|
|
|
|
The 1966 Glorney Cup |
|
| |
Extract from chess volumn
31: August 22nd 1966, page 377
| |
|
The Glorney
Cup, Paris 1966
England won the new
"bigger and better"
|
|
Sco |
Eng |
Wa |
Ire |
|
|
Total |
|
England |
x |
4 |
4 |
4 |
5½ |
3 |
20½ |
|
Scotland |
2 |
x |
4½ |
2½ |
3 |
6 |
18 |
|
Holland |
2 |
1½ |
x |
3 |
4 |
4½ |
15 |
|
Eales |
2 |
3½ |
3 |
x |
2½ |
3½ |
14½ |
|
France |
½ |
3 |
2 |
3½ |
x |
3 |
12 |
|
Ireland |
3 |
0 |
1½ |
2½ |
3 |
x |
10 |
Turn to page 397 for
John Littlewood's racy
commentary. He was
England's captain!
|
|
|
Extract from chess volumn
31: August 22nd 1966,
page 397 |
The Glorney Cup
Tournament
by J. E. Littlewood |
I make no appologies
about giving a lengthly
report of this junior
tournament. The Glorney
Cup has now broadened
its horizons and has
almost become a
miniature Clare Benedict
tournament, excellent
preperation for our
youngsters and giving
them the opportunity of
some international
competition. This year
it was held in Paris at
the centre International
de Sejour, a splendid
setting for a worthwhile
event.
ROUND 1
|
|
France |
|
|
Wales |
|
|
Benoit |
1 - 0 |
|
Davies |
|
|
|
Preissmann |
0 - 1 |
|
Hughes |
|
|
Fargette |
½ - ½ |
|
Williams |
|
|
|
Neymann |
½ - ½ |
|
Lexton |
|
|
Meyer |
½ - ½ |
|
Syner |
|
|
|
Montaignac |
1 - 0 |
|
Evans |
|
|
|
3½ - 2½ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
England |
|
|
Ireland |
|
|
|
Denman |
½ - ½ |
|
Moles |
|
|
|
Sugden |
½ - ½ |
|
Henry |
|
|
|
Tate |
½ - ½ |
|
McCaughan |
|
|
|
Hart |
0 - 1 |
|
Gibson |
|
|
|
Botterill |
1 - 0 |
|
Unwin |
|
|
|
Holmes |
½ - ½ |
|
Cummins |
|
|
|
3 - 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Holland |
|
|
Scotland |
|
|
|
J. Timman |
½ - ½ |
|
Glendinning |
|
|
|
Boersma |
0 - 1 |
|
Pritchett |
|
|
|
Ligterink |
0 - 1 |
|
Montgomery |
|
|
|
T. Timman |
0 - 1 |
|
Taylor |
|
|
|
de Wilde |
1 - 0 |
|
Stevenson |
|
|
Klaassenn |
0 - 1 |
|
Jardine |
|
|
|
|
1½ - 4½ |
|
|
|
The first named
teams had White on the
odd boards.
This
was Scotland's day. The
contest seemed even in
the early stages but
suddenly most of the
games began to swing to
the Scots who impressed
me more by their
determination and will
to win than by their
depth of play. Pritchett
played well, as did
Montgomery in the
following game:
|
Jardine always had
the advantage and
finished the game
powerfully but on two
occasions he missed the
strongest line.
|
On board 1 Glendinning was
unfortunate not to win but we
cannot help but admire the
resourcefulness of his
14-year-old opponent, the
youngest player in the
tournament and Dutch Junior
Championship at that. England's
result against Ireland was a
poor one in view of later
events. Denman's game ended in a
draw by repetition, both sides
reluctant to take risks at this
stage. As Moles had just won the
Irish championship it was won to
show him a little respect.
Sugden very quickly reached a
superior position but failed to
drive home his advanyage and
allow his opponent to escape a
draw.
Board 3 gave us a
most exciting game with both
players striving to make the
most of every chance. Tate
started with a good attack but
sacrificed too many pawns,
allowing McCaughan ro begine a
counter offensive.
Hart
had one of his off days,
defending rather too casually
against the Rauser attack,
refusing the offer of a draw
when he stood much worse and
finally blundering in a
different position.
Botterill's win was a game for
the connoisseur. He quietly
built up an ompressive position
until his opponent cracked as
follows.
Roger Holmes tried to
break down Cummins' redistance
but White always seemed to have
enoygh defence.
In the
France v Wales match, the French
top board player won well from
the following position.
