My last post featured Mr. Varela narrowing losing to Philip Sells. Continuing the saga of Carlos Varela’s play for the first time in the Schenectady Finals, here is a neat win from the rising scholastic player, Zack Calderone.
If you missed the two recent posts to this blog by Philip Sells on the NYS Scholastic Championship and the Eastern Team Tourney, page back and give them a read. They are timely and excellent reports of important chess events.
Zack loves the tactical side of chess. It is not often he gets caught misunderstanding the tactical tricks that come up when playing on the ragged edge of safety. This time he does. Carlos Varela has had three losses in a row going into this game in the Championship Finals. He did not allow previous results to dampen his ardor, and he maintain his calm demeanor, met aggression with active play and took the full point. Short though it is, today’s game is interesting.
Varela, Carlos - Calderone, Zack [A80]
SCC Finals, Schenectady, NY, 01.03.2012
1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 f5 3.Bf4 Nf6 4.e3,..
Here are three games from the databases showing the ideas the masters have about how to play this line of the Dutch. In the first Franz, against Tal no less, tries the natural idea of finachettoing his light squared Bishop. That’s not such a bad notion, but Tal is Tal and finds a way to win.
(49812) Tal, Mihail - Franz, Joachim [A80]
Riga (4), 08.12.1959
1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 f5 3.Bf4 Nf6 4.e3 b6 5.Nbd2 Bb7 6.c3 Be7 7.Bd3 c5 8.h3 cxd4 9.exd4 Nc6 10.0–0 0–0 11.Re1 Rc8 12.Nc4 Ne4 13.Nfd2 b5 14.Ne3 Nxd2 15.Qxd2 Bg5 16.Nc2 Bxf4 17.Qxf4 Ne7 18.Bxb5 Ng6 19.Qd6 Qg5 20.Qg3 Qd2 21.Rac1 Rf6 22.Bxd7 Rd8 23.Qc7 Rxd7 24.Qxd7 Bxg2 25.Kxg2 Nf4+ 26.Kh1 Qxf2 27.Qe8+ Rf8 28.Qc6 g5 29.Rf1 Qh4 30.Rxf4 Qxh3+ 31.Kg1 Qg3+ 32.Qg2 Qxf4 33.Rf1 Qh4 34.d5 exd5 35.Nd4 1–0
In the second two strong Grandmasters do a careful dance keeping things in balance and trading off material until a draw was certain. Vladimir Kramnik, the former World Champion, in an article he contributed to book by Dvoretsky and Yusupov; Positional Play, Henry Holt, NYC, 1996; said in exchange for weakening his dark squares, Black obtains a space advantage in the Dutch. Kramnik went on to say Black has an easier time playing the positions of the Stonewall Dutch than does White mostly because of the difficulty White has in choosing a plan. His ultimate conclusion was the Stonewall is an entirely useful defense at even the top levels of chess.
(295629) Piket, Jeroen (2615) - Nikolic, Predrag (2635) [A80]
Hoogovens Wijk aan Zee (1), 01.1992
1.Nf3 e6 2.d4 f5 3.Bf4 Nf6 4.e3 Be7 5.h3 0–0 6.c4 d6 7.Nc3 Ne4 8.Nxe4 fxe4 9.Nd2 d5 10.Be2 Nc6 11.Bh2 Bd6 12.Bxd6 Qxd6 13.Rc1 Ne7 14.Qb3 c6 15.0–0 Nf5 16.cxd5 cxd5 17.Rc3 Bd7 18.Rfc1 Bc6 19.Bb5 Bxb5 20.Qxb5 Qe7 21.Rc7 Qg5 22.Qe2 Nd6 23.Qg4 Qxg4 24.hxg4 Rac8 25.Nb3 Rxc7 26.Rxc7 Rf7 27.Rc2 Kf8 28.Kh2 b6 29.Kg3 Ke8 30.Nd2 h6 ½–½
In the third we see some of the ideas from the Varela - Calderone game with the addition of the Q-side fianchetto for Black. Once again that natural idea does not help the Black cause.
(808115) Miltner, Arndt (2380) - Gschwendtner, Michael (2245) [A80]
BL2-Sued 0304 Germany, 2003
1.d4 f5 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bf4 Nf6 4.e3 b6 5.Bd3 Bb7 6.Nbd2 Be7 7.h3 Ne4 8.Qe2 Nxd2 9.Nxd2 c5 10.0–0–0 0–0 11.Rhg1 Nc6 12.c3 cxd4 13.exd4 Bg5 14.Bxg5 Qxg5 15.g4 fxg4 16.Rxg4 Qh6 17.Rdg1 Rf7 18.Rg5 Kh8 19.Rh5 Nxd4 20.cxd4 Bf3 21.Qxf3 Rxf3 22.Rxh6 Rxd3 23.Rh4 Rc8+ 24.Kd1 Rc4 25.Rgg4 g5 26.Rxg5 Rcxd4 27.Rxd4 Rxd4 28.Ke2 Rb4 29.b3 Rh4 30.Rg3 b5 31.Nf3 Re4+ 32.Kd3 Rf4 33.Ke3 Rf6 34.Ne5 1–0
Kramnik’s Stonewall article sets out the conditions where Black is justified in breaking open the K-side with an advance of his g-pawn. One of the key elements is a Bishop trade occurring on f4 with the resulting recapture there by a White pawn. Without that sort of slight weakening of the White formation, the advance of the g-pawn not to work well for Black. It is always interesting to see, or hear Grandmasters explain specific ideas underlying their planning. This is particularly true when the ideas are not widely known.
Another point Kramnik makes is rote play is not the order of the day in the Dutch for either side. First generally, the opening is quite strategic where both sides have to adjust plans in response to the opponent’s disposition of forces. Second and more specifically, White usually thinks about trading off the Black Nb8 when it develops. That is so even if he has to do it with a Knight he took time to get to e5, or giving up his dark squared Bishop. Kramnik believes giving Black the Bishop pair is not a bad idea if Black’s pawns are kept on the light squares.
Most of Kramnik’s remarks were made about lines where White developed his light squares Bishop to g2. He did mention that much of what he said applies to other Dutch lines as well.
All the foregoing is a tremendous amount of palaver to get us to move 4 for Black! However this game goes wrong for Zack pretty quickly. If we are to understand why, some serious thought has to be given to the fundamental schemes for each side.
4..., d5 5.Bd3 c6 6.c3!?,..
I have a liking for this move also and play it frequently against the Dutch. Igor Khenkin, another Russian GM also contributed comments on the Dutch for the Dvoretsky book. His story began with his infatuation with the c2-c3 move combined with the Knight tour g1/h3/f4/d3 in conjunction with Bc1-f4-e5, and the Nb1 traveling to f3 via d2. Khenkin recounts games that led him to concluded c2-c3 can be adequately met by Black’s Stonewall. Khenkin remains devoted to the Knight tour idea. Kramnik takes issue with that in an editorial aside. Kramink believes the Ng1 should go to f3 directly and submit’s a variation or two to back his claim.
Good alternatives here for Varela are; 6 h3, securing the Bf4 from harassment, 6 c4, to create pressure on the Black center, castling now, or 6 Nbd2, keeping open the option of where the c-pawn will go.
6..., Bd6 7.Ne5,..
Superficially the development of the Black Bishop to d6 looks odd. To offer to trade a good Bishop for one that is theoretically not so good runs counter to the general principles set out by Tarrasch and his successors over the last one hundred plus years. The Stonewall Dutch is something of a special case. There are a number of factors to consider: The White Bf4 can go to e5 if unopposed and give itself up for a valuable Black Knight As good as the light squared White Bishop may appear to be, the “stonewall” of pawns; b7, c6, d5, e6, f2, makes problematical its chances for great activity. And, mechanisms exist to improve the usefulness of the ..,Bc8; ..,b7-b6 & ..,Bc8-a6; or the known maneuver; ..,Bc8-d7;..,Bd7-e8; .., Be8-h5. Taken all together, these factors must have motivated White’s 7th move.
Carlos Varela has played rated chess since 1999, but until the last year or two not very frequently. Once he got to play regularly in early 2010, his rating began a steady climb from 1300 to the present 1740 high. I have watched several of his games and played him a time or two in that span. It seemed to me he was under rated. The published numbers did not accurately reflect the skill shown in his over the board performance. Today’s game fits that observation.
7..., 0–0 8.Nd2 Ne4?!
One more of the oddities of the Dutch. Obviously both sides have designs on planting a Knight on an advanced post on the e-file. However timing that move is important. Although both sides want to put a Knight in an advanced e-file outpost, they must consider, and calculate carefully, the advanced Knight being captured by the nearby Bishop. Taking the Knight with the adjacent Bishop turns the dynamic outpost into a static point. Play then can turn to file opening schemes, primarily the f-file, and positional maneuvering becomes a tactical clash.
The most pointed criticism of the text is there’s no immediate reason to rush this occupation. Black can do other useful things; 8..., Qc7; so that the eventual .., Nbd7; will result in pressure against the Bf4, or 8..., c5; obtaining space on the Q-side. The text move is a harbinger of an attack before all the Black pieces are developed. Something that is usually not a good idea.
9.Ndf3 g5?!
And so it comes. There is no immediate tactical refutation, but all of the Black Q-side forces are still in their tents. Even if Black obtains some concession from White with this violent action, he must lose momentum completing his development. The useful moves noted in the previous note are still valid alternatives.
10.Bxe4 gxf4 11.Bd3 Bxe5?!
Somewhat better is 11..., fxe3; damaging the White pawn formation a little.
12.Nxe5 Qg5?
The point that Black must have believed justified the risky play leading to this position.
13.Qf3!?,..
Possible is 13 h4!, and 13..., Qxg2? 14 Ke2 Kh8 15 Rg1 Qh2 16 Nf3 Qh3 17 exf4, gives White a large, almost winning advantage. If Black does not take the g-pawn, then 13..., Qh6 14 exf4 Qxf4? 15 Qh5, is very promising for White. And finally, 14..., Nd7 15 Qf3, with an excellent game for White. The game move allows White to claim some advantage but not as significant as after 13 h4.
13..., fxe3 14.fxe3 Nd7 15.h4 Qg7 16.Nxd7 Bxd7 17.Rh3 Kh8 18.0–0–0?!,..
Black has really not done so badly after White did not go for the best line on move 13. Logical, and conforming to those general principles we have all heard repeatedly, as this move appears, it is not quite as good as the forcing 18 Rg3.
18..., e5 19.Rg3 Qh6?
A puzzling choice. By playing 19..., Qf6; defending the pawn on e5, Black keeps his chances alive after; 20 dxe5 Qxe5 21 Rg5 h6; and the slight advantage White enjoys is not very threatening. The text give up a pawn for complications that turn out to favor White. The affection Mr. Calderone has for tactical play led him astray here. He should have been satisfied with the equality available.
20.dxe5 f4?
This was the point of the Black scheme. It unfortunately is flawed.
21.Rg5 fxe3 22.Qxe3 Qxh4 23.e6! 1–0
This move must have been the one overlooked by Black. After some thought Zack resigned here. The decision was forced by the lines; 23..., Be8 24 Qe5+, with mate the next move, and 23..., Qf4 24 Qxf4 Rxf4 25 Rh1, will require Black to give up a Rook to avoid mate.
It is true that tactics are some huge part of chess, however, the thing Morphy taught the chess world 150 years ago; getting all your pieces involved in the game is the requirement for successful tactical solutions. In this game Zack Calderone forgot the lesson.
More soon.
3.06.2012
3.05.2012
Quick News: Deepak Aaron 2012 New York State Scholastic Champion!
Good morning, world! I happened to be at the state Scholastic Championships in Saratoga Springs over the weekend of March 3rd & 4th just past, and even though I wasn't there as a reporter in any real sense, it occurred to me just now that I could spread some news of interest to the Eastern New York area. It was a tough tournament all around. It seemed as if every section had at least a couple of unexpectedly strong players, given the ages involved. In the Primary Section, for example, the top seed was rated in the 1600s [I incorrectly said this was in the Elementary Reserve in the first version of this post], and in the Elementary Championship section, there were two 1800-rated boys! That's not beyond sixth grade, mind you!
The High School Championship was loaded up with no less than seven masters, a couple of whom were unfamiliar to me. But it's interesting to note that, of those seven, the top two seeds, James Black Jr. and Justus Williams, could have played in the Junior High section--eighth grade and seeded top in the entire tournament! My goodness. Also among the masters present were our well-known local favorite Deepak Aaron and the reigning overall state champion, Michael Chiang. The top three boards from each of the High School and Junior High Championships were given a separate small, quiet room, far from the scrum found everywhere else.
It was a large tournament, with 450 or so pre-registrants and a considerable number of youths who registered at the site. As a matter of fact, because of the number of the latter sort, the first round was delayed by nearly an hour. I don't know the final attendance figures, but suffice it to say that the entire building seemed to have been taken over by young chessplayers and their associates. (There were at least a few of those associates that I never even saw until the awards ceremony--Grandmasters Giorgi Kacheishvili and Joel Benjamin appeared to watch their charges receive trophies!)
Well, not to make a big dissertation of this, because I have to get to work, but the news flash is this: Deepak Aaron is this year's New York State Scholastic (High School) Champion! I watched him dispatch Williams, the defending titleholder, in the final round with a nice game. Mr. Aaron scored six wins from six games! I believe James Black finished second a point back, having himself faced the tournament winner in round four. [Update 3/6/12: Now that I've seen the official crosstable, I find that Mr. Black's actual score was 4 1/2 points.] This means that our friend Mr. Aaron has won the state scholastic title at the high-school level in three years out of four! He'll no longer be eligible to compete for it, since this is his senior year. But what a great run! And this year especially, to notch a perfect score from such a strong field! Deepak will probably get tired of being congratulated by us, but do it anyway the next time you see him. It's well earned!
The High School Championship was loaded up with no less than seven masters, a couple of whom were unfamiliar to me. But it's interesting to note that, of those seven, the top two seeds, James Black Jr. and Justus Williams, could have played in the Junior High section--eighth grade and seeded top in the entire tournament! My goodness. Also among the masters present were our well-known local favorite Deepak Aaron and the reigning overall state champion, Michael Chiang. The top three boards from each of the High School and Junior High Championships were given a separate small, quiet room, far from the scrum found everywhere else.
It was a large tournament, with 450 or so pre-registrants and a considerable number of youths who registered at the site. As a matter of fact, because of the number of the latter sort, the first round was delayed by nearly an hour. I don't know the final attendance figures, but suffice it to say that the entire building seemed to have been taken over by young chessplayers and their associates. (There were at least a few of those associates that I never even saw until the awards ceremony--Grandmasters Giorgi Kacheishvili and Joel Benjamin appeared to watch their charges receive trophies!)
Well, not to make a big dissertation of this, because I have to get to work, but the news flash is this: Deepak Aaron is this year's New York State Scholastic (High School) Champion! I watched him dispatch Williams, the defending titleholder, in the final round with a nice game. Mr. Aaron scored six wins from six games! I believe James Black finished second a point back, having himself faced the tournament winner in round four. [Update 3/6/12: Now that I've seen the official crosstable, I find that Mr. Black's actual score was 4 1/2 points.] This means that our friend Mr. Aaron has won the state scholastic title at the high-school level in three years out of four! He'll no longer be eligible to compete for it, since this is his senior year. But what a great run! And this year especially, to notch a perfect score from such a strong field! Deepak will probably get tired of being congratulated by us, but do it anyway the next time you see him. It's well earned!
3.03.2012
A Second Exciting Game From the SCC Finals
As I mentioned earlier, a close contender for the first game published from the latest round in the Schenectady contests was this exciting battle between a new finalist and a past Champion. Carlos Varela, a teacher from RPI and a stalwart of the RPI team, makes a determined effort to take the full point from Philip Sells. Bill Townsend and I were watching the game and both of us were silently hoping Carlos would play 25 Bxh6. We just wanted to see what would happen. He did and we did. It was an interesting game before and after the 25th move and worth the late night it took to see it to a finish. Enjoy!
Varela, Carlos - Sells, Philip [A46]
SCC Championship Finals Schenectady, NY, 23.02.2012
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bf4 c5 4.e3 cxd4
A not uncommon position from the Torre/London/Colle Systems. Opportunities to transpose into positions from other lines are many. There few games in the databases with strong players on both sides, however here is one with Topalov handling Black against Gata Kamsky from not too long ago. Kamsky had to call on his very considerable skill on the defense hold off Topalov who was challenging then for the number one spot on the FIDE rating list.
