1925 Kent Congress, Bromley Hill Court Hotel, 11-18 April

The Premier tournament schedule was not as advertised in the programme (leading to the withdrawal of one of the players).

Sat 11 April 1925	Preliminary Round 1
	Preliminary Round 2
Mon 13 April 1925	Preliminary Round 3
	Quick-play1 Tournament
Tue 14 April 1925	Preliminary Round 4
	Preliminary Round 5
Wed 15 April 1925	Preliminary Round 6
Thu 16 April 1925	Preliminary Round 7
	Final Round 8
Fri 17 April 1925	Final Round 9
Sat 18 April 1925	Final Round 10

¹ quick-play defined in the Birmingham Daily Post, 21 April 1925 as 10 minutes each for all the moves.

1925 Kent Premier - Preliminary Section A

1925 Kent Premier Preliminary Section A		Residence	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Total
1	Hermanis Matisons	Latvia	&;	1	0	½	1	½	1	1	-	5
2	Massimiliano Romi	Italy	0	&;	1	½	½	1	1	1	(½)	5
3	Jonas Birnberg	London	1	0	&;	1	½	½	0	1	-	4
4	Oscar Conrad Muller	London	½	½	0	&;	1	½	1	½	-	4
5	John James O'Hanlon	Ireland	0	½	½	0	&;	1	½	1	-	3½
6	Maurice Edward Goldstein	London	½	0	½	½	0	&;	1	1	(0)	3½
7	George Wright	York	0	0	1	0	½	0	&;	1	-	2½
8	Theodore Magnus Wechsler	Bromley	0	0	0	½	0	0	0	&;	-	½
-	(Henry Bernard Uber)	London	-	(½)	-	-	-	(1)	-	-	&;	1½/2

Wechsler replaced Henry Bernard Uber after the latter withdrew (see below for details). Uber beat Goldstein in round 1 and drew with Romi in round 2 on the first day but after his withdrawal his scores were not included in the final reckoning.

1925 Kent Premier - Preliminary Section B

1925 Kent Premier Preliminary Section B		Residence	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	Total
1	Fricis Apsenieks	Riga, Latvia	&;	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	6
2	Francis Herbert Terrill	Birmingham	0	&;	½	0	1	1	1	1	4½
3	André Louis	London	0	½	&;	1	1	½	0	1	4
4	H G Wright	Leicester	0	1	0	&;	1	0	1	1	4
5	Richard Edward Lean	Brighton	1	0	0	0	&;	1	0	1	3
6	Reginald C Noel-Johnson	London	0	0	½	1	0	&;	1	½	3
7	Valentin Marin y Llovet	Spain	0	0	1	0	1	0	&;	0	2
8	Dr. Robert Lloyd Storr-Best	London	0	0	0	0	0	½	1	&;	1½

1925 Kent Premier - Preliminary Section C

1925 Kent Premier Preliminary Section C		Residence	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	Total
1	Karel Hromadka	Prague CZE	&;	½	1	½	1	½	1	1	5½
2	William Winter	London	½	&;	½	½	1	1	½	1	5
3	Dr. Erwin Voellmy	Basel SUI	0	½	&;	½	1	1	1	1	5
4	Louis Savage	London	½	½	½	&;	0	1	1	1	4½
5	John Harold Morrison	London	0	0	0	1	&;	1	1	1	4
6	John Storr-Best	Sussex	½	0	0	0	0	&;	½	1	2
7	Percivale David Bolland	Somerset	0	½	0	0	0	½	&;	½	1½
8	Alan Maurice Ewbank	London	0	0	0	0	0	0	½	&;	½

1925 Kent Premier - Preliminary Section D

1925 Kent Premier Preliminary Section D		Residence	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	Total
1	Karel Skalicka	Prague CZE	&;	½	1	½	1	1	1	1	6
2	John Arthur James Drewitt	Hastings	½	&;	1	½	1	½	1	1	5½
3	Robert Crépeaux	Dijon FRA	0	0	&;	½	1	1	1	1	4½
4	Arthur John Mackenzie	Birmingham	½	½	½	&;	1	1	0	0	3½
5	Mrs Edith Martha Holloway	Bromley	0	0	0	0	&;	1	1	½	2½
6	Charles Hermann Lorch	London	0	½	0	0	0	&;	1	1	2½
7	William Henry Watts	London	0	0	0	1	0	0	&;	1	2
8	Herbert Parsons	Bristol	0	0	0	1	½	0	0	&;	1½

