Weekend 4

Division 1 table after Round 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 GP Pts
1 Cambridge 1 4½-3½ 4½-3½ 5-3 5½-2½ 19½ 8
2 The AD's 4½-3½ 4-4 4-4 5-3 17½ 6
3 Blackthorne 3½-4½ 4-4 4½-3½ 5½-2½ 17½ 5
4 Wood Green 2 3½-4½ 5-3 3½-4 5½-2½ 17½ 4
5 Guildford 2 3½-4½ 4-4 3-5 5½-2½ 16 3
6 Oxford 1 3-5 4-4 4-3½ 2½-5½ 13½ 3
7 Bristol 1 4-4 3½-4½ 2½-5½ 4-4 14 2
8 Anglian 1 2½-5½ 3-5 2½-5½ 4-4 12 1

A weekend which contained April Fool’s day saw lots of action, and saw Oxford 1 manage on 1 out of 4 possible points, but we in fact took 3 points to the relegation zone thanks to results elsewhere.

On the Sunday, the late-evening Twitter feed below gives some indication of the last board tension against The ADs (with the bad news only coming after 7 hour session at the board):





Twitter — the way of the future. But for the moment some further notes, exceeding the 140-character limit, on the games played that weekend by the Oxford contingent — with the highlights here, courtesy Tim D.

  • Mike White bagged two IM scalps and moves to 6/7 for the season. I have him at a TPR of 2584, translating to a gain of +2.99 = +75 rating points (is it K=25?), and I make it that he now only needs one draw from his next two games to secure a norm, one of whom must be an IM. I will ask Neville to confirm all this.
  • Mike Healey also scored 2/2 in two sharply contrasting fashions (I must say I preferred the slow grind, but he'll tell you he enjoyed his hack).
  • Chantelle Foster was not too far off a double, saving a lost R+P ending on Saturday before despatching a 1937 on Sunday. Eoin Devane scored Oxford 3's solitary half-point of the weekend. Will Sean choose that quick draw for Playformator? (Sorry, Eoin - ST)

The long and short of it is – Oxford 1 need at least two wins and a draw from the final weekend in May. The order of fixtures is

Saturday: Blackthorne Russia (B),
Sunday: Bristol 1 (W);
Monday: Anglian Avengers (B).

That's good news at least for norm-hunters Matt R & Mike W as they will play the strong opp they need first.

Oxford 1


Barbican 4NCL 1 2370 Oxford 1 2196
w Turner, Matthew J g 2521 1 - 0 Zakarian, David 2379
b Collins, Sam E m 2439 1 - 0 Harvey, Marcus R 2322 j
w D'Costa, Lorin AR m 2420 ½ - ½ Eckersley-Waites, Tom 2267
b Cox, John J m 2411 0 - 1 White, Michael JR f 2263
w Ferguson, Mark m 2393 1 - 0 Dickinson, Tim R 2152
b Rogers, Jonathan W f 2349 ½ - ½ Nitz, Tomos 2130 c
w Knott, Simon JB m 2336 1 - 0 Hayward, Philip T 2034 c
b Regan, Natasha K w 2096 ½ - ½ Miranda Gonzalez, Nicole w 2027
5½ - 2½

One of the nicer thing about being the unofficial war correspondent for the Oxford team is that there’s rarely a quiet moment: we haven’t learned the art of mid-table obscurity. Once, about 2 years ago, the team threatened to break into the upper echelon Championship pool, which would have resulted in 4 games reportage luxuriating in such comments as “As Michael Adams wasn’t available, we had to make do with an average 2650 GM on top board for the Latticks”. Since then, we’ve spent our time trying avoiding the drop, and this gives an added meaning to all matches, and most games.

Well, an exception was this match, where no result however good or bad affected our appearance in the Demotion pool the next day – and with nul points to boot, unless resuilts elsewhere went in our favour. So our match with the strong, but-not-quite-that-strong Barbican 1 team (who had nothing to play for, save to protect their ratings…) was deprived of a certain extra soupcon of added meaning…

The top boards featured some sharp clashes, and some interesting positions. Take Dave Z’s position here against Matthew Turner:

Turner – Zakarian (B)

Black, to move, and a pawn to the good, with opposite bishops … clearly some strong chances?! Well, no, in fact: none of those black pawns on white squares look to be defensible, and even if the d-pawn can be clung to, its chances look somewhat bleak. David comes up with a plan which rescues in fact generates a passed pawn: 21. … Be7 22.Rxb7 Bf6 23.Rxa6 Rac8 24.g3 d4 25.e4 Rc1+ 26.Kg2 Rc2

