A John Phillips' Game

One of the strengths of the Geezers team that permitted it to make a serious run at the title this year was the play of John Phillips on the second board. Today’s game against the very strong Gary Farrell of Saratoga is an excellent illustration of John’s style.

Farrell, Gary - Phillips, John [A03]

Geezers v Saratoga A CDCL Match Schenectady, NY, 23.06.2011

Board 2

1.f4 Nf6 2.Nf3 c5 3.e3 Nc6 4.Be2 d5

For 150 years this opening named for Henry Bird, the nineteenth century English master, has been around. Such stars as Steinitz, Gunsberg and the American Jackson Showalter tried it out with success before the turn of the 20th century. Since then is has been a “rare bird” when equals from the elite faced each other. It is now seen most often in games at the local and club level. I don’t know exactly why this is so, there no published refutation to my knowledge. It has been a durable weapon for Mr. Farrell for several years.

5.d3 g6 6.0–0 Bg7 7.Nc3 0–0 8.Ne5 Qc7 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.Rb1 e5 11.e4 Rd8 12.Qe1,..

This is all fairly standard Farrell practice. His intention is a direct attack with pieces on the Black King. Intimating for sure, but it can be met if the opponent is quite careful and tactically alert.

12..., d4 13.Na4,..

It is possible that 13 fxe5, is better. Then play can go; 13..., Nd7 14 e6 fxe6 15 Na4 Rf8 16 Rxf8+ Bxf8 17 a3 Nb6 18 Qa5, with a complicated fight in the offing. That of course foregoes the direct attack on the Black King, and Mr. Farrell is uncompromising at the board; mating the King is the objective, so why deviate seems to be his motto.

13..., c4 14.Qh4 cxd3 15.cxd3 Nd7 16.f5,..

White has achieved his aimed for position; the Bishops squint down their diagonals at the Black King, the f-pawn is prepared to give up its life to open lines, the Queen is posed to strike and the Rook on f1 would like nothing more than to come out in front of the troops to add his weight to the attack. Mr. Phillips shows his nerve here. It could not have been easy to face a such position. If the game was played by computers, White would probably win this position.

16..., Bf6 17.Bg5 Bxg5 18.Qxg5 f6 19.Qh6 gxf5?!

A slip in dangerous waters. Better is 19..., g5; but White will keep the upper hand with; 20 Rf3 Qd6 21 h4 gxh4 22 Qxh4.

20.exf5?!,..

Better 20 Rxf5, making for a smoother maneuver to bring the other Rook into the fray, then Black probably has seek what solace he can find by giving up material with ; 20..., Nf8 21 Rxf6 Qg7 22 Qxg7+ Kxg7+ 23 Rxc6 Bd7. Black gets some play but down two pawns in this ending is grim indeed. If Black tries another approach to hold on to some material; say 20..., Qd6?? 21 Rg5+, wins instantly. The other obvious alternative; 20..., Rf8; is equally unpromising after; 21 Bh5 Bb7 22 Bg6 Nb6 23 Nc5 hxg6 24 Qxg6+ Qg7 25 Qxg7+ Kxg7 26 Nxb7. While the game move does not surrender all advantage, it does give Black some hope as the attack has lost some momentum.

20..., Qd6 21.Bd1,..

White decides the Bishop can be useful on the h2-g8 diagonal. Time is precious when attacking. I am not at all convinced the two moves used to reposition the Bishop immediately is exactly correct. Another way towards the same goal is 21 Rf3, 22 Rh3, and 23 Rc1, and only then 24 Bd1, mustering more of White’s force for active duty. The threat of mate at h7 permits the Na4-c5 possibility. The White pieces seem to be better coordinated this way.

21..., Ba6 22.Rf3 Kh8 23.Bb3 Qf8 24.Qh4 Bb5 25.Rbf1?,..

It is tempting to bring the Rook from the Q-side into the fray, but this square is less useful than is e1. From e1 the Rook may go to e4 and possibly participate in the direct attack. Also, from e1 the Rook makes a little less dangerous the push e5-e4.

25..., Qb4?!

A feint to the Q-side. More to the point is 25..., c5. Black can then advance this pawn to c4 if required to either trade the Bb3 or obstruct its diagonal. Also reasonable is 25..., Rac8; to prepare the push of the c-pawn.

26.Rh3 Qe7

The feint is repulsed and White has gotten in a useful move.

27.Rff3,..

Refusing to retrace his steps, the Rook springs forward to the third rank. More useful is 27 Re1, aiming for e4 and a route through g4 and g6 to get in to the direct assault. From f3 the Rook can think about g3 and g6, but Black now has the time to get his own Rook from a1 into action, and the threat to push e5-e4 is becoming more dangerous. Making that fine judgment call reeks of difficulty; is it better to hold back the e5-e4 push from e1, or get the Rook into action via f3/g3/g6? All chess players would like to have computer-like accuracy of calculation when such a decision is taken. Alas, we humans do not have it. We must use what we have and intuition to find the way. These tools can sometimes fail us.

27..., Rab8 28.Rfg3,..

If Black did not have a counter-stroke in hand, the array of White forces on the K-side would be demanding resignation shortly.

28..., Bxa4 29.Bxa4 Rxb2

Oops! Two can play at the game of mate the King. Another feature of Mr. Phillips’ style is displayed; resourcefulness in very tense situations. Suddenly the one side attacking and the other defending changes dramatically.

30.Bb3?!,..

In this game Gary Farrell did not display his usual efficiency in handling his pieces. Probably better here is 30 Rg6, immediately raising the tension. Play could go; 30 Rg6 e4 31 dxe4 d3 32 Rxd3? (Better 32 Bd1, with the battle raging onward.) 32..., Rb4; and Black is close to a win.

30..., Nc5!

First the Rook from a1 came to life and now the Knight on defensive duty at d7 leaps into the fray. One more admirable characteristic of John’s chess; the ability to get a great deal out of his pieces. The great Grandmaster Rubinstein was an exemplar of this kind of play. It is what the Russian School of Chess labeled as dynamic. Pieces may be just standing there on the defense, but you should always being scheming for a way to bring them action. John does this chess task very well.

31.Rg6 Rb1+ 32.Kf2 e4!

Notice how the Nc5 supports this push and is ready to take off the Bb3 if the White attack gets up a head of steam. My guess is Gary did not quite pick up on the shift in roles from attacker to attacked as quickly as was necessary. There are mating combinations and sequences all around the White King now.

33.Qxf6+,..

If 33 Kg3 Nxb3 34 axb3 e3 35 Qxf6+ Qxf6 36 Rxf6 e2 37 Re6 e1(Q); nets a whole Rook and the point. By this moment in the game time was very short for Farrell and not much better off was John Phillips

33..., Qxf6 34.Rxf6 e3+ 35.Kf3 Re8 36.Rf7 Rf1+ 37.Ke2 Rf2+ 38.Ke1 Nxd3+ 39.Kd1 Rd2# 0–1

The last few moves were blitzed out to beat falling flags, it was a pretty finish nonetheless. The time or two I looked on this game led me to think John would be lucky to hang on to draw. The opportunities he found to bring to life his inactive Rook and the defensive Knight I did not see. Not picking up on those resources led me an incorrect conclusion about the state of his game, and the Geezers’ chances in the match.

More soon.

Games from the SCC A v Albany A CDCL Match

I have only four of the eight games played in the two final CDCL matches of this season; playing against Alan Le Cours on board four for the Geezers was too demanding of my time to allow the gathering of more game scores. What is in hand however will permit some of the interesting pieces of the story of these matches to be told.

To begin: The first board of the headline match between Schenectady A and Albany A saw Howard Dean, a well established Expert face Patrick Chi, the youngest ever Schenectady Club Champion. The opening was a kind of Larsen’s/English that transposed into a more normal looking QGD by move 8. Still, all was not quite standard; Black had gotten his light squared Bishop outside his solid pawns chain e6/d5/c6, and equalized the game. It was a pretty good result for Black. Some operations in and around the center favored White slightly, and then, an uncharacteristic error by Mr. Howard overlooking a Knight fork picking up the Exchange, made for an early end to hostilities.

Howard, Dean - Chi, Patrick [A12]

Albany A v SCC A CDCL Match Schenectady, NY, 23.06.2011

Board 1

1.b3 d5 2.Bb2 Nf6 3.e3 c6 4.Nf3 Bg4 5.Be2 Nbd7 6.d4 e6 7.0–0 Bd6

Deep Rybka reports this position as the “English Opening with 1..., c6; and b3 by White”. Nomenclature of these lines in the English is beyond my complete understanding. From what I have gathered, if White advances the c-pawn to the fourth rank somewhere in the opening, the classification is the English. If White chooses to keep back the c-pawn, then we have Larsen’s Opening.

In some chess books anything beginning with 1 b3, is classified as Larsen’s Opening. The move 1 b3, had its first blush of popularity in the Hyper-Modern revolution post WWI. It did not fare well and disappeared soon enough. The late Bent Larsen brought it back in the 1970s with a couple of plans; to play in the style of the nineteenth century Henry Bird and get in f2-f4, or entice the Black pawns forward to d5 and e4 so that the Bb2 could freely range the a1-h8 diagonal. In Larsen’s innovation the c-pawn does not advance to c4. Larsen had a number of success with these plans individually and combined. Later some heavy defeats by the very top flight players such as Spassky persuaded even Larsen the whole scheme was not quite ready for the elite level in chess, and it has become rather rare at Grandmaster contests.

8.c4 0–0 9.Nc3 Qe7 10.Re1 Rac8 11.Nd2!?,..

White undertakes an operation aimed at advancing his e-pawn. Some slight doubt attaches to the notion because to make it happen White trades off the potentially better of his two Bishops. Howard was wagering that he could bring enough pressure on d5 to make Black give up his blockade there, and once the pawn on d4 is no longer stopped by a pawn on d5, the Bb2 can be a force in the game.

