1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.e3 d5 5.cxd5 Nxd5

This is a well known position in the Four Knights Variation and GM Jon Speelman had presumably been there many times before, but at that time Jonathan had little theory and was gazing at the position with the same blank stare that must have crossed Cortes' face when he first stumbled upon the Aztec civilisation. Jonathan (in this analysis I will use Jon for Speelman and Jonathan for Rashleigh) writes that he had only just started paying chess again after a ten year gap and did not even have a grade. He was and is, of course, as many of our club members know to their cost, a very fluent thematic and positional player with an elegant style. I have studied the game extensively and regard his performance as very impressive, particularly in the middle game.

6.Bb5 Nxc3 7.bxc3 Bd6 8.d4 last book move.

Our now much more well-informed colleague disagrees with this last assertion by Fritz, claiming that the game re-entered the book by transposition: ("According to my current database it is not until 14.Bd2 that we encountered a move that was not a part of accepted theory and it was Speelman not I who deviated!"). Rashleigh? A deviant? Perish the thought.

8....exd4 9.cxd4 Bd7 10.0-0 0-0 11.e4 a6

12.Be2 Re8 13.e5

GM Jon Speelman appears to have a slight space advantage here, although the position is balanced. It takes two to pirouette as well to tango.

13....Bf8 14.Bb2

14.Bc4!? seems an interesting alternative possibility.

14....Be6

According to Fritz, this is the point at which our Jonathan sticks his elegant nose just in front.

15.Bd3 Ne7

The game has settled down into a balanced pattern of cut and thrust, although some tactical opportunities are rejected. Here 15....Bd5!? seems an interesting alternative to the move played.

16.Ng5 Ng6?

Perhaps allowing the GM to gain a slight advantage. Better would have been 16....Bf5 17.Bxf5 Nxf5 18.Qh5 with close to equality.

17.Bxg6 Qxg5=

This is clearly better than 17....fxg6 and shows that Jonathan's mental geometry is working well. The follow-up moves are very deliberated.

18.Be4 c6 consolidating d5 19.f4 Qd8 20.Qd3 planning 21.f5 which is secured by Jon's next move

20....g6 21.f5 Bxf5 22.Bxf5+- gxf5 23.Qxf5 Qd5

24.Rf3 Bg7 25.Rg3 Re6 26.Rf1 Rg6 27.Rgf3

This elegant position is symptomatic of the geometric grace with which the game is being played; now all is on f7.

27....Rf8 28.h4 h6

28....Qxa2!? Is surely worth consideration here. [29.Qc2 Qd5=]

29.a3 c5 30.dxc5 Qxc5+ 31.Kh1 Qb6 32.Bc1 Qe6

33.h5 Qxf5 34.Rxf5 Re6 35.Bb2 b5 36.R1f3 Re7

37.Rg3 Kh8 38.Bc3 Rfe8

The pressure on the isolated pawn grows

39.Bb4

GM Jon Speelman may have missed setting a rather interesting trap here.

The waiting move 39.Kg1 would have left the pawn on offer with at least a
hope that Jonathan might take the poisoned pawn on e5 and let himself in for
40.Rxf7

39....Rd7 [If 39....Rxe5....] 40.Bd6= Kg8 41.Rg4 a5

42.Rf3 Kh7 reclaiming a slight edge....

43.Rfg3 f6.... which this further pawn move consolidates into an advantage. Our Jonathan avoids the trap 43....Bxe5, after which Black chokes on the swallowed pawn [44.Bxe5 f6 45.Bxf6]

44.Rd3 Rxe5
Again avoiding capturing on e5, as 44.fxe5?! is met by 45.Bae5 [Theme: clearance to allow d3-d7] Ree7 46.Rxd7 Rxd7 47.Bxg7 Rxg7 48.Rd4 thereby reducing the advantage.

45.Rxg7+

This position shows the depth of analysis that GM Jon Speelman can bring to this kind of position, even in a simul. It is worth looking at closely, since Jonathan seems to be sitting on at least an optical win, yet Speelman is apparently willing to simplify down into a "lost" position. If we take the Hooper and Wyld line, we would see this as the strategy of a GM banking on his having superior endgame technique, but I believe Speelman thought he could manage the draw even on best play. Jonathan feels retrospective embarrassment at not holding what he even now sees as "a winning position", but he has in my view nothing to chide himself with. Speelman has written elegantly in "Rook and Pawn Endings" in Batsford Chess Endings on the circumstances in which a rook can sacrifice itself for a passed pawn whilst still making the draw with King+Pawn v. King+Rook. I think he knew what he was heading for. Although Jonathan did not play the endgame particularly well, he did not throw it away either.

45....Kxg7 46.Bf8+

In addition, the manner of Speelman's simplifying down has a certain elan and elegance to it, with move 46 involving clearance to allow d3-d7

46....Kxf8 47.Rxd7 Rxh5 48.Kg1 Rf5 49.Ra7 b4

50.axb4 axb4 51.Rb7 Rf4 52.g3 Rg4 53.Kg2 Ke8

54.Kh3 h5 55.Rb5 Rd4 56.Rxh5 b3 57.Rb5 Rd3 58.Rb7 Kd8

59.Kg4 Kc8-+ 60.Rb6 Kc7 61.Rxf6 b2 62.Rf1 Kc6

63.Rb1 Rb3 64.Kf4 Kc5 65.g4 Kc4 66.g5 Kc3

67.g6 Kc2 68.Rxb2+=

The point! The position is now a dead draw although it takes a move or two for the mixture of pleasure and pain to sink in.

68....Rxb2 69.g7 Rb8 70.Kg5 Draw agreed.

This draw was the only dent on Jon Speelman's record in this simul

Jonathan has subsequently reflected on the regulatory rules under which simuls are played and makes some interesting observations about how the conditions affected him. He feels that in the early middle game he was actually rescued by the forced additional time from some weaker moves that impetuosity might have led him to. But as other opposition crumbled and GM Jon Speelman came around at ever diminishing lapsed time, a form of psychological pressure grew that he associated with the perceived courtesies of the occasion. The gathering spectators added to this pressure. Rather sweetly, instead of enjoying at the end of this long game the unadulterated pleasure of having the British Chess champion all to himself ("The effect on my morale when he pulled up a chair was shattering") Jonathan began to worry whether he was being greedy of GM time (perhaps his moral entitlement was only to a rationed one-fortieth?) or even "unduly holding up the thank you speeches".

No, Jonathan, thanks to you.