Harking Back to Some Old Times

The dog days of Summer are upon us with heat and humidity and not much in the way of organized chess locally. The US Junior and the US Women’s Championships are going on in St Louis and some of the 2700s are playing in Dortmund, and about seven weeks from now the NYS Championship will be held once more in the Capital District kicking off another season of local play. What to do with all these days without local chess events? Tim Wright, the President of the Albany Area Chess Club and Richard Chu, President of the Schenectady chess Club have agreed to hold once more a traditional event; the “big” Albany versus Schenectady match. The tentative date is August 19th at the Schenectady Club. The probable start time will be 7:30 pm and the time control will be the usual Game/90 or Game/105. The intention is to have twenty boards per side.

For many years when I was much younger the Albany - Schenectady match was held regularly. I know in the 1950s and 1960s Frank Valvo, the perennial Schenectady champion promoted it as a way to get some press for the local clubs. It was held in fits and starts through the 70s and 80s and with dwindling frequency into the 1990s. Truthfully, I don’t remember the last time the big match was held. With growing interest in chess locally through the efforts of GM Har-Zvi, Brother John at Make the Right Move and Asok Aaron with Proctor’s and the Schenectady City Mission, this seems a good time for a revival. Let us hope for a good turnout.

I like to put in some chess in each of my posts. Today’s tidbit is a game I lost to Matt Katrein a rather long time ago. As the World Champion, Boris Spassky famously said: “Chess is a negative game; our losses stay with us longer and more sharply than any of our victories.” This is one such for me.

Katrien,Matt - Little,Bill

Schenectady Chess Club Quad

11.08.1973

1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.e4 d5

Here I am trying to be technically tricky with a Life Master. This way of playing against the English is too complicated to be correct for a Class A player to use against a master, it does have some surprise value. For those interested in names of lines; this is the English Opening, the Flohr-Mikenas System.

4.cxd5 exd5 5.e5 Ne4 6.Nxe4 dxe4 7.Qa4+ Nc6 8.Qxe4 Qd4!?

Bailing out early. Proper is 8..., Be6; thinking about 9..., Bd5; and for the pawn given up Black has easy development with the possibility of making good use of central square gaps that have opened up as a result of the forward rush of the White e-pawn.

9.Qxd4 Nxd4 10.Bd3 Be6 11.Ne2 Bc5

An alternative idea for Black is 11..., 0-0-0 12 Be4 Bc5 13 b4 Nxe2 14 bxc5 Nf4, and the question is can Black make something out of his smoother development.

12.Nxd?,..

An interesting error from the master. White could have done better with 12 b4, or 12 Nf4. The text lets Black obtain a slight edge.

12..., Bxd4 13.f4 Bd5 14.Bf1?,..

Matt was determined to keep his extra pawn. Returning the pawn with 14 Kd1, is the best way to level up the game.

14..., 0–0!?

Now I begin to get quite careful. Sharper is 14..., f6!; when Black gives up some more pawns to cripple any chances White has to hold on long. The probable continuation is; 15 exf6 0-0 16 fxg7 Rfe8+ 17 Kd1 Re2 18 h4 Rae8 when Black has White tied up. All the extra pawns White has accumulated will fall naturally in the course of the Black pieces invading the White position. The game continuation keeps the advantage but it doesn’t press as hard as could have been done. I do not feel too badly about the decision. I could not clearly see how the position coming after 14..., f6; was better than the position arrived at in the game. That being the case, good technique says don’t hurry and keep the advantage you understand.

15.Kd1 f6 16.exf6 Rxf6 17.d3 Re8 18.h4 Ra6 19.Rh3

Black has a won game in hand. I was sure the advantage was mine, but I did not buckle down to the hard work needed to discover the exact road to victory. That failing has haunted my play consistently over the years. Even knowing my weakness has not enabled me to rid my play of the problem of assuming I will find the right move without hard effort.

19..., Bxa2?

