Eastern New York Chess Association

The AACC Playoff Participants Decided

2012-01-28T10:42:00.000-05:00

Two of the contenders for the title met in a delayed game last Wednesday at AACC. After the game both wondered what games I might find in the databases to shed light on the opening. Neither were completely sure about the theory as the game developed. Up to the 8th move there is some theory.

Henner, Peter - Howard, Dean [A07]
AACC Championship Guilderland, NY, 25.01.2012

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 d5 3.d3 Nbd7 4.Bg2 e5 5.0–0 c6 6.Nbd2 Bd6 7.e4!?,..

At least equally common is 7 c4. Here are a couple of GM examples;

(243307) Hodgson, Julian M (2555) - Kotronias, Vasilios (2510) [A53]
New York WFW New York, 1990
1.g3 d5 2.Bg2 Nf6 3.d3 e5 4.Nf3 Nbd7 5.0–0 c6 6.c4 dxc4 7.dxc4 Bc5 8.Nc3 0–0 9.Qc2 Re8 10.Ng5 Bf8 11.Rd1 Qc7 12.Rb1 a5 13.a3 h6 14.Nge4 Nxe4 15.Nxe4 f5 16.Nc3 Nf6 17.Na4 Be6 18.Be3 Qf7 19.Nb6 f4 20.gxf4 exf4 21.Bxf4 Ra6 22.c5 Bb3 23.Qc3 Bxd1 24.Rxd1 Qh5 25.Nd7 Nd5 26.Qb3 Qg4 27.Nxf8 Qxf4 28.Nd7 Rxe2 29.Bf3 Re8 30.Nb6 Kh8 31.Bxd5 cxd5 32.Qxd5 a4 33.h3 Ra5 34.Kg2 Qc7 35.Nd7 Rd8 36.Qh5 Ra6 37.Qf7 Qc6+ 38.Kh2 Qe6 39.Nf6 0–1

(420798) Movsziszian, Karen (2440) - Dizdar, Goran (2535) [A53]
Berliner Sommer 13th Berlin (6), 1995
1.g3 d5 2.Bg2 e5 3.d3 Nf6 4.Nf3 Nbd7 5.0–0 c6 6.c4 dxc4 7.dxc4 Bc5 8.Nc3 0–0 9.Qc2 Re8 10.e3 Bf8 11.h3 a5 12.b3 Nc5 13.Rd1 Qc7 14.Rb1 g6 15.Ne1 Bf5 16.e4 Be6 17.Bb2 Nfd7 18.Nd5 Qb8 19.Ne3 Rd8 20.Rd2 f6 21.Rbd1 Qc7 22.h4 Be7 23.Nd5 cxd5 24.cxd5 Nf8 25.dxe6 Ncxe6 26.Qxc7 Nxc7 27.Nc2 Nfe6 28.Ne3 Rxd2 29.Rxd2 Rd8 30.Rc2 Kf7 31.Bf1 Bc5 32.Nc4 b6 33.Kg2 Ke7 34.Ba3 Bxa3 35.Nxa3 Rd6 36.Nc4 Rc6 37.Rd2 Ne8 38.Ne3 Nd6 39.Nd5+ Kf7 40.f3 Nd4 41.Bd3 Ke6 42.b4 axb4 43.Nxb4 Rc1 44.a4 Ra1 45.Ra2 Rxa2+ ½–½

7..., dxe4

The opening book Rybka uses says 7..., 0-0; is the normal move. After the text White is certainly OK, but he doesn’t have any serious advantage.

Here’s how White can play if Black castles;

(89841) Savon, Vladimir A (2570) - Petrosian, Tigran V (2640) [B10]
Alekhine mem Moscow (7), 03.12.1971
1.e4 c6 2.d3 d5 3.Nd2 Nf6 4.g3 e5 5.Ngf3 Nbd7 6.Bg2 Bd6 7.0–0 0–0 8.exd5 cxd5 9.c4 d4 10.Ng5 a5 11.Nde4 Nxe4 12.Nxe4 Be7 13.g4 Ra6 14.f4 exf4 15.Bxf4 Nc5 16.Nxc5 Bxc5 17.Qf3 Re6 18.Rae1 b6 19.Rxe6 Bxe6 20.h3 Qd7 21.b3 h6 22.Qg3 Re8 23.Be4 f6 24.Qf3 Re7 25.Bc6 Qd8 26.Re1 Kh8 27.Re2 Bg8 28.Rxe7 Qxe7 29.Qe4 Qd8 30.Bd5 Bh7 31.Qe2 Bg6 32.Be4 Bf7 33.Qh2 Qd7 34.Qg3 Be6 35.Kg2 Qa7 36.Bb8 Qd7 37.Qc7 Kg8 38.Qxd7 Bxd7 39.Bc7 Kf7 40.a3 g6 41.b4 axb4 42.axb4 Bxb4 43.Bxb6 Bc3 44.Kf3 f5 45.gxf5 gxf5 46.Ba8 Ke6 47.Ke2 Ba4 48.h4 Kd6 49.Bf3 Ke6 50.Bc5 Bb2 51.Bd5+ Kf6 52.Bb6 Ke7 53.Ba7 Bd7 54.Bc5+ Kf6 55.Kf2 Ba4 56.Bb6 Ke7 57.Ke2 Kd6 58.h5 Be8 59.Bf3 Ba4 60.Kf2 Ke6 61.Bc5 Bc2 62.Ke2 Ba4 63.Bf8 Bc1 64.Bg7 Be3 65.c5 Bb5 66.Bf8 Kd7 67.Bd5 Ba4 68.Bg7 Bb5 69.Be5 Ba4 70.Kf3 Bb5 71.Ke2 Ba4 72.Bg3 Bb5 73.Bb7 Ba4 ½–½

8.dxe4!?,..

Cautious and not ambitious. Comfortably equality is had with 8 Nxe4 Nxe4; White will then have easier development than in the game. This move takes us out of theory. Both players understood well where they stood regards qualifying. Glen Perry had worked out the tie breaks and the various possible outcomes; a draw puts them both in, a win for Henner would have put him in and Howard out, and a win for Howard would put him in while the second chair would have been undecided. The importance of the result for both players added tension to the game.

8..., 0–0 9.Nc4 Bc7 10.Qd3!?,..

This move puts the Queen where she may be attacked. Somewhat better is 10 Qe2.

10..., b5 11.Ncd2 Qe7 12.Nb3 Rd8

Another try worth consideration is 12..., a5; to try an take advantage of the not quite harmonious placement of the White pieces. Black is slightly ahead according to Deep Rybka.

13.Be3 Bb6?!

A slip motivated by a wish to win the game. Attempting to obtain the Bishop pair with 13..., Ng4; is probably better. Another possibility is; 13..., Nb6!? 14 Bc5 Qe6 15 Qe2 Na4 16 Ba3, and the position is certainly difficult for both sides.

14.Bxb6!?,..

Getting on with development by playing 14 Rad1, makes reasonable impression with game tending towards equality. The text creates an unbalanced position with both sides willing to take risks in hopes of winning.

14..., axb6 15.Qc3 c5 16.Rfe1,..

White seems to be worried about the possibility of .., b5-b4; and .., Ba6; at some point in the future.

16..., Bb7?!

Black is reluctant to change the basic nature of the position with a logical space grab on the Q-side. Making that sort of decision is tough in a tense game. The line suggested is; 16..., b4 17 Qd2 c4 18 Nc1 Bb7 19 Nh4 Nf8 20 Qe3 Qc7; gives Black a measurable edge.

17.Nbd2 Nb8 18.a3 Nc6 19.Bf1 Ba6 20.Rad1 Rac8 21.Qe3,..

White could have tried; 21 Qb3, but after 21..., c4 22 Qe3 Rd6; Black is getting a hold on the d-file.

21...Rd7?

An error?! When the move was played my first reaction was it was a blunder. Then thinking about it while waiting for the reply, the notion crept in to my mind that maybe there is more going on than just winning the Exchange. The line is; 22 Bh3 Nd4 23 Bxd7 Nxd7 24 Qd3 Bb7 25 c3!? c4 26 Qb1 Nxf3+ 27 Nxf3 Nc5; and Black has a glimmering of pressure on the light squares around the White King. Objectively it is not enough to offset the material. Making a choice like this would have been hard in a so meaningful game. It turned out neither player was thinking along these lines.

22.a4?!,..

Mr. Henner has been focused on this idea and did not see the move 22 Bh3, and Mr. Howard just overlooked it.

22..., Nd4 23.axb5?,..

The c2 square needed defense. The line beginning 23 Rc1 Rcd8 24 axb5 Ng4 25 Qg5 Qxg5 26 Nxg5 Bxb5 27 c3 Bxf1 28 cxd4 Bb5 29 d5, and even with the protected passed pawn White does not have much of an advantage, but he is not worse. Now there is a complicated trade of material.

23..., Nxc2 24.Qb3 Nxe1 25.Rxe1 Bb7 26.Bh3,..

With an Exchange gone White found this move. A material deficit very much focuses the mind.

26..., Rcd8 27.Bxd7 Rxd7 28.Qc3 h6

Making air hole for the King. A timely decision supporting what he has in mind.

29.Nxe5,..

Leading to more trading of material. It may be both players began to think about a draw. The alternative is 29 Nc4, and it is perhaps a more secure path to a draw. Time trouble for both parties is about to begin. At this point Henner had 10 minutes and Howard about 8 minutes. Both sides were focused on their mutual attacks on the e-pawns. When you are down to under ten minutes to finish a game, rethinking your fundamental notion of how the position will develop is very hard to do. Shrinking time more or less forces the player to concentrate on specific tactics within whatever general plan earlier adopted. That seems to be the case here. Black is willing to give up his e-pawn to obtain the unbalanced material with a Bishop and a Knight versus a Rook and a pawn.

GM Andy Soltis wrote: “Giving up pieces creates a sharp situation that offer greater winning chances for both sides than other imbalances. It can be the pragmatic choice for a player who otherwise be slightly inferior.” that statement appears to apply here.

29..., Rxd2 30.Qxd2 Qxe5 31.Qd8+!?,..

White is faced with a crucial decision at this point. He could play 31 f3, securing his extra pawn or play the text. In the quiet of my study, with the electronic wizard humming away at my side, it easy to see 31 f3, is likely the better choice. Either way Black is somewhat better. Defending the pawn is more promising for White because it would make Black have to work to exploit the natural edge the pieces have. To quantify the advantage of the pieces, I quote again from Soltis: “If it is a one pawn difference, the numerical advantage of the pieces comes into play. When the pieces cooperate against a target defended by a Rook, they can reverse the imbalance. The principle of two versus one.”

Adding further complexity to the decisions to be made is the presence of the Queens. Soltis offered the further insight that the player with the pieces wants to retain the Queens. There many more opportunities for the pieces to cooperate with their Queen effectively than will be the case for the Rook and Queen.

With the text, White pins his hopes on making an outside passed pawn believing it will offset the building threats to his King’s safety. That is a false hope, mate is ever so much more forcing than the relatively long march of a Queening pawn, there is just not enough time in the game position for the pawn to succeed.

31..., Kh7 32.Qxb6 Bxe4 33.Qa6 Qf5

Good enough, but stronger is 33..., Qxb2; if then White tries the idea of a Rook sacrifice to speed his pawn along, the Queen and Knight easily threaten to mate the White King forcing something like: 33..., Qxb2 34 b6 Qb3 (threatening 35..., Qf3;) 35 Rxe4? Nxe4 36 b7 Qb1+ 37 Kg2 Qb2 38 b8(Q) Qxb8 39 Qd3 Qb7 40 f3 f5; leading to a winning endgame for Black, albeit not one easily handled with little time on the clock. At this moment the time remaining was; Henner 4:30, Howard 3:29.

34.Qa3 Ng4 35.f4 Nxh2?

The clocks had moved some; Henner 3:24 and Howard 3:29 remaining. The text is an error. With 35..., c4!; Black would have been very close to winning. The move 35..., c4 is subtle resource to prevent a lateral attack on the Bishop by the White Queen. This line illustrates how play could continue; 35..., c4 36 Qb4 Qd5 37 Rxe4 Qxe4 38 b6 Qe3+ 39 Kg2 Qe2+ 40 Kh3 Ne3; with mate soon. One more example of the Queen and Knight hunting down a King sans defenders.

36.Rxe4?

A reciprocal error. The move 36 Kxh2 equalizes although Black does obtain a strong initiative. Play could go; 36 Kxg2 Qh5+ 37 Kg1 Qh1+ 38 Kf2 Qg2+ 39 Ke3 f5 40 Qxc5 Qxg3+ 41 Kd2, and so on. The mighty Rybka says White can survive. For a human being to enter such a long forcing kind of line of this length with virtually no time to calculate would take a tremendous self-confidence. It is entirely understandable why Peter tried the text. The final moves were quickly played.

36...Qxe4 37.Kxh2 Qe2+ 38.Kh3 Qxb5 39.Qc3 Qb4 40.Qc2+ g6 41.f5 Qd4 42.fxg6+ fxg6 43.Qe2 Qd5 44.Qe7+ Kg8 45.Qe8+ ½–½

And the players agreed to the draw. Black still has some slight advantage but there is no time to make an effort. Although imperfect, the game showed the contestants making serious attempts to win the game, and that is exciting chess. This promises the playoff match will be interesting.

More soon.

Calderone Sells From SCC and an AACC Update

2012-01-26T11:18:00.000-05:00

Reaching back almost two weeks here is a game from the first round of the Schenectady Championship Finals. Zack Calderone has improved much over the past year or two. Not the least of his accomplishments was to qualify for the SCC Finals. He made the grade, and now he is in with the some of the best of the local players. In his first outing, Zack has a terrible time against Philip Sells.

Calderone, Zack - Sells, Philip [A45]
SCC Championship Finals Schenectady, NY, 12.01.2012

1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 Ne4 3.Bh4?!,..

A risky and not often played alternative to 3 Bf4. Here is now play goes in the Bf4 variation among the Grandmasters;

(1231535) Miladinovic, Igor (2605) - Milanovic, Danilo (2495) [A45]
Montenegro Team Championship, Herceg Novi (6), 08.09.2007
1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 Ne4 3.Bf4 c5 4.f3 Qa5+ 5.c3 Nf6 6.Nd2 cxd4 7.Nb3 Qb6 8.Qxd4 Qxd4 9.cxd4 e6 10.e4 Nc6 11.Rc1 d5 12.e5 Nd7 13.Bb5 a5 14.a4 Na7 15.Be2 Nc6 16.Bb5 Na7 17.Bf1 Nb6 18.Nc5 Bxc5 19.dxc5 Nd7 [19...Nxa4 20.b3] 20.Bb5 [20.Bg3] 20...Nc6 21.Ne2 f6 22.exf6 gxf6 23.Bd6 Nde5 24.f4 Nf7 25.f5 Nxd6 26.cxd6 Kd7 27.Nd4 Kxd6 28.Bxc6 bxc6 29.fxe6 c5 30.Nb5+ Kc6 31.0–0 Ba6 32.Rxf6 Bxb5 33.e7+ Kd7 34.axb5 Kxe7 35.Rh6 c4 36.b6 a4 37.Rd1 Rad8 38.b7 Rb8 39.Rxd5 Rxb7 40.Ra5 Kf7 41.Rxa4 Kg7 42.Rc6 Rd8 43.h3 Rd2 44.Raxc4 Rdxb2 45.Rg4+ Kf7 46.Rc8 R2b4 47.Rgg8 Kf6 48.Kh2 R4b6 49.Rg4 Rb4 50.Rf8+ Ke6 51.Re8+ Kf6 52.Rf8+ Ke6 53.Rg5 R4b5 54.Rgg8 Rf7 55.Ra8 Rfb7 56.h4 Kf6 57.g3 R5b6 58.Kh3 Rg7 59.Rgf8+ Kg6 60.Ra5 Kh6 61.Rf3 Rgb7 62.Rff5 Rg6 63.h5 Rc6 64.Kh4 Rb1 65.Ra4 Rh1+ 66.Kg4 Rhc1 67.Raa5 R6c4+ 68.Rf4 Rxf4+ 69.gxf4 Rg1+ 70.Kf5 Kxh5 71.Ra2 Kh6 72.Kf6 Rg6+ 73.Kf7 Rg7+ 74.Ke6 Rg6+ 75.Kf5 Kg7 76.Ra7+ Kg8 77.Ke5 Rb6 78.f5 Rc6 79.Kf4 Rb6 80.Kg5 Rc6 81.Ra8+ Kg7 82.Ra7+ Kg8 83.f6 Rc1 84.Rg7+ Kf8 85.Kf5 Rg1 86.Ke6 Rb1 87.Kf5 Rg1 88.Rxg1 h5 89.Rf1 h4 90.Ke5 ½–½

The variation played in the game has fewer examples, but there are some between no mean opponents;

(344025) Danielian, Oganes (2440) - Hebden, Mark (2520) [A45]
9th Cappelle Open, Cappelle la Grande (9), 1993
1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 Ne4 3.Bh4 g5 4.Bg3 c5 5.e3 Qb6 6.Nc3 Nxg3 7.hxg3 cxd4 8.Qxd4 Qxd4 9.exd4 Bg7 10.Nd5 Kd8 11.c3 e6 12.Ne3 d5 13.g4 Bd7 14.Bd3 h6 15.Ne2 Bc6 16.b4 a6 17.a4 Nd7 18.Kd2 Nf6 19.Ng3 Bf8 20.Nh5 Nxh5 21.Rxh5 Be8 22.Rh3 f6 23.Bc2 Rc8 24.Rah1 Rc7 25.a5 Rg8 26.g3 h5 27.gxh5 g4 28.R3h2 f5 29.h6 Rh7 30.Nxf5 exf5 31.Bxf5 Rhh8 32.Rh4 Be7 33.Rxg4 Rxg4 34.Bxg4 Bg5+ 35.f4 Bxh6 36.Bf3 Bf7 37.c4 Kc7 38.Kc3 Rg8 39.g4 Bg7 40.f5 Rh8 41.Rxh8 Bxh8 42.g5 dxc4 43.f6 b5 44.axb6+ Kxb6 45.d5 Kc7 46.Kxc4 Kd6 47.Kd4 Bg8 48.Be4 Bf7 49.Bg2 Bg8 50.Bh1 Bf7 51.Be4 Bg8 52.Bg2 Bf7 53.Bf3 Bg8 54.Be2 Bxd5 55.Bxa6 Bc6 56.Bc4 Be8 57.Ke4 Bg6+ 58.Kf4 Bc2 59.Be2 Bg6 60.Bf3 Bd3 61.Be4 Bb5 62.Kf5 Kd7 63.g6 Ke8 64.Bd5 Kf8 65.Kg5 Be8 66.Bc4 Bf7 67.Bd3 1–0

3..., g5 4.f3!?,..

The standard book here is 4 Bg3. Rybka sees this alternative as OK also.

4..., gxh4 5.fxe4 c5 6.e3 Bh6
Very little is really new under the Sun. In 2001 two decent players gave the game line this treatment;

(637242) Dumitrescu, Dragos (2333) - Jakovenko, Dmitrij (2551) [A45]
Pardubice Open (4), 23.07.2001
1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 Ne4 3.Bh4 g5 4.f3 gxh4 5.fxe4 c5 6.e3 Bh6 7.Kf2 cxd4 8.exd4 e5 9.Nf3 Nc6 10.c3 d6 11.Nbd2 exd4 12.cxd4 Bg4 13.Bb5 0–0 14.Bxc6 bxc6 15.Rf1 h3 16.g3 Rb8 17.Qc2 f5 18.e5 dxe5 19.dxe5 Qb6+ 0–1

Away back when I was learning the game, Trompowsky himself tried 3 Bh4 and rained down destruction on an unwary opponent;

(37412) Trompowsky,Octavio - Cantero,Ronaldo [A45]
Montevideo (15), 1954
1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 Ne4 3.Bh4 g5 4.f3 gxh4 5.fxe4 Bh6 6.Nf3 e6 7.Nc3 b6 8.e5 Rg8 9.Ne4 Bg7 10.e3 Bb7 11.Bd3 Nc6 12.0–0 Nb4 13.Nfg5 h6 14.Qh5 Rf8 15.Rxf7 Qxg5 16.Rxf8+ Kxf8 17.Nxg5 1–0

7.Bc4 e6

According to the computer Black is already somewhat better. Of course not 7..., Bxe3?; because 8 Bxf7+, recovering the material and leaving the Black King bare and shivering in the cold.

8.Qf3,..

It would be more logical to play 8 Qe2, keeping f3 open for the Knight. An interesting point made by a GM who worked with Korchnoi in his heyday; the great K said the Knights belong on f3/c3 (f6.c6) unless there is a very good reason not to do so. Those are the natural squares for the Knights, anything else has to be justified. I think the GM that told me that was Har-Zvi, but I could be wrong.

8..., Nc6 9.c3 Qg5 10.Kf2 cxd4 11.exd4?,..

The most natural reply and wrong for specific tactical reasons. White had to play 11 cxd4, not letting the Black Queen in behind the lines.

11..., Qc1!

This may have been a shock to Zack. The move is very pretty indeed pinning both White Knights. Geroge Dipre played something similar in a game with me in the SCC event a few years ago. I remember the impact clearly. It was almost like a blow to the body taking my breath away. Only by dint of huge effort was I able to swindle my way out the bind George had on the position. Zack makes a valiant effort, but he is in trouble to the end this time.

12.Qe2 Rg8 13.g3 h3 14.Na3,..

Surrendering material but who can blame the young man. It was done because nothing else looks useful, and maybe Black will let down his guard while basking in the glow of having a whole Rook in his pocket. The continuation; 14 b4 b6 15 Bd3 e5 16 Qc2 Qe3+ 17 Kf1 Rf6 18 Nxh3 Rf6+ 19 Nf2 exd4; is not really appealing. The finish is pretty easy to understand

14..., Qxa1 15.Nb5 Kd8 16.Qh5 Qc1 17.Qh4+ Qg5 18.Qxh3 d5 0–1

Mr. Sells stayed focused winning in just four more moves. Calderone loves tactics. He plays the Max Lange Attack, and you have to love them to enter that old, hoary swamp of almost forgotten tricks and stratagems. Philip Sells can combined with the best of the local talent. This time Zack missed the critical point and was defeated. A few more experiences such as this and he will develop a sense of danger. That is what is absolutely required when playing good calculators like Sells.

Wednesday night the AACC met to catch up on some delayed games. Two were played; Henner-Howard that was drawn, and Alowitz-Lack that Jon Lack won. The Henner-Howard contest created a four way tie at the top with; Henner, Lack, Magat and Howard all on 5 points. Henner has a game to play with Cory Northrup. A draw or a win with Northrup gives Henner fist place.

Glen Perry clarified the playoff picture. He is using tie breaks, and under the system, the finalists for the title will be Henner and Howard regardless of the outcome of the Henner-Northrup .

Mr. Lack won from Arthur Alowitz in an Exchange Variation of the French. It had an effect on the under 1800 playoff picture. Mr. Alowitz needed a win to tie with Mr. Caravaty for first under 1800, and a draw would have allowed his a good chance to obtain the second chair in the under 1800 playoff. That was not to be. Play was even through the first 16 moves. Arthur erred there and the slight edge he had accumulated went away instantly. After the mistake, Mr. Lack held on to is extra pawn to take the full point on move 51.

In the under 1800 contest, if Cory Northrup defeats Henner will be in the match. I did not query the TD about the tie breaks if the game is drawn, then both Alowitz and Northrup will have three points.

My reports of the standings previously had been missing at least one result. Last night Glen Perry gave me the correct cross table, and here are the standings;

1-4 Dean Howard 5-3
1-4 Gordon Magat 5-3
1-4 Jonathan lack 5-3
1-4 Peter Henner 5-2 with one game to play
5 Chris Caravaty 4-4
6 Tim Wright 3 ½ - 4 ½
7 Arthur Alowitz 3-5
8 Cory Northrup 2 ½ - 4 ½ with one game to play
9 Jason Denham 2-6

More soon especially the Henner-Howard game.

A Game From SCC

2012-01-22T13:52:00.000-05:00

Breaking to an early lead in the SCC event with this win from the former Champion Phil Sells, John Phillips is the front runner for title. I don’t think Phillips has won a Schenectady Championship at any point in the past. It is always exciting to see a new face in the mix.

Sells, Philip - Phillips, John [B07]
SCC Finals Schenectady, NY, 19.01.2012

1.e4 d6

Mr. Phillips has taken up the Pirc/Modern as his usual reply to 1 e4, of late. Away back in the 1950s one of my favorite players, Simagin, used a line similar to the one chosen by Phillips;

(34367) Averbakh, Yuri L - Simagin, Vladimir [B07]
Moscow Championship (13), 1952
1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 c6 4.Nf3 Bg4 5.Be2 e6 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Nd2 Bxe2 8.Qxe2 Nxe4 9.Bxe7 Nxc3 10.Qg4 Kxe7 11.bxc3 Kf8 12.Rb1 Qc7 13.Qg3 Na6 14.0–0 Rd8 15.f4 d5 16.Qh3 g6 17.g4 Kg7 18.f5 exf5 19.gxf5 f6 20.Nf3 b6 21.Ng5 Rde8 22.Ne6+ Rxe6 23.fxe6 Re8 24.Rxf6 Kxf6 25.Rf1+ Ke7 26.Rf7+ Kd8 27.Qxh7 Rxe6 28.Rxc7 Nxc7 29.Qf7 Kc8 30.Kf2 Kb7 31.Kf3 a5 32.Kg4 a4 33.a3 Re2 34.Kg3 Rxc2 35.Qxg6 Rxc3+ 36.Kf2 Rxa3 37.h4 Ra1 38.Qc2 a3 39.Kg3 Nb5 40.Qd2 a2 41.Kh2 Rh1+ 42.Kxh1 a1Q+ 43.Kg2 Qxd4 0–1

Somewhat more recently the late Tony Miles trotted this variation out;

(627329) Azarov, Sergei (2452) - Miles, Anthony J (2562) [B07]
2nd EU Championship Ohrid (3), 03.06.2001
1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 c6 4.Nf3 Bg4 5.h3 Bh5 6.Be2 e6 7.Bg5 Be7 8.Qd2 Bg6 9.e5 Ne4 10.Nxe4 Bxe4 11.Bxe7 Qxe7 12.0–0–0 d5 13.Ng5 Bg6 14.f4 h6 15.Nf3 c5 16.dxc5 Qxc5 17.Nd4 Nc6 18.Bb5 0–0–0 19.Bxc6 bxc6 20.Nb3 Qc4 21.Qf2 d4 22.Nxd4 Qxa2 23.Nb3 Be4 24.Qc5 Bxg2 25.Rhg1 Bf3 26.Rd6 Qa6 27.Kb1 g6 28.Nd2 Rxd6 29.exd6 Bh5 30.Nc4 Rd8 31.Re1 Rd7 32.Ne5 Qb6 33.Nxd7 Kxd7 34.b4 Bf3 35.Re3 Bd5 36.Ra3 Qxc5 37.bxc5 g5 38.Rxa7+ Ke8 39.fxg5 hxg5 40.Kc1 Bg2 41.Rc7 f5 42.Kd2 Kd8 43.Rg7 Bxh3 44.Rxg5 e5 45.Rg7 Bg4 46.Re7 1–0

The line has not been particularly popular with the Grandmasters. It seems to come up as a surprise weapon more often than not.