(1177976) Kamsky,Gata (2705) - Topalov,Veselin (2772) [A46]
3rd MTel Masters, Sofia (9), 19.05.2007
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bf4 c5 4.e3 cxd4 5.exd4 b6 6.Nbd2 Be7 7.h3 0–0 8.Bd3 Ba6 9.Bxa6 Nxa6 10.0–0 b5 11.c3 Nc7 12.a4 Ncd5 13.Bh2 a6 14.Qb3 Qb6 15.Ra2 d6 16.Rfa1 Rab8 17.axb5 axb5 18.Ra6 Qd8 19.Ra7 Nc7 20.Ne1 Nfd5 21.Nd3 Qd7 22.Nb4 Nxb4 23.Qxb4 Qc6 24.c4 Rfc8 25.cxb5 Qc2 26.Nf1 Nd5 27.Qd2 Qb3 28.Ne3 Bf8 29.Bg3 Nxe3 30.Qxe3 Qxb5 31.Qf3 f6 32.R1a6 Rb6 33.Ra1 Qxb2 34.Bf4 d5 35.Be3 Qc2 36.Kh2 Qg6 37.g3 h5 38.Ra8 Rbc6 39.R1a6 Qf7 40.Bf4 Rc3 41.Qe2 Rc2 42.Qe1 Rxa8 43.Rxa8 Qd7 44.Qb1 Rc8 45.Rxc8 Qxc8 46.Qg6 Qc4 47.Be3 e5 48.dxe5 d4 49.e6 dxe3 50.Qf7+ Kh7 51.Qxh5+ ½–½
5.exd4 Nc6
Mr. Sells takes a different road from Topalov. Also possible is 5..., Qb6; a natural sort move often played when White develops the Bishop to f4. Black has a number of choices here; 5..., h6; 5..., Be7; and others. Which way he goes depends on taste and his future intentions.
6.c3 Be7 7.Bd3 0–0 8.Nbd2 d6 9.Qc2 h6 10.0–0 b6
A feature of the London System is the dark squared White Bishop on f4 outside of his pawn s on dark squares. An idea that is often used by Black is gain time by threatening this actively placed piece. In that vein, Black could have played; 10..., Nh5 11 Be3 f5; when White would almost have to toss a pawn into the pot with 12 d5 exd5 13 Qb6, giving rise to the question; was the harassment of the Bf4 worth the damage to the Black pawn structure? Fischer, who always thought a pawn was worth some trouble, might have said yes, but Mr. Sells wanted to win this game to take clear second in the Championship. He decides to keep any transformation of the position for the future wanting to be fully prepared before opening uo the position.
11.Rfe1 Bb7 12.h3 Rc8 13.a3 Re8 14.Rad1 Bf8
Both sides have bided their time mustering forces to logical squares without really tipping their hands about future intentions. Assessing the position using Silman’s imbalances idea gives the following:
White has a bit more space due to the d-pawn on the 4th rank, but Black has two center pawns to White’s one offsetting that advantage to some extent.
Both sides are pretty much developed. The only difference here is the White Queen has more active possibilities than the Black Queen whose future prospects will be determined by how the game opens up. Initiative is undecided. White has available Nd2-e4, an energetic move that does not seem to lead anywhere right away. The White pieces and pawns point towards an attack on the K-side. This is something Black will have take into consideration when choosing a plan. If a call has to be made regard initiative, White may have greater chances to obtain it.
The pawn formation has taken on the approximate outlines of the Hedgehog formation. In such, Black counts on quietly forming up his forces to make a later break in the center or flank to open the game to his advantage. White has a barrier of pawns which he hopes will fend off the Q-side machinations Black has in mind while White attacks the King
On minor piece placement and the worst piece; the White Bishops are aimed at the Black King. Black will have to detail some units to meet any sudden sacrificial assault. They naturally are the Nf6 and the Bf8. So what is the worst piece? White’s is the Nd2, where can it go to contribute more? Black’s is s toss up between the Re8 and the Bishop and Knight guardians of the K-side. I don’t see a clear path the break up the White attacking formation, so the guardians will have stay on the defensive. This judgment leaves the Re8 as the piece needing improvement.
A look at lines and files reveals both sides have a Rook appropriately on the half-open file in their positions. White has clear diagonals for his Bishops pointing towards the Black King. The Black Bb7 is not too much a factor regards the K-side It has no supporting unit to make threats to g2 real in the face of White’s superiority there. The placement of the White Queen and the Black Rook do offer Black a great deal of control over d5. It is conceivable Black can make something interesting out of the light central squares to distract White from his obvious K-side attack. The center is not clearly defined as yet leaving the possibility open that the character of the game could change dramatically.
In sum: White must attack on the K-side. Black is somewhat constrained the need to hold back reserves to meet the attack. Black has play on the Q-side and the light central squares. This is no great revelation and very common in the Torre/London/Colle Systems complex.
15.Nf1?!,..
Mr. Varela himself was critical of this move. He thought why not go right away to e4. It is more direct but seems to lead to nothing after 15 Ne4 Nxe4 16 Bxe4 Na5; and the likely trade of Bishops has eliminated a good deals of White’s attacking potential. An idea that was not looked at in the post mortem was; 15 Nc4, intending to post the Knight at e3 fighting against the scheme Black carried out in the game of putting a Bishop on d5 and bringing the Knight to c4 via a5. White can get away with it as long as the Black Queen is on the d-file because the counter-stroke .., e6-e5; could leave her exposed to a discovered attack by Bd3-h7+ after a pawn exchange on e5. A downside to the idea is the Knight on e3 obstructs the action of the Rook on the e-file. Carlos may have been too critical of his own choice in the game. Nothing remarkably better is available.
15..., Rc7!?,..
A strange kind of move. The course of the game shows Black intends pressure on the c-file and playing on the light squares c4 and d5, but it looks awkward. White has in hand the counter 16 Ne3, fighting back over the central light squares.
16.Ng3 Kh8
Philip Sells methodically eliminates the h7 checking possibility. That told me he was thinking of the e-pawn advance making any later discovery by a move of the Bd3 far less worrisome.
17.Re2 Qc8 18.Rde1 Ba6
A change of direction. It appears now Black may want to instigate some trades to defang the potential K-side attack.
19.Ne4 Nxe4 20.Rxe4 Bb7
Black changes his mind. The line of play; 20..., Bxd3 21 Qxd3 d5 22 R4e3 Rd7; certainly reduces the chances of a successful K-side attack, but the Black Rooks look very much worse the doubled White Rooks on the e-file. Black can hold, however, winning from that position is doubtful.
White has a choice to make here; with 21 Qa4, he can offer Black a transition to the ending after 21..., Nc4; and a bunch of trades on and near c4 which result in White having a passed a-pawn with a problematical future because of the activity of the Black Rooks, or as in the game, direct K-side attack.
21.R4e3 Na5 22.Nd2 Bd5 23.Rg3,..
Everyone can see now Mr. Varela intends an assault on the Black King. One of the designated defends, the Nf6, is gone, and another attacking unit, the Rg3, has appeared on the scene. White has done a good job of bringing units to the field of battle. The only problem is the coordination of these units
23..., Nc4 24.Ne4!?,..
Superficially, one more piece to participate in the assault, but where does the Knight go from here? While watching the game, I thought something like 24 Bxc4 Bxc4 25 Qd1, or 24 Qd1?, which is unfortunately immediately countered by 24..., Nxb2; might have bettered coordinated the White units for the attack and gotten the Queen into the action.
24..., e5
Just so. Quite like how things happen from the Hedgehop formation. This time it is a center break just as White is in the midst of kicking off the direct assault.
25.Bxh6?!,..
Rybka recommends 25 dxe5, but concludes Black is better after; 25..., dxe5 26 Bxh6 f5 27 Nf6 gxh6 28 Nxd5 Rf7 29 Qb3 b5! This is a line only a computer could love. For a human being to plunge into this morass of tactics would take great confidence in his calculating ability and board sight.
I think White had played up to this point in the game intending such a sacrifice to begin the attack Playing the sacrifice is probably his best chance from a practical point of view . Other Bishop moves give Black a significant edge according to my trusty computer. Bill Townsend and I both were very interested in seeing this move played. Mr. Varela came through for us, although I’m sure not to just to please us.
The advantage now swings back and forth wildly over the next moves. When White’s 25th move was played both players had under twenty minutes remaining on their clocks with the situation on the board becoming more, not less, complicated. That is not much time for either party to calculate in the complications that follow.
25..., exd4?
Ambitious, but it should lead to trouble for Black. Better 25..., f5; and after 26 Nf6 gxf6 27 Bxf8 Rxf8 28 Bxf5 Bd6 29 Bg6 Bf7; and notwithstanding the extra piece, Black probably has to agree to a draw by repeating the dance of the Bishops. If he tries to vary creatively with 29..., Nb2? 30 Re4 Nd3 31 Rh4+ Kg8 32 Qxd3 f5 33 Be8+ Rg7 34 Rxg7+ Kxg7 35 Qg3+ Kf6 36 Qg6+ Ke7 37 Rh7+, and regardless of the material Black will have to offer up the mate is not far distant. I leave it to the readers to work along with several other variations for the alternatives to 32..., f5.
26.Qd1,..
The Queen prepares to add her heavy weight to the assault. Now point counts of material are less meaningful. What is important is the full throated attack and the devil take the straggler.
26..., Bxe4?
Bringing his game very close to dead lost. Black had to try the here the unlikely looking 26..., Qf5; The text allows; 27 Bxg7+ Bxg7 28 Qh5 Kg8 29 Bxe4 Rxe4 30 Rxe4 Ne5 31 Rh4 Ng6 32 Qh7+ Kf8 33 Rf4!, and so on with a winning attack for White. If there were plenty of time finding one’s way through that difficult line is a challenge. Mr. Varela had but fifteen minutes remaining for the entire game and Mr. Sells less. The better move; 26..., Qf5; leads to nothing easy for Black after; 27 Bxc4 Rxe4 28 Bxd5 Qxd5 29 Rxe4 Qxe4 30 Rg4 Qe6; when Black is looking at a pawn down end game with a ragged pawn formation. There is a but here. With 31 Qxd4 Qe1+ 32 Kh2 Qe5; and White probably has to play 33 Qxe5 dxe5; repairing the Black pawns and giving him hopes of holding the game. Of course time is shortening, and these rather involved lines have plenty of scope for errors.
27.Qh5,..
Pretty near winning is 27 Bxg7!+. Then 27..., Bxg7 28 Qh5+ Kg8 29 Bxe4, and White dominates the light squares around the Black King. To play this line White had to be prepared to ignore being down a piece and correctly evaluate the tactics arising out of the powerful position he created on the K-side, Amazingly the text swings the advantage to Black even though on its face the move looks very strong.
27..., gxh6
Also good is 27..., g6. Having two really good replies to the Queen’s jump to h5 indicates just how difficult the game has become. The players gave it their best shot running the clocks down to right around five minutes or less each calculating the ramifications.
28.Rxe4 Rxe4 29.Bxe4 Bg7 30.Bf5 Qe8
During the game I thought it would be better to play 30..., Qf8; right away. Rybka differs and says the text is to be preferred on the slender grounds that at e8 the Black Queen prevents the White Queen from retreating to e2. Mighty Rybka is likely correct. Under circumstances with no time pressure I am not sure a human being would make that judgment unless he was of a very high standard of play. In time pressure, my guess is Philips Sells’ intuition guided him correctly.
The players were now down to two minutes each on the clocks. The final moves were played, perforce, quickly.
31.Qg4 Qf8 32.Be4 Ne5
Critical comments about moves made in great time pressure are not useful. Blitz and time pressure play is about ideas and nerve. If you have some idea that keeps you in the game, play it. Looking for the better move easily can cost the point on time. Sells sees a way to strengthen his King’s house and takes it. Here 32..., Nd2; renders harmless 33 Qf5, by taking off the Bishop. But what if 32..., Nd2 33 Bc2? Black then has to calculate; 33..., Re7 34 Qf5 Re1+ 35 Kh2 Nf1+ 36 Kg1 Ng3+; winning. Not so hard with lots of time, and nearly impossible with seconds left. Side lines and in-between moves would have to be checked. It all takes time that is not available. I know from the conversation after the game the Rook check on e8 and the Knight check on f8 was a piece of the ideas Mr. Sells was pursuing. It’s my guess he went for what he could see clearly with out much calculation.
33.Qf5 Ng6 34.h4,..
There is not much to be done to save the game. Mr. Varela continues his direct assault by threatening 35 h5. Unfortunately for Carlos, Sells has a straight forward finish in mind.
34..., Rc5 35.Qg4 h5 36.Qd7 Qe7 37.Qh3 Qxe4 38.f3 Qe1+ 39.Kh2 Be5 0–1
A near thing for the former Champion, and by no means a bad effort for the new finalist. Carlos Varela had the right idea with the piece sacrifice. It may not have been precisely correct. It was, however, the best practical chance. While I subscribe to Har-Zv1’s rule; play the best moves you can find, don’t go in for swindles. To that rule I’ll add Little’s corollary; if all your choices are bad, take the most active option. Mr. Varela did so here giving us an entertaining game to look at, and he came very close to winning.
Varela, Carlos - Sells, Philip [A46]
SCC Championship Finals Schenectady, NY, 23.02.2012
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bf4 c5 4.e3 cxd4
A not uncommon position from the Torre/London/Colle Systems. Opportunities to transpose into positions from other lines are many. There few games in the databases with strong players on both sides, however here is one with Topalov handling Black against Gata Kamsky from not too long ago. Kamsky had to call on his very considerable skill on the defense hold off Topalov who was challenging then for the number one spot on the FIDE rating list.
(1177976) Kamsky,Gata (2705) - Topalov,Veselin (2772) [A46]
3rd MTel Masters, Sofia (9), 19.05.2007
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bf4 c5 4.e3 cxd4 5.exd4 b6 6.Nbd2 Be7 7.h3 0–0 8.Bd3 Ba6 9.Bxa6 Nxa6 10.0–0 b5 11.c3 Nc7 12.a4 Ncd5 13.Bh2 a6 14.Qb3 Qb6 15.Ra2 d6 16.Rfa1 Rab8 17.axb5 axb5 18.Ra6 Qd8 19.Ra7 Nc7 20.Ne1 Nfd5 21.Nd3 Qd7 22.Nb4 Nxb4 23.Qxb4 Qc6 24.c4 Rfc8 25.cxb5 Qc2 26.Nf1 Nd5 27.Qd2 Qb3 28.Ne3 Bf8 29.Bg3 Nxe3 30.Qxe3 Qxb5 31.Qf3 f6 32.R1a6 Rb6 33.Ra1 Qxb2 34.Bf4 d5 35.Be3 Qc2 36.Kh2 Qg6 37.g3 h5 38.Ra8 Rbc6 39.R1a6 Qf7 40.Bf4 Rc3 41.Qe2 Rc2 42.Qe1 Rxa8 43.Rxa8 Qd7 44.Qb1 Rc8 45.Rxc8 Qxc8 46.Qg6 Qc4 47.Be3 e5 48.dxe5 d4 49.e6 dxe3 50.Qf7+ Kh7 51.Qxh5+ ½–½
5.exd4 Nc6
Mr. Sells takes a different road from Topalov. Also possible is 5..., Qb6; a natural sort move often played when White develops the Bishop to f4. Black has a number of choices here; 5..., h6; 5..., Be7; and others. Which way he goes depends on taste and his future intentions.
6.c3 Be7 7.Bd3 0–0 8.Nbd2 d6 9.Qc2 h6 10.0–0 b6
A feature of the London System is the dark squared White Bishop on f4 outside of his pawn s on dark squares. An idea that is often used by Black is gain time by threatening this actively placed piece. In that vein, Black could have played; 10..., Nh5 11 Be3 f5; when White would almost have to toss a pawn into the pot with 12 d5 exd5 13 Qb6, giving rise to the question; was the harassment of the Bf4 worth the damage to the Black pawn structure? Fischer, who always thought a pawn was worth some trouble, might have said yes, but Mr. Sells wanted to win this game to take clear second in the Championship. He decides to keep any transformation of the position for the future wanting to be fully prepared before opening uo the position.
11.Rfe1 Bb7 12.h3 Rc8 13.a3 Re8 14.Rad1 Bf8
Both sides have bided their time mustering forces to logical squares without really tipping their hands about future intentions. Assessing the position using Silman’s imbalances idea gives the following:
White has a bit more space due to the d-pawn on the 4th rank, but Black has two center pawns to White’s one offsetting that advantage to some extent.
Both sides are pretty much developed. The only difference here is the White Queen has more active possibilities than the Black Queen whose future prospects will be determined by how the game opens up. Initiative is undecided. White has available Nd2-e4, an energetic move that does not seem to lead anywhere right away. The White pieces and pawns point towards an attack on the K-side. This is something Black will have take into consideration when choosing a plan. If a call has to be made regard initiative, White may have greater chances to obtain it.
