1951 Universities Chess Annual, 2Nd Issue, November 1951

THE UNIVERSITIES CHESS ANNUAL

CONTENTS: Page The Dutch Tour By D. V. Mardle ...... 2 Swansea Successes By L. W . Barden ...... 4 Universities Team Championship By D. J. Youston ...... 6 The Oxford Congress By D. J. Youston ...... 9 Annotated Games ...... 15 The University Chess Clubs ... 17

SECOND ISSUE NOVEMBER, 1951

PRICE I /9 THE BRITISH UNIVERSITIES CHESS ASSOCIATION

OFFICERS, 1951— 52. President: B. H. WOOD, M.Sc. Vice-Presidents: Miss Elaine Saunders, Mr. C. H. O’D Alexander, Alderman J. N. Derbyshire, Sir L. S. Dyer Bart., Professor L. S. Penrose, Sir R. Robinson, Dr. H. C. Schenk, Sir G. A. Thomas Bart, Mr. T. H. Tylor. Chairman: R. J. TAYLER. Hon. Secretary: D. V. MARDLE, Christ’s College, Cambridge. Hon. Treasurer: D. J. YOUSTON, Hertford College, Oxford. Match Captain: P. j. OAKLEY. Regional Representatives: North— R. L. Williamson; South— J. M. Hancock; Wales— S. Usher.

THE CHAMPIONS Universities Team Champions, 1951 - - OXFORD. Universities Individual Champion, 1951 - D. V. MARDLE. Universities Correspondence Champion, 1951 - P. J. OAKLEY.

CHESS . SUTTON COLDFIELD

Each month, more copies of CHESS are bought than all other British chess periodicals, duplicated or printed, fortnightly, monthly or what you will, put together. Why not take advantage of our sample offer: 25 back numbers for 5s., postage 10d. Our postal chess organisation (“ Postal chess from 5s. per year ”) has more members than all similar organisations within 500 miles put together. For fifteen years we have answered an average of 150 letters a day. Whatever your needs, if they are connected with chess, your enquiry will have our careful attention. CHESS . SUTTON COLDFIELD THE UNIVERSITIES C H ESS ANNUAL

An official publication of the British Universities Chess Association, Joint Hon. Editors: R. J. TAYLER and D. J. YOUSTON

Second Issue NOVEMBER, 1951

PRESIDENTIAL MESSAGE. " I have been amazed at the enterprise and efficiency exhibited in the administration of B.U.C.A. and account it an honour to have been elected your President once again. Please count on me for any help I can give throughout the year .to come. All strength to your gambit arm!” B. H. WOOD.

B.U.C.A. NEWS. The past season has again been very successful, the number of affiliated clubs being easily a record, and the prospects for next year are even better. This success is not restricted merely to the number of clubs, for individual clubs are reporting record memberships and playing strength continues to improve. The arrangements for the Team Championship had to be extended to cover teams as far apart as Aberdeen and Southampton. A system of seven regions has been established which should give good service for several years to come. Our international contacts were renewed in December when the B.U.C.A. team had a most enjoyable tour of Holland. It is hoped that more international matches will be arranged in the future and correspond ence matches have been proposed against the Swiss and Finnish Students. The success of the 1950 Cambridge Congress was repeated at Oxford in June, where the Individual Championship again attracted a large entry. Application is being made to the B.C.F. that, in future years, the champion should automatically gain a place in the British Championship. As it happened, Denis Mardle was already qualified for Swansea, and he tied for ninth place in the very strong field of 30. As a result of his fine play in the same event, Leonard Barden (Oxford) was chosen for the B.C.F. team against Yugoslavia and acquitted himself well with two draws against the Junior World Champion, Ivkov. In the match against Scotland he won with ease. Many other University players have gained notable successes in local and national tournaments during the year and play an important part in Club and County Chess throughout the country. We confidently expect the 1951– 2 season to give further signs of our increasing influence.

1 . THE DUTCH TOUR. The visit of a Dutch Universities’ team in 1946 was highly success ful, so the invitation for a reciprocal tour of Holland in December ¡1950 was eagerly accepted. A strong team of nine players from Oxford, Cam bridge, Manchester, Birmingham, and Sheffield, left Harwich on 8th December, bound for the Hook of Holland. The first two days were spent sight-seeing in Amsterdam, culminating on the Saturday evening with a visit to the Stock Exchange to /watch the final round of the Amsterdam International Tournament. It was sad to see the only British representative with a somewhat low (in fact the lowest) score, but it was certainly an eye-opener to observe this magnificently organised event. At one end of the vast hall were the players in a roped- off arena, under powerful arc-lights and hundreds of spectators sat watch ing the games or crowded attentively round the demonstration boards (one per game). This gave us an inkling of the tremendous interest in chess throughout Holland. On the following day we played a team representing the V.A.S. Club, Amsterdam, the score of 5½—3½ to the B.U.C.A. being a most satisfactory start to the tour. Next day, the party went on to Beverwijk, where we beat a local team 6½— 2½, after a very pleasant afternoon looking over the steel works at Velsen Hoogovens. The Tuesday morning was spent in further sight-seeing at a fertiliser works, then off to Utrecht for the main match of the tour, a double round affair against a strong Dutch Universities team. Although the B.U.C.A. were defeated 10½-7 ½ , we were by no means disgraced, and with a little luck could easily have won, for Penrose threw away a clearly won game in the first round, and Scott should have won in the second round. The full score was:— DUTCH UNIVERSITIES. B.U.C.A. 1 J. H. Donner ... 1 0 L. W . Barden (Oxford) ... 0 1 2 H. J. van Donk ... 1 1 O. Penrose (Cambridge) 0 0 3 J. J<. van O. Bruyn ... 0 ½ A. F. Truscott (Oxford) ... 1 ½ 4 J. Visser ... 0 1 D. V. Mardle (Cambridge) 1 0 5 C. W . van Vloten ... 1 1 P. J. Oakley (Birmingham) 0 0 6 W . H. Sandifort ... ½ 0 J. F. Barrett (Cambridge) ½ 1 7 C. H. Prahl ...... 1 0 J. E. Littlewood (Sheffield) 0 1 8 H. Croenenboom ... ½ 1 D. J. Youston (Oxford) ... ½ 0 9 C. Feiters ... ½ ½ J. E. Scott (Manchester) ... ½ ½

5½ 5 3½ 4

These were two fine games on the top board:— White— Donner, Black— Barden. 1 P—Q4, Kt—KB3; 2 P—QB4, P— K3; 3 Kt—QB3, B—Kt5; 4 P—QR3, BXKtch; 5 PXB, P— B4; 6 P— K3, Kt B3; 7 B—Q3, P—Q3; 8 Kt— K2, P— K4; 9 0— 0, Kt— KR4; 10 Kt— Kt3, KtXKt; 11 BPXKt, Q— Kt4; 12 B— K4, 0— 0; 13 R— Ktl, Q— K2; 14 PXP, PXP; 15 Q— R5, P— KKt3; 16 Q— K2, B—K3; 17 B—Q5; Kt—R4; 18 P—K4, BXB; 19 BPXB, P— Kt3; 20 B— R6, KR— Q1 ; 21 R— B2, Kt— Kt2; 22 QR— KB1, Kt—Q3; 23 Q— Kt4, R— K1 ; 24 B— Kt5, Q— B1 ; 25 Q— R4, P—QR4; 26 B— B6, R— R2; 27 P—QR4, R— Kt2; 28 P— B4, R— R2; 29 R— B3, R—Q2; 30 R— K1, KtXBP; 31 P— Kt4, P— R4; 32 P— Kt5, R— Q3; 33 P— Kt4, Kt—Q7;' 34 R— B2, KtXP; 35 RXKt, RXP; 36 PXP, Resigns.

