Instructive Ending

PLAYED on board two (of six) for Hastings & St Leonards away to Rainham in the 140-average section of the Kent League last night.

White has just captured a rook on c1 and offered a draw in Andrew Waters (154) - Spanton (170)

*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
Black has a very small edge thanks to having the better bishop, but the difference is well within chess's drawing margin.
19...f5 20.Kf1 Nf6 21.Ne5 Ne4 22.f3 Nd6 23.Ke2 Bxe5?
Unbalancing the position, but in White's favour. I should have settled for a draw, or at least kept manoeuvring, rather than give White a passed pawn and create unbalanced pawn-majorities with White having the only bishop.
24.dxe5 Nc4 25.f4
Stockfish10 and Komodo10 give 25.e6!? Kf8 26.Bg5!?, when 26...Nxb2 27.Ke3 h6 28.Bf6 Nc4+ 29.Kd4 seems promising for White, but is not clear.
25...Kf7
The engines slightly prefer 25...Na5!?, eg 26.Kd3 Nc6, when Black may well be holding.
26.Kd3 Ke6 27.Kd4 Nb6 28.b3 Nc8?!
Probably better is 28...Nd7 and if, as in the game, 29.Ba3, then 29...Nb8 is equal, according to the engines. However, they reckon 29.b4 gives White an edge, eg 29...Nb6 30.Kd3 a6 (or 30...Nd7 31.Be3 a6 32.a4) 31.Kd4. In all lines Black is in danger of ending up in zugzwang as the black king is tied to defending d5 and the black knight has limited manoeuvrability.
29.Ba3 Nb6 30.Bb4 Nd7 31.Bd6 Nb6 32.a4 Nc8 33.Ba3 b6 34.Bb4 a5 35.Ba3?
The engines reckon White has a large advantage after 35.Bd2, one sample line running 35...Ne7 36.Be3 Nc8 (with the bishop on e3, rather than a3 as in the game, the move 36...Nc6+ drops the b6 pawn) 37.Kc3 Kd7 38.Bf2 Ke6 39.b4 axb4+ 40.Kxb4 Kd7 41.Kb5 Kc7 42.Ka6 Kc6 43.e6 Kc7 44.Bd4 Kc6 45.Be5 Ne7 46.Bf6 Nc8 47.e7 Kd7 48.Kb7 Nxe7 49.Kxb6, when the white outside passed pawn should settle it. After the text, the game is equal.
35...Na7 36.Bd6
36.Bc1 Nc6+ 37.Kc3 gives Black time to protect b6 with the king, eg 37...Kd7 38.Be3 Kc7. White could try 39.e6, but 39...Kd6 40.Bxb6 Kxe6 41.Bc5 Kd7 42.b4 axb4+ 43.Bxb4 Kc7 seems fine for Black.
36...Nc6+ 37.Kc3 Kd7 38.g4?
This turns a drawn position into a losing one.
38...fxg4 39.hxg4 h5 40.gxh5 gxh5 41.f5 h4 42.Bf8 h3?
Simply winning is 42...Nxe5, eg 43.Bh6 h3 44.Bf4 Nf3 etc.
43.e6+ Kc7 44.Bh6 h2?
Now Black turns a draw into a loss.
44...Kd6 45.Bf4+ Ke7 46.Bg5+ Kd6 47.Bf4+ etc draws.
45.Bf4+ Kd8 46.Bxh2
The game finished:
46...Ke7 47.Bg3 Kf6 48.Bh4+ Kxf5 49.e7 Nxe7 50.Bxe7 Ke5 1-0
Rainham won the match 4-2.