The pawn formation has taken on the approximate outlines of the Hedgehog formation. In such, Black counts on quietly forming up his forces to make a later break in the center or flank to open the game to his advantage. White has a barrier of pawns which he hopes will fend off the Q-side machinations Black has in mind while White attacks the King
On minor piece placement and the worst piece; the White Bishops are aimed at the Black King. Black will have to detail some units to meet any sudden sacrificial assault. They naturally are the Nf6 and the Bf8. So what is the worst piece? White’s is the Nd2, where can it go to contribute more? Black’s is s toss up between the Re8 and the Bishop and Knight guardians of the K-side. I don’t see a clear path the break up the White attacking formation, so the guardians will have stay on the defensive. This judgment leaves the Re8 as the piece needing improvement.
A look at lines and files reveals both sides have a Rook appropriately on the half-open file in their positions. White has clear diagonals for his Bishops pointing towards the Black King. The Black Bb7 is not too much a factor regards the K-side It has no supporting unit to make threats to g2 real in the face of White’s superiority there. The placement of the White Queen and the Black Rook do offer Black a great deal of control over d5. It is conceivable Black can make something interesting out of the light central squares to distract White from his obvious K-side attack. The center is not clearly defined as yet leaving the possibility open that the character of the game could change dramatically.
In sum: White must attack on the K-side. Black is somewhat constrained the need to hold back reserves to meet the attack. Black has play on the Q-side and the light central squares. This is no great revelation and very common in the Torre/London/Colle Systems complex.
15.Nf1?!,..
Mr. Varela himself was critical of this move. He thought why not go right away to e4. It is more direct but seems to lead to nothing after 15 Ne4 Nxe4 16 Bxe4 Na5; and the likely trade of Bishops has eliminated a good deals of White’s attacking potential. An idea that was not looked at in the post mortem was; 15 Nc4, intending to post the Knight at e3 fighting against the scheme Black carried out in the game of putting a Bishop on d5 and bringing the Knight to c4 via a5. White can get away with it as long as the Black Queen is on the d-file because the counter-stroke .., e6-e5; could leave her exposed to a discovered attack by Bd3-h7+ after a pawn exchange on e5. A downside to the idea is the Knight on e3 obstructs the action of the Rook on the e-file. Carlos may have been too critical of his own choice in the game. Nothing remarkably better is available.
15..., Rc7!?,..
A strange kind of move. The course of the game shows Black intends pressure on the c-file and playing on the light squares c4 and d5, but it looks awkward. White has in hand the counter 16 Ne3, fighting back over the central light squares.
16.Ng3 Kh8
Philip Sells methodically eliminates the h7 checking possibility. That told me he was thinking of the e-pawn advance making any later discovery by a move of the Bd3 far less worrisome.
17.Re2 Qc8 18.Rde1 Ba6
A change of direction. It appears now Black may want to instigate some trades to defang the potential K-side attack.
19.Ne4 Nxe4 20.Rxe4 Bb7
Black changes his mind. The line of play; 20..., Bxd3 21 Qxd3 d5 22 R4e3 Rd7; certainly reduces the chances of a successful K-side attack, but the Black Rooks look very much worse the doubled White Rooks on the e-file. Black can hold, however, winning from that position is doubtful.
White has a choice to make here; with 21 Qa4, he can offer Black a transition to the ending after 21..., Nc4; and a bunch of trades on and near c4 which result in White having a passed a-pawn with a problematical future because of the activity of the Black Rooks, or as in the game, direct K-side attack.
21.R4e3 Na5 22.Nd2 Bd5 23.Rg3,..
Everyone can see now Mr. Varela intends an assault on the Black King. One of the designated defends, the Nf6, is gone, and another attacking unit, the Rg3, has appeared on the scene. White has done a good job of bringing units to the field of battle. The only problem is the coordination of these units
23..., Nc4 24.Ne4!?,..
Superficially, one more piece to participate in the assault, but where does the Knight go from here? While watching the game, I thought something like 24 Bxc4 Bxc4 25 Qd1, or 24 Qd1?, which is unfortunately immediately countered by 24..., Nxb2; might have bettered coordinated the White units for the attack and gotten the Queen into the action.
24..., e5
Just so. Quite like how things happen from the Hedgehop formation. This time it is a center break just as White is in the midst of kicking off the direct assault.
25.Bxh6?!,..
Rybka recommends 25 dxe5, but concludes Black is better after; 25..., dxe5 26 Bxh6 f5 27 Nf6 gxh6 28 Nxd5 Rf7 29 Qb3 b5! This is a line only a computer could love. For a human being to plunge into this morass of tactics would take great confidence in his calculating ability and board sight.
I think White had played up to this point in the game intending such a sacrifice to begin the attack Playing the sacrifice is probably his best chance from a practical point of view . Other Bishop moves give Black a significant edge according to my trusty computer. Bill Townsend and I both were very interested in seeing this move played. Mr. Varela came through for us, although I’m sure not to just to please us.
The advantage now swings back and forth wildly over the next moves. When White’s 25th move was played both players had under twenty minutes remaining on their clocks with the situation on the board becoming more, not less, complicated. That is not much time for either party to calculate in the complications that follow.
25..., exd4?
Ambitious, but it should lead to trouble for Black. Better 25..., f5; and after 26 Nf6 gxf6 27 Bxf8 Rxf8 28 Bxf5 Bd6 29 Bg6 Bf7; and notwithstanding the extra piece, Black probably has to agree to a draw by repeating the dance of the Bishops. If he tries to vary creatively with 29..., Nb2? 30 Re4 Nd3 31 Rh4+ Kg8 32 Qxd3 f5 33 Be8+ Rg7 34 Rxg7+ Kxg7 35 Qg3+ Kf6 36 Qg6+ Ke7 37 Rh7+, and regardless of the material Black will have to offer up the mate is not far distant. I leave it to the readers to work along with several other variations for the alternatives to 32..., f5.
26.Qd1,..
The Queen prepares to add her heavy weight to the assault. Now point counts of material are less meaningful. What is important is the full throated attack and the devil take the straggler.
26..., Bxe4?
Bringing his game very close to dead lost. Black had to try the here the unlikely looking 26..., Qf5; The text allows; 27 Bxg7+ Bxg7 28 Qh5 Kg8 29 Bxe4 Rxe4 30 Rxe4 Ne5 31 Rh4 Ng6 32 Qh7+ Kf8 33 Rf4!, and so on with a winning attack for White. If there were plenty of time finding one’s way through that difficult line is a challenge. Mr. Varela had but fifteen minutes remaining for the entire game and Mr. Sells less. The better move; 26..., Qf5; leads to nothing easy for Black after; 27 Bxc4 Rxe4 28 Bxd5 Qxd5 29 Rxe4 Qxe4 30 Rg4 Qe6; when Black is looking at a pawn down end game with a ragged pawn formation. There is a but here. With 31 Qxd4 Qe1+ 32 Kh2 Qe5; and White probably has to play 33 Qxe5 dxe5; repairing the Black pawns and giving him hopes of holding the game. Of course time is shortening, and these rather involved lines have plenty of scope for errors.
27.Qh5,..
Pretty near winning is 27 Bxg7!+. Then 27..., Bxg7 28 Qh5+ Kg8 29 Bxe4, and White dominates the light squares around the Black King. To play this line White had to be prepared to ignore being down a piece and correctly evaluate the tactics arising out of the powerful position he created on the K-side, Amazingly the text swings the advantage to Black even though on its face the move looks very strong.
27..., gxh6
Also good is 27..., g6. Having two really good replies to the Queen’s jump to h5 indicates just how difficult the game has become. The players gave it their best shot running the clocks down to right around five minutes or less each calculating the ramifications.
28.Rxe4 Rxe4 29.Bxe4 Bg7 30.Bf5 Qe8
During the game I thought it would be better to play 30..., Qf8; right away. Rybka differs and says the text is to be preferred on the slender grounds that at e8 the Black Queen prevents the White Queen from retreating to e2. Mighty Rybka is likely correct. Under circumstances with no time pressure I am not sure a human being would make that judgment unless he was of a very high standard of play. In time pressure, my guess is Philips Sells’ intuition guided him correctly.
The players were now down to two minutes each on the clocks. The final moves were played, perforce, quickly.
31.Qg4 Qf8 32.Be4 Ne5
Critical comments about moves made in great time pressure are not useful. Blitz and time pressure play is about ideas and nerve. If you have some idea that keeps you in the game, play it. Looking for the better move easily can cost the point on time. Sells sees a way to strengthen his King’s house and takes it. Here 32..., Nd2; renders harmless 33 Qf5, by taking off the Bishop. But what if 32..., Nd2 33 Bc2? Black then has to calculate; 33..., Re7 34 Qf5 Re1+ 35 Kh2 Nf1+ 36 Kg1 Ng3+; winning. Not so hard with lots of time, and nearly impossible with seconds left. Side lines and in-between moves would have to be checked. It all takes time that is not available. I know from the conversation after the game the Rook check on e8 and the Knight check on f8 was a piece of the ideas Mr. Sells was pursuing. It’s my guess he went for what he could see clearly with out much calculation.
33.Qf5 Ng6 34.h4,..
There is not much to be done to save the game. Mr. Varela continues his direct assault by threatening 35 h5. Unfortunately for Carlos, Sells has a straight forward finish in mind.
34..., Rc5 35.Qg4 h5 36.Qd7 Qe7 37.Qh3 Qxe4 38.f3 Qe1+ 39.Kh2 Be5 0–1
A near thing for the former Champion, and by no means a bad effort for the new finalist. Carlos Varela had the right idea with the piece sacrifice. It may not have been precisely correct. It was, however, the best practical chance. While I subscribe to Har-Zv1’s rule; play the best moves you can find, don’t go in for swindles. To that rule I’ll add Little’s corollary; if all your choices are bad, take the most active option. Mr. Varela did so here giving us an entertaining game to look at, and he came very close to winning.
3.02.2012
An Upset From the SCC Consolation
Picking a game for today was not easy. Both the Varela - Sells game and this one were full of interest. My prejudice for upsets drove the choice.
Mr. Glessner is very new to serious chess. Before this event he’d played in just nine events in the mid-West and South Carolina and only seventeen rated games! I suspect he has done very much more playing on the internet and maybe had some excellent coaching. The games of his I have watched in this event show much more sophistication than a 1378 rating suggests.
In the contest we will examine, Dilip Aaron uses his special weapon against 1 e4, the Scandinavian Defense. Recently this defense has seen its reputation improve from being very much a secondary kind of tool to an almost fully fledged mainstream debut.
Glessner, Isaiah - Aaron, Dilip [B01]
SCC Consolation Tourney Schenectady, NY, 23.02.2012
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.c4 Qa5
White tries an offbeat line, and Black decides to try to bring play back to more standard lines. There is not much in the way of theory here. Emms in his book; The Scandinavian, Everyman, London, 2004, makes no mention of the move 3 c4. Deep Rybka suggests 3..., Qe4+ 4 Qe2 Qxe2 5 Bxe2 Nc6; gives Black a modest edge after 6 Nf3 e5; because White has some difficulties in getting the d-pawn up to the 4th rank. If you have access to a chess engine, or just like to analyze, try out lines with 6 Nc3 Nd4 7 Nd5. Lots of fun to be had there. My look at these lines have Black coming out on top after some interesting turns. Before moving on, here is some background:
In the old days games such this led folks to doubt the usefulness of the Scandinavian Defense against first-rate opposition.
(5294) Chigorin, Mikhail - Znosko Borovsky, Eugene [B01]
DSB–15.Kongress Nuremberg (14), 1906
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.Nf3 Bg4 5.Be2 Nf6 6.0–0 e6 7.d4 Bd6 8.Nb5 Be7 9.Bf4 Na6 10.c4 c6 11.Nd6+ Bxd6 12.Bxd6 Ne4 13.Ba3 Bxf3 14.Bxf3 Nd2 15.d5 cxd5 16.cxd5 0–0–0 17.Re1 Nc7 18.dxe6 fxe6 19.Bg4 Rhe8 20.Qe2 Kb8 21.Rac1 Rd5 22.Qe3 g6 23.Bc5 e5 24.a3 Nb5 25.Bb4 Qd8 26.Bxd2 Rxd2 27.Rc8+ 1–0
In recent years high level games like this one showed the old Center-Counter Gambit has some bite.
(441878) Barua, Dibyendu (2520) - Speelman, Jonathan S (2625) [B01]
7th Goodricke Open, Calcutta (4), 1996
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 c6 6.Bc4 Bf5 7.Bd2 e6 8.Qe2 Bb4 9.0–0–0 Nbd7 10.Nh4 Bg4 11.f3 Bxc3 12.bxc3 Bh5 13.g4 Bg6 14.Nxg6 hxg6 15.Bb3 Qa3+ 16.Kb1 a5 17.Bc1 Qd6 18.a3 Nd5 19.Qd3 b5 20.c4 bxc4 21.Qxc4 0–0 22.Ka1 Rfb8 23.Ba2 N7b6 24.Qc5 Qxc5 25.dxc5 Na4 26.Rd4 Nac3 27.Bd2 e5 28.Rd3 Nxa2 29.Kxa2 e4 30.fxe4 Nf6 31.Re1 Nxg4 32.Rd6 Rb5 33.Rxc6 Ne5 34.a4 Rbb8 35.Rb6 Rc8 36.Be3 Re8 37.Rb5 Nf3 38.Reb1 Kh7 39.c6 Rac8 40.Rc5 Rxe4 41.Rb3 Ne5 42.c7 Rxa4+ 43.Ra3 Re4 44.Bf2 f5 45.Raxa5 Ng4 46.Bg1 f4 47.h3 Nf6 48.Rab5 Re7 49.Rb4 Rexc7 50.Rxc7 Rxc7 51.Rxf4 Rxc2+ 52.Kb1 Re2 53.Bd4 g5 54.Rf3 Kg6 55.Kc1 Nd5 56.Kd1 Re4 57.Bb2 Ne3+ 58.Kd2 Nc4+ 59.Kd3 Rf4 0–1
There are virtually no master games in the sub-variation used in our game. Here are a couple almost FIDE masters exploring the line in a correspondence game. Notice how the adventurous Black Queen get into trouble here as in Glessner-Aaron game .
(583356) Silveira,Marcos (2215) - Carvalho,Carlos Alberto (2105) [B01]
4th Taca Brasilia Correspondence Championship, Brasilia (8), 24.08.2000
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.c4 Qa5 4.Nc3 c6 5.d3 Nf6 6.Be2 Bf5 7.Nf3 Nbd7 8.Bf4 e6 9.0–0 Bb4 10.Nd4 Bxc3 11.bxc3 0–0 12.Nb3 Qxc3 13.Bd6 c5 14.Bxf8 Rxf8 15.Rc1 Qe5 16.Re1 Qc7 17.d4 Rd8 18.Bf3 h6 19.d5 Ne5 20.Rc3 Nxf3+ 21.Qxf3 Bg4 22.Qg3 Qxg3 23.hxg3 exd5 24.f3 Bc8 25.Nxc5 b6 26.Nb3 d4 27.Rd3 Be6 28.Rxd4 Rxd4 29.Nxd4 Bxc4 30.a3 Nd5 31.Nc6 a5 32.Ne7+ Nxe7 33.Rxe7 a4 34.Kf2 g6 35.g4 g5 36.g3 Kg7 37.f4 b5 38.Ke3 Kf6 39.Rc7 Bf1 40.Kd4 Be2 41.Rc6+ Kg7 42.Rb6 gxf4 43.gxf4 Bxg4 44.Rxb5 h5 45.Ke3 Kg6 46.Rg5+ Kf6 47.Ra5 Bd1 48.Kd2 Bb3 49.Rxh5 Kg6 50.Rb5 f6 51.Rxb3 axb3 52.a4 b2 53.Kc2 Kf5 54.a5 Kxf4 55.a6 Ke3 56.a7 f5 57.a8Q f4 58.Qa7+ 1–0
4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Be2 Bf5
The main attraction for using the Scandinavian for non-professional players is the relatively few lines that need to be studied in preparation for a contest. Compared to the Sicilian, or the double e-pawn defenses, the amount of work is small to achieve a playable middle game position. The downside to specializing in a more-or-less uncomplicated opening such as the Scandinavian is opponents can search out off-beat lines from opening manuals, or dredge up surprises from the internet or their computer engines. One hopes he understands enough about a pet opening to be able to counter such surprises. That is not always the case. Here for example it is better to get in ..,e7-e5; before developing the Bc8. The pawn on e5 will be able exchange itself for the d-pawn leaving a completely open center with equality near at hand.
6.0–0 Bxb1?!
Black falls for a bit of trickery that comes up every so often in many guises; grabbing a poisoned pawn. With only some of his forces developed and his King several moves from castling, Dilip decides to grab a Q-side pawn with his Queen. This a-pawn is just as poisonous as the notorious b-pawn is in the Sicilian Defense.
7.Rxb1 Qxa2 8.Qc2 Nc6 9.d4 e6?
