THEUNIVERSITIESC H ESSA N N U A L

C O N T E N T S :B .U .C .A . N e w s .............................................

Page1Helsinki Impressions

By L. W . Barden .............................. 2

Paignton Congress Achievements By E. N. Hawkins .............................. 3

Chester ReportBy P. J. Oakley .............................. 5

Russians at Liverpool By D. Malcolm............................................. 6

W in or Draw ?By D. A . Yanofsky .............................. 8

The Bristol CongressBy E. N. Hawkins .............................. 9

TH IRD ISSU E 1952-3

PRICE 1/9

______________________________________ ____

T H E BRITISH U N IV ER S IT IE S C H E S S A S S O C IA T IO N

O FFIC E R S , 1952-3

President . . . B. H. W O O D , M.Sc.

Vice-Presidents :Mr. C . H. O ’D. Alexander, Alderman J. N. Derbyshire, Sir L. S. Dyer, Bart., Mr. A . W . Osborne, Professor L. S. Penrose, Mrs. D. Pritchard, Sir R. Robinson, D r. H. G . Schenk, Sir G . A.

Thomas, Bart., Mr. T . H. Tylor.

Chairm an : R. J. TAYLER

Hon. Secretary : D. L. BARRETT, Corpus Christi College, Oxford.

Hon. Treasurer: J. J. A . HANDLEY, Selwyn College, Cambridge.

Match Captain : B. CAFFERTY

Regional Representatives :North— L. R. Hart South— E. N. Hawkins Wales—C. Gilbert

Universities Individual Champion, 1952 . . . P. J. O AKLEY

CHESS . SUTTON COLDFIELDEach month, more copies o f CH ESS are bought than all other British chess periodicals, duplicated or printed, fortnightly or monthly put together.

Why not take advantage of our sample offer:20 back numbers for 5s., postage 10d.

Our postal chess club (“ Postal chess from 5s. per year ” ) is the biggest in Western Europe. New members are always welcome.

j For fifteen years we have answered an average of 150 letters a day. There are 30,000 satisfied clients on our books.

Whatever your needs, if they are connected with chess, your enquiry will have our careful attention. Send 2½d. stamp for illustrated catalogue. j

CHESS . SUTTON COLDFIELD

TH E UNIVERSITIES C H E S S A N N U A L

A n official publication of the British Univers it ies Chess Association Joint Hon. Editors : E. N. H A W K I N S and D. J. Y O U S T O N

Third Issue 1952-3

A M E S S A G E F R O M T H E P R E S I D E N TIt is a great thing to have secured publication of this third Annual ; I feel

now that it will continue for many years to come.Of all the offices I have held in the world of chess, there is none I appreciate

so deeply as the Presidency of your Association and I am delighted to say that, unless I over-estimate the auguries, I shall be able this year to play a more helpful and active part in B .U .C .A . affairs. B .H . W OOD

B.U.C.A NEW SThe year has shown continued progress in all fields with a record number of

teams competing in the Team Championship. Bristol staged our Third Congress very successfully and plans are already in hand for next year when Leeds will be the venue.

Outstanding individual achievements have included the selection of Barden for Britain’s team at Helsinki followed by his winning the Premier at Paignton ; also Clarke’s fine performance in the British Championship and of course Yanofsky’s win at Southsea. Oxford has a good chance to win the National Club Championship as Cambridge did in 1950. The B .U .C .A ., notably secretary Mardle, helped with the organisation of the I.U.S. Liverpool Congress which was featured by the appearance of Bronstein and Taimanov.

Next season we hope to be able to entertain a Dutch Student Team, probably in February. At the beginning of the year we gained affiliation to the B.C.F. as a non-territorial constituent unit. Unfortunately the fee of five guineas has put a strain on our financial resources and in view of future commitments it had reluct­antly to be agreed at the A.G.M. to dis-affiliate for the present.

U N I V E R S I T I E S L E A G U EThe 1952 Championship is not yet decided fortwo matches remain to be played :

University of Wales v . Oxford and the winners against Durham. This position has arisen, because of adjudication delays in two of the quarter-final matches and it would seem necessary in future years to complete the zones early so that the quarter-finals can be played before Easter, leaving plenty of time for the semi-finals and final in the Summer term. Twenty-one teams competed in the League, three more than last season.

There was a close fight in the South between Exeter and Bristol, the section being decided on game average. Oxford won the East by beating Cambridge and Sheffield did well to win all their matches in the Midland Region, which included two new teams in Leicester and Loughborough. Manchester again took the Northern title and Queen's University, Belfast, convincingly won the Scottish Region.

1

In the quarter-finals, Belfast v. Durham was played by telephone and resulted in a draw 4-4, Durham winning on the elimination rule. Belfast are to be congratu­lated on an excellent performance in their first B .U .C .A . season. Manchester beat Sheffield comfortably, but there was a struggle in the other match, the score being University of Wales 4½, Exeter 3½.

Oxford had a bye to the semi-final against Wales but it was too late in the term to arrange the match. Durham were awarded a walk-over against Manchester who, without explanation, failed to turn up on the agreed date. The competition is thus at present unsettled, but it will soon be known whether Wales, Oxford or Durham are to hold the trophy in the coming year.

R E G IO N A L T A B L E SS O U T H E. B. R. S. Pts.Exeter * 4 - 4 51-21J 2 L 2 51-21 5Bristo l 4 - 4 * 4.1-31 2̂ 2̂ 6 -2 5Reading 21-5-L 3±_ L L

L i J 2 ° 2 * 2★ 4 l_ 3± — 2 ° 2 2

Southam pton 21-51 2 -6 31-41 °2 2̂ ★ 0

E A S T O . c. L. Pts.O x f o r d ................ ★ 41-214*2 ¿2 31-31 3Cam bridge "■ n - H

-k 41-21 2London ... .................... 31-3* 21-41 ★ 1

M ID L A N D S. B. N. Le. Lo. Pts.Sheffield ★ 5 -3 41-31 71- 1 6 -2 8Birm ingham 3 -5 * 5±_ 2-tJ 2 L 2 51- lJ 2 2 7 -1 6N ottingham . . . 31-41 21-51 5 - 3 74- -t' 2 2 4Le icester . . . i - 7 i 1-51 3 -5 ★ 6 -2 2Loughborough ... 2 -6 1 -7 1-71 2 -6 ★ 0

N O R T H M. Li. Le. Pts.M anchester ★ 3^-4^ 5 -3 6 -2 4Liverpool 3 -5 , 4 f- 3 i ★ 6 -2 2Leeds 2 -6 2 -6 ★ 0

S C O T T IS H B. G. A. E. Pts.Belfast ★ 5 l_ 2 l

J 2 L 2 — 6 -2 4Glasgow 21-51 * ¿2 J 2 51-21 J 2 L 2 — 2Aberdeen __ 21-51 ★ — 0Edinburgh ... 2 - 6 — — ★ 0

Aberdeen defaulted to Belfast, and the other two matches were not played.

H ELSIN KI IMPRESSIONSAn international Team Tournament has a peculiar quality of its own. W ith

25 different countries taking part, there is excitement even in trying to speak to other players. Most masters speak German, although few speak it well, but with others I had to get on by a queer combination of pidgin English and sign language. Still, what counts in a gathering like this is that people do meet and talk ; if you had seen the way in which Russians and Yugoslavs, Americans and Hungarians, Dutch and Germans got together and made international friendships in a few days, you could not believe that any world problem is insoluble by peaceful means.

I was particularly impressed by the enthusiasm for a widening of contacts between chess-playing students.

There seems no reason why the next International Student Tournament should not be a really important one, since Bronstein (U .S .S .R .), Schmid (West Germeny), Fuderer (Yugoslavia) and Bisguier (U .S .A .) all expressed to me their interest in taking part. There is also great interest in the possibility of inter-University

2

matches : for instance, Schmid would like to arrange a match between Cologne University and an English University— it is a pity that financial considerations probably rule this out.

In the actual play, University players did well. Bronstein got the prize for the Best Score on Board 3, and Donner (Amsterdam University) was second. Schmid was second to Smyslov on Board 2, and Jonathan Penrose, who next year will be reading Psychology at London, was fourth with 65%. I myself was in poor form on Board 4, and scored only 41%. LEO NARD BARDEN.

Two games won by B .U .C .A . players :W h ite — J. Penrose (B rita in ), B lack— E. G ilfe r (Iceland)

1. P— K4 P— K 4 13. Q — Q1 P— Q R 3 25. R— Q1 K t — K B 32. K t— K B 3 K t— Q B3 14. P— Q R 3 K B X K t 26. B— B5 K t — K t53. P— Q 4 P X P 15. P X B! Q x RP 27. B X K t P x B4. P— B3 P— Q 4? 16. Q — B2 Q — R4 28. B X R P x B5. K P X P Q X P 17. R— R1 Q — KB 4 29. Q X P Q x BP6. P X P B— Kt5ch 18. Q — K t2 R— Q 4 30. P— B5 Q — B37. K t— B3 B— Kt5 19. K R — Kt1 K t — Q1 31. Q — K t3 Q — K K t38. B— K2 O — O — O 20. P— B4 R— Q 3 32. P— B6 P x P9. O — O Q — Q R 4 21. P— Q5 B X K t 33. R X P Q — B7

10. B— K3 K t— B3 22. B x B K t— K1 34. R— R8 ch. K — Q211. R— B1 Q — K B 4 23. K — R1 R— Kt1 35. P x P c h . K — K312. Q — R4 Q — Q R 4 24. Q — K t4 P— K R 4 36. Q — Q 6ch Resigns.