This inaccuracy lets go of about one-half of the advantage earned. Correct is 19...,

Rae6; feinting towards the center. Then if 20 Bd2, the switch back to the Q-side with 20..., Rb6 21 Bc3 Bxc3 22 bxc2 Rb2 completes the bind on the White position. Now Black has what must be called a substantial advantage but not quite winning.

20.Kd2 Bf2?

Peeling off more of my edge. After doing a good job of making my pieces active enough to offset a one pawn disadvantage, the last two moves reduce piece activity. The text has a too simple threat; 21..., Be1+; forcing the White King to a light square where a discovered attack with check collects the Exchange. A better plan is 20..., Kf7; to get a step closer to the White K-side pawns, and 22... Ree6; heading towards b6 to put pressure on b2. Black must not be fooled into thinking he can simply win material on the Q-side. White gets some moves as well. With g2-g4 and Bf1-g2 White gets access for his light squared Bishop to the key diagonal; a2-g8. Clipping the a-pawn no light undertaking for Black because of the Bishop checking on the a2-g8 line.

21.Be2 Rae6 22.Bf3 Bb3 23.Kc3 Rb6 24.g4 Re1 25.Rh2 Bc5 26.Re2?!

White can make a sterner fight with 26 Rh1.

26..., Rxe2?1

Similarly, Black should not agree to simplification here, better 26..., Rf1; and if 27 Bg2 Rg1; keeping the pressure on. The best for White may be giving up the Exchange with 27 Be3 then 27..., Rxa1 28 Bxc5 Rc1+ 29 Kd4 Re6 30 Rxe6 Bxe6 31 Bxb7, leading to a technical ending where White has some drawing chances.

27.Bxe2 Bd5 28.Bd1 Bb4+ 29.Kc2 Be1 30.Kb1 a5

Black has hung on to some pull while White has not really worked out a good disposition of his pieces. This is another point where serious hard work at the board was necessary, and I did not put the effort in.

31.f5 c5 32.Be3 Bb4 33.Kc2 Rc6 34.Bd2 Bxd2 35.Kxd2 b6 36.Ba4 Rd6 37.Re1 c4?!

I did not recognize that gradually Matt had repaired many of the problems in his position and my advantage was gone. Having a win in hand for so long seemed to lock my mind into the view just one more push would get the full point. That loss of objectivity is another failing of mine. Correct is something like 37..., Bc5 38 Kc3 Ba6 39 Bc2 Kf7 comfortably holding the game. The move played does not lose the game, however White is a bit better than Black now.

38.Re3 Kf7 39.Kc3,..

It began to dawn on me all was not well with my game here. The more I searched for ideas, the less I liked what was found.

39..., cxd3 40.Rxd3 Ke7 41.Re3+ Kf6 42.Bc2 Rc6+ 43.Kd2 b5?

For the last few moves I have been looking for a way to bailout and head for a draw. The move is not an outright error. It just heads down a risky path. Safe and sound is 43..., h6. Of course Black would have to calculate several different possible endgame variations after 44 Bd3. There are lines beginning 44..., Rc8; and 44..., Bc4. They are long, but with reduced material not beyond my capacity to calculate. Once more instead of hard work, I chose wrong headed activity.

44.g5+ Kf7 45.Re5 Rd6 46.Ke3 a4

My play has allowed White to get a very favorable formation on the K-side and some threats on my Q-side majority. The net result is to make drawing the ending ever so much more difficult.

47.Bd3 b4??

Taking a tough ending and making it into a sudden loss by missing a tactical shot. What hurts the most is for most of the game there were tricks around the central files and diagonals. Up to here I was alert enough to see them. Now a slip and the master not only has gotten away, he wins the game. Things are OK for Black after 47..., Bc4; when 48 Bxc4 cxd4 49 Ra4 Rd3+ appears to bring the game close to a theoretical draw.