There’s every appearance of activity for Black here, but White’s next move put a pretty stop to play against f2: 27.Ra2! Rc3 28.Rd7 Re8 29.Bh5 - and now the opposite bishop starts to pull its weight while the other is helpless – Re7 30.Raa7 Rxd7 31.Rxd7 Rc8 32.f4 Rd8 33.Rc7 Kf8 34.Rf7+ Kg8 35.e5 Bxe5 36.fxe5 g6 37.Bxg6 d3 38.Rf1 1–0 An impressive display of wit and technique

On board 2 Marcus was playing against a player playing, with the Black pieces, the same type of adventurous chess as he himself is wont to inflict on others:

Harvey – Collins (W)

Black has just advanced his g-pawn two squares to the fifth rank, and the question is whether it has been played or punted there. It’s easy to assume that the higher-rated player (here, Black, by an amount of 100 points) has made the right moves, but if that’s the case what has White done wrong? Leaving aside the ratings question (which should be peripheral but rarely is) how does one evaluate the position? Not, we hope, by the result as Marcus quickly got enveigled by some dark and desperate tactics : 15.Nh2 g4 16.g3? (hxg4 seems all right) fxg3 17.Bxh6 Qh4 after which it’s clear who’s taking the bacon home (0-1, 27)

On consulting the oracle, there’s some relief for the aged commentator to find that the computer thinks White is doing well enough in the diagram position, and one of his recommendations 15.d4 – meeting a wing pawn attack with an attack in the centre – …g4 16.hxg4 Bxg4 17.Qd3 Rg8 18.Bd2 Bh3 19.Ne1 Be6 – has roots which can be traced back to the pre-computer age.

D'Costa – Eckersley-Waites,T (B)

Board 3 saw a complex tussle in a middle game where White’s generally more active piece placement was offset by the absent QR and the possibility of … Rd1 mating in the middle of any variation. Further light was thrown on the position by Tom in the Triumph Bar, but unfortunately at too late a stage in the Saturday evening for me to string it up into a plausible annotative mosaic. 25... f5 26.gxf6 gxf6 27.c7 Rc8 28.Rxf6 Nxe4 29.Rc6 Nxc3 30.bxc3 Re2 31.Bxc4 Rg2 32.Rc5 b2+ round about here it was time to go in search of Room 317 33.Kxb2 Ba4+ 34.Kc1 Rg1+ 35.Kb2 Rg2+ 36.Kc1 Rg1+ 37.Kb2 ½–½

A highly concrete game, (and in what other sport would such a description count as a compliment!?) resulting in our first score of the day.

Mike’s game on the Saturday went one better – and was analysed over dessert in the restaurant and as usual the first 20 moves were on the board in double-quick time, with a book position in the Scotch resulting around about the time of this diagram. Who would you fancy here?

White – Cox (B)

I’d go with Black – it’s a pawn-complex complex thing, I suppose, even if Black has 2 extra pawns – although converting any advantage here in the absence of major error will be a problem. Black started to nudge the pieces in the right direction with 28… Rc3 29.Ra5 Rc1 30.Bf1 Rb1 31.Nb3 Rb2+ 32.Kg1

at which point the retreat of the white king seems a major concession deserving a diagram and thematic continuation: 32 …Re1? Unfortunately (for Black) not this theme. 33.Ra6+ Kb7 34.Nc5+ Ka8 35.Nd3 ahhh Rxf1+ 36.Kxf1 Rxh2 37.Ne5 Kb7 38.Ra5 Rb2 39.a3 1–0 A difficult game – and a difficult one to lose I’d say.

On board 5, Tim was playing catch up in the middle game, and in taking and exchanging on d4 in the diagram position the general idea is to hope that Black can subsequently regroup to protect the backrank, the b7 pawn and so on. At least that is the way I’d rationalise it!

Ferguson – Dickinson (B)

27… Rxd4 28.Rxd4 Qxd4 29.Qe7! Qf4 30.Re4! Qb8 31.Rg4 Rg8 32.Be4 Nd5 33.Rh4!!


All very pretty.

