The initial part of the chess season is coming to a close along with the year 2011. Just about all of the games of the preliminary sectional play at Schenectady are complete. One of the last games to finish games was of particular import; Le Cours versus Connors. They played Thursday evening in Saratoga. The outcome of that game determined the third qualifier from Section B. As the ratings predicted, Alan Le Cours won the game. This means Richard Chu is the third qualifier from Section B. Other than a few souls patiently waiting for news from Saratoga, not much was happening at the Schenectady Club Thursday evening. The now only unfinished game, Capitummino - Stanley, was rescheduled to a later date due to family illness.
The line up for the Schenectady Finals is; Philips Sells, Carlos Varela and Zack Calderone from Section A, joining John Phillips, Alan Le Cours and Richard Chu from Section B. Several of the strong Schenectady players did not participate this year; Deepak Aaron, Patrick Chi, Carl Adamec, and Michael Mockler, making opportunity for some new faces in the Finals. We have first time appearances by Varela and Calderone. I am not certain if Richard Chu made the Finals before, but it surely has been some time since he has done so. Good Chess to all the finalists!
Wednesday saw three games played at the Albany Area Chess Club. All were upsets in one way or another. The game Henner - Howard was rescheduled to a later date by mutual agreement. This will be an important game in determining first place It is between the two clear leaders in the event. The results of the games played were: Lack - Denham ½ -½ , Alowitz - Northrup 0-1 and Magat - Caravaty 0-1.
Jon Lack and Jason Denham played to a draw. That was something of an upset. Lack is rated three hundred points higher than Denham. Jon took his usual closed approach to Denham’s Sicilian Defense. Neither side seemed willing to force open lines and soon the pawn chains were locked across the board. Black had a big space advantage on the Q-side but no way to make use of it. With the center blocked and no entry points anywhere, they agreed to split the point on move 30.
Gordon Magat obtained a pretty substantial advantage against Caravaty’s offbeat Alekhine’s Defense. Then approaching time problems seemed to have a really terrible effect on Gordon’s play. The advantage was lost, and then Mr. Magat’s clock ran out. This result was significant in that it makes Gordon’s chances of finishing in the top two places overall problematical. In the AACC event, the top two finishers overall play a two game match for the title. It also makes the struggle for the under 1800 prize far less clear than it was a week ago. Mr. Caravaty has hauled himself up to equal in points with Mr. Alowitz.
Art Alowitz had a pretty good year up to this game with Northrup. Against the top four rated opponents he scored two wins, a draw and just one loss. The betting was he take the top under 1800 spot with ease. The defeat by Cory Northrup tightens the race for first under 1800, Northrup pulls to within one-half point of Alowitz and Caravaty.
The standings are now:
1 Henner 4 - 1
2 Howard 4 ½ - 1 ½
3 Magat 4 - 3
4 Alowitz 3 - 3
5 Caravaty 3 - 3
6 Northrup 2 ½ - 1 ½
7 Lack 2 - 3
8 Wright 1 ½ - 3 ½
9 Denham 1 ½ - 4 ½
Rescheduled games make a strict comparison of results impossible, but Henner leads on fewest lost points with Howard close behind. Their game looks crucial for deciding first place in preliminary play. Based on form so far, these two seem to be the likely title match opponents. Gordon Magat’s three losses means he has to hope for Henner or Howard to have a real collapse in the closing rounds to have a chance for a playoff spot. Alowitz, Caravaty and Northrup are closely bunched for the playoff spots for the under 1800 title. All three have had a mix of good and bad results in this year’s contest. I think it is a real toss-up which two of the three will qualify for the final under 1800 match.
Our game today is the mild upset Cory Northrup pulled off against Arthur Alowitz. Earlier in the tournament I thought Arthur was playing so well he had chances to make the match for the top spot and wondered what the rules said about that. Could he play in both matches; Club Champion and top under 1800? Ratings are expressions of probability. Under the laws of probability all outcomes are possible, but the odds are the actual outcomes will be as predicted. In this game we see a leveling of results; Arthur did very well versus opponents rated higher than he was, now the tide turns.
Alowitz, Arthur - Northrup, Cory [B07]
AACC Championship Guilderland, NY, 28.12.2011
1.d4 d6 2.e4 Nf6 3.f3 Nbd7 4.c3 e5
Mr. Alowitz as rule avoids the more usual lines used against the Pirc/Modern/Old Indian set up Black is using. Such an approach stays away from possible surprises an opponent may have prepared. It takes confidence in one’s own ability to improvise at the board to follow this path.
5.Bg5 Be7 6.Bc4 0–0 7.Ne2 h6 8.Be3 c6 9.Nd2 b5?
Black misses a chance to punish White for wishing to go his own way. The underlying idea for Black in the Modern Defense is to lure White into building a big center and then to blow up that center hoping to obtain free development of his pieces. This is the moment to set off the bomb with 9..., d5! Quite a complicated interlude ensues after say 10 exd5 cxd5 11 Bd3 Bd6! 12 0-0 e4 13 fxe4!? Bxh2+ 14 Kh1 Ng4 15 Rf3 Ndf6 16 e5? Nxe3; and Black has a strong attack on the White King. Of course there are places for White to improve his play in the line cited, but it is clearly the way to put the question to White’s handling of the opening. The game move does not address the center control issue, and therefore is less likely to work out for Black in the long run.
10.Bb3 a5 11.0–0 Bb7 12.Qe1?,..
I don’t see what White has in mind with this move. Logical are; 12 Ng3, heading foe f5, and 12 a4, to maintain the Bishop on the a2-g8 diagonal.
12..., Rc8?
Going slowly towards problems. Again logic suggests 12..., a4 13 Bc2 Nh5; pressuring the squares around the White King hoping to lure the defending pawns forward. As the White defenses of his King loosen, the break with ..d6-d5; may just open vital lines. Black is very much in a counter-punching mode here. He waits for White, he provokes White, he stays alert for any chance to break open the game favorably.
13.Ng3 d5 14.exd5 exd4 15.Bxd4 cxd5 16.Nf5 Bc5 17.Qg3?,..
This is not as good as 17 Bxc5 Rxc5 18 Qg3, with an idea similar to the game, or 17 Qh4, defending d4 from the flank. Either way White works to maintain the basis for the edge he now enjoys; a superior pawn formation plus a Bishop less obstructed by its own pawns.. The game continuation lets that slip.
17..., Bxd4+ 18.cxd4,..
The pawn formations are now equal and the only remnant of White’s advantage is his better Bishop.
18..., Nh5 19.Qf2?,..
The aggressive move by the Black Knight begets a passive response. White has choices here; a) 19 Qd6, is the most active and it keeps the advantage, and b) 19 Nxh6+?!, is the most adventurous but favors Black after 19..., Kh7 20 Qh3 Kxh6 21 g4, and White will get back the piece but his position has many weaknesses.
19..., Qg5?
One square too far on the diagonal. If the Queen stopped on f6, then d6 is covered for a moment. The continuation after 19..., Qf6; 20 g4 Nf4 21 Kh1 a4 22 Qe3 Ne6 23 Bd1, favors Black, not by a lot true enough but measurably in a very tactical situation. White may well get in Nf5-d6, but Black has further weakened the White K-side as compensation.
20.Nd6 Nf4 21.Kh1 Rb8 22.Nxb7?,..
A hasty move. Black threatens .., Nd3; hitting the Queen and the pawn at b2. At this point White may have thought first I’ll take off the Bb7, then I’ll see what else there is to do. Unfortunately, what is needed is just a bit more consideration. Better is 22 g3 Nd3!? 23 Qe2 Nxb2 24 f4 Qf6 25 Nxb7 Rxb7 26 Bxd5, and White has some advantage. After the text Black could get away with a pawn. The situation is then fairly complex giving White some chance to find compensation for the lost pawn.
22..., Rxb7 23.Rfe1?,..
An oversight that drops material. Chess puts a premium on consistent alertness. Good, or at least acceptable play, for most of the game can be overturned by a moment of inattention. This is what happens here.
23..., Nd3 24.Qe3 Nxe1 25.Qxe1 Nf6 26.Nf1 a4 27.Bc2 Re8 28.Qf2 Rbe7 29.Bd3 Rb7?
Black had done well over the last few moves. Now he wavers. The natural move is 29..., b4; continuing to squeeze White. If White tries 30 Bb5 Ra8; keeps the pressure on.
30.Ng3 Qe3 31.Qc2,..
Giving up a pawn to keep the Queens on in hopes of something turning up tactically.
31..., Qxd4 32.Rd1 Qe5 33.Kg1 Rc7 34.Qd2 Rb7?
Still wavering. Black can’t quite decide how to cash in his advantage. It is time for 34..., b4; and if 35 Qxb4? Qe3+ 36 Kf1 Rc1; and White is utterly lost.
35.Kf1 Qe3 36.Qc2 Qe5 37.Qc6 Rbb8 38.Qc2 Qf4 39.b3,..
Black has not been able reach a decision about how to proceed. White is running out of moves here. Trying to keep things as is with say 39 Qb1, is met by 39..., Ng4; and Black is making progress.
39..., a3
Not as good as 39..., axb3; every line opened has to help the side with more material.
40.Qc5 Rec8 41.Qxa3 b4 42.Qb2 Rc3!?
Queens and Knights work so very well together to attack Kings suggesting 42..., Ng4; is another way to the win. Play might go; 42..., Ng4; threatening a fork on e3 of the King and Rook, 43 Nf5, making some threats of his own, 43..., Rc3 44 Qe2 Rc1; forcing the exchange of Rooks and Queens. The resulting ending is a straight forward technical win for Black. Black just has to keep his pawn on d5 for awhile to avoid threats to f7 until his pieces are better placed. The text tempts White to recover the Exchange allowing Black to exploit the weakened situation of the White King.
43.Ne2?,..
The temptation is too great for White. He could keep the game going for awhile with 43 Qd2, although Black still has a considerable advantage.
43..., Qxh2
Black elected to convert a material advantage to a positional advantage. This is not the most certain way to victory unless the moves have been calculated accurately.
44.Nxc3 bxc3 45.Qc2,..
If 45 Qxc3 Qh1+ 46 Ke2 Qxg2+; and a) 47 Ke1 Re8+ 48 Bd4 dxe4; is easily won for Black, or b) 47 Ke3 Re8+ 47 Be4 (It’s mate on the move on either 47 Kd4, or 47 Kf4.) 47..., dxe4; likewise won for Black.
45..., d4 46.Bc4 Rd8?
Mr. Northrup is being super-cautious. A quick kill come after 46..., Re8; and if 47 Rxd4? Qh1+; and it is mate the next move. If White tries 47 Qg6, Black wins with 47..., Qh1+ 48 Kf2 Qxd1; and we have an example of how ineffective the Queen and Bishop in attacking the King as compared to the Queen and Knight. Black will make a second Queen on c1 long before White can rearrange is pieces to make any serious threat to the Black King. Even going slowly makes only a small difference, now the Black Queen and Knight demonstrate how effective they are doing the same thing.
47.Kf2 Nh5 48.Qf5 Qg3+ 49.Kg1 Nf4 50.Qc2 h5
Also winning is 50...Nh3+, Black instead likes the slower advance of the h-pawn. This lets the game go on for a few more moves than strictly necessary.
51.a4 h4 52.Qf2?,..
Stepping on a landmine after many moves under pressure. With 52 Bb5, White could have lengthened the game without changing the outcome. Now decisive material is lost and the game ends.
52..., Nh3+ 53.Kh1 0–1
Cory Northrup played in the Schenectady Prelims and had a hard time of it. He lost five games before winning in the last round. Even while suffering through that difficult experience, Mr. Northrup maintained a good fighting spirit, and in the AACC event this win puts him into contention for the under 1800 prize.
Happy New Year to all! More soon.
12.26.2011
Section A Decided at Schenectady
Thursday last saw one of the questions about the qualifiers to the Schenectady Finals answered. Two of the younger participants met to decided who would take the third chair from Preliminary Section A. In a mild upset Zack Calderone won a sharp Sicilian, and now will make his first appearance in the Finals.
Aaron, Dilip - Calderone, Zack [B90]
SCC Prelim A Schenectady, NY, 22.12.2011
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.f3 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.Be3 Be7 9.Qd2 Nbd7 10.0–0–0 0–0 11.g4 b5 12.h4,..
Up to here this has been topical at top level chess for a very long time. Robert Byrne and Bobby Fischer argued the merits of the line in a blitz game in 1971. Note Byrne used the recommended plan for White; an early g4-g5 to shunt the Black Nf6 to h5 to cut down Black piece activity in the center. A creative middle game saw the advantage wax and wane for both sides until Fischer emerged with a winning endgame.
(88454) Byrne, Robert E - Fischer, Robert James [B90]
Manhattan blitz New York, 1971
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e5 7.Nb3 Be7 8.f3 0–0 9.Qd2 Be6 10.0–0–0 Nbd7 11.g4 b5 12.g5 Nh5 13.Nd5 Bxd5 14.exd5 Rc8 15.Bh3 Rc7 16.Na5 Nb8 17.Bg4 Nf4 18.h4 f5 19.gxf6 Bxf6 20.Bb6 Rxc2+ 21.Qxc2 Qxb6 22.Nc6 Rf7 23.Nxb8 Qxb8 24.Kb1 Rc7 25.Qb3 Ne2 26.Qe3 Nf4 27.Rc1 h5 28.Be6+ Kh7 29.Qe4+ g6 30.Rhg1 Kh6 31.Rc6 Rxc6 32.dxc6 Qb6 33.Rc1 Nxe6 34.Qd5 Nc7 35.Qxd6 Bg7 36.Qe7 Kh7 37.a3 a5 38.Rd1 Qxc6 39.Rd7 Ne6 40.Rd6 Qxf3 41.Qxe6 Qf5+ 42.Ka2 e4 43.Qe7 Kh6 44.Rd7 Qf6 45.Qxf6 Bxf6 46.Rd5 e3 47.Rd3 e2 48.Re3 Bxh4 49.Rxe2 Bg3 50.Kb3 h4 51.a4 bxa4+ 52.Kxa4 h3 0–1
Almost forty years later the soon to be World’s number one played the line in a blindfold game against a very strong Chinese GM. He tried a similar plan to the one Byrne used, with same result. Once more Black obtained a winning endgame.
(1244292) Carlsen, Magnus (2714) - Bu Xiangzhi (2692) [B90]
World Cup blindfold Bilbao (3), 17.10.2007
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e5 7.Nb3 Be7 8.f3 Be6 9.Qd2 0–0 10.0–0–0 Nbd7 11.g4 b5 12.Rg1 b4 13.Na4 Qc7 14.Qxb4 Rfc8 15.Qd2 a5 16.g5 Nh5 17.Kb1 Rcb8 18.Nc1 Rb4 19.Nc3 Rab8 20.b3 Nb6 21.Ka1 d5 22.exd5 Nxd5 23.Nxd5 Bxd5 24.Be2 a4 25.Qxd5 Rd8 26.Qxd8+ Bxd8 27.Nd3 Rb8 28.Nc5 Be7 29.Rd7 Qa5 30.Ne4 axb3 31.cxb3 Ra8 32.Rd2 Bb4 33.Rc2 Nf4 34.Bc4 Nd5 35.Bxd5 Qxd5 36.Rgc1 h5 37.g6 fxg6 38.Ng5 Kf8 39.Bc5+ Bxc5 40.Rxc5 Qd2 41.Rc8+ Rxc8 42.Rxc8+ Ke7 43.Rc7+ Ke8 44.Ne4 Qd1+ 45.Kb2 Qxf3 46.Rc4 Qe2+ 47.Kc3 Qxa2 48.h4 Kd7 49.Ra4 Qe2 50.Rc4 Qe1+ 51.Kc2 Ke7 52.Ng5 Qf2+ 53.Kc3 Kd8 54.Re4 Kd7 55.Rc4 Qg3+ 56.Kc2 Qh2+ 57.Kc3 Kd6 58.b4 Qg3+ 59.Kc2 Qf2+ 60.Kc3 Qe1+ 61.Kc2 Qa1 62.Kb3 Qd1+ 63.Kc3 Qb1 64.Nf7+ Kd5 65.Rc5+ Ke6 66.Ng5+ Kd7 67.Rc4 Qf1 68.Ne4 Qf3+ 69.Kc2 Qe2+ 70.Kc3 Qe1+ 71.Kb3 Qd1+ 72.Kc3 Ke7 73.b5 Qb1 74.Rb4 Qe1+ 75.Kb3 Qxh4 76.b6 0–1
Enough of these less than fully serious games. Now we look at Anand winning a game contributing to his reaching the world title. Black takes a slower route (9..., Nb6), and White wins in the ending this time.
(1233567) Anand, Viswanathan (2792) - Morozevich, Alexander (2758) [B90]
World Championship Mexico City (11), 25.09.2007
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.f3 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.Be3 Nbd7 9.g4 Nb6 10.g5 Nh5 11.Qd2 Rc8 12.0–0–0 Be7 13.Rg1 0–0 14.Kb1 Qc7 15.Qf2 Nc4 16.Bxc4 Bxc4 17.Nd5 Bxd5 18.Rxd5 f5 19.gxf6 Rxf6 20.Qe2 Nf4 21.Bxf4 Rxf4 22.Rd3 Qd7 23.Nc1 Rcf8 24.a3 Kh8 25.Na2 Qh3 26.Rg3 Qh5 27.Qg2 Rh4 28.h3 Qh6 29.Rb3 b5 30.Nb4 Rh5 31.Qf1 Rh4 32.Qg2 Rh5 33.Nxa6 Bh4 34.Rg4 Bf6 35.Qe2 Rxh3 36.Rxb5 Bd8 37.Rb8 Qf6 38.Nb4 Rxf3 39.Nd5 Qf7 40.Qa6 h5 41.Rg2 h4 42.Qxd6 Be7 43.Qxe5 Rxb8 44.Qxb8+ Kh7 45.Qc7 Bf8 46.Qxf7 Rxf7 47.Rg4 Rf1+ 48.Ka2 Rh1 49.e5 Bc5 50.e6 Kh6 51.Rc4 h3 52.Rxc5 h2 53.Ne3 Ra1+ 54.Kxa1 h1Q+ 55.Ka2 Qe4 56.Re5 1–0
12..., b4
Sharpest and may be the best course for Black. Opposite side castling puts a premium value on time. Getting to grips with the opposing King’s guardians makes a serious difference. In the following game Black takes time to shift a Knight to b6 (12..., Nb6) and White wins once more.
(318628) Tolnai, Tibor (2490) - Henriksson, Christer (2355) [B90]
EU-chT (Men) Debrecen (1), 1992
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e5 7.Nb3 Be7 8.f3 Be6 9.Qd2 Nbd7 10.0–0–0 0–0 11.g4 b5 12.h4 Nb6 13.g5 Nfd7 14.Kb1 Qc7 15.h5 Nc5 16.g6 b4 17.Nd5 Nxd5 18.exd5 Nxb3 19.axb3 Bf5 20.Bd3 Bxd3 21.Qxd3 Qd7 22.Rdg1 Bf6 23.gxh7+ Kh8 24.Bg5 Qe7 25.Qf5 Bxg5 26.Rxg5 Qf6 27.h6 1–0
Just to illustrate there are more strings to the bow for White, here is a game from a recent European Cup. In this one White plays 8 Bg5, and 9 Bxf6, not being tied slavishly to general principles (keeping the better of his Bishops) in the interest of eliminating a Black Knight that can be influential in the center.