W h ite — H . P latz (E. G erm any), B lack— L. W . Barden (B rita in)1. P— Q 4 K t— KB3 11. K t— Q B 4 P— Q R 4 21. Q R — K1 B x K t2. P— Q B 4 P— K3 12. 0 — 0 K t— K t3 22. R x B P— B5 ch.3. P— K K t3 P— B4 13. K t X K t Q x K t 23. K — R1 K t— K t24. P— Q5 P X P 14. B— K t5 B— Kt2 24. B— B6 P— K t6 ? (a )5. P x P P— Q K t4 15. Q — Q2 0 — 0 25. R— B3 Q R — Kt16. B— K t2 P— Q 3 16. Q — B4 K t — R4 26. R— R3 !(b ) K t— R 4!7. P— K4 B— K t2 17. Q — R4 B X K tP 27. B— Kt2 B x B8. K t— K2 P— K t3 18. Q R — Kt1 B— K4 28. P X K t B— B39. P— Q R 4 P— K t5 19. P— B4 B— R1 W h ite overstepped the

10. K t — Q2 Q K t— Q2 20. P— K t4 B— R3 tim e-lim it .(a) 24. . . . P— B6! wins. (b) 26. R— Kt2! wins.

PA IG N TO N CO N G RESS A CH IEV EM EN TSThis second, and it is hoped annual Devon County Chess Association Congress

held in the delightful surroundings of Oldway Mansion, Paignton, once again showed the increasing force that the Universities represent in British Chess. L. W . Barden, F. E. A. Kitto, R. Blow, B. H. Wood, W . A. Fairhurst, D. A. Yanofsky, P. J. Oakley and T. H. Tylor constituted the Premier and it is seen that no less than five of these are prominent figures in University chess, while N. Hawkins (3 out of 7) in Premier Reserves “ A ” and M. B. Harris (3 out of 7) in Premier Reserves “ C ” saw that the lower sections also had our support. After a very interesting struggle in the Premier L. W . Barden emerged victor with 5 out of 7, while D. A. Yanofsky and W . A. Fair­hurst shared second and third prizes with 4½, other scores— P. J. Oakley and T. H. Tylor 4, B. H. Wood 3½, R. Blow 2, and F. E. A. Kitto ½. This was a notable success for Barden and all the other University players put up an excellent show, good chess being played throughout. Diversions consisted mainly of “ putting ” at which Barden again excelled and the lightning tournament held on the last day in which Oakley, as usual, won his section.

The Congress was wound up by the prize giving at which several entertaining speeches were given and in one our President, Mr. B. H. Wood, was pleased to note that when he had lost the local press referred to him as “ Mr. B. H. Sutton.”

It is rumoured that the B.C.F. Congress may be held at Paignton next year and this should prove to be a most successful venue. There follow a selection of games by University players from the Congress.

3

Round 4 L. W . Barden, (W h ite ), T . H . T y lo r (Black)1. P— K4 P— Q B4 10. 0 — 0 B— K3 19. P— B3 P— Q K t42. K t— KB 3 K t— Q B3 11. P— B4 Q — B1 20. R— K1 R— Q23. P— Q 4 P X P 12. R — B2 R— Q1 21. P— B5 P— B34. K t X P P— K K t3 13. B— B3 B— K t5 22. P X P P X P5. K t — Q B 3 B— Kt2 14. K t— Q5 K t X K t 23. R— R3 P— K t46. B— K3 P— Q3 15. B X K B B X K B 24. Q — Q3 R— K K t17. B— K2 K t — B3 16. R X B K X B 25. Q — B5 Q — B28. Q - Q 2 K t X K t 17. P X K t Q — B4 ch. 26. R— R7 ch. K — B19. B X K t 0 — 0 18. K — R1 Q R — B1 27. Q — K6 Resigns.

Round 2 B. H . W ood (W h ite ), D. A. Yanofsky (Black)1. P— K B 4 P— Q 4 11. Q — K2 K t — K6 21. P X P P X P2. P— K3 K t— K B 3 12. K t — B4 K t X K t 22. K t — Kt5 K t — B33. K t — K B 3 P— K K t3 13. K tP X K t Q — R4 ch. 23. 0 — 0 P— K54. P— Q K t3 B— K t 2 14. Q — Q2 Q — K t3 24. Q — K t2 P— K65. B— K t 2 P— B4 15. B— B1 B— R3 25. B— R3 Q — B36. B— K t5 ch. B— Q2 16. P— K t4 P— K4 26. Q X Q P X Q7. B X B ch Q K t X B 17. P— K t5 B— K t 2 27. B X P R— K48. P— Q3 0 — 0 18. P— B5 P X P 28. Resigns.9 . Q K t — Q2 P— Q5 19. P X P K R — K1

10. P— K4 K t — K t5 20. P— K t6 BP X P

Round I P. J. O ak ley (W h ite ), B. H. W ood (Black)1. K t — K B 3 K t— KB3 17. B X B K X B 33. P X K t R— K B 32. P— K K t3 P— K K t3 18. Q — Q 4 ch K — Kt1 34. P— B5 P— K t43. B— K t2 B— K t 2 19. B— R3 R— B2 35. P— K K t4 R— B34. 0 — 0 P— B4 20. P— K5 Q — K t3 36. R (R 5 )— R1 K — K15. P— B4 K t — Q B3 21. P— K6 K t — B4 37. K — K t3 K — B16. P— Q 4 P X P 22. P X P ch K X P 38. R— R2 K — K t27. K t X P Q — K t3 23. K t X K t Q X K t 39. R— Q2 R— KB18. K t— K t3 P— Q3 24. B— K 6 ch K — K1 40. R— Q7 K — B39. K t — B3 B— K3 25. Q X Q P X Q 41. R— KR1 R— KR1

10. K t — Q5 B X K t 26. P— K t3 K t — Q 3 42. K — B4 P— B511. P X B K t — K4 27. Q R — B1 K — Q1 43. R X P ch R X R12. B— K3 Q — R3 28. K — K t2 K t — K t4 44. P— N5 ch K — N213. B— Q 4 R— QB1 29. P— K R 4 K t— Q5 45. R X P ch. K — R114. P— B4 K t — B5 30. R— K5 P— K R 3 46. P X R P— B615. P— K 4 0 — 0 31. P— R5 P X P 47. R— K8 ch Resigns.16. R — K1 K t— Q2 32. R x RP K t X B

Round 2 T . H. T y lo r (W h ite ), P. J. O ak ley (Black)1. P— Q 4 K t— KB3 17. P X P Q — B2 33. P X P K t— B12. P— Q B 4 P— K K t3 18. P— B4 K R — Q1 34. K t— K t3 K t— K33. K t — Q B3 B— K t2 19. R X R R X R 35. K t — K 4 Q — Q24. P— K4 P— Q 3 20. N — R4 R— Q1 36. P X P ? Q X K t5. P— K K t3 0 — 0 21. Q — B2 Q — R4 37. Q X Q K t— B5 ch6. B— K t2 P— K4 22. R— Q1 R X R 38. K — K t3 K t X Q7. K K t — K2 P X P 23. Q X R B— KB1 39. P X P K t X P?8. K t X P Q K t— Q2 24. Q — B2 P— Q K t4 40. P— B7 B— K39. 0 — 0 K t— B4 25. K t— K t2 Q — B2 41. K t X P B x N !

10. P— K R 3 R— K1 26. K t — Q 3 B— K2 42. B— Q5 B X B11. P— B3 P— Q R 4 27. K — R1 K t— Q2 43. P— B8

= Q ch B— B112. K — R2 P— B3 28. P— K K t4 P— B3 44. P— Q K t4 K t— B213. B— K3 P— R5 29. B— B3 K — K t2 45. P— K t5 K t— Q314. K K t — K2 B— K3 30. K — Kt2 B— B2 46. Q — Q7 B— Q K t215. B X K t P X B 31. Q — B3 K — Kt1 47. P— K t616. P— K t3 P X P 32. P— K5 P X P D raw n .

And from Premier Reserves A ” :—Round 3 N. H aw kins (W h ite ), F. F. L. A lexander (Black)

1. P—QB4 Kt— KB3 10. O—O—O Q — K2 18. Q—Q4 P—QKt3?2. Kt-—QB3 P— K3 11. Kt— B33. P— K4 B— Kt5 ? 12. B—Q34. P—■K5 B x Kt 13. KR— K15. QP x B Kt— Kt1 14. Kt x P6. Q --Kt4 P— KKt3 15. P x Kt7. B—■Kt5 P— KB3 16. Q— B48. B - -R4 Kt—QB3 17. B— Kt39. P— B4 P—Q3

B—Q2 19. P— B5 B— B3O—O—O 20. B— R6 ch B— Kt2QP x P 21. Q—QR4 Kt— K2Kt x Kt 22. P— B6! Q— B2Q— Kt2 23. B x B ch K— Kt1R— B1 24. R—Q4 Q— K1P— B4 25. Q x P ch Resigns.

CH ESTER REPORTOnce again University competitors did well in the B.C.F. Annual Congress,

held at Chester in August. Although several of our stronger players were unable to compete, notably L. W . Barden (Oxford) who was playing for England in the International team tournament at Helsinki, there were four University players in the British Championship. P. H. Clarke (London) finished equal second with 7 points out of 11 (behind R. G. Wade), a very fine performance on his first attempt. The other results were P. J. Oakley (Birmingham) 5½, D. Leslie (Cambridge) 5, R. J. Tayler (Cambridge) 3½. Clarke scored consistently in solid positional style ; Leslie, in contrast, played an aggressive, combinative game which brought him some good wins, but his opening play tended to be unsound. Oakley and Tayler were rather erratic, the latter seemed to fritter away advantages. B. H. Wood, the B .U .C .A . President, played his usual enterprising game and scored 6 j points.