Nitz – Rogers (W)

Tom continued his good form against the Kings Indian against a strong opponent who has just played … Rg3 – to take, or not? We thought not at the time, and so did Tomos: 35.Qf1 Re3 36.Re2 Qg4 37.Rbe1 Qg6 38.Qf2 Rb3 39.Rb2 Rxb2 40.Qxb2 f3 41.Qf2 Rf4 42.Re3 fxg2 ½–½

On board 7 Phil’s Dutch defence got invaded by a marauding knight, and though the material is nominally equal the evaluation is +/-:

Knott – Hayward (W)

23.Qc4! accurately seeing that the pins along c4-g8 and the d-file are going to prove more fruitful than a mere pawn. … Qxe3+ 24.Kh1 b5 25.Bxd5+ Kf8 26.Rf1+ Bf6 27.Qc8+ 1–0

Board 8 was agreed drawn when Nicole seemed to have the worse of the pawn structures and the better of the game.


Oxford 1 2168 The AD's 2217
w Zakarian, David 2379 1 - 0 Jirka, Jiri m 2396
b White, Michael JR f 2263 1 - 0 Cernousek, Lukas m 2420
w Eckersley-Waites, Tom 2267 0 - 1 Richardson, John R f 2330
b Dickinson, Tim R 2152 0 - 1 Wheeler, Darren P 2272
w Healey, Michael W 2095 1 - 0 Anderton, David W c 2221
b Nitz, Tomos 2130 c ½ - ½ Bellin, Jana M w 2133
w Hayward, Philip T 2034 c ½ - ½ Bellin, Christopher J 1964
b Miranda Gonzalez, Nicole w 2027 0 - 1 Pritchard, David J 2002
4 - 4

Sunday, the first day of the Demotion campaign, and a thrilling draw against stronger opposition – all being decided on the last game, where Tim narrowly failed to hold a dodgy but possibly defensible R+P ending at the 7th hour neared completion.

Both top boards won against titled opposition in contrasting fashions:

Zakarian – Jirka (W)

After a classical enough King’s Gambit (2. … Bc5) White has just reached this position as I pondered the kibbitzer’s evaluation: two bishops, open f-file, … good for White – although not with my usual conviction. Isn’t the Black position fairly compact? And what is that second bishop going to do in the near future, from a1 ? (And the latter view is held more concretely by the computer.) David pragmatically first looked to defend his c-pawn while opening the position: 21.d4 exd4 22.Bxd4 Qxe4 23.Qf2 Nd5 24.c3 f6

and here is where Black has spoiled what has become a much better position (instead of … f6, … Ne5 should have been played) because White now pounced on the inaccuracy of … f6 with the delightful 25.Re3! Qg6 26.Re6 Kh8 27.Rxc6 Ne7 28.Rc7 Qe8 29.Kh1 Nb8 30.Qe2 Nbc6 31.Qe6 Qa8 32.Rxe7 Nxe7 33.Qxe7 Re8 34.Qd7 Rd8 35.Qf5 Qa1+ 36.Kh2 Qa7 37.Bc2 Qc7+ 38.g3 1–0

Cernousek – White (W)

On board 2 Mike had recovered from a resignable – by his account – position in the Grunfeld to one with chances, at which point his opponent tightened the noose around his own neck: 33.Rxb7?? Bd4 0–1

Healey – Anderton (W)

Mike’s game features as GoTW, a win from an equal endgame that had attractive young ladies swooning in the corridors of the hotel – well, nearly – such is his propensity for anything other than an endgame attack a rook adrift. Here, though, the Nf5 is bound to decide matters just by sitting there, so it was just a question of how to relocate the other pieces to some effect.

All 64 moves can be viewed elsewhere, so let’s look at 4 of them, as the Rd1 looks to find something to do around the half-way mark: 28.Rde1 Kb6 29.R1e2 Kc7 30.R2e3 Kb6 31.Re1 Kc7 go on my son … before Mike moves on to the next phase with 32.a4

All this meant, with Phil negotiating cautiously down to a draw in this position:

Hayward – Bellin (B)

½ – ½

that we were on the verge of some match points, with 3.5 / 4 with four to play; unfortunately other results were playing hard to get.

