N.Z. CHESS CONGRESS

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 85, 4 January 1935, Page 11

N.Z. CHESS CONGRESS

Erskine Likely Winner NOTES ON FINAL ROUNDS By Telegraph—Press Association. Chkstchurch, January 3. With Hie approach of the last round of finals of the New Zealand chess championships it would be difficult to pick the winner with any certainty, but it would appear that J. A. Erskine, with seven points and three grimes yet to be decided is the most probable. J. B. Dunlop, who won the championship at. the last congress, has completed all . his games, and lias a final total of 71 points. K. Beyer, who lias still one game to play, has also a total of 7i points It is . impossible to make an accurate comparison of the players’ positions al the present stage, owing to several games having been played in advance. The outstanding game of the day was that between R. O. Scott and 11. R. Abbott, in which Abbott suffered his second defeat. A. W. Gyles played very soundly to beat Beyer, this being the first game to be lost by .the latter player. Results of games played to-day are as follow: — . Fourth final round: Erskine beat Watt. Fifth final round: Erskine drew with Dunlop, Abbott drew with Darwin, Kelling beat Watt, Gyles beat Le Petit, ■Beyer beat Scott, Severne beat Hicks. Sixth linal round: Dunlop beat Kelling, Darwin beat Watt, Le Petit beat Hicks, Gyles beat Beyer, Scott beat Abbott; Erskine v. Severne was unfinished. Eighth final round (played in advance) : Dunlop beat Scott. Following are notes on the games (white names mentioned first) : Fourth Final Round. Watt v. Ersiv.ue (Sicilian Defence) : The opening was played bn rather irregular lines, Watt having a cramped game. He managed to free hie game, winning a pawn. About move 49 lie was in trouole with his clock. Heavy exchanges left him a dillicult end game with a pawn down. Watt played, on to. the second adjournment, but resigned without further play. Fifth Final Round. Erskine v. Dunlop (Queen’s Pawn Game) : Dunlop early won a pawn, but .lost it owing to ati oversight. Heavy ex changes reduced forces to a rook, bishop and pawn on each side, and a draw was agreed to at move 51. Abbott v. Darwin: Garwin played the Dutch Defence to Abbott’s Queen’s Pawn Opening and the game developed evenly. Abbott tried to build up an attack against Darwin’s castled king, but Darwin caused a series of exchanges, after which no advantage remained to either side. A draw was agreed to at move 36. Kelling v. Watt (Ruy Lopez Opening) ; Watt played a little-used defence. Tlie attack which resulted from his sacrifice of a pawn did not prove adequate and Kelling gradually accumulated a three-pawn advantage. This enabled him to win at move 51.

Gyles v. Le Petit: This was a Ruy Lopez opening to which Le Petit opposed the classical defence. His eighth move was weak, allowing Gyles to win a pawn. Gyles then developed his game quietly, gradually increasing the pressure unt'l Le Petit’s game became hopeless. Le Petit resigned at move 36. Scott v. Beyer (French Defence) : The game proceeded on book linees. A.t his twenty-second move Beyer started an attack which could have been repelled with even chances on both sides. Scott unestimated the danger and in accepting an exchange of queens overlooked the loss of a rook. He resigned at move 25. Severne v. Hicks (Four Knights Opening) : This carefully played gaipe proceeded on book lines and was very keen for a long time. Late in the middle game Hicks enterprisingly' gave up a knight fbr two pawns in an endeavour to break through. Playing with great exactness Severne foiled his opponent’s plane anti won with force majeure at move 80. Sixth Final Round. Dunlop v,. Kelling’ (French Defence) ; Dunlop enterprisingly gave up a pawn for a lively attack which quickly gained three pawns and dominated an ending which was very instructive. Kelling resigned a hopeless game at move 22. Darwin v. Watt (Reti’s Opening): The game proceeded evenly, but Watt weakened his position by advancing the pawns in front of his castled king. The position was close until Watt opened the king’s file by advancing and exchanging a pawn. This suited Darwin, who had his bishops well placed. In a series of exchanges Watt took the wrong piece. In consequence he lost a piece and resigned at move 27.

Le Petit v. Hicks (Queen’s Gambit declined) : The game opened on unusual lines. At the tenth and eleventh moves Hicks tried to sacrifice two pieces to bring off a mate which Le Petit countered successfully. At move 22 Hicks had to sacrifice his queen for a roolr to save a mate, and resigned shortly afterward. Beyer v. Gyles (Queen’s Gambit declined) : At move nine Gyles played knight to K 5, cramping Beyer’s game. Gyles won a pawn at move 20. Beyer then began a long combination which was not sound. Gyles played correctly, leaving Beyer a hopeless game, winch he resigned at move 28. Scott v. Abbott (Evans Gambit declined) : Scott soon set up a strong attack the outcome of which was that Abbott lost a pawn. Abbott tried a coun-ter-attack, but Scott with careful play secured an advantage for the end game. He pressed this home by exchanging the remaining pieces, and Abbott resigned at

move 42, when Scott was ready to queen a pawn. Eighth Final Round. Scott v. Dunlop (French Defence): Dunlop won a pawn early in the game. Queens were also exchanged early, leaving Dunlop with two passed pawns, which quickly decided the game in his favour.