Although this game went on for 51 moves, it was really essentially over in one-half that length. The Class A player, Lack, uses his endgame skill to make the win look easy.
Alowitz, Arthur - Lack, Jonathan [C01]
AACC Championship Guilderland, NY, 26.01.2012
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5
The Exchange French is not sharp opening by any means. One place that either side can get into trouble is the e-file. They’d both like use a d-file square (d3/d6)for their King’s Bishop - it is the most active spot for that cleric. It is, however, more important not to fall in to an annoying pin along the e-file. That might interfere with castling: active piece posting is important, King safety critical.
4.Nf3 c6
More popular are 4..., Nf6; and 4..., Bd6. With either alternative Black is getting on with making way for early castling. The text slows accomplishment of that important goal and is played far less frequently.
5.Bd3 Nf6 6.0–0 Be7
Black does not care for 6..., Bd6 7 Re1+ Be6 8 Ng5, and the light squared Bishop goes off for the Knight. This is not really terrible. Black’s light squared Bishop is his less useful one, and he can recapture with the f-pawn potentially strengthening his center while getting an open f-file on which to work. Along with those facts, White would have used a tempo or two to do the work. Black can possibly enforce an eventual .., e6-e5; obtaining more say in the center. But as with most practical things chess players encounter, there are aspects of the position that favor White; he does have the Bishop pair, and if there is enough time to prevent .., e6-e5; the Black e-pawn can be a target. Also, the area around the Black King is not quite as strong as it is with three pawns guarding those points.
7.Re1 0–0 8.Nbd2,..
Going slow. Faster is 8 Bf4, while leaving open the choice between the Knight going to c3 or d2. I think it was in my last post I mentioned Korchnoi’s observation; unless you have a good reason, Knights belong on c3/f3. The slowness of the idea unfolding is good reason listen to Korchnoi.
8..., Bg4 9.Nf1 Re8
Another somewhat ambiguous moment; where should this Rook go? If behind the e-pawn that may appear on e6, there is a good chance Black can force ..,e6-e5; if he stays at home on the f-file, and the e-pawn comes into being, there may be some kind of attack that can be made down the f-file.
10.Ne3,..
Continuing in the leisurely manner. Perhaps White left the Bc1 at home out of concern about b2. There are tactical reasons that the attack on b2/d4 is not particularly fearsome. Here is a sample line; 10 Bf4 Qb6 11 h3 Bxf3 12 Qxf3, and if 12..., Qxd4?! 13 Ng3 Nbd7? 14 Rxe7 Rxe7 15 Nf5 Qb4 16 c3 Qxb2 17 Ne7+ Kh8 18 Rb1, and even though White may have invested three pawns, his chances are not bad. He has attacking possibilities.
10..., Be6
There is abroad in our local chess community a prejudice about Bishops. I had a warm discussion with Akhil Kamma before he left the area illustrative of this attitude; Bishops are always the superior of Knights. There is probably more written in technical chess books about BxN transaction than almost anything else. Soltis devoted a chapter in his 2004 book Rethinking the Chess Pieces, Batford, London offering a condensation of the varying wisdom of the Grandmasters over the last two centuries. He summed up the modern view as; Bishops have the potential to dominate Knights, but two concrete factors have to be considered; strong central squares for the Knights, and can one of the Bishop pair be traded off?
With those specific factors in mind, it was likely better for Black to try; 10..., Bxf3 11 Qxf3 Bf8 12 Bd2 Nbd7 13 c4 Ne5 14 Bc3 Ndf6; and Black has what he needs; a grip on e4 and the opportunity of trading the Bc3. The text move appears motivated by wish to keep his Bishop that is more or less doomed to fail.
11.Ng5 Nbd7
And so, the upshot is Black gives up the light squared Bishop anyway, but now his Rook is not on the file. Not certain if that is a plus or a minus.
12.Nxe6 fxe6 13.Ng4 Bd6 14.Bg5 Qc7 15.g3 Nxg4 16.Qxg4 e5 17.dxe5?,..
Black got to do what he wanted, and up to this move White has played well enough to maintain the advantage of the first move. Mr. Alowitz now tries to play simply and gets into trouble. Justification for his preceding moves lies in keeping the Bishop pair. The way he goes results in the better of his Bishops being removed letting the advantage swing over to Black. The testing line is; 17 c4 e4 18 Bc2 Bb4 19 Re2 Nb6 20 cxd5 cxd5 21 f3, threatening to open up the position to the benefit of the Bishops. The text costs a vital pawn and weakens the White pawn formation and his King. All that together means the game is won for Black, if he has the technique and the patience to carry out what is necessary. One characteristic difference between those Class B and down, when compares to Class A/Experts is endgame technique. Subsequent play in this game demonstrates this difference.
17..., Nxe5 18.Qh5 g6 19.Qd1 Qf7 20.Bf4 Nxd3 21.Rxe8+ Rxe8 22.Qxd3 Bxf4 23.gxf4 Qxf4
Black has secured the advantage; a sound extra pawn, control of the e-file with holes around the White King to exploit. Making a successful defense will be hugely difficult for White unless Mr. Lack is tempted into some kind of tactical interlude.
24.Rd1 Re5 25.Rf1,..
White can’t seem to find anything useful to try. Possibly because he sees the bad situation and is waiting for a mistake when he can strike back. The question is raised will Lack’s technique hold? I had no doubt. Mr. Lack made a serious effort to improve his score after a poor start, and this is too much of a textbook example for someone of his rating not to be able to solve the exercise.
25..., Qe4?!
After just saying his technique should hold, Mr. Lack takes not quite the optimal line. Simplest is; 25..., Rg5+ 26 Kh1 Qg4 27 Qg3 Qe2; and either all the pieces come off leaving the bare pawn endgame won for Black, or 28 Qh3 Rf5; ties down the White pieces and the problems grow worse for White. The Q-side pawns may be captured. The point f2 needs guarding. The White King is in danger if the Queen goes on a sortie. Something will give soon. Instead he forces a Rook and pawn endgame that is still won but several more moves must be played. With the Rooks on the board, White has some hopes of a draw in the far reaches of the ending if he can just avoid further loss.
26.Qxe4 Rxe4 27.c3 Re2 28.Rb1 Kf7 29.Kg2 Kf6 30.Kf3 Re5 31.Rd1 Re4 32.Rd2 Kf5 33.Rd1 Rf4+ 34.Kg3 Ke5 35.f3 Rf7 36.Re1+ Kd6
Black well knows the standard prescription in the sort of position; trade Rooks, make a passed pawn to drag the White King away, then use this distraction to create an unstoppable “passer”. He has not put jeopardy the winning formula in any way.
37.Re8 Re7 38.Rd8+ Kc5
White will not agree to Rook trade, and Black uses that as the opportunity to threaten the least defended of the White pawn islands. Black has positioned his Rook so there are limited opportunities for White to seek counter-play behind the Black pawns.
39.Kf2?,..
Discouragement creeps into Mr. Alowitz’s defense. Holding up the penetration of the Black King with 39 b3, is necessary. Now the White Q-side falls. Maybe he was worried about the Black Rook going to the 2nd rank. Not likely Jonathan would do that. It permits too much in the way of counter threats to the Black pawns. A key principle of good technique is to prevent all counter-play, so there is no reason to do that. Black still has resources with which to work on the Q-side after 39 b3. He can continue with; 39..., b5 40 Rc8 a5 41 a3 a4 42 bxa4 bxa4 43 Ra8 Kb5 44 Kf4 Re2!; the Black Rook coming to the 2nd rank only when all is prepared to make a passed a-pawn that will be much faster than anything White can create on the opposite side of the board.
39..., Kc4 40.Rd6 Kd3 41.Rd8 Kc2 42.c4 dxc4 43.Rd4 c3 44.bxc3 Kxc3 45.Ra4 a6 46.a3 c5
The death knell for White’s hopes. The c-pawn is unstoppable and the White King is cut off by the Black Rook so no reinforcement is possible. A very nice demonstration of the endgame technique for exploiting a one pawn advantage.
47.Ra5 c4 48.f4 Kb2 49.Re5 Rd7 50.f5 gxf5 51.Rxf5 c3 0–1
The win pushed Mr. Lack up to a 5-3 score along with Gordon Magat, Peter Henner and Dean Howard. Howard and Henner in the playoffs on tie breaks, but getting up to equal their scores was no doubt some consolation for Jonathan Lack.
The loss makes Mr. Alowitz dependant on luck and other’s results for a chance to play for the under 1800 prize. Cory Northrup must lose to Henner to allow Arthur in. A draw with Henner for Northrup would tie him and Alowitz on the score. I don’t know what the tie breaks would do about placement. A guess is Cory goes through if he draws with Peter, but that is only a guess. We will know this week.
I was unable to attend the round played at Schenectady last Thursday. Bill Townsend helpfully passed the following information:
The Consolation Tournament has gotten underway. Usually it is a Swiss System event. Turnout was fairly small this year, seven entrants. Mr. Townsend decided to make the event a round robin, all-play-all. I will have an update on the standings in a day or two. Top rated in the Consolation is Dilip Aaron, with many of the usual suspects; Connors, Northrup, etc. Anyone looking for a rated event? Mr. Townsend just may be able to fit you in, there is a bye round scheduled and room for one more player. Drop by and sign up this Thursday before too many rounds are gone.
Good news from the Finals. Carlos Varela is not to be away until February. He played last week against John Phillips, but lost in a fight. Phillips has gotten off to a very fast start, three out of three and will be hard to overtake. Philip Sells won from Richard Chu and is in second place at 2-1. Illness I believe I was told kept Zack Calderone from his game with Alan Le Cours last week. Alan has two of his games delayed and stands at 1-0. Can he slow down Mr. Phillips is one burning question, but it won’t be answered until the last round on February 9th . Another is can Mr. Chu bring up his giant killer mode to slow down John this week? Stayed tuned for the news.
More soon.
1.28.2012
The AACC Playoff Participants Decided
Two of the contenders for the title met in a delayed game last Wednesday at AACC. After the game both wondered what games I might find in the databases to shed light on the opening. Neither were completely sure about the theory as the game developed. Up to the 8th move there is some theory.
Henner, Peter - Howard, Dean [A07]
AACC Championship Guilderland, NY, 25.01.2012
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 d5 3.d3 Nbd7 4.Bg2 e5 5.0–0 c6 6.Nbd2 Bd6 7.e4!?,..
At least equally common is 7 c4. Here are a couple of GM examples;
(243307) Hodgson, Julian M (2555) - Kotronias, Vasilios (2510) [A53]
New York WFW New York, 1990
1.g3 d5 2.Bg2 Nf6 3.d3 e5 4.Nf3 Nbd7 5.0–0 c6 6.c4 dxc4 7.dxc4 Bc5 8.Nc3 0–0 9.Qc2 Re8 10.Ng5 Bf8 11.Rd1 Qc7 12.Rb1 a5 13.a3 h6 14.Nge4 Nxe4 15.Nxe4 f5 16.Nc3 Nf6 17.Na4 Be6 18.Be3 Qf7 19.Nb6 f4 20.gxf4 exf4 21.Bxf4 Ra6 22.c5 Bb3 23.Qc3 Bxd1 24.Rxd1 Qh5 25.Nd7 Nd5 26.Qb3 Qg4 27.Nxf8 Qxf4 28.Nd7 Rxe2 29.Bf3 Re8 30.Nb6 Kh8 31.Bxd5 cxd5 32.Qxd5 a4 33.h3 Ra5 34.Kg2 Qc7 35.Nd7 Rd8 36.Qh5 Ra6 37.Qf7 Qc6+ 38.Kh2 Qe6 39.Nf6 0–1
(420798) Movsziszian, Karen (2440) - Dizdar, Goran (2535) [A53]
Berliner Sommer 13th Berlin (6), 1995
1.g3 d5 2.Bg2 e5 3.d3 Nf6 4.Nf3 Nbd7 5.0–0 c6 6.c4 dxc4 7.dxc4 Bc5 8.Nc3 0–0 9.Qc2 Re8 10.e3 Bf8 11.h3 a5 12.b3 Nc5 13.Rd1 Qc7 14.Rb1 g6 15.Ne1 Bf5 16.e4 Be6 17.Bb2 Nfd7 18.Nd5 Qb8 19.Ne3 Rd8 20.Rd2 f6 21.Rbd1 Qc7 22.h4 Be7 23.Nd5 cxd5 24.cxd5 Nf8 25.dxe6 Ncxe6 26.Qxc7 Nxc7 27.Nc2 Nfe6 28.Ne3 Rxd2 29.Rxd2 Rd8 30.Rc2 Kf7 31.Bf1 Bc5 32.Nc4 b6 33.Kg2 Ke7 34.Ba3 Bxa3 35.Nxa3 Rd6 36.Nc4 Rc6 37.Rd2 Ne8 38.Ne3 Nd6 39.Nd5+ Kf7 40.f3 Nd4 41.Bd3 Ke6 42.b4 axb4 43.Nxb4 Rc1 44.a4 Ra1 45.Ra2 Rxa2+ ½–½
7..., dxe4
The opening book Rybka uses says 7..., 0-0; is the normal move. After the text White is certainly OK, but he doesn’t have any serious advantage.
Here’s how White can play if Black castles;
(89841) Savon, Vladimir A (2570) - Petrosian, Tigran V (2640) [B10]
Alekhine mem Moscow (7), 03.12.1971
1.e4 c6 2.d3 d5 3.Nd2 Nf6 4.g3 e5 5.Ngf3 Nbd7 6.Bg2 Bd6 7.0–0 0–0 8.exd5 cxd5 9.c4 d4 10.Ng5 a5 11.Nde4 Nxe4 12.Nxe4 Be7 13.g4 Ra6 14.f4 exf4 15.Bxf4 Nc5 16.Nxc5 Bxc5 17.Qf3 Re6 18.Rae1 b6 19.Rxe6 Bxe6 20.h3 Qd7 21.b3 h6 22.Qg3 Re8 23.Be4 f6 24.Qf3 Re7 25.Bc6 Qd8 26.Re1 Kh8 27.Re2 Bg8 28.Rxe7 Qxe7 29.Qe4 Qd8 30.Bd5 Bh7 31.Qe2 Bg6 32.Be4 Bf7 33.Qh2 Qd7 34.Qg3 Be6 35.Kg2 Qa7 36.Bb8 Qd7 37.Qc7 Kg8 38.Qxd7 Bxd7 39.Bc7 Kf7 40.a3 g6 41.b4 axb4 42.axb4 Bxb4 43.Bxb6 Bc3 44.Kf3 f5 45.gxf5 gxf5 46.Ba8 Ke6 47.Ke2 Ba4 48.h4 Kd6 49.Bf3 Ke6 50.Bc5 Bb2 51.Bd5+ Kf6 52.Bb6 Ke7 53.Ba7 Bd7 54.Bc5+ Kf6 55.Kf2 Ba4 56.Bb6 Ke7 57.Ke2 Kd6 58.h5 Be8 59.Bf3 Ba4 60.Kf2 Ke6 61.Bc5 Bc2 62.Ke2 Ba4 63.Bf8 Bc1 64.Bg7 Be3 65.c5 Bb5 66.Bf8 Kd7 67.Bd5 Ba4 68.Bg7 Bb5 69.Be5 Ba4 70.Kf3 Bb5 71.Ke2 Ba4 72.Bg3 Bb5 73.Bb7 Ba4 ½–½
8.dxe4!?,..
Cautious and not ambitious. Comfortably equality is had with 8 Nxe4 Nxe4; White will then have easier development than in the game. This move takes us out of theory. Both players understood well where they stood regards qualifying. Glen Perry had worked out the tie breaks and the various possible outcomes; a draw puts them both in, a win for Henner would have put him in and Howard out, and a win for Howard would put him in while the second chair would have been undecided. The importance of the result for both players added tension to the game.
8..., 0–0 9.Nc4 Bc7 10.Qd3!?,..
This move puts the Queen where she may be attacked. Somewhat better is 10 Qe2.
10..., b5 11.Ncd2 Qe7 12.Nb3 Rd8
Another try worth consideration is 12..., a5; to try an take advantage of the not quite harmonious placement of the White pieces. Black is slightly ahead according to Deep Rybka.
13.Be3 Bb6?!
A slip motivated by a wish to win the game. Attempting to obtain the Bishop pair with 13..., Ng4; is probably better. Another possibility is; 13..., Nb6!? 14 Bc5 Qe6 15 Qe2 Na4 16 Ba3, and the position is certainly difficult for both sides.
14.Bxb6!?,..
Getting on with development by playing 14 Rad1, makes reasonable impression with game tending towards equality. The text creates an unbalanced position with both sides willing to take risks in hopes of winning.
14..., axb6 15.Qc3 c5 16.Rfe1,..
White seems to be worried about the possibility of .., b5-b4; and .., Ba6; at some point in the future.
16..., Bb7?!
Black is reluctant to change the basic nature of the position with a logical space grab on the Q-side. Making that sort of decision is tough in a tense game. The line suggested is; 16..., b4 17 Qd2 c4 18 Nc1 Bb7 19 Nh4 Nf8 20 Qe3 Qc7; gives Black a measurable edge.
17.Nbd2 Nb8 18.a3 Nc6 19.Bf1 Ba6 20.Rad1 Rac8 21.Qe3,..
White could have tried; 21 Qb3, but after 21..., c4 22 Qe3 Rd6; Black is getting a hold on the d-file.
21...Rd7?
An error?! When the move was played my first reaction was it was a blunder. Then thinking about it while waiting for the reply, the notion crept in to my mind that maybe there is more going on than just winning the Exchange. The line is; 22 Bh3 Nd4 23 Bxd7 Nxd7 24 Qd3 Bb7 25 c3!? c4 26 Qb1 Nxf3+ 27 Nxf3 Nc5; and Black has a glimmering of pressure on the light squares around the White King. Objectively it is not enough to offset the material. Making a choice like this would have been hard in a so meaningful game. It turned out neither player was thinking along these lines.
22.a4?!,..
Mr. Henner has been focused on this idea and did not see the move 22 Bh3, and Mr. Howard just overlooked it.
22..., Nd4 23.axb5?,..
The c2 square needed defense. The line beginning 23 Rc1 Rcd8 24 axb5 Ng4 25 Qg5 Qxg5 26 Nxg5 Bxb5 27 c3 Bxf1 28 cxd4 Bb5 29 d5, and even with the protected passed pawn White does not have much of an advantage, but he is not worse. Now there is a complicated trade of material.
23..., Nxc2 24.Qb3 Nxe1 25.Rxe1 Bb7 26.Bh3,..
With an Exchange gone White found this move. A material deficit very much focuses the mind.
26..., Rcd8 27.Bxd7 Rxd7 28.Qc3 h6
Making air hole for the King. A timely decision supporting what he has in mind.
29.Nxe5,..
Leading to more trading of material. It may be both players began to think about a draw. The alternative is 29 Nc4, and it is perhaps a more secure path to a draw. Time trouble for both parties is about to begin. At this point Henner had 10 minutes and Howard about 8 minutes. Both sides were focused on their mutual attacks on the e-pawns. When you are down to under ten minutes to finish a game, rethinking your fundamental notion of how the position will develop is very hard to do. Shrinking time more or less forces the player to concentrate on specific tactics within whatever general plan earlier adopted. That seems to be the case here. Black is willing to give up his e-pawn to obtain the unbalanced material with a Bishop and a Knight versus a Rook and a pawn.
GM Andy Soltis wrote: “Giving up pieces creates a sharp situation that offer greater winning chances for both sides than other imbalances. It can be the pragmatic choice for a player who otherwise be slightly inferior.” that statement appears to apply here.
29..., Rxd2 30.Qxd2 Qxe5 31.Qd8+!?,..
White is faced with a crucial decision at this point. He could play 31 f3, securing his extra pawn or play the text. In the quiet of my study, with the electronic wizard humming away at my side, it easy to see 31 f3, is likely the better choice. Either way Black is somewhat better. Defending the pawn is more promising for White because it would make Black have to work to exploit the natural edge the pieces have. To quantify the advantage of the pieces, I quote again from Soltis: “If it is a one pawn difference, the numerical advantage of the pieces comes into play. When the pieces cooperate against a target defended by a Rook, they can reverse the imbalance. The principle of two versus one.”
Adding further complexity to the decisions to be made is the presence of the Queens. Soltis offered the further insight that the player with the pieces wants to retain the Queens. There many more opportunities for the pieces to cooperate with their Queen effectively than will be the case for the Rook and Queen.
With the text, White pins his hopes on making an outside passed pawn believing it will offset the building threats to his King’s safety. That is a false hope, mate is ever so much more forcing than the relatively long march of a Queening pawn, there is just not enough time in the game position for the pawn to succeed.
31..., Kh7 32.Qxb6 Bxe4 33.Qa6 Qf5
Good enough, but stronger is 33..., Qxb2; if then White tries the idea of a Rook sacrifice to speed his pawn along, the Queen and Knight easily threaten to mate the White King forcing something like: 33..., Qxb2 34 b6 Qb3 (threatening 35..., Qf3;) 35 Rxe4? Nxe4 36 b7 Qb1+ 37 Kg2 Qb2 38 b8(Q) Qxb8 39 Qd3 Qb7 40 f3 f5; leading to a winning endgame for Black, albeit not one easily handled with little time on the clock. At this moment the time remaining was; Henner 4:30, Howard 3:29.
34.Qa3 Ng4 35.f4 Nxh2?
The clocks had moved some; Henner 3:24 and Howard 3:29 remaining. The text is an error. With 35..., c4!; Black would have been very close to winning. The move 35..., c4 is subtle resource to prevent a lateral attack on the Bishop by the White Queen. This line illustrates how play could continue; 35..., c4 36 Qb4 Qd5 37 Rxe4 Qxe4 38 b6 Qe3+ 39 Kg2 Qe2+ 40 Kh3 Ne3; with mate soon. One more example of the Queen and Knight hunting down a King sans defenders.
36.Rxe4?
A reciprocal error. The move 36 Kxh2 equalizes although Black does obtain a strong initiative. Play could go; 36 Kxg2 Qh5+ 37 Kg1 Qh1+ 38 Kf2 Qg2+ 39 Ke3 f5 40 Qxc5 Qxg3+ 41 Kd2, and so on. The mighty Rybka says White can survive. For a human being to enter such a long forcing kind of line of this length with virtually no time to calculate would take a tremendous self-confidence. It is entirely understandable why Peter tried the text. The final moves were quickly played.
36...Qxe4 37.Kxh2 Qe2+ 38.Kh3 Qxb5 39.Qc3 Qb4 40.Qc2+ g6 41.f5 Qd4 42.fxg6+ fxg6 43.Qe2 Qd5 44.Qe7+ Kg8 45.Qe8+ ½–½
And the players agreed to the draw. Black still has some slight advantage but there is no time to make an effort. Although imperfect, the game showed the contestants making serious attempts to win the game, and that is exciting chess. This promises the playoff match will be interesting.
More soon.
Henner, Peter - Howard, Dean [A07]
AACC Championship Guilderland, NY, 25.01.2012
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 d5 3.d3 Nbd7 4.Bg2 e5 5.0–0 c6 6.Nbd2 Bd6 7.e4!?,..
At least equally common is 7 c4. Here are a couple of GM examples;
(243307) Hodgson, Julian M (2555) - Kotronias, Vasilios (2510) [A53]
New York WFW New York, 1990
1.g3 d5 2.Bg2 Nf6 3.d3 e5 4.Nf3 Nbd7 5.0–0 c6 6.c4 dxc4 7.dxc4 Bc5 8.Nc3 0–0 9.Qc2 Re8 10.Ng5 Bf8 11.Rd1 Qc7 12.Rb1 a5 13.a3 h6 14.Nge4 Nxe4 15.Nxe4 f5 16.Nc3 Nf6 17.Na4 Be6 18.Be3 Qf7 19.Nb6 f4 20.gxf4 exf4 21.Bxf4 Ra6 22.c5 Bb3 23.Qc3 Bxd1 24.Rxd1 Qh5 25.Nd7 Nd5 26.Qb3 Qg4 27.Nxf8 Qxf4 28.Nd7 Rxe2 29.Bf3 Re8 30.Nb6 Kh8 31.Bxd5 cxd5 32.Qxd5 a4 33.h3 Ra5 34.Kg2 Qc7 35.Nd7 Rd8 36.Qh5 Ra6 37.Qf7 Qc6+ 38.Kh2 Qe6 39.Nf6 0–1
(420798) Movsziszian, Karen (2440) - Dizdar, Goran (2535) [A53]
Berliner Sommer 13th Berlin (6), 1995
1.g3 d5 2.Bg2 e5 3.d3 Nf6 4.Nf3 Nbd7 5.0–0 c6 6.c4 dxc4 7.dxc4 Bc5 8.Nc3 0–0 9.Qc2 Re8 10.e3 Bf8 11.h3 a5 12.b3 Nc5 13.Rd1 Qc7 14.Rb1 g6 15.Ne1 Bf5 16.e4 Be6 17.Bb2 Nfd7 18.Nd5 Qb8 19.Ne3 Rd8 20.Rd2 f6 21.Rbd1 Qc7 22.h4 Be7 23.Nd5 cxd5 24.cxd5 Nf8 25.dxe6 Ncxe6 26.Qxc7 Nxc7 27.Nc2 Nfe6 28.Ne3 Rxd2 29.Rxd2 Rd8 30.Rc2 Kf7 31.Bf1 Bc5 32.Nc4 b6 33.Kg2 Ke7 34.Ba3 Bxa3 35.Nxa3 Rd6 36.Nc4 Rc6 37.Rd2 Ne8 38.Ne3 Nd6 39.Nd5+ Kf7 40.f3 Nd4 41.Bd3 Ke6 42.b4 axb4 43.Nxb4 Rc1 44.a4 Ra1 45.Ra2 Rxa2+ ½–½
7..., dxe4
The opening book Rybka uses says 7..., 0-0; is the normal move. After the text White is certainly OK, but he doesn’t have any serious advantage.
