CHESS

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 84, 3 January 1929, Page 12

CHESS

CHAMPIONSHIP TOURNEY GYLES’S BRILLIANT WIN A distinct improvement was noticeable in yesterday's play, as compared with the previous day. It was noticed that Gyles was showing symptoms of reaching his former standard, and yesterday he demonstrated his old brilliancy once again, in an ending against the Rev. Miller. On-lookers-were delighted to see a change from the beaten tracks so well known to students of the game, aud Gyles afforded them an instructive spectable, which they heartily appreciated. The game' Erskine v. Kelling, too, claimed a lot of attention. With only two rounds to go, the actual winner has not yet been revealed, but ha can probably be picked in two guesses. The)games are described hereunder; —- Gyles v. Miller (Queen’s Pawn Game). —ln the recent match for the world's championship, both Dr. Alekhine and Signor Capablanca played this opening ad nauseum. In chess, however, there is still ample scope for originality. Miller was fairly conversant with its varying aspects, and put up a good tight well into the game. Gyles, on the other hand, was working up a combination, the full force -of which escaped serious attention, aud (in making a defensive as well as an offensive move with king's knight’s pawn, threatening the capture of a bishop, where, as many thought, he would be able to win another pawn with a check, but was soon surprised to find that, instead of retreating the threatened piece to safety, ( a queen was also offered for nothing. Then was seen the brilliancy of the attack which threatened an undefendable mate in four moves, no matter what Miller did. Erskine v. Kelling (Queen's Gambit Declined). —This game was developed (on book lines, Erskine playing the American champion Marshall's favourite variation. Kelling was the first to exhibit a belligerent attitiide in trying to tempt Erskine with - a gift of his knight, an offer ’ that appeared to be very generous' on Kelling's part, and so it was; but the present was declined. Erskine’s methods are sound, steady preparation gradual advantage. The end game Was in view before either gained the smallest ascendancy in force or position, and' although the gain of a pawn by Kelling gave him an elusive force majeure, it was of no assistance, the pawn being doubled on the rooks’ file. Still 'he possessed two bishops against bishop ami knight, which usually-is an advantage, but, never having castled, his rooks .were not co-operating and practically inert, while Erskine’s were better placed. The advance of Erskine’s centre pawns, skilfully used, and not opposed with Kelling’s vigour, proved disastrous, and Kelling resigned a most interesting game. Fairburn v. Scott (Queen’s Pawn Opening).—This was irregularly defended by,Scott. who managed to get a good game out of it, but departure from book analysis is always risky. Nothing special characterised the game on either side, but Fairburn got his centre pawns well advanced, and they materially assisted him to secure a win on the 36th move;

Hicks v. McCrea (Reti’s Opening).— To describe this game is not easy, because it was conducted with equal timidity, tinctured with, and what appeared to be a small degree of, indecision on both sides. There were no glaring faults ob-servable-careful defence being the “ruling passion” apparently, and a draw was agreed upon in a game that never appeared to be anything but a draw at any stage. . Following is the draw for the eighth round:— . ' Miller'plays Sererne.Scott plays Gyles. ■ Kelling plays Fairburn. McCrea plays Erskine. ■ The position to- date is as 'follows

Wins. Losses. Erskine 6 0 Gvles 5 1 Hiller 4 3 Hicks • ■ •. 3J 3} Kelling 3 3 21 31 Fairburn • o 4 Scott i 6 McCrea 1 5