48.Rxd5 1–0

Over the years I won a game or three from Matt Katrein, but never again did I have such an overwhelming position. Whenever I pontificate too long about chess, Matt can humble me with just a hint reminding me of this defeat.

Some League History

Bill Townsend, the chess columnist for the Schenectady Gazette, passed some information on to me about the history of the Capital District Chess League. As the CDCL, various club teams have been competing since 1991. Prior to that date, chess clubs in the Hudson Valley and surrounding areas were part of the Hudson Valley Chess League. I can’t be completely certain of all the member clubs of the HVCL, but from my games record Poughkeepsie, IBM, Vassar College, Newburgh and Woodstock played in the League along with Albany and Schenectady.

Just why and how the HVCL disappeared and the Capital District Chess League came to be I do not know. At the time the transition took place my job began to require overseas travel on a weekly basis, and I was no longer able to attend club meetings regularly. Without regular attendance the organizational memory slips. Bill Townsend likely knows the details. Maybe he will use his column to fill in the gap. I suspect some of the “down-river” clubs may have lost interest in making the trips to Albany, Schenectady and Saratoga.

Now to Bill’s information. He kindly provided a list of all the winners in both the HVCL and the CDCL from 1984 to this year. It is herein reproduced:

Hudson Valley Chess League

1984 Schenectady

1985 Schenectady

1986 Albany

1987 Poughkeepsie

1988 Saratoga

1989 Poughkeepsie

Capital District Chess League

1991 Albany A on tie-breaks over Schenectady A

1992 Albany A

1993 Albany

1994 Albany

1995 Albany A

1996 Albany A

1997 Albany A

1998 Saratoga

1999 Schenectady A

2000 Albany B

2001 Albany B

2002 Saratoga A on tie-breaks over Albany B

2003 Albany B (8-0, unbeaten and untied)

2004 Schenectady A on tie-breaks over Albany B

2005 Schenectady A on tie-breaks over Saratoga A

2006 Saratoga A on tie-breaks over Schenectady A

2007 Saratoga A on tie-breaks over Schenectady A

2008 Albany B after a playoff match tied 2-2. The tie was broken w/S-B tie-breaks.

2009 Albany on tie-breaks over Schenectady A

2010 Schenectady A

Careful readers will note the changing name of the strongest Albany team. Sometimes it is called Albany, other times Albany A, and then for awhile Albany B. This year, their first team was known as just Albany, and the second team fielded by the Albany Area Chess Club - that’s been the official name of the Albany club for a number of years - was called the Guilderland team. Go figure! In any event, the Albany team had a great run through the 1990’s. The turn of the century saw fortune turn for Albany when Saratoga was able to get Steve Taylor more regularly on board 1, and Saratoga A won in 1998 and Schenectady in 1999. Since 2000 the competition has been more balanced. Albany winning five times, Saratoga and Schenectady three times each.

Although Bill's information goes back only to 1984, the Hudson Valley League was working much longer. According to my record of games, I won the first game I played in the League from George Steeves, in March of 1969 playing third board against Newburgh. It was not a new League at that time. From what I recall it had been in action for a number of years before.

For the sake of old times, here is a game from the 1985/1986 season when Schenectady won the Hudson Valley Chess League title.

HVCL - Newburgh v Schenectady, Board 2

Newburgh, NY

3-02-1986

Lawrence, A - Little, B

Al Lawrence was a sometime Executive Director of the USCF. When this game was played he had just broken through to the Expert ranks as a chess player. In later years Al participated in the design and writing of Pirc Alert!, Chess Information and Research Center, NYC, 2001, Alburt, Chernin and Lawrence, one of my favorite books. He has played infrequently in recent years with his rating staying just about on the line between Expert and high “A” class.

1. d4 Nf6

2. Nf3 e6

3. Bg5 Be7

4. e3 c5

5. Bd3 Nc6?!

Up to this move we were in a well known line of the Torre Attack. The game move has been tried a few times international circuit but without much happiness for Black.