2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 c6 4.Nf3 Bg4 5.Be2 e6 6.Be3 Be7

Although the position looks a bit odd, it is known to theory. Here is an example;

(301940) Garcia Palermo, Carlos H (2465) - Danailov, Silvio (2445) [B07]
Palma de Mallorca Open (7), 1992
1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 Bg4 3.e4 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Be2 Be7 6.Be3 c6 7.0–0 0–0 8.d5 exd5 9.exd5 c5 10.Nd2 Bf5 11.g4 Bc8 12.g5 Ne8 13.f4 f5 14.h4 Nc7 15.a4 Nba6 16.Nc4 Nb4 17.Bf3 b6 18.Nb5 Nba6 19.Nba3 Bb7 20.c3 Qd7 21.Rb1 Rae8 22.Bf2 Bd8 23.b4 cxb4 24.cxb4 Re4 25.b5 Nc5 26.Bxc5 bxc5 27.b6 Nxd5 28.bxa7 Ba8 29.Nb5 Bc7 30.Qb3 Qe6 31.Bxe4 fxe4 32.Nxc7 Nxc7 33.f5 Qe7 34.Nxd6+ Bd5 35.Qg3 e3 36.f6 Qe6 37.f7+ Kh8 38.Rb8 Qe7 39.Qe5 Be6 40.Nf5 Qxf7 41.Nxe3 1–0

7.0–0 d5 8.Nd2!?,..

I quite like the way Mr. Sells plays chess. He is a stubborn fighter and works hard at the board. This idea however does not seem quite right. White trades his better Bishop for a counterpart that is not so good. Generally not a good thing to do.

8..., Bxe2 9.Qxe2 0–0 10.e5?! ,..

Although Rybka thinks this is not so bad for White, the move pretty much sets the course for the balance of the game, and it is not a favorable path for White. White will likely get d4 as a great outpost square for a Knight because .., c6-c5; is coming with the trade of the d&c-pawns likely. His pieces however are not ideally placed to keep a Knight d4. Black, for his part, has the half open c-file on which his heavy pieces can mass.

A Knight on d4 is a well placed piece, but it needs some other pieces with which to cooperate. It is better therefore for White to have more rather than less material on the board. The problem is the natural exchanges coming eliminate the other minor pieces leaving White to build an attack out of heavy pieces supported by the Nd4. There are no open files to expedite getting the Rooks to bear on the Black King. This will require White to take his heavy pieces out in front of his pawns; a situation that usually carries risks with it.

In contrast, if Black masses forces on the c-file they will be better suited for their work than are the White forces. All then that Black needs to do is find useful employment for his Knight. The route d7/c5/e4 beckons the Knight. In sum; Black has the easier technical task; White will have to be creative, and perhaps, take some risks if he is to play actively.

10..., Nfd7 11.f4 c5 12.Nb3 cxd4 13.Nxd4 Nc6 14.Rad1 a6 15.Rf3 Nxd4 16.Bxd4 Bc5 17.Bxc5 Nxc5 18.Rg3 Qb6

It is not easy for White to get the remaining Knight to d4, and he has to be concerned about the discovered check when the Nc5 moves away. The pawn on b2 is also potential target. After the game John Phillips said he really did not think much about taking it because of the counter; Rd1-b1.

19.Kh1 f5?!

Very cautious. Black plans a 7th rank defense against the coming Rook and Queen sortie. I am not certain this is necessary. If White goes for an immediate attack after say 19..., Rfd8; then 20 Qg4 g6 21 f5 Ne4 22 Nxe4 dxe4 23 Rg8 exf5 24 Qxf5 Qc6; favors Black by a fair amount.

20.Qh5?,..

Not so good. White needs open lines near the Black King. To that end 20 exf6 (e.p.), ought to be considered. In which case the game takes a different turn. Black is still a bit better, but the sudden change in direction might have caused him some difficulties. As the game went the themes; c-file action and positioning the Knight on e4 continue to be important for Black. The presence of a Black pawn on f5 makes e4 even more attractive to the Black Knight. That is another argument to capturing en passant on this move.

20..., Qc7 21.Rh3 g6 22.Qh4 Rf7 23.Qe1,..

Recognizing the heavy piece attack is going nowhere, White takes some steps to defend his weak points.

23..., Ne4 24.Rdd3,..

I have seen defenses built along the 2nd ranks. This idea of a defense along the 3d rank is uncommon. White was reluctant to exchange on e4 because Black gets a well protected passed pawn, a very uncomfortable thing to have to face for the balance of the game.

24..., Qc5

Since White refuses to cooperate by taking on e4, Black sets about massing on the c-file and expanding into the undefended space on the Q-side. He is helped along by tactical threats of a Knight fork at f2.

25.Rhf3 Qb4 26.Qc1 Qb6 27.Nd1 Rc7 28.Qe3 Qc5 29.c3 Rac8 30.Qe2 b5 31.Ne3,..

More stubborn defense can be made with 31 Rd4, resisting the coming advance of the Q-side pawns. Time trouble was now making the task of defending even more challenging for White. Mr. Sells’ clock now showed less than one and a half minutes. Mr. Phillips had about eight minutes on his clock, not a lot of time but apparently enough to do the job.

31..., a5 32.Nc2 b4 33.Nd4 Kf7 34.cxb4?,..

Sells now had seconds, plus the increment, for the rest of his moves. Here he slips by opening access to his back rank. If he had the time to think, Sells could have tried 34 Rh3, hoping for 34..., h5 35 Rxh5 gxh5 36 Qxh5+, etc. obtaining compensation and some chance for salvation. Once the back rank problem appears, the White position is fatally compromised. After 34 Rh3, Black can defend more effectively with 34..., Rh8; keeping a solid advantage.

34..., Qxb4 35.Rf1 Rc1 36.Rdd1 Rxd1 37.Rxd1 Rc4

A safe and sane move with less than two minutes on the clock. Immediately decisive is 37..., Qxd4! In either case White was down to only a couple of seconds, and his position so shaky that even Mr. Sells could not hold together.

38.Nf3 Qc5 0–1

White’s flag fell. Even had he pulled off one more of his miracles of speed play, Mr. Sells was lost after 39 Ng5+ Nxg5 40 exg5 Rc1; and a quick advance of the d-pawn. And so the drama of this year’s Finals begins to take shape: The games Le Cours has to play against Sells and Phillips are increased in importance. Will Varela and Calderone have some influence on the out come? They are improving players, and any given Thursday they could clip a half or a full point from one of the contenders, or not. The blessing of a short tournament is we will know pretty quickly, that is, if Carlos Varela is not out of the country until February.

More soon.

This Week's Update from AACC and SCC

2012-01-21T07:13:00.001-05:00

There was not quite a full slate of games Wednesday at the Albany Club. The three games played were; Wright - Northrup 1-0, Denham - Henner ½ - ½ and Lack - Caravaty 1-0. Mr. Denham’s draw with Peter Henner has to rank as an upset on rating difference, but while Jason trails the field his play has been solid for the most part. In this game he frustrated Peter’s attempts to create an effective imbalance, and at moments, appeared to be near winning himself.

The standings are, Including the games from Wednesday January 18, 2011:

1 Magat 5 - 3
2 Howard 4 ½ - 2 ½
3 Henner 4 ½ - 1 ½
4 Caravaty 4 - 4
5 Lack 4 - 3
6 Alowitz 3 - 4
7 Wright 3 ½ - 3 ½
8 Northrup 2 ½ - 3 ½
9 Denham 2 - 5

It was another week typical of this year’s Championship; an upset and still no clarity about who will qualify for the Championship or under 1800 matches. The club may not be big in numbers, but the fighting spirit is fierce.

The chance of an under 1800 contestant also qualifying for the Championship match disappeared when Chris Caravaty lost to Jonathan Lack. If Mr. Lack can win his last game, he will have 5 points and possibly be in the mix for the playoff match. Peter Henner’s draw tightens the struggle for the top spot. Cory Northrup’s loss to Tim Wright did not put him out of the fight for a chair at the under 1800 playoff. With two games to play, Northrup can overhaul Arthur Alowitz yet.

Today’s game is Jason Denham’s draw with Peter Henner.

Denham, Jason - Henner, Peter [D13]
AACC Championship Guilderland, NY, 18.01.2012

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.cxd5 cxd5 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Bf4 e6 7.a3?!,..

Book is 7 e3. Finding even games by masters with this move is not easy. It is not so much that there is some immediate tactical problem with it, rather the move lacks “bite”, and masters don’t dawdle in the opening. Here is one example where a master tries 7 a3. He comes out of the opening in good shape, but an error on move 20 leaves his Queen awkwardly placed. This requires the master to go in for an unsound sacrificial attack. His opponent was not shaken, took the material and the point in 36 moves:

(282110) Subrt,Jaroslav (2255) - Mitura,F [D13]
CSR-chT Czechoslovakia, 1992
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 c6 3.c4 Nf6 4.cxd5 cxd5 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bf4 e6 7.a3 Be7 8.e3 Nh5 9.Be5 f5 10.h3 Nf6 11.g4 0–0 12.gxf5 exf5 13.Qb3 Kh8 14.Bxf6 Bxf6 15.Qxd5 Qe8 16.Bc4 a6 17.Rc1 Bd7 18.Ne2 Rd8 19.Qc5 Bc8 20.Rg1 f4 21.Nxf4 Be7 22.Qh5 Qxh5 23.Nxh5 Rxf3 24.Rxg7 Bh4 25.Rg2 Rxe3+ 26.Kd2 Ree8 27.d5 Ne5 28.Bb3 Bg5+ 29.f4 Bh6 30.Rc7 Ng6 31.Bc2 Re7 32.Rxg6 Rxc7 33.Rxh6 Rxd5+ 34.Kc1 Bf5 35.Nf6 Rxc2+ 36.Kb1 Rd1+ 0–1

7..., Bd6 8.Bxd6 Qxd6 9.e3 0–0 10.Bd3 e5?!

Mr. Henner no doubt wanted to win this game. Here he decides to take some risks to do so. The mighty Rybka suggest a number of alternatives; 10..., a6; 10..., h6; 10..., Bd7; and putting the Rook on e8 or d8. The machine calls the position about even after the alternatives, or just about so. The text introduces a structural problem in the Black formation; the isolated Queen pawn. That can be an useful attacking tool, if Black has the dark squared Bishop on the board. Without that Bishop to help things along, advancing the d-pawn is difficult. Pushing the IQP forward is one of the basic ideas in such formations. If it isn’t possible, then the d-pawn is more of a stationary target than dynamic asset.

11.Nb5 Qe7 12.dxe5 Nxe5 13.Nxe5 Qxe5 14.Nd4 Bg4 15.Be2?,..

There is no good reason to trade this good Bishop for its poorer Black counterpart, especially using a valuable move to do so. Better is 15 Qb3, touching lightly on b7 and d5. White might not capture on b7 out of fear of letting the Black Rook become very active and can’t yet even claim to threaten d5, but the Queen is a mighty warrior and having her safely out and about no bad thing.

If you can calculate like a master, GM, or Rybka, taking on b7 is possible and good after the Queen sorties to b3. Play could continue; 15 Qb3 Rfc8 16 Qxb7 Rab8?! 17 Qxa7 Rxb2 18 0-0, and the entry square c2 is well covered preventing doubling on the 2d rank. White is also prepared to play one of his Rooks to b1 forcing off material while hanging tightly on to the extra passed pawn and decent winning chances.

The fifth World Champion demonstrated how to play against the IQP in a game from 1943. It is often cited in text books on chess. The winning plan is; 1) Concentrate on the weakness, d5, with the heavy pieces. 2) Once the opponent’s forces are tied down defending the weakness, open a second front. In the Botvinnik game that begins with 25 g4. 3) A timely shift by White of heavy pieces from pressuring d5 to direct attack on the Black King is very hard to meet usually some additional targets will appear. 4) By being tactically alert White has an excellent chance to gain something decisive. Anyone who plays serious chess should know the following game.

(23840) Botvinnik, Mikhail - Zagoriansky, Evgeny [A13]
Sverdlovsk Sverdlovsk (6), 1943
1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 e6 3.b3 Nf6 4.Bb2 Be7 5.e3 0–0 6.Nc3 c5 7.cxd5 Nxd5 8.Nxd5 exd5 9.d4 cxd4 10.Qxd4 Bf6 11.Qd2 Nc6 12.Be2 Be6 13.0–0 Bxb2 14.Qxb2 Qa5 15.Rfd1 Rad8 16.Rd2 Rd7 17.Rad1 Rfd8 18.h3 h6 19.Ne5 Nxe5 20.Qxe5 Qc5 21.Bf3 b6 22.Qb2 Rc8 23.Qe5 Rcd8 24.Rd4 a5 25.g4 Qc6 26.g5 hxg5 27.Qxg5 f6 28.Qg6 Bf7 29.Qg3 f5 30.Qg5 Qe6 31.Kh1 Qe5 32.Rg1 Rf8 33.Qh6 Rb8 34.Rh4 Kf8 35.Qh8+ Bg8 36.Rf4 Rbb7 37.Rg5 Rf7 38.Qh5 Qa1+ 39.Kg2 g6 40.Qxg6 Bh7 41.Qd6+ Rfe7 42.Qd8+ 1–0

There may be other plans to use versus the IQP. The above game is certainly one that has been used very frequently by Grandmasters, and cited by them in writing about the issue. A useful formula to know.

15..., Bxe2 16.Qxe2 Rac8 17.0–0 Rc4 18.Nf3?!,..

White’s play has not been the best. While the structural defect in the Black position remains, his more active pieces mask it for the moment. Rather than retreating the Knight, just 18 Qd2 adequately meets the threat to capture on d4 with the Rook. White may have feared 18 Qd2 Ne4; but 19 Qa5, looks reasonable with the issue not yet resolved. If 18 Qd2, Black can play to dominate the c-file with 18..., Rfc8 19 f3 Qc7 20 b3 Rc5; and the structural defect is completely balanced by the dynamic plus of the c-file. Given the foregoing, we can see a little bit why Mr. Denham looked at the text; judging the merits of the position after Black takes control of the c-file is not easy. White likely thought maybe he can distract Black from the c-file domination idea with some maneuvering.

18...,Qe4?

And it works. Better 18..., Qc7; to be followed by .., Rc8; when the potential weakness of the pawn at d5 is by no means easy to exploit.

19.Rac1 Qe6 20.Qd2 Ne4 21.Qa5 a6 22.Rfd1 Nf6?

White hasn’t made a real threat to d5, his back rank too weak. Black could try some further activity with 22..., g6; taking care of his own back rank problem, and then 23 Nd4 Qf6; and if 24 Qxd5? Qxf2+ 25 Kh1 Rxc1; wins. The text leads to Black achieving that which he has wanted for awhile; converting the IQP to a c-pawn, but this accomplishment gives White the chance to win the pawn.

23.Nd4 Qc8 24.Rxc4 dxc4 25.Rc1 b5 26.b3 Ne4 27.bxc4 bxc4 28.f3?,..

Simply 28 Qb4, picks up the c-pawn. Why did Jason not do so? The only conclusion seems to be that he fears his strong opponent sees farther than Jason can. Adding to the strangeness of the decision is the clock was not an issue for Mr. Denham. He had better than 43 minutes to Mr. Henner’s 12 minutes. It is one more example of psychology out weighing the basic chess skill of seeing the immediate future on the board.

28..., Nd6 29.Kf2 Qb7 30.Qc3 Rc8 31.Ke2 Nb5 32.Qb4 Qd5 33.Rd1 Qe5?

White has not come up with anything positive over the last few moves and that has allowed Black some chances. Here Black misses an opportunity to take the lead with 33..., c3 right away, passed pawns must be pushed as the old saying goes. The dangerous “passer” gives Black the advantage. By this point Henner was down to 7 ½ minutes. Time pressure probably played a part in the choice of move.

34.Nc6?,..

A slip missing the next Black move. Just 34 Kf2 keeps the disadvantage to a minimum.

34..., Nc3+

White must have been so tempted by his own tactical opportunities that he did not coolly evaluate all the Black moves. Black is almost winning now.

35.Kf1 Qxe3 36.Ne7+ Kh8 37.Re1 Qd3+ 38.Kf2 Qd4+ 39.Kg3 Rd8?

With only 1:36 plus the five second increment Peter has to rely on instinct here. To keep the hard won advantage necessary is 39..., g5; with the mate on h4 providing the time to save the Rook.

40.Nc6 Qd2 41.Qe7 Rg8

Black has a pawn, but the dangers to his King has forced the Black Rook to the most passive possible position. Henner’s clock was down to 1:21.

42.Re5?

A big mistake in his opponent’s time pressure. This occurs all too often around here. I know I have made similar mistakes, and they always hurt, maybe more than any other of my many chess errors. White had about 13 minutes on the clock, enough time to calculate, but he missed the problem with the game move.

42...Nb5?

Black had no time to find the unlikely looking 42..., f6!; which seems to win for Black. The probable line runs; 42..., f6 43 Re6 Nd5 44 Qc5 c3 45 Nb4 Nf4 46 Rd6 N2+ 47 Kh3 Qh6+; mating very soon. Quite a pretty demonstration of what a Queen and Knight can do to a King. Finding such a non-standard appearing combination in time pressure is a matter of luck and inspiration. Mr. Henner ran out of both for the moment.

43.Qxf7 Qd6 44.Qxc4 Nxa3 45.Qb4 Qxc6 46.Qxa3 ½–½

The game continued for many more moves played at breathtaking speed by Henner. Denham won the a-pawn fairly quickly. The three-to-two pawn majority all on the same side with heavy pieces on the board is obviously drawn. Given the terrible state of his clock, the examination of Peter’s endgame technique that Jason carried out is understandable. Mr. Henner found what he had to find in the way of moves, and after exhausting all the possible tries they agreed to a draw.

Although Jason Denham trials the field at 2 - 5, how he got there speaks to his rating not really reflecting his chess strength. Mr. Denham piled up four draws; among them were split points with Howard, Henner and Lack! All these guys are about 400 points more highly rated than is Denham, and every half-point at that rating gap has to be called an upset. Jason still has Tim Wright to play. It will not surprise to see him take a half-point there too. No matter what happens in his last game, it really has been a good event for Jason Denham.

Thursday evening at the Schenectady Club saw the second round of the Championship Finals played. Once more Carlos Varela could not attend. He is traveling overseas. It is unclear at this moment whether or not he will be back in country on the 20th of January, or the 20th of February. Both dates have been mentioned. If January, it will not be too much of a problem, he’ll be a couple of rounds behind which is nothing unusual for our local club championships. If February, it is quite a different matter.

The TD, Bill Townsend, set a goal to finish all games by March 20th . A February return will cut things very fine indeed. Any problems of coordinating the players schedules and missing the deadline becomes real. The deadline is not just an arbitrary line in the sand. The Capital District Chess League begins play about then. Mr. Varela plays for the RPI team and the other participants play for the Schenectady teams and the Saratoga team. Finding times and places to play both CDCL matches and these by then tardy SCC games will make Bill’s scheduling much more challenging than usual. Ah! The TD’s lot is never easy.

Thursday’s results were; Richard Chu lost to Alan Le Cours, and John Phillips defeated Philip Sells. The latter result came about in by now usual time pressure for Sells, but this time he was not able to solve the problems of his position and his flag fell in what was likely a lost position.

The standings are:
1 John Phillips 2-0
2 Alan Le Cours 1-0
3 Philip Sells 1-1
4 Zack Calderone 0-1
5 Richard Chu 0-2
6 Carlos Varela 0-0

In such a short affair, five rounds, the fast start by Phillips may play a large part in the final results. Certainly everyone will be chasing him from here on out.

More soon.

The SCC Finals Begin

2012-01-16T13:43:00.001-05:00

The Finals of the Schenectady Championship got underway with no more than the usual portion of misunderstanding. Two of the three scheduled games were played, and the outcomes conformed to the ratings predictions. The third game, Varela - Le Cours, was postponed to a later date. The TD did not get a positive confirmation from Carlos Varela, and so Alan Le Cours had to make the drive from Saratoga for naught.

There were a visitor or two and some casual games played along side the two serious contests. Of those, I am going to begin with the Phillips - Chu game. Richard and I long time colleagues in chess and friends. He has a record of beating Experts and Class A players periodically. When he is on his game Richard is a very capable chess player, however, his skill lies in tactics and not positional play. When he finds a tactical possibility, he can follow it with diligence and look pretty deeply searching for opportunities. Overlooking the positional factors is his chess sin, and that is the story In today’s game.

Phillips, John - Chu, Richard [A42]
SCC Championship Finals, Round 1 Schenectady, NY, 12.01.2012

1.e4 d6 2.d4 g6 3.c4 Bg7 4.Nc3 e5

No less than eight moves have been documented in theory here for Black in this line of the Modern Defense, Averbakh variation. Most popular is 4..., Nf6; converting the line to a standard Pirc Defense. The text has to be considered the mainline of the Averbakh variation. Here is now one of the super-Grandmasters handled the Black pieces;

(911857) Agrest, Evgenij (2604) - Morozevich, Alexander (2758) [A42]
Calvia ol (Men) Mallorca (3), 17.10.2004
1.d4 g6 2.e4 Bg7 3.c4 d6 4.Nc3 e5 5.dxe5 dxe5 6.Qxd8+ Kxd8 7.f4 Be6 8.Nf3 Nc6 9.Kf2 Nf6 10.Be2 h6 11.h3 Kc8 12.g3 Nd7 13.Kg2 exf4 14.gxf4 Bxc3 15.bxc3 Na5 16.Nd2 c5 17.Ba3 Kc7 18.Rae1 b6 19.Rhf1 f5 20.Bd3 Rhe8 21.Bc1 Rad8 22.Rf3 Nf6 23.Kf2 fxe4 24.Nxe4 Bxc4 25.Nxf6 Rxe1 26.Kxe1 Bxd3 27.f5 Bxf5 28.Bxh6 Rh8 29.Bf4+ Kc6 30.Re3 Rh4 31.Bg3 Ra4 32.Re7 Nc4 33.Rc7+ Kb5 34.Rh7 Rxa2 35.Nd5 a5 36.h4 Be4 37.Nc7+ Ka4 38.Re7 Bf3 39.Re6 Kb3 40.Rxg6 Re2+ 0–1

Here’s an example of the variation , the only one found in the databases of the specific line chosen by Mr. Chu;

(405391) Dimitrijeski, Kristian (2180) - Beyer, Ulrich [A42]
JBL NO 9596 Germany (2), 1995
1.d4 g6 2.c4 Bg7 3.Nc3 d6 4.e4 e5 5.dxe5 Bxe5 6.f4 Bg7 7.Nf3 Nc6 8.Be2 Nge7 9.Be3 Be6 10.0–0 h6 11.Nd5 f5 12.Nd4 Bd7 13.Nb5 Rc8 14.g4 fxe4 15.f5 Nxd5 16.Qxd5 Qe7 17.fxg6 Qe6 18.Qf5 Qxf5 19.gxf5 0–0 20.f6 Rxf6 21.Rxf6 Bxf6 22.Bxh6 Bg7 23.Be3 a6 24.Nc3 Bf5 25.Bh5 Bxc3 26.bxc3 Kg7 27.Bd4+ Nxd4 28.cxd4 Bxg6 29.Bxg6 Kxg6 30.Kf2 c6 31.a4 Rh8 32.Ke3 d5 33.cxd5 cxd5 34.Rb1 Kf5 35.Rf1+ Ke6 36.Rb1 Rxh2 37.Rxb7 Rh3+ 38.Ke2 Rd3 39.Rb6+ Kd7 40.Rxa6 Rxd4 41.Ra8 Kd6 42.a5 Kc6 43.Ke3 Rd3+ 44.Ke2 Ra3 45.a6 Kb6 46.Rd8 Kc5 47.Ra8 Kd4 48.a7 Ra2+ 49.Kf1 e3 50.Kg1 Kd3 51.Rd8 Rxa7 52.Rxd5+ Ke2 53.Rb5 Rg7+ 54.Kh2 Ke1 55.Re5 e2 56.Re6 Rf7 57.Kg2 Rf2+ 58.Kg1 Rf1+ 59.Kg2 Kd2 60.Rd6+ Kc3 0–1

Not Grandmasters to be sure, the game has value as it demonstrates that Black can make a decent game if he stays focused. Note that the capture on c3 happens later in this game.

5.dxe5 Bxe5

Theory gives the nod to 5..., dxe5; as the only acceptable move for Black and holds that the game is about even. It is interesting that Deep Rybka actually likes the text giving White only the smallest of advantages after it is played.

6.f4 Bg7?!

Seemingly a normal move but it a telling miss. In the Pirc/Modern, far more often than expected, Black captures the Nc3 with this Bishop. To someone who has not spent some time studying the work of those Grandmasters who use the Pirc, that capture looks an unlikely candidate. It can work however, especially against an opponent who is not completely prepared. The idea here is; 6..., Bxc3+ 7 bxc3 Qh4+, (To get more pawns on dark squares since Black no longer has a Bishop of that color.) 8 g3 Qe7; pressure on e4 is the point of Black’s play. If White continues with the natural; 9 Bg2, then 9..., Nf6 10 Qd3 Bf5; and the e-pawn is lost. If earlier White pushes the e-pawn to e5, say 10 e5, then maybe the pawn will be gone antway, but most importantly, the “big” White center is blown up. In such a case, Black has achieved all he wished for in selecting the Modern as his defense; obtaining a playable middle game. If you are using general chess principles alone, then the key capture on c3 just is considered only in passing and discarded. Why in the world does Black want to surrender the Bishop pair, especially the dark squared pride of the Black position? The answer is found in the often heard but seldom followed concept; in the vast majority of openings, all Black is striving for is equality and a playable middle game. The capture on c3 delivers that goal.

7.Nf3 Nc6 8.Be2 Nge7 9.0–0 Bg4 10.Be3 0–0 11.h3 Bxf3 12.Bxf3,..

Both sides have completed their development, and we now see the net result of the failure to capture on c3; White has a comfortable game along with more say in the center.

12..., Kh8

Black takes a precaution before making his only break possible; .., f7-f5. He could, and probably should, break now rather than later. Play might continue; 12..., f5 13 Re1 Rb8 14 Bf2 fxe4 15 Rxe4 Qd2; when White is still better, but Black has chances.

13.g4 f5 14.Qd2 fxg4?

A definite error. Correct is 14..., fxe4 15 Bxe4 Qd7; when the sacrificial line 16 f5? gxf5 17 gxf5 Nxf5; leaves the White King far less safe than the Black King. The game move presents White with an open h-file on which to operate. Black has not gone down this path blindly. He has some glimmering of tactical chances on the f-file and is intent on following those chances. The problem for Black is two-fold; was the positional factor of the h-file been properly evaluated, and have the tactics on the f-file been calculated accurately? The result of the game answers these questions.