Hughes beat Preissmann in
delightful fashion as follows,
although admittedly aided and
abetted by his generous
opponent:
ROUND 2
|
|
France |
|
|
England |
|
|
Benoit |
½ - ½ |
|
Denman |
|
|
|
Fargette |
0 - 1 |
|
Sugden |
|
|
Meyer |
0 - 1 |
|
Tate |
|
|
|
Neymann |
0 - 1 |
|
Botterill |
|
|
Montaignac |
0 - 1 |
|
Holmes |
|
|
|
Preissmann |
0 - 1 |
|
Wise |
|
|
|
½ - 5½ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ireland |
|
|
Holland |
|
|
|
Moles |
1 - 0 |
|
J. Timman |
|
|
|
Henry |
0 - 1 |
|
Boersma |
|
|
|
McCaughan |
0 - 1 |
|
de Wilde |
|
|
|
Gibson |
0 - 1 |
|
Loderweges |
|
|
|
Cummins |
0 - 1 |
|
Ligterink |
|
|
|
Barnwell |
½ - ½ |
|
Klaassenn |
|
|
|
1½ - 4½ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wales |
|
|
Scotland |
|
|
|
Davies |
1 - 0 |
|
Glendinning |
|
|
|
Hughes |
0 - 1 |
|
Pritchett |
|
|
|
Williams |
½ - ½ |
|
Montgomery |
|
|
|
Lexton |
½ - ½ |
|
Taylor |
|
|
|
Syner |
1 - 0 |
|
Jardine |
|
|
Miles |
½ - ½ |
|
Stevenson |
|
|
|
|
3½ - 2½ |
|
|
|
This round's glory
went to England. Our players
completely outplayed the French
team, except on board 1 where
Denman was happy to draw against
Benoit. Sugden played the
Saemisch variation against the
Niemtzo-Indian and his central
pawn mass rolled on
relentlessly, crushing all
resistance before it. Botterill
played in similar vein as
follows:
Holme's opponent played
weakly against the French
Defence and interestingly play
developed from this position.
Wise played the whole game very
powerfully. Here is the play
leading up to the decisive
combination.
Moles won well on board 1 for
Ireland in a difficult tactical
game.
Boersma played an attractive
if somewhat conventional attack.
Gibson copied Spassky's
hippopotamus defence, but
Loderweges played much better
then Petroshan and Gibson much
worse than Spassky!
Wales
played will to beat Scotland.
All the games were hard fought
except for the skirmish, won by
Syner, who I am convinced
dismayed his opponents by
wearing a shirt with BATMAN
written across the chest! See
for yourself:
Prichett again won convincingly
and as a result was promoted to
board 1 for the next match.
Montgomery, once more defending
the Sicilian against the Rauser
attack, managed to hold out in
the face of strong pressure from
Williams. Finally, however, the
latter sacrificed unsoundly in
the following position.
ROUND 3
|
|
England |
|
|
Wales |
|
|
|
Sugden |
½ - ½ |
|
Davies |
|
|
|
Tate |
½ - ½ |
|
Hughes |
|
|
|
Hart |
½ - ½ |
|
Williams |
|
|
|
Botterill |
1 - 0 |
|
Lexton |
|
|
|
Holmes |
1 - 0 |
|
Syner |
|
|
|
Wise |
½ - ½ |
|
Miles |
|
|
|
4 - 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Holland |
|
|
France |
|
|
|
J. Timman |
1 - 0 |
|
Benoit |
|
|
|
Boersma |
0 - 1 |
|
Fargette |
|
|
|
de Wilde |
½ - ½ |
|
Meyer |
|
|
|
Loderweges |
1 - 0 |
|
Neymann |
|
|
|
T. Tinman |
1 - 0 |
|
Faivre |
|
|
|
Klaassenn |
½ - ½ |
|
Preissmann |
|
|
|
4 - 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scotland |
|
|
Ireland |
|
|
|
Pritchett |
1 - 0 |
|
Moles |
|
|
|
Glendinning |
1 - 0 |
|
McCaughan |
|
|
|
Stevenson |
1 - 0 |
|
Henry |
|
|
|
Montgomery |
1 - 0 |
|
Gibson |
|
|
|
Shaw |
1 - 0 |
|
Unwin |
|
|
Jardine |
1 - 0 |
|
Barnwell |
|
|
|
|
6 - 0 |
|
|
|
A quiet day for England. Wise
quickly agreed a draw. Sugden
had the better of the opening
but could not drive home his
advantage. and gradually saw it
slipping away. Tate equalised
fairly easily with an Alekhine's
Defence but even though he had
some chances,in the rook ending,
it never seemed enough to win
the game for him.
Hart
played the Morra Gambit to try
to infuse some life into the
game but Williams defended
coolly enough.
It was
left once more to Botterill to
show us how to win, making it
all look so simple.
Holmes had been forewarned about BatmanSyner, Winning rook, knight and bishop for his queen,
Holmes was still worried because
of Syner's passed a pawn.
Ireland collapsed badlt against
Scotland, highlighting our bad
result in the first round, as
Scotland were now leading us by
half a point. Pritchett played
sound chess against Moles,
holding him in a vice-like grip.
McCaughhan, played a
Queeen's Gambit, retreated his
bishop to b3 and almost
immediately regretted it.