6. c3 h6

We are now out of the “Book”, although the position looks reasonably normal.

7. Bh4 d5

8. Nbd2 O-O

9. O-O …..

By various paths we have reached a position known as long ago Kemeri 1937 where Keres as Black used this set up to draw with Tartakower in 31 moves.

9.…. e5?!

The great Paul played more sensibility with 9..., b6; and took up a position that he’d used very successfully against the best in the world for many years. My computer suggests 9..., c4; but that move looks to be too committal. The text move is risky. I came up with it at the board. It has the advantage of putting White on his own skill without anything from theory to help him. That is a small recommendation for the move.

10. Nxe5 Nxe5

11. dxe5 Ng4

12. Bg3 Bh4

This violent thrashing should not work so well as it does.

13. Qf3!? …..

The natural 13 Nf3, organizes the White pieces better than the text. Also good is 13 Bxh4, Qxh4; 14 Nf3, Qe7; 15 e4!, and while Black can recover the pawn, after the near forced 15..., dxe4; 16 Bxe4, and later Qd1-b3, b7 is under pressure from White. Completing development will not be easy for Black. The maneuver Black has pursued for the last three moves is similar to the Tartakower - Keres game with difference that the Bc8 hasn’t shifted to the long diagonal, and we can now see why Paul Keres took time to play …, b6; and …, Bb7.

13.…. Re8

14. Bb5?! ….

White decides he can begin active operations since his development is pretty much completed and Black has still to get his last minor piece out and to work. With 14 Rad1, White could have hung on to some slight edge. After the game move Black is entirely even.

14.…. Nxe5

15. Qh5? …..

If Black wants take risks, White thinks two can play at that game. A decision that is quite wrong.

15.… Bxg3

16. Bxe8 …..

Marginally better is 16 hxg3.

16... Bg4

17. Bxf7+ Kh8

18. Qxg4?? ….

White mistakenly believes his cause is lost. Best here is 18 hxg3, Bxh4; 19 Bxh4, and with a Bishop, Rook and a extra pawn White certainly has chances to hold the game and maybe even win it. After the game move, Black not only picks up material; he also has a strong attack.

18.… Bxh2+

19. Kxh2 Nxg4+

20. Kg1 Qc7!

This was the move that Al did not take in to account when he decided on this line. The threat of mate at h2 wins the Bf7. Rather than fight out what looks to be a lost cause, Lawrence decided to get a bite of lunch and to try again in the second game of the match and so;

21 Resigns.

The satisfaction of winning so quickly brought with it a certain reckless abandon. In the second game of the day Mr. Lawrence tried the Scandinavian and I demonstrated my lack of understanding of the opening. Al did not calculate to well in the morning game and I therefore thought throwing in some small tricks would get the same result. He saw through my traps and rather quickly obtained the upper hand and the game was lost..

This particular year the format for HVCL matches called for two games on each of the five boards. The idea was for “home and home” contests. My recollection is most of the time we played both games on the same day if the trip to the site was a long drive. That was the case here. The only good thing for me about the second game is it was about as short as my win in the first round, and I got to head for home before the sun went down.

There have been conversations with the Presidents of the Albany and Schenectady clubs about reviving the big matches between the two clubs. The Executives are in agreement and a tentative date discussed. The thought is mid-August, twenty boards on each side, maybe more if we can find the players.

This kind of once a year big match was a fixture in the 1950's right up and through the 1990's. When the Albany Club had problems with their meeting rooms, about 1997 the series fell out of the plans and never was brought up. As the plans develop we will post news here, and I'll ask Bill Townsend to make mention of it in his column.

