We can’t complain locally about not having many events to keep us busy. In the midst of the first period of extended serious winter weather the Schenectady Club was the site of a Capital District Chess League match. The Schenectady A team faced off with the Schenectady Geezers. The A team won 2 ½ to 1 ½.
The line ups and results were:
Geezers Sch’dy A Opening Result
Board 1 Mike Mockler Phil Sells Sicilian (?) ½ - ½
Board 2 Bill Little Patrick Chi Nimzo 0-1
Board 3 John Phillips Bobby Rotter Dutch 0-1
Board 4 Richard Chu John Barnes Sicilian 1-0
With this many games to hand all at once analysis is an impossible task. Rather than dawdle for days, publishing the game scores with a few brief comments gets the news out and may have more interest to the readers.
This match was a partial rehearsal of the soon to be played Finals. The games between Mockler versus Sells and Phillips versus Rotter give us food for thought about their contests in the Finals of the Schenectady Championship. There is also a good chance that Chu and Barnes will face each other again in the Consolation Swiss also.
White: Mockler, M
Black: Sells, P
Date: 2/25/2010
[ECO "B30"]
Mockler and Sells agreed the draw in this game when it appeared much material was to come off the board on the a-file.
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 e5 4. Bb5 Nge7 5. O-O g6 6. Nd5 Bg7 7. Re1 O-O 8.c3 a6 9. Bf1 d6 10. d3 b5 11. a4 Bb7 12. Ng5 Nxd5 13. exd5 Ne7 14. c4 (14.a5 Nf5 15. Ne4 Nd4) 14... Nf5 15. Ne4 Nd4 16. axb5 axb5 17. Rxa8 Bxa8 18. Bg5 f6 19. Be3 Nf5 20. Qb3
In the postmortem, Mike said he thought about 20 Bxc5, dxc5; 21 Nxc5, but after 21..., Ne4; it is not at all clear how the center pawn mass can be mobilized to justify the sacrifice of a piec for two pawns.
20.…Nxe3 21. Rxe3 f5 22. Nc3 b4 23. Nd1 Qa5 24. Re1
Bb7 25. Ne3 Ra8 26. Be2 Bc8 27. Rb1 Bd7 28. Qd1 Ba4 29. b3 Bd7 30. Nc2 Qd8.
Drawn agreed. As I suggested in an earlier post, these two guys are pretty evenly matched. This game supports that conclusion.
White: Chi, P
Black: Little, B
Date: 2/25/2010
ECO "E38"]
Patrick convincingly out played me in an opening I picked without serious preparation, Over the years the Nimzo-Indian has been a third choice weapon for me. I know it is supposed to be a battle for e4, but somehow that was forgotten in an ill fated attempt to confuse my young opponent. Patrick ignored my foolishness, played good simple chess and won logically.
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Qc2 c5 5. dxc5 Nc6 6. Nf3 Bxc5 7. Bg5 a6
This is the beginning of incorrect play. Just 7..., 0-0; is better.
8. e3 O-O 9. Be2 Qc7
The Queen is not doing much on c7. White is now clearly better.
10. O-O h6
Better is 10..., Be7; keeping the pawns intact. After this error my game is seriously compromised.
11. Bxf6 gxf6 12. a3 Ne5 13. Ne4 Be7 14. Qc3
Patrick did not make the most of the chances he had. I could now get back into the fight with 14.…, f5; or the principled 14.…, b6. Instead I continued with an incorrect plan that leads to quick defeat.
14.…, Nxf3+ 15. Bxf3 Qe5 16. Rfd1 Qxc3 17. Nxc3 d6
The two weaknesses on d6 and b7 are too much of a defense task for Black. The game is lost.
18. Na4 Rb8 19. Nb6 Rd8 20.Rac1 Bd7 21. c5 d5 22. e4 Bc6 23. exd5 exd5 24. Bxd5 Kf8 25. Bxc6 bxc6 26. Nd7+ Rxd7 27. Rxd7 Rxb2 28. g3 Rb5 29. Rc7 Rxc5 30. Rxc5 Bxc5 31. a4 (31. Rxc6 Bxa3 32. h4 a5) 31... a5 32. Rxc6 Bd4 33. Ra6 Bc3 34. Kf1 Kg7 35. Ke2 Kg6 36. Kd3 Bb4 37. Kc4 Kf5 38. f3 1-0
White: Phillips, J
Black: Rotter, B
Date: 2/25/2010
ECO "A82"]
Bobby Rotter demonstrates his determination to improve his endgame play in this encounter.
1. d4 f5 2. e4 fxe4 3. Nc3 c6 4. Qh5+ g6 5. Qe5 Nf6 6. Nxe4 Bg7 7. Nd6+ Kf8 8. Nxc8 Qxc8 9. Bg5 d6 10. Qe3 Kf7 11. O-O-O Qe6
In the sharp and somewhat uncommon Staunton Gambit Bobby is out played! Most untypical. My guess he did not have anything prepared for the Staunton.
12. Re1, ….
And here John passes on the chance to give his opponent real difficulty with 12 Qxe6+, leaving Black with a poorly organized position and a clear edge for White.
12..., Qxe3+ 13. Rxe3 h6 14. Bh4 Nbd7 15. Bc4+ d5 16. Bd3 Rae8 17. Nf3 Ng4 18. Ree1 e5:
Bobby is back to his old self playing creatively in the middle game. He has just about equalized. His Knights have potential anchor points in the center and the White Bishop pair is not looking very active.
19. dxe5 Ngxe5 20. Nxe5+ Nxe5 21. Be2 Bf6 22. Bxf6 Kxf6
White voluntarily traded Bishops and Black has a fence of pawns on the light squares making the remaining White Bishop less effective than the Black Knight. The game is level.
23. f4 Nf7 24. Bd3 Nd6 25. Kd2 c5 26. c3 Rxe1 27. Rxe1 Re8 28. Rxe8 Nxe8 29. Ke3 Nd6 30. Kf3 Kf7 31. h4 h5
White delayed for reasons unknown advancing the g-pawn. That was the natural way to make the most of his K-side pawn majority. Now His K-side is not as strong as it could have been.
32. g4 hxg4+ 33. Kxg4 Kf6 34. a4 Nf7 35. Be2 b6 36. Bd3 Nd6 37. Bc2
John must have believed that almost any move would do in this position. Bobby bears down looking for threats while John does not sense the danger building. After the text White’s game is lost. Better 37 Kg3.
37.…, Nc4 38. Bb3 Nxb2 39. Bxd5 Nxa4 40. c4 Nc3 41. h5 gxh5+ 42. Kxh5 Kf5 0-1
White: Barnes, J
Black: Chu, R
Date: 2/25/2010
[ECO "B50"]
There was a second offbeat Sicilian in the match. John Barnes went in for a different, but not necessarily bad, line. Things went well for awhile, then Richard played a faulty sacrifice and John reacted wrongly. After some ups and downs for both sides, Barnes tried too hard to make an direct attack on Chu’s King. It backfired and Richard brought home the full point.
