Guildford Internal Chess Tournament 2007

Every year, Guildford Chess Club runs a chess tournament on Monday evenings in May, June and July. I had not played in it before, but decided to enter the tournament this year. I’m indebted to Mark Fulleylove for obtaining the details from the tournament organiser (Trevor Jones) and establishing that the games would be submitted for grading – as otherwise I would not be interested.

The tournament was held at the Guildford Chess Club venue. This is the Guildford Institute, an old, town-centre building which is owned by the University of Surrey. The building is used for many activities. As luck would have it, the Monday evening slot brought competition from Guildford Vox, a local community choir who provided a musical accompaniment in one of the rooms nearby.

The tournament itself took place in a single section over eight rounds. It was not necessary to play in all rounds and there was no restriction on the number of byes that could be taken. I managed to play in seven of the eight rounds, but some others could only manage four or even fewer. This meant, of course, that it was very hard to compare scores. Another unusual feature was the pairing system. Trevor Jones has traditionally chosen to pair opponents of similar strength (based on grading performance during the tournament), rather than the same score. This has the advantage for strong players of ensuring a supply of reasonably strong opponents in most rounds.

About 30 people took part in the event. The highest-graded players from Guildford were Nigel Povah (198), Roger Abayasekera (181), and Alan Punnett (175), with me on 181. At the other end were a few social players. And there was a range of strength inbetween. The time limit was all moves in 90 minutes. This was a comfortable rate at which to play and ensured that all games were finished on the night.

I could not play in round 1 so my first game was in round 2. I was paired as White against Doug Bennett (155). The opening was a Sicilian Kan (2…e6 and 4…a6). I liked my position throughout the game but it was probably not as good for me as I thought – at least, afterwards, computer analysis found resources for Black which I hadn’t seen. The game was decided suddenly on move 25 when Doug overlooked a tactical continuation that won a piece for me.

In round 3, I found myself playing Black against Nigel Povah. The pairings were usually announced a few days in advance so I was able to prepare for him. I knew that he opened 1.d4 as White, and that he met 1…d5 with 2.Bg5 (the Pseudo-Trompowsky). This is a fairly narrow line so it was not difficult to look at all the database games on this in recent years, and get a feel for the main plans and move-orders. The preparation paid off as I was more confident than I would normally be against a player of Nigel’s strength, and also I knew exactly what was going on in the game, at least until my analysis ended in an unclear position round about move 17. After that, neither of us made any obvious mistakes, and we eventually agreed a draw in a level rook and minor piece ending. This was the first time I had taken anything off a titled player (Nigel is an IM), so I was very pleased with the result. The moves and analysis are in the Games section.

In round 4 I was White against Alan Punnett. He played a French Defence and met my Tarrasch Variation with …Be7. The opening soon transposed into one of the …c5 main lines. He came out of the opening better than I did, but I was able to exchange pieces and reach an interesting queen and pawn ending which was eventually agreed drawn. It was a tough game for both of us.

So far, so good. But disaster struck in round 5 when I was Black against Roger Abayasekera. The opening was OK – he played 1.d4, I met this with the Slav Defence, he developed fairly quietly and we reached a normal middlegame. Then I decided (for reasons I can’t remember) to open up the game with a tactical continuation. Needless to say, this backfired (there was nothing really wrong with White’s position) and I lost quite quickly. Later analysis showed that I was OK until move 12, but then made four bad moves in a row and it wasn’t surprising that I had a lost position afterwards. As Karpov once said, “Blunders rarely travel alone.”

After three hard games in a row, I’d played most of the top players and the second half of the tournament was easier for me. Round 5 brought White against Peter Horlock, who was graded only 124 but who had done very well against other low-graded players in the early rounds. I opened 1.e4 and played the Scotch. He didn’t know any of the theory but still managed to play lots of good moves. It wasn’t until he blundered a piece away in the ending that I knew I would win.

Round 6 was another White against Ian Deswarte (137). This was another Sicilian, this time a Sveshnikov. We followed one of the main lines for quite a long time before I deviated on move 19. He should have gained the advantage after this but went wrong himself, allowing me to liquidate into an ending with the better minor piece. He also blundered in the ending, losing a pawn and then allowing a tactical continuation that won the exchange.

And finally round 7, where I was Black again, this time against Julian Shepley (169). The opening started normally with 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6, but then he played the bizarre 3.a3?! and followed up with c4, Qb3 and Qa2. I don’t know what his plan was but I arranged my pieces in a Slav Defence formation with a very comfortable position. I managed to outplay him in the rest of the game by positional means until his position finally cracked and he gave up the exchange. For me this was one of the most enjoyable games of the tournament. For this one also, the moves and analysis are in the Games section.

At the end I had scored 5/7 and achieved a grading performance of 188 from my seven games, behind Roger Abayasekera and Nigel Povah. This was enough to win the prize for the highest-placed non-member: a discount off the membership subscription for next year, should I wish to join. I might take that up, but winning a prize wasn’t important. I entered because I wanted some serious chess over the summer months and that’s certainly what I got.

Mark Fulleylove also entered the tournament and finished on a respectable 50% with 3.5/7. It gave him some practice too, and, like me, he knew more about his chess at the end of the tournament than the start.