Notts News
Newsletter of the Nottinghamshire Chess Association
2007–08 No. 22 12 January 2008
http://www.nottschess.org/
[email protected]
Copyright © Nottinghamshire Chess Association 2008
Nottingham Rapidplay
Forthcoming events
Don’t forget: the Nottingham Rapidplay is next Sunday at the
High School (details in the box opposite). If you haven’t
already entered, download an entry form and get it done now!
19th Nottingham Rapidplay: 20 January 2008
Nottingham High School, Waverley Mount, Nottingham
NG7 4ED
Ashfield 3 venue change
Please remember that all remaining Ashfield 3 fixtures have
been moved from the Sherwood House Inn to East Kirkby
Miners Welfare, Off Low Moor Road, Kirkby. Matches are still
on Tuesday nights. Team captains and club secretaries should
make sure that all players know about the change.
Four sections:
N
N
N
N
4NCL news
Open
Major (U150)
Intermediate (U125)
Minor (U100)
Grading prizes in all sections. Full details at http://www.
nottschess.org/2007_08/rapidplay.html
Neil Graham spotted just before Christmas that the 2008–09
4NCL dates and venues have been published (http://www.
4ncl.co.uk/0809_dates.htm). The good news is that four of the
bottom division fixtures are relatively close to home, with only
one trip to Berkshire.
Those who are likely to be playing in the next set of
matches in February might like to check out the Round 5
pairings: Nottinghamshire 1 vs. Oxford 3 and Nottinghamshire
2 vs. Littlethorpe 1. But these matches won’t be played in
Birmingham, as originally scheduled – according to the 4NCL
web site, the Paragon Hotel’s new management have decided
to charge for the room hire, and as that would have cost
almost £7,000 per day the Division 4 matches have been
moved to Staverton Park, near Daventry.
top board; Derek played well, but as the game reached its last
minutes his opponent’s king found safety from the checks and
so Warks won the match by one point.
As we have already qualified for the semi-finals, there may
well be a rematch.
Nottinghamshire U100 – Warwickshire U100
Nottinghamshire U150 – Warwickshire U150
Terry Norris-Hunt
Warwickshire’s team arrived a little late, but fielded a full side,
outgrading us on almost all boards. The first result was a win
by Ric Dawson, but soon the match was level, and stayed that
way until one game remained, the score 5½ each. It was the
Details below – report to follow.
English Seniors Championship: 28 January–1 February 2008
Izaak Walton Hotel, Dovedale, Derbyshire. Five-round
FIDE-rated event for players aged 60 and over. Details and
entry form: http://www.englishchess.org.uk/events/ecfsenior08/index.htm
Nottinghamshire U150–Warwickshire U150
12 January 2008
Nottinghamshire U100–Warwickshire U100
12 January 2008
Board
Grade
1
2
3
4
5
96
94
92
90
86
0–1
1–0
0–1
½–½
½–½
Kim Gilbert
Malcolm Phipps
Robert Statham
Pauline Woodward
Keegan Harrisson
95
96
96
94
93
86
84
83
80
64
85
55
½–½
½–½
½–½
1–0
0–1
½–½
½–½
Dennis Horsely
Graham Gee
Steven Bowen
Bramwell Garner
Ken Wise
Joe Rourke
David Rowe
93
88
89
87
86
86
81
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Cronshaw, Derek
McIntosh, Sally
Harper, George
Zhang, Michael
Hobson,
Benjamin L
Brown, Alan
Ali, Hamzah
Morrell, Len J
Dawson, Richard
Todd, Paul J
Peter Smith (sub)
Heath, Kenneth B
Board
Grade
1
129
0–1
149
149
147
148
145
143
141
141
138
136
132
132
130
129
126
1–0
1–0
0–1
1–0
½–½
0–1
½–½
1–0
0–1
½–½
0–1
½–½
0–1
0–1
0–1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Grade
5½–6½
Neil Graham
(reserve)
Antony. J. Wright
Mike McBeth
Will Place
Alex Combie
Tim A. Lane
Kevin Harvey
Steve Hunter
Brian Thompson
David Toms
Brian M.Hayward
Daniel Lin
Stan Cranmer
J. Keith Walters
Keith Brameld
Keith Roper
Grade
6–10
1
Colin Eckloff
148
Robert Reynolds
Mike Doran
Robert Wallman
Mark Cundy
Mike Maher
Robert Walker
Richard C Reynolds
Keith Thomas
Gary Hope
Darren Lee
Simon Williams
Adam Draper
John Fahy
Phil Bull
Alan Burnett
144
146
148
147
144
143
142
141
140
140
140
135
135
135
127
FIDE Rating list – January 2008
The official site is at http://www.coruschess.com/, with live
games every day. Other sites (including ICC, PlayChess and
Chessdom) are also providing live coverage, including
commentary, and ChessVibes is once again showing videos of
winners analysing their games for the media. Listening to
super-GMs demonstrating what they were thinking about
during the game is a great way to learn.