(909314) Fejzullahu, Afrim (2302) - Arizmendi Martinez, Julen Luis (2531) [B90]
EUCup 20th Izmir (1), 03.10.2004
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.f3 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.Bg5 Be7 9.Bxf6 Bxf6 10.Nd5 Bg5 11.g3 Nc6 12.h4 Bh6 13.g4 Bf4 14.Nxf4 exf4 15.Qd2 Qf6 16.0–0–0 Rd8 17.Nd4 d5 18.Nxe6 fxe6 19.g5 Qe5 20.exd5 Rxd5 21.Bd3 0–0 22.Rhe1 Qd6 23.Rxe6 Qxe6 24.Bc4 Kh8 25.Bxd5 Qe8 26.Re1 Qh5 27.Qf2 Rd8 28.Bxc6 bxc6 29.Re4 Qf7 30.b3 Qd5 31.Qe2 Rf8 32.Re8 Qf7 33.Rxf8+ Qxf8 34.Qxa6 Qe8 35.Qd3 h6 36.Qe4 1–0
A general conclusion is White does better if he can do something about the Black Knight on f6; drive it or trade it to reduce Black’s influence in the center. Returning to our game:
13.Nd5 Bxd5 14.exd5 a5 15.Qh2?!,..
This move struck me as unusual when it was made. I could not see how White was going to open the h-file quickly. The best idea I came up with was: h4-h5, g4-g5, and g5-g6, thinking about sacrificing the Be3 on h6 if Black advances that pawn. There problems with the idea; Black is on the move and can make threats, the White d-pawn is not well defended, and the several moves it would take to carry out the plan means the Black Q-side pawns will close with the White King’s defenders well before the White K-side pawns can do the same. White had to play 15 g5, pushing the Nf6 away from the center. Failing to do so lets Black carry out a sparkling attack.
15..., a4 16.Nd2?!,..
Better than the ugly 16 Na1, but not enough better to hold the game.
16..., Nxd5 17.Bf2?,..
Here White had to try 17 Nc4?!. Black then can take the Be3 right away, or first push 16..., b3; and either way he has good chances with the exposed White King on which to focus. The text leads to a quick finish.
17..., Nf4!?
Sharpest is 17..., a3; then a) 18 Bc4 axb2+ 19 Kxb2 Qa5; and White is in trouble. If a1) 19 Kb1 Nc3+ 20 Kxb2 Qa5; is worse, and b) 18 b3 Nc3 19 Re1 d5; looks horrible.
18.Ne4?!,..
If White just did not blunder the d-pawn, this move must be the idea behind the pawn sacrifice. From e4 the Knight can go to g5 and give itself up on h7; the problem is finding the time to make this happen. A little more resistant is 18 Bg3, then 18..., Ne6 19 Kb1 Qc7 20 Nc4 Nb6 21 b3 Nxc4 22 Bxc4 Ra5; when Black has a solid advantage, but White can still fight on.
18..., d5 19.Ng5 b3
Making contact well before White can do so on the other side of the board. One useful guidepost when calculating in opposite side castling situations; the side that closes with the enemy defenders first most often wins. The threats and checks that become possible are so forcing that the opposing attack is stalled.
20.axb3,..
White has only the choice of how he wants to be mated now. The alternative 20 a3, is met with 20..., bxc2 21 Rd2 Bxa6; completing the destruction of the house of the White King. Mate will occur very shortly after say; 22 Rxc2 Bd6 23 Be3 a6; etc.
20..., axb3 21.c3 Qa5!
My first reaction here was 21..., Ra1+ 22 Kd2 Rxd1+?!; but White can resist with 23 Kxd1 Qa5 24 Be3, and things are not quite clear yet. The text ups the ante immediately. With the Queen on the field mate looms.
22.Bd3,..
Also lost is 22 Bg3 Qa1+ 23 Kd2 Qxb2+ 24 Ke1 Qxc3+.
22..., Nxd3+ 23.Rxd3 Qa1+ 24.Kd2 Qxb2+ 25.Ke1 Ra1+ 26.Rd1 Rxd1+ 27.Kxd1 Qc2+ 28.Ke1 b2 0–1
White will soon be down a whole Rook, and worse still, Black retains a strong initiative that will permit him to force off most of the remaining pieces leaving a won ending.
Quite an interesting game from these two youthful players maybe foretelling an important rivalry for the next few years at Schenectady. Such clashes between up and coming youngsters have in the past been key to the Schenectady Club’s being the largest of the local clubs. When we get a couple of rivals battling for a higher place in the pecking order, it seems to attract others to the club wanting to measure themselves against the rivals. Here’s hoping this is the case now.
More soon.
Aaron, Dilip - Calderone, Zack [B90]
SCC Prelim A Schenectady, NY, 22.12.2011
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.f3 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.Be3 Be7 9.Qd2 Nbd7 10.0–0–0 0–0 11.g4 b5 12.h4,..
Up to here this has been topical at top level chess for a very long time. Robert Byrne and Bobby Fischer argued the merits of the line in a blitz game in 1971. Note Byrne used the recommended plan for White; an early g4-g5 to shunt the Black Nf6 to h5 to cut down Black piece activity in the center. A creative middle game saw the advantage wax and wane for both sides until Fischer emerged with a winning endgame.
(88454) Byrne, Robert E - Fischer, Robert James [B90]
Manhattan blitz New York, 1971
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e5 7.Nb3 Be7 8.f3 0–0 9.Qd2 Be6 10.0–0–0 Nbd7 11.g4 b5 12.g5 Nh5 13.Nd5 Bxd5 14.exd5 Rc8 15.Bh3 Rc7 16.Na5 Nb8 17.Bg4 Nf4 18.h4 f5 19.gxf6 Bxf6 20.Bb6 Rxc2+ 21.Qxc2 Qxb6 22.Nc6 Rf7 23.Nxb8 Qxb8 24.Kb1 Rc7 25.Qb3 Ne2 26.Qe3 Nf4 27.Rc1 h5 28.Be6+ Kh7 29.Qe4+ g6 30.Rhg1 Kh6 31.Rc6 Rxc6 32.dxc6 Qb6 33.Rc1 Nxe6 34.Qd5 Nc7 35.Qxd6 Bg7 36.Qe7 Kh7 37.a3 a5 38.Rd1 Qxc6 39.Rd7 Ne6 40.Rd6 Qxf3 41.Qxe6 Qf5+ 42.Ka2 e4 43.Qe7 Kh6 44.Rd7 Qf6 45.Qxf6 Bxf6 46.Rd5 e3 47.Rd3 e2 48.Re3 Bxh4 49.Rxe2 Bg3 50.Kb3 h4 51.a4 bxa4+ 52.Kxa4 h3 0–1
Almost forty years later the soon to be World’s number one played the line in a blindfold game against a very strong Chinese GM. He tried a similar plan to the one Byrne used, with same result. Once more Black obtained a winning endgame.
(1244292) Carlsen, Magnus (2714) - Bu Xiangzhi (2692) [B90]
World Cup blindfold Bilbao (3), 17.10.2007
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e5 7.Nb3 Be7 8.f3 Be6 9.Qd2 0–0 10.0–0–0 Nbd7 11.g4 b5 12.Rg1 b4 13.Na4 Qc7 14.Qxb4 Rfc8 15.Qd2 a5 16.g5 Nh5 17.Kb1 Rcb8 18.Nc1 Rb4 19.Nc3 Rab8 20.b3 Nb6 21.Ka1 d5 22.exd5 Nxd5 23.Nxd5 Bxd5 24.Be2 a4 25.Qxd5 Rd8 26.Qxd8+ Bxd8 27.Nd3 Rb8 28.Nc5 Be7 29.Rd7 Qa5 30.Ne4 axb3 31.cxb3 Ra8 32.Rd2 Bb4 33.Rc2 Nf4 34.Bc4 Nd5 35.Bxd5 Qxd5 36.Rgc1 h5 37.g6 fxg6 38.Ng5 Kf8 39.Bc5+ Bxc5 40.Rxc5 Qd2 41.Rc8+ Rxc8 42.Rxc8+ Ke7 43.Rc7+ Ke8 44.Ne4 Qd1+ 45.Kb2 Qxf3 46.Rc4 Qe2+ 47.Kc3 Qxa2 48.h4 Kd7 49.Ra4 Qe2 50.Rc4 Qe1+ 51.Kc2 Ke7 52.Ng5 Qf2+ 53.Kc3 Kd8 54.Re4 Kd7 55.Rc4 Qg3+ 56.Kc2 Qh2+ 57.Kc3 Kd6 58.b4 Qg3+ 59.Kc2 Qf2+ 60.Kc3 Qe1+ 61.Kc2 Qa1 62.Kb3 Qd1+ 63.Kc3 Qb1 64.Nf7+ Kd5 65.Rc5+ Ke6 66.Ng5+ Kd7 67.Rc4 Qf1 68.Ne4 Qf3+ 69.Kc2 Qe2+ 70.Kc3 Qe1+ 71.Kb3 Qd1+ 72.Kc3 Ke7 73.b5 Qb1 74.Rb4 Qe1+ 75.Kb3 Qxh4 76.b6 0–1
Enough of these less than fully serious games. Now we look at Anand winning a game contributing to his reaching the world title. Black takes a slower route (9..., Nb6), and White wins in the ending this time.
(1233567) Anand, Viswanathan (2792) - Morozevich, Alexander (2758) [B90]
World Championship Mexico City (11), 25.09.2007
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.f3 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.Be3 Nbd7 9.g4 Nb6 10.g5 Nh5 11.Qd2 Rc8 12.0–0–0 Be7 13.Rg1 0–0 14.Kb1 Qc7 15.Qf2 Nc4 16.Bxc4 Bxc4 17.Nd5 Bxd5 18.Rxd5 f5 19.gxf6 Rxf6 20.Qe2 Nf4 21.Bxf4 Rxf4 22.Rd3 Qd7 23.Nc1 Rcf8 24.a3 Kh8 25.Na2 Qh3 26.Rg3 Qh5 27.Qg2 Rh4 28.h3 Qh6 29.Rb3 b5 30.Nb4 Rh5 31.Qf1 Rh4 32.Qg2 Rh5 33.Nxa6 Bh4 34.Rg4 Bf6 35.Qe2 Rxh3 36.Rxb5 Bd8 37.Rb8 Qf6 38.Nb4 Rxf3 39.Nd5 Qf7 40.Qa6 h5 41.Rg2 h4 42.Qxd6 Be7 43.Qxe5 Rxb8 44.Qxb8+ Kh7 45.Qc7 Bf8 46.Qxf7 Rxf7 47.Rg4 Rf1+ 48.Ka2 Rh1 49.e5 Bc5 50.e6 Kh6 51.Rc4 h3 52.Rxc5 h2 53.Ne3 Ra1+ 54.Kxa1 h1Q+ 55.Ka2 Qe4 56.Re5 1–0
12..., b4
Sharpest and may be the best course for Black. Opposite side castling puts a premium value on time. Getting to grips with the opposing King’s guardians makes a serious difference. In the following game Black takes time to shift a Knight to b6 (12..., Nb6) and White wins once more.
(318628) Tolnai, Tibor (2490) - Henriksson, Christer (2355) [B90]
EU-chT (Men) Debrecen (1), 1992
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e5 7.Nb3 Be7 8.f3 Be6 9.Qd2 Nbd7 10.0–0–0 0–0 11.g4 b5 12.h4 Nb6 13.g5 Nfd7 14.Kb1 Qc7 15.h5 Nc5 16.g6 b4 17.Nd5 Nxd5 18.exd5 Nxb3 19.axb3 Bf5 20.Bd3 Bxd3 21.Qxd3 Qd7 22.Rdg1 Bf6 23.gxh7+ Kh8 24.Bg5 Qe7 25.Qf5 Bxg5 26.Rxg5 Qf6 27.h6 1–0
Just to illustrate there are more strings to the bow for White, here is a game from a recent European Cup. In this one White plays 8 Bg5, and 9 Bxf6, not being tied slavishly to general principles (keeping the better of his Bishops) in the interest of eliminating a Black Knight that can be influential in the center.
(909314) Fejzullahu, Afrim (2302) - Arizmendi Martinez, Julen Luis (2531) [B90]
EUCup 20th Izmir (1), 03.10.2004
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.f3 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.Bg5 Be7 9.Bxf6 Bxf6 10.Nd5 Bg5 11.g3 Nc6 12.h4 Bh6 13.g4 Bf4 14.Nxf4 exf4 15.Qd2 Qf6 16.0–0–0 Rd8 17.Nd4 d5 18.Nxe6 fxe6 19.g5 Qe5 20.exd5 Rxd5 21.Bd3 0–0 22.Rhe1 Qd6 23.Rxe6 Qxe6 24.Bc4 Kh8 25.Bxd5 Qe8 26.Re1 Qh5 27.Qf2 Rd8 28.Bxc6 bxc6 29.Re4 Qf7 30.b3 Qd5 31.Qe2 Rf8 32.Re8 Qf7 33.Rxf8+ Qxf8 34.Qxa6 Qe8 35.Qd3 h6 36.Qe4 1–0
A general conclusion is White does better if he can do something about the Black Knight on f6; drive it or trade it to reduce Black’s influence in the center. Returning to our game:
13.Nd5 Bxd5 14.exd5 a5 15.Qh2?!,..
This move struck me as unusual when it was made. I could not see how White was going to open the h-file quickly. The best idea I came up with was: h4-h5, g4-g5, and g5-g6, thinking about sacrificing the Be3 on h6 if Black advances that pawn. There problems with the idea; Black is on the move and can make threats, the White d-pawn is not well defended, and the several moves it would take to carry out the plan means the Black Q-side pawns will close with the White King’s defenders well before the White K-side pawns can do the same. White had to play 15 g5, pushing the Nf6 away from the center. Failing to do so lets Black carry out a sparkling attack.
15..., a4 16.Nd2?!,..
Better than the ugly 16 Na1, but not enough better to hold the game.
16..., Nxd5 17.Bf2?,..
Here White had to try 17 Nc4?!. Black then can take the Be3 right away, or first push 16..., b3; and either way he has good chances with the exposed White King on which to focus. The text leads to a quick finish.
17..., Nf4!?
Sharpest is 17..., a3; then a) 18 Bc4 axb2+ 19 Kxb2 Qa5; and White is in trouble. If a1) 19 Kb1 Nc3+ 20 Kxb2 Qa5; is worse, and b) 18 b3 Nc3 19 Re1 d5; looks horrible.
18.Ne4?!,..
If White just did not blunder the d-pawn, this move must be the idea behind the pawn sacrifice. From e4 the Knight can go to g5 and give itself up on h7; the problem is finding the time to make this happen. A little more resistant is 18 Bg3, then 18..., Ne6 19 Kb1 Qc7 20 Nc4 Nb6 21 b3 Nxc4 22 Bxc4 Ra5; when Black has a solid advantage, but White can still fight on.
18..., d5 19.Ng5 b3
Making contact well before White can do so on the other side of the board. One useful guidepost when calculating in opposite side castling situations; the side that closes with the enemy defenders first most often wins. The threats and checks that become possible are so forcing that the opposing attack is stalled.
20.axb3,..
White has only the choice of how he wants to be mated now. The alternative 20 a3, is met with 20..., bxc2 21 Rd2 Bxa6; completing the destruction of the house of the White King. Mate will occur very shortly after say; 22 Rxc2 Bd6 23 Be3 a6; etc.
20..., axb3 21.c3 Qa5!
My first reaction here was 21..., Ra1+ 22 Kd2 Rxd1+?!; but White can resist with 23 Kxd1 Qa5 24 Be3, and things are not quite clear yet. The text ups the ante immediately. With the Queen on the field mate looms.
22.Bd3,..
Also lost is 22 Bg3 Qa1+ 23 Kd2 Qxb2+ 24 Ke1 Qxc3+.
22..., Nxd3+ 23.Rxd3 Qa1+ 24.Kd2 Qxb2+ 25.Ke1 Ra1+ 26.Rd1 Rxd1+ 27.Kxd1 Qc2+ 28.Ke1 b2 0–1
White will soon be down a whole Rook, and worse still, Black retains a strong initiative that will permit him to force off most of the remaining pieces leaving a won ending.
Quite an interesting game from these two youthful players maybe foretelling an important rivalry for the next few years at Schenectady. Such clashes between up and coming youngsters have in the past been key to the Schenectady Club’s being the largest of the local clubs. When we get a couple of rivals battling for a higher place in the pecking order, it seems to attract others to the club wanting to measure themselves against the rivals. Here’s hoping this is the case now.
More soon.
12.22.2011
Dean Howard Takes the Lead at AACC
There was only a single game played Wednesday in the Albany Area Chess Club event. It was a scheduled make-up round. Two of the higher rated contestants met; Jon Lack and Dean Howard. Lack was striving to get into the mix for the top spot and Howard trying to close in on the leaders; Magat and Henner. They played an Alekhine’s Defense, the Four Pawns Attack, a debut frequently seen in AACC Championships when Matt Katrine won his several titles in years past, but so much of late. White made a determined effort to win the game. The theoretical sideline he chose has chances to be successful, but it requires a certain amount of reckless abandon to carry it off. Mr. Lack tried to keep things under control, and that did not turn out well for him.
Lack, Jonathan - Howard, Dean [B03]
AACC Championship Guilderland, NY, 22.12.2011
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.c4 Nb6 4.d4 d6 5.f4 dxe5 6.fxe5 Nc6 7.Nf3!?,..
The standard move here is 7 Be3, delaying putting a Knight on f3 early. The move 7 Nf3, gives Black a place for his Bc8 on g4. The standard 7 Be3, makes Black decide between playing 7..., e6; and 7..., Bf5. Here are a couple examples from when Alekhine’s Defense was fairly new.
(17317) Ilyin Zhenevsky, Alexander - Levenfish, Grigory [B03]
Leningrad Championship, 1936
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.c4 Nb6 4.d4 d6 5.f4 dxe5 6.fxe5 Nc6 7.Nf3 Bg4 8.e6 fxe6 9.c5 Nd5 10.Bb5 Qd7 11.Nbd2 g6 12.Qa4 Bg7 13.Ne5 Bxe5 14.dxe5 Ne3 15.Qe4 Qd4 16.Bxc6+ bxc6 17.Qxd4 Nc2+ 18.Kf2 Nxd4 19.Nb3 Nc2 20.Rb1 Bf5 21.Bd2 Rf8 22.Kg3 0–0–0 23.Rbf1 Rd5 24.Bc3 Rfd8 25.h3 Ne3 26.Re1 Nd1 27.Bd4 Bc2 28.Rxd1 Bxb3 29.axb3 Rxd4 30.Rxd4 Rxd4 31.Rf1 Rb4 32.Rf7 Rxb3+ 33.Kh2 Re3 34.Rxh7 Rxe5 35.Rg7 g5 36.Kg3 Rxc5 37.Kg4 Kd7 38.Rxg5 Rxg5+ 39.Kxg5 e5 40.Kf5 Kd6 41.h4 Kd5 42.h5 e4 43.Kf4 e3 44.Kxe3 Ke5 45.h6 Kf6 46.g4 a5 47.g5+ Kg6 48.Ke4 c5 49.Ke5 c4 50.Ke6 c3 51.bxc3 a4 52.h7 Kxh7 53.Kf7 a3 54.g6+ 1–0
(26903) Szabo, Laszlo - Tsvetkov, Alexandar K [B03]
Hilversum Zonal (11), 1947
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.c4 Nb6 5.f4 dxe5 6.fxe5 Nc6 7.Nf3 Bg4 8.e6 fxe6 9.c5 e5 10.cxb6 e4 11.d5 exf3 12.Qa4 Qxd5 13.Qxg4 Qe5+ 14.Kd1 Rd8+ 15.Nd2 g6 16.bxc7 Qxc7 17.Bb5 Bh6 18.Qxf3 Rf8 19.Bxc6+ bxc6 20.Qe2 Rf5 21.Kc2 Qd7 22.Ne4 Bg7 23.Bd2 Qe6 24.Rhe1 Rfd5 25.Rad1 Kf8 26.Nc3 Qxe2 27.Rxe2 Bxc3 28.bxc3 Kf7 29.Rf1+ Rf5 30.Rxf5+ gxf5 31.Re5 Rd5 32.Rxd5 cxd5 33.Be3 a6 34.Kb3 e5 35.g3 h5 36.Kb4 h4 37.Ka5 hxg3 38.hxg3 Kg6 39.Kxa6 Kh5 40.Kb5 Kg4 41.Kc5 Kxg3 42.Kxd5 Kf3 43.Kxe5 Kxe3 44.Kxf5 Kd3 45.a4 Kc4 46.Ke6 Kc5 47.Kd7 Kb6 48.c4 1–0
The move 8 e6, offers a pawn creating some wild complications. The very imbalanced positions resulting from the sacrifice oddly enough are resolved only in the endgame. Such may have been a better chance for victory.
