CHESS

Press, Volume LXXXV, Issue 25924, 3 October 1949, Page 8

CHESS

BLEDISLOE CUP FINAL CANTERBURY PLAYS AUCKLAND iContributea by W. £,. MOORE] The Canterbury Chess Club played Auckland by telegraph in the final of the Bledisloe Cup series on Saturday. Five games were finished. Of these Canterbury lost three and drew two, a most discouraging result. In the adjourned games, however, Canterbury has three sure wins (Colthart, Dalton, and Mrs Abbott) and the final score may be more favourable than the first count suggests. Individual results are as follows, Canterbury names given first and Canterbury having the white pieces on odd-numbered boards:— Board I.—H. R. Abbott v. A. W. H. Breakey, adjourned. French defence. Abbott sacrificed the exchange to meet a threatening attack, then won it back at the cost of a pawn, and at the close of play had a probable draw. Board 2.—D. C. Manson 0. R. E. Baeyertz 1. Queen’s Gambit declined. Inexact play in the opening gave Manson an intolerably cramped position, and Baeyertz used his advantage skilfully. Board 3.—L. T. Moorhouse v. C. P. Belton, adjourned. English opening. Moorhouse has the initiative in a rook and knight ending, but perhaps not so as to give him a win. Board 4.—W. E. Moore v. K. R. Gillmore, adjourned. Bishops’ opening. Moore lost a pawn early in the game, but seems to have reasonable chances of a draw in a queen ending. Board 5.—L. J. Darwin v. A. E. Fletcher, adjourned. Bird’s opening. In a rook ending. Fletcher has a seeming advantage with a passed pawn, but if the threat can be met Darwin’s position is stronger. Board 6.—G. Fisher v. H. D. Addis, adjourned. Queen’s pawn, king’s Indian defence. In a complicated position. Fisher is a pawn to the good, but has to meet a dangerous attack. Board 7.—R. Lovell Smith J, G. Sale J. Ruy Lopez. Drawn by agreement after an obstinate game. Board B.—J. H. Woolley v. Dr. E. Meyer, adjourned. Sicilian defence. Woolley's position is badly disorganised on the king’s side, and he would probably be lucky to draw. Bc-ard 9.—R. J. Colthart v. R. W. Park, adjourned. French defence. Colthart early developed a strong attack, and at close has a winning advantage. Board 10.—E. Dalton v. C. Bailey, adjourned. Birds. Dalton has a winning advantage, being three pawns up in a rook ending. Board 11.—L. Mitchell v. Mrs J. L. Sayers, adjourned. Two knights defence. Mitchell can win a pawn, but would be left with bishops of opposite colours. Board 12.—Mrs H. R. Abbott v. F. A. Haight, adjourned. Slav. Mrs Abbott has an overwhelming attack. Board 13.—S. Hollander 0, J. James 1. French defence. Hollander lost a pawn in the opening through an oversight. Board 14.—Mrs Golding F. G. McSherry £. Sicilian defence. Board 15.—E. J. Denys v. G. L. Caiman, adjourned. Scotch gambit. Denys is a pawn down, but has some counterchances. Board 16.—C. W. Gray v. Mrs E. L. Short, adjourned. With bishops of opposite colours, this game seems to be a Board 17.—The Rev. N. Friberg v. J. S. Crawford, adjourned. Queen’s pawn. Possibly a draw. Board 18.—F. Vincent v. W. J. Luck, adjourned. Guioco piano. Vincent has a knight in trouble, and seems likely to lose both it and the game. Board 19.—Miss A. Wellard-King v. E. V. Stack, adjourned. Guioco piano. Miss King has a rook against two bishops, but has a possible win by means of a passed pawn. Board 20.—D. Manson 0, Dr. A. J. Henderson 1. Queen’s pawn. Orthodox defence.