The January FIDE rating list shows Vladimir Kramnik and
Viswanathan Anand at the top, both with ratings of 2799.
Kramnik takes the No. 1 position by virtue of having played
more games in the relevant period.
The leading Nottinghamshire players (those over 2000 and
active in the last 12 months in both the Notts League and
FIDE-rated events) are:
Perfect endgame play – solutions
Last
First
Club
Rating
Richmond
Barnes
Posazhennikov
Khandelwal
Cumbers
Grewal
Mercs
Dudognon
Coates
Payne
Truman
Wells
Levens
Emanuel
Robert
Michael
Alex
Ankush
Paul
Balvinder
Peter
Julien
David
Nick
Richard
Daniel
David
John
West Bridgford
Gambit
University
Ashfield
Grantham
University
Gambit
West Nottingham
Newark
Grantham
West Bridgford
Newark
West Nottingham
University
2260
2256
2231
2152
2143
2113
2086
2059
2056
2052
2031
2022
2010
2006
The last issue before Christmas contained five endgames to be
solved. And there was a sting in the tail: one of them was a
50+ move nightmare of a problem, but I didn’t say which it
was. To put you out of your misery, here are the solutions.
1. White to play
and win
As there is no way of searching for Nottinghamshire players
other than by looking up each one separately I may have
overlooked some players. If you spot any missing names
please let me know.
No. 1 is not too hard. It was composed by Henri Rinck, a
Frenchman so obsessed with endgame studies that he was
buried with a copy of his own book of endgame compositions.
This one dates from 1950. White wins by 1. Ke5 Rd7 (1...
Rd8 is similar) and now any move by the rook along the rank
allows either a capture or a knight fork. But now White has 2.
Rd1+ Kc2 (2... Ke2 and 2... Kc4 fall to the same idea) 3.
Ne3+, winning the rook. Other first moves by White only
draw (R+N vs. R is drawn in general).
National Club Championship
Bob Taylor
Ashfield Chess Club played in the first round of the Minor
championship on 6 January. We had home advantage against
Bedford and came out the victors, 3–1, with wins for Bob
Taylor, Stan Cranmer and Phil Morgan; sadly Neil Graham lost.
We only won the match because my opponent left his
mobile switched on; another Mobile Phone Gambit to add to
the list.
2. White to play
and win
London Junior Championships
Saaras Mehan (West Nottingham) scored 4½/7 in the Under
10 Minor and Arun Maini (West Nottingham) 5/9 in the Under
12 section at the London Junior Championships (12–28
December). Former NPSCA top board Brandon Clarke won
the Under 12 title with a score of 8/9.
York Congress
Alex Combie (Newark) scored 4/5 in the Major (U161) at the
York Congress (4–6 January), winning £50.
Hastings International
There was just one NCA player in this year’s Hastings
International – David Coates (Newark) scored 4/10 and
should gain a few rating points.
This endgame is normally drawn. Any winning chances usually
lie with the queen, but in this example (by Amelung, 1901) the
black king is trapped in the corner and White can win by
threatening mate. 1. Nc5 Kb1 The queen cannot abandon its
defence of d1, but simply keeping it on the d1–h5 diagonal fails
to deal with White’s mating threat: 1... Qh5 2. Nb3+ Kb1 3.
Rb2# or 1... Qf3+ 2. Nb3+ Qxb3+ 3. Kxb3 Kb1 4. Rd1#.
Corus 2008
The 2008 Corus super-GM tournament is under way in Wijkaan-Zee, The Netherlands. The top three players in the world
(Anand, Kramnik and Topalov) are taking part, with England’s
Michael Adams among the lower-rated players (which should
tell you just how strong this tournament is).
