GM Peter Wells, courtesy of John Upham Photography

BCN wishes Happy Birthday to GM Peter Kenneth Wells (17-iv-1965)

Here is his very brief Wikipedia entry

This was written about Peter aged 13 prior to the Spassky vs the BCF Junior Squad simultaneous display in 1979 :

” St John’s College and Portsmouth. Rating 174. British under-14 co-champion, 1978.”

and from chessgames.com :

“Peter Kenneth Wells was born in Portsmouth, England and became a FIDE Master in 1982, an IM in 1987, and a GM in 1994. He is also a FIDE Senior Trainer (2015).”

Peter Wells (between Harry Golombek and Ray Keene) takes part in the obligatory "Staring at the board" posed picture during the 1985 Varsity Match — Peter Wells (between Harry Golombek and Ray Keene) takes part in the obligatory “Staring at the board” posed picture during the 1985 Varsity Match

[Event "BCF-ch 86th"] [Site "Scarborough"] [Date "1999.08.11"] [Round "10"] [White "Wells, Peter K"] [Black "Ward, Christopher"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "B36"] [WhiteElo "2475"] [BlackElo "2470"] [Annotator "Wells,P"] [PlyCount "81"] [EventDate "1999.08.05"] [EventType "swiss"] [EventRounds "11"] [EventCountry "ENG"] [SourceTitle "CBM 071 Extra"] [Source "ChessBase"] [SourceDate "1999.09.14"] [SourceVersion "1"] [SourceVersionDate "1999.09.14"] [SourceQuality "1"] {[%evp 0,81,19,29,55,19,46,14,24,16,13,18,24,30,17,19,2,20,27,18,-4,30,29,17, 17,38,43,46,55,26,32,16,25,21,7,14,14,42,30,-37,33,0,82,66,66,82,107,52,52,58, 39,72,87,40,82,-53,-19,-68,-31,-81,172,216,216,213,274,279,275,297,312,327,328, 336,553,561,559,559,641,862,945,960,1000,1334,1344,1572]} 1. Nf3 c5 2. c4 g6 $5 {Well, he certainly got his surprise in first. I half expected 2…Nc6 3 Nc3 e5 as we had already had in one quick-play game, or perhaps 2…Nc6 3 Nc3 Nd4!? which seems . I had never seen Chris playing the black side of a Maroczy Bind before, although of course in the ‘pure’ Dragon he is a well known specialist.} 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. e4 Nf6 6. Nc3 d6 7. Be2 Nxd4 8. Qxd4 Bg7 9. Bg5 O-O 10. Qd2 Be6 11. Rc1 {It is also possible to castle here, but I think the text and white’s next two prophylactic moves form the most logical set-up. White prevents tactical breaks ( notably those involving a quick …b5 ) by solidly bolstering his c4 and e4 pawns. Most importantly since there is a high probability of a queen exchange on d2 following black’s …Qa5,there is a strong case for keeping the king in the centre for the ensuing ending ( or more properly perhaps ‘queenless middlegame’ ).} Qa5 12. f3 Rfc8 13. b3 { [%csl Yc4,Ye4][%cal Ga7a6,Gb7b5]} Kf8 $5 {At the time I was very struck by the logic of this move – black also centralises his king, and prepares to answer almost any Nd5 which white may care to throw at him by capturing with the knight, without relying on a tactical defence to e7 ( compare the note on 13… a6. ) Also white has to find a good move, since in the absence of a weakness on b6, there is little mileage in attempting to head for the ending immediately. There are two possible objections to black’s move: 1) White can try to punish it in ‘middle-game’ terms – trying to prove that the king is substantially more vulnerable on f8 and that this justifies a switch to direct attack. This seems in principle a bit doubtful, although it is the course the game eventually takes. 