CHESS

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 80, 28 December 1928, Page 10

CHESS

CHAMPIONSHIP CONGRESS SECOND DAY’S PLAY The first round of a chess tourney is, generally speaking, not a fair test of the playing capabilities of the competitors, especially those who arrive on the scene only a day or so before play commences. Strange faces and new surroundings have their unconscious effect upon most people for a while, though there are exceptions. Strange opponents have a still greater effect, and that is why players always like to view other games beside their own. It gives them an insight into the style and methods of future opponents. That is also a potent reason why a brilliancy prize is hardly ever earned in a first round of a tourney. With one exception, the play at the congress yesterday was somewhat better than that of the first round. Players had steadied down to their work, consequently fewer weak moves were noticeable. Public interest, too, seemed to have been aroused, and several spectators were present throughout both afternoon and evening sessions. The second round was commenced at 2 p.m., and the first game finished was won by the Melbourne player, J.A. Erskine, from Fairburn, of Wellington. Following are the special features of the games:— , Rev. A. Miller v. Kelling (King s Gambit declined).—With the opportunity to play this gambit, the Westport cleric is very formidable; but Kelling neglected the advice of the European master, Albin, who said that:. “To accept the gambit is better than to decline it, and he soon got into a very awkward position, his’developuient being very restricted. IVith his usual resource, however, he gradually emerged from “the slough of despond,” and obtained a freer game. Yet. to do this, he had to suffer the advance of a pawn to the sixth rank, where it threatened danger. With the aid of two bishops, it confined his king, rook, and knight to very limited territory. The end-game was reached with vanishing hope for Kelling, having lost three pawns for the exchange, and he resigned a very interesting though hopeless struggle on the 47th move. Fairburn v. Erskine (Queen s Gambit declined). —If there is an opening that Fairburn knows better than any other it is the Q.G.D., but in the Melbourne representative he met an opponent ,yh° knew how best to defend it. The middle game was reached without loss of much material; but thereafter Fairburn suffered the loss of two pieces for three pawns in trying to defend his too far advanced pawns,’ and though he made a better fight than was expected of him against a more experienced player, he gave up the struggle on move 33. Gyles v. Hicks (Philidor’s Defence).— This 'is another form of defence that is not wholly approved by the highest modern experts, consequently a player who adopts it against a well-versed opponent handicaps himself to some extent. Nevertheless Hicks maintained something approaching ©Quality in position and material until the end-game stage was approached. A few exchanges here soon altered the aspect of Hicks’s game by a process of disintegration which resulted in an undefendable position, and he resigned on the 48th move. Severne v. Mcßea (French Defence).— With adequate defence by Mcßea this game advanced to the 30th move without altering the balance of force on either side, though all the major pieces except knight and bishop each had left the board. With seven pawns each facing each other only superior strategy or luck could prevail. There was little chance of obtaining'stra'tegical advantage, however, and a draw was agreed on. Third Round. Following is the draw for the third round, commencing at 2 p.m. to-day:— Mcßea v. Miller. Kelling v. Scott. Hicks v. Severne. Erskine v. Gyles. Fairburn, a bye.