11..., Bxe2 12.Qxe2 dxc4!?

Voluntarily giving the Bb2 a chance to breath. This decision seems to be based on a reluctance to follow a more standard looking path; 12..., e5 13 cxd5 cxd5 14 Qb5 Nb6 15 dxe5 Bxe5 16 Rac1 Ne4 17 Ndxe4 exd4. This could be because Mr. Chi did not really like having to give up a pawn to the move 18 Qa5, even though he has some sort of compensation after 18..., Rfd8 19 Qxa7 Rc6; it is not quite enough for a pawn. Other possibilities here are; 12..., e5 13 cxd5 Nxd5; leading to another slightly different isolated QP position, and the slow, positional approach 12..., Rfe8. None of the options have the element of risk that is attached to the text move.

13.Nxc4 Bb8 14.Ba3 c5 15.dxc5?,..

Missing a chance to make Black pay for the risks taken with the move 15 Qf3. Then, after 15..., b6 16 e4, White will achieve a favorable central position and some advantage. The text leads the game back towards equality.

15..., Nxc5 16.e4 Rfd8!?

Slightly safer is 16..., Nfd7.

17.g3 Qc7 18.e5 Ne8 19.Rac1?,..

Up to here White was making progress. This move must be a simple case of “chess blindness”, acute and momentary in the case of an Expert, but fatal nevertheless. By playing something simple such as 19 Red1, White retains his advantage and poses the question to Black; how does your formation generate serious activity? Before the game move, the edge White possesses is not great, but it can be built upon. After the game move the Exchange is gone and survival is in doubt. It is possible that Dean confused himself thinking there were tactical outs to be had with 20 Bd6, or 20 Nd6, but I don‘t think so. My experiences playing against Mr. Howard is he may lose a game here and there, but he does not become befuddled in calculation. That judgment brings me back to a momentary lapse as the explanation.

19..., Nd3 20.Ne4 Nxc1 21.Rxc1 Qd7 22.Qe3 0–1

With 22..., Qd3, or d4, the Queens will just about be forced off. Further resistance is of no great purpose and the game ended.

The top board duties for the Schenectady A team were performed by Deepak Aaron and Patrick Chi very successfully. They contributed a great deal to the ultimate accomplishment of winning the title once again.

Appearing for the first time this year was Carl Adamec as the second board for Schenectady. Carl had been dissatisfied with his play and withdrew from serious chess a couple of years ago. Many players go through periods like that. It seems our creative well runs dry and the appetite for battle wanes. A year, or a season, maybe two without the game, and the appetite returns, this is demonstrated in the following game.

Adamec, Carl - Leisner, Jon [A81]

SCC A v Albany A CDCL Match Schenectady, NY, 23.06.2011

Board 2

1.d4 f5 2.Nd2 Nf6 3.g3 e6

Mr. Leisner has a long term affection for the Dutch Defense.

4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nh3!?,..

GM’s Igor Khenkin and Vladimir Kramnik wrote an article for one of Dvoretsky’s books; Positional Play, on the modern treatment of the Dutch Defense. I read it in 2002 and liked the ideas. The few times since the Dutch came up in my games their recommendations gave me good play out of the opening. I don’t know if Carl read the same article, but he adopts the methods suggested by the two K’s in this game with a slight twist. Both writers mentioned developing the Knight to h3 specifically against the Stonewall formation. It does not always work well against other formations Black can take in the Dutch. In this game Black never pushes a pawn to d5 and his plan appears to be to drive the e-pawn forward to e5, however, the methods the two K’s outlined worked pretty well this time.

The idea was further explained to me by GM Har-Zvi as follows; White wants to move the dark squared Bishop to f4 and on to e5. Trading the Bishop off for a Black minor piece is good from a positional perspective, a “bad” Bishop for almost any other minor piece is a good deal. The Nh3 can go to f4 and then to d3, while the Nb1 travels to d2, f3 and later e5. White’s c-pawn goes forward only to c3 reinforcing d4 and opening the way for the Queen to b3 to possibly create pressure on the a2-g8 diagonal. The minor piece maneuvers help White to hold back the push .., e6-e5; that can signal a try by Black for an advantage. All this was explained in terms of a Stonewall Defense. If the Stonewall does not occur, do these maneuvers work well for White? Sometimes.

5..., 0–0 6.0–0 d6 7.c3 c6

Khenkin’s recommendation for Black is; first .., c7-c6; followed by .., d7-d5; taking the game into the Stonewall proper. Black seems to be trying to create an alternate scheme that combines some Stonewall ideas and the e5 push. Khenkin also mentions a resource for Black if White tries Qd1-b3, .., that is Nb8-a6!, Khenkin gives the move an exclamation point. Conquest played so against him at Gausdal, 1991 obtaining a fine position out of the opening and winning later.

There are not many master games with this position in my database. One of the few is:

Rogers, Ian (2485) - Bohm, Hans (2435) [A81]

Hoogovens-B Wijk aan Zee (11), 01.1985

1.d4 e6 2.g3 f5 3.Bg2 Nf6 4.Nh3 Be7 5.0–0 0–0 6.c3 d6 7.Nd2 c6 8.Qb3,..

Rodgers carries out one key idea according to Khenkin. He obtains a good game and eventually wins.

8..., Qb6 9.Re1 Qxb3 10.axb3 Nbd7 11.Nf4 Nb6 12.e4 Kf7 13.Nd3 fxe4 14.Nxe4 Nxe4 15.Bxe4 Nd5 16.c4 Nf6 17.Bg2 Ne8 18.b4 Nc7 19.b3 Bf6 20.Be3 a6 21.Ra2 Bd7 22.Bf4 Ne8 23.c5 d5 24.Ne5+ Bxe5 25.Bxe5 Nf6 26.f3 h5 27.h4 Rh8 28.Kf2 Rae8 29.Ke3 Ng8 30.Kd3 Ne7 31.Bh3 Nf5 32.Rae2 Rhg8 33.Kc3 Bc8 34.g4 Nxh4 35.gxh5 Nf5 36.Rg1 Kf8 37.Reg2 Kf7 38.Bxf5 exf5 39.Rxg7+ Rxg7 40.Rxg7+ Ke6 41.h6 1–0

8.e4!,..

This seems to be exactly right and maybe an improvement on the game by Rodgers.

8..., Kh8?!

And this maybe wrong. Rybka likes 8..., fxe4 9 Nxe4 Nxe4 10 Bxe4, and if 10..., e5? 11 Qh5, will end with the Black King stripped bare of pawn protection and White having three pawns and a Rook for two minor pieces. Worse than the material deficit is the White Rooks will come to the center files while Black has a tough time getting his Q-side pieces out and working. With the better 10..., Nd7 11 Nf4 Nf6 12 Bb1, Black has entirely acceptable game no worse than the usual plus White has from the first move.

9.exf5 exf5 10.Re1 d5

I can’t find a better move for Black. If there is nothing better, the operation beginning with 8..., Kh8; is called into question. White can now execute the Khenkin plan, and does so.

11.Nf3 Ne4 12.Bf4 Nd7 13.Be5 Bf6 14.Bxf6 Qxf6 15.Ne5 Qh6!?

If 15..., Nxe5 16 dxe5 Qxe5? 17 f3, wins material. Black can build tension into the position with 16..., Qe7; then 17 Nf4 b6 18 Qd4 seems to favor White. The more direct 17 f4 b6 18 Qa4 Qc5+, is more than OK for Black. Delaying the trade of Knights on e5 as in the game does not work to the advantage of Black.

16.f3 Nxe5 17.dxe5 Ng5 18.Nxg5 Qxg5 19.f4 Qh6

The operation ends with Black somewhat the worse off; his Bishop is not great and White has a protected passed pawn that will be a long term problem as protected passed pawns so often are. Its existence means Black must treat every line leading to a pawn endgame with great care not allowing any point of penetration for the White King if he hopes to hold. The game is not clearly lost for Black, but he has a tough defensive task ahead.

20.a3 Be6 21.Qd2 Rf7 22.b4 Rg8 23.h4!?,..

Black threatens to open the g-file, and White counters with a committal pawn move. It is possible to defend the g-file with piece moves; 23 Qe3, and 24 Rf1 avoiding the advance of the h-pawn.

23..., Rd7 24.Qf2 Ra8!?

Possibly better is 24..., a6; not using a piece to defend a flank pawn. The position is still quite closed up, and Black may have decided a stubborn passive defense was the best course. It must be remembered that the game has a sudden-death time control, Game in 90 minutes I believe for the Schenectady A - Albany a match. That puts some pressure on the side with an advantage, he must do something active with the edge or see it fade in the inevitable time scramble.

25.Qd4 Qg6 26.Qf2 Qf7 27.Bf3 b6

When conducting a passive defense every pawn move has to viewed with suspicion. This move, however, creates the possibility of Black getting activity on the c-file offsetting the less-good Bishop with greater activity of his Rooks.

28.Red1 Rc8 29.Qe3 c5 30.Rd2 cxb4 31.cxb4 h6

Mr. Leisner takes care of back rank mates before trying to makes use of the c-file.

32.Rad1 Rcd8!?

The operation beginning with 27..., b6; obtained some control of the c-file. This may be the moment to try to make use of that positional plus. To that end, worthwhile is 32..., Rc4!?; then if 33 Be2 Re4 34 Qf3 d4; and a complex tactical interlude commences. Playing out the lines with Rybka sees White doing well, but there are certainly chances for Black to find compensation. The long term problem mentioned in the note to move 19 crops up frequently in the lines explored with Rybka. Black has to cope with that problem even if he happens to win the White a-pawn. The passed e-pawn keeps the Black King on a not so long leash if and when the Queens come off. All those considerations likely persuaded Jon to continue the passive defense rather than switch over to active operations.

