Round 3 8th September 2006

Bd  WHITE                      Result  BLACK                          PIN
  1 SHORT,Nigel           (2)   1 - 0  SULSKIS,Sarunas       (2)     1  12
  2 DGEBUADZE,Alexandre   (2)   ½ - ½  PERT,Nicholas         (2)     9  14
  3 WILLIAMS,Simon K      (1½)  1 - 0  MIEZIS,Normunds       (2)    17  10
  4 RADOVANOVIC,Jovica    (1½)  ½ - ½  GYIMESI,Zoltan        (1½)   30   2
  5 MCSHANE,Luke J        (1½)  1 - 0  HASLINGER,Stewart G   (1½)    3  22
  6 CONQUEST,Stuart       (1½)  ½ - ½  DEVEREAUX,Maxim L     (1½)    5  29
  7 GORDON,Stephen        (1½)  1 - 0  BISCHOFF,Klaus        (1½)   19   6
  8 HEBDEN,Mark           (1½)  ½ - ½  PRITCHETT,Craig       (1½)    7  35
  9 JACKSON,Oliver        (1½)  0 - 1  GALEGO,Luis           (1½)   46   8
 10 GORMALLY,Daniel       (1½)  1 - 0  SWINKELS,Robin        (1½)   13  37

 11 MIEJURS,Viesturs      (1½)  1 - 0  GRANT,Jonathan        (1½)   15  38
 12 SURTEES,Mike          (1)   1 - 0  CIUKSYTE,Dagne        (1½)   49  20
 13 WILLIAMSON,Roger      (1)   0 - 1  LUTHER,Thomas         (1)    51   4
 14 MEDVEGY,Zoltan        (1)   ½ - ½  SAVORY,Richard        (1)    11  56
 15 ARMSTRONG,Malcolm     (1)   ½ - ½  SHAW,John K.          (1)    55  16
 16 LAUTERBACH,Ingrid     (1)   ½ - ½  VAN DER WEIDE,Karel   (1)    53  18
 17 MCNAB,Colin           (1)   1 - 0  HARDMAN,Michael       (1)    21  52
 18 GRASSIE,Duncan        (1)   0 - 1  KARTTUNEN,Mika        (1)    59  23
 19 HANLEY,Craig          (1)   0 - 1  PEACOCK,Malcolm       (1)    24  58
 20 HAWKINS,Nicholas      (1)   0 - 1  JONES,Gawain C        (1)    61  25

 21 SARAKAUSKAS,Gediminas (1)   1 - 0  MCGRANE,Stephen       (1)    26  83
 22 ARMSTRONG,William G   (1)   0 - 1  BRANDENBURG,Daan      (1)    63  27
 23 LEGGE,Andrew          (1)   0 - 1  QUILLAN,Gary          (1)    73  31
 24 TAYLOR,Martin R       (1)   1 - 0  VAN KEMENADE,Rudy     (1)    32  60
 25 ROBERTSON,David       (1)   0 - 1  RUDD,Jack             (1)    75  33
 26 CARLETON,John         (1)   1 - 0  GANDOLFI,Gianfranco   (1)    34  64
 27 LUND,Brett            (1)   1 - 0  BOUMPHREY,Luke        (1)    39  67
 28 LITTLEWOOD,John       (1)   1 - 0  TAYLOR,Edward H.      (1)    40  79
 29 WHITE,Michael JR      (1)   1 - 0  BROWN,Martin          (1)    43  68
 30 TEBB,David            (1)   1 - 0  KENT,Paul             (1)    45  82

 31 BLACKBURN,Jonathan L. (1)   1 - 0  SOLOMON,Graeme        (1)    47  77
 32 REDMOND,John          (1)   0 - 1  SARAKAUSKIENE,Zivite  (1)    74  50
 33 KNOTT,Simon J B       (½)   1 - 0  BENNETT,Patrick       (½)    28  54
 34 BRITTON,Richard       (½)   1 - 0  EWART,Brian R         (½)    36  86
 35 WILSON,Alexandra      (½)   ½ - ½  TREVELYAN,John        (½)    57  41
 36 MACGILCHRIST,Siegrun  (½)   0 - 1  WALLACE,Paul          (½)    65  42
 37 GORMAN,John           (½)   0 - 1  EGGLESTON,David J     (½)    70  44
 38 SOIKKELI,Raino        (½)   0 - 1  DUNN,Andrew           (½)    76  48
 39 WEIDMAN,Mark          (0)   0 - 1  CAMPBELL,Ian          (0)    81  62
 40 COCKERILL,Martin      (0)   0 - 1  HULLIGAN,Steve        (0)    69  72

 41 TANNER,Frank          (0)   ½ - ½  HUGHES,Robert         (0)    80  71
 42 LEE,Steven            (0)   1 - 0  Bye                          85 BYE
 43 DUKE,Michael          (0)   1 - 0  Bye                          87 BYE

Liverpool haunted by the ghost of Philidor

FM Steve Giddins reports on round 3 of the EU Championships in Liverpool

Report from the official site: http://www.liverpoolchessinternational.co.uk

The endgame of rook and bishop v rook is one of the most notorious in chess. It was first analysed by the great 17th century French master Andre Danican Philidor, who despite declaring that “pawns are the soul of chess”, also did some of the pioneering work in analysing pawnless endings. Philidor thought the ending was winning, but later researches showed that his winning method cannot be forced, and the ending is drawn with correct defence. However, it remains one of the most difficult endings to defend in practice. Fortunately, it does not arise very often, only a handful of times per year in GM practice, yet amazingly, in yesterday’s third round here at Liverpool, we had two such examples!