In the Major Open tournament L. J. Cannon (Newcastle) scored 6 points and finished 10th. B. G. Dudley (Birmingham), who did not play as well as the previous year, scored 5. In the First Class “ A ” tourney, D. Smith (Durham) was easily first with 7 { points and J. H. Wall (Durham) was third in the Second Class section with 6 .̂

Here is a selection of University wins :W h ite — A. H . T ro tt B lack— P. H . C la rk e

1. P—QB4, Kt— KB3 ; 2. Kt—QB3, P— K3 ; 3. Kt— B3, P—Q4 ; A . P—Q4, P— B4 ; 5. P x QP, Kt x P ; 6. P— K3, K t—QB3 ; 7. B—Q3, Kt— B3 ; 8. O—O, P x P ; 9. P x P, B— K2 ; 10. Q— K2, 0 —0 ; 11. R—Q1, Kt—QKt5 ; 12. B—QB4, Q Kt—Q4 ; 13. Kt— K5, P—QR3 ; 14. B— KKt5, Kt x Kt ; 15. P x Kt, Q— B2 ; 16. B—Q3, B—Q2 ; 17. QR— B1, B— R5 ; 18. R—Q2, K t—Q4; 19. Q— K4, P— B A ;20. Q— R4, B— R6 ; 21. R— K1, Q x BP ; 22. Kt— B A , B— B8 ; 23. R x B, Q x R ch. ;2 A . B— B1, B— Kt4 ; 25. R— Kt2, P— B5 ; 26. R x B, P x R ; 27. Kt—Q6, Kt— K6 ;28. P x Kt, P x P ; 29. P— KR3, R x B ch. ; 30. K— R2, R— R8 ch. ; 31. K— Kt3,Q— K8 ch and W hite lost on time.

W h ite — H . G . Rhodes B lack— D. Leslie1. P— Q A , K t— KB3 ; 2. P—QB4, P— B A ; 3. P—Q5, P— KKt3 ; A . Kt—QB3,

P—Q3 ; 5. P— K4, B— Kt2 ; 6. P— B3, P—QR3 ; 7. B— K3, Q Kt—Q2 ; 8. Q—Q2, R—QKt1 ; 9. B— R6, B x B ; 10. Q x B, P—QKt4 ; 11. P x P, P x P ; 12. B x P, Q— R4 ; 13. B x Kt ch, Kt x B ; 14. Kt— K2, R x P ; 15. O—O, B— R3 ; 16. KR— K1, B x Kt ; 17. Q— Kt7, R— B1 ; 18. R x B, R x R ; 19. Kt x R, Q—Q7 ; 20. Kt— B3, K t— B3 ; 21. R—QKt1, R— Kt1 ; 22. Resigns.

W h ite — P. J. O ak ley B lack— H . G . Rhodes1. K t— KB3, Kt— KB3 ; 2. P— KKt3, P— KKt3 ; 3. B— Kt2, B— Kt2 ; A. O—O,

O—O ; 5. P— B A , P—Q3 ; 6. P—Q4, Q Kt— Q2 ; 7. Kt— B3, P— K4 ; 8. P— K4, P— B3 ; 9. P— KR3, K t— R4 ; 10. R— K1, P x P ; 11. Kt x P, K t— Kt3 ; 12. P— Kt3, P— Q A ; 13. KP x P, P x P ; 14. B— R3, R— K1 ; 15. R x R ch, Q x R ; 16. P— B5, Q— K4 ; 17. Kt(3)— Kt5, B—Q2 ; 18. P x K t, B x K t ; 19. Kt x B, P x P ; 20. R— B1, p _Q 5 ; 21. Q—Q3, B— R3 ; 22. B—Q6, Q— K3 ; 23. R— B2, R— R4 ; 24. B— Kt4, Kt x P ; 25. B x R, P x B ; 26. Q x Kt, Q— K8 ch ; 27. B— B1 and W hite won.

5

W h ite— D. Sm ith B lack— Rev. H . Peach1. Kt— KB3, Kt— KB3 ; 2. P— KKt3, P _ K K t3 ; 3. B— Kt2, B— Kt2 ; 4. P—

QB4, P—Q3 ; 5. P—Q4, Q Kt— Q2 ; 6. Kt— B3, 0 —0 ; 7. 0 —0 , P— K4 ; 8. P— K4, P x P ; 9. Kt x P, R— K1 ; 10. R — K1, Kt— K4 ; 11. P—QKt3, P—QR3 ; 12. P— KR3, R— Kt1 ; 13. B— K3, B—Q2 ; 14. R— B1, K t— B3 ; 15. P— B4, Q—B1 ; 16. K— R2, K t— KR4 ; 17. Kt—Q5, Kt x Kt ; 18. B x Kt, B—QB3 ; 19. P— KKt4, B x K t ; 20. P x Kt, B x B ; 21. Q x B, B— B3 ; 22. P— R6, K— B1 ; 23. Q— Kt7 ch, K— K2 ; 24. P— K5, Q— B4 ; 25. P x P ch, K x P ; 26. R(B1)—Q1 ch, K— B4 ; 27. Q—Q4 ch, K— Kt5 ; 28. P— B5 ch, K— R6 ; 29. B x B, R x R ; 30. R x R, P x B ; 31. R— K2, Resigns.

RUSSIANS AT L IV ERPO O LAt Easter, the International Union of Students held their first International

Student Chess Congress, which they hope will have been the fore-runner of an annual series of events, staged in each country of Europe in turn. The Congress was intended to be held in conjunction with the 1952 National Union of Students’ Arts Festival in Liverpool, but due to the late arrival of some competitors this was not possible. A notable feature Was the participation of the Russians Bronstein, who last year played a match against Botwinnik for the World Championship, and Taimanov, third in the previous U.S.S.R. Championship.

It was originally intended to stage a tournament with teams of three from seven or eight countries—Great Britain, Finland, Russia, Belgium, France, Rumania, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany were invited—with possibly individual com­petitors from other countries. Unfortunately, because of the very short time remaining before the date fixed for opening the Congress, only teams from Great Britain, Finland, Russia, Rumania and East Germany, together with a team from Grenoble representing France, were able to accept although Belgium, Denmark and India arranged to send individual players. The Rumanian and East German teams were unable to obtain visas and the French never arrived. The Russian team appeared on the day the Congress was due to finish. This was reported as being due to difficulty in obtaining visas, but was in fact due to late application for them, the visas being granted very promptly once the applications were received.

The start of the Congress had been fixed for Friday, April 4th, but by then there were only nine players present : the British team of Mardle (Cambridge), Oakley (Birmingham) and Littlewood (Sheffield) ; the Finnish team of Pastuhoff, Nyren and Rutanen; Dinsen (Denmark), Winants (Belgium) and Katragadda (India). It was decided to hold a lightning tournament and postpone the team Tourney to allow another day for late arrivals. On the Saturday no more players had arrived and a small team tournament was arranged with three teams— British, Finnish and an international team of Winants, Dinsen and Katragadda. This event was won by Finland who beat both the British and mixed teams by the same score 2-1, while the British beat the mixed team 3-0. On top board for Great Britain, Mardle played a very good game to beat Pastuhoff (Finland) :

W h ite— D. V. M ardle Black— O. Pastuhoff1. P—Q4 P— K3 13. P— Kt3 Q— K2 25. P— K5 B— B12. P— KKt3 P—Q4 14. P— K3 Kt— K5 26. P— K6 B—Q33. B— Kt2 Kt— KB3 15. B— Kt2 P—QR4 27. B—Q3 B— K24. Kt— KB3 P—QKt3 16. R— B1 P— KB3 28. Q— R5 P— Kt35. P— B4 B—Kt2 17. R— K1 P— B3 29. B x P B— Kt56. K t— K5 B— Kt5 ch 18. P— B3 Kt— Kt4 30. P—Q5 K— Kt17. Kt—Q2 0 — 0 19. P— K4 P x P 31. B— B7 ch K— B18. 0 — 0 Q Kt—Q2 20. P x P QR—Q1 32. Q— R6ch K— K29. P x P P x P 21. Kt— B4 Kt— K3 33. Q x P ch K— B1

10. Q Kt— B3 Kt x Kt 22. B— B1 Kt x Kt 34. -£=UCO£ICO Resigns.11. Kt x Kt R— K1 23. P x Kt Q—QB212. Kt—Q3 B—KB1 24. Q— Kt4 K— R1

T H E IN D IV ID U A L T O U R N A M E N TOn Wednesday, April 9th, when it was known that Bronstein and Taimanov

would be arriving the next day, it was decided to hold an Individual Tournament

6

with eight or nine competitors. The time limit was fixed at the very fast rate of 40 moves in two hours, the effect of which was seen later when Dinsen lost to Taimanov on the clock with 11 moves still to make !

The first round was played on the Wednesday afternoon except the game between the two Russians, postponed till later, Next morning Bronstein and Taimanov arrived accompanied by Stepanov and Brusslov, the latter from the Soviet Embassy in London acting as interpreter. In the afternoon the second round was played. Unfortunately, the room which had been used for the chess was not available after Thursday as the University was closed for Easter. The new accom­modation found at the Stork Hotel had the advantage that the players could stay and play under the same roof, and that there was a grand piano for Taimanov, who is a leading Russian concert pianist, and who gave several recitals to the other com­petitors. There was, however, the disadvantage that the playing room was rather noisy in the evening, and on one occasion during an adjournment session, there was a piano accordion being played outside. The Tournament was completed with­out further hold-ups and was concluded on the Monday night with a dinner attended by most of the players and officials, together with representatives of N.U.S.

The majority of the players considered that the Congress despite its setbacks was a success. For this, credit is due to the organizers in Liverpool.: Mr. Lipton, Mr. Wood, Miss Ballard the organizer of the N.U.S. Arts Festival, and in the later stages Mr. Gerald Abrahams, whose experience was very useful, as was his ability to speak Russian. Taimanov spoke no English and any conversation with him had to be carried on in German, while Bronstein’s English was practically unintelligible. However, it must be stressed that much more time for preparation is necessary if the Congress is to run more smoothly next time. The competitors were surprised at the small number of spectators present to witness the rare spectacle of two leading Soviet players competing in Great Britain. This was due to the difficulty of advance publicity and to the Easter Congress at Wallasey, which removed nearly a hundred Merseyside chess players from circulation while the Individual Tournament was in progress.

The standard of play was on the whole very high, and although Bronstein and Taimanov each beat all the other players, they had some hard games. In the last round Nyren, who competed in the World Junior Championship last year, had a drawn position against Bronstein at the first time control, but he let his chances slip in the ending. Taimanov was well held by Mardle until the British player blundered in time trouble. The game between the two Russians was a bitterly contested draw. After Bronstein had refused a draw by repetition early on, he obtained a superior position but in time pressure missed the winning line against a piece sacrifice by Taimanov, and allowed a draw by perpetual check. Final scores : Bronstein and Taimanov (U .S .S .R .) ; Pastuhoff (Finland) 3½ ; Mardle (G .B .), Nyren and Rutanen (Finland) 3 ; Dinsen (Denmark) 2 ; Katragadda (India) ½.

