There is a flurry of local news today. Wednesday the Albany Area Chess Club began its annual championship event. Playing are; Dean Howard, Gordon Magat, Peter Henner, Tim Wright, Jonathan Lack, Art Alowitz, Cory Northrup, Jason Denham, Akhil Kamma and Chris Caravaty. This is a slightly smaller turnout than last year and follows a trend. The big local clubs, Schenectady, Albany and Saratoga have seen a slightly reduced participation in their title events. This maybe just a blip of no great significance, or the effect of some older players scaling back their chess activity. Several new faces showing up, Kamma, Caravaty, Varela and others, indicate the chess community has vitality.
Thursday the 4th round of the Schenectady Prelims was played amid nicer weather than last week. Only two games were delayed; Le Cours - Chu and Connors - Phillips both from Section B. The results of the games played were:
Zack Calderone - Capitummino 1-0, Sells - Varela 1-0, Stanley - Aaron 0-1, Kamma - Herman Calderone 1-0.
Today’s game is the clash between two newer participants in the Schenectady Championship wars. In an off-beat line they do pretty well until a moment’s in attention causes an early end to the festivities.
Calderone, Zack - Capitummino, Jeff [B01]
SCC Preliminary Section A, Schenectady, NY, 03.11.2011
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.b4!?,..
After the game Zack asked if I had any information on this line. He said there wasn’t much to be found in ECO. I told him John Emms, the British GM had written The Scandinavian, Everyman Chess, London, 2004 and had done some analysis of the line. Boiling down Emms’ comments; this is the Mieses Gambit. A speculative try that is not particularly worrying for Black if he keeps his head. Black should just grab the pawn and say ’thank you’ with 4..., Qxb4 5 Rb1 Qd6 6 d4 Nf6 7 Nf3 a6; preventing any White piece from going to b5. Then Emms recommends as the best try for White; 8 g3!? (there is no great joy for the Bishop at d3 or c4, why not g2?) 8..., b6 9 Bg2 Bb7 10 0-0 0-0 11 Ne5!, with pressure on the Q-side.
There are not many games in my databases on this line. Here are some:
This game was crucial to Naka beating out our own GM Har-Zvi for the title that year. It is a blitz game but the participants are very, very good at blitz.
(1161166) Nakamura, Hikaru (2651) - Har Zvi, Ronen (2515) [B01]
Dos Hermanas Internet f 8th Internet ICC (2.4), 23.03.2007
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.b4 Qxb4 5.Rb1 Qd6 6.Bc4 Nf6 7.Nf3 a6 8.d4 b5 9.Bb3 Bb7 10.0–0 e6 11.Re1 Be7 12.Ng5 Nd5 13.Nce4 Qd7 14.Qh5 Bxg5 15.Nc5 Nf6 16.Qxg5 Qc6 17.Bxe6 0–0 18.Bb3 Nbd7 19.Nxb7 Qxb7 20.Qg3 Qc6 21.Bb2 Nd5 22.Qf3 N7b6 23.Ba3 Rfd8 24.Bc5 Nc4 25.Bxc4 bxc4 26.Re5 Qd7 27.h3 h6 28.Rbe1 c6 29.Qe2 c3 30.Qh5 Rab8 31.Ba3 Nf4 32.Qf3 Nd5 33.Qh5 Nf4 34.Qf3 Nd5 35.g3 Qxh3 36.Qd3 Qd7 37.Kg2 Re8 38.Qxa6 Rxe5 39.Rxe5 Qg4 40.Bc1 Qxd4 41.Re2 Qg4 42.Qd3 Ra8 43.a3 h5 44.Re4 Qg6 45.Qd4 h4 46.Rg4 Qf6 47.Qxf6 Nxf6 48.Rxh4 Nd5 49.Rc4 Ra6 50.Kf3 f6 51.Ke4 Kf7 52.Kd4 Ke6 53.Kc5 Kd7 54.Kd4 Kd6 55.Kd3 Ra8 56.Rg4 g5 57.a4 c5 58.Ba3 Kc6 59.Rc4 Ra5 60.g4 Nb6 61.Rxc3 Nxa4 62.Rb3 Nb6 63.c4 Ra4 64.Bb2 Rxc4 65.Rxb6+ 1–0
One hundred years ago Mieses authored his Gambit to no great success against the very strong international player Leonhardt.