2 White— Barden, Black— Donner. 1 p—K4, P—K3; 2 P—Q4, P—Q4; 3 Kt—QB3, Kt—KB3; 4 B— Kt5, B— Kt5; 5 P— K5, P— KR3; 6 B—Q2, BXKt; 7 PXB, Kt— K5; 8 Q— Kt4, P— KKt3; 9 B— Bl, KtXQBP; 10 B—Q3, P—QB4; 11 PXP, Kt— B3; 12 Kt— B3, Q— R4; 13 0—0, Q— R5; 14 QXQ, KtXQ; 15 B— K3, B—Q2; 16 QR— Ktl, 0—0— 0; 1,7 R— Kt3, Kt— R4; 18! R— R3, Kt— B5; 19 BXKt, PXB; 20 Kt— Q2, K— B2; 21 KtXP, B— B3; 22 Kt— Q6, R—Q2; 23 R— Ktl, P—QR4; 24 P— KR3, RXKt; 25 BPXR ch, K— Q2; 26 P—QB4, P— KKt4; 27 RXKt, BXR; 28 RXP ch, K— Bl; 29 RXBP, R— Q1 ; 30 R— QR7, R— Q2; 31 RXP, B— B3; 32 R— R6, Resigns. A visit to Doorn Castle and a celebration dinner rounded off our short, but most enjoyable, stay in Utrecht and on the Thursday we went on to Leiden where we were again wonderfully entertained. A match against Leiden University resulted in a 9— 0 victory for the B.U.C.A. Most of the games were over quickly, leaving plenty of time for the eating and drinking that followed. And so back to England by the night boat on Friday after a memor able week. Throughout the tour we received wonderful hospitality from the Dutch students and their families, and I am sure all the other members of the team will join with me in thanking our hosts; also G. D. Parbrook, R J. Tayler and J. J. van O. Bruyn who made all the arrangements. May there be many more such Anglo-Dutch student matches in future.

SWANSEA SUCCESSES. All the five University competitors in the Swansea Congress finished in the top half of their tournaments, and two of them won prizes. In the British Championship, Leonard Barden (Oxford) started badly but won four games in a row in the middle of the tournament, including the only defeat of the new champion Ernst Klein. He had a fine chance to finish third but muffed it by losing his last round game with Harry Golombek and ended up in a tie for 5th place with 6½ points out of 11. Our champion, Denis Mardle (Cambridge) led the field for the first three rounds, and although he could not keep it up, tied for 9th place with 6 points. Included in his score was a fine win against Jonathan Penrose. In the Major Open Tournament Peter Oakley (Birmingham) tied for 4th place with 7 points, including a win over tournament victor Boxall. Brian Dudley (Birmingham) also did well by scoring 6. In the First Class tournament, J. H .Beaty (formerly at Leeds, now in the R.A.F.) confirmed the promise which he showed in last year’s Universities Championship at Cambridge by winning first prize with the terrific score of 10½ out of 11 — 3 points ahead of the next player! Altogether a fine record; we now look forward to the day when a University player wins the British Championship. White— L. W. Barden, Black— E. Klein. (Notes by the winner) 1 P-Q4 Kt-KB3 13 BXKt PXP 25 Kt-Q7 Q-Ql 2 P-QB4 P-KKt3 14 BXP BXB(c) 26 KtxR RXKt 3 Kt-QB3 P-Q4 15 QXB P-QKt4 27 RXP PXP 4 B-B4 P-B3 16 Q-Kt3 P-QR3 28 QXR QXQ 5 P-K3 B-Kt2 17 BXKt BXB 29 R-B8 ch QXR 6 Kt-B3 0-0 18 Kt-K4 B-Kt2 30 RX0 ch K-Kt2 7 Q-Kt3 Q-R4(a) 19 R-B5 B -B 1 31 R-QR8 B-Kt5 8 Kt-K5 P-Kt3(b) 20 KR-QB1 P-K3 32 R-R7 P-Kt4

3 9 B-K2 B-K3 21 R(5)-B2 B-K2 33 P-K4 K-Kt3 10 0-0 R-B1 22 P-KR3(d ) Q-Kt3 34 P-Kt4 P-B3 11 QR-B1 QKt-Q2 23 Kt-B5 P-QR4 35 K - B 1 P-R4 12 KR-Q1 KtXKt 24 P-QR4 QR-Ktl (e) 36 K-K2 PXP 37 PXP Resigns(j) (a) I prefer this move to the alternative 7 ... PXP; 8 BXP, QKt— Q2; 9 Kt— KKt5!, Q— K1 ; 10 B— B7! and Black is very tied up, besides being threatened with P— KR4— R5. The position needs more testing but Black certainly has great difficulties In development. (b) Better, and adequate for equality, Is 8 ... Kt— KR4, e.g. 9 PXP, KtXB; 1.0 PXKt, PXP; 11 QXQP, Q— Kt3; regaining the pawn (Gligoric — Boleslavsky, Saltsjobaden, 1948). As it is, Black must have recourse to tortuous manoeuvres because of the weakness of his QB and Q– pawns. (c) 14 ... Kt— Q4; 15 BXB, KXB ; 16 P— K4, leaves White in control of the centre. The line chosen gives White an ideal Knight post on QB5. (d) It is always difficult to know when and where to make a hole for the King. Clearly, White cannot take the QBP because of mate. 22 P— K K t3 is more obvious, owing to the colour of Black’s bishop. I rejected it (a) because I believed the bishop would have to be exchanged off and (b) because I feared a later P— KR4— R5— R6 with mating threats. (e) An oversight which loses at once, but Black had a difficult game anyway, as will be seen from a consideration of the alternatives (see Black (Klein) diagram): (a) 24 ... BXKt; 25 RXB, followed by trip) ing on the QB file, P— K4 and P— Q5. (b) 24 ... P— Kt5, 25 KtXP! PXKt; 26 QXP ch, K— Bl; 27 P— Q5! and wins, e.g. 27 ... R — K1 ; 28 RXP, Q—Ql; 29 Q— K5! K— Ktlj 30 P— Q6, B— B3; 31 Q— Q5 ch, K— R l; 32 R— B7, R— KB 1 ; 33 P— Q7, R—QKtl; 34 R— B8, Q— Kt3; 35 R(l) — B6, Q— Kt2; 36 Q_— B7! B— Kt2; 37 RXRch, RXR; 38 QXR eh-, BXQ; 39 P— Q8(Q), QXR; 40 QXB mate— a long but Interesting variation. (f) Black is hopelessly strangled and can only watch while White brings his White (Barden) King up and marches in the QP.

White, J. Penrose, Black— D. V. Mardle. (Notes by the winner) 1 P-Q4 P- K3 12 R - K 1 Q-B2 23 Q-B4 QR-KB1 (e 2 P-QB4 P-KB4 13 P- B5(c) Kt-Q4 24 R-K2 P-B4 3 P-KKt3 Kt— KB3 14 PXP QXP 25 K-Kt2 R-Q6(f) 4 B-Kt2 B-K2 15 Kt-K5 BXKt 26 R-KB1 R( 1)-B6 5 Kt- KB3 0 - 0 16 PXB Q-K2 27 Q-K4 Q-R4 6 0 - 0 P-Q3 17 B-K4 P-KR3 28 B-Bl(g ) P-QKt4 7 Kt-B3 P-B3(a) 18 Q-K2 Q-KB2 29 K-R2? R-Q5 8 Q-B2 QKt-Q2 19 P-KR4(d P-QKt3 30 Q-B2 RXRP ch 9 P-K4 PXP 20 B-Q2 B-R3! 31 K - K t1 R-R8ch 10 KtXP Kt-Kt3(b) 21 B-Kt6 QXB 32 K-Kt2 R-R7 ch 1 1 KtXKtch BXKt 22 QXB R-B6 33 K - K t1 Q-R6 34 Resigns

4 (a) The usual and better move is Q— K 1. Black must try for an early P— K4. (b) Not 10 ... P— K4; 11 Kt(4)— Kt5, winning at least a P awn. (c) To stop 13 P— QB4, but giving Black the square Q4 for his Knight. (d) The first error— 1.9 P— B4 is much better. (e) Threatening RXP ch. (f) Threatening RXBP ch. (g) With 13 moves to make in 4 minutes, White misses 28 KR— K 1! followed by B— K3. Black would have to play Q— B4, which gives him the better ending.