Here’s how White can play if Black castles;
(89841) Savon, Vladimir A (2570) - Petrosian, Tigran V (2640) [B10]
Alekhine mem Moscow (7), 03.12.1971
1.e4 c6 2.d3 d5 3.Nd2 Nf6 4.g3 e5 5.Ngf3 Nbd7 6.Bg2 Bd6 7.0–0 0–0 8.exd5 cxd5 9.c4 d4 10.Ng5 a5 11.Nde4 Nxe4 12.Nxe4 Be7 13.g4 Ra6 14.f4 exf4 15.Bxf4 Nc5 16.Nxc5 Bxc5 17.Qf3 Re6 18.Rae1 b6 19.Rxe6 Bxe6 20.h3 Qd7 21.b3 h6 22.Qg3 Re8 23.Be4 f6 24.Qf3 Re7 25.Bc6 Qd8 26.Re1 Kh8 27.Re2 Bg8 28.Rxe7 Qxe7 29.Qe4 Qd8 30.Bd5 Bh7 31.Qe2 Bg6 32.Be4 Bf7 33.Qh2 Qd7 34.Qg3 Be6 35.Kg2 Qa7 36.Bb8 Qd7 37.Qc7 Kg8 38.Qxd7 Bxd7 39.Bc7 Kf7 40.a3 g6 41.b4 axb4 42.axb4 Bxb4 43.Bxb6 Bc3 44.Kf3 f5 45.gxf5 gxf5 46.Ba8 Ke6 47.Ke2 Ba4 48.h4 Kd6 49.Bf3 Ke6 50.Bc5 Bb2 51.Bd5+ Kf6 52.Bb6 Ke7 53.Ba7 Bd7 54.Bc5+ Kf6 55.Kf2 Ba4 56.Bb6 Ke7 57.Ke2 Kd6 58.h5 Be8 59.Bf3 Ba4 60.Kf2 Ke6 61.Bc5 Bc2 62.Ke2 Ba4 63.Bf8 Bc1 64.Bg7 Be3 65.c5 Bb5 66.Bf8 Kd7 67.Bd5 Ba4 68.Bg7 Bb5 69.Be5 Ba4 70.Kf3 Bb5 71.Ke2 Ba4 72.Bg3 Bb5 73.Bb7 Ba4 ½–½
8.dxe4!?,..
Cautious and not ambitious. Comfortably equality is had with 8 Nxe4 Nxe4; White will then have easier development than in the game. This move takes us out of theory. Both players understood well where they stood regards qualifying. Glen Perry had worked out the tie breaks and the various possible outcomes; a draw puts them both in, a win for Henner would have put him in and Howard out, and a win for Howard would put him in while the second chair would have been undecided. The importance of the result for both players added tension to the game.
8..., 0–0 9.Nc4 Bc7 10.Qd3!?,..
This move puts the Queen where she may be attacked. Somewhat better is 10 Qe2.
10..., b5 11.Ncd2 Qe7 12.Nb3 Rd8
Another try worth consideration is 12..., a5; to try an take advantage of the not quite harmonious placement of the White pieces. Black is slightly ahead according to Deep Rybka.
13.Be3 Bb6?!
A slip motivated by a wish to win the game. Attempting to obtain the Bishop pair with 13..., Ng4; is probably better. Another possibility is; 13..., Nb6!? 14 Bc5 Qe6 15 Qe2 Na4 16 Ba3, and the position is certainly difficult for both sides.
14.Bxb6!?,..
Getting on with development by playing 14 Rad1, makes reasonable impression with game tending towards equality. The text creates an unbalanced position with both sides willing to take risks in hopes of winning.
14..., axb6 15.Qc3 c5 16.Rfe1,..
White seems to be worried about the possibility of .., b5-b4; and .., Ba6; at some point in the future.
16..., Bb7?!
Black is reluctant to change the basic nature of the position with a logical space grab on the Q-side. Making that sort of decision is tough in a tense game. The line suggested is; 16..., b4 17 Qd2 c4 18 Nc1 Bb7 19 Nh4 Nf8 20 Qe3 Qc7; gives Black a measurable edge.
17.Nbd2 Nb8 18.a3 Nc6 19.Bf1 Ba6 20.Rad1 Rac8 21.Qe3,..
White could have tried; 21 Qb3, but after 21..., c4 22 Qe3 Rd6; Black is getting a hold on the d-file.
21...Rd7?
An error?! When the move was played my first reaction was it was a blunder. Then thinking about it while waiting for the reply, the notion crept in to my mind that maybe there is more going on than just winning the Exchange. The line is; 22 Bh3 Nd4 23 Bxd7 Nxd7 24 Qd3 Bb7 25 c3!? c4 26 Qb1 Nxf3+ 27 Nxf3 Nc5; and Black has a glimmering of pressure on the light squares around the White King. Objectively it is not enough to offset the material. Making a choice like this would have been hard in a so meaningful game. It turned out neither player was thinking along these lines.
22.a4?!,..
Mr. Henner has been focused on this idea and did not see the move 22 Bh3, and Mr. Howard just overlooked it.
22..., Nd4 23.axb5?,..
The c2 square needed defense. The line beginning 23 Rc1 Rcd8 24 axb5 Ng4 25 Qg5 Qxg5 26 Nxg5 Bxb5 27 c3 Bxf1 28 cxd4 Bb5 29 d5, and even with the protected passed pawn White does not have much of an advantage, but he is not worse. Now there is a complicated trade of material.
23..., Nxc2 24.Qb3 Nxe1 25.Rxe1 Bb7 26.Bh3,..
With an Exchange gone White found this move. A material deficit very much focuses the mind.
26..., Rcd8 27.Bxd7 Rxd7 28.Qc3 h6
Making air hole for the King. A timely decision supporting what he has in mind.
29.Nxe5,..
Leading to more trading of material. It may be both players began to think about a draw. The alternative is 29 Nc4, and it is perhaps a more secure path to a draw. Time trouble for both parties is about to begin. At this point Henner had 10 minutes and Howard about 8 minutes. Both sides were focused on their mutual attacks on the e-pawns. When you are down to under ten minutes to finish a game, rethinking your fundamental notion of how the position will develop is very hard to do. Shrinking time more or less forces the player to concentrate on specific tactics within whatever general plan earlier adopted. That seems to be the case here. Black is willing to give up his e-pawn to obtain the unbalanced material with a Bishop and a Knight versus a Rook and a pawn.
GM Andy Soltis wrote: “Giving up pieces creates a sharp situation that offer greater winning chances for both sides than other imbalances. It can be the pragmatic choice for a player who otherwise be slightly inferior.” that statement appears to apply here.
29..., Rxd2 30.Qxd2 Qxe5 31.Qd8+!?,..
White is faced with a crucial decision at this point. He could play 31 f3, securing his extra pawn or play the text. In the quiet of my study, with the electronic wizard humming away at my side, it easy to see 31 f3, is likely the better choice. Either way Black is somewhat better. Defending the pawn is more promising for White because it would make Black have to work to exploit the natural edge the pieces have. To quantify the advantage of the pieces, I quote again from Soltis: “If it is a one pawn difference, the numerical advantage of the pieces comes into play. When the pieces cooperate against a target defended by a Rook, they can reverse the imbalance. The principle of two versus one.”
Adding further complexity to the decisions to be made is the presence of the Queens. Soltis offered the further insight that the player with the pieces wants to retain the Queens. There many more opportunities for the pieces to cooperate with their Queen effectively than will be the case for the Rook and Queen.
With the text, White pins his hopes on making an outside passed pawn believing it will offset the building threats to his King’s safety. That is a false hope, mate is ever so much more forcing than the relatively long march of a Queening pawn, there is just not enough time in the game position for the pawn to succeed.
31..., Kh7 32.Qxb6 Bxe4 33.Qa6 Qf5
Good enough, but stronger is 33..., Qxb2; if then White tries the idea of a Rook sacrifice to speed his pawn along, the Queen and Knight easily threaten to mate the White King forcing something like: 33..., Qxb2 34 b6 Qb3 (threatening 35..., Qf3;) 35 Rxe4? Nxe4 36 b7 Qb1+ 37 Kg2 Qb2 38 b8(Q) Qxb8 39 Qd3 Qb7 40 f3 f5; leading to a winning endgame for Black, albeit not one easily handled with little time on the clock. At this moment the time remaining was; Henner 4:30, Howard 3:29.
34.Qa3 Ng4 35.f4 Nxh2?
The clocks had moved some; Henner 3:24 and Howard 3:29 remaining. The text is an error. With 35..., c4!; Black would have been very close to winning. The move 35..., c4 is subtle resource to prevent a lateral attack on the Bishop by the White Queen. This line illustrates how play could continue; 35..., c4 36 Qb4 Qd5 37 Rxe4 Qxe4 38 b6 Qe3+ 39 Kg2 Qe2+ 40 Kh3 Ne3; with mate soon. One more example of the Queen and Knight hunting down a King sans defenders.
36.Rxe4?
A reciprocal error. The move 36 Kxh2 equalizes although Black does obtain a strong initiative. Play could go; 36 Kxg2 Qh5+ 37 Kg1 Qh1+ 38 Kf2 Qg2+ 39 Ke3 f5 40 Qxc5 Qxg3+ 41 Kd2, and so on. The mighty Rybka says White can survive. For a human being to enter such a long forcing kind of line of this length with virtually no time to calculate would take a tremendous self-confidence. It is entirely understandable why Peter tried the text. The final moves were quickly played.
36...Qxe4 37.Kxh2 Qe2+ 38.Kh3 Qxb5 39.Qc3 Qb4 40.Qc2+ g6 41.f5 Qd4 42.fxg6+ fxg6 43.Qe2 Qd5 44.Qe7+ Kg8 45.Qe8+ ½–½
And the players agreed to the draw. Black still has some slight advantage but there is no time to make an effort. Although imperfect, the game showed the contestants making serious attempts to win the game, and that is exciting chess. This promises the playoff match will be interesting.
More soon.
1.26.2012
Calderone Sells From SCC and an AACC Update
Reaching back almost two weeks here is a game from the first round of the Schenectady Championship Finals. Zack Calderone has improved much over the past year or two. Not the least of his accomplishments was to qualify for the SCC Finals. He made the grade, and now he is in with the some of the best of the local players. In his first outing, Zack has a terrible time against Philip Sells.
Calderone, Zack - Sells, Philip [A45]
SCC Championship Finals Schenectady, NY, 12.01.2012
1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 Ne4 3.Bh4?!,..
A risky and not often played alternative to 3 Bf4. Here is now play goes in the Bf4 variation among the Grandmasters;
(1231535) Miladinovic, Igor (2605) - Milanovic, Danilo (2495) [A45]
Montenegro Team Championship, Herceg Novi (6), 08.09.2007
1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 Ne4 3.Bf4 c5 4.f3 Qa5+ 5.c3 Nf6 6.Nd2 cxd4 7.Nb3 Qb6 8.Qxd4 Qxd4 9.cxd4 e6 10.e4 Nc6 11.Rc1 d5 12.e5 Nd7 13.Bb5 a5 14.a4 Na7 15.Be2 Nc6 16.Bb5 Na7 17.Bf1 Nb6 18.Nc5 Bxc5 19.dxc5 Nd7 [19...Nxa4 20.b3] 20.Bb5 [20.Bg3] 20...Nc6 21.Ne2 f6 22.exf6 gxf6 23.Bd6 Nde5 24.f4 Nf7 25.f5 Nxd6 26.cxd6 Kd7 27.Nd4 Kxd6 28.Bxc6 bxc6 29.fxe6 c5 30.Nb5+ Kc6 31.0–0 Ba6 32.Rxf6 Bxb5 33.e7+ Kd7 34.axb5 Kxe7 35.Rh6 c4 36.b6 a4 37.Rd1 Rad8 38.b7 Rb8 39.Rxd5 Rxb7 40.Ra5 Kf7 41.Rxa4 Kg7 42.Rc6 Rd8 43.h3 Rd2 44.Raxc4 Rdxb2 45.Rg4+ Kf7 46.Rc8 R2b4 47.Rgg8 Kf6 48.Kh2 R4b6 49.Rg4 Rb4 50.Rf8+ Ke6 51.Re8+ Kf6 52.Rf8+ Ke6 53.Rg5 R4b5 54.Rgg8 Rf7 55.Ra8 Rfb7 56.h4 Kf6 57.g3 R5b6 58.Kh3 Rg7 59.Rgf8+ Kg6 60.Ra5 Kh6 61.Rf3 Rgb7 62.Rff5 Rg6 63.h5 Rc6 64.Kh4 Rb1 65.Ra4 Rh1+ 66.Kg4 Rhc1 67.Raa5 R6c4+ 68.Rf4 Rxf4+ 69.gxf4 Rg1+ 70.Kf5 Kxh5 71.Ra2 Kh6 72.Kf6 Rg6+ 73.Kf7 Rg7+ 74.Ke6 Rg6+ 75.Kf5 Kg7 76.Ra7+ Kg8 77.Ke5 Rb6 78.f5 Rc6 79.Kf4 Rb6 80.Kg5 Rc6 81.Ra8+ Kg7 82.Ra7+ Kg8 83.f6 Rc1 84.Rg7+ Kf8 85.Kf5 Rg1 86.Ke6 Rb1 87.Kf5 Rg1 88.Rxg1 h5 89.Rf1 h4 90.Ke5 ½–½
The variation played in the game has fewer examples, but there are some between no mean opponents;
(344025) Danielian, Oganes (2440) - Hebden, Mark (2520) [A45]
9th Cappelle Open, Cappelle la Grande (9), 1993
1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 Ne4 3.Bh4 g5 4.Bg3 c5 5.e3 Qb6 6.Nc3 Nxg3 7.hxg3 cxd4 8.Qxd4 Qxd4 9.exd4 Bg7 10.Nd5 Kd8 11.c3 e6 12.Ne3 d5 13.g4 Bd7 14.Bd3 h6 15.Ne2 Bc6 16.b4 a6 17.a4 Nd7 18.Kd2 Nf6 19.Ng3 Bf8 20.Nh5 Nxh5 21.Rxh5 Be8 22.Rh3 f6 23.Bc2 Rc8 24.Rah1 Rc7 25.a5 Rg8 26.g3 h5 27.gxh5 g4 28.R3h2 f5 29.h6 Rh7 30.Nxf5 exf5 31.Bxf5 Rhh8 32.Rh4 Be7 33.Rxg4 Rxg4 34.Bxg4 Bg5+ 35.f4 Bxh6 36.Bf3 Bf7 37.c4 Kc7 38.Kc3 Rg8 39.g4 Bg7 40.f5 Rh8 41.Rxh8 Bxh8 42.g5 dxc4 43.f6 b5 44.axb6+ Kxb6 45.d5 Kc7 46.Kxc4 Kd6 47.Kd4 Bg8 48.Be4 Bf7 49.Bg2 Bg8 50.Bh1 Bf7 51.Be4 Bg8 52.Bg2 Bf7 53.Bf3 Bg8 54.Be2 Bxd5 55.Bxa6 Bc6 56.Bc4 Be8 57.Ke4 Bg6+ 58.Kf4 Bc2 59.Be2 Bg6 60.Bf3 Bd3 61.Be4 Bb5 62.Kf5 Kd7 63.g6 Ke8 64.Bd5 Kf8 65.Kg5 Be8 66.Bc4 Bf7 67.Bd3 1–0
3..., g5 4.f3!?,..
The standard book here is 4 Bg3. Rybka sees this alternative as OK also.
4..., gxh4 5.fxe4 c5 6.e3 Bh6
Very little is really new under the Sun. In 2001 two decent players gave the game line this treatment;
(637242) Dumitrescu, Dragos (2333) - Jakovenko, Dmitrij (2551) [A45]
Pardubice Open (4), 23.07.2001
1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 Ne4 3.Bh4 g5 4.f3 gxh4 5.fxe4 c5 6.e3 Bh6 7.Kf2 cxd4 8.exd4 e5 9.Nf3 Nc6 10.c3 d6 11.Nbd2 exd4 12.cxd4 Bg4 13.Bb5 0–0 14.Bxc6 bxc6 15.Rf1 h3 16.g3 Rb8 17.Qc2 f5 18.e5 dxe5 19.dxe5 Qb6+ 0–1
Away back when I was learning the game, Trompowsky himself tried 3 Bh4 and rained down destruction on an unwary opponent;
(37412) Trompowsky,Octavio - Cantero,Ronaldo [A45]
Montevideo (15), 1954
1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 Ne4 3.Bh4 g5 4.f3 gxh4 5.fxe4 Bh6 6.Nf3 e6 7.Nc3 b6 8.e5 Rg8 9.Ne4 Bg7 10.e3 Bb7 11.Bd3 Nc6 12.0–0 Nb4 13.Nfg5 h6 14.Qh5 Rf8 15.Rxf7 Qxg5 16.Rxf8+ Kxf8 17.Nxg5 1–0
7.Bc4 e6
According to the computer Black is already somewhat better. Of course not 7..., Bxe3?; because 8 Bxf7+, recovering the material and leaving the Black King bare and shivering in the cold.
8.Qf3,..
It would be more logical to play 8 Qe2, keeping f3 open for the Knight. An interesting point made by a GM who worked with Korchnoi in his heyday; the great K said the Knights belong on f3/c3 (f6.c6) unless there is a very good reason not to do so. Those are the natural squares for the Knights, anything else has to be justified. I think the GM that told me that was Har-Zvi, but I could be wrong.
8..., Nc6 9.c3 Qg5 10.Kf2 cxd4 11.exd4?,..
The most natural reply and wrong for specific tactical reasons. White had to play 11 cxd4, not letting the Black Queen in behind the lines.
11..., Qc1!
This may have been a shock to Zack. The move is very pretty indeed pinning both White Knights. Geroge Dipre played something similar in a game with me in the SCC event a few years ago. I remember the impact clearly. It was almost like a blow to the body taking my breath away. Only by dint of huge effort was I able to swindle my way out the bind George had on the position. Zack makes a valiant effort, but he is in trouble to the end this time.
12.Qe2 Rg8 13.g3 h3 14.Na3,..
Surrendering material but who can blame the young man. It was done because nothing else looks useful, and maybe Black will let down his guard while basking in the glow of having a whole Rook in his pocket. The continuation; 14 b4 b6 15 Bd3 e5 16 Qc2 Qe3+ 17 Kf1 Rf6 18 Nxh3 Rf6+ 19 Nf2 exd4; is not really appealing. The finish is pretty easy to understand
14..., Qxa1 15.Nb5 Kd8 16.Qh5 Qc1 17.Qh4+ Qg5 18.Qxh3 d5 0–1
Mr. Sells stayed focused winning in just four more moves. Calderone loves tactics. He plays the Max Lange Attack, and you have to love them to enter that old, hoary swamp of almost forgotten tricks and stratagems. Philip Sells can combined with the best of the local talent. This time Zack missed the critical point and was defeated. A few more experiences such as this and he will develop a sense of danger. That is what is absolutely required when playing good calculators like Sells.
Wednesday night the AACC met to catch up on some delayed games. Two were played; Henner-Howard that was drawn, and Alowitz-Lack that Jon Lack won. The Henner-Howard contest created a four way tie at the top with; Henner, Lack, Magat and Howard all on 5 points. Henner has a game to play with Cory Northrup. A draw or a win with Northrup gives Henner fist place.
Glen Perry clarified the playoff picture. He is using tie breaks, and under the system, the finalists for the title will be Henner and Howard regardless of the outcome of the Henner-Northrup .
Mr. Lack won from Arthur Alowitz in an Exchange Variation of the French. It had an effect on the under 1800 playoff picture. Mr. Alowitz needed a win to tie with Mr. Caravaty for first under 1800, and a draw would have allowed his a good chance to obtain the second chair in the under 1800 playoff. That was not to be. Play was even through the first 16 moves. Arthur erred there and the slight edge he had accumulated went away instantly. After the mistake, Mr. Lack held on to is extra pawn to take the full point on move 51.
In the under 1800 contest, if Cory Northrup defeats Henner will be in the match. I did not query the TD about the tie breaks if the game is drawn, then both Alowitz and Northrup will have three points.
My reports of the standings previously had been missing at least one result. Last night Glen Perry gave me the correct cross table, and here are the standings;
1-4 Dean Howard 5-3
1-4 Gordon Magat 5-3
1-4 Jonathan lack 5-3
1-4 Peter Henner 5-2 with one game to play
5 Chris Caravaty 4-4
6 Tim Wright 3 ½ - 4 ½
7 Arthur Alowitz 3-5
8 Cory Northrup 2 ½ - 4 ½ with one game to play
9 Jason Denham 2-6
More soon especially the Henner-Howard game.
Calderone, Zack - Sells, Philip [A45]
SCC Championship Finals Schenectady, NY, 12.01.2012
1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 Ne4 3.Bh4?!,..
A risky and not often played alternative to 3 Bf4. Here is now play goes in the Bf4 variation among the Grandmasters;
(1231535) Miladinovic, Igor (2605) - Milanovic, Danilo (2495) [A45]
Montenegro Team Championship, Herceg Novi (6), 08.09.2007
1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 Ne4 3.Bf4 c5 4.f3 Qa5+ 5.c3 Nf6 6.Nd2 cxd4 7.Nb3 Qb6 8.Qxd4 Qxd4 9.cxd4 e6 10.e4 Nc6 11.Rc1 d5 12.e5 Nd7 13.Bb5 a5 14.a4 Na7 15.Be2 Nc6 16.Bb5 Na7 17.Bf1 Nb6 18.Nc5 Bxc5 19.dxc5 Nd7 [19...Nxa4 20.b3] 20.Bb5 [20.Bg3] 20...Nc6 21.Ne2 f6 22.exf6 gxf6 23.Bd6 Nde5 24.f4 Nf7 25.f5 Nxd6 26.cxd6 Kd7 27.Nd4 Kxd6 28.Bxc6 bxc6 29.fxe6 c5 30.Nb5+ Kc6 31.0–0 Ba6 32.Rxf6 Bxb5 33.e7+ Kd7 34.axb5 Kxe7 35.Rh6 c4 36.b6 a4 37.Rd1 Rad8 38.b7 Rb8 39.Rxd5 Rxb7 40.Ra5 Kf7 41.Rxa4 Kg7 42.Rc6 Rd8 43.h3 Rd2 44.Raxc4 Rdxb2 45.Rg4+ Kf7 46.Rc8 R2b4 47.Rgg8 Kf6 48.Kh2 R4b6 49.Rg4 Rb4 50.Rf8+ Ke6 51.Re8+ Kf6 52.Rf8+ Ke6 53.Rg5 R4b5 54.Rgg8 Rf7 55.Ra8 Rfb7 56.h4 Kf6 57.g3 R5b6 58.Kh3 Rg7 59.Rgf8+ Kg6 60.Ra5 Kh6 61.Rf3 Rgb7 62.Rff5 Rg6 63.h5 Rc6 64.Kh4 Rb1 65.Ra4 Rh1+ 66.Kg4 Rhc1 67.Raa5 R6c4+ 68.Rf4 Rxf4+ 69.gxf4 Rg1+ 70.Kf5 Kxh5 71.Ra2 Kh6 72.Kf6 Rg6+ 73.Kf7 Rg7+ 74.Ke6 Rg6+ 75.Kf5 Kg7 76.Ra7+ Kg8 77.Ke5 Rb6 78.f5 Rc6 79.Kf4 Rb6 80.Kg5 Rc6 81.Ra8+ Kg7 82.Ra7+ Kg8 83.f6 Rc1 84.Rg7+ Kf8 85.Kf5 Rg1 86.Ke6 Rb1 87.Kf5 Rg1 88.Rxg1 h5 89.Rf1 h4 90.Ke5 ½–½
The variation played in the game has fewer examples, but there are some between no mean opponents;
(344025) Danielian, Oganes (2440) - Hebden, Mark (2520) [A45]
9th Cappelle Open, Cappelle la Grande (9), 1993
1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 Ne4 3.Bh4 g5 4.Bg3 c5 5.e3 Qb6 6.Nc3 Nxg3 7.hxg3 cxd4 8.Qxd4 Qxd4 9.exd4 Bg7 10.Nd5 Kd8 11.c3 e6 12.Ne3 d5 13.g4 Bd7 14.Bd3 h6 15.Ne2 Bc6 16.b4 a6 17.a4 Nd7 18.Kd2 Nf6 19.Ng3 Bf8 20.Nh5 Nxh5 21.Rxh5 Be8 22.Rh3 f6 23.Bc2 Rc8 24.Rah1 Rc7 25.a5 Rg8 26.g3 h5 27.gxh5 g4 28.R3h2 f5 29.h6 Rh7 30.Nxf5 exf5 31.Bxf5 Rhh8 32.Rh4 Be7 33.Rxg4 Rxg4 34.Bxg4 Bg5+ 35.f4 Bxh6 36.Bf3 Bf7 37.c4 Kc7 38.Kc3 Rg8 39.g4 Bg7 40.f5 Rh8 41.Rxh8 Bxh8 42.g5 dxc4 43.f6 b5 44.axb6+ Kxb6 45.d5 Kc7 46.Kxc4 Kd6 47.Kd4 Bg8 48.Be4 Bf7 49.Bg2 Bg8 50.Bh1 Bf7 51.Be4 Bg8 52.Bg2 Bf7 53.Bf3 Bg8 54.Be2 Bxd5 55.Bxa6 Bc6 56.Bc4 Be8 57.Ke4 Bg6+ 58.Kf4 Bc2 59.Be2 Bg6 60.Bf3 Bd3 61.Be4 Bb5 62.Kf5 Kd7 63.g6 Ke8 64.Bd5 Kf8 65.Kg5 Be8 66.Bc4 Bf7 67.Bd3 1–0
3..., g5 4.f3!?,..
The standard book here is 4 Bg3. Rybka sees this alternative as OK also.
4..., gxh4 5.fxe4 c5 6.e3 Bh6
Very little is really new under the Sun. In 2001 two decent players gave the game line this treatment;
(637242) Dumitrescu, Dragos (2333) - Jakovenko, Dmitrij (2551) [A45]
Pardubice Open (4), 23.07.2001
1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 Ne4 3.Bh4 g5 4.f3 gxh4 5.fxe4 c5 6.e3 Bh6 7.Kf2 cxd4 8.exd4 e5 9.Nf3 Nc6 10.c3 d6 11.Nbd2 exd4 12.cxd4 Bg4 13.Bb5 0–0 14.Bxc6 bxc6 15.Rf1 h3 16.g3 Rb8 17.Qc2 f5 18.e5 dxe5 19.dxe5 Qb6+ 0–1
Away back when I was learning the game, Trompowsky himself tried 3 Bh4 and rained down destruction on an unwary opponent;
(37412) Trompowsky,Octavio - Cantero,Ronaldo [A45]
Montevideo (15), 1954
1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 Ne4 3.Bh4 g5 4.f3 gxh4 5.fxe4 Bh6 6.Nf3 e6 7.Nc3 b6 8.e5 Rg8 9.Ne4 Bg7 10.e3 Bb7 11.Bd3 Nc6 12.0–0 Nb4 13.Nfg5 h6 14.Qh5 Rf8 15.Rxf7 Qxg5 16.Rxf8+ Kxf8 17.Nxg5 1–0
7.Bc4 e6
According to the computer Black is already somewhat better. Of course not 7..., Bxe3?; because 8 Bxf7+, recovering the material and leaving the Black King bare and shivering in the cold.