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bd3 g6 4. c3 a6 5. a4 Bg7 6. Bc2 Nc6 7. O-O Nf6 8. d3 Ng4 9. h3 Nge5 10. Nbd2 O-O 11. Nxe5 Nxe5 12. Nf3 Bd7 13. Bf4 Qc8 14. Nxe5 dxe5 15. Be3 Be6 16. Qd2 f5 17. Bh6 f4 18. Bxg7 Kxg7 19. h4 Bh3?? 20. f3? ,….
The straight forward 20 gxh3, gives White a full piece, and there is just no compensation for Black. Richard should pile up heavy pieces on the d-file with 19..., Qd7.
20..., Be6 21. Kf2 h6 22. Rh1 Qd7 23. Rag1 Rf6 24. g4 fxg3ep+ 25. Rxg3 Raf8 26. Bd1 Rd8 27. Be2,….
On the surface one would think that c2 and e3 are about squares of equal worth. Such is not the case. Black now has the choice of clipping the a-pawn, or bearing down d6.
27.….Bc4 28. h5 g5 29. Rhg1,….
Timing is everything. This natural looking move misses a chance to sacrifice the Exchange to keep the game going with 29 Rxg5+.
29.…, Bxd3 30. Rxg5+,….
The sacrifice now has a lessened punch. John, maybe a little shocked by how things turned out missed a neat tactical finish. He pushes the h-pawn and gets mated for his trouble.
30.…, hxg5 31. Qxg5+ Kf7 32. h6 Bxe2 33. h7 Rxf3+ 34. Kg2 Qh3# 0-1
So, once more the Geezers fall short against the A team. Oh well, there some more teams in the League this year, and maybe we will do better as the rounds play out.
More in a day or two, perhaps something from the Saratoga tournement this weekend if the weather lets me get there.
2.26.2010
2.23.2010
Alan LeCours Plays the Wilkes-Barre at the Amateur Team East
Philip Sells, Alan LeCours, Jon Barnes and Bill Townsend constituted one of the Schenectady Chess Club teams that participated in the Amateur Team East in New Jersey from February 13th-15th, 2010. The other team was made up of John Phillips, Richard Chu, Cory Northrup and Chuck Eson. I think everyone enjoyed the tournament. There were approximately 300 4 player teams competing in the tournament. I intend to prepare a more thorough report of my experience at the tournament.
My highlight game is the following miniature. I always "enjoy" playing this opening over the board.
Alan LeCours
Kapengut,Mark (1885) - LeCours,Alan (1958) [C57]
ATE 2010, 15.02.2010
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5
These are the signature moves of the Two Knights Defense Wilkes-Barre Variation (USA) /or Traxler Counterattack 5.Nxf7 (5. Bxf7+ is a less greedy alternative) Bxf2+
6.Kf1 (Kxf2 is sometimes played—Some analysis was recently published suggesting that Kf1 refutes the Traxler. As Borat says: "Not!")Qe7 7.Nxh8 d5 8.exd5 Nd4 9.c3? (Surprisingly, this move seems to lose. However, in some old chess manuals it has been given an "!" If you spend twenty five minutes analyzing this position at the board, it is certainly one of the first moves that comes to mind. However, perhaps the best attempt to refute this line of the Traxler would be with 9. h3 or perhaps 9. d6) Bg4 10.Qa4+ Nd7 11.Kxf2 Qh4+ 12.Kf1 0–0–0 13.Nf7 Rf8 14.d6 Rxf7+ White resigns
After 15. Bxf7 Bxe2+ 16. Kg1 Qe1# 0–1
Study Games: Some other Traxlers w/ 8. ...Nd4:
(1) Malada,Vinko (2249) - Doric,Nenad (2363) [C57]
Rijeka IM-B Rijeka (4), 2001
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6.Kf1 Qe7 7.Nxh8 d5 8.exd5 Nd4 9.c3 Bg4 10.Qa4+ Nd7 11.Kxf2 Qh4+ 12.g3 Qf6+ 13.Ke1 Qf3 14.Rf1 Qe4+ 15.Kf2 0–0–0 16.cxd4 Rf8+ 17.Kg1 Qxd4+ 18.Kg2 Qe4+ 19.Kg1 Rxf1+ 20.Bxf1 Qxa4 21.Nc3 Qd4+ 22.Kg2 e4 23.Be2 Bxe2 24.Nxe2 Qd3 25.Nf4 Qf3+ 26.Kh3 g5 27.Ne6 h5 0–1
(2) Kalichkin,Igor (2258) - Tahirov,Farhad (2571) [C57]
Tula-B Tula (10), 2002
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6.Kf1 Qe7 7.Nxh8 d5 8.exd5 Nd4 9.c3 Bg4 10.Qa4+ Nd7 11.Kxf2 Qh4+ 12.Kf1 0–0–0 13.Nf7 Rf8 14.g3 Bh3+ 15.Kg1 Qe4 0–1
(3) Lichy - Blatny,Frantisek [C57]
Chocen qual6 Chocen, 1950
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6.Kf1 Qe7 7.Nxh8 d5 8.exd5 Nd4 9.h3 Ne4 10.d3 Qf6 0–1
(4) Kurkin,S - Estrin,Yacov [C57]
Moscow Central CC-ch sf Moscow, 1966
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6.Kf1 Qe7 7.Nxh8 d5 8.exd5 Nd4 9.h3 Bg3 10.c3 Nf5 11.Qa4+ Bd7 12.Bb5 Qc5 13.Bxd7+ Nxd7 14.Ke2 Qxd5 15.Rg1 e4 16.d4 exd3+ 17.Kd1 Bf2 18.Rf1 Qxg2 19.Rxf2 Qg1+ 20.Kd2 Qxf2+ 21.Kxd3 0–0–0 22.Qf4 Ne5+ 23.Ke4 Ng3+ 24.Kxe5 Qc5+ 25.Ke6 Qd6+ 0–1
(5) Leonov,Mikhail A (2446) - Krasnov,Yury (2313) [C57]
Tula Tula (6), 16.02.2007
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6.Kf1 Qe7 7.Nxh8 d5 8.exd5 Nd4 9.h3 Bg3 10.c3 Nf5 11.d4 Bd7 12.Bg5 0–0–0 13.Ng6 hxg6 14.Bd3 Bh4 15.Bxf5 Bxg5 16.Bxd7+ Rxd7 17.Qe2 exd4 18.Qxe7 Rxe7 19.cxd4 Re4 20.Nc3 Rxd4 21.Rd1 Bd2 22.Nb1 Rf4+ 23.Ke2 Ba5 24.Rhf1 Re4+ 25.Kf3 Kd7 26.Nd2 Rh4 27.Ke2 Kd6 28.Rf3 Nxd5 29.Rf7 Bxd2 30.Rxd2 Rh7 31.Rd4 Kc5 32.Rg4 Rh6 33.Rxg7 b6 34.Rg5 c6 35.Rxa7 Kd6 36.Rg7 Ne7 37.Rg4 c5 38.a4 1–0