UNIVERSITIES TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP. This year eighteen Universities competed for the title, seven more than last season s record total. The teams were divided into seven regions, the winner of each going into a knockout. For the first time, teams from Wales and Scotland took part and next year it is hoped that Queen’s University, Belfast, will play in the League, in addition to several other new entries. Bristol headed the South Region with full points, beating Exeter 4½—3½ in the vital match. In the East, the Oxford v. Cambridge match was drawn and, as both had beaten London, Oxford gained a place in the Finals by virtue of game average. As expected, Birmingham won the Midland Region convincingly, but Manchester were run close by Liverpool in the North. Swansea beat Aberystwyth for the Welsh title and Aberdeen were Scottish champions. Durham had been given a bye into the Quarter-Finals because of travel difficulties, and they easily disposed of Aberdeen 5½—2½. Swansea beat Bristol on the elimination rule, the match being drawn 4— 4 after an exciting struggle. Unfortunately, due to examination troubles, Man chester had to give Birmingham a walk-over; this would have been an interesting match. Oxford took a strong team to Bristol for the Semi-Final with Swansea and won 8— 0. The score rather flattered the winners, for a little more steadiness would have given Swansea some points. The other match was played by telephone, the first time this idea had been tried in the cham pionship. Despite minor communication troubles, the arrangements worked well and after adjudications, Birmingham were winners by 5½ –2½ . The Final was played in Birmingham on 7th June, the full score being: OXFORD BIRMINGHAM ½ 1 L. W . Barden ... ½ P. J. Oakley 2 J. B. Sykes ... ½ G. Fuller ...... ½ 3 I. Marshall ... 1 B. G. Dudley ...... 0 4, D. J. Youston - ... 1 W . Marshall ...... 0 5 H. Morton ... 1 H. W . Rayson ...... 0 6 C. R. Worthing ...... ½ N. Basco ½ 7 K. N. Bascombe ... 1 G. D. Parbrook ...... 0 8 D. E. Cohen ½ J'. E. Fletcher ½ 6 2

5 One game was soon over, for Rayson made the mistake of losing his Queen! Soon after tea, Youston had beaten Marshall to give Oxford a 2— 0 lead but, nevertheless, Birmingham had the advantage on boards 2, 6 and 7, so the match was still in the balance. However, the Oxford captain, Ian Marshall, wore down his opponent and Sykes fought hard to draw against Fuller. As usual, Barden gained the advantage front the opening but missed a winning line, after which Oakley played well for a draw. W ith a drastic change of fortune on the lower boards, Oxford came out winners by 6— 2. They thus retain the Championship Trophy for a second year. The following game was played in the Final:—

White— W. Marshall, Black— D. J. Youston. 1 P— K4, P— K4; 2 Kt—KB3, Kt—QB3; 3 B— Kt5, P—QR3; 4 B— R4, Kt— B3; 5 O—0, B—K2; 6 R—Kl, P—QKt4; 7 B—Kt3, 0 —0; 8 P— B3, P—Q4; 9 PXP, KtXP; 10 KtXP, KtXKt; 11 RXKt, P—QB3; 12 P—Q4, B—Q3; 13 R— K1, Q— R5; 14 P— Kt3, Q— R6; 15 BXKt, PXB; 16 Q— B3, B— KB4; 17 Kt—Q2, QR— K1 ; 18 R— K3, R— K3 ; 19 Q— Kt2, Q— R4; 20 RXR, PXR; 21 P— B3, B— KR6; 22 Q— K2, P— K4; 23 P— KKt4, Q— Kt3; 24 PXP, B— B4ch; 25 K— R1, P— KR4; 26 Kt— Kt3, PXP; 27 KtXB, PXP; 28 Q— KB2, Q— Kt7ch; 29 QXQ, PXQch; 30 K— K t1, R— B8 mate.

REGIONAL TABLES. SOUTH B. E. S. R. Pts. Bristol * 4½— 3½ 4½— 3½ 6 — 2 6 Exeter 3½— 4½ * 4½— 3½ 5 — 3 4 Southampton 3½— 4½ 3½— 4½ * 5½— 2½ 2 Reading 2 — 6 3 — 5 2½— 5½ * 0

EAST 0. C. L. Pts. Oxford * 3½— 3½ 5½— 1½ 3 Cambridge 3½— 3½ * 4½— 2½ 3 London 1½— 5½ 2½— 4½ * 0

MIDLAND B. S. N. Pts. Birmingham * 4½— 3½, 6½— 1½ 74— 4, 44— 34 8 Sheffield 34— 44, 14— 64 * 54— 24, 4 — 4 3 Nottingham 34— 44, 4— 74 4 — 4, 24— 54 * 1

NORTH M. Li. Le. Pts. Manchester 4 — 4, 5 — 3 4 — 4, 64— 14 6 Liverpool 3 — 5, 4 — 4 * 54— 24, 5 — 3 5 Leeds 1 4— 64, 4 — 4 3 — 5, 24— 54 * 1

WALES Swansea beat Aberystwyth 3— 5, 7— 1.

SCOTLAND Aberdeen beat Glasgow 5½— 2½.

6 QUARTER FINALS Swansea 4, Bristol 4. Swansea win on elimination. Aberdeen 2½, Durham 5½ Birmingham w.o. Manchester.

SEMI-FINALS Birmingham 5½, Durham 2½. Oxford 8, Swansea 0.

FINAL Birmingham 2, Oxford 6.

CORRESPONDENCE CHAMPIONSHIP. An innovation during the past season has been the first B.U.C.A Individual Correspondence Championship. This was hardly an unqualified success as only five players took part, three being from one University. However sufficient interest should have been aroused to justify its con- tinuance for the coming season. P. J. Oakley (Birmingham) was an extremely good winner. 0. E. P. D. L. Pts. P J. Oakley (Birmingham) 1½ H 2 2 2 7½ M. J. Egginton (Birmingham) ½ * 1 2 ½ 4 R O. Powis (Bristol) ... 0 1 * 1 2 4 * B G. Dudley (Birmingham) . .. 0 0 1 1½ 2½ P. A. Lake (Hull) ... 0 1½ 0 ½ # 2

500 BOARD MATCH. The prize for the best-played game in the North v. South Festival of Britain match was won by Neil McKelvie (Cambridge) on board A l. Here is the game with notes by the winner. White— J. A. Fuller, Black— N. McKelvie. 1 P-K4 P-QB4 1 1 P-QR3(a)B-Kt2 21 BXKt(e) BXB 2 Kt-KB3 Kt-QB3 12 P-Kt4 Kt-Q2 22 QXPch(f)K-R1 3 P-Q4 PXP 13 Q -K 1 R -B 1 23 B-B3 R -B 1 4 KtXP Kt-B3 14 R-Q 1 Kt-R4 24 Q-K6 Q-KB5 5 Kt-QB3 P-Q3 1 5 KtXKt QXKt 25 R-Q2 E-Q5 ch 6 B-K2 P-KKt3 16 P-K5(b) KR-K1 26 RXB QXR ch 7 B-K3 B- Kt2 17 Q-B2(c ) P-Kt5 27 K-Kt2 RXB 8 0 - 0 0 - 0 18 RPXP QXKtP 28 RXR BXR ch 9 Kt-Kt3 P-QR3 19 B-Q4(d) PXP 29 KXB R -B l ch 10 P-B4 P-QKt4 20 PXP KtXP 30 Resigns (a) I expected 11 Kt— Q5, and intended replying Kt-—Q2 (and not KtXP; 12 B— B3! wins). (b) If instead 16 Kt— Q5, then QXQ; 17 KtXPch, K— R1 ; 18 KRXQ, QR— K 1; 19 Kt— Q5, BXKtP etc. Better was 16B— Q4, BXB; 17 RXB, Q— Kt3, 18 Q— B2. (c) Of course, not 17 PXP, PXP; 18 RXP, RXB; 19 RXKt, Q— Kt3; 20 Q— B2, B— Q5; but a better chancq was 17 B— B3.

7 (d) _ Hoping for 19 ... QXP. (e) If 21 Q— B4, simply Q— Q3! (f) Fatal, but the game was lost anyway.

THE OXFORD CONGRESS. The second B.U.C.A. Individual Championship was held at Merton and Hertford Colleges, Oxford, from July 16th— 27th as an 11-round Swiss. The entry of twenty-six, two more than last year, represented twelve different Universities and, although the 1950 prize-winners were unable to compete, the general standard of play was higher than at Cambridge, for all who played there had improved considerably during the year. It was expected that the battle for first place would be between the two Cambridge players D. V. Mardle and N. McKelvie, J. A. Wall the blind Oxford player, and P. J. Oakley of Birmingham. However, Wall was clearly off form and McKelvie began slowly with two draws. Oakley started with 5½ out of 6 including a fine win against Mardle in Round 3, but then came a defeat by his club-mate G. Fuller. This gave Mardle a chance to catch up and he went ahead in the next round when Oakley drew with McKelvie. After ten rounds the leading scores were Mardle 8½, Oakley and McKelvie 7½. Mardle soon got the draw necessary for first prize and McKelvie had a good win over Powis. Oakley, playing for a win, was soundly beaten by Barrett, and had to be content with third place. Cambridge also won the Lightning Tournament, D. V. Mardle and H. A. Samuels tying for first place with 6 points out of 7, L. W . Barden (Oxford), a notable absentee from the main event, coming third. The Congress was much enjoyed by all the competitors who found many other attractions in Oxford besides chess. The championship is now an established annual event and will be held at Bristol next year with, it is hoped, continued success.

