CHESS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20800, 20 August 1929, Page 13

CHESS.

OTAGO v. AUCKLAND. . The telegraph match which commenced on August 12 was continued last evening. At : the conclusion of play five games were unfinished, ana those which cannot be.settled by negotiation between the -, parties will be submitted to the Adjudication Board. Mr G. S. M. M'Dermid umpired on behalf - of Otago, and Mr A. C. Hall acted as scrutineer, and Mr Smith operated the wire in a capable manner. • The following is a description of the principal games,-the Otago names appearing first:Board 1. . Dunlop V. Roberts (Queen’s Pawn opening).—Auckland opened with Queen’s Pawn, Otago defended with King’s Franchette Defence, and withheld the advance of the centre pawns; managed to outflank Auckland on the queen’s side, which brought about Auckland’s resignation on the thirty-seventh move. Board 2. -Pike v. Jones (Queen’s Gambit). —A hard game, which finished in a draw on the thirty-seventh move. Board 3, Balk v. (Queen’s Pawn). — Otago sacrificed two pieces to gain -an attack. Auckland, is making a splendid defence.-: Reserved for adjudication. : Board 4, Coombs v. Maddon (Queen’s Pawn). — Otago has slightly the advantage. Reserved for adjudication. Board -5. _ Hamel v. Sale (French Defence) .—The Otago player sacrificed a pawn in the early stages of the game, and the resulting attack tailed to give a compensating advantage, therefore this pawn advantage was Oie winning factor in the end game, Otago resigning on the forty-fifth move.. Board 6. Wright v. Lee (Guico Piano).—This game proceeded on even lines up to the eighteenth move, when Auckland placed his queen on a. square which enabled Otago to force queen and king with his knight, which resulted in Auckland losing ms queen. He thereupon resigned. This was the first win for Otagoi Board 7. n,? I +i )Crn i' id T- S mith (Guico- Piano),— On the twentieth move Otago lost a bishop, which eventually lost him the game. . ' . Board 8.Marlow v. Ogle.—ln this game Otago vvir.nTL PaW ?u UP ’ Wltb a certainty of anot l l ? r P aw n. and the game is decidedly in his favour. Board 9. Tibbies v. - Sullivan.— These players are th ° game Board 10. —The® g A«;vi eff a ie9 i (Kars K , aun Defence). In tut ' i klai ? d p a T er exchanged queens m ; the early stages, but was very slow in development, subsequently losing a piece Otogo maintained .'the, pressure, under move 1 35 S opponeirt collapsed, resigning on ■Board 11. Lee v. Adame.—Owing to Auckland being, unable to attend iZst evening and the pxeces being even, a draw was fgreed Board 12. Barnett v. Holler (Queen’g Pawnl Otago played on steady lines, forcing his = e„ t to the tSirtSf^ names first) :-£j Br p ‘tET. WT f ? : L,hVs iss i d l “ Morris t I D. Cunningham 4; R. Watt IJ’