Connors v. LeCours Staunton Club 2010

Diagram After 12. Kd1 Diagram After 35...Nf6

This is my game from October 24, 2010 with David Connors at the Saratoga Staunton Club. David usually plays very tough in the opening, and he has beaten me in regular tournament games on a couple of occasions, including last year in the Schenectady Championships, where I had a rook and pawn ending up one pawn and refused to accept the draw, and then proceeded to lose!

(1) Connors,David (1550) - LeCours,Alan (1927)[A45]

SAR St. Club, 24.10.2010

1.d4 Nf6 2.Bf4 g6 3.h3 Bg7 4.e3 0–0 5.Nd2 d5!?

Black is playing for a Grunfeld type of set up. By playing d5!?, this weakens the e5 square. The GM recommended move is 5…d6 to prepare for an eventual pawn push to e5.

This position eventually transposes to a London System, which was a system developed in the 1920s to combat the King's Indian Defense. Normally the London System move order is 1. Nf3 2. d4 3. Bf4 4. e3. Because of the unusual move order I only have 7 games in my database with this position.

The position is dead even. White in this system does not really even try to obtain an early advantage. The "system" is based upon a slow build up.

6.Bd3 Nbd7

There is only one master level game with this position in my database, Koenig v. Duer, Austria, 2000 see below. But after 8. Ngf3 I have 120 games.

7.c3 c5

Black can consider 7…Nh5 with the idea of 8…e5

8.Ngf3 Qb6

Black is playing to pressure the b2 square to try to take advantage of the absence of the Bishop from c1. This is a similar idea to playing against some lines of the Trompowsky. Of the 120 games in my database however, the stronger player were playing 8…b6 (84) 8…c4 (19) 8…Rfe8 (18). Only 4 games have 8. Qb6

Rybka2 (One of the Computer Brutes) at 16 ply agrees with 8…Qb6 at 19 ply prefers 8…c4. Position about equal +0.08
9.Qb1 (9. Qc1) cxd4 (Nh5) 10.exd4 (cxd4) Nh5 11.Bh2

If 11. Be3 f5 12. g4 Nf4 13. Bxf4 fxg4 14. Be3 gxf3 (Rbk -0.53 17/p)

11…Qe6+ 12.Kd1
See first Diagram

I thought this move looked a little odd. But at least here the e-file can be used by a rook.

12….Qb6?!

My original idea was 12…Qf6 but I thought my pieces would get tangled up on the king-side. I thought that even with the retreat, white had lost some time because of the loss of the castling privilege. But 12…Qf6 was much better.

13.g4 Nhf6 14.Bg3 Re8 15.Re1 Qc6?!

Black should play 15….a5 I did not want to permanently weaken the b5 square to allow Bb5.

16.a4

According to Rybka white has a slight edge +0.27 but just over the equality range (-0.20--+0.20)

16….a6 17.Qa2 b6
18.Kc2
(Maybe white could try 18. c4 and play against the queen on the c-file) e6
19.Re2 Bb7 20.Rae1 b5 21.a5 (Kb1) b4 22.c4 (Qb3) dxc4 23.Bxc4 Rac8

24.b3?! (Kb1=)Nd5!

Now black has taken the advantage according to Rybka -0.91 16/p If 25. Ne4 Nc3 26. Nxc3 Qxf3 27. Re3 Qg2 28. Ne2 Qxh3 and black maintains his advantage.

25.Qb2 Nc3 26.Re3 Nd5 27.R3e2 Nc3 28.Re3

How does black maintain his advantage?

Black was starting to get seriously short of time (under 5 minutes) and white still had about 50 minutes of time). The best way to continue was Nf6 to try to sink a second knight on d5.

A possible continuation is 28….Nf6 29. Ne5 Qg2 30. h4 Nfd5

31. Rd3 Bxe5 32. dxe5 Qh3 Rbk -1.40 Black is winning.

28….Nb5?! 29.Kb1 Na3+ 30.Ka2 Nxc4 31.Nxc4

31… Qd5?!

Missing a fork. 31…Bf8 would have preserved a little advantage for black.

32.Nd6 Qxa5+ 33.Kb1
In spite of only have a pawn for the exchange, Rybka2 "thinks" black has the smallest of advantages, with either 33….Bf8 or 33…Bxf3 -0.28

Now white and black enterred into a blitz match. We were playing with the time delay. Black had 1 and one-half minutes left, but white had over 30 minutes.

33…Bd5?! (The game is equal) 34.Nxe8 Rxe8 35.Rc1 Nf6

See Second Diagram

36.Be5??

This blunder allows black to get the exchange back, and drive the white king out to the open, leading to the monarch's demise. 36 . Nd2 and the game would be about even.

36…... Be4+ 37.Rxe4 Nxe4 38.Bxg7 Kxg7 39.Ne5 Nc3+ 40.Kc2 Rc8

41.Nc4 Qd5 42.Kd3 Qf3+ 43.Ne3 Qe4+ 44.Kd2 Qxd4+ 45.Ke1 Qe4

46.Rxc3?! bxc3 47.Qc2 Qh1+ 48.Ke2 Qxh3 0–1

Game References:

(2063667) Koenig,Dietrich (2327) - Duer,Werner (2325) [D02]

AUT-chT2W 0001 Austria (6), 12.01.2001

1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 Nf6 3.e3 g6 4.Nd2 Bg7 5.h3 0–0 6.Bd3 Nbd7 7.Ngf3 c5 8.c3 b6 9.0–0 Bb7 10.Qe2 Ne4 11.Rad1 Qe8 12.Rfe1 Nxd2 13.Rxd2 e5 14.dxe5 Nxe5 15.Nxe5 Bxe5 16.Bh6 Bg7 17.Bxg7 Kxg7 18.Red1 Qe5 19.Ba6 Bc6 20.Bb5 Bb7 21.Qf3 Qe7 22.Qf4 Rfd8 23.Be2 Rd6 24.Bf3 Rad8 25.c4 g5 26.Qg3 d4 27.Bxb7 Qxb7 28.exd4 cxd4 29.Rxd4 Rxd4 30.Rxd4 Rxd4 31.Qe5+ f6 32.Qxd4 Qa6 33.a3 Qa4 34.Qd3 Qe8 35.Qe3 Qa4 36.b4 Qd1+ 37.Kh2 Qd6+ 38.g3 h5 39.c5 bxc5 40.bxc5 Qc7 41.Kg1 Qd7 42.Kh2 Qc7 43.c6 Qxc6 44.Qxa7+ Kg6 45.Qd4 Qc7 46.Qe4+ Kg7 47.Kg2 Qa7 48.a4 Qa5 49.Qb7+ Kg6 50.Qb1+ Kg7 51.Qb5 Qa8+ 52.Kh2 Qe4 53.a5 Qe1 54.Qb6 h4 55.a6 hxg3+ 56.Kxg3 Qe5+ 57.Kg2 Qe4+ 58.Kf1 Qd3+ 59.Ke1 Qc3+ 60.Kd1 Qd3+ 61.Kc1 Qc3+ 62.Kb1 Qd3+ 63.Kb2 Qd2+ 64.Kb3 Qd3+ 65.Kb4 Qd2+ 66.Kb5 Qd5+ 67.Qc5 Qb3+ 68.Kc6 Qa4+ 69.Kb7 Qe4+ 70.Qc6 Qb4+ 71.Kc8 Qf8+ 72.Kc7 Qa3 73.Kb8 Kg6 74.Qe4+ Kh6 75.Qe6 Qb4+ 76.Kc7 Qc5+ 77.Kd7 Kg6 78.Qe4+ Kh6 79.Qe6 Kg6 80.Ke8 Qb5+ 81.Kd8 Qa5+ 82.Kc8 Qc5+ 83.Kb7 Qb5+ 84.Kc7 Qc5+ 85.Qc6 Qe7+ 86.Kc8 Qf8+ 87.Kd7 1–0