(6196) Leonhardt, Paul Saladin - Mieses, Jacques [B01]
Prague (1), 1908
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.b4 Qxb4 5.Rb1 Qd6 6.Nf3 Nf6 7.d4 c6 ,8.Bd3 b6 9.0–0 e6 10.Qe2 Be7 11.Ne4 Nxe4 12.Qxe4 Qd5 13.Qg4 Bf6 14.c4 Qd8 15.Ba3 Nd7 16.Rfe1 Nf8 17.Rbd1 Qc7 18.Bc1 Ng6 19.h4 0–0 20.h5 Ne7 21.Qe4 g6 22.Bf4 Qd7 23.Be5 Bxe5 24.dxe5 Bb7 25.Qf4 Qe8 26.Qf6 h6 27.hxg6 Nxg6 28.Nh4 Qd8 29.Bxg6 Qxf6 30.exf6 fxg6 31.Rxe6 Bc8 32.Rxc6 Bf5 33.Nxf5 gxf5 34.Rd7 Rf7 35.Rd5 Re8 36.Rxf5 Re1+ 37.Kh2 Ra1 38.Re5 Rxa2 39.f4 Rd2 40.f5 Rdd7 41.Re8+ Kh7 42.Rce6 h5 43.R6e7 Kh6 44.Rxd7 Rxd7 45.Re7 Rd4 46.Re8 Rd7 47.Kg3 Kg5 48.Re7 Rd3+ 49.Kf2 Kxf6 50.Rxa7 ½–½
The future World Champion tried out the move in an exhibition and was not overly pleased with the result.
(8397) Capablanca, Jose Raul - Portela, R [B01]
Havana simul, 06.09.1913
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.b4 Qxb4 5.Rb1 Qd6 6.d4 Nf6 7.Nf3 e6 8.Bd3 c5 9.0–0 Be7 10.Nb5 Qd8 11.Bf4 Na6 12.dxc5 Bxc5 13.Qe2 0–0 14.Rfd1 Qe7 15.Nd6 Nb4 16.Be5 Rd8 17.Ne4 Nxd3 18.Bxf6 gxf6 19.Rxd3 Rxd3 20.Qxd3 b6 21.Qc3 e5 22.Nh4 Be6 23.Qf3 Rd8 24.Nf5 Bxf5 25.Qxf5 Kg7 26.Qg4+ Kh8 27.Qf3 Kg7 28.Ng3 Kh8 29.Rd1 Rxd1+ 30.Qxd1 ½–½
Not taking the pawn is not really a better choice.
(41734) Milner Barry, Philip Stuart - Mahishkar, B [B01]
Moscow ol (Men) qual-C Moscow (9), 1956
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.b4 Qe5+ 5.Be2 c6 6.Nf3 Qc7 7.0–0 Bg4 8.Rb1 e6 9.b5 Bd6 10.Ne4 Ne7 11.Nxd6+ Qxd6 12.Rb3 c5 13.d4 Nd7 14.Ba3 Rc8 15.Rd3 Bf5 16.dxc5 Qc7 17.Rc3 Nd5 18.Rc4 Qa5 19.Bb2 0–0 20.Qd4 N7f6 21.a4 Rfd8 22.Qh4 Nd7 23.Qg3 f6 24.Nd4 Nxc5 25.Nxf5 exf5 26.Rd1 Ne4 27.Rxc8 Rxc8 28.Qb3 Rc5 29.Bc4 1–0
These two well known British internationalists had many good fights between them in their careers. This game was not one of them. Sir George Thomas got the drop on Winter with his own special treatment of the Black side and Winter cracked early.
(25895) Winter, William - Thomas, George Alan [B01]
London-B London (11), 1946
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.b4 Qxb4 5.Rb1 Qd6 6.Qf3 c6 7.Bc4 Nf6 8.Nge2 Nbd7 9.d4 Nb6 10.Bf4 Bg4 11.Qd3 Qd7 12.Bb3 e6 13.0–0 Bd6 14.Bg5 Nbd5 15.Nxd5 Nxd5 16.c4 Bxe2 17.Qxe2 Nc3 18.Qg4 Nxb1 19.Rxb1 Be7 20.Bxe7 Qxe7 21.Qxg7 0–0–0 22.d5 exd5 23.cxd5 c5 24.d6 Qe4 25.Qb2 Rhg8 26.f3 Qe3+ 27.Kh1 Rxd6 28.Be6+ Rxe6 29.Qxb7+ Kd8 30.h3 Qd3 31.Qb8+ Ke7 32.Rb7+ Kf6 33.Qf4+ Kg7 0–1
In this game Black demonstrates a few of the tricks available to him in this line.
