15th Ilford Premier, 15-18 May 1964

1964 Ilford Premier (15th)		1	2	3	4	5	6	Total
1	Jonathan Penrose	&;	1	1	1	1	½	4½
2	Peter H Clarke	0	&;	1	½	½	½	2½
3	Norman Littlewood	0	0	&;	½	1	1	2½
4	Denis V Mardle	0	½	½	&;	½	½	2
5	Robert G Wade	0	½	0	½	&;	1	2
6	Martin Blaine	½	½	0	½	0	&;	1½

---

1964 BCF Selection Tournament

First Cycle: 15-18 May 1964 Ilford 1964 BCF Selection Qualifier Part 1 1 2 3 4 5  Total  1 Michael J Franklin &; 1 ½ 1 ½ 3 2 Harry Golombek 0 &; 1 1 1 3 3 Owen M Hindle ½ 0 &; ½ 1 2 4 Michael J Haygarth 0 0 ½ &; 1 1½ 5 Leonard W Barden ½ 0 0 0 &; ½	Second Cycle: 31 July - 3 August 1964 Acton (Eileen Tranmer's home) 1964 BCF Selection Qualifier Part 2 1 2 3 4 5  Total  1 Owen M Hindle &; 1 1 1 ½ 3½ 2 Michael J Haygarth 0 &; ½ 1 ½ 2 3 Leonard W Barden 0 ½ &; ½ ½ 1½ 4 Michael J Franklin 0 0 ½ &; 1 1½ 5 Harry Golombek ½ ½ ½ 0 &; 1½

1964 BCF Olympiad Selection Tournament: Combined Scores

1964 BCF Selection Qualifier		1	2	3	4	5	Total
1	Owen M Hindle	&;	½1	0½	½1	11	5½
2	Michael J Franklin	½0	&;	11	10	½½	4½
3	Harry Golombek	1½	00	&;	1½	1½	4½
4	Michael J Haygarth	½0	01	0½	&;	1½	3½
5	Leonard W Barden	00	½½	0½	0½	&;	2

1964 Chess Olympiad to be played at Tel-Aviv in November, 1964 (1964/65 BCF Yearbook, p130)

In selecting four players to constitute the B.C.F. Team, namely, J. Penrose, C. Kottnauer, P. H. Clarke and N. Littlewood, the Selectors decided that the last two places should be determined by holding a Candidates’ Tournament in which the following six players were invited to participate in a double-round event:—

L. W. Barden, M. J. Franklin, M. J. Haygarth, O. M. Hindle, H. Golombek and R. G. Wade.

With the exception of R. G. Wade who was unable to accept the conditions laid down, the players participated in this competition. The first stage [took] place during the Whitsun Congress at Ilford, whilst the second round was played during the August Bank Holiday week-end at Miss Tranmer’s house at Acton with the following result:—

Hindle 5½; Franklin and Golombek 4½; Haygarth 3½; Barden 2 [n.b. it says "Barden 1½" in the Yearbook but this doesn't add up or make sense - JS]

The selectors in breaking the tie decided that the final place in the team should be given to Franklin, whose individual score with Golombek in the Tournament had been 1½-½ [another inaccuracy - it had been 2-0 - JS]. C. H. O’D. Alexander will be non-playing Captain.

---

The Ilford Whitsun Congress [BCM, June 1964, p162]

By P. H. CLARKE

It does not seem so long ago that I was writing about the tenth Ilford Congress. Now the fifteenth in the series has already passed into history. The venue and the main features of the event have remained unchanged, but this year the number of entries shot up by more than 50 per cent and brought the 200 mark within sight. Moreover, the presence of the British Champion in the Premier and the staging of a special qualifying tournament to fill the two vacancies in the Olympiad team for Tel-Aviv brought additional colour. In fact, most of the best players in the country were involved, and our Editor is marking this by reproducing all the games in the top two tournaments. I will therefore confine myself to a few brief comments.

As the scores indicate, Penrose won with some ease. His mastery of the situation was never contested, and the only question was whether he could make a clean sweep and thus create a record for the Ilford Premier (will this incite him into competing again next year?!).

Norman Littlewood produced his usual, enterprising chess, without being quite in his best form. His win against Wade is unmistakably of the Littlewood genre. I made a depressing start and it was only in the last hour’s play that I recovered and suddenly found myself sharing second prize. A single win makes all the difference in these short events.