2
After 1... Kb1 the move 2. Nb3 no longer works because of
several Black defences, of which the most conclusive is 2...
Qa4+, forcing stalemate, but White now has a simple win by.
2. Rb2+ Kc1 3. Nd3+ Kd1 4. Nf2+, winning the queen.
Back to sanity with No. 4 (even if this one is quite hard).
This is an endgame that crops up quite often in practical play
(most recently in Rychagov–Grischuk, Russian Ch. 2007). Most
positions are drawn in theory, but the stronger side has some
winning chances (indeed, Grischuk was able to win from a
drawn starting position in the game just mentioned). Here, the
win involves spotting a neat tactical point as well as knowing a
key piece of theory: 1. Rc7+ Kd8 2. Kd6 Rf1 2... Rxe5
doesn’t draw because of 3. Ra7!, when the threat of mate wins
the rook 3. Ke6 Rd1 4. Rc2 Ke8 White has reached the
standard winning position, known since Philidor in 1749. The
win is still quite involved: 5. Rc8+ Rd8 6. Rc7 Rd2 7. Ra7
Rd1 8. Rg7 Rf1 9. Bg3 Rf3 10. Bd6 Re3+ 11. Be5 Rf3 12.
Re7+ Kf8 13. Ra7 Kg8 14. Rg7+ Kf8 15. Rg4 Re3 16.
Rh4 and the threat of mate wins the rook.
3. White to play
and win
5. Black to play
and draw
No. 3 is the really difficult one that I warned you about.
According to John Nunn, the ending of Q vs. B+B used to be
considered a draw in general, but the computer proved
otherwise. Many wins take longer than 50 moves, and in this
case we have the longest win in this ending – mate in 81! For
what it’s worth, here’s one winning sequence: 1. Kb8 Bd6+ 2.
Ka7 Bc5+ 3. Ka6 Bc4+ 4. Ka5 Kd6 5. Qc1 Kd5 6. Qc3 Bd4 7.
Qf3+Ke5 8. Qg3+ Ke4 9. Qh4+ Ke3 10. Qe7+ Kd3 11. Kb4
Bd5 12. Qe1 Bf3 13. Qh4 Ke3 14. Kc4 Be2+ 15. Kd5 Bf3+
16. Ke6 Be4 17. Qg3+ Kd2 18. Qf4+ Kd3 19. Kd6 Bc3 20.
Qg3+ Kd2 21. Qg1 Bd3 22. Kc5 Kc2 23. Qe3 Bb2 24. Kb4
Bc3+ 25. Ka3 Bb2+ 26. Ka4 Bc3 27. Qc5 Be4 28. Qc4 Bf3
29. Qf1 Bd1 30. Qg2+ Kd3+ 31. Kb5 Be2 32. Kc5 Bd1 33.
Qg3+ Kd2 34. Kd5 Bb3+ 35. Ke4 Bc2+ 36. Kf4 Bd4 37. Qa3
Bd3 38. Qb4+ Bc3 39. Qb3 Bd4 40. Kf3 Bc3 41. Qa4 Bb1 42.
Kf2 Bc2 43. Qc4 Bd3 44. Qa2+ Bc2 45. Kf3 Kd3 46. Qa6+
Kd4 47. Ke2 Bb4 48. Qa7+ Bc5 49. Qa1+ Kc4 50. Qa2+
Bb3 51. Qb1 Bb6 52. Qb2 Bc5 53. Qe5 Bc2 54. Kd2 Ba4 55.
Qc3+ Kb5 56. Kd3 Kc6 57. Qf6+ Bd6 58. Kd4 Bb5 59. Qf5
Ba6 60. Qc2+ Kb5 61. Kd5 Bb4 62. Qc6+ Ka5 63. Kd4 Bf1
64. Qc7+ Ka6 65. Kd5 Bd3 66. Qe5 Bb5 67. Qa1+ Kb6 68.
Qd4+ Ka5 69. Qa7+ Ba6 70. Kc6 Bf8 71. Qb6+ Ka4 72.
Qxa6+ Kb3 73. Qd3+ Kb4 74. Qd4+ Ka3 75. Kb5 Bg7 76.