(81207) Bondarevsky,Igor - Liublinsky,Victor Alexandrovic [D02]
URS-ch18 Moscow (14), 03.12.1950
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.Bf4 Bg7 4.Nbd2 0–0 5.h3 d5 6.e3 c5 7.c3 Nbd7 8.Bd3 b6 9.0–0 Bb7 10.Qe2 Ne4 11.Rfd1 Qc8 12.Rac1 Nxd2 13.Qxd2 f6 14.Bg3 e5 15.dxe5 Nxe5 16.Be2 Qe8 17.Qc2 Kh8 18.b3 Rd8 19.a4 Bc6 20.Ra1 Qe7 21.a5 b5 22.b4 Nxf3+ 23.Bxf3 c4 24.Rd2 f5 25.Rad1 Qf6 26.Rd4 Qe6 27.R4d2 d4 28.cxd4 Bxf3 29.gxf3 f4 30.Bxf4 Qxh3 31.Qe4 Rf5 32.Bg3 Rh5 33.f4 Rf8 34.d5 Bc3 35.Re2 Bxb4 36.d6 Bxa5 37.d7 Bd8 38.Red2 Kg8 39.Rd5 a6 40.Rxh5 gxh5 41.Rd5 h4 42.Rg5+ Bxg5 43.Qd5+ Kg7 44.Qxg5+ Kf7 45.Qh5+ Ke6 46.Qe8+ Rxe8 47.dxe8Q+ Kd5 48.Qh5+ Ke4 49.Bxh4 c3 50.Qxh7+ Kf3 51.Qh5+ Ke4 52.Qh7+ Kf3 53.Qh5+ Ke4 54.Qg6+ Kf3 55.Bf6 b4 56.Be5 a5 57.f5 Ke2 58.f6 Qf1+ 59.Kh2 ½–½

(3633814) Bogosavljevic,Boban (2302) - Stojanovic,Mihajlo (2549) [D00]
Serbia-chT Zlatibor (5), 30.08.2006
1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 Nf6 3.e3 c5 4.c3 Nbd7 5.Nd2 g6 6.h3 Bg7 7.Ngf3 0–0 8.Bd3 b6 9.0–0 Bb7 10.Ne5 Ne4 11.Nxe4 dxe4 12.Bb5 Nxe5 13.dxe5 Bd5 14.Qe2 Qc8 15.Rfd1 Rd8 16.c4 Be6 17.Rxd8+ Qxd8 18.Bc6 Rc8 19.Bb7 Rc7 20.Rd1 Rd7 21.Rxd7 Qxd7 22.Bxe4 Qc7 23.b3 Bxe5 24.Bxe5 Qxe5 25.Qc2 Qa1+ 26.Qb1 Qc3 27.Qd1 Kg7 28.Bd3 h6 29.Kf1 g5 30.Qc2 Qa1+ 31.Ke2 Qe5 32.Kd2 Bd7 33.Qc3 Kf6 34.Bf1 Bc6 35.Qxe5+ Kxe5 36.g3 Bf3 37.Bd3 f5 38.Bf1 f4 39.a3 Bh1 40.Bd3 fxg3 41.fxg3 Bg2 42.h4 gxh4 43.gxh4 Be4 44.Bf1 Kf6 45.Bh3 Bf3 46.Bd7 Kg6 47.Be8+ Kf5 48.Bd7+ e6 49.b4 Bh5 50.bxc5 bxc5 51.e4+ Kxe4 52.Bxe6 Kd4 53.Kc2 Be2 54.Kb3 Bd1+ 55.Kb2 a5 56.Bf7 a4 57.Be6 Bb3 58.Bf7 Bxc4 59.Be8 Bb3 60.Bg6 Bc4 61.Be8 Bb3 62.Bg6 c4 63.Be8 Kd3 64.Kc1 Kc3 65.Bb5 Kd4 66.Be8 c3 67.Bg6 Ke3 68.Be8 Kf4 69.h5 Kg5 70.Kb1 Bd1 71.Kc1 Bb3 72.Kb1 Kf4 73.Kc1 Ke5 74.Kb1 Ke6 75.Kc1 Ke7 76.Bb5 Kf7 77.Bc6 Kg8 78.Be8 Kg7 79.Kb1 Kh7 80.Bg6+ Kh8 81.Be8 Kg7 82.Kc1 Kh8 83.Kb1 Kg7 84.Kc1 Kf6 85.Kb1 Ke5 86.Kc1 Kd4 87.Kb1 Bd1 88.Kc1 Be2 89.Kc2 Bf3 90.Bf7 Bc6 91.Kc1 Bd5 92.Be8 Bb3 93.Kb1 Bd1 94.Kc1 Bf3 95.Bf7 Bc6 96.Kc2 Bd7 97.Kc1 Bg4 98.Kc2 Bf3 99.Kc1 Bd5 100.Be8 Bb3 101.Kb1 Ke4 102.Kc1 Kf5 103.Kb1 Kg4 104.Kc1 Kg5 105.Kb1 Bd1 106.Kc1 Bxh5 107.Bxa4 Bg6 108.Bd1 Kf4 109.a4 Ke5 110.Be2 h5 111.a5 h4 112.Bf1 Kd6 113.a6 Kc6 114.Kd1 Kb6 115.Kc1 Ka7 116.Kd1 Kb6 117.Kc1 Be4 118.Kd1 Bf5 119.Kc1 Ka5 120.Kd1 Bc8 121.a7 Bb7 122.Kc2 Kb4 123.Bh3 Be4+ 124.Kc1 Kc5 125.Kd1 Kd4 126.Kc1 Kc5 127.Kd1 Ba8 128.Kc1 Kb6 129.Kd1 Bc6 130.a8Q Bxa8 131.Kc2 Kc7 132.Kxc3 Bb7 133.Kd4 Bc8 134.Bxc8 Kxc8 135.Ke4 ½–½

(1811890) Loktionova,Natalia (2230) - Sofronie,Iulian (2405) [D02]

Techirghiol Techirghiol, 1998

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.Bf4 Bg7 4.Nbd2 d5 5.e3 c5 6.c3 Nbd7 7.h3 0–0 8.Bd3 b6 9.0–0 Bb7 10.Ne5 Ne4 11.Qc2 Nxd2 12.Qxd2 Nxe5 13.dxe5 Qc7 14.e6 Qc6 15.exf7+ Rxf7 16.f3 e5 17.Bg5 c4 18.Bc2 Rd7 19.Qf2 Qc5 20.Rad1 a5 21.Qh4 d4 22.b3 Ba6 23.Rfe1 d3 24.bxc4 Bxc4 25.Rd2 Qc6 26.Qe4 Qxe4 27.fxe4 Rc8 28.Bd1 Rcc7 29.Bg4 Rd6 30.Rc1 Ba6 31.Be2 Bf8 32.Bf1 Kg7 33.Kf2 Rdd7 34.Rb1 Bc5 35.Re1 Ba3 36.Rb1 Rxc3 37.Rxb6 Rc2 0–1

(741007) Tolhuizen,Ludo (2275) - Fedorov,Vladislav (2395) [D02]
Vanlose Vanlose, 1991
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5 3.Bf4 c5 4.c3 Nbd7 5.e3 g6 6.Nbd2 Bg7 7.Bd3 0–0 8.h3 b6 9.0–0 Bb7 10.a4 a6 11.Qb1 Qc8 12.b4 Nh5 13.Bh2 c4 14.Bc2 f5 15.Ne5 Nxe5 16.Bxe5 Bxe5 17.dxe5 f4 18.Nf3 fxe3 19.fxe3 Qe6 20.Qd1 Ng3 21.Re1 d4 22.Nxd4 Qxe5 23.Qg4 Ne4 24.Bxe4 Qxe4 25.Qxe4 Bxe4 26.a5 ½–½

Games From Rd 2 Schenectady Prelims

The Schenectady Club Championship is getting underway with a mix problems good and bad. It still has a good number of entrants, but Bobby Rotter one of the better local players had to withdraw before he played a game. Work conflicts prevent Rotter from competing this year. That is a shame, but making a living does take precedence.

Philip Sells, the defending Schenectady and Saratoga Champion, plays interesting chess as well as winning a lot of games. Today we see him battling a new face in the Club, Herman Calderon. Herman is the father of Zack Calderon a rising scholastic player and not a bad player in his own right. Rated 1520, he makes a strong effort here to up end the champion.

I am trying an experiment in this game today by presenting the actual moves in a color other than black. It is hoped the change will make reading this article easier. Philip Sells did something similar in his most recent post, and that inspired me to give it a try.

Calderon, Herman - Sells, Philip [A36]

SCC Championship, Preliminary B, Schenectady, NY, 21.10.2010

1.c4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.e3..,

There are a great many examples of this symmetrical English with elite players on both sides of the argument.