The Power Of Two Bishops

PLAYED on board five (of six) for Hastings & St Leonards away to Horsham in the semi-finals of the McArthur Cup last night.
Spanton (170) - Anthony Higgs (181)
Pirc/Philidor
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d6 3.e4 e5
This is now very much mainstream - there are more than 23,000 examples of 3...e5 in ChessBase's 2020 Mega database. The only question seems to be whether the opening should be classified as a Pirc or a Philidor.
4.dxe5
Very much second in popularity to 4.Nf3.
4...dxe5 5.Qxd8+ Kxd8 6.Bg5 Ke8?
This mistake occurs six times in Mega20, including a game where Black was an International Master. But maybe it is not such a mistake - Black's score is +2=1-3, or 41.7%. Considering that two of the blacks were unrated, and another was 1721, that is quite respectable.
7.Bxf6 gxf6 8.Nd5 Bd6 9.Nxf6+ Kf8 10.Nf3 Nc6
Misa Pap (2504) - Drasko Boskovic (IM 2417), Subotica Spartak (Serbia) 2010, saw 10...Nd7 11.Nxd7+ Bxd7 12.Bc4, when White is clearly better but the future-GM could only draw the game.
11.Bc4 Na5 12.Bb3 Nxb3 13.axb3 h5 14.Nd5
There was a danger of the knight being trapped after ...c6.
14...Rg8 15.g3 Be6 16.Ne3 Bb4+ 17.Ke2 f6 18.Rhd1 Kg7 19.Nh4 Bc5 20.Nhf5+ Kg6 21.f3 Rgd8 22.Rxd8 Rxd8 23.Rd1 Rxd1 24.Kxd1
Exchanging rooks is double-edged. It brings nearer the possibility of White using his extra pawn, but at the same time it enhances the power of the bishops, which no longer have any rival long-range pieces.
24...c6 25.Ke2 a6 26.Nh4+ Kf7 27.Nc4 b5 28.Nd2 a5 29.Ng2 Bd4
Komodo10 at first reckons 29...Bh3 equalises, but after 30.Ne3 Kg6 31.Nd1 h4 32.Nf2 hxg3 33.hxg3 Bd7 it has White slightly better. Stockfish10 reckons White keeps the upper hand throughout.
30.c3 Bc5 31.Ne3 Kg6 32.h4 Bd6 33.Nc2 Kf7 34.b4 a4 35.Ne1 c5 36.bxc5 Bxc5 37.Nd3 Bd6 38.Nb4 Bc5
After 38...Bxb4? 39.cxb4, White's queenside is invulnerable to Black's bishop and White can get on with mobilising his kingside majority.
39.Nc6 Bb6 40.Nb4 Bc5 41.Nc2 Ke7 42.Ne3 Kf7 43.Nb1 b4 44.cxb4 Bxb4 45.Na3 Bc5 46.Nd1?!
46.Nb5 keeps an advantage, according to the engines.
46...Bd4?!
The engines reckon White cannot make progress after 46...Kg6.
47.Nc3?!
The engines prefer 47.Nc2, eg 47...Bc5 48.Nc3 Bc4+ 49.Ke1, but it is hard for White to improve his position.
47...Bd7 48.Nc2 Bc5?!
Black seems to equalise after 48...Bxc3 49.bxc3 as the outside passed pawn distracts White from doing anything constructive on the kingside.
49.Ne3 Bd4 50.Ned1?!
The engines give 50.Kd3 Kg6 51.Kd2 Bc5 52.g4!?
50...Kg6 51.Kd3 f5!
Opening lines for the bishops.
52.exf5+ Bxf5+ 53.Ne4?