Once more we see a player try ordinary positional methods in a position he provoked requiring dynamic treatment. In the standard Scandinavian positions Black has a shopping list of things to accomplish; Bf5, e6, c6 and Bb4 are all on the list. In most cases positions based on the list work well enough for Black. It is not so much the 3 c5, move that made the position radical, it is the Queen sortie to snatch the a-pawn. Herein is a lesson for the developing and the experienced player; getting so little as a pawn for the time used is fraught with danger. The danger is even greater if your development lags and your King not yet castled.
For good or ill Black should tried; 9..., Nb4!? 10 Qf5, Qa6 11 Ne5 Qd6; when White is still better, but Black has extracted the Queen from the swamp on the Q-side. After 9... Nc4 10 Qf5, Black should not be tempted by the shinny trinket 10..., e6?! Things get interesting in a flash with 11 Qb5+! After that move, all the routine piece values we learn early as chess players, go out the window. Then, 11..., Nd7 12 Qxb7 Rb8 13 Qxc7 Qxb1? (Better 13..., Na6.) 14 Ne5 Rd8 15 Bg5, winning. When the smell of mate is on wind thinking like an accountant is not the way to go.
10.Bd2 Na5
The difficult situation of the Black Queen is forcing him to take measures to get her out of trouble. Doing so prevents dealing with castling and development.
11.Ra1 Qb3 12.Qc1,..
Trading Queens lets Black off the hook.
12..., Nc6 13.d5 Nd8?
If 13..., exd5 14 c5!, points up the absence of squares available to the Black Queen. Mr. Aaron would likely have to try 14..., Bxc5; when 15 Qxc5 Ne4 16 Qe3 Qxb2 17 Rab1 Qf6 18 Rxb7; when the three pawns Black has gotten for his piece are offset by the great activity of the White pieces. This maybe the best try for Black
Some, or all, of the foregoing had to be going through Dilip’s mind to explain this move which leads to annihilation. Another way to try to clarify the situation is; 13..., Nxd5 14 cxd5 Qxd5 15 Bc4 Qh5. This keeps the material balance. What does Black do after 16 Ba6? Then 16..., Bd617 h3 Nd8 18 Ra5, and activity of the White pieces is alarming, but Black is trying to complicate matters. Unfortunately for Black, at this point if White keeps his head clear, the sequence; 18..., f5 19 Bxb7 Nxb7 20 Qc6+ Kf7 21 Ng5+ Kg6 22 Re1, is very strong. Grabbing the a-pawn has sent the Black Queen wandering from pillar to post allowing White to gain time again and again. All that time won turns into a devastating attack.
14.Bd1?!
After sprightly and inspired play, White slips a little bit. The move 14 Ba5!, crowns the work done by White on the theme of surrounding the Black Queen. It is hard to fault a Class C player for not finding the line; 14 Ba5 Bc5 15 Nd2 Be3! 16 Ra3, when the Queen is lost for a Rook. There are not many local club players that would such stuff over the board. The Black Queen’s sad lack of squares is little changed by this slip so White retains a good piece of his advantage after the text.
14...Qb6 15.Ba4+!?,..
Missing the a bit faster finish than in the game; 15 Ba5 Qc5 16 Ba4+ c6 17 b4 Qd6 18 dxc6, and if a) 18..., Nxc6 19 Rd1 Qb1 20 Nd4, wins; or b) 18..., bxc6 19 Rd1, wins; or finally c) 18..., b6 19 c5 Qc7 20 Bxb6 Qxb6 21 c7+ Ke7 22 c8 (Q), wins. White still is winning.
15..., Nd7
No better is 15..., c6; then 16 Ba5 Qc5 17 b4, as in the previous note.
16.Ne5,..
16 Ba5, is still good also.
16..., c6 17.Nxd7 Kxd7
Black’s King is driven out into the cold environs of the middle of the board when all the White heavy pieces, to say nothing of the Bishop pair, are waiting to wrap things up. Further comment is not necessary.
18.Ba5 Qd4 19.Rd1 Qe4 20.dxe6+ Ke7 21.Rd7+ Kf6 [21...Kxe6 22 Qd2, threatening 23 Re1.] 22.Bxd8+ Ke5 23.Qc3+ Kf5 24.Rxf7+ Kg4 25.Qh3# 1–0
Whatever preparation Mr. Glessner put into the game paid off. His coach, if he has one, should be proud. If no coach, then some of our leading players have to worry. There is another “giant killer” coming on from the ranks of the lower rated. A very nice win for Isaiah Glessner!
I have said elsewhere, Dilip sometimes displays over-confidence. So it was in the game. On familiar ground, he thought some risky play can be gotten away with. He had skated on thin ice before against Northrup coming within a hair’s breath of losing late in the game. Here things went out control much earlier, and he was unable overcome the self-created problems. This is not unexpected in young developing players. They’re trying out the limits of their chess imaginations. Sometimes the fantasy of the imagination is just that, fantasy and not the inspiration for creative success.
The good part ff this result is the next couple of rounds of the Consolation event will see several players making serious efforts to; either establish their new reputations, or to repair damage their scores and standings. This will make for interesting chess I am sure.
More soon.
Mr. Glessner is very new to serious chess. Before this event he’d played in just nine events in the mid-West and South Carolina and only seventeen rated games! I suspect he has done very much more playing on the internet and maybe had some excellent coaching. The games of his I have watched in this event show much more sophistication than a 1378 rating suggests.
In the contest we will examine, Dilip Aaron uses his special weapon against 1 e4, the Scandinavian Defense. Recently this defense has seen its reputation improve from being very much a secondary kind of tool to an almost fully fledged mainstream debut.
Glessner, Isaiah - Aaron, Dilip [B01]
SCC Consolation Tourney Schenectady, NY, 23.02.2012
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.c4 Qa5
White tries an offbeat line, and Black decides to try to bring play back to more standard lines. There is not much in the way of theory here. Emms in his book; The Scandinavian, Everyman, London, 2004, makes no mention of the move 3 c4. Deep Rybka suggests 3..., Qe4+ 4 Qe2 Qxe2 5 Bxe2 Nc6; gives Black a modest edge after 6 Nf3 e5; because White has some difficulties in getting the d-pawn up to the 4th rank. If you have access to a chess engine, or just like to analyze, try out lines with 6 Nc3 Nd4 7 Nd5. Lots of fun to be had there. My look at these lines have Black coming out on top after some interesting turns. Before moving on, here is some background:
In the old days games such this led folks to doubt the usefulness of the Scandinavian Defense against first-rate opposition.
(5294) Chigorin, Mikhail - Znosko Borovsky, Eugene [B01]
DSB–15.Kongress Nuremberg (14), 1906
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.Nf3 Bg4 5.Be2 Nf6 6.0–0 e6 7.d4 Bd6 8.Nb5 Be7 9.Bf4 Na6 10.c4 c6 11.Nd6+ Bxd6 12.Bxd6 Ne4 13.Ba3 Bxf3 14.Bxf3 Nd2 15.d5 cxd5 16.cxd5 0–0–0 17.Re1 Nc7 18.dxe6 fxe6 19.Bg4 Rhe8 20.Qe2 Kb8 21.Rac1 Rd5 22.Qe3 g6 23.Bc5 e5 24.a3 Nb5 25.Bb4 Qd8 26.Bxd2 Rxd2 27.Rc8+ 1–0
In recent years high level games like this one showed the old Center-Counter Gambit has some bite.
(441878) Barua, Dibyendu (2520) - Speelman, Jonathan S (2625) [B01]
7th Goodricke Open, Calcutta (4), 1996
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 c6 6.Bc4 Bf5 7.Bd2 e6 8.Qe2 Bb4 9.0–0–0 Nbd7 10.Nh4 Bg4 11.f3 Bxc3 12.bxc3 Bh5 13.g4 Bg6 14.Nxg6 hxg6 15.Bb3 Qa3+ 16.Kb1 a5 17.Bc1 Qd6 18.a3 Nd5 19.Qd3 b5 20.c4 bxc4 21.Qxc4 0–0 22.Ka1 Rfb8 23.Ba2 N7b6 24.Qc5 Qxc5 25.dxc5 Na4 26.Rd4 Nac3 27.Bd2 e5 28.Rd3 Nxa2 29.Kxa2 e4 30.fxe4 Nf6 31.Re1 Nxg4 32.Rd6 Rb5 33.Rxc6 Ne5 34.a4 Rbb8 35.Rb6 Rc8 36.Be3 Re8 37.Rb5 Nf3 38.Reb1 Kh7 39.c6 Rac8 40.Rc5 Rxe4 41.Rb3 Ne5 42.c7 Rxa4+ 43.Ra3 Re4 44.Bf2 f5 45.Raxa5 Ng4 46.Bg1 f4 47.h3 Nf6 48.Rab5 Re7 49.Rb4 Rexc7 50.Rxc7 Rxc7 51.Rxf4 Rxc2+ 52.Kb1 Re2 53.Bd4 g5 54.Rf3 Kg6 55.Kc1 Nd5 56.Kd1 Re4 57.Bb2 Ne3+ 58.Kd2 Nc4+ 59.Kd3 Rf4 0–1
There are virtually no master games in the sub-variation used in our game. Here are a couple almost FIDE masters exploring the line in a correspondence game. Notice how the adventurous Black Queen get into trouble here as in Glessner-Aaron game .
(583356) Silveira,Marcos (2215) - Carvalho,Carlos Alberto (2105) [B01]
4th Taca Brasilia Correspondence Championship, Brasilia (8), 24.08.2000
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.c4 Qa5 4.Nc3 c6 5.d3 Nf6 6.Be2 Bf5 7.Nf3 Nbd7 8.Bf4 e6 9.0–0 Bb4 10.Nd4 Bxc3 11.bxc3 0–0 12.Nb3 Qxc3 13.Bd6 c5 14.Bxf8 Rxf8 15.Rc1 Qe5 16.Re1 Qc7 17.d4 Rd8 18.Bf3 h6 19.d5 Ne5 20.Rc3 Nxf3+ 21.Qxf3 Bg4 22.Qg3 Qxg3 23.hxg3 exd5 24.f3 Bc8 25.Nxc5 b6 26.Nb3 d4 27.Rd3 Be6 28.Rxd4 Rxd4 29.Nxd4 Bxc4 30.a3 Nd5 31.Nc6 a5 32.Ne7+ Nxe7 33.Rxe7 a4 34.Kf2 g6 35.g4 g5 36.g3 Kg7 37.f4 b5 38.Ke3 Kf6 39.Rc7 Bf1 40.Kd4 Be2 41.Rc6+ Kg7 42.Rb6 gxf4 43.gxf4 Bxg4 44.Rxb5 h5 45.Ke3 Kg6 46.Rg5+ Kf6 47.Ra5 Bd1 48.Kd2 Bb3 49.Rxh5 Kg6 50.Rb5 f6 51.Rxb3 axb3 52.a4 b2 53.Kc2 Kf5 54.a5 Kxf4 55.a6 Ke3 56.a7 f5 57.a8Q f4 58.Qa7+ 1–0
4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Be2 Bf5
The main attraction for using the Scandinavian for non-professional players is the relatively few lines that need to be studied in preparation for a contest. Compared to the Sicilian, or the double e-pawn defenses, the amount of work is small to achieve a playable middle game position. The downside to specializing in a more-or-less uncomplicated opening such as the Scandinavian is opponents can search out off-beat lines from opening manuals, or dredge up surprises from the internet or their computer engines. One hopes he understands enough about a pet opening to be able to counter such surprises. That is not always the case. Here for example it is better to get in ..,e7-e5; before developing the Bc8. The pawn on e5 will be able exchange itself for the d-pawn leaving a completely open center with equality near at hand.
6.0–0 Bxb1?!
Black falls for a bit of trickery that comes up every so often in many guises; grabbing a poisoned pawn. With only some of his forces developed and his King several moves from castling, Dilip decides to grab a Q-side pawn with his Queen. This a-pawn is just as poisonous as the notorious b-pawn is in the Sicilian Defense.
7.Rxb1 Qxa2 8.Qc2 Nc6 9.d4 e6?
Once more we see a player try ordinary positional methods in a position he provoked requiring dynamic treatment. In the standard Scandinavian positions Black has a shopping list of things to accomplish; Bf5, e6, c6 and Bb4 are all on the list. In most cases positions based on the list work well enough for Black. It is not so much the 3 c5, move that made the position radical, it is the Queen sortie to snatch the a-pawn. Herein is a lesson for the developing and the experienced player; getting so little as a pawn for the time used is fraught with danger. The danger is even greater if your development lags and your King not yet castled.
For good or ill Black should tried; 9..., Nb4!? 10 Qf5, Qa6 11 Ne5 Qd6; when White is still better, but Black has extracted the Queen from the swamp on the Q-side. After 9... Nc4 10 Qf5, Black should not be tempted by the shinny trinket 10..., e6?! Things get interesting in a flash with 11 Qb5+! After that move, all the routine piece values we learn early as chess players, go out the window. Then, 11..., Nd7 12 Qxb7 Rb8 13 Qxc7 Qxb1? (Better 13..., Na6.) 14 Ne5 Rd8 15 Bg5, winning. When the smell of mate is on wind thinking like an accountant is not the way to go.
10.Bd2 Na5
The difficult situation of the Black Queen is forcing him to take measures to get her out of trouble. Doing so prevents dealing with castling and development.
11.Ra1 Qb3 12.Qc1,..
Trading Queens lets Black off the hook.
12..., Nc6 13.d5 Nd8?
If 13..., exd5 14 c5!, points up the absence of squares available to the Black Queen. Mr. Aaron would likely have to try 14..., Bxc5; when 15 Qxc5 Ne4 16 Qe3 Qxb2 17 Rab1 Qf6 18 Rxb7; when the three pawns Black has gotten for his piece are offset by the great activity of the White pieces. This maybe the best try for Black
Some, or all, of the foregoing had to be going through Dilip’s mind to explain this move which leads to annihilation. Another way to try to clarify the situation is; 13..., Nxd5 14 cxd5 Qxd5 15 Bc4 Qh5. This keeps the material balance. What does Black do after 16 Ba6? Then 16..., Bd617 h3 Nd8 18 Ra5, and activity of the White pieces is alarming, but Black is trying to complicate matters. Unfortunately for Black, at this point if White keeps his head clear, the sequence; 18..., f5 19 Bxb7 Nxb7 20 Qc6+ Kf7 21 Ng5+ Kg6 22 Re1, is very strong. Grabbing the a-pawn has sent the Black Queen wandering from pillar to post allowing White to gain time again and again. All that time won turns into a devastating attack.
14.Bd1?!
After sprightly and inspired play, White slips a little bit. The move 14 Ba5!, crowns the work done by White on the theme of surrounding the Black Queen. It is hard to fault a Class C player for not finding the line; 14 Ba5 Bc5 15 Nd2 Be3! 16 Ra3, when the Queen is lost for a Rook. There are not many local club players that would such stuff over the board. The Black Queen’s sad lack of squares is little changed by this slip so White retains a good piece of his advantage after the text.
14...Qb6 15.Ba4+!?,..
Missing the a bit faster finish than in the game; 15 Ba5 Qc5 16 Ba4+ c6 17 b4 Qd6 18 dxc6, and if a) 18..., Nxc6 19 Rd1 Qb1 20 Nd4, wins; or b) 18..., bxc6 19 Rd1, wins; or finally c) 18..., b6 19 c5 Qc7 20 Bxb6 Qxb6 21 c7+ Ke7 22 c8 (Q), wins. White still is winning.
15..., Nd7
No better is 15..., c6; then 16 Ba5 Qc5 17 b4, as in the previous note.
16.Ne5,..
16 Ba5, is still good also.
16..., c6 17.Nxd7 Kxd7
Black’s King is driven out into the cold environs of the middle of the board when all the White heavy pieces, to say nothing of the Bishop pair, are waiting to wrap things up. Further comment is not necessary.
18.Ba5 Qd4 19.Rd1 Qe4 20.dxe6+ Ke7 21.Rd7+ Kf6 [21...Kxe6 22 Qd2, threatening 23 Re1.] 22.Bxd8+ Ke5 23.Qc3+ Kf5 24.Rxf7+ Kg4 25.Qh3# 1–0
Whatever preparation Mr. Glessner put into the game paid off. His coach, if he has one, should be proud. If no coach, then some of our leading players have to worry. There is another “giant killer” coming on from the ranks of the lower rated. A very nice win for Isaiah Glessner!
I have said elsewhere, Dilip sometimes displays over-confidence. So it was in the game. On familiar ground, he thought some risky play can be gotten away with. He had skated on thin ice before against Northrup coming within a hair’s breath of losing late in the game. Here things went out control much earlier, and he was unable overcome the self-created problems. This is not unexpected in young developing players. They’re trying out the limits of their chess imaginations. Sometimes the fantasy of the imagination is just that, fantasy and not the inspiration for creative success.