5..., e5

Breaking the lockstep and still in the mainstream GM practice.

6.Nge2 Nge7 7.0–0 d6 8.Rb1 0–0 9.a3 a5 10.Nb5..,

This is a definite departure from master practice. Interestingly, Rybka 3 does not see anything dramatically wrong with the move. It recommends 10 d3, but the difference is evaluated as trivial.

10..., Be6 11.b3 a4 12.d3 axb3 13.Rxb3..,

Somewhat better is 13 Qb6, getting another piece off its original square.

13..., Qd7

An alternative is 13..., d5 14 cxd5 Bxd5 15 Bxd5 Nxd5 16 Nbc3 Nxc3 17 Nxc3 b6. The game is level according to Rybka. Sells possibly wanted to not see material come off the board until he has an opportunity to grab some advantage.

14.Nec3 Ra6 15.Ne4 Na5 16.Rb1 Nxc4?

An error that could have cost Philip the game. Good is 16..., Rc8; with the issue still in the balance.

17.a4?..,

Herman makes a reciprocal mistake in return. He must not have seen that 17 dxc4 Bxc4 is lost after 18 Nxc5! Qd8 19 Nxa6 bxa6 20 Na7 Bxf1 21 Qxf1, when 21..., Qd7; is met by 22 Qxa6, and 21..., Qa5 is answered with the very difficult move to find 22 e4, preparing support for the Na7 with Bc1-e3. In fairness to both players, what looks obvious with the help of a computer is far less so with a clock ticking remorselessly at your elbow. It is admirable how these players have conjured up tactical excitement out of the very positional English. The move played leads back to a rough equality.

17...Na5

Black has stolen away with a pawn and is probably feeling pretty good about here. With a pawn in his pocket and a four hundred point rating edge, I assumed the rest would be routine mopping up. What I did not see is how weak the Black d-pawn is really.

18.Bd2!..,

A very nice move. By attacking the Na5, White has ratcheted up tension in the position.

18..., Nc8?!

After a long think, Mr. Sells under estimates the trickiness in the position. That is not something he does regularly. It may be better to return the pawn graciously with 18..., b6.

19.Bc3?!...,

Mr. Calderon chooses not to take the material imbalance on offer with 19 Nbxd6 Nxd6 20 Nxc5 then clipping the Ra6 emerging with a Rook and a pawn for two Knights. The positional feature that makes this an attractive idea is the activity of the White Bishops after the transaction. Had he gone for this sequence, White would have reached a more or less equal position. Rybka’s continuation is 20..., Qc7 21 Nxa6 bxa6 22 Bb4 Rc8; and while there are tactics to be considered, White can play 23 Rc1, and after 23..., Qb6 24 Rxc8+ Nxc8 25 Ba3. Then if 25..., Bb3 26 Qc1, the situation remains tense but level. After the text move the position favors Black by a half-pawn according to Rybka.

19..., Nc6?

Presenting White with another chance to capture on d6 with b-file Knight and fork the Black Queen and Rook from c5. Better is 19..., Qe7; eliminating the forking possibility.

20.f4

Now Black has the edge.

20..., Qe7 21.fxe5...,

Another try is 21 Ng5, but Black retains the advantage. By this point Black has used much of his allotted 105 minutes with just 18 remaining. White had moved much more speedily and has 61 minutes on his clock.

21.., dxe5 22.d4 cxd4 23.exd4 exd4 24.Bb2 Rd8?

This move gives White excellent chances to save the game and even win it. Better 24..., Bc4. The White cavalry now gets to make serious threats all around the Black Q-side.

A most unusual error for Sells. I have watched him play with vanishingly little time on his clock against the best local players and carry on for twenty or more moves without slipping and often coming away with a full point. The most notable instance was a game with Steve Taylor when he out speeded a guy who is no stranger himself to winning in time trouble and won the Saratoga title last year.

25.Ba3 Qe8 26.Nc7 Qd7 27 Nxa6 bxa6 28.Nc5 Qe8 29.Nxa6?..,

Herman had 49 minutes on the clock when he made this move that throws almost all of his advantage over the side. Greed for the a-pawn allows the Black d-pawn to become a serious power constraining the White forces. Sells had less than 9 minutes left.

White has at least two other ideas that seem to be better choices: first a continuation of the Knight foray with 29 Nb7, and second, recognizing the Black minor pieces may become dangerously active and beginning a reduction of force on the board with 29 Nxe6.

The first alternative leads to a odd distribution of force and complications after; 29 Nb7, and a) 29..., Rd5 30 Bxd5 Bxd5 31 Re1 Qd7 32 Nc5 Qd8 33 Nd3 +/-(0.94) Rybka; or b) 29..., Ne5 30 Nxd8 Qxd8; setting White the difficult task of evaluating a large number of choices; 31 Bb4, 31 Bb2, 31 Bc1, 31 Bc5 and 31 Rf4, all giving White some small advantage in the continuing complications. A clearer way to play for White is 27 Nxe6 Qxe6 28 Qb3 Qxb3 29 Rxb3 Ne5 30 Rb8 getting this Rook into action while detailing the Rf1 to watch d1. In this way White gets activity for his pieces and eliminates some of the Black pieces that are supporting the on-rushing d-pawn. Our electronic friend, “Mr.” Rybka says the position after 30 Rb8, favors White +/- 0.99.

29..., d3 30.Nc7 Qd7 31.Nxe6 fxe6

Better for Black is 31..., Qxe6. White can now play 32 Bc5, setting up a safe route to attack d2 when the pawn arrives there as well as preventing the Bg7 from getting on the diagonal g1-h7 unopposed.

32.Rc1...,

Even with more than forty minutes on his clock, Mr. Calderon can not master the difficulties in this position. The text does nothing effective to prevent the d-pawn from stifling White, and his game goes downhill from here.

32..., Ne5 33.Bb2 d2 34.Rc2 Nb6 35.Rf2 Nbc4 36.Bc3?..,

Time trouble for Sells is full blown now, he is down to about two minutes plus a five second delay. Calderon has 35 minutes. Objectively the game was about even until White’s last move. From a practical point of view, Black has a strong initiative based on the monster on d2 and the weakness of the position of the White King.

White has to do something now about the d-pawn. Necessary is 36 Bxe5. If Black recaptures on e5 immediately with other Knight White wins; 36.., Nxe5 37 Rcxd2 Nd3 38 Be4 Bd4 39 Rxd3 Bxf2+ 40 Kxf2, and White will have an extra piece for a pawn if Black can find some safe way to confiscate the a-pawn which looks doubtful. If Black captures on e5 with the Bishop, of course the Nc4 falls and White is clearly winning.

One reason why Sells plays so well under time pressure is he begrudges not the time to study the positions leading up to the time pressure situation. Orienting himself solidly in the basics of what is happening in the game so that when there is little time to think he can find moves where others fail. I wonder even if with his skill under time duress, Philip could have worked through the complexities after 36 Bxe5 Qxa4; pretty much the only try for Black, then 37 Bxg7! Ne3 38 Rfxd2! Nxd1 39 Rxd8+ Kxg7 30 Rc7+ Kf6 31 Rxh7. The game is level, but with only 34 seconds remaining, could Mr. Sells find his way through to a draw, much less a win in this game?

36..., Qa7?

Much better is 36..., Nd3; winning quickly. The move played allows White another chance to capture on e5 and transpose into the ending with two Rooks versus a Queen.

37.Rcxd2?..,

This reciprocal error closes out any chance for White to hold.

37..., Nxd2 38.Bxe5 Bxe5 39.Qe2 Qc5 40.Kh1 Rd6 41.Qe1 Bc3 42.Qg1 Bd4

The game may have gone on a move or two more and Philip Sells won at the end. Other games were reaching their ends and I was trying to record those contests also. And, as time trouble was beginning on these other boards, I did not see the final moments of this game.

Other news from Thursday evening:

In Section B Matthew Clough lost to Richard Moody and Jeff Capitummino drew with Dilip Aaron.

In Section A Richard Chu won from Zachary Calderon, in a very up and down affair, after a long and exciting battle John Phillips defeated Cory Northrup and Bill Little won a short sharp struggle from his Geezers teammate Brig Saran.

More games soon.

News From the Schenectady Championship

Bill Townsend, our excellent local chess columnist and perennial TD for Schenectady events, provided the following information:

This year’s tournament will have two sections with ten players in each. Late joiners were Michael Mockler, Bobby Rotter and Yogi Kanakamedala.

