1952 (2nd) Paignton Premier, 15-20 September, Oldway Mansion, Paignton

1952 Paignton Premier		Nat'y	Residence	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	Total
1	Leonard William Barden	ENG	Croydon	&;	0	½	1	1	½	1	1	5
2	Daniel Abraham Yanofsky	CAN	Canada	1	&;	½	0	½	1	½	1	4½
3	William Albert Fairhurst	SCO	Glasgow	½	½	&;	½	1	0	1	1	4½
4	Peter James Oakley	ENG	Chesham	0	1	½	&;	½	1	½	½	4
5	Theodore Henry Tylor	ENG	Oxford	0	½	0	½	&;	1	1	1	4
6	Baruch Harold Wood	ENG	Sutton Coldfield	½	0	1	0	0	&;	1	1	3½
7	Ronald Blow	ENG	London	0	½	0	½	0	0	&;	1	2
8	Francis Ernest A Kitto	ENG	Exminster	0	0	0	½	0	0	0	&;	½

BCM, November 1952, ppn 318-321

by D A Yanofsky

The Second Annual Chess Congress of the Devon County Chess Association was held at Oldway Mansion, Paignton, from September 15th to 20th, 1952, with no less than ninety-six participants. Of these, eight were ladies, including Mrs. Bruce, the British Lady Champion, and Mrs. J. [Dorothea, Dody] Bourdillon, a charming newcomer from Gloucester who won her section ahead of seven men! The playing room was ideal for chess competition, and it was made available for this purpose by courtesy of the Paignton Urban District Council. That this was also beneficial to the Council is evident from a remark of their Chairman, Alderman Hicks, who openly admitted that never before had such quiet reigned at their Council meetings, and he was in favour of holding a congress at Oldway Mansion every month to coincide with their meetings!

The tournaments were superbly run by Mr. H. Meek, who in his capacity as Congress Controller, seemed to be playing naughts and crosses on the scoreboards almost continuously. Due credit must go to Mr. F. E. Willett, the Hon. Treasurer, who kept the finances well under control, and especially to Mr. R. C. Fogwill, the Hon. Secretary, whose capable and diligent management certainly ensured the success of this Congress. The untiring efforts of Mr. and Mrs. R. M. Bruce in assisting the Congress Committee added the final touches to the smooth and efficient running of the twelve sections of the Congress.

Fairhurst and Yanofsky both started out strongly by beating, respectively, Tylor and Kitto, and Barden and Wood, in the first two rounds. In Round 3 Yanofsky lost on time to Oakley, while Barden and Fairhurst drew, so that Fairhurst, together with Oakley, led with 2y points each. In Round 4 Fairhurst was beaten in a pretty game by Wood; and Oakley drew with Kitto to assume the sole lead with 3 points, with Yanofsky, Fairhurst, and Barden in close pursuit with 2½ points each. In Round 5 Oakley drew with Blow, Fairhurst drew with Yanofsky, and Barden beat Kitto; Oakley and Barden now led with 3½ points each, followed by Fairhurst and Yanofsky with 3 points each. In Round 6 the two leaders met; Oakley embarked on a foolish piece sacrifice, losing in 21 moves, and handed over the lead to Barden, who easily retained it in the last round by a draw against Wood.