Qd1 Kb2 77. Kc4 Bc3 78. Qe2+ Bd2 79. Qxd2+ Ka1 80. Kb3
Kb1 81. Qd1#
Finally, some light relief. Obviously the queen usually wins
against a lone rook, but there are a few positions in which the
rook can sneak a draw, such as this one. 1... Rg3+ 2. Kc4
Rg4+ 3. Kd5 Rg5+ 4. Ke6 Rg6+ and now 5. Qxg6 is
stalemate. Alternatively, 5. Ke7 Rg7 pins the queen. Finally,
after 5. Kf5, as long as the rook keeps checking on the g-file
White cannot take the rook, again because of stalemate.
Moro Magic
Alexander Morozevich won this year’s Russian Championship
in quite extraordinary style. Starting with a draw and a loss, he
then went on a spectacular winning streak, beating no fewer
than six strong opponents (including Peter Svidler) in a row.
He was finally halted by defeat against Alexei Dreev, but
another draw and and a last round win took him to clear first
place.
Morozevich doesn’t always play by the rules, and this game
is an example of why the World No. 4 is always worth
watching.
4. White to play
and win
Morozevich, A (2755) – Sakaev, K (2634)
60th ch-RUS Superfinal Moscow RUS (5), 23.12.2007
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5 cxd5 5.Bf4 Nc6 6.e3
a6 7.Rc1 Bg4 8.f3 Bd7 9.g4 This ultra-aggressive move has
only been tried three times before according to my database.
Morozevich must have something in mind 9...e6 10.h4!? And
this is it: a novelty. Even though he trails in development and
has yet to castle, Morozevich throws his pawns forward to
gain space. Mikhail Tal once took this idea to an extreme,
making eight pawn moves before moving a piece in his win
against Ludek Pachman at Bled in 1961. Geniuses can get away
3
behind, but he has complete control of the board 49...bxc6
50.Qe5+ Rg7 51.Qf6 Possibly short of time, Morozevich
misses the best move 51.Rg3! after which White crashes
through: 51...Rc8 (objectively best is 51...Bxe6 52.Ngxe6 Rdd7
53.Rxg6 Qxg6 54.Nxg6+, but who would choose that?) 52.
Nxh5! gxh5 53.Nf7+ Qxf7 54.exf7 Bxf7 55.Qxg7# 51...Rb8
52.e7 Bh7 53.Re3 Kg8 54.Qe6+ Kh8 55.Qf6 Kg8 56.
Qe6+ Kh8 57.Qd6 Ra8 The threat was 58.Qxb8 Qxb8 59.
e8Q+ Qxe8 60.Rxe8+ Rg8 61.Re6 with an easy win 58.Qc7
Rg8? 58...Bg8 would have been the toughest defence, but
White still wins, for example: 59.Re5 Bf7 60.Nxf7+ Rxf7 61.
Nxg6+ Kg8 62.Re6 Rg7 63.Ne5 h4 64.Nd7 Rxe7 65.Nf6+
Kf7 66.Nxe8 Rxc7 67.Nxc7 Rc8 68.Rxc6 59.Nfe6 After 59.
Nfe6 Rg7 (the only move), White wins as follows: 60.Nxg7
Kxg7 61.Qd6 Ra7 (or 61...Rc8 62.Ne6+ Kg8 63.Nd8 Ra8 64.
Qxc6 Qxc6 65.e8Q+ Qxe8 66.Rxe8+ Kg7 67.Ne6+ Kf6 68.
Rxa8) 62.Qd8 Ra8 63.Qxa8 Qxa8 64.e8Q Qxe8 65.Rxe8 1–0
with this sort of thing... 10...Be7 11.Bd3 0–0 12.Bb1
Morozevich sets up the possibility of the primitive threat of
mating at h7. It just looks like he’s undeveloping the bishop
12...Qb6 13.Rh2 An imaginative way to protect b2 13...Rfc8
14.h5 Be8 15.Qd3 with the simple idea of winning material
by attacking the knight. Black has an easy defence, of course
15...Nb4 16.Qd2 Nd7 17.Nh3 Nf8 18.Bg5 Qd8 Around
here it becomes clear that Sakaev can find no way to exploit
Morozevich’s unorthodox play. Black’s position is still perfectly
OK, of course, but White gradually improves his position over
the next few moves 19.Bxe7 Qxe7 20.f4 f6 21.Kf2 Qd6 22.
