"Just how good is Doug Hamilton at chess? As the loser in the match, I must praise his tremendous flair for tactics. He is a sort of youthful Labourdonnais. But too praise him too highly would be an all too common kind of egotism. I do not quite know how he might fare against a worthy opponent who would keep the game stodgy. He told me that Bill Geus is particularly effective against him. Geus told me that he did it by steering clear of 'tricky' positions and heading much as possible for endgames.

I fancy, however, that Hamilton has recently improved his skill in endgames and that his weakness would show up rather when he was forced to play positionally in the middle game.

He is particularly good at forcing the game into wild channels. Even when he thus obtains a losing position thereby, he says it is amazing how often he is able to bring off some 'swindle' or other - but agrees that on a higher level it just would not pay. For example, in the sixth game of his match with me, [Purdy and Hamilton had a playoff after coming =1st at the 1964/65 Australian Championship in Hobart, which Hamilton won 6.5 to 1.5] he played what was really 'losing chess' against my Sicilian, and only a beginner's move on my part avoided victory. This would have reduced his lead to one point and left the result fairly open. With more experience behind him, Hamilton would have played solidly to hold the draw. At present his zest for attacking chess is so great that solidity is anathema to him."