He who laughs last...

 Yesterday I played on the top board for Bristol University B in a home match against Clevedon B. We narrowly won away earlier in the season, but our opponents were stronger this time; the person I beat in the previous encounter was on board 3 now. New grades are due out very soon, but for now we can say that the match stood at 149-152, 156-142, 111-136, 81-124, U-87, U-85. In short, without our habitual large grading advantage on the top 2 boards, we were up against it.

 This time, I was playing the 152-grade Stuart Iles, who I expected to play the first time round but knew in advance I would be facing for real this time. Like me, he seems to be due a substantial rise in grade in the next few days (hours?), probably to the mid-160s. As well as being President of the Bristol League, he also happens to be a connoisseur of unusual openings (for which I prepared.)

 Meanwhile, if you happen to be a connoisseur of the truly horrific, then you're in for a treat:

 To mildly paraphrase an SCCU website item, "with apologies to white, who can scarcely be said to have played any worse than black did. But it was a famous victory." And indeed it may be remembered for a while, as this improbable swindle allowed the University team to scramble one of the most improbable drawn matches I've ever seen, by WWLWLL. Despite quickly winning a miniature on board 2*, we were 2-3 down by around the time my game reached move 20, and our other win needed a fortunate tactical shot for a Philidor Mate whilst a piece down. Really, it could have been a 1-5 drubbing, although to be fair board 5 should have been a draw at least. What goes around...

 It does seem rather strange for me to be on the winning side of such a farce, as I've made an unfortunate habit of impossible losses in endgames. But I like to think of myself as a fighter at the board, even a little bit stubborn at times, and it paid off here, notwithstanding the fact that I'd have resigned on move 27 in any other circumstances. Still, I must feel sorry for my opponent, who played a good game and correctly punished my speculative attempt to launch an attack by ...Qe7-h4.

 My opening experiment with 1... d5 and 2... Qd6!? is difficult to pass judgement on from just one game. Incidentally, the reader can find the Andrew Martin article I referred to in the notes here. It's worth a read, I think. Stylistically, I liked the sort of game that came up, especially if I could have avoided the isolated pawn by more careful play, since it was tense and complex; the best way to exploit my opponent's well-known time management issues. In fact this is probably what saved the game for me in the end! Even with 20 minutes left for each side, it was obvious to all that a big time scramble was practically inevitable. Clearly, I did not play particularly well, and missed a number of more promising continuations; with better play my game was fine out of the opening.

 With the new grades due out very soon (*refreshes grading database tab*) I shall likely pass beyond the point where it is reasonable for me to play for the B-team, and as such this will probably be my final game. What a way to go! My next game should be on the 6th February, when the University A-team is at home to Horfield A.


* Since it was so short: M. Meadows (156) - G. Daniel (142) - 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e5 6. Ndb5 d6 7. Bg5 a6 8. Na3 b5 9. Bxf6 Qxf6 10. Nd5 Qd8 11. Bxb5 Qa5+ 12. c3 axb5 13. Nxb5 Rb8 14. b4 Qxb5 15. Nc7+ Kd8 16. Nxb5 Rxb5 17. a4 Rb8 18. Qd5 Ne7 19. Qxd6+ 1-0