I’ll use the Colonial Defence Approach, and play West India Quay
I’m A Charter Member! And to celebrate, Mansion House 
Excellent!!! And drat, you’ve got me into the Roman Wall Conundrum. Best I can hope for is Barbican.
Yikes, Barbican this early in the game? That’s a bit of a risk on your part. Because now, under the 1971 Cambridge Convocation addendum, I can double-skip all the way to Totteridge & Whetstone. (almost made it one more as well, but with it being an odd-numbered turn the sweeps are working against me.)
This game is getting a bit out of control. Let me just calm it down a bit with Moorgate. Afficionados of the Platform Bridge ploy may see my intent.
Northwood Hills. Comment would be superfluous.
A rambunctious gambit notable only for it’s obsequiousness to a corrupted form.
Bakerloo to Kensal Green!
Legs akimbo! Stand and deliver!
Oh, you want to get into the greens?
Turnham Green!
Turnham Green may be the book move, but surely the Tuttle tournament demonstrated that you do better in the third phase by going for the en passant Hounslow East? Well, it’s your call.
Queensway.
After the respectable Period of Intervention in the Waiting Room under Turnham-Willis’ Foundation Waiting Rules
Kennington
Iceland, enough already.
Mornington Crescent and lets hear no more for awhile.
How darest thou disparage the Noble Sport?
Grrrr
Well done, all concerned. By and large, a match featuring some exciting and innovative middle game strategy. True, one could argue that some of the opening plays were rather ‘book’ and lacked imagination, but I would take the more generous view and say they were merely examples of careful, mature and cautious play.
We had at least two instances of a zone-crossing reverse trombone move along diagonals. Now you know that I’m no fuddy-duddy stickler for the old conventions, but I hope these examples, and the ensuing rather ‘flat’ lines of play that developed, were enough to convince most of you that the old prohibition was there for a good reason. Let’s hope we have no more of them, even if the 86 Convention did rule them legal.
I was delighted to see some ambitious use of Cronington’s Conjecture applied to motion west! All too rarely attempted these days, and of course it does bring some degree of risk in quality play, but it remains one of the most exciting gambits in the modern game and it can lead - as I feel it did here - to some extremely provocative and fascinating exchanges!
Jurph did very well with his spirited and elegant application of Grayson-St.-Sudbury protocol. However, at that stage in the match we had already seen at least three bridges doubled with contrary motion. As anyone who has studied the recent analysis published by Stenson & Yabbe will be aware, this renders much of Sudbury redundant, although I say this with no disrespect to Jurph, who still did extremely well.
Alas, I fear we are no nearer a firm consensus on the correct application of DLR stations in concentric play after motion south. It’s as if the Helsinki Declaration had never been passed! My own view,for what it’s worth, is that we either follow Helsinki or simply ignore the DLR altogether.
ianzin It is always good to have a knowledgeable debate over the intricacies of play once the dust has settled, and I commend you for your efforts in this regard. Generally, I concur with your remarks. Naturally there will always be disagreement on some of the wilder plays, and disparagement of the more clumsy approaches. We should all remember our own first stumbling steps: God knows I am no expert.
I think the DLR is a sterile debate, I shan’t address it further. Other than to say Helsinki does the game no favours.
Well, it’s time to vote the best play and player, as is the custom. I offer Gorillaman’s daring escape from the Roman Wall Conundrum for best play, and Scuba_Ben for the plucky foreigner challenge trophy.
Kymodoce, I know you to be a formidable player with a love of the game to match my own, and I do respect your views. However, I take issue with your disparaging remarks about the Helsinki Declaration.
Look, we all know the DLR rules needed sorting out. Remember the debacle at the '93 Rome International, and the disgraceful protest by the Swedish team over Lezedski’s perfectly sound victory in the semis? Something had to be done, and I think the Helsinki conference achieved a great deal. I am not saying the Declaration is perfect. I agree with Dunstan and Norgredge, the senior judges at the Rheims Invitational, that the notorious ‘Beckton Park’ problem is still a flaw in the modern game, and one which was of course totally overlooked at Helsinki. Nonetheless, look what the Helsinki Declaration did achieve:
- a precise definition of ‘weekends’ where public holidays are involved
- an end to the notorious ‘Heron Quays’ controversy
- a clear ruling on straddle jumps crossing closed stations
to name but three significant decisions. We ignore these great strides forward at our peril. Do we really want to go back to the dark days of the Jorgheim / Polidoro controversy, and tournament professionals walking out because we haven’t decided if Custom House is a ‘dwelling’ name or not? I think not.