Here are two games from the Tournament. In the first, Taimanov’s use of space is instructive and the finish of the game is very neat. The second is the game between the two Russians.

W h ite — M. Taim anov Black— O. Pastuhoff1. P—Q4 P— K3 14. B—Q3 Q— Kt3 27. P—Q5 P— K42. P—QB4 Kt— KB3 15. KR— B1 B—Q3 28. B— B5 K—Q13. Kt—QB3 P—Q4 16. B x B Q x B 29. Kt—Q2 Kt— Kt34. B-—Kt5 Q Kt—Q2 17. Q— B7 Q x Q 30. P—Q6 B x B5. P— K3 B— K2 18. R x Q R—Q1 31. P x B R—QB16. Q— B2 P— KR3 19. QR— B1 K— B1 32. (R1)— B6 R— Kt17. B— B4 P— B3 20. P— KKt4 P— Kt4 33. Kt— K4 Kt—Q28. P— KR3 P—QR3 21. K— Kt2 P— B3 34. R x Kt ch K x R9. Kt— B3 P x P 22. P— KR4 K— K2 35. R— B7ch K—Q1

10. B x BP Kt—Q4 23. P x P RP x P 36. K t— B5 R— K111. B— R2 0 —0 24. P— K4 P x P 37. R—Q7 ch K— B112. 0 —0 P—QKt4 25. B x KP R—QKt1 38. R—K7 R— KR113. Kt x Kt BP x Kt 26. K— Kt3 R— KR1 39. R— B7ch Resigns.

7

W h ite— M. Taim anov Black— D. Bronstein1. P—Q4 Kt— KB3 17. Q x Kt R— Kt5 33. Q x P ch K —R12. P—KKt3 P—Q4 18. P— Kt3 P X P 34. R— B8 P-—R53. B—Kt2 Kt— B3 19. R x P R x R 35. Q— B5 K—Kt14. Kt— KB3 B— B4 20. P x R B— B3 36. Q— Kt6ch I<— R15. 0 —0 P— K3 21. B— K4 B x P 37. Q— B5 Q— Kt56. P— B4 B— K2 22. Q—Q3 B x B 38. P— B5 R x R7. Kt— B3 P— KR3 23. Q x B Q - Q 3 39. Q x R ch K— R28. Kt— K5 O—O 24. R— Kt1 B— Kt2 40. Q— B5 ch K— Kt19. Kt x Kt P x Kt 25. R— Kt3 Q -Q 7 41. Q— K 6ch K— B1

10. B— B4 R— Kt1 26. K t— B5 Q x RP 42. Q—Q6 ch K— B211. Q—Q2 P— Kt4 27. K— Kt2 R—Q1 43. Q—Q7 ch K— Kt112. B— K3 Kt— Kt5 28. R— Kt7 R—QB1 44. Q— K6 ch K— B113. QR— B1 B—Kt3 29. Q - Q 3 P—QR4 45. Q— B8 ch K— B214. Kt— R4 B— Kt5 30. Q - Q 7 R— B1 46. Q—Q7 ch K— Kt315. Kt— B3 B— K2 31. K t x P P x Kt 47. Q—Q3 ch16. Kt— R4 Kt x B 32. R x P Q— Kt7 Drawn.

W IN OR DRAWIn the numerous matches that are played nowadays in England, it seems

inevitable that some games will have to be adjudicated. Although many think this unfair, it is the only expedient way of deciding the issue where time is of the essence. In the normal course of events, the game is sent up to an adjudicator w ho, with the wisdom of a Solomon, impartially adjudges the issue. He appraises the position carefully, sorting out the best variations on both sides, and hands down his verdict. The unfairness lies in the fact that the player may not have found as good a continu­ation as that given by the adjudicator ; but more aggravating is when the adjudi­cator does not find as good a continuation as the player foresaw!

That this is not merely academic will be seen by the two illustrations given below. Both were games in the match Oxford University v. Erdington Club, and both games were adjudicated drawn. Since they did not affect the result of the match, no appeal was launched against this decision but, for the benefit of chess, the games are given here with analysis.

The first diagram shows the position reached between W . Ritson Morry (Erdington) and T . H. Tylor (Oxford) after 36 moves.

What would follow now is 37. P— Kt3 (forced e.g. 37. R—QKt1, P— B5!), Q— K4!

Black's plan is simply to play B— Kt4, B— K2 and B—Q3, threatening mate. White is so weak on the black squares, there seems to be no defence to this, e.g.

A. 38. B— B3, Q— Kt6 ; 39. Q— B1, B— B5! 8. 38. Q— B4, Q— Kt6 ; 39. R— KB1, B—

B5 ; 40. R x B (40. K— Kt1, Q— R7 ch ; 41. K— B2, B— Kt6 ch ), Q x R ; 41. Q x BP, R—Q 1!

C. 38. R—KB1, B— Kt4 ; 39. K— Kt1, B— K2 ; 40. R— B3, B—Q3 ; 41. K— B1, R— R1 ; 42. Q— Kt1, P—Q6! ; 43. Q x P, R— R8 ch ; 44. K— B2, R— R7 ch ; 45. K— B1 (45. K— Kt1, Q— R7 ch), Q— R8 ch and mates next move.

D. 38. R— R1, B— Kt4 ; 39. K— Kt1, B— K2 ; 40. K— B2, R— KB1 ch ; 41. B— B3 (41. K— K2, Q— R7!), Q— R7 ch ; 42. K— B1, Q— R8 ch!

E. 38. R x B, P x R ; 39. Q x P, P— B5! ; 40. P x P, R— Kt8 ch.These variations amply illustrate the fact that W hite has no adequate defence

against the mating manoeuvre.The other position is that reached after 36 moves by D. A. Yanofsky (Oxford)

and B. H. Wood (Erdington), the latter having three pawns for a piece. Though

Black (Tylor)

8

superficially Black seems to have an excellent game, W hite has a fairly simple win, e.g.

a brief analysis reveals that

Black (W ood) A . 37. K t— Kt3, K t—Kt5 ch ; 38. B x Kt, Q x B ; 39. Q— K8 ch, K— Kt2 ; 40. Q x KP ch, K— R3 ; 41. Kt— B4!

8. 37. Kt— Kt3, Q— B7 ; 38. P— R4!!, P—Q5 ; 39. Q x KP, P—Q6 ; 40. Q x Kt, P—Q7 ; 41. Kt x P, Q— B2 ch ; 42. Kt(2)— B4, Q x K t ch ; 43. Q x Q, P—Q8(Q) ; 44. Q— Kt3 ch, K— B1 ; 45. Q—QKt8 ch and wins.

C. 37. K t— Kt3, Q— B7 ; 38. P— R4, P— Q5 ; 39. Q x KP, K t(K t3 )—Q4 ; 40. Q— Kt8 ch, K— Kt2 ; 41. K t— B5 ch !

0 . 37. Kt— Kt3, Q— B7 ; 38. P— R4, P— K5 ; 39. P— R5, K t— B1 ; 40. Q— Kt8, Kt— Kt5 ch ; 41. B x K t, P x B ; 42. Kt— B5 ! ! winning at least a few pawns with mate threats.

E. 37. Kt— Kt3, Q— Kt3 ; 38. P—R4, K t— Kt5 ch ; 39. B x Kt, Q x B ; 40. Q— K8 ch transposing.

There seems to be no satisfactory reply to 37. K t— Kt3 followed by P— R4— R5 which forces the win either of a piece or at least two pawns.

The above two games were adjudicated draws—analysis clearly indicates they were wins. Possibly the adjudicator rendered his decision in haste, without the careful analysis necessary in such cases. It is submitted that these two games were clear wins for Oxford University. Would you have called them wins?

T H E BRISTOL CO N GRESSThis year the B .U .C .A . Congress was held from June 25th to July 9th in pleasant

surroundings at W ills Hall, a Hall of Residence for Bristol University. There were only 20 participants but the opinion was that the general standard of play was higher than the previous year. The Championship was once again run on the Swiss system and it functioned well, as can be seen from the score-table. The ultimate winner was P. J. Oakley (Birmingham), who had been favourite from the start, closely followed by N. T. Honan (London). Third was B. Cafferty (Birming­ham) who took the lead in the early rounds but tailed off towards the end.

On the first Sunday, a Lightning Tournament was organized and it was won by Oakley with Cafferty second. Other activities included bridge, Kriegspiel, and a chess innovation known as a “ caterpillar ” which defies any attempt at description. The preliminary organization was done by R. J. Georges and T. H. F. Brissenden of Bristol, while N. Hawkins, also Bristol, acted as controller. A word of thanks ought to be given also to Mr. A. W . Osborne and Mr. C. Welch, two local players who did a great deal towards helping the Congress along, and seeing we got our share of publicity in the local papers.

GAMES AND COM M EN TSIn the opening round ail those expected to be near the top won, except Paish

who drew with Powis. Herewith Oakley’s neat win against Lerchs : W hite—Oakley, Black— Lerchs. 1. P—Q4, K t— KB3 ; 2. P—QB4, P— K3 ; 3. Kt—QB3, P—Q4 ; 4. B— Kt5, Q Kt—Q2 ; 5. P— K3, P— B3 ; 6. P x P, KP x P ; 7. B—Q3, B— K2 ; 8. K K t— K2, P— KR3 ; 9. B— KB4, 0 —0 ; 10. Q— B2, P—QR3 ; 11. P— KR3, P— B4 ; 12. O—O, P— B5 ; 13. B— B5, R— K1 ; 14. QR—Q1, K t— B1 ; 15. Kt— Kt3, B x B ; 16. Kt x B, B— Kt5 ; 17. P— R3, B— R4 ; 18. P— B3, P—QKt4 ; 19. KR— K1, B— B2 ; 20. B x B, Q x B ; 21. P— K4, P x P ; 22. P x P, K t— Kt3 ; 23. P— K5, K t— R2 ; 24. K t—Q6, R— K3 ; 25. Kt—Q5, Q— R2 ; 26. K— R1, Kt— K2 ; 27. Kt— B4, K t—QB3 ; 28. P—Q5, R x Kt ; 29. P x R, K t—Q5 ; 30. Q— B2, Kt— B4 ; 31. R— K8 ch, Kt— B1 ; 32. Q x Q, R x Q ; 33. K t— K6, P x K t ; 34. P x P, Resigns.

