CHESS TOURNEY

New Zealand Times, Volume L, Issue 11408, 3 January 1923, Page 3

CHESS TOURNEY

N.Z. CHAMPIONSHIP INTERESTING GAMES IN SEVENTH AND EIGHTH ROUNDS. DETAILS OF THE PLAY. Per Press Association. CHRISTCHURCH, January 1. / HICKS V. PIHL. . At the chess championship meeting at Christchurch in the seventh round in the game, Hicks v. Pihl, Hicks played the Scotch game. Both sides played book moves, concentrating on the centre. Hicks by thq advance of a king and bishop’s pawn to the fourth square, broke up Pihl’s game, but lost a pawn in the exchanges. Pihl was unable to retain the pawn and manoeuvred for a position. In the middle ot the game was a struggle with queen’s rooks and knight® for command of the centre. In the exchanges that followed Hicks played queen to queen bishop’s second, where it was immediately attacked by Pihl’s rook at queen’s seventh. In saving the quteen Hicks had to lose two important queen side pawns. The queens were now exchanged, and Pihl, in winning a pawn, lost his knight. However, he played his difficult end game very well and scored a win. v ' GYLES V. COOMBES. Gyles played the Vienna game. Coombes taking the gambit pawn, the game then developed as ' in a. music, Gyles Sacrificing his knight for the advanced pawn. Coombes, with superior forces, now played for security, while Gyles patiently worked up his -attacking combination. From the eighteenth move onward there was a most critical time for Coombes, Gyles forcing him to yield three minor pieces for one in order to save the game. Coombes now castled on the queen’s side to free his Mug, hut Gyles, scheming to win Coombes’s queen for rook, left his rook to he captured for nothing. Subsequently he won Coombes’ a black bishop and changed off queens. Gyles had now a bishop against Coombes’s two king side pawns, each player having in addition a rook and four queen side pawns unbroken. Coombes, in changing off the rooks, enabled Gyles to break up the former’s position and to win a pawn. The two passed pawns on the king’s side were a menace to Gyles, but he skilfully exchanged pawns on the queen’s side and "pushed a passed pawn on the queen, when Coombes resigned. —■ BUCHAN V. ANDERSEN. This was the queefi’s gambit opening with the moves transposed, and Andersen taking the gambit pawn, opened his queen’s file and developed his white bishop at knight’s second. Buchan commanded the bishop’s fall with his rook, and. threatened exchanges that would allow !him to win. Andersen’s queen’s bishop’s pawn, the latter being saved by a counter attack upon Buchan’s knight. This gave Buchan the opportunity to play his knight to queen oishop’a fifth. This menacing pieoe was then changed off by Andersen, who then had to bring all, his pieces to bear- on bis thrice attacked pawn. At queen bishop’s third - Buchan at once pushed forward his. pawns on the king’s side, winning a, pawn and opening the knight’s file es - a medium of attack. In a critical position Andersen sought to stave off the attack by playing rook to rook’s square. Buchan checked with a queen at king’s fifth and was able when the king moved to win Andersen’s rook. A mating position being apparent, Anderson resigned. STEVENS y. ROBERTS. This was an irregular opening, something on the lines of a (Pihiladar’s Defence. Roberts obtained-Ti very cramped position, and Stevens was tempted to give up a bishop by checking at bishop’s-seventh. With knight'play he won another pawn, and forced the queen and rook. The latter he Captured, but was unable to save his knight. Roberts quickly opened up ■‘his pieces for attack,'and a' very interesting needle • game " ensued. Stevens, however, was unable to gain any advantage over Roberts, and got his rook looked up in a forward position where Roberts won it. With rooks exchanged and | with two minor pieces down, Stevens continued a' hopeless struggle and resigned at move 40. \ DUNLOP V. MILLER. ' Miller played tjie French Defenoe, Dunlop adopting the Gledhill attack. Dunlop played a queen from the. king knight’s fourth to fifth, and castling oh the king’s side brought his qfieen’a rook to the king’s open "file ana . posting the rook at the king’s third, built up a strong attack. At move 15 Miller changed off Dunlop’s valuable white bishop, and in the exchange of pieces which he instituted to break up Dunlop’s attack in the middle game, he retained two minor pteoes as against Dunlop’s rock and two pawns. - Dunlop played "the end game very skilfully, and Miller, who failed to see the need for the knight’s play in conjunction with the king, could not prevent Dunlop’s pawn from queening. ■He resigned on move 68. EIGHTH ROUND, GYLES v. ANDERSEN. This was a Vienna game, in which Gyles opened the bishop’s file when taking Andersen’s king pawn, and then castloi ti> command the open file with bis rook. Quite early Gyles brought about exchanges that lost Andersen’s bishop. The latter gat a pawn, however,. and later won two more pawns and got the passed pawn posted l at the queen’s sixth.'"Andersen moved’ the pawn to the bishop’s third to attack Gyles’s pawn at the king’s fifth. In tlie resulting exchanges Andersen gave up the queen for the rook, , thinking that he. had a mating position against Gyles. Gyles’s position, however, was made seoure by the interposition of a bishop supported by hits queen. Ander- ‘ sen thereupon resigned.. MILLER r. BUCHAN. / Buchan offered the. Sicilian Defence, to Miller’s opening, and obtained a very oramped position for a time. Miller developed his pawn- at the king bishop’s fourth, ’end got a very free opening position. Buchan delayed costing until late, and gained nothing by the delay, for in the middle game exchanges he lost a pawn and had his queen and Bide pawns isolated later. Miller won material, and the end gamo began with Buchan with the rook and three pawns,. and . Miller with the knight, bishop, and five pawns., Buchan manoeuvred with the rook and king and won two pawns, and in his anxiety to capture a third! pawn with his king he left his rook to he taken by .Milter’s knight. Buchan saw that further effort was useless and resigned.