Wrapping Up The League

The final standings for the Capital District Chess League are:

Match Score Game Score

1 Schenectady A 6 ½ - ½ 23

2 Albany 6 - 1 20 ½

3 Saratoga A 5 ½ - 1 ½ 19

4 Schenectady Geezers 3 ½ - 3 ½ 15

5 Guilderland 3 - 4 12

6 RPI 2 - 5 9 ½

7 Uncle Sam (Troy) 2 - 5 7 ½

8 Saratoga B 0 - 7 4 ½

After some years where Albany dominated the League, Schenectady has once again won the title. The battle as is usual came down to the matches between the big three. Schenectady A’s defeat of Albany by a 3-1 score determined first place. Albany’s win over Saratoga A by the same score determined second and third places. None of the other teams were able to mount a serious challenge. Guilderland (really the Albany B team) and the Schenectady Geezers both made strenuous efforts to become completive but they fell short of the goal to reach a top three place.

The honor of being the Most Valuable Player this year went to Philip Sells of the Schenectady A team. He scored 6-1. In second place for the MVP title was Tim Wright (5 ½ - ½) of the Albany team, third was Patrick Chi (5-1) of the Schenectady A team. Richard Chu of the Schenectady Geezers finished fourth in the race for MVP with a score of 5-2. The scores and placing was provided by the League Director, Bill Townsend.

With eight teams in the contest, the League had the largest number of participants in some time. The good turnout for League play generated some discussion in the Schenectady Club of reviving the traditional Albany versus Schenectady annual “big” match. Before I came on the local chess scene sixty years ago, and intermittently since then, the two cities’ chess communities staged matches of many boards. If memory serves, there were upwards of twenty boards a side and created publicity for the clubs and the game. Perhaps it should be done again. One idea is to stage such a match after the State Championship, Labor Day, and before the beginning of the various club championships take off in October.

We will close out coverage of this year’s CDCL play with board four of the Albany - Saratoga A match. In it Alan Le Cours of Saratoga had the White pieces and Tim Wright of Albany the Black. Up to this match both players had pretty good years on the lower boards. Before the match began Alan had scored 4 ½ - 1 ½ in six games. Wright had 4 ½ - ½ in five games.

CDCL Match Albany v Saratoga A, Board 4

White: Alan Le Cours, Saratoga A

Black: Tim Wright, Albany

Date: 24 June, 2010

1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 c6 3.c4 Nf6 4.Nc3 a6

The Slav, D15, a line I know Mr. Le Cours is familiar with from our studies in GM Har-Zvi’s Saturday group sessions. Shirov. Bacrot, Topalov, Kamsky, Anand and Short have used this line in serious games and rapid games too.

5.c5

Although you might be tempted to dismiss this try as a duffer’s move, it has some advocates among elite. Gelfand, Kramnik and Sokolov have had good results with it. In most of the GM games we see White staking his success on a big pawn push on the Q-side. Soon or late White plays e3. Sometimes after the Bc1 goes to f4 or g5 and some times the Bc1 stays home to be sent to work later.

5...g6 6.g3...,

This last move tells us White will have to do some odd things if he is to find a good working square for the Bc1. The pawn on g3 clutters the dark squares so any mission the Bishop is sent on the K-side probably will be a one-way trip. Things do not turn out quite as expected because White does not advance the e-pawn.

6..., Bg7 7.Bg2 0–0 8.0–0 Bf5?!

The last few moves have taken the game well away from GM practice. Maybe Black is just trying out f5 to see how White reacts.

9.Nh4...,

Alan has a liking for chasing the Bishop on f5 in this way. He uses the same move in the Dutch variation of the Slav. In the Dutch variation the move makes some sense, here whether it is a time waster or not is an open question. Logical is 9 Qb3.

9..., Be6

In the game I thought this might be wrong. Rybka finds nothing better for Black and calls the game close to even.

10.Qd3 a5 11.f4...,

Contrary to what the GM games in the databases show us, White seems to want to play on the K-side and Black the Q-side. I suspect both plans are strategically not the best

11..., Ne4!?

There are some tactics allowing Black to engage in the center in this way. Perhaps sounder is 11..., Na6, getting another piece in play before starting the fight in the center.