15.hxg4 Ng8 16.Nd5 Rf7

When I saw this move played it was a puzzle, why there? A little more thought brought the conclusion; Black is building a defense along the 7th rank of course!

17.g5 h5!?

This then seemed out of step with the 7th rank defense, but no, a bit more consideration brought to light the 7th rank defense idea had a big problem; whenever the Bg7 has to move to allow the Rf7 to defend h7, White can check from c3 with the Queen. It seems the h-pawn jump is necessary. Black can play 17..., Qd7; planning to maneuver to minimize the effect of checks from c3 by getting the Ng8 out of the way, but White moves his King to g2 and doubles Rooks on the h-file and will win in a different way than in the game. This possibility illustrates the positional advantage the h-file gives to White.

18.gxh6 Nxh6 19.Qh2!?,..

Better 19 Kg2, then the threat of 20 f5 threatening the Nh6 is very strong. If 19..., Kg8 20 f5 and material is lost. If 19..., Qf8 20 Rh1, when Richard’s idea, 20..., Ne5?!; does not quite work after 21 exf5 Rxf3 22 Bxh6 Bxh6 23 Rxh6+ Kg7 24 Rah1, and beyond the material deficit, threats on the h-file will end the game in White’s favor quickly.

19..., Qf8 20.Rad1,..

A really good move for more reasons than immediately apparent.

20..., Ne5?

This was the blow Mr. Chu had in mind as the position developed. After the game he thought it was premature and first 20..., Re8; needed to be played. That is true. After 20...Re8 21.f5 gxf5 22.Bh5 Be5; Black is working towards easing his difficulties. Richard was thinking of 20..., Re8; in combination with the Knight sacrifice at e5, and that does not seem to work. The “tree of analysis” gets very bushy after 20..., Re8; but the lines I looked at all seem to give Black a playable game in the short term. The positional problems remain, and over the long run White has good chances to win. The text, on the other hand, loses by force.

So what if Black plays 20..., Re8; and tries his Knight sacrifice? Play could go; 20..., Re8 21 Kh1 Ne5? 22 fxe5 Rxf3 23 Kg2 Be5 24 Rxf3 Qxf3+ 25 Kxf3 Bxh2 26 Bxh6, when White, with a piece for a pawn, will have a win with a modicum of care.

21.fxe5 Rxf3 22.Bxh6 Bxh6 23.Rxf3 Qxf3 24.Qxh6+ Kg8 25.Qxg6+ Kh8 26.Qf6+!?,..

Forcing off the Queens. It may be quibbling to mention, but shorter is 26 Rd2!, and Black must give up his Queen to hold off mate for even a few moves. The move 26 Rd2, threatens mate beginning 27 Rh2+. What is Black to do? In the discussion after the game the first thought was 26..., Rg8; but that does nothing to prevent 27 Rh2+, first winning the Queen and mating anyway. The second thought was 26..., Qe3; overlooking 27 Nxe3, also collects the Queen without preventing the coming mate.

John Phillips said he would have played the move but he just did not see it.
He had worked out the game continuation, was confident it led to a win and did not look farther. The practical problem with taking a longer path such as here, is something may have been missed in the calculation.

26...Qxf6 27.exf6 Kg8

The position is lost; an extra pawn and a extra piece is too much to overcome in an endgame such this. John Phillips felt certain he would be able to cash in his advantage for the full point. The final moves demonstrate he was correct.

28.Rf1 Kf7 29.Rf4 c6 30.Ne3 Rg8+ 31.Kf2 a6 32.Ng4 Rg6 33.e5 Rxg4 34.Rxg4 dxe5 35.Rg7+ Kxf6 36.Rxb7 Ke6 37.Rb6 Kd6 38.Rxa6 Kc5 39.b3 1–0

My friend Richard had a nice idea. Its flaws unfortunately were more weighty than its merits, and he would not, or could not change his approach to a more positional method. There is an adage that says chess 99% tactics. I don’t know if that is correct for every level of play. The saying certainly is most correct for us at the club level. There is a big but coming; some consideration for positional factors has to be part of even a club players arsenal. In today’s game the open h-file leading to the Black King provided the basis for a successful tactical solution for White. Ignoring, or not recognizing these factors in a position will frequently wreck even nice tactical schemes. It did so here.

More soon.

The Howard - Magat Game from AACC

2012-01-13T16:11:00.000-05:00

The game between Dean Howard and Gordon Magat was a meeting of the two highest rated players in the AACC Championship. Gordon had dropped three points so far in the event hurting his chances to qualify for the title playoff match. Mr. Howard, on the other hand was down only 1 ½ points. I expected a stern fight with clock problems having a role in deciding the result. Instead it was a short sharp battle without serious time trouble for either party. The matter was settled early, by move 15 Dean had gambled on a quick transition to an ending in which his Knight is stuck on a8. If it could be rescued, then he had an Exchange to the good, and if not there was to be a tough ending with a Bishop and Knight versus a Rook. No rescue was possible and the game was decided effectively by move 23 when Mr. Magat’s b-pawn began to advance. With a small chess joke at the last, Mr. Howard was mated on move 27.

Howard, Dean - Magat, Gordon [B22]
AACC Championship Guilderland, NY, 11.01.2012

1.e4 c5 2.c3,..

A choice when White does not want to explore the complications of the Open Sicilian (2 d4) or the intricate maneuvering of the Closed Sicilian (2 Nc3). The move can lead to a very sharp opening interlude with lots of tricks for both sides.

2..., Nf6

Equally popular is 2..., d5; with a different kind of game, but still tricky.

3.e5 Nd5 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4,..

Much more common is 6 cxd4, but the move is not unknown at the elite level. Here three examples:

(1118005) Erenburg,Sergey (2585) - Gelfand,Boris (2729) [B22]
World Championship Blitz Rishon Le Ziyyon (7), 07.09.2006
1.e4 c5 2.c3 Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 Nb6 7.Bb3 dxe5 8.Nxe5 e6 9.cxd4 Nc6 10.Nxc6 bxc6 11.0–0 Be7 12.Nc3 Ba6 13.Re1 0–0 14.Bf4 Nd5 15.Be5 Nxc3 16.bxc3 Bf6 17.Qf3 Rc8 18.Rad1 Qe7 19.Bc2 Rfd8 20.Qe4 g6 21.Qf3 Bg7 22.Bb3 c5 23.Bxg7 Kxg7 24.d5 c4 25.Bc2 Bb7 26.d6 Rxd6 27.Qe3 Rb6 28.a4 Qc5 29.Qd4+ Qxd4 30.Rxd4 Bd5 31.h4 f5 32.g4 Rb2 33.Bd1 Rb1 34.gxf5 gxf5 35.Kh2 Kf6 36.Re3 Rg8 37.Bf3 Bxf3 38.Rxf3 Rgg1 39.Rg3 Rh1+ 40.Kg2 e5 41.Rxc4 e4 42.Rc6+ Ke5 43.f4+ Kxf4 44.Rg5 Rbg1+ 45.Kf2 e3+ 46.Ke2 Rh2+ 47.Kd3 Rd2+ 48.Kc4 Rxg5 49.hxg5 e2 50.Re6 Kxg5 51.Kb5 f4 52.c4 f3 53.c5 f2 54.c6 f1Q 55.c7 e1Q+ 0–1

(965270) Neubauer,Martin (2457) - Stocek,Jiri (2585) [B22]
Mitropa Cup Steinbrunn (2), 22.05.2005
1.e4 c5 2.c3 Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 Nb6 7.Bb3 dxe5 8.Nxe5 e6 9.cxd4 Nc6 10.Nf3 Bb4+ 11.Nc3 Nd5 12.Qd3 Na5 13.Bc2 Bd7 14.Bd2 Bxc3 15.bxc3 Rc8 16.Ne5 f6 17.c4 fxe5 18.cxd5 Nc4 19.dxe5 Nxe5 20.Qe4 Rxc2 21.Qxc2 Bb5 22.a4 Nd3+ 23.Kd1 Ba6 24.Be3 0–0 25.Qb3 Bc4 26.Qxb7 Bxd5 27.Qxa7 Bxg2 28.Rg1 Bf3+ 29.Kc2 Nb4+ 30.Kb3 Rf7 31.Qxf7+ Kxf7 32.Kxb4 Qd6+ 33.Kc3 Be2 34.Rgc1 Ba6 35.Rd1 Qc7+ 36.Kb2 Qb7+ 37.Ka3 Qe7+ 38.Kb3 Qb7+ 39.Ka3 Qe7+ 40.Kb3 Qb7+ ½–½

(963094) Zhigalko,Sergei (2462) - Karjakin,Sergey (2635) [B22]
Young Stars of the World 3rd Kirishi (9), 23.05.2005
1.e4 c5 2.c3 Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 4.Nf3 d6 5.d4 cxd4 6.Bc4 Nb6 7.Bb3 Nc6 8.exd6 Qxd6 9.0–0 Be6 10.Na3 dxc3 11.Qe2 Bxb3 12.Nb5 Qb8 13.axb3 e5 14.Nbd4 f6 15.bxc3 Kf7 16.Nxc6 bxc6 17.Qe4 Qd6 18.Be3 Nd5 19.c4 Nb4 20.Bxa7 Qd3 21.Qg4 Be7 22.Rad1 Qg6 23.Qd7 Rhd8 24.Qb7 Rxd1 25.Rxd1 Rd8 26.Rf1 Kf8 27.Bb6 Rd3 28.Qc8+ Qe8 29.Qf5 g6 30.Qe6 Qd7 31.Qxd7 Rxd7 32.Be3 Rd3 33.Rb1 Nc2 34.Kf1 e4 35.Ke2 Bb4 36.h4 Kf7 37.Bd2 Na3 38.Ra1 Be7 39.Bc1 Nc2 40.Ra2 exf3+ 41.gxf3 Nb4 0–1

6..., dxe5!?

And Black promptly takes the game into a not so explored area. The standard answer here is 6... Nb6; when Black is about equal according to Rybka and theory. There are few examples of this move in my databases. One that illustrates the tactical nature of the play in this line is;

(910731) Matsuura,Everaldo (2474) - Navarro,Tiago Cunha (2150) [B22]
Belo Horizonte pre olymp Belo Horizonte (2), 09.10.2004
1.e4 c5 2.c3 Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 dxe5 7.Nxe5 e6 8.0–0 Bd6 9.cxd4 0–0 10.Qh5 Qc7 11.Bd3 Nf6 12.Qe2 Nbd7 13.Re1 Rd8 14.Bf4 Nxe5 15.dxe5 Bb4 16.Rc1 Qd7 17.Bb5 Qd4 18.Bg5 h6 19.Nc3 hxg5 20.Rd1 Qb6 21.exf6 a6 22.Bd3 Bd7 23.fxg7 [23.Qh5 g6 24.Bxg6 fxg6 25.Qxg6+ Kf8 26.Qg7+ Ke8 27.Qg8+ Bf8 28.Qg6#] 23...Bxc3 24.bxc3 Qc5 25.Be4 Bb5 26.Qf3 Qe5 27.Qe3 Kxg7 28.Bxb7 Qxe3 29.fxe3 Rab8 30.Rxd8 Rxd8 31.a4 Bc4 32.Bf3 Rd3 33.Kf2 Rxc3 34.e4 Kf6 35.Kg3 Be2 36.Rb1 Bd3 37.Rb4 Ra3 38.Kg4 Kg6 39.e5 Bf5+ 40.Kg3 g4 0–1

In the game cited an experienced master is defeated by a youngster. The master overlooked the winning line at move 23 - see the note in the game score- and paid a big price for missing his chance.

7.Nxe5 e6 8.0–0 Nc6

Marginally better is 8..., Be7; why give White the chance to do damage to the Black pawn structure? After the text acceptable for White is; 9 Nxc6 bxc6 10 Qxd4 Qb6 11 Qg4, with a slightly superior pawn structure.

9.cxd4 Be7 10.Nc3?!,..

Suspect from a positional point of view. Reasonable is 10 Nf3, agreeing to an isolated QP middle game and equality.

10..., Nxc3 11.Nxc6?,..

White does not want to allow 11 bxc3 Nxe4 12 dxe5, when it is he that has the weakened pawn formation. He therefore decides to “fish in troubled waters” with a not quite sound combination. Mr. Howard may have misevaluated the possibility of getting the Knight out of a8 or obtaining some kind of real compensation for it if lost. The sporting situation, Dean’s race with Peter Henner, and a sense that this game must be won, likely influenced the decision to take a risk.

11..., Nxd1 12.Nxd8 Nxb2 13.Nxe6 Nxc4 14.Nc7+ Kd7!

Not so logical looking as 14..., Kd8; but better. If the Black King goes to d8, White gains a valuable tempo with the Bishop check at g5. That is just enough to allow him to get some activity for his Rook offsetting the slight material imbalance. Play might go; 14..., Kd8 15 Nxa8 Bd616 Bg5+ f6 17 Bg4 b6 18 Bg3 Bxg3 19 hxg3 Bb7 20 Rfc1, and if 20 ...,b5 21 a4, and White is obtaining decent compensation. Black can improve in this line with again 18..., Kd7; then White probably must try 19 Rfe1 Bb7? 20 Nc7 Bxc7 21 Bxc7 Kxc7 22 Re7+, again with some compensation. In this sub-variation Black has to find 19..., g6; or 19..., Rg8; to keep his advantage. The text sidesteps all that and gives Black a substantial edge.

15.Nxa8 Bd6 16.Bg5,..

Marginally better is 16 Rb1, but the Na8 is doomed. The Black Bishops will dominate the game.

16..., b5 17.a4,..

A radical try but less wild attempts just leave Black in control.

17..., b4!

Dean was likely hoping this move would not be played. Suddenly the Black b-pawn is a menace.

18.a5 Bb7 19.Rfc1 Rc8 20.Nb6+ axb6 21.a6,

White bets on the advanced a-pawn to shake his opponent’s confidence, that was not to be.

21..., Bd5 22.a7,..

A bit more stubborn is 22 axb6. The fundamentals remain unchanged however. Three minor pieces and the passed b-pawn are powerful enough to win no matter what White tries.

23..., Ra8

Black can play 23..., b3 right away because the Nc4 is immune from capture for the b-pawn will Queen. Mr. Magat uses good technique preventing any possible counter-play involving pushing the a-pawn to the eighth rank.

23.g3 b3 24.Rcb1 b2 25.Ra6 Be4 26.Bf4 Bxf4 27.Rc1,..

This is Mr. Howard’s joke at the end of a tense fight. He recognizes 27 Rxb2 Nxb2 28 gxf4 Nd3 29 Rxb6 Rxa7; and the material deficit with the mating threats to his King make further resistance useless.

27...,c1Q# 0–1

This win tightened up the struggle for a playoff spot. Gordon has kept alive some hope to qualify. If Howard wins his last game against Henner, we will have to watch Peter strive to win his last two games, or at least garner 1 ½ points. In that case Peter is first and Dean second filling the playoff chairs. If it is a draw, Gordon Magat may get to play a playoff for the last spot. I don’t know if that playoff for a playoff spot is one or two games. We will have to inquire of the TD, Galen Perry, should the situation come about. Peter Henner can, of course, by defeating Howard, helps Gordon alot. Then Gordon is in, which spot depends on how many points Peter scores in his final two games. It must not be forgotten that if Chris Caravaty wins his last game against Jonathan Lack, Caravaty will have 5 points as well as Gordon Magat. What that situation entails could make determining who plays for what more than interesting. God Bless the TD, he could have a most unusual problem to deal with. Lots of tension for sure.

More soon.

Updates From AACC and SCC

2012-01-12T12:10:00.001-05:00

Wednesday evening saw a nice turnout at the Albany Area Chess Club. Three games were played in the title event and a number of visitors attended with a good number of casual games going on alongside the tournament battles.

Dean Howard was upended by Gordon Magat in a short sharp 2 c3, Sicilian. That will be an interesting game to look at to find just where Dean went wrong. That brings up how to rank the leaders when they have played different numbers of games. Should the ranking be by number scored or by points lost? I’ve opted for the number scored. Magat has the top score, 5 wins and he has finished his schedule. Howard is right behind with 4 ½ and one games play, followed by Henner at 4 with no less than three games to play. Howard or Henner most certainly will catch up with or pass Magat, but who does so turns on the outcome of Henner versus Howard.

In the struggle for the under 1800 places Mr. Caravaty defeated Mr. Alowitz bringing his score to 4 - 3 taking the lead in that contest. Cory Northrup lost to Jon Lack. Lack played an opening, the Nimzo-Indian Defense, pretty much by the book, nothing offbeat. He collected a pawn when Mr. Northrup failed to grasp the essence of the opening. Lack concluded the game in a nice workmanlike style giving Northrup no real chances to complicate matters. This result leaves Cory at 2 ½ points trailing Caravaty by 1 ½ and Alowitz by a ½ point.

The standings are, Including the games from Wednesday January 11. 2011:

1 Magat 5 - 3
2 Howard 4 ½ - 2 ½
3 Henner 4 - 1
4 Caravaty 4 - 3
5 Lack 3 - 3
6 Alowitz 3 - 4
7 Northrup 2 ½ - 2 ½
8 Wright 2 ½ - 3 ½
9 Denham 1 ½ - 4 ½

A conversation with Bill Townsend, our esteemed Gazette chess columnist, today pointed up some interesting observations about the progress of this event. First, Gordon Magat is very unlikely to hold on to the first spot. Second, the game Henner - Howard is the key to deciding the order of finish at the top. Third, the event is pretty much Peter Henner’s to lose. He has Howard, Northrup and Denham to play. The Henner - Howard game could have any result, either one could win. Based on form it is hard to imagine Mr. Henner losing to both Northrup and Denham. And fourth, because the AACC Championship calls for a two game match playoffs of the top two finishers to decide the title, the struggle is far from over.

Just to add complexity to the mix, consider this; Mr. Caravaty at 4 -3 with one game to play, could win his final game and end up with a 5 - 3 score. Conceivably he might tie for one of top two slots for the title, and that score would also put him in contention for the under 1800 playoff. Possibly Chris would then have a playoff match for the under 1800 title and a playoff for second place overall. Should he win the playoff for the a spot in the title match, it would then be possible for Mr. Caravaty win both the title of Champion and the under 1800 prize. Wild! It should be noted I have not spoken with Glen Perry, the tournament director, about these potential results to verify what I am guessing are within the rules of the tournament.
No matter how the actual games turn out, we still have a long way to go in the AACC Championship.

Another piece of information Mr. Townsend passed on was the Schenectady Championship Finals will begin tonight, Thursday January 12, 2011. The line up is; Philip Sells, John Phillips, Alan Le Cours, Zack Calderone, Carlos Varela and Richard Chu. Townsend has spoken with all and it was agreed to start the event tonight.

So, amidst snow and rain - the kind of weather I associate with the Schenectady Championship - once more the venerable old club will decide who’s the top player for this year. It was sixty years ago I saw the first of many Schenectady Championships. I was very much only a spectator at the 1951 event, but if memory serves there was a good deal of snow on the ground when it took place, and it seems to me was this the case at most of the Championships in which I took part. The weather is right, let the fun begin tonight. Good Chess to all the competitors!

More soon.

The Finish at Saratoga

2012-01-10T13:46:00.000-05:00

The first of the big club championships in the Capital district ended last night. The Saratoga title was decided in a game between Jon Fineberg and Alan Le Cours. For a good while it seemed that the game might be drawn making a three way tie for first; Fineberg, Le Cours and Farrell all with 5 ½ points. The there would have been the usual debate about tie-breaks which is the appropriate system, etc. Mr. Fineberg saved us from that fate by taking advantage of a small positional error by Mr. Le Cours and bringing home the point and the title. Congratulations to the new Saratoga Champion! This is Jonathan Fineberg’s first title at Saratoga.

Fineberg, Jonathan - Le Cours, Alan [A25]
Saratoga Championship Saratoga Springs, NY, 08.01.2012

1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 Nc6 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.Nd5,..

Before the game began Alan Le Cours wondered out loud if he had wasted his time preparing for the English. Fineberg did not vary from his usual English and Le Cours equalized out of the opening. Preparation was not a waste of time at all.

This position has been popular for a long time. Way back in 1938 it showed up at a Hastings Christmas tournament:

(19795) Golombek, Harry - Klein, Ernst Ludwig [A25]
Hastings (1), 1938
1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e5 3.g3 Nc6 4.Bg2 Bb4 5.Nd5 Nxd5 6.cxd5 Nb8 7.Nf3 Qe7 8.0–0 0–0 9.d4 exd4 10.Nxd4 Bc5 11.e4 d6 12.Be3 Nd7 13.Nf5 Qf6 14.Qd2 Bxe3 15.Nxe3 a5 16.f4 Qd8 17.Rac1 b6 18.Qd4 f6 19.Rfd1 Re8 20.Nc4 Ba6 21.Nd2 Nc5 22.Nb3 Re7 23.Nxc5 bxc5 24.Qc3 a4 25.Re1 Rb8 26.e5 fxe5 27.fxe5 Rxe5 28.Rxe5 dxe5 29.Qxe5 Qd6 30.Qe6+ Kh8 31.Re1 Bb5 32.Qf7 Rf8 33.Qe7 Bd7 34.Re2 Kg8 35.Qe3 Re8 36.Qd2 Re5 37.Qe1 Rxe2 38.Qxe2 Qf6 39.h3 h6 40.Kh2 Bf5 41.Qf2 Kh7 42.Qf4 Bb1 43.Qxf6 gxf6 44.a3 f5 45.Bf3 Bc2 46.Kg2 Kg7 47.Kf2 Kf6 48.Ke3 Ke5 49.Kd2 Bb3 50.Ke3 Bc2 51.Kd2 Bb3 52.Ke3 Bxd5 53.Bd1 Bc6 54.Be2 Bd7 55.Bd3 Bc6 ½–½

The idea 6..., Nb8; let Golombek come out of the opening with an advantage, but it slipped away in the middle game.

5..., 0–0 6.a3,..

The capture 6 Nxb4, has not worked out for White. Here are couple of examples:

(941072) Rotstein, Arkadij (2528) - Zhang Pengxiang (2560) [A25]
Cannes Open (7), 24.02.2005
1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 Nc6 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.Nd5 0–0 6.Nxb4 Nxb4 7.d3 Nc6 8.e4 d6 9.Ne2 Bg4 10.f3 Be6 11.Be3 Nd7 12.0–0 f5 13.b3 Qe7 14.Qd2 a5 15.f4 fxe4 16.dxe4 exf4 17.gxf4 Nf6 18.h3 Qf7 19.Nd4 Nxd4 20.Bxd4 Qh5 21.Qe3 Rae8 22.Rae1 Bd7 23.e5 Qg6 24.Kh2 c6 25.Qc3 Nh5 26.Be4 Qh6 27.f5 dxe5 28.Bxe5 Nf6 29.Rg1 Rxe5 30.Qxe5 Re8 31.Qd4 Qf4+ 32.Kh1 Rxe4 33.Rxe4 Qxe4+ 34.Qxe4 Nxe4 35.Kh2 Kf7 36.Rd1 Nc5 37.a3 Bxf5 38.b4 axb4 39.axb4 Nd3 40.Ra1 Nxb4 41.Ra7 Bc8 42.Ra8 Be6 43.Ra7 Nd3 44.Rxb7+ Kf6 45.Rb6 Ne5 46.c5 Bd5 47.Rb2 Nd3 48.Rc2 Ke5 49.Kg3 Kd4 50.Re2 Nxc5 51.Re7 Ne6 0–1

Even though Black surrenders the Bishop pair, and he seemingly gains no time by the capture on b4, White has to handle the resulting play correctly.

(1172665) Larino Nieto, David (2404) - Roa Alonso, Santiago (2423) [A25]
Madrid FMA Masters Madrid (3), 21.04.2007
1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3 Bb4 4.Bg2 Nc6 5.Nd5 a5 6.Nxb4 axb4 7.e3 d5 8.cxd5 Nxd5 9.Ne2 Nde7 10.d4 exd4 11.exd4 Be6 12.Nf4 Bc4 13.d5 Ne5 14.Qd4 Qd6 15.b3 Bb5 16.Bb2 f6 17.0–0–0 0–0 18.Ne6 c5 19.dxc6 Qxe6 20.cxb7 Rab8 21.Rhe1 Bc6 22.Bf1 Bd5 23.Kb1 Qf5+ 24.Ka1 Rxb7 25.Qc5 Rc8 26.Qa5 Qxf2 27.Ba6 N5c6 28.Qa4 Ra7 29.Qb5 Rb8 30.Qd3 Rba8 31.Re2 Qb6 32.Bc4 Rxa2+ 33.Kb1 Bxc4 34.Qxc4+ Kh8 35.Rde1 Qa7 36.Kc1 Ra5 37.Kb1 Rc5 38.Bd4 Nxd4 39.Qxd4 Rc1+ 0–1

In the foregoing game GM Nieto responded to defending the Bb4 by .., a7-a5; by castling long right into a firestorm. Play in the game illustrates again that while the game unfolds slowly in these English Openings, it can get quite sharp.

6..., Bc5 7.e3 a5 8.Ne2 Re8 9.0–0 d6 10.h3 Bd7 11.b3 Nxd5

Capturing on d5 is a central question for Black in this line. Does he or don’t he? If he does so, White has a solidly defended pawn on d5 that can be “a bone in the throat” for Black. At first glance there does not seem to be any way to surround the pawn and win it. In the next game cited, Kuzubov challenges the d5-pawn early. GM Jan Timman shows how, if White is very confident, he can play to open the center relying on Black’s slower development to give an advantage to White.

(990473) Timman, Jan H (2625) - Kuzubov, Yuriy (2535) [A25]
15th EU-Team Ch, Gothenburg (2), 31.07.2005
1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 Nc6 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.Nd5 Bc5 6.e3 Nxd5 7.cxd5 Ne7 8.Ne2 0–0 9.0–0 c6 10.d4 exd4 11.exd4 Bb6 12.d6 Nf5 13.Bf4 Qf6 14.Be5 Qh6 15.Nc3 Nxd6 16.d5 Nf5 17.d6 Re8 18.Re1 Re6 19.Qd3 Qh5 20.Bf3 Qg6 21.Bf4 Nd4 22.Be4 Qh5 23.Bg2 Qg6 24.Be4 Qh5 25.Na4 f5 26.Nxb6 fxe4 27.Qxd4 axb6 28.Rxe4 Qc5 29.Qd3 Qf5 30.Rae1 Ra4 31.f3 h5 32.Qb3 Raxe4 33.fxe4 Qc5+ 34.Kg2 g5 35.Be3 Qxd6 36.Bxg5 Qc5 37.Bf6 d5 38.e5 Qd4 39.Qc2 1–0

In the next game cited, GM Maslak delays the natural challenge to the d5-pawn for a bit. That doesn’t improve results. Maslak escapes with a draw only because his opponent couldn’t resist a tempting but flawed mating combination.