The good part ff this result is the next couple of rounds of the Consolation event will see several players making serious efforts to; either establish their new reputations, or to repair damage their scores and standings. This will make for interesting chess I am sure.
More soon.
2.28.2012
2012 US Amateur Team East: Schenectady's role
Once more unto the breach for the Schenectady Chess Club's representatives at
the US Amateur Team East over President's Day weekend! Of this tournament, one
could write almost the same script as last year. We, that is, the Schenectady Chess Club's 'A' team, traveled with mostly the
same team as the past couple of years--in fact, our roster was
precisely the same as it had been two years ago, just in a different board
order: this year we were Philip Sells (your scribe), Alan LeCours, Michael Mockler, and Bill
Townsend. I once again served as captain of the team, which got
the name "The Paul Morphy Re-animation Project". Schenectady's 'B' squad featured John Barnes (an alumnus of
the senior side), club president Richard Chu, and Cory Northrup and Matt Clough,
who've been putting up some promising results of late. Herein, I'm going to
concentrate on the higher-rated of the two teams, because I can give a
first-hand account and I have very little data on the other team's travails in
any case.
Round one was special for us, as we were on Board One! The opposing team was obviously very strong, containing two 2300-level masters, but no titled players. Bill was the first to fold, crashing out in a miniature. After some time had passed, Mike also conceded. That left me and Alan soldiering on. My game had actually been going fairly well, my opponent Martirosov having indulged in an unsound pawn sacrifice. But alas, my time was running rather short (stop me if you've heard this one before), and in a position with only major pieces on the board and several open files, I neglected a couple of obvious chances to push a pawn and secure myself against back-rank mates, whereas my opponent had been much more prudent. I don't think you need me to tell you what happened next. I will say that my opponent's particular method of, shall we say, "execution" of the motif was indeed elegant. Alan seemed to have decent drawing chances for a long time, but by the time I had resigned, things had begun to turn against him--it was around that time that his opponent, Ilya Krasik, had attained a very pleasant ending with same-colored bishops, which, after some moments of odd hesitation and gestures toward a repetition, resolved into a textbook win for the master. I had been a little impatient for Alan to resign so we could get dinner, but on the other hand, there was that one moment when we thought Krasik might miraculously fail to find the correct continuation. But in the end, the match was lost 0-4, just like last year when we were on board ten.
Par for the course so far, I thought. Round two, on board 45, was somewhat less demanding for us, though we made heavy going of it at times. Our opponents in this case were a youth team whose strength on paper at least was well below ours. I was encouraged by Bill's quickish win on the fourth board (I put it that way only because my record shows that his game was the first to finish, but I don't remember this match being particularly brief). After that, though, things began to get a little wobbly. Mike had to take a draw to save what he assured me had been a lost position, which I had no qualms about, since I had my own game well in hand and Alan seemed to be a clean pawn up in another same-colored bishop endgame. But then something odd happened--somehow, Alan let things slip into draw-land (he had in fact declined a draw offer from his opponent at one time), and then managed to lose the pawn ending! I was a little troubled by this, but more for Alan's sake than for that of the team, since, as said, I had been managing my game toward a win. My opponent fought it out all the way to mate, making my game the last of the match to end. So that round we carried 2.5-1.5.
Round three saw us, accelerated pairings being now done with, on board 66, playing a team we had actually defeated last year! Their lineup, too, had changed a bit. My opponent from the previous match was now on board two, and their new top-board man was a German gentleman making a reentry to tournament chess after a long career-related break. On this occasion, we turned in a very nice score of 3.5-0.5, Alan having to accept a draw. The other team's board three was once again showcasing his assortment of funny hats this year; I forget which one he was sporting for this round (he changed hats for each game). In between rounds, we went for lunch and discovered the local Panchero's in so doing, which was a nice experience.
For round four, we unfortunately had not made much progress up the tables, landing on board 62. As in round two, we made things unnecessarily difficult for ourselves, but still eked out a win. Mike shot himself in the foot by miscalculating a rook sacrifice, for which Bill compensated by winning his game next. My game had taken a strange turn in the opening, starting out as an O'Kelly Sicilian and transposing to a kind of weird King's Indian arrangement. Playing White, I found some nifty ways to make my opponent suffer on the queenside. He tried rather despairingly to drum up something against my king, and there was one moment when I played too quickly, forgoing the obvious crusher in exchange for grabbing Black's g-pawn, of all things. This nearly opened the floodgates on my own king, but fortunately I could give up my queen to reach a won ending, which in the event resulted in a quick mate at the time control. To close out the match, Alan agreed another draw that had arisen from an interesting-looking endgame of two bishops (Alan) vs. bishop + knight (Alan's opponent). So 2.5-1.5 for us that time!
Thus we reached Round Five, which for years has been the mountain stopping us from winning top place in our rating bracket. As I said at the top of this post, the story is almost exactly like last year. And just like last year, our round-five encounter put paid to our ambitions. We were paired up on board 28, against a team whose top board was only rated 2200, comparable to the 2156 rating of the team that we faced this time last year. Bill played well and obtained a draw for us as the first of the results to come in. As the match continued, the other team's board three offered Mike a draw. He looked to me for a verdict, and I, considering my own totally lost position and Alan's at the time fairly tolerable-looking one, bade Mike play on if there was any way to go for a win. We might be able to draw the match! We might! But then Alan's opponent detected a really nice combination that left our man in a position suggesting images of Hieronymus Bosch and Quentin Tarantino. I had resigned in the meantime, so suddenly it really didn't matter any more what Mike achieved on board three. Unfortunately, his captain's orders had left him shackled to a cruel game in which his opponent was no longer inclined to extend any draw offers. That game went on so long that some of the rest of us felt the need to get to dinner before it was too late, so I was spared the sight of my teammate walking the plank. Ugly loss, 0.5-3.5, made just a little more unsavory by my feeling of guilt which, in a chess context, I don't recall having ever felt in quite the same way. On the bright side, we found ourselves another burrito-type place, called Qdoba (another chain, not as widespread as Panchero's). The quality here was good as well, though perhaps just a little bit shy of what Panchero's had on offer.
That set the stage for the final round on board 49, which again played out just like last year. Obviously we needed a win and got it, but the opponents showed some tenacity and didn't let us have it all our own way. Bill and Mike won their games relatively soon. My game was rather interesting, playing a hot line in the mainline Caro-Kann, in which my opponent actually made a natural-looking mistake that I didn't quite take full advantage of. Had I been aware of a certain theoretical novelty from a game in 2003, I could have wrapped up the game in style. But alas, I chose a way which, though not bad, resulting as it did in the clean win of a pawn, was definitely not best. It came down to a queen ending in which, though I had that extra pawn, my opponent's queen was so perfectly active that my ambitions were quite frustrated, so I had to repeat moves. Ironically, my sixth-round game last year, occurring in the very same place in the room, almost to the inch, had also ended in a repetition. Poor Alan had to swallow another draw, which left us with a 3-1 match win.
Four match points is not bad, but it's not good enough for an Under-2000 team to win anything at this event, either. Well, enough of my whining about that! One bright spot was the fact that Mike had some good games and seemed to be enjoying himself nicely, so this tournament represented a good uptick for him. Also, Bill Townsend was quite a presence on board four for us, being the team's top individual scorer this year. This goes to show that ... ahh, now, if I start talking about the great confidence that we can place in our third- and fourth-board players, I'll only jinx the operation next year. So I'll just say that even though this year was a bit of a rerun for us, we did still have a good time and produced some good games along the way. Next year, though, we should probably look into some alternative breakfast arrangements, as the diner in Denville doesn't leave quite the favorable impression with us that it once did. And I might suggest--only a suggestion, mind--to my teammates that we modify that habit we've been cultivating in recent years of drinking copious amounts of select wines on the night before round five.... I still wish we'd saved the label from that Albanian Merlot, though! Where the heck is "New Platz", anyway?!
A couple of final notes: Titled players were, as at the last couple of Amateur Team East events, a little thin on the ground. I played no titled opponent this year, for example, not even an FM. There were several grandmasters present all the same, mostly the usual suspects, though reigning Marshall Chess Club champion GM Mikheil Kekelidze played his first Amateur Team. He seemed not to like it very much, commenting to me in passing that it was too noisy. But that's the Parsippany party atmosphere for you. I don't imagine that his impression of the tournament was much improved by Steve Doyle's having mangled his name in the introductions--it came out as "Grandmaster Kekel-dizzy", which Doyle tried to save by blaming his "New Jersey accent". I hope the grandmaster isn't too put off to come back--having a couple of Georgian GMs in the tournament does something to keep the rest of us honest. Robert Hess played, and though he didn't score a 6-0 for himself, he did put up one of the star games of the event in the last round against Goletiani. There were a couple of other very good players of whose presence I was unaware until I saw the crosstable after the fact, such as IM Marc Arnold. Because this tournament is a team event, you can't necessarily pick out the best players in the room strictly on the basis of geography as you might in an individual tournament, where you simply look for the high boards at the far end of the playing hall. At these team affairs, the good players will obviously be on board one, by and large, of their respective teams, but they may still be scattered around one whole half of the room. So some of them can manage to keep a low profile for the entire weekend.
Patrick Chi played on board three for a quite strong youth team that included his fellow junior talent Kapil Chandran; I forget who their board one was. They enjoyed a good run, spending a lot of time behind the ropes. It seems Patrick is starting to make some connections with the young masters elsewhere in the Northeast, which will be good for him as time goes on. One's progress in serious chess toward, and eventually at, master level is made easier, I think, if one can get involved in some of the social networks that exist at the major tournaments around this part of the country. This is one way how, if you're a promising young player, you get introduced to good coaches and people of that sort.
Finally, let me point out that there was a young player at the tournament named--I'm not making this up; he's number 653 on the list in the USCF crosstable of the rated results--Jazz Hooks. To the world's everlasting chagrin, he and the contestant known as Charlie Parker Reeder (again, you can check me on this--#917 on the wallchart) were not paired against each other during the course of the competition. Memo to Steve D.: come on, man, you gotta make it happen next time! Who cares if you have to turn SwissSys inside out?
I've said enough, I think. Thanks to the entire set of our players for carrying the flag!
Round one was special for us, as we were on Board One! The opposing team was obviously very strong, containing two 2300-level masters, but no titled players. Bill was the first to fold, crashing out in a miniature. After some time had passed, Mike also conceded. That left me and Alan soldiering on. My game had actually been going fairly well, my opponent Martirosov having indulged in an unsound pawn sacrifice. But alas, my time was running rather short (stop me if you've heard this one before), and in a position with only major pieces on the board and several open files, I neglected a couple of obvious chances to push a pawn and secure myself against back-rank mates, whereas my opponent had been much more prudent. I don't think you need me to tell you what happened next. I will say that my opponent's particular method of, shall we say, "execution" of the motif was indeed elegant. Alan seemed to have decent drawing chances for a long time, but by the time I had resigned, things had begun to turn against him--it was around that time that his opponent, Ilya Krasik, had attained a very pleasant ending with same-colored bishops, which, after some moments of odd hesitation and gestures toward a repetition, resolved into a textbook win for the master. I had been a little impatient for Alan to resign so we could get dinner, but on the other hand, there was that one moment when we thought Krasik might miraculously fail to find the correct continuation. But in the end, the match was lost 0-4, just like last year when we were on board ten.
Par for the course so far, I thought. Round two, on board 45, was somewhat less demanding for us, though we made heavy going of it at times. Our opponents in this case were a youth team whose strength on paper at least was well below ours. I was encouraged by Bill's quickish win on the fourth board (I put it that way only because my record shows that his game was the first to finish, but I don't remember this match being particularly brief). After that, though, things began to get a little wobbly. Mike had to take a draw to save what he assured me had been a lost position, which I had no qualms about, since I had my own game well in hand and Alan seemed to be a clean pawn up in another same-colored bishop endgame. But then something odd happened--somehow, Alan let things slip into draw-land (he had in fact declined a draw offer from his opponent at one time), and then managed to lose the pawn ending! I was a little troubled by this, but more for Alan's sake than for that of the team, since, as said, I had been managing my game toward a win. My opponent fought it out all the way to mate, making my game the last of the match to end. So that round we carried 2.5-1.5.
Round three saw us, accelerated pairings being now done with, on board 66, playing a team we had actually defeated last year! Their lineup, too, had changed a bit. My opponent from the previous match was now on board two, and their new top-board man was a German gentleman making a reentry to tournament chess after a long career-related break. On this occasion, we turned in a very nice score of 3.5-0.5, Alan having to accept a draw. The other team's board three was once again showcasing his assortment of funny hats this year; I forget which one he was sporting for this round (he changed hats for each game). In between rounds, we went for lunch and discovered the local Panchero's in so doing, which was a nice experience.
For round four, we unfortunately had not made much progress up the tables, landing on board 62. As in round two, we made things unnecessarily difficult for ourselves, but still eked out a win. Mike shot himself in the foot by miscalculating a rook sacrifice, for which Bill compensated by winning his game next. My game had taken a strange turn in the opening, starting out as an O'Kelly Sicilian and transposing to a kind of weird King's Indian arrangement. Playing White, I found some nifty ways to make my opponent suffer on the queenside. He tried rather despairingly to drum up something against my king, and there was one moment when I played too quickly, forgoing the obvious crusher in exchange for grabbing Black's g-pawn, of all things. This nearly opened the floodgates on my own king, but fortunately I could give up my queen to reach a won ending, which in the event resulted in a quick mate at the time control. To close out the match, Alan agreed another draw that had arisen from an interesting-looking endgame of two bishops (Alan) vs. bishop + knight (Alan's opponent). So 2.5-1.5 for us that time!
Thus we reached Round Five, which for years has been the mountain stopping us from winning top place in our rating bracket. As I said at the top of this post, the story is almost exactly like last year. And just like last year, our round-five encounter put paid to our ambitions. We were paired up on board 28, against a team whose top board was only rated 2200, comparable to the 2156 rating of the team that we faced this time last year. Bill played well and obtained a draw for us as the first of the results to come in. As the match continued, the other team's board three offered Mike a draw. He looked to me for a verdict, and I, considering my own totally lost position and Alan's at the time fairly tolerable-looking one, bade Mike play on if there was any way to go for a win. We might be able to draw the match! We might! But then Alan's opponent detected a really nice combination that left our man in a position suggesting images of Hieronymus Bosch and Quentin Tarantino. I had resigned in the meantime, so suddenly it really didn't matter any more what Mike achieved on board three. Unfortunately, his captain's orders had left him shackled to a cruel game in which his opponent was no longer inclined to extend any draw offers. That game went on so long that some of the rest of us felt the need to get to dinner before it was too late, so I was spared the sight of my teammate walking the plank. Ugly loss, 0.5-3.5, made just a little more unsavory by my feeling of guilt which, in a chess context, I don't recall having ever felt in quite the same way. On the bright side, we found ourselves another burrito-type place, called Qdoba (another chain, not as widespread as Panchero's). The quality here was good as well, though perhaps just a little bit shy of what Panchero's had on offer.
That set the stage for the final round on board 49, which again played out just like last year. Obviously we needed a win and got it, but the opponents showed some tenacity and didn't let us have it all our own way. Bill and Mike won their games relatively soon. My game was rather interesting, playing a hot line in the mainline Caro-Kann, in which my opponent actually made a natural-looking mistake that I didn't quite take full advantage of. Had I been aware of a certain theoretical novelty from a game in 2003, I could have wrapped up the game in style. But alas, I chose a way which, though not bad, resulting as it did in the clean win of a pawn, was definitely not best. It came down to a queen ending in which, though I had that extra pawn, my opponent's queen was so perfectly active that my ambitions were quite frustrated, so I had to repeat moves. Ironically, my sixth-round game last year, occurring in the very same place in the room, almost to the inch, had also ended in a repetition. Poor Alan had to swallow another draw, which left us with a 3-1 match win.
Four match points is not bad, but it's not good enough for an Under-2000 team to win anything at this event, either. Well, enough of my whining about that! One bright spot was the fact that Mike had some good games and seemed to be enjoying himself nicely, so this tournament represented a good uptick for him. Also, Bill Townsend was quite a presence on board four for us, being the team's top individual scorer this year. This goes to show that ... ahh, now, if I start talking about the great confidence that we can place in our third- and fourth-board players, I'll only jinx the operation next year. So I'll just say that even though this year was a bit of a rerun for us, we did still have a good time and produced some good games along the way. Next year, though, we should probably look into some alternative breakfast arrangements, as the diner in Denville doesn't leave quite the favorable impression with us that it once did. And I might suggest--only a suggestion, mind--to my teammates that we modify that habit we've been cultivating in recent years of drinking copious amounts of select wines on the night before round five.... I still wish we'd saved the label from that Albanian Merlot, though! Where the heck is "New Platz", anyway?!