Wade began well but then fell away, while Mardle and Blaine played steadily without, however, making any impression on their opponents. The last had the consolation of being che one player to hold Penrose.

If there were any fears that this qualifying tournament (the second half of which will take place later in the summer) would engender dull, safety-first chess, they were not fulfilled. The struggle was bitter throughout and the percentage of wins was much higher than in the Premier.

While Franklin and Golombek are now very strongly placed, it should be remembered that a defeat or two could alter the situation drastically. Proof of this is the fact that Barden might have been leading now if he had exploited the positions he achieved against Franklin and Golombek. As it is, his prospects are no more than mathematical.

Franklin is to be congratulated on his resilience after his experiences at Hastings. Few, if any, British players have such good nerves as he. Golombek’s three wins point to his determination too. That against Hindle, who otherwise played very soundly, was typical of his best style. Haygarth showed his customary dourness, but he tended to over-reach himself. Nevertheless, he is not yet out of the running.

In the other tournaments youth was generally to the fore. Special mention must go to W. R. Hartston, who followed up his fine performance at Bognor by sharing first place in Premier Reserves “A.”

Full results in the various sections were as follows—

Premier Reserves A: (1-2) T Goodhill, William R Hartston 4/5; (3) James B Howson 2½; (4-5) David Sherman, David J Mabbs 2; (6) W Arthur Winser ½.
Premier Reserves B: (1) George W Wheeler 3½/5; (2-3) John B Hawson, Peter W Hempson 3; (4) Keith M Oliff 2½; (5) Harry I Woolverton 2; (6) David G Levens 1.

Major “A.”—J. R. Cooke 4; Kenneth B Harman 3; Miss Eileen Tranmer 2½; A. Mazitis, Daniel Wright 2; M. A. Murray 1½.
“B.”—Charles Ambrose Scott Damant 3½; D. Strauss 3; A. J. Coldrick and J. D. Flynn 2½; P. J. Camminis 2; G. R. Evans 1½.
“C.”—R. F. Harman 4½; S. Goldstein and Dr. P. D. Ralph 2½; M. P. Littlewood and M. Podoba 2; J. A. Speigel 1½.
“D.”—J. A. Feavyour 4; Ivor Adrian Friedlander 3; J. G. Hudson, Richard W O'Brien, and Peter Parr 2½; T. Pruchnicki ½.
“E.”—R. C. Bellinger 5; J. Eyre 4; G. S. Jacobs and P. Rosengarten 2; J. G. Cotterell and H. M. Lawrance 1.
“F.”—B. L. McCague 3½; H. T. Ennis 3; A. Lukowicz 2½; M. J. Allsop, V. C. Barber, and R. G. Taylor 2.
“G.”—C. B. Gellmann 5; S. A. Wilkinson 3½; S. R. Capsey 3; Miss O. Richards 2½; A. E. Robertson 1; A. D. Burgess 0 (default).
“H.”—E. L. Palmer 4½; D. Castello and R. I. Turnbull 3; A. J. Potter 2½; C. E. Kelly and H. T. Walker 1.
“J.”—J. Blumson and S. R. Gardner 4; C. J. Tisdell 3; H. Gosling 2½; J.Weston 1½; P.N.G. Beard 0 (default).
“K.”—R. M.Ferrie 4; J. T. Silvane and K. W. Wycherley 3; B. J. Burgess 2½; S. Kravitz 1½; R. M. Cherry 1.
“L.”—D. Mayers 5; A. J. Brookes 4; M. Bronzite and P. J. Gyori 2; C. A. Blaxley and H. G. Crews 1.
“M.”—M. H. Hawley 4; M. J. Duck 3½; T. McDade and W. Pealling 3; J. Coppin 1; Dr. N. P. Richard ½.

Major Extra A: (1) Raymond D Keene 4½/5; (2) A J McMinn 4; (3) Edward G Lea 3; (4) K Benjamin 2; (5) J G Collins 1½; (6) C S Cale 0.
“B.”—J. Bennett 4½; J. Enticknap 4; P. R. Morriss 3; G. F. Morrish 2½; R. M. Simpson 1; A. M. B. Gilder 0.