Black to play and win

*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
53...Be6
AH apparently saw 53...Bxb2! immediately after moving. The first point is 54.Nxb2?? loses to 4...a3 55.Nc4 a2 56.Nxe5+ Kg7. So White has to play 54.Ndc3 a3 55.Kc2, when he may be able to hold, but as AH said only Black has winning chances.
54.Ndc3 Bb3?
54...Bd7 is more-or-less equal, according to the engines.
55.Nd2 Bxc3 56.bxc3?
White should win after 56.Kxc3, when the queenside is stabilised (although Black has to keep an eye on the a pawn's safety) and White can switch to kingside play.
56...Bd1 57.Nc4 Kf6
Not 57...Bxf3?? 58.Nxe5+.
58.Ke3 Bb3 59.Na3 Ke6 60.g4 Bd5 61.g5 Kf5 62.c4 Bc6 63.Nc2 Bb7 64.c5 Bc6 65.Na3
I should have given more-serious attention to 65.Nb4!? a3, but 66.Kd3 Bxf3 67.Kc3 Bd1 seemed to me to be murky at best, but is probably equal, eg 68.c6 Ke6 69.g6 Bg4 70.Kb3 Kf6 71.Kxa3 Kxg6 72.Nd5 Be6.
65...Bd5 66.Nb5 Bc6 67.Na3 Bd5 68.Nb5 Bc6 69.Na3 ½–½

Your Practical Results Will Improve

… once you are more willing to sacrifice material for defensive and psychological reasons, states Jonathan Rowson in Chess For Zebras.
It is one thing knowing this, by which I mean nodding with enthusiasm when you read such an insight, but it is another matter applying such knowledge over the board.
Last night I played on board four (of five) for Hastings & St Leonards' second team away to table-topping Horsham in division one of the Mid-Sussex League.
Anthony Higgs (180) - Spanton (168)
'Barry Attack'
1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 e6 3.Bf4 Bd6 4.e3!?
If White can get away with this, then, from a purely theoretical view, it surely must be better than losing a tempo with 4.Bg3 or 4.Bxd6 Qxd6.
4...Nf6
Critical is 4...Bxf4, but you can understand why Blacks are reluctant to play this way - it is what White wants, isn't it?
5.Nf3 b6
This was the last chance for 5...Bxf4.
6.Ne5!? Bb7
Black can play for an exchange of bad bishop for good bishop, but after 6...Ba6?! 7.Bxa6 Nxa6 8.Qe2 Nb8 is seriously behind in development.
7.Bd3
7.Bb5+ was played in René Letelier Martner - Carlos Enrique Guimard, Eighth Olympiad (Buenos Aires 1939), but after 7...c6 8.Bd3 the game reached the same position as in last night's game, except with the black c pawn on c6 instead of c7. It is hard to say whom this favours.
7...Qe7?!
Stockfish10 and Komodo10 like, among other moves, ...a6 ,which is what Guimard played at the Olympiad. The problem with the text will soon become apparent.
8.0-0 0-0?!
Played automatically. I soon regretted not interpolating 8...h6.
9.Bg5! h6 10.Bh4 g5?
AH in the postmortem pointed out 10...Qd8!? with the idea of ...Be7, preventing doubling of the black f pawns, but this never crossed my mind. He said it is not clear if 11.f4 is good, but the engines are sure 11.f4 is good. Nevertheless, ...Qd8!? is better than ...g5?
11.Bg3
Material is level, but Black has a positionally won game, according to Stockfish10.
11...Kg7 12.f4 Nbd7 13.Qf3 Rac8 14.h4
Desperate positions call for desperate measures.