7..., Bg4 8.Be3 e6 9.Be2 Bb4+?
As later play shows, Black has in mind the capture on f3 and the Queen sortie to h4. He’d be better served to execute this plan now. Play could continue; 9..., Bxf3 10 gxf3 Qh4+ 11 Bf2 Qf4 12 c5 Nd5; when Black is solidly ahead. White has the same problem as in the game; defending d4, as well as concerns about a comfortable place for his King.
10.Nc3 Bxf3 11.gxf3 Qh4+ 12.Bf2 Qh6 13.Qc1?!,..
Somewhat better is 13 a3, to force a decision about the Bb4; does it retreat to e7? If so, White plays c4-c5, and if the Nb6 goes to d5, the Nc3 captures it, and Black has to retakes with the e-pawn. Alternatively, Black might take on c3, but that strengthens the White center.
13..., Qxc1+ 14.Rxc1 0–0–0 15.a3 Be7 16.c5?!,..
This move makes the White pawn formation very inflexible and therefore more target than asset for small benefit. I thought while watching the game 16 Rd1, was a better move. Working it over with Rybka gives a line of play that keeps the pawns more mobile; 16 Rd1, and if 16..., Na5?! 17 c5 Nd5 18 Nxd5 Rxd5 19 b4 Nc6 (Not 19..., Nb3? 20 Bc4) 20 f4, and the Bishop is going to f3 driving in the Rd5. White then has the possibility of advancing the d-pawn to d5 dissolving the d4-weakness if he so desires. The game then is opening up which favors the Bishop pair. Black could improve with 16..., g5; and then 17 h4 h6 18 c5 Nd5 19 Nxd5 Rxd5 20 Bb5, threatens to trade off the Nc6 much reducing pressure on d4 with the game tending towards equality.
White must be thinking here of keeping material on and maneuvering in hopes of finding some promising target. The wish to get into the race for a top place is stronger than the logic of the position for Mr. Lack. The path White takes offers the best chances for winning, but it has a very high burden of accurate calculation. At many points the game can quickly trade down to a R v R ending when pawn formations and King positions will make a big difference. For White, with his pawn formation stretched out more so than is Black’s, there are chances for fatal losses of pawns to occur. The more compact Black pawns will be just a bit easier to defend.
16..., Nd5 17.Rg1 g5
During the game I wasn’t too sure Mr. Howard was completely sure of all the lines in this sideline of the Alekhine’s. This move is “book” idea. It puts a roadblock in the way of f3-f4, and is not a move you would come to quickly unless there was some familiarity with theory.
18.Ne4 Nf4 19.Nxg5 Bxg5 20.Rxg5 Nxd4 21.Bxd4 Rxd4 22.Rd1 Rhd8 23.Rxd4 Rxd4 24.Rg7,..
So far so good. White has followed the line Deep Rybka recommends. His Rook is actively placed and he is slightly ahead according to my electronic friend.
24..., Rd5 25.Rxf7!?,..
A natural move a small mistake. Better is 25 c6!, and the mate threat does not allow Black time to capture on e5 with his Rook. Black has to play 25..., bxc6; then 26 Ba6+ Kd8 27 Rxf7, completes the wrecking of the Black pawns and as the board opens up the Bishop can contribute more. White is not winning by any means, but both sides certainly have plenty of targets. White is betting his coming passed h-pawn will be more significant than Black’s soon to be extra pawn.
25..., Nxe2 26.Kxe2 Rxe5+ 27.Kf2 Rxc5 28.Rxh7 Rc2+ 29.Kg3 Rxb2
Rybka sees the game as equal. I distrust the evaluation of endgames by computer programs unless the table bases are involved. Many times they are right and an equal number of times they are miss a trick because of horizon problems.
30.h4 c5
Going about making his own passed pawn a factor White has to be concerned about. A piece of standard endgame technique Experts know well.
31.h5 Rb1 32.Kf4 Re1?
This looks like a wasted move. Pushing the c-pawn to c4 may be better. It draws the White King like a magnet. Play could go; 32..., c4 33 Ke4 Rh1 34 Kd4 b5; and now White has several ideas to evaluate: a) 35 Kc5, looks unlikely because of 35..., c3; b) 35 a4 a6 36 axb5 axb5 37 h6 Rh4+ 38 Kc3 Rh3 39 Kb5 Rh5; seemingly equal; c) 35 h6 a5 36 Rg7 Rxh6 37 Rg5 Rh4+; with tricky play that just may favor Black. And, d) 35 Rxa7 Rxh6; where White fights for the draw. After the game move White is entirely equal. That is not what Jon Lack was after. He’s determined to try for more.
33.h6 Rh1 34.Ke5 c4 35.Kd6?,..
Mr. Howard was in his usual time trouble now. Jon had a goodly amount of time left. Lack has visions of the mate threats gaining him enough time to deal with the c-pawn. It turns out he can prevent it from Queening but..
35..., Rd1+ 36.Kxe6 c3 37.Rg7 c2 38.h7 Rh1 39.Rg1!,..
An only move. Lost is 39 Rg8+ Kc7 40 h8 (Q) Rxh8 41 Rg1 Kb6 42 f4 Rc8 43 Rc1 Kb5; and then to a4/b3/b2. The White King ends up too far away to make any difference and the White a-pawn is doomed.
39..., Rxh7 40.Rc1 Rc7 41.f4 0–1
By this time Dean was down to seconds on his clock and Mr. Lack still had well over a half-hour. Play became a time scramble and I was not able to record the many moves made. Eventually it was a bare pawn ending - two to one in Black’s favor. Mr. Lack had some swindling chances, but Mr. Howard’s good technique did not need more than the five second per move delay to bring home the point. With this win, our champion from last year goes into the lead. With things so closely bunched at the top any outcome is possible even yet.
I’ve been told my standings for the AACC Championship is missing one game. Glen Perry, the director of this event has not been available recently and I have not been able to verify that. After today’s game the standings as I have them are:
1 Howard 4 ½ - 1 ½
2 Magat 4 - 2
3 Henner 3 - 1 (This is where my missing point is, if so (4 - 1)
4 Alowitz 3 - 2
5 Caravaty 2 -3
6 Northrup 1 ½ - 1 ½
7 Lack 1 ½ - 2 ½
8 Wright 1 ½ - 3 ½
9 Denham 1 - 4
Once the holidays are past, I will endeavor to get the standings corrected.
More soon.
Lack, Jonathan - Howard, Dean [B03]
AACC Championship Guilderland, NY, 22.12.2011
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.c4 Nb6 4.d4 d6 5.f4 dxe5 6.fxe5 Nc6 7.Nf3!?,..
The standard move here is 7 Be3, delaying putting a Knight on f3 early. The move 7 Nf3, gives Black a place for his Bc8 on g4. The standard 7 Be3, makes Black decide between playing 7..., e6; and 7..., Bf5. Here are a couple examples from when Alekhine’s Defense was fairly new.
(17317) Ilyin Zhenevsky, Alexander - Levenfish, Grigory [B03]
Leningrad Championship, 1936
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.c4 Nb6 4.d4 d6 5.f4 dxe5 6.fxe5 Nc6 7.Nf3 Bg4 8.e6 fxe6 9.c5 Nd5 10.Bb5 Qd7 11.Nbd2 g6 12.Qa4 Bg7 13.Ne5 Bxe5 14.dxe5 Ne3 15.Qe4 Qd4 16.Bxc6+ bxc6 17.Qxd4 Nc2+ 18.Kf2 Nxd4 19.Nb3 Nc2 20.Rb1 Bf5 21.Bd2 Rf8 22.Kg3 0–0–0 23.Rbf1 Rd5 24.Bc3 Rfd8 25.h3 Ne3 26.Re1 Nd1 27.Bd4 Bc2 28.Rxd1 Bxb3 29.axb3 Rxd4 30.Rxd4 Rxd4 31.Rf1 Rb4 32.Rf7 Rxb3+ 33.Kh2 Re3 34.Rxh7 Rxe5 35.Rg7 g5 36.Kg3 Rxc5 37.Kg4 Kd7 38.Rxg5 Rxg5+ 39.Kxg5 e5 40.Kf5 Kd6 41.h4 Kd5 42.h5 e4 43.Kf4 e3 44.Kxe3 Ke5 45.h6 Kf6 46.g4 a5 47.g5+ Kg6 48.Ke4 c5 49.Ke5 c4 50.Ke6 c3 51.bxc3 a4 52.h7 Kxh7 53.Kf7 a3 54.g6+ 1–0
(26903) Szabo, Laszlo - Tsvetkov, Alexandar K [B03]
Hilversum Zonal (11), 1947
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.c4 Nb6 5.f4 dxe5 6.fxe5 Nc6 7.Nf3 Bg4 8.e6 fxe6 9.c5 e5 10.cxb6 e4 11.d5 exf3 12.Qa4 Qxd5 13.Qxg4 Qe5+ 14.Kd1 Rd8+ 15.Nd2 g6 16.bxc7 Qxc7 17.Bb5 Bh6 18.Qxf3 Rf8 19.Bxc6+ bxc6 20.Qe2 Rf5 21.Kc2 Qd7 22.Ne4 Bg7 23.Bd2 Qe6 24.Rhe1 Rfd5 25.Rad1 Kf8 26.Nc3 Qxe2 27.Rxe2 Bxc3 28.bxc3 Kf7 29.Rf1+ Rf5 30.Rxf5+ gxf5 31.Re5 Rd5 32.Rxd5 cxd5 33.Be3 a6 34.Kb3 e5 35.g3 h5 36.Kb4 h4 37.Ka5 hxg3 38.hxg3 Kg6 39.Kxa6 Kh5 40.Kb5 Kg4 41.Kc5 Kxg3 42.Kxd5 Kf3 43.Kxe5 Kxe3 44.Kxf5 Kd3 45.a4 Kc4 46.Ke6 Kc5 47.Kd7 Kb6 48.c4 1–0
The move 8 e6, offers a pawn creating some wild complications. The very imbalanced positions resulting from the sacrifice oddly enough are resolved only in the endgame. Such may have been a better chance for victory.
7..., Bg4 8.Be3 e6 9.Be2 Bb4+?
As later play shows, Black has in mind the capture on f3 and the Queen sortie to h4. He’d be better served to execute this plan now. Play could continue; 9..., Bxf3 10 gxf3 Qh4+ 11 Bf2 Qf4 12 c5 Nd5; when Black is solidly ahead. White has the same problem as in the game; defending d4, as well as concerns about a comfortable place for his King.
10.Nc3 Bxf3 11.gxf3 Qh4+ 12.Bf2 Qh6 13.Qc1?!,..
Somewhat better is 13 a3, to force a decision about the Bb4; does it retreat to e7? If so, White plays c4-c5, and if the Nb6 goes to d5, the Nc3 captures it, and Black has to retakes with the e-pawn. Alternatively, Black might take on c3, but that strengthens the White center.
13..., Qxc1+ 14.Rxc1 0–0–0 15.a3 Be7 16.c5?!,..
This move makes the White pawn formation very inflexible and therefore more target than asset for small benefit. I thought while watching the game 16 Rd1, was a better move. Working it over with Rybka gives a line of play that keeps the pawns more mobile; 16 Rd1, and if 16..., Na5?! 17 c5 Nd5 18 Nxd5 Rxd5 19 b4 Nc6 (Not 19..., Nb3? 20 Bc4) 20 f4, and the Bishop is going to f3 driving in the Rd5. White then has the possibility of advancing the d-pawn to d5 dissolving the d4-weakness if he so desires. The game then is opening up which favors the Bishop pair. Black could improve with 16..., g5; and then 17 h4 h6 18 c5 Nd5 19 Nxd5 Rxd5 20 Bb5, threatens to trade off the Nc6 much reducing pressure on d4 with the game tending towards equality.
White must be thinking here of keeping material on and maneuvering in hopes of finding some promising target. The wish to get into the race for a top place is stronger than the logic of the position for Mr. Lack. The path White takes offers the best chances for winning, but it has a very high burden of accurate calculation. At many points the game can quickly trade down to a R v R ending when pawn formations and King positions will make a big difference. For White, with his pawn formation stretched out more so than is Black’s, there are chances for fatal losses of pawns to occur. The more compact Black pawns will be just a bit easier to defend.
16..., Nd5 17.Rg1 g5
During the game I wasn’t too sure Mr. Howard was completely sure of all the lines in this sideline of the Alekhine’s. This move is “book” idea. It puts a roadblock in the way of f3-f4, and is not a move you would come to quickly unless there was some familiarity with theory.
18.Ne4 Nf4 19.Nxg5 Bxg5 20.Rxg5 Nxd4 21.Bxd4 Rxd4 22.Rd1 Rhd8 23.Rxd4 Rxd4 24.Rg7,..
So far so good. White has followed the line Deep Rybka recommends. His Rook is actively placed and he is slightly ahead according to my electronic friend.
24..., Rd5 25.Rxf7!?,..
A natural move a small mistake. Better is 25 c6!, and the mate threat does not allow Black time to capture on e5 with his Rook. Black has to play 25..., bxc6; then 26 Ba6+ Kd8 27 Rxf7, completes the wrecking of the Black pawns and as the board opens up the Bishop can contribute more. White is not winning by any means, but both sides certainly have plenty of targets. White is betting his coming passed h-pawn will be more significant than Black’s soon to be extra pawn.
25..., Nxe2 26.Kxe2 Rxe5+ 27.Kf2 Rxc5 28.Rxh7 Rc2+ 29.Kg3 Rxb2
Rybka sees the game as equal. I distrust the evaluation of endgames by computer programs unless the table bases are involved. Many times they are right and an equal number of times they are miss a trick because of horizon problems.
30.h4 c5
Going about making his own passed pawn a factor White has to be concerned about. A piece of standard endgame technique Experts know well.
31.h5 Rb1 32.Kf4 Re1?
This looks like a wasted move. Pushing the c-pawn to c4 may be better. It draws the White King like a magnet. Play could go; 32..., c4 33 Ke4 Rh1 34 Kd4 b5; and now White has several ideas to evaluate: a) 35 Kc5, looks unlikely because of 35..., c3; b) 35 a4 a6 36 axb5 axb5 37 h6 Rh4+ 38 Kc3 Rh3 39 Kb5 Rh5; seemingly equal; c) 35 h6 a5 36 Rg7 Rxh6 37 Rg5 Rh4+; with tricky play that just may favor Black. And, d) 35 Rxa7 Rxh6; where White fights for the draw. After the game move White is entirely equal. That is not what Jon Lack was after. He’s determined to try for more.
33.h6 Rh1 34.Ke5 c4 35.Kd6?,..
Mr. Howard was in his usual time trouble now. Jon had a goodly amount of time left. Lack has visions of the mate threats gaining him enough time to deal with the c-pawn. It turns out he can prevent it from Queening but..
35..., Rd1+ 36.Kxe6 c3 37.Rg7 c2 38.h7 Rh1 39.Rg1!,..
An only move. Lost is 39 Rg8+ Kc7 40 h8 (Q) Rxh8 41 Rg1 Kb6 42 f4 Rc8 43 Rc1 Kb5; and then to a4/b3/b2. The White King ends up too far away to make any difference and the White a-pawn is doomed.
39..., Rxh7 40.Rc1 Rc7 41.f4 0–1
By this time Dean was down to seconds on his clock and Mr. Lack still had well over a half-hour. Play became a time scramble and I was not able to record the many moves made. Eventually it was a bare pawn ending - two to one in Black’s favor. Mr. Lack had some swindling chances, but Mr. Howard’s good technique did not need more than the five second per move delay to bring home the point. With this win, our champion from last year goes into the lead. With things so closely bunched at the top any outcome is possible even yet.
I’ve been told my standings for the AACC Championship is missing one game. Glen Perry, the director of this event has not been available recently and I have not been able to verify that. After today’s game the standings as I have them are:
1 Howard 4 ½ - 1 ½
2 Magat 4 - 2
3 Henner 3 - 1 (This is where my missing point is, if so (4 - 1)
4 Alowitz 3 - 2
5 Caravaty 2 -3
6 Northrup 1 ½ - 1 ½
7 Lack 1 ½ - 2 ½
8 Wright 1 ½ - 3 ½
9 Denham 1 - 4
Once the holidays are past, I will endeavor to get the standings corrected.
More soon.
12.20.2011
Almost an Upset
An interesting battle illustrating that, in the struggles between higher and lower rated contestants at the local level, the road to a victory is littered with missed opportunities.
Connors, David - Phillips, John [A87]
SCC Prelim B Schenectady, NY, 15.12.2011
1.Nf3 f5
Could this be a mistake right out of the box? Connors has been a member of the Saratoga Club for some years. Gary Farrell and Alan Le Cours of Saratoga have the reputation of liking the Dutch. I am certain David had seen many Dutch Defenses at their hands over the course of time. Considerable practice against strong players such as these must give some insight about how to play against it. Combined that with the fact that every so often David has been known to stage a big upset, and I would be reluctant to try the Dutch against him. Of course, from the higher rated player’s perspective in this case, it has to be understood Phillips was assured of qualifying to Finals going in, so taking a chance that Connors might be well prepared really is not so great a risk. Then there is the matter of what can be called “higher rated pride”. The litany goes on in the higher rated player’s head; “I am a couple classes above this guy and should be able to play any opening and still win the game.” A common notion that is not always true!
2.d4 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 Nf6 5.c4 0–0 6.Nc3 d6 7.0–0 Qe8 8.Qc2,..
Most usual here is 8 Qb3, it is more active than is the text. But an upstate boy made good, GM Jon Tisdall, tried out the game move when he was actively hunting the GM title:
(209105) Tisdall, Jonathan D (2460) - Valkesalmi, Kimmo (2355) [A87]
Thessaloniki ol (Men) Thessaloniki (14), 29.11.1988
1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.0–0 0–0 6.c4 d6 7.Nc3 Qe8 8.Qc2 e5 9.dxe5 dxe5 10.Rd1 Nc6 11.Nd5 Rf7 12.Be3 h6 13.h3 Be6 14.Nd2 Rd8 15.Nb3 Kh7 16.Nxf6+ Bxf6 17.Nc5 Bc8 18.Rxd8 Nxd8 19.Nd3 Nc6 20.Rd1 Nd4 21.Bxd4 exd4 22.b4 Re7 23.Re1 c6 24.a4 Be6 25.Nf4 Bf7 26.b5 Be5 27.Nd3 Bc7 28.Bf3 Ba5 29.Rb1 Bc3 30.bxc6 bxc6 31.c5 Qd7 32.h4 Kg7 33.Nb4 Re6 34.Na6 Rf6 35.Rb8 Bc4 36.Nb4 Qc7 37.Nxc6 Rxc6 38.Qb1 Ba6 39.Qb3 Bc8 40.Bxc6 Qxc6 41.Qb5 Qc7 42.Ra8 Kf7 43.c6 Ke6 44.Qc5 1–0
The less active 8 Qc2, worked out well for “Tis” in that game, but it can’t be said it was because the opening went particularly well for him. The full point came his way when Valkesalmi lost his way in the later middle game when he was tempted to play 36..., Qc7; to threaten the White Rook. Much better was 36..., f4; and Black’s attacking chances on the K-side balance the White pressure on the Q-side.