(6) Sotnikov,Taras - Alonso Aranzabal,Inigo (2166) [C57]
Madrid2 Madrid (1), 11.02.2006
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6.Kf1 Qe7 7.Nxh8 d5 8.exd5 Nd4 9.h3 Qf8 10.d3 Ng4 11.hxg4 Bg3+ 12.Qf3 Nxf3 13.Ke2 Nd4+ 14.Kd2 Qf2+ 0–1
(7) Westermann,Bernhard - Prang,Edgar [C57]
NRW-ch Muenster (2), 1974
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6.Kf1 Qe7 7.Nxh8 d5 8.exd5 Nd4 9.h3 Bh4 10.c3 Nf5 11.d4 e4 12.Bf4 g5 13.Bd2 Ng3+ 14.Kg1 e3 15.Be1 Nfe4 16.Bxg3 Bxg3 17.Qh5+ Kf8 18.Ng6+ Kg7 19.Nxe7 Bf2+ 20.Kh2 ½–½
(8) Lipowsky,N - Forster,Richard [C57]
Bagneux op Bagneux, 1987
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6.Kf1 Qe7 7.Nxh8 d5 8.exd5 Nd4 9.h3 Bg3 10.Nc3 Ng4 11.Be2 Nf2 12.Bh5+ g6 13.Nxg6 hxg6 14.Bxg6+ Kd8 15.Qh5 Qf6 0–1
(9) Cierny,Lubomir - Pinter,Patrik [C57]
SVK-ch Topolcianky (7), 1994
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6.Kf1 Qe7 7.Nxh8 d5 8.exd5 Nd4 9.h3 Ne4 10.Qh5+ g6 11.Qd1 Qf6 12.Be2 Ng3# 0–1
(10) Gunis,Juraj - Pinter,Patrik [C57]
SVK-ch U18 Trnava (3), 1994
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6.Kf1 Qe7 7.Nxh8 d5 8.exd5 Nd4 9.h3 Ne4 10.Nc3 Ng3+ 11.Kxf2 Qf6+ 12.Kg1 Bf5 13.Nb5 Qb6 14.Kh2 Nxb5 15.Bxb5+ Qxb5 16.Kxg3 0–0–0 17.Nf7 Rf8 18.Nxe5 Qxd5 19.d4 Re8 20.c4 Qd6 21.Bf4 h6 22.h4 Rg8 23.Qd2 g5 24.hxg5 hxg5 25.Bxg5 c5 26.Qf4 1–0
(11) Soikane,J - Babarskyte,J [C57]
Marijampole op Marijampole (3), 1996
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6.Kf1 Qe7 7.Nxh8 d5 8.exd5 Nd4 9.h3 Ne4 10.Be2 Ng3+ 11.Kxf2 Ne4+ 12.Kg1 Ng3 13.Kh2 Ngxe2 14.Qf1 Qd6 15.Qf7+ Kd8 16.Qxg7 e4+ 17.g3 e3 18.Nf7+ 1–0
(12) Goutor,Yaroslav - Klokow,John [C57]
Canada op Edmonton (6), 12.07.2000
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6.Kf1 Qe7 7.Nxh8 d5 8.exd5 Nd4 9.h3 Bg3 10.c3 Qc5 11.d3 Nb3 12.Qf3 Nxa1 13.Qxg3 Qe7 14.Na3 Bd7 15.d6 cxd6 16.Nf7 d5 17.Nxe5 dxc4 18.Nexc4 Be6 19.Kf2 Nc2 20.Nxc2 Bxc4 21.dxc4 Ne4+ 22.Kf3 Nxg3 23.Re1 Qxe1 24.Nxe1 Nf5 25.Nd3 Rd8 26.Ke2 Kf7 27.Bg5 Re8+ 28.Kf2 Nd6 29.Be3 Nxc4 30.Bxa7 Ra8 31.Be3 Nxe3 32.Kxe3 Rxa2 33.g4 b6 34.h4 g6 35.Kf4 Ra4+ 36.b4 Ra3 37.Ne5+ Ke6 38.c4 Ra1 39.Nf3 Kf6 40.g5+ Ke6 41.c5 bxc5 42.bxc5 Ra4+ 43.Kg3 Kd5 44.c6 Kxc6 45.Ne5+ Kd6 46.Nf3 Ke6 47.h5 gxh5 48.Nh4 Rg4+ 49.Kh3 Rxg5 50.Nf3 Rg4 51.Nh2 Kf5 52.Nf3 Ke4 53.Nd2+ Ke3 54.Nf1+ Kf2 55.Nd2 h6 0–1
2.19.2010
Final Report on the Schenectady Prelims
Sadly for me, but happily for Dean Howard the battle for qualifying places in the Schenectady Finals came to an end last Thursday. The game went 46 moves. We both played rather quickly and time trouble was never much of an issue. This victory for Dean put him in second place behind Mike Mockler. A telephone call this afternoon from Bobby Rotter brought the news that he and David Connors had played to a draw Sunday at the Saratoga Club. It was their scheduled game from the Schenectady Championship and the draw gives Rotter the third qualifying spot from Preliminary A. We now know all the participants for the Schenectady Finals: from Section A; Mockler, Howard and Rotter, from Section B; Sells, Chi and Phillips. For the rest of us, the Consolation Swiss (?) will be played at around the same time as the Finals.
With all the contestants known, a little handicapping is in order. Sells and Mockler are the probable favorites. Their results have been good of late, particularly taking firsts in the Prelims.
Assessing where Chi, Howard and Rotter will come in the Finals is difficult. Chi has advanced quickly in the ratings, but I don’t believe he has had to deal with the pressure of an all-play-all event yet. Howard has been struggling with his form over the last year. But when things got tight in the last rounds in Section A, Dean came through with two wins over LeCours and Little just when he needed to do so. These victories might herald a period of better results. Bobby Rotter made it through to a place in the Finals by drawing with David Connors in the very last game of the Prelims. Recently I wrote about some good and bad points of his chess; excellent opening preparation, creative middle game play with a let down in the endgame. Will he shore up his endgame technique and fight hard in that part of the game? For sure in this line up, he will have to play out an ending or two and they will likely be the difference in where he places. John Phillips made it into the Finals with three losses the beneficiary of a nice win by Sells over John Barnes. I am guessing Phillips will have a hard time challenging for first. John is strong enough to do so, but he is also another of us who has variable form from time to time. This maybe one of his down periods. That said, John’s results will likely have an effect on the final standings. He can defeat any of the participants when on his game.
