CHESS.

Otago Witness, Issue 3315, 26 September 1917, Page 47

CHESS.

TELEGRAPHIC CHESS MATCH.

A 14-aside telegraphic chess mateh between Otago and - Canterbury Chess Clubs was commenced on Saturday evening. At the termination of play no game 3 had been finished, but several had reached an advanced stage. Mr W. H. Messenger umpired for Otago, while Mr W. Alexander acted in a similar capacity for Canterbury in Dunedin. The thanks of the local club are again due to Mr J. Lindsay, who officiated at the telegraph instrument in his usual efficient manner, also to Messrs Watteon, M'Stay, and Cowan, who acted as scrutineers. During the evening a number of persons visited the club and showed much interest in the progress of the games. The match -will be continued next Saturday evening. The following are the details of the various games, the Otago players being mentioned first in each instance, and having white at the even numbered board: —•

Board I.—R. A. Cleland (Otago) v. H Kennedy (Canterbury).—Buy Lopez. A carefully conducted game by both players, neither side at present having any advantage. Board 2.—0. Balk v. H. Nightingale.— Philidor's Defence. The game of the Otago player is to be preferred, his opponent having a rather cramped position. Board 3.—A. Ellis v. W. G. King—Buy Lopez. Position even at adjournment. Board 4.—S. S. Myers v. T. Hawkins Two Knight 3 Defence. The Otago player has done most of the attack, but the position is still quite even. Board 5. —W. G. tStenhouse v. H. L. Anderson. —Buy Lopez. A rather interesting game, in which the Canterbury player has at present a slight attack. For the end game the position of black's pawns is to be preferred. Board 6.—G. D. Wright v. B. LovellSmith. —Phjlidor's Defence. Adjourned at a rather critical stage. The position of the Canterbury player seems to be decidedly the stronger. Board 7.—L. D. Coombs v. F. Woodford.—French Defence. The Otago player in attempting to gain the initiative overreached himself, and at the time of adjournment was three pawns down Board B.—A. E. Ward v. H. Gourley.— PetrofF's Defence. Both players aro playing a very cautious game, but the Otago player's two bishops seem to give him an advantage over his opponent's two knights. Board 9.—J. A. Boreham v. W. H. Joyce.—Queen's Pawn Game. A vigorously conducted game by the Otago player, who at the adjournment had the exchange and a pawn to the good. Board 10—W. H. Allen v. Dirk Pihl Buy Lopez. The Canterbury player conducted the opening well, and gained a pawn. Later, however, the Otago player, aided by weak play on his opponent's part, developed a strong attack, regaining his pawn with the superior position. Board 11.—J. Botting v.. C. H. Black.— Cunningham Defence. The Canterbury player evidently did not know this opening, and for some "time had a difficult position. At the adjournment, however, he had a freer game. Board 12.—H. H. Henderson y. B. Shillito.—Four Knights Game. Position even. The Canterbury player has a freer game. Board 13.—D. Harris Hastings v. H. Margclosh.—Petroff'e Defence. The Otago man is playing a good game, and_ at the adiournment had the superior position. Board 14.—A. H. Crawford v. A. Clark. Centre Gambit. The Otago player regained the gambit pawn, and the position at present seems quite even.