Most of the few GM games found in this the Leningrad Dutch line see the move 8 Qb3, played here. Here is an example from the practice of the then just dethroned World Champion Anatoly Karpov in 1991:
(267538) Karpov,Anatoly (2725) - Gurevich,Mikhail (2650) [A87]
Euwe mem Amsterdam (4), 1991
1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 d6 4.Nf3 g6 5.0–0 Bg7 6.c4 0–0 7.Nc3 Qe8 8.Qb3 c6 9.d5 Na6 10.Be3 Ng4 11.Bf4 Nc5 12.Qc2 h6 13.h3 e5 14.dxe6 Ne5 15.Rad1 Nxe6 16.Rxd6 Nxc4 17.Rd3 Nxf4 18.gxf4 Be6 19.Rfd1 Qe7 20.b3 Nb6 21.Qd2 Kh7 22.Ne5 Bf6 23.Qe3 Rae8 24.Na4 Nd5 25.Bxd5 Bxd5 26.Nc3 g5 27.Nxd5 cxd5 28.Rxd5 gxf4 29.Qd3 Bg7 30.Kf1 Qg5 31.Nf3 Qh5 32.Kg2 Qg6+ 33.Kh2 Qe6 34.Rd2 Rf7 35.Qc4 Qb6 36.Qc5 Qxc5 37.Rxc5 Rfe7 38.Rcc2 b5 39.Nh4 Re5 40.Kg2 Bf6 41.Nf3 R5e6 42.Ne1 a5 43.Kf3 a4 44.Rd7+ R8e7 45.Rxe7+ Rxe7 46.Nd3 axb3 47.axb3 1–0
Returning to the game.
8..., e5!?
Some part of the troubles Mr. Phillips soon suffers arise from this ambitious move. In the last game commented on in this blog; Magat - Henner, we saw a diagonal threats made by Black on the White Rook on a1 play an important role in the progress of that game. Here similar diagonal threats, this time against the Black Rook at f8 influence play. It isn”t often White gets to develop the Bc1 through e3 to c5, but it does happen every once in awhile and it is worth knowing of the possibility. More cautious is 8..., e6.
9.dxe5 dxe5 10.Rd1 Nc6 11.Be3 Kh8?!
Black now realizes things are not so easy. He does have a commanding presence in the center, but gaining it left behind some holes; the White Bishop going to c5 in concert with the Knight jumping to g5 threaten the Rf8 and crosses up the possibility of Black creating an attack on the White King based on a push of the f-pawn. Realizing this, Black considers shifting the Rf8 to the g-file to support the g-pawn advance perhaps. He could have bravely continued in a thematic fashion with 11..., e4; if then 12 Ng4!? h6 13 Nh3 Ng4; with a complex battle in which Black is not worse. White can vary with 12 Nh4, 12 Ne1, or 12 Nd2, but none of these moves prevent Black from continuing his build up of forces aimed at a frontal assault on the White King. The momentary hesitation here by Black permits White to gain some edge.
12.Bc5 Rf7 13.Ng5 Rd7 14.Rxd7 Nxd7
This move and the natural alternative, 14..., Bxd7; are equally valued by Deep Rybka. The net result of the White operation is the contemplated frontal attack on the White King is defused, and Black has to react to threatened invasions of the White Knights; Nc3/d5.c7, and Ng5/f7. When the Rook comes to d1 White will have all his forces mobilized. Black still has his Q-side Rook and Bishop sitting at home. The central control Black counted on has been hollowed out somewhat by a lack of piece development to take advantage of the space, and the possible use of d5 by the White pieces.
15.Be3 h6?!
Mr. Phillips did not care for the awkward looking result of; 15..., Nf8 16 Nd5 Qd7; but that may have been the best chance here.
16.Nd5 hxg5?!
A difficult decision that leads to a won game for White. However, the simplifying continuation; 16..., Nb4; concedes a pawn after 17 Nxb4 hxg5 18 Bxg5 c6; without solving the development lag Black is experiencing.
17.Nxc7 Qd8 18.Nxa8 Nf8
Black is playing to capture the Na8 from here on out. If the Na8 is lost without compensation, White still has a Rook and a pawn for two Knights which is not so bad for White. Therefore White should keep in mind a couple of things; giving up the Knight for a pawn is no bad thing - two pawns and a Rook for two Knights is adequate compensation. How adequate depends on a number of factors outlined by Andy Soltis in his book Rethinking the Chess Pieces, Batsford Chess, London 2004. The factors Soltis enumerated are: the initiative, the presence of Queens, total material - what’s left, not what is gone, and how close is the game to an ending. Queens on help the pieces. More material on the board increases tactical chances for the pieces. Rooks get stronger in the ending and the pieces lose a little bit of strength there. Having the initiative most often determines Queen exchanges and the opportunities for trading down to endings.
19.Bxc6!,..
A very good move and one too many of us would not make. Owners of fianchettoed Bishops too often refuse to consider giving them up to move the game along logically. Here White acts to trade down towards the ending, the correct formula according to Soltis
19..., bxc6 20.Qd2 Qxd2
Trying to keep the Queens on with 20..., Qe7; allows 21 Rd1, and then 21..., Ne6 22 Qa5 Nd4 23 Qc7 Bd7 24 Qxa7 Nxe2+ 25 Kg2 Nd4 26 Nb6, completing the rescue of the Knight and piling up on the Black weaknesses. A textbook example of exploiting the initiative in a Rook and pawns versus two minor pieces situation.
21.Bxd2 Ne6 22.Ba5 e4 23.Bc3?!,..
After playing strongly for many moves, Mr. Connors shows a little uncertainty. The b-pawn is not important. If Black takes it, one more line opens for the White Rook to use, and once the Rook gets to the 7th the Black position collapses.
23..., Bb7?
A more stubborn, but nonetheless frail, defense of the Black position is 23..., Bxc3 24 bxc3 Kg7 25 Rb1 Kf6 26 Rb8 Ba6 27 Rb4 Nc5 28 Ra5 Kd6. Black will probably run out of useful moves before White does, and the Rook will break into the rear of the Black position. The text lets this happen sooner than necessary.
24.Bxg7+ Kxg7 25.Rd1 Kf6
If the Na8 is taken the Bishop is lost to 26 Rd8, 27 Rd7+.
26.Rd7?!,..
Much better is 26 Nc7, then if 26..., Nxc7 27 Rd7, recovers the piece simplifying to a won ending. David Connors had played the several preceding moves quickly and confidently. His advantage was large, and even this little bobble on here does not significantly change the evaluation of the position.
26..., Nc5 27.Rd8 Na6 28.Rd7 Nc5
Of course not 28..., Bxa8 29 Rxa7, recovering the material and then some.
29.Rxb7??,..
It is infrequently appropriate to slap the dreaded double query on a move. This time it has to be done. There is no time trouble to explain this decision. Every indication; body language, consistency in following a plan, etc. was that David understood the position and had an idea of how it should finish. Then this!? The Na8 is well defended by the Rook going to h7. If 29 Rh7 Bxa8 30 Rxa7 Bb7 31 b4!, recovers the material. After the game, Mr. Phillips said he would have taken a draw had Mr. Connors played 29 Rd8 Na6 30 Rd7, and offered such. So, in one fell move White shot by the draw that would have given him a chance at qualifying for the Finals in a position still strong enough to take the whole point and positively qualify for the Finals. We have all had those moments in chess; what we can see easily in analysis is utterly impossible to find in the heat of the moment. As Boris Spassky famous said; chess is a negative game, our losses stick with us forever and our wins are quickly forgotten. This is one loss that Mr. Connors will not soon forget. The return of the Exchange levels up the game, but there is no reason in the position for White to lose this contest.
29..., Nxb7 30.Nc7 Ke5 31.e3 Kd6 32.Na6?!,..
Quite natural but not the best. Knight and pawn endgames are very like pure pawn endgames because relative King positions, weak pawns and potential passed pawns are crucial to evaluation. The presence of the Knights add resources for both sides. If one side gets a pawn plus, the defender can scheme to trade matching pawns planning to sacrifice his Knight for the extra “button” leaving insufficient material for victory.
The side that obtains an extra pawn counters by playing to prevent the opposing Knight from getting to a place where it can be given up successfully. But before that situation develops, there are tricks and tries to win or weaken pawns. This is where the game is now. White has two things to do; find something to loosen up the bind Black has on the K-side, and get his King over where it can help in the defense of the Q-side. To those ends 32 Ne8 Kd7 33 Nf6+, heading for h7 attacking g5. The White Knight will go to g5 and be supported by h2-h4 if necessary. Any break he gets while carrying out this maneuver is to be used to shift the White King leftwards. Giving up the a-pawn may be required to get the White King well placed. This is a dynamic way to treat the ending.
The major effect of the Rook going off for the Black Bishop is the Black King is freer to run to the Q-side, and since he is closer to that area, White has a problem needing a solution. Threats to the Black K-side pawn mass is one way to address the disparity of King positions. The text move intends defending the Q-side with the Knight. This less dynamic choice may well work. It requires accuracy to have a chance to do so.
32..., c5 33.a3?,..
A small move that is inaccurate and fatally weakens the White Q-side pawns. The Black Knight and King now fall upon these as the Assyrians in the Bible, like a wolf upon the fold.
33..., Na5 34.b4 cxb4 35.Nxb4 Nxc4 36.Nc2 Kc5 37.Kf1,..
The King march starts late and there is no counter-play on the K-side to restrain the Black King. Admirably Black goes very directly towards his goal of creating a distant passed pawn.
37..., Kb5 38.Nd4+ Ka4 39.Ne6 Kxa3 40.Ke2 a5 41.Kd1 Kb2
This move seals the deal. The White King is shut out of the Queening square. Soon the White Knight will have to be lost to prevent a Queen from appearing right away. After that the win up a Knight is simple and clear.
42.Nc5 Nb6 0–1
A sad result that elicits sympathy for Mr. Connors. He played a big chunk of the game like a Class A player then fell upon hard times just as he neared the finish line. As a player I have had my share of such losses. The beauty of chess is the lessons can be learned and there is always the hope for improvement. On the other hand, Mr. Phillips has to be grateful to the chess goddess for the leveling injustice of our game; sometimes we play in a way that earns a loss but we are rewarded if we don’t lose heart in the game.
More soon.
Connors, David - Phillips, John [A87]
SCC Prelim B Schenectady, NY, 15.12.2011
1.Nf3 f5
Could this be a mistake right out of the box? Connors has been a member of the Saratoga Club for some years. Gary Farrell and Alan Le Cours of Saratoga have the reputation of liking the Dutch. I am certain David had seen many Dutch Defenses at their hands over the course of time. Considerable practice against strong players such as these must give some insight about how to play against it. Combined that with the fact that every so often David has been known to stage a big upset, and I would be reluctant to try the Dutch against him. Of course, from the higher rated player’s perspective in this case, it has to be understood Phillips was assured of qualifying to Finals going in, so taking a chance that Connors might be well prepared really is not so great a risk. Then there is the matter of what can be called “higher rated pride”. The litany goes on in the higher rated player’s head; “I am a couple classes above this guy and should be able to play any opening and still win the game.” A common notion that is not always true!
2.d4 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 Nf6 5.c4 0–0 6.Nc3 d6 7.0–0 Qe8 8.Qc2,..
Most usual here is 8 Qb3, it is more active than is the text. But an upstate boy made good, GM Jon Tisdall, tried out the game move when he was actively hunting the GM title:
(209105) Tisdall, Jonathan D (2460) - Valkesalmi, Kimmo (2355) [A87]
Thessaloniki ol (Men) Thessaloniki (14), 29.11.1988
1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.0–0 0–0 6.c4 d6 7.Nc3 Qe8 8.Qc2 e5 9.dxe5 dxe5 10.Rd1 Nc6 11.Nd5 Rf7 12.Be3 h6 13.h3 Be6 14.Nd2 Rd8 15.Nb3 Kh7 16.Nxf6+ Bxf6 17.Nc5 Bc8 18.Rxd8 Nxd8 19.Nd3 Nc6 20.Rd1 Nd4 21.Bxd4 exd4 22.b4 Re7 23.Re1 c6 24.a4 Be6 25.Nf4 Bf7 26.b5 Be5 27.Nd3 Bc7 28.Bf3 Ba5 29.Rb1 Bc3 30.bxc6 bxc6 31.c5 Qd7 32.h4 Kg7 33.Nb4 Re6 34.Na6 Rf6 35.Rb8 Bc4 36.Nb4 Qc7 37.Nxc6 Rxc6 38.Qb1 Ba6 39.Qb3 Bc8 40.Bxc6 Qxc6 41.Qb5 Qc7 42.Ra8 Kf7 43.c6 Ke6 44.Qc5 1–0
The less active 8 Qc2, worked out well for “Tis” in that game, but it can’t be said it was because the opening went particularly well for him. The full point came his way when Valkesalmi lost his way in the later middle game when he was tempted to play 36..., Qc7; to threaten the White Rook. Much better was 36..., f4; and Black’s attacking chances on the K-side balance the White pressure on the Q-side.
Most of the few GM games found in this the Leningrad Dutch line see the move 8 Qb3, played here. Here is an example from the practice of the then just dethroned World Champion Anatoly Karpov in 1991:
(267538) Karpov,Anatoly (2725) - Gurevich,Mikhail (2650) [A87]
Euwe mem Amsterdam (4), 1991
1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 d6 4.Nf3 g6 5.0–0 Bg7 6.c4 0–0 7.Nc3 Qe8 8.Qb3 c6 9.d5 Na6 10.Be3 Ng4 11.Bf4 Nc5 12.Qc2 h6 13.h3 e5 14.dxe6 Ne5 15.Rad1 Nxe6 16.Rxd6 Nxc4 17.Rd3 Nxf4 18.gxf4 Be6 19.Rfd1 Qe7 20.b3 Nb6 21.Qd2 Kh7 22.Ne5 Bf6 23.Qe3 Rae8 24.Na4 Nd5 25.Bxd5 Bxd5 26.Nc3 g5 27.Nxd5 cxd5 28.Rxd5 gxf4 29.Qd3 Bg7 30.Kf1 Qg5 31.Nf3 Qh5 32.Kg2 Qg6+ 33.Kh2 Qe6 34.Rd2 Rf7 35.Qc4 Qb6 36.Qc5 Qxc5 37.Rxc5 Rfe7 38.Rcc2 b5 39.Nh4 Re5 40.Kg2 Bf6 41.Nf3 R5e6 42.Ne1 a5 43.Kf3 a4 44.Rd7+ R8e7 45.Rxe7+ Rxe7 46.Nd3 axb3 47.axb3 1–0
Returning to the game.
8..., e5!?
Some part of the troubles Mr. Phillips soon suffers arise from this ambitious move. In the last game commented on in this blog; Magat - Henner, we saw a diagonal threats made by Black on the White Rook on a1 play an important role in the progress of that game. Here similar diagonal threats, this time against the Black Rook at f8 influence play. It isn”t often White gets to develop the Bc1 through e3 to c5, but it does happen every once in awhile and it is worth knowing of the possibility. More cautious is 8..., e6.
9.dxe5 dxe5 10.Rd1 Nc6 11.Be3 Kh8?!
Black now realizes things are not so easy. He does have a commanding presence in the center, but gaining it left behind some holes; the White Bishop going to c5 in concert with the Knight jumping to g5 threaten the Rf8 and crosses up the possibility of Black creating an attack on the White King based on a push of the f-pawn. Realizing this, Black considers shifting the Rf8 to the g-file to support the g-pawn advance perhaps. He could have bravely continued in a thematic fashion with 11..., e4; if then 12 Ng4!? h6 13 Nh3 Ng4; with a complex battle in which Black is not worse. White can vary with 12 Nh4, 12 Ne1, or 12 Nd2, but none of these moves prevent Black from continuing his build up of forces aimed at a frontal assault on the White King. The momentary hesitation here by Black permits White to gain some edge.
12.Bc5 Rf7 13.Ng5 Rd7 14.Rxd7 Nxd7
This move and the natural alternative, 14..., Bxd7; are equally valued by Deep Rybka. The net result of the White operation is the contemplated frontal attack on the White King is defused, and Black has to react to threatened invasions of the White Knights; Nc3/d5.c7, and Ng5/f7. When the Rook comes to d1 White will have all his forces mobilized. Black still has his Q-side Rook and Bishop sitting at home. The central control Black counted on has been hollowed out somewhat by a lack of piece development to take advantage of the space, and the possible use of d5 by the White pieces.
15.Be3 h6?!
Mr. Phillips did not care for the awkward looking result of; 15..., Nf8 16 Nd5 Qd7; but that may have been the best chance here.
16.Nd5 hxg5?!
A difficult decision that leads to a won game for White. However, the simplifying continuation; 16..., Nb4; concedes a pawn after 17 Nxb4 hxg5 18 Bxg5 c6; without solving the development lag Black is experiencing.
17.Nxc7 Qd8 18.Nxa8 Nf8
Black is playing to capture the Na8 from here on out. If the Na8 is lost without compensation, White still has a Rook and a pawn for two Knights which is not so bad for White. Therefore White should keep in mind a couple of things; giving up the Knight for a pawn is no bad thing - two pawns and a Rook for two Knights is adequate compensation. How adequate depends on a number of factors outlined by Andy Soltis in his book Rethinking the Chess Pieces, Batsford Chess, London 2004. The factors Soltis enumerated are: the initiative, the presence of Queens, total material - what’s left, not what is gone, and how close is the game to an ending. Queens on help the pieces. More material on the board increases tactical chances for the pieces. Rooks get stronger in the ending and the pieces lose a little bit of strength there. Having the initiative most often determines Queen exchanges and the opportunities for trading down to endings.
19.Bxc6!,..
A very good move and one too many of us would not make. Owners of fianchettoed Bishops too often refuse to consider giving them up to move the game along logically. Here White acts to trade down towards the ending, the correct formula according to Soltis
19..., bxc6 20.Qd2 Qxd2
Trying to keep the Queens on with 20..., Qe7; allows 21 Rd1, and then 21..., Ne6 22 Qa5 Nd4 23 Qc7 Bd7 24 Qxa7 Nxe2+ 25 Kg2 Nd4 26 Nb6, completing the rescue of the Knight and piling up on the Black weaknesses. A textbook example of exploiting the initiative in a Rook and pawns versus two minor pieces situation.
21.Bxd2 Ne6 22.Ba5 e4 23.Bc3?!,..
After playing strongly for many moves, Mr. Connors shows a little uncertainty. The b-pawn is not important. If Black takes it, one more line opens for the White Rook to use, and once the Rook gets to the 7th the Black position collapses.
23..., Bb7?
A more stubborn, but nonetheless frail, defense of the Black position is 23..., Bxc3 24 bxc3 Kg7 25 Rb1 Kf6 26 Rb8 Ba6 27 Rb4 Nc5 28 Ra5 Kd6. Black will probably run out of useful moves before White does, and the Rook will break into the rear of the Black position. The text lets this happen sooner than necessary.
24.Bxg7+ Kxg7 25.Rd1 Kf6
If the Na8 is taken the Bishop is lost to 26 Rd8, 27 Rd7+.
26.Rd7?!,..
