Match Result
| Season | 09/10 |
| Date | Thu 10 Dec 2009 |
| Competition: | Middlesex League Division 2 |
| Fixture |
Ealing 'B' v Imperial College '1'
|
| Result | W: 5.5-2.5 |
Scorecard
| Board | Grade | Ealing 'B' | v | Imperial College '1' | Grade |
| 1 |
|
Chris Greenshields |
0.5-0.5 |
Casaschi, Paolo |
172 |
| 2 |
|
Sainbayar Tserendorj |
1-0 |
Ghoussain, Steven |
171 |
| 3 |
|
Mark Winterbotham |
0.5-0.5 |
Osa-Afiana, Azu |
144 |
| 4 |
|
Dale Gibbons |
1-0 |
Luo, Alan |
136 |
| 5 |
|
Raj Jhooti |
0.5-0.5 |
Castillo, A |
135 |
| 6 |
|
Sam Sarna |
1-0 |
da Rocha Pinto, P |
130 |
| 7 |
|
John Torrance |
0.5-0.5 |
Wang, J |
130 |
| 8 |
|
Alastair Johnstone |
0.5-0.5 |
Wood, Stephen |
130 |
| Total | | | 5.5-2.5 | | |
Captains Comment
Following close on the heels of the Willesden match, Chris's horrors were absolved by a convincing win at home to Imperial, who have administered some dreadful thrashings to us in the past. On this occasion however, a steady performance by the whole team averted further embarassment.
Sainbayar returned to form with a typically assertive perfomance on two, Dale launched a successful attack on four and Sam continued his tremendous debut season with a further win on six. Although Alastair enjoyed strong pressure on his opponent's position, accurate defence prevented Ealing from recording a clean sweep with the White pieces.
The real 'story' of the night however, took place on board three. In a frantic quickplay finish (is there any other kind?) Mark captured a pawn with a knight, (letting go of the knight and removing the pawn from the board), leaving the Imperial player with no pieces (apart from his king). The Ealing player had a knight and a pawn on the board. The Imperial player then announced the Ealing player's flag had fallen before the Ealing player had pressed his clock.
It should be said that there was no animosity from either side nor any dispute about the sequence of events, merely genuine confusion as to the interpretation of the rules. After referring the matter to 'higher authorities', it was deemed that, in accordance with FIDE article 6.9, the game was indeed drawn, viz.:
"Except where one of the Articles: 5.1.a, 5.1.b, 5.2.a, 5.2.b, 5.2.c applies, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player. However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player's king by any possible series of legal moves."
Under Article 4 (touch move and hand off done) any move other than the capture of the final pawn would not be legal.'
