In the Under 160s, EACU Champions Suffolk will play their National Quarter-final at home to neighbours Essex, so should not require a midway venue. This match will probably be played on either Saturday or Sunday 16/17 May.
Suffolk will not be competing in the national stages of either the Under 120s or Under 100s.
Pictured right are the four section winners William Sait (u18), Karthik Saravanan (u14), Tristian See (u11) and Adam John (u9).
There were some excellent performances by members of the Bury Knights Junior Club, who contributed over 30% of the total entry. Adam John won his first five games and drew the last to win the Under 9 section convincingly. Anita Somton was unbeaten, but finished third in the Under 11s. In the Under 14s, Alex Sheerin (also of Ipswich CC) lost only to the eventual winner to finish in second place.
The winner of the Under 18 section, Bury's William Sait, was awarded the title of EACU Junior Champion, with a new trophy to follow.
One sad note - apart from the 22 Bury players, there were only four others from Suffolk schools: two from the Meadows Montessori school in Ipswich, where former Suffolk Ladies' Champion Vicky Allen coaches, one from Creeting St Mary Primary School, and one from Waldringfield Primary.
| Team | Played | Won | Drawn | Lost | Game Points | Match Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Suffolk | 8 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 72 | 13 |
| Cambridgeshire | 8 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 75½ | 11 |
| Norfolk | 8 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 74 | 11 |
| Bedfordshire | 8 | 2 | 0 | 6 | 50 | 4 |
| Hertfordshire | 8 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 48½ | 1 |
These two wins capped a tremendous season for the team, which lost only one match (to Norfolk) back in November. Four players won both their games today: David Spence, Dagne Ciuksyte, Graham Moore and Richard Lamont. Those on 1½ points included Shaun Munson, Ian Wallis (capt.), Mike Cook, Nick Savage, Silas Peck, Leon Burnett, Rob Sanders and Steve Ruthen.
Of course Suffolk are the current Minor Counties Champions (see here) and will now compete in the National Quarter-Finals in May, against the runners-up from the Midlands Counties zone. Although there are three qualifying places (so Cambridgeshire and Norfolk also qualify) it was particularly important that Suffolk finished first. The second and third-placed counties must play in a preliminary round, due to take place on the same weekend as the Great Yarmouth Congress at the end of April.
Ian Wallis has correctly pointed out that the SCCA rules differ from the FIDE laws. Revised at last year's AGM, the relevant SCCA rule (1.4) now states: "Should any mobile electronic equipment emit a sound during play, the player in possession of it must immediately offer to resign. His opponent may decline this offer."
So the SCCA is taking a more benign view than FIDE. Has anyone experienced this new rule in action during this season? (Apart from the one cited in the recent article).
Pictured above, the top 16 members (by rating) are playing in the annual Club Championship. With Anita Somton not available, the field is wide open. After two rounds, four players are on maximum score: Alan John (97), William Moody (97), Daniel Garcia-Leon (79) and Mario Saenz de Villaverde (69). Games are being played with digital clocks and will be long-play graded.
This is the first time in the 23-year history of the Club that such an event has been held. This is an ungraded Rapidplay competition, over three rounds, played one round each week. If two players attain three points, they will face each other in a fourth round.
First round winners were top seed Bethany Young, Autumn Myerscough, Liya Baby, Amy John and Tanya Rajayogan.
A new trophy will be presented to the winner.
In one game, where an adult was playing a junior, the latter's phone rang. He didn't resign but showed his intention of playing on (perhaps he didn't know the rule?) His opponent took pity on him (he's only 12) and allowed the game to continue. He lived to regret that decision, as he eventually lost!
So, what is the correct procedure? The rule (FIDE 12.3) says "If any (such) device produces a sound, the player shall lose the game." So that's clear, but what if the player whose phone rang doesn't react? One thing is certain: if his opponent allows the game to continue, then he cannot claim the game later on. It doesn't really matter if the opponent is a junior, an old age pensioner, or an attractive young lady. You have won, and you should not allow the game to carry on. If the opponent protests, then inform the team captains.
Has this happened to you? What did you do - did you take the tolerant route or did you insist that you had won?
