EPSCA under 11 Zonal, 17th March 2001

Basildon, Essex

Pos	Team	Score		Rd1	Rd2	Rd3		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
1	Richmond	39½		15½	12½	11½		2½	2	2	2½	2	3	0	0	2	1½	2	3	3	1½	1	3	3	2	1½	2
2	Sussex	36		12½	10½	13		2	2	0	2½	3	2½	2	3	2	3	1	0	2	1½	1	2½	2	1	1	2
3	Wey Valley	35		11	9½	14½		1½	½	2½	0	1	2	2½	1½	1	2	2	2	3	3	1	2½	2	0	3	2
4	Essex	34		11	13	10		2	2	1½	1	1	1½	3	1½	1½	0	3	1	0	2½	2½	1½	2	2	2½	2
5	Barnet	33		12	11	11		2	3	2	2½	1½	1	½	3	2½	2	1	2	1	½	1	1½	2	1	2	1
6	N.W. London	30½		8½	12	10		2	½	1½	2½	1½	1	1	2	1½	1	2	3	1	2	3	0	1	2	1	1
7	Kent	17½		6½	6	5		0	2	1½	0	1	0	2	0	½	1½	0	1	2	0	1½	1	0	2	½	1
8	Herts	14½		3	5½	6		0	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	0	0	2	½	1

Pictures

A marvellous day's work by a very young Essex team led to them qualifying for the Finals with a point to spare. This was the hardest-fought South-East zone for many years in which Richmond were impressive in round 1, but will have been disappointed not to have won either of the other two rounds. They should be favourites for the Finals, but not by much. Kent had another nightmare, finishing in a very poor 7th place and occupying a qualifying place by virtue of their being hosts for the Finals. One has to feel sorry for Barnet and N.W. London, both of whom performed well, scoring more than 50%, but not progressing further. Curiously, Hertfordshire did qualify on less than 50% in the under 9 competition the previous weekend.

The Essex team in some ways reflected openness of the competition. It had been a fairly easy task for the selectors in placing the top 8 players, all of whom scored valuable points. Subin Sen was again superb, winning all his games although still not yet eight years old, in competition with players chronologically three years his senior but in chess-playing terms junior to him in every way. Dana Hawrami and Alex O'Toole each scored two points after a first round loss, and Joe Bloomfield on board 3 missed a win in final round in a double-edged king and pawns ending.

Essex's total of 11 / 20 at the end of the first round placed them in fourth place, level with Wey Valley but behind Richmond, Sussex and Barnet. Richmond's lead of 3 points was a reasonable buffer for them, but the next four sides were within 1½ points of each other. There was clearly no room for error at any stage, and in a jamboree competition of this type a bad move or a flash of inspiration can make a huge difference in the fortunes of a team. The Essex players responded very well to the task and were the highest scorers in the most closely-fought round I can remember. They added 13 points to their total and were now placed second, one point ahead of Barnet and Sussex and 3½ points ahead of Wey Valley and N.W. London. Richmond had extended their lead to 4 points and there were plenty of very worried-looking team managers.

The final round began well enough for Essex. Early wins from Alex O'Toole, Subin Sen and Adam Jellett promised a high score and with a steady stream of losses amongst the early Richmond results it looked possible at one stage as though their total might be overhauled. However, if anyone was going to catch Richmond, it certainly wasn't going to be Essex: two or three quick losses soon had our total pegged back and it was not clear that we would achieve a placing in the top 4. Meanwhile, Sussex and Wey Valley were both doing well. In the latter's case, their players lost only 5 games to reach an excellent round total of 14½, thereby overhauling Essex who managed 10. Sussex also improved their position at our expense, adding 13 to their total. In the end it was the Barnet team whose luck ran out: their 10 points in the final round left them on 33, but because Hertfordshire and Kent had performed so badly, their final total of 33 / 60 left them in the bottom half. They will not be going to the Finals in Kent on 12th May.

So far, then, 9 finalists are known. Richmond, Sussex, Wey Valley, Essex and Kent will be joined by Manchester, Oldham, Yorkshire and Cheshire & North Wales at the Colfe School, Lewisham on 12th May.