Much better is 26 Nc7, then if 26..., Nxc7 27 Rd7, recovers the piece simplifying to a won ending. David Connors had played the several preceding moves quickly and confidently. His advantage was large, and even this little bobble on here does not significantly change the evaluation of the position.
26..., Nc5 27.Rd8 Na6 28.Rd7 Nc5
Of course not 28..., Bxa8 29 Rxa7, recovering the material and then some.
29.Rxb7??,..
It is infrequently appropriate to slap the dreaded double query on a move. This time it has to be done. There is no time trouble to explain this decision. Every indication; body language, consistency in following a plan, etc. was that David understood the position and had an idea of how it should finish. Then this!? The Na8 is well defended by the Rook going to h7. If 29 Rh7 Bxa8 30 Rxa7 Bb7 31 b4!, recovers the material. After the game, Mr. Phillips said he would have taken a draw had Mr. Connors played 29 Rd8 Na6 30 Rd7, and offered such. So, in one fell move White shot by the draw that would have given him a chance at qualifying for the Finals in a position still strong enough to take the whole point and positively qualify for the Finals. We have all had those moments in chess; what we can see easily in analysis is utterly impossible to find in the heat of the moment. As Boris Spassky famous said; chess is a negative game, our losses stick with us forever and our wins are quickly forgotten. This is one loss that Mr. Connors will not soon forget. The return of the Exchange levels up the game, but there is no reason in the position for White to lose this contest.
29..., Nxb7 30.Nc7 Ke5 31.e3 Kd6 32.Na6?!,..
Quite natural but not the best. Knight and pawn endgames are very like pure pawn endgames because relative King positions, weak pawns and potential passed pawns are crucial to evaluation. The presence of the Knights add resources for both sides. If one side gets a pawn plus, the defender can scheme to trade matching pawns planning to sacrifice his Knight for the extra “button” leaving insufficient material for victory.
The side that obtains an extra pawn counters by playing to prevent the opposing Knight from getting to a place where it can be given up successfully. But before that situation develops, there are tricks and tries to win or weaken pawns. This is where the game is now. White has two things to do; find something to loosen up the bind Black has on the K-side, and get his King over where it can help in the defense of the Q-side. To those ends 32 Ne8 Kd7 33 Nf6+, heading for h7 attacking g5. The White Knight will go to g5 and be supported by h2-h4 if necessary. Any break he gets while carrying out this maneuver is to be used to shift the White King leftwards. Giving up the a-pawn may be required to get the White King well placed. This is a dynamic way to treat the ending.
The major effect of the Rook going off for the Black Bishop is the Black King is freer to run to the Q-side, and since he is closer to that area, White has a problem needing a solution. Threats to the Black K-side pawn mass is one way to address the disparity of King positions. The text move intends defending the Q-side with the Knight. This less dynamic choice may well work. It requires accuracy to have a chance to do so.
32..., c5 33.a3?,..
A small move that is inaccurate and fatally weakens the White Q-side pawns. The Black Knight and King now fall upon these as the Assyrians in the Bible, like a wolf upon the fold.
33..., Na5 34.b4 cxb4 35.Nxb4 Nxc4 36.Nc2 Kc5 37.Kf1,..
The King march starts late and there is no counter-play on the K-side to restrain the Black King. Admirably Black goes very directly towards his goal of creating a distant passed pawn.
37..., Kb5 38.Nd4+ Ka4 39.Ne6 Kxa3 40.Ke2 a5 41.Kd1 Kb2
This move seals the deal. The White King is shut out of the Queening square. Soon the White Knight will have to be lost to prevent a Queen from appearing right away. After that the win up a Knight is simple and clear.
42.Nc5 Nb6 0–1
A sad result that elicits sympathy for Mr. Connors. He played a big chunk of the game like a Class A player then fell upon hard times just as he neared the finish line. As a player I have had my share of such losses. The beauty of chess is the lessons can be learned and there is always the hope for improvement. On the other hand, Mr. Phillips has to be grateful to the chess goddess for the leveling injustice of our game; sometimes we play in a way that earns a loss but we are rewarded if we don’t lose heart in the game.
More soon.
12.17.2011
Updates on SCC and Saratoga with game from AACC
Thursday some of the games needing to be made up in the Schenectady Preliminaries were played, specifically two games from the B Section; Connors - Phillips and Le Cous - Chu. Both ended with the higher rated player winning, but it didn’t have to be that way. Mr. Connors had quite a good position against Mr. Phillips but spoiled what could have been a significant upset with some undo haste. This win by Phillips gave him a perfect score, 6 - 0, and first place in Section B. As John Phillips said after the game; “No one was willing to take a draw from me when it was there to be had this year, they played on trying to win and lost.” That about sums up this event for him.
In the other game; somehow Richard Chu obtained a really bad French Defense versus Alan Le Cours. Richard said he didn’t intend to play the French, it just somehow happened. There seemed little question Le Cours had much the better position early on. Another slip cost Chu an Exchange. He made a determined defense in a lost position even creating some counter-play, but it was not enough and Alan forced resignation on move 47.
Going in, these games were important for determining the third place qualifier from Section B. If Chu had won he’d have the spot locked up. That was not to be. Connors very much needed a win or a draw from Phillips to pull even or ahead of Chu. With both losing, the decision falls to the game; Le Cours - Connors. A win for David Connors there will put him in the Finals, a draw and Connors and Chu will have to play-off, a loss and Richard Chu is into the Finals. I don’t recall if Richard Chu has made the Finals before. If he did it was some while ago. I am pretty sure David Connors has never qualified for the Finals at Schenectady. Success for David will be a first time qualification for him, a big step forward.
One game Bill Townsend, the tournament director, and I where hoping to see played Thursday, did not happen; Dilip Aaron - Zack Calderone. It will determine the third qualifier from Section A. Both have 3 - 2 scores. A drawn outcome and a play-off will have to be scheduled. The qualifiers from Section A so far are; Philip Sells (5 - 1) and Carlos Varela (4 - 1). Varela still has a game to play versus Mike Stanley. Even with a loss to Stanley, Varela will finish no worse than tied with Aaron or Calderone.
The qualifiers from Section B so far are; John Phillips (6 - 0) and Alan Le Cours (3 ½ - 1 ½). Le Cours still must play Connors as mentioned above. No matter the outcome Alan is through to the Finals.
Mr. Le Cours again helpfully provided an update for the Saratoga Championship. Since I last reported Jon Feinberg defeated David Connors. Feinberg has one game to play versus Alan Le Cours. Both have scored 5 - 2, and are a half-point behind Gary Farrell at 5 ½ - 2 ½. A win by either Feinberg or Le Cours brings them the title, a draw gives a three way tie for first! On Thursday Alan was not sure of the tie breaking rules for sorting out such a result.
The most significant game of this week’s round of the AACC event was Henner’s win over Magat. Gordon was poised to break free of the pack. Peter prevented that and tightened up the race for first. Not only was the game important from a sporting viewpoint, it was also one of the sharpest struggles of all the championship tournaments so far this year. Both players brought their imaginations to the board and let them run free.
Magat, Gordon - Henner, Peter [A34]
AACC Championship Guilderland, NY, 14.12.2011
1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e3 Nc6 6.Bb5,..
All this has been well known for sometime. Here are two examples of how the very best play the position:
(28341) Keres, Paul - Taimanov, Mark E [A34]
URS-ch16 Moscow (8), 1948
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e3 Nc6 6.Bb5 Nxc3 7.bxc3 Bd7 8.0–0 e6 9.d4 Be7 10.e4 0–0 11.Qe2 cxd4 12.cxd4 Rc8 13.Bb2 Nb4 14.Bc4 Bb5 15.Bxb5 Rc2 16.Qe3 Rxb2 17.Qa3 Rc2 18.Qxa7 Qc7 19.a3 Na2 20.Bd3 Rc3 21.Rxa2 Rxd3 22.Rb2 Rxa3 23.Qxb7 Qc3 24.Rbb1 Bf6 25.Rbc1 Qa5 26.Rc5 Qa4 27.e5 Bd8 28.Rc8 Rb3 29.Qe4 h6 30.h3 Be7 31.Rfc1 Rb8 32.Rxf8+ Bxf8 33.Rc7 Qa5 34.Qc6 Qa2 35.Qe4 Qa5 36.Rc2 Qa4 37.Kh2 Qa5 38.Qc6 Qd8 39.Qc7 Qxc7 40.Rxc7 Rd8 41.Kg3 Ra8 42.h4 Bb4 43.Rb7 Bc3 44.Rb3 Rc8 45.Kf4 Kf8 46.Ke3 Ke8 47.Ng1 Ba5 48.Ne2 Rc2 49.Rb8+ Bd8 50.g3 Ke7 51.Ra8 g5 52.hxg5 hxg5 53.Ra7+ Ke8 54.g4 Bb6 55.Ra6 Rb2 56.Kd3 Kd7 57.Nc3 Rb4 58.Ra4 Rxa4 59.Nxa4 Bd8 60.Nc5+ Ke7 61.d5 exd5 62.Kd4 Kf8 63.Kxd5 Kg7 64.Nb3 Kg6 65.Kc6 Be7 66.Nc5 Bf8 67.Nd3 Be7 68.Kd7 Bf8 69.Ke8 Ba3 70.Kd8 Kg7 71.Kc7 Kg6 72.Kc8 Kg7 73.Kd7 Kg6 74.Kc6 Be7 75.Kc7 Bf8 76.Kc8 Be7 77.Kd7 Ba3 78.Kc7 Be7 79.Kc6 Ba3 80.Kd5 Be7 81.e6 fxe6+ 82.Kxe6 Bd8 83.Ne5+ Kg7 84.f3 Bb6 85.Nc4 Bc7 86.Kf5 Bf4 87.Ne5 Bc1 88.Nd7 Be3 89.Nf6 Bc1 90.Ne8+ Kh6 91.Kf6 Bb2+ 92.Kf7 Kh7 93.Nd6 Kh6 94.Nc4 Bd4 95.Ke6 Kg6 96.Ne5+ Kg7 97.Kf5 Be3 98.Nd3 Kh6 99.Kf6 Bd4+ 100.Ne5 Bb2 101.Kf5 Kg7 102.Nd3 Bf6 103.Nb4 Bc3 104.Nc6 Bd2 105.Nd4 Bc1 ½–½
(241495) Polugaevsky, Lev (2610) - Andersson, Ulf (2630) [A34]
Biel (9), 1990
1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.e3 d5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.Bb5 e6 7.Ne5 Bd7 8.Bxc6 Bxc6 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.Qa4 Qd7 11.b3 Nb4 12.0–0 Be7 13.Ba3 Rb8 14.Rac1 Nd3 15.Rc2 0–0 16.Qc4 Rfd8 17.Na4 Rb5 18.Nb2 a5 19.Nxd3 Qxd3 20.Qxd3 Rxd3 21.Rfc1 Kf8 22.Kf1 a4 23.bxa4 Rb8 24.Bb2 Ra8 25.Ke2 Rd7 26.Rc4 Rda7 27.Ba3 Rxa4 28.Rxa4 Rxa4 29.Bxc5 Rxa2 30.Bxe7+ Kxe7 31.Rxc6 h5 32.f4 g6 33.Rc7+ Kf6 34.e4 Ra3 35.d3 Ra2+ 36.Kf3 Rd2 37.Rd7 Kg7 38.h3 h4 39.d4 Rd3+ 40.Ke2 Rg3 41.Kf2 Ra3 42.e5 Kf8 43.d5 exd5 44.Rxd5 Ke7 45.Rd6 Rb3 46.Rd4 Ra3 47.Rc4 Rb3 48.Rc8 Rb2+ 49.Kf3 Rb3+ 50.Ke4 Rb4+ ½–½
For reasons not clear this line has not come up in the games of the 2600+ crowd in recent years. I suspect that best play yields White so small an advantage, even if it includes an extra pawn, it is seen as not worthwhile for a player seeking to press with the White pieces. On the other hand, the resulting positions were rich enough in possibilities to attract the Grandmasters cited above, a rare group well recognized for their aggressive and adventurous approach to chess.
6..., a6?!
Parting company with the elite. This move should not work out as well as it does.
7.Bxc6+ bxc6 8.0–0 g6?
Planning to deploy the natural defender of c5 to another line. White’s normal plan now is to capture the pawn on c5.
9.Ne4 Qb6 10.b3?,..
Logical is 10 Qc2, focusing on c5. White may have not liked something in the line; 10 Qc2 Bg7 11 Nxc5 Nb4 12 Qc4 Qb5 13 d3 Qxc4 14 dxc4 a5. He may have been worried about the Ra1 having a hard time getting into action and the pressure down the a1-h8 diagonal. White does have a pawn for the those worries and he seems to have adequate resources to safeguard the Ra1.
10..., Bg7 11.Rb1 Bf5 12.Nfg5?!,..
And the concerns about the Q-side White Rook are manifest. If this kind of diagonal attack on the Rook was the worry, the path chosen did not avoid the problem. Here White could have given up the Exchange with 12 d3 Bxe4 13 dxe4 Nc3 14 Qc2, but that was hardly tempting because Black can continue right away with 14..., c4; not waiting around for White to plant a Knight on blockading square c4. The text opts to make things very tactical immediately in the hope that being alert may find a counter blow. The essential problem is taking this path White has put his King in the mix. Failure will not mean just a material deficit, mate may well be the result.
12...,h6 13.g4,..
White is pinning his hopes on Black retreating the Bishop. Even if he does, things are not so good for White; 13 g4 Bd7 14 Nh3 h5; and Black will open the h-file in any case with advantage.
13..., hxg5 14.gxf5 Qc7
The threat of mate on the move is powerful.
15.f4?,..
White elects further complications instead of the objectively better 15 Ng3, because the better move leads to; 15.., gxf5 16 Ba3 f4; with unpleasant prospects for White lacking even some of the fog of tactics in the text continuation. The game move at least creates some escape routes for the White King.
15..., gxf4 16.fxg6?!,..
Here White could have better continued his policy of seeking complications with 16 f6!?, and then 16..., fxe3 17 Qe2 exf6 18 Bb2, and White has more of his forces working although his position overall is still pretty poor. In this line, after 18..., 0-0-0; 19 dxe3 Bh6; Black’s two extra pawns don’t loom quite so large due to the broken nature of his pawns.
The text leads to a pair of open files bearing on the White King. We have seen this tactical feature in a couple of games recently. The example that springs to mind immediately was in Sells - Dilip Aaron from the Schenectady Prelims. There Dilip did not find the Queen sacrifice to open the files giving himself chances to hold or win the game. Spotting a Queen sacrifice due to the high value of the investment, and when it is not part of a short mating combination is a forgivable error. By contrast, in the present game, Black has a much lower marker at risk; only a Bishop, making the possibility easier to imagine.
16..., fxg6 17.Qg4 fxe3 18.Qxg6+ Kd8 19.Ng3 e2 20.Qxg7,..
What else? If 20 Re1 Bd4+ 21 Kh1 Qf4; when all of White’s options lead to mate shortly. Have some fun working out the finishes. I am sure both participants did so - they were both very focused calculating hard hereabouts.
20..., exf1Q+ 21.Nxf1,..
And if 21 Kxf1 Qf4+; with play not dissimilar to the game.
21..., Kd7 22.Qg4+ e6 23.Qg7+ Ne7 24.Ng3 Rag8 25.Qc3 Nf5
Black has admirably kept up the pressure on g3 and the White King sheltering behind that point. Often we see at the local level players wavering in their aim when the advantage is safe in hand. Mr. Henner finishes the game off without losing sight of his target.
26.Kg2 Rxh2+!
Simply the shortest route to the win. Fumbling is 26..., Rxg3+? 27 hxg3 Rg8; allowing White time to string out the game with 28 Qd3+, and 29 Kf2.
27.Kxh2 Rxg3 28.Qa1 Qf4 0–1
The players packed a lot of excitement into this short game reflecting credit on both. Neither shied away from undertaking tough calculating tasks, and they demonstrated fine chess imagination in the fight. I think it was the best game so far of all this years events at the big three clubs.
More soon.
In the other game; somehow Richard Chu obtained a really bad French Defense versus Alan Le Cours. Richard said he didn’t intend to play the French, it just somehow happened. There seemed little question Le Cours had much the better position early on. Another slip cost Chu an Exchange. He made a determined defense in a lost position even creating some counter-play, but it was not enough and Alan forced resignation on move 47.
Going in, these games were important for determining the third place qualifier from Section B. If Chu had won he’d have the spot locked up. That was not to be. Connors very much needed a win or a draw from Phillips to pull even or ahead of Chu. With both losing, the decision falls to the game; Le Cours - Connors. A win for David Connors there will put him in the Finals, a draw and Connors and Chu will have to play-off, a loss and Richard Chu is into the Finals. I don’t recall if Richard Chu has made the Finals before. If he did it was some while ago. I am pretty sure David Connors has never qualified for the Finals at Schenectady. Success for David will be a first time qualification for him, a big step forward.
One game Bill Townsend, the tournament director, and I where hoping to see played Thursday, did not happen; Dilip Aaron - Zack Calderone. It will determine the third qualifier from Section A. Both have 3 - 2 scores. A drawn outcome and a play-off will have to be scheduled. The qualifiers from Section A so far are; Philip Sells (5 - 1) and Carlos Varela (4 - 1). Varela still has a game to play versus Mike Stanley. Even with a loss to Stanley, Varela will finish no worse than tied with Aaron or Calderone.
The qualifiers from Section B so far are; John Phillips (6 - 0) and Alan Le Cours (3 ½ - 1 ½). Le Cours still must play Connors as mentioned above. No matter the outcome Alan is through to the Finals.
Mr. Le Cours again helpfully provided an update for the Saratoga Championship. Since I last reported Jon Feinberg defeated David Connors. Feinberg has one game to play versus Alan Le Cours. Both have scored 5 - 2, and are a half-point behind Gary Farrell at 5 ½ - 2 ½. A win by either Feinberg or Le Cours brings them the title, a draw gives a three way tie for first! On Thursday Alan was not sure of the tie breaking rules for sorting out such a result.
The most significant game of this week’s round of the AACC event was Henner’s win over Magat. Gordon was poised to break free of the pack. Peter prevented that and tightened up the race for first. Not only was the game important from a sporting viewpoint, it was also one of the sharpest struggles of all the championship tournaments so far this year. Both players brought their imaginations to the board and let them run free.
Magat, Gordon - Henner, Peter [A34]
AACC Championship Guilderland, NY, 14.12.2011
1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e3 Nc6 6.Bb5,..