Phil Sells the defending Schenectady Champion and the newly crowned Saratoga Champion has been delivering strong results lately. If I had to make a bet about first place, he is where the wager would be made. Aside: He has told me he is interested in writing some pieces for this blog, in particular a report on the Eastern Amateur Team Championship that finished play Monday. It will be good to have another voice on the enyca blog.
Today’s game is Howard’s win that put him in the finals.
SCC Ch 09-10 Prelim A
2/11/2010
White: Little, B
Black; Howard, D
1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 e6
3. Nf3 d5
4. Bg5 Be7
5. Nc3 h6
Almost everybody who’s anybody at the top of the international chess has played this way as White or Black. We are very much in the mainstream of theory.
6. Bh4 O-O
7. e3 b6
8. cxd5 Nxd5
9. Bxe7 Qxe7
10. e4?! …..
If I wanted to stay with the big names, then 10 Rc1, is the move. The game is a lesson about how not to play White in the QGD. White just does not have enough force left after the nearly unavoidable trades that come after this move to make anything out of the passed d-pawn that soon appears. If the passed d-pawn is really not a factor, there is a good chance that White has compromised his Q-side and Black will have an easy time of equalizing. The computer sees the game as equal, however I find no examples in my databases. That sort of information leads to real doubts about playing in this way.
10.… Nxc3
11. bxc3 Bb7
12. Bd3 c5
13. O-O Nc6
14. d5 …..
The computer continues to see the game as about equal with White having a nominal edge.
14.…. exd5
15. exd5 Ne5
16. Re1 Nxf3+
17. Qxf3 Qd6
18. c4 Rfe8
We have pretty much have played that which my electronic friend says are the good normal moves. White has retained that small nagging edge he is supposed to get out of the opening. Since everything went along so well, I am puzzled at not finding examples in the databases.
19. Re3 Re7
20. Rae1 Rae8
21. Rxe7 Rxe7
22. Rxe7 Qxe7
Some of the spectators thought after the game that this exchange of all the Rooks was misguided. The computer agrees and suggests 21 R1e2, first. After “cooking” for a few minutes, it then offers 21 Rxe7, Rxe7; 22 Re4. The idea is: White’s Q-side pawns are vulnerable which requires keeping at least one heavy piece on the board until the White King is better placed and the K-side stabilized. Even then White probably should not be in any hurry to trade the heavies. That notion crossed my mind during the game. Then I thought with the Queens off, I can still hold the position, after all there is still the passer on d5. Just how wrong my judgment was becomes clear in a few moves.
23. Qe4 Qxe4
24. Bxe4 ….
Only now did it dawn on me that my bridges were well and truly burnt and I began to search for some way to bolster the defense of d5..
24.… Kf8
25. f4 Ba6
26. Bd3 Ke7
27. Kf2 Bc8
28. a4? ….
This just makes a second target for Black. After this move, although the trusty computer says White is no worse than even, I expect the game is nearly lost.
28.… Bd7
29. Bc2 Kd6
30. Ke3 a6
Yipes! To quote Aagaard; “What was I thinking heading into this position? Clearly I was not thinking!” My notion was with my Bishop on b3 all is secure. It was about here that I realized after the trading of pawns on b5 and the Black Bishop landing on b5, there are not enough free squares on the a2-g8 diagonal for my cleric to make tempo moves. That fact made holding the d-pawn problematical. A touch of panic set in for me now. I did not take a step back and search for some alternative idea. One thought is to boldly send my King to e4 trying to induce f7-f5. If I can get some of the Black K-side pawns on light squares, there are chances of giving up the d-pawn to get my Bishop behind those pawns to attack them from the rear. Maybe that isn’t enough to hold, but it would create chances.
31. Bb3 b5
32. axb5 axb5
33. cxb5 Bxb5
34. Ba2 Bf1
35. Kf2 Ba6
36. Ke3 f6
37. g4 Bc8
38. h3? ….
The line I followed had reasonable chances to hold. Here, however, I falter. Better 38 Kf3, then although the d-pawn drops, there is counter play that just might hold the game after 38..., g6; 39 h4, Bb7; 40 Ke4. Bxd5+; 41 Bxd5, f5+; 42 gxf5, gxf5+; 43 Kxf5, Kxd5; 44 Kg6, and White is fast enough in the pawn race to draw. One factor that colored my thinking was a distaste for a play-off. If Dean and I split the point, there was a real chance that we would end in a three way tie with Rotter for the third qualifying spot. That outcome meant a three way playoff, something that had no appeal for me. Two more hard games just to get to the finals for five more hard battles.
After the text, the game slips away from me. Black has targets and I could not find a way to hold the balance.
38.… h5
39. Kf3 Bb7
40. Ke4 Ba6
41. gxh5 Bc8
42. f5? ….
After the game, my team mate from the Schenectady Geezers, Richard Chu thought this was a mistake. In the usual manner of an Class A player to a C class player I assured him the game was already lost. Wrong again! With 42 h4. White could have kept the battle going as Richard suggested. My objectivity had gone completely. In my mind the game was lost justifying giving up the coverage of e5. One more example of how one’s attitude about a position affects decisions.
42.… Ba6
43. h4 Bf1
Threatening a check on g2 winning the d-pawn and the game. There is not much to say about the few remaining moves. A nice effort by Dean Howard taking advantage of my questionable play in a workmanlike manner.
44. Kf3 Ke5
45. d6 Kxd6
46. Be6 Ke5
47. Ke3 Bh3
48 Resigns
The 4th of March is the starting date for the Schenectady Consolation Swiss. I’ll be there. If the contenders that were knocked out of the Finals all play, this will be a pretty strong Consolation. Possible entrants include; John Barnes, Jonathan Lack, Alan Le Cours and me, although I’m not so sure I am a serious threat for first any more. That is not to forget the dangerous folks from further down the rating list; Qu, Chu, Saran and Connors. A good turnout will make this a tough event to win.
With all the contestants known, a little handicapping is in order. Sells and Mockler are the probable favorites. Their results have been good of late, particularly taking firsts in the Prelims.