A couple of final notes: Titled players were, as at the last couple of Amateur Team East events, a little thin on the ground. I played no titled opponent this year, for example, not even an FM. There were several grandmasters present all the same, mostly the usual suspects, though reigning Marshall Chess Club champion GM Mikheil Kekelidze played his first Amateur Team. He seemed not to like it very much, commenting to me in passing that it was too noisy. But that's the Parsippany party atmosphere for you. I don't imagine that his impression of the tournament was much improved by Steve Doyle's having mangled his name in the introductions--it came out as "Grandmaster Kekel-dizzy", which Doyle tried to save by blaming his "New Jersey accent". I hope the grandmaster isn't too put off to come back--having a couple of Georgian GMs in the tournament does something to keep the rest of us honest. Robert Hess played, and though he didn't score a 6-0 for himself, he did put up one of the star games of the event in the last round against Goletiani. There were a couple of other very good players of whose presence I was unaware until I saw the crosstable after the fact, such as IM Marc Arnold. Because this tournament is a team event, you can't necessarily pick out the best players in the room strictly on the basis of geography as you might in an individual tournament, where you simply look for the high boards at the far end of the playing hall. At these team affairs, the good players will obviously be on board one, by and large, of their respective teams, but they may still be scattered around one whole half of the room. So some of them can manage to keep a low profile for the entire weekend.
Patrick Chi played on board three for a quite strong youth team that included his fellow junior talent Kapil Chandran; I forget who their board one was. They enjoyed a good run, spending a lot of time behind the ropes. It seems Patrick is starting to make some connections with the young masters elsewhere in the Northeast, which will be good for him as time goes on. One's progress in serious chess toward, and eventually at, master level is made easier, I think, if one can get involved in some of the social networks that exist at the major tournaments around this part of the country. This is one way how, if you're a promising young player, you get introduced to good coaches and people of that sort.
Finally, let me point out that there was a young player at the tournament named--I'm not making this up; he's number 653 on the list in the USCF crosstable of the rated results--Jazz Hooks. To the world's everlasting chagrin, he and the contestant known as Charlie Parker Reeder (again, you can check me on this--#917 on the wallchart) were not paired against each other during the course of the competition. Memo to Steve D.: come on, man, you gotta make it happen next time! Who cares if you have to turn SwissSys inside out?
I've said enough, I think. Thanks to the entire set of our players for carrying the flag!
2.25.2012
Howard and Caravaty Lead at AACC
The Albany Area Chess Club began its play-off matches Wednesday evening. Peter Henner and Dean Howard met for the Championship title and Cory Northrup and Chris Caravaty battled for the Under-1800 honors.
Henner won a pawn in the early middle game, and I thought he just might continue his successful run from the preliminaries by winning the first game of this match. That was not to be. As time got short, Mr. Howard showed his formidable creativity under pressure. He found ways to keep the game from simplifying too quickly. After controlling the symmetrical position for a big piece of the game, Mr. Henner missed a tactical idea in time pressure and lost the contest.
In the Under-1800 match Mr. Caravaty won after Cory Northrup self-destructed by dropping the Exchange in the transition from the opening to the middle game. After the error, Mr. Northrup made his usual spirited and creative defense. Chris Caravaty had some hesitation in the face of Northrup’s stubborn defense, but the material and positional advantages of his game were too great for even tough defending to hold off.
Today’s game is the Henner - Howard contest:
Henner, Peter - Howard, Dean [C01]
AACC Championship Playoff Guilderland, NY, 23.02.2012
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.Bd3 Bd6 5.Nf3 Nf6 6.0–0 0–0
There are many, many games in the databases of this debut. At the master and above levels it results in a draw most of the time in games between equals. I thought here these guys going to split this point early.
7.Bg5 Bg4 8.Nbd2 Nbd7 9.h3,..
Sooner or later one side or the other was going to challenge a pinning Bishop. White does so first. As natural as this seems, it is not the way the masters treat the position. Here are two of the best from the early days of last century. Both keep symmetry for as long as possible and arrive at a natural splitting of the point.
Schlechter, Carl - Maroczy, Geza [C01]
Monte Carlo (20), 1903
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.Bd3 Nf6 5.Nf3 Bd6 6.0–0 0–0 7.Bg5 Bg4 8.Nbd2 Nbd7 9.c3 c6 10.Qc2 Qc7 11.Rfe1 Rfe8 12.Bh4 Bh5 13.Bg3 Bxg3 14.hxg3 Bg6 15.Nh4 Bxd3 16.Qxd3 g6 17.Nhf3 a6 18.Qc2 Kg7 19.Rad1 Rxe1+ 20.Rxe1 Re8 21.Qb1 Qb8 22.Kf1 Qd8 23.Rxe8 Qxe8 24.Qe1 Qxe1+ 25.Nxe1 Kf8 26.Ke2 Ke7 27.Nd3 Ne8 28.Nb3 Nd6 29.Nbc5 Nxc5 30.Nxc5 a5 31.Nd3 f6 32.Nc5 b6 ½–½
The text appealed to no well known masters, at least I find none in the databases. The only game in the few found was a very short pro forma draw by a couple of mid-level masters, Abramovic, Bosko (2445) - Padevsky, Nikola (2435) at Pamporovo (11), 1982, where the game was agreed a draw after the 10th move; 10 Re1. The few other games that turned up were by players under 2100 FIDE or unrated.
9..., Bh5 10.c3 c6 11.Qc2 Bg6
The game is essentially symmetrical notwithstanding the Black Bishop on g6. Looking back at the Schechter - Maroczy game, the likelihood is all the Bishops being traded off and most of, or all the heavy piece exchanging on the only open file wit a balanced endgame with Knights. Very likely a draw.
12.Nh4!?,..
White used a chunk of time to find this attempt to unbalance the position. I don’t think there was a lot of deep calculation of variations, rather it was a weighing up of the positions resulting from the several possible trades looking for a potential edge. This kind of effort can be even more trying than calculating many long variations. What is being searched for is small, easily miss-valued and fleeting. Chose an incorrect move order and the jewel you sought may be a piece of coal.
12..., Qc7 13.Nf5!?,..
It is not easy to understand why White wants to exchange on f5 rather than straight away capturing on g6 harming ever so slightly the Black pawn formation.
13..., Bxf5 14.Bxf5 h6 15.Be3 Rfe8
Black is reasonably happy. True, he did surrender the Bishop pair, but he retained the better of his Bishops. White has the two Bishops he wanted, but the dark squared Bishops is not doing much on e3.
16.Rfe1 Nh5?!
Some preparation for this adventurous move might have been in order. Logical and principled is; 16..., Re7; and then let’s suppose White tried the plan he used in the game, 17 Nf3 Rae8 18 Qc1 Ne4, and the capture 19 Bxh6? should give Black a clear advantage after; 19..., gxh6 20 Qxh6 Nf8. At this point, if White tries to strengthen the attack with the natural 21 Ng5??, the brutal blow 21..., Bh2+!; and mate the next by the Knight ends the game. The Black counter-stroke looks logical and obvious when you see it, finding it when considering 19 Bxh6, in this line is not so easy. It is that sort of trick that gets overlooked often.
17.Nf3 Ndf6 18.Qc1 Ne4?
Curious, here are two very strong local players studiously avoiding bringing their last units into the fray. Black moves the Knight yet again when 18..., Re7; prepares to double on the only open file. White for his part has put his Queen on c1 delaying by a couple of moves the active use of the Ra1. Odd to say the least. What may be at work is the real difficulty of navigating a symmetrical position; there is not much in the way of imbalances inherent in the position. Consciously, or unconsciously, imbalances guide good players. Silman’s dictum; improve the unfavorable and exploit the favorable imbalances is really how effective plans are created by good players. In symmetrical positions with few of these guideposts, even good players can lead themselves astray.
The text misses a shot.
19.Bxh6! Nf4?!
If 19..., gxh6? 20 Qxh6 Nef6 21 g4 Bf8 22 Qg5+ Ng7 23 Qxf6, recovers the piece with two extra pawns as interest and a won game for White. Black’s reply shows he was probably surprised by the blow at h6. Absent the surprise, Mr. Howard might have found; 19..., g6 20 Bxe4 dxe4 21 Nd2 f5; when White does have the pawn, but Black has compensation after; 22 Nc4 Bh2+ 23 Kh1 b5 24 Ne3 Bf4 25 Bxf4 Nxf4. The threat of the fork at d3 buys Black another tempo which may be used to speed a Rook to the h-file. Then the focus of the Black Queen, Knight and one, or both Rooks on the K-side makes the White King shiver a bit notwithstanding the comfort of an extra pawn.
20.Bxf4 Bxf4 21.Qc2 Qe7?
Time was beginning to be a worry for Black, he had 10 minutes left to White’s 22 minutes. This was a hasty move in response to that imbalance in time I think. More ordinary stuff, say 21..., Nf6; does not step into a pin down the e-file. Mr. Howard may have concluded ordinary will not be sufficient here. Down a solid pawn without discernable compensation and time ticking away, risks must be taken to gin up something.
22.g3 Qf6 23.Bxe4 dxe4 24.Rxe4!?,..
White had taken his time to get to here; he now had just 11 minutes remaining, while Black had 5 ½ minutes. This move aims at holding the material plus at whatever positional cost. Converting the game to a heavy piece ending by 24 Nh4 Qe7 25 Re2 Bg5 26 Rae1 Bxh4 27 Rxe4, returns the pawn to obtain a much superior piece position after; 27..., Qd7 28 gxh4 Rxe4 29 Qxe4 Qxh3 30 Re3 Qd7 31 Qe7 Rd8 32 a2. White wants now to run Black out of moves counting on eventually making something out of the 7th rank when Black has to trade on e7. One has to feel sympathy for Mr. Henner. Time is shortening and here is a choice between giving back the pawn and making a heroic effort to hang on to it. Surrendering material, even so little as a pawn, for the less concrete advantage of better piece placement is an unpleasant task in any kind of time bind. Doing so here is probably the better choice.
24..., Bxg3 25.Kg2 Bc7 26.Rh4 g6 27.Re4?,..
By now White had caught up (down?) with Black on the time front. Both players had about 5 minutes remaining. With 27 Qd2 Re7 28 Re1 Rae8 29 Rxe7 Rxe7 30 Qd3, White simplifies the game a bit and holds onto his edge.
27..., Kg7 28.Rae1 Rh8 29.Qd2,..
White began to fall behind on the clock now. He took some time over this move and had 1:53 on the clock after making it. Howard was better off by a little bit. The game is in full blitz mode now. It is easier to play blitz if you have a clear tactical point in mind. It is much more difficult to do so if you are on the defensive. Black has the clear tactical point; a sacrificial attack down the h-file, not very sophisticated but sharp. Defending this position White has to rely on alertness and the fundamentals of the position he discovered while working up to this position. With little time for double checking the defense seems to fail more often than the attack in blitz.
The game move loses. White needed to guard against intrusions on the h-file with 29 h4, or defend f3 with 29 R4e3, or even raise the ante with 29 Re7 Rxh3 30 Qd3 Rah8 31 R1e6 Qxe6 (Not 31..., Qf4?? 32 Qxg6+!, with mate to follow.) 32 Rxe6 fxe6; and there is a really difficult fight to be made with not time to think much. White obviously just did not quite see Black’s threat.
29..., Rxh3 30.Ne5?,..
An instant move. The motivation must be to obstruct one line bearing on the White King. Better is 30 Ng1, avoiding the worst. After 30..., Rh2+ 31 Kf1 Bg3; White is in trouble but not yet totally lost. If 30 Kxh3? Qxf3+ 31 Kh4, the only move, and Black mates with the Queen or the Rook on the h-file.
30..., Bxe5
Threatening 31..., Qf3+; and mate on the back rank. If 31 R4e3 Qg5+ 32 Kf1 Bf4; and Black will be a whole Rook ahead soon. After the text mate can not be avoided.
31.dxe5 Qf3+ 0–1
There are players dangerous in regular play, and then there are some even more troublesome in time pressure. Philip Sells and Dean Howard, who both regularly pull off rescues of less promising positions when the flags are close to falling are two such players. These guys, I believe, use the work they put into the position, getting into the time trouble by the way, to find a tactical idea, (point, scheme, or stratagem), to use in the time crunch. They also make every effort to get the initiative. With an idea and the initiative, playing in time trouble is easier. Of course, it helps to have the nerves of a riverboat gambler also.
Thursday evening the Schenectady Club held another round in the Consolation Tourney and make up games from the Finals. Unfortunately, illness, foreign travel and logistics conspired to prevent more games being played. Three games took place: in the Finals Philip Sells won from Carlos Varela in a thoroughly fascinating contest where Varela had real chances to win it. Mr. Varela came up with a sparkling attack that came up short. In the Consolation Matt Clough dropped a point to Cory Northrup, and Isaiah Glessner defeated the tournament leader Dilip Aaron in an upset.
Sells' victory gives him clear second place in the Finals with a 4 - 1 score behind John Phillips at 4 ½ - ½ . No one else in the Finals can reach 4 points.
Glessner, with his win from Aaron, certainly made what had appeared to be a runaway for Aaron, into a wide open contest. At the top of heap; Dilip Aaron 4-1, Herman Calderone 2-1, Isaiah Glessner 2-1, and Chris Caravaty 2 ½ -½ all have chances to win the event.
More soon.
Henner won a pawn in the early middle game, and I thought he just might continue his successful run from the preliminaries by winning the first game of this match. That was not to be. As time got short, Mr. Howard showed his formidable creativity under pressure. He found ways to keep the game from simplifying too quickly. After controlling the symmetrical position for a big piece of the game, Mr. Henner missed a tactical idea in time pressure and lost the contest.
In the Under-1800 match Mr. Caravaty won after Cory Northrup self-destructed by dropping the Exchange in the transition from the opening to the middle game. After the error, Mr. Northrup made his usual spirited and creative defense. Chris Caravaty had some hesitation in the face of Northrup’s stubborn defense, but the material and positional advantages of his game were too great for even tough defending to hold off.
Today’s game is the Henner - Howard contest:
Henner, Peter - Howard, Dean [C01]
AACC Championship Playoff Guilderland, NY, 23.02.2012
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.Bd3 Bd6 5.Nf3 Nf6 6.0–0 0–0
There are many, many games in the databases of this debut. At the master and above levels it results in a draw most of the time in games between equals. I thought here these guys going to split this point early.
7.Bg5 Bg4 8.Nbd2 Nbd7 9.h3,..
Sooner or later one side or the other was going to challenge a pinning Bishop. White does so first. As natural as this seems, it is not the way the masters treat the position. Here are two of the best from the early days of last century. Both keep symmetry for as long as possible and arrive at a natural splitting of the point.
Schlechter, Carl - Maroczy, Geza [C01]
Monte Carlo (20), 1903
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.Bd3 Nf6 5.Nf3 Bd6 6.0–0 0–0 7.Bg5 Bg4 8.Nbd2 Nbd7 9.c3 c6 10.Qc2 Qc7 11.Rfe1 Rfe8 12.Bh4 Bh5 13.Bg3 Bxg3 14.hxg3 Bg6 15.Nh4 Bxd3 16.Qxd3 g6 17.Nhf3 a6 18.Qc2 Kg7 19.Rad1 Rxe1+ 20.Rxe1 Re8 21.Qb1 Qb8 22.Kf1 Qd8 23.Rxe8 Qxe8 24.Qe1 Qxe1+ 25.Nxe1 Kf8 26.Ke2 Ke7 27.Nd3 Ne8 28.Nb3 Nd6 29.Nbc5 Nxc5 30.Nxc5 a5 31.Nd3 f6 32.Nc5 b6 ½–½
The text appealed to no well known masters, at least I find none in the databases. The only game in the few found was a very short pro forma draw by a couple of mid-level masters, Abramovic, Bosko (2445) - Padevsky, Nikola (2435) at Pamporovo (11), 1982, where the game was agreed a draw after the 10th move; 10 Re1. The few other games that turned up were by players under 2100 FIDE or unrated.
9..., Bh5 10.c3 c6 11.Qc2 Bg6
The game is essentially symmetrical notwithstanding the Black Bishop on g6. Looking back at the Schechter - Maroczy game, the likelihood is all the Bishops being traded off and most of, or all the heavy piece exchanging on the only open file wit a balanced endgame with Knights. Very likely a draw.
12.Nh4!?,..
White used a chunk of time to find this attempt to unbalance the position. I don’t think there was a lot of deep calculation of variations, rather it was a weighing up of the positions resulting from the several possible trades looking for a potential edge. This kind of effort can be even more trying than calculating many long variations. What is being searched for is small, easily miss-valued and fleeting. Chose an incorrect move order and the jewel you sought may be a piece of coal.
12..., Qc7 13.Nf5!?,..