33.Rd4 Rc7 34.Rc1 Rdc8 35.Rxc7 Rxc7 36.Qd2 Rd7 37.Bd1 Kg8 38.Bb3 Kh7 39.Qa2 Kh8 40.Qd2 Kh7 41.a4,..

The game is now getting rather “long in the tooth”. I don’t have any notes on the clock time for either party, but over forty moves played probably means they are beginning to see the shadow of time trouble on the horizon. White has danced around the Black d-pawn testing out if Black is paying attention to guarding it well, and Black has calmly maintained the guard.

41..., Kh8 42.Bd1 Qe7 43.Bf3 Qf7 44.a5,..

White begins something concrete, and advance on the Q-side to take space.

44..., b5?

The first concession. Pawns on light squares are targets for the White Bishop and a hindrance for Black’s. As Soltis so aptly wrote; many have criticized bad Bishops as “tall pawns”, but few Grandmasters are willing to give up a bad Bishop for less than full compensation. It seems this is so because even a very bad Bishop can defend target pawns at the very least.

Rybka suggests 44..., bxa5 45 bxa5 Rd8! (A hard to move to make in an important game. It sets up some indirect defenses for the d-pawn letting Black activate his pieces.) 46 Kh2 Qc7; and if 47 Bxd5? Qd7; pins and wins material. Another line is; 46 Kg2 Qc7 47 Bxd5?, when the eventual pin by the Queen from c6 wins for Black.

After taking the difficult decision to undertake a passive defense, it is very hard to find just the right moment to strike out for activity. This was it in this game. Missing this chance probably cost Black the point.

45.Rd3 a6 46.Qd1 Rc7 47.Qd2 Rd7 48.Rc3 Rc7 49.Qc1 Rxc3 50.Qxc3 Qd7 51.Kf2 Kg8 52.Ke3,..

Somewhere about here my score for the game became unclear. I had to reconstruct a move of two to allow the White King to reach f4 on move 56. My apologies to the players if the reconstruction is not correct. Again, absent contemporary notes, it can not said for certain what the clock time situation is, but my guess is someone is in time trouble now.

52...Kh7 53.Qc5 g5 54.hxg5 hxg5 55.fxg5 Qd8 56.Kf4?,..

Time trouble? Correct is 56 Qa7+ Kg6 57 Qxa6 Qxg5+ 58 Ke2 Kf7 59 Qa7+, and White is winning. Easy for a computer program to see, but very hard for a human being to grasp when little time available and great tension in the air.

56..., Kg7?

If 56..., Kg6; White has nothing better than 57 Ke3, because of the threat 57..., Qxg5 mate. The same comments about computers and humans apply here also.

57.Qd6,..

Not as good as 57 Qc6, but still sufficient to win the game.

57...Qxd6

Losing more quickly is 57..., Qc8. Play then could continue 58 Qe7+ Kg8 59 Qc5 Qxc5 60 bxc5 Kf8 61 c6 Ke7 62 g4 fxg4 63 Bxg4 Bxg4 64 c7 Kd7 65 g6, and the White pawns win the race to Queen. I suspect the final moves were played at breakneck speed trying to stay ahead of falling flags.

58.exd6 d4 59.Ke5 Bd7 60.Kxd4 Kg6 61.Ke3 Kxg5 62.Bb7 Kf6 63.Bxa6 Ke5 64.Bb7 Kxd6 65.Kf4 Be6 66.Bg2 Bc8 67.Bf1 Kc6 68.Bd3 Kd5 69.Bxb5 Kd4 70.Bf1 Kc3 71.b5 Kb4 72.a6 Ka5 73.Bd3 Bd7 74.Bxf5 Bxb5 75.a7 Bc6 76.Be4 Bd7 77.a8Q+ 1–0

Schenectady A got the benefit of an error on the top board and won this positional struggle on board 2. The combined results were a big piece of their fine victory over a fighting effort by Albany A. That was all the Geezers could have asked for in their quest to take the title. With such good support from their fellow club members, the Geezers had every hope of finally winning a title. Unfortunately, they, more correctly I was not up to the task. More on that story in the next post.

CDCL Play is Done - Schenectady A Wins!

And so the Geezers’ run for glory ends short of success. Last night the Geezers lost to Saratoga A in Schenectady 1 ½ - 2 ½. At the same time and place Schenectady A delivered a solid defeat to Albany A 3 ½ - ½. The Schenectady A victory was the result the Geezers needed to have a chance at the title. Unfortunately, the third and fourth boards for the Geezers were not able to salvage even one draw in their two games. Had either drawn, the Geezers would have finished tied with Schenectady A on match points and in clear second place on tie breaks. A win in either game would have given the Geezers their first title. Alas, that was not to be.

The final standings for the 2010-2011 Capital District chess League are:

1 Schenectady A 5 ½ -1 ½ match points 20 ½ game points

2 Albany A 5 - 2 match points 17 ½ game points

3 The Geezers 5 - 2 match points 17 game points

4 Saratoga A 4 ½ - 2 ½ match points 16 ½ game points

5 Albany B 4 - 3 match points 13 ½ game points

6 Uncle Sam 3 - 4 match points 13 game points

7 Saratoga B ½ - 6 ½ match points 7 ½ game points

8 RPI ½ - 6 ½ match points 6 ½ game points

At about the mid-point of the season, Schenectady A’s captain Bill Townsend was pessimistic about the team’s chances for the title, especially after the loss to the Geezers. Nevertheless, Schenectady A fielded the best sides that could be managed and did not give up the fight. Their reward, another title!

Thursday evening’s match with Albany A is an example. While their leading light, Deepak Aaron was not available, the rapidly improving Patrick Chi took first board versus the strong Expert Dean Howard. Patrick playing Black appeared to be keeping things in balance into the middle game. I missed whatever crisis that came about and Mr. Chi carried the day. Even with this loss, Dean Howard took home recognition as the Most Valuable Player in the League. He finished with a record of six wins and one loss, the best result in the event.

The return of Carl Adamec, playing second board for Schenectady, was a welcome event. Playing White against the redoubtable Jon Leisner Carl achieved an advantage in space and a superior minor piece. He squeezed out a win in workmanlike fashion.

Philip Sells won his game from Tim Wright. I can’t say much about the game. My own struggle kept me from seeing what happened there. Glen Perry for Albany A and John Barnes for Schenectady A played to a draw.

Before the matches began, Tim Wright and I were joking that the Geezers needed almost a sweep by Schenectady A to have a realistic chance at first place based on the game point tie break. The Schenectady A team came within a hair’s breath of doing just that. The Geezers were not able to hold up their end of the equation however. The loss to Saratoga A put paid to hopes for the Geezers to take their first title.

On the first board Michael Mockler held Gordon Magat to a draw. A creative transition from opening to middle game resolved itself rapidly into a pawn ending with some slight imbalance. Both former Experts were careful not reckless and splitting the point was the natural outcome.

John Phillips continued his good performance for the team this year winning from the Black side against another former Expert, Gary Farrell. Although they were playing nearby my board, the problems I was having kept me from seeing how things developed consistently. The opening was the Bird’s, a Farrell favorite. Gary executed his usual scheme; d2-d3, Queen to e1 and pushing the e-pawn to the fourth. He has had a lot of success with this idea. I missed the action in the middle game. When next I looked, Mr. Phillips had a protected passed pawn on the third rank and Farrell’s King was under fire. Time was short for Phillips, but a slip by Mr. Farrell led to a short mating combination netting the only win the Geezers recorded.

Board three saw a battle between competitors who have met often over the years; Bill Little played White versus Alan le Cours. I obtained some kind of an advantage out of the opening and kept it through much of the middle game, I think. Then after seeing the fourth board result where Mr. Chu lost to Dackshev, I incorrectly chose to try for victory. The path selected was not the right one. This was made worse by an incorrect evaluation of the Queen and minor piece ending. What I thought was an unbreakable bind turned out to be an eggshell that broke with the most obvious of blows. Mr. Le Cours broke up my formation and won the full point in a very effective fashion indeed.

On board four, Richard Chu had Black against Yakov Dackshev, a émigré from Russia just about 90 years old! Alan said before the festivities commenced this maybe the first time the Geezers were facing a team with a higher average age than they have. Richard achieved a promising position out of the opening, at least that is what I was told. An error about move 21 cost Mr. Chu dearly, and Yakov exploited his chances with the verve of youth and sharp technique. He brought home the full point in 43 moves. Chess is for all ages!

League play is over for this year and I have played my last game of serious (rated) chess. Next year I have signed on as the non-playing captain for the Albany A team. Tim Wright has carried the load as a playing captain for several years even through the time when Albany lack a meeting place. It seemed to be right to give him a break, and this is a chance for me to stay involved even though my playing days are done.

The battle for the title this year was hard fought. The Geezers made a serious challenge to the big three teams, Schenectady A, Albany A and Saratoga A, and their dominance of the League. There is an opening on the Geezers for someone, maybe an actual Geezer over fifty, or an honorary Geezer - someone with an over-fifty mind set. If you are out there, call or talk to Richard Chu the Geezers captain. He is looking for recruits. If he has some luck in finding talent, the Geezers will challenge the big teams again next year.

Some games from the matches soon.

One more Schenectady battle

Eson and Rudzbacki - see Bill Little's game analysis below.

One Last Game from the Schenectady Open

From the recent Schenectady Open I did not manage to collect many games from the lower sections. One game did come my way from the Under 1100 section. There are some points in it useful for pointing out typical errors of the less experienced players.

Eson, Charles - Rudzback, Alexander [D02]

Schenectady Open Schenectady, NY, 12.06.2011

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.e3 Bg4 4.Nbd2 e5 5.dxe5 Nxe5 6.Be2 Bxf3?!