2) White can find a strong preparatory move for the endgame. Since to create play black will have to play …a6 anyway, he may have committed himself to a move ( 13…Kf8!? ) which while generally useful, is not critical in the particular case. This should be a more serious question! } (13... a6 {is the main line. White has two routes to provoke an endgame:} 14. Na4 $5 (14. Nd5 {is now generally acknowledged to be less dangerous in view of} Qxd2+ 15. Kxd2 Nxd5 $5 (15... Bxd5 16. cxd5 $14 Kf8 17. g4 Nd7 18. h4 Bb2 19. Bh6+ Kg8 20. Rxc8+ Rxc8 21. Be3 Bc3+ 22. Kd1 Nc5 23. h5 Bf6 24. g5 Bg7 25. Bf1 $5 {[%cal Yh2c2,Gf1h3,Yh1h2]} Rc7 26. Rh2 Nd7 27. h6 Bh8 28. Bh3 $16 {1-0 Cifuentes Parada,R-Monell,C/Andorra op 1995/EXT 95op (41)}) 16. cxd5 Bd7 17. Rxc8+ Rxc8 $11 {although the argument does rest upon black’s compensation after } 18. Bxe7 $140 Bh6+ (18... Bc3+) 19. Ke1 $8 {Few white players have wanted to test this, although it is not totally clear what is black’s best course. Perhaps} f5 $5 (19... Rc2 20. Bxd6 Bb5 $6 21. Bxb5 axb5 22. Rf1 $14) (19... Rc1+ 20. Bd1) 20. Bxd6 (20. exf5 Bxf5 21. Bxd6 Bb1 $1 $13 {[%cal Rb1a2,Ra2d5]}) 20... fxe4 21. Kf2 (21. fxe4 $2 Rc1+ 22. Bd1 Bg4 $17) 21... e3+ 22. Kg3 Rc2 $132) 14... Qxd2+ (14... Qd8 15. c5 $1 $14) 15. Kxd2 Nd7 (15... Rc6 16. Nc3 Rac8 17. Nd5 Kf8 18. Be3 Nd7 19. h4 $1 {As we shall see, this genaration of play on the king-side is white’s main strategy here.} Bxd5 20. exd5 R6c7 21. h5 Kg8 22. f4 $1 {[%cal Ge2g4]} Nc5 23. Bg4 Ne4+ 24. Kd3 f5 25. Bf3 b5 26. g4 bxc4+ 27. Rxc4 Rxc4 28. bxc4 Nc5+ 29. Bxc5 $1 Rxc5 30. h6 Bf8 31. Kc3 $16 { [%csl Rf8] 1-0 Karpov,A-Kavalek,L/Nica (ol) 1974/Inf 17 (45)}) 16. h4 (16. g4 $5) 16... Kf8 $6 (16... f6 $1 {is the modern approach. One example:} 17. Be3 f5 18. exf5 gxf5 19. Bd3 Rab8 20. Nc3 Nc5 21. Nd5 Kf7 22. g4 Nxd3 23. Kxd3 b5 $132 {0-1 Vaisser,A-Antunes,A/Tilburg 1994/CBM 44 (39)}) 17. h5 h6 18. Be3 g5 19. g3 $1 $40 {[%cal Gf3f4]} Rcb8 20. Nc3 b5 21. Nd5 Bxd5 22. cxd5 b4 23. Rc7 Nc5 24. Bxc5 dxc5 25. f4 Bc3+ 26. Ke3 Rc8 27. Rxc8+ Rxc8 28. e5 {1-0 Psakhis,L-Pigusov, E/USSR 1980/Inf 31 (41)}) 14. h4 $1 {The appeal of this stage of the game is that it is as yet unclear whether I have opted for strategy 1) or 2). In fact, I have a suspicion it was none too clear to me either. Others fail to convince: } (14. Rc2 a6 15. Na4 Qxd2+ 16. Kxd2 Nd7 17. g4 (17. h4 f5 $5) 17... Bd4 18. Rhc1 Ke8 19. Be3 Bxe3+ 20. Kxe3 {1/2-1/2 Agrest,E-Andersson,U/Skelleftea 1999 (20)}) (14. O-O {Another way to switch to the direct attack approach, but black’s counterplay on the queenside could come quite quickly.} a6 15. Be3 Rab8 $6 (15... b5 $1 $132) 16. f4 b5 17. f5 b4 18. fxe6 bxc3 19. Qxc3 Qxa2 20. Bd1 Qa3 21. Bd4 fxe6 22. e5 $40 {1-0 Eising,J-Westerveld,W/Amsterdam 1976/MCL.}) 14... a6 {[%csl Rb6] So there we are – this move is critical to black’s counterplay, despite the potential weakness of b6.} 15. h5 $5 {This probably should be ‘?!’ but it is redeemed because it did provide a high level of entertainment. Objectively better, and in my view fully vindicating 14 h4! is} (15. Na4 $1 Qxd2+ (15... Qd8 $14) 16. Kxd2 Nd7 17. h5 {I had now expected} h6 18. Be3 g5 {considered 19 g3! clearly the way forward, but in ignorance of Psakhis – Pigusov above, failed to comprehend quite how promising this was.}) 15... Rc5 $1 {The point – suddenly there is no going back. White’s next move is just about forced} 16. f4 {[%csl Re1,Re4] Reluctantly – this weakening of e4 seriously adds to black’s counterplay, and emphasises the discomfort of white’s king in the middle.