THE CHESS TOURNEY.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 701, 29 December 1909, Page 6

THE CHESS TOURNEY.

'.:■'.. '"..,;' '.;♦ :.,.:,—^;;.,|;..;. v : ' OPENED "AT AUCKLAND. , ; : ;: '(By Telegraph.—Press .Association.) '.<; ■' : Auckland, December 28. .'. Tim ftew,'Zealand' chess championship tourney began to-day, the clocks boihg started promptly at 2.30 p.ini .for the; first round, and "play; proceeded as-do-scribed hereunder, the player named 'first having the move -• ./ '.'Severne ■ v.'. Sainsbury (French De- ■ fence).—-Sevcrne's purely defensive treatment 'of "the game led to a'stonewall position, which: Sainsbury. faiTeit to. turn to the- best advantage;.tor himself,-and a series "of left;him, a. knight and pawn'to-the bad, and he succumbed on tie - forty-first move. 1 .- : , ■;";'! Hicks v. Kelling (King's. Gaiubit);— Kelling.'accepted the-'gambit, but Hicks soon regained the gambit. pawn, and the queens were. swapped: off."- early; leaving' Hicks a declining attack, which, in the. earlier stages, looked quite advantageous for him'.-'.- An: attack :by the K.B.P. was stalled off .by the, champion, and, with equal- forces, Hicks made a good fight, which promised a draw with only pawns and bishops of opposite .colours on the board.' Kellington, however, reduced.his opponent's number by, two, and nearly fell into a clever drawing trap by Hicks —an'.-' offer -of the bishop for ' nothing. Hicks resigned on the fifty-third ' move. ■ Grierson v. Miles . (Ruy, Lopez).—This ancient; development has the. ; reputation of being sound and free'frdm sudden pit'falls;'". Modern,.analyses, .havo. shown, however, ''that the', reputation;, depends upon the . treatment in the early stages ■ pi this:, game. Miles's treatment showed a lack .of' his usual "depth of' .chess vision, and, he missed a chance of securing the advantage in'position' and forces;. An even'igaihe.right through'resulted in Miles' -offering.',a draw, ..which 'was declined, .arid later' Grierson -'offering to draw.which Miles-declined.' 'At'the ad'jourhinent hour Miles had a bishop and 'two pawns against a lonely'.bishop;: "" James'..;v. Mason (French, Defence).— Careful development on both sides was the,feature of -this game- to the middle stage, where Mason's tactics secured him the, attacking.': position, , with , winning prospects. . As usual the. clocks' worried him,',and,- to get the requisite number ;ofv moves in, he let his 'opportunities' slip, and the. game' was adjourned with 'equal pawns and knight and rook against bishop and rook:.-..---;.-'"', .; Barnes v. Eutherford (Queen's Gambit Declined).—A more than usually, interest-, ■ing- game was developed t'rbm.i' Rutherford's solid defence of;the,veteran's persistent attacks,, which he, by .sustained good play turned on his opponent until heleft him only a. rook-and. three pawns to fight a passed pawn on the sixth supported- by a rook and four pawns'. Even yet Barnes , ingeniously manoeuvred to prevent the promotion of, the pawnor to equalise ■ forces, but ne, was attempting the impossible, and resigned on: the sixty-third move. ■ Freeman Davies.—Game adjourned owing to Davies's- absence. ...