12.f5 Bc8 13.fxg6 hxg6 14.Be3 Nxc3 15.bxc3...,

The net result of the clearance around e-file has left Black apparently trailing in development. White, on the other hand, certainly does not have his pieces well placed to launch an attack immediately on the Black King. The computer calls the game even.

15..., Qe8?!

A group of players had opportunity at the new Albany Area Chess Club to go over this game with Mr. Wright. I was there and it was enlightening. Tim offered that he was trying to shore up g6 and thought 16 Nxg6, was a real threat immediately. While looking at this position with the group it seemed possible White might get some edge after 15..., Nd7 16 Nxg6 fxg6 17 Qxg6 Qe8 18 Rxf8 Kxf8 19 Rf1 Qf2 20 Qh7, but applying Rybka to the problem suggests Black is OK and will maintain some advantage. How White gets the two passed pawns rolling is unclear. If they can’t become a factor, then Black’s extra piece will count for much. The defensive nature of the game move leaves White with some initiative.

16.Rf2 Nd7 17.Raf1 Nf6

The massing of the White Rooks on the f-file was very direct. It is possible putting a Rook on the b-file might have set Black more problems. The game has drifted towards equality again.

18.h3 Be6 19.Kh2 Rb8

Both players bogged down around here. They are working hard to find ideas and clock time was fast speeding away.

20.Bf4 Rc8 21.Bg5 Ra8

Pieces are being shifted and the opponents are straining for inspiration.

22.Qe3 Qd7 23.Bh6 Qc7?

After some fitful maneuvering Black makes an error. With 23..., Qc8, all is secure for Black since e6 is defended. White now has excellent chances to obtain significant advantages because of the weaknesses near the Black King. Time had dwindled to about 21 minutes for each side.

24.Nxg6 Rfe8 25.Ne5 Kh7 26.Bxg7 Kxg7

Black is pretty well lost now. White should continue 27 Qg5+ and Black has no defense after 27..., Kf8 28 Rf4. The Rook threatens to go to the h-file administering the coup de grace. Time trouble was a problem for both Alan and Tim, maybe worse for Alan. The game became a series of errors by both sides where White missed pretty sacrifices of a Rook down the f-file and Black’s defensive efforts should have lost the game. We will draw the curtain over these mistakes. The game ended about move fifty after one-half the game was played at breakneck speed.

The victory for Tim Wright cemented the match win for the Albany team and clear second place in the League.

We are now entering a quite time for local chess until the State Championship on the Labor Day weekend and the various club title events beginning in September and October. I am going to have to dig around for activities to make something for the this blog. Wish me luck.

More on the Saratoga A versus Albany Match

The last post with a win by Saratoga’s Taylor from Matt Katrein and a loss by Saratoga’s Lee Battes left the match even. Boards three and four were then the focus of the spectators. On board three two tough Experts were debating the merits of the Bird’s System.

CDCL Match Albany v Saratoga A, Board 1

White: Jon Leisner, Albany

Black: Gordon Magat, Saratoga A

Date: 24 June, 2010

1.f4 d5 2.Nf3 g6 3.e3 Bg7 4.Be2 c5 5.d3 Nc6 6.e4 dxe4 7.dxe4 Qxd1+ 8.Bxd1 e5 9.c3 Nge7 10.Be3 b6 11.0–0 Ba6 12.Re1 0–0 13.Be2 Bxe2 14.Rxe2 Rad8 15.Na3 f5

The game has been even to this point. If we apply the standard that White begins with a one-half pawn (+0.50 in computer speak) advantage, Black has done well to even up the game. If another more practical standard is used; the goal of any opening should be to obtain a playable position that you like and fits your style, then White is not unhappy with the outcome. There are two other possibilities that Black likely considered; 15..., Rd7; and 15..., Nc8. Both feature interesting maneuvering, and both leave Black with just a slight edge because it is almost inevitable that White will have a slightly worse pawn structure; an isolated e-pawn and three pawn islands for White to two for Black.