Open “A.”—J. Coxwell 3½; P. R. C. Vargas 3; A. Cohen 2; T. O. Read 1½; G. O. J. Melitus 0.
“B.”—D. Watts 3½; D. G. Ford 3; J. C. Hamer 1½; Mrs. K. Green and F. J. Morton 1.
“C.”—R. A. Norton 4; J. H. Johnston 3; F. C. Shorter and Miss E. Whyte 2½; G. Burnett 2; Mrs. M. Wainwright 1.
“D.”—A. Silvane 4; P. S. Hedges 3; Mrs. E. Feavyour 1½; F. H. Fryatt 1; Mrs. G. R. Evans ½.

Junior “A.”—A. J. Stebbings 4; D. L. Meen 3½; M. Ash and D. Wood 3; A. J. Potter 1½; M. Goddard 0.
“B.”—A. Brown, I. Hunnable, and K. Peters 3½; R. Denston and M. R. Spinks 2; P. Scott ½.
“C.”—J. Cavill and J. R. Middleton 3½; M. Peterson 3; P. W. Loyd and T. Restall 2; D. Knott 1.
“D.”—G. Merriman 4; A. M. Brain 3½; R. Rolfe 3; P. Gue[st?] 2½; R. Backer 1½; J. Jewson ½.
“E.”—Paul Hershman 4½; S. McMillan 4; E. Powell 3; T. M. Cook 2; D. Stonely 1½; W. Vickers 0.
“F.”—R. Powell 4; A. L. Smith 3½; C. Maxwell 3; P. E. Blackman and K. F. Plummer 2; P. W. Fowler ½.
“G.”—S. R. Pierce 5; John DM Nunn 4; S. E. Courtney 3; P. Cline 2; D. Sluys 1; A. Gray 0.

Left to right: Owen Hindle, Michael Franklin, Harry Golombek, Michael Haygarth

The B.C.F. Selection Tournament 9BCM, September 1964, p253]

By P. H. CLARKE

The second half of this event to fill the two remaining places in the team for the Tel-Aviv Olympiad took place over the August Bank Holiday week-end [in 1964 this was 31 July - 3 August and not at the end of August as became standard from 1965. The venue was once again Ilford - JS]. The scores brought forward from Whitsun were: M. J. Franklin and H. Golombek 3; O. M. Hindle 2; M. J. Haygarth 1½; and L. W. Barden ½. The five rounds with colours reversed ended as follows: Hindle 3½; Haygarth 2; Barden, Franklin, and Golombek, 1½. Added together, these produced the results shown [above].

Hindle’s performance in coming from behind and winning with a point to spare is a handsome one. Three straight wins in the first three rounds of this half spreadeagled the held and enabled him to take a short draw against Golombek without fear of being caught. Luck was on his side at the start, for Barden, playing at his incisive best, built up an overwhelming attack against him on the Friday evening and could have won a piece and the game (by 21 R—Kt 3!); he missed it, and his threats were repulsed. This gave Hindle a boost, and the next morning he scored a fine and most important win over Franklin, who was leading by a point at that stage. That proved the main turning-point in the event. One cannot help comparing Hindle’s style with Penrose’s, and for that reason along he should be an asset to the Olympic team.

Neither Franklin nor Golombek reproduced their Whitsun form, and the result is they must remain in Limbo a little longer (at the time of writing it is understood that they will play a further two games before the British Championship). [The Franklin-Golombek play-off never happened and that the BCF decided Franklin should qualify for the remaining Olympiad berth by virtue of his superior head-to-head score versus Golombek. See the BCF Yearbook comment above - JS] Franklin looked a certainty with 4 out of 5 but then slumped, while Golombek, having lost to his rival in the opening once again, just recovered himself in time.

Haygarth's score reflects some steady play. Losses at critical stages prevented him from ever challenging the leaders, but his perseverance was rewarded by his being second in this half of the event. Barden was dogged by misfortune throughout. If he retires from the practical arena, as he is contemplating, I hope it will not be permanent; he has much fine chess in him and on his day is capable of thrashing anyone in the country.

The tournament certainly justified itself. The top national players do not compete again each other enough in my opinion, and so the more events like this the better. Playing each opponent twice also made it far more interesting than the normal weekend Premier. Before going on to the games, I would like to record the thanks everyone concerned owes to Miss Eileen Tranmer, who gave up her holiday to staging this half and looking after the needs of the players. She also saved me considerable work by typing out the game scores for this report.

---

File Updated

Date	Notes
25 August 2009	First uploaded as separate files.
17 October 2021	Revamped to include crosstables, reports, viewer and photos.