Black to make his 14th move

*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
14...Ne4!?
The engines slightly prefer 14...g4, but I rejected it because after 15.Nxg4 Nxg4 16.Qxg4+, Black is a clear pawn down and with a weakened king's position.
Trying to hold the g5 square with 14...Nh7 is doomed to failure, eg 15.fxg5 hxg5 16.Nxd7 Qxd7 17.hxg5, and if 17...Nxg5??, White mates with 18.Qf6+ Kg8 19.Qxg5+ Kh8 20.Qh6+ Kg8 21.Qh7#.
15.Nxd7
The engines agree this is best.
15...Qxd7
Not 15...Nd2?? 16.Qh5 Nxf1 17.fxg5.
16.Nxe4?!
AH rejected 16.fxg5 because of 16...f5, when he thought Black has some compensation for the pawn as he did not like 17.gxf6+ Rxf6, but the engines sac the queen with 18.Bxd6!? Rxf3 19.Be5+ Kg8 20.Rxf3, when they reckon White is winning despite the approximate material balance.
16...dxe4 17.Bxe4 Bxe4 18.Qxe4 f5 19.Qd3
AH originally intended 19.Qb7, but changed his mind when he saw his queen has no retreat square after 19...g4 20.Qxa7?? Ra8.
19...c5!?
19...g4 emphasises the badness of White's bishop, but gives White time to consolidate, when his extra pawn should tell in the long run.
The text is aimed at maximising piece-activity, but is not liked by the engines. They give 19...Qc6, but White is clearly better and under little pressure.
20.Rad1
The engines for a while prefer 20.dxc5 Rxc5 21.fxg5 Rd5 22.Qc3+ with a substantial advantage for White, but, given enough time, Stockfish10 opts for the text, at least temporarily.
20...c4 21.Qc3 Kg6 22.Kh2?
White defends his bishop, but a much better way to do this was 22.e4! as 22...fxe4 23.fxg5 hxg5 24.Qe3 is strong for White.
22...Qc7?!
AH suggested 22...Qe7, pressurising h4 and threatening to trap the queen with ...Bb4. I thought 23.d5 might be a good answer, but AH's 23.Qe1 seems better.
The engines much prefer 22...Qc6, which is logical in that Black tries to create problems on White's weakened light squares.
23.Qe1
Now 23.d5, trying to open lines to the draughty black king, may be better.
23...Rh8?!
Preventing 24.fxg5??, which can be met with 24...hxg5. The engines prefer centralisation with 23...Rce8, reckoning 24.fxg5 hxg5 25.Bxd6 Qxd6+ 26.Qg3 Qxg3+ 27.Kxg3 gxh4+ 28.Kxh4 is better for White, but not winning.
24.d5 e5 25.fxe5 Bxe5 26.Bxe5?
Much stronger is 26.d6.
26...Qxe5+ 27.Qg3 Rhe8
AH pointed out that 27...Qxb2?? is strongly met by 28.h5+!, when the f pawn falls one way or another and White's heavy pieces swarm around the black king.
28.Rfe1
The engines' 28.Qxe5 Rxe5 29.d6 Rd8 30.d7 may give White more chances of converting his material advantage.
28...Rcd8 29.d6 Qxg3+ 30.Kxg3 Re6 31.d7 Kf6
The engines, once shown it, come to like 31...Re7!?, but 32.Rd6+ looks promising for White.
32.hxg5+ hxg5 33.Kf2?!
Too passive, according to the engines. They give 33.Kf3, and if 33...g4+, now 34.Kf2 (but not 34.Kf4? Re4+ 35.Kg3 Ke6), when Black's kingside set-up is devalued (the move ...f4, for instance, is less of a threat).
33...Ke5
AH thought better was 33...Ke7? 34.Rh1 Rf6, but the d pawn remains immune, eg 35.Rd4 Rf7 36.Rhd1!
34.Rh1?!
AH's postmortem suggestion of 34.Rd4 is better, but 34...Rd6 35.Rxc4 Rd2+ 36.Re2 R8xd7 leaves Black active and with decent drawing chances.
34...Re7 35.Rh6 Rexd7 36.Rxd7 Rxd7 37.Ke2 Rd6 38.Rh7
Black is better in the pawn-ending after 38.Rxd6? Kxd6.
38...a6 39.Re7+ Kf6 40.Ra7 ½–½
Despite Horsham having an average grading-advantage of 191-172, all five games were drawn.

Whoops!