9

I

After Round 2, Cafferty and Oakley were leading with clean scores, although Oakley was a little lucky against Long. Barrett suffered another defeat, losing the following game to Tranter : W hite—Tranter, Black— Barrett. 1. P— K4, P— K4 ; 2. Kt— KB3, Kt—QB3 ; 3. B— Kt5, P— QR3 ; 4. B— R4, P—Q3 ; 5. O—O, B—Q2 ; 6. P— B3, P— KKt3 ; 7. P—Q4, B— Kt2 ; 8. B— K3, K K t— K2 ; 9. Q— K2, 0 —0 ; 10. B— B2, P—Q4 ; 11. P x KP, Kt x P ; 12. Kt x Kt, B x Kt ; 13. Kt—Q2, R— B1 ? ;14. P— KB4, B— Kt2 ; 15. P— B5, KtP x P ; 16. P x BP, P— KB3 ; 17. B— B5, R— K1 ; 18. Q— R5, P— Kt3 ; 19. B— K3, Kt— B3 ; 20. R— B3, Q— K2 ; 21. R— R3, B— B1 ; 22. B— Kt3, K—R1 ; 23. B x QP, Q— Kt2 ; 24. R— Kt3, Q — K2 ; 25. R^-Kt8 mate.

The Third Round, played on the Saturday was really quite a peaceful affair ; perhaps the hot weather had something to do with it—seven draws out of ten games!

In Round 4 Cafferty went into the lead, crushing Samuels after weak opening play by the latter. Oakley could only draw with Handley after missing his way in a sharp line of the King’s Indian. Long made good use of his attacking chances : W hite— Long, Black— Leedham. 1. P— K4, P— K3 ; 2. P—Q4, P—Q4 ; 3. Kt—QB3, P x P ; 4. Kt x P, Kt—Q2 ; 5. K K t— B3, K K t— B3 ; 6. B—Q3, Kt x Kt ; 7. B x Kt, Kt— B3 ; 8. B—Q3, P—QKt3 ; 9. 0 — 0 , B— Kt2 ; 10. K t— K5, Q—Q4 ; 11. Kt— B3, B— K2 ; 12. B— KB4, Q—Q1 ; 13. R— K1, 0 —0 ; 14. P— B3, P— B4 ;15. P x P. B x P ; 16. Q— K2, Q— K2 ; 17. QR—Q1, QR—Q1 ; 18. B— KKt5, B—Q3 ; 19. Kt—Q4, K— R1 ; 20. K t— B5, Q— B2 ; 21. Kt x B, R x Kt ; 22. B x K t, P x B ; 23. B x P, K x B ; 24. Q— R5 ch, K— Kt2 ; 25. R x R, Q x R ; 26. Q— Kt4 ch, K— R1 ; 27. R— K3, B— B6 ; 28. Q x B, R— KKt1 ; 29. Q— R3 ch, K— Kt2 ; 30. Q— Kt3 ch, Q x Q ; 31. R x Q ch, K— B1 ; 32. R x R ch, K x R ; 33. P—QB4, P— R4 ; 34. P—QKt3, Resigns.

In Round 5 Honan and Cafferty had a grand-master draw while Oakley in combinative mood beat Powis, who did not defend too accurately. Bradley won splendidly against Samuels and Burrows at last opened his account.

Scores now were : Oakley and Cafferty 4 ; Honan, Handley and Clarke 3 ̂ ; Powis, Bradley, Paish and Tranter 3 ; Long and Hart 2½ ; Gilbertson, Lerchs, Samuels, Malcolm and Barrett 2 ; Leedham and Wall 1½ ; Brissenden 1 ; Burrows

The following round Oakley was let off by Honan : W hite—Oakley, Black— Honan. 1. P—QB4, Kt— KB3 ; 2. Kt—QB3, P— K3 ; 3. P— K4, P— B4 ; 4. P—Q3, P—Q4 ; 5. B— Kt5, P—Q5 ; 6. Q Kt— K2, Kt— B3 ; 7. P— KKt3, B— K2 ; 8. B— Kt2, Kt x P ; 9. B x B, Q— R4 ch ; 10. K— B1, K t—Q7 ch ; 11. K— K1, Draw agreed. But what is wrong with 11. . . . Kt x P ch ; 12. K— B1, Kt—Q7 ch ; 13. K— K1, K t— Kt6 ch ; 14. K— B1, Kt x R ; 15. B—Q6, Q x P ; 16. Q—Q2, P—B3 and Black wins. Cafferty drew with Handley and Clarke could only draw with Powis, who put up stiff resistance in a difficult game. Bradley had his fourth successive win.

Round 7 saw Oakley forge ahead. He beat Bradley as W hite against a King’sIndian, a distressing blow for these two fanatical supporters of that Defence. Clarke beat Handley with a very fine game later awarded the Best Game prize. Tranter finished off Powis neatly from the diagrammed position : 29. R x KP!, K— Kt1 ; 30. R— K8 ch, K— R2 ; 31. Q x RP ch, P x Q ; 32. B— B5 mate.

The Eighth turned out to be the key round since Oakley had to p>lay Clarke who was now in great form, but a hard-fought draw was the result. Cafferty beat Long with a neat knight sacrifice : W hite— Long, Black—Cafferty.1. P— K4, P— K3 ; 2. P—Q4, P—Q4 ; 3. K t— QB3, B— Kt5 ; 4. P— K5, P—QB4 ; 5. B—Q2, Kt—QB3 ; 6. Kt— Kt5, B x B ; 7. Q x B, Kt x QP ; 8. Kt x K t, P x Kt ; 9. Q x P, K t— K2 ; 10. K t— B3, K t— B3 ; 11. Q— KKt4, O—O ; 12. B—Q3, P— KB4! ; 13. Q— KB4,

Q— Kt3 ; 14. P—QKt3, Q— R4 ch ; 15. Q—Q2, Q— B2 ; 16. Q— K2 ?, Kt—Q5! ;

Black (Powis)

W h ite (T ranter)

10

Black (Powis)

17. Q— Q1, Kt x Kt ch ; 18. Q x K t . Q x P c h ; 19. K— Q2, Q—Q3 ; 20. KR—Q1, P— K4 ; 21. B— K2, B— K3 ; 22. K— K1, QR— B1 ; 23. QR— B1, KR—Q1 ; 24. K— B1, Q— R6 ; 25. Q— K3, P— K5 ; 26. P—QB4, P—Q5 ; 27. R x P ?, R x R ; 28. Q x R, Q x R ch ; 29. Q—Q1, Q x Q ch ; 30. Resigns. Honan started off a great finish of four successive wins by beating Bradley. Scores now were: Oakley and Cafferty 6 ; Honan and Clarke 5½; Paish 5 ; Handley, Samuels, Barrett and Powis 4½; Long, Bradley, Gilbertson and Tranter 4 ; Lerchs and Malcolm 3½; Leedham 3 ; Wall and Hart 2½ ; Burrows and Brissenden 1½.

In Round 9 Oakley won again, this time by beating Paish who played a wild, anti-positional attack.

Honan, With a fine win against Barrett, caught up Cafferty who drew with Clarke. After some rather weak play by Powis, Long polished him off with (from

Diagram) : 14. B—Q5, Kt x B (if 14. . . . B— B4 ; 15. Q— Kt3!) ; 15. Q— Kt6 ch, K— R1 ;16. Q x P ch, K— Kt1 ; 17. B x P ch!, K x B ; 18. Kt x P ch, Q x K t ; 19. BP x K t ch, Q— B4 ; 20. Q— R5 ch, K— Kt2 ; 21. R x Q, B x R ; 22. Q x B, R— KB1 ; 23. Q— Kt5 ch, K— R2 ; 24. R— K1, Kt— Q1 ; 25. R— K4, Resigns.

Oakley beat Tranter in the penultimate round, maintaining his half-point lead over Honan, Cafferty falling out of the picture with another draw. Honan was somewhat lucky as Samuels inexplicably failed to turn up after the adjournment to play a difficult ending, having refused a draw earlier! In the last round Oakley polished off Gilbertson, while Honan ground out a long win against Malcolm, Cafferty and Clarke scoring draws. Handley

took his opportunity against Wall to lift himself into fourth place.

T H E P L A Y E R SOakley’s success at his third attempt was thoroughly deserved ; he was in

real trouble in only one game (against Honan). He has now developed a very determined streak which, together with his dogmatic approach, makes him a dangerous player. Honan is a fine young player extremely well versed in “ book,” and with a little more determination in his earlier games, might quite easily have won the title. Cafferty, this year’s joint holder of the British Boys’ Championship, put up a good show in the early rounds but tailed off somewhat towards the end— a creditable performance nevertheless.

Clarke, fourth equal with Handley, is a remarkably solid player and was never in much trouble, due to his dour resistance in slightly inferior positions. He is a skilful player with the minor pieces. Handley is an up and coming player of whom more will be heard—a great follower of Dr. Euwe. Long and Paish are both up­holders of the attacking style. A pity they did not meet as an interesting tactical struggle would have ensued.

Bradley had a very up and down career and one feels he was slightly out of form. Samuels was disappointing and would do better if he steered clear of inferior opening variations. Lerchs, who finished third in this year’s Scottish Champion­ship, did not do as well as expected. Tranter is another attacking player who did quite well, but misfired against those higher up the table. Gilbertson can be quite pleased with his score, though a little lucky in the draw.