All this has been well known for sometime. Here are two examples of how the very best play the position:
(28341) Keres, Paul - Taimanov, Mark E [A34]
URS-ch16 Moscow (8), 1948
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e3 Nc6 6.Bb5 Nxc3 7.bxc3 Bd7 8.0–0 e6 9.d4 Be7 10.e4 0–0 11.Qe2 cxd4 12.cxd4 Rc8 13.Bb2 Nb4 14.Bc4 Bb5 15.Bxb5 Rc2 16.Qe3 Rxb2 17.Qa3 Rc2 18.Qxa7 Qc7 19.a3 Na2 20.Bd3 Rc3 21.Rxa2 Rxd3 22.Rb2 Rxa3 23.Qxb7 Qc3 24.Rbb1 Bf6 25.Rbc1 Qa5 26.Rc5 Qa4 27.e5 Bd8 28.Rc8 Rb3 29.Qe4 h6 30.h3 Be7 31.Rfc1 Rb8 32.Rxf8+ Bxf8 33.Rc7 Qa5 34.Qc6 Qa2 35.Qe4 Qa5 36.Rc2 Qa4 37.Kh2 Qa5 38.Qc6 Qd8 39.Qc7 Qxc7 40.Rxc7 Rd8 41.Kg3 Ra8 42.h4 Bb4 43.Rb7 Bc3 44.Rb3 Rc8 45.Kf4 Kf8 46.Ke3 Ke8 47.Ng1 Ba5 48.Ne2 Rc2 49.Rb8+ Bd8 50.g3 Ke7 51.Ra8 g5 52.hxg5 hxg5 53.Ra7+ Ke8 54.g4 Bb6 55.Ra6 Rb2 56.Kd3 Kd7 57.Nc3 Rb4 58.Ra4 Rxa4 59.Nxa4 Bd8 60.Nc5+ Ke7 61.d5 exd5 62.Kd4 Kf8 63.Kxd5 Kg7 64.Nb3 Kg6 65.Kc6 Be7 66.Nc5 Bf8 67.Nd3 Be7 68.Kd7 Bf8 69.Ke8 Ba3 70.Kd8 Kg7 71.Kc7 Kg6 72.Kc8 Kg7 73.Kd7 Kg6 74.Kc6 Be7 75.Kc7 Bf8 76.Kc8 Be7 77.Kd7 Ba3 78.Kc7 Be7 79.Kc6 Ba3 80.Kd5 Be7 81.e6 fxe6+ 82.Kxe6 Bd8 83.Ne5+ Kg7 84.f3 Bb6 85.Nc4 Bc7 86.Kf5 Bf4 87.Ne5 Bc1 88.Nd7 Be3 89.Nf6 Bc1 90.Ne8+ Kh6 91.Kf6 Bb2+ 92.Kf7 Kh7 93.Nd6 Kh6 94.Nc4 Bd4 95.Ke6 Kg6 96.Ne5+ Kg7 97.Kf5 Be3 98.Nd3 Kh6 99.Kf6 Bd4+ 100.Ne5 Bb2 101.Kf5 Kg7 102.Nd3 Bf6 103.Nb4 Bc3 104.Nc6 Bd2 105.Nd4 Bc1 ½–½
(241495) Polugaevsky, Lev (2610) - Andersson, Ulf (2630) [A34]
Biel (9), 1990
1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.e3 d5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.Bb5 e6 7.Ne5 Bd7 8.Bxc6 Bxc6 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.Qa4 Qd7 11.b3 Nb4 12.0–0 Be7 13.Ba3 Rb8 14.Rac1 Nd3 15.Rc2 0–0 16.Qc4 Rfd8 17.Na4 Rb5 18.Nb2 a5 19.Nxd3 Qxd3 20.Qxd3 Rxd3 21.Rfc1 Kf8 22.Kf1 a4 23.bxa4 Rb8 24.Bb2 Ra8 25.Ke2 Rd7 26.Rc4 Rda7 27.Ba3 Rxa4 28.Rxa4 Rxa4 29.Bxc5 Rxa2 30.Bxe7+ Kxe7 31.Rxc6 h5 32.f4 g6 33.Rc7+ Kf6 34.e4 Ra3 35.d3 Ra2+ 36.Kf3 Rd2 37.Rd7 Kg7 38.h3 h4 39.d4 Rd3+ 40.Ke2 Rg3 41.Kf2 Ra3 42.e5 Kf8 43.d5 exd5 44.Rxd5 Ke7 45.Rd6 Rb3 46.Rd4 Ra3 47.Rc4 Rb3 48.Rc8 Rb2+ 49.Kf3 Rb3+ 50.Ke4 Rb4+ ½–½
For reasons not clear this line has not come up in the games of the 2600+ crowd in recent years. I suspect that best play yields White so small an advantage, even if it includes an extra pawn, it is seen as not worthwhile for a player seeking to press with the White pieces. On the other hand, the resulting positions were rich enough in possibilities to attract the Grandmasters cited above, a rare group well recognized for their aggressive and adventurous approach to chess.
6..., a6?!
Parting company with the elite. This move should not work out as well as it does.
7.Bxc6+ bxc6 8.0–0 g6?
Planning to deploy the natural defender of c5 to another line. White’s normal plan now is to capture the pawn on c5.
9.Ne4 Qb6 10.b3?,..
Logical is 10 Qc2, focusing on c5. White may have not liked something in the line; 10 Qc2 Bg7 11 Nxc5 Nb4 12 Qc4 Qb5 13 d3 Qxc4 14 dxc4 a5. He may have been worried about the Ra1 having a hard time getting into action and the pressure down the a1-h8 diagonal. White does have a pawn for the those worries and he seems to have adequate resources to safeguard the Ra1.
10..., Bg7 11.Rb1 Bf5 12.Nfg5?!,..
And the concerns about the Q-side White Rook are manifest. If this kind of diagonal attack on the Rook was the worry, the path chosen did not avoid the problem. Here White could have given up the Exchange with 12 d3 Bxe4 13 dxe4 Nc3 14 Qc2, but that was hardly tempting because Black can continue right away with 14..., c4; not waiting around for White to plant a Knight on blockading square c4. The text opts to make things very tactical immediately in the hope that being alert may find a counter blow. The essential problem is taking this path White has put his King in the mix. Failure will not mean just a material deficit, mate may well be the result.
12...,h6 13.g4,..
White is pinning his hopes on Black retreating the Bishop. Even if he does, things are not so good for White; 13 g4 Bd7 14 Nh3 h5; and Black will open the h-file in any case with advantage.
13..., hxg5 14.gxf5 Qc7
The threat of mate on the move is powerful.
15.f4?,..
White elects further complications instead of the objectively better 15 Ng3, because the better move leads to; 15.., gxf5 16 Ba3 f4; with unpleasant prospects for White lacking even some of the fog of tactics in the text continuation. The game move at least creates some escape routes for the White King.
15..., gxf4 16.fxg6?!,..
Here White could have better continued his policy of seeking complications with 16 f6!?, and then 16..., fxe3 17 Qe2 exf6 18 Bb2, and White has more of his forces working although his position overall is still pretty poor. In this line, after 18..., 0-0-0; 19 dxe3 Bh6; Black’s two extra pawns don’t loom quite so large due to the broken nature of his pawns.
The text leads to a pair of open files bearing on the White King. We have seen this tactical feature in a couple of games recently. The example that springs to mind immediately was in Sells - Dilip Aaron from the Schenectady Prelims. There Dilip did not find the Queen sacrifice to open the files giving himself chances to hold or win the game. Spotting a Queen sacrifice due to the high value of the investment, and when it is not part of a short mating combination is a forgivable error. By contrast, in the present game, Black has a much lower marker at risk; only a Bishop, making the possibility easier to imagine.
16..., fxg6 17.Qg4 fxe3 18.Qxg6+ Kd8 19.Ng3 e2 20.Qxg7,..
What else? If 20 Re1 Bd4+ 21 Kh1 Qf4; when all of White’s options lead to mate shortly. Have some fun working out the finishes. I am sure both participants did so - they were both very focused calculating hard hereabouts.
20..., exf1Q+ 21.Nxf1,..
And if 21 Kxf1 Qf4+; with play not dissimilar to the game.
21..., Kd7 22.Qg4+ e6 23.Qg7+ Ne7 24.Ng3 Rag8 25.Qc3 Nf5
Black has admirably kept up the pressure on g3 and the White King sheltering behind that point. Often we see at the local level players wavering in their aim when the advantage is safe in hand. Mr. Henner finishes the game off without losing sight of his target.
26.Kg2 Rxh2+!
Simply the shortest route to the win. Fumbling is 26..., Rxg3+? 27 hxg3 Rg8; allowing White time to string out the game with 28 Qd3+, and 29 Kf2.
27.Kxh2 Rxg3 28.Qa1 Qf4 0–1
The players packed a lot of excitement into this short game reflecting credit on both. Neither shied away from undertaking tough calculating tasks, and they demonstrated fine chess imagination in the fight. I think it was the best game so far of all this years events at the big three clubs.
More soon.
12.15.2011
AACC Results and a Game From Schenectady
Wednesday evening had another full round of play at the Albany Area Chess Club. At the top of the schedule was the game Magat - Henner. In a short game these two packed in a great deal of action in just 28 moves. Mr. Henner won the game tightening up the race for first place. The game between Dean Howard and Tim Wright, after some dramatic ups and downs in Howard’s time trouble, ended with a victory for Howard. The struggle for the under-1800 title sorted itself out a bit with the results of the other two games. Art Alowitz won as Black over Jason Denham, and in game of many sudden shifts in fortune, Chris Caravaty won from Cory Northrup. Jonathan Lack had the bye this week.
The updated standings are:
1 Magat 4 - 2
2 Howard 3 ½ - 1 ½
3 Henner 3 - 1
4 Alowitz 3 - 2
5 Caravaty 2 -3
6&7 Lack 1 ½ - 1 ½
6&7 Northrup 1 ½ - 1 ½
8 Wright 1 ½ - 3 ½
9 Denham 1 - 4
No less than four players are in the hunt for first; Magat, Howard, Henner and Alowitz. Art Alowitz also is leading the race for top under-1800. Caravaty pulled into within a point of Alowitz, and the next rounds will see if he can further close the gap. The next rounds will also see, as Jon Lack makes up his delayed games, if he will challenge the leading four. The holidays are close upon us, and I don’t know if they will cause any further delayed games. Absent delayed games we will see the races begin to be more defined in the next weeks.
One of the attractions of out typical local club championship round robins is the opportunity for rising players to meet higher rated opponents. In weekend Swiss System events, if you are down the rating list, you may only see a significantly higher rated opponent in the first round. The club championship round robins guarantee the chance to play at least some of the Class A/Experts in the event. In today’s game, Zack Calderone, a pretty successful scholastic player faces Philip Sells a well established Expert and former Schenectady Champion.
Calderone, Zack - Sells, Philip [A46]
SCC Prelim A Schenectady, NY, 08.12.2011
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bg5 Be7 4.e3 c5
This position is not at the cutting edge of current opening practice. It is, however, pretty well known. Locally, I played these opening moves against Al Lawrence, the former editor of Chess Life, in the old Hudson Valley League back in 1986. The game was a win for me when Al tried a mistaken line in the transition from the opening to the middle game.
Lawrence, Al - Little, Bill [D03]
HVCL Match Newburgh, NY, 10.05.1986
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bg5 Be7 4.e3 c5 5.Bd3 Nc6 6.c3 h6 7.Bh4 d5 8.Nbd2 0–0 9.0–0 e5?! 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.dxe5 Ng4 12.Bg3 Bh4 13.Qf3 Re8 14.Bb5 Nxe5 15.Qh5? Bxg3 16.Bxe8? Bg4 17.Bxf7+ Kh8 18.Qxg4? Bxh2+ 19.Kxh2 Nxg4+ 20.Kg1 Qc7 0–1
We were both over 2000 when this game was played. I got the edge when Al allowed me to get away with the advance of the e-pawn. The game was played fairly early on a Saturday morning. He must not have had his coffee yet because after giving me freedom without extracting any cost, Al’s tactical alertness deserted him. Subsequent errors turned a small advantage into victory in just a few more moves. Mr. Lawrence got his revenge in the afternoon game using the Scandinavian to beat me neatly.
Here is a game that has some similarities to the game we are examining. It is played between two famous Grandmasters; Hort and Larsen.
(144938) Hort,Vlastimil (2585) - Larsen,Bent (2555) [A47]
Linares, 1983
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bg5 Be7 4.e3 c5 5.c3 b6 6.Bd3 Bb7 7.Nbd2 cxd4 8.cxd4 Nc6 9.a3 0–0 10.0–0 Nd5 11.Bxe7 Qxe7 12.Qe2 Rac8 13.Rac1 Nb8 14.Rfe1 f5 15.Qf1 Nf6 16.Rxc8 Rxc8 17.Rc1 Qf8 18.h3 Bd5 19.Bc4 Ba8 20.Ne5 g6 21.Rc2 Kg7 22.Qc1 Qd8 23.Be2 Rxc2 24.Qxc2 d6 25.Nd3 Qd7 26.Bf3 Bxf3 27.Nxf3 h6 28.Qc4 Nd5 29.Nb4 Ne7 30.Nd2 g5 31.Nb1 a5 32.Nd3 Nd5 33.Nc3 Nxc3 34.bxc3 Kf6 35.d5 Ke7 36.Qd4 exd5 37.Qg7+ Kd8 38.Qxh6 Qe7 39.h4 gxh4 40.Nf4 Qe5 41.Qf8+ Kc7 42.Qf7+ Kc6 43.Ne2 Kb5 44.Nd4+ Ka6 45.Qc7 Qe8 46.a4 f4 47.Nb5 Nc6 48.Nxd6 Qa8 49.exf4 1–0
And here is a contemporary example by a couple of very strong Frenchmen.
(610586) Vaisser, Anatoli (2540) - Lautier, Joel (2658) [A47]
French Team Ch. France (8.2), 28.04.2001
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bg5 c5 4.e3 Be7 5.Nbd2 b6 6.Bd3 Bb7 7.c3 cxd4 8.cxd4 Nc6 9.a3 Nd5 10.Bxe7 Ncxe7 11.Ne4 Qb8 12.Ne5 f6 13.Nc4 0–0 14.Qh5 f5 15.Ng5 Nf6 16.Qh3 h6 17.Nf3 d6 18.0–0 Bd5 19.Rfc1 Rc8 20.Ncd2 Qb7 21.Ne1 Rxc1 22.Rxc1 Rc8 23.Rb1 b5 24.f3 Qb6 25.Qg3 a6 26.Qf2 Bb7 27.Nb3 Bd5 28.Nd2 Rc7 29.h3 Qb7 30.g4 Qc8 31.e4 fxe4 32.fxe4 Bb7 33.Kh2 e5 34.Nef3 Ng6 35.g5 Nf4 36.Qf1 N6h5 37.dxe5 dxe5 38.Nxe5 hxg5 39.Rd1 Re7 40.Ng4 Qc7 41.Kg1 Ng3 42.Qf2 0–1
We can conclude the protagonists in today’s game have the desire for a fight by their choice of opening, and while the game will be a positional struggle at first sight, there will also be a strong vein of tactics running through it.
5.c3 Nc6 6.Bd3 b6 7.Nbd2 0–0 8.0–0 Nd5 9.Bxe7 Qxe7
The game has gone away from specific lines the Grandmasters have played, but it retains the outlines of the GM games. White embarks on the occupation of e5. He might have done better to develop his forces a bit more with 10 Qc2, and 11 Rae1.
10.Ne5 Bb7 11.Qe2 cxd4 12.Nxc6 Bxc6 13.cxd4 f5 14.f4,..
Rather than fortifying e5, White would have been better served to get the a-Rook on the c-file. A natural follow-on move would be a2-a3 to restrict the scope of the Black Knight on d5. Looking at the GM games cited above it can be seen how important this line is in this sort of game. It is not so much that the c-file is the launching pad for some penetration, as it is the base denied the opponent and from which attacks in other directions can be made.
14..., Bb7?!
This move seems doubtful to me. Moving a rook to the c-file, or 14..., Nb4; threatening the elimination of the White Bishop are more purposeful moves.
15.a3 Rac8 16.Rac1 Kh8?!
A second move that appears to lack an immediate purpose. More to the point is 16..., g5. If then 17 Rxc8 Rxc8 18 Nc4 gxf5 19 exf5, fearlessly 19..., Qg7!, and if 20 Nd6 Qxd4+; is strong for Black. Alternatively for White if he tries 20 Qe5 Nf6 21 g3 Qf8! 22 Nd6? Ng4; wins material. White’s best is probably 22 Qe2, when Black has some slight advantage, but there is a lot of fight left in the position.
17.Ba6?!,..
The mighty Rybka says this is wrong. The electronic genius suggests trading Rooks on the c-file and pushing the e-pawn to the 4th rank. The game then becomes complicated then with a premium on tactical alertness and positional understanding. The text allows, according to Rybka, Black trade Bishops on a6 and to offer up his Q-side pawns to obtain very active play against the White King. The lines are long and fraught with tactical turns only a computer could enjoy. I doubt a human being would go down that path in serious game, maybe in Blitz but not in a tournament contest.
17..., d6 18.Bxb7 Qxb7 19.Nf3 Nf6
Black has some edge, it is not anywhere near winning. He will be able to use the square e4 for his Knight while White can not use the corresponding e5-square. I thought the game about even here.
20.Ng5?!,..
This is a gesture threatening something that has not been completely thought through. What if Black ignores the attack on e6 and plays 20..., h6? Capturing on e6 leads to favorable complications for Black after; 21 Nxe6 Rfe8 22 d5 Nxd5 23 Nd4 Nxe3 24 Rfe1 Rxc1 25 Rxc1 Qe4 26 Nc6, either 26..., Qxf4; or 26..., Rc8; give Black a big advantage. After 20..., h6; White really has nothing better than retreating the Knight to f3 or h3 leaving the initiative in Black’s hands.
20..., Qd7?!
This is too cautious.
21.Qa6?,..
The chances for White are dwindling. Here the Queen abandons the critical central squares for an adventure on the Q-side. He could try the exciting but risky 21 e4!? h6 22 exf5 hxg5 23 fxg5, with great complications that Black should be able to get through safely, or eliminate a pair of Rooks with 21 Nf3 Rc6 22 Qa6 Rfc8 23 Rxc6 Rxc6 24 Qa4 Qc7 25 Rd1 Rc2 26 Qb5 Qb7 27 Ne1, and try to defend stubbornly.
21..., Kg8 22.Qe2 h6 23.Nf3 Rc7
Black will take control of the c-file, and so his advantage increases.
24.b3?,..
A move that creates the one more weakness that White does not need right now. Ginning up some counter-play with the pawn sacrifice 24 Rxc7 Qxc7 25 d5!?, offers some hope. Play might go; 25..., Nxd5 26 Nd4, and if carelessly 26..., Kf7? 27 Qh5+, and things are not so easy for Black. Black should play the better 26..., Qc8 27 Rd1 Qd7 28 g3 Nf6 29 Qb5 Qf7 30 Rc1, and White has not lost control of the c-file.
24..., Rfc8 25.Qb2 Nd5 26.Qd2 Rc3
This last operation by Black highlights the White weaknesses at b3, c3, and e3. Saving the game is now a fading hope - too many things to defend.
27.Rfe1 Rxb3 28.e4,..
The lack of options motivates White to go for activity. It is a late try but best in the circumstances.
28..., fxe4 29.Rxe4 Rxc1+ 30.Qxc1 Rc3 31.Qd2,..
If 31 Qb2, trying to hold the a-pawn, 31..., Qa4 32 Ne1 Kf7 33 Qe2 Qc4; is strong.
31..., Rxa3 32.Qe1 Nc7!?
Not bad but less forceful than is 32..., Qa4; threatening a deadly pin on the back rank.
33.f5!,..
Tough times bring out the best from Mr. Calderone.
33..., exf5?
Missing a neat little trick. Black had to play 33..., Qa4; maintaining his advantage. He will be better when the tactical tricks run out for White.
34.Re7 Qd8 35.Qc1?,..
Zack missed the shot also. Drawing is 35 Rxc7! Qxc7 36 Qe8+ Kh7 37 Ng5+, and there is no escape from the perpetual check by the Queen. Bill Townsend found this trick as he was entering the game in his database of local game and brought it to my attention.
35..., Qxe7 36.Qxa3 Nd5 37.Kf2 f4 38.Qa2 Qf7 39.Qc4 Ne3 40.Qc8+ Kh7 41.Qh3?,..
Better 41 Qc1. Once more we see one Mr. Sells’ opponents be shaken by his time trouble. Sells’ clock was getting pretty low here, but it was Zack who seemed to have trouble maintaining his composure. I have experienced similar problems when playing Sells in time trouble. With 41 Qc1, the game still would require some play from Black. After the text it is a mating combination that could cost ruinous material loss to delay.