Assessing where Chi, Howard and Rotter will come in the Finals is difficult. Chi has advanced quickly in the ratings, but I don’t believe he has had to deal with the pressure of an all-play-all event yet. Howard has been struggling with his form over the last year. But when things got tight in the last rounds in Section A, Dean came through with two wins over LeCours and Little just when he needed to do so. These victories might herald a period of better results. Bobby Rotter made it through to a place in the Finals by drawing with David Connors in the very last game of the Prelims. Recently I wrote about some good and bad points of his chess; excellent opening preparation, creative middle game play with a let down in the endgame. Will he shore up his endgame technique and fight hard in that part of the game? For sure in this line up, he will have to play out an ending or two and they will likely be the difference in where he places. John Phillips made it into the Finals with three losses the beneficiary of a nice win by Sells over John Barnes. I am guessing Phillips will have a hard time challenging for first. John is strong enough to do so, but he is also another of us who has variable form from time to time. This maybe one of his down periods. That said, John’s results will likely have an effect on the final standings. He can defeat any of the participants when on his game.
Phil Sells the defending Schenectady Champion and the newly crowned Saratoga Champion has been delivering strong results lately. If I had to make a bet about first place, he is where the wager would be made. Aside: He has told me he is interested in writing some pieces for this blog, in particular a report on the Eastern Amateur Team Championship that finished play Monday. It will be good to have another voice on the enyca blog.
Today’s game is Howard’s win that put him in the finals.
SCC Ch 09-10 Prelim A
2/11/2010
White: Little, B
Black; Howard, D
1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 e6
3. Nf3 d5
4. Bg5 Be7
5. Nc3 h6
Almost everybody who’s anybody at the top of the international chess has played this way as White or Black. We are very much in the mainstream of theory.
6. Bh4 O-O
7. e3 b6
8. cxd5 Nxd5
9. Bxe7 Qxe7
10. e4?! …..
If I wanted to stay with the big names, then 10 Rc1, is the move. The game is a lesson about how not to play White in the QGD. White just does not have enough force left after the nearly unavoidable trades that come after this move to make anything out of the passed d-pawn that soon appears. If the passed d-pawn is really not a factor, there is a good chance that White has compromised his Q-side and Black will have an easy time of equalizing. The computer sees the game as equal, however I find no examples in my databases. That sort of information leads to real doubts about playing in this way.
10.… Nxc3
11. bxc3 Bb7
12. Bd3 c5
13. O-O Nc6
14. d5 …..
The computer continues to see the game as about equal with White having a nominal edge.
14.…. exd5
15. exd5 Ne5
16. Re1 Nxf3+
17. Qxf3 Qd6
18. c4 Rfe8
We have pretty much have played that which my electronic friend says are the good normal moves. White has retained that small nagging edge he is supposed to get out of the opening. Since everything went along so well, I am puzzled at not finding examples in the databases.
19. Re3 Re7
20. Rae1 Rae8
21. Rxe7 Rxe7
22. Rxe7 Qxe7
Some of the spectators thought after the game that this exchange of all the Rooks was misguided. The computer agrees and suggests 21 R1e2, first. After “cooking” for a few minutes, it then offers 21 Rxe7, Rxe7; 22 Re4. The idea is: White’s Q-side pawns are vulnerable which requires keeping at least one heavy piece on the board until the White King is better placed and the K-side stabilized. Even then White probably should not be in any hurry to trade the heavies. That notion crossed my mind during the game. Then I thought with the Queens off, I can still hold the position, after all there is still the passer on d5. Just how wrong my judgment was becomes clear in a few moves.
23. Qe4 Qxe4
24. Bxe4 ….
Only now did it dawn on me that my bridges were well and truly burnt and I began to search for some way to bolster the defense of d5..
24.… Kf8
25. f4 Ba6
26. Bd3 Ke7
27. Kf2 Bc8
28. a4? ….
This just makes a second target for Black. After this move, although the trusty computer says White is no worse than even, I expect the game is nearly lost.
28.… Bd7
29. Bc2 Kd6
30. Ke3 a6
Yipes! To quote Aagaard; “What was I thinking heading into this position? Clearly I was not thinking!” My notion was with my Bishop on b3 all is secure. It was about here that I realized after the trading of pawns on b5 and the Black Bishop landing on b5, there are not enough free squares on the a2-g8 diagonal for my cleric to make tempo moves. That fact made holding the d-pawn problematical. A touch of panic set in for me now. I did not take a step back and search for some alternative idea. One thought is to boldly send my King to e4 trying to induce f7-f5. If I can get some of the Black K-side pawns on light squares, there are chances of giving up the d-pawn to get my Bishop behind those pawns to attack them from the rear. Maybe that isn’t enough to hold, but it would create chances.
31. Bb3 b5
32. axb5 axb5
33. cxb5 Bxb5
34. Ba2 Bf1
35. Kf2 Ba6
36. Ke3 f6
37. g4 Bc8
38. h3? ….
The line I followed had reasonable chances to hold. Here, however, I falter. Better 38 Kf3, then although the d-pawn drops, there is counter play that just might hold the game after 38..., g6; 39 h4, Bb7; 40 Ke4. Bxd5+; 41 Bxd5, f5+; 42 gxf5, gxf5+; 43 Kxf5, Kxd5; 44 Kg6, and White is fast enough in the pawn race to draw. One factor that colored my thinking was a distaste for a play-off. If Dean and I split the point, there was a real chance that we would end in a three way tie with Rotter for the third qualifying spot. That outcome meant a three way playoff, something that had no appeal for me. Two more hard games just to get to the finals for five more hard battles.
After the text, the game slips away from me. Black has targets and I could not find a way to hold the balance.
38.… h5
39. Kf3 Bb7
40. Ke4 Ba6
41. gxh5 Bc8
42. f5? ….
After the game, my team mate from the Schenectady Geezers, Richard Chu thought this was a mistake. In the usual manner of an Class A player to a C class player I assured him the game was already lost. Wrong again! With 42 h4. White could have kept the battle going as Richard suggested. My objectivity had gone completely. In my mind the game was lost justifying giving up the coverage of e5. One more example of how one’s attitude about a position affects decisions.
42.… Ba6
43. h4 Bf1
Threatening a check on g2 winning the d-pawn and the game. There is not much to say about the few remaining moves. A nice effort by Dean Howard taking advantage of my questionable play in a workmanlike manner.
44. Kf3 Ke5
45. d6 Kxd6
46. Be6 Ke5
47. Ke3 Bh3
48 Resigns
The 4th of March is the starting date for the Schenectady Consolation Swiss. I’ll be there. If the contenders that were knocked out of the Finals all play, this will be a pretty strong Consolation. Possible entrants include; John Barnes, Jonathan Lack, Alan Le Cours and me, although I’m not so sure I am a serious threat for first any more. That is not to forget the dangerous folks from further down the rating list; Qu, Chu, Saran and Connors. A good turnout will make this a tough event to win.