Malcolm will improve with more tournament practice. Barrett and Powis, both well placed last year, started off in promising style but collapsed horribly in the last rounds. Wall is rather erratic. Burrows was clearly out of form at the start but improved towards the end ; Hart did just the reverse. Leedham did not deserve such a low place and played some good games, particularly the one against Lerchs. Brissenden, although last, played well and was distinctly unlucky not to pick up a full point on at least three occasions. The experience should improve his play immensely. All in all a very enjoyable event—and now for Leeds.

11

1952 BRITISH UNIVERSITIES’ CONGRESS AT BRISTOLPlayers and Officials

Back row, left to right : D. M. Burrows (Cardiff), D. Gilbertson (Durham), L. R. Hart (Leeds), B. Cafferty (Birmingham), P. H. Clarke (London), I. R. Bradley (London).

Middle row : T. H. F. Brissenden (Bristol), R. O. Powis (Bristol), D. Malcolm (Cambridge), D. L. Barrett (Oxford), E. G. Long (Bristol), J. A. Wall (Durham), P. A. Leedham (Sheffield), J. J. A. Handley (Cambridge).

Front row : A. Lerchs (Aberdeen), A. G. C. Paish (Cambridge), E. N. Hawkins (Bristol), D. J. Youston (Oxford), B. H. Wood (President), P. J. Oakley (Birmingham), R. J. Georges (Bristol), N. Honan (London), D. G. Tranter (Sheffield).

Photo Block kindly lent by “ Chess.”

GAMES FROM T H E T O U R N A M E N TN otes by the w inner in each case

Round I. W h ite — D. M alco lm , B lack— T. H . F. BrissendenAw arded the B rillian cy P rize

1. P— K4 P— K4 10. Q Kt—Q2 0 —0 19. P x P B x BP2. Kt— KB3 Kt—QB3 11. R— K1 Kt— B4 20. Q x Q P!(c) B x P3. B—Kt5 P—QR3 12. B— B2 Q — Q 2 (a ) 21. Q x R ch Q x Q4. B— R4 Kt— B3 13. Kt— B1 P—B3 22. B x Q ch K x B5. O—O Kt x P 14. Kt— Kt3 B—Kt5 23. Kt— Kt5 K— Kt1

ch24. Kt(3)—

K4!(d) BxQR(e)6. P—Q4 P—QKt4 15. P— Kt4 Kt— Kt2(b)

7. B— Kt3 P—Q4 16. Q—Q3 P—Kt3 25. R x B Kt—Q3(f)8. P x P B— K3 17. B— Kt3 QR—Q1 26. Kt— B6chK— R19. P— B3 B— K2 18. B— R6 R—B2 27. Kt x B Resigns.

(a) Better P—Q5.(b) If 15. . . . Kt— K3 then 16. Q—Q3, P— Kt3 ; 17. B— Kt3, QR— Q1 ;

18. B— R6, R— B2 ; 19. QR—Q1 and the QP is lost.(c) An unexpected blow. Black’s reply is the best.(d) Weaving a pretty mating net.(e) Not 24. . . . B x KR ; 25. Kt— B6 ch, K— R1 ; 26. K t— B7 mate.(f) The piece cannot be saved. If 25. . . . Kt— K4 then 26. Kt-—B6 ch, K— R1 ;

27. P— KB4.

Round 7. W h ite —J. J. A . H andley , B lack— P. H . C lark eAw arded Best G am e P rize

1. P—Q4 P— K3 18. P— R5 B—B5 35. B—QB3(g) B x B

2. P—QB4 Kt— KB3 19. Kt—Q3 K K t— K5 36. R x B R— K43. Kt—QB3 B— Kt5 20. P— B3(c) P— KB4 37. R— KB2 P— K64. P— K3 O—O 21. Kt—Q1 B—B3 38. R— K2 Q—Q25. Kt— K2 P—Q4 22. Kt(1 )— Kt2 Kt— Kt4 39. Q—QKt1I R—Q16. P—QR3 B— K2 23. Q— B2 Q— K2 40. B— B3 Q—Q8ch7. P x P P x P 24. KR— K1 QR— K1 41. Q x Q R x Qch8. P— KKt3(a)P— B3 25. Kt— B5 Q— R2!(d) 42. K— Kt2 R— K39. B— Kt2 B— KB4 26. Kt(2)—Q3 B x Kt 43. B— Kt4 R— K1

10. O—O Q Kt—Q2 27. Kt x B Kt— B5 44. B— B5(b) R—Q711. B—Q2 Kt— Kt3 28. R— K2 Kt— K3(e) 45. B—Q3 Kt— Kt7!12. P—Kt3 Kt— B1 29. Q— K1 R— K2(f) 46. K— B3(<) R x B13. Kt— B4 Kt—Q3 30. Kt— B5 Kt x Kt 47. R x R Kt x R14. Q— K2 B— B7 (b) 31. QP x Kt KR— K1 48. R x P R x R ch15. P—QKt4 P—QKt4 32. K— R1 B— Q5 49. K x R Kt x KtP16. P—QR4 P—QR3 33. P— K4 BP x P 50. Resigns.17. QR— B1 B— Kt6 34. P x P P x P

(a) Probably better is 8. K t— Kt3 followed by 9. B—Q3 and 10. O—O.(b) This manœuvre aims at solidifying the Q-side and attacking in the centre

and on the K-side.(c) W hite hopes to drive out the knight and play P— K4, but Black stops

this neatly.( d ) Defends the RP but also applies pressure along the diagonal QR2— KKt8.(e) Not 28. . . . Kt x B ; 29. R x Kt, R x P ; 30. Kt— K5! to W hite ’s advantage.(f) Much stronger is 29. . . . Kt x QP! ; 30. P x Kt, Q x P ch ; 31. Kt—B2,

R x R ; 32. Q x R, Q x B ; 33. Q x Q, Kt x Q ; 34. R x P, R— K 1 ! Black did not see the force of this last move.

(g) Not 35. B x P, Kt x B! and wins, nor 35. R x P, R x R ; 36. B x R, Q— KB2! and W hite cannot save material.

13

(h) If 44. B— B3, then 44. . . . R—Q7 ; 45. R—QB2, R x R ; 46. R x R, Kt— Q7! ; 47. R— B1, Kt x B ; 48. K x Kt, K— B2 ; 49. R— K1, K— B3 ; 50. R x P, R x R ch ; 51. K x R, K— K4 and wins.

(/) If 46. R—QB2, Kt x B I ; 47. QR x R, P x R! ; 48. R x R ch, K— B2 and the pawn queens.

Round 5. W h ite — H . A . Sam uels, B lack— I. R. Bradley1. P—QB4 Kt— KB3 13. P— R3?(c) P— KR4 25. P X P P x P2. P— KKt3 P— KKt3 14. P—QKt4 P— R4(d) 26. Kt(6) x

P(f) P x Kt3. B— Kt2 B— Kt2 15. P— Kt5 K t (1 ) -

R2(e) 27. R x R R x R4. Kt—QB3 0 —0 16. K t— R4 B— B4 28. Kt x QP Q x KtP5. P— K3 P—Q3 17. P— B5 P—Q4 29. Q— B7 R— R16. K K t— K2 P— K4 18. Kt— Kt6 QR— Kt1 30. B— Kt4 B— R6!7. 0 —0 P— B3 19. R— Kt1 Kt— Kt4 31. Kt— K7ch K— R28. P— Kt3 Q Kt—Q2 20. Kt— KB4 Kt— B6 ch 32. R—Kt1 R— R2!9. B—QR3 Q -B 2 (a ) 21. B x Kt P x B 33. Q x R Kt x KtP

10. P—Q4 R— K1 22. P— R4 P— Kt4! 34. K— R2 Kt— B8 ch11. Q -Q 2 (b ) K t— B1 23. RP x P Kt— K5 35. K x B Q— Kt512. QR—Q1 P— K5 24. Q x P Q— K2 mate

( a ) 9. . . . Q— K2 is correct, to support P— K5.(b) Better 11. Q— B2 preventing P— K5 and taking the initiative.(c) This weakens the king-side. If he could play P-—KKt4 and Kt— Kt3 winning

the wedge pawn he would have central compensation, but as this is impos­sible better defensive chances are offered by 13. P—QKt4, P—QR4 ;14. P— Kt5, P— R4 ; 15. P— B5, P—Q4 ; 16. P— Kt6, Q— K2 ; 17. R—Kt1 followed by a king flight to the Q-side.

(d) W hite threatened to open the centre by P—Q5. If 14. . . . P— Kt3 ;15. P— B5, KtP x P ; 16. QP x P, P—Q4 ; 17. P— Kt5.

(e) The alternative to this knight trek was P— R5, K t— R4, P— Kt4— Kt5 as in a similar game Flohr-Aronin.

(f) Desperation!

Round 10. W h ite — D. T ra n te r , B lack— P. J. O ak ley1. P— K4 P—QB4 13. P x P P x P 25. P x B R x P2. Kt— KB3 Kt—QB3 14. P— B5(c) P x P 26. B x P R— B5!3. P—Q4 P x P 15. B— B4 ch K— R1 27. R— KB1 ( f ) R—Q54. Kt x P P— KKt3 16. Q x Q R x Q 28. K— Kt1 B—Q45. P—QB4(a) B— Kt2 17. B x P P— Kt3 29. P—QR3 R— R56. B— K3 Kt— B3 18. B— B2 B— Kt2 30. R—Q1 P— K37. Kt—QB3 Kt— KKt5 19. QR—Q1 Kt—Q5 31. B— R3 R x BP8. Q x Kt(b) Kt x Kt 20. K— R1 QR— B1 32. R—Q3 K— Kt29. Q -Q 1 Kt— B3 21. B x Kt(d) R x B 33. P—Kt3 R— B5

1 0 . B— K2 P—Q3 22. R x R B x R 34. B—B1 R—B811. 0 —0 0 —0 23. B— K6 R— B4 35. K— B2(g) R x Bch12 . P— B4 P— B4 24. R—Q1 (e) B x Kt 36. Resigns.