Though Nicole and her opponent both went astray on board 8, it was she who strayed last:

Pritchard – Miranda Gonzalez (W)

15.c3? – here Nxd6! would have lit the fuse on the black position … Kxd6; 16. e5+! When black can choose to lose the queen (… Qxe5) or the King (… Kxe5) to Nxf7. … Be5 16.g3 h6 17.Nh3 a6 18.Na3 b5 19.Bxf4 (a speculative sac) bxc4 20.Bxe5 Qxe5 21.Rxf7+ Nge7 22.Qf3 …

and now the position is balanced – long-term Black’s extra piece will count but in the shorter term there’s a small matter of the middle game, which gets foreshortened after 22. … Nd8?? 23.Nxc4 trapping the queen in the middle of the board Nxf7 24.Qxf7 Rf8 25.Nxe5+ dxe5 26.Qxf8 1-0

The fourth point was given to us when Tomos picked up another good draw on board 6, against Jana Bellin – which left the two middle boards still in play. But Tom’s position was scuppered in the endgame after his opponent found a strong sacrificial combination:

Eckersley-Waites,T – Richardson (B)

26… Qg5+ 27.Kh1 Rxe5! a combination justified by the strength of the Bc6, as well as the offside rook on b4 - 28.dxe5 Qxe5 29.Qf7+ Kh8 30.Qf6+ Qxf6 31.Rxf6 a5! – a pretty intermezzo which relies on the rook and pawn ending being won after 32. Rxc6 axb4 - 32.Rb2 (alas but Rb1 isn’t available) Bxe4+ 33.Kg1 b4! 34.Rbf2 bxc3 35.Rf8+ Rxf8 36.Rxf8+ after which the game resembles the plight of Spassky in Game 13 of the 1972 match – except this time there’s no drawing resource for the White pieces: 0-1 59.

This left Tim needing a draw from this position (and many other similar positions that developed around this time):

Wheeler – Dickinson (W, 50)

So, can White win this from here? It seems quite difficult as a fireside problem to win it against best defence, but less easy to do so after 6 hours reaching this position – especially when, as Tim had, you’ve had to do the return trip to Oxford to pick up the remnants of the 2nd team. There may be many ways of drawing this game – but there are many many more ways of losing it.

50.Kg3 Rd3+ 51.Kf4 Rd4+ 52.Kf5 Rd5+ 53.Ke4 Rg5 54.Rh1 Rxg4+ 55.Kf3 Rxa4 56.Rxh7 Kb6 57.Rxg7 … at which point it does “look drawn”, but there’s no access to Nalimov during the 7th hour at the 4NCL:

Kc6 58.Re7 Kd6 59.Re4 Ra8 60.Re2 Rf8+ 61.Kg4 Rg8+ 62.Kf5 Rf8+ 63.Kg6 Rg8+ 64.Kf7 Rg3 65.Kf6 Kd7 66.Kf5 Rg8 67.g4 Rf8+ 68.Kg5 Rg8+ 69.Kf4 Rf8+ 70.Kg3 Rg8 71.Re4 Kd6 72.Kf4 Rf8+ 73.Kg5 Kd5 74.Re7 Kd6 75.Rg7 Ke6 76.Kg6 Rf1 77.g5 Rg1 78.Ra7 Rg2 79.Ra5 Rb2 80.Ra6+ Ke7 81.Kg7 Rh2 82.g6 Rh1 83.Rf6 Rh2 84.Rf1 Rh3 85.Kg8 Rh2 86.g7 Rh3 87.Rf4 Ra3 88.Rh4 Rg3 89.Kh8 1-0

A hard match.

Oxford 2


Oxford 2 2023 Iceni 1993
w Healey, Michael W 2095 1 - 0 Feavyour, John A 2075
b Foster, James M 2028 ½ - ½ Ruthen, Stephen W 2054
w Duggan, Christopher 2031 n 0 - 1 Savage, Nicholas W 2072
b Colburn, Paul J 1995 ½ - ½ Donaghay, Richard H 1990
w Nixon, Rodney J 2011 0 - 1 Botham, C Paul 2033
b Foster, Chantelle L 1978 j ½ - ½ Szymanski, Mark 1738
2½ - 3½

Healey – Feavyour (W)

Although this looks like a trailer from a new series on chess, Evaluate That!, the seasoned Oxford contingent recognised the traces of a Healey onslaught, where White has all his pieces pointing in the right direction. But on a second look, it’s hard to find a good next move, let alone an attacking plan. So maybe Black is better here. And, with both sides having vacated the south-western regions of the board as if there’s a smell that needs sweetening, play continues:

23.c3 Nc4 24.Nh5 Qf1+ 25.Kh2 Nxe3 26.Qxe3 Be5+ 27.Rxe5 dxe5 28.Qh6 Qf7 29.Ne6 and as pieces get traded off White’s knights are nicely positioned to create some visual pressure