8.Qf3,..
It would be more logical to play 8 Qe2, keeping f3 open for the Knight. An interesting point made by a GM who worked with Korchnoi in his heyday; the great K said the Knights belong on f3/c3 (f6.c6) unless there is a very good reason not to do so. Those are the natural squares for the Knights, anything else has to be justified. I think the GM that told me that was Har-Zvi, but I could be wrong.
8..., Nc6 9.c3 Qg5 10.Kf2 cxd4 11.exd4?,..
The most natural reply and wrong for specific tactical reasons. White had to play 11 cxd4, not letting the Black Queen in behind the lines.
11..., Qc1!
This may have been a shock to Zack. The move is very pretty indeed pinning both White Knights. Geroge Dipre played something similar in a game with me in the SCC event a few years ago. I remember the impact clearly. It was almost like a blow to the body taking my breath away. Only by dint of huge effort was I able to swindle my way out the bind George had on the position. Zack makes a valiant effort, but he is in trouble to the end this time.
12.Qe2 Rg8 13.g3 h3 14.Na3,..
Surrendering material but who can blame the young man. It was done because nothing else looks useful, and maybe Black will let down his guard while basking in the glow of having a whole Rook in his pocket. The continuation; 14 b4 b6 15 Bd3 e5 16 Qc2 Qe3+ 17 Kf1 Rf6 18 Nxh3 Rf6+ 19 Nf2 exd4; is not really appealing. The finish is pretty easy to understand
14..., Qxa1 15.Nb5 Kd8 16.Qh5 Qc1 17.Qh4+ Qg5 18.Qxh3 d5 0–1
Mr. Sells stayed focused winning in just four more moves. Calderone loves tactics. He plays the Max Lange Attack, and you have to love them to enter that old, hoary swamp of almost forgotten tricks and stratagems. Philip Sells can combined with the best of the local talent. This time Zack missed the critical point and was defeated. A few more experiences such as this and he will develop a sense of danger. That is what is absolutely required when playing good calculators like Sells.
Wednesday night the AACC met to catch up on some delayed games. Two were played; Henner-Howard that was drawn, and Alowitz-Lack that Jon Lack won. The Henner-Howard contest created a four way tie at the top with; Henner, Lack, Magat and Howard all on 5 points. Henner has a game to play with Cory Northrup. A draw or a win with Northrup gives Henner fist place.
Glen Perry clarified the playoff picture. He is using tie breaks, and under the system, the finalists for the title will be Henner and Howard regardless of the outcome of the Henner-Northrup .
Mr. Lack won from Arthur Alowitz in an Exchange Variation of the French. It had an effect on the under 1800 playoff picture. Mr. Alowitz needed a win to tie with Mr. Caravaty for first under 1800, and a draw would have allowed his a good chance to obtain the second chair in the under 1800 playoff. That was not to be. Play was even through the first 16 moves. Arthur erred there and the slight edge he had accumulated went away instantly. After the mistake, Mr. Lack held on to is extra pawn to take the full point on move 51.
In the under 1800 contest, if Cory Northrup defeats Henner will be in the match. I did not query the TD about the tie breaks if the game is drawn, then both Alowitz and Northrup will have three points.
My reports of the standings previously had been missing at least one result. Last night Glen Perry gave me the correct cross table, and here are the standings;
1-4 Dean Howard 5-3
1-4 Gordon Magat 5-3
1-4 Jonathan lack 5-3
1-4 Peter Henner 5-2 with one game to play
5 Chris Caravaty 4-4
6 Tim Wright 3 ½ - 4 ½
7 Arthur Alowitz 3-5
8 Cory Northrup 2 ½ - 4 ½ with one game to play
9 Jason Denham 2-6
More soon especially the Henner-Howard game.
1.22.2012
A Game From SCC
Breaking to an early lead in the SCC event with this win from the former Champion Phil Sells, John Phillips is the front runner for title. I don’t think Phillips has won a Schenectady Championship at any point in the past. It is always exciting to see a new face in the mix.
Sells, Philip - Phillips, John [B07]
SCC Finals Schenectady, NY, 19.01.2012
1.e4 d6
Mr. Phillips has taken up the Pirc/Modern as his usual reply to 1 e4, of late. Away back in the 1950s one of my favorite players, Simagin, used a line similar to the one chosen by Phillips;
(34367) Averbakh, Yuri L - Simagin, Vladimir [B07]
Moscow Championship (13), 1952
1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 c6 4.Nf3 Bg4 5.Be2 e6 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Nd2 Bxe2 8.Qxe2 Nxe4 9.Bxe7 Nxc3 10.Qg4 Kxe7 11.bxc3 Kf8 12.Rb1 Qc7 13.Qg3 Na6 14.0–0 Rd8 15.f4 d5 16.Qh3 g6 17.g4 Kg7 18.f5 exf5 19.gxf5 f6 20.Nf3 b6 21.Ng5 Rde8 22.Ne6+ Rxe6 23.fxe6 Re8 24.Rxf6 Kxf6 25.Rf1+ Ke7 26.Rf7+ Kd8 27.Qxh7 Rxe6 28.Rxc7 Nxc7 29.Qf7 Kc8 30.Kf2 Kb7 31.Kf3 a5 32.Kg4 a4 33.a3 Re2 34.Kg3 Rxc2 35.Qxg6 Rxc3+ 36.Kf2 Rxa3 37.h4 Ra1 38.Qc2 a3 39.Kg3 Nb5 40.Qd2 a2 41.Kh2 Rh1+ 42.Kxh1 a1Q+ 43.Kg2 Qxd4 0–1
Somewhat more recently the late Tony Miles trotted this variation out;
(627329) Azarov, Sergei (2452) - Miles, Anthony J (2562) [B07]
2nd EU Championship Ohrid (3), 03.06.2001
1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 c6 4.Nf3 Bg4 5.h3 Bh5 6.Be2 e6 7.Bg5 Be7 8.Qd2 Bg6 9.e5 Ne4 10.Nxe4 Bxe4 11.Bxe7 Qxe7 12.0–0–0 d5 13.Ng5 Bg6 14.f4 h6 15.Nf3 c5 16.dxc5 Qxc5 17.Nd4 Nc6 18.Bb5 0–0–0 19.Bxc6 bxc6 20.Nb3 Qc4 21.Qf2 d4 22.Nxd4 Qxa2 23.Nb3 Be4 24.Qc5 Bxg2 25.Rhg1 Bf3 26.Rd6 Qa6 27.Kb1 g6 28.Nd2 Rxd6 29.exd6 Bh5 30.Nc4 Rd8 31.Re1 Rd7 32.Ne5 Qb6 33.Nxd7 Kxd7 34.b4 Bf3 35.Re3 Bd5 36.Ra3 Qxc5 37.bxc5 g5 38.Rxa7+ Ke8 39.fxg5 hxg5 40.Kc1 Bg2 41.Rc7 f5 42.Kd2 Kd8 43.Rg7 Bxh3 44.Rxg5 e5 45.Rg7 Bg4 46.Re7 1–0
The line has not been particularly popular with the Grandmasters. It seems to come up as a surprise weapon more often than not.
2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 c6 4.Nf3 Bg4 5.Be2 e6 6.Be3 Be7
Although the position looks a bit odd, it is known to theory. Here is an example;
(301940) Garcia Palermo, Carlos H (2465) - Danailov, Silvio (2445) [B07]
Palma de Mallorca Open (7), 1992
1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 Bg4 3.e4 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Be2 Be7 6.Be3 c6 7.0–0 0–0 8.d5 exd5 9.exd5 c5 10.Nd2 Bf5 11.g4 Bc8 12.g5 Ne8 13.f4 f5 14.h4 Nc7 15.a4 Nba6 16.Nc4 Nb4 17.Bf3 b6 18.Nb5 Nba6 19.Nba3 Bb7 20.c3 Qd7 21.Rb1 Rae8 22.Bf2 Bd8 23.b4 cxb4 24.cxb4 Re4 25.b5 Nc5 26.Bxc5 bxc5 27.b6 Nxd5 28.bxa7 Ba8 29.Nb5 Bc7 30.Qb3 Qe6 31.Bxe4 fxe4 32.Nxc7 Nxc7 33.f5 Qe7 34.Nxd6+ Bd5 35.Qg3 e3 36.f6 Qe6 37.f7+ Kh8 38.Rb8 Qe7 39.Qe5 Be6 40.Nf5 Qxf7 41.Nxe3 1–0
7.0–0 d5 8.Nd2!?,..
I quite like the way Mr. Sells plays chess. He is a stubborn fighter and works hard at the board. This idea however does not seem quite right. White trades his better Bishop for a counterpart that is not so good. Generally not a good thing to do.
8..., Bxe2 9.Qxe2 0–0 10.e5?! ,..
Although Rybka thinks this is not so bad for White, the move pretty much sets the course for the balance of the game, and it is not a favorable path for White. White will likely get d4 as a great outpost square for a Knight because .., c6-c5; is coming with the trade of the d&c-pawns likely. His pieces however are not ideally placed to keep a Knight d4. Black, for his part, has the half open c-file on which his heavy pieces can mass.
A Knight on d4 is a well placed piece, but it needs some other pieces with which to cooperate. It is better therefore for White to have more rather than less material on the board. The problem is the natural exchanges coming eliminate the other minor pieces leaving White to build an attack out of heavy pieces supported by the Nd4. There are no open files to expedite getting the Rooks to bear on the Black King. This will require White to take his heavy pieces out in front of his pawns; a situation that usually carries risks with it.
In contrast, if Black masses forces on the c-file they will be better suited for their work than are the White forces. All then that Black needs to do is find useful employment for his Knight. The route d7/c5/e4 beckons the Knight. In sum; Black has the easier technical task; White will have to be creative, and perhaps, take some risks if he is to play actively.
10..., Nfd7 11.f4 c5 12.Nb3 cxd4 13.Nxd4 Nc6 14.Rad1 a6 15.Rf3 Nxd4 16.Bxd4 Bc5 17.Bxc5 Nxc5 18.Rg3 Qb6
It is not easy for White to get the remaining Knight to d4, and he has to be concerned about the discovered check when the Nc5 moves away. The pawn on b2 is also potential target. After the game John Phillips said he really did not think much about taking it because of the counter; Rd1-b1.
19.Kh1 f5?!
Very cautious. Black plans a 7th rank defense against the coming Rook and Queen sortie. I am not certain this is necessary. If White goes for an immediate attack after say 19..., Rfd8; then 20 Qg4 g6 21 f5 Ne4 22 Nxe4 dxe4 23 Rg8 exf5 24 Qxf5 Qc6; favors Black by a fair amount.
20.Qh5?,..
Not so good. White needs open lines near the Black King. To that end 20 exf6 (e.p.), ought to be considered. In which case the game takes a different turn. Black is still a bit better, but the sudden change in direction might have caused him some difficulties. As the game went the themes; c-file action and positioning the Knight on e4 continue to be important for Black. The presence of a Black pawn on f5 makes e4 even more attractive to the Black Knight. That is another argument to capturing en passant on this move.
20..., Qc7 21.Rh3 g6 22.Qh4 Rf7 23.Qe1,..
Recognizing the heavy piece attack is going nowhere, White takes some steps to defend his weak points.
23..., Ne4 24.Rdd3,..
I have seen defenses built along the 2nd ranks. This idea of a defense along the 3d rank is uncommon. White was reluctant to exchange on e4 because Black gets a well protected passed pawn, a very uncomfortable thing to have to face for the balance of the game.
24..., Qc5
Since White refuses to cooperate by taking on e4, Black sets about massing on the c-file and expanding into the undefended space on the Q-side. He is helped along by tactical threats of a Knight fork at f2.
25.Rhf3 Qb4 26.Qc1 Qb6 27.Nd1 Rc7 28.Qe3 Qc5 29.c3 Rac8 30.Qe2 b5 31.Ne3,..
More stubborn defense can be made with 31 Rd4, resisting the coming advance of the Q-side pawns. Time trouble was now making the task of defending even more challenging for White. Mr. Sells’ clock now showed less than one and a half minutes. Mr. Phillips had about eight minutes on his clock, not a lot of time but apparently enough to do the job.
31..., a5 32.Nc2 b4 33.Nd4 Kf7 34.cxb4?,..
Sells now had seconds, plus the increment, for the rest of his moves. Here he slips by opening access to his back rank. If he had the time to think, Sells could have tried 34 Rh3, hoping for 34..., h5 35 Rxh5 gxh5 36 Qxh5+, etc. obtaining compensation and some chance for salvation. Once the back rank problem appears, the White position is fatally compromised. After 34 Rh3, Black can defend more effectively with 34..., Rh8; keeping a solid advantage.
34..., Qxb4 35.Rf1 Rc1 36.Rdd1 Rxd1 37.Rxd1 Rc4
A safe and sane move with less than two minutes on the clock. Immediately decisive is 37..., Qxd4! In either case White was down to only a couple of seconds, and his position so shaky that even Mr. Sells could not hold together.
38.Nf3 Qc5 0–1
White’s flag fell. Even had he pulled off one more of his miracles of speed play, Mr. Sells was lost after 39 Ng5+ Nxg5 40 exg5 Rc1; and a quick advance of the d-pawn. And so the drama of this year’s Finals begins to take shape: The games Le Cours has to play against Sells and Phillips are increased in importance. Will Varela and Calderone have some influence on the out come? They are improving players, and any given Thursday they could clip a half or a full point from one of the contenders, or not. The blessing of a short tournament is we will know pretty quickly, that is, if Carlos Varela is not out of the country until February.
More soon.
Sells, Philip - Phillips, John [B07]
SCC Finals Schenectady, NY, 19.01.2012
1.e4 d6
Mr. Phillips has taken up the Pirc/Modern as his usual reply to 1 e4, of late. Away back in the 1950s one of my favorite players, Simagin, used a line similar to the one chosen by Phillips;
(34367) Averbakh, Yuri L - Simagin, Vladimir [B07]
Moscow Championship (13), 1952
1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 c6 4.Nf3 Bg4 5.Be2 e6 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Nd2 Bxe2 8.Qxe2 Nxe4 9.Bxe7 Nxc3 10.Qg4 Kxe7 11.bxc3 Kf8 12.Rb1 Qc7 13.Qg3 Na6 14.0–0 Rd8 15.f4 d5 16.Qh3 g6 17.g4 Kg7 18.f5 exf5 19.gxf5 f6 20.Nf3 b6 21.Ng5 Rde8 22.Ne6+ Rxe6 23.fxe6 Re8 24.Rxf6 Kxf6 25.Rf1+ Ke7 26.Rf7+ Kd8 27.Qxh7 Rxe6 28.Rxc7 Nxc7 29.Qf7 Kc8 30.Kf2 Kb7 31.Kf3 a5 32.Kg4 a4 33.a3 Re2 34.Kg3 Rxc2 35.Qxg6 Rxc3+ 36.Kf2 Rxa3 37.h4 Ra1 38.Qc2 a3 39.Kg3 Nb5 40.Qd2 a2 41.Kh2 Rh1+ 42.Kxh1 a1Q+ 43.Kg2 Qxd4 0–1
Somewhat more recently the late Tony Miles trotted this variation out;
(627329) Azarov, Sergei (2452) - Miles, Anthony J (2562) [B07]
2nd EU Championship Ohrid (3), 03.06.2001
1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 c6 4.Nf3 Bg4 5.h3 Bh5 6.Be2 e6 7.Bg5 Be7 8.Qd2 Bg6 9.e5 Ne4 10.Nxe4 Bxe4 11.Bxe7 Qxe7 12.0–0–0 d5 13.Ng5 Bg6 14.f4 h6 15.Nf3 c5 16.dxc5 Qxc5 17.Nd4 Nc6 18.Bb5 0–0–0 19.Bxc6 bxc6 20.Nb3 Qc4 21.Qf2 d4 22.Nxd4 Qxa2 23.Nb3 Be4 24.Qc5 Bxg2 25.Rhg1 Bf3 26.Rd6 Qa6 27.Kb1 g6 28.Nd2 Rxd6 29.exd6 Bh5 30.Nc4 Rd8 31.Re1 Rd7 32.Ne5 Qb6 33.Nxd7 Kxd7 34.b4 Bf3 35.Re3 Bd5 36.Ra3 Qxc5 37.bxc5 g5 38.Rxa7+ Ke8 39.fxg5 hxg5 40.Kc1 Bg2 41.Rc7 f5 42.Kd2 Kd8 43.Rg7 Bxh3 44.Rxg5 e5 45.Rg7 Bg4 46.Re7 1–0
The line has not been particularly popular with the Grandmasters. It seems to come up as a surprise weapon more often than not.
2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 c6 4.Nf3 Bg4 5.Be2 e6 6.Be3 Be7
Although the position looks a bit odd, it is known to theory. Here is an example;
(301940) Garcia Palermo, Carlos H (2465) - Danailov, Silvio (2445) [B07]
Palma de Mallorca Open (7), 1992
1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 Bg4 3.e4 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Be2 Be7 6.Be3 c6 7.0–0 0–0 8.d5 exd5 9.exd5 c5 10.Nd2 Bf5 11.g4 Bc8 12.g5 Ne8 13.f4 f5 14.h4 Nc7 15.a4 Nba6 16.Nc4 Nb4 17.Bf3 b6 18.Nb5 Nba6 19.Nba3 Bb7 20.c3 Qd7 21.Rb1 Rae8 22.Bf2 Bd8 23.b4 cxb4 24.cxb4 Re4 25.b5 Nc5 26.Bxc5 bxc5 27.b6 Nxd5 28.bxa7 Ba8 29.Nb5 Bc7 30.Qb3 Qe6 31.Bxe4 fxe4 32.Nxc7 Nxc7 33.f5 Qe7 34.Nxd6+ Bd5 35.Qg3 e3 36.f6 Qe6 37.f7+ Kh8 38.Rb8 Qe7 39.Qe5 Be6 40.Nf5 Qxf7 41.Nxe3 1–0
7.0–0 d5 8.Nd2!?,..
I quite like the way Mr. Sells plays chess. He is a stubborn fighter and works hard at the board. This idea however does not seem quite right. White trades his better Bishop for a counterpart that is not so good. Generally not a good thing to do.
8..., Bxe2 9.Qxe2 0–0 10.e5?! ,..
Although Rybka thinks this is not so bad for White, the move pretty much sets the course for the balance of the game, and it is not a favorable path for White. White will likely get d4 as a great outpost square for a Knight because .., c6-c5; is coming with the trade of the d&c-pawns likely. His pieces however are not ideally placed to keep a Knight d4. Black, for his part, has the half open c-file on which his heavy pieces can mass.
A Knight on d4 is a well placed piece, but it needs some other pieces with which to cooperate. It is better therefore for White to have more rather than less material on the board. The problem is the natural exchanges coming eliminate the other minor pieces leaving White to build an attack out of heavy pieces supported by the Nd4. There are no open files to expedite getting the Rooks to bear on the Black King. This will require White to take his heavy pieces out in front of his pawns; a situation that usually carries risks with it.
In contrast, if Black masses forces on the c-file they will be better suited for their work than are the White forces. All then that Black needs to do is find useful employment for his Knight. The route d7/c5/e4 beckons the Knight. In sum; Black has the easier technical task; White will have to be creative, and perhaps, take some risks if he is to play actively.
10..., Nfd7 11.f4 c5 12.Nb3 cxd4 13.Nxd4 Nc6 14.Rad1 a6 15.Rf3 Nxd4 16.Bxd4 Bc5 17.Bxc5 Nxc5 18.Rg3 Qb6
It is not easy for White to get the remaining Knight to d4, and he has to be concerned about the discovered check when the Nc5 moves away. The pawn on b2 is also potential target. After the game John Phillips said he really did not think much about taking it because of the counter; Rd1-b1.
19.Kh1 f5?!
Very cautious. Black plans a 7th rank defense against the coming Rook and Queen sortie. I am not certain this is necessary. If White goes for an immediate attack after say 19..., Rfd8; then 20 Qg4 g6 21 f5 Ne4 22 Nxe4 dxe4 23 Rg8 exf5 24 Qxf5 Qc6; favors Black by a fair amount.
20.Qh5?,..
Not so good. White needs open lines near the Black King. To that end 20 exf6 (e.p.), ought to be considered. In which case the game takes a different turn. Black is still a bit better, but the sudden change in direction might have caused him some difficulties. As the game went the themes; c-file action and positioning the Knight on e4 continue to be important for Black. The presence of a Black pawn on f5 makes e4 even more attractive to the Black Knight. That is another argument to capturing en passant on this move.
20..., Qc7 21.Rh3 g6 22.Qh4 Rf7 23.Qe1,..
Recognizing the heavy piece attack is going nowhere, White takes some steps to defend his weak points.
23..., Ne4 24.Rdd3,..
I have seen defenses built along the 2nd ranks. This idea of a defense along the 3d rank is uncommon. White was reluctant to exchange on e4 because Black gets a well protected passed pawn, a very uncomfortable thing to have to face for the balance of the game.
24..., Qc5
Since White refuses to cooperate by taking on e4, Black sets about massing on the c-file and expanding into the undefended space on the Q-side. He is helped along by tactical threats of a Knight fork at f2.
25.Rhf3 Qb4 26.Qc1 Qb6 27.Nd1 Rc7 28.Qe3 Qc5 29.c3 Rac8 30.Qe2 b5 31.Ne3,..
More stubborn defense can be made with 31 Rd4, resisting the coming advance of the Q-side pawns. Time trouble was now making the task of defending even more challenging for White. Mr. Sells’ clock now showed less than one and a half minutes. Mr. Phillips had about eight minutes on his clock, not a lot of time but apparently enough to do the job.
31..., a5 32.Nc2 b4 33.Nd4 Kf7 34.cxb4?,..
Sells now had seconds, plus the increment, for the rest of his moves. Here he slips by opening access to his back rank. If he had the time to think, Sells could have tried 34 Rh3, hoping for 34..., h5 35 Rxh5 gxh5 36 Qxh5+, etc. obtaining compensation and some chance for salvation. Once the back rank problem appears, the White position is fatally compromised. After 34 Rh3, Black can defend more effectively with 34..., Rh8; keeping a solid advantage.
34..., Qxb4 35.Rf1 Rc1 36.Rdd1 Rxd1 37.Rxd1 Rc4
A safe and sane move with less than two minutes on the clock. Immediately decisive is 37..., Qxd4! In either case White was down to only a couple of seconds, and his position so shaky that even Mr. Sells could not hold together.
38.Nf3 Qc5 0–1
White’s flag fell. Even had he pulled off one more of his miracles of speed play, Mr. Sells was lost after 39 Ng5+ Nxg5 40 exg5 Rc1; and a quick advance of the d-pawn. And so the drama of this year’s Finals begins to take shape: The games Le Cours has to play against Sells and Phillips are increased in importance. Will Varela and Calderone have some influence on the out come? They are improving players, and any given Thursday they could clip a half or a full point from one of the contenders, or not. The blessing of a short tournament is we will know pretty quickly, that is, if Carlos Varela is not out of the country until February.
More soon.
1.21.2012
This Week's Update from AACC and SCC
There was not quite a full slate of games Wednesday at the Albany Club. The three games played were; Wright - Northrup 1-0, Denham - Henner ½ - ½ and Lack - Caravaty 1-0. Mr. Denham’s draw with Peter Henner has to rank as an upset on rating difference, but while Jason trails the field his play has been solid for the most part. In this game he frustrated Peter’s attempts to create an effective imbalance, and at moments, appeared to be near winning himself.
The standings are, Including the games from Wednesday January 18, 2011:
1 Magat 5 - 3
2 Howard 4 ½ - 2 ½
3 Henner 4 ½ - 1 ½
4 Caravaty 4 - 4
5 Lack 4 - 3
6 Alowitz 3 - 4
7 Wright 3 ½ - 3 ½
8 Northrup 2 ½ - 3 ½
9 Denham 2 - 5
It was another week typical of this year’s Championship; an upset and still no clarity about who will qualify for the Championship or under 1800 matches. The club may not be big in numbers, but the fighting spirit is fierce.
The chance of an under 1800 contestant also qualifying for the Championship match disappeared when Chris Caravaty lost to Jonathan Lack. If Mr. Lack can win his last game, he will have 5 points and possibly be in the mix for the playoff match. Peter Henner’s draw tightens the struggle for the top spot. Cory Northrup’s loss to Tim Wright did not put him out of the fight for a chair at the under 1800 playoff. With two games to play, Northrup can overhaul Arthur Alowitz yet.
Today’s game is Jason Denham’s draw with Peter Henner.
Denham, Jason - Henner, Peter [D13]
AACC Championship Guilderland, NY, 18.01.2012
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.cxd5 cxd5 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Bf4 e6 7.a3?!,..
Book is 7 e3. Finding even games by masters with this move is not easy. It is not so much that there is some immediate tactical problem with it, rather the move lacks “bite”, and masters don’t dawdle in the opening. Here is one example where a master tries 7 a3. He comes out of the opening in good shape, but an error on move 20 leaves his Queen awkwardly placed. This requires the master to go in for an unsound sacrificial attack. His opponent was not shaken, took the material and the point in 36 moves:
(282110) Subrt,Jaroslav (2255) - Mitura,F [D13]
CSR-chT Czechoslovakia, 1992
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 c6 3.c4 Nf6 4.cxd5 cxd5 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bf4 e6 7.a3 Be7 8.e3 Nh5 9.Be5 f5 10.h3 Nf6 11.g4 0–0 12.gxf5 exf5 13.Qb3 Kh8 14.Bxf6 Bxf6 15.Qxd5 Qe8 16.Bc4 a6 17.Rc1 Bd7 18.Ne2 Rd8 19.Qc5 Bc8 20.Rg1 f4 21.Nxf4 Be7 22.Qh5 Qxh5 23.Nxh5 Rxf3 24.Rxg7 Bh4 25.Rg2 Rxe3+ 26.Kd2 Ree8 27.d5 Ne5 28.Bb3 Bg5+ 29.f4 Bh6 30.Rc7 Ng6 31.Bc2 Re7 32.Rxg6 Rxc7 33.Rxh6 Rxd5+ 34.Kc1 Bf5 35.Nf6 Rxc2+ 36.Kb1 Rd1+ 0–1
7..., Bd6 8.Bxd6 Qxd6 9.e3 0–0 10.Bd3 e5?!
