For context and ease of reference, here is Leonard's forum account of the adjudication, written in 2009:
Paul Mc Keown supplied the title of the book Leonard referred to...Leonard Barden wrote: ↑Sat Jan 10, 2009 4:08 pmIt's more than half a century ago and my memory of events has dimmed, but here are some points and recollections.
Oxfordshire had won the county championship for the first time in 1950-1, but did not meet the two strongest teams who often monopolised the final. Middlesex were drawn away to Devon in the quarter-finals and lost with a much weakened team, while Lancashire lost to Cheshire, so we beat these two in the semi-final and final. I was match captain, not because people felt I had any special leadership qualities, but because of an Oxfordshire rule that the county champion automatically got the job. Naturally the following season we hoped to take on Middlesex, the recognised No1. I don't agree with Paul on page 4 above that we dragged out the date for the final, at that time all Oxfordshire and Cambridgeshire fixtures were arranged in university term, and autumn term didn't start till October. Also we played in London, so the final was virtually a home fixture for Middlesex, who had numerous 200+ and British championship players. Middlesex also fiddled their board order a little by putting Harold Israel on No 1, ostensibly because he was county champion but probably also as a sacrifice against Yanofsky, who annotated the game for CHESS along with his controversial analysis. I forget who won the toss but if I did that would explain why we took Black on odd-numbered boards.
It was my policy as captain to pack the team with university players. I think our four dons were Theodore Tylor, the top Englishman at Nottingham 1936, Rupert Cross, a blind former British championship player, Hans Schenk, who had competed against Flohr and Spielmann in pre-war Prague, and Sir Robert Robinson. Chess was popular among students—we had over 100 teams of three taking part in the inter-college event in a 7-round Swiss—and the county team was so strong that David Armstrong, an Australian who had played for Sydney v London in a radio match, wasn't included against Middlesex. I should add that the native Oxfordshire players didn't like my selection policy one bit and the following season there was a coup d'état and a new rule that a certain percentage of the team had to be non-University. Oxfordshire never again contended for the county championship.
I recall that match captains announcing how long till adjudication was quite common at that time, though I did indeed on Yanofsky's prompting make the announcement loudly close to Galvenius. He was a very nervous player, so much so that before the final I seriously considered an offer from amateur hypnotist G Spencer Brown, who had played for Cambridge in a previous Varsity match and was now doing post-graduate work at Oxford, to sooth our Swede's tensions the evening before the match. Unfortunately the Oxford Mail got wind of the plan, ran it as a front page story, and naturally wanted their reporter to sit in on the hypnosis session. Galvenius equally naturally took fright and would have nothing to do with being hypnotised. But I guess he was the one player I could rely on for his reaction to the 5 mins till adjudication announcement. His opponent Joe Stone was a cool and analytical pipe-smoker but I still recall the dirty look he gave me when I made the announcement.
It's not correct to imply as is done above, that Oxfordshire's adjudication analysis was mainly by Yanofsky. If I recall right (I don't have the team lists and results now) there were four for adjudication and we needed 2.5 else Middlesex would win on tie-break. The entire team spent the train journey back to Oxford analysing. Two positions had small advantages but looked drawn. Robinson had a tricky queen ending where Sir Robert himself, an expert correspondence player, produced some subtle analysis to demonstrate a draw. So it all boiled down to Galvenius v Stone where forced play led quickly to R v 3 united pawns, Galvenius having the rook. The four of us, Yanofsky, Tylor, Persitz and myself spent 3-4 days on the position which for a long time seemed not winnable. It was Tylor who found the decisive trick, I think a zugzwang move, and I recall his excited tone as he told me about it.
I did not know that Yanofsky was sending our analysis to CHESS until the post came and I opened my copy of the magazine. I think quite a few people were annoyed with Dan and even more with BH for publishing while the position was still sub judice. That's possibly why BH tried to deflect attention by the stuff about the House of Lords. However at that time in appeals both sides could see each other's analysis and comment on it. I believe Middlesex's final rejected appeal was on some line omitted by Yanofsky. Bob [Wade] certainly had seen the Yanofsky material before his final decision and I recall he was non-committal about it. The same material was in our analysis sent to the BCF.
There was a sequel 40 years later to the 1990s, when I received a review copy of a book by John Nunn. Unfortunately I'm not now sure of the title, but it was pre-Gambit Books and pre-computer checking. In it Nunn had a chapter, or part of a chapter, about Galvenius v Stone and he concluded that the adjudication decision was wrong and that the endgame was a draw! I was gobsmacked, but then I examined the analysis and managed to reconstruct the zugzwang finesse which Tylor had found in 1952 but which Yanofsky, presumably in haste, had omitted and Nunn had also overlooked. I informed Nunn of this and in the next edition of his book he changed his text and confirmed that it was a win after all. I'm really sorry I can't give the book title but hopefully somebody on this forum can track it down from the details provided. If not, go to Nunn himself.
Earlier in the same thread (which was about Bob Wade), Paul had quoted the following:Paul McKeown wrote: ↑Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:24 pmLeonard,
I am delighted to see your detailed and informative response. I can't write at length now, as I'm heading out the door, but two points:
a) I think it was quite normal for Middlesex to play its county champion on the top board; the match records indicate that Bob rarely managed to play board one for years, often playing below the most unlikely sounding individuals.
b) I was aware of the analysis in John Nunn's book; it was called Tactical Chess Endings and I have to say I have been a great fan of the book since I bought it: it is always a treat to dip into it from time to time.
c) I was told that the county delayed the match; you say this is not true, but as you should certainly know better than anyone, then I am happy to accept that.
How to play the End Game in Chess, Leonard Barden, MacMillan, 1975 wrote:A really ambitious team may even adopt slightly dubious techniques to ensure wins on adjudication. When I was match captain of Oxfordshire in the 1951 County Championship final against Middlesex, it was clear ten minutes before adjudication time that the match might well depend on a difficult endgame in progress on a lower board where the Oxfordshire player, a rather nervous Swedish student, I. Galvenius, was opposed by the experienced former international player J. Stone. The Oxfordshire top boards had finished their games and our number one player, Canadian champion, D. A. Yanofsky, pointed out to me that our Swedish player had his hand hovering over a piece and that this could well be a decisive error. What I did as match captain was to announce in a loud voice, just by Galvenius ear, 'It is five minutes to go to adjudication time.' Galvenius's hand jumped in the air and he did not make any move between then and adjudication time. The position went for adjudication, and after three days of analysis by the Oxfordshire top boards (Yanofsky, Tylor, Barden and Persitz) a clever winning line was found, depending on a single tempo in an ending of rook against three pawns. The position was given a win for the Oxfordshire player, and on that game the County Championship was decided.