---

1925 Kent Premier - Final A

1925 Kent Premier Final A		Residence	1	2	3	4	Total	Prizes
1	Hermanis Matisons	Riga, Latvia	&;	½	1	1	2½	£12
2	Karel Skalicka	Prague CZE	½	&;	1	0	1½	£10
3	Fricis Apsenieks	Riga, Latvia	0	0	&;	1	1	£7 10s
4	Karel Hromadka	Prague CZE	0	1	0	&;	1	£7 10s

1925 Kent Premier - Final B

Players carried forward their Preliminary group scores and played a further three rounds on the Swiss system. Crosstables of preliminary sections and Final A as given in BCM, May 1925, p204 & p206; crosstable of Final B compiled from results published in The Times.

1925 Kent Premier Final B		Residence	8	9	10	Pts	Prelim c/f	Total
5	William Winter	London	6=	b9+	w11+	2½	5	7½
6	Massimiliano Romi	Italy	5=	w11+	w14+	2½	5	7½
7	Dr. Erwin Voellmy	Switzerland	11=	b16+	12+	2½	5	7½
8	Jonas Birnberg	London	12=	17+	20+	2½	4	6½
9	Robert Crépeaux	France	14+	w5-	17+	2	4½	6½
10	Reginald C Noel-Johnson	London	25+	26+	16+	3	3	6
11	John Arthur James Drewitt	Hastings	7=	b6-	b5-	½	5½	6
12	André Louis	London	8=	13+	7-	1½	4	5½
13	John Harold Morrison	London	17=	12-	21+	1½	4	5½
14	Louis Savage	London	9-	21+	b6-	1	4½	5½
15	Richard Edward Lean	Brighton	26+	20-	19+	2	3	5
16	Oscar Conrad Muller	London	23+	w7-	10-	1	4	5
17	Francis Herbert Terrill	Birmingham	13=	8-	9-	½	4½	5
18	Percivale David Bolland	Somerset	24+	31+	26+	3	1½	4½
19	Maurice Edward Goldstein	London	21-	23+	15-	1	3½	4½
20	Charles Hermann Lorch	London	22+	15+	8-	2	2½	4½
21	Arthur John Mackenzie	Birmingham	19+	14-	13-	1	3½	4½
22	George Wright	York	20-	29+	25+	2	2½	4½
23	H G Wright	Leicester	16-	19-	29=	½	4	4½
24	Valentin Marin y Llovet	Spain	18-	w30+	32+	2	2	4
25	Mrs Edith Martha Holloway	Bromley	10-	28+	22-	1	2½	3½
26	John James O'Hanlon	Ireland	15-	10-	18-	0	3½	3½
27	Alan Maurice Ewbank	London	30=	32+	31+	2½	½	3
28	John Storr-Best	Sussex	29=	25-	30=	1	2	3
29	William Henry Watts	London	28=	22-	23=	1	2	3
30	Herbert Parsons	Bristol	27=	b24-	28=	1	1½	2½
31	Dr. Robert Lloyd Storr-Best	London	32+	18-	27-	1	1½	2½
32	Theodore Magnus Wechsler	Bromley	31-	27-	24-	0	½	½

Photo from BCM, May 1925, showing players and officials of the 1924 Paris 'Olympic' tournament, some of whom took part in the April 1925 Kent Congress in Bromley.
Move the mouse over a face to see the full names of the players and officials. The Ken Whyld Association has further information about this photo.

BCM, May 1925, ppn 201-215

BROMLEY CHESS CONGRESS.

The Kent County Chess Association held a very successful congress —its twentieth—at Bromley Hill Court, between the 11th and 18th of April [1925]. Eight foreign experts took part in the Premier Open tournament, while the home entry, if weakened by the absence of Sir George Thomas and F. D. Yates (both at Baden-Baden), not to mention H. E. Atkins, R. P. Michell, and others, was of good average quality.

The competitors were welcomed to the town by the Deputy Mayor, Councillor A. T. Harris, on the morning of Easter Saturday, and the first rounds in both the Premier and the Kent tournaments followed immediately. It was found necessary to make two alterations from the original official list in the Premier, F. Brown, of Dudley, and the Rev. W. Proctor, of Bromley, being ill. In their places F. H. Terrill and R. E. Lean came in. As we shall see, a third regretable [sic] withdrawal occurred later.