Without an e-pawn to put on e6 giving up the light squared Bishop for the Nf3 is can be a positional problem for Black. When the light squared Bishop goes off for a Knight, the standard receipt for Black is to put pawns on e6, d5 and c6 to reduce the influence of the White light squared Bishop.

Absent the e-pawn the fence is not so effective as with it.

7.Nxf3 Bb4+?

Black began the game with the evident intention of simplifying early. That is not an incorrect approach to take with Black. T. Petrosian, the late World Champion, used the Rubinstein French (1e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3/d2 dxe4 4 Nxe4 Nbd7, etc.) heading for a simplified middle game where his knowledge of the positions insured him against loss and made his opponent’s life difficult if they did not have the same understanding. As Petrosian said; “I fed my family for years with the King’s Indian and the Rubinstein French.”

The last move played however, is a flat out mistake. Masters, International Masters and Grandmasters all seek out and seem to enjoy increasing tension in a game, while the rest of us tend to avoid tension or release it as soon as we can. The key to playing more like the masters is the ability to see. That is, you have to clearly grasp when there is a balanced kind of tension in the position with chances to keep things even, and when the momentary tension introduced will just lead to a loss of some kind. This move is textbook example of the latter.

Best for Black is 7..., Nxf3+ 8 Bxf3 c6; undertaking to cover the light squares as best as can be done with pawns.

8.c3,..

A good move. Now Black has three points in danger; the Bb4, the Ne5 and the pawn on d5. If there were but two, he could get away without material loss. Three threatened points are too many.

9..., Nxf3+ 9.Bxf3 Bc5 10.0–0?,..

White fails in his own turn to be tactically alert. Here 10 Bxd5, secures a one pawn advantage without risk. Doing so would give White a solid edge that is very close to winning. If White was worried about 10 Bxd5 c6 11 Bf3 Qxd1+; he shouldn’t have been. With the Queens off, the King probably is better near the center, so castling is not needed now. Even after passing on this chance to get a big edge, White is somewhat better.

10..., c6 11.b4!?,..

Not bad but somewhat more complex than is necessary. If White wants activity then 11 c4, fills the bill. If 11..., dxc4 12 Qa4, planning to answer 12..., b5?; with 13 Bxc6+!, netting a decisive material gain of a couple of pawns probably. Since this is so, play would continue after 11 c4, with 11..., dxc4 12 Qa4 Nf6 13 Qxc4 Bd6 14 b4, and White has a comfortable disposition of his pieces, while Black will have to stay alert to a possible minority attack happening against his Q-side.

11..., Bb6?

Queried on purely positional grounds. The Bishop has an aggressive role to play from d6 in attacking h2. Going through b6 to c7 takes too much time (moves) to set up a too obvious B+Q battery that is easily stymied. An example of a time wasting operation.

12.Bb2 Qd6 13.Qe2 Bc7 14.g3 Nf6 15.Rfd1 0–0?

A tactical oversight.

16.a3?,..

White defended against the obvious attack and logically put a Rook opposite the Black Queen on the d-file, then at the critical moment does not take action. Why? Routine thinking is the answer I come up with. There are moments in a game where tension exists and you can make a routine move, or exploit the tension. This is such a moment. By playing 16 c4!, a very, very usual kind of move in positions like this, White obtains a considerable advantage. If a) 16..., Qxb4? 17 Bxf6 gxf6 18 cxd5, and White is much better than Black. If b) 16..., Bd8 17 a3, and White is a full tempo ahead of the game continuation, again with a solid plus.

16..., h5?

In light of the preceding comments, Black should play something like 16..., Qe6. He just does not see the danger and allows White to get in the c3-c4 break.

17.c4 b5?

Almost anything would be better. Nothing, however, will repair the problems in the Black formation, but worth trying is 17..., d4; just giving up the pawn and planning to make a stubborn endgame fight, or 17..., a5 18 cxd5 Nxd5?! 19 e4 Nf4 20 gxf4 Qxf4; betting White won’t see 21 e5! The text losses decisive material and the game in short order.

18.cxd5 cxd5 19.Bxf6 Qxf6 20.Bxd5 g6?

Discouraged by another pawn about to drop, all focus is lost by Black. Here he overlooks a loss of the Exchange. The balance of the game is no more than mopping up.

21.Bxa8 Rxa8 22.Qxb5 Qc3 23.Qa4 a5 24.Rac1 Qb2 25.Rxc7 Qe5 26.Rc5 Qe4 27.Rxa5 Rc8 1–0

Mr. Eson did not avoid all mistakes, but he did have ideas. While he missed getting a couple of shots in as soon as possible, he did get them in eventually scoring a well deserved point.

Educational if not chess perfection. The central lesson is about seeing! To see what there is in a position, you have to work at it hard. It also means being skeptical about what you think about the position and avoiding assumptions. In this game White assumed at move 10 castling was good, and at move 16 that b4 required more support by the a-pawn. Black did similar things at moves 7, 11 and 16. Listening to the Grandmasters commenting on their peers at tournaments such as the recently completed event in Medias, Romania you hear them going over and over variations looking for some feature or possibility that can change the obvious evaluation of a position. The commentators are fearful of being shown up by all the listeners with Rybka and the like running on their home computers no doubt. But, from my contact with GM’s when taking lessons or just passing the time of day, what the commentators say out loud about the GM games is very like their own internal dialogue in their own games. They work at the position, and only when very far ahead do they sometimes slip into assuming all is clear. That is a more important lesson to learn than is which particular line in the Semi-Slav is favored by the 2700+ crowd at the latest big time event.

More soon, in particular the results of the Greezers - Saratoga A and Schenectady A - Albany A matches.

Open Section Top 5

I already posted Chi, Petithory and Qu. Here is Busygin and Zaas.

Under 1100 Top 5 Finishers

Under 1700 Top 3 Finishers

For Bill's games of the day!

To go with Bill Little's games (below), here's a good shot of two friends. For Mark Cote, however, I had to blow up a distant pic so it's a little fuzzy.

A Long Post on the Schenectady Open

I have already reported that Patrick Chi won the top section of the recently completed Schenectady Open. Following Patrick were Louis Petithory, Stanislav Busygin, Chen Qu and Peter Zaas all at 3 - 1. Gordon Magat was the highest of the other local finishers at 2 ½ - 1 ½. There were 16 players in the Open section.

In the Under 1700 section George La Duouceur was first at 4 - 0. Following him were Schenectady players Matt Clough and Cory Northrup at 3 - 1. There were 13 players in this section.

With 19 contestants, the Under 1100 section was the largest on the day. Scott Zdunczyk won the Under 1100 prize with a 4 - 0 score. Following Scott wee Michael Zhou, Yogi Kanakamedala, Jonathan D’Alonzo and Jovanna D’Alonzo all with 3 - 1 scores. I think the last two named are brother and sister. I missed getting to ask them about that in the flurry of the games finishing.

The Under 1100 section benefited no doubt from the good work Brother John is doing with his Make the Right Move program. In a year or two or three we are going to see some of these players filling up the higher sections I am sure.

Although Chi defeated Qu in the very first round, Chen fought his way back into contention by winning games from Michael Corrigan and Michael Mockler(!) for the honor of facing Mark Cote, a Western Massachusetts Expert. Both players conducted the game up to the inevitable time pressure with care and skill. This time the Expert was not able to hold off the rapidly improving new guy.

Qu, Chen - Cote, Mark [B01]

Schenectady Open Schenectady, NY, 12.06.2011

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6

An interesting alternative to the more usual move; 3..., Qa5; or the oddly retrograde 3..., Qd8. Risky but playable, just, is the Patzer variation; 3..., Qe5+!?, according to Emms in his book The Scandinavian. The Black

Queen plans to retire to c7, after .., c7-c6. That takes the same number of moves as the more usual route for the lady via a5. This variation would be the most popular answer for Black if all things were equal. But, in an opening where Black is working very hard not to fall too far behind in development in the main lines, the Patzer variation is just too risky for Black.

4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 c6

A point of divergence. The most common move here is 5..., a6; thinking of a later .., b7-b5; and development of the Bishop on b7. The text is a viable option.

6.Bc4 Bf5 7.Be3!?,..

There is some questions around this move. I can’t find any tactical problem with it. The more standard approach is 7 Ne5 e6 8 g4 Bg6 9 Bf4, and castling long as in the game. The approach taken by Chen Qu has a similar idea behind it but is somewhat slower in execution.

7..., Nbd7 8.Qd2 e6 9.0–0–0 Be7 10.h3 0–0–0

This is an interesting choice. The White Bc4 presents a target if Black wants a “war to the knife, and the knife to the hilt” kind of fight with opposite side castling, that is if White is recklessly inclined. White can eliminate a good deal of the danger if he wants to do so. Play could go: 10..., 0-0 11 Bf4 Qb4 12 Bb3 Nd5 13 Nxd5 Qxd2+ 14 Rxd2 cxd5; when Black has a very slight edge because the White King is uncomfortable. Without the Queens on the initiative Black has is annoying but not fatally dangerous. Of course, as is common in the Scandinavian, all the promise of bloody battle often resolves itself into a transition to an ending that is relatively balanced. The move played renounces active operations aimed at the White King for the moment.

11.Rhe1 Qb4 12.Qe2 Rhe8 13.a3 Qa5 14.g4 Bg6

Another equally interesting choice. Here Black could try some typical Scandinavian tactics with 14..., Ne4?!; when the game reaches an interesting material imbalance after: 15 gxf5!? Nxc3 16 Bxc3 Bxa3+ 17 Kb1 (If 17 Kd2 Bb2; gives Black the advantage.) 17..., Nb6 18 Bd2 Na4 19 Qd3 Nc5 20 dxc5 Rxd3 21 cxd3 Qxc5; when Rybka says the position is about even. This whole line of play requires imagination and strong nerves from both players. The text defers the tactical clash that has been hovering in the background for the last few moves.