41..., Qa2+ 42.Kg1 Qb1+ 43.Kf2 Qf1# 0–1
Another excellent performance by Philip in time trouble. I continue to be impressed with his calmness when handling clock problems.
More soon.
12.12.2011
The Standings in Saratoga and a Game From Albany
This is the busiest time of year for local chess. The several club title events are getting close to a finish. Generously Alan Le Cours, the sparkplug of the Saratoga Club, provided an update of that championship Thursday.
This year no one in the three big clubs is running away in the title races. Saratoga is a case on point; the three highest rated players are all in the hunt for the title. The standings in Saratoga are:
1 Alan Le Cours 5 - 1
2 Gary Farrell 4 ½ - 1 ½
3 Jon Feinberg 4 - 2
4 Josh Kuperman 3 - 6
5 David Connrs 2 - 6
6 Jeff Hrebenach Withdrawn
The Saratoga event is a rather unusual double round robin tournament, not something we often see locally. Alan Le Cours has the highest score so far. He has to meet for the second time each Jon Feinberg and Gary Farrell. These games will pretty much determine this year’s title winner. In the first half of the event, Alan won from Feinberg and lost to Farrell. Feinberg and Farrell have played both of their scheduled games splitting the points with one win each. Le Cours has his fate entirely in his own hands. It should be an interesting finish. These guys have met each other often in recent years and know what to expect in the way of opening variations. We will see if someone can come up with a surprise.
One of the challenges of trying to gather these local games is picking the right game to follow when more than one side is down to just minutes on the clock. The way things often work out there will be two worthy games coming to such a pass at the same time. That was the case Wednesday at the Albany Area Chess Club. Both Wright - Magat and Henner - Caravaty had a participant with less than five minutes on the clock. I stuck with the possible upset; Chris Caravaty just might forge a draw against Mr. Henner. The unfortunate result is I did not capture the interesting finale of Wright - Magat where Gordon won. I have reconciled myself to sometime missing the good stuff.
Today we will look at what I have of the Wright - Magat game.
Wright, Tim - Magat, Gordon [D31]
AACC Championship Guilderland, NY, 07.12.2011
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 e6
White has a rather large number of choices here in the Semi Slav. He chooses to put his Knight on c3, also possible are: 4 Qc2, 4 Qb3, 4 e3, 4 Bg5, 4 g3, 4 cxd5, 4 4 b3, and 4 Nbd2. Some of the options are no more than move order choices, and some such as 4 g3, or 4 Bg5, can set the tone for many moves into the future.
4.Nc3 dxc4
And Black in his turn captures on c4 foregoing the much more common 4..., Nf6. With such experienced players you can never be exactly certain if they are trying some sophisticated move order wrinkle, or they are improvising at the board.
5.e3 b5
This line is called the Marshall Gambit in some tomes. In other works it is named the Noteboom without ..,Nf6. I don’t quite know the difference between the two. Essentially, White makes big concessions on the Q-side betting he can build an attack with pieces and pawns on the other side of the board. One thing that makes this a very interesting line for White is he has a second string to his bow; as he attacks the Black King his eye is peeled for opportunities to cripple or devalue the Black passed pawns. Here is an example by a couple of strong Russians that illustrate some of the ideas in this line:
(1148480) Klimov,Sergey (2498) - Matlakov,Maksim (2452) [D31]
St Petersburg FINEC GM St Petersburg (2), 26.01.2007
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.Nf3 dxc4 5.e3 b5 6.a4 Bb4 7.Bd2 a5 8.axb5 Bxc3 9.Bxc3 cxb5 10.b3 Bb7 11.bxc4 b4 12.Bb2 Nf6 13.Bd3 0–0 14.0–0 Nbd7 15.Nd2 Re8 16.Bc2 Qc7 17.f4 Nb6 18.Qe2 a4 19.e4 a3 20.Bc1 Nxc4 21.Nxc4 Bxe4 22.Bb3 Red8 23.Be3 Qb7 24.Rfc1 Rac8 25.Nd2 Bd5 26.Rc5 Rxc5 27.dxc5 Bxb3 28.Nxb3 Qd5 29.Qd2 Qxd2 30.Bxd2 Rd3 31.c6 Nd5 32.Bxb4 Rxb3 33.Rxa3 Rxa3 34.Bxa3 f6 35.Kf2 Kf7 36.Kf3 Ke8 ½–½
Back to our game.
6.a4 Bb4 7.Bd2 a5 8.axb5 Bxc3 9.Bxc3 cxb5 10.b3 Bb7 11.bxc4 b4 12.Bb2 Nf6 13.Bd3 Ne4 14.Ne5?!,..
White undertakes a too direct path in the next operation. More normal is 14 Qa4+, with the continuation 14..., Qd7 15 Qc2 f5 16 Ne5 Qc7 17 c5 0-0 18 f3 Nf6 19 Nc4, and White has made progress on his base plan; prepare an attack on the Black King while watching for the chance to do something about the pair of passers. The text aims to bring the Queen and Knight into close proximity to the Black King.
14..., 0–0 15.Qf3 f5 16.Qd1,..
Second thoughts cross Mr. Wright’s mind, but why all the way back to d1? The post on e2 looks a bit more reasonable for the Queen. This sort of discontinuity of thought; begin traveling down one path, and then a reversal of direction, seldom works out. I’m no great theoretician, but I suspect the loss of time unraveling what you started knitting together is why such play fails more often than it succeeds.
16..., Nd7?!,..
A routine decision to “develop” a piece. More forceful is 16..., Qg5!; and the White King will not find a safe home anywhere. There is also a good chance White will have to give up his light squared Bishop for the annoying Ne4.
17.Nf3?!,..
White would be better served by trading on d7 and driving off the Ne4 with f2-f3. Wright’s reversal of the movement of pieces to the K-side grants Black time to get his own pieces to there.
17..., Ndf6 18.h3 Qe8 19.Bc2 Qh5 20.d5?,..
This move takes what is a slightly worse position for White and makes it an outright bad situation. Conceding his 17th was mistaken with 20 Ne5 keeps the damage to a minimum. After the text, White is down a pawn with no compensation of to speak of.
20..., exd5 21.cxd5 Bxd5 22.Qd4?!,..
White seems to have lost faith in his position as evident from the last few moves. He now is wagering on making his pieces active as possible in hopes there will appear some shot that can balance the position. That is not an unnatural decision. After 22 0-0, Black will increase the pressure with 22..., Rfc8; and White will soon have to trade some minor pieces making the pair of passed pawns on the Q-side more dangerous than ever.
22..., Qf7?!
Cautious, perhaps too much so. With 22..., Rfc8; or 22..., Rfd8; Black keeps the pressure on the White game.
23.Ne5 Qa7?!
This looks wrong to me. Black must figure the endgame with two passed pawns is simply won. With so many minor pieces on the board there are many things to calculate, and White just might find a trick to make a successful defense. I would prefer 23..., Qc7 24 Ba4 Rfd8; improving the position of the Black pieces.
24.Qxa7 Rxa7 25.Bd4 Raa8 26.Ba4 Rfb8
White has gotten a lot of what he wanted. The game is complicated with many tricks possible. It is true if you can play like a computer, the position is won for Black, but after three hours of play as the day gets long not many people have a computer-like accuracy in their calculation.
27.0–0 Nd2?!
Rather than seek clarity Black goes in for complications. It maybe offering the f-pawn with 27..., Rc8 28 Nd7 Nxd7 29 Bxd7 Rd8 30 Bxf5 Nd2 31 Rfd1 Nb3; eliminating the Bd4 and setting the stage for an advance of the Q-side pawns is the correct way to play this position. There is now a period of complexity while time was getting short for both players.
28.Rfd1 Nb3 29.Nc6 Bxc6 30.Bxb3+ Kf8 31.Bxf6,..
White has achieved much. The game is near equal. The decision to go for material is understandable. Tougher is 31 Be5 Rb5 32 Bd6+ Ke8 33 Ba4 Rb6 34 Bxc6 Rxc6 35 Bxb4, eliminating one of the passed pawns making the game nearly equal. Mr. Wright may have been motivated by a wish to get back to the hunt for the title by winning this game. I am not certain the position justifies playing for a win by White, but that is one of those decisions easier to make after the fact than in the heat of battle.
31..., gxf6 32.Rd6 Be8 33.Rxf6+ Kg7 34.Rxf5 a4 35.Bd5 Bg6?!
It is harder meet 35..., Ra5. The position then looks won for Black. After the text the game equalizes.
36.Bxa8 Bxf5 37.Rxa4 b3 38.Bd5 b2 39 Ba2 0–1
I was not able to get the remaining moves. They were played at a very rapid pace, and both players were down to about two minutes on the clocks. Eventually, Black won. The victory vaulted Gordon Magat into the lead. In the final few rounds all will be targeting Gordon, but I like his chances.
More soon.
12.10.2011
I Don't Always Get It Right!
A CORRECTION: My last post had some erroneous conclusions because I had not properly verified all the results were entered in my records. My good friend Richard Chu pointed out my errors and omissions on the results for Section B. With the help of our tournament director, and the keeper of all records for Schenectady, Bill Townsend, I was able to bring my records up to date. My apologies for the mistakes. Here is what I should have said:
The situation in Section B correctly stated is; Matthew Clough has completed all of his games and scored 1 ½ points and Herman Calderone has also completed all his games achieving the same score. David Connors reached 1 ½ points with two games to play. It is conceivable that Mr. Connors could finish in a higher place than Clough or Calderone. Richard Chu has scored 2 points with one game to play. The withdrawal of Akhil Kamma, confirmed Thursday evening, means the contest for last spot in the finals from Section B is between Chu and Connors. Connors has to play Phillips and Le Cours, two strong Class A players and score at least one draw to tie with Chu’s current score. Chu has to play Alan Le Cours. In years past Mr. Chu has won twice from Mr. Le Cours. It is possible that Richard will increase his point total. So, the third qualifying spot remains undecided. The struggle to qualify for the Schenectady Finals is usually tough right down to the end, This year follows the pattern.
More soon.
12.09.2011
Thursday at Schenectady
Thursday evening was a make up round for the Schenectady Preliminaries. Even with Thursday’s games in the record there are several more to be made up. Without question play will not be finished until after the holidays because Connors and Le Cours are involved in just about all of the games still to be played.
Thursday saw an upset; Herman Calderone held Alan Le Cours to a draw. The 400+ point rating difference made this a surprise for sure. Their Queen’s Pawn Game/Colle System opening took a slightly odd turn early on and the game was drawn by repetition on move 25. Mr. Calderone has had a pretty good outing in this year’s preliminaries. He still has one game to play versus Matt Clough and has scored three draws with two losses so far. If he wins from Clough, finishing at -1 when you are the lowest rated player is not too bad at all. I don’t expect this set-back to prevent Alan Le Cours from qualifying for the Finals. He has to face Richard Chu and his Saratoga club mate, David Connors. Mr. Le Cours has good records against these two, and the withdrawal of Ahkil Kamma from the Finals removes most of the uncertainty for Alan’s qualification.
The other Calderone, Herman’s son and rising scholastic player, Zack, fought hard against Philip Sells, one of the leaders in Section A. Mr. Sells got into his usual difficulties with the clock, although for Sells it was by no means the worst case of time trouble he has successfully navigated. Sells’ clock problems seemed to have a bigger effect on Zack than it did on Philip. In the final few moves, Zack missed a trick that could have rescued the half-point. Even if Zack had managed to draw, Sells would have still qualified to the Finals. However, that possible half-point would have helped Zack in his quest for a qualifying spot. As it is, the third seat in the Finals may well be decided by the Zachery Calderone - Aaron Dilip game to be played soon. If either can win and reach a 4 - 2 score to join Sells and Varela in the Finals from Section A it will be nice step forward for a young player.
Matt Clough and David Connors played an odd line in the Scandinavian. But for a couple of oversights, the game was well played. Mr. Connors emerged the winner in an endgame where he saw the longish sequence leading to the win instantly when it became available. He played the finish surely and confidently. This win probably settled the battle not to be the “tail ender” in the section, however both players have more make up games: Clough has to play Richard Chu, and Connors has Le Cours and Phillips yet to play. Upsets in these last contests could change the order of finish. Connors’ task is at least twice as hard as is Clough’s. Mr. Chu is sometimes variable, and it not inconceivable he might drop a point to Mr. Clough. Mr. Connors is variable in his own right. When he plays his best, David can upset contenders. He’s done so in the tough Saratoga Championship in years past. The upshot is there are still games to be played in both sections, and all outcomes are not yet completely clear.
More soon.
12.08.2011
The From's Gambit 2
Wednesday evening, December 7th, a truncated round was played at the Albany Area Chess Club. Not playing were; Howard, Lack, and Alowitz. Three games took place; Gordon Magat defeated Tim Wright, Peter Henner won over Chris Caravaty and Cory Northrup and Jason Denham fought to a draw.
Updating the standings in the AACC contest with the elimination of Ahkil Kamma’s games:
1 Magat 4 - 1
2 Howard 2 ½ 1 ½
3 Henner 2 - 1
4 Alowitz 2 -2
5&6 Lack 1 ½ - 1 ½
5&6 Northrup 1 ½ - ½
7 Wright 1 ½ - 2 ½
8&9 Denham 1 - 3
8&9 Caravaty 1 - 3
The games among Magat, Howard and Henner are still to be played and will have a significant effect on the final standings. Mr. Magat has a pretty good lead. With a little luck and some good chess he has maybe the best chances to win the title this year. His closest competitors will do all they can to prevent that no doubt.
In my last post there was a great deal of material on historic games in the From’s. There will be far less background material this time mostly because this pair; Henner and Wright take the game out of theory quickly.
Henner, Peter - Wright, Tim [A02]
AACC Championship Guilderland, NY, 30.11.2011
1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Nc3 0–0 6.d4!?,..
A committal move. It takes control of a piece of the center but leaves behind some holes. Safer is 6 e3.
6..., h6 7.g3 Bg4 8.Bg2 c6!?
This is not a position found in theory. Rybka says White is maybe a bit better than expected for having the first move, but it is not a lot. Rather than the last move, Black could have played 8..., Nc6; when Rybka sees Black nearly equal. He has gained a tempo or two for the pawn. After the text White is catching up in development. To repeat from the last post; Black has to strive for maximum activity and tension, he has, after all, given up a pawn.
9.Qd3 Na6 10.a3 Re8 11.Bf4?!,..
White here is seduced by the same devil as was Caravaty; opposite side castling. In general castling on different sides of the board raise the tension in the position and set the stage for sacrificial attacks. White has a pawn in the bag. Why does White want to set up a rich tactical environment? Consolidation should be the order of the day for him.
11..., Bxf4 12.gxf4 Qd6?
Black has the right idea, he just picks the wrong piece with which to attack f4. Here 12..., Nh5 13 Qd2 Bxf3 14 Bxf3 Qh4+ 15 Kd1 Nxf4; recovers the pawn, and Black has more than equalized. White now obtains a significant advantage.
13.Ne5 Nc7 14.Ne4 Nxe4 15.Bxe4 Be6 16.0–0–0?!,..
A moment where Aagaard’s unforced thinking could have been invoked. The assumption that castling is always good, or necessary before undertaking attacking operations influences Mr. Henner. White could have gotten his full due with 16 Rg1, then if 16..., Rad8 17 Qg3, just about forces 17..., Qf1; and then castling for White achieves a smooth development with good chances to continue the attack.
16..., Red8 17.Rhg1 Ne8
Black was given the time to clear e8 for this Knight. Now it is true White is still a lot better, however Black has been able to craft a defense.
18.f5 Bd5 19.Bxd5 cxd5 20.Qg3 Qf6?!
Better is 20..., f6; it makes for a sturdier bulwark. Had Black played so there might have been a chance to make something out of the half open c-file.
21.Ng4?!,..
Just shifting the King to b1 avoids the check coming.
21..., Qg5+
Black now forces off the Queens reducing the heat in the direct attack. This is a sensible and practical decision. Black still has the pawn deficit to deal with in the ending, but there are always chances in endings with the Rooks on to craft a draw.
22.Kb1 h5 23.Ne5 Qxg3 24.Rxg3 Nd6?
The Knight was doing good duty on e8. Moving him away a beat too soon leads to troubles.
25.Rdg1 Nxf5 26.Rg5,..
Either Mr. Wright undervalued this lateral attack, or he misevaluated the ensuing positions.
26... f6 27.Rxf5 fxe5 28.Rxe5 Re8 29.Rgg5 h4
The White Rooks are very actively posted, so much so it is hard to see Black not trading off a pair soon.
30.Kc1 Rad8 31.Kd2,..
The e-pawn is now secured and Black has to get rid of a pair of Rooks lest all his forward pawns are plundered.
31..., Rxe5 32.Rxe5 g6 33.Ke3?!,..
White has a very good position. The choice here is how to proceed. White can bring his King forward, he can put the Rook on the seventh, or the e-pawn can be advanced. I would prefer going to the seventh rank with the Rook. That is where the Rook belongs. Perhaps Peter was motivated by the wish to keep the Black Rook from getting any activity. The game shows the Black rook can find something active to do because the White King can not support his Q-side pawns. It turns out this activity is not enough to offset the advantage White has.
Here is a sample line with the Rook on the seventh; 33 Re7 Rf8 34 Rxb7 Rf2 35 h3 Rh2 36 Rb3, then the White Rook will shift to e3 or f3 and the Q-side pawns can’t be stopped because the White Rook cuts off the Black King. This seems to me to be a less worrisome way to exploit the advantage than the game continuation. Of course, it really is a question of style, and there are many ways to finish.
33... Kf7 34.Kf4,..
White has his sights set on the h-pawn. With no direct defense possible, Black tries to make something useful out of his Rook.
34..., Kf6
It may be better to play 34..., Rd6; first. Getting some freedom for the Rook along the sixth rank offers a glimmer of hope. Play might continue; 35 Kg4 Rc6 36 c3 Rb6 37 b4 Rc6 38 Rxd5 Rxc6 39 Rd7+ Ke6 40 Rxb7 Rxa3 41 e4 Re3 42 Kf4 Re2 43 Rxa7 g5+!? 44 Kf3? Rxh2; and Black has some slim hopes of finding a draw. However, if White plays better he has a won game after 44 Kxg5, leading to White having two widely separate passed pawns, a standard winning position.
35.Kg4 Rd6 36.Kxh4 Rb6 37.Rxd5 Rxb2 38.Rc5 Ra2 39.Rc3,..
White has pocketed a second pawn. It is now a matter of getting the central passers rolling. The White Rook and King are excellent convoys for the pawns. It will not make much difference to the outcome if one, or even two of the laggard White pawns are captured, the d & e-pawns will carry the day.
39..., a6 40.e4 Ra1 41.Kg3 Rg1+ 42.Kf2 Rd1 43.Rf3+ Ke6 44.Ke3 Re1+ 45.Kd3 b5 46.Rg3 Kf6 47.e5+ Kg7 48.Re3 Rd1+ 49.Ke4 Rd2 50.Kd5 Kg8 51.Rc3 Rxh2 52.Ke6 g5 53.d5 g4 54.d6 Rh6+ 55.Kf5 Rh5+ 56.Kf6 Rh6+ 57.Kg5 Rh3 58.Rc8+ 1–0
And so, two From’s Gambits side-by-side came to grief on this evening. The fault in both cases can be laid to two causes; this gambit is not quite sound, and if you mean to play the Gambit, understanding the need to increase the tension while getting the maximum activity for your pieces is crucial. The From’s is a gamble, even more so than the King’s Gambit. At every turn, Black has to weigh up the choices and must go for that which is most active. To repeat Jon Leisner’s dictum; to play the From’s you must be aggressive and accurate.