The first pair to reach it were Medvegy and Savory. Despite being outrated by 400 Elo points, and having only 3 minutes (plus a one minute per move increment) on his clock at the start of the ending, the English player defended perfectly for the requisite 50 moves and secured his half point. Meanwhile, the game McShane-Haslinger had also simplified to the same ending, but this time, the defender was unable to hold. Haslinger defended correctly for 27 consecutive moves, before a fatal slip at move 115(!) condemned him to defeat. Instead of his 115...Rc1, Black must set up lateral checks along the 7th rank, so the only three drawing moves are 115...Rh3/Rg3/Re3.

While all this was going on, Nigel Short assumed the sole lead in the tournament, after beating Sarunas Sulskis in a heavyweight Lopez. White emerged slightly better from the opening, with Sulskis’ 20...g6 being the first deviation from theory. Short admitted that he was struggling to remember much about the line, despite having spent some time working on it a few months ago. Sulskis manoeuvered his bishop to the square b3, where it defended the c4 weakness and disrupted White’s plans to double rooks on the d-file. However, the bishop risked being badly out of play, and once Short had untangled and achieved the f4-break, he was virtually playing a piece up.

Williams beat Miezis, after refuting the latter’s early pawn sacrifice, whilst Stephen Gordon continued his impressive form by beating Klaus Bischoff. Gormally also won to reach 2.5.

With the pairings no longer being accelerated, there were a large number of games which looked likely to be mismatches, and by and large, that was how it turned out, with most of the favourites winning. However, there were a few upsets. The highly talented Craig Hanley had a disaster, losing in 17 moves as White, in a game which only lasted barely above an hour. Backward retreating moves are reputed to be the hardest to see, and so it was here, as Hanley missed the lethal reply to his 15th move pawn snatch. Local Northern player Mike Surtees produced the biggest upset of the day, demolishing WGM Dagne Ciuksyte with another of his patent anti-Sicilian set-ups. Surtees’ has his own concept of how one should play the opening, the essence of which is that one should play one’s pawns up first, and only develop pieces behind them later on. He did just this against Ciuksyte, making 10 pawn moves in his first 12. He soon seized the initiative, and when Ciuksyte blundered a pawn with 19...Na5?, it was all over. You can see this remarkable game below.

Meijers looked like being another rating favourite who would lose, after being totally busted inside 25 moves against Jonathan Grant. Unfortunately, the latter chose the wrong way to wrap things up, and his piece sacrifice proved inadequate. The only other leading seed who failed to win was Grant’s Scottish compatriot John Shaw. He was held to a draw by 2100-rated Malcolm Armstrong, who hoovered the board clean with a determined thoroughness that would have been the envy of Mrs Mops the whole world over.

Lower down the tournament, the Vodafone Gambit finally claimed its first victim, as Duncan Grassie’s mobile phone went off at move 23. Curiously, as Jack Rudd pointed out, his opponent was Mika Karttunen, who was also Nigel Short’s opponent when the latter left his phone switched on in round one. Having recently watched a re-run of the TV spy classic Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, I am probably a bit paranoid, but I am beginning to wonder if the Finns have developed a secret technique for switching their opponents’ mobiles back on by remote control...

Surtees,M (2182) - Ciuksyte,D (2440) [B22]
EU Championship (3), 08.09.2006

1 e4 c5 2 c3 Nf6 3 d3 Nc6 4 f4

This is the Surtees’ approach - get the pawns moving first, and bring the pieces in behind them. Methinks that Philidor would approve!

4...d6 5 Na3 e5 6 f5 d5 7 Qf3 h6 8 g4 Be7 9 h4 dxe4 10 dxe4 Nd7 11 g5!?

In the finest military tradition, the "poor bloody infantry" sacrifice themselves to breach the enemy ramparts.

11...hxg5 12 hxg5 Rxh1 13 Qxh1 Bxg5 14 Qh8+ Nf8 15 Nf3 Bf6 16 Bc4 Qe7 17 Qg8 Bd7 18 Be3

18... 0-0-0?!

Giving the pawn back fails to relieve the pressure. The computer’s interesting suggestion is the tactical blow 18...Nd4!?, although the position remains highly unclear after 19 Nd2 Bh4+ 20 Kf1.

19 Qxf7 Na5?

And this loses another pawn, after which the outcome is never in doubt. 19...Qxf7 was a better try, but White remains clearly better.

20 Qxe7 Bxe7 21 Nxe5 Nxc4 22 Naxc4 Bb5 23 Kf2 b6 24 Rh1 Kb7 25 Rh8 Rd1 26 Rg8 Nd7 27 Rxg7 Bf6 28 Rf7 Bxc4 29 Nxc4 Kc6 30 a4 Ra1 31 e5!

The final blow, after which one feels the fight could probably have been stopped.

31...Bxe5 32 Rxd7 Kxd7 33 Nxe5+ Kd6 34 f6 Rh1 35 f7 Ke7 36 Bg5+ Kf8 37 Kf3 a6 38 Ke4 b5 39 a5 b4 40 c4 b3 41 Kd5 Rh5 42 Be3 1-0