GAMES AND COMMENTS. The two favourites for the title started off in fine style. Oakley smashed Gilbert in 18 moves and Mardle won a nice positional game against Hawkins for which he was later awarded the Best Game Prize. The Hull player Metcalfe provided a surprise by beating Wall who lost a piece after winning a pawn in the opening. McKelvie played combinational chess against Samuels to win the exchange, only to blunder it away the next move and agree a draw. Fuller v. Blagrove was adjourned three times and had gone 9 J hours and 87 moves before Fuller won. Friends(?) later pointed out how he could have won a piece on move 27. Selby had a pretty idea: White— Selby, Black— Williamson. 1 P— K4, Kt— KB3; 2 P— K5, Kt— Q4; 3 P—Q4, P— Q3; 4 P—QB4, Kt— Kt3; 5 PXP, KPXP; 6 Kt—QB3, Kt— B3; 7 P— KR3, B— B4; 8 Kt— B3, B— K2; 9 B— K3, O— O; 10 B— K2, R— K1 ; 11 O'— O, B— KB1 ; 12 P— Q5, Kt— K4; 13 KtXKt, RXKt; 14 B— Q4, R— K2; 15 B—Q3, BXB; 16 QXB, Q—Q2; 17 Kt— K4, QR— K 1; 18 Kt— B6 ch, Resigns. The second round game between Worthing and W all, both Oxford, was drawn after 92 moves— the longest game of the tournament. Barrett held Mardle well but a weak QP eventually cost him the game. In Cohen v. Smith both sides attacked vigorously, the latter getting the point. Oakley again played attacking chess: White— Oakley, Black— Powis. 1 P—Q4, Kt— KB3; 2 P—QB4, P— K3; 3 Kt—QB3, B— Kt5; 4 Q— B2, P— 'Q4; 5 P—QR3, BXKtch; 6 QXB, O—O; 7 B— Kt5, QKt—Q2; 8 P—

8 K3, P—QKt3; 9 PXP, PXP; 10 Kt— B3, P— B4; 11 B—Q3, B— Kt2; 12 O—O, P— KR3; 13 B— R4, R— B1; 14 QR—Q1, P— KKt4; 15 B— Kt3, Kt—K5; 16 BXKt, PXB; 17 Kt— K5, KtXKt; 18 PXKt, Q—K2; 19 R— Q6, K— R2; 20 P—B4, R—KKt1 ; 21 P— B5, KR—Q1 ; 22 KR— Q1, RXR; 23 PXR, Q— Q2; 24 Q— B6, R— K 1; 25 B— K5, R— KKt1 ; 26 P— KR4, Q— R5; 27 QXBP ch, Resigns. Round 3 brought the clash between Mardle and Oakley. The Cam bridge player had the advantage from the opening but missed his way later, allowing Oakley to conjure up an attack on the King-side which won him the game. Selby v. Cannon being drawn, Smith joined Oakley in the lead by a surprise win over Samuels. Barrett threw away a draw against McKelvie. Cohen v. Blagrove (16 moves), Adkins v. Hawkins (17) and Harris v. Worthing (23) were grand-master Sicilian draws. Gilbert won the Brilliancy Prize for a fine game against Williamson. In the next round Oakley won a well-played Rook and Pawn ending against Smith and Selby beat Powis to take second place. Hancock had McKelvie in a terrible mess but he wriggled out and won. The two Nottingham players came prepared: White— Harris, Black— Spratt. 1 P— K4, P— K4; 2 Kt— KB3, Kt—QB3; 3 B— Kt5, P— QR3; 4 B— R4, Kt— B3; 5 0—0, KtXP; 6 P—Q4, PXP; 7 R— K1, P—Q4; 8 KtXP, B—Q3; 9 KtXKt, BXPch; 10 KXB, Q—R5ch; 11 K—Kt1, QXPch; Drawn. Scores after four rounds were: Oakley 4 ; Selby 3½; Cannon, Mardle, McKelvie and Smith 3; Blagrove, Fuller and Samuels Barrett, Gilbert, Hancock, Paish, Powis, Wall and Williamson 2; Adkins, Cohen, Harris, Hawkins and Spratt 1½; Metcalfe, Williams and Worthing 1; Le Breton ½; Georges 0. White failed to win a game in Round 5, there being six draws and seven Black wins. Selby had started off in fine form and always had the draw in hand against Oakley. The important game McKelvie v. Mardle was played in open style by both players and complications abounded. Black (Mardle) From the diagram play went 24 ... BXKt; 25 B—Q5 ch?!, K—Kt2?; 26 QXB, KtXKtP; 27 Q— Kt4, KtXR; 28 P— B5, P— R4; 29 P— B6 ch, K— R3; 30 Q— K6, BXPP Now 31 RXKt would have won for White but in time trouble, missing Black’s reply, he played 31 Kt —Q6, Kt—Q1; 32 Q— R3, B— K2; 33 B— B3, P— R5; 34 RXKt, BXKt; 35 Q — Kt4, RXB; 36 QXR, B— K2; 37 0— Q5, Q— B3; 38 Q— Kt8. Here the game was adjourned but White resigned with out further play. Wall played an unsound opening and was eventually mated by Hancock. Spratt will long remember the Knight which won him two Rooks against White (McKelvie) Adkins. Georges opened his score with a draw against Le Breton. Oakley had a fairly easy time with Cannon in Round 6 but Selby put up strong resistance against Mardle and should have drawn. McKelvie, Paish and Fuller won to join Cannon and Selby In third place. Spratt was unfortunate to lose to Williamson, for he missed a winning move in time- trouble after defending well against a furious attack. The second week began badly for Oakley who lost to his club-mate Fuller. Unsound middle-game play left Oakley a piece down with a hope less ending. Meanwhile, Cannon had defended cleverly to draw with Mardle. Paish played a nice King-side attack: White— Selby, Black-—