And so to more cheerful matters…
Finest play of the match? I nominate Mangetout for this analysis:
In my opinion this is not just an excellent tactical analysis, but actually a significant contribution to modern middle-game theory. When I first saw the move, I thought it failed to the usual Edmonton defence (East Acton, Sudbury Town etc.) but the invocation of punctuated hatching radically alters the balance of play.
However, may I also offer an honourable mention to Zakalwe for this:
Impetuous? Yes. Technically flawed? Certainly. Strategically suicidal? Perhaps. But darn it, what a move! It has flair! A dash of bravado! A brashness that calls to mind the legendary Torgomann at his finest! I loved it. Mind you, a mere ten minutes analysis showed that, after Surrey Quays, all the main lines fail to the simple ruse of Gospel Oak / any ‘park’ / Fairlop!! (See Menken & Kurlheim, ‘Middle Game strategies from the 15th European Open’, Revised Edition, for further discussion of the so-called ‘Fairlop Scythe’).
This is quite simply rubbish. I have only one thing to say to you, sir:
Edgware Road.
Ha! Let’s see what you can do with that, then!
Dear Gadfly, may I invite you to revisit the specifics of the state of play when our friend Zakalwe offered the move in question. I believe you will find that we had already had three bridges traversed with no pair in parallel motion, and that no ‘compass’ station (apart from West Harrow) had been involved in an adjoined play with stumps in force. Clearly, then, at that point in the game, it was still legal to declare Bassoons and offer duffles. Hence Edgware Road could be met by Finchley Central, Dalston Kingsland or (at a pinch) Ravenscourt Park, all of which lead to material advantage.
If you doubt that the Bassoons / duffles combination is legal, I refer you to the 2nd Appendix to the current edition of Huxley’s *Tournament Play for the Modern Professional * which supports this combination with meticulous scholarship and copious citations from actual tournament rulings.
Ianzin, old man, it seems that you’ve overlooked the subtleties of the situation. Meeting Edgware Road with Finchley Central or Dalston Kingsland with Bassoons invoked in the current state (blue stumps, fourth bilateral) would expose a grand weakness in the late tertiary expanses on holidays. Substituting Ravenscourt Park would be the wisest move, but even it opens a possible inverse repeat crook from Embankment to Regent’s Park, (clearing all duffles) a move that recalls Oliver Hartramp’s often overlooked early years.
There is, however, a way to deny the inverse repeat crook, through the parallel to Paddington. Following this, the original player of Edgware Road may perform a stationary shunt, bringing everything back to Baker Street. So you see, at best, moving on a player who has played on Edgware Road (but who knows the subtleties of Edgware extensions) will result in an eventual ineffective non-play at best, not taking into account any stray red token stacks (there were none in the zone at the time of play). Ungraceful? Yes. Underhanded? Yes. Powerful and deceptive? An understatement.
Gosh. I’m honored.
I’d like to thank the members of the Federation Internationale du Croissont-Mornington for this award. I also thank Iceland Blue and the other Brits of the FICM for a wonderful game. I will keep this award alongside my copy of Agoran Rule 2029 (Town Fountain) as a reminder of the Spirit of the Game. Again, thank you.
Bravo, Gadfly, bravo indeed! I applaud your erudition, and concede that I had overlooked this rather charming line of play! Very astute. I was aware of the inverse repeat crook, of course, but I had failed to realise that the Paddington parallel was still a valid move at the relevant point in the game (which just goes to show the importance of correctly tallying lateral conjoined moves involving ‘compass’ stations).
I was also moved by your reference to dear old ‘Thunderer’ Hartramp. What a player! Never won a tournament, of course, and with his wild, erratic style no-one ever expected him to. But my word, what a contribution to the game! He approached every match with a rare passion, and on his day could produce lines of attack that dazzled and inspired in equal measure. Yes, some of his more ambitious plays were, frankly, deranged, and he had a rare talent for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Nonetheless, he added his own brand of passion, energy and ‘buzz’ to the game, and I for one greatly miss his presence. Those who haven’t already enjoyed it may like to look into The Annotated Hartramp, a slim but hugely enjoyable volume providing Dennis Simon’s expert analysis on 14 of Oliver’s finest matches. These include the '71 Regional Qualifiers where Olly, facing Djordjevich in fine aggressive form, pulled off an amazing 3 move detour from Perivale to Elm Park! This remains the only time this has ever been achieved in formal, regulated play.