Holmes Chapel Kings have been quickest out of the blocks in division one, their 5 - 0 thrashing of Newcastle A an obvious statement of intent to be involved in the shake up this year. Already they have matched their last years wooden spoon points total. However I find it difficult to look beyond Cheddleton for champions.

Division two has shrunk by one team since last season, the exits of Fenton A and Alsager B being partially balanced by the appearance of a second Cheddleton side. Most of the sides look evenly balanced so that individual match results will be difficult to predict. Defending co-champions Knights and Newcastle B will want a say in the destination of the title, but the Cheddleton twins, with strong top boards and dangerous juniors at the bottom look menacing. Those other perennial challengers Macclesfield have had a slow start. Rule them out at your peril.

Division 3 Kidsgrove 4 3 0 1 6 Stafford B 2 2 0 0 4 Alsager B 3 2 0 1 4 Cheddleton D 3 2 0 1 4 H C Pawns 4 1 1 2 3 Newcastle D 3 1 1 1 3 Meir A 3 1 1 1 3 Cheddleton E 4 1 1 2 3 Fenton A 3 1 0 2 2 Newcastle C 3 0 0 3 0

Division 4 Cheddleton F 4 3 1 0 7 Fenton B 3 3 0 0 6 Meir B 3 2 0 1 4 Cheddleton G 3 1 2 0 4 Newcastle E 4 1 1 2 3 Meir C 3 1 1 1 3 Alsager C 4 0 3 1 3 Alsager D 3 1 1 1 3 Fenton C 4 0 1 3 1 H C Tiny Pawns 3 0 0 3 0

Smaller four man teams and larger ten team divisions confront us as we move our attention to divisions three and four. Division three looks like it will be a multiple fight to the death - I can't see just two teams breaking clear of the rest like they did last year when there was an eight point gap between second and third places. It is good to see Kidsgrove atop a table, even if it is early days. The addition of Ian Jamieson to their resources certainly gives them chances of staying competitive. Stafford B, Alsager B and Pawns are others currently in the top half who would not previously have necessarily been regarded as the usual suspects for honours. These three have also been noted in the past for the variation in strength in the sides they have fielded, so inevitably there will be questions about their staying power. My heart says Kidsgrove, my head says Stafford, Meir to be dark horses, but the reality may well be that our Moorland friends put in the performances week in week out. And if my failure so far to mention defending champions Fenton makes them determined to hold on to the trophy then the third division really will have all the fun of the fair.

Fenton v Cheddleton has been the theme of division four in the six years since its reintroduction, with he titles shared equally. Will this year be any different? The early tables say no.

The two first round matches in the Open Cup both went to board count, with Stafford and Newcastle winning chess's version of the penalty shoot-out, whilst the other cup match, in the Perry Trophy competition, featured the only defaulted board of the season so far. The Perry is also the most restricted of our competitions, so the first default appearing here is not the most surprising turn of events.

Postponements are well down, with just three so far, one of which has already been played. In previous years the start of the season seems to have taken some clubs by surprise with multiple postponements setting the tone for the year.

One hundred and forty two players have set foot in our competituons so far, with forty two (of course) having played the four games necessitating ECF membership. Included in this number are the twenty six who already feature prominently on my performances page by dint of their five plus games.

Inevitably within what is a relatively modest sized district any new event will to some extent provide more games against the usual suspects, so the format is deliberately abnormal so as to give a different feeling to affairs. The Doubles does not involve alternate moves or consultation chess; it is a five round team of two event with each player gets their own half-hour games which can thus be graded.

There will be two sections referred to by the limit on the partners total grade: the 320 section which carries no minimum counting grade and so is open to anyone with a suitable partner, and the 220 section which carries aminimum counting grade of 80 and so effectively a maximum allowable one of 140.

Teams will be known by their names, say Smith & Jones, rather than by club, and indeed we see no reason why they should be from the same club. We are however restricting the event to North Staffs so as to ensure that bronze membership of the ECF is sufficient. Nominally teams events should be bronze anyway, but I'd rather not put the ECF to the test on teams of two. Which reminds me I have things to say about the implementation of the ECF membership scheme, but that can wait for another article.

Another difference from normal practice is that we are not going to have board order rules. Instead before play commences each pair nominates who will be white in each round - yes that does mean that if you are providing transport you can insist on five whites. In each match your designated white plays their designated black.

Unfortunately the venue is not free, so we are charging £2 a head to cover costs. Shouldn't break the bank.

Ian Chester v RR after 12 ... N(b8)d7

13 ... Nf4, 14 Qe3 Ng6 wanting to play Qf6 instead, but feeling nervous about her majesty's continued ability to protect the knight.

15 d4 Effectively the losing move Bxf3 Ian is confronted with the unpalatable choice of losing his d-pawn or having his kingside pawns shattered by recapturing with th g-pawn.

16 Qxf3 cxd4, 17 Qe4 Qc5, 18 Bd3 Nf6
19 Qe1 Rad8, 20 Ne4 Nxe4, 21 Qxe4 e5 Central pawns start to roll

22 g3 f5, 23 Qe2 e4, 24 Bc4+ Kh8
25 Rad1 Ne5 26 Ba6 Nf3+ 27 Kg2 Rd6 Will I be permitted a quick kill?