9 BRITISH UNIVERSITIES INDIVIDUAL CHAMPIONSHIP, OXFORD, 1951

COMPETITORS IN UNIVERSITIES CHAMPIONSHIP AND B.U.C.A. OFFICIALS Back Row (L. to R .) R. O. Selby (Cambridge); E. N. Hawkins (Bristol); J. M. Hancock (Exeter); D. L. Barrett (Oxford); B. N. Williams (Birmingham); R. J. Georges (Bristol); C. Gilbert ( Cardiff); G. Fuller (Birmingham); E. G. Le Breton (Swansea). Middle Row: D. Smith (Durham) M. B. Harris (Nottingham); C. R. Worthing (Oxford); H. A. Samuels (Cambridge); T. M. Tayler (Leicester); N. McKelvie (Cambridge); S. R. Metcalfe (Hull}; D. H. Adkins (Cambridge); E. B. Spratt (Nottingham); D. E. Cohen (Oxford); A. G. C. Paish (Cambridge). Front Row: J. A. Wall (Oxford); R. O. Powis (Bristol); D. V. Mardle (Cambridge, Sec.); R. J. Tayler (Cambridge, chairman, retiring Sec.); G. D. Parbrook (Birmingham, retiring chairman); D. J. Youston (Oxford, treasurer); P. J. Oakley (Birmingham, match captain); A. R. Blagrove (London); R. L. Williamson (Manchester); L. J. Cannon (Durham). Paish. 1 P— K4, P—K4; 2 Kt—KB3, Kt—QB3; 3 B—Kt5, P—QR3; 4 B—R4, Kt— B3; 50—O, B— K2; 6R— K1, P— QKt4; 7B— Kt3, O— O; 8 p— B4, PXP; 9 BXP, Kt— QR4; 10 P— Q3, KtXB; 1.1 PXKt, P—Q3; 12 P— KR3, B— K3; 13 P—QKt3, Kt—Q2; 14 Kt— B3, P— KB4; 15 PXP, BXKBP; 16 Kt— K4, Kt— B3 ; 17 Kt— Kt3, B—Q2; 18 B— Kt2, B— B3; 19 R— K3, Kt— Q2; 20 Q— K2, B— KKt4; 21 KtXB, QXKt; 22 Kt— K4, Q— Kt3; 23 QR— Kl, Kt— B4; 24 Kt— Kt3, Kt— K3; 25 Q— R5, Q—B3; 26 R—KB I, Kt—B5; 27 Q—Kt4, BXKtP; 28 Kt—K4, Q— B4; 29 QXQ, RXQ; 30 R—Ql, BXKt; 31 RXB, KtXPch; 32 K— Kt2, R XPch; 33 KXKt, RXB; 34 Resigns. McKelvie slaughtered Smith to make the leading positions Mardle and Oakley 5 i; Fuller, McKelvie and Paish 5. By beating Paish, who sacrificed ;a pawn unsoundly, Mardle took the lead as the games Oakley v. McKelvie and Selby v. Fuller were quick draws. Cannon beat Samuels who had a winning position at one stage. There were seven draws, one more than in the previous round. Scores after eight rounds: Mardle 6½; Oakley 6; Cannon, Fuller and McKelvie 5½; Paish 5; Barrett, Powis, Samuels and Selby 4½; Blagrove, Hancock, Wall, Williams and Williamson 4 ; Cohen, Gilbert, Harris, Hawkins, Met calfe, Smith and Spratt 3½; Worthing 3; Adkins 2½; Georges and Le Breton 1. Mardle went further ahead in Round 9 by beating Fuller in 71 moves. Oakley could only draw with Paish, and McKelvie joined Oakley in second place, a point behind the leader, by a win over Cannon. Samuels showed better form in beating Selby. Powis won the exchange early on (against Barrett but had to work hard to win. Worthing showed signs of recovery from his bad start by beating Le Breton. In the tenth round, the three leaders won in convincing style to leave the position at the top unchanged. Mardle played a crushing attack against Powis and Oakley was too strong for Samuels. Fuller was outplayed in an interesting game: White— Fuller, Black— McKelvie. 1 P— Q4, Kt— KB3; 2 P—QB4, P—KKt3; 3 Kt—QB3, B—Kt2; 4 P— K4, P—Q3; 5 P— KKt3, 0—0; 6 B—Kt2, QKt—Q2; 7 KKt—K2, P—K4; 8 P—Q5, P—QR4; 9 0—0, Kt— K1; 10 B— K3, P— KB4; 11 P— B4, BPXP; 12 BXP, Kt— B4; 13 B— Kt2, B—Q2; 14 Q—Q2, PXP; 15 RXP, Kt— B3; 16 QR— KB1, Q— K2; 17 BXKt, PXB; 18 R(4)— B3, Q— Q3; 19 Kt— B4, Kt— Kt5; 20 Kt—Q3, RXR; 21 RXR, R— Kl ; 22 Kt—Q1, B—Q5 ch; 23 K— R1, Q— K2; 24 P— KR3, Kt— B3; 25 R— B1, B— B4; 26 Kt(1)— B2 Q—K6; 27 QXQ, RXQ; 28 Kt— B4, RXP; 29 Kt— K2, BXKt; 30 RXB, R—K6; 31 Kt— B3, Kt—K5; 32 KtXKt, BXKt; 33 BXB, RXB; 34 P— Kt3, P— R5; 35 PXP, RXP; 36 R— QKt2, R— QKt5; 37 Resigns. Paish brought his score to 6½ with a win against Cannon and Blagrove appeared in the picture with 6 points. He had scored three points from the last four rounds. The final round began with Mardle almost certain of victory and he clinched the matter by a draw in 15 moves against Blagrove. McKelvie made good use of his pawns: White— McKelvie, Black— Powis. 1 P— Q4, Kt— KB3; 2 P— QB4, P— KKt3; 3 Kt— QB3, B— Kt2; 4 P— K4, P—Q3; 5 p— KKt3, O—O; 6 B— Kt2, P— K4; 7 KKt— K2, QKt—Q2; 8 0—0, Kt— K l; 9 P— B4, P—QB3; 10 B— K3, Q— B2; 11 Q— B2, Kt— Kt3; 12 P— Kt3, P— KB4; 13 BPXP, QPXP; 14 P— B5, Kt—Q2; 15 P— Q5, PXQP; 16 KtXP, Q—Q1 ; 17 KPXP, PXP; 18 QR— Q1, Kt— B2; 19 P— B6, PXP; 20 QXQBP, KtXKt; 21 QXKt ch, K— R1; 22 QXR, P— B5; 23 PXP, PXP; 24 KtXP, Q— K2; 25 Kt— Q5, Q— R5; 26 RXR ch, Resigns. Oakley thus needed a win to tie for second place but Barrett played his best game of the tournament to score a notable success: White— Barrett, Black— Oakley. 1 P— K4, Kt— KB3; 2 P— K5, Kt— Q4; 3 P— Q4, P—Q3; 4 Kt— KB3, B— Kt5; 5 P— KR3, BXKt; 6 QXB, PXP; 7 PXP, P— K3; 8 P—R3, P—QB3; 9 P— B4, Kt— K2; 10 B— K2, Kt—Q2; 11

11 Q— B3, Q— B2; 12 P— B4, P— KR4; 13 Kt— Q2, Kt— KB4; 14 P—QKt4, p— B4; 15 Kt— K4, P— R5; 16 B—Q2, B— K2; 17 O— O, P— B3; 18 PXP, KtXP; 19 Kt— Kt5, Q— Kt3; 20 P— Kt5, O— O—O; 21 KR— K1, Kt—Q5; 22 B— B3, KR— B1; 23 P— R4, Kt— Kt1 ; 24 P— R5, Q—Q3; 25 Kt— Kt4, KtXBch; 26 QXKt, Q—Q2; 27 B— B3, Kt— B3; 28 QR— Q1, QXR; 29 RXQ, RXRch; 30 QXR, KtXKt; 31 B— K5, Kt— Kt6; 32 Q— Kt4, Kt— B4; 33 P— R6, PXP; 34 Q— B3, K—Q1; 35 Q— R8ch, K—Q2; 36 Q— B6ch, K— Q1 ; 37 B— B7ch, K— B1 ; 38 B— Kt6ch, K— K t l; 39 Q— B7ch, K— R1 ; 40 QXP mate. On adjournment Paish had an easy win against Samuels but somehow managed to lose, and therefore missed tying with Oakley. Fuller recovered some of his lost ground by beating Gilbert with a neat finish. Williams sacrificed nicely: White— Williams, Black— Cannon. 1 P— Q4, P— Q4; 2 P— QB4, P— QB3 ; 3 Kt-— QB3, Kt— KB3; 4 B— Kt5, P— K3; 5 P— K3, B— K2; 6 Q— B2, Q— R4; 7 Kt— KB3, PXP; 8 BXP, P— Kt4; 9 B—Q3, P— Kt5; 10 Q— R4, Q— Kt3; 11 BXKt, BXB; 12 Kt— K4, B— K2; 13 O—O, 0—0; 14 QR— Bl, B— Kt2; 15 Q— Kt3, K— R1 ; 16 QKt— Kt5, BXKt; 17 KtXB, P— KR3; 18 KtXPch, RXKt; 19 QXKP, R— Bl; 20 Q— Kt6, K— Kt1 ; 21 R— B5, R— B3; 22 Q— K8ch, R— B1; 23 B— B4ch, K— R2; 24 QXR, Q— B2; 25 R— KR5, B— R3; 26 B— Kt3, Resigns. Before play started, Cohen offered his opponent a draw which was refused— Cohen went on to win. The tournament thus ended on a lively note with several fine games and only two draws. Final scores: Mardle 9 ; McKelvie 8½; Oakley 7½; Samuels, Fuller, Paish, Barrett and Blagrove 6½; Selby and Williams 6; Cannon, Gilbert, Powis, W all, Cohen, Worthing, Metcalfe and Spratt 5 ½; Hancock, Williamson and Hawkins 5; Smith and Harris 4½; Adkins 2½; Le Breton and Georges 1½. (Tied players in Sonneborn order).

THE PLAYERS. Mardle fully deserved first place. Apart from his loss to Oakley, only against McKelvie was he in any trouble and usually he had the upper hand either positionally or tactically. His play Is improving rapidly and should continue to do so. McKelvie’s opening knowledge is limited but he has some original combinative ideas. From a slow start he picked up with 5½ from the last 6 rounds. In contrast Oakley could only muster 2 more points after a fine start of 5½ out of 6. In the first week he played forceful attacking chess but, as last year, seemed unable to stay the pace. Samuels had some bad luck but must learn not to scorn the draw Fuller was unlucky to meet Mardle and McKelvie in full flight, for he has a good style. Paish played several good attacking games. Barrett did sur prisingly well and impressed with his win against Oakley. Fuller, Paish and Barrett are all first-year men— a good sign. Blagrove pulled up well after a bad start. Selby was a vastly improved player from last year and started excel lently with 4 out of 5. Unfortunately, like Pirc in the Staunton, he lost to his club-mates. A “sacrifice-when-possible” style brought Williams six good wins. Three losses in a row at the end affected Cannon’s score; he needs to work on openings. Apart from the game with Williamson, Gilbert showed little of his true form. Powis was liable to go astray in the early middle- game. Wall had renounced his usual solid play for a carefree style which didn’t work. Cohen was always happy with a draw. Worthing must learn to control his clock better. Metcalfe played better in the second week. Spratt deserved a bigger score.