(1206176) Adla,Diego Gustavo (2472) - Maslak, Konstantin (2548) [A25]
Pardubice Czech Open (7), 26.07.2007
1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 Nc6 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.Nd5 Bc5 6.e3 0–0 7.Ne2 Re8 8.0–0 a6 9.b3 d6 10.Bb2 Ba7 11.h3 Nxd5 12.cxd5 Ne7 13.Rc1 c6 14.dxc6 Nxc6 15.d4 Qa5 16.Bc3 Qb5 17.Qd2 Bf5 18.Rfd1 Rac8 19.Qb2 f6 20.Bf1 Qb6 21.Qa3 Bb8 22.d5 Ne7 23.Ba5 Qa7 24.Nc3 h6 25.Qb4 Qc5 26.Qxc5 Rxc5 27.b4 Rcc8 28.b5 axb5 29.Bxb5 Rf8 30.g4 Bg6 31.Bd7 Rc5 32.Bb4 Rc4 33.a3 Rd8 34.Be6+ Bf7 35.Ba5 Bc7 36.Bb4 Bb8 37.Rb1 Kf8 38.Kf1 h5 39.Ke2 Bxe6 40.dxe6 hxg4 41.hxg4 Rxg4 42.Ba5 Re8 43.Rxb7 Nc6 44.Bc7 Bxc7 45.Rxc7 Rc4 46.Rf7+ Kg8 47.Rg1 Rxc3 48.Rfxg7+ Kh8 49.R7g6 Re7 50.Rg8+ Kh7 51.R8g3 Kh8 52.Rg8+ Kh7 53.R8g3 Kh8 54.Rg8+ ½–½

Enough of the history and theory, back to our game.

12.cxd5 Ne7 13.d4 exd4 14.Nxd4 Nf5 15.Nxf5 Bxf5 16.Bb2 Qg5!?

The game has leveled out with the trades of the last Knight. While watching the game I expected here 16..., Qd7 17 g4 Be4 18 Re1. The trick of pushing the b-pawn to b4 is in the air; if Black captures the pawn offered, Qd4 threatens mate and the Bishop on b4 winning. Black of course is under no obligation to grab the pawn and can just retreat the Bishop to b6.

When Black made the text move I was puzzled. The first thought was; Black has three pieces targeting e3, are there some tactics that net him an advantage? I could not find anything decisive for Black, just some dangers that White will have to take into account.

17.Rc1 Be4 18.Rc4,..

The sequence 18 b4 axb4 19 axb4 Bxb4? 20 Rxc7, is tempting, but Black likely will not fall in with White’s wishes but can play 19..., Bb6; with an equal game. The game move makes threats along the 4th rank. If the White Rooks can get to g5 the g7-pawn is attacked twice and its defense problematical.

18..., Qg6 19.Bxe4,..

An interesting decision. I thought at the time White would avoid trading material given the critical sporting nature of the contest; a win by either side nets the title. My guess about how play would go was; 19 Kh2!?, (Preparing f2-f3, and if 19..., Bd3 20 Rg4.) 19..., f6 20 f3?! Bd3 21 Rg4 Bc2!, with complicated play that is not unfavorable for Black; if there is no crashing through attack based on the Rg4, what is White to do with his Rook out there among the pawns? White can opt for something else, say 19 Re1, but then a subsequent f2-f3 still has danger attached. Play might continue; 19 Re1 h6 20 f3 Bf5 21 Kh2 Bxe3 22 Rxc7 Bf2 23 Rxe8+ Rxe8 24 g4 Qg5 25 Bc3 Qd8; when Black has some edge because of the problems around the White King. Those problems are not offset by potential distant passed a-pawn. Getting it rolling is tough when the slightest inaccuracy may well lead to mate. My guess is, for the variations I mention and probably more that Mr. Fineberg examined, he concluded simplification is best.

19..., Rxe4 20.Rxe4 Qxe4 21.Qd2 f6 22.Rc1 b5 23.Rd1 Qf3 24.Re1 Kf7 25.Qd1 Qxd1

The game has been moving towards a drawn outcome. This move is one more step along that path. If Black wanted to keep tension in the game, he could have tried 25..., Qf5; but I don’t see much more he can do if White is careful.

26.Rxd1 f5!?

A not particularly useful loosening of his pawn structure. Better 26..., Re8.

27.Kg2 Re8 28.Kf3 Kg6

During the postmortem I said this was maybe the move that cost Black the game. With Rybka’s help, I looked long and hard, but I was not completely correct in that judgment. Black can hold this position if he finds just the right move. A bigger problem for Black was the clock. The crises approaches and Black was down to sixteen minutes here. White was better off with twenty-three minutes remaining. Now this is not time trouble on the order we have seen with Philip Sells or in the past with Peter Michaelman,, but the ending is tricky and there is considerable play left in the position. It is certainly uncomfortable to know that taking as little as one minute for consideration is a serious matter.

29.Rc1 Re7 30.Rg1! h6?

This is the culprit. With little time to consider deeply what is going on, Black plays to keep things together and to conserve the clock. White has hit upon a methodical approach; open the g-file so as to put maximum pressure on g7, and then, activate his center pawns. A counter-plan is not at all obvious, but it is there. Black should play to liquidate the target with 30..., Kh6!; if then 31 g4 Rf7 32 Ke2 g5 33 gxf5 Rxf5 34 Rg4 Kg6; and while Black is not out of the woods entirely, he has made some progress. Note that “winning” the d-pawn with .., Rxd4?; is answered by e3-e4, trapping the Rd4.

31.g4 fxg4+ 32.hxg4!?,..

I did not have a chance to ask Fineberg why this move when 32 Rxg4, seems so natural. The decision may have turned on nothing more than instinct. Jonathan’s time remaining was now about eleven minutes to Alan’s nine. The situation is anything except clear as yet, and the text keeps the White pawns together anticipating an ending played in a time scramble.

32..., Rf7+ 33.Ke2 Re7 34.Kd3,..

White begins to use a second idea in his plan. From d3 the White King can support the advance of the center pawns. He is also prepared to march on the Black Q-side via c4/b5/c6 if the opportunity is given.

34..., Kf7?

The sustained pressure White has exerted makes a crack. More stubborn is 34..., Rf7.

35.Rg3?,..

White is determined not to rush matters, however here he could have played 35 g5 hxg5 36 Rxg5 Kf8 37 a4, forcing open the c4/b5 pathway for the White King. The dual threats of advancing the pawns in the center and a raid by the White King on the Q-side strains the Black defense to the breaking point.

35..., g5 36.f4?,..

An error that presents Black with a chance to hold the draw. White decides not to preserve the central pawn mass. He elects to go with a passed pawn on the K-side as his trump. I do not think that is the correct way to proceed.

36..., gxf4 37.exf4 Re1 38.g5 hxg5 39.fxg5 Kg6 40.Bc3 Rd1+ 41.Ke4 b4 42.axb4 axb4 43.Bf6 Re1+ 44.Kd3 Rh1 45.Kc4 Rh4+ 46.Kb5 Bf2?

The game has been about equal for the last ten or so moves. Here Black begins to slip. It is understandable. His clock was now down to 28 seconds! The last move does not let the balance tip too much. Black likely was worried about the loss of the pawn on c7 and wanted to distract White. Better is 46..., Rh2; looking for activity for the Rook.

47.Rg2 Be1

The repositioning of the Bishop has left both the c and d-pawn in the lurch.

48.Kc6 Rh7 49.Re2 Bc3 50.Re6 Kf5 51.Bd8 Rg7 1–0

Here the flag fell for Mr. Le Cours. I have to admire the clear creative thought behind Mr. Fineberg’s idea of advancing the g-pawn on move 31. It was the only way to keep up the effort to win. I had written the game off at as a draw and did not consider the move at all. The follow up was not without flaws, but also admirable was the way White maintained the initiative. In building time pressure it is extraordinarily difficult to find just the right move. The defender is stretched between conserving precious time and making positional concessions. In this game, Le Cours made a stubborn defense, it just took too much clock time to do so.

The final standings in the Saratoga Championship were:

1 Jonathan Fineberg 6 - 2
2 Gary Farrell 5 ½ - 2 ½
3 Alan Le Cours 5 - 3
4 Josh Kuperman 2 ½ - 5 ½
5 David Connors 1 - 7
6 Jeff Hrebenach DNF - Games rated but not counted in the standings, less than 50% played.

To sum up the event: Jon Fineberg had a shaky start. In the first cycle he lost to both Le Cours and Farrell while winning as expected against Connors and Kuperman. In the second half of the contest he swept all before him scoring 4 - 0 to take the title.

Mr. Farrell had a spotty performance. He lost to Kuperman in the first half and drew with Connors in the second half. By winning both games against Mr. Le Cours, Gary pulled himself into contention for first place, but his fate was in the hands of others at the end.

Alan Le Cours came close. He nearly had a draw in his last round game that would made a three way tie for first. The clock got him this time.

All things considered, a most interesting event. The down side has to be the low turnout. Only a few years ago we were lamenting the time required to finish the Saratoga Championship because we had 15 or more entrants. I don’t know what can be done to bring attendance up. If anyone has an idea I’d be more than glad to publish it to the chess community here.

More soon.

The Beginning of the Season is Winding Up

2012-01-06T12:57:00.001-05:00

While Wednesday evening saw a good turn out at AACC, only single game was played in the club championship, but a good many casual games were played while it was going on. This week was scheduled for make-up games. The one played featured Jason Denham against Tim Wright, and for some time it looked as if we might have another upset. Such was not to be. Early on Mr. Wright gave up a pawn for very doubtful compensation. Mr. Denham returned it about ten moves later, again, for no clear reason and Wright then had the better game. Turning a technical won Bishop and pawn ending into a recorded victory took many more moves, Mr. Wright did not seriously falter and won in 62 moves.

Including Denham - Wright the standings are now:

1 Henner 4 - 1
2 Howard 4 ½ - 1 ½
3 Magat 4 - 3
4 Alowitz 3 - 3
5 Caravaty 3 - 3
6 Northrup 2 ½ - 1 ½
7 Wright 2 ½ - 3 ½
8 Lack 2 - 3
9 Denham 1 ½ - 4 ½

Denham, Jason - Wright, Tim [A25]
AACC Championship, Guilderland, NY, 04.01.2012

1.c4 Nf6 2.g3 e5 3.Bg2 Bc5 4.Nc3 0–0 5.e3 Nc6 6.Nge2,..

A position from theory. Here are couple of examples of how top flight players treat the position:

(427783) Chernin, Alexander (2600) - Anand, Viswanathan (2725) [A25]
PCA/Intel-GP Paris (2.3), 11.11.1995
1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 Nc6 4.Nc3 Bc5 5.e3 0–0 6.Nge2 d6 7.0–0 Bb6 8.d3 Be6 9.Nd5 Bxd5 10.cxd5 Ne7 11.Nc3 c6 12.dxc6 Nxc6 13.Qb3 Na5 14.Qa3 d5 15.Na4 Nc6 16.Bd2 Bc7 17.Rac1 Rb8 18.b4 Ne7 19.Qb3 Re8 20.Rfd1 h6 21.Rc2 Bd6 22.Nc3 Bc7 23.Rdc1 d4 24.exd4 Nf5 25.Ne2 Bb6 26.Bc3 e4 27.dxe4 Nxe4 28.Bb2 Bxd4 29.Nxd4 Nxd4 30.Bxd4 Qxd4 31.Qc4 Rbd8 32.a3 Qf6 33.Bxe4 Rd4 34.Qb5 Rdxe4 35.Rc8 ½–½

(1240050) Kuehn, Peter (2426) - Bauer, Christian (2634) [A25]
EU-Cup 23rd Kemer (2), 04.10.2007
1.g3 e5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Bg2 Nc6 4.Nc3 Bc5 5.e3 0–0 6.Nge2 d6 7.0–0 a6 8.a3 Ba7 9.h3 Re8 10.d3 Ne7 11.b4 c6 12.d4 Be6 13.dxe5 dxe5 14.c5 Qc8 15.Kh2 Bc4 16.e4 Qe6 17.Be3 Rad8 18.Qc1 Bb8 19.Qb2 Ng6 20.Rfd1 Nf4 21.Nxf4 exf4 22.Bxf4 Bxf4 23.gxf4 Nh5 24.Rxd8 Rxd8 25.Rd1 Rxd1 26.Nxd1 Nxf4 27.Qd4 g6 28.Ne3 Be2 29.Qd8+ Kg7 30.Qg5 Nh5 31.Nf5+ Kf8 32.Qd8+ Qe8 33.Qd6+ Kg8 34.Ne7+ Kg7 35.e5 f5 36.Qc7 Kf8 37.Nc8 Nf4 38.Qd6+ Kg7 39.Qf6+ Kh6 40.Ne7 Bd3 41.Bf3 Nh5 42.Bxh5 Kxh5 43.f4 h6 44.e6 Be4 [44...Bc4 45.Nxf5; 44...Bc2 45.Qf7 Qxf7 46.exf7] 45.Kg3 1–0

6..., Re8?

Compared to the sample master games above Wright takes a different approach here; he wants to push the e-pawn to e4. If the wish is to obstruct the long diagonal, it does not to work.

7.0–0 e4 8.a3 a5 9.d3?,..

Logical is to focus on the e-pawn. It is not quite adequately defended. White should play 9 Qc2, if then 9..., Qe7 10 Nf4 d6 11 Ncd5 Nxd5 12 Nxd5; when the fork threat at c7 requires Black to give up the e-pawn. The text gives Black the chance to trade off the weakling letting him off the hook.

9..., exd3 10.Qxd3 Ne5 11.Qc2 c6

Contemplating the push of the d-pawn to d5. The more restrained approach 11..., d6; is possible. In that case an active plan for Black might be offering the b-pawn to concentrate fire on the somewhat weakened light squares around the White King with 11..., d6 12 b3 Bg4!? 13 Bxb7 Rb8 14 Bg2 Qc8. Black has compensation for the pawn but no more than that. The game is about equal then.

12.b3 d5?

Played on general principles perhaps but not correctly calculated. This move drops a pawn because the Bc5 is loose. White now has a measurable advantage.

13.cxd5 cxd5 14.Nxd5 Bd6 15.Nxf6+ Qxf6 16.Bb2 Bf5 17.e4 Rac8 18.Qb1?

Success has a bad effect on White’s ambitions. Here he may have been too worried about tactics involving a potential Knight fork at f3 of his King and Queen. A clear evaluation of the position would have permitted Mr. Denham to play 18 Qd2, then 18..., Bg4 19 h3, relying on the pin on the Ne5 to keep things under control. The text lets go of some of the advantage White had in hand.

18..., Bg4 19.Nf4!?..,

Consolidation with 19 f3, might be better. Black would then have a tough choice. He could sacrifice a piece for a pawn and some pressure with 19..., Bxf3 20 Bxf3 Nxf3+ 21 Kg2 Nh4+ 22 gxh4 Qxh4 23 Ng3. It looks to me and Rybka that there is not enough pressure to offset the material. Safe and sane play is 19..., Bd7 20 f4 Bc5+ 21 Kh1 Qa6 22 Bxe5 Qxe2 23 Re1 Qb5; when the extra pawn White has is offset somewhat by having all the long range pieces on the board.

19..., Qh6 20.Bxe5?,..

Giving back the pawn without any just cause. Once more consolidation with 20 f3 Bd7 21 Bd4, leaves White with some advantage.

20..., Bxe5 21.Ra2 Bxf4 22.gxf4 Qxf4

Worse than the material balance being restored is the White King’s field is now shaky. Even with his light squared Bishop still on the board, there are problems with those squares.

23.Qd3,..

White has to guard against .., Rc3; intensifying the dangers to the White King. He could also try 23 Rc2, hoping that the simplifying line; 23..., Rxc2 24 Qxc2 Bf3 25 Bxf3 Qxf3 26 Re1 h6 27 Re3 Qg4+ 28 Kf1, would be an easier defensive task.

23..., Be6 24.Rb2?!,..

Logical but passive letting Black improve his position. Worth consideration is 24 Qb5!?, seeking compensation in dynamic play. This course would require both sides to calculate many variations. After the text calculations are easier for Black. He has the initiative, and making threats is more pleasant than meeting them.

24..., Rc5 25.Qg3 Qf6 26.Rfb1 Rg5 27.Qe3 Rc8 28.f4 Rgc5 29.e5 Qg6

Black has played pretty straight forwardly getting control of the c-file while keeping threats alive against the White King. This approach is tough to meet. White has to be right at every turn, while Black has more latitude.

30.Qg3?,..

This very logical looking move proves the point. Here White needed to play 30 Rd1, then if 30..., Rc3? 31 Qxc3 Rxc3 32 Rd8 mates. In that case 30..., h6; is logical, and after 31 Rd2, White has at least activated his Rooks. Black still has a solid advantage, but White has created some fighting chances. The text simplifies the game and drops a pawn. The same color Bishop ending favors Black. Is it a clear win? While watching the game I was not certain. During the quiet contemplation of analysis, and with the help of Rybka, it is won for Black, albeit the process is lengthy.

30..., Rc1+ 31.Rxc1 Rxc1+ 32.Kf2 Rc2+ 33.Rxc2 Qxc2+ 34.Ke1 Qc1+ 35.Ke2 Qxa3 36.Bxb7 Qxb3 37.Qxb3 Bxb3

The outside passed pawn combined with the weakness of the K-side pawns is all that is required for Black to win, but there still chances for White to create difficulties.

38.Kd2 Kf8 39.Kc3 a4 40.Bc6,..

White could take a different track with 40 Be4. Tricky play follows 40..., h6;
(40..., Ke7; looks drawn after 41 Bxh7 g6 42 f5, etc. because the White King has just enough time to get back in front of the f-pawn - the passed White h-pawn restrains Black sufficiently to allow that to happen.) 41 h4 g6 42 Kb4 Ke7 43 f5 g5 44 hxg5 hxg5 45 Bf3 f6 46 e6 Bc2 47 Bg4 Kd6 48 Ka3 Bb3 49 Kb4 Ke5 50 e7 Bf7; etc. Tough stuff to calculate, but Black seems to be winning.

White would rather engineer some trade that gets off most of the other pawns and then sacrifice his Bishop for the remaining K-side pawn leaving Black saddled with an a-pawn and a Bishop of the wrong color. It is a well known draw if the White King can get to a1. To underline once more the flaws of computer analysis, Deep Rybka gives Black a big edge when the position gets down to a bare White King versus a light squared Black Bishop and an a-pawn no matter where the Kings are situated. These type of endings require a table base if you want to rely on the electronic monster.

Consulting the pundits, Fine and Dvoretsky, gives this wisdom; an outside passed pawn and a qualitative superiority in pawn formation is a likely win for the side with the extra pawn if the stronger side can avoid the drawing pitfalls. The outside passed pawn exists, and the only remaining question is can White find a trick to get to the drawn ending. Both players were sure the other was well aware of the draw to had with the wrong colored Bishop they confirmed after the game.

40..., Ke7 41.f5 g6 42.e6,..

Maybe not the best move here, but it at least heads for a position with drawing chances.

42..., fxe6?

Definitely not the best move. Better 42..., gxf5; making passed pawn while keeping the h-pawns on the board. In that situation the f-pawn will cost White his Bishop soon enough, the a-pawn keeps the White King from interfering and the h-pawn remains to seal the deal. The way Mr. Wright elects to go is almost the same but takes a bit longer and lacks the insurance policy.

43.fxg6 hxg6 44.h4 Kf6 45.Be4 Kg7 46.Kb4 Kh6 47.Ka3 Kh5 48.Kb2 Kxh4 49.Bxg6 Kg3

White’s only hope is to sacrifice his Bishop for the e-pawn.

50.Be4 Kf4 51.Bc6 e5 52.Bb7 Ke3

Rybka, even this very materially reduced position, keeps suggesting e5-e4. It just does not see that if the e-pawn disappears the game is drawn. It is an “event horizon” problem for the computer. Black however understands the situation clearly. He knows the a-pawn may be given up at the right moment when his Bishop can interfere with the White Bishop’s prevention of e-pawn’s advance.

53.Ba6?,..

By playing 53 Kc3, White could have made Black seriously work for the point. At c3 the White King keeps the Black King from getting to the ideal square, d4, for executing his planned e-pawn advance. Black is still winning. He’d have to find the idea of getting a pawn through to Queen in a different fashion; 53 Kc3 Bd1 54 Bc8 a3 55 Be6 e4! 56 Bd5 Ba4 57 Bb7 Kf4 58 Bd5 e3 59 Bc4 Kf3 60 Bd5+ Kf2 61 Bc4 e2 62 Bxe2 Kxe2; and the net of Black pieces force the White King to move away to b4, c4 or d4, letting through the a-pawn. Finding all of that over the board would have been challenging for Black with the clocks ticking away.

53..., Kd4 54.Bb7 Kc5 55.Ka3 Bd5

Interference, an important stratagem in same color Bishop endings.

56.Ba6 Bc6 57.Be2 e4 58.Bh5 Kd4 59.Be2 Ke3 60.Bh5 Kf2 61.Bd1 e3 62.Kb2 Bf3 0–1

Opposition, a second important stratagem in same color Bishop endings, and it ends resistance because the e-pawn will Queen one way or another.

Although there were mistakes by both sides in the opening and early middle game, the players did treat us to an interesting and well played ending full of theoretical and instructional interest. Many times in local game we get just the reverse; good play in the opening and middle games with a big fall off in the standard of play in the ending. That is likely due to time pressure and fatigue. In this game both players managed their clocks carefully and came to the ending with enough time to search for the right moves. I believe this game did credit to both participants. Well done to Mr. Wright and to Mr. Denham!

Thursday was another quiet evening at Schenectady. Play is just about over in the Preliminaries and all the participants identified for the Finals as reported in my last post. A couple of folks dropped in and some casual games were played with an early adjournment.

Bill Townsend is considering getting the Finals started next week or the week following. He also passed on some news from the North Country; the very last game of the Saratoga Championship is to be played this Sunday evening. Alan Le Cours and Jonathan Fineberg meet for the second time in this double round-robin event. All is on the line in this game. If Le Cours wins he takes the title. If Fineberg wins he is Champion. A draw and Gary Farrell finishes in first winning the title on tie-breaks. With some luck I will be able to attend the Saratoga meeting Sunday to report the result of the game.

Bill also mentioned he is working on the organization for this year’s Capital district League. Contact is still to be made with RPI and the Troy clubs to confirm participation. There is an issue to be cleared up regarding the Saratoga B Team, Last year it was made up of players mostly from the Schenectady club. The question is how will the team be identified this year? Townsend and David Finnerman, the team captain, are to discuss the matter. We should be hearing shortly about dates and schedules for League play.

More soon.

The Finals Line Up Decided at Schenectady

2011-12-31T16:44:00.001-05:00

The initial part of the chess season is coming to a close along with the year 2011. Just about all of the games of the preliminary sectional play at Schenectady are complete. One of the last games to finish games was of particular import; Le Cours versus Connors. They played Thursday evening in Saratoga. The outcome of that game determined the third qualifier from Section B. As the ratings predicted, Alan Le Cours won the game. This means Richard Chu is the third qualifier from Section B. Other than a few souls patiently waiting for news from Saratoga, not much was happening at the Schenectady Club Thursday evening. The now only unfinished game, Capitummino - Stanley, was rescheduled to a later date due to family illness.

The line up for the Schenectady Finals is; Philips Sells, Carlos Varela and Zack Calderone from Section A, joining John Phillips, Alan Le Cours and Richard Chu from Section B. Several of the strong Schenectady players did not participate this year; Deepak Aaron, Patrick Chi, Carl Adamec, and Michael Mockler, making opportunity for some new faces in the Finals. We have first time appearances by Varela and Calderone. I am not certain if Richard Chu made the Finals before, but it surely has been some time since he has done so. Good Chess to all the finalists!

Wednesday saw three games played at the Albany Area Chess Club. All were upsets in one way or another. The game Henner - Howard was rescheduled to a later date by mutual agreement. This will be an important game in determining first place It is between the two clear leaders in the event. The results of the games played were: Lack - Denham ½ -½ , Alowitz - Northrup 0-1 and Magat - Caravaty 0-1.

Jon Lack and Jason Denham played to a draw. That was something of an upset. Lack is rated three hundred points higher than Denham. Jon took his usual closed approach to Denham’s Sicilian Defense. Neither side seemed willing to force open lines and soon the pawn chains were locked across the board. Black had a big space advantage on the Q-side but no way to make use of it. With the center blocked and no entry points anywhere, they agreed to split the point on move 30.

Gordon Magat obtained a pretty substantial advantage against Caravaty’s offbeat Alekhine’s Defense. Then approaching time problems seemed to have a really terrible effect on Gordon’s play. The advantage was lost, and then Mr. Magat’s clock ran out. This result was significant in that it makes Gordon’s chances of finishing in the top two places overall problematical. In the AACC event, the top two finishers overall play a two game match for the title. It also makes the struggle for the under 1800 prize far less clear than it was a week ago. Mr. Caravaty has hauled himself up to equal in points with Mr. Alowitz.

Art Alowitz had a pretty good year up to this game with Northrup. Against the top four rated opponents he scored two wins, a draw and just one loss. The betting was he take the top under 1800 spot with ease. The defeat by Cory Northrup tightens the race for first under 1800, Northrup pulls to within one-half point of Alowitz and Caravaty.

The standings are now:

1 Henner 4 - 1
2 Howard 4 ½ - 1 ½
3 Magat 4 - 3
4 Alowitz 3 - 3
5 Caravaty 3 - 3
6 Northrup 2 ½ - 1 ½
7 Lack 2 - 3
8 Wright 1 ½ - 3 ½
9 Denham 1 ½ - 4 ½

Rescheduled games make a strict comparison of results impossible, but Henner leads on fewest lost points with Howard close behind. Their game looks crucial for deciding first place in preliminary play. Based on form so far, these two seem to be the likely title match opponents. Gordon Magat’s three losses means he has to hope for Henner or Howard to have a real collapse in the closing rounds to have a chance for a playoff spot. Alowitz, Caravaty and Northrup are closely bunched for the playoff spots for the under 1800 title. All three have had a mix of good and bad results in this year’s contest. I think it is a real toss-up which two of the three will qualify for the final under 1800 match.

Our game today is the mild upset Cory Northrup pulled off against Arthur Alowitz. Earlier in the tournament I thought Arthur was playing so well he had chances to make the match for the top spot and wondered what the rules said about that. Could he play in both matches; Club Champion and top under 1800? Ratings are expressions of probability. Under the laws of probability all outcomes are possible, but the odds are the actual outcomes will be as predicted. In this game we see a leveling of results; Arthur did very well versus opponents rated higher than he was, now the tide turns.

Alowitz, Arthur - Northrup, Cory [B07]
AACC Championship Guilderland, NY, 28.12.2011

1.d4 d6 2.e4 Nf6 3.f3 Nbd7 4.c3 e5

Mr. Alowitz as rule avoids the more usual lines used against the Pirc/Modern/Old Indian set up Black is using. Such an approach stays away from possible surprises an opponent may have prepared. It takes confidence in one’s own ability to improvise at the board to follow this path.

5.Bg5 Be7 6.Bc4 0–0 7.Ne2 h6 8.Be3 c6 9.Nd2 b5?