Ng1 Rc7 23.Nf3 Rac8 24.h6 g6 It looks as though Black has
plenty of play down the c-file, so Morozevich first obstructs
that and then makes a push in the centre 25.a3 Nc6 26.e4
Qd8 26...dxe4 would be bad, as after 27.Nxe4 Qe7 28.Ba2
White has a strong initiative because of the weak e-pawn 27.
Ba2 Ne7 28.e5 Not having been able to find a Tal-like
sacrificial attack, Morozevich switches to emulating
Nimzowitsch. Sakaev nevertheless defends well despite the
cramped position 28...f5 29.Rg1 Rc6 30.Bb1 Kh8 31.Rhg2
fxg4 32.Rxg4 Bf7 33.Ne2 Nd7 34.Ng5 Bg8 35.R4g3 Nb6
36.b3 Qf8 37.a4 Nd7 38.a5 R6c7 39.Rf3 Nb8 40.b4
Nbc6 41.Rc1 White has gained plenty of space, but there is
still no breakthrough in sight. Sakaev judges that he can now
grab the pawn that’s on offer 41...Qxh6 42.Rh3 Qf8 It
doesn’t look like White can profit from the half-open h-file,
but now Morozevich really moves into Nimzowitsch mode
43.f5!? Freeing f4 for a knight. Morozevich is applying
Nimzowitsch’s principle of the blockade, even at the cost of a
couple of pawns 43...Nxf5 44.Nf4!? Qe8
League results
Division 1
No matches this week
Division 2
Gambit 2 – West Nottingham 2
1
2
3
4
5
Hunter, S.
Sudar, D.
Wright, A.
Roper, K.
Tassi, J.
(141)
(138)
(149)
(126)
(128)
½
½
1
0
½
–
–
–
–
–
½
½
0
1
½
Day, J.
Collins, J.
Nehra, P.
Berdunov, N.
Willoughby, R.
(127)
(122)
(99)
(91)
(107)
2½ – 2½
*Mansfield 2 – Ashfield 2
1
2
3
4
5
Wagenbach, J.
Smith, V.
Connolly, K.
Default
Default
(142)
(129)
(–)
(–)
(–)
0
0
0
0
0
–
–
–
–
–
1
1
1
1
1
0
– 5
Taylor, R.
Graham, N.
Robinson, A.
Cranmer, S.
Morgan, D. P.
(129)
(129)
(124)
(132)
(109)
Division 3
Nomads 2 – Nomads 1
1
2
3
4
5
The critical moment. White is offering two more pawns (four
in all!), but can Black afford to take them? Sakaev decided not
to test Morozevich’s idea, but computers think that he could
have done, giving this line as best: 44...Nfxd4 45.Kg2 Qxb4 46.
Nxg6+ Kg7 47.Qf4 Nf5 48.Bxf5 Qxf4 49.Nxf4 exf5 50.
Nge6+ Bxe6 51.Nxe6+ Kh8 52.Nxc7 Rxc7 53.Rc5 Black has
three pawns for the exchange, and the endgame is unclear, to
say the least 45.Bxf5 exf5 46.Rc5 More Nimzowitsch,
putting the squeeze on Sakaev who is now completely passive
46...Rd8 47.Qe3 h5 This may be the moment at which
Sakaev cracks. The computer likes the ugly 47...Rg7 instead
48.e6 ‘The passed pawn’s lust to expand’ as Nimzowitsch
would have said. The pawn is well supported and now e5 is
available to White’s pieces – but for one small detail 48...Re7?
48...Rg7 was necessary 49.Rxc6! Clearing away the only
defender of e5. White is now the exchange and two pawns
Thurgood, T.
Pynegar, H.
Dhir, S.
Cronshaw, D.
Smith, P.
(114)
(103)
(40)
(96)
(85)
½
0
0
½
½
–
–
–
–
–
½
1
1
½
½
Hill, M.
Pynegar, T.
Ince, D.
Flynn, D.
Griffiths, D.
(140)
(122)
(108)
(122)
(109)
1½ – 3½
Division 4
The Ashfield 4–Gambit 4 result may look odd, but the League
rules seem pretty clear. Playing an ineligible player incurs both
the loss of the game and the additional transfer of one point
from the offending team to the opponents.
West Nottingham 5 – West Nottingham 4
1
2
3
4
5
4
Zhang, M.
Garside, A.
Gupta-Kaistha, A.
Nicholson, J.
Garside, H.