It is not easy to understand why White wants to exchange on f5 rather than straight away capturing on g6 harming ever so slightly the Black pawn formation.
13..., Bxf5 14.Bxf5 h6 15.Be3 Rfe8
Black is reasonably happy. True, he did surrender the Bishop pair, but he retained the better of his Bishops. White has the two Bishops he wanted, but the dark squared Bishops is not doing much on e3.
16.Rfe1 Nh5?!
Some preparation for this adventurous move might have been in order. Logical and principled is; 16..., Re7; and then let’s suppose White tried the plan he used in the game, 17 Nf3 Rae8 18 Qc1 Ne4, and the capture 19 Bxh6? should give Black a clear advantage after; 19..., gxh6 20 Qxh6 Nf8. At this point, if White tries to strengthen the attack with the natural 21 Ng5??, the brutal blow 21..., Bh2+!; and mate the next by the Knight ends the game. The Black counter-stroke looks logical and obvious when you see it, finding it when considering 19 Bxh6, in this line is not so easy. It is that sort of trick that gets overlooked often.
17.Nf3 Ndf6 18.Qc1 Ne4?
Curious, here are two very strong local players studiously avoiding bringing their last units into the fray. Black moves the Knight yet again when 18..., Re7; prepares to double on the only open file. White for his part has put his Queen on c1 delaying by a couple of moves the active use of the Ra1. Odd to say the least. What may be at work is the real difficulty of navigating a symmetrical position; there is not much in the way of imbalances inherent in the position. Consciously, or unconsciously, imbalances guide good players. Silman’s dictum; improve the unfavorable and exploit the favorable imbalances is really how effective plans are created by good players. In symmetrical positions with few of these guideposts, even good players can lead themselves astray.
The text misses a shot.
19.Bxh6! Nf4?!
If 19..., gxh6? 20 Qxh6 Nef6 21 g4 Bf8 22 Qg5+ Ng7 23 Qxf6, recovers the piece with two extra pawns as interest and a won game for White. Black’s reply shows he was probably surprised by the blow at h6. Absent the surprise, Mr. Howard might have found; 19..., g6 20 Bxe4 dxe4 21 Nd2 f5; when White does have the pawn, but Black has compensation after; 22 Nc4 Bh2+ 23 Kh1 b5 24 Ne3 Bf4 25 Bxf4 Nxf4. The threat of the fork at d3 buys Black another tempo which may be used to speed a Rook to the h-file. Then the focus of the Black Queen, Knight and one, or both Rooks on the K-side makes the White King shiver a bit notwithstanding the comfort of an extra pawn.
20.Bxf4 Bxf4 21.Qc2 Qe7?
Time was beginning to be a worry for Black, he had 10 minutes left to White’s 22 minutes. This was a hasty move in response to that imbalance in time I think. More ordinary stuff, say 21..., Nf6; does not step into a pin down the e-file. Mr. Howard may have concluded ordinary will not be sufficient here. Down a solid pawn without discernable compensation and time ticking away, risks must be taken to gin up something.
22.g3 Qf6 23.Bxe4 dxe4 24.Rxe4!?,..
White had taken his time to get to here; he now had just 11 minutes remaining, while Black had 5 ½ minutes. This move aims at holding the material plus at whatever positional cost. Converting the game to a heavy piece ending by 24 Nh4 Qe7 25 Re2 Bg5 26 Rae1 Bxh4 27 Rxe4, returns the pawn to obtain a much superior piece position after; 27..., Qd7 28 gxh4 Rxe4 29 Qxe4 Qxh3 30 Re3 Qd7 31 Qe7 Rd8 32 a2. White wants now to run Black out of moves counting on eventually making something out of the 7th rank when Black has to trade on e7. One has to feel sympathy for Mr. Henner. Time is shortening and here is a choice between giving back the pawn and making a heroic effort to hang on to it. Surrendering material, even so little as a pawn, for the less concrete advantage of better piece placement is an unpleasant task in any kind of time bind. Doing so here is probably the better choice.
24..., Bxg3 25.Kg2 Bc7 26.Rh4 g6 27.Re4?,..
By now White had caught up (down?) with Black on the time front. Both players had about 5 minutes remaining. With 27 Qd2 Re7 28 Re1 Rae8 29 Rxe7 Rxe7 30 Qd3, White simplifies the game a bit and holds onto his edge.
27..., Kg7 28.Rae1 Rh8 29.Qd2,..
White began to fall behind on the clock now. He took some time over this move and had 1:53 on the clock after making it. Howard was better off by a little bit. The game is in full blitz mode now. It is easier to play blitz if you have a clear tactical point in mind. It is much more difficult to do so if you are on the defensive. Black has the clear tactical point; a sacrificial attack down the h-file, not very sophisticated but sharp. Defending this position White has to rely on alertness and the fundamentals of the position he discovered while working up to this position. With little time for double checking the defense seems to fail more often than the attack in blitz.
The game move loses. White needed to guard against intrusions on the h-file with 29 h4, or defend f3 with 29 R4e3, or even raise the ante with 29 Re7 Rxh3 30 Qd3 Rah8 31 R1e6 Qxe6 (Not 31..., Qf4?? 32 Qxg6+!, with mate to follow.) 32 Rxe6 fxe6; and there is a really difficult fight to be made with not time to think much. White obviously just did not quite see Black’s threat.
29..., Rxh3 30.Ne5?,..
An instant move. The motivation must be to obstruct one line bearing on the White King. Better is 30 Ng1, avoiding the worst. After 30..., Rh2+ 31 Kf1 Bg3; White is in trouble but not yet totally lost. If 30 Kxh3? Qxf3+ 31 Kh4, the only move, and Black mates with the Queen or the Rook on the h-file.
30..., Bxe5
Threatening 31..., Qf3+; and mate on the back rank. If 31 R4e3 Qg5+ 32 Kf1 Bf4; and Black will be a whole Rook ahead soon. After the text mate can not be avoided.
31.dxe5 Qf3+ 0–1
There are players dangerous in regular play, and then there are some even more troublesome in time pressure. Philip Sells and Dean Howard, who both regularly pull off rescues of less promising positions when the flags are close to falling are two such players. These guys, I believe, use the work they put into the position, getting into the time trouble by the way, to find a tactical idea, (point, scheme, or stratagem), to use in the time crunch. They also make every effort to get the initiative. With an idea and the initiative, playing in time trouble is easier. Of course, it helps to have the nerves of a riverboat gambler also.
Thursday evening the Schenectady Club held another round in the Consolation Tourney and make up games from the Finals. Unfortunately, illness, foreign travel and logistics conspired to prevent more games being played. Three games took place: in the Finals Philip Sells won from Carlos Varela in a thoroughly fascinating contest where Varela had real chances to win it. Mr. Varela came up with a sparkling attack that came up short. In the Consolation Matt Clough dropped a point to Cory Northrup, and Isaiah Glessner defeated the tournament leader Dilip Aaron in an upset.
Sells' victory gives him clear second place in the Finals with a 4 - 1 score behind John Phillips at 4 ½ - ½ . No one else in the Finals can reach 4 points.
Glessner, with his win from Aaron, certainly made what had appeared to be a runaway for Aaron, into a wide open contest. At the top of heap; Dilip Aaron 4-1, Herman Calderone 2-1, Isaiah Glessner 2-1, and Chris Caravaty 2 ½ -½ all have chances to win the event.
More soon.
2.24.2012
A Typical Game from the Consolation Tourney
It is not always possible to publish here local games in strict chronological order. The desire to tell the stories of title competitions and upsets push the tales of games with ratings outcomes predicted by the ratings back down the queue. Today’s game is one such.
Matt Clough and Dilip Aaron both came on the scene not too long ago. Dilip is much the younger man and a rising scholastic star. Matt, an adult, who came later in his life to competitive chess. Matt broke into chess in 2008. Dilip, from a family of chess players, began his competitive career a few years earlier in 2003 as a grade school student. Dilip has climbed the ladder of competition to be one of the stronger scholastic players locally with a high Class B rating. Matt made good progress also. He has reached a high Class C rating. I am sure Mr. Clough looked at this game as an opportunity to make a step forward if he could win this contest. Mr. Aaron probably expected to win, but a single rating class difference is no lock for the higher rated player. On to the game:
Clough, Matthew - Aaron, Dilip [D47]
SCC Consolation Tourney Schenectady, NY, 10.02.2012
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 Nf6 4.Nc3 c6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3,..
Very much mainstream theory.
6..., Be7
Still theory, but Dilip takes a less popular path. Capturing on c4 is by far the most frequently chosen move. Other Bf8 deployments to d6 or b4 are also more popular than the text. The move played in the game isn’t bad, it is just less active and quieter. A hundred years ago Cohn defeated one of the strongest Russian players of the day when Bernstein tried the move:
(6824) Cohn, Erich - Bernstein, Ossip [D47]
St Petersburg, 1909
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 e6 4.Nc3 c6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 Be7 7.0–0 dxc4 8.Bxc4 b5 9.Bd3 a6 10.e4 Bb7 11.Qe2 c5 12.Rd1 c4 13.Bc2 0–0 14.Bg5 Re8 15.e5 Nd5 16.Ne4 Nf8 17.Nd6 Bxg5 18.Nxb7 Qe7 19.Nd6 Reb8 20.Be4 Ra7 21.Bxd5 exd5 22.Nxg5 Qxg5 23.Qf3 b4 24.Qxd5 c3 25.bxc3 bxc3 26.Qc5 Rd7 27.Qxc3 Ne6 28.Qg3 Qh5 29.f4 h6 30.Rab1 Rb2 31.Qc3 Rxg2+ 32.Kxg2 Nxf4+ 33.Kh1 Rxd6 34.Rf1 Rxd4 35.Qxd4 1–0
The move 6..., Be7; showed up infrequently in the games of the elite in the next decades. White had success against it when it did appear. Here is one of the few Black victories:
(15151) Johner, Hans - Bogoljubow, Efim [D46]
Bern (6), 1932
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 e6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 Be7 7.0–0 0–0 8.Qe2 dxc4 9.Bxc4 b5 10.Bb3 b4 11.Nb1 c5 12.Rd1 Bb7 13.Nbd2 Qc7 14.Bc4 a5 15.a4 Nb6 16.Bd3 Rfd8 17.Nc4 Nxc4 18.Bxc4 cxd4 19.Rxd4 Ne4 20.Bd3 Nc5 21.Qc2 e5 22.Rxd8+ Rxd8 23.Bc4 Be4 24.Qe2 Bd3 25.Bxd3 Nxd3 26.Qd2 Nxb2 0–1
Of course Bogoljubow was one of the strongest players in the world at the time and a recent challenger for the world title, so a win with a doubtful line of play against a more ordinary master should not surprise.
In more recent times this development of the Black Bishop has been seen less and less done by the top players. One of the few examples is:
(344226) Gelfand, Boris (2690) - Ljubojevic, Ljubomir (2605) [D46]
11th Linares (10), 1993
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 Be7 7.0–0 0–0 8.Qe2 b6 9.e4 dxe4 10.Nxe4 c5 11.Nxf6+ Nxf6 12.Rd1 cxd4 13.Bf4 Bc5 14.Be5 Bb7 15.Nxd4 Nd7 16.Nb3 Qg5 17.Bg3 Rad8 18.Nxc5 Nxc5 19.Bc2 f5 20.f3 f4 21.Bf2 e5 22.b4 Nd7 23.c5 bxc5 24.bxc5 Kh8 25.h4 Qh5 26.Qb5 Bxf3 27.gxf3 Qxf3 28.Qd3 Qg4+ 29.Kh2 e4 30.Qxe4 Nf6 31.Qg2 Qe2 32.Rxd8 Rxd8 33.Rg1 g6 34.Be1 Qc4 35.Rf1 Re8 36.Bb3 Qxc5 37.Qb2 Kg7 38.Bc3 f3 39.Bxf6+ Kh6 40.Qd2+ Kh5 41.Qd5+ Qxd5 42.Bxd5 Re2+ 43.Kg3 1–0
Gelfand, one the leading lights of those days twenty years ago when Kasparov still roamed the chess world, and is the current challenger for the world title(!), had worked out the approach, the central counter-attack, demonstrated in the above game several years before. As Gelfand’s idea became widely known, the move, 6..., Be7; declined even more in popularity with the Grandmasters.
7.0–0 dxc4 8.Bxc4 b5 9.Bd3 Bb7
When we look at some of the games cited above, and other examples in the databases, we see Black more often chooses to push the b-pawn to b4 displacing the Nc3. Taking up the Meran triangle; a6, b5, c6, is not a common occurrence. Why? It seems grabbing space on the Q-side is more useful for Black.
10.Qe2!?,..
A bit questionable. The standard answer here is 10 e4, immediately reacting to the Q-wing maneuvering with action in the center a la Gelfand. Given time Black will get in .., c3-c5;
10..., a6 11.a3?!,..
White’s eye is attracted to potential problems arising from an eventual .., b5-b4. What’s better? The main requirement is to recognize the position for what it is and what can be done. Stopping .., c6-c5; is not possible, White has no lead in development and the Black Bishops are just a bit better placed than are White’s - where can the Bc1 go? The facts on the board tell White to head for a line that trades off minor pieces and lets him complete development.
A logical try for the Bc1 is b2-b4, and Bc1-b2. That scheme has to be calculated carefully because the advance of the b-pawn may leave a minor piece on the c-file under defended to a Black heavy piece appearing there. If White has to delay the b4 push, the Bc1 stays home and underfoot. So this is the moment to deal with the transition to a playable middle game. Two paths emerge; 11 a4 b4 12 Ne4 Nxe4 13 Bxe4 Nf6 14 Bc2 c5 15 dxc5 Bxc5 16 b3, with further trades of minor pieces to come, and White aims for equality, or 11 e4 c5 12 e5 Nd5 13 Rd1 cxd4 14 Nxd5 Bxd5 15 Nxd4, and White can find employment for the Bc1. Either way the game is equal, or close to it. Instead, the text should result in Black obtaining a positional plus.
11..., c5 12.dxc5 Nxc5 13.Rd1!?,..
A little better is 13 Bc2, preserving the Bishop pair.
13..., Qc7?!?
There is no good reason to pass on playing 13..., Nxd3; reaching a position where the two Bishops will give Black the long term initiative. White can try 14 Rxd3 Qc7 15 e4, but further advance of the e-pawn will likely give space behind the White lines that the Bishops can use.
14.Bc2 0–0 15.e4 Rfd8 16.Bg5,..
Black has had a very slight edge for the last few moves. White is counting this Bishop being driven to h4 and then g3 to oppose the Black Queen. Then either Black interposes his dark squared Bishop and there is a trade, or the Queen is pushed away.
16..., h6 17.Bh4 Qc6?
With a single move we can sometimes wreck our chances. Better choices are available. Either 17..., Ncd7; preparing to send the Knight to f8 anticipating the Nf6 being forced away from defense of the Black King by e4-e5 soon, or 17..., Rac8; getting the last piece into action. The text misses the powerful shot, 18 e5!, and then 18..., Nd5 19 Nxd5 Bxh4 20 Nb4!, collects a piece.
This short sequence is somewhat hidden, but it should be discoverable because one of the priorities for examination has to be forcing lines. Remember Har-Zvi’s wisdom about how and what to calculate: “Calculate forcing lines first.” When looking at those kind of lines one feature to always check are loose pieces. As GM Short famously says; “LPDO, loose pieces drop off.” Loose pieces are those that are not defended by some other unit. The Queen move leaves the Be7 loose for sure. Both players either weren’t aware of, or just forgot about forcing lines and Short’s saying.
18.Ne5?!,..
In light of the foregoing, this is second best. Black meanders a bit here
18..., Qc7 19.Bg3 Qb6 20.Kh1,..
And I am not so certain this is needful. Perhaps 20 h3, securing the future of the Bg3 is more useful.
20..., Re8?!
Another move that has to be questioned. Its intent is good; to make a place for the Ra8 to come into play on the d-file. There is in a chess game a “beat”, a rhythm of pieces and pawns moving to do something. This move feels as if it is a break in the beat for Black. The move grants White time to get in the advance b2-b4 which could lead to very complicated play such as; 21 b4 Red8!? 22 bxc5 Qxc5 23 Na2 Rxd1+ 24 Rxd1 Qxa3 25 Bb1, when the connected passed pawns Black has almost compensates for the piece surrendered. The most natural move for Black is 20..., Rac8; making the immediate push to b4 not appetizing for White.
21.f4!?,..
White has the prejudice of the less experienced player for direct attacks on the opposing King. Is a direct attack justified here? That is a delicate piece of chess judgment. What White is contemplating is not strictly a flank attack at first sight. It is more a forcing maneuver aimed at maybe creating a situation where a real direct flank attack can be tried. The difficulty with the idea is there are Rooks opposing each other on the open d-file raising the possibility of some, or many exchanges of material taking place. Another bit of old time wisdom; trading pieces can often take the poison out of an attack. All this adds difficulty to calculating all the lines if an all out attack is to be tried.