15.Bd2 Qc7 16.Ne5 Nxe5 17.dxe5 Nd5 18.f4 f6

Mr. Cote decides it is time to do something. He could have continued to keep the balance with 18..., h6; but 19 Ne4, would require Black to capture on e4 with the Bishop. Then, White has the Bishop pair and a space advantage, not enough to claim a winning plus, but it does promise Black a long struggle. That is not a pleasant prospect in a fast time control such as Game in 40.

19.h4 fxe5 20.h5 Bf7 21.fxe5 Nxc3 22.Bxc3 Bg5+ 23.Bd2?!,..

This choice lets Black off the hook. If 23 Kb1, notwithstanding both sides having Bishops, White’s are somewhat more active. Black will have a hard time finding good work for the Bf7.

23..., Qe7?

The rating difference between Cote and Qu may have played a role in this decision. Mark is a well establish Expert and the young Qu just beginning to knock on the door to Class A status. The choice to not head for the safety of a level ending likely turned on a doubt that the youngster has enough technique to handle the late middle game maneuvering. The endgame after; 23..., Rxd2 24 Rxd2 Rd8 25 Rd1 Rxd2 26 Rxd2 Qb6; is dead even.

24.Kb1 Kb8 25.Qf2?,..

A mistake that is nearly fatal. Mr. Cote’s judgment vindicated? Maybe yes; the young man made a very hasty move. Correct is; 25 Bxg5 Qxg5+ 26 Kb1, and White has a persistent edge; the e6-pawn will be a worry and the space advantage may be a problem deep into the ending. The game move overlooks a skewer.

25..., Bh4 26.Qe3 Bxe1 27.Rxe1 Rd7?

Carelessly returning the favor. With 27..., c5; preventing the Bishop from seizing the dominant point d6 Black has solid winning chances.

28.Bb4 Qd8 29.Bd6+ Rxd6

Probably the best practical choice. In theory 29..., Ka8; keeps some edge, but time is dwindling for both sides, and the Bishop entrenched on d6 has a whiff of danger about it for the Black King confined to a8. The extra Black pawn is about to become mobile so Black is willing to wager it will give him more winning chances than long winded maneuvering to create activity for his Exchange plus.

30.exd6 Qxd6 31.Qg5?,..

Up to this point in the game, both players have done reasonably well. There was an exchange of over-hasty moves 25 - 27, but other than that momentary lapse, it has been a well-fought game. Now the clock bites hard and the game becomes irrational. If White wants to threaten b7, then 31 Qc3, works better than the text.

31..., Qd4 32.Bd3 h6 33.Qd2?,..

The last operation gives Black a clear edge. This move allows the edge to become greater than need be. Better is 22 Qh4, then 22..., e5 23 Bf5, and while Black is for choice, White can make a stand.

33..., e5!?

Also good is 33..., Qxg4!?; but the answering move 34 Ba6!?, makes for a messy position where Black would have to calculate much. The text is certainly a simpler road to follow.

34.Rf1 Qd5 35.b3 e4?

Just as the palm of victory was in his grasp, Black slips. Mark Cote may have thought the rush of the e-pawn is just too strong for anything to interfere. He is now penalized for not checking for tactics.

36.Qf4+?!,..

Chen Qu was not at all sure what he wanted to do here. He picked up the Queen made a gesture towards checking from h2, then at the last moment settled on f4. Actually better is 36 Rf5 Qd6 37 Rxf7 exd3 38 Qxe3 Qxa3 39 Qg3+ Ka8 40 Rxg7, when White has solid advantage, but Black is not without hope.

36..., Re5?

A final error that spells doom. By playing 36..., Qe5!; Black could have kept real drawing chances after 37 Bxe4 Qxf4 38 Qxf4 Bg8. The text drops decisive material and the game can not be saved.

37.Bc4 1–0

After the Queen captures on f7, the Bishop controls e2 with the aid of the Queen and Rook so there is no hope for the e-pawn to Queen. Game in 40 is an odd kind of time control, neither fish nor fowl. It is slow enough to keep a score sheet for the bulk of the game. There is, however, an almost guaranteed time scramble in it when near equal players meet as we have seen here. Mr. Qu is improving very quickly, another Schenectady player to keep our eye upon.

The decisive game saw Patrick Chi, highest rated player in the event meet Lou Petithory, rated number two. Lou is a veteran of the chess battles of the last forty years. We played each other several times in the 1980s at Norma Skelly’s Quads. I won a couple but lost more. Mr. Petithory was once one of the highest rated correspondence players in New England. I haven’t noticed his name in the news of correspondence play in recent years. He may have restricted his participation in chess to OTB contests, a gain for OTB chess and a loss for the correspondence world.

Chi, Patrick - Petithory, Louis [A53]

Schenectady Open Schenectady, NY, 12.06.2011

1.d4 d6 2.c4 Nd7 3.Nc3 e5 4.d5 Ngf6 5.e4 Be7 6.f3 0–0 7.Be3 Nh5

The Old Indian Defense. It is not wildly popular today. Invented in the first blush of the Hyper-Modern revolution in the 1920s, the Old Indian had a brief time of frequent use between the end of WWII and the early 1950s. It still pops up every so often in international play.

Mr. Petithory took a “long think” before making this move. A more standard plan is 7.., a5; with the Knight going to c5 later just to make White worry a little about castling long. The text seems to be an innovation made at the board.

Here are three examples illustrating some of the ideas seen in master games:

In this game White takes the space Black volunteers in the Old Indian and converts it to advanced passed pawns versus a piece. The kicker is the Black pieces are poorly placed to hold back the passers.

Vaisser, Anatoli (2564) - Apicella, Manuel (2501) [A53]

FRA-ch Final stage Besancon (2.5), 28.08.1999

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 Nbd7 4.e4 e5 5.d5 Be7 6.Be3 0–0 7.f3 Nh5 8.Qd2 h6 9.Nh3 Nc5 10.g4 Bh4+ 11.Kd1 Nf6 12.b4 Na6 13.a3 Nh7 14.Bd3 Ng5 15.Nxg5 Bxg5 16.h4 Bxe3 17.Qxe3 Bd7 18.Kd2 c6 19.g5 h5 20.f4 exf4 21.Qxf4 Qe7 22.Be2 g6 23.Rhf1 Nc7 24.Qf6 Rae8 25.Rf2 cxd5 26.cxd5 Qe5 27.Qxe5 Rxe5 28.Rf4 Kg7 29.Raf1 Ne8 30.Bb5 Bh3 31.Rh1 Bg4 32.Bxe8 Rfxe8 33.Rhf1 R8e7 34.Kd3 a6 35.Kd4 Rd7 36.Rf6 Re8 37.Na4 Rde7 38.R1f4 b5 39.Nc5 dxc5+ 40.bxc5 Rd8 41.Rxa6 Bd1 42.c6 Bc2 43.Rb6 Ra7 44.Rxb5 Ra4+ 45.Rb4 Rxb4+ 46.axb4 Kf8 47.b5 Ke7 48.b6 Ba4 49.Kc5 1–0

This is a complex game that has, momentarily, some similarity to the Chi - Petithory contest and we see now great activity by White on the K-side plays out.

Razuvaev, Yuri S (2555) - Saltaev, Mihail (2480) [A53]

Tiraspol Tiraspol (4), 1994

1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d6 3.d4 Nbd7 4.e4 e5 5.d5 Be7 6.Be3 0–0 7.f3 Nh5 8.Qd2 g6 9.0–0–0 a6 10.Kb1 c5 11.Bh6 Ng7 12.g4 f6 13.h4 Rf7 14.Nge2 Rb8 15.Nc1 Nf8 16.Be3 Ne8 17.h5 Bd7 18.a3 b5 19.cxb5 axb5 20.b4 c4 21.N1a2 Qc8 22.Ka1 Bd8 23.a4 Nc7 24.Be2 bxa4 25.Bxc4 Na6 26.Bxa6 Qxa6 27.hxg6 Nxg6 28.Qd3 Qb7 29.Rb1 Nf4 30.Qd2 Bb6 31.b5 Ba5 32.Qb2 Nd3 33.Qe2 Nc5 34.Bxc5 dxc5 35.Qc4 Ra8 36.d6 Kf8 37.Rh6 Qc8 38.Qd5 Be6 39.d7 Bxd7 40.Qd6+ Kg8 41.Nd5 Bd8 42.Nxf6+ Bxf6 43.Rxf6 Rxf6 44.Qxf6 Qf8 45.Qxe5 1–0

The next game shows again the typical play by White down the f-file.

Schmid, Manfred - Chuchelov, Vladimir (2420) [A53]

Triberg Triberg (8), 1991

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 Nbd7 4.e4 e5 5.d5 Be7 6.f3 0–0 7.Be3 Nh5 8.Qd2 h6 9.0–0–0 Bg5 10.Nge2 a6 11.g4 Bxe3 12.Qxe3 Nhf6 13.h4 Nh7 14.Ng3 Re8 15.Bd3 Ndf8 16.Rdg1 Ng6 17.Nf5 Nf4 18.g5 h5 19.Ne2 Nxe2+ 20.Qxe2 g6 21.Ne3 Bd7 22.Rh2 c6 23.Rf2 cxd5 24.cxd5 Nf8 25.f4 exf4 26.Rxf4 Re7 27.Rgf1 Be8 28.Kb1 Nd7 29.Nc4 Nb6 30.Rf6 Nxc4 31.Bxc4 Kh7 32.Bd3 Re5 33.Qf2 Qe7 34.Rxf7+ Qxf7 35.Qxf7+ Bxf7 36.Rxf7+ Kg8 37.Rf6 Kg7 38.Rxd6 Rf8 39.Rd7+ Rf7 0–1

This was the only win Black notched. The final position is dead even. My guess is it was a time forfeit.