Black misses a chance to punish White for wishing to go his own way. The underlying idea for Black in the Modern Defense is to lure White into building a big center and then to blow up that center hoping to obtain free development of his pieces. This is the moment to set off the bomb with 9..., d5! Quite a complicated interlude ensues after say 10 exd5 cxd5 11 Bd3 Bd6! 12 0-0 e4 13 fxe4!? Bxh2+ 14 Kh1 Ng4 15 Rf3 Ndf6 16 e5? Nxe3; and Black has a strong attack on the White King. Of course there are places for White to improve his play in the line cited, but it is clearly the way to put the question to White’s handling of the opening. The game move does not address the center control issue, and therefore is less likely to work out for Black in the long run.

10.Bb3 a5 11.0–0 Bb7 12.Qe1?,..

I don’t see what White has in mind with this move. Logical are; 12 Ng3, heading foe f5, and 12 a4, to maintain the Bishop on the a2-g8 diagonal.

12..., Rc8?

Going slowly towards problems. Again logic suggests 12..., a4 13 Bc2 Nh5; pressuring the squares around the White King hoping to lure the defending pawns forward. As the White defenses of his King loosen, the break with ..d6-d5; may just open vital lines. Black is very much in a counter-punching mode here. He waits for White, he provokes White, he stays alert for any chance to break open the game favorably.

13.Ng3 d5 14.exd5 exd4 15.Bxd4 cxd5 16.Nf5 Bc5 17.Qg3?,..

This is not as good as 17 Bxc5 Rxc5 18 Qg3, with an idea similar to the game, or 17 Qh4, defending d4 from the flank. Either way White works to maintain the basis for the edge he now enjoys; a superior pawn formation plus a Bishop less obstructed by its own pawns.. The game continuation lets that slip.

17..., Bxd4+ 18.cxd4,..

The pawn formations are now equal and the only remnant of White’s advantage is his better Bishop.

18..., Nh5 19.Qf2?,..

The aggressive move by the Black Knight begets a passive response. White has choices here; a) 19 Qd6, is the most active and it keeps the advantage, and b) 19 Nxh6+?!, is the most adventurous but favors Black after 19..., Kh7 20 Qh3 Kxh6 21 g4, and White will get back the piece but his position has many weaknesses.

19..., Qg5?

One square too far on the diagonal. If the Queen stopped on f6, then d6 is covered for a moment. The continuation after 19..., Qf6; 20 g4 Nf4 21 Kh1 a4 22 Qe3 Ne6 23 Bd1, favors Black, not by a lot true enough but measurably in a very tactical situation. White may well get in Nf5-d6, but Black has further weakened the White K-side as compensation.

20.Nd6 Nf4 21.Kh1 Rb8 22.Nxb7?,..

A hasty move. Black threatens .., Nd3; hitting the Queen and the pawn at b2. At this point White may have thought first I’ll take off the Bb7, then I’ll see what else there is to do. Unfortunately, what is needed is just a bit more consideration. Better is 22 g3 Nd3!? 23 Qe2 Nxb2 24 f4 Qf6 25 Nxb7 Rxb7 26 Bxd5, and White has some advantage. After the text Black could get away with a pawn. The situation is then fairly complex giving White some chance to find compensation for the lost pawn.

22..., Rxb7 23.Rfe1?,..

An oversight that drops material. Chess puts a premium on consistent alertness. Good, or at least acceptable play, for most of the game can be overturned by a moment of inattention. This is what happens here.

23..., Nd3 24.Qe3 Nxe1 25.Qxe1 Nf6 26.Nf1 a4 27.Bc2 Re8 28.Qf2 Rbe7 29.Bd3 Rb7?

Black had done well over the last few moves. Now he wavers. The natural move is 29..., b4; continuing to squeeze White. If White tries 30 Bb5 Ra8; keeps the pressure on.

30.Ng3 Qe3 31.Qc2,..

Giving up a pawn to keep the Queens on in hopes of something turning up tactically.

31..., Qxd4 32.Rd1 Qe5 33.Kg1 Rc7 34.Qd2 Rb7?

Still wavering. Black can’t quite decide how to cash in his advantage. It is time for 34..., b4; and if 35 Qxb4? Qe3+ 36 Kf1 Rc1; and White is utterly lost.

35.Kf1 Qe3 36.Qc2 Qe5 37.Qc6 Rbb8 38.Qc2 Qf4 39.b3,..

Black has not been able reach a decision about how to proceed. White is running out of moves here. Trying to keep things as is with say 39 Qb1, is met by 39..., Ng4; and Black is making progress.

39..., a3

Not as good as 39..., axb3; every line opened has to help the side with more material.

40.Qc5 Rec8 41.Qxa3 b4 42.Qb2 Rc3!?

Queens and Knights work so very well together to attack Kings suggesting 42..., Ng4; is another way to the win. Play might go; 42..., Ng4; threatening a fork on e3 of the King and Rook, 43 Nf5, making some threats of his own, 43..., Rc3 44 Qe2 Rc1; forcing the exchange of Rooks and Queens. The resulting ending is a straight forward technical win for Black. Black just has to keep his pawn on d5 for awhile to avoid threats to f7 until his pieces are better placed. The text tempts White to recover the Exchange allowing Black to exploit the weakened situation of the White King.

43.Ne2?,..

The temptation is too great for White. He could keep the game going for awhile with 43 Qd2, although Black still has a considerable advantage.

43..., Qxh2

Black elected to convert a material advantage to a positional advantage. This is not the most certain way to victory unless the moves have been calculated accurately.

44.Nxc3 bxc3 45.Qc2,..

If 45 Qxc3 Qh1+ 46 Ke2 Qxg2+; and a) 47 Ke1 Re8+ 48 Bd4 dxe4; is easily won for Black, or b) 47 Ke3 Re8+ 47 Be4 (It’s mate on the move on either 47 Kd4, or 47 Kf4.) 47..., dxe4; likewise won for Black.

45..., d4 46.Bc4 Rd8?

Mr. Northrup is being super-cautious. A quick kill come after 46..., Re8; and if 47 Rxd4? Qh1+; and it is mate the next move. If White tries 47 Qg6, Black wins with 47..., Qh1+ 48 Kf2 Qxd1; and we have an example of how ineffective the Queen and Bishop in attacking the King as compared to the Queen and Knight. Black will make a second Queen on c1 long before White can rearrange is pieces to make any serious threat to the Black King. Even going slowly makes only a small difference, now the Black Queen and Knight demonstrate how effective they are doing the same thing.

47.Kf2 Nh5 48.Qf5 Qg3+ 49.Kg1 Nf4 50.Qc2 h5

Also winning is 50...Nh3+, Black instead likes the slower advance of the h-pawn. This lets the game go on for a few more moves than strictly necessary.

51.a4 h4 52.Qf2?,..

Stepping on a landmine after many moves under pressure. With 52 Bb5, White could have lengthened the game without changing the outcome. Now decisive material is lost and the game ends.

52..., Nh3+ 53.Kh1 0–1

Cory Northrup played in the Schenectady Prelims and had a hard time of it. He lost five games before winning in the last round. Even while suffering through that difficult experience, Mr. Northrup maintained a good fighting spirit, and in the AACC event this win puts him into contention for the under 1800 prize.

Happy New Year to all! More soon.

Section A Decided at Schenectady

2011-12-26T15:32:00.001-05:00

Thursday last saw one of the questions about the qualifiers to the Schenectady Finals answered. Two of the younger participants met to decided who would take the third chair from Preliminary Section A. In a mild upset Zack Calderone won a sharp Sicilian, and now will make his first appearance in the Finals.

Aaron, Dilip - Calderone, Zack [B90]
SCC Prelim A Schenectady, NY, 22.12.2011

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.f3 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.Be3 Be7 9.Qd2 Nbd7 10.0–0–0 0–0 11.g4 b5 12.h4,..

Up to here this has been topical at top level chess for a very long time. Robert Byrne and Bobby Fischer argued the merits of the line in a blitz game in 1971. Note Byrne used the recommended plan for White; an early g4-g5 to shunt the Black Nf6 to h5 to cut down Black piece activity in the center. A creative middle game saw the advantage wax and wane for both sides until Fischer emerged with a winning endgame.

(88454) Byrne, Robert E - Fischer, Robert James [B90]
Manhattan blitz New York, 1971
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e5 7.Nb3 Be7 8.f3 0–0 9.Qd2 Be6 10.0–0–0 Nbd7 11.g4 b5 12.g5 Nh5 13.Nd5 Bxd5 14.exd5 Rc8 15.Bh3 Rc7 16.Na5 Nb8 17.Bg4 Nf4 18.h4 f5 19.gxf6 Bxf6 20.Bb6 Rxc2+ 21.Qxc2 Qxb6 22.Nc6 Rf7 23.Nxb8 Qxb8 24.Kb1 Rc7 25.Qb3 Ne2 26.Qe3 Nf4 27.Rc1 h5 28.Be6+ Kh7 29.Qe4+ g6 30.Rhg1 Kh6 31.Rc6 Rxc6 32.dxc6 Qb6 33.Rc1 Nxe6 34.Qd5 Nc7 35.Qxd6 Bg7 36.Qe7 Kh7 37.a3 a5 38.Rd1 Qxc6 39.Rd7 Ne6 40.Rd6 Qxf3 41.Qxe6 Qf5+ 42.Ka2 e4 43.Qe7 Kh6 44.Rd7 Qf6 45.Qxf6 Bxf6 46.Rd5 e3 47.Rd3 e2 48.Re3 Bxh4 49.Rxe2 Bg3 50.Kb3 h4 51.a4 bxa4+ 52.Kxa4 h3 0–1

Almost forty years later the soon to be World’s number one played the line in a blindfold game against a very strong Chinese GM. He tried a similar plan to the one Byrne used, with same result. Once more Black obtained a winning endgame.

(1244292) Carlsen, Magnus (2714) - Bu Xiangzhi (2692) [B90]
World Cup blindfold Bilbao (3), 17.10.2007
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e5 7.Nb3 Be7 8.f3 Be6 9.Qd2 0–0 10.0–0–0 Nbd7 11.g4 b5 12.Rg1 b4 13.Na4 Qc7 14.Qxb4 Rfc8 15.Qd2 a5 16.g5 Nh5 17.Kb1 Rcb8 18.Nc1 Rb4 19.Nc3 Rab8 20.b3 Nb6 21.Ka1 d5 22.exd5 Nxd5 23.Nxd5 Bxd5 24.Be2 a4 25.Qxd5 Rd8 26.Qxd8+ Bxd8 27.Nd3 Rb8 28.Nc5 Be7 29.Rd7 Qa5 30.Ne4 axb3 31.cxb3 Ra8 32.Rd2 Bb4 33.Rc2 Nf4 34.Bc4 Nd5 35.Bxd5 Qxd5 36.Rgc1 h5 37.g6 fxg6 38.Ng5 Kf8 39.Bc5+ Bxc5 40.Rxc5 Qd2 41.Rc8+ Rxc8 42.Rxc8+ Ke7 43.Rc7+ Ke8 44.Ne4 Qd1+ 45.Kb2 Qxf3 46.Rc4 Qe2+ 47.Kc3 Qxa2 48.h4 Kd7 49.Ra4 Qe2 50.Rc4 Qe1+ 51.Kc2 Ke7 52.Ng5 Qf2+ 53.Kc3 Kd8 54.Re4 Kd7 55.Rc4 Qg3+ 56.Kc2 Qh2+ 57.Kc3 Kd6 58.b4 Qg3+ 59.Kc2 Qf2+ 60.Kc3 Qe1+ 61.Kc2 Qa1 62.Kb3 Qd1+ 63.Kc3 Qb1 64.Nf7+ Kd5 65.Rc5+ Ke6 66.Ng5+ Kd7 67.Rc4 Qf1 68.Ne4 Qf3+ 69.Kc2 Qe2+ 70.Kc3 Qe1+ 71.Kb3 Qd1+ 72.Kc3 Ke7 73.b5 Qb1 74.Rb4 Qe1+ 75.Kb3 Qxh4 76.b6 0–1

Enough of these less than fully serious games. Now we look at Anand winning a game contributing to his reaching the world title. Black takes a slower route (9..., Nb6), and White wins in the ending this time.

(1233567) Anand, Viswanathan (2792) - Morozevich, Alexander (2758) [B90]
World Championship Mexico City (11), 25.09.2007
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.f3 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.Be3 Nbd7 9.g4 Nb6 10.g5 Nh5 11.Qd2 Rc8 12.0–0–0 Be7 13.Rg1 0–0 14.Kb1 Qc7 15.Qf2 Nc4 16.Bxc4 Bxc4 17.Nd5 Bxd5 18.Rxd5 f5 19.gxf6 Rxf6 20.Qe2 Nf4 21.Bxf4 Rxf4 22.Rd3 Qd7 23.Nc1 Rcf8 24.a3 Kh8 25.Na2 Qh3 26.Rg3 Qh5 27.Qg2 Rh4 28.h3 Qh6 29.Rb3 b5 30.Nb4 Rh5 31.Qf1 Rh4 32.Qg2 Rh5 33.Nxa6 Bh4 34.Rg4 Bf6 35.Qe2 Rxh3 36.Rxb5 Bd8 37.Rb8 Qf6 38.Nb4 Rxf3 39.Nd5 Qf7 40.Qa6 h5 41.Rg2 h4 42.Qxd6 Be7 43.Qxe5 Rxb8 44.Qxb8+ Kh7 45.Qc7 Bf8 46.Qxf7 Rxf7 47.Rg4 Rf1+ 48.Ka2 Rh1 49.e5 Bc5 50.e6 Kh6 51.Rc4 h3 52.Rxc5 h2 53.Ne3 Ra1+ 54.Kxa1 h1Q+ 55.Ka2 Qe4 56.Re5 1–0

12..., b4

Sharpest and may be the best course for Black. Opposite side castling puts a premium value on time. Getting to grips with the opposing King’s guardians makes a serious difference. In the following game Black takes time to shift a Knight to b6 (12..., Nb6) and White wins once more.

(318628) Tolnai, Tibor (2490) - Henriksson, Christer (2355) [B90]
EU-chT (Men) Debrecen (1), 1992
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e5 7.Nb3 Be7 8.f3 Be6 9.Qd2 Nbd7 10.0–0–0 0–0 11.g4 b5 12.h4 Nb6 13.g5 Nfd7 14.Kb1 Qc7 15.h5 Nc5 16.g6 b4 17.Nd5 Nxd5 18.exd5 Nxb3 19.axb3 Bf5 20.Bd3 Bxd3 21.Qxd3 Qd7 22.Rdg1 Bf6 23.gxh7+ Kh8 24.Bg5 Qe7 25.Qf5 Bxg5 26.Rxg5 Qf6 27.h6 1–0

Just to illustrate there are more strings to the bow for White, here is a game from a recent European Cup. In this one White plays 8 Bg5, and 9 Bxf6, not being tied slavishly to general principles (keeping the better of his Bishops) in the interest of eliminating a Black Knight that can be influential in the center.

(909314) Fejzullahu, Afrim (2302) - Arizmendi Martinez, Julen Luis (2531) [B90]
EUCup 20th Izmir (1), 03.10.2004
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.f3 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.Bg5 Be7 9.Bxf6 Bxf6 10.Nd5 Bg5 11.g3 Nc6 12.h4 Bh6 13.g4 Bf4 14.Nxf4 exf4 15.Qd2 Qf6 16.0–0–0 Rd8 17.Nd4 d5 18.Nxe6 fxe6 19.g5 Qe5 20.exd5 Rxd5 21.Bd3 0–0 22.Rhe1 Qd6 23.Rxe6 Qxe6 24.Bc4 Kh8 25.Bxd5 Qe8 26.Re1 Qh5 27.Qf2 Rd8 28.Bxc6 bxc6 29.Re4 Qf7 30.b3 Qd5 31.Qe2 Rf8 32.Re8 Qf7 33.Rxf8+ Qxf8 34.Qxa6 Qe8 35.Qd3 h6 36.Qe4 1–0

A general conclusion is White does better if he can do something about the Black Knight on f6; drive it or trade it to reduce Black’s influence in the center. Returning to our game:

13.Nd5 Bxd5 14.exd5 a5 15.Qh2?!,..

This move struck me as unusual when it was made. I could not see how White was going to open the h-file quickly. The best idea I came up with was: h4-h5, g4-g5, and g5-g6, thinking about sacrificing the Be3 on h6 if Black advances that pawn. There problems with the idea; Black is on the move and can make threats, the White d-pawn is not well defended, and the several moves it would take to carry out the plan means the Black Q-side pawns will close with the White King’s defenders well before the White K-side pawns can do the same. White had to play 15 g5, pushing the Nf6 away from the center. Failing to do so lets Black carry out a sparkling attack.

15..., a4 16.Nd2?!,..

Better than the ugly 16 Na1, but not enough better to hold the game.

16..., Nxd5 17.Bf2?,..

Here White had to try 17 Nc4?!. Black then can take the Be3 right away, or first push 16..., b3; and either way he has good chances with the exposed White King on which to focus. The text leads to a quick finish.

17..., Nf4!?

Sharpest is 17..., a3; then a) 18 Bc4 axb2+ 19 Kxb2 Qa5; and White is in trouble. If a1) 19 Kb1 Nc3+ 20 Kxb2 Qa5; is worse, and b) 18 b3 Nc3 19 Re1 d5; looks horrible.

18.Ne4?!,..

If White just did not blunder the d-pawn, this move must be the idea behind the pawn sacrifice. From e4 the Knight can go to g5 and give itself up on h7; the problem is finding the time to make this happen. A little more resistant is 18 Bg3, then 18..., Ne6 19 Kb1 Qc7 20 Nc4 Nb6 21 b3 Nxc4 22 Bxc4 Ra5; when Black has a solid advantage, but White can still fight on.

18..., d5 19.Ng5 b3

Making contact well before White can do so on the other side of the board. One useful guidepost when calculating in opposite side castling situations; the side that closes with the enemy defenders first most often wins. The threats and checks that become possible are so forcing that the opposing attack is stalled.

20.axb3,..

White has only the choice of how he wants to be mated now. The alternative 20 a3, is met with 20..., bxc2 21 Rd2 Bxa6; completing the destruction of the house of the White King. Mate will occur very shortly after say; 22 Rxc2 Bd6 23 Be3 a6; etc.

20..., axb3 21.c3 Qa5!

My first reaction here was 21..., Ra1+ 22 Kd2 Rxd1+?!; but White can resist with 23 Kxd1 Qa5 24 Be3, and things are not quite clear yet. The text ups the ante immediately. With the Queen on the field mate looms.

22.Bd3,..

Also lost is 22 Bg3 Qa1+ 23 Kd2 Qxb2+ 24 Ke1 Qxc3+.

22..., Nxd3+ 23.Rxd3 Qa1+ 24.Kd2 Qxb2+ 25.Ke1 Ra1+ 26.Rd1 Rxd1+ 27.Kxd1 Qc2+ 28.Ke1 b2 0–1

White will soon be down a whole Rook, and worse still, Black retains a strong initiative that will permit him to force off most of the remaining pieces leaving a won ending.

Quite an interesting game from these two youthful players maybe foretelling an important rivalry for the next few years at Schenectady. Such clashes between up and coming youngsters have in the past been key to the Schenectady Club’s being the largest of the local clubs. When we get a couple of rivals battling for a higher place in the pecking order, it seems to attract others to the club wanting to measure themselves against the rivals. Here’s hoping this is the case now.

More soon.

Dean Howard Takes the Lead at AACC

2011-12-22T17:02:00.003-05:00

There was only a single game played Wednesday in the Albany Area Chess Club event. It was a scheduled make-up round. Two of the higher rated contestants met; Jon Lack and Dean Howard. Lack was striving to get into the mix for the top spot and Howard trying to close in on the leaders; Magat and Henner. They played an Alekhine’s Defense, the Four Pawns Attack, a debut frequently seen in AACC Championships when Matt Katrine won his several titles in years past, but so much of late. White made a determined effort to win the game. The theoretical sideline he chose has chances to be successful, but it requires a certain amount of reckless abandon to carry it off. Mr. Lack tried to keep things under control, and that did not turn out well for him.

Lack, Jonathan - Howard, Dean [B03]
AACC Championship Guilderland, NY, 22.12.2011

1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.c4 Nb6 4.d4 d6 5.f4 dxe5 6.fxe5 Nc6 7.Nf3!?,..

The standard move here is 7 Be3, delaying putting a Knight on f3 early. The move 7 Nf3, gives Black a place for his Bc8 on g4. The standard 7 Be3, makes Black decide between playing 7..., e6; and 7..., Bf5. Here are a couple examples from when Alekhine’s Defense was fairly new.

(17317) Ilyin Zhenevsky, Alexander - Levenfish, Grigory [B03]
Leningrad Championship, 1936
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.c4 Nb6 4.d4 d6 5.f4 dxe5 6.fxe5 Nc6 7.Nf3 Bg4 8.e6 fxe6 9.c5 Nd5 10.Bb5 Qd7 11.Nbd2 g6 12.Qa4 Bg7 13.Ne5 Bxe5 14.dxe5 Ne3 15.Qe4 Qd4 16.Bxc6+ bxc6 17.Qxd4 Nc2+ 18.Kf2 Nxd4 19.Nb3 Nc2 20.Rb1 Bf5 21.Bd2 Rf8 22.Kg3 0–0–0 23.Rbf1 Rd5 24.Bc3 Rfd8 25.h3 Ne3 26.Re1 Nd1 27.Bd4 Bc2 28.Rxd1 Bxb3 29.axb3 Rxd4 30.Rxd4 Rxd4 31.Rf1 Rb4 32.Rf7 Rxb3+ 33.Kh2 Re3 34.Rxh7 Rxe5 35.Rg7 g5 36.Kg3 Rxc5 37.Kg4 Kd7 38.Rxg5 Rxg5+ 39.Kxg5 e5 40.Kf5 Kd6 41.h4 Kd5 42.h5 e4 43.Kf4 e3 44.Kxe3 Ke5 45.h6 Kf6 46.g4 a5 47.g5+ Kg6 48.Ke4 c5 49.Ke5 c4 50.Ke6 c3 51.bxc3 a4 52.h7 Kxh7 53.Kf7 a3 54.g6+ 1–0

(26903) Szabo, Laszlo - Tsvetkov, Alexandar K [B03]
Hilversum Zonal (11), 1947
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.c4 Nb6 5.f4 dxe5 6.fxe5 Nc6 7.Nf3 Bg4 8.e6 fxe6 9.c5 e5 10.cxb6 e4 11.d5 exf3 12.Qa4 Qxd5 13.Qxg4 Qe5+ 14.Kd1 Rd8+ 15.Nd2 g6 16.bxc7 Qxc7 17.Bb5 Bh6 18.Qxf3 Rf8 19.Bxc6+ bxc6 20.Qe2 Rf5 21.Kc2 Qd7 22.Ne4 Bg7 23.Bd2 Qe6 24.Rhe1 Rfd5 25.Rad1 Kf8 26.Nc3 Qxe2 27.Rxe2 Bxc3 28.bxc3 Kf7 29.Rf1+ Rf5 30.Rxf5+ gxf5 31.Re5 Rd5 32.Rxd5 cxd5 33.Be3 a6 34.Kb3 e5 35.g3 h5 36.Kb4 h4 37.Ka5 hxg3 38.hxg3 Kg6 39.Kxa6 Kh5 40.Kb5 Kg4 41.Kc5 Kxg3 42.Kxd5 Kf3 43.Kxe5 Kxe3 44.Kxf5 Kd3 45.a4 Kc4 46.Ke6 Kc5 47.Kd7 Kb6 48.c4 1–0

The move 8 e6, offers a pawn creating some wild complications. The very imbalanced positions resulting from the sacrifice oddly enough are resolved only in the endgame. Such may have been a better chance for victory.

7..., Bg4 8.Be3 e6 9.Be2 Bb4+?

As later play shows, Black has in mind the capture on f3 and the Queen sortie to h4. He’d be better served to execute this plan now. Play could continue; 9..., Bxf3 10 gxf3 Qh4+ 11 Bf2 Qf4 12 c5 Nd5; when Black is solidly ahead. White has the same problem as in the game; defending d4, as well as concerns about a comfortable place for his King.

10.Nc3 Bxf3 11.gxf3 Qh4+ 12.Bf2 Qh6 13.Qc1?!,..

Somewhat better is 13 a3, to force a decision about the Bb4; does it retreat to e7? If so, White plays c4-c5, and if the Nb6 goes to d5, the Nc3 captures it, and Black has to retakes with the e-pawn. Alternatively, Black might take on c3, but that strengthens the White center.

13..., Qxc1+ 14.Rxc1 0–0–0 15.a3 Be7 16.c5?!,..

This move makes the White pawn formation very inflexible and therefore more target than asset for small benefit. I thought while watching the game 16 Rd1, was a better move. Working it over with Rybka gives a line of play that keeps the pawns more mobile; 16 Rd1, and if 16..., Na5?! 17 c5 Nd5 18 Nxd5 Rxd5 19 b4 Nc6 (Not 19..., Nb3? 20 Bc4) 20 f4, and the Bishop is going to f3 driving in the Rd5. White then has the possibility of advancing the d-pawn to d5 dissolving the d4-weakness if he so desires. The game then is opening up which favors the Bishop pair. Black could improve with 16..., g5; and then 17 h4 h6 18 c5 Nd5 19 Nxd5 Rxd5 20 Bb5, threatens to trade off the Nc6 much reducing pressure on d4 with the game tending towards equality.

White must be thinking here of keeping material on and maneuvering in hopes of finding some promising target. The wish to get into the race for a top place is stronger than the logic of the position for Mr. Lack. The path White takes offers the best chances for winning, but it has a very high burden of accurate calculation. At many points the game can quickly trade down to a R v R ending when pawn formations and King positions will make a big difference. For White, with his pawn formation stretched out more so than is Black’s, there are chances for fatal losses of pawns to occur. The more compact Black pawns will be just a bit easier to defend.

16..., Nd5 17.Rg1 g5

During the game I wasn’t too sure Mr. Howard was completely sure of all the lines in this sideline of the Alekhine’s. This move is “book” idea. It puts a roadblock in the way of f3-f4, and is not a move you would come to quickly unless there was some familiarity with theory.

18.Ne4 Nf4 19.Nxg5 Bxg5 20.Rxg5 Nxd4 21.Bxd4 Rxd4 22.Rd1 Rhd8 23.Rxd4 Rxd4 24.Rg7,..
So far so good. White has followed the line Deep Rybka recommends. His Rook is actively placed and he is slightly ahead according to my electronic friend.

24..., Rd5 25.Rxf7!?,..

A natural move a small mistake. Better is 25 c6!, and the mate threat does not allow Black time to capture on e5 with his Rook. Black has to play 25..., bxc6; then 26 Ba6+ Kd8 27 Rxf7, completes the wrecking of the Black pawns and as the board opens up the Bishop can contribute more. White is not winning by any means, but both sides certainly have plenty of targets. White is betting his coming passed h-pawn will be more significant than Black’s soon to be extra pawn.