In Section A are; Richard Chu, John Phillips, Brij Saran, Patrick Chi (the highest rated player at 2051), Yogi Kanakamedala, Bill Little, Cory Northrup, Zachary Calderon, Michael Stanley and Michael Mockler.

The results from last week are; Stanley with White lost to Chu, Zach Calderon with White lost to John Phillips, and Cory Northrup with White defeated Brij Saran. The last game can be called a mild upset.

In Section B are; John Barnes, Herman Calderon, Matthew Clogh, Jeff Capitummion, Dilip Aaron, Richard Moody, Phillip Sells (the second highest rated at 1965) David Connors, Alan Le Cours and Bobby Rotter.

The results from last week are; Barnes with Black defeated Le Cours continuing his good results, Herman Calderon with Black defeated Connors, and Philip Sells won with White against Matthew Clough.

The last minute additions brought the head count up to expectations.

More soon.

OK to a point then panic set in

Here is a short sharp contest with some interesting ideas, connections to theory and to things past.

Little, Bill - Taylor, Steven [B51]

Saratoga Championship Saratoga Springs, NY, 10.10.2010

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6 4.0–0 Bd7

Steve said after the game he took this approach because it was more common for Black to fianchetto immediately, or to play .., e7-e6; and he wanted to get away from theory I might have studied. He is correct that those moves are more common, but this position as also been explored by the really good players. We are following Har-Zvi, R(!) - Geland, B; Tel Aviv, 1999. My databases show Rublevsky, Adams, Ponoariov, Anand, Sutovski, etc. playing White against such as Topalov, Movsesian, Ivanchuk, Tiviakov, etc. in this line. The games cited were all from the latter half of the 1990’s. Apparently at that moment in time this was a very pertinent theoretical line. It would have been helpful if GM Har-Zvi had gone over this line in one of our many Saturday morning group sessions. If he did, I was absent on that day.

5.Re1 a6 6.Bxc6 Bxc6 7.d4 cxd4 8.Nxd4 g6 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.Qd4,..

This move departs from Har-Zvi - Gelfand. Ronen played 10 c4. We are now following some lesser lights; Minasian, A (2485) - De Sousa, J (2280) Ubeda Open, 2000. When the game was played I did not have knowledge of the foregoing and was figuring it out as I went along. I remember thinking this a familiar position but not quite something I have seen before.

10..., Nf6 11.e5 dxe5 12.Qxe5 Bg7 13.Nc3?!..,

This very natural looking developmental move is doubtful. Minasian played the tricky 13 Qc5, continuing the policy of “little threats” and De sousa defended with 13..., Qc7?. This allowed 14 Bf4!, possible because of the mate threat at e7, then 14..., Qb7 15 Rxe7+ Qxe7 16 Qxc6+, recovering the piece with a winning advantage. De Sousa could have played similarly to Taylor in our game; 13..., 0-0; although after 14 Qxc6, White is better.

13...,0–0 14.Qc5!?,..

Probably best here for White is to take the pawn with 14.Qxe7 Qa5 15.Bh6 Rae8 16.Qd6 Bxh6 17.Qxf6 Bg7 18.Qxc6 Rc8 19.Qe4 Rxc3 20.bxc3 Bxc3 21.Red1 Bxa1 22.Rxa1, when a peaceful splitting of the point is near

14...Ng4

Taylor took a long think for this move. I did not follow that good piece of chess wisdom: When your opponent makes a move and you don’t immediately know its point, it is time for serious work. As I said to Steven afterwards: “It was as if I had forgotten the diagonal b8-h2 had the squares c7 and b8 in it.”

15.Be3?,..

The only move to keep the game going is 15 Qxc6, after which things do get complicated. Play probably continues 15..., Bd4 16 Nd1 Qb8 17 g3 Qa7 18 Qf3, and Black has a lot of pressure for the pawn invested. After the text Black is much better.

15..., Qb8 16.h3?,..

When the Black Queen went to b8 it was a shock. Rather than taking enough time to recover whatever poise I could the hasty text move was pplayed quickly and the roof caved in on me. One more terrible example of what happens when you panic. It is still possible to make a reasoned defense with 16 g3, Black does have a superior game but White can fight on.

16..., Nxe3?!

In the postmortem Steve thought 16..., Qh2+ might give me some chances because the Queens would most likely have to be exchanged after 17 Kf1 Nxe3 18 Qxe3 Qh1 + 19 Ke2 Qxg2 20 Rg1 Qh2 21 Qg3. Black has the extra pawn, a superior pawn formation, a better minor piece and good lines for his Rooks, certainly enough positional pluses to make a win in the long run. He read my attitude correctly and keeping the Queens on was right psychologically.

17.Qxe3?..,

And it pays immediate dividends. Better 17 Rxe3, at least getting some activity for my pieces.

17..., Qxb2 18.Na4?

Losing the Exchange at the very least. A little better is 18 Ne2, but then the Q-side pawns all fall and nothing is accomplished but stringing out the game for some moves; 18 Ne2 Qxc2 19 Rac1 Qxa2 20 Rxc6, and the passed a-pawn well supported by the Bg7 and the Ra8 is impossible to stop.

18...,Qb4 19 Resigns for now the Knight is lost.

The final moves of this game remind me of my last post and how David Connors played his last few moves there against Fineberg. Both he and I fell apart against higher rated players when things took a turn we did anticipate. Of all the reasons why some are highly rated and others fall farther down the rating list, one of the most important is the ability to not lose one’s head in a crisis. These last two posts are examples of how not to play.

More soon.

This Week's Update

Last Thursday saw the beginning of the Schenectady Championship. Turnout was thinner than in recent years. Bill Townsend, the TD, expected some more than 18 competitors but only 15 were registered by 8:00pm. Most notable among the missing were Michael Mockler, Bobby Rotter and Dillip Aaron. Bill decided to nonetheless organize the event in two sections to make accommodating any late joiners somewhat easier. The top of the rating list so far is Patrick Chi at 2051 with Alan Le Cours, John Phillips, John Barnes and Bill Little following. I was not able to play my round Thursday and was paired with Patrick Chi, also unavailable. I left the club before the parings were completed and can not report how things went.

Wednesday evening there was an informal meeting of the Albany Area Chess Club to discuss proposals by the Competition Committee for this year’s activities. There were about ten members present including two or three members of the Competition Committee. Feedback from the group was recorded and passed on to Jon Leisner, Club Secretary. It seems likely formal activities will begin in early November. A straw poll indicated about eight participants in a club championship event.

Today’s look at local chess features David Connors falling short in his attempt to make another step forward in his growth as a chess player against Jonathan Fineberg a long time strong Expert. Connors has been one of the few adult players who have shown measurable improvement after several years at a plateau in rating. We often see youngsters making a breakout in rating after being stuck for sometime at a lower level. For reasons I do not understand, this happens far less frequently for adults.

Connors, David - Fineberg, Jonathan [A07]

Saratoga Championship Saratoga Springs, NY, 10.10.2010

1.Nf3 d5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 Bg4

This move is not so usual at this point. The big names, Anand, van der Viel and Karpov, who have defended the Black side against other big names, Shirov, Tal and Korchnoi, preferred 3.., c6; before deciding to put the dark squared Bishop on g4.

4.d3 Nbd7 5.Nbd2 e5

Rybka identifies the line of play as the New York and Capablanca Systems of the Reti Opening. The names for the system hark back to the 1924 New York International Tournament where Reti used his opening to defeat Jose Raul Capablance, World Champion at that moment.

The game is now well away from the play of the modern super-Grandmasters. The few top flight games I found in my databases with Oll, Conquest and Csom as White against 2400-2500 IM’s, the GM’s scored only two draws and a loss. That is not a great recommendation for the White opening scheme.

6.e4..,

I dislike this move. It blocks the action of the Bg2. Better may be 6 c4, keeping the long diagonal open, or deferring a decision about whether to advance the e or c-pawn, just 6 0-0.

6..., c6 7.0–0 Bd6 8.Qe1 0–0 9.h3 Bh5 10.Nh4..,

Being able to play this move was the rational for 8 Qe1. A similar maneuver is found in some of the games of the Grandmasters in this line in the database.