8.Qd2,..

Mr. Chi has a liking for the Samisch sort of set-up, and he plays this kind of position very well indeed.

8..., Nf4!?

This can be risky as the sequel demonstrates. Alternatives for Black are; 8..., a5; thinking of making c5 a home for a Knight, and 8..., Nc5; immediately hoping to tempt White into an early b2-b4 reducing the appeal of Q-side castling a little bit for White.

9.g3,..

The Knight needs to be pushed back. White is happy enough do it with a pawn that prepares for the advance of the h-pawn.

9..., Ng6?

Much safer is to admit the error and send the Knight back to h5.

10.0–0–0 f5?

This must be the idea behind the Black operation. Moving the pawns in front of the King when opposite side castling has taken place always makes me nervous. My guess is Lou had a notion that piece pressure could hold up the standard K-side pawn storm in such positions.

11.exf5 Rxf5 12.h4 Rh5 13.Nh3 Ndf8?!

Another “long think”. Lou was calculating just how bad the position was becoming I guess. The Knight going to f8 just takes away a square that might be useful for the Rh5 or the Ng6. Adding another Knight to the King’s guardians congests things more than it helps, now the Ng6 has no square other than h8 for retreat should the h-pawn advance to h5.

14.Be2 h6

Desperate times call for desperate measures, but moving another pawn in front of the King truly does not help matters. Trying to distract White with 14..., a5; might be better. One operation for Black that makes some sense is 14..., Bxh3 15 Rxh3 Nd7; but White has a substantial advantage.

15.f4!?,..

A bit of impatience shows. White can leave the very awkwardly posted Rook on h5 to be a problem for Black if wants to. The tangle of pieces that Black has created on the K-side will need several moves to unravel. A possible line of play is; 15 Nf2 a5 16 Qc2 Bd7 17 Bd2 Rf5 18 h5 Nh8 19 f4, and White is better according to Rybka. I can see why Patrick opts for something concrete, it is a pretty quick time control, and by now Lou has used up a very large chunk of his allotted time. Perhaps it is time to take material that looks to be on offer.

15..., exf4!?

Black does not want to undertake the task of defending his K-side after 15..., Rf5 16 Bd3, Rook moves and 17 h5.

16.Bxh5 fxe3 17.Qxe3 Ne5

Black willingly gave up material to ease the pressure on his K-side. I believe Black used a big part of his thinking time to plot the following operation. Lou may well have concluded his game was compromised, and If he can create some murky complications on the Q-side salvation might be found.

18.Be2 c6 19.Nf4 Bf5 20.c5!,..

Obvious it may be but White has the correct idea in mind. The Black Bishops look potentially menacing, but the charging center pawns are menacing right now. Sorting out the difference is the stuff of being a good chess player. Some of my students would cite all kinds of worries about what Black might do in a move or two with the Bishops. Patrick sees a couple of pawns on the 6th ready to go to the 7th rank will negate much of the potential danger.

20..., b5 21.dxc6 Qa5 22.cxd6 Bf6

Black has reached the position he wanted. It looks scary but is it really? Not if White finds the best move.

23.Qc5?!,..

Which he does not. Black is by no means out of the woods after this move but some chances are starting to appear. Best is 23 Rd5, then if 23..., Nxc6? 24 Rxf5, increases the material imbalance to a full Rook plus a pawns worth. The Black alternatives all seem to lose quickly. It is much easier to see this clearly at leisure in my study than it would be with a clock ticking at my elbow with first place on the line. It must be noted however, that Patrick Chi had a substantial cushion in clock time. At one point it was thirty minutes. Even at this point in the game, the time remaining was great enough to allow Patrick to work out the details. Here he may have underestimated the number of tricks left in the position and Mr. Petithory’s ability to make trouble.

23..., Nxc6?! 24.Qxc6 Rc8 25.Qxc8?!,..

Everything wins, or nearly so. A less complicated path is 25 Qd5+ Kh8 26 Qxf5 Rxc3+ 27 Kb1, and Black down a Rook has few tricks left to try. The text keeps things more interesting than is strictly necessary.

25..., Bxc8 26.Nfd5 Nd7

Almost working is 26..., b4; then 27 Ne4, keeps the pressure on Black and things are no quite clear. Then, after 27..., Be6 28 Nexf6+ gxf6 29 Bc4 Qc5 30 b3 Kg7 31 Rhe1, the win is not clear yet. White has a substantial advantage in this line, but Black is not without resources. Unfortunately for Lou there was no time on his clock to calculate and compare lines, he was under two minutes remaining from move 18. A virtue for a Black move now is it can be found almost instantly.

27.Nxf6+ Nxf6 28.Bxb5 Bd7 29.Bxd7 Nxd7 30.Rhe1,.. 1-0

Now the issue is decided and can be seen. Likely Mr. Petithory would have resigned if he had time to consider the position objectively, but with his flag hanging moves have to be made.

A few more moves were blitzed out and the end then came. A game with the flaws of fast chess. Petithory used too much of his clock in an effort to find a solution to the opening problems. Fascinating was watching him gin up dangerous counter-play just when the situation looked very bad and most of his time was gone. Equally interesting was to see Patrick take the surprises Lou conjured up and ruthlessly eliminate dangerous units of the enemy forces to make the win obvious. A very creditable effort by both sides in a fast game.

More soon.

A Game in 15 Event at SCC

Last Thursday evening an unrated Game in 15 minute Swiss took place at the Schenectady Chess Club with Bill Little directing. Eight players showed up; Tim Wright of the AACC, John Phillips of the Geezers team, Nar, a visitor without a first name, Brij Saran who has been taking a vacation from chess, Richard Chu the Geezers captain, Cory Northrup and Matt Clough two SCC players who are very active and Rob Ellsworth an occasional visitor. A nice turnout for an event with almost no publicity; I had just mentioned the idea in passing of such a get together to a few folks in the previous week.

The Schenectady club has had thinner turnouts in the summer months the last couple of years. This Game in 15 event was an attempt to keep attendance up during the hiatus between the ending of League play and the start of next year’s championship tourney. The initial good result encourages me to continue.

Next week will be occupied by the final CDCL matches; the Geezers versus Saratoga A, and we hope, Schenectady A versus Albany A. Tim Wright, the Albany A captain reports the match with Schenectady is tentatively scheduled but not yet confirmed for 23 June.

Barring unforeseen problems or conflicts, I will run another unrated quick event on Thursday June 30. The game in 15 format produced several upsets, and that is good as it encourages the players down the rating list to come out to try their luck. A different time control will be tried at the next event, game in 20 is my first thought, but I am willing to take advise on this.

Before it is forgotten; the results for the game 15 tourney were: Nar, he of no first name, won scoring 3 - 0, and defeating in order; Clough, Phillips and Saran. During registration Nar said his rating was about 1750. It certainly was that and maybe a bit more based on this performance. Finishing in second place were; Wright, Saran and Northrup with 2 - 1 scores. From the director’s view point the event went off without a hitch and in a timely fashion. Play began about 7:45 and was complete by 9:30.

On another subject: Phil Ferguson's excellent pictures add some color and interest to my dry words about the recent Schenectady Open. I have one more article about the event in the hopper; the crucial final round game Chi - Petithory. The guys had an interesting tactical battle, and it has taken longer than hoped to get the words crafted. Phil; if you have any photos of the game, get them ready. I'll be posting later today.

More soon.

The combatants in Bill Little's game of the day

Lou Petithory and Phil Thomas

The Schenectady Open - a first report

Bill Goichberg and Continental Chess brought back the weekend open Swiss tournament to Schenectady this weekend past. On the 12th of June 48 players in three sections met at the Studio of Bridge and Games on Eastern Avenue for a four round Game in 40 contest.

It has been a couple of years since the long running Quads at the Studio ended. Incidentally, Norma Skelly the sparkplug who drove the Quads for so many years dropped in on the Schenectady Open and was warmly greeted by all. She was pleased to see a reasonable crowd for a chess event. It has been much longer an absence for weekend open events. I can’t recall the last such tourney in Schenectady. In the 1970s John Dragonetti ran one a month. After John’s retirement, the weekend open Swiss events were less frequent, down to a handful each year. In the 1990s they just about disappeared. Goichberg announced at the beginning of the last round that Continental Chess plans to return with another weekend event the end of October. Good news for chess players!

The top section of the Schenectady Open featured well established Experts and a couple of youngsters seeking glory. Patrick Chi, young but a solid Expert led the seeding list. Along with Chi were, Lou Petithory a well known correspondence master and OTB Expert, Mark Cote, another Western Mass. Expert, Stanislav Busygin, a Florida Expert/Class A player, and local strong guys, Gordon Magat, Michael Mockler, and Phil Thomas. David Finnerman, the Saratoga B captain played. He was stopped by Phil Thomas in round 1 but made a comeback in later play. Another rising star in the battle was Chen Qu who defeated Mockler in round three and Mark Cote in round four. Qu seems to have pulled ahead of Dilip Aaron in the competition for the next breakthrough by a youngster in Schenectady.

Patrick Chi won the Open section scoring 4 - 0. I don’t have the results for the other sections yet. I will publish them as they become available.

The game today is a win from the third round by Lou Petithory over Phil Thomas. This victory gave Lou a 3 - 0 score going into the fourth round and set up the clash with Patrick Chi for first place. Thomas has been no easy mark for Experts and masters, but this year has not been one of his best seasons. Here he misses a tactic and drops decisive material.