The second issue was a 10.2 claim. This is when a player claims a draw when he has less than two minutes left on the basis that his opponent is either unable to win by normal means, or is making no attempt to win (i.e. trying to run you out of time). The problem with this claim was that it was made on a digital clock with just two seconds remaining. If you want to claim under this rule, you must leave sufficient time for the arbiter (if there is one, or the two captains otherwise) to watch the game and confirm that the opponent is making no real attempt to win. Obviously, this is impossible with two seconds left. As it happens, the player with more time was losing in material terms and agreed a draw. But my advice in this situation is to decline the draw (don't forget, a claim of a draw is also an offer of a draw) and let your opponent's time run out. He has 90 minutes to complete the game and if he is unable to do so in that time, then that's tough. It doesn't matter if the other player has a material deficit.
The lesson to be learnt here is that if you intend to claim under FIDE rule 10.2, then do so as soon as you have less than two minutes remaining.
Again, your comments on this issue will be welcomed.
Today is the latest date for posting entries to the Bury St Edmunds Junior Congress, which is taking place this coming Sunday at Moreton Hall Community Centre.
With 55 entries confirmed, and at least a further seven anticipated, this year's Congress promises to be bigger than last year's when 60 children entered.
Sadly, for a local tournament, the number of entries from clubs and schools in Suffolk is only 23, most of which are members of the Bury Knights Junior Chess Club. Other entries are mainly from Norfolk (17) and Cambridgeshire (12).
Any late entries should be notified to me .
10 March - Ipswich A v Manningtree (Cup)
17 March - Ipswich F v Bury St Edmunds D (Plate)
24 March - Ipswich C v Ipswich B (Cup)
31 March - Felixstowe v Saxmundham (Plate)
As this new competition reaches its final stages, it may be worth weighing up its pros and cons.
Both Rob Sanders, who proposed and designed the competition, and Colin Roberts, SCCA President, believe it has been a success. With 13 team entries out of a possible 21, this is more than the competition it replaced, the League Cup, which last season had only five entries.
On the other hand, however, the Cup and Plate has thrown up some mis-matches in the Initial Round, when the seeding paired top against bottom, second top against second bottom, etc. It may be worth considering a different pairing system if the competition is to continue next season, where the imbalance between the total grades of teams is less.
It is already known that at one club will not participate next season. This club failed to win a single game in the eight that were played in the Initial Round and the Plate quarter-final. Another club, Bury St Edmunds, were unable to field any of their Division 1 teams because of fixture congestion (they also play in the Bury Area League).
It is suggested that all Suffolk clubs should now advise the Competitions Secretary, , as to the likelihood of their club's entry to this competition next season and, if so, how many teams. This will give the SCCA Committee a better feel for the future of this competition.
Now, a new talent has emerged.
A year ago, 8-year old Adam John (pictured left) had a rating of 611 (the lowest rating is 600). He played in the bottom division at the Bury Knights. Now, he is regularly beating adults in the leagues. He has improved his rating to 1110 and it's still going up in leaps and bounds. His January ECF grade was 74.
On Sunday Adam played in the EACU Team Championships. He loves to attack on the kingside and here he shows real tactical awareness. This was the position after 31 moves with White (Adam) to play.
The game continued:
32. Bg6+ Kg8
33. Bf7+!! I wonder how many adults would even consider this move. The bishop can be taken by four different pieces!
... Kxf7 The only move. If the bishop is taken by the queen, rook or bishop, mate is forced after Qh7+.
34. Ng5+ Qxg5 Again, forced.
35. Rxg5 Rh8
36. Qg6+ Ke7
37. Qxg7+ Bf7
38. Qf6+ Kd7
39. Qxf7+ Ne7
40. Rg6 Rh2+
41. Kg1 Rch8 hoping for a draw.
42. Qxe6+ Kc7
43. Qxe7+ Nd7
44. Qd6+ Kd8
45. Rg7 and after a few checks, the White king escaped to d5 and Black resigned.
Adam will celebrate his ninth birthday on Saturday...
There were six entries in the Open, five in the Team 600, and four each in the Team 500 and Team 400 sections.
The results were (all scores out of eight):
The Golden Knights, Mighty Rooks and Spanish Knights teams were mainly from the Bury Knights Junior Chess Club.
One of the quickest games to finish was in the Open section, when Stephen Pride (Royston) fell to Silas Peck (Ipswich) in just 14 moves. This was the position after 9 moves with White to play. Stephen's position is already looking rather weak:
The game continued:
10. a3? Na4!
11. axb4? Qxb4
12. b3? Qxb3+
13. Kc1 Qa3+
14. Kd1 Nxc3+
Resigns