(a) The Maroczy Bind, which is no longer thought dangerous for Black.(b) 8. Kt x Kt, Kt x B ; 9. Kt x Q, Kt x Q favours Black.(c) Better is 14. Q—Q2, B— K3 ; 15. K t—Q5.(d) A better defence is 21. B—Q3, B— KB3 (threatening R— KKt1) ; 22.

B x K t, R x B ; 23. B x P, QR—Q1 ; 24. R x R, R x R ; but Black then gains the 7th rank, for if 25. R— B2, B— R5 ; or if 25. K t— Kt1, R—R5 with advantage.

(e) 24. R—QB1 is too passive, allowing Black to attack on the K K t file, after playing K— Kt2— B3, followed by P— K3, R— B2— KKt2.

(f) Black wins after 27. R—Q8 ch, K— Kt2 ; 28. R— Kt8 ch!?, K—B2! ; 29. K— Kt1, R— B8 ch.

(g) Overlooking the threat, but if 35. R—-Q4, R— R8 ; 36. R—QR4, P—QR4 and Black wins the QRP by B— Kt6.

14

4

r \ X uX

- j

0 .

ciCO

to 1— CQ Q-!5

CQ X _iCQu_' Total Position

v JH u X < d d o ' < d d z _ i o X z oL < X

QJ z CO q J LU < X < d d ci ci a : d _ J cl! I - '

P. J. Oakley (Birmingham) ★ 12

12

12

12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1

N. T . Honan (London)... 1. .. ^ * 12 2 1

212 1 1 1 1 1 1 2

B. Cafferty (Birmingham) ................... i. .. j i★

i1

T 112 1 ~2 i 1 1 3

P. H. Clarke (London) . . . - j1 1

2★ 1 2 1 1

2 1 2 7 4— 5J. J. A. Handley (Cambridge) 12 1

2x■J 0 ★ 1

12 2 1 2 1 1 7 4—5E. G. Long (Bristol) . .. 0 12 0 1

2 0 * 1 T 1 1 1 1 6—7A. G. C. Paish (Cambridge) . .. . .. 0 0 12 12 1

2★ 7 1 1 1 "2 1 6—7

I. R. Bradley (London) ................... . .. 0 0 0 1 * 1 0 1 1 1 1 6 8—9H. A. Samuels (Cambridge) ... 0 0 1

212 0 ★ 2 12 1 1 1 1 6 8—9

A. Lerchs (Aberdeen).................................. 0 12 0 1 12

★ 5 i 1 1 0 2 10—12D. Gilbertson (Durham) ... 0 0 0 0 12 ★ 0 1 1 1 1 1 10—12D. G. Tranter (Sheffield) ................... . .. 0 0 1 0 0 12 1 ■* 12 1 1 1 5? 10—12D. Malcolm (Cambridge) 0 2 0 1T 0 T ★ J 0 1 1 1 5 13D. L. Barrett (Oxford) ................... 0 0 0 0 0 1T ★ 1 1 1 2 14—15R. O. Powis (Southam pton)................... o 1 1 0 "2 0 1 ★ 0 0 1 1 14—15J. H. Wall (D u rh a m ).................................. 0 0 0 12 0 0 1 ★ 1 0 7: 1 U 16D. M. Burrows (Cardiff) ................... lT 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ★ 1 0 2 3 17—19L. R. Hart (Leeds) 0 0 0 0 0 0 J 0 1 0 ★ 1 i 3 17—19P. A. Leedham (Sheffield) 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 ■k 3 17—19T. H. F. Brissenden (B r is to l) ................... 0 0 12 0 0 1

2 0 0 "2 2 ★ 2? 20

Round 9. W h ite — N. Honan, Black— D. L. Barrett1. P— K4 P — K A 10. Q— R5! Q— B3(b) 19. B— Kt5 Q x QB2. K t— KB3 Kt—QB3 11. Kt x P Q— Kt3(c) 20. Q— B3ch Kt— B33. B— Kt5 P—QR3 12. Q— K2 B— K2(d) 21. Q x R Kt— R4(e)4. B— R4 P—Q3 13. K t—Q5 B—Q1 22. P— B4! Q— B4 ch5. O—O(a) B—Q2 1 A . P— K5 K— B1 23. K— R1 K— K26. P— Q A P—QKt4 15. Kt— B4! Q— B4 24. QR— K1 K— B37. B— Kt3 Kt x P 16. P— K6! P x P 25. Q— B8! R— K18. Kt x Kt P x Kt 17. Kt x P ch B x Kt 26. B—Q7ch Resigns(f)9. P—QB3 P x P 18. B x B Q— B3

(a) The prelude to a strong gambit.(b) The alternative is 10. . . . P— Kt3 ; 11. Q—Q5, B— K3 ; 12. Q— B6 ch,

B—Q2 ; 13. Q x P(3), Kt— B3 with advantage to White.(c) Unzicker-Samisch, 1950, continued 11. . . . P— B3? ; 12. P— B4, O—O—O ;

13. B— K3, P— Kt3 ; 14. Q—Q1, Q— Kt2 ; 15. P—QR4, P— Kt5 ; 16. Kt—Q5 winning easily. Barrett’s move seems better.

(d) 12. . . . P—QB3 ; 13. P— B4, B— K2 ; 14. P— B5, Q—B3 ; 15. B— KB4, Q—Q5 ch ; 16. B— K3, Q— B3 ; 17. QR—Q1 or 15. . . . O—O—O ; 16. P— K5, Q x BP ; 17. P x P, B— B1 ; 18. P—QR4 winning.

(e) Black’s position is resignabie.(f) It is difficult to see where Black erred in the opening, for declining the

gambit is also suspect.

REPORTS FROM T H E REGIONSS O U T H - E A S T R E G I O N

C A M B R ID G EThe membership of the Club has now increased to over 90 but the match results

were not impressive against the stronger clubs until towards the end of the season when convincing victories were recorded over Athenaeum, London University, and then over Liverpool to enable us to reach the semi-final of the National Club Championship. Considerable help was given to the county team which reached the final of the Montague-Jones Cup and efforts have been made to build up second team fixtures. The Oxford match was bitterly contested before we finally lost 2½-4½, but Cambridge played a great part in the earlier London Week successes.

During the year, lectures and simultaneous displays were given by R. G. Wade, C . H. O ’D. Alexander, R. W . Bonham, and Dr. H. G. Schenk. The inter-college competition was won by Caius College, and D. V. Mardle who represented the British Universities in the Students’ Congress at Liverpool, won the Individual Championship very convincingly.

L O N D O NIn the British Universities League, London drew with Oxford over seven

boards and won 8½-6½ over 15 ; we lost to Cambridge (Away) 9-6. For the rest of the season our programme consisted, as in previous years, of fixtures with various strong clubs. London was victorious in friendlies with the Civil Service 13-7, Insurance 11-9, B .C .C .A . 13-12, Metropolitan 12-8, and Exeter University 5½-2½, succumbing to the Civil Service (return match) 6½-13½, Athenaeum 2½-8½, and Kent 9½-10½. P. H. Clarke and N. T . Honan have good records at boards 1 and 2 respectively, and with I. R. Bradley, took high places in the Universities Congress at Bristol. King’s College won the College League by a clear margin.

A magnificent donation was made to the Club towards the end of the season by Miss Margaret Pugh of Birmingham, in the form of a large, solid silver antique cup, with the object of promoting the game among University students and, more particularly, among women students.

16

O X F O R DW ith two international players in D. A. Yanofsky and :L. W . Barden, well-

supported by the lower boards, we have had a very strong team. A fine run of wins has brought us to the final of the National Club Championship and Oxford­shire, with a majority of University players, have reached the final of the County Championship. We beat Cambridge 4½-2½ and won the newly instituted second team match Oxford Chestnuts 5 {, and Cambridge Dragons In friendly matches however, when the full team was not available, there have been some set-backs.

The Oxford Commonwealth Tournament, won by Fairhurst with Yanofsky second, and Wade third, was organized by the Club. Outstanding features of a varied programme have been the annual Living Chess Display, and another enter­taining talk by our President Dr. Schenk. Over 200 players took part in the Inter- College Championship, won by Balliol, and D. J. Youston gained the Individual title.

B R I S T O LS O U T H - W E S T R E G I O N

This was a most successful season for us : in addition to entertaining the B .U .C .A . Congress, the Club had a good match record. The “ A ” team cleaned up Division II of the Bristol League with 21 points out of a possible 24, and the “ B ” team, a little less successful in Division III, put up a good show nevertheless. In inter-University matches Bristol were undefeated beating Southampton 6-2, Reading 4½-3½ and drawing 4-4 with Exeter. A weakened Birmingham team was beaten in a friendly match.

An attempt to run the Individual Championship on the Swiss system was thwarted by several withdrawals which led to a general collapse of the tournament. The acquisition of Long and Sweeney strengthened the top boards considerably and with several other good freshers lower down, it is with great hope that we look forward to the coming season.

E X E T E RThe Club once again embarked on an ambitious programme of matches and the

figures—won 11, drawn 2, lost 5—indicate a fair measure of success. In fact this year Exeter won the Southern Region for the first time and failed narrowly against the Combined Welsh Colleges in the zonal stage of the competition.

The enthusiasm of the players has been a contributory factor in the Club’s peak season and the top boards have been strengthened by the arrival of P. B. Kennedy, last year’s Irish Senior Champion. In the Devon Championship, J. M. Hancock created a surprise by knocking out Devon’s top player F. E. A. Kitto in the opening round, but was himself eliminated later. R. T. Berry, the Club President, also figured prominently in this tournament. W ith a nucleus of experi­enced players still remaining, Exeter hopes to go even further in the B .U .C .A . League in 1953!

R E A D I N GDue to the fortunate influx of a large number of new members at the begin­

ning of the season, the Club was able to play three teams in friendly and competitive matches with some degree of success. Reading won third place in the B .U .C .A . Southern Region, second equal in the Berkshire League, and first place in the Reading League. More emphasis this season was laid on the facilities for the less experienced players and we found discussions on the more important openings to be popular. The year was brought to a close with a match by telephone against Birmingham University. We sustained a defeat, but the event proved a most pleasant evening’s entertainment for all.