The game move heads the game towards complications. White could play 16 exf5, trying to avoid the isolation of his e-pawn, then if 15..., Rxe5 16 fxe5 the central tension dissolves. Although there is quite a bit of play left in the position the simplified situation suggests a draw is likely. Another possibility is 15 g4, where after 15..., Rff8 16 Nxe5 Nxe5 17 fxe5 and Black can not play 17..., Bxe5 for 18 Bg5 wins at least the Exchange. In this line White has the isolated e-pawn but it is an extra pawn. However hanging on to it is doubtful after 17.. Rde8.

The game move is typical of Gordon’s style. He is unafraid of complications believing his skill at calculation and good sight of the board will see him through. The one problem this approach brings with it is potential time trouble when Gordon has to work out difficult positions.

16.fxe5 f4 17.Bf2 Nxe5 18.Nxe5

Also possible is 18 Bh4 Rd7 19 Bxe7 Rxe7 20 Nxe5 Rxe5 21 Rd1 leading to a double Rook ending where Black bears down on the e-pawn, and White will give it up to get his free Rook to an active role on the 7th rank betting he will clip a pawn eventually.

18..., Bxe5 19.Bh4 Rd7 20.Rf1 Nc6

Black could take a somewhat different route with 20..., h6; here keeping the Bishop out of g5.

21.Bg5 Kg7 22.Nc4

While watching the game I wondered if 22 Nb5 might not be a better choice. With Rybka’s help it seems that 22.Nb5 Rdf7 23.Red2 h6 24 Bh4 g5 favors Black.

22...Rdf7 23.Ref2

White could have played 23 Nxe5, then 23..., Nxe5 24 Ref2 when either 24..., f3; or 24..., Nd3; lead to even games after some rather exciting endgame tactics. Non-grandmaster humans would have a hard time making such judgments. The game move looks logical so why does the computer want something else? Why think about esoteric alternatives?

23..., h6?

This hands White the advantage even though it is the expected move. If Black had played 23..., Bc7; he would have obtained a solid advantage, maybe not quite enough to win, but substantial. The suggested move holds the pawn on f5, and that pawn takes away squares from White’s Bishop and cramps his game. Now the f-pawn falls. That is why alternatives had to be sought.

24.Nxe5 Nxe5 25.Bxf4 Nd3?

Things are bad for Black. He is down a full pawn. The text move overlooks a tactical shot that changes a poor game into a dead loss. Better is 25..., Ng4; but Black still has the worst of it. Play could continue; 26 Rf3 g5 27 Bd6 Rxf3 28 gxf3 Rd8 29 Bxc5 bxc5 30 fxg4 Re8 31 Rf5 Rxe4 32 Kf2 Rxg4 33 Rxc5, and the game would be a technical win for White, but Black can make the winning process long. With the sudden-death time control in effect, that is a reasonable approach for Black to take.

26.Bxh6+!..

White wins material and Black has fewer obstacles he can put is White’s path than if he had played 25..., Ng4.

26..., Kxh6 27.Rxf7 Re8 28.R7f3..

While it does not change the outcome, the text is a bit less cogent than 28 R1f3, seeking the maximum activity for his pieces. Gordon Magat fell into time trouble during the preceding moves. Leisner managed his time well and had plenty of minutes to finish off the game.

28..., Nxb2 29.Re1 Nc4 30.e5 Rxe5 31.Rxe5 Nxe5 32.Re3 Nc4 33.Re7 a6 34.Kf2 Kg5 35.h4+ Kf6

Of course 35..., Kxh4? Loses to 36 Re4+.

36.Ra7 b5 37.Kg3 a5 38.Rc7 b4 39 Rxc5 Nd2 40 cxb4, and the fork at e4 recovers the Exchange but leaves the pawn ending entirely lost for Black, so Black resigned.

The final game and final league standings will be in tomorrow’s post.