12 1. D. V. Mardle (Cambridge) ... 2 . N. McKelvie (Cambridge) 3 . P. J. Oakley (Birmingham) ... 4 . H. A. Samuels (Cambridge) 5. G . Fuller (Birmingham) 6. A. G. C. Paish (Cambridge) 7. D. L. Barrett (Oxford) 8. A. R. Blagrove (London) 9. R. O. Selby (Cambridge) 10. B. N. Williams (Birmingham) 11. L. J. Cannon (Durham) 12. C. Gilbert (Cardiff) ... 13. R. O. Powis (Bristol) 14. J. A. Wall (Oxford) 15. D. E. Cohen (Oxford) 16. C. R. Worthing (Oxford) ... 17. S. R. Metcalfe (Hull) 18. E. B. Spratt (Nottingham) ... 19 J. M. Hancock (Exeter) 2 0 . R. L. Williamson (Manchester) 2 1 . E. N. Hawkins (Bristol) 2 2 . D. Smith (Durham) 2 3 . M. B. Harris (Nottingham) ... 2 4 . D. H. Adkins (Cambridge) ... 2 5 . E. G. Le Breton (Swansea) ... 2 6 . R. J. Georges (Bristol) Late nights at Canasta spoiled Hancock’s play. Williamson was dis appointing. Hawkins was upset by a crushing defeat in the first round. Smith began with three wins but lost the next four games. He has a tendency to over-combine. Harris was prone to make mistakes. Adkins threw away some points. Le Breton and Georges will do better next time.

GAMES FROM THE TOURNAMENT. Notes by the winner in each case.

Round 3. White— D. V. Mardle, Black— P. J. Oakley.

1 P-Q4 Kt-KB3 1 1 P-QR3 PXP 21 RXB Kt(2)-B3 2 P-QB4 P-KKt3 12 PXP RXR 22 P-KR3(g)KtXKP(h) 3 P-KKt3 B- Kt2 13BXR Kt-Kl 23 BXKt QXBPch 4 B-Kt2 0 - 0 14 Kt-Q2 P-KB4 24 K -R l Q-K8ch 5 P-K4 P-Q3 15 Q-Kt3(b)K-Rl 25 K t-K tl QXR 6 Kt-K2 QKt-Q2 16 R-QB1 (c)P-B5 26 Q-Kt3 0-KB7 7 0 - 0 P-K4 17 P-Kt4(d)P-B6! 27 BXPch PXB 8 P-Q5 Kt-B4 18 BXBP(e) B-R3 28 QXPch Q-B3 9 P-QKt4 Kt(4)-Q2(a) 19R-B2 Q-R5 29 Resigns 0 B-Kt2 P-QR4 20 K-Kt2(f) BXKt (a) If 9 . .. K t(4)XP; 10 P— B3 wins a piece. (b) Stronger is 15 PXP, PXP; 16 P— B4, Kt( 1)— B3; 17 PXP, KtXP; 18 Kt— B4. (c) 16 PXP is still best; the text-move leaves f2 weak. (d) Further weakening the K— side. Correct is 17 P— B3, PXP; 18 PXP, Kt(2)— B3, followed by Kt— R4. (e) If 18 KtXP, Kt(2)— B3 regains the pawn with advantage. (f) A better defence is 20 Kt— KB1, Kt(2)— B3; 21 Kt(2)— Kt3, KtXKtP; 22 B— KKt2, but by Kt— Kt2— R4, Black maintains his attack. (g) If 22 Kt— Ktl, BXP; 23 BXB, QXBch wins the KP; or if 22 Q— K3, KtXKtP; 23 BXKt, BXB; 24 Kt— Ktl, B— B6ch; 25 KtXB, Q— Kt5ch; 26 K— Rl, RXKt; 27 Q— Kl, Kt— B3; 28 R— K2, R— B5 wins. (h) If 22 ... KtXKtP; 23 Kt— Ktl !

Round 3. White— C. Gilbert, Black— R. L. Williamson.

1 P-Q4 Kt-KB3 11 P-Q5(a) P-K4 21 KR-Q1 R-Ql 2 P-QB4 P-K3 12 P-K4 PXP 22 PXQP PXP 3 Kt-KB3 P-QKt3 13 QKtXP 0 - 0 23 KtXB RXKt 4 P-KKt3 B-Kt2 14 P-QKt4 P-KR3 24 P-B4 Q-KB2 (b) 5 B-Kt2 B-Kt5ch 15Q -K3 Kt-Q2 25 PXP PXP 6 B-Q2 B-K2 16 K t(3) - Kt-B3 26 QXKP R -K l(el Q2(c) 7 Kt-B3 Kt-K5 17 KtXKtch BXKt 27 Q-B7 R-K2 8 Q-B2 KtXB 18 Kt-K4 Q-K2 28P-Q6I! (f)QXP 9 QXKt P-KB4 19 QR-B1 0R-K1 29Q -B2 Q-K3 1 0 0 — 0 P-Q3 20 P- B5(d) K -R l 30 PXR Resigns

14 Black (Williamson) (a) This curtails Black’s movements on the Queen-side. (b) White is playing for an eventual break through by P— B5. (c) An excellent positional idea which gradually increases White’s control. (d) This gives White complete con trol of the QB file. Black cannot capture the pawn on B5 as he would be left with a weak pawn on the open file. If 20 ... BXP; 21 KtXB ch. (e) Black should play R(3)— Q3 with a difficult game, for the White Q pawn is untouchable. White (Gilbert) (f) (See diagram). All the White pieces are now in perfect harmony, and the combination is centred round the pawn on Q6. If 28 . .. RXQ; 29 PXR, B— B l; 30 R—Q8ch, Q— Bl, (30 ... K— R2; 31 RXB and Black is com pletely lost) 31 R— B l! wins very prettily. In desperate time-trouble, Black tries for a swindle.

Round 10, White— R. O. Powis, Black— D. V. Mardle. 1 Kt-KB3 Kt-KB3 9 B-K2 R -K l 17 KtXKt BXBch 2 P-QKt3 P-KKt3 10 P-K4(b) PXP 18 KXBfe) KtXKt 3 B-Kt2 B-Kt2 1 1 KtXP Kt-B4 19 KR-K1 Kt-B4 4 P-K3 0 — 0 12 P-B3 Kt-R4(c) 20 RXP B-B4 5 P-B4 P-Q3 13 0 - 0 - 0 P-R4 21 Q-Bl (f) P-R5 6 P-Q4 QKt-Q2 14 P-Kt3 Q-Kt3 22 Kt-Q2(g) PXP 7 Kt-B3 P-B3(a) 15 P-B4 Kt-B3(d) 23 PXP Kt-R5< 8 Q-B2 P-K4 16 Kt-B3 KKtXP 24 Resigns(h) (a) This seems the best way of meeting Nimzowitsch’s Attack, as White is now in an inferior variation of the King’s Indian. (b) Correct was 10 O— O, Kt— Kt3; 11 PXP, PXP; 12 QR— Q l, White need not fear 10 ... P— K5 because 1 1 Kt— KKt5, P— Q4; 12 PXP, PXP; 13 Kt— QKt5 wins the exchange. (c) With the double threat of BXKt and Q— R5 ch. (d) Black could play 15 . .. B XK t; 16 RXB, K tX P ch ; 17 PXKt, QXR; 18 Kt— Q l, QXKP; 19 Q— B3, P— B3; but might get into serious trouble. The move played is much better. (e) 18 QXB, K tX K t; 1.9 KR— K l, Q— K6 ch, gives Black an over whelming game. (f) If 21 Q— Q2 (or Q— B3), Kt— K5; 22 Q— Q4, Q— B2. Or 21 Q—Ql, Kt—R5ch; 22 K—Rl, Kt—B6; 23 Q—Q4, QXQ; 24 KtXQ, B— Kt5 wins. (g) Not 22 Kt— Q4, PXP; 23 PXP, RXB ch! or 23 KtXP, RXPch! (h) For, if 24 K— R2, Kt— B6ch; 25 K— Kt2, Q— Kt5; 26 QXKt, R— R7 ch; 27 KXR, QXQ and mates.