29.. ... Bxh5? This turns out to the losing error: the computer says the calm Rfc8, meeting Ng5 with Qf8 is called for, with a winning advantage in material, position, and the Irish pawn centre Black is no defence to the mopping up operations which ensue after 30.Rxh5 Kh8 31.Rf5 Qg8 32.Rxf8 Rxf8 33.Qxf8 Qxf8 34.Nxf8 Kg7 35.Nd7 Kg6 36.g4 e3 37.Nxe5+ Kf6 38.Nd3 e5 39.Kg3 e4 40.Nc1 1–0

Ruthen – Foster, J

A game, in a style that usually leaves me cold, got hot at the first time control – but only briefly, as James defended stoutly and secured a comfortable draw: 41.a4 Rc7 42.Rxa5 Rxd7 43.Ke2 Ke7 44.Kd3 Rd6 45.Ra7+ Kf6 46.f4 g6 47.a5 d4 48.fxe5+ Kxe5 49.Ra8 dxe3+ 50.Kxe3 Rc6 51.a6 Rc3+ 52.Kf2 Rc2+ 53.Kf3 Rc3+ 54.Kg2 Rc2+ 55.Kf1 Ke4 56.a7 Kf3 57.Re8 Rc1+ 58.Re1 Rc8 59.Ra1 Kxg3 60.a8Q Rxa8 61.Rxa8 Kxh4 62.Kg2 Kg4 63.Ra4+ f4 64.Rb4 g5 65.Ra4 Kf5 66.Ra5+ ½–½

Neither of our middle board whites produced any results:

Duggan – Savage (W)

Nixon – Botham

Chris’s position is dogged by the pinned Bb2 and the resulting anaemic pawn on e5. He continued to find chances that needed attention 16.Ne4 dxe5 17.g5 Nd4 18.Bxd4 Bxe4 19.Qxe4 exd4 20.Nd2 Qc7 21.Qg4 Rab8 22.h4 h5 23.gxh6 Bxh6 but Black – whose pieces have found ideal squares and a compact position – secured the 1-0 at move 39.

Rod also has a potentially weak pawn in the diagram position but his piece placements suggest he has some play in prospect. Even though the Rh4 is aggressively placed, it is still hard to see what weaknesses exist to be exploited. At the time I thought Black had more chances to survive than White had to break through – and this was confirmed after 18. … Nd7 19.Qe2 Ne7 20.g4 Nb6 21.Bg5 Ned5 22.Rd1 a5 23.c3 a4 24.Bxd5 exd5 25.Qd2 Nc4 when Black is about to win the e5 pawn and has complete command, with 0-1, 33 in prospect. In writing these notes now (5 May) it occurs to me that an early c4, though messy, might start to undermine the imposing central presence that Black has achieved.

Our efforts with the Black pieces should have been rewarded with more than two half-points. Chantelle had a two-pawn cushion early in her game before allowing one to go a little carelessly, after which her opponent got a first wind which enabled him to squeeze back 2 further pawns to force Chantelle to save a R+2P v R+1 ending, which she did on move 64.

On board 5 tiredness in the final session seems to have accounted for Paul missing out on an extra half point.

Donaghay – Colburn

Getting to the second time control White is forced to head to a losing K+P ending with 60.Bxc4 bxc4 61.Kd1 Kd4 62.e5 Kxe5 63.Kxd2 Kf4 64.Kc3 Kxg4 65.Kxc4 Kf4 66.Kd3 g4? This allows the white king back into play, and the winning line 66...Kf3 67.Kd2 g4 (67...Kf2 looks natural but only draws) 68.Ke1 Kg2! 69.c4 Kh2! isn’t that easy to spot 67.Ke2 Kg3 68.c4 Kh2 69.c5 ½–½


e2e4.org.uk 3 2000 Oxford 2 1993
w Horspool, Philip J 2039 1 - 0 Nixon, Rodney J 2011
b Ganger, Rajan 1969 ½ - ½ Wang, Maria 2066 j
w Garnett, John S 2008 ½ - ½ Duggan, Christopher 2031 n
b Burke, Steven J 2046 ½ - ½ Wang, X Anna 1946 j
w Taylor, Adam A 2002 j ½ - ½ Terry, Sean 1926
b Truman, Richard G 1937 0 - 1 Foster, Chantelle L 1978 j
3 - 3

