I didn’t catch much of Aaron’s game against David on board 1. I understand that the middlegame position was perhaps defensible for Aaron but ultimately proved too difficult against David’s accurate play. On board 2 Alex’s opponent went a bit astray in the opening, allowing the exchange of his good bishop in a Dutch setup. The advantage wasn’t great, but it was persistent and further positional concessions resulted in a winning good knight v bad bishop ending. My game on board 3 also ended with a winning good knight versus bad bishop ending, although the middlegame route to get there had been quite tricky, and I was very relieved when it ultimately simplified.
On board 4, Phil’s game was relatively uneventful, his opponent offering a draw in a heavy piece ending (perhaps slightly unfavourable for Phil). At this stage the match was 2-0 in our favour so Phil was happy to accept. Harvey’s games always look tactically complex to me, but on this occasion the tactics on board 5 worked out in his opponent’s favour. On board 6 Chris build an imposing centre. Having missed some chances to probe it, his opponent found himself in a passive position in which he blundered a rook to end the game.
(1) Aaron Guthrie 0 – 1 D. Buckley
(2) Alex Easton 1 – 0 H. Bogdan
(3) Derek Pugh 1 – 0 A. Gregory
(4) Phil Nendick 0.5 – 0.5 A. Cayonlu
(5) Harvey Atkinson 0 – 1 T. Matko
(6) Chris Jones 1 – 0 P. Dimond
HORFIELD A 3.5 – 2.5 BATH A
NB: Horfield were black on boards 1, 3 and 5