S W A N S E AThe team had its worst record for some time : won 4, lost 6, drawn 1. This

was unexpected as we felt we had our best-ever team. However, we only narrowly

17

missed winning the Dr. Hansen Trophy for South-West Wales Clubs, and on the whole the season was fairly satisfactory. In other respects the year was much more successful. The Club Tournament was closely contested ; all our members who played for South Wales against Monmouthshire acquitted themselves well ; and we provided the back-bone of the South Wales team which defeated Exeter in the B .U .C .A . League. Hopes are high for next season.

M I D L A N D R E G I O N

B IR M IN G H A MThe main activity of the year was again the playing of five teams in the

Birmingham and District League. All did well and the first team lost the play-off with Mutual for the Division 1 Championship by the narrowest margin. To even matters, Mutual were beaten 4-2 in the Terrill Handicap Cup Competition won by University for the first time. The D iv is ion 1 Individual Championship was won for the second time by Match Captain P. J. Oakley—a feat never before achieved—• and the Division II title went to B. Cafferty.

Oakley won our Championship again with a clean score of 8 points followed by B. Cafferty 6, G. Fuller and G. K . Barker 5½ (Swiss system). The Midland Universities Championship was unexpectedly lost to Sheffield, but Oxford were crushed 6½-3½ in a friendly match. All strong players except Oakley remain for what is expected to be another successful season.

L E I C E S T E RThe Club has been revitalized during the past season. Prior to this, it played

no competitive chess and consequently our first season in the B .U .C .A . has not exactly been crowned with success. We lost heavily to Sheffield and Birmingham, were rather unlucky to lose 3-5 to Nottingham, but beat Loughborough 6-2, thus escaping last place. However, we did fairly well in the Leicestershire League, finishing third in Division II (won 7, draw 4, lost 3). We look forward to a successful season and plans are afoot for, among other things, a second team to play friendly matches.

N O R T H S T A F F S .The Club was founded last year and is increasing in size with the college.

The first Club Championship was won by John Hatton. Last season we played two matches, losing 2½-3½ to the Victory Chess Club, Stoke, and winning 4½-½ against Alsager Training College. W e hope that as the Club grows in strength, we shall be able to play a greater part in B .U .C .A . activities.

N O T T I N G H A MThe Club has had a good season in the Notts. Chess League in which we were

placed third, scoring 6 out of a possible 8 points against the two teams which finished above us. We did not do so well in the B .U .C .A . League but felt slightly unlucky to lose to Sheffield by 4½-3½.

The Piaggio Cup was won by A. J. Pointon from the holder M. B. Harris, last year’s Captain, to whom we wish “ good checking ” in the future. Representatives from the Club in the County team and for Northern Universities against Manchester, fared very well. The main characteristic of the team, win or lose, was the good spirit which predominated among the players and this, with the strength remaining, augurs well for next year.

N O R T H E R N R E G I O N

Q U E E N ’S U N I V E R S I T Y , B E L F A S TThe Club has had its best year so far. We have played in the Belfast Junior and

Senior Leagues, finishing about half-way up in each, and among other successes, a Queen's player has won the Ulster Championship.

18

We played for the first time in the B .U .C .A . League and won the Scottish Region by beating Edinburgh 6-2 and Glasgow. In the quarter-final we lost to Durham on the elimination rule after tying 4-4. Queen’s won the Irish Uni­versities League, scoring 6-0 against University College, Dublin, champions every previous year. Our membership and activities are increasing and we hope for even more success next season.

D U R H A MThe Club has had a most successful season, having reached the Final of the

Universities Championship, and we meet either Oxford or University of Wales early in November for the title. King's College, Newcastle finished third in the 1st Division of the Northumberland League and also played a number of friendly matches. The Club had five representatives in the County team.

Durham Colleges entered upon their first playing season with several friendly fixtures, winning three, drawing two, and losing one. Next season they will play in the Durham League. The Individual Championship was won by M. Allen, and D. Smith reached the Final of the Durham County Championship. Four of our players : D. Brydon, L. J. Cannon, J. H. Wall and J. Smith, competed in the B.C.F. Chester Congress with marked success. Prospects for next season are encouraging.

L E E D SThe past season has of necessity been one of reconstruction and team-building.

Three inter-University matches were lost by the same score 6-2, but it is hoped that the experience gained will have good effect and that the coming season will be more successful under the joint captaincy of J. Bell and L. R. Hart.

E. Ligema is the reigning Individual Champion and next year he will be defend­ing his title in an American Tournament with qualifying rounds, for the Swiss system adopted last season proved far from satisfactory. Later in the year a Knock-out Tourney is to be held. For the first time—ominous sign—a subscription has been introduced. Despite this, we hope to increase membership and produce a match­winning side next season.

S H E F F I E L DA quite successful season : the first team as was expected, did very well In the

B .U .C .A . Competition and reached the quarter-final, where we were well beaten by Manchester. Our League team, playing clubs around Sheffield, tied with another club at the top of its section and will probably be promoted next season. In matches against schools, the second team was nearly unbeaten.

Next season, however, we will probably lose two of our best players— Little- wood and Clarke—as well as former Secretary Peel, going to Cambridge, so our strength will depend on finding one or two outstanding freshers, as we have done this season. W ith a little new blood, we should be able to repeat this season’s successes.

M A N C H E S T E RThe past season has been another successful one for the Club. Although Man­

chester lost the Robinson Trophy, after holding it for the last three years, we remained Regional Champions and reached the B .U .C .A . Semi-finals. Two teams played in the Manchester and District League, the 1st team in Division A and the 2nd in Division D. A 3rd team played against local schools.

The Stopford Trophy for the Club Knock-out competition was won this year by J. E. Scott, who beat the holder, J. Perkins, in the final. Other events included a simultaneous display by Dr. Neumann, a Freshers’ Tournament, and a Lightning Tournament. Membership was over forty and the success of the Club was in no small part due to the endeavours of the Hon. Secretary, A. G. Dobbins.

19

A D D R E S S E S O F S E C R E T A R IE S F O R 1952-1953

ABERDEEN : 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 : B. Cafferty, Guild of Undergraduates, Edgbaston, Birmingham. BRISTOL : P. R. Balls, University of Bristol Union, Victoria Rooms, Bristol, 8. CAMBRIDGE : J. J. A. HANDLEY, Selwyn College, Cambridge.CARDIFF : Students’ Union, 51 Park Place, University College, Cardiff. DURHAM : J. H. W all, King’s College, Durham.EDINBURGH : The University Union, Edinburgh.EXETER : G. J. Jenkins, Guild of Undergraduates, University College of the South-

West, Gandy Street, Exeter.GLASGO W : University Union, University Avenue, Glasgow, W .2.HU LL : Students’ Union, University College, Hull.LEEDS : C. Barnes, University Union, University Road, Leeds, 2.LEICESTER : J. M. Tayler, 3 Dunstall Avenue, Braunstone Lane, Leicester. LIVERPOOL : Guild of Undergraduates, 2 Bedford Street North, Liverpool, 7. LONDON : G. L. Smith, King’s College, London.LOUGHBOROUGH : Loughborough College, Leicestershire.MANCHESTER : E. L. Neufeld, University Union, Manchester, 15. NOTTINGHAM : M. W . A. Chester, Union of Students, Nottingham.O XFO RD : j. Alexander, New College, Oxford.READING : J. Sheed, Students’ Union, Reading.ST. A N D REW ’S : University Union, St. Andrew’s, Fifeshire.SHEFFIELD : F. D. Moles, University Union, Sheffield.SOUTHAMPTON : M. Emanuel, Students’ Union, University College, Highfield,

Southampton.STOKE-ON-TRENT : R. W . Thomas, Students’ Union, University College of North

Staffs, Keele Hall, nr. Stoke-on-Trent.SW ANSEA : G. O. Pughe, 25 Bryn Road, Brynmill, Swansea, Glamorgan.

20

THE HOLLINGS CHESS SALONThe Hollings Chess Salon is the oldest established and best-known Chess House 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 second­hand 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.Publishers of the H O L L IN G S C H ES S SER IES

Znosko-Borovsky H O W N O T T O P L A Y C H ES S ... 3s. 6d.TR A PS O N T H E C H ES S B O A R D ... 5s. 0d.H O W T O P LA Y T H E C H ES S E N D IN G S 12s. 6d.

FR A N K H O LLIN G S68 Great Queen Street, Kingsway, London, W.C.2.

(Telephone : H O L B O R N 8104)

BELL CHESS BOOKSthe world 's finest chess series

* A S E L E C T IO N O F R E C E N T B O O K S *Chess Fundamentals, by J. R. Capablanca 10s. 6d. net

A new reset edition of a most important book. " . . . a valuable addition to chess literature . . . ” —S u n d a y T i m e s .

A Pocket Guide to the Chess Openings, by Griffith andGolombek 7s. 6d. net

A completely revised, new edition with new material. " . . . will be welcomed by all students of the game . . . ” — C h e s s .

Chess from Morphy to Botwinnik, by I. König 18s. 6d. netSub-titled “ The evolution of chess technique.” A most important book. " . . . certainly one of the most important additions of recent years to the literature of chess . . . ” —S i r G e o r g e T h o m a s in the

B r i t i s h C h e s s M a g a z i n e .Modern Chess Strategy, by E. Lasker 17s. 6d. net

A new book covering modern chess as thoroughly as the original book, C h e s s S t r a t e g y , covered classical chess.

Instructive Positions from Master Chess, by ) . Mieses 8s. 6d. netA new edition with an additional 53 examples of modern brilliancies, making a grand total of 173, so now the book holds old and new nice y ba anced.

500 Master Games of Chess, by Tartakow er and Du Mont In two volumes. Vol. I, Open Gam es, 22s. 6d. net.

Vol. 2, Semi-open and Closed Gam es, 27s. 6d. netC o m p l e t e C a t a l o g u e o n r e q u e s t

G. B E L L & SONS LTD., York House, Portugal Street, LONDON, W.C.2.