THERE has been a dramatic, and unfortunate, development in the Kent League Stevenson Cup semi-final played on Sunday in which Hastings & St Leonards beat Petts Wood & Orpington 4-2 (https://beauchess.blogspot.com/2019/05/cup-match.html).
It turns out our top-board was ineligible because he had not played for the team previously this season (although he had been picked for a match that got postponed and eventually took place with a different line-up).
His win on Sunday has therefore been reversed to a win for the opposition. That makes the match score 3-3, but Petts Wood & Orpington win 10-11 on board-count, and so go through to the final.
As Esther Rantzen was fond of saying: "That's life!"

Cup Match

MY game today for Hastings & St Leonards against Petts Wood & Orpington in the semi-finals of the Kent League's Stevenson Cup (155 average) had an anti-climatic finish when my opponent lost material in what was already a very difficult position.

Black to make his 49th move in Spanton (171) - Jean-Baptiste Jugand (184)

Black has the bishop-pair but that does not compensate sufficiently for his poor pawn-structure (weak kingside pawns, a pawn-majority that cannot make a passer).
49...Ne6?
Komodo9 and Stockfish10 give best play as 49...Nb7 50.g4 Be6, when White has a pleasant choice between, among others, 51.Nfe5, 51.g5 and 51.Ng5.
50.Nh4 Bf8
There is nothing better.
51.Nxf5+
White is two pawns up on the kingside and merely has to watch out for tricks on the queenside based on Black capturing on c4 with the idea of creating a far-advanced passed pawn by ...b3 etc. I succeeded in converting my advantage, helping Hastings & St Leonards to a 4-2 win. Unfortunately I am unavailable for the final as I have already committed to a tournament in Germany.

River Chess

NO, River Chess is not the name of a new chess variant, but of a chalk stream rising in the Chilterns near Chesham, Bucks, running to Rickmansworth, Herts.

The Chess near Rickmansworth

I was beside it yesterday when I joined a 10-mile circular walk organised by South Bank Ramblers.
The name of the river has no connection with chess the game, but is derived from the name of the town near where it starts.
The walk's leader told me he is from Orpington and played chess at college, reaching the semi-final of a knockout championship held there.
By coincidence I am due to play for Hastings & St Leonards today in the semi-final of the Kent League 155 average … against Petts Wood & Orpington.

Played Wells

TURNED out for Hastings & St Leonards away to Tunbridge Wells in the open division of the Kent League last night.

Black offered a draw as I was thinking about my 25th move in Spanton (171) - Charlie Metcalfe (157)

*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
25.Rd1
Black's threat of entering at d2 is also easily parried by 25.Rd3. In either case it will be White rather than Black who should gain control of the open file.
25...Nf6 26.Rgd3 Qc7?
Refusing to give up the open file, but losing a pawn. Much the lesser evil was 26...Rxd3, when White has at best a little nagging pressure after 27.Qxd3 or 27.Rxd3, but really the position is equal (but still with plenty of play).
27.Nb5 Qe7 28.Rxd8+ Rxd8 29.Rxd8+ Qxd8 30.Nxa7 (1-0, 56 moves)

Hastings Streak Conquered

MY unbeaten streak for Hastings & St Leonards, which went back to 2011, ended last night away to Rainham in the Kent League (155 average).
OK, the streak only covered eight games, but it was disappointing to lose it the way I did.
Spanton (171) - Andrew Waters (168)
English v Dutch
1.c4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 g6 4.Nc3 Bg7 5.d3
This may look unambitious, and is not liked by my main analysis engines Stockfish10 and Komodo9, but it is the most popular move in the position and has been played by Kasparov, Grischuk and Adams.
5...0-0 6.e4 d6 7.Nge2 c6 8.0-0 Na6 9.d4?!
A novelty, it seems, and probably not a good one. It would have been better to have gone with my original thought of 9.h3.
9...e5
The engines reckon Black should exchange knights on e4, getting a (temporarily) backward e pawn but with pressure down the f file.
10.exf5 gxf5
10...Bxf5 was also possible as the isolani Black gets after 11.dxe5 dxe5 is not easy for White to attack and gives Black active play for his pieces.
11.dxe5?!
It was better to maintain the tension, eg by 11.Bg5, as the hanging pawns Black now gets are not weak and have a Nimzowitschean lust to expand.
11...dxe5 12.Bg5 Nc5 13.Qc2