2.10.2010
A Belated Report From Last Thursday
Last Thursday the SCC Ch Prelim A moved a step closer to reaching a conclusion. Mockler drew with Little. The half point means Mike Mockler has first place in hand and leaves the fight for second and third places still pretty open. The simplest description of the situation is; Little faces Dean Howard next Thursday when the result determines a good deal about who finishes where. A win for Little puts in the playoffs, a loss and he is out. If the game is drawn (shudder) there will be a playoff between two or three players; Howard, Rotter and Little.
There is another game next Thursday with a bearing on the qualifications; Connors versus Rotter. On rating Bobby is a heavy favorite. The contest is made interesting by the players’ performances this year. Rotter has conceded five draws, one each to Little, Mockler, Howard and Le Cours. The extra draw was with Richard Chu. But for this upset draw Bobby would be home and dry regards qualification. David Connors is out of the hunt for a qualifying spot, but his results against those fighting for a place is remarkable; draw with Little, win from Le Cours, loss to Mockler and a draw with Howard, for 2/4 versus Class A players/Experts so far. The intriguing question is which David Connors will show up for the game Thursday? Anything less than a win may well put Bobby out of the running for a place in the Finals.
Handicapping the Little - Howard game has the usual difficulties. Howard has held his Expert rating for a long time. His form this year has been up and down. I certainly haven’t show a consistent form either. An occasional good game interspersed with errors and blunders. The best guess about the coming game, a toss-up.
With regards to the Rotter - Connors game; Rotter is fierce in the opening and inventive in the middle game. If he has a weakness it is letting down as the ending approaches. David, when he is playing strongly, has an excellent sense of danger. He has been able to avoid the usual tricks and traps that A Players typically drop in the path of lower rated foes. So we have Rotter who likes to play the sharpest of openings versus Connors who has done well by being alert to danger.
Schenectady Championship, Preliminary Section A
SCC
Date 2-4-2010
White Mockler, M
Black Little, B
1. b3 ….
Mike enjoys the provocative, much as did Bent Larsen.
1.… Nf6
2. Bb2 d5
3. e3 Bf5
Rublevsky played in this fashion in the 1990’s so it may not be without danger for White.
4. Nf3 ….
Mike and I take lessons from GM Ronen Har-Zvi on weekends. The GM asked the pointed question here; “Why not 4 f4?” It is the most principled approach for White. After the text we have reached a position known in theory that usually comes about because White puts his Knight on f3 earlier.
4.… e6
5. Na3!? …..
More provocation. Normal is 5 Be2, when White typically tracks down the Bf5 with the Nf3-h4 following on with c2-c4 and Nb1-c3 as in Najdorf - Cabone, Buenos Aries, 1972.
5.… Nbd7
6. Be2 h6
7. c4 c6
8. Nc2 Bd6
9. Ncd4 Bh7
10. Nh4 ….
After using three moves to send my Bf5 back to its prepared lair on h7, White really can’t claim any advantage. If my computer is to be believed, Black is on top here. Why? It seems based on the principle that White has not been strictly logical in his development Black has on offer the opportunity to get the ball rolling with 10.…, g5; then, if White plays routinely; 11 Nhf3, e5; 12 Nc2, g4; 13 Nh4, dxc5; 14 Bxc4, Ne5; leaving Black with a solid plus. White has several places to make other choices in the line cited. The point is playing so for Black would put a load of hard work on White. Rather than do so I elected for routine myself and castled.
10.… O-O
11. f4 c5?
An interesting error. I did not see that c5 free of obstruction was a nice way station for my Nd7 if it heads towards d3. Better than the text move is 11..., dxc4; than if 12 bxc4, Qb6; with a messy fight on the board where Black is threatening to grab a significant edge. If 12 Bxc4, the game is unclear making Black work hard to find a path forward. I looked only casually at the capture on c4, noted 12 Bxc4 and had no good idea of how to proceed from there. The move I did not consider was 11..., g5; then 12 fxg5, hxg5; 13 Nf3, e5; 14 Nc2, g4; 15 Ng5, Bg6; with an interesting struggle where Black is not worse.
12. Nb5 Ne4
13. g3 Be7
14. Ng2 a6
15. Nc3 Bf6
There are many different moves that could have been tried in the last sequence for both sides. Some favored White and some Black. During the game neither player caught on to the alternatives.
16. Na4 d4?
Again I only gave 16..., dxc4; a passing glance and played the move that first came to mind. After 16..., cxd4; White must be careful. If 17 bxc5, Qa5; 18 0-0, Nxd2 collects a pawn, or, 17 Bxc4??, b5; is fatal. Had I captured on c4, White would be in some trouble. Maybe there is a way through the difficulties, but I haven’t found it yet. I missed the specific tactic and I did see the underlying positional concept; the Black Queen can jump into the fray effectively on the Q-side. At several points in our conversation about the game with GM Har-Zvi, he suggested moves by the Queen to active squares b6 and a5. Even while going over the game it did not sink in how important getting the Queen into play really was. The game move gives White the edge the first player normally enjoys.
17. O-O ….
Here White could have played 17 exd4, keeping a comfortable plus. Castling offers me another opportunity to bring the Queen to a5. If play goes 17..., Qa5; 18 d3, Nc3; 19 Nxc3, dxc3; 20 Bc1, Black wins the Exchange for a pawn. Notwithstanding the material edge Black has, White’s game has substantial resources particularly because the Black Knight has no strong outpost. Black can forego greed and play to fortify the pawn on c3 with 20..., Nb8; heading for b4 via c6. That is a hard plan for White to meet successfully.
I gave insufficient thought to doing something with the Queen wanting to make a profit out of the awkward position of the Na4.
17.… Rb8?!
This move gives away the potential advantage. Ronen still thought Black was for choice. The computer sees the game as slightly favoring White.
18. d3 b5
19. dxe4 Bxe4
20. exd4?! …..
Superior is 20 Nxc5. It is hard to find any great compensation Black has for the pawn invested.
20.… bxa4
21. Bf3 Bh7!?
One idea the GM suggested here was 21..., Bxf3; 22 Rxf3, Qb6; 23 Rd3, axb3; 24 axb3, Bxd4+; 25 Bxd4, cxd4; 26 Rxd4, e5; 27 fxe5, Nxe5; 28 Kh1, Qxb3; when the threats on the back rank give Black more than enough counter play by making the a-pawn very risky to capture for White.
After the text the game is even according to the computer. Black has pins on the file and the diagonal along with the potential of opening the g1-a7 diagonal making the safety of the White King an issue. These were the features of the position that GM Har-Zvi pointed out that are still there even after the retreat to h7. He believes Black should have the edge here.
22. Rf2 Qc7
More active is 22..., Qb6. Playing out this line on the computer turn up interesting variations that lead to a draw. At this point in the game I had a nagging feeling something had been missed. There was nothing on which I could think of specifically, but the suspicion remained. My focus now was how to get to the safe haven of a the draw.