25..., Nxe2 26.Kxe2 Rxe5+ 27.Kf2 Rxc5 28.Rxh7 Rc2+ 29.Kg3 Rxb2

Rybka sees the game as equal. I distrust the evaluation of endgames by computer programs unless the table bases are involved. Many times they are right and an equal number of times they are miss a trick because of horizon problems.

30.h4 c5

Going about making his own passed pawn a factor White has to be concerned about. A piece of standard endgame technique Experts know well.

31.h5 Rb1 32.Kf4 Re1?

This looks like a wasted move. Pushing the c-pawn to c4 may be better. It draws the White King like a magnet. Play could go; 32..., c4 33 Ke4 Rh1 34 Kd4 b5; and now White has several ideas to evaluate: a) 35 Kc5, looks unlikely because of 35..., c3; b) 35 a4 a6 36 axb5 axb5 37 h6 Rh4+ 38 Kc3 Rh3 39 Kb5 Rh5; seemingly equal; c) 35 h6 a5 36 Rg7 Rxh6 37 Rg5 Rh4+; with tricky play that just may favor Black. And, d) 35 Rxa7 Rxh6; where White fights for the draw. After the game move White is entirely equal. That is not what Jon Lack was after. He’s determined to try for more.

33.h6 Rh1 34.Ke5 c4 35.Kd6?,..

Mr. Howard was in his usual time trouble now. Jon had a goodly amount of time left. Lack has visions of the mate threats gaining him enough time to deal with the c-pawn. It turns out he can prevent it from Queening but..

35..., Rd1+ 36.Kxe6 c3 37.Rg7 c2 38.h7 Rh1 39.Rg1!,..

An only move. Lost is 39 Rg8+ Kc7 40 h8 (Q) Rxh8 41 Rg1 Kb6 42 f4 Rc8 43 Rc1 Kb5; and then to a4/b3/b2. The White King ends up too far away to make any difference and the White a-pawn is doomed.

39..., Rxh7 40.Rc1 Rc7 41.f4 0–1

By this time Dean was down to seconds on his clock and Mr. Lack still had well over a half-hour. Play became a time scramble and I was not able to record the many moves made. Eventually it was a bare pawn ending - two to one in Black’s favor. Mr. Lack had some swindling chances, but Mr. Howard’s good technique did not need more than the five second per move delay to bring home the point. With this win, our champion from last year goes into the lead. With things so closely bunched at the top any outcome is possible even yet.

I’ve been told my standings for the AACC Championship is missing one game. Glen Perry, the director of this event has not been available recently and I have not been able to verify that. After today’s game the standings as I have them are:

1 Howard 4 ½ - 1 ½
2 Magat 4 - 2
3 Henner 3 - 1 (This is where my missing point is, if so (4 - 1)
4 Alowitz 3 - 2
5 Caravaty 2 -3
6 Northrup 1 ½ - 1 ½
7 Lack 1 ½ - 2 ½
8 Wright 1 ½ - 3 ½
9 Denham 1 - 4

Once the holidays are past, I will endeavor to get the standings corrected.

More soon.

Almost an Upset

2011-12-20T10:47:00.000-05:00

An interesting battle illustrating that, in the struggles between higher and lower rated contestants at the local level, the road to a victory is littered with missed opportunities.

Connors, David - Phillips, John [A87]
SCC Prelim B Schenectady, NY, 15.12.2011

1.Nf3 f5

Could this be a mistake right out of the box? Connors has been a member of the Saratoga Club for some years. Gary Farrell and Alan Le Cours of Saratoga have the reputation of liking the Dutch. I am certain David had seen many Dutch Defenses at their hands over the course of time. Considerable practice against strong players such as these must give some insight about how to play against it. Combined that with the fact that every so often David has been known to stage a big upset, and I would be reluctant to try the Dutch against him. Of course, from the higher rated player’s perspective in this case, it has to be understood Phillips was assured of qualifying to Finals going in, so taking a chance that Connors might be well prepared really is not so great a risk. Then there is the matter of what can be called “higher rated pride”. The litany goes on in the higher rated player’s head; “I am a couple classes above this guy and should be able to play any opening and still win the game.” A common notion that is not always true!

2.d4 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 Nf6 5.c4 0–0 6.Nc3 d6 7.0–0 Qe8 8.Qc2,..

Most usual here is 8 Qb3, it is more active than is the text. But an upstate boy made good, GM Jon Tisdall, tried out the game move when he was actively hunting the GM title:

(209105) Tisdall, Jonathan D (2460) - Valkesalmi, Kimmo (2355) [A87]
Thessaloniki ol (Men) Thessaloniki (14), 29.11.1988
1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.0–0 0–0 6.c4 d6 7.Nc3 Qe8 8.Qc2 e5 9.dxe5 dxe5 10.Rd1 Nc6 11.Nd5 Rf7 12.Be3 h6 13.h3 Be6 14.Nd2 Rd8 15.Nb3 Kh7 16.Nxf6+ Bxf6 17.Nc5 Bc8 18.Rxd8 Nxd8 19.Nd3 Nc6 20.Rd1 Nd4 21.Bxd4 exd4 22.b4 Re7 23.Re1 c6 24.a4 Be6 25.Nf4 Bf7 26.b5 Be5 27.Nd3 Bc7 28.Bf3 Ba5 29.Rb1 Bc3 30.bxc6 bxc6 31.c5 Qd7 32.h4 Kg7 33.Nb4 Re6 34.Na6 Rf6 35.Rb8 Bc4 36.Nb4 Qc7 37.Nxc6 Rxc6 38.Qb1 Ba6 39.Qb3 Bc8 40.Bxc6 Qxc6 41.Qb5 Qc7 42.Ra8 Kf7 43.c6 Ke6 44.Qc5 1–0

The less active 8 Qc2, worked out well for “Tis” in that game, but it can’t be said it was because the opening went particularly well for him. The full point came his way when Valkesalmi lost his way in the later middle game when he was tempted to play 36..., Qc7; to threaten the White Rook. Much better was 36..., f4; and Black’s attacking chances on the K-side balance the White pressure on the Q-side.

Most of the few GM games found in this the Leningrad Dutch line see the move 8 Qb3, played here. Here is an example from the practice of the then just dethroned World Champion Anatoly Karpov in 1991:

(267538) Karpov,Anatoly (2725) - Gurevich,Mikhail (2650) [A87]
Euwe mem Amsterdam (4), 1991
1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 d6 4.Nf3 g6 5.0–0 Bg7 6.c4 0–0 7.Nc3 Qe8 8.Qb3 c6 9.d5 Na6 10.Be3 Ng4 11.Bf4 Nc5 12.Qc2 h6 13.h3 e5 14.dxe6 Ne5 15.Rad1 Nxe6 16.Rxd6 Nxc4 17.Rd3 Nxf4 18.gxf4 Be6 19.Rfd1 Qe7 20.b3 Nb6 21.Qd2 Kh7 22.Ne5 Bf6 23.Qe3 Rae8 24.Na4 Nd5 25.Bxd5 Bxd5 26.Nc3 g5 27.Nxd5 cxd5 28.Rxd5 gxf4 29.Qd3 Bg7 30.Kf1 Qg5 31.Nf3 Qh5 32.Kg2 Qg6+ 33.Kh2 Qe6 34.Rd2 Rf7 35.Qc4 Qb6 36.Qc5 Qxc5 37.Rxc5 Rfe7 38.Rcc2 b5 39.Nh4 Re5 40.Kg2 Bf6 41.Nf3 R5e6 42.Ne1 a5 43.Kf3 a4 44.Rd7+ R8e7 45.Rxe7+ Rxe7 46.Nd3 axb3 47.axb3 1–0

Returning to the game.

8..., e5!?

Some part of the troubles Mr. Phillips soon suffers arise from this ambitious move. In the last game commented on in this blog; Magat - Henner, we saw a diagonal threats made by Black on the White Rook on a1 play an important role in the progress of that game. Here similar diagonal threats, this time against the Black Rook at f8 influence play. It isn”t often White gets to develop the Bc1 through e3 to c5, but it does happen every once in awhile and it is worth knowing of the possibility. More cautious is 8..., e6.

9.dxe5 dxe5 10.Rd1 Nc6 11.Be3 Kh8?!

Black now realizes things are not so easy. He does have a commanding presence in the center, but gaining it left behind some holes; the White Bishop going to c5 in concert with the Knight jumping to g5 threaten the Rf8 and crosses up the possibility of Black creating an attack on the White King based on a push of the f-pawn. Realizing this, Black considers shifting the Rf8 to the g-file to support the g-pawn advance perhaps. He could have bravely continued in a thematic fashion with 11..., e4; if then 12 Ng4!? h6 13 Nh3 Ng4; with a complex battle in which Black is not worse. White can vary with 12 Nh4, 12 Ne1, or 12 Nd2, but none of these moves prevent Black from continuing his build up of forces aimed at a frontal assault on the White King. The momentary hesitation here by Black permits White to gain some edge.

12.Bc5 Rf7 13.Ng5 Rd7 14.Rxd7 Nxd7

This move and the natural alternative, 14..., Bxd7; are equally valued by Deep Rybka. The net result of the White operation is the contemplated frontal attack on the White King is defused, and Black has to react to threatened invasions of the White Knights; Nc3/d5.c7, and Ng5/f7. When the Rook comes to d1 White will have all his forces mobilized. Black still has his Q-side Rook and Bishop sitting at home. The central control Black counted on has been hollowed out somewhat by a lack of piece development to take advantage of the space, and the possible use of d5 by the White pieces.

15.Be3 h6?!

Mr. Phillips did not care for the awkward looking result of; 15..., Nf8 16 Nd5 Qd7; but that may have been the best chance here.

16.Nd5 hxg5?!

A difficult decision that leads to a won game for White. However, the simplifying continuation; 16..., Nb4; concedes a pawn after 17 Nxb4 hxg5 18 Bxg5 c6; without solving the development lag Black is experiencing.

17.Nxc7 Qd8 18.Nxa8 Nf8

Black is playing to capture the Na8 from here on out. If the Na8 is lost without compensation, White still has a Rook and a pawn for two Knights which is not so bad for White. Therefore White should keep in mind a couple of things; giving up the Knight for a pawn is no bad thing - two pawns and a Rook for two Knights is adequate compensation. How adequate depends on a number of factors outlined by Andy Soltis in his book Rethinking the Chess Pieces, Batsford Chess, London 2004. The factors Soltis enumerated are: the initiative, the presence of Queens, total material - what’s left, not what is gone, and how close is the game to an ending. Queens on help the pieces. More material on the board increases tactical chances for the pieces. Rooks get stronger in the ending and the pieces lose a little bit of strength there. Having the initiative most often determines Queen exchanges and the opportunities for trading down to endings.

19.Bxc6!,..

A very good move and one too many of us would not make. Owners of fianchettoed Bishops too often refuse to consider giving them up to move the game along logically. Here White acts to trade down towards the ending, the correct formula according to Soltis

19..., bxc6 20.Qd2 Qxd2

Trying to keep the Queens on with 20..., Qe7; allows 21 Rd1, and then 21..., Ne6 22 Qa5 Nd4 23 Qc7 Bd7 24 Qxa7 Nxe2+ 25 Kg2 Nd4 26 Nb6, completing the rescue of the Knight and piling up on the Black weaknesses. A textbook example of exploiting the initiative in a Rook and pawns versus two minor pieces situation.

21.Bxd2 Ne6 22.Ba5 e4 23.Bc3?!,..

After playing strongly for many moves, Mr. Connors shows a little uncertainty. The b-pawn is not important. If Black takes it, one more line opens for the White Rook to use, and once the Rook gets to the 7th the Black position collapses.

23..., Bb7?

A more stubborn, but nonetheless frail, defense of the Black position is 23..., Bxc3 24 bxc3 Kg7 25 Rb1 Kf6 26 Rb8 Ba6 27 Rb4 Nc5 28 Ra5 Kd6. Black will probably run out of useful moves before White does, and the Rook will break into the rear of the Black position. The text lets this happen sooner than necessary.

24.Bxg7+ Kxg7 25.Rd1 Kf6

If the Na8 is taken the Bishop is lost to 26 Rd8, 27 Rd7+.

26.Rd7?!,..

Much better is 26 Nc7, then if 26..., Nxc7 27 Rd7, recovers the piece simplifying to a won ending. David Connors had played the several preceding moves quickly and confidently. His advantage was large, and even this little bobble on here does not significantly change the evaluation of the position.

26..., Nc5 27.Rd8 Na6 28.Rd7 Nc5

Of course not 28..., Bxa8 29 Rxa7, recovering the material and then some.

29.Rxb7??,..

It is infrequently appropriate to slap the dreaded double query on a move. This time it has to be done. There is no time trouble to explain this decision. Every indication; body language, consistency in following a plan, etc. was that David understood the position and had an idea of how it should finish. Then this!? The Na8 is well defended by the Rook going to h7. If 29 Rh7 Bxa8 30 Rxa7 Bb7 31 b4!, recovers the material. After the game, Mr. Phillips said he would have taken a draw had Mr. Connors played 29 Rd8 Na6 30 Rd7, and offered such. So, in one fell move White shot by the draw that would have given him a chance at qualifying for the Finals in a position still strong enough to take the whole point and positively qualify for the Finals. We have all had those moments in chess; what we can see easily in analysis is utterly impossible to find in the heat of the moment. As Boris Spassky famous said; chess is a negative game, our losses stick with us forever and our wins are quickly forgotten. This is one loss that Mr. Connors will not soon forget. The return of the Exchange levels up the game, but there is no reason in the position for White to lose this contest.

29..., Nxb7 30.Nc7 Ke5 31.e3 Kd6 32.Na6?!,..

Quite natural but not the best. Knight and pawn endgames are very like pure pawn endgames because relative King positions, weak pawns and potential passed pawns are crucial to evaluation. The presence of the Knights add resources for both sides. If one side gets a pawn plus, the defender can scheme to trade matching pawns planning to sacrifice his Knight for the extra “button” leaving insufficient material for victory.

The side that obtains an extra pawn counters by playing to prevent the opposing Knight from getting to a place where it can be given up successfully. But before that situation develops, there are tricks and tries to win or weaken pawns. This is where the game is now. White has two things to do; find something to loosen up the bind Black has on the K-side, and get his King over where it can help in the defense of the Q-side. To those ends 32 Ne8 Kd7 33 Nf6+, heading for h7 attacking g5. The White Knight will go to g5 and be supported by h2-h4 if necessary. Any break he gets while carrying out this maneuver is to be used to shift the White King leftwards. Giving up the a-pawn may be required to get the White King well placed. This is a dynamic way to treat the ending.

The major effect of the Rook going off for the Black Bishop is the Black King is freer to run to the Q-side, and since he is closer to that area, White has a problem needing a solution. Threats to the Black K-side pawn mass is one way to address the disparity of King positions. The text move intends defending the Q-side with the Knight. This less dynamic choice may well work. It requires accuracy to have a chance to do so.

32..., c5 33.a3?,..

A small move that is inaccurate and fatally weakens the White Q-side pawns. The Black Knight and King now fall upon these as the Assyrians in the Bible, like a wolf upon the fold.

33..., Na5 34.b4 cxb4 35.Nxb4 Nxc4 36.Nc2 Kc5 37.Kf1,..

The King march starts late and there is no counter-play on the K-side to restrain the Black King. Admirably Black goes very directly towards his goal of creating a distant passed pawn.

37..., Kb5 38.Nd4+ Ka4 39.Ne6 Kxa3 40.Ke2 a5 41.Kd1 Kb2

This move seals the deal. The White King is shut out of the Queening square. Soon the White Knight will have to be lost to prevent a Queen from appearing right away. After that the win up a Knight is simple and clear.

42.Nc5 Nb6 0–1

A sad result that elicits sympathy for Mr. Connors. He played a big chunk of the game like a Class A player then fell upon hard times just as he neared the finish line. As a player I have had my share of such losses. The beauty of chess is the lessons can be learned and there is always the hope for improvement. On the other hand, Mr. Phillips has to be grateful to the chess goddess for the leveling injustice of our game; sometimes we play in a way that earns a loss but we are rewarded if we don’t lose heart in the game.

More soon.

Updates on SCC and Saratoga with game from AACC

2011-12-17T12:07:00.000-05:00

Thursday some of the games needing to be made up in the Schenectady Preliminaries were played, specifically two games from the B Section; Connors - Phillips and Le Cous - Chu. Both ended with the higher rated player winning, but it didn’t have to be that way. Mr. Connors had quite a good position against Mr. Phillips but spoiled what could have been a significant upset with some undo haste. This win by Phillips gave him a perfect score, 6 - 0, and first place in Section B. As John Phillips said after the game; “No one was willing to take a draw from me when it was there to be had this year, they played on trying to win and lost.” That about sums up this event for him.

In the other game; somehow Richard Chu obtained a really bad French Defense versus Alan Le Cours. Richard said he didn’t intend to play the French, it just somehow happened. There seemed little question Le Cours had much the better position early on. Another slip cost Chu an Exchange. He made a determined defense in a lost position even creating some counter-play, but it was not enough and Alan forced resignation on move 47.

Going in, these games were important for determining the third place qualifier from Section B. If Chu had won he’d have the spot locked up. That was not to be. Connors very much needed a win or a draw from Phillips to pull even or ahead of Chu. With both losing, the decision falls to the game; Le Cours - Connors. A win for David Connors there will put him in the Finals, a draw and Connors and Chu will have to play-off, a loss and Richard Chu is into the Finals. I don’t recall if Richard Chu has made the Finals before. If he did it was some while ago. I am pretty sure David Connors has never qualified for the Finals at Schenectady. Success for David will be a first time qualification for him, a big step forward.

One game Bill Townsend, the tournament director, and I where hoping to see played Thursday, did not happen; Dilip Aaron - Zack Calderone. It will determine the third qualifier from Section A. Both have 3 - 2 scores. A drawn outcome and a play-off will have to be scheduled. The qualifiers from Section A so far are; Philip Sells (5 - 1) and Carlos Varela (4 - 1). Varela still has a game to play versus Mike Stanley. Even with a loss to Stanley, Varela will finish no worse than tied with Aaron or Calderone.

The qualifiers from Section B so far are; John Phillips (6 - 0) and Alan Le Cours (3 ½ - 1 ½). Le Cours still must play Connors as mentioned above. No matter the outcome Alan is through to the Finals.

Mr. Le Cours again helpfully provided an update for the Saratoga Championship. Since I last reported Jon Feinberg defeated David Connors. Feinberg has one game to play versus Alan Le Cours. Both have scored 5 - 2, and are a half-point behind Gary Farrell at 5 ½ - 2 ½. A win by either Feinberg or Le Cours brings them the title, a draw gives a three way tie for first! On Thursday Alan was not sure of the tie breaking rules for sorting out such a result.

The most significant game of this week’s round of the AACC event was Henner’s win over Magat. Gordon was poised to break free of the pack. Peter prevented that and tightened up the race for first. Not only was the game important from a sporting viewpoint, it was also one of the sharpest struggles of all the championship tournaments so far this year. Both players brought their imaginations to the board and let them run free.

Magat, Gordon - Henner, Peter [A34]
AACC Championship Guilderland, NY, 14.12.2011

1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e3 Nc6 6.Bb5,..

All this has been well known for sometime. Here are two examples of how the very best play the position:

(28341) Keres, Paul - Taimanov, Mark E [A34]
URS-ch16 Moscow (8), 1948
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e3 Nc6 6.Bb5 Nxc3 7.bxc3 Bd7 8.0–0 e6 9.d4 Be7 10.e4 0–0 11.Qe2 cxd4 12.cxd4 Rc8 13.Bb2 Nb4 14.Bc4 Bb5 15.Bxb5 Rc2 16.Qe3 Rxb2 17.Qa3 Rc2 18.Qxa7 Qc7 19.a3 Na2 20.Bd3 Rc3 21.Rxa2 Rxd3 22.Rb2 Rxa3 23.Qxb7 Qc3 24.Rbb1 Bf6 25.Rbc1 Qa5 26.Rc5 Qa4 27.e5 Bd8 28.Rc8 Rb3 29.Qe4 h6 30.h3 Be7 31.Rfc1 Rb8 32.Rxf8+ Bxf8 33.Rc7 Qa5 34.Qc6 Qa2 35.Qe4 Qa5 36.Rc2 Qa4 37.Kh2 Qa5 38.Qc6 Qd8 39.Qc7 Qxc7 40.Rxc7 Rd8 41.Kg3 Ra8 42.h4 Bb4 43.Rb7 Bc3 44.Rb3 Rc8 45.Kf4 Kf8 46.Ke3 Ke8 47.Ng1 Ba5 48.Ne2 Rc2 49.Rb8+ Bd8 50.g3 Ke7 51.Ra8 g5 52.hxg5 hxg5 53.Ra7+ Ke8 54.g4 Bb6 55.Ra6 Rb2 56.Kd3 Kd7 57.Nc3 Rb4 58.Ra4 Rxa4 59.Nxa4 Bd8 60.Nc5+ Ke7 61.d5 exd5 62.Kd4 Kf8 63.Kxd5 Kg7 64.Nb3 Kg6 65.Kc6 Be7 66.Nc5 Bf8 67.Nd3 Be7 68.Kd7 Bf8 69.Ke8 Ba3 70.Kd8 Kg7 71.Kc7 Kg6 72.Kc8 Kg7 73.Kd7 Kg6 74.Kc6 Be7 75.Kc7 Bf8 76.Kc8 Be7 77.Kd7 Ba3 78.Kc7 Be7 79.Kc6 Ba3 80.Kd5 Be7 81.e6 fxe6+ 82.Kxe6 Bd8 83.Ne5+ Kg7 84.f3 Bb6 85.Nc4 Bc7 86.Kf5 Bf4 87.Ne5 Bc1 88.Nd7 Be3 89.Nf6 Bc1 90.Ne8+ Kh6 91.Kf6 Bb2+ 92.Kf7 Kh7 93.Nd6 Kh6 94.Nc4 Bd4 95.Ke6 Kg6 96.Ne5+ Kg7 97.Kf5 Be3 98.Nd3 Kh6 99.Kf6 Bd4+ 100.Ne5 Bb2 101.Kf5 Kg7 102.Nd3 Bf6 103.Nb4 Bc3 104.Nc6 Bd2 105.Nd4 Bc1 ½–½

(241495) Polugaevsky, Lev (2610) - Andersson, Ulf (2630) [A34]
Biel (9), 1990
1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.e3 d5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.Bb5 e6 7.Ne5 Bd7 8.Bxc6 Bxc6 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.Qa4 Qd7 11.b3 Nb4 12.0–0 Be7 13.Ba3 Rb8 14.Rac1 Nd3 15.Rc2 0–0 16.Qc4 Rfd8 17.Na4 Rb5 18.Nb2 a5 19.Nxd3 Qxd3 20.Qxd3 Rxd3 21.Rfc1 Kf8 22.Kf1 a4 23.bxa4 Rb8 24.Bb2 Ra8 25.Ke2 Rd7 26.Rc4 Rda7 27.Ba3 Rxa4 28.Rxa4 Rxa4 29.Bxc5 Rxa2 30.Bxe7+ Kxe7 31.Rxc6 h5 32.f4 g6 33.Rc7+ Kf6 34.e4 Ra3 35.d3 Ra2+ 36.Kf3 Rd2 37.Rd7 Kg7 38.h3 h4 39.d4 Rd3+ 40.Ke2 Rg3 41.Kf2 Ra3 42.e5 Kf8 43.d5 exd5 44.Rxd5 Ke7 45.Rd6 Rb3 46.Rd4 Ra3 47.Rc4 Rb3 48.Rc8 Rb2+ 49.Kf3 Rb3+ 50.Ke4 Rb4+ ½–½

For reasons not clear this line has not come up in the games of the 2600+ crowd in recent years. I suspect that best play yields White so small an advantage, even if it includes an extra pawn, it is seen as not worthwhile for a player seeking to press with the White pieces. On the other hand, the resulting positions were rich enough in possibilities to attract the Grandmasters cited above, a rare group well recognized for their aggressive and adventurous approach to chess.

6..., a6?!

Parting company with the elite. This move should not work out as well as it does.

7.Bxc6+ bxc6 8.0–0 g6?

Planning to deploy the natural defender of c5 to another line. White’s normal plan now is to capture the pawn on c5.

9.Ne4 Qb6 10.b3?,..

Logical is 10 Qc2, focusing on c5. White may have not liked something in the line; 10 Qc2 Bg7 11 Nxc5 Nb4 12 Qc4 Qb5 13 d3 Qxc4 14 dxc4 a5. He may have been worried about the Ra1 having a hard time getting into action and the pressure down the a1-h8 diagonal. White does have a pawn for the those worries and he seems to have adequate resources to safeguard the Ra1.

10..., Bg7 11.Rb1 Bf5 12.Nfg5?!,..

And the concerns about the Q-side White Rook are manifest. If this kind of diagonal attack on the Rook was the worry, the path chosen did not avoid the problem. Here White could have given up the Exchange with 12 d3 Bxe4 13 dxe4 Nc3 14 Qc2, but that was hardly tempting because Black can continue right away with 14..., c4; not waiting around for White to plant a Knight on blockading square c4. The text opts to make things very tactical immediately in the hope that being alert may find a counter blow. The essential problem is taking this path White has put his King in the mix. Failure will not mean just a material deficit, mate may well be the result.

12...,h6 13.g4,..

White is pinning his hopes on Black retreating the Bishop. Even if he does, things are not so good for White; 13 g4 Bd7 14 Nh3 h5; and Black will open the h-file in any case with advantage.

13..., hxg5 14.gxf5 Qc7

The threat of mate on the move is powerful.

15.f4?,..

White elects further complications instead of the objectively better 15 Ng3, because the better move leads to; 15.., gxf5 16 Ba3 f4; with unpleasant prospects for White lacking even some of the fog of tactics in the text continuation. The game move at least creates some escape routes for the White King.

15..., gxf4 16.fxg6?!,..

Here White could have better continued his policy of seeking complications with 16 f6!?, and then 16..., fxe3 17 Qe2 exf6 18 Bb2, and White has more of his forces working although his position overall is still pretty poor. In this line, after 18..., 0-0-0; 19 dxe3 Bh6; Black’s two extra pawns don’t loom quite so large due to the broken nature of his pawns.

The text leads to a pair of open files bearing on the White King. We have seen this tactical feature in a couple of games recently. The example that springs to mind immediately was in Sells - Dilip Aaron from the Schenectady Prelims. There Dilip did not find the Queen sacrifice to open the files giving himself chances to hold or win the game. Spotting a Queen sacrifice due to the high value of the investment, and when it is not part of a short mating combination is a forgivable error. By contrast, in the present game, Black has a much lower marker at risk; only a Bishop, making the possibility easier to imagine.

16..., fxg6 17.Qg4 fxe3 18.Qxg6+ Kd8 19.Ng3 e2 20.Qxg7,..

What else? If 20 Re1 Bd4+ 21 Kh1 Qf4; when all of White’s options lead to mate shortly. Have some fun working out the finishes. I am sure both participants did so - they were both very focused calculating hard hereabouts.

