Advertisements - Cranbrook School

The Battle of
Bellevue Hill Clash
‘A terrible beauty is born!’ Such
illuminating words by Yeats were echoed
in Cranbrook’s pursuit of the Battle of
Bellevue Hill clash. Solidarity of purpose was
evident from both sides but Scots stood
tallest 10.5–4.5. There were some pleasing
results from the Cranbrook camp, with the
Intermediates posting a convincing 3.5–1.5
win. However, the Juniors and Seniors had
a tough day and were only able to muster
one win against a well-disciplined Scots
team. However, it is encouraging to see the
Intermediates win as an indication of their
preparedness towards senior and tougher
opponents.
The Juniors opposed one of the strongest
juniors teams of NSW and consequently lost
5–0. The result can be attributed to their
relative inexperience to the competition
format but results will come with more
experience. Tom Gibbs (Board 5) played
against a formidable opponent and was
blown away by his depth of opening
knowledge. Opening knowledge panned
out to be the deciding factor as his
opponent managed to control the game
and deliver checkmate. flynn eder (Board
4) played rashly, using the forbes-dubbed
Billy Peters method (playing, pressing the
clock and then thinking afterwards). Such
an approach is not to be advised and so
the outcome of the game did not reflect
the competency of flynn as a chess player.
Will Cahill (Board 3) played another strong
opponent who regularly competes in
competitions. A clear divide of experience
was apparent from the opponent’s
seemingly routine opening moves. The
match should not dishearten Will as he can
seemingly match these opponents with an
in-depth opening repertoire. louis Shapiro
(Board 2) followed suit by competing
against experienced opponents and was
overwhelmed in the process. Daniel Siu
(Board 1) played a promising junior player
and unfortunately lost. I reiterate that the
outcome of the match did not reflect the
potential of Daniel.
The Intermediates had a glorious day,
convincingly winning 3.5–1.5. Alexei Pavlidis
(Board 5) had an off day and committed
some mistakes he will never do again. Billy
Peters (Board 4) managed to divert himself
from his normal course of action which is
to play blitz. Pieces evaporated from the
10 Term 3 Week 7
board which resulted in an equal endgame
position. A draw was sensibly agreed upon
and should be a testament to the benefits of
thinking before moving. Nathan lee (Board
3) continued his unbeaten run on top of his
NSJCl success. He made a careless mistake
towards the end of the game by giving
away a free bishop. It gave his opponent
the advantage to pass pawns with ease. Too
focused with passing pawns, his opponent
forgot to protect his king and Nathan
managed to checkmate his opponent with
king and rook. James Hull (Board 2) followed
suit with his typical attacking game.
formulating a model opening position,
he marshalled his pieces towards the king
and exploited the lack of resources on the
opponent’s kingside. Checkmate seamlessly
ensued. Ian Chen (Board 1) started off very
evenly, and they were both trying really
hard to find a way to penetrate through
to the opposition’s king. Both of them saw
each other’s plots but it came down to time,
which made his opponent very desperate,
moving quicker than he usually does. So,
after winning the queen, Ian built up his
material advantage and checkmated him
with a nice rook and king finish.
The Seniors also had a tough day, losing to a
formidable team 4–1. matt evatt constructed
a strong opening position but went astray
during the middlegame. The opportunity
was then presented to his opponent who
took it immediately and won the upper
hand in the endgame. matt fought on yet
his opponent knew enough endgame
technique to win the match. Henry Poole
(Board 4) had a tough affair, again whittling
the position into the endgame phase. His
opponent showed better technique in
taking a pawn for free which is normally
sufficient to win the game. Stephen
Brotodihardjo (Board 3) played a formidable
opponent and yet also maintained an equal
position for most of the game. His opponent
formulated some clever combinations
you see in Chessnut and obtained the
advantage. Stephen fought hard to maintain
equilibrium yet his opponent disallowed
any opportunity. James Peters (Board 2)
had a tight tussle that could have ended
with his flag falling. James’ playing style is
opposite to his brother, swaying in some sea
of thought. Such players as David Bronstein
would spend 40 minutes on his opening
move, writhing in the agony of choice.
Sadly though, James was not subject to
the time limits of chess in the 1950s and
desperately played moves without thought.
His opponent was then gift-wrapped an easy
endgame win. edward Selig (Board 1) played
against an 1100-rated player (top 5 in state)
and was clearly the underdog. Normally
accustomed to the Sicilian Defence on the
black side, edward played white and was
overwhelmed by his opponent’s in-depth
opening knowledge. What resulted was a
clear positional advantage for Black yet he
was led astray in the middle game. edward
then regained equilibrium and lured his
opponent into some combinational tricks.
His opponent took the bait and finally
realised the trick before resigning.
Ed Selig, Captain of Chess