10..., Re8

Black prepares to react strongly if White plans to sacrifice a pawn in the center with say d3-d4 to open the line of the Bg2, or if White wants to play f2-f4.

11.Nf5 Bc7 12.Ne3?!..,

Provoking Black to advance the d-pawn and accepting a very slow kind of development for his forces. Perhaps better would be 12 Nb3.

12..., d4 13.Nf5 Bg6 14.Nh4 Nh5 15.Nxg6 hxg6

The result of the last sequence is White will have difficulties carrying out the break f2-f4. If that push is impossible, the future of the Bg2 is unpromising.

16.Nb3 Nf8 17.h4..,

Mr. Connors has been playing for the f2-f4 break. He recognizes that it is not possible now. If 17 f4, then follows 17.., exf4 18 gxf4 g5 19 fxg5 Qd6 20 Rf3 Ng6 21 Qf2 Qh2+ 22 Kf1 Ng3 23 Ke1 Nh4 24 Bf1 Nxf3+; or 24 Rxf7 Rf8. The text has some flaws. It weakens a sector under pressure, but it appears to be playable. Another try is 17 a4, if Black then replies 17..., a5; White can maneuver for bit with 18 Qe2 Ne6 19 Nd2 when nothing is clear yet, although Black looks to have an edge. This last sequence of play shows David has improved his sense of danger and does not panic in tense situations. That is an improvement in his play over just a few years ago.

17..., Ne6 18.Qe2 Bd6 19.Bf3..,

Logical if not very deep.

19..., Nf6 20.Kg2!?

Simply 20 Bg2, waiting to see how Black will proceed may be a better choice. My guess White intends to put his other Bishop on d2, bring his Rooks to the h-file and at some moment push the h-pawn forward to open the h-file. A reasonable plan, which no doubt Mr. Fineberg saw.

20..., Be7 21.Bd2 Nh7

Black prepares for the advance of the White h-pawn. Very likely he will not cooperatively allow that file to open.

22.Rac1?

The first real error by White. Connors should have carried out some of the plan mentioned above. It is what the logic of the position calls for. The move played is not an error on any tactical level, rather it shows a strong opponent such as Fineberg that White has doubts about how to proceed. When the opponent is doubting, strong players often start some action that shakes up the position.

22..., g5 23.hxg5 Bxg5 24.Bxg5 Qxg5

Black has truly shook the position and there are glimmerings of a dangerous attack showing. White must be very, very accurate lest the sky falls in on him.

25.Qd2?!

A natural looking move that begins the slide for White into a lost position. Keeping the fight going with the hard to see alternative 25 Bg4, is the best try for White. Black would be faced with a difficult decision. An immediate attempt to win with the sacrificial line 25..., f5 26 exf5 Nf4+ 27 gxf4 exf4; appears to do more than draw by perpetual check at best, and otherwise, White gets to trade the poor light squared Bishop for a Knight. Avoiding the trade by retreating the Ne6 to f8 allows f2-f4 and White has the compensation of open lines for his Rooks to balance the airy situation of his King

25..., Nf4+

This move is what Connors did not see perhaps.

26.Kg1 Qg6 27.Bg2 Ng5!

Or, maybe it was this very neat resource that got by Mr. Connors. Jonathan has shown how to exploit a weak square complex getting his Knights into dominating posts. Of course: 28 gxf4 Ng3+ wins the White Queen for a pair of Knights.

28.g4?

This move writes off the dark squares for White and the chance to fight on. With 28 Qd1, White coolly eliminates K&Q forking from f3 as a tactical motif, and while Black enjoys the initiative, White can certainly hold.

28..., Nge6!?

It is Black’s turn to falter. The text lets slip some of his advantage. Better are 28..., Qh6; and 28..., Qh7. Fineberg was concerned about a capture on d4 by the Nb3 undermining the support of his Nf4 and moved directly to eliminate the threat. By putting his Queen on the h-file he would have set up the checks at h3 by his Knights making the capture Nxd4 impossible.

29.f3 Rad8

With a clear advantage in hand, Black makes a housekeeping move. The principles of good technique tells us this is the way forward. In this specific case, the housekeeping allows White time to make a better defense.

30.Na5?..,

However White does not take advantage of the opportunity. A more reasonable try is 30 Kf2, hoping to run the King to some kind of safety away from the h-file. After the reply 30..., Qf6 31 Rh1 g6; there does not appear to be safe haven for the White King. The move played by White is only a gesture. The pawn on b7 has no bearing on the outcome of the game and the threat by the Knight meaningless. I believe it was hereabouts that David lost faith in his position. His play in the concluding few moves is not up to the standard he set in the earlier part of the game.

30..., Qg5

Indirect defense of the b-pawn; 31 Nxb3 Nh3+; wins the White Queen.

31.Qf2 Rd7 32.Rfe1 g6 33.Qg3?..,

The unrelenting pressure of defending a position having few chances for counter-play takes its toll on David. Black is presented with the following shot; 33...Ne2+ 34.Rxe2 Qxc1+ pocketing the Exchange and maintaining a firm grip on the position.

33..., Kg7?

Which for some reason unknown Black ignores.

34.Kf2 Nc5 35.Bh1??

The only move is 35 Bf1, reinforcing d3. White is still lost but Black has to play some more moves, and where there is life there is hope. Now all hope is gone.

35..., Ncxd3+

Connors resigned here because the material deficit was going to be too great. Up to a point David Connors played well. He seems to have missed the tactics around move 25 and became discouraged leading to a weaker resistance in final phase of the game. Stronger players fight off the discouragement that naturally comes over us after making an error. In bad positions they make determined fights and those stubborn struggles let them salvage many half and full points. If he can learn how to recover his balance after a mistake, David still has the opportunity to improve.

More soon.

A Game From the North Country

The Saratoga tournament continues to totter along. The game this week that did not get played was Hrebenach - Le Cours. The three contests played and finished were: Little - Taylor with Taylor winning in a short sharp fight, Connors - Fineberg and Fineberg got back to his winning ways in 35 moves, and an interesting battle between Gary Farrell and Lee Battes, two long time stalwarts of the Saratoga Club, where Farrell successfully carried out the main intention of the Bird’s Opening and drove home a mating attack. The standing are now: Taylor 3-0, Fineberg 2-1, Farrell 1-0, Battes and Little 1-1, Connors 1-2, with Alguire, Hrebenach and Le Cours not yet scoring.

Today’s game is between two gentlemen who have represented the Saratoga Club for many years. The Bird’s has been a favorite of Gary Farrell’s for as long as I have known him so I can not believe this is the first time these two have debated over the board the merits of 1. f4. A quick scan of my collection of local games did not turn up any examples however. That is too bad. It would be interesting to see how this game fits with their previous tries.

Farrell, Gary - Battes, Lee [A03]

Saratoga Championship Saratoga Springs, NY, 10.10.2010

1.f4 d5 2.e3 g6 3.Nf3 Bg7 4.Be2 Nf6 5.0–0 0–0

Many of the best players have used the Bird’s on occasion. The very recently deceased Bent Larsen is maybe the most noteworthy of the practitioners. Other “names” have rolled out 1.f4 including Morozevich, Yudasin, Malaniuk, Ehlvest, and my boyhood hero Bronstein. None however, except Larsen, made a habit of it.

While frequently games in the opening take on a positional flavor, lurking at the heart of the scheme for White is an attack on the K-side featuring driving the f-pawn forward to f5 and even f6. This idea gives White real chances to win and requires Black to exercise due care through the middle game.

6.Nc3..,

This is a newer move. More usual is 6.d3. Mr. Farrell puts some effort into the study of opening lines. It is likely he has some homework that recommends this move.

6..., Bg4

Normal is 6..., c5. The only justification for putting the Bishop here is to trade it as in the game for the Nf3. That is not a bad deal in positional terms if Black wants to build a fence of pawns on the light squares

7.h3 Bxf3 8.Bxf3 e6 9.Qe2 c6

The game is just about dead level. Black has his light squared barricade of pawns, White has the Bishop pair with chances to try for a general advance on the K-side. The challenge for Black is to find a way to derail the looming White build-up on the K-side.

10.d3 Na6

Mr. Battes is as attentive as his opponent here to opening preparation. Since this is early days in the game he may have ginned up some tricky idea here at home. Rybka recommends 10..., Ne8 11 Qf2 Qb6; touching the slightly weak b2 and intending to post the Knights on d6 and d7 as a way forward for Black. Just how the Knight at a6 will come in to the game is unclear to me.