We do not propose to describe the full play, round by round, in a tournament of 32 players, but will content us with a general view of proceedings in each of the four sections of the Premier.

There were two rounds on the opening day, with the natural result of rather a large number of adjourned games to be carried forward to Monday. In fact, in Section D only two games out of eight were finished on Saturday.

In Section A Mattison, the Olympic champion in Paris last year, could only draw with the veteran Muller in the first round, but followed this up with a win against G. Wright. In the meantime, H. B. Uber, of London, had scored a good win against Goldstein and drawn with Romih. Mattison and Uber thus got a lead over the week-end, no one else in the section having yet won a game. At this point, however, Uber retired on some objection, it is said, against the conditions of play. His score had consequently to be cancelled, and, had not T. M. Wechsler, who played in the boys' championship at Hastings two years ago, stepped into the breach, there would have been a bye necessary for the remaining rounds of this section. As it was, Wechsler had two rounds to make up. Occurrences like this, we think, render it advisable that all players should pay a small deposit, with their entrance-fees, to be forfeited in case of retirement for any but an absolutely unimpeachable reason.

To resume, in the third round Mattison met with a disaster, Birnberg outplaying him and gaining an excellent victory, which he discounted the afternoon of the same day by losing to Romih and drawing with O'Hanlon—both adjourned games. Romih on the other hand, after a draw with O'Hanlon, in the afternoon beat not only Birnberg, but also Wechsler, taking the lead. Mattison, however, had a smashing victory over him, in little over an hour, in Round 4. Muller and O'Hanlon each added a win to their three previous drawn games, and Goldstein, profiting by his luck in the Uber game, beat Uber's substitute after adjourning the morning game with Birnberg. In the evening, however, Romih beat him, thus displacing him as favourite for second (or possibly even first) position in the section. Mattison, after an adjournment, beat O'Hanlon, who threw away a draw, and in the next round beat Wechsler. Romih could only draw with Muller, so that Mattison entered on Round 6 with 4½ points to Romih's 4. The question remained, could Birnberg with a score of 2½ and two adjourned games, catch the leaders? This was settled when Birnberg on Wednesday night finished an adjourned game with G. Wright. He lost it, and so was out of the hunt. He then played off his adjourned game with Goldstein, which came to a draw.

In the last round of the preliminaries Mattison met Goldstein and Romih met G. Wright. Romih had a very easy victory; but Goldstein, defending in a Queen's side opening, put up a very stout defence, and for a time appeared to have a slight pull. With the disappearance of the majority of the pieces, however, a draw resulted legitimately enough.

Mattison and Romih accordingly tied with 5 points each. Bv the tournament rules, Mattison went into the top section of the final through having beaten Romih in their individual game. Reference must be made, in this section, to the fine showing of the veteran Muller.

In Section B Apscheneek (who, it may be remembered, was only half a point behind Mattison in the Olympic contest) went right ahead with wins against Noel-Johnson, H. G. Wright and Marin—the last being a spirited performance, though the initial sacrifice was of doubtful soundness. Louis, after losing to Marin in Round 1, put on two wins; and Terrill and H. G. Wright also scored two points in three rounds. In Round 4 Apscheneek took exactly twenty minutes of his time to mate Louis on the 37th move. He is a player of the lightning variety. In the same round Terrill beat Marin.

Apscheneek added yet another point in Round 5, at the expense of Dr. Storr-Best; but next round he had a shock. Playing Black against one of Lean's irregular openings, he found that the greyheaded Brightonian was able not only to play him nearly at his own pace, but to establish a winning position on the 11th move! Lean after this produced "fireworks" (see game below) and brought off a glorious victory. It is noteworthy that for the 37 moves he took 1 h. 8 m. against Apscheneek's 55 m.

Terrill, who had all the while been playing excellent chess and dropped no point except in Round 3, when young Wright, of Leicester beat him, now had a chance of catching up with Apscheneek, if he could win an adjourned game with Louis. He only drew, however, and so had to meet the Latvian in the last preliminary round at half a point's disadvantage. Here he seemed overcome by the importance of the occasion and could put up no show whatever, Apscheneek getting a won game in a dozen moves, though play continued to the 35th. Terrill remained second, half a point ahead of Louis and Wright. The last-named, by the way, made an excellent entry into first-class tournament play.