23. d5 exd5
24. Bxd5 Bxb2
25. Rxb2 Nf6
26. Rd2 Ne4
27. Bxe4 Bxe4
28. Ne3 Rfd8
29. Nd5 Qa5
Even so late the Queen move is what gives life to Black’s chances. Leading more directly to the point split is 29..., Bxd5.
30. bxa4 ….
After this capture, the draw is easy to obtain for Black.
30.… Bxd5
31. Rxd5? …..
An instructive mistake. With 31 cxd5, the game remains level. Trading Rooks creates a serious weakness on the second rank that could well cost the full point,
31.… Rxd5
32. cxd5? …..
And this move could actually lose. White had to play 32 Qxd5, to hold the game comfortably.
32.…. c4?
With my mind fixed on reaching a drawn position, tactical alertness failed for me and I missed the strong move 32..., Qc3. The threat is …., Rb8-b2. Play goes 32..., Qc3; 33 Rc1, (note 33 Rb1, fails to 33..., Qe3+; and, at the very least, Black emerges a strong central pawn to the good because the doubled a-pawns really only count as a single pawn.) 33..., Qe3+; and any way White plays, 34 Kh3, or 34 Kh1, mate is not too far away.
33. Qd4 Rd8
34. Qxc4 …..
In effect agreeing the draw because after the trades on d5, the Black Rook is favorably placed to clip one of the a-pawns and keep the White Rook from becoming very active.
34.… Qxd5
35 Drawn by agreement.
This result leaves all my chances to qualify to the Finals resting on the game with Howard. More when that game is over.
There is another game next Thursday with a bearing on the qualifications; Connors versus Rotter. On rating Bobby is a heavy favorite. The contest is made interesting by the players’ performances this year. Rotter has conceded five draws, one each to Little, Mockler, Howard and Le Cours. The extra draw was with Richard Chu. But for this upset draw Bobby would be home and dry regards qualification. David Connors is out of the hunt for a qualifying spot, but his results against those fighting for a place is remarkable; draw with Little, win from Le Cours, loss to Mockler and a draw with Howard, for 2/4 versus Class A players/Experts so far. The intriguing question is which David Connors will show up for the game Thursday? Anything less than a win may well put Bobby out of the running for a place in the Finals.
Handicapping the Little - Howard game has the usual difficulties. Howard has held his Expert rating for a long time. His form this year has been up and down. I certainly haven’t show a consistent form either. An occasional good game interspersed with errors and blunders. The best guess about the coming game, a toss-up.
With regards to the Rotter - Connors game; Rotter is fierce in the opening and inventive in the middle game. If he has a weakness it is letting down as the ending approaches. David, when he is playing strongly, has an excellent sense of danger. He has been able to avoid the usual tricks and traps that A Players typically drop in the path of lower rated foes. So we have Rotter who likes to play the sharpest of openings versus Connors who has done well by being alert to danger.
Schenectady Championship, Preliminary Section A
SCC
Date 2-4-2010
White Mockler, M
Black Little, B
1. b3 ….
Mike enjoys the provocative, much as did Bent Larsen.
1.… Nf6
2. Bb2 d5
3. e3 Bf5
Rublevsky played in this fashion in the 1990’s so it may not be without danger for White.
4. Nf3 ….
Mike and I take lessons from GM Ronen Har-Zvi on weekends. The GM asked the pointed question here; “Why not 4 f4?” It is the most principled approach for White. After the text we have reached a position known in theory that usually comes about because White puts his Knight on f3 earlier.
4.… e6
5. Na3!? …..
More provocation. Normal is 5 Be2, when White typically tracks down the Bf5 with the Nf3-h4 following on with c2-c4 and Nb1-c3 as in Najdorf - Cabone, Buenos Aries, 1972.
5.… Nbd7
6. Be2 h6
7. c4 c6
8. Nc2 Bd6
9. Ncd4 Bh7
10. Nh4 ….
After using three moves to send my Bf5 back to its prepared lair on h7, White really can’t claim any advantage. If my computer is to be believed, Black is on top here. Why? It seems based on the principle that White has not been strictly logical in his development Black has on offer the opportunity to get the ball rolling with 10.…, g5; then, if White plays routinely; 11 Nhf3, e5; 12 Nc2, g4; 13 Nh4, dxc5; 14 Bxc4, Ne5; leaving Black with a solid plus. White has several places to make other choices in the line cited. The point is playing so for Black would put a load of hard work on White. Rather than do so I elected for routine myself and castled.
10.… O-O
11. f4 c5?
An interesting error. I did not see that c5 free of obstruction was a nice way station for my Nd7 if it heads towards d3. Better than the text move is 11..., dxc4; than if 12 bxc4, Qb6; with a messy fight on the board where Black is threatening to grab a significant edge. If 12 Bxc4, the game is unclear making Black work hard to find a path forward. I looked only casually at the capture on c4, noted 12 Bxc4 and had no good idea of how to proceed from there. The move I did not consider was 11..., g5; then 12 fxg5, hxg5; 13 Nf3, e5; 14 Nc2, g4; 15 Ng5, Bg6; with an interesting struggle where Black is not worse.
12. Nb5 Ne4
13. g3 Be7
14. Ng2 a6
15. Nc3 Bf6
There are many different moves that could have been tried in the last sequence for both sides. Some favored White and some Black. During the game neither player caught on to the alternatives.
16. Na4 d4?
Again I only gave 16..., dxc4; a passing glance and played the move that first came to mind. After 16..., cxd4; White must be careful. If 17 bxc5, Qa5; 18 0-0, Nxd2 collects a pawn, or, 17 Bxc4??, b5; is fatal. Had I captured on c4, White would be in some trouble. Maybe there is a way through the difficulties, but I haven’t found it yet. I missed the specific tactic and I did see the underlying positional concept; the Black Queen can jump into the fray effectively on the Q-side. At several points in our conversation about the game with GM Har-Zvi, he suggested moves by the Queen to active squares b6 and a5. Even while going over the game it did not sink in how important getting the Queen into play really was. The game move gives White the edge the first player normally enjoys.
17. O-O ….
Here White could have played 17 exd4, keeping a comfortable plus. Castling offers me another opportunity to bring the Queen to a5. If play goes 17..., Qa5; 18 d3, Nc3; 19 Nxc3, dxc3; 20 Bc1, Black wins the Exchange for a pawn. Notwithstanding the material edge Black has, White’s game has substantial resources particularly because the Black Knight has no strong outpost. Black can forego greed and play to fortify the pawn on c3 with 20..., Nb8; heading for b4 via c6. That is a hard plan for White to meet successfully.
I gave insufficient thought to doing something with the Queen wanting to make a profit out of the awkward position of the Na4.