Petithory, Louis - Thomas, Phil [C11]

Schenectady Open Schenectady, NY, 12.06.2011

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4 c5 6.dxc5 Bxc5 7.Qg4,..

Known stuff from the theory of the French. Famous names of old have tried this out as White; Lasker against Gunsberg, Pillsbury - Albin and Trassach - Marshall, all over one hundred years ago. More recently Fischer swindled Benko at the 1962 Candidates’ tournament after achieving a completely lost game. On balance, this is a move that is dangerous for both sides leading to sharp tactics.

7..., g6

The alternative is 7..., 0-0. In either event Black has equalized and then some according to theory.

8.Nf3 Nc6!?

Black keeps some advantage with 8..., Qb6. Failing to bear down on the tender points f2 and b2 give White the time to set to rights his position.

9.h4!?,..

Mr. Petithory looks for excitement. Safer is 9 Bd2.

9..., h5 10.Qh3 f5?!

Black can begin to achieve an advantage with 10..., Qb6; or possibly 10..., Nb4. I can not see why the pawn push to f5 has to be played now.

11.exf6?,..

This move justifies 10..., f5. Better for White is 11 Qg3, and 12 Bd2, with long castling to follow obtaining a measurable advantage. It could be the Game in 40 time control influenced both decisions; a game with lots of tactics is preferred by both parties in a game with such a time control.

11..., Nxf6 12.Bd3 Rg8 13.Qg3 Ng4 14.Rf1 Qf6?

If tactics are the aim, then 14..., Qb6; looks to be the way to introduce them. The text seems to have ideas of putting pressure on f4 as a motivator, and that is slower than necessary.

15.Bd2 Bd7?!

Black ignores the chance to obtain the two Bishops with 15..., Ne3. There’ll be no gathering of positional advantages today; get all pieces out and look for tricks, traps and shots is the order of the day.

16.0–0–0 0–0–0 17.Rde1 Bd6 18.Kb1 a6 19.Ne2 Nb4 20.Bc3 Qf8 21.Ne5 Nxd3

Black must have realized having the Bishop pair can’t be all bad. The game has been tending towards equality, and it continues along that path now, until..

22.cxd3 Qe7 23.Ba5 Rde8 24.Nd4 Kb8 25.Rc1 Rc8 26.Rxc8+ Bxc8?

Of the three alternatives Phil picks the only one to lose on the spot. My guess is he was perpetually worried about things on the g-file and just made a thoughtless move. If 26..., Rxc8; a more than adequate answer to 27 Nxg6, is 27..., Qf6. Or if 27 Nxg4 hxg4 28 Bc3 Rf8 29 Re1 Qf7 30 Ne2 Ka8 31 Qxg4 e5 32 Qg3 exf4; keeps things even. After the game move, White wins decisive material or more properly said; Black loses same.

27.Nec6+ bxc6 28.Nxc6+ Kb7 29.Nxe7 Bxe7

Two Bishops for a Queen and a pawn is not enough compensation.

30.d4 Bd7 31.Qb3+ Ka8 32.Bb6 Bb5 33.Rc1 Rb8 1–0

The game rolled on for a few move more until Lou administered checkmate.

The older Experts are full of tricks and the youngsters are well warned to check carefully.

Phil Ferguson and I are going to try to get a report together including photos. It will be interesting to see if we can figure out how to get the text and the art into the same post.

More soon.

A Final Report on the Albany A - Geezers CDCL Match

I delayed until there are no other games to publish before putting this on the blog. It is a flawed game. Niether Mr. Wright nor I were particularly inspired in this outing . My opening line was certainly doubtful, but when Tim gave me a chance in the middle game to grab the advantage I did so. Unfortunately for me, I missed the best continuation, the logical way to exploit the edge. Later, I capped this less than sterling performance with an oversight in a won position making what should have been a win into a blitz draw.

Wright, Timothy - Little, Bill [C10]

Albany A v Geezers CDCL Match Schenectady, NY, 02.06.2011

Board 3

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bd7

The Fort Knox variation has been taken up by as diverse players as Kramnik and Karpov. If correctly played, Black will get rid of his poor light squared Bishop, and as the name implies, reach a safe position.

5.Nf3 Bc6 6.Bd3 Nd7 7.0–0 Ngf6 8.Nxf6+ Nxf6?!

An instructive error. The Knight needs to stay on d7 to oppose the White Knight when he jumps to e5. Correct is 8..., Qxf3; with full equality. As I said, correctly played Black can plan for safety, incorrectly played and problems loom.

9.c3 Be7 10.Ne5 0–0?

I could not quite bring myself to play 10..., Qd5; as the position demands. After that move, play could continue; 11 f3 Bb5 12 Re1 Bxd3 13 Qxd3 Rd8; and White has no more than the usual slight advantage expected from moving first. When considering my 10th move, .., Qd5; was noticed, but instead of buckling down to some concrete calculation, I put the idea aside and recklessly bet on accepting doubled c-pawns. My hope was the push ..,c6-c5; leads to a playable position.

11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.Be3 Nd5 13.Bd2?!,..

The query is appended not because of any immediate tactical problem with the move, rather it passes on a logical continuation. White can just bring his Ra1 to e1 and look forward to a very comfortable game. Black, on the other hand, will have to be very, very careful. The c&a-pawns are weak, and if Black ever foolishly decides to give up the Nd5 for the Be3, White may be able to get a Rook involved in some kind of attack on the Black King.

13..., c5 14.Be4 Rb8 15.Qc2 Nf6 16.Bd3 Qd5?!

In my own turn I pass on the logical continuation. The tempo White gave me on move 13 permitted the .., c6-c5; operation to be carried out. Now logic says; dissolve the White center with 16..., cxd5; and net a pawn for my troubles with 17..., Qxd4. This is another case where concrete calculation was called for and I gave the challenge only superficial thought. If play had gone this way, Black is by no means winning. He does have the advantage however.

17.c4!?,..

It is unclear that this pawn sacrifice is worth the trouble. Acceptable is 17 Be3, and White keeps the two Bishops and the Black Q-side pawns will require care for a long time into the future after 17..., c4 18 Be2 Rb6 19 Bf3.

17..., Qxd4 18.Bc3 Qh4

Seduced by this opportunity to make threats eventually on the White King, I embark on an adventure. The appeal was making an attacking gesture and shoring up the defenses of h7 all in one move. In truth the only viable alternative is 18..., Qg4; and after 19 h3 Qh4; we are in a position similar to the game, but White has more resources.

19.g3 Qh3

Well I have what I wanted, but the danger to White is not that great if he keeps a cool head.

20.f4?!,..

A bit too much adventure on White’s part. Calm and safe is 20 Rfe1, with f2-f3 to follow when White can ask the Black Queen just what she is doing hanging out in dangerous territory? The text gives Black hope that his attacking notion will pay off.

20..., Rfd8 21.Rae1 Ng4 22.Be4?,..

Missing a neat tactical answer that I did not consider; 22 Bf5, eliminates any threats the Black Queen and Knight can conjure up. If Black goes for the exchange of all the minor pieces with 22..., Bf6 23 Bxg4 Qxg4 24 Bxf6 gxf6; White does have to take time to make a defensive gesture with 25 Rf2, but the Black Q-side pawns are ripe for picking via Qc2-a4. Playing this line out with Rybka seems to show Black is better in the heavy piece ending. On my own however, seeing thus is more than I can do. Over the board, I expect I’d be very fearful of the wholesale transformation of the position and not do a good job of calculating the many variations. If Black avoids the elimination of all the minor pieces with say 22..., Rd7; White can certainly try 23 Bxg4 Qxg4 24 Qa4 Rbd8 25 Qxa7 Qf5 26 a4, when some sharp play about the quick running a-pawn and Black trying to open things up around the White King with .., h5; and .., h4; will make for a nail biting finish.

22..., h5

Consistent, but a little better is 22..., Bf6. The idea then is to eliminate the Bc3 making d2 an even more sensitive point for White.

23.f5 e5?

This move spoils the previous good work. The proper way to exploit the advantage is 23..., Bg5; threatening .., Be3+.

24.f6?,..

White in his turn does not find 24 Rf3, rallying the guardians of the White King and making the Black Queen squirm in her rather tight quarters. White apparently does not see any utility in putting a Rook on f3 and does not take the opportunity to do so until later.

24..., Bxf6 25.Rf5?!,..

More useful is 25 Bf5, or 25 Rf3.

25...Rd6

I thought hard about 25..., g6; but 26 Rxf6 Nxf6 27 Bxg6, is too strong for White.

26.Qe2 Rbd8

The position seemed to me to be non-routine. A hard search did not come up with something extraordinary however, and I continued with normal doubling of the Rooks. Working with Rybka uncovered some other interesting possibilities, but none were more convincing than doubling the Rooks. With the White Queen and Bishop battery split up, 26..., g6; is possible. That line is complicated after 27 Rf3!? Bg5 28 Bd5 Rxd5!? 29 cxd5 e4 30 Rff1 f5. Black is pressing down on the White King violently, but a simple win it is not.

27.Rf3,..

Late arriving at the defensive post, the Rook may have been better off staying on f5. A reasonable idea here is 27 Qg2, forcing off the Queens. In any event Black has an edge.

27..., Bg5

My focus has been on making threats on e3 and d2. None of the threats are overwhelming, but if I keep the pressure on with these annoying little pin pricks something more substantial may pop up.

28.Bd5?,..

Presenting Black with an opportunity. Eliminating the Queens with 28 Qg2, may well be better.

28..., Rf6!?