AW came up with a somewhat counter-intuitive choice here

*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
13...Qd3!?
Normally the player with hanging pawns wants to keep queens on the board as they help his attacking chances, but here exchanging them gets Black's knight to the sixth rank. The question then becomes whether the knight can maintain its position or will be forced to retreat or be exchanged (or, worse, trapped).
Note that 13...Nd3?? would be a blunder due to the pinning reply 14.Rad1.
14.Qxd3 Nxd3 15.b3 Be6 16.Rad1 Rad8 17.Rd2 h6?!
This natural-looking move drives the bishop to a good square. The engines reckon Black should play 17...Nc5, with equal chances.
18.Be3 Ng4?!
A pawn sac that should not work. The engines suggest 18...Nb4 or 18...f4, with an edge for White in either case.
19.Bxa7 f4?
This is definitely a mistake. Best, according to the engines, was 19...e4, with White better after 20.Bb6, 20.f3 (the move I had been planning if Black supported his d3 knight with the e pawn) or 20.Rdd1.

White to play and win

*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
20.Be4??
White is winning easily after 20.Bb6, eg 20...f3 21.Bxf3! or 20...Rd7 21.Rfd1 f3 22.Rxd3 Rxd3 23.Rxd3.
20...Ndxf2 21.Rxd8 Nh3+ 22.Kg2?
White is still very much in the game after 22.Kh1.
22...Rxd8 23.Rd1 Rxd1?!
The engines reckon Black gets a bigger advantage by keeping rooks on, eg by 23...Ra8 or 23...Rf8.
24.Nxd1 Ng5 25.Ndc3??
The final blunder, losing a piece. Correct was 25.Nec3, avoiding a fork at f3. Black then has maybe a tiny edge.
25...Nf6 (0-1, 50 moves)

Close Shave

TURNED out for Hastings & St Leonards last night away to Maidstone in the Kent League (155 Average).
I had black on board two against a 163, with my seven-year Hastings & St Leonards unbeaten streak on the line.
It was quite a poorly played game, with both players missing winning shots.
Not for the first time, I was guilty of trying for too much in an equal position, and eventually we reached the following bishops-of-the-same-colour ending:

White to make his 53rd move in George Hollands (163) - Spanton (167)

White has a huge advantage. His king is more advanced, and two of Black's pawns are on the same-coloured squares as the bishops.
53.Bf7?
White must be close to winning after the simple 53.h4, which fixes Black's kingside pawn-structure, leaving him with two pawns on light squares and effectively unable to create a passed pawn.
I suspect GH missed my next move.
53...Bf3
I considered, but quickly dismissed 53...h4! But it was the better move, and is much preferred by my main analysis engines Komodo9 and Stockfish9.
The point is that after the practically forced 54.gxh4 (anything else allows instant equality with ...hxg3), Black is not in danger on the kingside and can hope to hold the queenside. However, White would still be much better.
54.Bb3?
Advancing the h pawn two squares was still the way to go. 54.Ke3 was also strong,
54...g5 55.a4?
GH offered a draw, which I gratefully accepted. White would still be much better after 55.h4, although now 55...f4 creates counter-chances. The engines give 56.gxf4 gxh4! 57.Ke3, when White is clearly on top but the game continues.
The draw means my seven-year unbeaten streak for Hastings & St Leonards has reached eight games.

White To Play And Win

PLAYED my first game of the season for Hastings & St Leonards last night, in the Kent League (140 Average) at Rainham.