Mr. Henner no doubt wanted to win this game. Here he decides to take some risks to do so. The mighty Rybka suggest a number of alternatives; 10..., a6; 10..., h6; 10..., Bd7; and putting the Rook on e8 or d8. The machine calls the position about even after the alternatives, or just about so. The text introduces a structural problem in the Black formation; the isolated Queen pawn. That can be an useful attacking tool, if Black has the dark squared Bishop on the board. Without that Bishop to help things along, advancing the d-pawn is difficult. Pushing the IQP forward is one of the basic ideas in such formations. If it isn’t possible, then the d-pawn is more of a stationary target than dynamic asset.
11.Nb5 Qe7 12.dxe5 Nxe5 13.Nxe5 Qxe5 14.Nd4 Bg4 15.Be2?,..
There is no good reason to trade this good Bishop for its poorer Black counterpart, especially using a valuable move to do so. Better is 15 Qb3, touching lightly on b7 and d5. White might not capture on b7 out of fear of letting the Black Rook become very active and can’t yet even claim to threaten d5, but the Queen is a mighty warrior and having her safely out and about no bad thing.
If you can calculate like a master, GM, or Rybka, taking on b7 is possible and good after the Queen sorties to b3. Play could continue; 15 Qb3 Rfc8 16 Qxb7 Rab8?! 17 Qxa7 Rxb2 18 0-0, and the entry square c2 is well covered preventing doubling on the 2d rank. White is also prepared to play one of his Rooks to b1 forcing off material while hanging tightly on to the extra passed pawn and decent winning chances.
The fifth World Champion demonstrated how to play against the IQP in a game from 1943. It is often cited in text books on chess. The winning plan is; 1) Concentrate on the weakness, d5, with the heavy pieces. 2) Once the opponent’s forces are tied down defending the weakness, open a second front. In the Botvinnik game that begins with 25 g4. 3) A timely shift by White of heavy pieces from pressuring d5 to direct attack on the Black King is very hard to meet usually some additional targets will appear. 4) By being tactically alert White has an excellent chance to gain something decisive. Anyone who plays serious chess should know the following game.
(23840) Botvinnik, Mikhail - Zagoriansky, Evgeny [A13]
Sverdlovsk Sverdlovsk (6), 1943
1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 e6 3.b3 Nf6 4.Bb2 Be7 5.e3 0–0 6.Nc3 c5 7.cxd5 Nxd5 8.Nxd5 exd5 9.d4 cxd4 10.Qxd4 Bf6 11.Qd2 Nc6 12.Be2 Be6 13.0–0 Bxb2 14.Qxb2 Qa5 15.Rfd1 Rad8 16.Rd2 Rd7 17.Rad1 Rfd8 18.h3 h6 19.Ne5 Nxe5 20.Qxe5 Qc5 21.Bf3 b6 22.Qb2 Rc8 23.Qe5 Rcd8 24.Rd4 a5 25.g4 Qc6 26.g5 hxg5 27.Qxg5 f6 28.Qg6 Bf7 29.Qg3 f5 30.Qg5 Qe6 31.Kh1 Qe5 32.Rg1 Rf8 33.Qh6 Rb8 34.Rh4 Kf8 35.Qh8+ Bg8 36.Rf4 Rbb7 37.Rg5 Rf7 38.Qh5 Qa1+ 39.Kg2 g6 40.Qxg6 Bh7 41.Qd6+ Rfe7 42.Qd8+ 1–0
There may be other plans to use versus the IQP. The above game is certainly one that has been used very frequently by Grandmasters, and cited by them in writing about the issue. A useful formula to know.
15..., Bxe2 16.Qxe2 Rac8 17.0–0 Rc4 18.Nf3?!,..
White’s play has not been the best. While the structural defect in the Black position remains, his more active pieces mask it for the moment. Rather than retreating the Knight, just 18 Qd2 adequately meets the threat to capture on d4 with the Rook. White may have feared 18 Qd2 Ne4; but 19 Qa5, looks reasonable with the issue not yet resolved. If 18 Qd2, Black can play to dominate the c-file with 18..., Rfc8 19 f3 Qc7 20 b3 Rc5; and the structural defect is completely balanced by the dynamic plus of the c-file. Given the foregoing, we can see a little bit why Mr. Denham looked at the text; judging the merits of the position after Black takes control of the c-file is not easy. White likely thought maybe he can distract Black from the c-file domination idea with some maneuvering.
18...,Qe4?
And it works. Better 18..., Qc7; to be followed by .., Rc8; when the potential weakness of the pawn at d5 is by no means easy to exploit.
19.Rac1 Qe6 20.Qd2 Ne4 21.Qa5 a6 22.Rfd1 Nf6?
White hasn’t made a real threat to d5, his back rank too weak. Black could try some further activity with 22..., g6; taking care of his own back rank problem, and then 23 Nd4 Qf6; and if 24 Qxd5? Qxf2+ 25 Kh1 Rxc1; wins. The text leads to Black achieving that which he has wanted for awhile; converting the IQP to a c-pawn, but this accomplishment gives White the chance to win the pawn.
23.Nd4 Qc8 24.Rxc4 dxc4 25.Rc1 b5 26.b3 Ne4 27.bxc4 bxc4 28.f3?,..
Simply 28 Qb4, picks up the c-pawn. Why did Jason not do so? The only conclusion seems to be that he fears his strong opponent sees farther than Jason can. Adding to the strangeness of the decision is the clock was not an issue for Mr. Denham. He had better than 43 minutes to Mr. Henner’s 12 minutes. It is one more example of psychology out weighing the basic chess skill of seeing the immediate future on the board.
28..., Nd6 29.Kf2 Qb7 30.Qc3 Rc8 31.Ke2 Nb5 32.Qb4 Qd5 33.Rd1 Qe5?
White has not come up with anything positive over the last few moves and that has allowed Black some chances. Here Black misses an opportunity to take the lead with 33..., c3 right away, passed pawns must be pushed as the old saying goes. The dangerous “passer” gives Black the advantage. By this point Henner was down to 7 ½ minutes. Time pressure probably played a part in the choice of move.
34.Nc6?,..
A slip missing the next Black move. Just 34 Kf2 keeps the disadvantage to a minimum.
34..., Nc3+
White must have been so tempted by his own tactical opportunities that he did not coolly evaluate all the Black moves. Black is almost winning now.
35.Kf1 Qxe3 36.Ne7+ Kh8 37.Re1 Qd3+ 38.Kf2 Qd4+ 39.Kg3 Rd8?
With only 1:36 plus the five second increment Peter has to rely on instinct here. To keep the hard won advantage necessary is 39..., g5; with the mate on h4 providing the time to save the Rook.
40.Nc6 Qd2 41.Qe7 Rg8
Black has a pawn, but the dangers to his King has forced the Black Rook to the most passive possible position. Henner’s clock was down to 1:21.
42.Re5?
A big mistake in his opponent’s time pressure. This occurs all too often around here. I know I have made similar mistakes, and they always hurt, maybe more than any other of my many chess errors. White had about 13 minutes on the clock, enough time to calculate, but he missed the problem with the game move.
42...Nb5?
Black had no time to find the unlikely looking 42..., f6!; which seems to win for Black. The probable line runs; 42..., f6 43 Re6 Nd5 44 Qc5 c3 45 Nb4 Nf4 46 Rd6 N2+ 47 Kh3 Qh6+; mating very soon. Quite a pretty demonstration of what a Queen and Knight can do to a King. Finding such a non-standard appearing combination in time pressure is a matter of luck and inspiration. Mr. Henner ran out of both for the moment.
43.Qxf7 Qd6 44.Qxc4 Nxa3 45.Qb4 Qxc6 46.Qxa3 ½–½
The game continued for many more moves played at breathtaking speed by Henner. Denham won the a-pawn fairly quickly. The three-to-two pawn majority all on the same side with heavy pieces on the board is obviously drawn. Given the terrible state of his clock, the examination of Peter’s endgame technique that Jason carried out is understandable. Mr. Henner found what he had to find in the way of moves, and after exhausting all the possible tries they agreed to a draw.
Although Jason Denham trials the field at 2 - 5, how he got there speaks to his rating not really reflecting his chess strength. Mr. Denham piled up four draws; among them were split points with Howard, Henner and Lack! All these guys are about 400 points more highly rated than is Denham, and every half-point at that rating gap has to be called an upset. Jason still has Tim Wright to play. It will not surprise to see him take a half-point there too. No matter what happens in his last game, it really has been a good event for Jason Denham.
Thursday evening at the Schenectady Club saw the second round of the Championship Finals played. Once more Carlos Varela could not attend. He is traveling overseas. It is unclear at this moment whether or not he will be back in country on the 20th of January, or the 20th of February. Both dates have been mentioned. If January, it will not be too much of a problem, he’ll be a couple of rounds behind which is nothing unusual for our local club championships. If February, it is quite a different matter.
The TD, Bill Townsend, set a goal to finish all games by March 20th . A February return will cut things very fine indeed. Any problems of coordinating the players schedules and missing the deadline becomes real. The deadline is not just an arbitrary line in the sand. The Capital District Chess League begins play about then. Mr. Varela plays for the RPI team and the other participants play for the Schenectady teams and the Saratoga team. Finding times and places to play both CDCL matches and these by then tardy SCC games will make Bill’s scheduling much more challenging than usual. Ah! The TD’s lot is never easy.
Thursday’s results were; Richard Chu lost to Alan Le Cours, and John Phillips defeated Philip Sells. The latter result came about in by now usual time pressure for Sells, but this time he was not able to solve the problems of his position and his flag fell in what was likely a lost position.
The standings are:
1 John Phillips 2-0
2 Alan Le Cours 1-0
3 Philip Sells 1-1
4 Zack Calderone 0-1
5 Richard Chu 0-2
6 Carlos Varela 0-0
In such a short affair, five rounds, the fast start by Phillips may play a large part in the final results. Certainly everyone will be chasing him from here on out.
More soon.
The standings are, Including the games from Wednesday January 18, 2011:
1 Magat 5 - 3
2 Howard 4 ½ - 2 ½
3 Henner 4 ½ - 1 ½
4 Caravaty 4 - 4
5 Lack 4 - 3
6 Alowitz 3 - 4
7 Wright 3 ½ - 3 ½
8 Northrup 2 ½ - 3 ½
9 Denham 2 - 5
It was another week typical of this year’s Championship; an upset and still no clarity about who will qualify for the Championship or under 1800 matches. The club may not be big in numbers, but the fighting spirit is fierce.
The chance of an under 1800 contestant also qualifying for the Championship match disappeared when Chris Caravaty lost to Jonathan Lack. If Mr. Lack can win his last game, he will have 5 points and possibly be in the mix for the playoff match. Peter Henner’s draw tightens the struggle for the top spot. Cory Northrup’s loss to Tim Wright did not put him out of the fight for a chair at the under 1800 playoff. With two games to play, Northrup can overhaul Arthur Alowitz yet.
Today’s game is Jason Denham’s draw with Peter Henner.
Denham, Jason - Henner, Peter [D13]
AACC Championship Guilderland, NY, 18.01.2012
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.cxd5 cxd5 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Bf4 e6 7.a3?!,..
Book is 7 e3. Finding even games by masters with this move is not easy. It is not so much that there is some immediate tactical problem with it, rather the move lacks “bite”, and masters don’t dawdle in the opening. Here is one example where a master tries 7 a3. He comes out of the opening in good shape, but an error on move 20 leaves his Queen awkwardly placed. This requires the master to go in for an unsound sacrificial attack. His opponent was not shaken, took the material and the point in 36 moves:
(282110) Subrt,Jaroslav (2255) - Mitura,F [D13]
CSR-chT Czechoslovakia, 1992
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 c6 3.c4 Nf6 4.cxd5 cxd5 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bf4 e6 7.a3 Be7 8.e3 Nh5 9.Be5 f5 10.h3 Nf6 11.g4 0–0 12.gxf5 exf5 13.Qb3 Kh8 14.Bxf6 Bxf6 15.Qxd5 Qe8 16.Bc4 a6 17.Rc1 Bd7 18.Ne2 Rd8 19.Qc5 Bc8 20.Rg1 f4 21.Nxf4 Be7 22.Qh5 Qxh5 23.Nxh5 Rxf3 24.Rxg7 Bh4 25.Rg2 Rxe3+ 26.Kd2 Ree8 27.d5 Ne5 28.Bb3 Bg5+ 29.f4 Bh6 30.Rc7 Ng6 31.Bc2 Re7 32.Rxg6 Rxc7 33.Rxh6 Rxd5+ 34.Kc1 Bf5 35.Nf6 Rxc2+ 36.Kb1 Rd1+ 0–1
7..., Bd6 8.Bxd6 Qxd6 9.e3 0–0 10.Bd3 e5?!
Mr. Henner no doubt wanted to win this game. Here he decides to take some risks to do so. The mighty Rybka suggest a number of alternatives; 10..., a6; 10..., h6; 10..., Bd7; and putting the Rook on e8 or d8. The machine calls the position about even after the alternatives, or just about so. The text introduces a structural problem in the Black formation; the isolated Queen pawn. That can be an useful attacking tool, if Black has the dark squared Bishop on the board. Without that Bishop to help things along, advancing the d-pawn is difficult. Pushing the IQP forward is one of the basic ideas in such formations. If it isn’t possible, then the d-pawn is more of a stationary target than dynamic asset.
11.Nb5 Qe7 12.dxe5 Nxe5 13.Nxe5 Qxe5 14.Nd4 Bg4 15.Be2?,..
There is no good reason to trade this good Bishop for its poorer Black counterpart, especially using a valuable move to do so. Better is 15 Qb3, touching lightly on b7 and d5. White might not capture on b7 out of fear of letting the Black Rook become very active and can’t yet even claim to threaten d5, but the Queen is a mighty warrior and having her safely out and about no bad thing.
If you can calculate like a master, GM, or Rybka, taking on b7 is possible and good after the Queen sorties to b3. Play could continue; 15 Qb3 Rfc8 16 Qxb7 Rab8?! 17 Qxa7 Rxb2 18 0-0, and the entry square c2 is well covered preventing doubling on the 2d rank. White is also prepared to play one of his Rooks to b1 forcing off material while hanging tightly on to the extra passed pawn and decent winning chances.
The fifth World Champion demonstrated how to play against the IQP in a game from 1943. It is often cited in text books on chess. The winning plan is; 1) Concentrate on the weakness, d5, with the heavy pieces. 2) Once the opponent’s forces are tied down defending the weakness, open a second front. In the Botvinnik game that begins with 25 g4. 3) A timely shift by White of heavy pieces from pressuring d5 to direct attack on the Black King is very hard to meet usually some additional targets will appear. 4) By being tactically alert White has an excellent chance to gain something decisive. Anyone who plays serious chess should know the following game.
(23840) Botvinnik, Mikhail - Zagoriansky, Evgeny [A13]
Sverdlovsk Sverdlovsk (6), 1943
1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 e6 3.b3 Nf6 4.Bb2 Be7 5.e3 0–0 6.Nc3 c5 7.cxd5 Nxd5 8.Nxd5 exd5 9.d4 cxd4 10.Qxd4 Bf6 11.Qd2 Nc6 12.Be2 Be6 13.0–0 Bxb2 14.Qxb2 Qa5 15.Rfd1 Rad8 16.Rd2 Rd7 17.Rad1 Rfd8 18.h3 h6 19.Ne5 Nxe5 20.Qxe5 Qc5 21.Bf3 b6 22.Qb2 Rc8 23.Qe5 Rcd8 24.Rd4 a5 25.g4 Qc6 26.g5 hxg5 27.Qxg5 f6 28.Qg6 Bf7 29.Qg3 f5 30.Qg5 Qe6 31.Kh1 Qe5 32.Rg1 Rf8 33.Qh6 Rb8 34.Rh4 Kf8 35.Qh8+ Bg8 36.Rf4 Rbb7 37.Rg5 Rf7 38.Qh5 Qa1+ 39.Kg2 g6 40.Qxg6 Bh7 41.Qd6+ Rfe7 42.Qd8+ 1–0
There may be other plans to use versus the IQP. The above game is certainly one that has been used very frequently by Grandmasters, and cited by them in writing about the issue. A useful formula to know.
15..., Bxe2 16.Qxe2 Rac8 17.0–0 Rc4 18.Nf3?!,..
White’s play has not been the best. While the structural defect in the Black position remains, his more active pieces mask it for the moment. Rather than retreating the Knight, just 18 Qd2 adequately meets the threat to capture on d4 with the Rook. White may have feared 18 Qd2 Ne4; but 19 Qa5, looks reasonable with the issue not yet resolved. If 18 Qd2, Black can play to dominate the c-file with 18..., Rfc8 19 f3 Qc7 20 b3 Rc5; and the structural defect is completely balanced by the dynamic plus of the c-file. Given the foregoing, we can see a little bit why Mr. Denham looked at the text; judging the merits of the position after Black takes control of the c-file is not easy. White likely thought maybe he can distract Black from the c-file domination idea with some maneuvering.
18...,Qe4?
And it works. Better 18..., Qc7; to be followed by .., Rc8; when the potential weakness of the pawn at d5 is by no means easy to exploit.
19.Rac1 Qe6 20.Qd2 Ne4 21.Qa5 a6 22.Rfd1 Nf6?
White hasn’t made a real threat to d5, his back rank too weak. Black could try some further activity with 22..., g6; taking care of his own back rank problem, and then 23 Nd4 Qf6; and if 24 Qxd5? Qxf2+ 25 Kh1 Rxc1; wins. The text leads to Black achieving that which he has wanted for awhile; converting the IQP to a c-pawn, but this accomplishment gives White the chance to win the pawn.
23.Nd4 Qc8 24.Rxc4 dxc4 25.Rc1 b5 26.b3 Ne4 27.bxc4 bxc4 28.f3?,..
Simply 28 Qb4, picks up the c-pawn. Why did Jason not do so? The only conclusion seems to be that he fears his strong opponent sees farther than Jason can. Adding to the strangeness of the decision is the clock was not an issue for Mr. Denham. He had better than 43 minutes to Mr. Henner’s 12 minutes. It is one more example of psychology out weighing the basic chess skill of seeing the immediate future on the board.
28..., Nd6 29.Kf2 Qb7 30.Qc3 Rc8 31.Ke2 Nb5 32.Qb4 Qd5 33.Rd1 Qe5?
White has not come up with anything positive over the last few moves and that has allowed Black some chances. Here Black misses an opportunity to take the lead with 33..., c3 right away, passed pawns must be pushed as the old saying goes. The dangerous “passer” gives Black the advantage. By this point Henner was down to 7 ½ minutes. Time pressure probably played a part in the choice of move.
34.Nc6?,..
A slip missing the next Black move. Just 34 Kf2 keeps the disadvantage to a minimum.
34..., Nc3+
White must have been so tempted by his own tactical opportunities that he did not coolly evaluate all the Black moves. Black is almost winning now.
35.Kf1 Qxe3 36.Ne7+ Kh8 37.Re1 Qd3+ 38.Kf2 Qd4+ 39.Kg3 Rd8?
With only 1:36 plus the five second increment Peter has to rely on instinct here. To keep the hard won advantage necessary is 39..., g5; with the mate on h4 providing the time to save the Rook.
40.Nc6 Qd2 41.Qe7 Rg8
Black has a pawn, but the dangers to his King has forced the Black Rook to the most passive possible position. Henner’s clock was down to 1:21.
42.Re5?
A big mistake in his opponent’s time pressure. This occurs all too often around here. I know I have made similar mistakes, and they always hurt, maybe more than any other of my many chess errors. White had about 13 minutes on the clock, enough time to calculate, but he missed the problem with the game move.
42...Nb5?
Black had no time to find the unlikely looking 42..., f6!; which seems to win for Black. The probable line runs; 42..., f6 43 Re6 Nd5 44 Qc5 c3 45 Nb4 Nf4 46 Rd6 N2+ 47 Kh3 Qh6+; mating very soon. Quite a pretty demonstration of what a Queen and Knight can do to a King. Finding such a non-standard appearing combination in time pressure is a matter of luck and inspiration. Mr. Henner ran out of both for the moment.
43.Qxf7 Qd6 44.Qxc4 Nxa3 45.Qb4 Qxc6 46.Qxa3 ½–½
The game continued for many more moves played at breathtaking speed by Henner. Denham won the a-pawn fairly quickly. The three-to-two pawn majority all on the same side with heavy pieces on the board is obviously drawn. Given the terrible state of his clock, the examination of Peter’s endgame technique that Jason carried out is understandable. Mr. Henner found what he had to find in the way of moves, and after exhausting all the possible tries they agreed to a draw.
Although Jason Denham trials the field at 2 - 5, how he got there speaks to his rating not really reflecting his chess strength. Mr. Denham piled up four draws; among them were split points with Howard, Henner and Lack! All these guys are about 400 points more highly rated than is Denham, and every half-point at that rating gap has to be called an upset. Jason still has Tim Wright to play. It will not surprise to see him take a half-point there too. No matter what happens in his last game, it really has been a good event for Jason Denham.
Thursday evening at the Schenectady Club saw the second round of the Championship Finals played. Once more Carlos Varela could not attend. He is traveling overseas. It is unclear at this moment whether or not he will be back in country on the 20th of January, or the 20th of February. Both dates have been mentioned. If January, it will not be too much of a problem, he’ll be a couple of rounds behind which is nothing unusual for our local club championships. If February, it is quite a different matter.
The TD, Bill Townsend, set a goal to finish all games by March 20th . A February return will cut things very fine indeed. Any problems of coordinating the players schedules and missing the deadline becomes real. The deadline is not just an arbitrary line in the sand. The Capital District Chess League begins play about then. Mr. Varela plays for the RPI team and the other participants play for the Schenectady teams and the Saratoga team. Finding times and places to play both CDCL matches and these by then tardy SCC games will make Bill’s scheduling much more challenging than usual. Ah! The TD’s lot is never easy.
Thursday’s results were; Richard Chu lost to Alan Le Cours, and John Phillips defeated Philip Sells. The latter result came about in by now usual time pressure for Sells, but this time he was not able to solve the problems of his position and his flag fell in what was likely a lost position.
The standings are:
1 John Phillips 2-0
2 Alan Le Cours 1-0
3 Philip Sells 1-1
4 Zack Calderone 0-1
5 Richard Chu 0-2
6 Carlos Varela 0-0
In such a short affair, five rounds, the fast start by Phillips may play a large part in the final results. Certainly everyone will be chasing him from here on out.
More soon.
1.16.2012
The SCC Finals Begin
The Finals of the Schenectady Championship got underway with no more than the usual portion of misunderstanding. Two of the three scheduled games were played, and the outcomes conformed to the ratings predictions. The third game, Varela - Le Cours, was postponed to a later date. The TD did not get a positive confirmation from Carlos Varela, and so Alan Le Cours had to make the drive from Saratoga for naught.
There were a visitor or two and some casual games played along side the two serious contests. Of those, I am going to begin with the Phillips - Chu game. Richard and I long time colleagues in chess and friends. He has a record of beating Experts and Class A players periodically. When he is on his game Richard is a very capable chess player, however, his skill lies in tactics and not positional play. When he finds a tactical possibility, he can follow it with diligence and look pretty deeply searching for opportunities. Overlooking the positional factors is his chess sin, and that is the story In today’s game.
Phillips, John - Chu, Richard [A42]
SCC Championship Finals, Round 1 Schenectady, NY, 12.01.2012
1.e4 d6 2.d4 g6 3.c4 Bg7 4.Nc3 e5
No less than eight moves have been documented in theory here for Black in this line of the Modern Defense, Averbakh variation. Most popular is 4..., Nf6; converting the line to a standard Pirc Defense. The text has to be considered the mainline of the Averbakh variation. Here is now one of the super-Grandmasters handled the Black pieces;
(911857) Agrest, Evgenij (2604) - Morozevich, Alexander (2758) [A42]
Calvia ol (Men) Mallorca (3), 17.10.2004
1.d4 g6 2.e4 Bg7 3.c4 d6 4.Nc3 e5 5.dxe5 dxe5 6.Qxd8+ Kxd8 7.f4 Be6 8.Nf3 Nc6 9.Kf2 Nf6 10.Be2 h6 11.h3 Kc8 12.g3 Nd7 13.Kg2 exf4 14.gxf4 Bxc3 15.bxc3 Na5 16.Nd2 c5 17.Ba3 Kc7 18.Rae1 b6 19.Rhf1 f5 20.Bd3 Rhe8 21.Bc1 Rad8 22.Rf3 Nf6 23.Kf2 fxe4 24.Nxe4 Bxc4 25.Nxf6 Rxe1 26.Kxe1 Bxd3 27.f5 Bxf5 28.Bxh6 Rh8 29.Bf4+ Kc6 30.Re3 Rh4 31.Bg3 Ra4 32.Re7 Nc4 33.Rc7+ Kb5 34.Rh7 Rxa2 35.Nd5 a5 36.h4 Be4 37.Nc7+ Ka4 38.Re7 Bf3 39.Re6 Kb3 40.Rxg6 Re2+ 0–1
Here’s an example of the variation , the only one found in the databases of the specific line chosen by Mr. Chu;
(405391) Dimitrijeski, Kristian (2180) - Beyer, Ulrich [A42]
JBL NO 9596 Germany (2), 1995
1.d4 g6 2.c4 Bg7 3.Nc3 d6 4.e4 e5 5.dxe5 Bxe5 6.f4 Bg7 7.Nf3 Nc6 8.Be2 Nge7 9.Be3 Be6 10.0–0 h6 11.Nd5 f5 12.Nd4 Bd7 13.Nb5 Rc8 14.g4 fxe4 15.f5 Nxd5 16.Qxd5 Qe7 17.fxg6 Qe6 18.Qf5 Qxf5 19.gxf5 0–0 20.f6 Rxf6 21.Rxf6 Bxf6 22.Bxh6 Bg7 23.Be3 a6 24.Nc3 Bf5 25.Bh5 Bxc3 26.bxc3 Kg7 27.Bd4+ Nxd4 28.cxd4 Bxg6 29.Bxg6 Kxg6 30.Kf2 c6 31.a4 Rh8 32.Ke3 d5 33.cxd5 cxd5 34.Rb1 Kf5 35.Rf1+ Ke6 36.Rb1 Rxh2 37.Rxb7 Rh3+ 38.Ke2 Rd3 39.Rb6+ Kd7 40.Rxa6 Rxd4 41.Ra8 Kd6 42.a5 Kc6 43.Ke3 Rd3+ 44.Ke2 Ra3 45.a6 Kb6 46.Rd8 Kc5 47.Ra8 Kd4 48.a7 Ra2+ 49.Kf1 e3 50.Kg1 Kd3 51.Rd8 Rxa7 52.Rxd5+ Ke2 53.Rb5 Rg7+ 54.Kh2 Ke1 55.Re5 e2 56.Re6 Rf7 57.Kg2 Rf2+ 58.Kg1 Rf1+ 59.Kg2 Kd2 60.Rd6+ Kc3 0–1
Not Grandmasters to be sure, the game has value as it demonstrates that Black can make a decent game if he stays focused. Note that the capture on c3 happens later in this game.
