Cruel to be kind

 Last night the Bristol University 1st team played Downend at home, with me on board 4 again. Until the afternoon of the game, I was set to be higher, but fortunately someone became available just in time. Nonetheless, our opponents turned up with a full-strength team, and I was not at all surprised to find myself playing the 178-grade Jerry Humphreys, whose protestations beforehand that he wasn't sure whether he would be on the same board were entirely unconvincing. He is well-known to a number of the University's players, including me, and is often to be found in our company during weekend tournaments, where I have already gleaned some useful advice from him.

 On paper, the odds were against us - 187-190, 180-181, 168-181, 162-178, 162-178, 128-172 - and yet I still can't quite understand how we didn't win the match. Downend appear to have a number of escape artists in their ranks, and I suppose we must include my opponent for managing to escape with a draw from the opening of this game. However, I am afraid my generosity in accepting it doesn't extend to my commentary:

 When this game finished, things looked rather promising for us, but we collapsed to DLLDDD. We were desperately unlucky not to get any wins - my vastly outgraded ex-SGS teammate* on board 6 won his opponent's Queen in the opening, but ran into technical difficulties and time trouble, opposite-coloured Bishops foiled a remarkable recovery on board 1 from a dodgy opening, Downend's board 5 displayed his usual skill in appalling time trouble (7 minutes vs. an hour at one stage) to draw, on board 3 a completely winning position went west in a blitz finish, and on board 2 we just hung an exchange. Perhaps I can only say that it's been a long season.

 Of course, I can hardly exonerate myself either. Jerry is a really nice guy, and it truly pains me to be so harsh, but he most certainly did not play like a 180-odd player in this game. It seems he was content to whing it in the opening, a policy of which I never approve. White was gifted almost all the strategic trumps, far outweighing the Bishop Pair - better pawn structure, targets on the dark squares, and a lead in development - and despite missing my best chances (notably 5. d4, 9. Na4 and 13. e5, all of which are very good for white and possibly just winning) I established a much better position without much effort. This from an opening system I don't trust enough to play regularly, and the variation of it that I think is safest for black. Even at the end, when I thought things had calmed down into a small but stable plus for me, some investigation with the computer reveals that I am still much better. All in all it is tempting to say that the best element of black's play was the timing of his draw offer; if we had continued things could have become very uncomfortable for him. On another day I might have declined, but I did not realise quite how flattering a draw was to black. Then again as I grimly joked when the match had finished, it was good that I took my draw early on, before the advantage became too big; on the other boards a clear advantage rarely counted for much. In my opponent's words "if I get out of the opening I'm usually alright," and perhaps I could have been outplayed in a technical position. We'll never know, and of course it is for exactly that reason that Dan Heisman would admonish me for the early truce.

 Anyway, grumpy criticism over. Later today I have another game; I have twice thought that I have retired from the B-team, however I have been proven wrong once again and been persuaded to play on the top board in the distant hinterlands of South Bristol. I should have a substantial grading advantage to make up for our default on bottom board, but somehow the C-team we are playing got a 169 on board 1 in a recent match, so who knows?


 * Curiously, Downend's captain also went to Sutton GS some decades ago. It's a small world...