Horspool – Nixon

Rod is developing a habit of playing the Ruy Lopez into endings which fall into the mini-pawn multi-piece category. Here, he is a pawn up but the white pieces are marauding, and on the last move before time control he finds 40. … Bd6? 41.Rxd6 Rxd6 42.Ne4 ... and 1–0 (51)

Wang,M – Ganger (B)

Maria had played a Caro Kann like it was some kind of Dragon Sicilian, and won the h6 pawn with a nice tactic. In the diagram position it seems that White has a good extra pawn, and an edge. Black’s 26. … Rd1! was a clever neutralising tactic. 27.Qc4 Rxe1+ 28.Rxe1 Qxb2 29.Nd3 Qb5 30.Qxb5 axb5 ½–½

Garnett – Duggan (B)

Chris has won a pawn, and the initial passage of play from the diagram is pleasing: 31. … f5 32.Rb1 Ra3 33.Bxf5 Ra2 Black is in no rush to take on f2 34.g4 Kg7 35.h3 h6 36.Kg2 Kf6 37.Kg3 Bxf2+ but after the rooks came off just after the first time control, the inevitable (½–½, 55) crept closer and closer.

Taylor – Terry (W)

Apart from arriving on 3 minutes late on 1 April, I got a poor position from the opening and sat back to wait for the inevitable onslaught from a better positioned White. Remarkably, though, my young opponent (sniffling with something!) thought for 54 minutes before doing what I would have done in a few minutes – viz. blunder with 26.c5? dxc5 27.bxc5 Bxc5 28.Bxc5 bxc5 29.Ba6 Rcd8 now the c5 pawn can’t be taken 30.Rc1 Qb6 and this tactic rescues it entirely. Unfortunately I had spent a little too long thinking gloomily about the position to re-adjust 31.Bb5 Re7 32.Qf2 Rc7 33.h3 c4 34.Qxb6 axb6 35.Kf2 Rc5 36.R3c2 Rdc8 ... Rd4 now, or Rd8+ any time between now and time control would have kept the c-pawn alive – but instead the game ended in a banal fashion 37.Ke3 Kf8 38.Kd2 Ke7 39.Kc3 g5 40.Kb4 c3 41.Rxc3 Rxc3 42.Rxc3 Rxc3 43.Kxc3 Kd6 44.Kb4 h5 45.Be8 h4 46.Bb5 (½–½)

Foster,C – Truman (B)

Chantelle played this position well after Black decided to play his way actively out of a small bind – 17. … Bf6 18.Bc4 Nd4 19.Bc7 when White’s position becomes irresistible – Black throws an exchange sacrifice on the fire, but this turns quickly into a pyre: ... b5 20.Bxb8 Rxb8 21.Bd5 b4 22.Re4 g5 23.Bc4 a5 24.g3 Ne6 25.Bxe6 fxe6 26.Rd6 Kf7 27.Rd7+ Kg6 28.h4 gxh4 29.gxh4 Rb5 30.Rg4+ Kh6 31.Rd6 1–0

This left Anna defending this position in a near empty Paris Room, and needing to draw it to get a half point for the team – a task she performed quite creditably, and with a degree of calmness not possible by some of the Oxford spectators.

Wang,X A – Burke

57. … Bb4 58.Nf5 h5 59.Ne3 hxg4 60.Nxg4 Bc3 61.Nh6 Ke4 62.Nf7 Kf4 63.Nh6 ½–½

Oxford 3


Oxford 3 1523 Warwickshire Select 2 2058
w Terry, Sean 1926 0 - 1 Stepanyan, Henrik 2162 j
b Devane, Eoin 1791 0 - 1 Page, Mark E 2023
w Henbest, Kevin B 1725 0 - 1 Webster, Paul 2015
b Asatryan, Robert 650 c 0 - 1 Baruch, Andrew JD 2085
w 0 - 1 Stepanyan, Astghik 2026 j
b 0 - 1 Cundy, Mark A 2042 c
-1 - 6


FCA Solutions 2 1777 Oxford 3 1388
w Valentine, Brian J 1977 1 - 0 Henbest, Kevin B 1725
b Shaw, John S 1858 c ½ - ½ Devane, Eoin 1791
w Grainger, Benjamin P 1774 1 - 0 Asatryan, Robert 650 c
b Gibbs, Daniel C 1788 1 - 0
w Evans, Helen I 1600 1 - 0
b Ressel, Eva 1666 c 1 - 0
5½ - -1

4 May 2012