EIGHTH AND NINTH ROUNDS

THE RESULTS. Per Press Association. CHRISTCHURCH, January 2. The chess congress was continued today, whelf the eighth round was play©d COOMBES V. KELLING. This was a Queen’s Gambit Declined, in which both players got an even development of pieces. The early exchanges - shortened the middle game, which still gave no advantage to either player. Coombes posted a knight strongly at king’s fifth, but gave up knights for a bishop, and subsequently won a pawn. In the earl yend game Coombes had a promising position, of which he failed to make the most. Kelling had to play most carefully to ward off defeat, Coombes having a passed pawn on queen’s knight’s file, a queen, and two pawns. Kelling had three pawns opposite Coombes’s two pawns, ana also his queen. Coombes avoided the perpetual check that was threatening, and was within an ace of queening the pawn when Kelling interposed his queen, giving - check and forcing off the queen and pawn for his queen. A draw resulted on the 67th move. STEVENS V. M'CREA. M‘Crea adopted the French Defence, which tempted Stevens to play the Gledhill attack. Stevens obtained a good working combination, though his pawn development- rather hindered his bishop’s movements. He posted a knight at queen’B knight’s fifth, hut failed to weaken M'Grea’s position. In manoeuvring for position M‘Crea broke through king’s rook’s fife for his doubled the queen and rook for his attack, and by a slip indicated a;, move that would enable win his rook. Stevens resigned without further play. DUNLOP V. SEVERNE. Dunlop opened with the Buy Lopez, Severne adopting the Morphy defence. Dunlop developed rooks at king’s and queen’s squares and changed off Severne’s knight at queen-bishop’s third, isolating Soverne’s rook’s pawn. He pushed forward the king’s pawn supported by queen, bishop, and rook, and Severne was forced to make exchanges. Dunlop later accepted an exchange of rooks, offered by Severne. Dunlop followed with an attack upon a rook and pawn, winning the pawn. Later he won a second, pawn,. and with, the exchange of queens had certainly, the. bettor position. He made an oversight later which cost him the exchange, -and the end game which resulted was left adjourned for a third session, Seveme’s position promising him a win. ROBERTS V. PIHL. The queen Bishop’s gambit was played by Roberts, Pihl declining to accept the gambit. Both sides were developed very carefully, hut Roberts, by pinning a knight with bis queen at rook’s fourth, won> a pawn, > A great struggle took place for possession of Pihl’s pawn at queen-bishop’s second, and in the resulting exchanges Pihl saved the pawn, but lost a rook for a knight. A long end game resulted, and Pihl, by his superior strategy, worked up from the weaker position until he won the game. NINTH ROUND •ANDERSEN V. MILLER. Miller adopted the French defenoe, Andersen getting a - fine open game with two centre files dominated by the queen and two rooks. Miller’s pieces seemed massed- on the queen side, and he cgstled with the queen’s rook behind a broken pawn position.- He moved - queen’s rook to king-knight's square and pushed on the king side pawns opening both files and threatening, a malting position. In the meantime Andersen threatened with 'the queen, bishop and rooks to break through on the queen’s Bide. Both players were able to provide a safe defence and exchanges left Andersen with a pawn advantage, but his rook’s so, that Miller forked them with a knight and won the exchange. Andersen played the end game well, but 1 Miller’s rooks and knight combination jffoved too strong, and Andersen Was -forced to resign. DUNLOP V. STEVENS. This was the Vienna gambit game, Stevens taking the gambit pawn. Stevens developed a bishop at kingknight’s , second, and established a strong diagonal of pawns to bishop’s fifth. Dunlop combined a rook, knight and queen in a sharp attack, and, checking with the queen, won Stevens’s knight. Later Stevens exchanged a valuable bishop for a knight, doubling and isolating Dunlop’s pawns ten the queen-bishops file. Dunlop here played well with his spleen, bishop and rook breaking down Stevens’s counter-attack, and forcing exchanges which left him with a winning position, when Stevens resigned. , GYLES v. PIHL. Gyles played the Vienna game, and the encounter proved exciting, the position always in the melting-pot. Pihl changed off knights doubling Gyles’s pawns on queen-bishop’s file, and later checking with the queen at king fifth. Heafprced Gyles to change off qneens. This left Pihl’s centre pawn weak,, otherwise the position was very even, Pihl’s pawn limiting with a bishop lost the piece for two pawns, and Gyles, winning the advantage pawn on the king’s file, was abfe to force a win in fine diyle. SEVERNE v. \BUCHAN. This Was a four-knights game, a favourite of Severne’s. An exchange of knights opened a queen-bishop file for white and king-rook’s file for black. Severne’s move of pawn to kingbishop’s fourth was a hindrance to Buchan’s development. However, he made his king secure at knight’s second, and obtained a very free position for his rooks and queen. He skirmished for advantage l , and won Severne’s doubled pawn on queen-bishop’s file. At the adjournment, the positions were fairly equal, but on resuming Severne won the exchange, and in a few minutes won Buchan’s resignation. KELLING v. McCREA. . McCrea adopted the French defence -against Kelling, who .seemed to get the better of the opening, McCrea relieving his; cramped position by -a timely exchange/of pawns in the centre. Killing was soon attacking with his queen, supported by a bishop, failing, however, to break down McCrea’s defence. There was much pretty play for position, and in the end McCrea got rather a good attack with queen and knight and doubled rooks: -Kelling made an adequate defence, but later, moved his queen from support of knight, which McCrea captured, forcing an exchange of rooks. Subsequently McCrea brought off a, very pretty mate in four.