Exhibit A comes from the first round at Torquay in which RR had black against Alan Papier.

Alan Papier v RR after 16 R(d1)d2

4nrk1/1br1bppp/ppnpp3/6P1/2P2B2/2N2N2/PP1RPPBP/R5K1 b
RR dismissed Na5 too quickly, and instead played f6 with intent to mess with the kingside pawns and to free the f-file for his rooks. If you can't see why Na5 leads to what should be a winning advantage, see end.

16 ... f6, 17 Rad1 fxg5, 18 Bxg5 Black is fine, but started to feel uncomfortable about he number of ways white could pressurize his hanging central pawns, so went for a simplifying combination:
18 ... Rxf3, 19 Bxe7 Rxc3 20 Bxd6 Seeing combinations through to their fonish at the outset is not always easy to do, so it is sensible to reassess as the combination is played out. RR failed to do this and so saved the wrong rook:
20 ... Rxc4, 21 Bxc7 Nxc7, 22 Rd7 Na5 which is really as far as I'd seen clearly at the outset along this line. Now RR experienced a sudden panic about b4 though Alan chose the highly effective
23 Rd8+ Kf7, 24 Bxb7 Nxb7, 25 R1d7+ Kf6, 26 Rc8 and the resulting material loss is decisive even though as is his wont, RR extended the game to move 60. I won't bore you with the details of the second half (movewise) of the game.
Instead 20 ... Nxd6, 21 bxc3 Nxc4, 22 Rd7 Rxd7, 23 Rxd7 N4a5 and both sides will struggle to make progress. Blacks pieces are all tied down, but white cannot put his pieces to use without freeing blacks. White's lack of a b-pawn in this variation is critical.

The morning saw RR paired with white against Terence Greenaway.

RR v Terence Greenaway after 15 ... f6

r1bq1rk1/p3p1bp/1p1p2p1/2pPnp2/2P1P3/1PN5/P2BBPPP/1RQ2RK1 w
Black has just launched his f-pawn into action, pretty well guaranteeing that the a1h8 file will be free of pawns for the duration.
16 Bh6 Nf7, 17 Bxg7 Kxg7, 18 Rb2 Getting ready to double rooks wherever necessary, and perhaps more to the point vacating b1 before the black bishop gets a chance to land on f5.
18 ... e6, 19 dxe6 Bxe6, 20 exf5 Bxf5, 21 Nd5 Be4

RR v Terence Greenaway after 21 Nd5

Surely black has seen this sort of position before with the white knight overseeing f6 and the long diagonal open? Black is behind and cannot afford to ignore the white threats if he is to have any chance of getting back into the game.

Jurgen Nielsen v RR after 14 c3

16 Ngf5 Kh7 Removing a pair of knights is better
17 Nxd6 Qxd6, 18 cxd4 cxd4 Did I really recapture that way? Fraid so. Is there a name for a fear of an opponent playing f4? Birdophobia? And why would I be afraid of f4? Still I'd have a very different story to tell with an e-pawn recapture.

19 Bb4 Qd7, 20 Nf3 And we see why removing a pair of knights earlier would have helped. there is a serious danger of losing my e-pawns, and with them the game. Time to apply a similar pressure reducing technique as in round one, though this time I have no chance of emerging with level material.

20 ... Ng4, 21 h3 Rxf3, 22 gxf3 Nf6

Jurgen Nielsen v RR after 22 ... Nf6

r7/1p1qn1pk/p3pn1p/4p3/PB1pP3/1Q1P1P1P/1P3P2/R4RK1 w
23 Bxe7 Qxe7 When ahead swap pieces is a well known mantra, but I confess I wasn't sorry to see this move as it nudged my queen towards the kingside and left my knight unchallengeable on dark sqaures. Indeed Fritz now evaluates the position as dead level despite the exchange deficit.

24 Kh2 Nh5, 25 Rg1 Qh4, 26 Raf1 Qf4+ 27 Rg3 Already white is resigned to returning the exchange.

27 ... Rc8 (Nxg3, 28 fxg3 Qd2+, 29 Kg1 Rc8 is superior)
28 Rfg1 Rc1, 29 Rxc1 Nxg3, 30 fxg3 Qd2+, 31 Kh1 Qxc1+ and RR is now playing with the draw in hand. Queen endings, don't you just love 'em?

RR v Stuart Ross after ... Nf6

r1bq1rk1/p4ppp/1pn1pn2/2pp4/2P5/PP1PPN2/1RQ1BPPP/1N3RK1 w
13 cxd5 exd5, 14 d4 Ne4, 15 dxc5 bxc5, 16 Nc3 Qa5
Clang!! He doesn't seriously intend to trade his d-pawn for my a-pawn, does he?
17 Nxd5 Qxa3 He does! 18 Ra2 Nb4, 19 Nxb4 Qxb4, 20 Ra4 1-0