17.… Rb8?!
This move gives away the potential advantage. Ronen still thought Black was for choice. The computer sees the game as slightly favoring White.
18. d3 b5
19. dxe4 Bxe4
20. exd4?! …..
Superior is 20 Nxc5. It is hard to find any great compensation Black has for the pawn invested.
20.… bxa4
21. Bf3 Bh7!?
One idea the GM suggested here was 21..., Bxf3; 22 Rxf3, Qb6; 23 Rd3, axb3; 24 axb3, Bxd4+; 25 Bxd4, cxd4; 26 Rxd4, e5; 27 fxe5, Nxe5; 28 Kh1, Qxb3; when the threats on the back rank give Black more than enough counter play by making the a-pawn very risky to capture for White.
After the text the game is even according to the computer. Black has pins on the file and the diagonal along with the potential of opening the g1-a7 diagonal making the safety of the White King an issue. These were the features of the position that GM Har-Zvi pointed out that are still there even after the retreat to h7. He believes Black should have the edge here.
22. Rf2 Qc7
More active is 22..., Qb6. Playing out this line on the computer turn up interesting variations that lead to a draw. At this point in the game I had a nagging feeling something had been missed. There was nothing on which I could think of specifically, but the suspicion remained. My focus now was how to get to the safe haven of a the draw.
23. d5 exd5
24. Bxd5 Bxb2
25. Rxb2 Nf6
26. Rd2 Ne4
27. Bxe4 Bxe4
28. Ne3 Rfd8
29. Nd5 Qa5
Even so late the Queen move is what gives life to Black’s chances. Leading more directly to the point split is 29..., Bxd5.
30. bxa4 ….
After this capture, the draw is easy to obtain for Black.
30.… Bxd5
31. Rxd5? …..
An instructive mistake. With 31 cxd5, the game remains level. Trading Rooks creates a serious weakness on the second rank that could well cost the full point,
31.… Rxd5
32. cxd5? …..
And this move could actually lose. White had to play 32 Qxd5, to hold the game comfortably.
32.…. c4?
With my mind fixed on reaching a drawn position, tactical alertness failed for me and I missed the strong move 32..., Qc3. The threat is …., Rb8-b2. Play goes 32..., Qc3; 33 Rc1, (note 33 Rb1, fails to 33..., Qe3+; and, at the very least, Black emerges a strong central pawn to the good because the doubled a-pawns really only count as a single pawn.) 33..., Qe3+; and any way White plays, 34 Kh3, or 34 Kh1, mate is not too far away.
33. Qd4 Rd8
34. Qxc4 …..
In effect agreeing the draw because after the trades on d5, the Black Rook is favorably placed to clip one of the a-pawns and keep the White Rook from becoming very active.
34.… Qxd5
35 Drawn by agreement.
This result leaves all my chances to qualify to the Finals resting on the game with Howard. More when that game is over.
Updated Results
Schenectady CC Championships 2009-10
Results include games of 2/4/2010 Preliminary Section AC
# | Name | Rat | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 0 | 1 | Tot | Pct. |
1 | Howard, Dean | 2000 | C[ C | 0 | 1 | ½ | 1 | 1 | ½ | 1 | ½ | 1 | 6.5/9 | .722 | |
2 | Mockler, Mike | 1929 | 1 | C | 1 | 1 | 1 | ½ | 1 | 1 | ½ | ½ | 1 | 8.5/10 | .850 |
3 | Eson, Charles | 818 | 0 | 0 | C | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2/ 10 | .200 |
4 | Chu, Richard C | 1558 | ½ | 0 | 1 | C | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | ½ | 1 | 5/10 | .500 |
5 | Le Cours, Alan | 1918 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | C | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | ½ | 1 | 6.5/10 | .650 |
6 | Qu, Chen | 1683 | 0 | ½ | 1 | 1 | 0 | C | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5.5/10 | .550 |
7 | Connors, David | 1533 | ½ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | C | 1 | ½ | 1 | 3.5/9 | .389 | |
8 | Kanakamedala, Yogi | 1023 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | C | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0/10 | .0 |
9 | Little, William | 1894 | ½ | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ½ | 1 | C | ½ | 1 | 6.5/9 | .722 | |
10 | Rotter, Robert | 1929 | ½ | ½ | 1 | ½ | ½ | 1 | 1 | ½ | C | 1 | 6.5/9 | .722 | |
11 | Capitummino, Jeff | 1273 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | C | 2/10 | .200 |
12 | BYE |
Schenectady CC Championships 2009-10
Preliminary Section B
Results include games of 2/10/2010
# | Name | Rat | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 0 | Tot | Pct. |
1 | Chi, Patrick | 1933 | C | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ½ | 1 | 1 | ½ | 1 | 8/9 | .889 |
2 | Barnes, John | 1857 | 0 | C | ½ | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ½ | 1 | 5/9 | .555 |
3 | Saran, Brij | 1617 | 0 | ½ | C | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0F | 1 | 4.5/9 | .500 |
4 | Dipre, George | 1430 | 0 | 0 | 1 | C | 0 | 0 | ½ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.5/9 | .167 |
5 | Aaron, Dilip | 1303 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | C | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2/9 | .222 |
6 | Sells, Philip | 1994 | ½ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | C | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8.5/9 | .944 |
7 | Northrup, Cory | 932 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ½ | 1 | 0 | C | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3.5/9 | .388 |
8 | Phillips, John | 1903 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | C | 1 | 1 | 6/9 | .667 |
9 | Lack, Jonathan | 1912 | ½ | ½ | 1F | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | C | ½ | 4.5/ 9 | .500 |
10 | Stanley, Michael | 993 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ½ | C | 1.5/8 | .188 |
Round | Date | Pairings |
1 | Oct. 8 | 5-10, 6-4, 7-3, 8-2, 9-1 |
2 | Oct. 15 | 10-9, 1-8, 2-7, 3-6, 4-5 |
3 | Oct. 22 | 4-10, 5-3, 6-2, 7-1, 8-9 |
4 | Oct. 29 | 10-8, 9-7, 1-6, 2-5, 3-4 |
5 | Nov. 5 | 3-10, 4-2, 5-1, 6-9, 7-8 |
6 | Nov. 12 | 10-7, 8-6, 9-5, 1-4, 2-3 |
7 | Nov. 19 | 2-10, 3-1, 4-9, 5-8, 6-7 |
8 | Dec. 3 | 10-6, 7-5, 8-4, 9-3, 1-2 |
9 | Dec. 10 | 1-10, 2-9, 3-8, 4-7, 5-6 |
No meetings on Nov. 26, Dec. 24 and Dec. 31
All games must be finished by Jan. 20, 2010
Clocks start at 7:45 p.m. – please call your opponent or the tournament director if you can't make a game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