11.Bd2 d4!?

A sudden shift in plan, but why? Possibly Lee saw a chance to muddy the waters in the center after 12 exd4 Qxd4 13 Be3 Qd6 and reducing danger on the K-side by eliminating the White e-pawn.

12.Nd1 dxe3 13.Nxe3 Nd5 14.g3 Re8 15.Qf2 h5?!

The natural 15..., Bxb2 seems to give Black some advantage. True enough the line is complicated. Rybka lays it out as follows: 15.., Bxb2 16 Rb1 Bd4 17 Rxb7 Bb6 18 c4 Nc5 19 Rxb6 Nxb6 20 Bxc6 Nxd3 with complications slightly favoring Black, or 19 cxd5?1 Nxb7 20 dxc6 Nc5 and Black is better. In both cases the complex tactics turn out good for Black, but this is a difficult position and a challenge to work out over the board. There are variations in the above lines where pushing the h-pawn to the 5th is useful. Lee may have thought to get it in early. The text intends to make a hand-to-hand fight on the K-side. Now the tide turns in favor of White.

16.Nc4 Qc7 17.Rae1 h4?

Stepping back from the tactics in this position and looking at it from a positional perspective might be useful here. The bulk of the White force has gathered on the K-side and Black has two units, the Ra8 and the Na6 unemployed. Opening up lines on the K-side are not indicated from that point of view. The chances will favor the better developed side.

Better for Black is 17..., Nab4; making some threats on the Q-side to occupy the attention of White. The computer suggests 17.., Nab4 18 Bd1 c5, as a reasonable continuation. The Nb4 returns to useful employment via c6; White has some edge but the issue is still in doubt.

18.gxh4 Nxf4 19.Bg4 Nh5 20.Ne5 Bxe5 21.Rxe5 Ng7

Maybe slightly better is 21..., f5; but Black is in trouble anyway. Of course, 21..., Qxe5? 22 Qxf7+ and 23 Bc3, wins trivially.

22.Qf6 Nf5?

Missing his last chance to make a stubborn defense with 22..., Qe7; then 23 Rg5 Nf5 24 Qxe7 Rxe7; and the pressure continues but immediate mate is not happening. The game move loses.

23.Bc3...,

White coolly increases the pressure. Mate and dropping significant material can not be avoided.

23..., Qe7 24.Rexf5 Qxf6 25.Rxf6 Re7 26.h5 gxh5 27.Bxh5 Rf8 28.Be5 Rd7 29.Rh6 f6 30.Bxf6 Rh7 31.Rg6+ Kf7 32.Rg7# 1–0

A very neat finish by Gary Farrell. He has sat out the last few Saratoga Club Championships with some medical concerns. Feeling better now, his return makes the battle for the title even more interesting than usual.

More games soon.

A brief but idea-rich game from the State Championship

Hello again. I'm coming out of my little turtle shell to put up the score of a relatively short game that I played in the Under-2200 section of the New York State Championship last month. This encounter only lasted twenty-seven moves, but it seems to me that there are a few tantalizing ideas in it. And I should admit that it also serves my ego to publish one of the few non-garbage games that I managed to produce all summer. Besides, the blog needs the traffic! So I have a variety of excuses to choose from.

My notes here will concentrate on the interesting tactical themes that crop up throughout.

9/4/2010

Philip Sells - Harold Stenzel

132nd NY State Championship (2)

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nc6 5. Nf3 b6  

This seems to be a pet line of my opponent, who has played it many times over the years. This database that I'm using at the moment, incomplete though it is, has Stenzel playing the Black side in 17 of 29 games. I was told that this is called the Burn Variation of the French, but I don't see why we couldn't call it the Stenzel Variation at this point. 

6. c3

 

Another possible approach is to play the white king's bishop to a natural destination and leave the center a little bit unstable for the moment, as shown in this game: 6. Bb5 Bb7 7. Qe2 a6 8. Bxc6+ Bxc6 9. Ne5 Bb7 10. c3 Qd5 11. f3 f6 12. Nd3 O-O-O 13. O-O g5 14. Re1 e5 15. Ndf2 exd4 16. cxd4 Qxd4 17. Be3 Qb4 18. Nxg5 fxg5 19. Bxg5 Ne7 20. Bxe7 Bxe7 21. Qxe7 Qxb2 22. Rac1 Rd7 23. Qe6 Rhd8 24. Rcd1 Qb5 25. Ne4 Bd5 26. Nd6+ cxd6 27. Rxd5 Qc6 28. Red1 Kc7 29. h3 Rg7 30. Kh2 Re8 31. Qh6 Reg8 32. g4 Rg6 33. Qxh7+ R8g7 34. Qh4 Qc4 35. R1d2 Rf7 36. R5d4 Qc6 37. Rf2 Qc1 38. Qg3 Re7 39. Qg2 Kb8 40. Rc2 Qe1 41. Qf2 Qa5 42. Qd2 Qe5+ 43. f4 Qf6 44. Rc6 Rh7 45. Rcxd6 Qh4 46. Rd8+ Kc7 47. R4d7+ 1-0, Nikolayev Igor (USA) 2354 - Stenzel Harold (USA) 2140, Monticello (USA) 2005.09.03

 

6... Bb7 7. Bd3 Nf6 8. O-O Qd7 9. Qe2 O-O-O 10. Bg5  

This may be a little too easy on Black, since it almost forces some exchanges.

A couple of smooth wins for White have occurred after 10. Rd1 Be7 (10... Nxe4 11. Bxe4 Bd6 12. b4 f6 13. Bb2 Qf7 14. a4 Ne7 15. Bxb7+ Kxb7 16. a5 Nd5 17. axb6 cxb6 18. Ra4 Ra8 19. Rda1 Kb8 20. c4 Nf4 21. Qe4 Qd7 22. c5 Bc7 23. cxb6 Bd6 24. Rxa7 Rxa7 25. Rxa7 1-0, Panken Richard - Stenzel Harold, Long Island 1996 Ch Nassau Chess Club) 11. b4 Nxe4 12. Bxe4 Bf6 13. Bf4 Ne7 14. c4 Bxe4 15. Qxe4 Qc6 16. Qe2 Nf5 17. b5 Qe8 18. Be5 Qe7 19. a4 Rd7 20. a5 Nd6 21. axb6 cxb6 22. c5 bxc5 23. dxc5 Nf5 24. b6 Rhd8 25. Qa6+ Rb7 26. bxa7 Rxd1+ 27. Rxd1 Bxe5 28. a8=Q+ Bb8 29. c6 1-0, Renna Tony - Stenzel Harold, Long Island 1990 Ch Chess Club.

It's worth noting that 10. Nxf6 gxf6 seems risky for White here, as it opens the g-file for Black's rook to point straight at the white king. White also robs himself of the e5-square, which the ¤f3 would have liked to use. The structural deficiencies for Black (i.e. the doubled f-pawns and isolated h-pawn) would be of negligible significance at this point in the game--the more critical factor is that Black has free play against the white king without having had to exert any effort to generate it.

10... Be7 11. Rfd1 Nd5 12. Bxe7 Qxe7 13. Ba6 h6

This may be a little too slow. A proposal from Rybka is 13... f5 14. Ned2 g5 15. Qb5 Kb8 16. Bxb7 Kxb7 17. Nc4+= , when White has the idea of securing a knight on e5, resulting in the elimination of the only piece defending Black's king at the moment. Black would have to scramble a bit to keep his light-square weaknesses covered.

14. Bxb7+ Kxb7

 

The black king now becomes a little bit exposed due to the weakness of a6 in particular and the fact that White has an obvious way to open the a-file. Here we start to see some interesting tactical motifs appear. 

15. a4

One potential attacking idea, given the queenside pawn structure seen here, is 15. Nc5+ bxc5 16. Qb5+ , which would work well if Black didn't have 16... Nb6 17. dxc5 a6 18. Qb3 Qxc5.

15... f5 

Black chases the Ne4 away from its threatening central position and gets his kingside counterplay moving. He will have to remain aware of the backward e-pawn, though. 