In Section C Hromadka started, like Apscheneek in B, with three wins. His most formidable rivals were Savage and Winter, 2 each, Savage having also an adjourned game. In Round 4 Hromadka met with unexpectedly stiff resistance from J. Storr-Best, the Brighton C.C. top board, and could only draw, after 39 moves. Winter, having beaten Ewbank, was now only half a point behind, while Savage's score, with two wins and two adjourned games, was problematical. Next round Hromadka beat Ewbank; and Winter should have won, but only drew, his game against Savage. Voellmy meanwhile who had made a bad start, was pulling up. In the 6th round Hromadka, with his eye on the score, was content to force a draw with Winter, who had previously somewhat the better of the game. He was justified; for Savage, though he beat Bolland in this round, only scored half a point in two adjourned games, v. Voellmy and Morrison. The 7th round opened with Hromadka's score at 5, Savage, Winter and Voellmy being 4 each. Hromadka had Savage to play. The latter fought well in a French Defence, and got two Bishops against two Knights. On the 24th move, however, he was compelled to give up one Bishop for a Knight, and two moves later a draw was agreed which suited Hromadka's book admirably. Had Savage managed to win, by the conditions of play he, not Hromadka, would have got into the top section of the final. Winter and Voellmy, both winning their last games, passed Savage in the score.

Section D, as we have said, made a slow start. Drewitt, on Monday, was the first to complete his three games, scoring 2½ points, the half being a draw with Mackenzie. He followed this up with a win against Crépeaux, who made a bad slip in the opening. But Skalicka, who adjourned each of his first four games in turn, won two of them on Monday, and another, against Crépeaux (a nice ending) on Tuesday afternoon, so that Drewitt's position was not sure. Skalicka then beat Mrs. Holloway, while Drewitt adjourned with Lorch. In Round 6 Drewitt in turn beat Mrs. Holloway, Skalicka only drawing with Mackenzie. Skalicka's last adjourned game, like Drewitt's, was against Lorch; but, whereas Skalicka won, Drewitt could get but half a point. When they came to meet one another in Round 7, therefore, the Czecho-Slovakian's score was 5½ against the Englishman's 5. Skalicka opened with a Queen's side game, and a stern latest ensued, in which both got very short of time in the first hour. Drewitt certainly built up a superior position, but, try how he would, he could not extract a winning advantage, and after five hours he he agreed to draw, making Skalicka's score 6 and his 5½. Crépeaux, though only lost to the two leaders, did not quite play up to his reputation.

The players to get into Final Section A were thus two from Latvia and two from Czecho-Slovakia—and no Britons. For this, however, there was some consolation in the good fight which our reserves had put up!

Final Section A—Round 1, April 16th

Players	Opening	Result
Skalicka v. Mattison	Queen's Pawn	Drawn
Apscheneek v. Hromadka	Queen's Gambit Declined	Apscheneek won

Skalicka-Mattison opened i P—Q 4, Kt—K B 3 ; 2 Kt—K B 3, P—K 3 ; 3 P—B 4, B—Kt 5 ch ; 4 B—Q 2, BxBch; 5 Q Kt xB, Castles. A heavy game resulted, with all 16 Pawns remaining on. Skalicka had much the more forward deployment, but Mattison was in no danger. Towards adjournment time he offered a draw, which Skalicka first refused, but ultimately accepted.

Apscheneek-Hromadka was a game of a very different nature. It opened 1 P—Q 4, P—Q 4 ; 2 Kt—K B 3, Kt—K B 3 ; 3 P—B 4. P-B3; 4 PxP, PxP ; 5 Kt—B 3, Kt—B3; 6 B—B 4, B—B 4 7 P—K 3, Q—Kt 3 ; 8 B—Kt 5 P—K 3 ; 9 Q—Kt 3, B—K 2 10 Kt—K 5, QR—Bi; 11 Castles, Castles; 12 BxKt, PxB 13 Q xQ, P xQ. At move 20 material was still level, but Apscheneek had a strong passed QRP and a B against a Kt. Hromadka made an unsound combination to win the QRP. He won it, but at the cost of the Exchange, and though he struggled on to the 65th move the ultimate result was long in sight.