20..., exf1Q+ 21.Nxf1,..

And if 21 Kxf1 Qf4+; with play not dissimilar to the game.

21..., Kd7 22.Qg4+ e6 23.Qg7+ Ne7 24.Ng3 Rag8 25.Qc3 Nf5

Black has admirably kept up the pressure on g3 and the White King sheltering behind that point. Often we see at the local level players wavering in their aim when the advantage is safe in hand. Mr. Henner finishes the game off without losing sight of his target.

26.Kg2 Rxh2+!

Simply the shortest route to the win. Fumbling is 26..., Rxg3+? 27 hxg3 Rg8; allowing White time to string out the game with 28 Qd3+, and 29 Kf2.

27.Kxh2 Rxg3 28.Qa1 Qf4 0–1

The players packed a lot of excitement into this short game reflecting credit on both. Neither shied away from undertaking tough calculating tasks, and they demonstrated fine chess imagination in the fight. I think it was the best game so far of all this years events at the big three clubs.

More soon.

AACC Results and a Game From Schenectady

2011-12-15T11:01:00.000-05:00

Wednesday evening had another full round of play at the Albany Area Chess Club. At the top of the schedule was the game Magat - Henner. In a short game these two packed in a great deal of action in just 28 moves. Mr. Henner won the game tightening up the race for first place. The game between Dean Howard and Tim Wright, after some dramatic ups and downs in Howard’s time trouble, ended with a victory for Howard. The struggle for the under-1800 title sorted itself out a bit with the results of the other two games. Art Alowitz won as Black over Jason Denham, and in game of many sudden shifts in fortune, Chris Caravaty won from Cory Northrup. Jonathan Lack had the bye this week.

The updated standings are:

1 Magat 4 - 2

2 Howard 3 ½ - 1 ½

3 Henner 3 - 1

4 Alowitz 3 - 2

5 Caravaty 2 -3

6&7 Lack 1 ½ - 1 ½

6&7 Northrup 1 ½ - 1 ½

8 Wright 1 ½ - 3 ½

9 Denham 1 - 4

No less than four players are in the hunt for first; Magat, Howard, Henner and Alowitz. Art Alowitz also is leading the race for top under-1800. Caravaty pulled into within a point of Alowitz, and the next rounds will see if he can further close the gap. The next rounds will also see, as Jon Lack makes up his delayed games, if he will challenge the leading four. The holidays are close upon us, and I don’t know if they will cause any further delayed games. Absent delayed games we will see the races begin to be more defined in the next weeks.

One of the attractions of out typical local club championship round robins is the opportunity for rising players to meet higher rated opponents. In weekend Swiss System events, if you are down the rating list, you may only see a significantly higher rated opponent in the first round. The club championship round robins guarantee the chance to play at least some of the Class A/Experts in the event. In today’s game, Zack Calderone, a pretty successful scholastic player faces Philip Sells a well established Expert and former Schenectady Champion.

Calderone, Zack - Sells, Philip [A46]

SCC Prelim A Schenectady, NY, 08.12.2011

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bg5 Be7 4.e3 c5

This position is not at the cutting edge of current opening practice. It is, however, pretty well known. Locally, I played these opening moves against Al Lawrence, the former editor of Chess Life, in the old Hudson Valley League back in 1986. The game was a win for me when Al tried a mistaken line in the transition from the opening to the middle game.

Lawrence, Al - Little, Bill [D03]

HVCL Match Newburgh, NY, 10.05.1986

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bg5 Be7 4.e3 c5 5.Bd3 Nc6 6.c3 h6 7.Bh4 d5 8.Nbd2 0–0 9.0–0 e5?! 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.dxe5 Ng4 12.Bg3 Bh4 13.Qf3 Re8 14.Bb5 Nxe5 15.Qh5? Bxg3 16.Bxe8? Bg4 17.Bxf7+ Kh8 18.Qxg4? Bxh2+ 19.Kxh2 Nxg4+ 20.Kg1 Qc7 0–1

We were both over 2000 when this game was played. I got the edge when Al allowed me to get away with the advance of the e-pawn. The game was played fairly early on a Saturday morning. He must not have had his coffee yet because after giving me freedom without extracting any cost, Al’s tactical alertness deserted him. Subsequent errors turned a small advantage into victory in just a few more moves. Mr. Lawrence got his revenge in the afternoon game using the Scandinavian to beat me neatly.

Here is a game that has some similarities to the game we are examining. It is played between two famous Grandmasters; Hort and Larsen.

(144938) Hort,Vlastimil (2585) - Larsen,Bent (2555) [A47]

Linares, 1983

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bg5 Be7 4.e3 c5 5.c3 b6 6.Bd3 Bb7 7.Nbd2 cxd4 8.cxd4 Nc6 9.a3 0–0 10.0–0 Nd5 11.Bxe7 Qxe7 12.Qe2 Rac8 13.Rac1 Nb8 14.Rfe1 f5 15.Qf1 Nf6 16.Rxc8 Rxc8 17.Rc1 Qf8 18.h3 Bd5 19.Bc4 Ba8 20.Ne5 g6 21.Rc2 Kg7 22.Qc1 Qd8 23.Be2 Rxc2 24.Qxc2 d6 25.Nd3 Qd7 26.Bf3 Bxf3 27.Nxf3 h6 28.Qc4 Nd5 29.Nb4 Ne7 30.Nd2 g5 31.Nb1 a5 32.Nd3 Nd5 33.Nc3 Nxc3 34.bxc3 Kf6 35.d5 Ke7 36.Qd4 exd5 37.Qg7+ Kd8 38.Qxh6 Qe7 39.h4 gxh4 40.Nf4 Qe5 41.Qf8+ Kc7 42.Qf7+ Kc6 43.Ne2 Kb5 44.Nd4+ Ka6 45.Qc7 Qe8 46.a4 f4 47.Nb5 Nc6 48.Nxd6 Qa8 49.exf4 1–0

And here is a contemporary example by a couple of very strong Frenchmen.

(610586) Vaisser, Anatoli (2540) - Lautier, Joel (2658) [A47]

French Team Ch. France (8.2), 28.04.2001

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bg5 c5 4.e3 Be7 5.Nbd2 b6 6.Bd3 Bb7 7.c3 cxd4 8.cxd4 Nc6 9.a3 Nd5 10.Bxe7 Ncxe7 11.Ne4 Qb8 12.Ne5 f6 13.Nc4 0–0 14.Qh5 f5 15.Ng5 Nf6 16.Qh3 h6 17.Nf3 d6 18.0–0 Bd5 19.Rfc1 Rc8 20.Ncd2 Qb7 21.Ne1 Rxc1 22.Rxc1 Rc8 23.Rb1 b5 24.f3 Qb6 25.Qg3 a6 26.Qf2 Bb7 27.Nb3 Bd5 28.Nd2 Rc7 29.h3 Qb7 30.g4 Qc8 31.e4 fxe4 32.fxe4 Bb7 33.Kh2 e5 34.Nef3 Ng6 35.g5 Nf4 36.Qf1 N6h5 37.dxe5 dxe5 38.Nxe5 hxg5 39.Rd1 Re7 40.Ng4 Qc7 41.Kg1 Ng3 42.Qf2 0–1

We can conclude the protagonists in today’s game have the desire for a fight by their choice of opening, and while the game will be a positional struggle at first sight, there will also be a strong vein of tactics running through it.

5.c3 Nc6 6.Bd3 b6 7.Nbd2 0–0 8.0–0 Nd5 9.Bxe7 Qxe7

The game has gone away from specific lines the Grandmasters have played, but it retains the outlines of the GM games. White embarks on the occupation of e5. He might have done better to develop his forces a bit more with 10 Qc2, and 11 Rae1.

10.Ne5 Bb7 11.Qe2 cxd4 12.Nxc6 Bxc6 13.cxd4 f5 14.f4,..

Rather than fortifying e5, White would have been better served to get the a-Rook on the c-file. A natural follow-on move would be a2-a3 to restrict the scope of the Black Knight on d5. Looking at the GM games cited above it can be seen how important this line is in this sort of game. It is not so much that the c-file is the launching pad for some penetration, as it is the base denied the opponent and from which attacks in other directions can be made.

14..., Bb7?!

This move seems doubtful to me. Moving a rook to the c-file, or 14..., Nb4; threatening the elimination of the White Bishop are more purposeful moves.

15.a3 Rac8 16.Rac1 Kh8?!

A second move that appears to lack an immediate purpose. More to the point is 16..., g5. If then 17 Rxc8 Rxc8 18 Nc4 gxf5 19 exf5, fearlessly 19..., Qg7!, and if 20 Nd6 Qxd4+; is strong for Black. Alternatively for White if he tries 20 Qe5 Nf6 21 g3 Qf8! 22 Nd6? Ng4; wins material. White’s best is probably 22 Qe2, when Black has some slight advantage, but there is a lot of fight left in the position.

17.Ba6?!,..

The mighty Rybka says this is wrong. The electronic genius suggests trading Rooks on the c-file and pushing the e-pawn to the 4th rank. The game then becomes complicated then with a premium on tactical alertness and positional understanding. The text allows, according to Rybka, Black trade Bishops on a6 and to offer up his Q-side pawns to obtain very active play against the White King. The lines are long and fraught with tactical turns only a computer could enjoy. I doubt a human being would go down that path in serious game, maybe in Blitz but not in a tournament contest.

17..., d6 18.Bxb7 Qxb7 19.Nf3 Nf6

Black has some edge, it is not anywhere near winning. He will be able to use the square e4 for his Knight while White can not use the corresponding e5-square. I thought the game about even here.

20.Ng5?!,..

This is a gesture threatening something that has not been completely thought through. What if Black ignores the attack on e6 and plays 20..., h6? Capturing on e6 leads to favorable complications for Black after; 21 Nxe6 Rfe8 22 d5 Nxd5 23 Nd4 Nxe3 24 Rfe1 Rxc1 25 Rxc1 Qe4 26 Nc6, either 26..., Qxf4; or 26..., Rc8; give Black a big advantage. After 20..., h6; White really has nothing better than retreating the Knight to f3 or h3 leaving the initiative in Black’s hands.

20..., Qd7?!

This is too cautious.

21.Qa6?,..

The chances for White are dwindling. Here the Queen abandons the critical central squares for an adventure on the Q-side. He could try the exciting but risky 21 e4!? h6 22 exf5 hxg5 23 fxg5, with great complications that Black should be able to get through safely, or eliminate a pair of Rooks with 21 Nf3 Rc6 22 Qa6 Rfc8 23 Rxc6 Rxc6 24 Qa4 Qc7 25 Rd1 Rc2 26 Qb5 Qb7 27 Ne1, and try to defend stubbornly.

21..., Kg8 22.Qe2 h6 23.Nf3 Rc7

Black will take control of the c-file, and so his advantage increases.

24.b3?,..

A move that creates the one more weakness that White does not need right now. Ginning up some counter-play with the pawn sacrifice 24 Rxc7 Qxc7 25 d5!?, offers some hope. Play might go; 25..., Nxd5 26 Nd4, and if carelessly 26..., Kf7? 27 Qh5+, and things are not so easy for Black. Black should play the better 26..., Qc8 27 Rd1 Qd7 28 g3 Nf6 29 Qb5 Qf7 30 Rc1, and White has not lost control of the c-file.

24..., Rfc8 25.Qb2 Nd5 26.Qd2 Rc3

This last operation by Black highlights the White weaknesses at b3, c3, and e3. Saving the game is now a fading hope - too many things to defend.

27.Rfe1 Rxb3 28.e4,..

The lack of options motivates White to go for activity. It is a late try but best in the circumstances.

28..., fxe4 29.Rxe4 Rxc1+ 30.Qxc1 Rc3 31.Qd2,..

If 31 Qb2, trying to hold the a-pawn, 31..., Qa4 32 Ne1 Kf7 33 Qe2 Qc4; is strong.

31..., Rxa3 32.Qe1 Nc7!?

Not bad but less forceful than is 32..., Qa4; threatening a deadly pin on the back rank.

33.f5!,..

Tough times bring out the best from Mr. Calderone.

33..., exf5?

Missing a neat little trick. Black had to play 33..., Qa4; maintaining his advantage. He will be better when the tactical tricks run out for White.

34.Re7 Qd8 35.Qc1?,..

Zack missed the shot also. Drawing is 35 Rxc7! Qxc7 36 Qe8+ Kh7 37 Ng5+, and there is no escape from the perpetual check by the Queen. Bill Townsend found this trick as he was entering the game in his database of local game and brought it to my attention.

35..., Qxe7 36.Qxa3 Nd5 37.Kf2 f4 38.Qa2 Qf7 39.Qc4 Ne3 40.Qc8+ Kh7 41.Qh3?,..

Better 41 Qc1. Once more we see one Mr. Sells’ opponents be shaken by his time trouble. Sells’ clock was getting pretty low here, but it was Zack who seemed to have trouble maintaining his composure. I have experienced similar problems when playing Sells in time trouble. With 41 Qc1, the game still would require some play from Black. After the text it is a mating combination that could cost ruinous material loss to delay.

41..., Qa2+ 42.Kg1 Qb1+ 43.Kf2 Qf1# 0–1

Another excellent performance by Philip in time trouble. I continue to be impressed with his calmness when handling clock problems.

More soon.

The Standings in Saratoga and a Game From Albany

2011-12-12T13:12:00.002-05:00

This is the busiest time of year for local chess. The several club title events are getting close to a finish. Generously Alan Le Cours, the sparkplug of the Saratoga Club, provided an update of that championship Thursday.

This year no one in the three big clubs is running away in the title races. Saratoga is a case on point; the three highest rated players are all in the hunt for the title. The standings in Saratoga are:

1 Alan Le Cours 5 - 1

2 Gary Farrell 4 ½ - 1 ½

3 Jon Feinberg 4 - 2

4 Josh Kuperman 3 - 6

5 David Connrs 2 - 6

6 Jeff Hrebenach Withdrawn

The Saratoga event is a rather unusual double round robin tournament, not something we often see locally. Alan Le Cours has the highest score so far. He has to meet for the second time each Jon Feinberg and Gary Farrell. These games will pretty much determine this year’s title winner. In the first half of the event, Alan won from Feinberg and lost to Farrell. Feinberg and Farrell have played both of their scheduled games splitting the points with one win each. Le Cours has his fate entirely in his own hands. It should be an interesting finish. These guys have met each other often in recent years and know what to expect in the way of opening variations. We will see if someone can come up with a surprise.

One of the challenges of trying to gather these local games is picking the right game to follow when more than one side is down to just minutes on the clock. The way things often work out there will be two worthy games coming to such a pass at the same time. That was the case Wednesday at the Albany Area Chess Club. Both Wright - Magat and Henner - Caravaty had a participant with less than five minutes on the clock. I stuck with the possible upset; Chris Caravaty just might forge a draw against Mr. Henner. The unfortunate result is I did not capture the interesting finale of Wright - Magat where Gordon won. I have reconciled myself to sometime missing the good stuff.

Today we will look at what I have of the Wright - Magat game.

Wright, Tim - Magat, Gordon [D31]

AACC Championship Guilderland, NY, 07.12.2011

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 e6

White has a rather large number of choices here in the Semi Slav. He chooses to put his Knight on c3, also possible are: 4 Qc2, 4 Qb3, 4 e3, 4 Bg5, 4 g3, 4 cxd5, 4 4 b3, and 4 Nbd2. Some of the options are no more than move order choices, and some such as 4 g3, or 4 Bg5, can set the tone for many moves into the future.

4.Nc3 dxc4

And Black in his turn captures on c4 foregoing the much more common 4..., Nf6. With such experienced players you can never be exactly certain if they are trying some sophisticated move order wrinkle, or they are improvising at the board.

5.e3 b5

This line is called the Marshall Gambit in some tomes. In other works it is named the Noteboom without ..,Nf6. I don’t quite know the difference between the two. Essentially, White makes big concessions on the Q-side betting he can build an attack with pieces and pawns on the other side of the board. One thing that makes this a very interesting line for White is he has a second string to his bow; as he attacks the Black King his eye is peeled for opportunities to cripple or devalue the Black passed pawns. Here is an example by a couple of strong Russians that illustrate some of the ideas in this line:

(1148480) Klimov,Sergey (2498) - Matlakov,Maksim (2452) [D31]

St Petersburg FINEC GM St Petersburg (2), 26.01.2007

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.Nf3 dxc4 5.e3 b5 6.a4 Bb4 7.Bd2 a5 8.axb5 Bxc3 9.Bxc3 cxb5 10.b3 Bb7 11.bxc4 b4 12.Bb2 Nf6 13.Bd3 0–0 14.0–0 Nbd7 15.Nd2 Re8 16.Bc2 Qc7 17.f4 Nb6 18.Qe2 a4 19.e4 a3 20.Bc1 Nxc4 21.Nxc4 Bxe4 22.Bb3 Red8 23.Be3 Qb7 24.Rfc1 Rac8 25.Nd2 Bd5 26.Rc5 Rxc5 27.dxc5 Bxb3 28.Nxb3 Qd5 29.Qd2 Qxd2 30.Bxd2 Rd3 31.c6 Nd5 32.Bxb4 Rxb3 33.Rxa3 Rxa3 34.Bxa3 f6 35.Kf2 Kf7 36.Kf3 Ke8 ½–½

Back to our game.

6.a4 Bb4 7.Bd2 a5 8.axb5 Bxc3 9.Bxc3 cxb5 10.b3 Bb7 11.bxc4 b4 12.Bb2 Nf6 13.Bd3 Ne4 14.Ne5?!,..

White undertakes a too direct path in the next operation. More normal is 14 Qa4+, with the continuation 14..., Qd7 15 Qc2 f5 16 Ne5 Qc7 17 c5 0-0 18 f3 Nf6 19 Nc4, and White has made progress on his base plan; prepare an attack on the Black King while watching for the chance to do something about the pair of passers. The text aims to bring the Queen and Knight into close proximity to the Black King.

14..., 0–0 15.Qf3 f5 16.Qd1,..

Second thoughts cross Mr. Wright’s mind, but why all the way back to d1? The post on e2 looks a bit more reasonable for the Queen. This sort of discontinuity of thought; begin traveling down one path, and then a reversal of direction, seldom works out. I’m no great theoretician, but I suspect the loss of time unraveling what you started knitting together is why such play fails more often than it succeeds.

16..., Nd7?!,..

A routine decision to “develop” a piece. More forceful is 16..., Qg5!; and the White King will not find a safe home anywhere. There is also a good chance White will have to give up his light squared Bishop for the annoying Ne4.

17.Nf3?!,..

White would be better served by trading on d7 and driving off the Ne4 with f2-f3. Wright’s reversal of the movement of pieces to the K-side grants Black time to get his own pieces to there.

17..., Ndf6 18.h3 Qe8 19.Bc2 Qh5 20.d5?,..

This move takes what is a slightly worse position for White and makes it an outright bad situation. Conceding his 17th was mistaken with 20 Ne5 keeps the damage to a minimum. After the text, White is down a pawn with no compensation of to speak of.

20..., exd5 21.cxd5 Bxd5 22.Qd4?!,..

White seems to have lost faith in his position as evident from the last few moves. He now is wagering on making his pieces active as possible in hopes there will appear some shot that can balance the position. That is not an unnatural decision. After 22 0-0, Black will increase the pressure with 22..., Rfc8; and White will soon have to trade some minor pieces making the pair of passed pawns on the Q-side more dangerous than ever.

22..., Qf7?!

Cautious, perhaps too much so. With 22..., Rfc8; or 22..., Rfd8; Black keeps the pressure on the White game.

23.Ne5 Qa7?!

This looks wrong to me. Black must figure the endgame with two passed pawns is simply won. With so many minor pieces on the board there are many things to calculate, and White just might find a trick to make a successful defense. I would prefer 23..., Qc7 24 Ba4 Rfd8; improving the position of the Black pieces.

24.Qxa7 Rxa7 25.Bd4 Raa8 26.Ba4 Rfb8

White has gotten a lot of what he wanted. The game is complicated with many tricks possible. It is true if you can play like a computer, the position is won for Black, but after three hours of play as the day gets long not many people have a computer-like accuracy in their calculation.

27.0–0 Nd2?!

Rather than seek clarity Black goes in for complications. It maybe offering the f-pawn with 27..., Rc8 28 Nd7 Nxd7 29 Bxd7 Rd8 30 Bxf5 Nd2 31 Rfd1 Nb3; eliminating the Bd4 and setting the stage for an advance of the Q-side pawns is the correct way to play this position. There is now a period of complexity while time was getting short for both players.

28.Rfd1 Nb3 29.Nc6 Bxc6 30.Bxb3+ Kf8 31.Bxf6,..

White has achieved much. The game is near equal. The decision to go for material is understandable. Tougher is 31 Be5 Rb5 32 Bd6+ Ke8 33 Ba4 Rb6 34 Bxc6 Rxc6 35 Bxb4, eliminating one of the passed pawns making the game nearly equal. Mr. Wright may have been motivated by a wish to get back to the hunt for the title by winning this game. I am not certain the position justifies playing for a win by White, but that is one of those decisions easier to make after the fact than in the heat of battle.

31..., gxf6 32.Rd6 Be8 33.Rxf6+ Kg7 34.Rxf5 a4 35.Bd5 Bg6?!

It is harder meet 35..., Ra5. The position then looks won for Black. After the text the game equalizes.

36.Bxa8 Bxf5 37.Rxa4 b3 38.Bd5 b2 39 Ba2 0–1

I was not able to get the remaining moves. They were played at a very rapid pace, and both players were down to about two minutes on the clocks. Eventually, Black won. The victory vaulted Gordon Magat into the lead. In the final few rounds all will be targeting Gordon, but I like his chances.

More soon.

I Don't Always Get It Right!

2011-12-10T16:22:00.000-05:00

A CORRECTION: My last post had some erroneous conclusions because I had not properly verified all the results were entered in my records. My good friend Richard Chu pointed out my errors and omissions on the results for Section B. With the help of our tournament director, and the keeper of all records for Schenectady, Bill Townsend, I was able to bring my records up to date. My apologies for the mistakes. Here is what I should have said:

The situation in Section B correctly stated is; Matthew Clough has completed all of his games and scored 1 ½ points and Herman Calderone has also completed all his games achieving the same score. David Connors reached 1 ½ points with two games to play. It is conceivable that Mr. Connors could finish in a higher place than Clough or Calderone. Richard Chu has scored 2 points with one game to play. The withdrawal of Akhil Kamma, confirmed Thursday evening, means the contest for last spot in the finals from Section B is between Chu and Connors. Connors has to play Phillips and Le Cours, two strong Class A players and score at least one draw to tie with Chu’s current score. Chu has to play Alan Le Cours. In years past Mr. Chu has won twice from Mr. Le Cours. It is possible that Richard will increase his point total. So, the third qualifying spot remains undecided. The struggle to qualify for the Schenectady Finals is usually tough right down to the end, This year follows the pattern.

More soon.

Thursday at Schenectady

2011-12-09T11:29:00.000-05:00

Thursday evening was a make up round for the Schenectady Preliminaries. Even with Thursday’s games in the record there are several more to be made up. Without question play will not be finished until after the holidays because Connors and Le Cours are involved in just about all of the games still to be played.

Thursday saw an upset; Herman Calderone held Alan Le Cours to a draw. The 400+ point rating difference made this a surprise for sure. Their Queen’s Pawn Game/Colle System opening took a slightly odd turn early on and the game was drawn by repetition on move 25. Mr. Calderone has had a pretty good outing in this year’s preliminaries. He still has one game to play versus Matt Clough and has scored three draws with two losses so far. If he wins from Clough, finishing at -1 when you are the lowest rated player is not too bad at all. I don’t expect this set-back to prevent Alan Le Cours from qualifying for the Finals. He has to face Richard Chu and his Saratoga club mate, David Connors. Mr. Le Cours has good records against these two, and the withdrawal of Ahkil Kamma from the Finals removes most of the uncertainty for Alan’s qualification.

The other Calderone, Herman’s son and rising scholastic player, Zack, fought hard against Philip Sells, one of the leaders in Section A. Mr. Sells got into his usual difficulties with the clock, although for Sells it was by no means the worst case of time trouble he has successfully navigated. Sells’ clock problems seemed to have a bigger effect on Zack than it did on Philip. In the final few moves, Zack missed a trick that could have rescued the half-point. Even if Zack had managed to draw, Sells would have still qualified to the Finals. However, that possible half-point would have helped Zack in his quest for a qualifying spot. As it is, the third seat in the Finals may well be decided by the Zachery Calderone - Aaron Dilip game to be played soon. If either can win and reach a 4 - 2 score to join Sells and Varela in the Finals from Section A it will be nice step forward for a young player.

Matt Clough and David Connors played an odd line in the Scandinavian. But for a couple of oversights, the game was well played. Mr. Connors emerged the winner in an endgame where he saw the longish sequence leading to the win instantly when it became available. He played the finish surely and confidently. This win probably settled the battle not to be the “tail ender” in the section, however both players have more make up games: Clough has to play Richard Chu, and Connors has Le Cours and Phillips yet to play. Upsets in these last contests could change the order of finish. Connors’ task is at least twice as hard as is Clough’s. Mr. Chu is sometimes variable, and it not inconceivable he might drop a point to Mr. Clough. Mr. Connors is variable in his own right. When he plays his best, David can upset contenders. He’s done so in the tough Saratoga Championship in years past. The upshot is there are still games to be played in both sections, and all outcomes are not yet completely clear.

More soon.

The From's Gambit 2

2011-12-08T15:55:00.001-05:00

Wednesday evening, December 7th, a truncated round was played at the Albany Area Chess Club. Not playing were; Howard, Lack, and Alowitz. Three games took place; Gordon Magat defeated Tim Wright, Peter Henner won over Chris Caravaty and Cory Northrup and Jason Denham fought to a draw.

Updating the standings in the AACC contest with the elimination of Ahkil Kamma’s games:

1 Magat 4 - 1

2 Howard 2 ½ 1 ½

3 Henner 2 - 1

4 Alowitz 2 -2

5&6 Lack 1 ½ - 1 ½

5&6 Northrup 1 ½ - ½

7 Wright 1 ½ - 2 ½

8&9 Denham 1 - 3

8&9 Caravaty 1 - 3

The games among Magat, Howard and Henner are still to be played and will have a significant effect on the final standings. Mr. Magat has a pretty good lead. With a little luck and some good chess he has maybe the best chances to win the title this year. His closest competitors will do all they can to prevent that no doubt.

In my last post there was a great deal of material on historic games in the From’s. There will be far less background material this time mostly because this pair; Henner and Wright take the game out of theory quickly.

Henner, Peter - Wright, Tim [A02]

AACC Championship Guilderland, NY, 30.11.2011

1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Nc3 0–0 6.d4!?,..

A committal move. It takes control of a piece of the center but leaves behind some holes. Safer is 6 e3.

6..., h6 7.g3 Bg4 8.Bg2 c6!?