(90)
(74)
(73)
(–)
(–)
0
0
0
0
0
–
–
–
–
–
1
1
1
1
1
0
– 5
Willoughby, R.
Berdunov, N.
Lim, E.
Thacker, S.
Crawley, J.
(107)
(91)
(99)
(106)
(70)
Ashfield 4 – Gambit 4
1
2
3
4
5
Cranmer, S.
Potter, C.
McIntosh, S.
Justice, E.
Dyce, R.
(132)
(96)
(94)
(86)
(79)
½
0
½
0
0
–
–
–
–
–
½
1
½
1
1
3
– 2
Division 4
Hobson, B.
Ineligible player
Padvis, D.
Hopkinson, G.
Heath, K.
(86)
(–)
(96)
(83)
(55)
Team
Gambit player ineligible on Board 4; game lost (Rules D2 and C4) plus 1 point
penalty (Rule D6)
Division 5
West Bridgford 3 – West Bridgford 2
1
2
3
4
Garnett, R.
Frazer, C.
Gold, D.
Tys, S.
(–)
(–)
(59)
(73)
½
0
0
½
–
–
–
–
½
1
1
½
1
– 3
(96)
(125)
(101)
(71)
F
A
Team
P
1 Gambit 1
7
7
0
0
26
9
17
0
14
2
3
4
5
6
University 1
Long Eaton
University 2
Ashfield 1
West Bridgford 1
7
7
7
7
7
4
4
3
1
2
1
0
0
4
1
2
3
4
2
4
20
18½
17½
16½
15
15
16½
17½
18½
20
5
2
0
–2
–5
0
0
0
0
0
9
8
6
6
5
7 Mansfield 1
8 West Nottingham 1
7
7
2
1
1
1
4
5
14 21 –7 0
12½ 22½ –10 0
5
3
Df
Pn Pt
Team
P
W D
L
F
1 Ashfield 2
2 Newark 1
7
6
4
4
2
1
1
1
21½ 13½ 8
20 10 10
0
0
10
9
3
4
5
6
6
6
7
7
4
4
3
2
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
3
20
17½
17½
15½
10
12½
17½
19½
10
5
0
–4
0
0
0
0
8
8
8
6
7 Radcliffe & Bingham 1 6
8 Mansfield 2
7
0
1
1
0
5
6
11
7
19
28
–8 0 1
–21 –4 –2
Division 2
Grantham 1
Navigation 1
West Nottingham 2
Gambit 2
A
Df
Pn Pt
Division 3
Team
P
W D
L
F
A
Df
Pn Pt
1 West Nottingham 3
2 University 3
6
6
5
4
0
1
1
1
19
19
11
11
8
8
0
0
10
9
3
4
5
6
7
5
6
7
3
3
2
1
2
0
1
2
2
2
3
4
18½
12
12½
15
16½
13
17½
20
2
–1
–5
–5
0
0
0
0
8
6
5
4
5
6
0
1
3
1
2
4
11
13
14
17
–3
–4
0
0
3
3
Nomads 1
Navigation 2
Gambit 3
Nomads 2
7 Ashfield 3
8 Newark 2
L
F
A
Df
Pn Pt
4
5
2
0
1
2
23
18
12
17
11
1
0
0
10
10
3 Grantham 2
4 Nomads 3
5 Gambit 4
6
6
6
4
2
3
0
2
0
2
2
3
17½ 12½ 5
17 13 4
14½ 15½ –1
0
0
0
8
6
6
6 West Nottingham 5 7
7 Radcliffe & Bingham 2 5
1
0
2
0
4
5
14
6
21
19
–7 0
–13 0
4
0
A
Team
Division 1
L
W D
7
7
Division 5
Hill, F.
Budd, C.
Lavelle, T.
Milford, M.
League tables
W D
P
1 West Nottingham 4
2 Ashfield 4
5
P
W D
L
F
Df
Pn Pt
1 West Bridgford 2
2 Navigation 3
7
6
6
3
0
2
1
1
19½ 8½
14 10
11
4
0
0
12
8
3
4
5
6
7
7
6
6
6
6
3
2
2
2
0
2
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
3
5
15
12½
11½
10½
5
2
1
–1
–3
–14
0
0
0
0
0
8
5
5
5
1
West Bridgford 3
Ashfield 5
University 4
West Nottingham 6
West Nottingham 7
13
11½
12½
13½
19