By some curious error, due to the players themselves, since it was not on the official programme, the colours were reversed in both games. Mattison and Hromadka should have played White. The effect of this was fortunate for Skalicka, unfortunate for Hromadka, the former getting three Whites, the latter three Blacks.

Final Section A—Round 2, April 17th

Players	Opening	Result
Skalicka v. Apscheneek	Queen's Gambit Declined	Skalicka won
Mattison v. Hromadka	Queen's Gambit Declined	Mattison won

Both games began like Apscheneek-Hromadka in the previous round; but, whereas Mattison followed Apscheneek in playing 4 P x P, Skalicka did not. Mattison played in exemplary style, but was helped by his opponent's loss of time in moves with his Q Kt. The game is subjoined. Skalicka-Apscheneek was not a good game—through no fault of Skalicka's, however. Apscheneek had an off-day and got into difficulties, which cost him the Exchange. Ceasing to play at his usual rapid pace, he struggled desperately in a R and Kt v. two Rooks ending. Even when he lost the Kt he went on till mated; but he might have saved himself trouble by resigning earlier than between the 80th and 90th moves.

Final Section A—Round 3, April 18th

Players	Opening	Result
Apscheneek v. Mattison	Max Lange	Mattison won
Skalicka v. Hromadka	Q P- (Dutch Defence)	Hromadka won

Two pairs of compatriots met in this final round, in each case with one of the pair standing well with 1½ points to his credit. Mattison quickly made certain of first prize, or a share in first and second, by defeating Apscheneek in 34 moves. There was nothing "hyper-modem” about the opening: 1 P—K 4, P—K 4 ; 2 Kt—K B 3, Kt—Q B 3 ; 3 B—B 4, B—B 4 ; 4 Castles, Kt—B 3 ; 5 P—Q4 BxP; 6 Kt x B, Kt x Kt; 7 B—K Kt 5, P—Q 3 ; 8 P—B 4, Kt—K3; 9 PxP, KtxB; 10 PxKt, PxP ; 11 Kt—B 3, P—B 3 ; 12 Q—Q 4, Q—Kt 3 ; 13 R x P, B—K 3, and the game was rattled off at a quick pace. Apscheneek had none the worst of it until near the end, when he played as if he did not care about the result. As a matter of fact, he was indisposed for the past two days.

Skalicka and Hromadka had a much more serious battle, consuming nearly their full time. When the heavy pieces came off Skalicka penetrated with a Kt into the opposing camp, and had to give up a Pawn to get it out. This led to Hromadka's ultimate success—to the shattering of Skalicka's hopes of a tie with Mattison.

The four principal prizes were £12, £10, £8 and £7 respectively.

For the six lesser prizes of £6, £5, £4, £3, £2 and £1 the 28 unsuccessful players in the Preliminaries fought, carrying forward their sectional scores and meeting in the Final three opponents with approximately equal scores to date—a plan adopted at the Olympic congress in Paris. We have not space to give the whole table [the table above was compiled from results given in The Times - JS]; but the prize-winners and their scores were as follows : V-VII, M. Romih, Dr. Voellmy and W. Winter (all 5+2½=7½) ; VIII-IX, J. Birnberg (4 + 2½=6½) and R. Crépeaux (4½ + 2=6½) ; X, J. A. J. Drewitt (5½ +1=6) and R. C. Noel-Johnson (3+3=6) divided, L. Savage, J. H. Morrison and A. Louis, all with a total of 5½, were just outside the prize list.

---

1925 Kent Congress—Minor Open Tournament

n.b. full names have been supplied where known. The BCM source had only forename initials for men and no initials for women. The 18 players played 5 preliminary games in three all-play-all groups of six, with the top two in each section going through to a six-player all-play-all final, and the other 12 carrying forward their preliminary scores and playing a further 5 games on a Swiss system basis.

Minor Open A: (1-2) Percival John Lawrence, Major J Patron 4/5; (3) Samuel James Osborn 3½; (4) Stephen Poulson Lees 1½; (5-6) Miss Mary Ann Eliza Andrews, Mrs. Amabel Nevill Gwyn Sollas 1.