(400806) Lendwai Reinhard (2385) - Sommerbauer, Norbert (2385) [B01]
AUT-ch Voitsberg (9), 1995
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.b4 Qxb4 5.Rb1 Qd6 6.Nf3 Nf6 7.d4 e6 8.Bd3 a6 9.0–0 Nbd7 10.Re1 Be7 11.Qe2 c5 12.d5 Nxd5 13.Nxd5 Qxd5 14.Be4 Qd6 15.Bxb7 Bxb7 16.Rxb7 Qc6 17.Qe4 Qxe4 18.Rxe4 Nf6 19.Ra4 0–0–0 0–1
To sum up; the Mieses Gambit may surprise an unprepared opponent, but if he has a little bit of knowledge, White has to prove the pawn was invested and not just lost.
4..., Qxb4 5.Rb1 Qd6 6.Nf3 Nf6 7.d4 a6 8.Bd3,..
If the Bishop goes to c4, Black gains time with 8..., b5.
8..., e6
A couple of alternatives may well be better; a) 8..., g6; with .., Nc6 coming soon, and 8..., Nc6; right away. White seems to be planning to pressure the Black Q-side, the obvious point to the pawn sacrifice. In the game the pressure retards Black’s development there. This is the moment for Black to recognize and avoid the problem.
9.Bg5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6?!
I like White’s idea. He wants to increase the Q-side pressure by creating a home for his light squared Bishop on e4, and the Bishop and Rook working together might just tie up the Black pieces for some good while. That is not to say the plan is water tight. It is however creative and is appealing. Black should not fall in with it. Here 10..., gxf6; keeps the Bishop from long occupying e4, problematically opens the g-file and retains the pair of Bishops. The usefulness of the g-file to Black is debatable; the other two factors are pluses for Black.
11.Ne4 Qe7 12.Nxf6+ Qxf6 13.Rb3,..
White has carried out his idea, but this move is questionable. There is nothing immediately tactically wrong with it, but its only active intention must be to act along the 3d rank. Will that be enough to tip the balance? More direct is 13 Be4, then Black has to play the un-handsome move 13..., Ra7; however there are sufficient resources for Black to make a defense in this line also.
13..., c6?!
As several Grandmasters have said from time to time; a pawn is worth some trouble. In this case, Black is making things much too difficult for himself by playing to just keep the pawn. Perhaps he was worried about 13..., 0-0 14 Be4?, but then 14..., Qf4; and 15 Bxb7?, loses to 15..., Bxb7 16 Rxb7 Qe4+.
14.Ne5!?,..
An adventure with some risks attached. The logical 14 0-0, is reasonable with whether or not White has compensation for the pawn still to be determined. White has some scheme in mind involving an attack with pieces if Black castles I guess. Black apparently believes this is possible and plays to avoid the imagined attack. Is there really the makings of such an assault? A quick test seems to say no; 14..., 0-0 15 Be4 Qf4 16 Qe2? f5; and Black is fine. Or, 14..., 0-0 15 0-0 g6 16 c3, giving up the idea of using the Rook along the third rank. It seems if Black castles there is no immediate assault about to break over his position.
A number of chess writers have made a point about trusting your opponent too much. GM Jacob Aagaard does so in his book; Excelling at Chess Calculation. Everyman Chess, London 2004. Aagaard says when your opponent undertakes an operation you must test it and not blindly accept the scheme is valid. Otherwise you can be chasing ghosts. Aagaard has another piece of wisdom regards ‘unforced thinking‘, his terminology. He believes we chess players all too often make assumptions about positions - in today’s game Jeff accepts there is really a dangerous piece attack possible on his King - and thereafter we force our thought process with that perhaps erroneous assumption in mind. Aagaard recommends developing the habit of unforced thinking to open up all the possibilities available.
14..., Nd7
The natural move, Black wants to get his Q-side pieces out and about.
15.Nxd7 Kxd7?!