16. Ng3 g5 17. Re1 Nf4 18. Qf1

18. Qc4 was also possible and certainly a little more active. Amusingly, it would also have prevented the next move in the game in view of 18... Qf7?? 19. Qxc6+ Kxc6 20. Ne5+ Kb7 21. Nxf7 . The text at least takes no risks with the safety of either the queen or the g2-square, while still awaiting a chance to use the weak queenside light squares.

18... Qf7?! 

This does solve the problem of the e-file pin, but as the later tactics reveal, is not the best place for the queen. Either 18... Qf6 or 18... Qg7 suggests itself as an alternative. I suppose, given the logic of Black's proposed defensive setup (see later notes), the move to g7 is the most pertinent, though of course the Pe6 is loose then. (Or maybe 18... Qf6 planning the setup ... Rd7-g7 + ... Nd8 would work. Hard to say which is best.) 

19. a5 Kb8  

Black's defensive scheme involves use of the second rank. There was nothing that the second player could have done realistically to prevent White from opening the a-file and getting access to the a6-square, but his point is to meet axb6 with ... cxb6 so that the black queen helps to defend a7. (The recapture ... axb6 is never going to be possible as long as Black has his king in its queenside pillbox, because White then mates trivially on the a-file.)

19... Nxa5? invites 20. Rxa5 bxa5 21. Qb5+ Kc8 22. Ne5 Qe8 23. Qa6+ Kb8 24. Nc6+ +-.

20. b4 g4 21. Ne5

21. b5 gxf3 22. bxc6 is another of those interesting tactical ideas. I had thought little of it during the game owing to my perception that Black could defend, at least for the time being, with 22... Rd6 when White seemingly can't both hold onto the c-pawn and go for the mate. But 23. Qb5! threatening 24. axb6 would have been quite strong here. Since, as mentioned before, Black can only retake with 24... cxb6, the b8-h2 diagonal would in that event be opened up and 25. Qe5 would win. 23... Qg7 

(or 23... Ng6 24. c4 intending 25. d5, thus defending the Pc6 long enough to play Qa6 and mate;

23... Qe8 provides more pretty tactical possibilities, such as 24. axb6 Qxc6 25. bxc7+ (25. bxa7+ Ka8 26. Qe5 Ng6 27. Qg7 e5 28. Rxe5 Rd7 29. Qxh8+ Nxh8 30. Re8+ Kb7 31. Rb8#) 25... Ka8 26. Qe5 Ng6 27. Qg7 Rc8 (27... e5 28. c8=Q+ Rxc8 29. Qxa7#) 28. Qxg6; 23... Nxg2 24. Re5)  

24. gxf3 Rg8 25. Re5! with the cute idea of just defending the Pc6 via Rc5. 25... Rgd8 26. Rc5 Rxd4 27. cxd4 Qxd4 28. Rcc1 +-.

21... Nxe5 22. Rxe5 Rd5 23. axb6  

Played at this moment, the black king's exposure on the b8-h2 diagonal can give White certain tactics, as has been shown above. However, as long as Black is careful, this should turn out to be rather weak tea. 

23... cxb6 24. Rxd5 Nxd5 25. Qb5  

Black is hardly being crushed here--he just has to be a little careful. But instead, he played exactly the move I was hoping to see.... 

25... Nxc3??

25... Qc7 26. Qe2 Rd8 27. Qxe6 Qxc3 28. Rf1 f4 29. Ne2 Qxb4 30. Qxg4= Rybka 3

26. Qe5+ Kb7 27. Qxh8 1:0

---

If anyone cares, I prepared these notes using Chess Assistant 10, which I've been trying out for a little while now. There are some things I like about CA a lot, but unfortunately there are rather more things that really annoy me about it. Interestingly, ChessBase 11 is rolling out in a little over a week, so I'll give that a run as well to see if I can get the best of both worlds.

Thanks for reading.

A Game From the Saratoga Championship

The second round of the Saratoga Championship was played Sunday evening. These early rounds have had some attendance problems. Only three of the four scheduled games were played last week and the same again this week. The results were; Steve Taylor defeated Jeff Hrebenach, Lee Battes did the same against David Connors, and I was fortunate enough to have Jonathan Fineberg do something he does rarely - misread a middle game position - granting me a winning attack.

Mr. Taylor is the early leader with wins over Hrebenach and Le Cours. There is a bunch in second with one win; Fineberg, Farrell, Little, Connors and Battes. Le Cours, Hrebenach and Alguire have yet to score. It is early days as yet, and as we get deeper into the schedule things will change. For whom and how much are the unknowns that keep us playing.
My game with Mr. Fineberg was a pretty good effort. Jonathan still has the edge in the overall score: 4 to 3 with two draws. This goes back to the early 1980s. While there are many players who are very tough opponents for me because of their fighting spirit or style, there are some that just know more about chess than I do. Jonathan Fineberg, along with Katrine, Taylor, and more recently Deepak Aaron and his father Asok, are in this group. Draws and wins from these guys are especially satisfying because they are rare for me.

Credit should be given to Michael Mockler for inspiring me to try the variation of the Slav Defense seen in the game. We both studied with GM Har-Zvi for a couple of years. A big piece of that time was given over to an in-depth review of the Slav while the GM was preparing a series of video lectures for ICC. Mr. Mockler subsequently played the variation I used here in games against strong opponents with some success. Watching how Mockler obtained good results led me to change my preference for 4..., dxc4; or 4..., Bf4; to 4..., a6. This time the choice worked out well for me.

Fineberg, Jonathan - Little, Bill [D15]

Saratoga Ch 2010, Saratoga Springs, NY, 10.03.2010

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

I am uncertain of the correct name of this line. In ECO it is classified as D15. There are many games by the 2500-2600-2700 Grandmasters including such lights as Topalov Shirov, Mosesian and Hodgson.

5.c5..,

After the game Jonathan said this is White’s best according to a 1.d4 repertoire book he has on the shelf.

5..., g6

This move is not so popular with the over 2500 crowd. They like 5..., Bf5. The course of the middle game demonstrates why this is so.

6.h3 Bg7 7.Bf4..,

The database show White winning a large number of games from this position. In my ignorance, I liked my position thinking there must be counter-play for Black against the c5-pawn.

7..., 0–0 8.e3 b5!?

Rybka does not give this move any great attention. It is not one of Rybka’s top five suggestions. Why? It seems that White is under no obligation to capture en passant. He could ignore this advance and play 9.g4, emphasizing the White space advantage on the K-side and leaving Black to wonder how he will obtain counter-play.

9.cxb6?!..,

White can’t resist the capture maybe believing the Black c-pawn can become a target. Both players are in unfamiliar territory.

9..., Qxb6 10.Na4?..,

Rybka says White should play 10.Qb3, then if 10..., Qxb3 11 axb3, to be followed shortly by b3-b4 when Black will have the difficult task of holding a position with weak a & c-pawns. The text wastes a tempo and gives Black the time he needs to get to equality.

10..., Qa5+ 11.Nc3 Nbd7!?

Straight away 11.., c5; is probably better.

12.Nd2?!..,

Too slow. Better is 12 Bd3, then 12.., c5 13 0-0 and the position is balanced and the fight is still to crystallize.

12..., c5 13.Be2 cxd4 14.exd4 Bb7 15.0–0 Ne4 16.Nb3 Qb6 17.Nxe4 dxe4 18.Rc1 Rac8 19.Qd2 Rxc1?

Things have proceeded fairly normally if not altogether accurately. There were alternatives move-by-move but no glaring mistakes, at least according to Rybka. Here I fail to do the best thing. It was a struggle to evaluate the line: 19..., Bd5 20 Qa5 Bxb3 21 Qxb6 Nxb6 and so on leading to a decent position for Black. I could not come to a conclusion, and after using significant clock time mulling the decision, took that path I’ve often faulted; simplify rather than endure the tension.

20.Rxc1 Rc8 21.Rxc8+ Bxc8

So now instead of having equality, or maybe a slightly better game, Black is slightly worse than White. If Black wants to fight for the full point, he must look to open lines for his Bishops because it is doubtful there is any way to stop the White Q-side pawns from eventually advancing.

22.Qc2 Bb7 23.Bc7?!..,

White is tempted by the chance of pushing my Queen around. Jonathan and I agreed in the postmortem that 23 Be3, is a better try for White. That move was Rybka’s recommendation also.