Round 10. White— P. J. Oakley, Black— H. A. Samuels. 1 P-QB4 Kt-KB3 5 P-Q4 P-Q3 9P-KR3 PXP 2 Kt-QB3 P-KKt3 6P-K4 QKt-Q2 10’KtXP R-Kl 3 P-KKt3 B-Kt2 7 KKt-K2 P-K4 1 1 B-K3 Kt-B4 4 B-Kt2 0 - 0 8 0-0 P-QR4 12Q-B2 P-B3

15 13 QR-Q1 Q-K2 21 B-B2 P-R5 30 R-Q6 QXR(g) (a) 22 P-R3 B-K4 31 PXQ RXQ 14 KR-K1 B-Q2(b) 23 P-B4 B-B2 32 RXR Kt-B4 15 B-B4 Kt-R4(c) 2 4 Q -K 2 Q-Kt6 33 BXP R -K tl 16 KtXP QBXKt 25 B-B3 Kt-Kt2 34 B-Kt2 BXKt 17 BXP Q- K3(d) 26 R- Q3 Q-K3 35 PXB R-Kt6 18 BXKt QXBP 27 K-R2 P-R4 36 P-B4 RXRP 19 B-K3 Kt - B3 (e) 28 P-K5 B-Q2(f) 37 P-B5 Resigns(h) 20 P-B3 Kt - R4 29 B-Kt2 B-R4 (a) Black has not played accurately and now has to meet the threat of KtXP! (b) Not 14 ... K K tX P ; 15 KtXKt, K tX K t; 16 BXKt, QXB; 17 B— Q2! wins. (c) If 15 ... QR—Q l; 16 Kt— Kt3, KtXKt; 17 BXP. (d) If 17 ... Q— Kt4; 18 P— KR4. (e) 19 ... BXKt; 20 QXB, QXQ; 21 PXQ, BXP; 22 BXB, RXB; 23 B— Q4, gives Black a lost Kt v. B ending. (f) If 28 ... BXB; 29 QXB, followed by 30 Kt— K4. (g) The alternative is 30 ... Q— B4; 31. KR— Ql, B— K3; (If 31 ... BXKt; 32 RXB, B— R4; 33 B— K4, Q— K3; 34 R (1)—Q6, Q— R7; 35 B— Q5), 32 Kt— K4 and Black is in dire straits. (h) If 37 ... R— QB6; 38 P— B6, BXP; 39 BXB, RXB; 40 P— Q7, R— Q3; 41 R— K8 ch wins. THE UNIVERSITY CHESS CLUBS SOUTH REGION. BRISTOL. The 1950— 1 season has been the most successful in the recent history of the club. The outstanding achievement was the winning of the Southern Zone of the Universities’ Championship, but in the quarter-final we were narrowly beaten by Swansea, on the elimination rule. In friendly matches we were beaten only by Birmingham University, and Clifton (Champions of the Bristol League). The tournament this year was run on the Swiss system, the winner being E. N. Hawkins, with P. R. Balls a close second. Two encouraging features were the greater number of games completed, and the fact that both the winner and runner-up were first year members. A pleasant and valuable feature of our activities this season has been the arrangement of friendly matches with local teams. Next season we hope to extend this by entering two teams in the Bristol League. EXETER. The membership of the club increased at the beginning of the season and every member anticipated successes. However the team, although strengthened 'by several overseas players, rarely found true form. In the B.U.C.A. League the club scored well against Reading and Southampton only for the middle boards to throw away the advantage against Bristol. Competing in the Bremr idge Cup (Devon Senior Championship) the team distinguished itself by holding the strong Exeter club to a well merited draw. Hancock, Berry, Ball and Pavey played enterprising games on the too boards and will again form the spearhead for the coming season. Chubb, Lamy, Jenkins and Farrer, exponents of the solid positional game, should

16 prove formidable on the lower boards. Hopes are high for 1951— 2 and Exeter anticipate a very full programme. READING. The club s entry into the world of competitive chess was not a happy one; the only gleam on an otherwise dark horizon being a draw with the local club. However a good fixture list has been arranged for the coming season, and it is hoped to take part in the Berkshire League as well as the Universities League. Many members will be glad to receive Exeter U.C. this year instead of visiting them; last year nine hours were spent travelling and only three playing chess. Last season an inter-Hall Knock-out Tourna ment was held for the first time. The winners are still waiting for a trophy once promised by the Union and now feared to be non-existent. A new addition to the committee is a publicity representative; his position is not envied. SOUTHAMPTON. This has been a moderately successful year for the club. Attendances at meetings have been low, nevertheless much chess has been played at College. The club has been doing fairly well in league matches. In the local league the college 1st team has a great chance of being Division 1 champions, while the second team are holding their own in Division 2. Also for the first time the college has entered for the Postal Chess League and has been placed in Division 3. So far the record is ten clear wins. Our success in the coming season depends largely on the strength of the freshers, as quite a few of our old members may not be with us. SWANSEA. The first season in which we have competed in the B.U.C.A. League has been quite successful. We have had our fair share of wins, in spite of an 8— 0 defeat by Oxford. Amongst our best wins were Aberystwyth (2— 1), and the Swansea Club (6— 1); the final analysis was Won 9, Drawn 1, Lost 4. It is hoped that more colleges will enter next season and make a greater success of the newly formed Welsh Region. The Championship games certainly added new interests to our club and the members were more keen than ever. Our own individual championship was won by S. Usher. The competition was close, several players finishing within a point of the winner.

EAST REGION. CAMBRIDGE. This has been rather a lean season for Cambridge compared with the triumphs of 1949-50. The club was knocked out in the first round of the B.C.F. Club Championship, and defeat was escaped by the barest margin against Oxford. Nevertheless much solid progress has been made and the membership has risen above 80. During the year lectures and simultaneous displays have been given by such eminent players as C. H. O’D. Alexander, R. W . Bonham, I. König, W. Korn and R. G. Wade. At Hastings our President, D. V. Mardle, and N. McKelvie distinguished themselves, and Mardle and O. Penrose won through to the final of the British Championship. The University Cham pionship resulted in a tie between Mardle and J. F. Barrett, while St. John’s are inter-collegiate champions. LONDON. The club has had one of its most successful seasons in recent years, and the matches won included those against Civil Service (10— 5),

17 Athenaeum (7— 6), Metropolitan (14— 6), and Lud-Eagle (5½—4½). Un fortunately in the B.U.C.A. League a team weakened by illness lost to a strong Oxford team, and defeat was also suffered against Cambridge. Headed by T . N. Cetinkale, 1950 University Champion, and the University Captain, J. C. Cook, Imperial College won the University Chess League with a clean score; thus regaining the “ Sir George Thomas’’ cup which they lost last season. In the second division, Imperial II headed the Western Section and Sir John Cass College the Eastern. The individual championship was won by P. Miodownik of Battersea Polytechnic. He beat D. Harding of the London School of Economics in the final. OXFORD. The membership of the club has increased considerably during the past year, and we have had a successful season as shown by the results:— Played 20, Won 12, Drawn 4, Lost 4. This includes victories over Insur ance, Lud-Eagle, and Athenaeum, and two draws with the Civil Service. Much assistance has also been given to Oxfordshire, who, after once more winning the Midland Counties Championship, won the English Counties Championship for the first time. The year’s programme has included a lecture by our new President, Dr. H. G. Schenk, a simultaneous display by Dr. J. M. Aitken, and a week end visit by R. G. Wade. The inter-college championship was run on a Swiss system and this was a great success. The result of the Cambridge match was an improvement on that of last year and 'we hope to do still better next season.

