A quick burnout

And so into March, which started just as February did - a game for Wallington 1 in the second tier of the Surrey League. Thankfully, it was now the turn of our opponents to trek across half the county, as we welcomed Guildford 2, the only team to give Surbiton 2 a real challenge for the title. This time we were at indicative strength, though still slightly outgraded: 170-179, 169-172, 167-170, 154-176, 153-160, 142-156, 134-138.

I was on board 3, with white against Philip Stimpson (170). I understood that he drew a lot of games, and had him down as a very cautious player. The observation was correct, but the conclusion doesn't follow automatically! I certainly wouldn't have predicted an Icelandic Gambit, but that was what we got before the natural order of things reasserted itself:

A defeat could have been predicted, but 2½-4½ (DDDLLDD) was still disappointing, since we missed several wins and lost out in a time scramble in the last game from a pawn up. I reasoned that perhaps I would be able to bully my players into better availability with the spectre of a relegation scrap on the horizon...

From my point of view, the only real argument for playing 3. c4 in this line is to accept the Icelandic Gambit and win with a free extra pawn. So forgetting the theory defeats the purpose of the exercise, although having looked at my old notes again, I'm still not impressed by the gambit. 8. Be3 seems to be moreorless a refutation, and the earlier lines are no better. In the game, we got a level queenless middlegame where it was prudent, if anti-climatic, to seek an early half: I was starting to make subtle positional mistakes, and they can quickly add up. They were already starting to do so - 16. Bd4 and 17. Be3 should both have been avoided.

Not a very exciting evening, but no harm done at least. By March my playing commitments were starting to thin, and it was a relatively luxurious five days until the next game, for Castles in the CCF Superleague.