21..., Rad8 22.Rf1 Nfd7 23.f5 Nxe5 24.Bxe5 Bg5!
A move Mr. Clough may not have appreciated fully when considering this way of playing. The threat 25..., Rd2; has to be addressed.
25.Bf4 Bf6
The primary alternative here is; 25..., Bxf4; leading to Black retaining the initiative after; 26 Rxf4 exf5 27 Rxf5 b4 28 axb4 Qxb4; when White will have to, with 29 Raf1, offer up the e or b-pawn in exchange for action on the f-file to make a fight of it. Trades involving the capture of the e-pawn seem to favor Black in the double Rook endgame that can come about. I understand why Dilip hesitates to take that path having mind one more bit of chess wisdom; all Rook ends are draw, and double Rook doubly so. Black’s advantage in the contemplated ending would be razor thin; just a matter of a tempo ahead getting his Rooks into action.
26.b4?,..
What was a good idea is played too late to work well. The move drops a pawn. We have here an example of a saying from military science; order, counter-order, disorder, as it applies to chess. The organizing idea behind the recent White moves has been to attack the Black King. This shift to other action is inconsistent. More to the point is; 26 e5, and a period of sharp tactical play opens. It is difficult for both sides after 26..., exf5 27 Bxf5 g6 28 Bg4, when White maybe is beginning to have chances for a piece attack on the Black King. The very open character of the position and Black’s actively placed pieces offer excellent counter-play. Black would remain slight better, but the game is far from decided.
26..., Bxc3 27.bxc5 Qxc5 28.Rad1?,..
White loses faith. After beginning his attacking idea on move 21 with f2-f4, Matt hesitated and let his focus wander. This is another move off the point. To have a chance, such an attack must maintain its focus, and material concerns often have to be ignored. Here Black can’t afford to snatch the Exchange in the line; 28 fxe6 Bxa8 29 exf7+ Kxf7; because the discovered check picks off the Black Queen. Black will have recapture on e6 With his Rook, 28..., Rxe6; and after 29 Rad1 Rxd1 30 Rxd1, Black is much better, but White does have some threats.
28..., Rxd1 29.Qxd1 exf5 30.Bd6 Qc6
The battery down the h1-a8 diagonal freezes some of the White units because of mate at g2.
31.Rxf5 Rd8
The pin on the Bishop freezes more of the White forces.
32.Rd5 Qe8 0–1
The game move works well enough, but 32..., Qc4; is even better. It puts continuing pressure on e4 as does the game move, and it also taps ever so lightly on f1 with a mate threat. All then left for White is; 33 Be7 Rxd5 34 exd5 Bxd5; securing a second pawn and a dominating position for the Black pieces. After the text, 33 Rc5 Bxe4 34 Rxc3 Bxc2 35 Rxc2 Rxd6 36 Rd2 Rxd2 37 Qxd2 Qe5; a Queen ending two pawns up is not too difficult of a technical problem for the stronger side. However, Queen endings can be nerve testing; ticking clocks and perpetual checks can make even youthful player’s nerves feel the “yips”.
To sum up my impression of the game: Both players were not far off their standard of play. Dilip made an oversight on move 17 that could have cost him dearly. His play right after words was a little shaky. It could be he saw the problem right after the fact and that had an effect. He got back on track to finish the game in decent fashion. Matt Clough brought his chess imagination to the board. It is one of his strong points. With it he has carried the day against redoubtable players such as Phil Thomas of Troy and John Barnes of Schenectady. In this outing he did not follow through with his attacking idea with sufficient consistency. It is not clear that had he done so there was a win to be had, but doing so would have given him a “puncher’s chance.” Failing to do that led to defeat. An entertaining contest, it was.
More soon.
Matt Clough and Dilip Aaron both came on the scene not too long ago. Dilip is much the younger man and a rising scholastic star. Matt, an adult, who came later in his life to competitive chess. Matt broke into chess in 2008. Dilip, from a family of chess players, began his competitive career a few years earlier in 2003 as a grade school student. Dilip has climbed the ladder of competition to be one of the stronger scholastic players locally with a high Class B rating. Matt made good progress also. He has reached a high Class C rating. I am sure Mr. Clough looked at this game as an opportunity to make a step forward if he could win this contest. Mr. Aaron probably expected to win, but a single rating class difference is no lock for the higher rated player. On to the game:
Clough, Matthew - Aaron, Dilip [D47]
SCC Consolation Tourney Schenectady, NY, 10.02.2012
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 Nf6 4.Nc3 c6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3,..
Very much mainstream theory.
6..., Be7
Still theory, but Dilip takes a less popular path. Capturing on c4 is by far the most frequently chosen move. Other Bf8 deployments to d6 or b4 are also more popular than the text. The move played in the game isn’t bad, it is just less active and quieter. A hundred years ago Cohn defeated one of the strongest Russian players of the day when Bernstein tried the move:
(6824) Cohn, Erich - Bernstein, Ossip [D47]
St Petersburg, 1909
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 e6 4.Nc3 c6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 Be7 7.0–0 dxc4 8.Bxc4 b5 9.Bd3 a6 10.e4 Bb7 11.Qe2 c5 12.Rd1 c4 13.Bc2 0–0 14.Bg5 Re8 15.e5 Nd5 16.Ne4 Nf8 17.Nd6 Bxg5 18.Nxb7 Qe7 19.Nd6 Reb8 20.Be4 Ra7 21.Bxd5 exd5 22.Nxg5 Qxg5 23.Qf3 b4 24.Qxd5 c3 25.bxc3 bxc3 26.Qc5 Rd7 27.Qxc3 Ne6 28.Qg3 Qh5 29.f4 h6 30.Rab1 Rb2 31.Qc3 Rxg2+ 32.Kxg2 Nxf4+ 33.Kh1 Rxd6 34.Rf1 Rxd4 35.Qxd4 1–0
The move 6..., Be7; showed up infrequently in the games of the elite in the next decades. White had success against it when it did appear. Here is one of the few Black victories:
(15151) Johner, Hans - Bogoljubow, Efim [D46]
Bern (6), 1932
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 e6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 Be7 7.0–0 0–0 8.Qe2 dxc4 9.Bxc4 b5 10.Bb3 b4 11.Nb1 c5 12.Rd1 Bb7 13.Nbd2 Qc7 14.Bc4 a5 15.a4 Nb6 16.Bd3 Rfd8 17.Nc4 Nxc4 18.Bxc4 cxd4 19.Rxd4 Ne4 20.Bd3 Nc5 21.Qc2 e5 22.Rxd8+ Rxd8 23.Bc4 Be4 24.Qe2 Bd3 25.Bxd3 Nxd3 26.Qd2 Nxb2 0–1
Of course Bogoljubow was one of the strongest players in the world at the time and a recent challenger for the world title, so a win with a doubtful line of play against a more ordinary master should not surprise.
In more recent times this development of the Black Bishop has been seen less and less done by the top players. One of the few examples is:
(344226) Gelfand, Boris (2690) - Ljubojevic, Ljubomir (2605) [D46]
11th Linares (10), 1993
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 Be7 7.0–0 0–0 8.Qe2 b6 9.e4 dxe4 10.Nxe4 c5 11.Nxf6+ Nxf6 12.Rd1 cxd4 13.Bf4 Bc5 14.Be5 Bb7 15.Nxd4 Nd7 16.Nb3 Qg5 17.Bg3 Rad8 18.Nxc5 Nxc5 19.Bc2 f5 20.f3 f4 21.Bf2 e5 22.b4 Nd7 23.c5 bxc5 24.bxc5 Kh8 25.h4 Qh5 26.Qb5 Bxf3 27.gxf3 Qxf3 28.Qd3 Qg4+ 29.Kh2 e4 30.Qxe4 Nf6 31.Qg2 Qe2 32.Rxd8 Rxd8 33.Rg1 g6 34.Be1 Qc4 35.Rf1 Re8 36.Bb3 Qxc5 37.Qb2 Kg7 38.Bc3 f3 39.Bxf6+ Kh6 40.Qd2+ Kh5 41.Qd5+ Qxd5 42.Bxd5 Re2+ 43.Kg3 1–0
Gelfand, one the leading lights of those days twenty years ago when Kasparov still roamed the chess world, and is the current challenger for the world title(!), had worked out the approach, the central counter-attack, demonstrated in the above game several years before. As Gelfand’s idea became widely known, the move, 6..., Be7; declined even more in popularity with the Grandmasters.
7.0–0 dxc4 8.Bxc4 b5 9.Bd3 Bb7
When we look at some of the games cited above, and other examples in the databases, we see Black more often chooses to push the b-pawn to b4 displacing the Nc3. Taking up the Meran triangle; a6, b5, c6, is not a common occurrence. Why? It seems grabbing space on the Q-side is more useful for Black.
10.Qe2!?,..
A bit questionable. The standard answer here is 10 e4, immediately reacting to the Q-wing maneuvering with action in the center a la Gelfand. Given time Black will get in .., c3-c5;
10..., a6 11.a3?!,..
White’s eye is attracted to potential problems arising from an eventual .., b5-b4. What’s better? The main requirement is to recognize the position for what it is and what can be done. Stopping .., c6-c5; is not possible, White has no lead in development and the Black Bishops are just a bit better placed than are White’s - where can the Bc1 go? The facts on the board tell White to head for a line that trades off minor pieces and lets him complete development.
A logical try for the Bc1 is b2-b4, and Bc1-b2. That scheme has to be calculated carefully because the advance of the b-pawn may leave a minor piece on the c-file under defended to a Black heavy piece appearing there. If White has to delay the b4 push, the Bc1 stays home and underfoot. So this is the moment to deal with the transition to a playable middle game. Two paths emerge; 11 a4 b4 12 Ne4 Nxe4 13 Bxe4 Nf6 14 Bc2 c5 15 dxc5 Bxc5 16 b3, with further trades of minor pieces to come, and White aims for equality, or 11 e4 c5 12 e5 Nd5 13 Rd1 cxd4 14 Nxd5 Bxd5 15 Nxd4, and White can find employment for the Bc1. Either way the game is equal, or close to it. Instead, the text should result in Black obtaining a positional plus.
11..., c5 12.dxc5 Nxc5 13.Rd1!?,..
A little better is 13 Bc2, preserving the Bishop pair.
13..., Qc7?!?
There is no good reason to pass on playing 13..., Nxd3; reaching a position where the two Bishops will give Black the long term initiative. White can try 14 Rxd3 Qc7 15 e4, but further advance of the e-pawn will likely give space behind the White lines that the Bishops can use.
14.Bc2 0–0 15.e4 Rfd8 16.Bg5,..
Black has had a very slight edge for the last few moves. White is counting this Bishop being driven to h4 and then g3 to oppose the Black Queen. Then either Black interposes his dark squared Bishop and there is a trade, or the Queen is pushed away.
16..., h6 17.Bh4 Qc6?
With a single move we can sometimes wreck our chances. Better choices are available. Either 17..., Ncd7; preparing to send the Knight to f8 anticipating the Nf6 being forced away from defense of the Black King by e4-e5 soon, or 17..., Rac8; getting the last piece into action. The text misses the powerful shot, 18 e5!, and then 18..., Nd5 19 Nxd5 Bxh4 20 Nb4!, collects a piece.
This short sequence is somewhat hidden, but it should be discoverable because one of the priorities for examination has to be forcing lines. Remember Har-Zvi’s wisdom about how and what to calculate: “Calculate forcing lines first.” When looking at those kind of lines one feature to always check are loose pieces. As GM Short famously says; “LPDO, loose pieces drop off.” Loose pieces are those that are not defended by some other unit. The Queen move leaves the Be7 loose for sure. Both players either weren’t aware of, or just forgot about forcing lines and Short’s saying.
18.Ne5?!,..
In light of the foregoing, this is second best. Black meanders a bit here
18..., Qc7 19.Bg3 Qb6 20.Kh1,..
And I am not so certain this is needful. Perhaps 20 h3, securing the future of the Bg3 is more useful.
20..., Re8?!
Another move that has to be questioned. Its intent is good; to make a place for the Ra8 to come into play on the d-file. There is in a chess game a “beat”, a rhythm of pieces and pawns moving to do something. This move feels as if it is a break in the beat for Black. The move grants White time to get in the advance b2-b4 which could lead to very complicated play such as; 21 b4 Red8!? 22 bxc5 Qxc5 23 Na2 Rxd1+ 24 Rxd1 Qxa3 25 Bb1, when the connected passed pawns Black has almost compensates for the piece surrendered. The most natural move for Black is 20..., Rac8; making the immediate push to b4 not appetizing for White.
21.f4!?,..
White has the prejudice of the less experienced player for direct attacks on the opposing King. Is a direct attack justified here? That is a delicate piece of chess judgment. What White is contemplating is not strictly a flank attack at first sight. It is more a forcing maneuver aimed at maybe creating a situation where a real direct flank attack can be tried. The difficulty with the idea is there are Rooks opposing each other on the open d-file raising the possibility of some, or many exchanges of material taking place. Another bit of old time wisdom; trading pieces can often take the poison out of an attack. All this adds difficulty to calculating all the lines if an all out attack is to be tried.
21..., Rad8 22.Rf1 Nfd7 23.f5 Nxe5 24.Bxe5 Bg5!
A move Mr. Clough may not have appreciated fully when considering this way of playing. The threat 25..., Rd2; has to be addressed.
25.Bf4 Bf6
The primary alternative here is; 25..., Bxf4; leading to Black retaining the initiative after; 26 Rxf4 exf5 27 Rxf5 b4 28 axb4 Qxb4; when White will have to, with 29 Raf1, offer up the e or b-pawn in exchange for action on the f-file to make a fight of it. Trades involving the capture of the e-pawn seem to favor Black in the double Rook endgame that can come about. I understand why Dilip hesitates to take that path having mind one more bit of chess wisdom; all Rook ends are draw, and double Rook doubly so. Black’s advantage in the contemplated ending would be razor thin; just a matter of a tempo ahead getting his Rooks into action.
26.b4?,..
What was a good idea is played too late to work well. The move drops a pawn. We have here an example of a saying from military science; order, counter-order, disorder, as it applies to chess. The organizing idea behind the recent White moves has been to attack the Black King. This shift to other action is inconsistent. More to the point is; 26 e5, and a period of sharp tactical play opens. It is difficult for both sides after 26..., exf5 27 Bxf5 g6 28 Bg4, when White maybe is beginning to have chances for a piece attack on the Black King. The very open character of the position and Black’s actively placed pieces offer excellent counter-play. Black would remain slight better, but the game is far from decided.
26..., Bxc3 27.bxc5 Qxc5 28.Rad1?,..
White loses faith. After beginning his attacking idea on move 21 with f2-f4, Matt hesitated and let his focus wander. This is another move off the point. To have a chance, such an attack must maintain its focus, and material concerns often have to be ignored. Here Black can’t afford to snatch the Exchange in the line; 28 fxe6 Bxa8 29 exf7+ Kxf7; because the discovered check picks off the Black Queen. Black will have recapture on e6 With his Rook, 28..., Rxe6; and after 29 Rad1 Rxd1 30 Rxd1, Black is much better, but White does have some threats.
28..., Rxd1 29.Qxd1 exf5 30.Bd6 Qc6
The battery down the h1-a8 diagonal freezes some of the White units because of mate at g2.
31.Rxf5 Rd8
The pin on the Bishop freezes more of the White forces.
32.Rd5 Qe8 0–1
The game move works well enough, but 32..., Qc4; is even better. It puts continuing pressure on e4 as does the game move, and it also taps ever so lightly on f1 with a mate threat. All then left for White is; 33 Be7 Rxd5 34 exd5 Bxd5; securing a second pawn and a dominating position for the Black pieces. After the text, 33 Rc5 Bxe4 34 Rxc3 Bxc2 35 Rxc2 Rxd6 36 Rd2 Rxd2 37 Qxd2 Qe5; a Queen ending two pawns up is not too difficult of a technical problem for the stronger side. However, Queen endings can be nerve testing; ticking clocks and perpetual checks can make even youthful player’s nerves feel the “yips”.
To sum up my impression of the game: Both players were not far off their standard of play. Dilip made an oversight on move 17 that could have cost him dearly. His play right after words was a little shaky. It could be he saw the problem right after the fact and that had an effect. He got back on track to finish the game in decent fashion. Matt Clough brought his chess imagination to the board. It is one of his strong points. With it he has carried the day against redoubtable players such as Phil Thomas of Troy and John Barnes of Schenectady. In this outing he did not follow through with his attacking idea with sufficient consistency. It is not clear that had he done so there was a win to be had, but doing so would have given him a “puncher’s chance.” Failing to do that led to defeat. An entertaining contest, it was.
More soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