23..., Qb4 24.Ba5 Qd6 25.Nc5 Nxc5 26.dxc5 Qc6 27.b4?..,

This maybe the fatal error. Better is 27 Be1, reinforcing f2. The text prevents the Ba5 from participating in the defense. Fineberg decided his charging pawns were so fast I could not do anything important elsewhere on the board. At some point in the last year I had looked at positions where a Bishop and a Queen aim at f2/f7. When there is also a pawn at e4/e5 a good deal of danger for the side under siege can be created. In the position now there are added possibilities because of my Q&B battery on the h1-a8 diagonal. Those studies triggered a search for tactics.

27..., Bd4 28.a4 Qf6

Now the danger signals are loud and persistent. If 29 Bf1 e3 30 Bc7 exf3 31 Kh2 Bxg2 32 Bxg2 Be4+! 33 Bxe4 Qxe4+ 34 Kh1 and mate is unavoidable on the next move. The combination of back rank weakness, dark square holes and the tactic of of discovered check forcing the e-pawn to make a Queen give Black many ways to carry out a mating sequence.

29.Bc4 e3 30.fxe3 Bxe3+ 31.Kh2 Qf4+ 32.Kh1 Qg3 33.c6

A forlorn hope in the truest sense of the phrase from military history describing a sacrifice of troops that can not change the outcome of the battle.

33.., Qe1+, White resigns.

Even surrendering material with 34 Bf1 Qxf1+ 35 Kn2 Bxc6! 36 Qxc6 Qg1+ 37 Kg3 Qf2+ and if 38 Kg4 Qf4#; or 38 Kh2 Bf4+ 39 Kh1 Qf1#.
I don’t know how the remainder of the tourney will turn out, but this is a good beginning for me.
A couple of reminders: Wednesday evening the Albany Area chess Club will hold their organizational for this year. While some of the agenda is the usual important but not terrible interesting housekeeping items such as setting dues, election of officers, some innovated ideas have been mentioned. One is having rated Ladder Play in place of the more common club championship event. Another is scheduling regular training sessions. These may include specific classes for beginners, openings reviews and tactical themes. Thursday evening the Schenectady Chess Club will hold a time-handicap speed tournament. This is an event where ten minutes are unevenly divided by rating and gives the lower rated participant excellent chances to win.

More soon.
　
　
　

A Return to Posting

I began writing this post many days ago. Some projects around the house interfered and the rush to get household tasks done before the chill and rain of autumn conspired to keep me away from my desk. The tasks are not complete but I can delay no longer and will get this post out now.

The beginning of a chess season with three local club championships in it is upon us. They are Schenectady, Albany and Saratoga. Here’s an aside; I wonder if the Guilderland Library Friday evening chess group plans to hold their own championship event? If they do, that would be four such events. I am uncertain if the Troy club holds a title event. I don’t recall ever seeing results from a Troy championship in Townsend’s column, but if both organizations did so that would make five local club championships! Whether or not every local chess group holds some formal event is not too important. Having five functioning chess groups surely signals a healthy level of activity.

Last night I received an early report from Alan Le Cours. The first round of the Saratoga event began with the following results; Steve Taylor won from Alan Le Cours, Jonathan Feinberg defeated Jeff Hrebenach, and in what can be called a small upset David Connors won his game against Ray Alguire.

The line up for the Saratoga tourney is: Steve Taylor, Jonathan Fineberg, Gary Farrell, Alan Le Cours, Bill Little, Jeff Hrebenach, Ray Alguire, David Connors, and possibly George Dipre. It looks to be a short affair and, with luck we may finish before the first of the year. Most notably missing is Philip Sells, last year’s Champion.

The 132nd NYS Championship was held in Albany a month ago. In the Schenectady Gazette Bill Townsend published a summary of results in his column. GM Joel Benjamin and IM Marc Esserman tied for first in the Open Section with 5-1 scores. Since neither currently are NYS residents, the title went to the youthful 15 year old Aleksandr Ostrovskiy from Brooklyn who finished a clear third with 4 ½ - 1 ½ score. Ostrovskiy is the youngest NYS Champion ever surpassing Nakamura and (2004) and Aaron Paxton (2002), both 16 when they won the titles.

Far below those fellows battling for the State title those of us working for the lesser glories of the Under 2000 Section had some interesting struggles. The Under 2000 Section was won by Jan Paragua and Sundar Swaminathan with 5 - 1 scores. The best results for local players were Alan Le Cours in 6th place at 4 ½ - 1 ½. Along with several others Michael Mockler, John Phillips and John Richman scored 3 ½ - 2 ½. My opponent in today’s game, Jon Barnes finished at 2 ½ along with local scholastic talent Chen Qu and others. Bob Campbell and Bobby Rotter were at 2 -4 and a name from the past, Don Dederick did a bit better than I did and notched a 1 - 5 result.

Now to my results. I came to the event feeling pretty good and proceeded to play two very bad games. That was enough for me and I abandoned the tourney. The following game was my best effort. John Barnes and I have played three times over the summer including this game. From those meetings I have made only a single draw. For years I have done well against Barnes, two wins and six draws, those days seem to be over.

Little, Bill - Barnes, John [B51]

NYS Ch - 2010, U2000 Albany, NY, 04.09.2010

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 g6 4.0–0 Bg7 5.Re1 d6 6.c3 Bd7

This is a theoretical position that favors White. Database statistics show in 23 games White won 20, drew 1 and lost but 2. Only two Grandmasters; Rhode and Lombardy tried to defend the Black position, so the last word has not been said about resources for Black. Looking over the 23 games reveals nothing clear about why such an imbalance for White. The games all have quite complicated middle games with some similarities to Ruy Lopez.

7.d4 Nf6 8.d5 Ne5 9.Nxe5!?..,

Safe and sane is 9. Bxd7, and after some trading of minor pieces on e5 we would come to a middle game with a White Knight versus a Black Bishop. The question would then be; can Black force some further weakness on the dark squares in the White camp? If so, the position favors Black, if not the White Knight is the better minor piece. A classic positional debate.

9..., Bxb5 10.c4 Ba6 11.Qa4+ Nd7 12.Nf3 0–0 13.Nbd2 Qc8 14.Rb1 Rb8?!;

Better is 14..., c4; when Black has the initiative firmly in hand and White has to be quite careful not to slip into a lost position.

15.Qc2..,

After the game ended I thought this was the root cause of my troubles. It seemed to me 15.Qe2, keeping the Black Queen out of a6 was better. With Rybka grinding away for some time, my little electronic helper indicates there is not much difference between the two moves.

15..., b5 16.b3 bxc4 17.Nxc4 Bxc4 18.Qxc4 Rb4 19.Qc2 Qa6 20.Bd2 Rb6 21.b4?..,

This is the real culprit. I recognized my position was difficult, the pressure down the b-file and potential breaks with .., c5-c4; or possibly .., a7-a5; and .., a5-a4; along with no obvious attacking chances for me on the K-side meant dour struggle for me. Impatience motivated this break that opens the game to Black’s advantage. Standing pat with 21.Bf4, awaiting events is correct. It was here faith in my position faltered. Once you lose the belief that there are resources in your game it is certain you won’t find them.

21..., Rfb8 22.bxc5 Nxc5 23.Rxb6 Rxb6 24.Rb1?..,

This move gives Black a significant edge. The only hope for White is to mix things up with 24.e5, then if 24..., Nd3 25 Qc7 Bf8 26 exd6, and Black is still better, but White has some chances to make things difficult for awhile. After the text my weak pawns are targets and pieces are poorly placed to defend them.

24..., Qe2 25.Re1 Qd3 26.Qxd3 Nxd3 27.Re3?!..,

A bit more stubborn is 27.Rd1, but Black gets an outside passed pawn after 27.., Rb2 28 Be3 Rxa2; and the Black Nd3 is safe because of the back rank mate.

27.., Rb1+ 28.Be1 Nc5 29.Kf1 a5 30.g4?..,

The final chance is missed. White had to try 30. e5, when he is beginning to make some progress. Now Black winds things up quickly.

30... Ra1 31.a3 Bb2 32.Kg2 Rxa3 33.Rxa3 Bxa3 34.Bxa5 Nxe4 35.Bd8..,

Now it is clear my d-pawn can not be defended.

35..., Kf8 36.Nd4 Nf6 37.Nb5 Bc5 38 Resigns.

Excellent play by Mr. Barnes and one more example of the effect of confidence, or the lack of it has on chess play.

A report on the early rounds of the Saratoga Championship tomorrow.