Barden’s play was sound and convincing; starting out with a loss against Yanofsky, he did extremely well to win first prize. It is obvious that the practice at Helsinki did much to improve his play, though his tendency to rely mainly on opening analysis is still quite evident. Fairhurst was off form during the tournament, and was lucky to draw his game with Barden, while against Kitto he was completely lost after the opening. Yanofsky played good chess but was extremely careless with his clock; thinking he still had several minutes on his clock for his last move, he delayed making his move sufficiently long for the flag to drop as he made his move and thereby threw away a superior ending which could well have made the difference between first and second prize. Oakley played solid but uninspiring chess; he surprised everyone by taking over and hanging on to the lead, but he well deserved it, his only lucky break in the tourney being his clock win against Yanofsky. But in the second last round he was unduly impressed by an opening innovation that Barden had acquired from Rabar at Helsinki, and instead of continuing his usual brand of solid chess, he ventured upon an unsound combination which lost him the game and first prize. Tylor started poorly, blundering away his games against both Fairhurst and Barden and escaping with a lucky draw against Oakley. He then pulled himself together and played some lovely chess to finish just behind the leaders. Wood had his ups and downs; some of his games were among the best in the tourney, while the rest were below his usual standard. Blow was a great disappointment; he threw away point after point without any apparent reason. From winning positions against Wood, Oakley, Barden, Fairhurst, and Tylor, he only salvaged half a point—very unusual for a player of his calibre. Kitto played by far the most interesting chess in the tourney and his score does not do justice to his fertile imagination. He had a clear win against Fairhurst, by far the better game against Barden and Oakley, and a powerful attack against Yanofsky, which almost succeeded—it was indeed a pity to see him blunder his games away.

All in all the standard of the games was fair; there were few outstanding games but all were hard fought. The competition was so close and keen that games tended more to the solid positional type and brilliancies were few. Still some of the games were good and a few of them are given here.

---

Other Sections

Premier Reserves A: (1) (Charles) Derek S Paffley (Wakefield) 6½/7; (2) Donald Melville Andrew (Sheffield) 5½; (3-4) Frederick Forrest L Alexander (Westcliffe), Dr. Kurt August Hirsch (London) 3½; (5) (Edwin) Neville Hawkins (Weymouth) 3; (6) James E Pattle (Guildford) 2½; (7) Mrs. Rowena M Bruce (Plymouth) 2; (8) Isaac Taylor Sifton (Bampton) 1½.

Premier Reserves B: (1-2) William James Fry (Southampton), Albert Walter William Tulip (Northampton) 5/7; (3) Anthony George Midgley (Huddersfield) 4; (4) C[harles?] Cordel (Leicester) 3½; (5) Jack Dennis Rosse (London) 3½; (6) Bertram Goulding Brown (Cambridge) 2½; (7) Ivan Robert Napier (Lelant) 2½; (8) Edgar Priestley (Huddersfield) 2.

Premier Reserves C: (1) J Neale (Northwood) 6/7; (2) J Walker (Pangbourne) 5; (3) G W Smith (Guildford) 4; (4) Harry Gethin Thorp Matchett (Birmingham) 3½; (5) Wolfgang Gerson Barb (Maidenhead) 3; (6) M/N. B. Harris (London) 3; (7) B A Potter (Croydon) 2; (8) (Sydney) Hugh Brocklesby (Bath) 1½.

Premier Reserves D: (1) Herbert Arthur Melvin (Southend) 7/7; (2) Dr. D Philpott (Northampton) 4½; (3) C J Ball (Bideford) 4; (4) E E Wright (Sidcup) 4; (5) Rev. Kenneth Stuart Procter (London) 3; (6-7) D J Collins (Harrow), R H King (London) 2½; (8) Keith Edward Charles Budge (Plymouth) ½.

Major A: (1) Richard Henry Tayler (Birmingham) 5/7; (2) E Douglas Fawcett (London) 4; (3) Albert James Kelm (Wembley) 4; (4) W G Matthews 4; (5) D R Leslie 3½; (6) C E Scutt 3½; (7) G W Booth 2½; (8) Ernest John Seymour (Flackwell Heath) 1½.

Major B: (1) Mrs. Dorothea (Dody) Bourdillon (Gloucester) 4½/7; (2-4) E A Hull (Kenton), Edmond Julien Leyns (Bishops Stortford), E H Milner (Bedford) 4; (5) G C Walker 3½; (6) Brian G Locke 3; (7) R F Rowe (Plymouth) 2½; (8) H R Tallis 2½.

First Class A: (1) Edwin Breckon Chapman (Leicester) 6/7; (2) John G Cockcroft (Bingley) 4½; (3) R M Morgan (Weston-super-Mare) 4½; (4) E F Fairbrother 3½; (5) R J Harrison 3½; (6) John Daniel Sayle 2½; (7) George Robert Cottew (Exeter) 2; (8) Stanley Sedgwick 1½.