The possible 28..., Rxd5; appeared to me to be very murky. If during the game I could have the calmness found in my study, perhaps uncovering; 28..., Rxd5 29 cxd5 e4; and a) 30 Rff1 Rxd5 31 Ba5 Rd3 32 Kh1 Rf3 33 Qg2 Rxf1+ 34 Rxf1 Qxg2+; and Black emerges two pawns ahead with every expectation of a win. If b) 30 Qxe4 Qxh2+ 31 Kf1 f6 32 Qe6+ Kh8 33 Qf5 g6 34 Qxg6? Qh1+ 35 Ke2 Qg2+, wins material. And what is probably the best try for White b1) 34 Qe4 c4 35 b3 Qh1+ 36 Ke2 Qg2+ 37 Kd1 cxb3 38 axb3 Nd5 39 Rff1 Qa2; when Rybka says Black is winning. Frankly, this line is beyond me especially over the board. Rybka and the Grandmasters can see their way through this stuff, not me. The text is as good as I can do.

29.Rxf6 gxf6 30.Qc2 Kg7?!

I used a good deal of my clock on this move. The text puts safety first. Confidence was lacking in my calculation of 30..., Be3+!; the correct way to finish up the game. If a) 31 Kh1 Bf2 32 Qg6+ Kh8; the Ng4 covers f6 and h6 so there is no perpetual check or mating attack by the White Queen. If b) 31 Rxe3 Qf1+!; wins the Exchange. Option a) I saw clearly. It was b) I in which could not find the details. After several minutes of fruitless worrying the position like a dog and his bone, I gave up and went for the move that met the threat 31 Qg6+. White now forces off the Queens leaving Black with a couple of extra pawns and much better piece placement. The game is winning for Black. I am unable to find anything better for White.

31.Qg2 Qxg2+ 32.Bxg2 Be3+ 33.Kf1 Bf2 34.Rb1 Bd4 35.Bxd4?,..

This just improves the position of the Black Rook, but with the h-pawn under threat White really is choosing which pawn will be lost.

35..., Rxd4 36.Bb7 Ne3+?

I believe taking the h-pawn is a better choice. I got lazy here and did not calculate the not to hard find sequence; 36..., Nxh2+ 37 Ke2 Rxc4 38 Bd5 Rc2+ 39 Kd3 Rf2 40 Rc1,.. (if 40 Ke3 Ng4+; is strong) 40..., Rxb2 41 Rxc5 Nf1; and if White continues ambitiously 42 Rxc7 Rd2+ wins decisive material. The horrible habit of thinking everything wins when the advantage is in hand has crept into my play in my declining years. The text does not throw away the win, it just makes things less clear than they could have been.

37.Ke2 Nxc4 38.Ba6 Nd6 39.a3 f5 40.b4 c4 41.Rc1 h4 42.Rg1 hxg3 43.Rxg3+ Rg4 44.Rc3 Rg2+ 45.Kf1 Rxh2 46.Bxc4,..

Black has taken off the last White K-side pawn. If silliness does not overtake me a full point should be my reward.

46..., Ne4 47.Re3 Nd2+ 48.Kg1 Nxc4??

And silliness smacks me in the back of the head, hard. Dropping the Exchange just because my attention wandered. Oddly enough Black is still in pretty good shape. The bunch of passed pawns on the K-side even leave me with some winning chances.

49.Rg3+ Kf6 50.Kxh2 e4 ½ - ½

The game now dissolved into a time scramble. I managed to lose almost all of my pawns, and Mr. Wright achieved a winning position. With less than a minute remaining on Wright’s clock I swindled my way to a draw. The remainder of the game was not recorded by either side. This cloaks mistakes by both parties in the universe of lost chess moves of a blitz finish, thankfully. All things considered, the drawn outcome is a just result, but I truly would have liked to win this one.

More soon.

More About the CDCL and a Game

Through the good offices of Dean Howard and Bill Townsend I received updates on the most recent CDCL action. Sunday evening Saratoga A hosted the Albany A team. The outcome was not what the Geezers hoped for. Albany A notched another victory, 2 ½ - 1 ½. Albany A has only the Schenectady A team yet to play. The Geezers are pretty much in a must win situation with Saratoga A, a very tall order, that is if the Geezers want to control their own destiny. There are other permutations of various results that might give the Geezers the title this year, but winning the match with Saratoga on 23 June gives them decent chances without reliance on luck and other team’s performance.

Bill Townsend forwarded to me the complete, so far, results of League play. The information includes the board by board results of the 26 matches played to this point. There are but two left; Schenectady A versus Albany A and the Geezers versus Saratoga A. Both matches will take place on 23 June at the Schenectady club. By the close of business Thursday the 23d we will know the outcome of this year’s League battles.

Leading right now are Albany A with 5 match points and 17 game points, and Schenectady’s own Geezers with 5 match points and 15 ½ game points. If Schenectady A defeats Albany A and the Geezers defeat Saratoga, the Geezers have the title. Otherwise, the race can turn out quite different. Say both the Geezers and Albany A both lose, then Schenectady A slips into first place. I could go on throwing up scenarios with various results, but the bottom line is Schenectady A, Albany A, or the Geezers will take the first spot.

Returning to my report on the Albany A - Geezers match. The match got off to a bad start for the Geezers right away. Michael Mockler carried the heavy weight of facing the best players of the League teams and did it creditably this year. Mr. Mockler enjoys exploring opening lines where mainstream theory is not on the agenda. Many times this approach leads to sparkling wins, on other occasions it can be bring sharp rebuffs. Today’s game is one where Mockler does not get to set the tune, and his opponent directs the play into the land of chess fantasy. This time Michael was unable to find his way through difficult complications.

Howard, Dean - Mockler, Michael [C00]

Albany A v Geezers CDCL Match Schenectady, NY, 02.06.2011

Board 1

1.e4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.e5 c5 4.b4?!,..

Mr. Howard seems to have decided to take things into the lesser known regions of opening theory before Michael can do so. Not a bad plan versus an experimenter such as Mockler. Nevertheless, this pawn offer is best described as questionable. Interestingly, Dean Howard often sticks to proven theoretical lines. For example he plays the Tartakower System against the Queen’s Gambit and does very well indeed in the classical kinds of positions arising from that choice. I guess in this game he wanted to steer for something known and comfortable if the game was going get strange at all.

4..., cxb4 5.a3 bxa3?!

Theory says 5..., Nc6; is best. Some masters have played 5..., Qa5; here. The text makes things too simple for White.

6.d4 Nc6 7.c3 a6!?

It is a close decision to mark this move (?), (?!) or (!?). While the position under consideration, and the path by which it was reached, appears to be well-off the beaten track, it does have a good many characteristics of the Advanced French. Barring specific tactical concerns, the normal procedure for Black in the Advanced French is to challenge the massive pawn fence White has constructed on c3-d4-e5. To that end, the move 7..., f6; is obvious, almost demanded by the position, right now. Rybka, my electronic helper, assigns near equal value to the text move and to 7..., f6. I can’t quite get my head around the notion that doing something about the big White center can be delayed even for a move or two.

White has invested a pawn to obtain the better Bishop and some attacking chances on the Black King when he castles short. After thirty years of playing the French exclusively, 1950 to 1980, some things I know. One is; don’t hurry to castle short and maybe don’t castle at all. The Black King in the center in the French can be very hard to get to.

8.Bxa3 Bxa3 9.Nxa3 Bd7 10.Bd3 Nh6?

This move is wrong. Better 10..., Nge7; soon followed by .., h6; and only then, after making things snug and secure, can Black think about short castling. If play goes; 10..., Nge7 11 0-0 h6 12 Qb1 b5; Black has slightly the better game immediately, and the extra pawn can be offered for a more substantial positional advantage as the game progresses. By playing in this fashion, Black can make White rue the reckless investment of a pawn for some time to come.

11.g4!?

White has to undertake something active. If the game develops normally, the extra pawn will tell, and so another pawn is dangled.

11..., g6

Bill Townsend passed on the info that Dean Howard thought this was the fatal error. I don’t think that is quite right.

12.Qd2 Ng8?

This is probably a first step to the loss. Better 12..., Nxg4; then 13 h3 Ngxe5! 14 dxe5 0-0; when Black has three pawns for the piece, sufficient compensation. Black’s pawn structure is ever so much sounder than is White’s, and one of the four isolated White pawns may well fall at any moment.

13.h4 f6

In a first glance Bill Townsend thought this might be the villain of the piece. Again I don’t agree.

14.h5 gxh5?

This is the culprit. It is not easy to see that the best move is 14..., g5!, then a) 15 exf6 Nxf6 16 Nxg5 Qe7 17 f3 e5 18 0-0 0-0-0; and Rybka sees Black with a plus in a very tricky position; the sacrifice of the White Bishop at a6 in air so Black must tread very carefully. If b) 15 h6 Rc8 16 exf6 Nxf6 17 Nxg5 Qc7 18 Nc2 Na5; and White is just a fraction better than Black, but the fight is in full swing and predicting who wins is impossible for me. After the text White has a solid advantage. There seems to be nowhere in the next few moves for Black to strike back.

15.Rxh5 Qe7?

This move makes matters worse by un-defending the Ra8. Better, but hardly equalizing is 15..., h6. White then continues; 16 Bg6+ Ke7 17 Qb2, and the Black position is very unappetizing.

16.Nb5 0–0–0

Sadly for Black there is nothing better.

17.Nd6+ Kb8 18.Bxa6 fxe5

Resistance can be dragged out a little longer with 18..., Bc8; but after 19 Bd3 Rf8 20 Nb5 b6 21 Qf4 fxe4? 22 Nxe5, wins soon.

19.Nxb7 Nf6 20.Nxd8 Qd6 21.Qb2+ 1–0

Resigns because 21..., Nb4 22 Nf7 Qf8 23 Nxh8 Nxh5 24 Nxe5, and White is a Rook up as the dust clears. An interesting clash. Dean took the game off into the high weeds before Michael had opportunity to do so, and Mr. Howard carried off the adventure in high style.

More soon.