Minor Open B: (1) Ronald Melville Norman 4/5; (2) Philip Ashby Ursell 3½; (3) H Thompson 3; (4) Miss Hilda Florence Chater 2½; (5) Francis Albert Joyce 1½; (6) Miss Emily Eliza Abraham ½.

Minor Open C: (1) Leslie E Vine 5/5; (2) N Kazi 3½; (3) Charles Henry Taylor 3; (4-5) Thomas Linds Moodie, Edward Buddel Puckridge 1½; (6) Walter James Eric Yeeles ½.

Minor Open Final A: (1) Norman 4/5; (2-3) Kazi, Vine 3½; (4) Lawrence 2½; (5) Ursell 1; (6) Patron ½.

Minor Open Final B: (7) Osborn 3½+3½ = 7; (8) Miss Chater 2½+3½ = 6; (9-10) C H Taylor, Puckridge 5½; (11) Yeeles 5; (12) Lees 4½; (13-14) Joyce, Sollas 4; (15) Thompson 3; (16) Andrews 2½; (17) Abraham 2; (18) Moodie 1½.

---

In the Kent tournament, a double-round affair, Mrs. Cook, Eric Horsfall Chesters and Herbert John Salter tied with a score of 6 each. Miss [Lillie] Eveling scored 5, Mrs. [Lizzie] Vine 4½, and J F Croome 3½.

In the evening tournaments, Eric Augustus Coad-Pryor and George Tregaskis tied with 4½ points each in the First Class; F J Dennis, 5, and Albert H Hart, 4½, took the prizes in the Second Class; and Mrs. Thompson 5 and Eric Murray Lyon-Campbell¹, 4, those in the Third Class. ¹ Eric Murray Lyon-Campbell (1905-1931) was a blind player.

Ernest John Price and Joseph Strachstein [later Stone] divided the prize in the Easter Monday knock-out tournament of 8 players.

In addition there were the usual lightning and quick-play tournaments. Great Britain and the Continent had two matches under quick-play rules, the Continent winning both.

The prize-giving took place on the afternoon of Saturday, April 18th, the Deputy Mayor presiding and Mrs. Harris making the presentation. At the conclusion a well-deserved gift, towards which the players and visitors had contributed, was made to the conductors of the congress, Messrs. Holloway and [Eric Horsfall] Chesters.

---

Mr. H. B. UBER AND THE BROMLEY EASTER TOURNAMENT.

To the Editor of the B.C.M.

Sir,—You will no doubt have noticed that I resigned from the chess tournament at Bromley.

The reason was that the tournament was not played as announced on the programme. It was stated that two rounds would be played on Saturday and one each on the other days making eight rounds in all. To my surprise I discovered on Saturday evening that the number of rounds had been increased to ten, which meant two games to be played on Tuesday and Thursday. The time limit is 17 moves per hour so that a session of four hours means only 34 moves, not sufficient to often finish a game at one sitting. The consequence is that two games a day means that not only does one have to play the entire day, morning, afternoon and evening, but one at least of the games is carried over to the following day, giving also a full day's chess for that day. I have a special objection to afternoon chess when playing in a tournament, as not only is there no time for proper meals, but it is also bad for the evening's play. On Saturday, for instance, I played for over ten hours and was only able to get ham sandwiches for lunch at 2-30, then after playing again I had some tea as I was due to continue at six o'clock. Meals just jumbled up together. I had no wish for four days of this the next week. I may say that I had been warned by competitors at the last Bromley congress some years ago, who told me they were simply tired out, and quite unable to do themselves justice, and they would never play again under the same conditions. I only entered the tournament because the conditions of play had been entirely altered. When I found that the conditions of play were quite as bad as at the previous Bromley Congress I naturally resigned at once. I consider it was very lax of them not to have informed me of the changed conditions a few days before the commencement of the congress. I only stayed in London to play, as otherwise I should have gone away, so naturally my holiday was spoilt. I place these facts before you as I am sure you will hear a distorted version of the matter.

Yours faithfully, H. B. Uber. [Henry Bernard Uber, b 21.10.1878, d 26.11.1963]
9 Cambridge Road, Anerley, S.E.
April 16th, 1925.

---

File Updated

Date	Notes
27 November 2023	First upload. 45 games.
10 September 2025	Added the accompanying tournament report, plus the extra game Voellmy 0-1 Muller (Premier B), for which many thanks to Philip Jurgens.