First Class B: (1-2) Geoffrey H Redfern (Guildford), Howard Redvers Rowcliffe (Bristol) 4½/7; (3-4) Richard Cyril Fogwill (Paignton), J Hatherley (London) 4; (5) William John Clare Hart Burges 3½; (6) Derek Hurwitt 3½; (7) W G Lambert 2½; (8) Harry Evelyn Knope 1½.

Second Class: (1) F W Day (Ilford) 5½/7; (2) Marshall Thompson (Southampton) 5; (3) Mrs. Mary Dew (née Rowe, Plymouth, mother of Rowena Mary Bruce) 4½; (4) R W Berry 4; (5) H C Percy 3; (6) E W Wood (Teignmouth) 3; (7) Henry James Mapleton (Torquay) 2; (8) Mrs. Laura Ethel Amelia Start 1.

Third Class (Swiss System): (1) H G Huntingford (London) 7/7; (2) Lt.-Col. Frank (Francis) Moysey (Paignton) 5½; (3) Patrick Crotty (London) 4½; (4) K Hughes 4; (5) G A Thompson 4; (6) T Armon 3½; (7) Mrs. Eleanor Catherine Molyneux (née Annesley) 3½; (8) R F Scarlett (Teignmouth) 3; (9) Mrs. G Frost 2½; (10) Mrs. Frances Florence Bessie Tayler (née Redrup) 2½; (11) Miss Lucy Anness 1; (12) Ernest Henry Ladbury (Totnes) 1.

Juniors: (1-3) N Ashbee 2; D G Lucas 2; D B Mortimer 2.

---

CHESS, November 1952, Vol.18, no.206, ppn 25-26.

PAIGNTON’S SECOND CONGRESS

Paignton’s second Autumn Congress was (why shouldn’t we shout it!) a shattering success. A delightful mansion—if palace is not a better word—and delightful people in a delightful town! Last year Golombek made history by finishing ahead of Euwe. This year again, a fancied overseas contestant was worsted. Yanofsky, overstepping his time-limit, registered a loss to Oakley; rather unnecessarily, for he had three or four minutes in which to make his last move before the time-control, in a relatively harmless position. He went wrong in the opening against Blow, only drawing by means of a stubborn fight-back. When he conceded a draw to Tylor by repetition rather than run risks to win, Barden’s first place was assured.

Barden’s play showed rich dividends from the gruelling practice at Helsinki; on the basis of his always rather alarming opening knowledge he has erected a new confidence and depth and after an initial loss to Yanofsky, never looked back.

The lower sections were marked by the definite arrival of Mrs. Bourdillon whose unique combination of beauty, vivacity and sheer skill is going to affect chess congress atmospheres considerably.

---

Manchester Guardian, 2 October 1952 (Julius du Mont)

The Paignton Congress

The recent congress at Paignton disclosed a considerable advance in playing strength in all sections. In the premier tournament, many fine games were played, some of these of theoretical interest. Yanofsky was unlucky to lose on time to Oakley in the third round, and in a short tournament, he found it impossible to make up for this loss. He was unaware of the danger and was in a straightforward position. However, he would at best only have tied for first prize, for Barden had a win in the last round and agreed to a draw owing to the late hour. Fairhurst, who shared second prize with Yanofsky, played in his usual precise and effective style. At the other end of the scale Blow and Kitto demonstrated once again that, to be successful in a tournament, any player, no matter how talented, needs practice and preparation. Tylor, with the same handicap, did better and his play was, as ever, logical and artistic. Oakley, the Universities’ champion, shows considerable promise. This was Leonard Barden’s first major success.

The following game from the tournament, between Barden (White) and Tylor (Black), shows why Barden won. To
precise opening play and sound strategy he adds the aptitude to take full advantage of tactical opportunities. [see PGN]

---

File Updated

Date	Notes
26 August 2022	First upload. 17 of the 28 games, including all of Yanosky's and Fairhurst's.
10 February 2023	Added a game from Premier Reserves B: J.Rosse 0-1 A.Midgley.