Draughts are kept alive by enthusiasts
Draughts is supported by a large number of enthusiasts who have fallen in love with this wonderful game. It is these enthusiasts who strive to promote checkers and support it, putting in incredible effort. It is people like this who create something new or try to somehow “revive” the swamp that sometimes tries to swallow them up. If it weren’t for them… If only…
There are still a few enthusiasts in Bauska who are trying to make draughts competitions exciting and memorable. They are trying to find new formats, and although their experience is still in its infancy, it is very valuable. We would like to express our gratitude to Denijs and Vilhelms Krauklis for providing the material.
Excerpts from some tournament games:
 |
Everts, Rūdolfs Lepsis – Zigmārs, Rumbenieks, Round 3, Rapid In this position, Black could have realized their advantage with precise moves, but they rushed and ended up miraculously escaping. In the game, Black made the move:1…… ba7??… Most likely, it was necessary to play: 1… e5-f4! 2. a3-b4 f4:d2 3. c1:e3 g5-h4 4. e3-f4 f6-e5 5. f4:d6 c7:e5-+ |
 |
Juris, Neimanis – Guntars, Purviņš, Round 5, Rapid
White played carelessly in this position and, instead of the decent move 1. b2-c3 with the possibility of defending, chose the overly aggressive move 1. e1-f2??. In response, Black apparently made a small mistake in realizing their advantage and played 1…. f6-g5? For accurate implementation, it would have been better to stick to the following option: 1…. f6-e5! 2. d4:f6 e7:g5 3. a3-b4 g5-f4 4. b2-a3 h4-g3 5. f2:h4 c7-b6 6. a5:c7 d8:d4 |
 |
Juris, Neimanis – Guntars, Purviņš, Round 5, Rapid
And yet White had a chance to draw at the end of the game. But they failed to take advantage of it. Instead of the obvious move 1. a3-b4!, White played 1. d2-c3?? and went on to lose the game. 1….. f6-e5 2. a3-b4 e5-f4 3. c3-d4 g3-f2 4. g1:e3 f4:d2 5. d4-c5 d2-e1 |
 |
Roberts, Grišins – Zigmārs, Rumbenieks, Round 6, Rapid The game featured a variation of Bodiansky’s Reverse Game with some inaccuracies, but they were quite significant. In the original interpretation, the variation would sound like this: 10.d2-c3 (the game was playedв 10. f2-e3) h6-g5 11. c1-d2 c7-b6 12.a5:c7 d8:d4 13.f2-e3 d4:f2 14.g3:e1 g7-h6 15.b4-c5 d6:b4 16.c3:a5 e7-d6 17.b2-c3 f4-e3 18.d2:f4 g5:e3 19.e1-f2 d6-c5! 20.f2:b6 a7:c5= with a draw without a check for Black
|
 |
Roberts, Grišins – Zigmārs, Rumbenieks, Round 6, Rapid
In this position, White could have achieved victory after Black’s only response: 1….. b8-c7, but in the game they missed the winning variation and played: 2. b2-c3 c7-d6 3. b4-a5? and Black forced a draw with g5-h6! And happiness was possible and close: 2. g5-h6! g7-f6 3. b4-a5+− |
 |
Reinis, Štāls – Denijs, Vilhelms Krauklis, Round 5, Blitz
A series of absurd inaccuracies and the position is distorted several moves in a row. 1…… h4-g3? (the following moves resulted in a draw: 1… e7-d6= 1… b8-a7= 1… e7-f6=) 2. f2:h4 f4-e3 3. h2-g3?...- misses the win (should have been: 3.b6-c7! b8:d6 4.h2-g3!) 3… e7-f6? – misses a chance to draw (should have been: 3…e5-f4! 4.g3:e5 e3-d2! 5.e5-f6 e7:g5 6.h4:f6 d2-c1) 4. b4-c5 e5-d4 5. g3-f4 e3:g5 6. c5:e3…and a draw, so difficult and nerve-wracking. |