MIDLAND REGION. BIRMINGHAM. A steadily increasing membership and keenness enabled us to enter a fifth team in the Birmingham League, and all the teams did well; the first, third in Division 1, provided the champions with their only defeat, and two other teams gained second place in their divisions. A 24 board match against the Warwickshire champions, Erdington. was drawn. Only one Inter-University match was lost, that against Oxford in the B.U .C.A . Finals, and in an earlier friendly match Oxford were defeated 6½— 3½. The Captain, Mr. Oakley, gained both the University Championship and that of the Birmingham League. Mr. G. Fuller was a close second in the University Championship. Eight teams competed in the Departmental League, which was won by the Chemists. All the strong players remain for next year which is the Club’s Jubilee Year— we were founded November 13, 1901. NOTTINGHAM. The labours of the University Chess Club players have not exactly been crowned with success this year, mainly due to a shortage of good players for the upper boards. However, we are determined that, losing, all our B.U.C.A. matches will not become a custom. We have been given valuable opportunities to improve our strength by playing in Nottingham shire County and local league matches. The University Chess Cup was won this year by M. B. Harris after a hard tussle with G. W . Grundy, a strong Colonial player who is, unfortunately, leaving this year. SHEFFIELD. Partly owing to the loss of the best of last year’s regular players, the 1950-1 season has not been outstanding; of inter-varsity matches, Sheffield won but three. The root of this trouble lay in the lack of consistent middle board players and of regular match play. To remedy the latter, it is in tended, this season, to compete in the Sheffield and District League,

18 Mention must be made, however, of J. E. Littlewood,, who had the mag nificent record, in university matches, of Played 12, Won 10, Drawn 2; he was also chosen for the B.U.C.A. team which visited Holland last December. The second team had quite a successful, season: Played 15, Won 10, Drawn 2, Lost 3, against opposition drawn mainly from Sheffield and District Grammar Schools. With an unweakened and experienced team, we look forward to a more successful season in 1951— 2. MANCHESTER. Manchester had a successful season, winning the Robinson Trophy for a fifth time, third In succession, and retaining the Northern B.U.C.A. Championship. Hopes of winning the B.U.C.A. League were however lost when, unable to give sufficient notice of change of fixture, Manchester defaulted to Birmingham. A team was also entered for the Manchester ‘A ’ League for the first time, winning 5 matches and losing 3. ' The club was fortunate in obtaining Sir Robert Robinson, Mr. R. G. Wade and Mr. Phillips to give simultaneous displays, and interesting talks were given by Mr. J. H. Pollltt and Mr. B. L. Wilkinson. In the Stopford Trophy, J. Perkins beat T . K. Hemingway in the final, thus holding the trophy for a second time. Although several strong players are leaving, hopes are high for 1951— 52. KING’S COLLEGE, NEWCASTLE. The 1950— 51 team was less strong than that of the previous year, since only 3 of the 1,000 freshers were interested in the Chess Club! However, the College finished fourth in the Northumberland League and reached the Semi-Final of the B.U.C.A. Championship by a win over Aberdeen, only to be beaten by Birmingham, the score being reversed. A number of friendly matches were played, including fixtures with local schools. The College was represented In Northumberland County teams by 1. F. Bell, L. B. Wilson and J. V. R. Prescott, who have worked hard for the Club. This year has seer* the inauguration of a Chess Club in the Durham Colleges. They have not yet had match experience, but it is hoped that co-operation between them and King’s College will produce a really1 strong University team in the coming season. QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY, BELFAST. We, are still a young club but now have more than: 20 members and are growing in strength. Two teams have been playing in the Ulster League, the 1st team were second in Division 1 and the 2nd team won! Divisjon 2. Two players entered for the Ulster Junior Championship and both reached the final! One player entered for the Ulster Intermediate Championship and was beaten in the final. Our main event of the year was the Irish Universities Congress held at Easter in Cork. Unfortunately only three of the usual five universities we re able to compete. University College Dublin won with 1½ points.. Queen’s were second with 1 point, and University College Cork scored ½ point. In the Individual Championship, which was won by J. Casey (Cork), with the Irish Champion, V. Maher (Dublin), and N. Mulcahy (Cork) second, our first board player J. W . A. Mills came fourth. Next year we are hoping to compete in the B.U.C.A. League. NEW ENTRANTS. Leicester and Loughborough will be new entrants to the Midland Region during the coming season. Leicester report increasing membership and are organising a lightning tournament at the commencement of the year. Bangor, and possibly Cardiff, are entering the Welsh Zone.

19 ADDRESSES OF SECRETARIES FOR 1951— 52 SEASON.

ABERDEEN: P. Llewellyn, University Union, Aberdeen. ABERYSTW YTH: Students’ Union, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth BANGOR: Students’ Union, University College of North Wales, Bangor. BELFAST: V. D. Farris, 124, Woodvale Road, Belfast. BIRMINGHAM: A. C. B. Smith, Guild of Undergraduates, Edgbaston, Birmingham. BRISTOL: R. J. Georges, University of Bristol Union, The Victoria Rooms, Bristol 8. CAMBRIDGE: A. G. C. Paish, Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge. CARDIFF: Students’ Union, 51, Park Place, University College, Cardiff. DURHAM: R. Atkinson, 15, Seventh Avenue, Blyth, Northumberland. EDINBURGH: The University Union, Edinburgh. EXETER: Guild of Undergraduates, University College of the South-West, Gandy Street, Exeter. GLASGOW: University Union, University Avenue, Glasgow, W .2. HULL: P. A. Lake, Students’ Union, University College, Hull. LEEDS: University Union, University Road, Leeds 2. LEICESTER: J. M. Tayler, 3, Dunstall Avenue, Braunstone, Leicester. LIVERPOOL: Guild of Undergraduates, 2, Bedford Sreet North, Liverpool 7. LONDON: P. Miodownik, University of London Union, 30/32, Woburn Square, London, W .C .1. LOUGHBOROUGH: J. A. Cooke, Loughborough College, Leicestershire. MANCHESTER: R. L. Williamson, University Union, Manchester 15. NOTTINGHAM: Union of Students, Nottingham. OXFORD: K. N. Bascombe, Balliol College, Oxford. READING: R. P. Langton, Students’ Union, Reading. ST. ANDREW’S: University Union, St. Andrew’s, Fifeshire. SHEFFIELD: B. B. Gent, 78, Norton Lees Crescent, Sheffield. SOUTHAMPTON: Students’ Union, University College, Highfield, Southampton. STOKE-ON-TRENT: Students’ Union, University College of North Staffs., Keele Hall, Nr. Stoke-on-Trent. SWANSEA: E. G. Le Breton, Students’ Union, University College, Singleton Park, Swansea.

20 THE HOLLINGS CHESS SALON The Hollings Chess Salon is the oldest established and best-known Chess Centre in Great Britain. Since 1892 its aim has been to maintain a prompt attention to customers’ requirements and, with no other axe to grind, the energies of the business have been directed solely towards the satisfaction of the customer. The success of this policy is reflected in its solid reputation with chess players all over the world for courtesy and fair dealing. Those who do not know of this service, which may be had for the asking, are invited to send their enquiries for Chess Books and Equipment of every kind and to write for lists. In addition to all current literature, a large stock of out-of-print and second-hand books is carried, and enquiries for any particular items in this field will be welcomed. Our stock includes all Current Books and Magazines, Chess Stationery, Printing Sets, Portland Chess Sets, Chess Sets and Boards. In fact every thing the Chess Player needs. CHESS BOARDS from 3s. 9d. CHESS SETS from 10s. 6d. POCKET SETS from 5s. 6d. TRAVELLING SETS from 5s. 6d. FRANK HOLLINGS 68 Great Queen Street, Kingsway, London, W.C.2. (Telephone: HOLBORN 8104)

SOME BELL CHESS BOOKS Modern Chess Strategy, by E. Lasker ...... Price 17s. 6d. net The author does for the modern game what he did for the classical game in his famous Chess Strategy. Chess from Morphy to Botvinnik, by I. Konig ... Price 18s. 6d. net A book of outstanding importance on the development of chess tech nique— in particular in the fight for the centre. Instructive Positions from Master Chess, by J. Mieses Price 8s. 6d. net An enlarged edition of this well-known anthology of chess brilliancies, with 53 more examples from the last ten years. My Best Games of Chess, 1908— 1923, by A. Alekhine, Price 10s. 6d. net My Best Games of Chess, 1924— 1937, by A. Alekhine, Price 12s. 6d. net Alekhine’s Best Games of Chess, 1938— 1945 ... Price 9s. net World Chess Championship, 1948, by H. Golombek Price 12s. 6d. net “ A remarkable book . . in the fine literary style which we have come to expect from Mr. Colombek —Manchester Guardian. Kere’s Best Games of Chess, 1931 — 1948 ... Price 12s. 6d. net Compiled and annotated by Fred Reinfeld. “ Well worthy of its place amidst the splendid collection of chess books issued by the House of Bell. Whatj higher praise is possible ” — Tablet. My System, by A. Nimzowitsch ...... Price 15s. net Please write for a complete catalogue of our Chess Books G. BELL & SONS LTD., YORK HOUSE, PORTUGAL STREET, LONDON, W.C.2