Black has just played the normal-looking 24...Rf8-e8?? in Spanton (167) - David Barnes (161), but now it is White to play and win

****
****
****
****
****
****
****
The game saw 25.Rxe8+? Qxe8 26.Qe5+! Qxe5 (forced) 27.Nxf7+ Kg7 28.Nxe5 (1-0, 54 moves).
But analysis engines point out an immediate win with 25.Qh3!, snagging Black's rook.
My win means I now have a seven-year unbeaten streak for Hastings. That's the good news; the not-so-good news is that the streak consists of seven games.

Marching On

MARCH has been my busiest ever month, as far as I can recall, for team chess.
For Battersea I lost to a 174, drew with a 169, drew with a 159 and beat a 165.
For Sussex I lost to a 173 and beat a 171.
For Hastings & St Leonards I beat a 148 and drew with a 152.

My updated first-season Battersea stats (CLL is Central London League; LL is London League):
Event..............Colour...Grade...Opponent's Grade...Result
CLL................White.....169.........183............................L
CLL................White.....169.........197............................L
LL...................Black.....169.........158............................W
CLL................White.....169.........158............................W
LL....................Black.....169........204............................L
CLL................White....169.........203.............................L
CLL..................Black.....169........180............................L
Eastman Cup...Black.....169........199............................D
CLL.................Black.....163.........172*...........................L
CLL.................White.....163.........153...........................W
LL...................White.....163.........188............................D
CLL.................Black......163.........166...........................L
LL...................White.....163.........150............................D
CLL.................Black.....163.........175............................D
CLL.................White.....163.........174............................L
LL....................White.....163.........169............................D
CLL.................White......163........159............................D
LL....................Black......163........165............................W
*Opponent has no official grade. Last published grade was 172 in 1997, which was pre-recalibration, and he was in the 180s before then.
Overall for Battersea I am +4=6-8 for a grading performance of 164.

Overall for Sussex this season I have lost to a 172, beaten a 169, lost to a 173 and beaten a 171, for a grading performance of 171.

Overall for Hastings & St Leonards this season I have beaten a 156, beaten a 148 and drawn with a 152, for a grading performance of 185.

It is said you can prove anything with statistics. That is an exaggeration but, despite my 185 grading performance for Hastings, there is no way I would rate my results there as better than my results for Sussex.
Indeed, it could be argued that my results for Battersea (no losses against lower-graded opponents, but a win against a higher-graded opponent, and with four of my six draws coming against higher-graded opponents) are better than for either Hastings or Sussex. I guess it is just a quirk of the English Chess Federation grading system.

Team Spanton

PLAYED five team games in the space of eight days.

I lost for Battersea against an Athenaeum 166.
I won for Sussex against a Kent 169.
I won for Hastings against a Tunbridge Wells 156.
I drew for Battersea against a Metropolitan 150.
I drew for Battersea against a West London 175.

My updated Battersea stats:

Date..........Event..............Colour...Grade...Opponent's Grade...Result
14/9/17.....CLL................White.....169.........183............................L
26/10/17...CLL................White.....169.........197............................L
1/11/17.....LL...................Black.....169.........158............................W
2/11/17.....CLL (Div2).....White.....169.........158............................W
15/11/17...LL....................Black.....169........204............................L
16/11/17...CLL (Div2)......White....169.........203.............................L
14/12/17...CLL..................Black.....169........180............................L
19/12/17...Eastman Cup...Black.....169........199............................D
10/1/18.....CLL.................Black.....163.........172*...........................L
16/1/18.....CLL.................White.....163.........153...........................W
17/1/18.....LL (Div 3).......White.....163.........188............................D
1/2/18.......CLL.................Black......163.........166...........................L
7/2/18.......LL (Div 3).......White.....163.........150............................D
8/2/18.......CLL (Div 2).....Black.....163.........175............................D
*Opponent has no official grade. Last published grade was 172 in 1997, which was pre-recalibration, and he was in the 180s before then.

Overall for Battersea I am +3=4-7 for a grading performance of 163.