf4 £e7 9.b4 a5 10.b5 ¤b8 11.£d4 O-O 12.¤e5 ¤fd7 13.¤d3 a4 14.¤d2 ¤f6 15.O-O ¦d8 16.¦ab1 ¥d7 17.¦b4 ¦a5 18.¦fb1 ¥e8 19.a3 ¦c8 20.¥d1 ¤bd7 21.¥xa4 ¤xc5 22.¤xc5
Mark Broom (200) - Victor Stoyanov (220)
Site: Board 2
[...] 1.c4 c5 2.g3 g6 3.¥g2 ¥g7 4.¤c3 ¤c6 5.e4 d6 6.¤ge2 e6 7.O-O ¤ge7 8.d3 O-O 9.¦b1 a6 (White’s ninth delays or avoids Be3 which is met by Nd4. Black will often play b6, but this is a more aggressive alternative. It does create a weakness on b6, so Be3 is now a good reply) 10.¥e3 ¤d4 (given a6 is played Black should probably sacrifice the pawn with b5. He plays the standard Nd4, but this does create a hole to exploit) 11.b4 ¤ec6 12.bxc5 dxc5 (each side has a backward and associated weakness, but Black’s is worse) 13.¤a4 £d6 14.¤b6 ¦b8 15.¤xd4 (f4 looks better) 15...¤xd4 16.¥f4 e5 (this is a mistake; Be5 here, or even taking with the Bishop on the previous move, and it is around level) 17.¥g5 ¥e6 18.£d2 f6 19.¥e3 ¦bd8 20.¤d5 (this is the problem with Black’s 16th. White cures his weakness, leaving Black’s even worse) 20...¥xd5 21.exd5 ¦b8 22.¥xd4 cxd4 23.£a5 ¦fc8 24.¦b6 £d8 25.d6 (now White is clearly winning, and only care is needed) 25...¥h6 26.¦fb1 ¢h8 27.h4 ¥g7 28.£d5 f5 29.¦xb7 ¦xb7 30.¦xb7 ¦b8 31.c5 e4 32.d7 ¦xb7 33.£xb7 exd3 34.£c8 ¥f6 35.c6 d2 36.¥f3 ¢g7 37.c7 £e7 (Black could clearly have resigned, but there is a humorous finish) 38.£e8 £e1+ 39.¢g2 d1=£ 40.¥xd1 £xd1 41.d8=£ ¥xd8 42.cxd8=£ ¢h6 43.£f8+ ¢h5 44.£g5#
Pickersgill, Adrian O (1948) - Hutchinson, Paul A (2177)
This game was played in Round 5 of the British Chess Championships Over 65 event in Torquay in the Summer of 2019. My opponent had an ECF grade of 216 in July 2009, but had taken a break from chess over the last ten years.
[...] 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 £xd5 The opening referred to by "Batsford Chess Openings 2" as the Centre Counter, but referred to as the Scandinavian in "Winning with the Scandinavian." 3.¤c3 £d6 This is a perfectly reasonable line in the Scandinavian, Qa5 and Qd8 are also played. 4.¤f3 ¤f6 5.g3 White's plan is to fianchetto the bishop, and perhaps to play the other bishop to f4. Black's queen will undoubtedly have to move again. 5...a6 6.¥g2 e5 7.O-O ¤c6 8.d3 ¥e7 9.¦e1 O-O 10.h3 The computer gives Nxe5 as a slightly stronger move, but h3 is played to prevent a pin by the bishop on g4. 10...¦e8 11.¥e3 Here Nxe5 was certainly a stronger move. 11...¤d4 12.¤xd4 Bg5 was another plan, but white is going for his original plan of an attack on the queen. 12...exd4 13.¥f4 £b6 14.¤a4 £a5 The fourth move by the black queen on only his 14th move. 15.b3 ¦b8 ? Here the computer gives c6 as the correct move giving the player an escape for the queen to d8. 16.¦e5 b5 ?? Continuing with his original idea, but the plan is flawed. The only move here was Qb4. 17.¥d2 Black's que en has no escape square, and the final nail in his coffin is that his rooks are not connected. 17...¥b4 18.¦xe8+ ¤xe8 19.£e1 Diagram # Black is either mated or loses his bishop and queen. The game is a good example of an early Queen sortie by black which goes dramatically wrong. Sadly for me, Paul Hutchinson finished higher than I did in the congress, but I still had the pleasure of one of my better games.
Henshaw, John C - Kington, Paul N
[...] 1.¤f3 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.¤c3 d5 4.d4 ¥b4 5.e3 c5 6.a3 ¥xc3+ 7.bxc3 O-O 8.cxd5 £xd5 9.¥d3 ¤c6 10.£e2 cxd4 11.exd4 h6 12.O-O b6 13.¦e1 ¥b7 14.¦b1 ¦ac8 15.¦b5 £d6 16.¥xh6 gxh6 17.£d2 ¤e7 If 17....Kg7 18 Rg5+ Kh8 19 Rh5 etc. 18.£xh6 ¤ed5 19.¦e5 Published in Brighton and Hove Gazette of 15.6.1974 and 'Sussex Chess News' of July 1974. Played at Brighton.
Whiteley, Andrew J - Henshaw, John C
[...] 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 c5 3.¤f3 e6 4.g3 cxd4 5.¤xd4 d5 6.¥g2 e5 7.¤b3 d4 8.O-O ¤c6 9.e3 ¥g4 10.f3 ¥e6 11.exd4 exd4 12.¦e1 ¥e7 13.¥g5 O-O 14.¤1d2 d3 15.¥e3 ¦e8 16.a3 a5 17.¦c1 a4 18.¤c5 ¥xc5 19.¥xc5 ¤d4 20.¢h1 b6 21.¥xd4 £xd4 22.¦c3 ¥f5 23.¤e4 ¥xe4 24.fxe4 ¦ad8 25.£d2 ¤xe4 26.¥xe4 ¦xe4 27.¦xe4 £xe4+ 28.¢g1 h6 29.¦c1 £e2 30.¦d1 £xd2 31.¦xd2 ¦d4 32.h4 ¦xc4 33.¦xd3 ¦c1+ Played in London in the National Club Championship.
Henshaw, JC. - Freeman, JA.
[...] 1.¤f3 ¤f6 2.c4 b6 3.¤c3 ¥b7 4.d4 e6 5.a3 d5 6.cxd5 exd5 7.£a4+ ¥c6 8.£c2 ¥d6 9.¥g5 h6 10.¥h4 g5 11.¥g3 ¥xg3 12.hxg3 g4 13.¤e5 ¥d7 14.e3 c6 15.¥d3 £c8 16.¦c1 ¢f8 17.¤e2 ¢g7 18.¤f4 £b7 19.¥g6 ¥e6 20.¥xf7 ¥xf7 21.¤e6+ ¢g8 22.¤d8 £e7 23.¤dxf7 ¤e4 24.¤xh8