HCA League Division7
17 Oct 2011: Letchworth & Hitchin 4 v St Albans 6
|Bd||Letchworth & Hitchin 4||Grade||ECF||Result||St Albans 6||Grade||ECF||Resumption|
|1||Jenkins, Ian||108||113600J||0-1||McMahon, Austin||117||115351B|
|2||Patterson, H Alan||100||116807B||1-0||Colacino, Angelo||108||286406L|
|3||Eva, Harold||98||183207E||0-1||Hayward, Peter||104||187852K|
|4||Butina, Darko||97||281983B||1-0||Feldman, Keith||102||281985F|
|5||Heath, David||97||147150J||0-1||Smith, Andrew||77||282804C|
|Match Score: 2-3|
|Number of games incomplete: 0|
Letchworth Hitchin 4 v St Albans 6
A good win with 3 regulars absent
Author: Peter Hayward on behalf of Peter Baker
Date: 17 Oct 2011
With Peter Baker, Chris Pines and Phil McConnell all unable to play this match, Andrew Smith and Angelo Andrew stepped up from the Seventh Team.
Andrew Smith did particularly well playing the quick game. He had about 15 minutes on his clock his opponent was down to 1 minute. As well as having a good advantage on time, he had an overwhelming attack, forcing his opponent to resign.
Austin McMahon built up a strong position and won. He turned up 10 minutes late, but his opponent very sportingly did not start the clock straightaway. If his opponent had wanted to start the clock it was unknown to me whether our player wanted to play the long or short game. The problem was resolved for me by the opponent wanting to play the long game, so default game was automatically decided. But useful for me to remember to ascertain from our players what time game they want to play before we go to the venue.
Keith Feldman unfortunately made a blunder early on and was first to finish.
Angelo looked like he had a good game finishing with a lot of pieces on the board, but a long diagonal from his opponent's bishop. and a check by his queen, left Angelo's king surrounded by his own pieces with nowhere to go.
I was very, very fortunate. Although I was white I was always under pressure from the start. My opponent should have won the game easily but for some reason retreated from his attack. My knight jumped around the board placing his king in check until it reached a position where my knight's next move would have forked his king and rook, but in originally moving the knight in its journey around the board checking his king, it exposed my opponent's unprotected knight from being taken by my rook. Although we both had a rook and knight each my opponent had 7 pawns to my 5. My opponent had to decide whether to lose his knight or his rook as he couldn't protect them both, in the end he tried to save them both and lost his rook for my knight. He eventually resigned.