} (16. Bxf6 $6 {hardly comes into consideration, and }) (16. hxg6 $2 Rxg5 17. gxh7 (17. b4 Qxb4 18. Qxg5 hxg6 $17 {[%csl Rc4,Re1] [%cal Gg7c3]}) 17... Rh5 $19) 16... b5 $6 {Maybe black in turn underestimates his opponent’s resources.} (16... Rac8 $1 {was much safer, since after} 17. hxg6 {black can capture with the h-pawn, preparing to answer} hxg6 $1 18. f5 $6 gxf5 19. Bh6 {with} Bxh6 20. Qxh6+ Ke8 {and with his rook protected the black king can run to the queenside.}) 17. hxg6 fxg6 (17... hxg6 18. f5 gxf5 19. Bh6 $40 {[%csl Ra8] is now strong.}) 18. Bxf6 Bxf6 19. Rxh7 Bg8 {Andrew Martin, in his entertaining comments on the Championship web site, here commented: ” White is attempting a hybrid of the Maroczy Bind, Yugoslav Attack and the Levenfish Variation, a marriage made in hell”. In fact after 15…Rc5 my course of action was strictly limited, and the Levenfish element was definitely involuntary. Still, the following sacrifice I was very proud of. Retreat would clearly pass the initiative to black, but after…} 20. e5 $1 { [%mdl 640] there is no way for black to avoid ceding good compensation for the exchange.} dxe5 (20... Bxe5 $5 21. fxe5 (21. Rxe7 $5 Qd8 $1 $132) 21... Bxh7 22. exd6 $44) 21. fxe5 Bg5 $1 (21... Bxh7 22. exf6 Kg8 (22... exf6 $2 {[%csl Rc5]} 23. Qd6+) 23. Qe3 $16 {[%csl Rc5,Rg8,Rh7]}) 22. Qxg5 Bxh7 23. Qh4 $1 { [%csl Rc5,Re7,Rh7][%cal Yh4f2] An important resource which black had overlooked.} Kg8 24. Qxe7 Rc7 $8 {[%cal Gc7g7] Here, sadly in appalling time-trouble my play went to pieces. I had underestimated the extent to which black’s basic defences would be held together by 24…Rc7, and although the position still favours white it is not easy to prove.} 25. Qd6 Re8 26. Kf2 $5 { Even now, when a little concern for the king would be quite understandable, my main concern was to bring in the knight. White has two pawns for the exchange, black’s bishop is out of the play ( although the possibility of …g5 is not to be underestimeted ) and the dark squares around black’s king are weak. Still, the e-pawn’s status as asset or weakness is still up for grabs, and the whole thing is not as good as it looks!} (26. b4 $6 Qa3 27. Kd1 Rcc8 28. Nd5 Rcd8 {Simply gives white a new king problem.}) (26. Bf3 $5 bxc4 27. Bd5+ Kh8 28. b4 Qa3 29. Ne2 Rg7 30. Bxc4 $14) (26. Rc2 $6 g5 $132) 26... Rf7+ 27. Bf3 $2 $138 {[%mdl 8192] This self-pin is disastrous.} (27. Kg3 $1 {Seems the way to confirm e-pawn as asset. Black’s countreplay is greatly curtaimed with …bxc4 no longer a problem.} b4 (27... Qc7 28. Qxc7 Rxc7 29. Nd5 Rf7 30. cxb5 Rxe5 31. Bc4 $16) 28. Nd5 Qxa2 (28... Rd8 29. Qc6 $1 {[%cal Ye5e8]} (29. Qe6 Qxa2 30. Rf1 Rdf8 $13) 29... Qxa2 30. e6 $16) 29. e6 Rff8 30. e7 Qxb3+ 31. Kh2 $16) 27... bxc4 28. e6 Rfe7 (28... Rf6 $5) 29. b4 Qc7 $4 $138 {He who blunders last loses.} (29... Qa3 $1 30. Rc2 g5 $1 {[%csl Rc2,Rc3][%cal Gh7c2] would have completely swung matters in black’s favour.}) 30. Qxc7 Rxc7 31. Nd5 $18 { The rest presents no technical problems even in high time-trouble.} Rce7 32. Nxe7+ Rxe7 33. Rxc4 Kg7 34. Rc6 Ra7 35. Be2 a5 36. b5 Ra8 37. Rc7+ Kh6 38. b6 g5 39. e7 Be4 40. Bf3 Bxf3 41. gxf3 {A great scrap, albeit marred by the consequence of some mutually shocking clock handling.} 1-0 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.