Holland's fourteen-year-old top board played a wonderfully mature strategic and tactical game against Benoit:
ROUND 4
|
|
England |
|
|
Holland |
|
|
|
Denman |
0 - 1 |
|
J. Timman |
|
|
|
Sugden |
1 - 0 |
|
Boersma |
|
|
|
Botterill |
1 - 0 |
|
de Wilde |
|
|
|
Holmes |
1 - 0 |
|
Loderweges |
|
|
|
Hart |
½ - ½ |
|
T. Tinman |
|
|
|
Wise |
½ - ½ |
|
Klaassenn |
|
|
|
4 - 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
France |
|
|
Scotland |
|
|
|
Benoit |
0 - 1 |
|
Glendinning |
|
|
|
Fargette |
1 - 0 |
|
Pritchett |
|
|
|
Meyer |
0 - 1 |
|
Montgomery |
|
|
|
Montaignac |
1 - 0 |
|
Stevenson |
|
|
|
Neymann |
½ - ½ |
|
Taylor |
|
|
|
Faivre |
½ - ½ |
|
Jardine |
|
|
|
3 - 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wales |
|
|
Ireland |
|
|
|
Davies |
1 - 0 |
|
Moles |
|
|
|
Hughes |
½ - ½ |
|
Barnwell |
|
|
|
Williams |
1 - 0 |
|
Cummins |
|
|
|
Lexton |
½ - ½ |
|
Henry |
|
|
|
Syner |
0 - 1 |
|
McCaugham |
|
|
Evans |
½ - ½ |
|
Unwin |
|
|
|
|
3½ - 2½ |
|
|
|
Holmes was the first to win in a game which speaks for itself:
De Wilde's opening moves gainst Botterill were strange.
Hart too had a better opening,
but still seemed out of form and
could not find a winning plan.
Wise played well to draw
a difficult game. Most of the
excitement of the round came
from the top two boards. Denman
left too little time in a
complicated position and the
young Dutch lad once more
demonstrated his great tactical
ability. Here is the game.
Not a game for Denman to be despondant about, as it was full of interesting ideas.
Sugden's opening gave him easy equality but he risked loosing when he refused the chance of a draw. Fortunatly for him his opponent failed to find the best move in a tricky position and lost as follows:
ROUND 5
|
|
Scotland |
|
|
England |
|
|
|
Pritchett |
1 - 0 |
|
Sugden |
|
|
|
Glendinning |
0 - 1 |
|
Botterill |
|
|
|
Montgomery |
1 - 0 |
|
Tate |
|
|
Taylor |
0 - 1 |
|
Denman |
|
|
|
Stevenson |
0 - 1 |
|
Holmes |
|
|
|
Shaw |
0 - 1 |
|
Wise |
|
|
|
2 - 4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Holland |
|
|
Wales |
|
|
|
J. Timman |
1 - 0 |
|
Davies |
|
|
|
Boersma |
½ - ½ |
|
Hughes |
|
|
|
Loderweges |
0 - 1 |
|
Williams |
|
|
|
T. Timman |
0 - 1 |
|
Lexton |
|
|
|
Klaassenn |
½ - ½ |
|
Miles |
|
|
|
Zigterink |
1 -0 |
|
Evans |
|
|
|
3 - 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ireland |
|
|
France |
|
|
|
Barnwell |
½ - ½ |
|
Fargette |
|
|
|
Moles |
½ - ½ |
|
Benoit |
|
|
|
McCaughan |
0 - 1 |
|
Montaignac |
|
|
|
Henry |
0 - 1 |
|
Priessmann |
|
|
|
Gibson |
1 - 0 |
|
Faivre |
|
|
Unwin |
1 - 0 |
|
Meyer |
|
|
|
|
3 - 3 |
|
|
|
So the tense final round began and chance could not possibly have arranged things better. The two leading teams were to meet, with half a point seperating them.
England would win the cup if they drew the match, but 3½-2½ against England would win the cup for Scotland!
A similar situation in last year's Glorney Cup
had resulted in a win for Scotland... There were going to be no easy draws today! In the event the first game to finish pointed to the final result. Wise, one one of our best young attacking players,
won nicely as follows:
Denman, still playing his pet 2. c3 against the Sicilan, was the next to win in convincing fashion with an attack on the king.
It was fitting that the cup was finally won when the team captain Holmes sxploited his opening advantage as follows:
Mean while Botterill had reached an ideal position against the Kings Indian. Try as he would, the Scottish captain Glendinning could not shake off the strangle hold on his game. When he finally blundered away a piece his game was on the point of collapse.
There was now a sense of anti-climax as Pritchett gained a good win over Sugden in a game which was a credit to both players, and Tate lost from the better position. It had been an excellent fight, with the Scotts showing a determination and team-spirit which we all envied.
Lexton won well with an opening line which obviously
surprised Black who played badly:
I think it fitting to conclude this report with the remarkably mature game played by the young Tinman against Davies.
| |
| |
The
Glorney comittee are thankful for the
kind permission of
CHESS
Magazine
chess.co.uk
to include the above extracts in their
archive material. |
|
|
|