More soon.
12.07.2011
Watching London
And New York's own Hikaru Nakamura beat 2 of the top three players in the world this week, including the World Champion! Will he win the whole event??? Stay tuned.
12.06.2011
The From's Gambit 1
There was a curiosity in the round of the AACC Championship on the last day of November; two Bird’s Openings, From’s Gambits played side by side. Caravaty - Denham and Henner - Wright. This is not a vary usual opening sequence, not locally nor internationally. Having two together has to be a maybe a one time occurrence.
Caravaty, Chris - Denham, Jason [A02]
AACC Championship Guilderland, NY, 30.11.2011
1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6
One reason why we don’t find many From’s Gambits in the databases is White can always play 2 f4, converting the game into the King’s Gambit, an opening with tons of theory. The Grandmasters do this frequently.
Here are a couple of games that Bird himself played against the second World Champion. Lasker used the From’s in both. It can’t be said Lasker got any great things out of the opening. He did however, obtain a position with many chances for Black to make and keep the game tactical, just what Lasker liked.
(1477) Bird,Henry Edward - Lasker,Emanuel [A02]
Newcastle on Tyne (2), 1892
1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 g5 5.d4 g4 6.Ne5 Bxe5 7.dxe5 Qxd1+ 8.Kxd1 Nc6 9.Bf4 Be6 10.e3 Nge7 11.Bb5 0–0–0+ 12.Kc1 Bd5 13.Rg1 a6 14.Be2 Be6 15.Nc3 h6 16.Bd3 Ng6 17.Bxg6 fxg6 18.Rd1 Rde8 19.e4 g5 20.Bg3 Rhf8 21.b3 h5 22.Rd2 h4 23.Bf2 Nxe5 24.Be3 h3 25.Bxg5 g3 26.hxg3 Rf1+ 27.Kb2 Rxa1 28.Kxa1 h2 29.Rd1 Ng4 30.Rh1 Bf7 31.Kb2 c6 32.Kc1 Bg6 33.Kd2 Rxe4 34.Nd1 Rd4+ 35.Ke2 Rxd1 36.Rxd1 Be4 37.Rd8+ Kc7 38.Rd1 Bxg2 39.Bd8+ Kc8 40.Bb6 Bd5 0–1
(1813) Bird,Henry Edward - Lasker,Emanuel [A02]
Hastings (5), 1895
1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.g3 f5 5.d3 Nf6 6.c3 Nc6 7.Bg2 Ne5 8.Nd2 Qe7 9.Nf1 Bd7 10.Bf4 0–0 11.Bxe5 Bxe5 12.Qc2 Kh8 13.Bf3 Rab8 14.Qd2 Rfe8 15.h3 Qd6 16.Kf2 c5 17.e3 Bb5 18.Rd1 Rbd8 19.c4 Bc6 20.Qe2 b5 21.b3 bxc4 22.bxc4 Ba4 23.Rb1 Rb8 24.Nd2 Bxg3+ 25.Kg2 Bh4 26.Rh2 Bc2 27.Rxb8 Rxb8 28.d4 cxd4 29.exd4 Re8 30.Qf1 Re1 31.c5 Qxd4 32.Qxe1 Bxe1 33.Nb3 Bxb3 34.axb3 Qxc5 0–1
Since those very early days, the Bird’s shows up more frequently in weekend Swiss tournaments that it does in the more serious international contests. Nevertheless, every once in awhile a strong player rolls it out.
The next example sees a strong Russian GM suffer at the hands of a young IM when the IM attacks thematically on the K-side. Black invests a pawn in the opening. To make that worthwhile he must find the maximum activity for his pieces and keep the White pieces bottled up for as long as possible.
(639269) Kholmov, Ratmir D (2427) - Colin, Vincent (2327) [A02]
Olomouc Mipap Cup (8), 07.08.2001
1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 g5 5.g3 g4 6.Nh4 Ne7 7.d4 Ng6 8.Ng2 Nc6 9.c3 h5 10.Qd3 h4 11.Nf4 Qf6 12.Nxg6 fxg6 13.Bg2 hxg3 14.hxg3 Rxh1+ 15.Bxh1 Bf5 16.Bxc6+ bxc6 17.e4 Qe6 18.Nd2 g5 19.Kd1 Bg6 20.b4 Kf7 21.Qf1+ Kg7 22.e5 Be7 23.Nc4 Rf8 24.Qe2 Rf3 25.Be3 Qf5 26.Ke1 Rxg3 27.Rc1 Rh3 28.Bg1 g3 29.Qg2 Qe4+ 30.Qxe4 Bxe4 31.Ke2 g4 32.Nd2 Bg5 33.Re1 Bg6 34.Nf1 g2 35.Ne3 Be4 36.Bf2 Bf4 37.Bg1 Bh2 38.Nxg4 Bf3+ 39.Kf2 Bg3+ 40.Kxf3 Bxe1+ 41.Ke2 Bxc3 42.Ne3 Bxb4 43.Nxg2 Rg3 44.Kf2 Ra3 45.Nf4 Rxa2+ 46.Kf3 Kf7 47.Ke4 Be7 48.Nd3 a5 49.Be3 a4 50.d5 cxd5+ 51.Kxd5 a3 52.Kc4 Re2 53.Bd4 Re4 0–1
Here are two even higher rated players in a stern battle. Black gives little regard to such positional niceties such as pawn structure in an effort to make things happen on the board. Jon Leisner, one of our local lights and a long time Bird’s player was watching the two AACC games at the club. He offered this bit of wisdom: If you play the From’s you must get activity and the initiative, or it is just a lost pawn. See how that is done here.
(652090) Danielsen, Henrik (2526) - Stern, Rene (2474) [A02]
BL2-Nord 0102 Germany (7.1), 17.03.2002
1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 g5 5.g3 Nc6 6.Nc3 g4 7.Nh4 Be7 8.Ng2 h5 9.Nf4 h4 10.Bg2 hxg3 11.hxg3 Rxh1+ 12.Bxh1 Qd4 13.e3 Qh8 14.Bxc6+ bxc6 15.Qe2 Nf6 16.Qg2 Bb7 17.e4 Nd7 18.d3 Ne5 19.Be3 Nf3+ 20.Kf2 0–0–0 21.Rh1 Qf8 22.Rh5 Bf6 23.Qh1 Qb4 24.Qa1 Bd4 25.Ng2 c5 26.a3 Qb6 27.Qa2 Qf6 28.Bxd4 Nxd4+ 29.Nf4 Nxc2 30.Qc4 Ba6 31.Qxc5 Rxd3 32.Qxa7 Rd2+ 33.Kg1 Qd4+ 34.Qxd4 Nxd4 35.Rh8+ Kb7 36.b4 Nf3+ 37.Kh1 Bf1 38.Rh6 Rc2 0–1
In the next game Kotronias, a strong Greek GM does well until deep in the ending. He miss-plays the three pawns versus Rook finish and gives up an unnecessary half-point. Black handles the opening, the middle game and most of the ending nicely keeping a win in hand. I suspect time trouble led to the slip just before cashing in the full point.
(712429) Grunberg, Mihai (2445) - Kotronias, Vasilios (2578) [A02]
Kavala (8), 16.08.2002
1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 g5 5.d4 g4 6.Ne5 Bxe5 7.dxe5 Qxd1+ 8.Kxd1 Nc6 9.Nc3 Be6 10.Bf4 0–0–0+ 11.Ke1 h6 12.e3 Nge7 13.Bd3 Ng6 14.Bxg6 fxg6 15.Rd1 g5 16.Bg3 h5 17.Ne4 Rdg8 18.Nc5 Re8 19.e4 h4 20.Bf2 g3 21.hxg3 Bg4 [21...hxg3] 22.gxh4 Bxd1 23.Kxd1 Nxe5 24.h5 Ng4 25.Ke2 b6 26.Nd3 Rxe4+ 27.Kf3 Nf6 28.h6 c5 29.Be1 Re6 30.Bc3 c4 31.Ne5 Nd5 32.Ng6 Rh7 33.Nf8 Rf7+ 34.Kg4 Rxf8 35.h7 Nxc3 36.h8Q Rxh8 37.Rxh8+ Kb7 38.bxc3 Re2 39.Rh2 Rxc2 40.Kxg5 Rxa2 41.Rh7+ Kc6 42.g4 a5 43.Kf4 Rf2+ 44.Ke3 Rg2 45.Rg7 Kb5 46.g5 Ka4 47.Kf3 Rc2 48.g6 Rxc3+ 49.Kf2 Rd3 50.Rc7 Kb4 51.g7 Rd8 52.Rc6 b5 53.Rg6 a4 54.g8Q Rxg8 55.Rxg8 a3 56.Ke3 Kc3 57.Ke4 a2 58.Rg3+ Kb2 59.Rg2+ Kb3 60.Rg3+ Kb2 61.Rg2+ Kb3 62.Rg1 c3 63.Kd3 b4 64.Rh1 c2 65.Rc1 Kb2 66.Rxc2+ Kb1 67.Rh2 b3 68.Kc4 ½–½
After all that background information we return to the local game.
3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 Bg4!?
Either 4..., g5; or 4..., Nf6; are the standard tries for Black. Way back in 1903 Marshall played the text against Albin at Monte Carlo and won with this move. Marshall’s victory was despite the text. There were several points at which the American champion was lost. Alpin got tamgled in the complications Marshall kept piling on and was out played in the ending.
Mr. Caravaty provided me with notes on his game with Denham. In the notes he is critical of 5 g3. Correct is 5 e3. Chris was worried about the Black Queen checking on h4. The answer is of course, take off the Queen on h4, lose the Queen on d1 and just be a pawn up going into an ending.
5.g3 Nf6 6.Nc3 c6
Mr. Denham starts to play as if the position is “normal”. It isn’t. Black gave up a pawn. So called normal play just lets White have the better game. Worth consideration here is 6..., Qe7; angling for long castling. Black has to make every effort to introduce tension into the position and strive for maximum piece activity. If you gambit, every tempo is precious. Black has in mind a Q&B battery on the h2-b8 diagonal. The one extra move it takes to achieve that end is too much. White will have time to meet the idea.
7.Bg2 0–0 8.d3 Qc7 9.Be3 Nbd7 10.Qd2 Rfe8 11.Bf4?,..
It is not good to move a piece a second time in the opening in general. Here specifically 11 0-0-0, is logical but maybe not quite right. The computer likes the move 11 a3, to see, I guess, if Black is going to rush his Q-side pawns forward. Probably best of all is 11 0-0, leaving White a reasonable game after Be3-f2, and e2-e4.
White has fastened on the idea that Black is going to sacrifice at g3 and he hurries to defuse that imagined threat. Let us say White played 11 0-0, and Black went right for the throat with 11..., Nh5; then 12 Ne5, hit’s the Bd6 and reinforces g3. Any all-out sacrificial assault beginning with say 12..., Nxg3 13 Nxg3 Bxg3 14 hxg3 Qxg3; comes to great sorrow after 15 Bf4 trapping the Queen. Other variants of the idea lose lesser material but are just as fatal to the Black cause.
Black made a gesture - building the battery - White reacts to what is a bogus threat, and the game takes an illogical path for the moment. After the text, the game equalizes and the comfortable edge White has had since the pawn was won is gone.
11..., Nb6?
Suspect first because it is not forceful enough and second because there is a better move; 11..., Bxf4; then if 12 gxf4 Nh5; and White will have to give back the pawn. He does have some open files bearing on the Black King, but there are defensive resources available, the Bishop can go back to g6 for example. If you are going to play the From’s, running risks are part of the price.
Here is a game Mockler and I played a few years ago
Mockler, Michael - Little, Bill [A02]
SCC Championship Schenectady, NY, 06.11.2006
1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 g5 4.d4 g4 5.Ng5 d5 6.exd6 Bxd6 7.c3 Be7 8.Ne4 Be6 [8...f5 9.Qb3] 9.Nf2 f5 10.Qd3 Qd7 11.Bf4 0–0–0 12.Nd2 Nf6 13.Qb5 Nd5 14.Nd3 a6 15.Qa4 Nb6 16.Qc2 Nd5 17.0–0–0 Nxf4 18.Nxf4 Bxa2 19.e4 fxe4 20.Qxe4 Bg5 21.g3 Rhe8 22.Qc2 Bxf4 23.gxf4 Bd5 24.Bd3 Rf8 25.Rhf1 h5 26.Bg6 h4 27.f5 Ne7 28.Bh7 Rf6 29.Ne4 Bxe4 30.Qxe4 Rdf8 31.Qxg4 Nd5 32.Bg8 [32.Rg1] 32...Ne3 33.Qh3 Rxf5 34.Rxf5 Rxg8 35.Rdf1 Nxf5 36.Rxf5 Rh8 37.Qf3 Qe6 38.Re5 Qh6+ 39.Kb1 Rf8 40.Qg4+ Kb8 41.Rh5 Qd2 42.Rxh4 Rf2 43.Qg8+ Ka7 44.Qb3 Rf1+ 45.Ka2 Qe1 46.Qc4 Qxh4 47.Qxf1 Qxh2 ½–½
Mike erred when he lost the a-pawn, and I failed at the end of the game to cash in the full point by missing 44..., Qe1+; and 45..., Rf5; winning material. The game, even with its flaws illustrates the style that is necessary if you want to play the Form’s with chances for success.
12.e4 Nfd5 13.Bxd6 Qxd6 14.0–0–0?!,..
The Knight move to b6 was a second tempo squandered, and it let White get back to a comfortable advantage. Now White gives Black something to play for; opposite side castling means the enemy pawns in front of your King can often advance without a care. If they are lost, open files appear.
14..., Nc7?
White offered Black the chance to find some pressure to balance the material deficit. Ambitious but not quite enough is; 14..., Nxc3 15 Qxc3 Na4 16 Qb3 b5 17 d4 a5. White is still better, but he has things to calculate on the Q-side. Not every time will you find a move or sequence that brings you equality. Sometimes you have to settle for just a position with chances. It makes sense here to try and generate counter-play with a Q-side pawn advance for Black.
15.Qf4 Qxf4+ 16.gxf4 Rad8
Now with the Queens off and White dominating the center, Black has no hope other than maintaining a solid defense while waiting for a chance to trade down into some endgame that might be held.
17.h3 Bh5 18.Rd2 Ne6 19.Ne2 f6 20.f5 Nc5 21.Nf4 Bf7 22.Kb1,..
Chris commented here: “My attention wrongly is diverted to my pawn (a2).. Its OK but 22 Rg1, or 22 Bf1, would be better..”
22..., a5 23.Rg1 Kh8 24.Bf1 Na6
The last few moves and the coming several are all clear. White will build pressure down the g-file and look for a breakthrough. Black is calculating how he can keep things barricaded for as long as possible.
25.Rdg2?,..
A blunder that could have really changed the course of the game. White missed 25..., Rxe4!, there is a mate if 26 dxe4. Chris said: “My biggest blunder of the game. Completely missed that my Bishop newly on the back rank created a weakness!” Better are 25 h4, or 25 b3, as mentioned by Chris in his notes. Had Black caught the move he would come out of the flurry of tactics with at equality and maybe some advantage.
25..., Rg8 26.Be2 Nc7 27.h4 Rd7 28.h5 h6 29.Nh4 Be8 30.Nhg6+ Kh7 31.Bd1?!,..
To this point White has done an admirable job of confining the Black pieces, and Mr. Caravaty has used the first principle of good technique; maintain the advantage won, don’t dilute it by entering unclear complications. Everything is in place for a break now, it has all been prepared. So, to what purpose this retreat to the first rank? White apparently can not quite make up his mind to go forward with 31 e5. This little push brings down the Black defenses after 31..., Ncd5 32 Ne6 Rf7 33 d4 fxe5 34 dxe5 Rxf5 35 Bd3, or 34..., Ne3 35 Rg3 Nxf5 36 Rf3 Nd5 37 Bd3 Nde3 38 Nh5, with a winning position for White. The problem is once you have reached the maximum level of positional dominance, it is hard to just hold on to that advantage if you don’t continue with the natural break when all is ready. This is what happens in the game.
31..., Nc8 32.Rg3 b5 33.c3 Nb6 34.Bb3,..
This whole rather slow idea has to be commended but with a little reluctance. White wants to increase his advantage with the elimination of the Bishops. The break outlined above converts the positional advantage to a concrete material advantage. As pieces come off the absolute bind White has achieved can loosen up. Of course, it can not be forgotten the winning chances are all for White because of his extra pawn.
34..., Bf7 35.Bxf7?..,
White misses a really tough move for Black to meet; 35 Be6! Chris said about this: “I go about my plan of trading off the bad Bishop. During the course of this I completely missed a killer blow 35 Be6! Ahh, didn’t this register in my mind? Error, mindless automatic capture when better continuations exist.” A good place to bring up Aagaard’s forced and forced thinking concept. Forced thinking = assuming things are true in slightly changed position versus unforced thinking = looking at each position as it occurs with fresh eyes challenging your previous assumptions. And, as Keres said: “When I find a moves that wins, I always go back to search for a move that wins faster!”
34..., Rxf7 36.Kc2?!,..
Once more White takes the slower approach. The move 36 Ne6, increasing the pressure on g7, is reasonable. If Black plays 36..., Ne8 37 Nd4 Rc7 38 Kc2, and White continues his python-like appraoch.
36..., c5 37.b3?,..
This eases things for Black, not enough to say the game is equalizing but the squeeze eases up.
37..., Rd8?
Better 37..., Re8. The text allows 38 Ne6, and then 38..., Rc8 39 Ne5! fxe5 40 Rxg7+ Rxg7 41 Rxg7+ Kh8 42 Rxc7, converting to an ending up two pawns with one a protected “passer”. All-in-all a relatively easy win for White.
38.Nh4?,..
Unable to see his way through the fog on the battlefield, White maneuvers letting bind slip some more.
38..., Ne8 39.Ne6 Rc8 40.Ng6 c4 41.bxc4 bxc4 42.d4 Na4 43.Ngf4?,..
White maneuvers his Knights further when 43 Rb1, to keep trouble from popping up on the b-file, is better. Chris said here: “Worst move of the game. New open file created, new and only open file - OCCUPY IT!” He said further: “I’ve lost everything to do with my advantage, how miserable.” I think Mr. Caravaty is too critical here. White does still have the pawn.
43..., Rb8 44.Rb1 Rxb1 45.Kxb1 Nxc3+?
After a heroic defense, Mr. Denham just does not see c3 is defended. It is sad he did find 45..., Nd6! The move is not enough once again to equalize, but it sets problems for White by continuing the stubborn defense. The game move drops a piece and the game ended. If Black tries to equalize material with 45..., Nd6! 46 Re3 Rb7+ 47 Kc1, and if47..., Rb2 48 Nc5 Rf2 49 Ne2 Nb6 50 a3, frustrates that effort. Black can play differently with 47..., Rb5 48 Ng6 Ne8 49 e5 Rb7 50 Nef4, when the central passed pawns looms large. Either way White has a big advantage.
46.Rxc3 1–0
When Black gives a pawn in the opening he must be well prepared and willing to take risks. Failure to do so leads to the unpleasant task of defending a position that can only be held if the opponent fumbles. Now, at the local level we certainly make those fumbles too frequently, but counting on mistakes is not the path to enjoying chess. It is much better to make things interesting on the board for both players by introducing risks and tension. Even if the risks boomerang on you, your tactical sense will improve with practice.
MM Botvinnik long ago said the way to improve your chess is to analyze your games and get them out to as wide as audience as possible. Getting critical feedback on both the play and the analysis will help you move forward as a player. Chris Caravaty’s notes helped me greatly while putting together this post. It is something all players should do as often as they can.
More on the From’s soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