5.dxe5 Bxe5
Theory gives the nod to 5..., dxe5; as the only acceptable move for Black and holds that the game is about even. It is interesting that Deep Rybka actually likes the text giving White only the smallest of advantages after it is played.
6.f4 Bg7?!
Seemingly a normal move but it a telling miss. In the Pirc/Modern, far more often than expected, Black captures the Nc3 with this Bishop. To someone who has not spent some time studying the work of those Grandmasters who use the Pirc, that capture looks an unlikely candidate. It can work however, especially against an opponent who is not completely prepared. The idea here is; 6..., Bxc3+ 7 bxc3 Qh4+, (To get more pawns on dark squares since Black no longer has a Bishop of that color.) 8 g3 Qe7; pressure on e4 is the point of Black’s play. If White continues with the natural; 9 Bg2, then 9..., Nf6 10 Qd3 Bf5; and the e-pawn is lost. If earlier White pushes the e-pawn to e5, say 10 e5, then maybe the pawn will be gone antway, but most importantly, the “big” White center is blown up. In such a case, Black has achieved all he wished for in selecting the Modern as his defense; obtaining a playable middle game. If you are using general chess principles alone, then the key capture on c3 just is considered only in passing and discarded. Why in the world does Black want to surrender the Bishop pair, especially the dark squared pride of the Black position? The answer is found in the often heard but seldom followed concept; in the vast majority of openings, all Black is striving for is equality and a playable middle game. The capture on c3 delivers that goal.
7.Nf3 Nc6 8.Be2 Nge7 9.0–0 Bg4 10.Be3 0–0 11.h3 Bxf3 12.Bxf3,..
Both sides have completed their development, and we now see the net result of the failure to capture on c3; White has a comfortable game along with more say in the center.
12..., Kh8
Black takes a precaution before making his only break possible; .., f7-f5. He could, and probably should, break now rather than later. Play might continue; 12..., f5 13 Re1 Rb8 14 Bf2 fxe4 15 Rxe4 Qd2; when White is still better, but Black has chances.
13.g4 f5 14.Qd2 fxg4?
A definite error. Correct is 14..., fxe4 15 Bxe4 Qd7; when the sacrificial line 16 f5? gxf5 17 gxf5 Nxf5; leaves the White King far less safe than the Black King. The game move presents White with an open h-file on which to operate. Black has not gone down this path blindly. He has some glimmering of tactical chances on the f-file and is intent on following those chances. The problem for Black is two-fold; was the positional factor of the h-file been properly evaluated, and have the tactics on the f-file been calculated accurately? The result of the game answers these questions.
15.hxg4 Ng8 16.Nd5 Rf7
When I saw this move played it was a puzzle, why there? A little more thought brought the conclusion; Black is building a defense along the 7th rank of course!
17.g5 h5!?
This then seemed out of step with the 7th rank defense, but no, a bit more consideration brought to light the 7th rank defense idea had a big problem; whenever the Bg7 has to move to allow the Rf7 to defend h7, White can check from c3 with the Queen. It seems the h-pawn jump is necessary. Black can play 17..., Qd7; planning to maneuver to minimize the effect of checks from c3 by getting the Ng8 out of the way, but White moves his King to g2 and doubles Rooks on the h-file and will win in a different way than in the game. This possibility illustrates the positional advantage the h-file gives to White.
18.gxh6 Nxh6 19.Qh2!?,..
Better 19 Kg2, then the threat of 20 f5 threatening the Nh6 is very strong. If 19..., Kg8 20 f5 and material is lost. If 19..., Qf8 20 Rh1, when Richard’s idea, 20..., Ne5?!; does not quite work after 21 exf5 Rxf3 22 Bxh6 Bxh6 23 Rxh6+ Kg7 24 Rah1, and beyond the material deficit, threats on the h-file will end the game in White’s favor quickly.
19..., Qf8 20.Rad1,..
A really good move for more reasons than immediately apparent.
20..., Ne5?
This was the blow Mr. Chu had in mind as the position developed. After the game he thought it was premature and first 20..., Re8; needed to be played. That is true. After 20...Re8 21.f5 gxf5 22.Bh5 Be5; Black is working towards easing his difficulties. Richard was thinking of 20..., Re8; in combination with the Knight sacrifice at e5, and that does not seem to work. The “tree of analysis” gets very bushy after 20..., Re8; but the lines I looked at all seem to give Black a playable game in the short term. The positional problems remain, and over the long run White has good chances to win. The text, on the other hand, loses by force.
So what if Black plays 20..., Re8; and tries his Knight sacrifice? Play could go; 20..., Re8 21 Kh1 Ne5? 22 fxe5 Rxf3 23 Kg2 Be5 24 Rxf3 Qxf3+ 25 Kxf3 Bxh2 26 Bxh6, when White, with a piece for a pawn, will have a win with a modicum of care.
21.fxe5 Rxf3 22.Bxh6 Bxh6 23.Rxf3 Qxf3 24.Qxh6+ Kg8 25.Qxg6+ Kh8 26.Qf6+!?,..
Forcing off the Queens. It may be quibbling to mention, but shorter is 26 Rd2!, and Black must give up his Queen to hold off mate for even a few moves. The move 26 Rd2, threatens mate beginning 27 Rh2+. What is Black to do? In the discussion after the game the first thought was 26..., Rg8; but that does nothing to prevent 27 Rh2+, first winning the Queen and mating anyway. The second thought was 26..., Qe3; overlooking 27 Nxe3, also collects the Queen without preventing the coming mate.
John Phillips said he would have played the move but he just did not see it.
He had worked out the game continuation, was confident it led to a win and did not look farther. The practical problem with taking a longer path such as here, is something may have been missed in the calculation.
26...Qxf6 27.exf6 Kg8
The position is lost; an extra pawn and a extra piece is too much to overcome in an endgame such this. John Phillips felt certain he would be able to cash in his advantage for the full point. The final moves demonstrate he was correct.
28.Rf1 Kf7 29.Rf4 c6 30.Ne3 Rg8+ 31.Kf2 a6 32.Ng4 Rg6 33.e5 Rxg4 34.Rxg4 dxe5 35.Rg7+ Kxf6 36.Rxb7 Ke6 37.Rb6 Kd6 38.Rxa6 Kc5 39.b3 1–0
My friend Richard had a nice idea. Its flaws unfortunately were more weighty than its merits, and he would not, or could not change his approach to a more positional method. There is an adage that says chess 99% tactics. I don’t know if that is correct for every level of play. The saying certainly is most correct for us at the club level. There is a big but coming; some consideration for positional factors has to be part of even a club players arsenal. In today’s game the open h-file leading to the Black King provided the basis for a successful tactical solution for White. Ignoring, or not recognizing these factors in a position will frequently wreck even nice tactical schemes. It did so here.
More soon.
There were a visitor or two and some casual games played along side the two serious contests. Of those, I am going to begin with the Phillips - Chu game. Richard and I long time colleagues in chess and friends. He has a record of beating Experts and Class A players periodically. When he is on his game Richard is a very capable chess player, however, his skill lies in tactics and not positional play. When he finds a tactical possibility, he can follow it with diligence and look pretty deeply searching for opportunities. Overlooking the positional factors is his chess sin, and that is the story In today’s game.
Phillips, John - Chu, Richard [A42]
SCC Championship Finals, Round 1 Schenectady, NY, 12.01.2012
1.e4 d6 2.d4 g6 3.c4 Bg7 4.Nc3 e5
No less than eight moves have been documented in theory here for Black in this line of the Modern Defense, Averbakh variation. Most popular is 4..., Nf6; converting the line to a standard Pirc Defense. The text has to be considered the mainline of the Averbakh variation. Here is now one of the super-Grandmasters handled the Black pieces;
(911857) Agrest, Evgenij (2604) - Morozevich, Alexander (2758) [A42]
Calvia ol (Men) Mallorca (3), 17.10.2004
1.d4 g6 2.e4 Bg7 3.c4 d6 4.Nc3 e5 5.dxe5 dxe5 6.Qxd8+ Kxd8 7.f4 Be6 8.Nf3 Nc6 9.Kf2 Nf6 10.Be2 h6 11.h3 Kc8 12.g3 Nd7 13.Kg2 exf4 14.gxf4 Bxc3 15.bxc3 Na5 16.Nd2 c5 17.Ba3 Kc7 18.Rae1 b6 19.Rhf1 f5 20.Bd3 Rhe8 21.Bc1 Rad8 22.Rf3 Nf6 23.Kf2 fxe4 24.Nxe4 Bxc4 25.Nxf6 Rxe1 26.Kxe1 Bxd3 27.f5 Bxf5 28.Bxh6 Rh8 29.Bf4+ Kc6 30.Re3 Rh4 31.Bg3 Ra4 32.Re7 Nc4 33.Rc7+ Kb5 34.Rh7 Rxa2 35.Nd5 a5 36.h4 Be4 37.Nc7+ Ka4 38.Re7 Bf3 39.Re6 Kb3 40.Rxg6 Re2+ 0–1
Here’s an example of the variation , the only one found in the databases of the specific line chosen by Mr. Chu;
(405391) Dimitrijeski, Kristian (2180) - Beyer, Ulrich [A42]
JBL NO 9596 Germany (2), 1995
1.d4 g6 2.c4 Bg7 3.Nc3 d6 4.e4 e5 5.dxe5 Bxe5 6.f4 Bg7 7.Nf3 Nc6 8.Be2 Nge7 9.Be3 Be6 10.0–0 h6 11.Nd5 f5 12.Nd4 Bd7 13.Nb5 Rc8 14.g4 fxe4 15.f5 Nxd5 16.Qxd5 Qe7 17.fxg6 Qe6 18.Qf5 Qxf5 19.gxf5 0–0 20.f6 Rxf6 21.Rxf6 Bxf6 22.Bxh6 Bg7 23.Be3 a6 24.Nc3 Bf5 25.Bh5 Bxc3 26.bxc3 Kg7 27.Bd4+ Nxd4 28.cxd4 Bxg6 29.Bxg6 Kxg6 30.Kf2 c6 31.a4 Rh8 32.Ke3 d5 33.cxd5 cxd5 34.Rb1 Kf5 35.Rf1+ Ke6 36.Rb1 Rxh2 37.Rxb7 Rh3+ 38.Ke2 Rd3 39.Rb6+ Kd7 40.Rxa6 Rxd4 41.Ra8 Kd6 42.a5 Kc6 43.Ke3 Rd3+ 44.Ke2 Ra3 45.a6 Kb6 46.Rd8 Kc5 47.Ra8 Kd4 48.a7 Ra2+ 49.Kf1 e3 50.Kg1 Kd3 51.Rd8 Rxa7 52.Rxd5+ Ke2 53.Rb5 Rg7+ 54.Kh2 Ke1 55.Re5 e2 56.Re6 Rf7 57.Kg2 Rf2+ 58.Kg1 Rf1+ 59.Kg2 Kd2 60.Rd6+ Kc3 0–1
Not Grandmasters to be sure, the game has value as it demonstrates that Black can make a decent game if he stays focused. Note that the capture on c3 happens later in this game.
5.dxe5 Bxe5
Theory gives the nod to 5..., dxe5; as the only acceptable move for Black and holds that the game is about even. It is interesting that Deep Rybka actually likes the text giving White only the smallest of advantages after it is played.
6.f4 Bg7?!
Seemingly a normal move but it a telling miss. In the Pirc/Modern, far more often than expected, Black captures the Nc3 with this Bishop. To someone who has not spent some time studying the work of those Grandmasters who use the Pirc, that capture looks an unlikely candidate. It can work however, especially against an opponent who is not completely prepared. The idea here is; 6..., Bxc3+ 7 bxc3 Qh4+, (To get more pawns on dark squares since Black no longer has a Bishop of that color.) 8 g3 Qe7; pressure on e4 is the point of Black’s play. If White continues with the natural; 9 Bg2, then 9..., Nf6 10 Qd3 Bf5; and the e-pawn is lost. If earlier White pushes the e-pawn to e5, say 10 e5, then maybe the pawn will be gone antway, but most importantly, the “big” White center is blown up. In such a case, Black has achieved all he wished for in selecting the Modern as his defense; obtaining a playable middle game. If you are using general chess principles alone, then the key capture on c3 just is considered only in passing and discarded. Why in the world does Black want to surrender the Bishop pair, especially the dark squared pride of the Black position? The answer is found in the often heard but seldom followed concept; in the vast majority of openings, all Black is striving for is equality and a playable middle game. The capture on c3 delivers that goal.
7.Nf3 Nc6 8.Be2 Nge7 9.0–0 Bg4 10.Be3 0–0 11.h3 Bxf3 12.Bxf3,..
Both sides have completed their development, and we now see the net result of the failure to capture on c3; White has a comfortable game along with more say in the center.
12..., Kh8
Black takes a precaution before making his only break possible; .., f7-f5. He could, and probably should, break now rather than later. Play might continue; 12..., f5 13 Re1 Rb8 14 Bf2 fxe4 15 Rxe4 Qd2; when White is still better, but Black has chances.
13.g4 f5 14.Qd2 fxg4?
A definite error. Correct is 14..., fxe4 15 Bxe4 Qd7; when the sacrificial line 16 f5? gxf5 17 gxf5 Nxf5; leaves the White King far less safe than the Black King. The game move presents White with an open h-file on which to operate. Black has not gone down this path blindly. He has some glimmering of tactical chances on the f-file and is intent on following those chances. The problem for Black is two-fold; was the positional factor of the h-file been properly evaluated, and have the tactics on the f-file been calculated accurately? The result of the game answers these questions.
15.hxg4 Ng8 16.Nd5 Rf7
When I saw this move played it was a puzzle, why there? A little more thought brought the conclusion; Black is building a defense along the 7th rank of course!
17.g5 h5!?
This then seemed out of step with the 7th rank defense, but no, a bit more consideration brought to light the 7th rank defense idea had a big problem; whenever the Bg7 has to move to allow the Rf7 to defend h7, White can check from c3 with the Queen. It seems the h-pawn jump is necessary. Black can play 17..., Qd7; planning to maneuver to minimize the effect of checks from c3 by getting the Ng8 out of the way, but White moves his King to g2 and doubles Rooks on the h-file and will win in a different way than in the game. This possibility illustrates the positional advantage the h-file gives to White.
18.gxh6 Nxh6 19.Qh2!?,..
Better 19 Kg2, then the threat of 20 f5 threatening the Nh6 is very strong. If 19..., Kg8 20 f5 and material is lost. If 19..., Qf8 20 Rh1, when Richard’s idea, 20..., Ne5?!; does not quite work after 21 exf5 Rxf3 22 Bxh6 Bxh6 23 Rxh6+ Kg7 24 Rah1, and beyond the material deficit, threats on the h-file will end the game in White’s favor quickly.
19..., Qf8 20.Rad1,..
A really good move for more reasons than immediately apparent.
20..., Ne5?
This was the blow Mr. Chu had in mind as the position developed. After the game he thought it was premature and first 20..., Re8; needed to be played. That is true. After 20...Re8 21.f5 gxf5 22.Bh5 Be5; Black is working towards easing his difficulties. Richard was thinking of 20..., Re8; in combination with the Knight sacrifice at e5, and that does not seem to work. The “tree of analysis” gets very bushy after 20..., Re8; but the lines I looked at all seem to give Black a playable game in the short term. The positional problems remain, and over the long run White has good chances to win. The text, on the other hand, loses by force.
So what if Black plays 20..., Re8; and tries his Knight sacrifice? Play could go; 20..., Re8 21 Kh1 Ne5? 22 fxe5 Rxf3 23 Kg2 Be5 24 Rxf3 Qxf3+ 25 Kxf3 Bxh2 26 Bxh6, when White, with a piece for a pawn, will have a win with a modicum of care.
21.fxe5 Rxf3 22.Bxh6 Bxh6 23.Rxf3 Qxf3 24.Qxh6+ Kg8 25.Qxg6+ Kh8 26.Qf6+!?,..
Forcing off the Queens. It may be quibbling to mention, but shorter is 26 Rd2!, and Black must give up his Queen to hold off mate for even a few moves. The move 26 Rd2, threatens mate beginning 27 Rh2+. What is Black to do? In the discussion after the game the first thought was 26..., Rg8; but that does nothing to prevent 27 Rh2+, first winning the Queen and mating anyway. The second thought was 26..., Qe3; overlooking 27 Nxe3, also collects the Queen without preventing the coming mate.
John Phillips said he would have played the move but he just did not see it.
He had worked out the game continuation, was confident it led to a win and did not look farther. The practical problem with taking a longer path such as here, is something may have been missed in the calculation.
26...Qxf6 27.exf6 Kg8
The position is lost; an extra pawn and a extra piece is too much to overcome in an endgame such this. John Phillips felt certain he would be able to cash in his advantage for the full point. The final moves demonstrate he was correct.
28.Rf1 Kf7 29.Rf4 c6 30.Ne3 Rg8+ 31.Kf2 a6 32.Ng4 Rg6 33.e5 Rxg4 34.Rxg4 dxe5 35.Rg7+ Kxf6 36.Rxb7 Ke6 37.Rb6 Kd6 38.Rxa6 Kc5 39.b3 1–0
My friend Richard had a nice idea. Its flaws unfortunately were more weighty than its merits, and he would not, or could not change his approach to a more positional method. There is an adage that says chess 99% tactics. I don’t know if that is correct for every level of play. The saying certainly is most correct for us at the club level. There is a big but coming; some consideration for positional factors has to be part of even a club players arsenal. In today’s game the open h-file leading to the Black King provided the basis for a successful tactical solution for White. Ignoring, or not recognizing these factors in a position will frequently wreck even nice tactical schemes. It did so here.
More soon.
1.13.2012
The Howard - Magat Game from AACC
The game between Dean Howard and Gordon Magat was a meeting of the two highest rated players in the AACC Championship. Gordon had dropped three points so far in the event hurting his chances to qualify for the title playoff match. Mr. Howard, on the other hand was down only 1 ½ points. I expected a stern fight with clock problems having a role in deciding the result. Instead it was a short sharp battle without serious time trouble for either party. The matter was settled early, by move 15 Dean had gambled on a quick transition to an ending in which his Knight is stuck on a8. If it could be rescued, then he had an Exchange to the good, and if not there was to be a tough ending with a Bishop and Knight versus a Rook. No rescue was possible and the game was decided effectively by move 23 when Mr. Magat’s b-pawn began to advance. With a small chess joke at the last, Mr. Howard was mated on move 27.
Howard, Dean - Magat, Gordon [B22]
AACC Championship Guilderland, NY, 11.01.2012
1.e4 c5 2.c3,..
A choice when White does not want to explore the complications of the Open Sicilian (2 d4) or the intricate maneuvering of the Closed Sicilian (2 Nc3). The move can lead to a very sharp opening interlude with lots of tricks for both sides.
2..., Nf6
Equally popular is 2..., d5; with a different kind of game, but still tricky.
3.e5 Nd5 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4,..
Much more common is 6 cxd4, but the move is not unknown at the elite level. Here three examples:
(1118005) Erenburg,Sergey (2585) - Gelfand,Boris (2729) [B22]
World Championship Blitz Rishon Le Ziyyon (7), 07.09.2006
1.e4 c5 2.c3 Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 Nb6 7.Bb3 dxe5 8.Nxe5 e6 9.cxd4 Nc6 10.Nxc6 bxc6 11.0–0 Be7 12.Nc3 Ba6 13.Re1 0–0 14.Bf4 Nd5 15.Be5 Nxc3 16.bxc3 Bf6 17.Qf3 Rc8 18.Rad1 Qe7 19.Bc2 Rfd8 20.Qe4 g6 21.Qf3 Bg7 22.Bb3 c5 23.Bxg7 Kxg7 24.d5 c4 25.Bc2 Bb7 26.d6 Rxd6 27.Qe3 Rb6 28.a4 Qc5 29.Qd4+ Qxd4 30.Rxd4 Bd5 31.h4 f5 32.g4 Rb2 33.Bd1 Rb1 34.gxf5 gxf5 35.Kh2 Kf6 36.Re3 Rg8 37.Bf3 Bxf3 38.Rxf3 Rgg1 39.Rg3 Rh1+ 40.Kg2 e5 41.Rxc4 e4 42.Rc6+ Ke5 43.f4+ Kxf4 44.Rg5 Rbg1+ 45.Kf2 e3+ 46.Ke2 Rh2+ 47.Kd3 Rd2+ 48.Kc4 Rxg5 49.hxg5 e2 50.Re6 Kxg5 51.Kb5 f4 52.c4 f3 53.c5 f2 54.c6 f1Q 55.c7 e1Q+ 0–1
(965270) Neubauer,Martin (2457) - Stocek,Jiri (2585) [B22]
Mitropa Cup Steinbrunn (2), 22.05.2005
1.e4 c5 2.c3 Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 Nb6 7.Bb3 dxe5 8.Nxe5 e6 9.cxd4 Nc6 10.Nf3 Bb4+ 11.Nc3 Nd5 12.Qd3 Na5 13.Bc2 Bd7 14.Bd2 Bxc3 15.bxc3 Rc8 16.Ne5 f6 17.c4 fxe5 18.cxd5 Nc4 19.dxe5 Nxe5 20.Qe4 Rxc2 21.Qxc2 Bb5 22.a4 Nd3+ 23.Kd1 Ba6 24.Be3 0–0 25.Qb3 Bc4 26.Qxb7 Bxd5 27.Qxa7 Bxg2 28.Rg1 Bf3+ 29.Kc2 Nb4+ 30.Kb3 Rf7 31.Qxf7+ Kxf7 32.Kxb4 Qd6+ 33.Kc3 Be2 34.Rgc1 Ba6 35.Rd1 Qc7+ 36.Kb2 Qb7+ 37.Ka3 Qe7+ 38.Kb3 Qb7+ 39.Ka3 Qe7+ 40.Kb3 Qb7+ ½–½
(963094) Zhigalko,Sergei (2462) - Karjakin,Sergey (2635) [B22]
Young Stars of the World 3rd Kirishi (9), 23.05.2005
1.e4 c5 2.c3 Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 4.Nf3 d6 5.d4 cxd4 6.Bc4 Nb6 7.Bb3 Nc6 8.exd6 Qxd6 9.0–0 Be6 10.Na3 dxc3 11.Qe2 Bxb3 12.Nb5 Qb8 13.axb3 e5 14.Nbd4 f6 15.bxc3 Kf7 16.Nxc6 bxc6 17.Qe4 Qd6 18.Be3 Nd5 19.c4 Nb4 20.Bxa7 Qd3 21.Qg4 Be7 22.Rad1 Qg6 23.Qd7 Rhd8 24.Qb7 Rxd1 25.Rxd1 Rd8 26.Rf1 Kf8 27.Bb6 Rd3 28.Qc8+ Qe8 29.Qf5 g6 30.Qe6 Qd7 31.Qxd7 Rxd7 32.Be3 Rd3 33.Rb1 Nc2 34.Kf1 e4 35.Ke2 Bb4 36.h4 Kf7 37.Bd2 Na3 38.Ra1 Be7 39.Bc1 Nc2 40.Ra2 exf3+ 41.gxf3 Nb4 0–1
6..., dxe5!?
And Black promptly takes the game into a not so explored area. The standard answer here is 6... Nb6; when Black is about equal according to Rybka and theory. There are few examples of this move in my databases. One that illustrates the tactical nature of the play in this line is;
(910731) Matsuura,Everaldo (2474) - Navarro,Tiago Cunha (2150) [B22]
Belo Horizonte pre olymp Belo Horizonte (2), 09.10.2004
1.e4 c5 2.c3 Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 dxe5 7.Nxe5 e6 8.0–0 Bd6 9.cxd4 0–0 10.Qh5 Qc7 11.Bd3 Nf6 12.Qe2 Nbd7 13.Re1 Rd8 14.Bf4 Nxe5 15.dxe5 Bb4 16.Rc1 Qd7 17.Bb5 Qd4 18.Bg5 h6 19.Nc3 hxg5 20.Rd1 Qb6 21.exf6 a6 22.Bd3 Bd7 23.fxg7 [23.Qh5 g6 24.Bxg6 fxg6 25.Qxg6+ Kf8 26.Qg7+ Ke8 27.Qg8+ Bf8 28.Qg6#] 23...Bxc3 24.bxc3 Qc5 25.Be4 Bb5 26.Qf3 Qe5 27.Qe3 Kxg7 28.Bxb7 Qxe3 29.fxe3 Rab8 30.Rxd8 Rxd8 31.a4 Bc4 32.Bf3 Rd3 33.Kf2 Rxc3 34.e4 Kf6 35.Kg3 Be2 36.Rb1 Bd3 37.Rb4 Ra3 38.Kg4 Kg6 39.e5 Bf5+ 40.Kg3 g4 0–1
In the game cited an experienced master is defeated by a youngster. The master overlooked the winning line at move 23 - see the note in the game score- and paid a big price for missing his chance.
7.Nxe5 e6 8.0–0 Nc6
Marginally better is 8..., Be7; why give White the chance to do damage to the Black pawn structure? After the text acceptable for White is; 9 Nxc6 bxc6 10 Qxd4 Qb6 11 Qg4, with a slightly superior pawn structure.
9.cxd4 Be7 10.Nc3?!,..
Suspect from a positional point of view. Reasonable is 10 Nf3, agreeing to an isolated QP middle game and equality.
10..., Nxc3 11.Nxc6?,..
White does not want to allow 11 bxc3 Nxe4 12 dxe5, when it is he that has the weakened pawn formation. He therefore decides to “fish in troubled waters” with a not quite sound combination. Mr. Howard may have misevaluated the possibility of getting the Knight out of a8 or obtaining some kind of real compensation for it if lost. The sporting situation, Dean’s race with Peter Henner, and a sense that this game must be won, likely influenced the decision to take a risk.
11..., Nxd1 12.Nxd8 Nxb2 13.Nxe6 Nxc4 14.Nc7+ Kd7!
Not so logical looking as 14..., Kd8; but better. If the Black King goes to d8, White gains a valuable tempo with the Bishop check at g5. That is just enough to allow him to get some activity for his Rook offsetting the slight material imbalance. Play might go; 14..., Kd8 15 Nxa8 Bd616 Bg5+ f6 17 Bg4 b6 18 Bg3 Bxg3 19 hxg3 Bb7 20 Rfc1, and if 20 ...,b5 21 a4, and White is obtaining decent compensation. Black can improve in this line with again 18..., Kd7; then White probably must try 19 Rfe1 Bb7? 20 Nc7 Bxc7 21 Bxc7 Kxc7 22 Re7+, again with some compensation. In this sub-variation Black has to find 19..., g6; or 19..., Rg8; to keep his advantage. The text sidesteps all that and gives Black a substantial edge.
15.Nxa8 Bd6 16.Bg5,..
Marginally better is 16 Rb1, but the Na8 is doomed. The Black Bishops will dominate the game.
16..., b5 17.a4,..
A radical try but less wild attempts just leave Black in control.
17..., b4!
Dean was likely hoping this move would not be played. Suddenly the Black b-pawn is a menace.
18.a5 Bb7 19.Rfc1 Rc8 20.Nb6+ axb6 21.a6,
White bets on the advanced a-pawn to shake his opponent’s confidence, that was not to be.
21..., Bd5 22.a7,..
A bit more stubborn is 22 axb6. The fundamentals remain unchanged however. Three minor pieces and the passed b-pawn are powerful enough to win no matter what White tries.
23..., Ra8
Black can play 23..., b3 right away because the Nc4 is immune from capture for the b-pawn will Queen. Mr. Magat uses good technique preventing any possible counter-play involving pushing the a-pawn to the eighth rank.
23.g3 b3 24.Rcb1 b2 25.Ra6 Be4 26.Bf4 Bxf4 27.Rc1,..
This is Mr. Howard’s joke at the end of a tense fight. He recognizes 27 Rxb2 Nxb2 28 gxf4 Nd3 29 Rxb6 Rxa7; and the material deficit with the mating threats to his King make further resistance useless.
27...,c1Q# 0–1
This win tightened up the struggle for a playoff spot. Gordon has kept alive some hope to qualify. If Howard wins his last game against Henner, we will have to watch Peter strive to win his last two games, or at least garner 1 ½ points. In that case Peter is first and Dean second filling the playoff chairs. If it is a draw, Gordon Magat may get to play a playoff for the last spot. I don’t know if that playoff for a playoff spot is one or two games. We will have to inquire of the TD, Galen Perry, should the situation come about. Peter Henner can, of course, by defeating Howard, helps Gordon alot. Then Gordon is in, which spot depends on how many points Peter scores in his final two games. It must not be forgotten that if Chris Caravaty wins his last game against Jonathan Lack, Caravaty will have 5 points as well as Gordon Magat. What that situation entails could make determining who plays for what more than interesting. God Bless the TD, he could have a most unusual problem to deal with. Lots of tension for sure.
More soon.
Howard, Dean - Magat, Gordon [B22]
AACC Championship Guilderland, NY, 11.01.2012
1.e4 c5 2.c3,..
A choice when White does not want to explore the complications of the Open Sicilian (2 d4) or the intricate maneuvering of the Closed Sicilian (2 Nc3). The move can lead to a very sharp opening interlude with lots of tricks for both sides.
2..., Nf6
Equally popular is 2..., d5; with a different kind of game, but still tricky.
3.e5 Nd5 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4,..
Much more common is 6 cxd4, but the move is not unknown at the elite level. Here three examples:
(1118005) Erenburg,Sergey (2585) - Gelfand,Boris (2729) [B22]
World Championship Blitz Rishon Le Ziyyon (7), 07.09.2006
1.e4 c5 2.c3 Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 Nb6 7.Bb3 dxe5 8.Nxe5 e6 9.cxd4 Nc6 10.Nxc6 bxc6 11.0–0 Be7 12.Nc3 Ba6 13.Re1 0–0 14.Bf4 Nd5 15.Be5 Nxc3 16.bxc3 Bf6 17.Qf3 Rc8 18.Rad1 Qe7 19.Bc2 Rfd8 20.Qe4 g6 21.Qf3 Bg7 22.Bb3 c5 23.Bxg7 Kxg7 24.d5 c4 25.Bc2 Bb7 26.d6 Rxd6 27.Qe3 Rb6 28.a4 Qc5 29.Qd4+ Qxd4 30.Rxd4 Bd5 31.h4 f5 32.g4 Rb2 33.Bd1 Rb1 34.gxf5 gxf5 35.Kh2 Kf6 36.Re3 Rg8 37.Bf3 Bxf3 38.Rxf3 Rgg1 39.Rg3 Rh1+ 40.Kg2 e5 41.Rxc4 e4 42.Rc6+ Ke5 43.f4+ Kxf4 44.Rg5 Rbg1+ 45.Kf2 e3+ 46.Ke2 Rh2+ 47.Kd3 Rd2+ 48.Kc4 Rxg5 49.hxg5 e2 50.Re6 Kxg5 51.Kb5 f4 52.c4 f3 53.c5 f2 54.c6 f1Q 55.c7 e1Q+ 0–1
(965270) Neubauer,Martin (2457) - Stocek,Jiri (2585) [B22]
Mitropa Cup Steinbrunn (2), 22.05.2005
1.e4 c5 2.c3 Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 Nb6 7.Bb3 dxe5 8.Nxe5 e6 9.cxd4 Nc6 10.Nf3 Bb4+ 11.Nc3 Nd5 12.Qd3 Na5 13.Bc2 Bd7 14.Bd2 Bxc3 15.bxc3 Rc8 16.Ne5 f6 17.c4 fxe5 18.cxd5 Nc4 19.dxe5 Nxe5 20.Qe4 Rxc2 21.Qxc2 Bb5 22.a4 Nd3+ 23.Kd1 Ba6 24.Be3 0–0 25.Qb3 Bc4 26.Qxb7 Bxd5 27.Qxa7 Bxg2 28.Rg1 Bf3+ 29.Kc2 Nb4+ 30.Kb3 Rf7 31.Qxf7+ Kxf7 32.Kxb4 Qd6+ 33.Kc3 Be2 34.Rgc1 Ba6 35.Rd1 Qc7+ 36.Kb2 Qb7+ 37.Ka3 Qe7+ 38.Kb3 Qb7+ 39.Ka3 Qe7+ 40.Kb3 Qb7+ ½–½
(963094) Zhigalko,Sergei (2462) - Karjakin,Sergey (2635) [B22]
Young Stars of the World 3rd Kirishi (9), 23.05.2005
1.e4 c5 2.c3 Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 4.Nf3 d6 5.d4 cxd4 6.Bc4 Nb6 7.Bb3 Nc6 8.exd6 Qxd6 9.0–0 Be6 10.Na3 dxc3 11.Qe2 Bxb3 12.Nb5 Qb8 13.axb3 e5 14.Nbd4 f6 15.bxc3 Kf7 16.Nxc6 bxc6 17.Qe4 Qd6 18.Be3 Nd5 19.c4 Nb4 20.Bxa7 Qd3 21.Qg4 Be7 22.Rad1 Qg6 23.Qd7 Rhd8 24.Qb7 Rxd1 25.Rxd1 Rd8 26.Rf1 Kf8 27.Bb6 Rd3 28.Qc8+ Qe8 29.Qf5 g6 30.Qe6 Qd7 31.Qxd7 Rxd7 32.Be3 Rd3 33.Rb1 Nc2 34.Kf1 e4 35.Ke2 Bb4 36.h4 Kf7 37.Bd2 Na3 38.Ra1 Be7 39.Bc1 Nc2 40.Ra2 exf3+ 41.gxf3 Nb4 0–1
6..., dxe5!?
And Black promptly takes the game into a not so explored area. The standard answer here is 6... Nb6; when Black is about equal according to Rybka and theory. There are few examples of this move in my databases. One that illustrates the tactical nature of the play in this line is;
(910731) Matsuura,Everaldo (2474) - Navarro,Tiago Cunha (2150) [B22]
Belo Horizonte pre olymp Belo Horizonte (2), 09.10.2004
1.e4 c5 2.c3 Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 dxe5 7.Nxe5 e6 8.0–0 Bd6 9.cxd4 0–0 10.Qh5 Qc7 11.Bd3 Nf6 12.Qe2 Nbd7 13.Re1 Rd8 14.Bf4 Nxe5 15.dxe5 Bb4 16.Rc1 Qd7 17.Bb5 Qd4 18.Bg5 h6 19.Nc3 hxg5 20.Rd1 Qb6 21.exf6 a6 22.Bd3 Bd7 23.fxg7 [23.Qh5 g6 24.Bxg6 fxg6 25.Qxg6+ Kf8 26.Qg7+ Ke8 27.Qg8+ Bf8 28.Qg6#] 23...Bxc3 24.bxc3 Qc5 25.Be4 Bb5 26.Qf3 Qe5 27.Qe3 Kxg7 28.Bxb7 Qxe3 29.fxe3 Rab8 30.Rxd8 Rxd8 31.a4 Bc4 32.Bf3 Rd3 33.Kf2 Rxc3 34.e4 Kf6 35.Kg3 Be2 36.Rb1 Bd3 37.Rb4 Ra3 38.Kg4 Kg6 39.e5 Bf5+ 40.Kg3 g4 0–1
In the game cited an experienced master is defeated by a youngster. The master overlooked the winning line at move 23 - see the note in the game score- and paid a big price for missing his chance.
7.Nxe5 e6 8.0–0 Nc6
Marginally better is 8..., Be7; why give White the chance to do damage to the Black pawn structure? After the text acceptable for White is; 9 Nxc6 bxc6 10 Qxd4 Qb6 11 Qg4, with a slightly superior pawn structure.
9.cxd4 Be7 10.Nc3?!,..
Suspect from a positional point of view. Reasonable is 10 Nf3, agreeing to an isolated QP middle game and equality.
10..., Nxc3 11.Nxc6?,..
White does not want to allow 11 bxc3 Nxe4 12 dxe5, when it is he that has the weakened pawn formation. He therefore decides to “fish in troubled waters” with a not quite sound combination. Mr. Howard may have misevaluated the possibility of getting the Knight out of a8 or obtaining some kind of real compensation for it if lost. The sporting situation, Dean’s race with Peter Henner, and a sense that this game must be won, likely influenced the decision to take a risk.
11..., Nxd1 12.Nxd8 Nxb2 13.Nxe6 Nxc4 14.Nc7+ Kd7!
Not so logical looking as 14..., Kd8; but better. If the Black King goes to d8, White gains a valuable tempo with the Bishop check at g5. That is just enough to allow him to get some activity for his Rook offsetting the slight material imbalance. Play might go; 14..., Kd8 15 Nxa8 Bd616 Bg5+ f6 17 Bg4 b6 18 Bg3 Bxg3 19 hxg3 Bb7 20 Rfc1, and if 20 ...,b5 21 a4, and White is obtaining decent compensation. Black can improve in this line with again 18..., Kd7; then White probably must try 19 Rfe1 Bb7? 20 Nc7 Bxc7 21 Bxc7 Kxc7 22 Re7+, again with some compensation. In this sub-variation Black has to find 19..., g6; or 19..., Rg8; to keep his advantage. The text sidesteps all that and gives Black a substantial edge.
15.Nxa8 Bd6 16.Bg5,..
Marginally better is 16 Rb1, but the Na8 is doomed. The Black Bishops will dominate the game.
16..., b5 17.a4,..
A radical try but less wild attempts just leave Black in control.
17..., b4!
Dean was likely hoping this move would not be played. Suddenly the Black b-pawn is a menace.
18.a5 Bb7 19.Rfc1 Rc8 20.Nb6+ axb6 21.a6,
White bets on the advanced a-pawn to shake his opponent’s confidence, that was not to be.
21..., Bd5 22.a7,..
A bit more stubborn is 22 axb6. The fundamentals remain unchanged however. Three minor pieces and the passed b-pawn are powerful enough to win no matter what White tries.
23..., Ra8
Black can play 23..., b3 right away because the Nc4 is immune from capture for the b-pawn will Queen. Mr. Magat uses good technique preventing any possible counter-play involving pushing the a-pawn to the eighth rank.
23.g3 b3 24.Rcb1 b2 25.Ra6 Be4 26.Bf4 Bxf4 27.Rc1,..
This is Mr. Howard’s joke at the end of a tense fight. He recognizes 27 Rxb2 Nxb2 28 gxf4 Nd3 29 Rxb6 Rxa7; and the material deficit with the mating threats to his King make further resistance useless.
27...,c1Q# 0–1
This win tightened up the struggle for a playoff spot. Gordon has kept alive some hope to qualify. If Howard wins his last game against Henner, we will have to watch Peter strive to win his last two games, or at least garner 1 ½ points. In that case Peter is first and Dean second filling the playoff chairs. If it is a draw, Gordon Magat may get to play a playoff for the last spot. I don’t know if that playoff for a playoff spot is one or two games. We will have to inquire of the TD, Galen Perry, should the situation come about. Peter Henner can, of course, by defeating Howard, helps Gordon alot. Then Gordon is in, which spot depends on how many points Peter scores in his final two games. It must not be forgotten that if Chris Caravaty wins his last game against Jonathan Lack, Caravaty will have 5 points as well as Gordon Magat. What that situation entails could make determining who plays for what more than interesting. God Bless the TD, he could have a most unusual problem to deal with. Lots of tension for sure.
More soon.
1.12.2012
Updates From AACC and SCC
Wednesday evening saw a nice turnout at the Albany Area Chess Club. Three games were played in the title event and a number of visitors attended with a good number of casual games going on alongside the tournament battles.
Dean Howard was upended by Gordon Magat in a short sharp 2 c3, Sicilian. That will be an interesting game to look at to find just where Dean went wrong. That brings up how to rank the leaders when they have played different numbers of games. Should the ranking be by number scored or by points lost? I’ve opted for the number scored. Magat has the top score, 5 wins and he has finished his schedule. Howard is right behind with 4 ½ and one games play, followed by Henner at 4 with no less than three games to play. Howard or Henner most certainly will catch up with or pass Magat, but who does so turns on the outcome of Henner versus Howard.
In the struggle for the under 1800 places Mr. Caravaty defeated Mr. Alowitz bringing his score to 4 - 3 taking the lead in that contest. Cory Northrup lost to Jon Lack. Lack played an opening, the Nimzo-Indian Defense, pretty much by the book, nothing offbeat. He collected a pawn when Mr. Northrup failed to grasp the essence of the opening. Lack concluded the game in a nice workmanlike style giving Northrup no real chances to complicate matters. This result leaves Cory at 2 ½ points trailing Caravaty by 1 ½ and Alowitz by a ½ point.
The standings are, Including the games from Wednesday January 11. 2011:
1 Magat 5 - 3
2 Howard 4 ½ - 2 ½
3 Henner 4 - 1
4 Caravaty 4 - 3
5 Lack 3 - 3
6 Alowitz 3 - 4
7 Northrup 2 ½ - 2 ½
8 Wright 2 ½ - 3 ½
9 Denham 1 ½ - 4 ½
A conversation with Bill Townsend, our esteemed Gazette chess columnist, today pointed up some interesting observations about the progress of this event. First, Gordon Magat is very unlikely to hold on to the first spot. Second, the game Henner - Howard is the key to deciding the order of finish at the top. Third, the event is pretty much Peter Henner’s to lose. He has Howard, Northrup and Denham to play. The Henner - Howard game could have any result, either one could win. Based on form it is hard to imagine Mr. Henner losing to both Northrup and Denham. And fourth, because the AACC Championship calls for a two game match playoffs of the top two finishers to decide the title, the struggle is far from over.
Just to add complexity to the mix, consider this; Mr. Caravaty at 4 -3 with one game to play, could win his final game and end up with a 5 - 3 score. Conceivably he might tie for one of top two slots for the title, and that score would also put him in contention for the under 1800 playoff. Possibly Chris would then have a playoff match for the under 1800 title and a playoff for second place overall. Should he win the playoff for the a spot in the title match, it would then be possible for Mr. Caravaty win both the title of Champion and the under 1800 prize. Wild! It should be noted I have not spoken with Glen Perry, the tournament director, about these potential results to verify what I am guessing are within the rules of the tournament.
No matter how the actual games turn out, we still have a long way to go in the AACC Championship.
Another piece of information Mr. Townsend passed on was the Schenectady Championship Finals will begin tonight, Thursday January 12, 2011. The line up is; Philip Sells, John Phillips, Alan Le Cours, Zack Calderone, Carlos Varela and Richard Chu. Townsend has spoken with all and it was agreed to start the event tonight.
So, amidst snow and rain - the kind of weather I associate with the Schenectady Championship - once more the venerable old club will decide who’s the top player for this year. It was sixty years ago I saw the first of many Schenectady Championships. I was very much only a spectator at the 1951 event, but if memory serves there was a good deal of snow on the ground when it took place, and it seems to me was this the case at most of the Championships in which I took part. The weather is right, let the fun begin tonight. Good Chess to all the competitors!
More soon.
Dean Howard was upended by Gordon Magat in a short sharp 2 c3, Sicilian. That will be an interesting game to look at to find just where Dean went wrong. That brings up how to rank the leaders when they have played different numbers of games. Should the ranking be by number scored or by points lost? I’ve opted for the number scored. Magat has the top score, 5 wins and he has finished his schedule. Howard is right behind with 4 ½ and one games play, followed by Henner at 4 with no less than three games to play. Howard or Henner most certainly will catch up with or pass Magat, but who does so turns on the outcome of Henner versus Howard.
In the struggle for the under 1800 places Mr. Caravaty defeated Mr. Alowitz bringing his score to 4 - 3 taking the lead in that contest. Cory Northrup lost to Jon Lack. Lack played an opening, the Nimzo-Indian Defense, pretty much by the book, nothing offbeat. He collected a pawn when Mr. Northrup failed to grasp the essence of the opening. Lack concluded the game in a nice workmanlike style giving Northrup no real chances to complicate matters. This result leaves Cory at 2 ½ points trailing Caravaty by 1 ½ and Alowitz by a ½ point.
The standings are, Including the games from Wednesday January 11. 2011:
1 Magat 5 - 3
2 Howard 4 ½ - 2 ½
3 Henner 4 - 1
4 Caravaty 4 - 3
5 Lack 3 - 3
6 Alowitz 3 - 4
7 Northrup 2 ½ - 2 ½
8 Wright 2 ½ - 3 ½
9 Denham 1 ½ - 4 ½
A conversation with Bill Townsend, our esteemed Gazette chess columnist, today pointed up some interesting observations about the progress of this event. First, Gordon Magat is very unlikely to hold on to the first spot. Second, the game Henner - Howard is the key to deciding the order of finish at the top. Third, the event is pretty much Peter Henner’s to lose. He has Howard, Northrup and Denham to play. The Henner - Howard game could have any result, either one could win. Based on form it is hard to imagine Mr. Henner losing to both Northrup and Denham. And fourth, because the AACC Championship calls for a two game match playoffs of the top two finishers to decide the title, the struggle is far from over.
Just to add complexity to the mix, consider this; Mr. Caravaty at 4 -3 with one game to play, could win his final game and end up with a 5 - 3 score. Conceivably he might tie for one of top two slots for the title, and that score would also put him in contention for the under 1800 playoff. Possibly Chris would then have a playoff match for the under 1800 title and a playoff for second place overall. Should he win the playoff for the a spot in the title match, it would then be possible for Mr. Caravaty win both the title of Champion and the under 1800 prize. Wild! It should be noted I have not spoken with Glen Perry, the tournament director, about these potential results to verify what I am guessing are within the rules of the tournament.
No matter how the actual games turn out, we still have a long way to go in the AACC Championship.
Another piece of information Mr. Townsend passed on was the Schenectady Championship Finals will begin tonight, Thursday January 12, 2011. The line up is; Philip Sells, John Phillips, Alan Le Cours, Zack Calderone, Carlos Varela and Richard Chu. Townsend has spoken with all and it was agreed to start the event tonight.
So, amidst snow and rain - the kind of weather I associate with the Schenectady Championship - once more the venerable old club will decide who’s the top player for this year. It was sixty years ago I saw the first of many Schenectady Championships. I was very much only a spectator at the 1951 event, but if memory serves there was a good deal of snow on the ground when it took place, and it seems to me was this the case at most of the Championships in which I took part. The weather is right, let the fun begin tonight. Good Chess to all the competitors!
More soon.
1.10.2012
The Finish at Saratoga
The first of the big club championships in the Capital district ended last night. The Saratoga title was decided in a game between Jon Fineberg and Alan Le Cours. For a good while it seemed that the game might be drawn making a three way tie for first; Fineberg, Le Cours and Farrell all with 5 ½ points. The there would have been the usual debate about tie-breaks which is the appropriate system, etc. Mr. Fineberg saved us from that fate by taking advantage of a small positional error by Mr. Le Cours and bringing home the point and the title. Congratulations to the new Saratoga Champion! This is Jonathan Fineberg’s first title at Saratoga.
Fineberg, Jonathan - Le Cours, Alan [A25]
Saratoga Championship Saratoga Springs, NY, 08.01.2012
1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 Nc6 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.Nd5,..
Before the game began Alan Le Cours wondered out loud if he had wasted his time preparing for the English. Fineberg did not vary from his usual English and Le Cours equalized out of the opening. Preparation was not a waste of time at all.
This position has been popular for a long time. Way back in 1938 it showed up at a Hastings Christmas tournament:
(19795) Golombek, Harry - Klein, Ernst Ludwig [A25]
Hastings (1), 1938
1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e5 3.g3 Nc6 4.Bg2 Bb4 5.Nd5 Nxd5 6.cxd5 Nb8 7.Nf3 Qe7 8.0–0 0–0 9.d4 exd4 10.Nxd4 Bc5 11.e4 d6 12.Be3 Nd7 13.Nf5 Qf6 14.Qd2 Bxe3 15.Nxe3 a5 16.f4 Qd8 17.Rac1 b6 18.Qd4 f6 19.Rfd1 Re8 20.Nc4 Ba6 21.Nd2 Nc5 22.Nb3 Re7 23.Nxc5 bxc5 24.Qc3 a4 25.Re1 Rb8 26.e5 fxe5 27.fxe5 Rxe5 28.Rxe5 dxe5 29.Qxe5 Qd6 30.Qe6+ Kh8 31.Re1 Bb5 32.Qf7 Rf8 33.Qe7 Bd7 34.Re2 Kg8 35.Qe3 Re8 36.Qd2 Re5 37.Qe1 Rxe2 38.Qxe2 Qf6 39.h3 h6 40.Kh2 Bf5 41.Qf2 Kh7 42.Qf4 Bb1 43.Qxf6 gxf6 44.a3 f5 45.Bf3 Bc2 46.Kg2 Kg7 47.Kf2 Kf6 48.Ke3 Ke5 49.Kd2 Bb3 50.Ke3 Bc2 51.Kd2 Bb3 52.Ke3 Bxd5 53.Bd1 Bc6 54.Be2 Bd7 55.Bd3 Bc6 ½–½
The idea 6..., Nb8; let Golombek come out of the opening with an advantage, but it slipped away in the middle game.
5..., 0–0 6.a3,..
The capture 6 Nxb4, has not worked out for White. Here are couple of examples:
(941072) Rotstein, Arkadij (2528) - Zhang Pengxiang (2560) [A25]
Cannes Open (7), 24.02.2005
1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 Nc6 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.Nd5 0–0 6.Nxb4 Nxb4 7.d3 Nc6 8.e4 d6 9.Ne2 Bg4 10.f3 Be6 11.Be3 Nd7 12.0–0 f5 13.b3 Qe7 14.Qd2 a5 15.f4 fxe4 16.dxe4 exf4 17.gxf4 Nf6 18.h3 Qf7 19.Nd4 Nxd4 20.Bxd4 Qh5 21.Qe3 Rae8 22.Rae1 Bd7 23.e5 Qg6 24.Kh2 c6 25.Qc3 Nh5 26.Be4 Qh6 27.f5 dxe5 28.Bxe5 Nf6 29.Rg1 Rxe5 30.Qxe5 Re8 31.Qd4 Qf4+ 32.Kh1 Rxe4 33.Rxe4 Qxe4+ 34.Qxe4 Nxe4 35.Kh2 Kf7 36.Rd1 Nc5 37.a3 Bxf5 38.b4 axb4 39.axb4 Nd3 40.Ra1 Nxb4 41.Ra7 Bc8 42.Ra8 Be6 43.Ra7 Nd3 44.Rxb7+ Kf6 45.Rb6 Ne5 46.c5 Bd5 47.Rb2 Nd3 48.Rc2 Ke5 49.Kg3 Kd4 50.Re2 Nxc5 51.Re7 Ne6 0–1
Even though Black surrenders the Bishop pair, and he seemingly gains no time by the capture on b4, White has to handle the resulting play correctly.
(1172665) Larino Nieto, David (2404) - Roa Alonso, Santiago (2423) [A25]
Madrid FMA Masters Madrid (3), 21.04.2007
1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3 Bb4 4.Bg2 Nc6 5.Nd5 a5 6.Nxb4 axb4 7.e3 d5 8.cxd5 Nxd5 9.Ne2 Nde7 10.d4 exd4 11.exd4 Be6 12.Nf4 Bc4 13.d5 Ne5 14.Qd4 Qd6 15.b3 Bb5 16.Bb2 f6 17.0–0–0 0–0 18.Ne6 c5 19.dxc6 Qxe6 20.cxb7 Rab8 21.Rhe1 Bc6 22.Bf1 Bd5 23.Kb1 Qf5+ 24.Ka1 Rxb7 25.Qc5 Rc8 26.Qa5 Qxf2 27.Ba6 N5c6 28.Qa4 Ra7 29.Qb5 Rb8 30.Qd3 Rba8 31.Re2 Qb6 32.Bc4 Rxa2+ 33.Kb1 Bxc4 34.Qxc4+ Kh8 35.Rde1 Qa7 36.Kc1 Ra5 37.Kb1 Rc5 38.Bd4 Nxd4 39.Qxd4 Rc1+ 0–1
In the foregoing game GM Nieto responded to defending the Bb4 by .., a7-a5; by castling long right into a firestorm. Play in the game illustrates again that while the game unfolds slowly in these English Openings, it can get quite sharp.
6..., Bc5 7.e3 a5 8.Ne2 Re8 9.0–0 d6 10.h3 Bd7 11.b3 Nxd5
Capturing on d5 is a central question for Black in this line. Does he or don’t he? If he does so, White has a solidly defended pawn on d5 that can be “a bone in the throat” for Black. At first glance there does not seem to be any way to surround the pawn and win it. In the next game cited, Kuzubov challenges the d5-pawn early. GM Jan Timman shows how, if White is very confident, he can play to open the center relying on Black’s slower development to give an advantage to White.
(990473) Timman, Jan H (2625) - Kuzubov, Yuriy (2535) [A25]
15th EU-Team Ch, Gothenburg (2), 31.07.2005
1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 Nc6 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.Nd5 Bc5 6.e3 Nxd5 7.cxd5 Ne7 8.Ne2 0–0 9.0–0 c6 10.d4 exd4 11.exd4 Bb6 12.d6 Nf5 13.Bf4 Qf6 14.Be5 Qh6 15.Nc3 Nxd6 16.d5 Nf5 17.d6 Re8 18.Re1 Re6 19.Qd3 Qh5 20.Bf3 Qg6 21.Bf4 Nd4 22.Be4 Qh5 23.Bg2 Qg6 24.Be4 Qh5 25.Na4 f5 26.Nxb6 fxe4 27.Qxd4 axb6 28.Rxe4 Qc5 29.Qd3 Qf5 30.Rae1 Ra4 31.f3 h5 32.Qb3 Raxe4 33.fxe4 Qc5+ 34.Kg2 g5 35.Be3 Qxd6 36.Bxg5 Qc5 37.Bf6 d5 38.e5 Qd4 39.Qc2 1–0
In the next game cited, GM Maslak delays the natural challenge to the d5-pawn for a bit. That doesn’t improve results. Maslak escapes with a draw only because his opponent couldn’t resist a tempting but flawed mating combination.
(1206176) Adla,Diego Gustavo (2472) - Maslak, Konstantin (2548) [A25]
Pardubice Czech Open (7), 26.07.2007
1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 Nc6 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.Nd5 Bc5 6.e3 0–0 7.Ne2 Re8 8.0–0 a6 9.b3 d6 10.Bb2 Ba7 11.h3 Nxd5 12.cxd5 Ne7 13.Rc1 c6 14.dxc6 Nxc6 15.d4 Qa5 16.Bc3 Qb5 17.Qd2 Bf5 18.Rfd1 Rac8 19.Qb2 f6 20.Bf1 Qb6 21.Qa3 Bb8 22.d5 Ne7 23.Ba5 Qa7 24.Nc3 h6 25.Qb4 Qc5 26.Qxc5 Rxc5 27.b4 Rcc8 28.b5 axb5 29.Bxb5 Rf8 30.g4 Bg6 31.Bd7 Rc5 32.Bb4 Rc4 33.a3 Rd8 34.Be6+ Bf7 35.Ba5 Bc7 36.Bb4 Bb8 37.Rb1 Kf8 38.Kf1 h5 39.Ke2 Bxe6 40.dxe6 hxg4 41.hxg4 Rxg4 42.Ba5 Re8 43.Rxb7 Nc6 44.Bc7 Bxc7 45.Rxc7 Rc4 46.Rf7+ Kg8 47.Rg1 Rxc3 48.Rfxg7+ Kh8 49.R7g6 Re7 50.Rg8+ Kh7 51.R8g3 Kh8 52.Rg8+ Kh7 53.R8g3 Kh8 54.Rg8+ ½–½
Enough of the history and theory, back to our game.
12.cxd5 Ne7 13.d4 exd4 14.Nxd4 Nf5 15.Nxf5 Bxf5 16.Bb2 Qg5!?
The game has leveled out with the trades of the last Knight. While watching the game I expected here 16..., Qd7 17 g4 Be4 18 Re1. The trick of pushing the b-pawn to b4 is in the air; if Black captures the pawn offered, Qd4 threatens mate and the Bishop on b4 winning. Black of course is under no obligation to grab the pawn and can just retreat the Bishop to b6.
When Black made the text move I was puzzled. The first thought was; Black has three pieces targeting e3, are there some tactics that net him an advantage? I could not find anything decisive for Black, just some dangers that White will have to take into account.
17.Rc1 Be4 18.Rc4,..
The sequence 18 b4 axb4 19 axb4 Bxb4? 20 Rxc7, is tempting, but Black likely will not fall in with White’s wishes but can play 19..., Bb6; with an equal game. The game move makes threats along the 4th rank. If the White Rooks can get to g5 the g7-pawn is attacked twice and its defense problematical.
18..., Qg6 19.Bxe4,..
An interesting decision. I thought at the time White would avoid trading material given the critical sporting nature of the contest; a win by either side nets the title. My guess about how play would go was; 19 Kh2!?, (Preparing f2-f3, and if 19..., Bd3 20 Rg4.) 19..., f6 20 f3?! Bd3 21 Rg4 Bc2!, with complicated play that is not unfavorable for Black; if there is no crashing through attack based on the Rg4, what is White to do with his Rook out there among the pawns? White can opt for something else, say 19 Re1, but then a subsequent f2-f3 still has danger attached. Play might continue; 19 Re1 h6 20 f3 Bf5 21 Kh2 Bxe3 22 Rxc7 Bf2 23 Rxe8+ Rxe8 24 g4 Qg5 25 Bc3 Qd8; when Black has some edge because of the problems around the White King. Those problems are not offset by potential distant passed a-pawn. Getting it rolling is tough when the slightest inaccuracy may well lead to mate. My guess is, for the variations I mention and probably more that Mr. Fineberg examined, he concluded simplification is best.
19..., Rxe4 20.Rxe4 Qxe4 21.Qd2 f6 22.Rc1 b5 23.Rd1 Qf3 24.Re1 Kf7 25.Qd1 Qxd1
The game has been moving towards a drawn outcome. This move is one more step along that path. If Black wanted to keep tension in the game, he could have tried 25..., Qf5; but I don’t see much more he can do if White is careful.
26.Rxd1 f5!?
A not particularly useful loosening of his pawn structure. Better 26..., Re8.
27.Kg2 Re8 28.Kf3 Kg6
During the postmortem I said this was maybe the move that cost Black the game. With Rybka’s help, I looked long and hard, but I was not completely correct in that judgment. Black can hold this position if he finds just the right move. A bigger problem for Black was the clock. The crises approaches and Black was down to sixteen minutes here. White was better off with twenty-three minutes remaining. Now this is not time trouble on the order we have seen with Philip Sells or in the past with Peter Michaelman,, but the ending is tricky and there is considerable play left in the position. It is certainly uncomfortable to know that taking as little as one minute for consideration is a serious matter.
29.Rc1 Re7 30.Rg1! h6?
This is the culprit. With little time to consider deeply what is going on, Black plays to keep things together and to conserve the clock. White has hit upon a methodical approach; open the g-file so as to put maximum pressure on g7, and then, activate his center pawns. A counter-plan is not at all obvious, but it is there. Black should play to liquidate the target with 30..., Kh6!; if then 31 g4 Rf7 32 Ke2 g5 33 gxf5 Rxf5 34 Rg4 Kg6; and while Black is not out of the woods entirely, he has made some progress. Note that “winning” the d-pawn with .., Rxd4?; is answered by e3-e4, trapping the Rd4.
31.g4 fxg4+ 32.hxg4!?,..
I did not have a chance to ask Fineberg why this move when 32 Rxg4, seems so natural. The decision may have turned on nothing more than instinct. Jonathan’s time remaining was now about eleven minutes to Alan’s nine. The situation is anything except clear as yet, and the text keeps the White pawns together anticipating an ending played in a time scramble.
32..., Rf7+ 33.Ke2 Re7 34.Kd3,..
White begins to use a second idea in his plan. From d3 the White King can support the advance of the center pawns. He is also prepared to march on the Black Q-side via c4/b5/c6 if the opportunity is given.
34..., Kf7?
The sustained pressure White has exerted makes a crack. More stubborn is 34..., Rf7.
35.Rg3?,..
White is determined not to rush matters, however here he could have played 35 g5 hxg5 36 Rxg5 Kf8 37 a4, forcing open the c4/b5 pathway for the White King. The dual threats of advancing the pawns in the center and a raid by the White King on the Q-side strains the Black defense to the breaking point.
35..., g5 36.f4?,..
An error that presents Black with a chance to hold the draw. White decides not to preserve the central pawn mass. He elects to go with a passed pawn on the K-side as his trump. I do not think that is the correct way to proceed.
36..., gxf4 37.exf4 Re1 38.g5 hxg5 39.fxg5 Kg6 40.Bc3 Rd1+ 41.Ke4 b4 42.axb4 axb4 43.Bf6 Re1+ 44.Kd3 Rh1 45.Kc4 Rh4+ 46.Kb5 Bf2?
The game has been about equal for the last ten or so moves. Here Black begins to slip. It is understandable. His clock was now down to 28 seconds! The last move does not let the balance tip too much. Black likely was worried about the loss of the pawn on c7 and wanted to distract White. Better is 46..., Rh2; looking for activity for the Rook.
47.Rg2 Be1
The repositioning of the Bishop has left both the c and d-pawn in the lurch.
48.Kc6 Rh7 49.Re2 Bc3 50.Re6 Kf5 51.Bd8 Rg7 1–0
Here the flag fell for Mr. Le Cours. I have to admire the clear creative thought behind Mr. Fineberg’s idea of advancing the g-pawn on move 31. It was the only way to keep up the effort to win. I had written the game off at as a draw and did not consider the move at all. The follow up was not without flaws, but also admirable was the way White maintained the initiative. In building time pressure it is extraordinarily difficult to find just the right move. The defender is stretched between conserving precious time and making positional concessions. In this game, Le Cours made a stubborn defense, it just took too much clock time to do so.
The final standings in the Saratoga Championship were:
1 Jonathan Fineberg 6 - 2
2 Gary Farrell 5 ½ - 2 ½
3 Alan Le Cours 5 - 3
4 Josh Kuperman 2 ½ - 5 ½
5 David Connors 1 - 7
6 Jeff Hrebenach DNF - Games rated but not counted in the standings, less than 50% played.
To sum up the event: Jon Fineberg had a shaky start. In the first cycle he lost to both Le Cours and Farrell while winning as expected against Connors and Kuperman. In the second half of the contest he swept all before him scoring 4 - 0 to take the title.
Mr. Farrell had a spotty performance. He lost to Kuperman in the first half and drew with Connors in the second half. By winning both games against Mr. Le Cours, Gary pulled himself into contention for first place, but his fate was in the hands of others at the end.
Alan Le Cours came close. He nearly had a draw in his last round game that would made a three way tie for first. The clock got him this time.
All things considered, a most interesting event. The down side has to be the low turnout. Only a few years ago we were lamenting the time required to finish the Saratoga Championship because we had 15 or more entrants. I don’t know what can be done to bring attendance up. If anyone has an idea I’d be more than glad to publish it to the chess community here.
More soon.
Fineberg, Jonathan - Le Cours, Alan [A25]
Saratoga Championship Saratoga Springs, NY, 08.01.2012
1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 Nc6 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.Nd5,..
Before the game began Alan Le Cours wondered out loud if he had wasted his time preparing for the English. Fineberg did not vary from his usual English and Le Cours equalized out of the opening. Preparation was not a waste of time at all.
This position has been popular for a long time. Way back in 1938 it showed up at a Hastings Christmas tournament:
(19795) Golombek, Harry - Klein, Ernst Ludwig [A25]
Hastings (1), 1938
1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e5 3.g3 Nc6 4.Bg2 Bb4 5.Nd5 Nxd5 6.cxd5 Nb8 7.Nf3 Qe7 8.0–0 0–0 9.d4 exd4 10.Nxd4 Bc5 11.e4 d6 12.Be3 Nd7 13.Nf5 Qf6 14.Qd2 Bxe3 15.Nxe3 a5 16.f4 Qd8 17.Rac1 b6 18.Qd4 f6 19.Rfd1 Re8 20.Nc4 Ba6 21.Nd2 Nc5 22.Nb3 Re7 23.Nxc5 bxc5 24.Qc3 a4 25.Re1 Rb8 26.e5 fxe5 27.fxe5 Rxe5 28.Rxe5 dxe5 29.Qxe5 Qd6 30.Qe6+ Kh8 31.Re1 Bb5 32.Qf7 Rf8 33.Qe7 Bd7 34.Re2 Kg8 35.Qe3 Re8 36.Qd2 Re5 37.Qe1 Rxe2 38.Qxe2 Qf6 39.h3 h6 40.Kh2 Bf5 41.Qf2 Kh7 42.Qf4 Bb1 43.Qxf6 gxf6 44.a3 f5 45.Bf3 Bc2 46.Kg2 Kg7 47.Kf2 Kf6 48.Ke3 Ke5 49.Kd2 Bb3 50.Ke3 Bc2 51.Kd2 Bb3 52.Ke3 Bxd5 53.Bd1 Bc6 54.Be2 Bd7 55.Bd3 Bc6 ½–½
The idea 6..., Nb8; let Golombek come out of the opening with an advantage, but it slipped away in the middle game.
5..., 0–0 6.a3,..
The capture 6 Nxb4, has not worked out for White. Here are couple of examples:
(941072) Rotstein, Arkadij (2528) - Zhang Pengxiang (2560) [A25]
Cannes Open (7), 24.02.2005
1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 Nc6 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.Nd5 0–0 6.Nxb4 Nxb4 7.d3 Nc6 8.e4 d6 9.Ne2 Bg4 10.f3 Be6 11.Be3 Nd7 12.0–0 f5 13.b3 Qe7 14.Qd2 a5 15.f4 fxe4 16.dxe4 exf4 17.gxf4 Nf6 18.h3 Qf7 19.Nd4 Nxd4 20.Bxd4 Qh5 21.Qe3 Rae8 22.Rae1 Bd7 23.e5 Qg6 24.Kh2 c6 25.Qc3 Nh5 26.Be4 Qh6 27.f5 dxe5 28.Bxe5 Nf6 29.Rg1 Rxe5 30.Qxe5 Re8 31.Qd4 Qf4+ 32.Kh1 Rxe4 33.Rxe4 Qxe4+ 34.Qxe4 Nxe4 35.Kh2 Kf7 36.Rd1 Nc5 37.a3 Bxf5 38.b4 axb4 39.axb4 Nd3 40.Ra1 Nxb4 41.Ra7 Bc8 42.Ra8 Be6 43.Ra7 Nd3 44.Rxb7+ Kf6 45.Rb6 Ne5 46.c5 Bd5 47.Rb2 Nd3 48.Rc2 Ke5 49.Kg3 Kd4 50.Re2 Nxc5 51.Re7 Ne6 0–1
Even though Black surrenders the Bishop pair, and he seemingly gains no time by the capture on b4, White has to handle the resulting play correctly.
(1172665) Larino Nieto, David (2404) - Roa Alonso, Santiago (2423) [A25]
Madrid FMA Masters Madrid (3), 21.04.2007
1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3 Bb4 4.Bg2 Nc6 5.Nd5 a5 6.Nxb4 axb4 7.e3 d5 8.cxd5 Nxd5 9.Ne2 Nde7 10.d4 exd4 11.exd4 Be6 12.Nf4 Bc4 13.d5 Ne5 14.Qd4 Qd6 15.b3 Bb5 16.Bb2 f6 17.0–0–0 0–0 18.Ne6 c5 19.dxc6 Qxe6 20.cxb7 Rab8 21.Rhe1 Bc6 22.Bf1 Bd5 23.Kb1 Qf5+ 24.Ka1 Rxb7 25.Qc5 Rc8 26.Qa5 Qxf2 27.Ba6 N5c6 28.Qa4 Ra7 29.Qb5 Rb8 30.Qd3 Rba8 31.Re2 Qb6 32.Bc4 Rxa2+ 33.Kb1 Bxc4 34.Qxc4+ Kh8 35.Rde1 Qa7 36.Kc1 Ra5 37.Kb1 Rc5 38.Bd4 Nxd4 39.Qxd4 Rc1+ 0–1
In the foregoing game GM Nieto responded to defending the Bb4 by .., a7-a5; by castling long right into a firestorm. Play in the game illustrates again that while the game unfolds slowly in these English Openings, it can get quite sharp.
6..., Bc5 7.e3 a5 8.Ne2 Re8 9.0–0 d6 10.h3 Bd7 11.b3 Nxd5
Capturing on d5 is a central question for Black in this line. Does he or don’t he? If he does so, White has a solidly defended pawn on d5 that can be “a bone in the throat” for Black. At first glance there does not seem to be any way to surround the pawn and win it. In the next game cited, Kuzubov challenges the d5-pawn early. GM Jan Timman shows how, if White is very confident, he can play to open the center relying on Black’s slower development to give an advantage to White.
(990473) Timman, Jan H (2625) - Kuzubov, Yuriy (2535) [A25]
15th EU-Team Ch, Gothenburg (2), 31.07.2005
1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 Nc6 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.Nd5 Bc5 6.e3 Nxd5 7.cxd5 Ne7 8.Ne2 0–0 9.0–0 c6 10.d4 exd4 11.exd4 Bb6 12.d6 Nf5 13.Bf4 Qf6 14.Be5 Qh6 15.Nc3 Nxd6 16.d5 Nf5 17.d6 Re8 18.Re1 Re6 19.Qd3 Qh5 20.Bf3 Qg6 21.Bf4 Nd4 22.Be4 Qh5 23.Bg2 Qg6 24.Be4 Qh5 25.Na4 f5 26.Nxb6 fxe4 27.Qxd4 axb6 28.Rxe4 Qc5 29.Qd3 Qf5 30.Rae1 Ra4 31.f3 h5 32.Qb3 Raxe4 33.fxe4 Qc5+ 34.Kg2 g5 35.Be3 Qxd6 36.Bxg5 Qc5 37.Bf6 d5 38.e5 Qd4 39.Qc2 1–0
In the next game cited, GM Maslak delays the natural challenge to the d5-pawn for a bit. That doesn’t improve results. Maslak escapes with a draw only because his opponent couldn’t resist a tempting but flawed mating combination.
(1206176) Adla,Diego Gustavo (2472) - Maslak, Konstantin (2548) [A25]
Pardubice Czech Open (7), 26.07.2007
1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 Nc6 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.Nd5 Bc5 6.e3 0–0 7.Ne2 Re8 8.0–0 a6 9.b3 d6 10.Bb2 Ba7 11.h3 Nxd5 12.cxd5 Ne7 13.Rc1 c6 14.dxc6 Nxc6 15.d4 Qa5 16.Bc3 Qb5 17.Qd2 Bf5 18.Rfd1 Rac8 19.Qb2 f6 20.Bf1 Qb6 21.Qa3 Bb8 22.d5 Ne7 23.Ba5 Qa7 24.Nc3 h6 25.Qb4 Qc5 26.Qxc5 Rxc5 27.b4 Rcc8 28.b5 axb5 29.Bxb5 Rf8 30.g4 Bg6 31.Bd7 Rc5 32.Bb4 Rc4 33.a3 Rd8 34.Be6+ Bf7 35.Ba5 Bc7 36.Bb4 Bb8 37.Rb1 Kf8 38.Kf1 h5 39.Ke2 Bxe6 40.dxe6 hxg4 41.hxg4 Rxg4 42.Ba5 Re8 43.Rxb7 Nc6 44.Bc7 Bxc7 45.Rxc7 Rc4 46.Rf7+ Kg8 47.Rg1 Rxc3 48.Rfxg7+ Kh8 49.R7g6 Re7 50.Rg8+ Kh7 51.R8g3 Kh8 52.Rg8+ Kh7 53.R8g3 Kh8 54.Rg8+ ½–½
Enough of the history and theory, back to our game.
12.cxd5 Ne7 13.d4 exd4 14.Nxd4 Nf5 15.Nxf5 Bxf5 16.Bb2 Qg5!?
The game has leveled out with the trades of the last Knight. While watching the game I expected here 16..., Qd7 17 g4 Be4 18 Re1. The trick of pushing the b-pawn to b4 is in the air; if Black captures the pawn offered, Qd4 threatens mate and the Bishop on b4 winning. Black of course is under no obligation to grab the pawn and can just retreat the Bishop to b6.
When Black made the text move I was puzzled. The first thought was; Black has three pieces targeting e3, are there some tactics that net him an advantage? I could not find anything decisive for Black, just some dangers that White will have to take into account.
17.Rc1 Be4 18.Rc4,..
The sequence 18 b4 axb4 19 axb4 Bxb4? 20 Rxc7, is tempting, but Black likely will not fall in with White’s wishes but can play 19..., Bb6; with an equal game. The game move makes threats along the 4th rank. If the White Rooks can get to g5 the g7-pawn is attacked twice and its defense problematical.
18..., Qg6 19.Bxe4,..
An interesting decision. I thought at the time White would avoid trading material given the critical sporting nature of the contest; a win by either side nets the title. My guess about how play would go was; 19 Kh2!?, (Preparing f2-f3, and if 19..., Bd3 20 Rg4.) 19..., f6 20 f3?! Bd3 21 Rg4 Bc2!, with complicated play that is not unfavorable for Black; if there is no crashing through attack based on the Rg4, what is White to do with his Rook out there among the pawns? White can opt for something else, say 19 Re1, but then a subsequent f2-f3 still has danger attached. Play might continue; 19 Re1 h6 20 f3 Bf5 21 Kh2 Bxe3 22 Rxc7 Bf2 23 Rxe8+ Rxe8 24 g4 Qg5 25 Bc3 Qd8; when Black has some edge because of the problems around the White King. Those problems are not offset by potential distant passed a-pawn. Getting it rolling is tough when the slightest inaccuracy may well lead to mate. My guess is, for the variations I mention and probably more that Mr. Fineberg examined, he concluded simplification is best.
19..., Rxe4 20.Rxe4 Qxe4 21.Qd2 f6 22.Rc1 b5 23.Rd1 Qf3 24.Re1 Kf7 25.Qd1 Qxd1
The game has been moving towards a drawn outcome. This move is one more step along that path. If Black wanted to keep tension in the game, he could have tried 25..., Qf5; but I don’t see much more he can do if White is careful.
26.Rxd1 f5!?
A not particularly useful loosening of his pawn structure. Better 26..., Re8.
27.Kg2 Re8 28.Kf3 Kg6
During the postmortem I said this was maybe the move that cost Black the game. With Rybka’s help, I looked long and hard, but I was not completely correct in that judgment. Black can hold this position if he finds just the right move. A bigger problem for Black was the clock. The crises approaches and Black was down to sixteen minutes here. White was better off with twenty-three minutes remaining. Now this is not time trouble on the order we have seen with Philip Sells or in the past with Peter Michaelman,, but the ending is tricky and there is considerable play left in the position. It is certainly uncomfortable to know that taking as little as one minute for consideration is a serious matter.
29.Rc1 Re7 30.Rg1! h6?
This is the culprit. With little time to consider deeply what is going on, Black plays to keep things together and to conserve the clock. White has hit upon a methodical approach; open the g-file so as to put maximum pressure on g7, and then, activate his center pawns. A counter-plan is not at all obvious, but it is there. Black should play to liquidate the target with 30..., Kh6!; if then 31 g4 Rf7 32 Ke2 g5 33 gxf5 Rxf5 34 Rg4 Kg6; and while Black is not out of the woods entirely, he has made some progress. Note that “winning” the d-pawn with .., Rxd4?; is answered by e3-e4, trapping the Rd4.
31.g4 fxg4+ 32.hxg4!?,..
I did not have a chance to ask Fineberg why this move when 32 Rxg4, seems so natural. The decision may have turned on nothing more than instinct. Jonathan’s time remaining was now about eleven minutes to Alan’s nine. The situation is anything except clear as yet, and the text keeps the White pawns together anticipating an ending played in a time scramble.
32..., Rf7+ 33.Ke2 Re7 34.Kd3,..
White begins to use a second idea in his plan. From d3 the White King can support the advance of the center pawns. He is also prepared to march on the Black Q-side via c4/b5/c6 if the opportunity is given.
34..., Kf7?
The sustained pressure White has exerted makes a crack. More stubborn is 34..., Rf7.
35.Rg3?,..
White is determined not to rush matters, however here he could have played 35 g5 hxg5 36 Rxg5 Kf8 37 a4, forcing open the c4/b5 pathway for the White King. The dual threats of advancing the pawns in the center and a raid by the White King on the Q-side strains the Black defense to the breaking point.
35..., g5 36.f4?,..
An error that presents Black with a chance to hold the draw. White decides not to preserve the central pawn mass. He elects to go with a passed pawn on the K-side as his trump. I do not think that is the correct way to proceed.
36..., gxf4 37.exf4 Re1 38.g5 hxg5 39.fxg5 Kg6 40.Bc3 Rd1+ 41.Ke4 b4 42.axb4 axb4 43.Bf6 Re1+ 44.Kd3 Rh1 45.Kc4 Rh4+ 46.Kb5 Bf2?
The game has been about equal for the last ten or so moves. Here Black begins to slip. It is understandable. His clock was now down to 28 seconds! The last move does not let the balance tip too much. Black likely was worried about the loss of the pawn on c7 and wanted to distract White. Better is 46..., Rh2; looking for activity for the Rook.
47.Rg2 Be1
The repositioning of the Bishop has left both the c and d-pawn in the lurch.
48.Kc6 Rh7 49.Re2 Bc3 50.Re6 Kf5 51.Bd8 Rg7 1–0
Here the flag fell for Mr. Le Cours. I have to admire the clear creative thought behind Mr. Fineberg’s idea of advancing the g-pawn on move 31. It was the only way to keep up the effort to win. I had written the game off at as a draw and did not consider the move at all. The follow up was not without flaws, but also admirable was the way White maintained the initiative. In building time pressure it is extraordinarily difficult to find just the right move. The defender is stretched between conserving precious time and making positional concessions. In this game, Le Cours made a stubborn defense, it just took too much clock time to do so.
The final standings in the Saratoga Championship were:
1 Jonathan Fineberg 6 - 2
2 Gary Farrell 5 ½ - 2 ½
3 Alan Le Cours 5 - 3
4 Josh Kuperman 2 ½ - 5 ½
5 David Connors 1 - 7
6 Jeff Hrebenach DNF - Games rated but not counted in the standings, less than 50% played.
To sum up the event: Jon Fineberg had a shaky start. In the first cycle he lost to both Le Cours and Farrell while winning as expected against Connors and Kuperman. In the second half of the contest he swept all before him scoring 4 - 0 to take the title.
Mr. Farrell had a spotty performance. He lost to Kuperman in the first half and drew with Connors in the second half. By winning both games against Mr. Le Cours, Gary pulled himself into contention for first place, but his fate was in the hands of others at the end.
Alan Le Cours came close. He nearly had a draw in his last round game that would made a three way tie for first. The clock got him this time.
All things considered, a most interesting event. The down side has to be the low turnout. Only a few years ago we were lamenting the time required to finish the Saratoga Championship because we had 15 or more entrants. I don’t know what can be done to bring attendance up. If anyone has an idea I’d be more than glad to publish it to the chess community here.
More soon.
1.06.2012
The Beginning of the Season is Winding Up
While Wednesday evening saw a good turn out at AACC, only single game was played in the club championship, but a good many casual games were played while it was going on. This week was scheduled for make-up games. The one played featured Jason Denham against Tim Wright, and for some time it looked as if we might have another upset. Such was not to be. Early on Mr. Wright gave up a pawn for very doubtful compensation. Mr. Denham returned it about ten moves later, again, for no clear reason and Wright then had the better game. Turning a technical won Bishop and pawn ending into a recorded victory took many more moves, Mr. Wright did not seriously falter and won in 62 moves.
Including Denham - Wright 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 Wright 2 ½ - 3 ½
8 Lack 2 - 3
9 Denham 1 ½ - 4 ½
Denham, Jason - Wright, Tim [A25]
AACC Championship, Guilderland, NY, 04.01.2012
1.c4 Nf6 2.g3 e5 3.Bg2 Bc5 4.Nc3 0–0 5.e3 Nc6 6.Nge2,..
A position from theory. Here are couple of examples of how top flight players treat the position:
(427783) Chernin, Alexander (2600) - Anand, Viswanathan (2725) [A25]
PCA/Intel-GP Paris (2.3), 11.11.1995
1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 Nc6 4.Nc3 Bc5 5.e3 0–0 6.Nge2 d6 7.0–0 Bb6 8.d3 Be6 9.Nd5 Bxd5 10.cxd5 Ne7 11.Nc3 c6 12.dxc6 Nxc6 13.Qb3 Na5 14.Qa3 d5 15.Na4 Nc6 16.Bd2 Bc7 17.Rac1 Rb8 18.b4 Ne7 19.Qb3 Re8 20.Rfd1 h6 21.Rc2 Bd6 22.Nc3 Bc7 23.Rdc1 d4 24.exd4 Nf5 25.Ne2 Bb6 26.Bc3 e4 27.dxe4 Nxe4 28.Bb2 Bxd4 29.Nxd4 Nxd4 30.Bxd4 Qxd4 31.Qc4 Rbd8 32.a3 Qf6 33.Bxe4 Rd4 34.Qb5 Rdxe4 35.Rc8 ½–½
(1240050) Kuehn, Peter (2426) - Bauer, Christian (2634) [A25]
EU-Cup 23rd Kemer (2), 04.10.2007
1.g3 e5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Bg2 Nc6 4.Nc3 Bc5 5.e3 0–0 6.Nge2 d6 7.0–0 a6 8.a3 Ba7 9.h3 Re8 10.d3 Ne7 11.b4 c6 12.d4 Be6 13.dxe5 dxe5 14.c5 Qc8 15.Kh2 Bc4 16.e4 Qe6 17.Be3 Rad8 18.Qc1 Bb8 19.Qb2 Ng6 20.Rfd1 Nf4 21.Nxf4 exf4 22.Bxf4 Bxf4 23.gxf4 Nh5 24.Rxd8 Rxd8 25.Rd1 Rxd1 26.Nxd1 Nxf4 27.Qd4 g6 28.Ne3 Be2 29.Qd8+ Kg7 30.Qg5 Nh5 31.Nf5+ Kf8 32.Qd8+ Qe8 33.Qd6+ Kg8 34.Ne7+ Kg7 35.e5 f5 36.Qc7 Kf8 37.Nc8 Nf4 38.Qd6+ Kg7 39.Qf6+ Kh6 40.Ne7 Bd3 41.Bf3 Nh5 42.Bxh5 Kxh5 43.f4 h6 44.e6 Be4 [44...Bc4 45.Nxf5; 44...Bc2 45.Qf7 Qxf7 46.exf7] 45.Kg3 1–0
6..., Re8?
Compared to the sample master games above Wright takes a different approach here; he wants to push the e-pawn to e4. If the wish is to obstruct the long diagonal, it does not to work.
7.0–0 e4 8.a3 a5 9.d3?,..
Logical is to focus on the e-pawn. It is not quite adequately defended. White should play 9 Qc2, if then 9..., Qe7 10 Nf4 d6 11 Ncd5 Nxd5 12 Nxd5; when the fork threat at c7 requires Black to give up the e-pawn. The text gives Black the chance to trade off the weakling letting him off the hook.
9..., exd3 10.Qxd3 Ne5 11.Qc2 c6
Contemplating the push of the d-pawn to d5. The more restrained approach 11..., d6; is possible. In that case an active plan for Black might be offering the b-pawn to concentrate fire on the somewhat weakened light squares around the White King with 11..., d6 12 b3 Bg4!? 13 Bxb7 Rb8 14 Bg2 Qc8. Black has compensation for the pawn but no more than that. The game is about equal then.
12.b3 d5?
Played on general principles perhaps but not correctly calculated. This move drops a pawn because the Bc5 is loose. White now has a measurable advantage.
13.cxd5 cxd5 14.Nxd5 Bd6 15.Nxf6+ Qxf6 16.Bb2 Bf5 17.e4 Rac8 18.Qb1?
Success has a bad effect on White’s ambitions. Here he may have been too worried about tactics involving a potential Knight fork at f3 of his King and Queen. A clear evaluation of the position would have permitted Mr. Denham to play 18 Qd2, then 18..., Bg4 19 h3, relying on the pin on the Ne5 to keep things under control. The text lets go of some of the advantage White had in hand.
18..., Bg4 19.Nf4!?..,
Consolidation with 19 f3, might be better. Black would then have a tough choice. He could sacrifice a piece for a pawn and some pressure with 19..., Bxf3 20 Bxf3 Nxf3+ 21 Kg2 Nh4+ 22 gxh4 Qxh4 23 Ng3. It looks to me and Rybka that there is not enough pressure to offset the material. Safe and sane play is 19..., Bd7 20 f4 Bc5+ 21 Kh1 Qa6 22 Bxe5 Qxe2 23 Re1 Qb5; when the extra pawn White has is offset somewhat by having all the long range pieces on the board.
19..., Qh6 20.Bxe5?,..
Giving back the pawn without any just cause. Once more consolidation with 20 f3 Bd7 21 Bd4, leaves White with some advantage.
20..., Bxe5 21.Ra2 Bxf4 22.gxf4 Qxf4
Worse than the material balance being restored is the White King’s field is now shaky. Even with his light squared Bishop still on the board, there are problems with those squares.
23.Qd3,..
White has to guard against .., Rc3; intensifying the dangers to the White King. He could also try 23 Rc2, hoping that the simplifying line; 23..., Rxc2 24 Qxc2 Bf3 25 Bxf3 Qxf3 26 Re1 h6 27 Re3 Qg4+ 28 Kf1, would be an easier defensive task.
23..., Be6 24.Rb2?!,..
Logical but passive letting Black improve his position. Worth consideration is 24 Qb5!?, seeking compensation in dynamic play. This course would require both sides to calculate many variations. After the text calculations are easier for Black. He has the initiative, and making threats is more pleasant than meeting them.
24..., Rc5 25.Qg3 Qf6 26.Rfb1 Rg5 27.Qe3 Rc8 28.f4 Rgc5 29.e5 Qg6
Black has played pretty straight forwardly getting control of the c-file while keeping threats alive against the White King. This approach is tough to meet. White has to be right at every turn, while Black has more latitude.
30.Qg3?,..
This very logical looking move proves the point. Here White needed to play 30 Rd1, then if 30..., Rc3? 31 Qxc3 Rxc3 32 Rd8 mates. In that case 30..., h6; is logical, and after 31 Rd2, White has at least activated his Rooks. Black still has a solid advantage, but White has created some fighting chances. The text simplifies the game and drops a pawn. The same color Bishop ending favors Black. Is it a clear win? While watching the game I was not certain. During the quiet contemplation of analysis, and with the help of Rybka, it is won for Black, albeit the process is lengthy.
30..., Rc1+ 31.Rxc1 Rxc1+ 32.Kf2 Rc2+ 33.Rxc2 Qxc2+ 34.Ke1 Qc1+ 35.Ke2 Qxa3 36.Bxb7 Qxb3 37.Qxb3 Bxb3
The outside passed pawn combined with the weakness of the K-side pawns is all that is required for Black to win, but there still chances for White to create difficulties.
38.Kd2 Kf8 39.Kc3 a4 40.Bc6,..
White could take a different track with 40 Be4. Tricky play follows 40..., h6;
(40..., Ke7; looks drawn after 41 Bxh7 g6 42 f5, etc. because the White King has just enough time to get back in front of the f-pawn - the passed White h-pawn restrains Black sufficiently to allow that to happen.) 41 h4 g6 42 Kb4 Ke7 43 f5 g5 44 hxg5 hxg5 45 Bf3 f6 46 e6 Bc2 47 Bg4 Kd6 48 Ka3 Bb3 49 Kb4 Ke5 50 e7 Bf7; etc. Tough stuff to calculate, but Black seems to be winning.
White would rather engineer some trade that gets off most of the other pawns and then sacrifice his Bishop for the remaining K-side pawn leaving Black saddled with an a-pawn and a Bishop of the wrong color. It is a well known draw if the White King can get to a1. To underline once more the flaws of computer analysis, Deep Rybka gives Black a big edge when the position gets down to a bare White King versus a light squared Black Bishop and an a-pawn no matter where the Kings are situated. These type of endings require a table base if you want to rely on the electronic monster.
Consulting the pundits, Fine and Dvoretsky, gives this wisdom; an outside passed pawn and a qualitative superiority in pawn formation is a likely win for the side with the extra pawn if the stronger side can avoid the drawing pitfalls. The outside passed pawn exists, and the only remaining question is can White find a trick to get to the drawn ending. Both players were sure the other was well aware of the draw to had with the wrong colored Bishop they confirmed after the game.
40..., Ke7 41.f5 g6 42.e6,..
Maybe not the best move here, but it at least heads for a position with drawing chances.
42..., fxe6?
Definitely not the best move. Better 42..., gxf5; making passed pawn while keeping the h-pawns on the board. In that situation the f-pawn will cost White his Bishop soon enough, the a-pawn keeps the White King from interfering and the h-pawn remains to seal the deal. The way Mr. Wright elects to go is almost the same but takes a bit longer and lacks the insurance policy.
43.fxg6 hxg6 44.h4 Kf6 45.Be4 Kg7 46.Kb4 Kh6 47.Ka3 Kh5 48.Kb2 Kxh4 49.Bxg6 Kg3
White’s only hope is to sacrifice his Bishop for the e-pawn.
50.Be4 Kf4 51.Bc6 e5 52.Bb7 Ke3
Rybka, even this very materially reduced position, keeps suggesting e5-e4. It just does not see that if the e-pawn disappears the game is drawn. It is an “event horizon” problem for the computer. Black however understands the situation clearly. He knows the a-pawn may be given up at the right moment when his Bishop can interfere with the White Bishop’s prevention of e-pawn’s advance.
53.Ba6?,..
By playing 53 Kc3, White could have made Black seriously work for the point. At c3 the White King keeps the Black King from getting to the ideal square, d4, for executing his planned e-pawn advance. Black is still winning. He’d have to find the idea of getting a pawn through to Queen in a different fashion; 53 Kc3 Bd1 54 Bc8 a3 55 Be6 e4! 56 Bd5 Ba4 57 Bb7 Kf4 58 Bd5 e3 59 Bc4 Kf3 60 Bd5+ Kf2 61 Bc4 e2 62 Bxe2 Kxe2; and the net of Black pieces force the White King to move away to b4, c4 or d4, letting through the a-pawn. Finding all of that over the board would have been challenging for Black with the clocks ticking away.
53..., Kd4 54.Bb7 Kc5 55.Ka3 Bd5
Interference, an important stratagem in same color Bishop endings.
56.Ba6 Bc6 57.Be2 e4 58.Bh5 Kd4 59.Be2 Ke3 60.Bh5 Kf2 61.Bd1 e3 62.Kb2 Bf3 0–1
Opposition, a second important stratagem in same color Bishop endings, and it ends resistance because the e-pawn will Queen one way or another.
Although there were mistakes by both sides in the opening and early middle game, the players did treat us to an interesting and well played ending full of theoretical and instructional interest. Many times in local game we get just the reverse; good play in the opening and middle games with a big fall off in the standard of play in the ending. That is likely due to time pressure and fatigue. In this game both players managed their clocks carefully and came to the ending with enough time to search for the right moves. I believe this game did credit to both participants. Well done to Mr. Wright and to Mr. Denham!
Thursday was another quiet evening at Schenectady. Play is just about over in the Preliminaries and all the participants identified for the Finals as reported in my last post. A couple of folks dropped in and some casual games were played with an early adjournment.
Bill Townsend is considering getting the Finals started next week or the week following. He also passed on some news from the North Country; the very last game of the Saratoga Championship is to be played this Sunday evening. Alan Le Cours and Jonathan Fineberg meet for the second time in this double round-robin event. All is on the line in this game. If Le Cours wins he takes the title. If Fineberg wins he is Champion. A draw and Gary Farrell finishes in first winning the title on tie-breaks. With some luck I will be able to attend the Saratoga meeting Sunday to report the result of the game.
Bill also mentioned he is working on the organization for this year’s Capital district League. Contact is still to be made with RPI and the Troy clubs to confirm participation. There is an issue to be cleared up regarding the Saratoga B Team, Last year it was made up of players mostly from the Schenectady club. The question is how will the team be identified this year? Townsend and David Finnerman, the team captain, are to discuss the matter. We should be hearing shortly about dates and schedules for League play.
More soon.
Including Denham - Wright 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 Wright 2 ½ - 3 ½
8 Lack 2 - 3
9 Denham 1 ½ - 4 ½
Denham, Jason - Wright, Tim [A25]
AACC Championship, Guilderland, NY, 04.01.2012
1.c4 Nf6 2.g3 e5 3.Bg2 Bc5 4.Nc3 0–0 5.e3 Nc6 6.Nge2,..
A position from theory. Here are couple of examples of how top flight players treat the position:
(427783) Chernin, Alexander (2600) - Anand, Viswanathan (2725) [A25]
PCA/Intel-GP Paris (2.3), 11.11.1995
1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 Nc6 4.Nc3 Bc5 5.e3 0–0 6.Nge2 d6 7.0–0 Bb6 8.d3 Be6 9.Nd5 Bxd5 10.cxd5 Ne7 11.Nc3 c6 12.dxc6 Nxc6 13.Qb3 Na5 14.Qa3 d5 15.Na4 Nc6 16.Bd2 Bc7 17.Rac1 Rb8 18.b4 Ne7 19.Qb3 Re8 20.Rfd1 h6 21.Rc2 Bd6 22.Nc3 Bc7 23.Rdc1 d4 24.exd4 Nf5 25.Ne2 Bb6 26.Bc3 e4 27.dxe4 Nxe4 28.Bb2 Bxd4 29.Nxd4 Nxd4 30.Bxd4 Qxd4 31.Qc4 Rbd8 32.a3 Qf6 33.Bxe4 Rd4 34.Qb5 Rdxe4 35.Rc8 ½–½
(1240050) Kuehn, Peter (2426) - Bauer, Christian (2634) [A25]
EU-Cup 23rd Kemer (2), 04.10.2007
1.g3 e5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Bg2 Nc6 4.Nc3 Bc5 5.e3 0–0 6.Nge2 d6 7.0–0 a6 8.a3 Ba7 9.h3 Re8 10.d3 Ne7 11.b4 c6 12.d4 Be6 13.dxe5 dxe5 14.c5 Qc8 15.Kh2 Bc4 16.e4 Qe6 17.Be3 Rad8 18.Qc1 Bb8 19.Qb2 Ng6 20.Rfd1 Nf4 21.Nxf4 exf4 22.Bxf4 Bxf4 23.gxf4 Nh5 24.Rxd8 Rxd8 25.Rd1 Rxd1 26.Nxd1 Nxf4 27.Qd4 g6 28.Ne3 Be2 29.Qd8+ Kg7 30.Qg5 Nh5 31.Nf5+ Kf8 32.Qd8+ Qe8 33.Qd6+ Kg8 34.Ne7+ Kg7 35.e5 f5 36.Qc7 Kf8 37.Nc8 Nf4 38.Qd6+ Kg7 39.Qf6+ Kh6 40.Ne7 Bd3 41.Bf3 Nh5 42.Bxh5 Kxh5 43.f4 h6 44.e6 Be4 [44...Bc4 45.Nxf5; 44...Bc2 45.Qf7 Qxf7 46.exf7] 45.Kg3 1–0
6..., Re8?
Compared to the sample master games above Wright takes a different approach here; he wants to push the e-pawn to e4. If the wish is to obstruct the long diagonal, it does not to work.
7.0–0 e4 8.a3 a5 9.d3?,..
Logical is to focus on the e-pawn. It is not quite adequately defended. White should play 9 Qc2, if then 9..., Qe7 10 Nf4 d6 11 Ncd5 Nxd5 12 Nxd5; when the fork threat at c7 requires Black to give up the e-pawn. The text gives Black the chance to trade off the weakling letting him off the hook.
9..., exd3 10.Qxd3 Ne5 11.Qc2 c6
Contemplating the push of the d-pawn to d5. The more restrained approach 11..., d6; is possible. In that case an active plan for Black might be offering the b-pawn to concentrate fire on the somewhat weakened light squares around the White King with 11..., d6 12 b3 Bg4!? 13 Bxb7 Rb8 14 Bg2 Qc8. Black has compensation for the pawn but no more than that. The game is about equal then.
12.b3 d5?
Played on general principles perhaps but not correctly calculated. This move drops a pawn because the Bc5 is loose. White now has a measurable advantage.
13.cxd5 cxd5 14.Nxd5 Bd6 15.Nxf6+ Qxf6 16.Bb2 Bf5 17.e4 Rac8 18.Qb1?
Success has a bad effect on White’s ambitions. Here he may have been too worried about tactics involving a potential Knight fork at f3 of his King and Queen. A clear evaluation of the position would have permitted Mr. Denham to play 18 Qd2, then 18..., Bg4 19 h3, relying on the pin on the Ne5 to keep things under control. The text lets go of some of the advantage White had in hand.
18..., Bg4 19.Nf4!?..,
Consolidation with 19 f3, might be better. Black would then have a tough choice. He could sacrifice a piece for a pawn and some pressure with 19..., Bxf3 20 Bxf3 Nxf3+ 21 Kg2 Nh4+ 22 gxh4 Qxh4 23 Ng3. It looks to me and Rybka that there is not enough pressure to offset the material. Safe and sane play is 19..., Bd7 20 f4 Bc5+ 21 Kh1 Qa6 22 Bxe5 Qxe2 23 Re1 Qb5; when the extra pawn White has is offset somewhat by having all the long range pieces on the board.
19..., Qh6 20.Bxe5?,..
Giving back the pawn without any just cause. Once more consolidation with 20 f3 Bd7 21 Bd4, leaves White with some advantage.
20..., Bxe5 21.Ra2 Bxf4 22.gxf4 Qxf4
Worse than the material balance being restored is the White King’s field is now shaky. Even with his light squared Bishop still on the board, there are problems with those squares.
23.Qd3,..
White has to guard against .., Rc3; intensifying the dangers to the White King. He could also try 23 Rc2, hoping that the simplifying line; 23..., Rxc2 24 Qxc2 Bf3 25 Bxf3 Qxf3 26 Re1 h6 27 Re3 Qg4+ 28 Kf1, would be an easier defensive task.
23..., Be6 24.Rb2?!,..
Logical but passive letting Black improve his position. Worth consideration is 24 Qb5!?, seeking compensation in dynamic play. This course would require both sides to calculate many variations. After the text calculations are easier for Black. He has the initiative, and making threats is more pleasant than meeting them.
24..., Rc5 25.Qg3 Qf6 26.Rfb1 Rg5 27.Qe3 Rc8 28.f4 Rgc5 29.e5 Qg6
Black has played pretty straight forwardly getting control of the c-file while keeping threats alive against the White King. This approach is tough to meet. White has to be right at every turn, while Black has more latitude.
30.Qg3?,..
This very logical looking move proves the point. Here White needed to play 30 Rd1, then if 30..., Rc3? 31 Qxc3 Rxc3 32 Rd8 mates. In that case 30..., h6; is logical, and after 31 Rd2, White has at least activated his Rooks. Black still has a solid advantage, but White has created some fighting chances. The text simplifies the game and drops a pawn. The same color Bishop ending favors Black. Is it a clear win? While watching the game I was not certain. During the quiet contemplation of analysis, and with the help of Rybka, it is won for Black, albeit the process is lengthy.
30..., Rc1+ 31.Rxc1 Rxc1+ 32.Kf2 Rc2+ 33.Rxc2 Qxc2+ 34.Ke1 Qc1+ 35.Ke2 Qxa3 36.Bxb7 Qxb3 37.Qxb3 Bxb3
The outside passed pawn combined with the weakness of the K-side pawns is all that is required for Black to win, but there still chances for White to create difficulties.
38.Kd2 Kf8 39.Kc3 a4 40.Bc6,..
White could take a different track with 40 Be4. Tricky play follows 40..., h6;
(40..., Ke7; looks drawn after 41 Bxh7 g6 42 f5, etc. because the White King has just enough time to get back in front of the f-pawn - the passed White h-pawn restrains Black sufficiently to allow that to happen.) 41 h4 g6 42 Kb4 Ke7 43 f5 g5 44 hxg5 hxg5 45 Bf3 f6 46 e6 Bc2 47 Bg4 Kd6 48 Ka3 Bb3 49 Kb4 Ke5 50 e7 Bf7; etc. Tough stuff to calculate, but Black seems to be winning.
White would rather engineer some trade that gets off most of the other pawns and then sacrifice his Bishop for the remaining K-side pawn leaving Black saddled with an a-pawn and a Bishop of the wrong color. It is a well known draw if the White King can get to a1. To underline once more the flaws of computer analysis, Deep Rybka gives Black a big edge when the position gets down to a bare White King versus a light squared Black Bishop and an a-pawn no matter where the Kings are situated. These type of endings require a table base if you want to rely on the electronic monster.
Consulting the pundits, Fine and Dvoretsky, gives this wisdom; an outside passed pawn and a qualitative superiority in pawn formation is a likely win for the side with the extra pawn if the stronger side can avoid the drawing pitfalls. The outside passed pawn exists, and the only remaining question is can White find a trick to get to the drawn ending. Both players were sure the other was well aware of the draw to had with the wrong colored Bishop they confirmed after the game.
40..., Ke7 41.f5 g6 42.e6,..
Maybe not the best move here, but it at least heads for a position with drawing chances.
42..., fxe6?
Definitely not the best move. Better 42..., gxf5; making passed pawn while keeping the h-pawns on the board. In that situation the f-pawn will cost White his Bishop soon enough, the a-pawn keeps the White King from interfering and the h-pawn remains to seal the deal. The way Mr. Wright elects to go is almost the same but takes a bit longer and lacks the insurance policy.
43.fxg6 hxg6 44.h4 Kf6 45.Be4 Kg7 46.Kb4 Kh6 47.Ka3 Kh5 48.Kb2 Kxh4 49.Bxg6 Kg3
White’s only hope is to sacrifice his Bishop for the e-pawn.
50.Be4 Kf4 51.Bc6 e5 52.Bb7 Ke3
Rybka, even this very materially reduced position, keeps suggesting e5-e4. It just does not see that if the e-pawn disappears the game is drawn. It is an “event horizon” problem for the computer. Black however understands the situation clearly. He knows the a-pawn may be given up at the right moment when his Bishop can interfere with the White Bishop’s prevention of e-pawn’s advance.
53.Ba6?,..
By playing 53 Kc3, White could have made Black seriously work for the point. At c3 the White King keeps the Black King from getting to the ideal square, d4, for executing his planned e-pawn advance. Black is still winning. He’d have to find the idea of getting a pawn through to Queen in a different fashion; 53 Kc3 Bd1 54 Bc8 a3 55 Be6 e4! 56 Bd5 Ba4 57 Bb7 Kf4 58 Bd5 e3 59 Bc4 Kf3 60 Bd5+ Kf2 61 Bc4 e2 62 Bxe2 Kxe2; and the net of Black pieces force the White King to move away to b4, c4 or d4, letting through the a-pawn. Finding all of that over the board would have been challenging for Black with the clocks ticking away.
53..., Kd4 54.Bb7 Kc5 55.Ka3 Bd5
Interference, an important stratagem in same color Bishop endings.
56.Ba6 Bc6 57.Be2 e4 58.Bh5 Kd4 59.Be2 Ke3 60.Bh5 Kf2 61.Bd1 e3 62.Kb2 Bf3 0–1
Opposition, a second important stratagem in same color Bishop endings, and it ends resistance because the e-pawn will Queen one way or another.
Although there were mistakes by both sides in the opening and early middle game, the players did treat us to an interesting and well played ending full of theoretical and instructional interest. Many times in local game we get just the reverse; good play in the opening and middle games with a big fall off in the standard of play in the ending. That is likely due to time pressure and fatigue. In this game both players managed their clocks carefully and came to the ending with enough time to search for the right moves. I believe this game did credit to both participants. Well done to Mr. Wright and to Mr. Denham!
Thursday was another quiet evening at Schenectady. Play is just about over in the Preliminaries and all the participants identified for the Finals as reported in my last post. A couple of folks dropped in and some casual games were played with an early adjournment.
Bill Townsend is considering getting the Finals started next week or the week following. He also passed on some news from the North Country; the very last game of the Saratoga Championship is to be played this Sunday evening. Alan Le Cours and Jonathan Fineberg meet for the second time in this double round-robin event. All is on the line in this game. If Le Cours wins he takes the title. If Fineberg wins he is Champion. A draw and Gary Farrell finishes in first winning the title on tie-breaks. With some luck I will be able to attend the Saratoga meeting Sunday to report the result of the game.
Bill also mentioned he is working on the organization for this year’s Capital district League. Contact is still to be made with RPI and the Troy clubs to confirm participation. There is an issue to be cleared up regarding the Saratoga B Team, Last year it was made up of players mostly from the Schenectady club. The question is how will the team be identified this year? Townsend and David Finnerman, the team captain, are to discuss the matter. We should be hearing shortly about dates and schedules for League play.
More soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