Playable but why put yourself through the difficulties? Black grabbed the pawn offered in the opening and has held on to it grimly. The text continues this idea. Here may be the point where abandoning that plan is the better course. Concrete calculation shows Black wins after 15..., Bxd7 16 Rxb7 Qxd4 17 Bxa6? Qxd1+ 18 Kxd1 Bc8; so capturing on d7 with the Bishop is at least possible. Of course White could improve his play in this line with 17 0-0, vice 17 Bxa6? A reasonable line of play is 15..., Bxd7 16 Rxb7 Qxd4 17 0-0 Rd8 18 Bxa6 Bc8 19 Qxd4 Rxd4 20 Rb8 Kd7; when a position is reached where Black has cashed in his pawn plus for a slightly better pawn structure, a more active King, freedom for his pieces and most importantly, the opportunity to contest the initiative.
Transformations of advantages is an essential part of chess playing skill. In this game Black loses because he refuses to transform his material advantage into something else. There times when you get a pawn up and can hold it until later to win in a King and pawn ending. Judging when this is possible and when something other has to be tried takes experience and study. From this point to the end White retains the initiative. Lacking any chance to fight for the initiative Black is reduced to reacting to the threats White makes. It is possible to do this but accuracy is required. Any slip can be fatal, and it is a very uncomfortable kind of a game to play for the player without the initiative.
16.Be4 Ke7 17.Rf3 Qg5 18.0–0 g6 19.Rd3!?,..
White decides that the winning operation will be some sort of central advance. It turns out not to be quite enough to win. Probably better to go a little slower with 19 Re1, mustering more force before deciding a specific plan.
19..., Rd8 20.Re1 Kf8 21.c4!?,..
Energetic and motivated by the belief there is something positive to be gained by breaking open the center quickly. More measured is 21 Bf3, and 22 h3, improving the position before hurling thunderbolts.
21..., Rb8?
Here 21..., Qa5; gives Black the chance to take the initiative at the cost of the extra pawn after 22 Qc1 e5 23 dxe5 Rxd3 24 Bxd3 Be6; when the Black pieces are about to become very active and the White pieces are becoming less so. Black has forced his thinking into the narrow path of keeping the extra pawn ignoring the dynamic alternatives.
22.d5 cxd5 23.cxd5 exd5 24.Rxd5 Rxd5 25.Bxd5 Qf6 26.Qa4?!,..
Still believing there is an win to be found with active play, White makes an ambitious move. Organizing his position for more maneuvering with 26 h3, making a luft for his King, and denying full freedom for the Black Bc8, is a better try to use the fleeting advantage in piece activity he has.
26..., Qd8?
Missing the chance to balance the game with 26..., Bf5; then 27 g4 Rd8 28 Bxb7 Bd3 29 Rd1 Kg7; or 29..., Be2 30 Bxa6!? Bxa6 31 Qxa6 Qd1+; both take the game to a drawn outcome. The text leaves unsolved the development of the Black Q-side pieces and worse presents White with real tactical opportunities.
27.Qd4?,..
Seemingly strong and it does keep some advantage. Far more forceful is 27 Qf4, winning immediately by attacking the Rb8 and threatening mate at f7. Then 27..., Bf5 28 g4, wins the Bf5, or allows mate after 28..., Rc8 29 gxf5 Qxd5 30 Qh6+ Kg8 31 f6, and there is no defense.
27..., Kg8??
The relentless pressure that Zack kept on Jeff finally causes a blunder and the Black Queen is lost. Black should have played 27..., Be6; then 28 Qe5 Kg8 29 Bxe6 fxe6 30 Rc1 b5 31 Qxe6+ Kg7 31 Qxa6, favors White by quite a lot, but there are moves to be made and the outcome is not yet clear.
28.Bxf7+ 1–0
Educational this game was, to use the Yoda phraseology. The Mieses Gambit has value as a surprise weapon but shouldn’t strike fear in the hearts of Scandinavian players, forced thinking limits our understanding of what is available to us in a given position, and judging when to cash in a material advantage is no easy task. The Grandmasters writing about chess tell us when a material advantage is so small as a pawn, giving it up for piece activity and one or more other positional pluses is usually a good idea.
I was impressed with Zack Calderone’s energetic planning and focused play. His plans were not without holes, but they had purpose behind them. Experience will soon make him formidable to all our local talent. Jeff Capitummino played a stubborn defense and had chances right down to the end. This effort, albeit a losing one, coupled with Jeff’s fortuitous win last week from Philip Sells, show he is making serious progress. A loss thus is painful but useful for correcting thinking habits that need improvement.
More soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment