4.29.2012
Albany A versus the Geezers
Wednesday evening saw a meeting of two of the stronger teams in the Capital District Chess League; Albany A and the Schenectady Geezers. Albany A won the match 3 - 1, but it was by no means an easy victory. The first game to finish was Board 2 where Jon Leisner and Gordon Magat made a quick draw. Mr. Magat proposed the peaceful splitting of the point and Mr. Leisner felt he had to accept because his position was not promising.
Leisner, Jon - Magat, Gordon [A03]
CDCL Match Alb A v Geezers Guilderland, NY, 25.04.2012
1.f4 d5 2.Nf3 g6 3.e3 Bg7 4.Be2 c5 5.d3!?
This move is not the main idea here for White. Jon Leisner, however, likes to prepare a push of his e-pawn in this his favorite line with White, the Bird’s Opening. Usually here White castles before committing to the d2-d3 and eventually the e3-e4 idea. We have to go way back to a strong international tourney in the 1950s to find top flight players investigating this line:
(38389) Rossetto, Hector - Pilnik, Herman [A03]
Buenos Aires (2), 1955
1.f4 d5 2.Nf3 g6 3.e3 Bg7 4.Be2 c5 5.0–0 Nc6 6.d4 Nf6 7.c3 Bg4 8.Nbd2 0–0 9.Qe1 e6 10.Kh1 Ne7 11.Ne5 Bxe2 12.Qxe2 Ne8 13.b3 Rc8 14.Bb2 Nd6 15.dxc5 Rxc5 16.c4 dxc4 17.Ndxc4 Ne4 18.Rad1 Rd5 19.Kg1 b5 20.Rxd5 Nxd5 21.Nc6 Ndc3 22.Qc2 Qc7 23.Bxc3 Nxc3 24.N4e5 Nd5 25.Rc1 Nxe3 26.Qc5 Nd5 27.Nxa7 Qxc5+ 28.Rxc5 b4 29.g3 g5 30.Rc4 Ra8 31.Nac6 gxf4 32.gxf4 Bf8 33.Nd3 Rxa2 34.Ndxb4 Nxb4 35.Nxb4 Rb2 36.f5 Rxb3 37.Rg4+ Kh8 38.fxe6 f5 39.Rf4 Bxb4 40.Rxf5 Re3 41.Kg2 Rxe6 42.h4 Re4 43.h5 0–1
5..., Nc6 6.0–0 e5?!
Risky.
7.c3?!,..
The mighty Rybka suggests White gets some advantage here with 7 fxe5 Nxe5 8 Nxe5 Bxe5 9 d4. That does not seem all that clear to me. If Black does not capture with the c-pawn on d4 and plays 9..., Bg7 10 dxc5 Ne7; the game arrives at a messy position where White has an extra pawn, but holding it may not be so easy.
7..., exf4 8.exf4 Nge7 9.Na3 0–0 10.Bd2 Nf5 ½–½
According to Deep Rybka Black has some small edge. I think Gordon offered the draw here as a ploy to test Jon’s resolve. Their previous two meetings had ended in Mr. Leisner’s favor. Now he has a marginally worse position; would Leisner go all out for the third victory in a row? Practical considerations and the needs of the team won out over Jon’s aggressive instincts. To Gordon’s surprise Mr. Leisner accepted the draw.
I was worried. In our first match, Albany A had drawn with the Capital Region team. They are not thought of as contenders while Albany A is always in the battle for the League title. The Geezers began this year with two match wins. If this contest was drawn, the Geezers would have excellent chances to finish ahead of us in the standings. Across the remaining boards the match-ups were close based on ratings and recent performances. More draws were likely. It appeared the decision could come down to a single critical game. At this early point in the match the other games had not really developed enough to judge which of the remaining games would be it.
The next game to finish was on the fourth board; Michael Mockler - Glen Perry. After some doubtful improvisation by both sides in the opening and early middle game, a massive trade off of material led to a Rook and pawn ending. It was not a completely balanced position, but what was there was insufficient for either side to try for the win, and a second draw was recorded.
On the top board John Phillips self-destructed when he misjudged the transition from opening to middle game. He had an exceptionally good run this year cumulating in his win of the Schenectady title. After that much good chess and good luck, who could begrudge him a lapse and a bit of bad luck?
Howard, Dean - Phillips, John [B07]
CDCL Match Albany A versus The Geezers, Guilderland, NY, 25.04.2012
1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 c6 4.Nf3 Bg4 5.Be2 e6
Mr. Phillips likes to play this different plan for the Pirc where Black does not necessarily put his Bishop on g7. Locally we have come to expect that fianchetto development, but it is not the only way to go. The position now becomes something out of the Old Indian Defense. The idea behind the Old Indian is to hold off on deciding to fianchetto the Bishop looking for subtle transposition possibilities.
Here is a game from the old days when Russian chess was the best in the world. Simagin became a favorite of mine when I read an appreciation of his play by Mark Dvoretsky in an essay about attacking with opposite colored Bishops. In his career Simagin won several games in that situation. He clearly had an exceptional feel for that particular imbalance. This game does not feature the opposite color Bishop imbalance. It does show Simagin’s ability to defend a difficult position. Averbakh, then one of the perennial contestants in the world title events, launches what should have been a winning sacrificial attack. Simagin finds the resources to fight on even at a disadvantage. He eventually turns the tables and takes the full point. For our discussion here, the opening play in this game illustrates some ideas central to this line for Black.
(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
Returning to our game:
6.0–0 d5
Black has taken on a difficult task. He grants White center dominance and must find ways to fight against it. The text may well be the best way to do this.
7.exd5,..
Not the only way to play this position. Possibly better is 7 h3, if then 7..., dxe4?! 8 hxg4 exf3 9 Bxf3, secures the Bishop pair for a slight dislocation of the White pawn formation. An alternative is; 7..., Bxf3 8 Bxf3 Be7 9 Bf4, leaving White comfortably placed. The text allows the position to slide towards equality.
7..., cxd5 8.Re1 Nc6 9.h3 Bh5 10.Bg5 Be7
The game has evolved to resemble Queen’s Pawn Game where White does not have the natural move c2-c4 available. Without c2-c4 it is hard for White find an active way to treat the position. That may be what provokes the next move.
11.g4!?,..
Risky. More controlled is; 11 Ne5 Bxe2 12 Nxe2 0-0; and so forth, leading to equality. If you are trying to win a chess game, there are times when risks must be taken to unbalance the game. That seems to be the motivation here.
11..., Bg6 12.Bb5 Rc8 13.Ne5 a6?!
Black decides to take his owns risks. Just castling is a reasonable continuation. If 13..., 0-0 14 Bxc6 bxc6; is entirely satisfactory for Black. It turns out that the a-pawn is more exposed on a6 than it would have been if it had stayed at home.
14.Bxc6+ bxc6 15.Qe2 Qb6 16.Na4 Qb5 17.b3 Ne4?!
Once again castling is a normal move. Black must have concluded the game was nearly ripe for some large scale simplification, and then having his King centralized is no bad thing. It is logical reasoning, but the position on the board is fairly complex in that there are ideas that are connected. A prominent one is; if the Black King will be at e7, then trading Queens is probably a good thing for Black. It is not particularly appealing to have an un-castled King with the Queens on.
Trading Queens on this move is probably best. After; 17..., Qxe2 18 Rxe2 Nd7 19 Bxe7 Nxe5 20 Rxe5 Kxe7 c3, and the Rooks plus minor piece ending will be nerve-wracking to play, but White’s Knight does have a secure outpost waiting on c5 that permits considerable pressure on e6. A solid active outpost for the Knight offsets the slight theoretical advantage the Bishop has.
18.Bxe7 Kxe7?!
This is the final moment for the trade of Queens. Making that decision now requires a very difficult judgment call. Black would have to conclude his position was so compromised that this risky line is his best choice; 18..., Qxe2 19 Rxe2 Kxe7 20 f3 Ng4 21 Kg2 f6 22 Nc5 fxe5 23 Rxe5 Nf7 24 Rze6+ Kf8. White will double on the e-file and eventually on the 7th rank. Regardless of the extra piece Black has in hand, the situation looks bad for him. The White pieces are hugely active while Black’s pieces are poorly placed. Even with unlimited time, calculating all the ins and outs of this line of play is a daunting task. Under the constraints of a ticking clock, the practical decision is to defer the Queen trade and simply recapture on e7.
19.c4!,..
It is not so easy to trade Queens after this move. The Queen and Rook battery on the e-file limit choices for Black; he can’t casually evict the Knight from e5 with .., f7-f6; because of the attack on e6 uncovered when the Knight moves.
19..., Qa5
Black recognizes the situation is becoming critical. If 19..., dxc4; White obtains the better game after; 20 Nxg6+ hxg6 21 Qxe4 cxb3 22 Nc5, when the threatened sacrifice of the Knight on e6 leads to mate or a loss of material.
20.Rac1?,..
Missing a chance to solidify the advantage, White seems to play by general principle instead of concrete calculation. For some reason he wants to prevent 20..., Nc3?, a not particularly good move for Black because 21 Qd2, pins and wins the Knight. Solid is; 20 f3 Nd6 21 c5 Nb5 22 Qe3, and the pawns at a6 and c6 are potential targets if White can figure out a way to attack them.
20..., Qd2?
An instructive error. Earlier it was mentioned that the White Queen and Rook battery on the e-file make the move .., f7-f6; a doubtful try for Black. Assuming that judgment holds true forever and always is what GM Jacob Aagaard labeled Forced Thinking. By forcing our previous assumptions onto a position we often miss opportunities. Chess positions grow out of the opening moves as more pieces come into play. They then mature during maneuvers, and at some point, modify and transition with exchanges and further maneuvers. At each step in the process from opening to middle game to ending, human players use a mix of calculation, intuition and assumptions to gauge what is worth precise calculation and what can be dismissed from consideration. This probably the only way human beings can play chess for there is not unlimited time available. Aagaard’s prescription is to routinely check and double check your assumptions as the position matures. What was rightly put aside for good reason a move or two ago may now be just the shot that wins at this point.
Here Black can play; 20..., f6; and the threats on the e-file are adequately met after 21 Nxg6+ hxg6 22 f3 Ng5; and 23 f4? Nxh6+; wins for Black. White can proceed more cautiously with 22 Kg2, and then 22..., Qd8 23 f3 Ng5 24 f4 Nxh3 25 Qxe6+ Kf8; brings about a tough position where Black is under some pressure, but he does have counter-chances. After the game move, White has several paths to a solid advantage.
21.Nb6,..
Arguably, 21 Qxd2, then 22 Re2, followed by 23 Nb6, is better than the text.
21..., Rcf8
Mr. Phillips works very hard at the chess board. It is not often he gets into positions such as this one where everything is bad, and it is a matter of choosing the least bad move. Here, tossing the Exchange over the side might have offered some hope; 21..., Qxd4!? 22 Nxc8+ Rxc8; but then 23 Nxg6+ hxg6 24 Red1 Qe5 25 cxd5 exd5 26 Qxa6, and White’s material advantage along with the very active placement of his pieces should win. Black can however justifiably play some more moves to make White demonstrate the win.
22.cxd5 Qxe2 23.Rxe2 cxd5
Different but no better is 23..., exd5 24 Rxc6 Rd8 25 f3, and the discovered double check threat nets a piece.
24.Rc7+,..
At this point I think John realized things had gone very badly indeed. This one of the few times this year I saw him totally discouraged.
24..., Ke8
Giving up the Exchange with 24..., Kf6 25 Ned7+ Kg5 26 Nxf8, would have strung out the game for a few more moves without changing the outcome.
25.Nc6 Rfg8 26.Rc8# 1–0
The finish was a pretty mating sequence. And so, this year’s Albany Champion defeated this year’s Champion of the Schenectady Club.
My worries were not over by any means. The game Henner - Le Cours on board three had not reached a point where either side was clearly much worse. Any result was possible. Peter Henner had a very slight edge on the clock, five minutes more than his opponent. Fortunately for the Albany team, Mr. Henner created enough difficulties over the next half-dozen moves to extend his time bulge. As the game moved towards the 40th move, Mr. Le Cours had fewer and fewer minutes to use. At the end he was under two minutes on the clock and could not hold his position together against Henner and the clock.
Not long before the witching hour of midnight, Alan resigned and the Albany A team recorded their first match win of the season. It tightened up the battle for the League title setting the stage for a flurry of activity next week. Albany A plays RPI next Wednesday and Schenectady A next Thursday, certainly the most critical of our remaining matches. My next post will be about the Henner - Le Cours game I think.
More soon.
4.26.2012
To my readers:
The Blogger folks have redesigned their dashboard and the tools available to people posting. It came as a surprise to me, and I did not pay enough attention to the details. As a result my last post had the formatting lost and we got a virtually unreadable block of text. I am working on figuring out how to fix this as quickly as I can. I am sorry for missing this wrinkle and hope to have things back to normal soon.
Bill Little
The Blogger folks have redesigned their dashboard and the tools available to people posting. It came as a surprise to me, and I did not pay enough attention to the details. As a result my last post had the formatting lost and we got a virtually unreadable block of text. I am working on figuring out how to fix this as quickly as I can. I am sorry for missing this wrinkle and hope to have things back to normal soon.
Bill Little
4.25.2012
Finnerman Holds a Draw Against Chi
This is the revised formatting this recent post. In the past I was able to paste the article with formatting from a word processor intact. The newly revised Blogger page doesn't allow that, or at least, not so simply as in the past. Ah, the joys of technology!
More on the ongoing saga of David Finnerman. He leads a team known by several names; Saratoga B last year, Capital Region this year. It’s made up of Finnerman and three Albany Area Chess Club members, so it could possibly have been called the Albany B team. David had a big hand in organizing the team motivated by the desire to find a place where he could play in the League. He succeeded in creating a place to play, but the reward for that success was holding down first board and facing some of the toughest of the local talent. Last year he did not have much good luck on the top board. This year it has been a different story. Mr. Finnerman defeated Dean Howard in the match with Albany, came near winning from Jon Leisner of the Geezers, and here holds Schenectady A’s Patrick Chi to a draw. Nice results and a marked improvement for sure.
Chi, Patrick - Finnerman, David [E81]
CDCL Match Schenectady A versus Capital Region, Schenectady, NY, 19.04.2012
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0–0 6.Be3 Nbd7 7.Bd3 c5 A number of Grandmasters are partial to Samisch variation. The 5th Correspondence World Champion, Hans Berliner, is the most unequivocal of its supporters. He says the Samisch is the only way for White to meet the this line in the KID. Most other Grandmasters are not quite so convinced it is the only way, but the Samisch has an enduring popularity at the highest level.
Here is an example from the 1960s:
(54391) Botvinnik, Mikhail - Tal, Mihail [E81]
24th World Championship, Moscow (17), 28.04.1961
1.d4 g6 2.e4 Bg7 3.c4 d6 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.f3 Nbd7 6.Be3 0–0 7.Bd3 e5 8.Nge2 Nh5 9.dxe5 dxe5 10.0–0 c6 11.Qd2 Qe7 12.Rad1 Nc5 13.Bb1 Ne6 14.Qe1 Bf6 15.Kh1 Nhf4 16.g3 Nxe2 17.Nxe2 h5 18.Qf2 b6 19.f4 exf4 20.gxf4 Bb7 21.e5 c5+ 22.Rd5 [22.Kg1] 22...Bg7 23.Kg1 Nc7 24.Nc3 Nxd5 25.cxd5 Rad8 26.Be4 Ba8 27.Qg3 b5 28.Qf2 Qd7 29.Bxc5 Rfe8 30.Qg3 Rc8 31.b4 Kh8 32.Qf3 a6 33.Kh1 f5 34.exf6 Bxf6 35.Bxg6 Qg4 36.Qd3 Rg8 37.Be4 Rce8 38.Bf3 Qxf4 39.Ne2 Qh4 40.Bf2 Qg5 41.Ng3 Rd8 42.Be3 Qe5 43.Rd1 Rg4 44.a3 Bb7 45.Bb6 Rd7 46.Be3 Rh4 47.Nf1 Rc4 48.Bg2 Rg7 49.Qd2 h4 50.h3 Qb2 51.Qxb2 Bxb2 52.Bc5 Rd7 53.Ne3 Rc1 54.Rxc1 Bxc1 55.Bd4+ Kg8 56.Ng4 Bg5 57.Kg1 Bxd5 58.Ne5 Bxg2 59.Nxd7 Bxh3 60.Nc5 Bc8 61.Kf2 Kh7 62.a4 bxa4 63.Nxa4 Bf4 64.Kf3 h3 65.Bg1 h2 66.Bxh2 Bxh2 67.Ke4 Bd7 68.Nc5 Bb5 69.Kd5 Kg6 70.Ne4 Kf5 71.Nc3 Bf1 72.Kc5 Be5 73.Nb1 Ke6 74.Nd2 Bd6+ 75.Kb6 Bg2 76.Nb3 Bxb4 77.Kxa6 Bf1+ 78.Kb6 Kd6 79.Na5 Bc5+ 80.Kb7 Be2 81.Nb3 Be3 82.Na5 Kc5 83.Kc7 Bf4+ 84.Kd7 Kb6 85.Nb3 Bb5+ 86.Ke7 Be3 0–1
This was an interesting game and not decided until deep in the minor piece endgame. Tal played 7..., e5; where Mr. Finnerman goes for 7..., c5. Both moves have the approval of theory. Gary Kasparov used the .., c5; break in the following game:
(233188) Psakhis, Lev (2575) - Kasparov, Garry (2800) [E81]
Murcia (1), 1990
1.c4 g6 2.e4 Bg7 3.d4 d6 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.f3 0–0 6.Be3 Nbd7 7.Bd3 c5 8.Nge2 cxd4 9.Nxd4 e6 10.0–0 d5 11.exd5 exd5 12.Bf2 Ne5 13.c5 Nfd7 14.Be2 Nxc5 15.Ndb5 b6 16.Nxd5 Bf5 17.Nd4 Bd3 18.Bxd3 Qxd5 19.Bc2 Rad8 20.Qe2 Rfe8 21.Rfe1 Nxf3+ 22.Qxf3 Rxe1+ 23.Rxe1 Bxd4 24.Qxd5 Rxd5 25.Re2 Bxb2 26.Bxc5 Rxc5 27.g3 b5 28.Kg2 Be5 29.Bb3 a5 30.Rf2 Rc7 31.Re2 Bc3 32.Re8+ Kg7 33.Rb8 a4 34.Bd5 Rc5 35.Be4 b4 36.Bc2 0–1
The Samisch is one of those opening lines that attracts the best players because is sets up a position rich in opportunities for sophisticated tactics and creative positional play. In this way it is similar to the Ruy, Sicilian and the Slav, and it is easy to understand why the Grandmasters prefer such lines. These are the places where they can display their talents to the best effect.
8.Nge2 Re8
Black would be better advised to follow the former World Champion’s lead and capture on d4. That is not to say the text is an outright error, rather delay and avoidance of this capture leads to a position that is not particularly good for Black.
9.0–0 a6 10.Qd2 Qc7 11.Rac1 e5?!
Black studiously avoided taking with the c-pawn on d4. He now insists on making White play d4-d5. The problem is; the Black pieces are not well placed to break with .., f7-f5; and that is one of the natural follow-ups in what is now a kind of Benoni-type position. The net result is what was a pretty closely balanced position shifts to White’s favor.
12.d5 Nf8 13.g4 Rb8 Since the .., f7-f5; break is not in the cards for Black, he prepares the alternative .., b7-b5. 14.Ng3,.. White has taken the opportunity to seize space on the K-side. 14..., b5?! David further insists on his Q-side break. More cautious is 14..., b6; but Mr. Finnerman is not usually willing to forego activity. White's advantage increases now.
15.cxb5 c4 16.b6 Rxb6 17.Na4 Rb7 18.Bxc4 Qb8 19.b3,..
The net result of Black’s ill-timed aggression is White has a solid pawn in the bag. At this point I was beginning to think Patrick Chi was on his way to another victory.
19..., Bd7 20.Nb2?!,.. Caution is not an earmark of Mr. Chi’s play as a rule. Increasing tension with 20 g5, is the way to proceed at this point. Play then may continue; 20..., Nh5 21 Nxh5 gxh5 22 Bxa6 Ra7 23 Qa5! Bc8 24 Qb5 Bxa6 25 Qxb8 Rxb8 26 Bxa7 Rb7 27 Be3 Bxf1 28 Kxf1, when Black is down two pawns with two thirds of his army essentially out of play. The simplified position is clearly won for White.
20..., Bb5 21.Bxb5 axb5 22.Nd3 Qa8 23.Rc6 Qa3
White has maintained his advantage but not increased it. Black has done his utmost to obtain activity. It seemed to me White was in control with the open question being; how does White engineer some simplification which will make his advantage manifest?
24.Nb4 Ra8 25.Rfc1?,..
A routine move that is not danger free. Capturing on d6 is probably best here. It secures a second pawn and reduces the possibilities Black has in the center.
25..., Rbb8 26.R1c2?,..
White has obviously decided the pawn on d6 is not worth the tempo. This is wrong. With no pawn on d6 to support the c5 square Black has little counter-play.
26..., N8d7 27.Rc7 Nc5
This cutting off of the venturesome Rc7 should not work as well as it does. White has sought and found a position tough for both sides. It seems that Black willingly went into such, he had small choice being down material, and White enters because he is confident in his own ability to calculate through complexity. That was the kind of choice I made often when playing. GM Har-Zvi tried to break me of the habit of going for complications when simpler solutions were available. The GM had no success with me on that issue, and it looks like he did not convince Mr. Chi on that point either.
28.Bxc5 dxc5 29.Nc6 Ne8 30.Nxb8 Nxc7 31.Nc6 Bf8 32.Nxe5 Bd6 33.Nc6 c4
This move was what Mr. Finnerman may have been counting on to make a difference. If the a-file opens, the Bishop checking from c5 and potential action by the Rook down the a-file creates serious danger along the back rank for White.
34.e5!?,..
Setting up to force an exchange of Queens with 34 Qc3, is a more controlled response. The text begins a forcing sequence
34..., cxb3 35.axb3 Bc5+ 36.Kg2 Qxb3 37.d6,..
Necessary because 37 Rxc5, elicits 37..., Ra7; and the draw is likely after; 38 Qe2 Rxe2 39 Nxe2 Qe3 40 Ned4 Qd2+; when the Queen roaming behind the lines will keep White very busy.
37..., Ne6 38.Ne2?!,..
Better is 38 Ne4, maintaining a solid edge. From e4 the Knight can do much the same thing as it does from e2, but on e4 the Knight is not in the way of the White King. The game move lets go of a good deal of the advantage White obtained out of the opening because the Knight hinders the King.
38..., Ra3!
And suddenly all of the Black pieces are hugely active. The lateral threat to f3 is key. David Finnerman demonstrates a valuable lesson here; in a bad position all is not lost if you can find some way to make your pieces active. Even so strong a player as Patrick Chi sometimes relaxes too much when everything is going well. Taking advantage of that all too human kind of let-down by making the most of your opportunities is the essence of making a fighting defense.
39.Rc3,..
Patrick recognizes the danger and opts for simplification.
39..., Ra2 40.Rxb3 Rxd2 41.Kf1,..
Offering the Knight with the reckless line; 41 Rxb5?, is met by 41..., Nf4+ 42 Kg3 Nxe2+; and then Black will win one way or another. The White King is just too weakly placed.
41..., Rd1+ 42.Kg2 Rd2 ½–½
The players agreed the draw here. A disappointment for Patrick and an escape from just punishment for errors in the opening for David, sums up the game. David Finnerman’s good results so far in League play may herald the emergence of another strong player into the ranks of the best local talent. We sorely need a few more such as he to spark-plug teams for League competition.
As Bill Townsend recently reported in the Schenectady Gazette chess column; the Saratoga Club fielded no team for the League this year, and last year’s club title tourneys were smaller than expected. I put some of the fall off in participation to the ready availability of chess on-line, Before internet chess, regular play meant going to a chess club, or entering one of the Studio Quads. Alas, the Quads are gone, and it is dead easy to dial-up a chess site for all the fast chess you can handle on-line. I don’t have a solution other than to pray for more folks such as Mr. Finnerman who have the wish to make their mark in rated chess and the willingness to do the organizational work to make the opportunities to play.
More soon.
More on the ongoing saga of David Finnerman. He leads a team known by several names; Saratoga B last year, Capital Region this year. It’s made up of Finnerman and three Albany Area Chess Club members, so it could possibly have been called the Albany B team. David had a big hand in organizing the team motivated by the desire to find a place where he could play in the League. He succeeded in creating a place to play, but the reward for that success was holding down first board and facing some of the toughest of the local talent. Last year he did not have much good luck on the top board. This year it has been a different story. Mr. Finnerman defeated Dean Howard in the match with Albany, came near winning from Jon Leisner of the Geezers, and here holds Schenectady A’s Patrick Chi to a draw. Nice results and a marked improvement for sure.
Chi, Patrick - Finnerman, David [E81]
CDCL Match Schenectady A versus Capital Region, Schenectady, NY, 19.04.2012
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0–0 6.Be3 Nbd7 7.Bd3 c5 A number of Grandmasters are partial to Samisch variation. The 5th Correspondence World Champion, Hans Berliner, is the most unequivocal of its supporters. He says the Samisch is the only way for White to meet the this line in the KID. Most other Grandmasters are not quite so convinced it is the only way, but the Samisch has an enduring popularity at the highest level.
Here is an example from the 1960s:
(54391) Botvinnik, Mikhail - Tal, Mihail [E81]
24th World Championship, Moscow (17), 28.04.1961
1.d4 g6 2.e4 Bg7 3.c4 d6 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.f3 Nbd7 6.Be3 0–0 7.Bd3 e5 8.Nge2 Nh5 9.dxe5 dxe5 10.0–0 c6 11.Qd2 Qe7 12.Rad1 Nc5 13.Bb1 Ne6 14.Qe1 Bf6 15.Kh1 Nhf4 16.g3 Nxe2 17.Nxe2 h5 18.Qf2 b6 19.f4 exf4 20.gxf4 Bb7 21.e5 c5+ 22.Rd5 [22.Kg1] 22...Bg7 23.Kg1 Nc7 24.Nc3 Nxd5 25.cxd5 Rad8 26.Be4 Ba8 27.Qg3 b5 28.Qf2 Qd7 29.Bxc5 Rfe8 30.Qg3 Rc8 31.b4 Kh8 32.Qf3 a6 33.Kh1 f5 34.exf6 Bxf6 35.Bxg6 Qg4 36.Qd3 Rg8 37.Be4 Rce8 38.Bf3 Qxf4 39.Ne2 Qh4 40.Bf2 Qg5 41.Ng3 Rd8 42.Be3 Qe5 43.Rd1 Rg4 44.a3 Bb7 45.Bb6 Rd7 46.Be3 Rh4 47.Nf1 Rc4 48.Bg2 Rg7 49.Qd2 h4 50.h3 Qb2 51.Qxb2 Bxb2 52.Bc5 Rd7 53.Ne3 Rc1 54.Rxc1 Bxc1 55.Bd4+ Kg8 56.Ng4 Bg5 57.Kg1 Bxd5 58.Ne5 Bxg2 59.Nxd7 Bxh3 60.Nc5 Bc8 61.Kf2 Kh7 62.a4 bxa4 63.Nxa4 Bf4 64.Kf3 h3 65.Bg1 h2 66.Bxh2 Bxh2 67.Ke4 Bd7 68.Nc5 Bb5 69.Kd5 Kg6 70.Ne4 Kf5 71.Nc3 Bf1 72.Kc5 Be5 73.Nb1 Ke6 74.Nd2 Bd6+ 75.Kb6 Bg2 76.Nb3 Bxb4 77.Kxa6 Bf1+ 78.Kb6 Kd6 79.Na5 Bc5+ 80.Kb7 Be2 81.Nb3 Be3 82.Na5 Kc5 83.Kc7 Bf4+ 84.Kd7 Kb6 85.Nb3 Bb5+ 86.Ke7 Be3 0–1
This was an interesting game and not decided until deep in the minor piece endgame. Tal played 7..., e5; where Mr. Finnerman goes for 7..., c5. Both moves have the approval of theory. Gary Kasparov used the .., c5; break in the following game:
(233188) Psakhis, Lev (2575) - Kasparov, Garry (2800) [E81]
Murcia (1), 1990
1.c4 g6 2.e4 Bg7 3.d4 d6 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.f3 0–0 6.Be3 Nbd7 7.Bd3 c5 8.Nge2 cxd4 9.Nxd4 e6 10.0–0 d5 11.exd5 exd5 12.Bf2 Ne5 13.c5 Nfd7 14.Be2 Nxc5 15.Ndb5 b6 16.Nxd5 Bf5 17.Nd4 Bd3 18.Bxd3 Qxd5 19.Bc2 Rad8 20.Qe2 Rfe8 21.Rfe1 Nxf3+ 22.Qxf3 Rxe1+ 23.Rxe1 Bxd4 24.Qxd5 Rxd5 25.Re2 Bxb2 26.Bxc5 Rxc5 27.g3 b5 28.Kg2 Be5 29.Bb3 a5 30.Rf2 Rc7 31.Re2 Bc3 32.Re8+ Kg7 33.Rb8 a4 34.Bd5 Rc5 35.Be4 b4 36.Bc2 0–1
The Samisch is one of those opening lines that attracts the best players because is sets up a position rich in opportunities for sophisticated tactics and creative positional play. In this way it is similar to the Ruy, Sicilian and the Slav, and it is easy to understand why the Grandmasters prefer such lines. These are the places where they can display their talents to the best effect.
8.Nge2 Re8
Black would be better advised to follow the former World Champion’s lead and capture on d4. That is not to say the text is an outright error, rather delay and avoidance of this capture leads to a position that is not particularly good for Black.
9.0–0 a6 10.Qd2 Qc7 11.Rac1 e5?!
Black studiously avoided taking with the c-pawn on d4. He now insists on making White play d4-d5. The problem is; the Black pieces are not well placed to break with .., f7-f5; and that is one of the natural follow-ups in what is now a kind of Benoni-type position. The net result is what was a pretty closely balanced position shifts to White’s favor.
12.d5 Nf8 13.g4 Rb8 Since the .., f7-f5; break is not in the cards for Black, he prepares the alternative .., b7-b5. 14.Ng3,.. White has taken the opportunity to seize space on the K-side. 14..., b5?! David further insists on his Q-side break. More cautious is 14..., b6; but Mr. Finnerman is not usually willing to forego activity. White's advantage increases now.
15.cxb5 c4 16.b6 Rxb6 17.Na4 Rb7 18.Bxc4 Qb8 19.b3,..
The net result of Black’s ill-timed aggression is White has a solid pawn in the bag. At this point I was beginning to think Patrick Chi was on his way to another victory.
19..., Bd7 20.Nb2?!,.. Caution is not an earmark of Mr. Chi’s play as a rule. Increasing tension with 20 g5, is the way to proceed at this point. Play then may continue; 20..., Nh5 21 Nxh5 gxh5 22 Bxa6 Ra7 23 Qa5! Bc8 24 Qb5 Bxa6 25 Qxb8 Rxb8 26 Bxa7 Rb7 27 Be3 Bxf1 28 Kxf1, when Black is down two pawns with two thirds of his army essentially out of play. The simplified position is clearly won for White.
20..., Bb5 21.Bxb5 axb5 22.Nd3 Qa8 23.Rc6 Qa3
White has maintained his advantage but not increased it. Black has done his utmost to obtain activity. It seemed to me White was in control with the open question being; how does White engineer some simplification which will make his advantage manifest?
24.Nb4 Ra8 25.Rfc1?,..
A routine move that is not danger free. Capturing on d6 is probably best here. It secures a second pawn and reduces the possibilities Black has in the center.
25..., Rbb8 26.R1c2?,..
White has obviously decided the pawn on d6 is not worth the tempo. This is wrong. With no pawn on d6 to support the c5 square Black has little counter-play.
26..., N8d7 27.Rc7 Nc5
This cutting off of the venturesome Rc7 should not work as well as it does. White has sought and found a position tough for both sides. It seems that Black willingly went into such, he had small choice being down material, and White enters because he is confident in his own ability to calculate through complexity. That was the kind of choice I made often when playing. GM Har-Zvi tried to break me of the habit of going for complications when simpler solutions were available. The GM had no success with me on that issue, and it looks like he did not convince Mr. Chi on that point either.
28.Bxc5 dxc5 29.Nc6 Ne8 30.Nxb8 Nxc7 31.Nc6 Bf8 32.Nxe5 Bd6 33.Nc6 c4
This move was what Mr. Finnerman may have been counting on to make a difference. If the a-file opens, the Bishop checking from c5 and potential action by the Rook down the a-file creates serious danger along the back rank for White.
34.e5!?,..
Setting up to force an exchange of Queens with 34 Qc3, is a more controlled response. The text begins a forcing sequence
34..., cxb3 35.axb3 Bc5+ 36.Kg2 Qxb3 37.d6,..
Necessary because 37 Rxc5, elicits 37..., Ra7; and the draw is likely after; 38 Qe2 Rxe2 39 Nxe2 Qe3 40 Ned4 Qd2+; when the Queen roaming behind the lines will keep White very busy.
37..., Ne6 38.Ne2?!,..
Better is 38 Ne4, maintaining a solid edge. From e4 the Knight can do much the same thing as it does from e2, but on e4 the Knight is not in the way of the White King. The game move lets go of a good deal of the advantage White obtained out of the opening because the Knight hinders the King.
38..., Ra3!
And suddenly all of the Black pieces are hugely active. The lateral threat to f3 is key. David Finnerman demonstrates a valuable lesson here; in a bad position all is not lost if you can find some way to make your pieces active. Even so strong a player as Patrick Chi sometimes relaxes too much when everything is going well. Taking advantage of that all too human kind of let-down by making the most of your opportunities is the essence of making a fighting defense.
39.Rc3,..
Patrick recognizes the danger and opts for simplification.
39..., Ra2 40.Rxb3 Rxd2 41.Kf1,..
Offering the Knight with the reckless line; 41 Rxb5?, is met by 41..., Nf4+ 42 Kg3 Nxe2+; and then Black will win one way or another. The White King is just too weakly placed.
41..., Rd1+ 42.Kg2 Rd2 ½–½
The players agreed the draw here. A disappointment for Patrick and an escape from just punishment for errors in the opening for David, sums up the game. David Finnerman’s good results so far in League play may herald the emergence of another strong player into the ranks of the best local talent. We sorely need a few more such as he to spark-plug teams for League competition.
As Bill Townsend recently reported in the Schenectady Gazette chess column; the Saratoga Club fielded no team for the League this year, and last year’s club title tourneys were smaller than expected. I put some of the fall off in participation to the ready availability of chess on-line, Before internet chess, regular play meant going to a chess club, or entering one of the Studio Quads. Alas, the Quads are gone, and it is dead easy to dial-up a chess site for all the fast chess you can handle on-line. I don’t have a solution other than to pray for more folks such as Mr. Finnerman who have the wish to make their mark in rated chess and the willingness to do the organizational work to make the opportunities to play.
More soon.
4.20.2012
A Well Played Game
Here is a short, sharp contest played on the first board of the Geezers - RPI match. Two pretty good players investigate the Bird’s Opening and demonstrate how the balance is kept.
Leisner, Jon - La Comb, Jeffery [A03]
CDCL Match Geezers v RPI Schenectady, NY, 05.04.2012
1.f4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 c5 4.b3 Nc6 5.Bb5 Bd7 6.Bb2 e6 7.0–0 Be7 8.Bxc6,..
Many local players would delay or avoid this trade because of a fuzzy understanding of dynamics in chess. There are multiple levels of chess wisdom; the general observation that Bishops are slightly better than Knights most of the time is one example. Along side of that bit of historically based knowledge stands a couple of other observations experienced players know; fighting for the center is important, and pieces need good posts from which to operate. Chess dynamics is getting your pieces working at their maximum output without prejudice. And, fighting for the center is equally important as such positional counters as the Bishops pair.
So, here the game comes to a place where a decision can be made; White might probe some more with 8 Qe2, or 8 d3, trying to determine just what Black plans to do, or he can proceed straight forwardly as in the game. By earlier putting the Bishop on b5, White declared he was ready to exchange the Bishop for the Nc6 - otherwise the move was senseless. The trade now reduces Black’s say over e5. That is the “good thing” White obtains for surrendering the Bishop pair. He plans to make use of the e5 square for his Knights. The wager is; a Knight on e5 will be so annoying to Black that he will trade off a Bishop to eliminate the piece on e5.
8..., Bxc6 9.Ne5 0–0 10.d3 Re8
Black could have retreated the Bc6 to e8 hanging on to the pair of Bishops. It is a playable idea, but the Black forces are then very much undeveloped. White could have been thinking along these lines; a pawn sacrifice might be justified if Black saves the Bc6. Play might continue; 10..., Be8 11 Nd2 Nd7 12 e4 d4 13 a4 Nxe5 14 fxe5 Qc7 15 Nc4 b5 16 axb5 Bxb5 17 Bc1 Bxc4 18 bxc4 Qxf5 19 Ra6!, when the a-pawn is indefensible, and White has a promising initiative. At least my experience playing against Jon Leisner makes me believe his thoughts ran in this vein.
11.Nd2 Nd7 12.Ndf3 f6 13.Nxc6 bxc6
White has achieved some things; if Black replies to e3-e4 with .., d4; his remaining Bishop looks not very useful, and a logical repositioning of the White minor pieces in that event is; Nd2/c4 with Bb2-a3 to follow. The position would then resemble a reversed Nimzo-Indian, this time with White attacking the front pawn of the doubled c-pawns. That idea works pretty well for Black in the Nimzo, maybe it would work here for White.
14.c4,..
Fixing the potential weakness at c5 is reasonable. During the game I was looking at 14 e4. In the quiet of my study, letting Rybka grind away at calculation, showed it not to be in anyway superior to the text. Black can play 14..., Qb6; avoiding putting the pawn on d4, and a even fight is to be had.
14..., Bd6 15.Qd2 e5 16.Rae1 exf4 17.exf4 Qc7 18.g3 d4!?
At last the temptation to seize space provokes this move. Black could have continued 18..., Nf8; intending .., Ne6; trying to tempt White to make some break in the center allowing Black to dissolve his doubled c-pawns. I am not a good enough judge of the positional nuances to say this plan is good or bad, and I suspect Mr. La Comb had similar questions in his mind. A little bit of looking seems to indicate there are sufficient resources in the Black camp to defend c5 for the moment. As long as c5 can be defended, then the worst thing to be said about pushing the d-pawn is Black is playing for the draw.
19.Ba3,..
This move puts some subtle pressure on the Black position. The pressure arises from the interaction of the Rooks down the e-file and a sacrificial idea on d4.
19..., Rab8!?
What should be done here? The text puts a Rook on the open b-file maybe thinking about .., a5; .., a4; breaking on the Q-side. Of course, there are many events that can intervene to render such a plan moot. An alternative for Black is; 19..., Nf8!? White might then proceed; 20 Re2 Qd7 21 Rfe1 Re6; and Black seems to be able to hold on to c5. White now executes his idea.
20.Rxe8+ Rxe8 21.Re1 Qd8 22.Nxd4!?,..
An interesting notion that doesn’t quite work.
22..., Bxf4!
Otherwise Black has problems. If 22..., Rxe1+ 23 Qxe1, and White is near a winning advantage, or 22..., cxd4 23 Bxd6, leaving White a pawn to the good with the Bishop versus Knight imbalance.
23.gxf4,..
½–½
White recognizes the reality of team match play. At this moment the Geezers had nailed down the match victory with three wins recorded. There is no great palm to be had by striving to make the score a 4 - 0 sweep with 23 Rxe8+!? Play becomes complicated after; 23..., Qxe8 24 Qxf4 cxd4 25 Qxd4 Qe1+ 26 Kg2 Qe2+ 27 Qf2 Qxd3 28 Qxa7 Qe2+ 29 Qf2 Qe4+ 30 Qf3 Qc2+ 31 Kh3 Ne5; and not withstanding the extra material White has in hand, the situation of his King is dicey.
After the text there the position is balanced. White has worries about his shattered K-side and some sudden decent by the Black Queen there. The threat constrains White’s ambitions. A draw is a reasonable outcome, and the draw was offered by Mr. Leisner and accepted.
This was a well played game by two creative players. Ideas were tried and matched. A battle between equals ended with the point split, and both sides should be satisfied it was no colorless draw. A really good game!
Last night, Thursday, saw the Schenectady A - Capital Region team match played. Schenectady won 3 ½ - ½ but the contest was closer than the score might indicate.
On the first board David Finnerman held the redoubtable young man Patrick Chi to a draw. In a long game on board two Chris Caravaty took the former Schenectady Champion Philip Sells right to the very limit before having to resign. John Barnes played Cory Northrup on board three and seemed to be in control for most of the game. Barnes won eventually. On the last board, Jason Denham made a good fight against Dilip Aaron. I thought he had an edge out of the opening. As the game transitioned into the middle game my belief in Denham’s position remained high. Rybka didn’t agree completely. It saw Dilip having fighting chances where I thought Denham was significantly ahead. Some inaccuracies crept in the play for both sides. Denham lost a pawn and then a piece as time trouble became an issue for both players.
With some luck in the Caravaty - Sells game and the Denham - Aaron game the score could have been much closer. On ratings alone, Schenectady was a heavy favorite, but the Capital Region team does not let big ratings differences intimate them. As they did against the Albany A team, they come to play and win. This makes for interesting chess and exciting matches.
More soon.
Leisner, Jon - La Comb, Jeffery [A03]
CDCL Match Geezers v RPI Schenectady, NY, 05.04.2012
1.f4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 c5 4.b3 Nc6 5.Bb5 Bd7 6.Bb2 e6 7.0–0 Be7 8.Bxc6,..
Many local players would delay or avoid this trade because of a fuzzy understanding of dynamics in chess. There are multiple levels of chess wisdom; the general observation that Bishops are slightly better than Knights most of the time is one example. Along side of that bit of historically based knowledge stands a couple of other observations experienced players know; fighting for the center is important, and pieces need good posts from which to operate. Chess dynamics is getting your pieces working at their maximum output without prejudice. And, fighting for the center is equally important as such positional counters as the Bishops pair.
So, here the game comes to a place where a decision can be made; White might probe some more with 8 Qe2, or 8 d3, trying to determine just what Black plans to do, or he can proceed straight forwardly as in the game. By earlier putting the Bishop on b5, White declared he was ready to exchange the Bishop for the Nc6 - otherwise the move was senseless. The trade now reduces Black’s say over e5. That is the “good thing” White obtains for surrendering the Bishop pair. He plans to make use of the e5 square for his Knights. The wager is; a Knight on e5 will be so annoying to Black that he will trade off a Bishop to eliminate the piece on e5.
8..., Bxc6 9.Ne5 0–0 10.d3 Re8
Black could have retreated the Bc6 to e8 hanging on to the pair of Bishops. It is a playable idea, but the Black forces are then very much undeveloped. White could have been thinking along these lines; a pawn sacrifice might be justified if Black saves the Bc6. Play might continue; 10..., Be8 11 Nd2 Nd7 12 e4 d4 13 a4 Nxe5 14 fxe5 Qc7 15 Nc4 b5 16 axb5 Bxb5 17 Bc1 Bxc4 18 bxc4 Qxf5 19 Ra6!, when the a-pawn is indefensible, and White has a promising initiative. At least my experience playing against Jon Leisner makes me believe his thoughts ran in this vein.
11.Nd2 Nd7 12.Ndf3 f6 13.Nxc6 bxc6
White has achieved some things; if Black replies to e3-e4 with .., d4; his remaining Bishop looks not very useful, and a logical repositioning of the White minor pieces in that event is; Nd2/c4 with Bb2-a3 to follow. The position would then resemble a reversed Nimzo-Indian, this time with White attacking the front pawn of the doubled c-pawns. That idea works pretty well for Black in the Nimzo, maybe it would work here for White.
14.c4,..
Fixing the potential weakness at c5 is reasonable. During the game I was looking at 14 e4. In the quiet of my study, letting Rybka grind away at calculation, showed it not to be in anyway superior to the text. Black can play 14..., Qb6; avoiding putting the pawn on d4, and a even fight is to be had.
14..., Bd6 15.Qd2 e5 16.Rae1 exf4 17.exf4 Qc7 18.g3 d4!?
At last the temptation to seize space provokes this move. Black could have continued 18..., Nf8; intending .., Ne6; trying to tempt White to make some break in the center allowing Black to dissolve his doubled c-pawns. I am not a good enough judge of the positional nuances to say this plan is good or bad, and I suspect Mr. La Comb had similar questions in his mind. A little bit of looking seems to indicate there are sufficient resources in the Black camp to defend c5 for the moment. As long as c5 can be defended, then the worst thing to be said about pushing the d-pawn is Black is playing for the draw.
19.Ba3,..
This move puts some subtle pressure on the Black position. The pressure arises from the interaction of the Rooks down the e-file and a sacrificial idea on d4.
19..., Rab8!?
What should be done here? The text puts a Rook on the open b-file maybe thinking about .., a5; .., a4; breaking on the Q-side. Of course, there are many events that can intervene to render such a plan moot. An alternative for Black is; 19..., Nf8!? White might then proceed; 20 Re2 Qd7 21 Rfe1 Re6; and Black seems to be able to hold on to c5. White now executes his idea.
20.Rxe8+ Rxe8 21.Re1 Qd8 22.Nxd4!?,..
An interesting notion that doesn’t quite work.
22..., Bxf4!
Otherwise Black has problems. If 22..., Rxe1+ 23 Qxe1, and White is near a winning advantage, or 22..., cxd4 23 Bxd6, leaving White a pawn to the good with the Bishop versus Knight imbalance.
23.gxf4,..
½–½
White recognizes the reality of team match play. At this moment the Geezers had nailed down the match victory with three wins recorded. There is no great palm to be had by striving to make the score a 4 - 0 sweep with 23 Rxe8+!? Play becomes complicated after; 23..., Qxe8 24 Qxf4 cxd4 25 Qxd4 Qe1+ 26 Kg2 Qe2+ 27 Qf2 Qxd3 28 Qxa7 Qe2+ 29 Qf2 Qe4+ 30 Qf3 Qc2+ 31 Kh3 Ne5; and not withstanding the extra material White has in hand, the situation of his King is dicey.
After the text there the position is balanced. White has worries about his shattered K-side and some sudden decent by the Black Queen there. The threat constrains White’s ambitions. A draw is a reasonable outcome, and the draw was offered by Mr. Leisner and accepted.
This was a well played game by two creative players. Ideas were tried and matched. A battle between equals ended with the point split, and both sides should be satisfied it was no colorless draw. A really good game!
Last night, Thursday, saw the Schenectady A - Capital Region team match played. Schenectady won 3 ½ - ½ but the contest was closer than the score might indicate.
On the first board David Finnerman held the redoubtable young man Patrick Chi to a draw. In a long game on board two Chris Caravaty took the former Schenectady Champion Philip Sells right to the very limit before having to resign. John Barnes played Cory Northrup on board three and seemed to be in control for most of the game. Barnes won eventually. On the last board, Jason Denham made a good fight against Dilip Aaron. I thought he had an edge out of the opening. As the game transitioned into the middle game my belief in Denham’s position remained high. Rybka didn’t agree completely. It saw Dilip having fighting chances where I thought Denham was significantly ahead. Some inaccuracies crept in the play for both sides. Denham lost a pawn and then a piece as time trouble became an issue for both players.
With some luck in the Caravaty - Sells game and the Denham - Aaron game the score could have been much closer. On ratings alone, Schenectady was a heavy favorite, but the Capital Region team does not let big ratings differences intimate them. As they did against the Albany A team, they come to play and win. This makes for interesting chess and exciting matches.
More soon.
4.14.2012
A Battle on a Lower Board
Much attention is always given to the top boards in team matches. It is true for the CDCL also, but in the venue of match play board 4 weighs just as heavily as board 1. In the recent CDCL match between the Schenectady Geezers and RPI, the first decisive result was on board 4. There Richard Chu Schenectady’s long time President and Captain of the Geezers won a game of many moves. Although the game went more than 50 moves, neither side dawdled and time trouble was never an issue.
Sankalia, Nitesh - Chu, Richard [B06]
CDCL Match Geezers v RPI Schenectady, NY , 05.04.2012
1.e4 d6 2.d4 g6 3.Nf3 Bg7 4.Bf4?!,..
Many moves have been played here. The text however is not one of them. It is unnecessarily risky. The most common are; 4 Nc3, heading for the Classical Variation of the Pric, and 4 c3, focusing on keeping the a1-h8 diagonal closed for as long as possible. They are the most popular choices. Keeping options open with 4 Be2, is also frequently seen, with the precise variation is yet to be determined. Another possibility is 4 c4, looking to transpose into a KID.
Because the text is viewed as doubtful by theory we do not find many games with this position in the databases and none with master players on both sides. Here is best example I found:
(906433) Savinell, Fernando (2075) - Cristobal, Ruben (2316) [B06]
79th Championship of Argentina, Buenos Aires (3), 26.09.2004
1.d4 g6 2.Nf3 Bg7 3.Bf4 d6 4.e4 Bg4 5.c3 Nd7 6.h3 Bxf3 7.Qxf3 c6 8.Bc4 e6 9.Nd2 Qe7 10.0–0 Ngf6 11.Rfe1 Nh5 12.Be3 0–0 13.Qd1 b5 14.Be2 Nhf6 15.a4 a6 16.Qc2 Rfc8 17.b3 Ne8 18.Bf3 Nc7 19.Qd3 c5 20.Rec1 e5 21.Bg4 Rd8 22.Bxd7 Qxd7 23.dxc5 dxc5 24.Qxd7 Rxd7 25.axb5 Nxb5 26.Nc4 Rd3 27.Nb6 Rb8 28.Nd5 f5 29.Bxc5 fxe4 30.c4 Nd4 31.Bxd4 exd4 32.b4 e3 33.fxe3 dxe3 34.Rxa6 Bd4 35.Kh2 Be5+ 36.Kg1 e2 37.Kf2 Rd1 0–1
The Modern/Pirc Defense complex is all about tactics. Black’s opening strategy is to give White as much of the center as he wants to take and then to attack it hoping to create holes that may be exploited. In the general positional sense White has a good game from the beginning. Black bets on his tactical alertness to find ways to so disturb the balance that conventional play fails. The odd thing is, after a flurry of tactics, the late middle game and ending is often about the realization of some positional advantage gained by one side or the other.
4..., Bg4!?
More pertinent here is 4..., c5. In the Modern Defense (no Knight on f6), opening the a1-h8 diagonal is a key theme for Black.
5.h3?,..
Better 5 c3, preserving the pawn structure.
5..., Bxf3 6.Qxf3 e5?
Why forego 6..., Bxd4, pocketing a pawn? That is the natural outcome of the play so far. Black may have been needlessly worried about the line; 6..., Bxd4 7 Bc4!? Bxb2?! 8 Be5, when White has some compensation for the material. Black can deal simply with that problem by not grabbing the b-pawn; 6..., Bxd4 7 Bc4 e6; when the Bishop pair and a tempo or two lead in development is small reward for the pawn. Black would then have a solid advantage, while White is far from proving his idea sound. Black’s game move hands White a solid edge.
7.dxe5 dxe5 8.Be3 Nc6 9.Bc4 Nf6 10.0–0?,..
Castle if you will, castle if you must, but don’t castle without thought goes the doggerel. It applies here. The move 10 c3, keeps the Black Knight out of d4 maintaining the advantage.
10..., 0–0 11.Nc3?,..
Obviously White does not recognize the value of d4. He concedes that outpost to Black. Again, 11 c3, is better.
11..., Qe7 12.Bg5?,..
A bad patch of positional play by White continues. One hundred and fifty years ago Morphy taught the chess world about completing development before embarking on other operations. Mr. Sankalia is just beginning his career in rated chess, and like many talented up-and-comers he has not yet integrated all the knowledge the great players have given us in his play; Morphy on development, Rubinstein on dynamics, Botvinnik on concrete calculation of variations, etc. Here Morphy would have played; 12 Rad1, and if 12..., Rad8 13 Ne2, keeping the game in balance.
12..., Nd4
Black hit’s the White Queen first before White gets in his contemplated Nc3-d5. That allows Black to prevent the Knight form going to d5.
13.Qd3 c6 14.Rad1 Rad8 15.Ne2 Nxe2+?
Now it is Black’s turn to not see what is on the board to see. Trading off his useful Knight for its White counterpart is not good. It may have to be done sometime or other, but not yet. Corralling and harassing the Bishops is what is required. After 15..., b5; White can’t really play 16 Nxd4, because the Bc4 falls when Black recaptures 16..., Rxd4. That being so, the Bg5 gets taken off eliminating the better of the White Bishops after 16..., Ne6; and it leaves Black an entirely satisfactory position. He then may well have a small edge. Such an outcome should be sufficient for the Modern/Pirc player.
The strength of the Geezers traditionally has been their depth of experience on every board. Mr. Chu may have thought to test the least experienced player on the RPI team when he selected the move played. Objectively, the move played lets White claim some small advantage.
16.Qxe2 Qb4 17.Rxd8 Rxd8 18.b3 b5 19.Bd3 Rd4 20.Be3 Rd7 21.Bd2 Qd4 22.Be3 Qb2 23.a4 bxa4 24.bxa4 Qb4
Here is a direct threat to the a-pawn. The straight forward defense, 25 Ra1, drops the e-pawn to 25..., Nxe4. White can maintain the material balance with; 25 Qe1, and if; 25..., Qxa4 26 Qxa1 Rxa1; recovering the pawn. White’s Bishop pair is dominant. Black will have a hard time finding something useful to do with his Rook. Played this way, Black would have a difficult defensive task.
25.Bg5 Qxa4 26.Rb1 Qd4 27.Be3 Qd6 28.Ra1 c5 29.Bb5 Rc7 30.Rd1 Qf8
One can not say Black’s scheme of deployment is full of promise. He has abandoned the light squares to the White Bishop. Black must be thinking of defending his scattered Q-side pawns with his dark squared Bishop.
31.Qd2?,..
Overlooking that the e-pawn is hanging, or maybe, White thinks he can let it go and put pressure on the Q-side pawns. After 31..., Nxe4 32 Qd8 Rc8 33 Qd3 Nf6; Black is a pawn to the good, and the Bishop pair is looking a little less impressive.
31..., Rc8?
For reasons unknown Black does not take the pawn. The “threat” of the White Queen coming to the 8th rank is meaningless.
32.Qa5 Nxe4?
Now taking the e-pawn is wrong. It is better to defend the a-pawn with 32..., Qe7.
33.Qxa7?,..
Overlooking a devastating fork on c3.
33..., Ra8?
Black does also?! After 33..., Nc3; Black will win the Exchange and have a solid advantage.
34.Qb7 Rb8 35.Qxe4 Rxb5
Black has eliminated the Bishop pair and garnered a pawn. It is not much of an advantage because Black’s Bishop is not very active. White’s pieces are quite well placed, and Black’s pieces are not particularly well coordinated.
36.Ra1?!,..
A little better is 36 Rd7, getting to the 7th rank right away.
36..., Qd6 37.Ra8+?,..
White sees a forcing sequence. It is tempting to play such when you are in the midst of a difficult struggle. There is a certain feeling of comfort when you can predict the future for several of moves. Unfortunately for White, the outcome of the forcing sequence leads to simplification favoring Black. Keeping a fight going with 37 Qc4 Rb4 38 Qxc5, is the best course.
37..., Bf8 38.Bh6 Rb8 39.Bxf8 Kxf8 40.Rxb8+ Qxb8
The Queen and pawns ending is not quite won for Black, but it is close to that. White has to find as much activity for his Queen as possible. Failing to do so leads to the loss for White.
41.Qd5 Qb1+?!,..
Black goes for activity. More controlled is 41..., Qc7; securing the extra pawn and planning for its long term exploitation. The text gives White a chance to hold.
42.Kh2 Qxc2 43.Qxe5?,..
Shortsighted greed. The finesse 43 Qd6+, looking to capture the e-pawn with check, is the proper way to go. The text gives Black a needed tempo.
43..., Qxf2 44.Qh8+ Ke7 45.Qxh7?,..
With the White Queen now out of play about as much it can be in such a simplified position, the win is clear for Black.
45..., Qf4+ 46.Kg1 c4 47.Kh1 Qf6 48.Qg8 c3 49.Kh2 Qf4+ 50.Kg1 Qd2 0–1
The game went on for a couple of more moves. However there is no way of stopping the c-pawn from Queening. A game with many flaws, but it is just those flaws that make it worth examining. The errors are typical. Considering the errors and identifying the thought processes leading to mistakes is the first step towards improvement.
Thanks to Bill Townsend, the Schenectady Gazette chess columnist and leader of the CDCL fro providing the following update on the League standings:
1 Geezers, 2 match points, 6 ½ game points
2 RPI, 1 ½ match points, 8 ½ game points
3 Capital Region, 1 ½ match points, 5 ½ game points
4 Uncle Sam, ½ match points, 3 ½ game points
5 Albany A, ½ match points, 2 game points
6 Schenectady A no matches played yet
It has been an uneven start in the League this year. Negotiations are underway among the Schenectady teams and Albany A for matches. Travel plans, illnesses and other obligations have made getting games in more difficult than usual this year. I believe the next few weeks will see these problems work themselves out. The most critical of the matches yet to be played are those with RPI for the Schenectady and Albany A teams. The semester ends soon for RPI. Playing after the end of the school year is a problem for the RPI team.
More soon.
Sankalia, Nitesh - Chu, Richard [B06]
CDCL Match Geezers v RPI Schenectady, NY , 05.04.2012
1.e4 d6 2.d4 g6 3.Nf3 Bg7 4.Bf4?!,..
Many moves have been played here. The text however is not one of them. It is unnecessarily risky. The most common are; 4 Nc3, heading for the Classical Variation of the Pric, and 4 c3, focusing on keeping the a1-h8 diagonal closed for as long as possible. They are the most popular choices. Keeping options open with 4 Be2, is also frequently seen, with the precise variation is yet to be determined. Another possibility is 4 c4, looking to transpose into a KID.
Because the text is viewed as doubtful by theory we do not find many games with this position in the databases and none with master players on both sides. Here is best example I found:
(906433) Savinell, Fernando (2075) - Cristobal, Ruben (2316) [B06]
79th Championship of Argentina, Buenos Aires (3), 26.09.2004
1.d4 g6 2.Nf3 Bg7 3.Bf4 d6 4.e4 Bg4 5.c3 Nd7 6.h3 Bxf3 7.Qxf3 c6 8.Bc4 e6 9.Nd2 Qe7 10.0–0 Ngf6 11.Rfe1 Nh5 12.Be3 0–0 13.Qd1 b5 14.Be2 Nhf6 15.a4 a6 16.Qc2 Rfc8 17.b3 Ne8 18.Bf3 Nc7 19.Qd3 c5 20.Rec1 e5 21.Bg4 Rd8 22.Bxd7 Qxd7 23.dxc5 dxc5 24.Qxd7 Rxd7 25.axb5 Nxb5 26.Nc4 Rd3 27.Nb6 Rb8 28.Nd5 f5 29.Bxc5 fxe4 30.c4 Nd4 31.Bxd4 exd4 32.b4 e3 33.fxe3 dxe3 34.Rxa6 Bd4 35.Kh2 Be5+ 36.Kg1 e2 37.Kf2 Rd1 0–1
The Modern/Pirc Defense complex is all about tactics. Black’s opening strategy is to give White as much of the center as he wants to take and then to attack it hoping to create holes that may be exploited. In the general positional sense White has a good game from the beginning. Black bets on his tactical alertness to find ways to so disturb the balance that conventional play fails. The odd thing is, after a flurry of tactics, the late middle game and ending is often about the realization of some positional advantage gained by one side or the other.
4..., Bg4!?
More pertinent here is 4..., c5. In the Modern Defense (no Knight on f6), opening the a1-h8 diagonal is a key theme for Black.
5.h3?,..
Better 5 c3, preserving the pawn structure.
5..., Bxf3 6.Qxf3 e5?
Why forego 6..., Bxd4, pocketing a pawn? That is the natural outcome of the play so far. Black may have been needlessly worried about the line; 6..., Bxd4 7 Bc4!? Bxb2?! 8 Be5, when White has some compensation for the material. Black can deal simply with that problem by not grabbing the b-pawn; 6..., Bxd4 7 Bc4 e6; when the Bishop pair and a tempo or two lead in development is small reward for the pawn. Black would then have a solid advantage, while White is far from proving his idea sound. Black’s game move hands White a solid edge.
7.dxe5 dxe5 8.Be3 Nc6 9.Bc4 Nf6 10.0–0?,..
Castle if you will, castle if you must, but don’t castle without thought goes the doggerel. It applies here. The move 10 c3, keeps the Black Knight out of d4 maintaining the advantage.
10..., 0–0 11.Nc3?,..
Obviously White does not recognize the value of d4. He concedes that outpost to Black. Again, 11 c3, is better.
11..., Qe7 12.Bg5?,..
A bad patch of positional play by White continues. One hundred and fifty years ago Morphy taught the chess world about completing development before embarking on other operations. Mr. Sankalia is just beginning his career in rated chess, and like many talented up-and-comers he has not yet integrated all the knowledge the great players have given us in his play; Morphy on development, Rubinstein on dynamics, Botvinnik on concrete calculation of variations, etc. Here Morphy would have played; 12 Rad1, and if 12..., Rad8 13 Ne2, keeping the game in balance.
12..., Nd4
Black hit’s the White Queen first before White gets in his contemplated Nc3-d5. That allows Black to prevent the Knight form going to d5.
13.Qd3 c6 14.Rad1 Rad8 15.Ne2 Nxe2+?
Now it is Black’s turn to not see what is on the board to see. Trading off his useful Knight for its White counterpart is not good. It may have to be done sometime or other, but not yet. Corralling and harassing the Bishops is what is required. After 15..., b5; White can’t really play 16 Nxd4, because the Bc4 falls when Black recaptures 16..., Rxd4. That being so, the Bg5 gets taken off eliminating the better of the White Bishops after 16..., Ne6; and it leaves Black an entirely satisfactory position. He then may well have a small edge. Such an outcome should be sufficient for the Modern/Pirc player.
The strength of the Geezers traditionally has been their depth of experience on every board. Mr. Chu may have thought to test the least experienced player on the RPI team when he selected the move played. Objectively, the move played lets White claim some small advantage.
16.Qxe2 Qb4 17.Rxd8 Rxd8 18.b3 b5 19.Bd3 Rd4 20.Be3 Rd7 21.Bd2 Qd4 22.Be3 Qb2 23.a4 bxa4 24.bxa4 Qb4
Here is a direct threat to the a-pawn. The straight forward defense, 25 Ra1, drops the e-pawn to 25..., Nxe4. White can maintain the material balance with; 25 Qe1, and if; 25..., Qxa4 26 Qxa1 Rxa1; recovering the pawn. White’s Bishop pair is dominant. Black will have a hard time finding something useful to do with his Rook. Played this way, Black would have a difficult defensive task.
25.Bg5 Qxa4 26.Rb1 Qd4 27.Be3 Qd6 28.Ra1 c5 29.Bb5 Rc7 30.Rd1 Qf8
One can not say Black’s scheme of deployment is full of promise. He has abandoned the light squares to the White Bishop. Black must be thinking of defending his scattered Q-side pawns with his dark squared Bishop.
31.Qd2?,..
Overlooking that the e-pawn is hanging, or maybe, White thinks he can let it go and put pressure on the Q-side pawns. After 31..., Nxe4 32 Qd8 Rc8 33 Qd3 Nf6; Black is a pawn to the good, and the Bishop pair is looking a little less impressive.
31..., Rc8?
For reasons unknown Black does not take the pawn. The “threat” of the White Queen coming to the 8th rank is meaningless.
32.Qa5 Nxe4?
Now taking the e-pawn is wrong. It is better to defend the a-pawn with 32..., Qe7.
33.Qxa7?,..
Overlooking a devastating fork on c3.
33..., Ra8?
Black does also?! After 33..., Nc3; Black will win the Exchange and have a solid advantage.
34.Qb7 Rb8 35.Qxe4 Rxb5
Black has eliminated the Bishop pair and garnered a pawn. It is not much of an advantage because Black’s Bishop is not very active. White’s pieces are quite well placed, and Black’s pieces are not particularly well coordinated.
36.Ra1?!,..
A little better is 36 Rd7, getting to the 7th rank right away.
36..., Qd6 37.Ra8+?,..
White sees a forcing sequence. It is tempting to play such when you are in the midst of a difficult struggle. There is a certain feeling of comfort when you can predict the future for several of moves. Unfortunately for White, the outcome of the forcing sequence leads to simplification favoring Black. Keeping a fight going with 37 Qc4 Rb4 38 Qxc5, is the best course.
37..., Bf8 38.Bh6 Rb8 39.Bxf8 Kxf8 40.Rxb8+ Qxb8
The Queen and pawns ending is not quite won for Black, but it is close to that. White has to find as much activity for his Queen as possible. Failing to do so leads to the loss for White.
41.Qd5 Qb1+?!,..
Black goes for activity. More controlled is 41..., Qc7; securing the extra pawn and planning for its long term exploitation. The text gives White a chance to hold.
42.Kh2 Qxc2 43.Qxe5?,..
Shortsighted greed. The finesse 43 Qd6+, looking to capture the e-pawn with check, is the proper way to go. The text gives Black a needed tempo.
43..., Qxf2 44.Qh8+ Ke7 45.Qxh7?,..
With the White Queen now out of play about as much it can be in such a simplified position, the win is clear for Black.
45..., Qf4+ 46.Kg1 c4 47.Kh1 Qf6 48.Qg8 c3 49.Kh2 Qf4+ 50.Kg1 Qd2 0–1
The game went on for a couple of more moves. However there is no way of stopping the c-pawn from Queening. A game with many flaws, but it is just those flaws that make it worth examining. The errors are typical. Considering the errors and identifying the thought processes leading to mistakes is the first step towards improvement.
Thanks to Bill Townsend, the Schenectady Gazette chess columnist and leader of the CDCL fro providing the following update on the League standings:
1 Geezers, 2 match points, 6 ½ game points
2 RPI, 1 ½ match points, 8 ½ game points
3 Capital Region, 1 ½ match points, 5 ½ game points
4 Uncle Sam, ½ match points, 3 ½ game points
5 Albany A, ½ match points, 2 game points
6 Schenectady A no matches played yet
It has been an uneven start in the League this year. Negotiations are underway among the Schenectady teams and Albany A for matches. Travel plans, illnesses and other obligations have made getting games in more difficult than usual this year. I believe the next few weeks will see these problems work themselves out. The most critical of the matches yet to be played are those with RPI for the Schenectady and Albany A teams. The semester ends soon for RPI. Playing after the end of the school year is a problem for the RPI team.
More soon.
4.10.2012
A Theoretical Game
Over the years RPI has represented the collage element on the local chess scene more consistently than any other school in the area. In the 1970s and 1980s they fielded some strong teams occasionally with masters on the top boards. I can’t say they a team in the League every year, but more often than not RPI participated. The past few years Brian Furtado captained the RPI team as it battled the top local clubs. This year with the addition of Jeffery La Comb, a solid A player on first board, and Brian’s growing experience as a player, the RPI team may just be ready to upset one of the perennial contenders. Even the recent heavy defeat RPI suffered at the hands of the Schenectady Geezers should not deceive anyone as to their potential.
Today’s game is a theoretical outing in the Grunfeld Defense, Exchange Variation. There is a huge body of knowledge around the Grunfeld. It has been used often by the very best players in most important contests
Furtado, Brian - Le Cours, Alan [D87]
CDCL Match Geezers v RPI Schenectady, NY, 05.04.2012
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Bc4 c5 8.Be3 0–0 9.Ne2 Nc6 10.0–0
There is an attractive alternate plan for White here. Hans Berliner, the 5th CC World Champion set it out formally, and some very good Grandmasters have used the plan; skip castling and advance the h-pawn to attack the Black King. Shirov demonstrates the plan in this game:
(272400) Shirov,Alexei (2610) - Ernst,Thomas (2525) [D87]
Lloyds Bank Open, London (7), 1991
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Bc4 c5 8.Ne2 Nc6 9.Be3 0–0 10.Rc1 cxd4 11.cxd4 Qa5+ 12.Kf1 Bd7 13.h4 Rfc8 14.h5 Nd8 15.f3 Bb5 16.Bxb5 Qxb5 17.Kf2 Rxc1 18.Qxc1 Nc6 19.Qb1 Qa6 20.hxg6 hxg6 21.e5 Rd8 22.a4 Na5 23.Qe4 Rc8 24.Bh6 Bh8 25.Bg5 Qe6 26.Qh4 1–0
10.., Bg4 11.f3 Na5 12.Bxf7+ Rxf7 13.fxg4 Rxf1+ 14.Qxf1
Even the better 14 Kxf1, is not so simple here. The position is difficult, and White has to find hard to see moves to make the most of his position.
(190390) Karpov,Anatoly (2700) - Kasparov,Garry (2740) [D87]
World Championship, Seville (11), 09.11.1987
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Bc4 c5 8.Ne2 Nc6 9.Be3 0–0 10.0–0 Bg4 11.f3 Na5 12.Bxf7+ Rxf7 13.fxg4 Rxf1+ 14.Kxf1 Qd6 15.Kg1 Qe6 16.Qd3 Qc4 17.Qxc4+ Nxc4 18.Bf2 cxd4 19.cxd4 e5 20.d5 Bh6 21.h4 Bd2 22.Rd1 Ba5 23.Rc1 b5 24.Rc2 Nd6 25.Ng3 Nc4 26.Nf1 Nd6 27.Ng3 Nc4 28.g5 Kf7 29.Nf1 Nd6 30.Ng3 Nc4 31.Kf1 Ke7 32.Bc5+ Kf7 33.Rf2+ Kg7 34.Rf6 Bb6 35.Rc6 Na5 36.Bxb6 Nxc6 37.Bc7 Rf8+ 38.Ke2 Rf7 39.Bd6 Rd7 40.Bc5 Na5 41.Nf1 Rc7 42.Bd6 Rc2+ 43.Kd3 Rxa2 44.Ne3 Kf7 45.Ng4 Nc4 46.Nxe5+ Nxe5+ 47.Bxe5 b4 48.Bf6 b3 49.e5 Rxg2 50.e6+ Kf8 0–1
To make the point about the popularity of the Grunfeld, here is a small selection of games:
This game left many of us Bobby-fans with a question that nagged for the next six years; Fischer was probably better than just about anybody else playing at the time, but could he handle Spassky in a match? Bobby cleared that up in Iceland 1972
(70661) Spassky, Boris V - Fischer, Robert James [D87]
2 nd Piatigorsky Cup, Santa Monica (8), 28.07.1966
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Bc4 c5 8.Ne2 Nc6 9.Be3 0–0 10.0–0 Qc7 11.Rc1 Rd8 12.Qe1 e6 13.f4 Na5 14.Bd3 f5 15.Rd1 b6 16.Qf2 cxd4 17.Bxd4 Bxd4 18.cxd4 Bb7 19.Ng3 Qf7 20.d5 fxe4 21.dxe6 Qxe6 22.f5 Qf7 23.Bxe4 Rxd1 24.Rxd1 Rf8 25.Bb1 Qf6 26.Qc2 Kh8 27.fxg6 hxg6 28.Qd2 Kg7 29.Rf1 Qe7 30.Qd4+ Rf6 31.Ne4 Bxe4 32.Bxe4 Qc5 33.Qxc5 Rxf1+ 34.Kxf1 bxc5 35.h4 Nc4 36.Ke2 Ne5 37.Ke3 Kf6 38.Kf4 Nf7 39.Ke3 g5 40.h5 Nh6 41.Kd3 Ke5 42.Ba8 Kd6 43.Kc4 g4 44.a4 Ng8 45.a5 Nh6 46.Be4 g3 47.Kb5 Ng8 48.Bb1 Nh6 49.Ka6 Kc6 50.Ba2 1–0
Here is an example of the famous Exchange sacrifice in the Grunfeld that is attributed to Smyslov. It is an illustration of the concepts of dynamic play and concrete calculation the Soviet chess school brought to chess.
(90922) Gligoric, Svetozar (2575) - Portisch, Lajos (2640) [D89]
San Antonio, 1972
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Bc4 c5 8.Ne2 Nc6 9.Be3 0–0 10.0–0 cxd4 11.cxd4 Bg4 12.f3 Na5 13.Bd3 Be6 14.Qa4 a6 15.d5 b5 16.Qb4 Bxa1 17.Rxa1 Bd7 18.Qd4 f6 19.e5 fxe5 20.Qxe5 Qb8 21.Qxe7 Qe8 22.Qc5 Rc8 23.Qd4 Nc4 24.Bh6 Rf7 25.Rc1 Qe7 26.Bxc4 bxc4 27.Be3 Re8 28.Kf2 Qd6 29.Ng3 Bb5 30.Ne4 Qe5 31.Qxe5 Rxe5 32.Nc3 Rb7 33.Bd4 Ree7 34.Ne4 Rbd7 35.a4 Bc6 36.Nf6+ Kf7 37.Nxd7 Bxd7 38.Rxc4 Bf5 39.g4 Bd7 40.Be3 Be8 41.Bc5 Rd7 42.Rf4+ Kg7 43.Bf8+ Kg8 44.Bh6 Bf7 45.Rf6 a5 46.Ra6 Bxd5 47.Rxa5 Kf7 48.Be3 Bb3 49.Ra8 Rc7 50.a5 Rc2+ 51.Kg3 Rc3 52.Ra7+ Ke6 53.Bg5 h6 54.Re7+ Kd6 55.Re3 1–0
An ongoing worry for White in the Grunfeld is Black making something out of his Q-side pawn majority as Saidy does in this game.
(94779) Yanofsky, Daniel Abraham (2460) - Saidy, Anthony Fred (2425) [D89]
Netanya (5), 1973
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Bc4 c5 8.Ne2 Nc6 9.Be3 0–0 10.0–0 cxd4 11.cxd4 Bg4 12.f3 Na5 13.Bd3 Be6 14.Qa4 a6 15.Rad1 b5 16.Qc2 Nc4 17.Bf2 Rc8 18.Qb1 Qa5 19.d5 Bd7 20.Bxc4 Rxc4 21.Nd4 Rfc8 22.Nb3 Qa3 23.Rd3 Qd6 24.Bg3 Qb4 25.d6 Rc2 26.e5 exd6 27.Rxd6 Bf5 28.Qd1 Rxa2 29.Qd5 Qc4 30.Nd4 Qxd5 31.Rxd5 Bd3 32.Rd1 Bf8 33.e6 Bc4 34.exf7+ Kxf7 35.Rd7+ Kg8 36.Be5 Re8 37.f4 b4 38.Rc1 b3 39.Rb1 Rd2 40.h3 Rxe5 41.fxe5 Rxd4 42.Rc7 Bd5 43.Kf2 Rd2+ 0–1
Anyone with a reasonably sized database will find many more examples of the Grunfeld. It has the reputation as the weapon the best players break out when they have the Black pieces and want to play for a win. Mr. Le Cours plays it frequently and is well booked up on the ins and outs of the opening.
14..., Nc4
The game has arrived at typically difficult middle game position for the Grunfeld. In this line neither side’s pawn formation is particularly impressive; the big White center is under considerable pressure, and there seems to be no way for White hang on to the extra pawn. The Grunfeld often leads to these complex battles where positional maneuvering and sharp tactics interact and then resolve into a winning attack, or a clear endgame advantage, for one side or the other.
15.Bf2 Nd2 16.Qd1 Nxe4 17.Qb3+?!,..
The critical moment has arrived. White chooses to activate his Queen. He hopes to distract Black with a threatening gesture; a White Queen appearing on the 7th rank. It is worth consideration, but in the Grunfeld you must look further than in most openings. Here White likely should play; 17 dxc5, and then 17..., e6 18 Qb3 Nxf2 19 Qxe6+ Kh8 20 Kxf2 Qf8+; recovering one of the pawns. The position then presents an interesting question; can the very good Bishop Black has and the weakened state of the White pawns give Black enough to offset White’s extra pawn?
17..., Kh8 18.Qxb7 Nxf2 19.Kxf2 cxd4 20.Nxd4 Bxd4+ 21.cxd4 Qxd4+
The more or less forced sequence brings the game to this delicate position; Black has a win here, but he must be accurate. A mistake on his part and all of the good play proceeding could be for naught.
22.Kg3 Qe5+ 23.Kh3 Rf8!?
At this point Black has to calculate accurately: Is it better to play 23..., Rb8; or the text? According to Deep Rybka, 23..., Rb8 24 Qxa7 h5; is winning for Black. The simplified position that comes up it is not easy to evaluate. It is quite human to have some doubts about missed tricks in such situations. The game move, unless you study it very carefully looks to be nearly as good.
24.Rb1,..
The mighty Rybka now claims White is not too badly off, if you don’t give the electronic beast plenty of time to think.
24..., Qe3+
Not too badly off until the text, that is.
25.g3,..
The alternative, 25 Kh4, also is lost after 25..., Kg7 26 Rb5 Rf4 27 Qb8 Re4 28 Rg5 Qf2+ 29 Kh3 Re3+ 30 g3 Re2; but the moves for Black are not easy to find, particularly 26.., Rf4; and 27..., Re4. The text allows the obvious attack along the 2nd rank on h2 making Black’s task easier.
25..., Rf2 26.Qc8+ Kg7 27.g5 Qd2!?
Slippage. Black worries about the White Queen checking from c3. It is not really dangerous because White runs out checking squares after 27..., Qe2 28 Qc3+ Kf7 29 Qb3+ Kf8 30 Qb8+ Kg7; and the only square from which the White Queen can check again is b2 with ruinous loss to follow. Black, of course, threatens mates at h2 and h5. It is entirely understandable for Black to play in a way to keep counter-play to a minimum. The game move however permits White a chance of playing for a few moves longer.
28.Rb7?,..
White has had his confidence in his position beaten down and he does not find the most resistant move; 28 Rh1. Then if 28..., Qxg5?! 29 Qg4, is still won for Black, but the endgame win will take several more moves.
The games of the Grandmasters show us repeatedly the value of stubborn resistance. String the game out enough and there is a chance the opponent will err. Give in too easily and you don’t test your opponent thoroughly. If you analyze results, it becomes clear one big difference between strong players; Class A, Expert and Masters, and the rest is; winning the game you are supposed to win and occasionally obtaining a win or a draw from lost positions. To do that requires the testing of the opponent at every opportunity.
28..., Rxh2+ 0–1
This was a game that demonstrates some key ideas in the Grunfeld, and Mr. Le Cours understood what was required. It was an effective performance and educational for Mr. Furtado no doubt.
The current standings in the Capital District League are:
Matches Games
1 Schenectady Geezers 2-0 6.5
2 Capital Region 1 ½ - 2 ½ 5.5
3 RPI 1-1 4.5
4 Albany A ½ - ½ 2.0
5 Uncle Sam 0-1 1.5
6 Schenectady A 0-0 0.0
Most of the league activity so far has been driven by the Capital Region team. Schenectady A and Albany A will generate quite a bit of activity as they move to catch up on their schedules in the next few weeks. When there are a few more matches completed a better picture of how the race will unfold will be seen.
The Saratoga Club did not field a team this year. As one of the “Big Three” clubs, along with Schenectady and Albany, they always contended for a top place. Now it seems the race for first will be between Albany and Schenectady at first glance. There is a more than one “but” in that judgment; the Geezers were very tough last year and are off to a good start this year, the Capital Region team just might pull off an upset in their last match with Schenectady, and Albany already conceded a draw to the Capital Region team. With a shorter schedule, just five matches, drawn or lost matches can have an important effect on who takes the title. This year a new name may be on the CDCL trophy.
More soon.
Today’s game is a theoretical outing in the Grunfeld Defense, Exchange Variation. There is a huge body of knowledge around the Grunfeld. It has been used often by the very best players in most important contests
Furtado, Brian - Le Cours, Alan [D87]
CDCL Match Geezers v RPI Schenectady, NY, 05.04.2012
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Bc4 c5 8.Be3 0–0 9.Ne2 Nc6 10.0–0
There is an attractive alternate plan for White here. Hans Berliner, the 5th CC World Champion set it out formally, and some very good Grandmasters have used the plan; skip castling and advance the h-pawn to attack the Black King. Shirov demonstrates the plan in this game:
(272400) Shirov,Alexei (2610) - Ernst,Thomas (2525) [D87]
Lloyds Bank Open, London (7), 1991
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Bc4 c5 8.Ne2 Nc6 9.Be3 0–0 10.Rc1 cxd4 11.cxd4 Qa5+ 12.Kf1 Bd7 13.h4 Rfc8 14.h5 Nd8 15.f3 Bb5 16.Bxb5 Qxb5 17.Kf2 Rxc1 18.Qxc1 Nc6 19.Qb1 Qa6 20.hxg6 hxg6 21.e5 Rd8 22.a4 Na5 23.Qe4 Rc8 24.Bh6 Bh8 25.Bg5 Qe6 26.Qh4 1–0
10.., Bg4 11.f3 Na5 12.Bxf7+ Rxf7 13.fxg4 Rxf1+ 14.Qxf1
Even the better 14 Kxf1, is not so simple here. The position is difficult, and White has to find hard to see moves to make the most of his position.
(190390) Karpov,Anatoly (2700) - Kasparov,Garry (2740) [D87]
World Championship, Seville (11), 09.11.1987
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Bc4 c5 8.Ne2 Nc6 9.Be3 0–0 10.0–0 Bg4 11.f3 Na5 12.Bxf7+ Rxf7 13.fxg4 Rxf1+ 14.Kxf1 Qd6 15.Kg1 Qe6 16.Qd3 Qc4 17.Qxc4+ Nxc4 18.Bf2 cxd4 19.cxd4 e5 20.d5 Bh6 21.h4 Bd2 22.Rd1 Ba5 23.Rc1 b5 24.Rc2 Nd6 25.Ng3 Nc4 26.Nf1 Nd6 27.Ng3 Nc4 28.g5 Kf7 29.Nf1 Nd6 30.Ng3 Nc4 31.Kf1 Ke7 32.Bc5+ Kf7 33.Rf2+ Kg7 34.Rf6 Bb6 35.Rc6 Na5 36.Bxb6 Nxc6 37.Bc7 Rf8+ 38.Ke2 Rf7 39.Bd6 Rd7 40.Bc5 Na5 41.Nf1 Rc7 42.Bd6 Rc2+ 43.Kd3 Rxa2 44.Ne3 Kf7 45.Ng4 Nc4 46.Nxe5+ Nxe5+ 47.Bxe5 b4 48.Bf6 b3 49.e5 Rxg2 50.e6+ Kf8 0–1
To make the point about the popularity of the Grunfeld, here is a small selection of games:
This game left many of us Bobby-fans with a question that nagged for the next six years; Fischer was probably better than just about anybody else playing at the time, but could he handle Spassky in a match? Bobby cleared that up in Iceland 1972
(70661) Spassky, Boris V - Fischer, Robert James [D87]
2 nd Piatigorsky Cup, Santa Monica (8), 28.07.1966
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Bc4 c5 8.Ne2 Nc6 9.Be3 0–0 10.0–0 Qc7 11.Rc1 Rd8 12.Qe1 e6 13.f4 Na5 14.Bd3 f5 15.Rd1 b6 16.Qf2 cxd4 17.Bxd4 Bxd4 18.cxd4 Bb7 19.Ng3 Qf7 20.d5 fxe4 21.dxe6 Qxe6 22.f5 Qf7 23.Bxe4 Rxd1 24.Rxd1 Rf8 25.Bb1 Qf6 26.Qc2 Kh8 27.fxg6 hxg6 28.Qd2 Kg7 29.Rf1 Qe7 30.Qd4+ Rf6 31.Ne4 Bxe4 32.Bxe4 Qc5 33.Qxc5 Rxf1+ 34.Kxf1 bxc5 35.h4 Nc4 36.Ke2 Ne5 37.Ke3 Kf6 38.Kf4 Nf7 39.Ke3 g5 40.h5 Nh6 41.Kd3 Ke5 42.Ba8 Kd6 43.Kc4 g4 44.a4 Ng8 45.a5 Nh6 46.Be4 g3 47.Kb5 Ng8 48.Bb1 Nh6 49.Ka6 Kc6 50.Ba2 1–0
Here is an example of the famous Exchange sacrifice in the Grunfeld that is attributed to Smyslov. It is an illustration of the concepts of dynamic play and concrete calculation the Soviet chess school brought to chess.
(90922) Gligoric, Svetozar (2575) - Portisch, Lajos (2640) [D89]
San Antonio, 1972
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Bc4 c5 8.Ne2 Nc6 9.Be3 0–0 10.0–0 cxd4 11.cxd4 Bg4 12.f3 Na5 13.Bd3 Be6 14.Qa4 a6 15.d5 b5 16.Qb4 Bxa1 17.Rxa1 Bd7 18.Qd4 f6 19.e5 fxe5 20.Qxe5 Qb8 21.Qxe7 Qe8 22.Qc5 Rc8 23.Qd4 Nc4 24.Bh6 Rf7 25.Rc1 Qe7 26.Bxc4 bxc4 27.Be3 Re8 28.Kf2 Qd6 29.Ng3 Bb5 30.Ne4 Qe5 31.Qxe5 Rxe5 32.Nc3 Rb7 33.Bd4 Ree7 34.Ne4 Rbd7 35.a4 Bc6 36.Nf6+ Kf7 37.Nxd7 Bxd7 38.Rxc4 Bf5 39.g4 Bd7 40.Be3 Be8 41.Bc5 Rd7 42.Rf4+ Kg7 43.Bf8+ Kg8 44.Bh6 Bf7 45.Rf6 a5 46.Ra6 Bxd5 47.Rxa5 Kf7 48.Be3 Bb3 49.Ra8 Rc7 50.a5 Rc2+ 51.Kg3 Rc3 52.Ra7+ Ke6 53.Bg5 h6 54.Re7+ Kd6 55.Re3 1–0
An ongoing worry for White in the Grunfeld is Black making something out of his Q-side pawn majority as Saidy does in this game.
(94779) Yanofsky, Daniel Abraham (2460) - Saidy, Anthony Fred (2425) [D89]
Netanya (5), 1973
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Bc4 c5 8.Ne2 Nc6 9.Be3 0–0 10.0–0 cxd4 11.cxd4 Bg4 12.f3 Na5 13.Bd3 Be6 14.Qa4 a6 15.Rad1 b5 16.Qc2 Nc4 17.Bf2 Rc8 18.Qb1 Qa5 19.d5 Bd7 20.Bxc4 Rxc4 21.Nd4 Rfc8 22.Nb3 Qa3 23.Rd3 Qd6 24.Bg3 Qb4 25.d6 Rc2 26.e5 exd6 27.Rxd6 Bf5 28.Qd1 Rxa2 29.Qd5 Qc4 30.Nd4 Qxd5 31.Rxd5 Bd3 32.Rd1 Bf8 33.e6 Bc4 34.exf7+ Kxf7 35.Rd7+ Kg8 36.Be5 Re8 37.f4 b4 38.Rc1 b3 39.Rb1 Rd2 40.h3 Rxe5 41.fxe5 Rxd4 42.Rc7 Bd5 43.Kf2 Rd2+ 0–1
Anyone with a reasonably sized database will find many more examples of the Grunfeld. It has the reputation as the weapon the best players break out when they have the Black pieces and want to play for a win. Mr. Le Cours plays it frequently and is well booked up on the ins and outs of the opening.
14..., Nc4
The game has arrived at typically difficult middle game position for the Grunfeld. In this line neither side’s pawn formation is particularly impressive; the big White center is under considerable pressure, and there seems to be no way for White hang on to the extra pawn. The Grunfeld often leads to these complex battles where positional maneuvering and sharp tactics interact and then resolve into a winning attack, or a clear endgame advantage, for one side or the other.
15.Bf2 Nd2 16.Qd1 Nxe4 17.Qb3+?!,..
The critical moment has arrived. White chooses to activate his Queen. He hopes to distract Black with a threatening gesture; a White Queen appearing on the 7th rank. It is worth consideration, but in the Grunfeld you must look further than in most openings. Here White likely should play; 17 dxc5, and then 17..., e6 18 Qb3 Nxf2 19 Qxe6+ Kh8 20 Kxf2 Qf8+; recovering one of the pawns. The position then presents an interesting question; can the very good Bishop Black has and the weakened state of the White pawns give Black enough to offset White’s extra pawn?
17..., Kh8 18.Qxb7 Nxf2 19.Kxf2 cxd4 20.Nxd4 Bxd4+ 21.cxd4 Qxd4+
The more or less forced sequence brings the game to this delicate position; Black has a win here, but he must be accurate. A mistake on his part and all of the good play proceeding could be for naught.
22.Kg3 Qe5+ 23.Kh3 Rf8!?
At this point Black has to calculate accurately: Is it better to play 23..., Rb8; or the text? According to Deep Rybka, 23..., Rb8 24 Qxa7 h5; is winning for Black. The simplified position that comes up it is not easy to evaluate. It is quite human to have some doubts about missed tricks in such situations. The game move, unless you study it very carefully looks to be nearly as good.
24.Rb1,..
The mighty Rybka now claims White is not too badly off, if you don’t give the electronic beast plenty of time to think.
24..., Qe3+
Not too badly off until the text, that is.
25.g3,..
The alternative, 25 Kh4, also is lost after 25..., Kg7 26 Rb5 Rf4 27 Qb8 Re4 28 Rg5 Qf2+ 29 Kh3 Re3+ 30 g3 Re2; but the moves for Black are not easy to find, particularly 26.., Rf4; and 27..., Re4. The text allows the obvious attack along the 2nd rank on h2 making Black’s task easier.
25..., Rf2 26.Qc8+ Kg7 27.g5 Qd2!?
Slippage. Black worries about the White Queen checking from c3. It is not really dangerous because White runs out checking squares after 27..., Qe2 28 Qc3+ Kf7 29 Qb3+ Kf8 30 Qb8+ Kg7; and the only square from which the White Queen can check again is b2 with ruinous loss to follow. Black, of course, threatens mates at h2 and h5. It is entirely understandable for Black to play in a way to keep counter-play to a minimum. The game move however permits White a chance of playing for a few moves longer.
28.Rb7?,..
White has had his confidence in his position beaten down and he does not find the most resistant move; 28 Rh1. Then if 28..., Qxg5?! 29 Qg4, is still won for Black, but the endgame win will take several more moves.
The games of the Grandmasters show us repeatedly the value of stubborn resistance. String the game out enough and there is a chance the opponent will err. Give in too easily and you don’t test your opponent thoroughly. If you analyze results, it becomes clear one big difference between strong players; Class A, Expert and Masters, and the rest is; winning the game you are supposed to win and occasionally obtaining a win or a draw from lost positions. To do that requires the testing of the opponent at every opportunity.
28..., Rxh2+ 0–1
This was a game that demonstrates some key ideas in the Grunfeld, and Mr. Le Cours understood what was required. It was an effective performance and educational for Mr. Furtado no doubt.
The current standings in the Capital District League are:
Matches Games
1 Schenectady Geezers 2-0 6.5
2 Capital Region 1 ½ - 2 ½ 5.5
3 RPI 1-1 4.5
4 Albany A ½ - ½ 2.0
5 Uncle Sam 0-1 1.5
6 Schenectady A 0-0 0.0
Most of the league activity so far has been driven by the Capital Region team. Schenectady A and Albany A will generate quite a bit of activity as they move to catch up on their schedules in the next few weeks. When there are a few more matches completed a better picture of how the race will unfold will be seen.
The Saratoga Club did not field a team this year. As one of the “Big Three” clubs, along with Schenectady and Albany, they always contended for a top place. Now it seems the race for first will be between Albany and Schenectady at first glance. There is a more than one “but” in that judgment; the Geezers were very tough last year and are off to a good start this year, the Capital Region team just might pull off an upset in their last match with Schenectady, and Albany already conceded a draw to the Capital Region team. With a shorter schedule, just five matches, drawn or lost matches can have an important effect on who takes the title. This year a new name may be on the CDCL trophy.
More soon.
4.06.2012
Sometimes You Get Lucky
More on the Capital Region Team - Geezers match: John Phillips won his first Schenectady title this year. On his way to the victory there, John said he was the beneficiary of some of his opponents trying too hard to win their games against him. In this game Mr. Phillips overreaches himself in an effort to win the game and comes close to losing. The sporting need for a win can cause chess players to disregard that which the actual position requires. Sometimes this done knowingly, and on other occasions the desire for a result blind us to objective truth.
Phillips, John - Caravaty, Chris [E20]
CDCL Match Cap Region v Geezers Schenectady, NY, 29.03.2012
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 Nc6
A move that does not come up very often in local games. When it was played in this game, I first thought it an error. Looking at the game as the next couple of moves were played led me to doubt this quick conclusion. According to Deep Rybka’s opening book it is a perfectly acceptable alternative, not as popular as 4..., d5; but played by some of the best. Here is Speelman holding a draw against Shirov in a very complicated affair:
(279026) Shirov, Alexei (2610) - Speelman, Jonathan S (2630) [E20]
Hastings (12), 1991
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 Nc6 5.e4 b6 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bh4 e5 8.Nge2 Qe7 9.d5 g5 10.Bf2 Nb8 11.a3 Bc5 12.Bxc5 bxc5 13.d6 Qxd6 14.Qxd6 cxd6 15.Nb5 Kd8 16.Nxd6 Rh7 17.b4 Na6 18.b5 Nc7 19.h4 g4 20.f4 Nce8 21.Nxe8 Kxe8 22.fxe5 Nxe4 23.g3 Bb7 24.Bg2 Rb8 25.Rd1 f5 26.exf6 Rf7 27.0–0 Rxf6 28.Rfe1 Kd8 29.Nf4 Nd6 30.Nh5 Rg6 31.Nf4 Rf6 32.Bxb7 Rxb7 33.Rd5 Nxc4 34.Ne6+ Rxe6 35.Rxe6 Rxb5 36.Rxh6 Rb3 37.Rh8+ Kc7 38.Rh7 Kc6 39.Rdxd7 Rxg3+ 40.Kf2 Rf3+ 41.Ke2 Re3+ 42.Kf2 ½–½
Another example is this game. It illustrates the middle game dangers that can be conjured up by a slip by Black:
(863773) Volkov, Sergey (2629) - Ionov, Sergey (2538) [E20]
57th Russian Ch Qualification Tournament, St Petersburg (8), 29.05.2004
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 Nc6 5.e4 d5 6.cxd5 exd5 7.e5 Ng8 8.Be3 Nge7 9.f4 Ba5 10.Qd2 0–0 11.0–0–0 f6 12.Bd3 fxe5 13.fxe5 Bf5 14.Nf3 Qd7 15.Bxf5 Rxf5 16.Kb1 Nd8 17.Rc1 Ne6 18.Qd3 c6 19.Ne2 Raf8 20.h4 Ng6? (Better 20..., Qe8) 21.Ng3 R5f7 22.Ng5 Nxg5 23.hxg5 Qe6 24.Rh3 Bb6 25.Rch1 Rd7 26.Rxh7 Rff7 27.Nh5 Rf5 28.g4 Rf3 29.Nf6+ Kf7 30.Qe2 Nxe5 31.Nxd7 Qxd7 32.g6+ Kxg6 33.Qc2+ Kf7 34.dxe5 Bxe3 35.Rxg7+ Kxg7 36.Qh7+ 1–0
5.e4 d5 6.e5!?,..
Capturing on d5 seems to be a sounder approach. It is more often played than the text, but there are not that many games in the databases. With little master practice in the hopper, it is hard to come to a firm conclusion about what is best here.
6..., Ng8 7.a3 Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 dxc4
The game has arrived at a crossroads. White needs to chose a plan. The natural looking 9 Bxc4, is met strongly by 9..., Nxe5!; and if 10 dxe5? Qh4+; recovers the piece giving Black the better game. If White tries to vary with 10 Ba2, then 10..., Ng6; and it is questionable the Bishop pair won at the cost of a pawn is sufficient compensation. The remaining Black Bishop will come out on b7, after .., b7-b6; and White will be looking for drawing chances down a pawn. My guess is Mr. Phillips thought going in the c-pawn could be taken.
Since the Bishop can’t safely take the pawn, a reasonable alternative is 9 Qa4, and recapturing with the Queen. Also possible is 10 Nh3, intending to answer 10..., Qd5; with 11 Nf4. The game then begins to look something like an Advanced or Winawer French Defense except the Black pawn d5 has disappeared. Altogether it is not a bad outcome for Black from the opening.
9.f4?,..
Reasoning from analogy, White decides to treat the position as he would a French Defense. There supporting the center with a pawn on f4 is established wisdom. With d5 open to occupation this is an error.
9..., Qd5!
Exactly played. Black can now obtain a small but persistent advantage after; 10 Nf3 Nge7 11 Be2 Na5 12 Rb1 Bd7 13 0-0 Bc6. Recovery of the pawn remains just out of reach for White.
10.Qg4?,..
Continuing to reason from analogy, White puts his Queen on g4. This fine in the Winawer French but poison here. Black could now play; 10..., Qe4+ 11 Kf2 Qc7+ 12 Be2 Nge7; and have a fine game. The move he played in the game is equally good.
10..., Nge7 11.Qxg7 Rg8?!
This is not quite the best. First 11..., Qe4+; then 12 Ne2 Rg8 13 Qh6 Na5; extends Black’s advantage. With the Black Queen lording it over the center, the possibility of a Knight landing on b3, and pressure on g2 tying up White, it is hard to imagine Mr. Phillips avoiding some significant loss soon.
12.Qxh7 Rxg2 13.Qh3?,..
The reprieve granted by Black is wasted by this move. With 13 Nh3 Rg6 14 Nf2, White some hope of struggling on even though Black has maintained the advantage.
13..., Rc2 14.Qf3 Qxf3
Also worth consideration is; 14..., Rxc3. This move can lead to a prosaic looking ending where Black has an extra two pawns that are isolated and doubled on the c-file. The unusual thing is this supposedly weak duo, because they support the Black minor pieces so well, prove to be the decisive factor for Black in this ending.
15.Nxf3 Rxc3 16.Be2 Nf5 17.Bd2 Rb3 18.Bd1 Rd3 19.Rc1 Ncxd4 20.Nxd4 Rxd4 21.Rg1,..
Both sides had to calculate the Winawer-like line beginning 21 h4. The pawn racing to Queen is not speedy enough, and with 21..., Bd7 22 h5 Bc6 23 Rh2 0-0-0; Black has no major worries. The text is the best move in a tough situation.
21..., b5?!
After 21 moves of pretty high level play, Mr. Caravaty begins slipping. The g-file Rook is a dangerous piece made more so by the presence of two White Bishops aching to find diagonals on which to work. I suspect that Mr. Phillips allowed the Black Rook access to the center in hopes of snagging the Exchange through the cooperation of the Bishops. It probably wasn’t a full blown calculation, rather it was an idea waiting for detailed work as the position evolved. The text move allows the Bishops to begin their work. With this single move the balance swings from heavily favoring Black according to Rybka to a dead even game. Best here seems to be 21..., c5; securing the King against diagonal embarrassments, or 21..., Kd7; avoiding the lateral check by the Rook. Black’s proper task is to get his Q-side mobilized quickly while not letting White gain valuable time with threats. Failure to do so leads to a quick defeat.
22.Bf3 Rb8 23.Bc6+ Kf8 24.Bb4+ Ne7 25.Bc5 Rd8?
When Black took his Rook on an adventure to the center of the board, he should have realized there was a good chance it would have to be given up for a minor piece, preferably one of the Bishops. Now is the moment for that to happen. White has some advantage, the passed h-pawn, after 25..., Bd7 26 Bxd4 Bxc6 27 Bxa7, but Black then has some counter-chances. The text move was made without due consideration of a mating pattern present in the position.
26.Rc2 Bd7?
A forlorn hope is 26..., Rd5 27 Bxd5 exd5 28 Rcg2, and White is clearly winning, but Black might play on for a few more moves.
27.Rcg2 1–0
There is no defense to the Rooks mating. The pinned Knight on e7 is utterly ineffective and it is in the way to boot. Chris may have thought for a moment that 27..., Ke8; freeing the Knight was possible, but 28 Rg8+!, anyway with mate after; 28..., Nxg8 29 Rxg8# finishes the contest. A pretty and inspired conclusion to a game where White took huge chances in the opening. Winning from these club champions requires not only creative opening play but also seriously creative work right through to the ending.
If you falter, they often exact a painful revenge as in today’s game.
A late note: Wednesday evening the Capital Region team played a match with the Albany A team. The Capital Region team kept up their good play, and this time they carried away a draw from one of the historical leaders in the Capital District Chess League. The final score was 2 - 2. The results by board were: 1 Finnerman - Howard 1-0, 2 Magat - Cavaraty 1-0, 3 Northrup - Henner 1-0, and 4 Perry - Denham 1-0.
Jason Denham erred in the opening and had a hopeless position early in the session. Mr. Perry collected the point without allowing him any counter-play. As non-playing Captain of the Albany team I started out the evening feeling pretty confident after that win. The other three boards all were close struggles.
On board 2 Gordon Magat dealt with Chris Caravaty’s complicated play effectively. So, about an hour and a half after the board 4 game ended, the Albany team was up 2 - 0, and my confidence soared. And then, things began to go right for the Capital Region team and wrong for the Albany team.
On board 3 Cory Northrup did not handle the White pieces terribly well in the opening. This provoked Peter Henner into risky play from the Black side of a Pirc. As some readers may recall, I am a devotee of the Pirc, but, as good as the Pirc may be, it requires careful handling. Because of the big advantage in central space Black grants White, he has to be accurate about how the attack on the White center is carried out. Mr. Henner was not, and the release of central tension worked to White’s advantage eventually costing Black a piece and the game not long after.
Suddenly the match was becoming a close contest. The board 1 game between David Finnerman and Dean Howard was to be the decider. This battle went slowly with Dean, as usual, taking quite a bit of time for each move in the transition from opening to middle game. My estimate was Howard had no real advantage, and I expected a draw giving the Albany team a narrow victory. Such was not to be. My judgment of the position was wrong, and Mr. Finnerman demonstrated the correct path to victory. His win was helped by the difficult time situation Mr. Howard was in over the final 16 moves. He had less than a minute and one-half in which to make them!
This win was the first win for David Finnerman, playing first board for the team now called the Capital Region team. Last year it was the Saratoga B team. This year it could have been designated Albany B with three of its boards filled AACC members. By whatever name, these guys are dangerous. Their play last week against the Geezers was better than the score indicated. Buoyed by this result, who knows what they may do against their remaining opponents.
Thus Cap’n Bill’s first outing leading the Albany A team was not very successful. Nevertheless, it was a good night for chess; along with the CDCL match, four or five skittles players showed up and quietly kept themselves entertained while occasionally looking in on the ongoing match. That was not a bad turnout for a small club.
More soon.
Phillips, John - Caravaty, Chris [E20]
CDCL Match Cap Region v Geezers Schenectady, NY, 29.03.2012
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 Nc6
A move that does not come up very often in local games. When it was played in this game, I first thought it an error. Looking at the game as the next couple of moves were played led me to doubt this quick conclusion. According to Deep Rybka’s opening book it is a perfectly acceptable alternative, not as popular as 4..., d5; but played by some of the best. Here is Speelman holding a draw against Shirov in a very complicated affair:
(279026) Shirov, Alexei (2610) - Speelman, Jonathan S (2630) [E20]
Hastings (12), 1991
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 Nc6 5.e4 b6 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bh4 e5 8.Nge2 Qe7 9.d5 g5 10.Bf2 Nb8 11.a3 Bc5 12.Bxc5 bxc5 13.d6 Qxd6 14.Qxd6 cxd6 15.Nb5 Kd8 16.Nxd6 Rh7 17.b4 Na6 18.b5 Nc7 19.h4 g4 20.f4 Nce8 21.Nxe8 Kxe8 22.fxe5 Nxe4 23.g3 Bb7 24.Bg2 Rb8 25.Rd1 f5 26.exf6 Rf7 27.0–0 Rxf6 28.Rfe1 Kd8 29.Nf4 Nd6 30.Nh5 Rg6 31.Nf4 Rf6 32.Bxb7 Rxb7 33.Rd5 Nxc4 34.Ne6+ Rxe6 35.Rxe6 Rxb5 36.Rxh6 Rb3 37.Rh8+ Kc7 38.Rh7 Kc6 39.Rdxd7 Rxg3+ 40.Kf2 Rf3+ 41.Ke2 Re3+ 42.Kf2 ½–½
Another example is this game. It illustrates the middle game dangers that can be conjured up by a slip by Black:
(863773) Volkov, Sergey (2629) - Ionov, Sergey (2538) [E20]
57th Russian Ch Qualification Tournament, St Petersburg (8), 29.05.2004
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 Nc6 5.e4 d5 6.cxd5 exd5 7.e5 Ng8 8.Be3 Nge7 9.f4 Ba5 10.Qd2 0–0 11.0–0–0 f6 12.Bd3 fxe5 13.fxe5 Bf5 14.Nf3 Qd7 15.Bxf5 Rxf5 16.Kb1 Nd8 17.Rc1 Ne6 18.Qd3 c6 19.Ne2 Raf8 20.h4 Ng6? (Better 20..., Qe8) 21.Ng3 R5f7 22.Ng5 Nxg5 23.hxg5 Qe6 24.Rh3 Bb6 25.Rch1 Rd7 26.Rxh7 Rff7 27.Nh5 Rf5 28.g4 Rf3 29.Nf6+ Kf7 30.Qe2 Nxe5 31.Nxd7 Qxd7 32.g6+ Kxg6 33.Qc2+ Kf7 34.dxe5 Bxe3 35.Rxg7+ Kxg7 36.Qh7+ 1–0
5.e4 d5 6.e5!?,..
Capturing on d5 seems to be a sounder approach. It is more often played than the text, but there are not that many games in the databases. With little master practice in the hopper, it is hard to come to a firm conclusion about what is best here.
6..., Ng8 7.a3 Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 dxc4
The game has arrived at a crossroads. White needs to chose a plan. The natural looking 9 Bxc4, is met strongly by 9..., Nxe5!; and if 10 dxe5? Qh4+; recovers the piece giving Black the better game. If White tries to vary with 10 Ba2, then 10..., Ng6; and it is questionable the Bishop pair won at the cost of a pawn is sufficient compensation. The remaining Black Bishop will come out on b7, after .., b7-b6; and White will be looking for drawing chances down a pawn. My guess is Mr. Phillips thought going in the c-pawn could be taken.
Since the Bishop can’t safely take the pawn, a reasonable alternative is 9 Qa4, and recapturing with the Queen. Also possible is 10 Nh3, intending to answer 10..., Qd5; with 11 Nf4. The game then begins to look something like an Advanced or Winawer French Defense except the Black pawn d5 has disappeared. Altogether it is not a bad outcome for Black from the opening.
9.f4?,..
Reasoning from analogy, White decides to treat the position as he would a French Defense. There supporting the center with a pawn on f4 is established wisdom. With d5 open to occupation this is an error.
9..., Qd5!
Exactly played. Black can now obtain a small but persistent advantage after; 10 Nf3 Nge7 11 Be2 Na5 12 Rb1 Bd7 13 0-0 Bc6. Recovery of the pawn remains just out of reach for White.
10.Qg4?,..
Continuing to reason from analogy, White puts his Queen on g4. This fine in the Winawer French but poison here. Black could now play; 10..., Qe4+ 11 Kf2 Qc7+ 12 Be2 Nge7; and have a fine game. The move he played in the game is equally good.
10..., Nge7 11.Qxg7 Rg8?!
This is not quite the best. First 11..., Qe4+; then 12 Ne2 Rg8 13 Qh6 Na5; extends Black’s advantage. With the Black Queen lording it over the center, the possibility of a Knight landing on b3, and pressure on g2 tying up White, it is hard to imagine Mr. Phillips avoiding some significant loss soon.
12.Qxh7 Rxg2 13.Qh3?,..
The reprieve granted by Black is wasted by this move. With 13 Nh3 Rg6 14 Nf2, White some hope of struggling on even though Black has maintained the advantage.
13..., Rc2 14.Qf3 Qxf3
Also worth consideration is; 14..., Rxc3. This move can lead to a prosaic looking ending where Black has an extra two pawns that are isolated and doubled on the c-file. The unusual thing is this supposedly weak duo, because they support the Black minor pieces so well, prove to be the decisive factor for Black in this ending.
15.Nxf3 Rxc3 16.Be2 Nf5 17.Bd2 Rb3 18.Bd1 Rd3 19.Rc1 Ncxd4 20.Nxd4 Rxd4 21.Rg1,..
Both sides had to calculate the Winawer-like line beginning 21 h4. The pawn racing to Queen is not speedy enough, and with 21..., Bd7 22 h5 Bc6 23 Rh2 0-0-0; Black has no major worries. The text is the best move in a tough situation.
21..., b5?!
After 21 moves of pretty high level play, Mr. Caravaty begins slipping. The g-file Rook is a dangerous piece made more so by the presence of two White Bishops aching to find diagonals on which to work. I suspect that Mr. Phillips allowed the Black Rook access to the center in hopes of snagging the Exchange through the cooperation of the Bishops. It probably wasn’t a full blown calculation, rather it was an idea waiting for detailed work as the position evolved. The text move allows the Bishops to begin their work. With this single move the balance swings from heavily favoring Black according to Rybka to a dead even game. Best here seems to be 21..., c5; securing the King against diagonal embarrassments, or 21..., Kd7; avoiding the lateral check by the Rook. Black’s proper task is to get his Q-side mobilized quickly while not letting White gain valuable time with threats. Failure to do so leads to a quick defeat.
22.Bf3 Rb8 23.Bc6+ Kf8 24.Bb4+ Ne7 25.Bc5 Rd8?
When Black took his Rook on an adventure to the center of the board, he should have realized there was a good chance it would have to be given up for a minor piece, preferably one of the Bishops. Now is the moment for that to happen. White has some advantage, the passed h-pawn, after 25..., Bd7 26 Bxd4 Bxc6 27 Bxa7, but Black then has some counter-chances. The text move was made without due consideration of a mating pattern present in the position.
26.Rc2 Bd7?
A forlorn hope is 26..., Rd5 27 Bxd5 exd5 28 Rcg2, and White is clearly winning, but Black might play on for a few more moves.
27.Rcg2 1–0
There is no defense to the Rooks mating. The pinned Knight on e7 is utterly ineffective and it is in the way to boot. Chris may have thought for a moment that 27..., Ke8; freeing the Knight was possible, but 28 Rg8+!, anyway with mate after; 28..., Nxg8 29 Rxg8# finishes the contest. A pretty and inspired conclusion to a game where White took huge chances in the opening. Winning from these club champions requires not only creative opening play but also seriously creative work right through to the ending.
If you falter, they often exact a painful revenge as in today’s game.
A late note: Wednesday evening the Capital Region team played a match with the Albany A team. The Capital Region team kept up their good play, and this time they carried away a draw from one of the historical leaders in the Capital District Chess League. The final score was 2 - 2. The results by board were: 1 Finnerman - Howard 1-0, 2 Magat - Cavaraty 1-0, 3 Northrup - Henner 1-0, and 4 Perry - Denham 1-0.
Jason Denham erred in the opening and had a hopeless position early in the session. Mr. Perry collected the point without allowing him any counter-play. As non-playing Captain of the Albany team I started out the evening feeling pretty confident after that win. The other three boards all were close struggles.
On board 2 Gordon Magat dealt with Chris Caravaty’s complicated play effectively. So, about an hour and a half after the board 4 game ended, the Albany team was up 2 - 0, and my confidence soared. And then, things began to go right for the Capital Region team and wrong for the Albany team.
On board 3 Cory Northrup did not handle the White pieces terribly well in the opening. This provoked Peter Henner into risky play from the Black side of a Pirc. As some readers may recall, I am a devotee of the Pirc, but, as good as the Pirc may be, it requires careful handling. Because of the big advantage in central space Black grants White, he has to be accurate about how the attack on the White center is carried out. Mr. Henner was not, and the release of central tension worked to White’s advantage eventually costing Black a piece and the game not long after.
Suddenly the match was becoming a close contest. The board 1 game between David Finnerman and Dean Howard was to be the decider. This battle went slowly with Dean, as usual, taking quite a bit of time for each move in the transition from opening to middle game. My estimate was Howard had no real advantage, and I expected a draw giving the Albany team a narrow victory. Such was not to be. My judgment of the position was wrong, and Mr. Finnerman demonstrated the correct path to victory. His win was helped by the difficult time situation Mr. Howard was in over the final 16 moves. He had less than a minute and one-half in which to make them!
This win was the first win for David Finnerman, playing first board for the team now called the Capital Region team. Last year it was the Saratoga B team. This year it could have been designated Albany B with three of its boards filled AACC members. By whatever name, these guys are dangerous. Their play last week against the Geezers was better than the score indicated. Buoyed by this result, who knows what they may do against their remaining opponents.
Thus Cap’n Bill’s first outing leading the Albany A team was not very successful. Nevertheless, it was a good night for chess; along with the CDCL match, four or five skittles players showed up and quietly kept themselves entertained while occasionally looking in on the ongoing match. That was not a bad turnout for a small club.
More soon.
4.04.2012
Old Age and Guile Defeat Youth and Talent Yet Again
The Dutch Defense has had an odd history. Way back in the days Lasker and Capablanca it was considered too offbeat for the top of the line players. Along came Botvinnik using it on occasion to good effect. He tried it twice in his drawn match with Flohr in 1933, winning both. That was this result that announced Botvinnik’s entry to the ranks of the world elite. Even so successful a sponsor did not really do that much for the opening’s popularity, and since then the Dutch shows up irregularly at the top level. Down among the lesser lights the Dutch is quite a regular debut. There are several local players who prefer it above other answers to Q-side openings. Jon Leisner is a devotee of the Dutch. This time out, Jon gets himself into trouble at the end of the opening phase of the game and has to call upon all of his guile to take the point.
Finnerman, David - Leisner, Jon [A96]
Board 1, CDCL Match Capital Region Team v Schenectady Geezers, Schenectady, NY, 29.03.2012
1.c4 f5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nf3 0–0 6.0–0 d6
So far all is according to theory. More popular is 6..., d5; setting up the “Stonewall” formation. The text contemplates something different; the advance of the e-pawn with a possible push of the f-pawn later to open a direct K-side assault.
From out of the mists of time, here is a game from the great Nottingham Tournament of 1936 featuring play, in the opening, similar to our game:
(17670) Alexander, Conel Hughes O’Donal - Tartakower, Saviely [A99]
Nottingham, 1936
1.c4 e6 2.Nf3 f5 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.0–0 0–0 6.Nc3 d6 7.d4 Qe8 8.b3 Qh5 9.Ba3 Nbd7 10.Qc2 Ng4 11.Rad1 a6 12.Rfe1 Rb8 13.e4 fxe4 14.Nxe4 b6 15.h3 Nh6 16.Bc1 Qg6 17.Qe2 Bb7 18.Neg5 Bxg5 19.Nxg5 Bxg2 20.Kxg2 e5 21.dxe5 Nxe5 22.f4 Nd7 23.Qe6+ Qxe6 24.Nxe6 Rfc8 25.Nxg7 Nf8 26.Ne6 b5 27.cxb5 axb5 28.Nxf8 Kxf8 29.g4 Nf7 30.f5 c5 31.Bf4 Rc6 32.Re6 Ra8 33.Rd2 Raa6 34.g5 Kg7 35.h4 c4 36.h5 d5 37.Rxc6 Rxc6 38.Rxd5 Ra6 39.Rxb5 Rxa2+ 40.Kf3 Ra3 41.f6+ Kf8 42.Rb8+ 1–0
The protagonists in the above game were not so many years later to become heroes during WWII, Tartakower in the French resistance and C. H. O’D. Alexander as a code breaker for Great Britain.
7.d4 Nc6?
It was not easy to find much in the databases on this move. The strong players avoided it. Why? This game by GM Ivkov provides some explanation;
(83300) Ivkov, Borislav - Pardo, Nixon [A96]
Olot (9), 1969
1.d4 f5 2.g3 e6 3.Bg2 Nf6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.0–0 0–0 6.c4 d6 7.Nc3 Nc6 8.d5 Ne5 9.dxe6 Nxc4 10.Qd3 Bxe6 11.Ng5 Qd7 12.Nxe6 Qxe6 13.Nd5 Ne5 14.Qxf5 Qf7 15.Nxc7 Qc4 16.Qe6+ Qxe6 17.Nxe6 Rf7 18.Bxb7 Rb8 19.Bg2 d5 20.b3 Ne4 21.Bb2 Rb6 22.Nf4 Ng4 23.Bd4 Rb4 24.Rad1 Rxd4 25.Rxd4 Ngxf2 26.Rxf2 Bc5 27.Bxe4 1–0
The push to d5 on move 8 does not have to wreck Black quite so completely as it does in the Ivkov game, but the move should give White a distinct superiority.
8.b3?!,..
There is not much wrong with this move other than it foregoes the opportunity noted above.
8..., e5?!
On the surface this move seems to be what is called for, but Black has to retire the Nc6 to its original square. The “un-development” was not all that pleasing to Mr. Leisner if his body language was any evidence. Perhaps it would have been better to play 8..., Ne4; then 9 Bb2 Bf6 10 Qd3 d5; brings the game to a position that is not so far removed from standard Dutch formations.
9.d5 Nb8 10.Bb2 Qe8
Black is determined to undertake action on the K-side. Not a bad idea. The early advance of the f-pawn certainly suggest such a plan. However, the general principle; development before attack, should be honored here with 10..., a5; to be followed by .., Nb8-a6; and .., Na6-c5; if White does not act to prevent it. Of course, playing so could easily forego the chance to develop an attack on the White King. The battle would likely become a positional contest about the square c5, and when you make up your mind to go for “the gold” with an assault on the King it is difficult to turn away.
11.Nb5 Bd8 12.Rc1 a6 13.Nc3 Qh5 14.Qd2 Ng4?
This has to be incorrect. Black’s development lags, and he does not have an overwhelming superiority of force in the critical sector. More reasonable is 14..., Ncd7; heading for c5.
15.h3 Nh6 16.c5!,..
Contrary to what Black had hoped for, the fight is really about the c5 square and the c-file. Given the lack of development of the Black forces, it is no surprise his undermanned attack was not able to keep White from finding strong counter-chances on the Q-side.
16..., g5?
You can admire the single minded determination Mr. Leisner displays, but this move takes a slightly worse position into very dangerous territory. Keeping the game from going out of control with; 16..., e4 17 Nd4 dxc5 18 Ne6 Bxe6 19 dxe6 Nc6 20 Nd5 Bg5 21 e3 Qe8; when White has the edge notwithstanding the pawn sacrificed. The game is then very complicated, and White can easily go astray.
17.cxd6!?,..
White misses a move that is by no means easy to find; 17 Na4! Then, 17..., g4 18 cxd6 gxf3 19 exf3 c6 20 dxc6 bxc6 21 Bxe5, and White has three pawns for the piece. Even worse for Black is all of his remaining pawns are isolated and weak, while shelter for his King is almost entirely gone. The move chosen skips this set of complications and heads into another sacrificial line.
17..., cxd6 18.Nb5 axb5 19.Rxc8 g4 20.Nxe5 dxe5 21.Bxe5 Be7 22.Rxf8+?,..
Mr. Finnerman could have crowned his work with 22 Rc7! Play becomes even more complicated thereafter with White counting on his passed pawn to obtain return of the material invested with interest. The game might continue; 22..., Bf6 23 Bxf6 Rxf6 24 d6 Na6 25 Qd5+ Nf7 26 hxg4 Nxc7 27 dxc7 Qxg4 28 Qxb7 Rf8 29 c8(Q). Although White still must play accurately to avoid tricks and traps, the position is clearly won for him. A big chunk of the advantage earned through enterprising play disappears after the text.
22..., Bxf8 23.Rc1?!,..
Time was becoming a concern for White. Mr. Leisner had about one hour left, and Mr. Finnerman was slipping towards just twenty minutes left. Possibly the concern for the clock led White to haste. The text looks reasonable. What could be wrong with activating the least active White piece? Tactics! Minor tactical features can make the conversion even slight advantages possible. Here for example; a glance at the position tells most of us capturing on g4 would get rid of the worry about h3, but if Black recaptures with the Knight then mate at h2 looms. Some study and there turns out to be a way to do this with; 23 d6, pushing this passed pawn opens the diagonal a2-g8 and a strong draft is blowing on the Black King. If then; 23..., Nc6 24 hxg4 Nxg4? 25 Bd5+, wins. If Black improves with 24..., fxg4; White obtains good chances with 25 Bf4 Nf7 26 Bd5.
23..., Nd7 24.Bb2 Bd6
Now Black is out of trouble and maybe even slightly better.
25.h4 Nf7 26.Qd3!?,..
With 26 Bd4, the game arrives at a place where the two pawns White has for the piece does not compensate for the piece minus. Recognizing this White looks for activity.
26..., Rxa2
Perhaps 26..., f4; adding to the tension in the position tests White more than the text.
27.Rc8+ Nf8 28.Qd4?!,..
White was now under ten minutes on his clock. Here 28 Qb1, keeps the game close. After the text, Black begins to take control.
28..., Qh6 29. Bc1 Qg7 30.Qb6 Ra1 31.Kh2 Qf6 32.Qe3,..
Trying to work his way through the tactics has used up time and White has less than five minutes remaining.
32..., Qxh4+ 33.Kg1 Qf6 0-1
There were a few more moves, however, the game is essentially over now. White had the advantage as the game transitioned to the middle game. He found a very testing line of play leading to a plus for him. Exploiting this advantage is where White had problems. None of the improvements I have suggested were obvious. Finnerman used just about all of his available time so it can’t be said he did not work hard to find the right path. Both players demonstrated a certain amount of stubbornness in the game. Jon Leisner wanted a K-side attack whether justified by the position or not, and David Finnerman bet all of his chances on a counter-attack on his opponent’s King instead of positional play. It is a very delicate piece of judgment choosing between direct attack and making positional moves that may delay the attack. In a subtle way, this game illustrates Aagaard’s forced and unforced thinking concept. Forcing a position to conform to your assumptions can cost points.
Fairly early in the evening the Chu - Denham game was a win for the Capital Region team. Not long after Northrup - Mockler evened the score when Mr. Mockler came back from a bad situation to “out-tactic” his young opponent. Just before today’s game ended, John Phillips, after taking great risks in opening and obtaining a poor position, took advantage of a fundamental mistake by Chris Caravaty, and won his game. This game on the first board decided the match.
There was a fairly long period where it appeared the Geezers would be lucky to draw the match and a real possibility they might lose it. The Geezer’s drew on their considerable experience and tenacity to reach a hard fought match victory. Future CDCL opponents should take a warning from these games, the Capital Region team has to be taken seriously if upsets are to be avoided.
More soon.
Finnerman, David - Leisner, Jon [A96]
Board 1, CDCL Match Capital Region Team v Schenectady Geezers, Schenectady, NY, 29.03.2012
1.c4 f5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nf3 0–0 6.0–0 d6
So far all is according to theory. More popular is 6..., d5; setting up the “Stonewall” formation. The text contemplates something different; the advance of the e-pawn with a possible push of the f-pawn later to open a direct K-side assault.
From out of the mists of time, here is a game from the great Nottingham Tournament of 1936 featuring play, in the opening, similar to our game:
(17670) Alexander, Conel Hughes O’Donal - Tartakower, Saviely [A99]
Nottingham, 1936
1.c4 e6 2.Nf3 f5 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.0–0 0–0 6.Nc3 d6 7.d4 Qe8 8.b3 Qh5 9.Ba3 Nbd7 10.Qc2 Ng4 11.Rad1 a6 12.Rfe1 Rb8 13.e4 fxe4 14.Nxe4 b6 15.h3 Nh6 16.Bc1 Qg6 17.Qe2 Bb7 18.Neg5 Bxg5 19.Nxg5 Bxg2 20.Kxg2 e5 21.dxe5 Nxe5 22.f4 Nd7 23.Qe6+ Qxe6 24.Nxe6 Rfc8 25.Nxg7 Nf8 26.Ne6 b5 27.cxb5 axb5 28.Nxf8 Kxf8 29.g4 Nf7 30.f5 c5 31.Bf4 Rc6 32.Re6 Ra8 33.Rd2 Raa6 34.g5 Kg7 35.h4 c4 36.h5 d5 37.Rxc6 Rxc6 38.Rxd5 Ra6 39.Rxb5 Rxa2+ 40.Kf3 Ra3 41.f6+ Kf8 42.Rb8+ 1–0
The protagonists in the above game were not so many years later to become heroes during WWII, Tartakower in the French resistance and C. H. O’D. Alexander as a code breaker for Great Britain.
7.d4 Nc6?
It was not easy to find much in the databases on this move. The strong players avoided it. Why? This game by GM Ivkov provides some explanation;
(83300) Ivkov, Borislav - Pardo, Nixon [A96]
Olot (9), 1969
1.d4 f5 2.g3 e6 3.Bg2 Nf6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.0–0 0–0 6.c4 d6 7.Nc3 Nc6 8.d5 Ne5 9.dxe6 Nxc4 10.Qd3 Bxe6 11.Ng5 Qd7 12.Nxe6 Qxe6 13.Nd5 Ne5 14.Qxf5 Qf7 15.Nxc7 Qc4 16.Qe6+ Qxe6 17.Nxe6 Rf7 18.Bxb7 Rb8 19.Bg2 d5 20.b3 Ne4 21.Bb2 Rb6 22.Nf4 Ng4 23.Bd4 Rb4 24.Rad1 Rxd4 25.Rxd4 Ngxf2 26.Rxf2 Bc5 27.Bxe4 1–0
The push to d5 on move 8 does not have to wreck Black quite so completely as it does in the Ivkov game, but the move should give White a distinct superiority.
8.b3?!,..
There is not much wrong with this move other than it foregoes the opportunity noted above.
8..., e5?!
On the surface this move seems to be what is called for, but Black has to retire the Nc6 to its original square. The “un-development” was not all that pleasing to Mr. Leisner if his body language was any evidence. Perhaps it would have been better to play 8..., Ne4; then 9 Bb2 Bf6 10 Qd3 d5; brings the game to a position that is not so far removed from standard Dutch formations.
9.d5 Nb8 10.Bb2 Qe8
Black is determined to undertake action on the K-side. Not a bad idea. The early advance of the f-pawn certainly suggest such a plan. However, the general principle; development before attack, should be honored here with 10..., a5; to be followed by .., Nb8-a6; and .., Na6-c5; if White does not act to prevent it. Of course, playing so could easily forego the chance to develop an attack on the White King. The battle would likely become a positional contest about the square c5, and when you make up your mind to go for “the gold” with an assault on the King it is difficult to turn away.
11.Nb5 Bd8 12.Rc1 a6 13.Nc3 Qh5 14.Qd2 Ng4?
This has to be incorrect. Black’s development lags, and he does not have an overwhelming superiority of force in the critical sector. More reasonable is 14..., Ncd7; heading for c5.
15.h3 Nh6 16.c5!,..
Contrary to what Black had hoped for, the fight is really about the c5 square and the c-file. Given the lack of development of the Black forces, it is no surprise his undermanned attack was not able to keep White from finding strong counter-chances on the Q-side.
16..., g5?
You can admire the single minded determination Mr. Leisner displays, but this move takes a slightly worse position into very dangerous territory. Keeping the game from going out of control with; 16..., e4 17 Nd4 dxc5 18 Ne6 Bxe6 19 dxe6 Nc6 20 Nd5 Bg5 21 e3 Qe8; when White has the edge notwithstanding the pawn sacrificed. The game is then very complicated, and White can easily go astray.
17.cxd6!?,..
White misses a move that is by no means easy to find; 17 Na4! Then, 17..., g4 18 cxd6 gxf3 19 exf3 c6 20 dxc6 bxc6 21 Bxe5, and White has three pawns for the piece. Even worse for Black is all of his remaining pawns are isolated and weak, while shelter for his King is almost entirely gone. The move chosen skips this set of complications and heads into another sacrificial line.
17..., cxd6 18.Nb5 axb5 19.Rxc8 g4 20.Nxe5 dxe5 21.Bxe5 Be7 22.Rxf8+?,..
Mr. Finnerman could have crowned his work with 22 Rc7! Play becomes even more complicated thereafter with White counting on his passed pawn to obtain return of the material invested with interest. The game might continue; 22..., Bf6 23 Bxf6 Rxf6 24 d6 Na6 25 Qd5+ Nf7 26 hxg4 Nxc7 27 dxc7 Qxg4 28 Qxb7 Rf8 29 c8(Q). Although White still must play accurately to avoid tricks and traps, the position is clearly won for him. A big chunk of the advantage earned through enterprising play disappears after the text.
22..., Bxf8 23.Rc1?!,..
Time was becoming a concern for White. Mr. Leisner had about one hour left, and Mr. Finnerman was slipping towards just twenty minutes left. Possibly the concern for the clock led White to haste. The text looks reasonable. What could be wrong with activating the least active White piece? Tactics! Minor tactical features can make the conversion even slight advantages possible. Here for example; a glance at the position tells most of us capturing on g4 would get rid of the worry about h3, but if Black recaptures with the Knight then mate at h2 looms. Some study and there turns out to be a way to do this with; 23 d6, pushing this passed pawn opens the diagonal a2-g8 and a strong draft is blowing on the Black King. If then; 23..., Nc6 24 hxg4 Nxg4? 25 Bd5+, wins. If Black improves with 24..., fxg4; White obtains good chances with 25 Bf4 Nf7 26 Bd5.
23..., Nd7 24.Bb2 Bd6
Now Black is out of trouble and maybe even slightly better.
25.h4 Nf7 26.Qd3!?,..
With 26 Bd4, the game arrives at a place where the two pawns White has for the piece does not compensate for the piece minus. Recognizing this White looks for activity.
26..., Rxa2
Perhaps 26..., f4; adding to the tension in the position tests White more than the text.
27.Rc8+ Nf8 28.Qd4?!,..
White was now under ten minutes on his clock. Here 28 Qb1, keeps the game close. After the text, Black begins to take control.
28..., Qh6 29. Bc1 Qg7 30.Qb6 Ra1 31.Kh2 Qf6 32.Qe3,..
Trying to work his way through the tactics has used up time and White has less than five minutes remaining.
32..., Qxh4+ 33.Kg1 Qf6 0-1
There were a few more moves, however, the game is essentially over now. White had the advantage as the game transitioned to the middle game. He found a very testing line of play leading to a plus for him. Exploiting this advantage is where White had problems. None of the improvements I have suggested were obvious. Finnerman used just about all of his available time so it can’t be said he did not work hard to find the right path. Both players demonstrated a certain amount of stubbornness in the game. Jon Leisner wanted a K-side attack whether justified by the position or not, and David Finnerman bet all of his chances on a counter-attack on his opponent’s King instead of positional play. It is a very delicate piece of judgment choosing between direct attack and making positional moves that may delay the attack. In a subtle way, this game illustrates Aagaard’s forced and unforced thinking concept. Forcing a position to conform to your assumptions can cost points.
Fairly early in the evening the Chu - Denham game was a win for the Capital Region team. Not long after Northrup - Mockler evened the score when Mr. Mockler came back from a bad situation to “out-tactic” his young opponent. Just before today’s game ended, John Phillips, after taking great risks in opening and obtaining a poor position, took advantage of a fundamental mistake by Chris Caravaty, and won his game. This game on the first board decided the match.
There was a fairly long period where it appeared the Geezers would be lucky to draw the match and a real possibility they might lose it. The Geezer’s drew on their considerable experience and tenacity to reach a hard fought match victory. Future CDCL opponents should take a warning from these games, the Capital Region team has to be taken seriously if upsets are to be avoided.
More soon.
4.01.2012
A Game From the Consolation and Some News
Thursday evening at SCC a CDCL match was played between the Capital Region team and the Geezers. The Geezers won the contest 3 - 1. On the surface the victory was as predicted by the team ratings. On the boards it was by no means routine. After Richard Chu on Board Four made an error and lost his game to Jason Denham of the Capital Region team, the other three Geezers all got themselves into trouble. They then had to resort to the guile of old age to triumph over youth and talent. It was a close run race for the Geezers. Much credit has to be accorded the Capital Region team for their fearless effort trying upset a much higher rated side. At leat one game from the match will be the subject of my next blog.
Here is a short game, one could almost call it a snippet. It was played a week ago Thursday at the Schenectady Club. Both participants were fighting for honor and rating points. They were well out of reach of a high place in this event when the game was played.
Connors, David - Clough, Matthew [A48]
SCC Consolation Tourney Schenectady, NY, 22.03.2012
1.d4 Nf6 2.e3 g6 3.Bd3 Bg7 4.Nd2 0–0 5.Ngf3 d6 6.c3 Nc6
Lately I have seen several games with this sort of layout; White plays the Colle and Black counters with a KID formation. Most often the game transposes into some offbeat line of the KID. The Black set up is by no means bad. In fact it is one of the recommended ways theory suggests to meet the Colle formation. White can have his e3-e4 without much fuss, and Black can strike back in the center with .., e7-e5. Black has equalized and maybe a bit more here.
7.Qc2?!,..
This move allows Black to claim some small advantage. Probably most correct is; 7 e4, e5 8 d5, heading into the Classical KID type position. The move played allows Black to get in the push to e5 favorably.
7..., e5 8.0–0 Nd5?!
This move, however, is mistaken. Better is 8..., Re8. Black should be aiming at trading off his e-pawn to open the long diagonal. An early occupation of the e-file by the Rook works well in conjunction with that idea. Right now White’s development lags a bit because of the Nd2 and the e-pawn hampering moves by the Bc1. So, after 8..., Re8; if play continues; 9 dxe5 Nxe5 10 Nxe5 Rxe5 11 Nf3 Re8 12 e4 Bg4; Black is at least slightly better than White.
What may have tempted Black to play as he did in the game was the advance of either the White c-pawn or the e-pawn looks at first glance unpalatable because of entry of a Black Knight at b4 or f4. It is possible; 9 e4 Nf4 10 d5 Ne7; is not good for White. It is not so bad to give up the light squared Bishop for the Knight if the pawn chain e4/d5 could be maintained. Unfortunately for White, Black can advance his f-pawn to the 5th and trade off the pawn on e4. Then things become quite interesting. After 11 Nb3 Nxd3 12 Qxd3 f5 13 Bg5 fxe4 14 Qxe4 Bf5 15 Qh4 Rh7; Black has some edge but nothing overwhelming. The problem for White is more the long term issue of the Black Bishop pair.
9.Bc4?,..
Suspect from a positional perspective. With a lagging development, White moves the Bishop a second time. This is a classic error made by club level players.
9..., Nde7?
And this is another classic. Better 9..., Nb6; forcing a further move by the wandering Bishop.
10.Rd1?,..
White overlooks the potential central expansion by Black. Up to this point, concern about not opening the a1-h8 diagonal has motivated some of White’s choices. It seems here he assumes that reasonable judgment from earlier in the game must still be true. It is a good example of Aagaard’s dictum about forced and unforced thinking. Here taking an unforced approach and examining 10 dxe5, Nxe5 11 Nxe5 Bxe5 12 e4!, with f2-f4 to follow if the Bishop does not retreat gives White a pretty good game. Forced thinking, assuming previous conclusions hold true without verification, leads White to error.
10..., d5 11.Be2 e4 12.Ne1,..
And so, in the space of a couple of moves, a promising position has been turned into a congested and difficult situation.
12..., Nf5!?
Now the critical point of the game has arrived for Black. He has to chose a plan. Here Mr. Clough decides on a direct piece attack on the White King, but is the position ripe for such action? The White defender on f3 has been driven off, however, Black will have to use some time to muster forces near the White King, hence the “!?” mark against the move. The line selected is certainly the most critical, and one that both sides should have considered. Alternatives are; a) 12..., a6; restricting the range of the Be2, followed by .., f7-f5; and permitting willingly c3-c4. Black counts on a good post for the Knight if subsequently White captures on d5 with the c-pawn. b) 12..., a5; playing for tactics in the center. If 13 c4 Nf5 14 cxd4? Ncxd4! 15 exd4 Nxd4 16 Qc4 b5; recovers the piece with a complicated position. Black has a big advantage according to Rybka.
13.Nb3?!,..
More careful is 13 g3. Although the suggested move weakens the light squares, White has the resources to defend them.
13..., Qg5 14.c4 Nh4?
A sober consideration of the possibilities should tell Black his forces on the field are not quite enough to carry the day on the K-side. That is not say he is entirely wrong about the demonstration launched. At this point Black could have played 14..., Nd6; leading to great complexity. The looming presence of the Black Queen on g5 challenges White to calculate carefully while things get sorted out in the center.
15.cxd5 Ne7?
Giving up material but obtaining no advantage for the sacrifice. Better 15..., Qxd5; and the issue is still to be resolved.
16.Qxc7 Nef5?
Allowing a second pawn to go makes things worse.
17.Qf4?! 1–0
Black resigns. A questionable decision. White’s last move was not the best. A good way for him to finish the game is; 17 Nd2 Re8 18 Bb5 Qe7 19 Qc5 Rd8 20 Qxe7 Nxe7 21 Nxe4, then the attack is gone leaving White two pawns ahead. The win is a technical problem only: White gets his say on the c-file quickly, and his central control is too great for Black to hold the game.
My guess his confidence was wrecked because he missed the capture on c7 with the Queen then coming to f4. If Black tries to keep the Queens on, the Nh4 is in trouble. Trading Queens breaks up the White pawns, but getting at them is not so simple. Nonetheless, that offers some hope after 17..., Qxf4 18 exf4 a5. White has an advantage, but Black can hope to get back a pawn to make a fight of the endgame.
When things go awry in your game, recovering your balance is terribly difficult. The good players seem to have the knack of doing so. It is a trait we all should try to acquire.
To update the standings in the Consolation Tourney: Isaiah Glessner had to withdraw due to work commitments. He had played more than one-half of his schedule. The games not played by Mr. Glessner are scored as forfeit wins for his opponents. There is but one game still to be played; Caravaty - Clough. If Caravaty wins he can finish in clear third place and a draw will tie him with Northrup for third place. The standings are:
1 Dilip Aaron 6-1
2 Herman Calderone 5 ½ - 1 ½
3 Cory Northrup 4 - 3
4&5 David Connors 3 ½ - 3 ½
4&5 Chris Caravaty 3 ½ - 2 ½ with one to play
6 Isaiah Glessner 2 ½ - 4 ½
7 Matt Clough 2 -4 with one to play
8 Michael Stanley 0 - 7
More soon.
Here is a short game, one could almost call it a snippet. It was played a week ago Thursday at the Schenectady Club. Both participants were fighting for honor and rating points. They were well out of reach of a high place in this event when the game was played.
Connors, David - Clough, Matthew [A48]
SCC Consolation Tourney Schenectady, NY, 22.03.2012
1.d4 Nf6 2.e3 g6 3.Bd3 Bg7 4.Nd2 0–0 5.Ngf3 d6 6.c3 Nc6
Lately I have seen several games with this sort of layout; White plays the Colle and Black counters with a KID formation. Most often the game transposes into some offbeat line of the KID. The Black set up is by no means bad. In fact it is one of the recommended ways theory suggests to meet the Colle formation. White can have his e3-e4 without much fuss, and Black can strike back in the center with .., e7-e5. Black has equalized and maybe a bit more here.
7.Qc2?!,..
This move allows Black to claim some small advantage. Probably most correct is; 7 e4, e5 8 d5, heading into the Classical KID type position. The move played allows Black to get in the push to e5 favorably.
7..., e5 8.0–0 Nd5?!
This move, however, is mistaken. Better is 8..., Re8. Black should be aiming at trading off his e-pawn to open the long diagonal. An early occupation of the e-file by the Rook works well in conjunction with that idea. Right now White’s development lags a bit because of the Nd2 and the e-pawn hampering moves by the Bc1. So, after 8..., Re8; if play continues; 9 dxe5 Nxe5 10 Nxe5 Rxe5 11 Nf3 Re8 12 e4 Bg4; Black is at least slightly better than White.
What may have tempted Black to play as he did in the game was the advance of either the White c-pawn or the e-pawn looks at first glance unpalatable because of entry of a Black Knight at b4 or f4. It is possible; 9 e4 Nf4 10 d5 Ne7; is not good for White. It is not so bad to give up the light squared Bishop for the Knight if the pawn chain e4/d5 could be maintained. Unfortunately for White, Black can advance his f-pawn to the 5th and trade off the pawn on e4. Then things become quite interesting. After 11 Nb3 Nxd3 12 Qxd3 f5 13 Bg5 fxe4 14 Qxe4 Bf5 15 Qh4 Rh7; Black has some edge but nothing overwhelming. The problem for White is more the long term issue of the Black Bishop pair.
9.Bc4?,..
Suspect from a positional perspective. With a lagging development, White moves the Bishop a second time. This is a classic error made by club level players.
9..., Nde7?
And this is another classic. Better 9..., Nb6; forcing a further move by the wandering Bishop.
10.Rd1?,..
White overlooks the potential central expansion by Black. Up to this point, concern about not opening the a1-h8 diagonal has motivated some of White’s choices. It seems here he assumes that reasonable judgment from earlier in the game must still be true. It is a good example of Aagaard’s dictum about forced and unforced thinking. Here taking an unforced approach and examining 10 dxe5, Nxe5 11 Nxe5 Bxe5 12 e4!, with f2-f4 to follow if the Bishop does not retreat gives White a pretty good game. Forced thinking, assuming previous conclusions hold true without verification, leads White to error.
10..., d5 11.Be2 e4 12.Ne1,..
And so, in the space of a couple of moves, a promising position has been turned into a congested and difficult situation.
12..., Nf5!?
Now the critical point of the game has arrived for Black. He has to chose a plan. Here Mr. Clough decides on a direct piece attack on the White King, but is the position ripe for such action? The White defender on f3 has been driven off, however, Black will have to use some time to muster forces near the White King, hence the “!?” mark against the move. The line selected is certainly the most critical, and one that both sides should have considered. Alternatives are; a) 12..., a6; restricting the range of the Be2, followed by .., f7-f5; and permitting willingly c3-c4. Black counts on a good post for the Knight if subsequently White captures on d5 with the c-pawn. b) 12..., a5; playing for tactics in the center. If 13 c4 Nf5 14 cxd4? Ncxd4! 15 exd4 Nxd4 16 Qc4 b5; recovers the piece with a complicated position. Black has a big advantage according to Rybka.
13.Nb3?!,..
More careful is 13 g3. Although the suggested move weakens the light squares, White has the resources to defend them.
13..., Qg5 14.c4 Nh4?
A sober consideration of the possibilities should tell Black his forces on the field are not quite enough to carry the day on the K-side. That is not say he is entirely wrong about the demonstration launched. At this point Black could have played 14..., Nd6; leading to great complexity. The looming presence of the Black Queen on g5 challenges White to calculate carefully while things get sorted out in the center.
15.cxd5 Ne7?
Giving up material but obtaining no advantage for the sacrifice. Better 15..., Qxd5; and the issue is still to be resolved.
16.Qxc7 Nef5?
Allowing a second pawn to go makes things worse.
17.Qf4?! 1–0
Black resigns. A questionable decision. White’s last move was not the best. A good way for him to finish the game is; 17 Nd2 Re8 18 Bb5 Qe7 19 Qc5 Rd8 20 Qxe7 Nxe7 21 Nxe4, then the attack is gone leaving White two pawns ahead. The win is a technical problem only: White gets his say on the c-file quickly, and his central control is too great for Black to hold the game.
My guess his confidence was wrecked because he missed the capture on c7 with the Queen then coming to f4. If Black tries to keep the Queens on, the Nh4 is in trouble. Trading Queens breaks up the White pawns, but getting at them is not so simple. Nonetheless, that offers some hope after 17..., Qxf4 18 exf4 a5. White has an advantage, but Black can hope to get back a pawn to make a fight of the endgame.
When things go awry in your game, recovering your balance is terribly difficult. The good players seem to have the knack of doing so. It is a trait we all should try to acquire.
To update the standings in the Consolation Tourney: Isaiah Glessner had to withdraw due to work commitments. He had played more than one-half of his schedule. The games not played by Mr. Glessner are scored as forfeit wins for his opponents. There is but one game still to be played; Caravaty - Clough. If Caravaty wins he can finish in clear third place and a draw will tie him with Northrup for third place. The standings are:
1 Dilip Aaron 6-1
2 Herman Calderone 5 ½ - 1 ½
3 Cory Northrup 4 - 3
4&5 David Connors 3 ½ - 3 ½
4&5 Chris Caravaty 3 ½ - 2 ½ with one to play
6 Isaiah Glessner 2 ½ - 4 ½
7 Matt Clough 2 -4 with one to play
8 Michael Stanley 0 - 7
More soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