This is not a position found in theory. Rybka says White is maybe a bit better than expected for having the first move, but it is not a lot. Rather than the last move, Black could have played 8..., Nc6; when Rybka sees Black nearly equal. He has gained a tempo or two for the pawn. After the text White is catching up in development. To repeat from the last post; Black has to strive for maximum activity and tension, he has, after all, given up a pawn.

9.Qd3 Na6 10.a3 Re8 11.Bf4?!,..

White here is seduced by the same devil as was Caravaty; opposite side castling. In general castling on different sides of the board raise the tension in the position and set the stage for sacrificial attacks. White has a pawn in the bag. Why does White want to set up a rich tactical environment? Consolidation should be the order of the day for him.

11..., Bxf4 12.gxf4 Qd6?

Black has the right idea, he just picks the wrong piece with which to attack f4. Here 12..., Nh5 13 Qd2 Bxf3 14 Bxf3 Qh4+ 15 Kd1 Nxf4; recovers the pawn, and Black has more than equalized. White now obtains a significant advantage.

13.Ne5 Nc7 14.Ne4 Nxe4 15.Bxe4 Be6 16.0–0–0?!,..

A moment where Aagaard’s unforced thinking could have been invoked. The assumption that castling is always good, or necessary before undertaking attacking operations influences Mr. Henner. White could have gotten his full due with 16 Rg1, then if 16..., Rad8 17 Qg3, just about forces 17..., Qf1; and then castling for White achieves a smooth development with good chances to continue the attack.

16..., Red8 17.Rhg1 Ne8

Black was given the time to clear e8 for this Knight. Now it is true White is still a lot better, however Black has been able to craft a defense.

18.f5 Bd5 19.Bxd5 cxd5 20.Qg3 Qf6?!

Better is 20..., f6; it makes for a sturdier bulwark. Had Black played so there might have been a chance to make something out of the half open c-file.

21.Ng4?!,..

Just shifting the King to b1 avoids the check coming.

21..., Qg5+

Black now forces off the Queens reducing the heat in the direct attack. This is a sensible and practical decision. Black still has the pawn deficit to deal with in the ending, but there are always chances in endings with the Rooks on to craft a draw.

22.Kb1 h5 23.Ne5 Qxg3 24.Rxg3 Nd6?

The Knight was doing good duty on e8. Moving him away a beat too soon leads to troubles.

25.Rdg1 Nxf5 26.Rg5,..

Either Mr. Wright undervalued this lateral attack, or he misevaluated the ensuing positions.

26... f6 27.Rxf5 fxe5 28.Rxe5 Re8 29.Rgg5 h4

The White Rooks are very actively posted, so much so it is hard to see Black not trading off a pair soon.

30.Kc1 Rad8 31.Kd2,..

The e-pawn is now secured and Black has to get rid of a pair of Rooks lest all his forward pawns are plundered.

31..., Rxe5 32.Rxe5 g6 33.Ke3?!,..

White has a very good position. The choice here is how to proceed. White can bring his King forward, he can put the Rook on the seventh, or the e-pawn can be advanced. I would prefer going to the seventh rank with the Rook. That is where the Rook belongs. Perhaps Peter was motivated by the wish to keep the Black Rook from getting any activity. The game shows the Black rook can find something active to do because the White King can not support his Q-side pawns. It turns out this activity is not enough to offset the advantage White has.

Here is a sample line with the Rook on the seventh; 33 Re7 Rf8 34 Rxb7 Rf2 35 h3 Rh2 36 Rb3, then the White Rook will shift to e3 or f3 and the Q-side pawns can’t be stopped because the White Rook cuts off the Black King. This seems to me to be a less worrisome way to exploit the advantage than the game continuation. Of course, it really is a question of style, and there are many ways to finish.

33... Kf7 34.Kf4,..

White has his sights set on the h-pawn. With no direct defense possible, Black tries to make something useful out of his Rook.

34..., Kf6

It may be better to play 34..., Rd6; first. Getting some freedom for the Rook along the sixth rank offers a glimmer of hope. Play might continue; 35 Kg4 Rc6 36 c3 Rb6 37 b4 Rc6 38 Rxd5 Rxc6 39 Rd7+ Ke6 40 Rxb7 Rxa3 41 e4 Re3 42 Kf4 Re2 43 Rxa7 g5+!? 44 Kf3? Rxh2; and Black has some slim hopes of finding a draw. However, if White plays better he has a won game after 44 Kxg5, leading to White having two widely separate passed pawns, a standard winning position.

35.Kg4 Rd6 36.Kxh4 Rb6 37.Rxd5 Rxb2 38.Rc5 Ra2 39.Rc3,..

White has pocketed a second pawn. It is now a matter of getting the central passers rolling. The White Rook and King are excellent convoys for the pawns. It will not make much difference to the outcome if one, or even two of the laggard White pawns are captured, the d & e-pawns will carry the day.

39..., a6 40.e4 Ra1 41.Kg3 Rg1+ 42.Kf2 Rd1 43.Rf3+ Ke6 44.Ke3 Re1+ 45.Kd3 b5 46.Rg3 Kf6 47.e5+ Kg7 48.Re3 Rd1+ 49.Ke4 Rd2 50.Kd5 Kg8 51.Rc3 Rxh2 52.Ke6 g5 53.d5 g4 54.d6 Rh6+ 55.Kf5 Rh5+ 56.Kf6 Rh6+ 57.Kg5 Rh3 58.Rc8+ 1–0

And so, two From’s Gambits side-by-side came to grief on this evening. The fault in both cases can be laid to two causes; this gambit is not quite sound, and if you mean to play the Gambit, understanding the need to increase the tension while getting the maximum activity for your pieces is crucial. The From’s is a gamble, even more so than the King’s Gambit. At every turn, Black has to weigh up the choices and must go for that which is most active. To repeat Jon Leisner’s dictum; to play the From’s you must be aggressive and accurate.

More soon.

Watching London

2011-12-07T18:52:00.001-05:00

Note that the London Chess Classic now has its own YouTube Channel:

https://www.youtube.com/user/LondonChessClassic

And New York's own Hikaru Nakamura beat 2 of the top three players in the world this week, including the World Champion! Will he win the whole event??? Stay tuned.

The From's Gambit 1

2011-12-06T16:49:00.000-05:00

There was a curiosity in the round of the AACC Championship on the last day of November; two Bird’s Openings, From’s Gambits played side by side. Caravaty - Denham and Henner - Wright. This is not a vary usual opening sequence, not locally nor internationally. Having two together has to be a maybe a one time occurrence.

Caravaty, Chris - Denham, Jason [A02]

AACC Championship Guilderland, NY, 30.11.2011

1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6

One reason why we don’t find many From’s Gambits in the databases is White can always play 2 f4, converting the game into the King’s Gambit, an opening with tons of theory. The Grandmasters do this frequently.

Here are a couple of games that Bird himself played against the second World Champion. Lasker used the From’s in both. It can’t be said Lasker got any great things out of the opening. He did however, obtain a position with many chances for Black to make and keep the game tactical, just what Lasker liked.

(1477) Bird,Henry Edward - Lasker,Emanuel [A02]

Newcastle on Tyne (2), 1892

1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 g5 5.d4 g4 6.Ne5 Bxe5 7.dxe5 Qxd1+ 8.Kxd1 Nc6 9.Bf4 Be6 10.e3 Nge7 11.Bb5 0–0–0+ 12.Kc1 Bd5 13.Rg1 a6 14.Be2 Be6 15.Nc3 h6 16.Bd3 Ng6 17.Bxg6 fxg6 18.Rd1 Rde8 19.e4 g5 20.Bg3 Rhf8 21.b3 h5 22.Rd2 h4 23.Bf2 Nxe5 24.Be3 h3 25.Bxg5 g3 26.hxg3 Rf1+ 27.Kb2 Rxa1 28.Kxa1 h2 29.Rd1 Ng4 30.Rh1 Bf7 31.Kb2 c6 32.Kc1 Bg6 33.Kd2 Rxe4 34.Nd1 Rd4+ 35.Ke2 Rxd1 36.Rxd1 Be4 37.Rd8+ Kc7 38.Rd1 Bxg2 39.Bd8+ Kc8 40.Bb6 Bd5 0–1

(1813) Bird,Henry Edward - Lasker,Emanuel [A02]

Hastings (5), 1895

1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.g3 f5 5.d3 Nf6 6.c3 Nc6 7.Bg2 Ne5 8.Nd2 Qe7 9.Nf1 Bd7 10.Bf4 0–0 11.Bxe5 Bxe5 12.Qc2 Kh8 13.Bf3 Rab8 14.Qd2 Rfe8 15.h3 Qd6 16.Kf2 c5 17.e3 Bb5 18.Rd1 Rbd8 19.c4 Bc6 20.Qe2 b5 21.b3 bxc4 22.bxc4 Ba4 23.Rb1 Rb8 24.Nd2 Bxg3+ 25.Kg2 Bh4 26.Rh2 Bc2 27.Rxb8 Rxb8 28.d4 cxd4 29.exd4 Re8 30.Qf1 Re1 31.c5 Qxd4 32.Qxe1 Bxe1 33.Nb3 Bxb3 34.axb3 Qxc5 0–1

Since those very early days, the Bird’s shows up more frequently in weekend Swiss tournaments that it does in the more serious international contests. Nevertheless, every once in awhile a strong player rolls it out.

The next example sees a strong Russian GM suffer at the hands of a young IM when the IM attacks thematically on the K-side. Black invests a pawn in the opening. To make that worthwhile he must find the maximum activity for his pieces and keep the White pieces bottled up for as long as possible.

(639269) Kholmov, Ratmir D (2427) - Colin, Vincent (2327) [A02]

Olomouc Mipap Cup (8), 07.08.2001

1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 g5 5.g3 g4 6.Nh4 Ne7 7.d4 Ng6 8.Ng2 Nc6 9.c3 h5 10.Qd3 h4 11.Nf4 Qf6 12.Nxg6 fxg6 13.Bg2 hxg3 14.hxg3 Rxh1+ 15.Bxh1 Bf5 16.Bxc6+ bxc6 17.e4 Qe6 18.Nd2 g5 19.Kd1 Bg6 20.b4 Kf7 21.Qf1+ Kg7 22.e5 Be7 23.Nc4 Rf8 24.Qe2 Rf3 25.Be3 Qf5 26.Ke1 Rxg3 27.Rc1 Rh3 28.Bg1 g3 29.Qg2 Qe4+ 30.Qxe4 Bxe4 31.Ke2 g4 32.Nd2 Bg5 33.Re1 Bg6 34.Nf1 g2 35.Ne3 Be4 36.Bf2 Bf4 37.Bg1 Bh2 38.Nxg4 Bf3+ 39.Kf2 Bg3+ 40.Kxf3 Bxe1+ 41.Ke2 Bxc3 42.Ne3 Bxb4 43.Nxg2 Rg3 44.Kf2 Ra3 45.Nf4 Rxa2+ 46.Kf3 Kf7 47.Ke4 Be7 48.Nd3 a5 49.Be3 a4 50.d5 cxd5+ 51.Kxd5 a3 52.Kc4 Re2 53.Bd4 Re4 0–1

Here are two even higher rated players in a stern battle. Black gives little regard to such positional niceties such as pawn structure in an effort to make things happen on the board. Jon Leisner, one of our local lights and a long time Bird’s player was watching the two AACC games at the club. He offered this bit of wisdom: If you play the From’s you must get activity and the initiative, or it is just a lost pawn. See how that is done here.

(652090) Danielsen, Henrik (2526) - Stern, Rene (2474) [A02]

BL2-Nord 0102 Germany (7.1), 17.03.2002

1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 g5 5.g3 Nc6 6.Nc3 g4 7.Nh4 Be7 8.Ng2 h5 9.Nf4 h4 10.Bg2 hxg3 11.hxg3 Rxh1+ 12.Bxh1 Qd4 13.e3 Qh8 14.Bxc6+ bxc6 15.Qe2 Nf6 16.Qg2 Bb7 17.e4 Nd7 18.d3 Ne5 19.Be3 Nf3+ 20.Kf2 0–0–0 21.Rh1 Qf8 22.Rh5 Bf6 23.Qh1 Qb4 24.Qa1 Bd4 25.Ng2 c5 26.a3 Qb6 27.Qa2 Qf6 28.Bxd4 Nxd4+ 29.Nf4 Nxc2 30.Qc4 Ba6 31.Qxc5 Rxd3 32.Qxa7 Rd2+ 33.Kg1 Qd4+ 34.Qxd4 Nxd4 35.Rh8+ Kb7 36.b4 Nf3+ 37.Kh1 Bf1 38.Rh6 Rc2 0–1

In the next game Kotronias, a strong Greek GM does well until deep in the ending. He miss-plays the three pawns versus Rook finish and gives up an unnecessary half-point. Black handles the opening, the middle game and most of the ending nicely keeping a win in hand. I suspect time trouble led to the slip just before cashing in the full point.

(712429) Grunberg, Mihai (2445) - Kotronias, Vasilios (2578) [A02]

Kavala (8), 16.08.2002

1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 g5 5.d4 g4 6.Ne5 Bxe5 7.dxe5 Qxd1+ 8.Kxd1 Nc6 9.Nc3 Be6 10.Bf4 0–0–0+ 11.Ke1 h6 12.e3 Nge7 13.Bd3 Ng6 14.Bxg6 fxg6 15.Rd1 g5 16.Bg3 h5 17.Ne4 Rdg8 18.Nc5 Re8 19.e4 h4 20.Bf2 g3 21.hxg3 Bg4 [21...hxg3] 22.gxh4 Bxd1 23.Kxd1 Nxe5 24.h5 Ng4 25.Ke2 b6 26.Nd3 Rxe4+ 27.Kf3 Nf6 28.h6 c5 29.Be1 Re6 30.Bc3 c4 31.Ne5 Nd5 32.Ng6 Rh7 33.Nf8 Rf7+ 34.Kg4 Rxf8 35.h7 Nxc3 36.h8Q Rxh8 37.Rxh8+ Kb7 38.bxc3 Re2 39.Rh2 Rxc2 40.Kxg5 Rxa2 41.Rh7+ Kc6 42.g4 a5 43.Kf4 Rf2+ 44.Ke3 Rg2 45.Rg7 Kb5 46.g5 Ka4 47.Kf3 Rc2 48.g6 Rxc3+ 49.Kf2 Rd3 50.Rc7 Kb4 51.g7 Rd8 52.Rc6 b5 53.Rg6 a4 54.g8Q Rxg8 55.Rxg8 a3 56.Ke3 Kc3 57.Ke4 a2 58.Rg3+ Kb2 59.Rg2+ Kb3 60.Rg3+ Kb2 61.Rg2+ Kb3 62.Rg1 c3 63.Kd3 b4 64.Rh1 c2 65.Rc1 Kb2 66.Rxc2+ Kb1 67.Rh2 b3 68.Kc4 ½–½

After all that background information we return to the local game.

3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 Bg4!?

Either 4..., g5; or 4..., Nf6; are the standard tries for Black. Way back in 1903 Marshall played the text against Albin at Monte Carlo and won with this move. Marshall’s victory was despite the text. There were several points at which the American champion was lost. Alpin got tamgled in the complications Marshall kept piling on and was out played in the ending.

Mr. Caravaty provided me with notes on his game with Denham. In the notes he is critical of 5 g3. Correct is 5 e3. Chris was worried about the Black Queen checking on h4. The answer is of course, take off the Queen on h4, lose the Queen on d1 and just be a pawn up going into an ending.

5.g3 Nf6 6.Nc3 c6

Mr. Denham starts to play as if the position is “normal”. It isn’t. Black gave up a pawn. So called normal play just lets White have the better game. Worth consideration here is 6..., Qe7; angling for long castling. Black has to make every effort to introduce tension into the position and strive for maximum piece activity. If you gambit, every tempo is precious. Black has in mind a Q&B battery on the h2-b8 diagonal. The one extra move it takes to achieve that end is too much. White will have time to meet the idea.

7.Bg2 0–0 8.d3 Qc7 9.Be3 Nbd7 10.Qd2 Rfe8 11.Bf4?,..

It is not good to move a piece a second time in the opening in general. Here specifically 11 0-0-0, is logical but maybe not quite right. The computer likes the move 11 a3, to see, I guess, if Black is going to rush his Q-side pawns forward. Probably best of all is 11 0-0, leaving White a reasonable game after Be3-f2, and e2-e4.

White has fastened on the idea that Black is going to sacrifice at g3 and he hurries to defuse that imagined threat. Let us say White played 11 0-0, and Black went right for the throat with 11..., Nh5; then 12 Ne5, hit’s the Bd6 and reinforces g3. Any all-out sacrificial assault beginning with say 12..., Nxg3 13 Nxg3 Bxg3 14 hxg3 Qxg3; comes to great sorrow after 15 Bf4 trapping the Queen. Other variants of the idea lose lesser material but are just as fatal to the Black cause.

Black made a gesture - building the battery - White reacts to what is a bogus threat, and the game takes an illogical path for the moment. After the text, the game equalizes and the comfortable edge White has had since the pawn was won is gone.

11..., Nb6?

Suspect first because it is not forceful enough and second because there is a better move; 11..., Bxf4; then if 12 gxf4 Nh5; and White will have to give back the pawn. He does have some open files bearing on the Black King, but there are defensive resources available, the Bishop can go back to g6 for example. If you are going to play the From’s, running risks are part of the price.

Here is a game Mockler and I played a few years ago

Mockler, Michael - Little, Bill [A02]

SCC Championship Schenectady, NY, 06.11.2006

1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 g5 4.d4 g4 5.Ng5 d5 6.exd6 Bxd6 7.c3 Be7 8.Ne4 Be6 [8...f5 9.Qb3] 9.Nf2 f5 10.Qd3 Qd7 11.Bf4 0–0–0 12.Nd2 Nf6 13.Qb5 Nd5 14.Nd3 a6 15.Qa4 Nb6 16.Qc2 Nd5 17.0–0–0 Nxf4 18.Nxf4 Bxa2 19.e4 fxe4 20.Qxe4 Bg5 21.g3 Rhe8 22.Qc2 Bxf4 23.gxf4 Bd5 24.Bd3 Rf8 25.Rhf1 h5 26.Bg6 h4 27.f5 Ne7 28.Bh7 Rf6 29.Ne4 Bxe4 30.Qxe4 Rdf8 31.Qxg4 Nd5 32.Bg8 [32.Rg1] 32...Ne3 33.Qh3 Rxf5 34.Rxf5 Rxg8 35.Rdf1 Nxf5 36.Rxf5 Rh8 37.Qf3 Qe6 38.Re5 Qh6+ 39.Kb1 Rf8 40.Qg4+ Kb8 41.Rh5 Qd2 42.Rxh4 Rf2 43.Qg8+ Ka7 44.Qb3 Rf1+ 45.Ka2 Qe1 46.Qc4 Qxh4 47.Qxf1 Qxh2 ½–½

Mike erred when he lost the a-pawn, and I failed at the end of the game to cash in the full point by missing 44..., Qe1+; and 45..., Rf5; winning material. The game, even with its flaws illustrates the style that is necessary if you want to play the Form’s with chances for success.

12.e4 Nfd5 13.Bxd6 Qxd6 14.0–0–0?!,..

The Knight move to b6 was a second tempo squandered, and it let White get back to a comfortable advantage. Now White gives Black something to play for; opposite side castling means the enemy pawns in front of your King can often advance without a care. If they are lost, open files appear.

14..., Nc7?

White offered Black the chance to find some pressure to balance the material deficit. Ambitious but not quite enough is; 14..., Nxc3 15 Qxc3 Na4 16 Qb3 b5 17 d4 a5. White is still better, but he has things to calculate on the Q-side. Not every time will you find a move or sequence that brings you equality. Sometimes you have to settle for just a position with chances. It makes sense here to try and generate counter-play with a Q-side pawn advance for Black.

15.Qf4 Qxf4+ 16.gxf4 Rad8

Now with the Queens off and White dominating the center, Black has no hope other than maintaining a solid defense while waiting for a chance to trade down into some endgame that might be held.

17.h3 Bh5 18.Rd2 Ne6 19.Ne2 f6 20.f5 Nc5 21.Nf4 Bf7 22.Kb1,..

Chris commented here: “My attention wrongly is diverted to my pawn (a2).. Its OK but 22 Rg1, or 22 Bf1, would be better..”

22..., a5 23.Rg1 Kh8 24.Bf1 Na6

The last few moves and the coming several are all clear. White will build pressure down the g-file and look for a breakthrough. Black is calculating how he can keep things barricaded for as long as possible.

25.Rdg2?,..

A blunder that could have really changed the course of the game. White missed 25..., Rxe4!, there is a mate if 26 dxe4. Chris said: “My biggest blunder of the game. Completely missed that my Bishop newly on the back rank created a weakness!” Better are 25 h4, or 25 b3, as mentioned by Chris in his notes. Had Black caught the move he would come out of the flurry of tactics with at equality and maybe some advantage.

25..., Rg8 26.Be2 Nc7 27.h4 Rd7 28.h5 h6 29.Nh4 Be8 30.Nhg6+ Kh7 31.Bd1?!,..

To this point White has done an admirable job of confining the Black pieces, and Mr. Caravaty has used the first principle of good technique; maintain the advantage won, don’t dilute it by entering unclear complications. Everything is in place for a break now, it has all been prepared. So, to what purpose this retreat to the first rank? White apparently can not quite make up his mind to go forward with 31 e5. This little push brings down the Black defenses after 31..., Ncd5 32 Ne6 Rf7 33 d4 fxe5 34 dxe5 Rxf5 35 Bd3, or 34..., Ne3 35 Rg3 Nxf5 36 Rf3 Nd5 37 Bd3 Nde3 38 Nh5, with a winning position for White. The problem is once you have reached the maximum level of positional dominance, it is hard to just hold on to that advantage if you don’t continue with the natural break when all is ready. This is what happens in the game.

31..., Nc8 32.Rg3 b5 33.c3 Nb6 34.Bb3,..

This whole rather slow idea has to be commended but with a little reluctance. White wants to increase his advantage with the elimination of the Bishops. The break outlined above converts the positional advantage to a concrete material advantage. As pieces come off the absolute bind White has achieved can loosen up. Of course, it can not be forgotten the winning chances are all for White because of his extra pawn.

34..., Bf7 35.Bxf7?..,

White misses a really tough move for Black to meet; 35 Be6! Chris said about this: “I go about my plan of trading off the bad Bishop. During the course of this I completely missed a killer blow 35 Be6! Ahh, didn’t this register in my mind? Error, mindless automatic capture when better continuations exist.” A good place to bring up Aagaard’s forced and forced thinking concept. Forced thinking = assuming things are true in slightly changed position versus unforced thinking = looking at each position as it occurs with fresh eyes challenging your previous assumptions. And, as Keres said: “When I find a moves that wins, I always go back to search for a move that wins faster!”

34..., Rxf7 36.Kc2?!,..

Once more White takes the slower approach. The move 36 Ne6, increasing the pressure on g7, is reasonable. If Black plays 36..., Ne8 37 Nd4 Rc7 38 Kc2, and White continues his python-like appraoch.

36..., c5 37.b3?,..

This eases things for Black, not enough to say the game is equalizing but the squeeze eases up.

37..., Rd8?

Better 37..., Re8. The text allows 38 Ne6, and then 38..., Rc8 39 Ne5! fxe5 40 Rxg7+ Rxg7 41 Rxg7+ Kh8 42 Rxc7, converting to an ending up two pawns with one a protected “passer”. All-in-all a relatively easy win for White.

38.Nh4?,..

Unable to see his way through the fog on the battlefield, White maneuvers letting bind slip some more.

38..., Ne8 39.Ne6 Rc8 40.Ng6 c4 41.bxc4 bxc4 42.d4 Na4 43.Ngf4?,..

White maneuvers his Knights further when 43 Rb1, to keep trouble from popping up on the b-file, is better. Chris said here: “Worst move of the game. New open file created, new and only open file - OCCUPY IT!” He said further: “I’ve lost everything to do with my advantage, how miserable.” I think Mr. Caravaty is too critical here. White does still have the pawn.

43..., Rb8 44.Rb1 Rxb1 45.Kxb1 Nxc3+?

After a heroic defense, Mr. Denham just does not see c3 is defended. It is sad he did find 45..., Nd6! The move is not enough once again to equalize, but it sets problems for White by continuing the stubborn defense. The game move drops a piece and the game ended. If Black tries to equalize material with 45..., Nd6! 46 Re3 Rb7+ 47 Kc1, and if47..., Rb2 48 Nc5 Rf2 49 Ne2 Nb6 50 a3, frustrates that effort. Black can play differently with 47..., Rb5 48 Ng6 Ne8 49 e5 Rb7 50 Nef4, when the central passed pawns looms large. Either way White has a big advantage.

46.Rxc3 1–0

When Black gives a pawn in the opening he must be well prepared and willing to take risks. Failure to do so leads to the unpleasant task of defending a position that can only be held if the opponent fumbles. Now, at the local level we certainly make those fumbles too frequently, but counting on mistakes is not the path to enjoying chess. It is much better to make things interesting on the board for both players by introducing risks and tension. Even if the risks boomerang on you, your tactical sense will improve with practice.

MM Botvinnik long ago said the way to improve your chess is to analyze your games and get them out to as wide as audience as possible. Getting critical feedback on both the play and the analysis will help you move forward as a player. Chris Caravaty’s notes helped me greatly while putting together this post. It is something all players should do as often as they can.

Reporting from London Chess Classic (kinda)

2011-12-03T08:53:00.001-05:00

This intrepid reporter THOUGHT about going to London this year to cover the growing phenomenon called the Chess Classic for my first time. Sounds like an awesome time! I even applied for and received a press pass. Alas I could not make it work out with my job so I thought "maybe next year."

Much to my surprise, my press pass is now getting me some goodies while I sit home in Poestenkill, NY. I am being e-mailed materials for the press! So I am going to post for you what looks postable and hope that this isn't problematic in any way.

Well, that is me reporting from Corus not London ... or Poestenkill ... but I just want to get your attention.

As I await the start of round 1, I have received the following treats about the pre-tournament press conference and Twitter game. Enjoy!

http://raymorris-hill.smugmug.com/Sports/Chess/LOndon-Chess-Classic-2011/20380346_43jHNz#1613000481_6gxfS74

An AACC Game From Two Weeks Ago

2011-11-30T15:31:00.001-05:00

A couple of weeks ago this short sharp game was played at the AACC. In it Tim Wright anxious to get back on the winning path faced the strong unrated Chris Caravaty. There were some big swings in the advantage highlighting the drama of the occasion; a contender for the title fighting to get back into the battle for the title, and a newcomer trying to establish a reputation.

Wright, Tim - Caravaty, Chris [E11]

AACC Championship, Guilderland, NY, 16.11.2011

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.Bd2 Bxd2+ 5.Nbxd2 d5 6.e3 0–0 7.Bd3,..

White usually plays 7 Qc2, not wanting to move the Bf1 before Black captures on c4. The position is known to theory, but is not particularly popular. There virtually no games between strong players in the databases in this line.

7..., dxc4?!

White obtains an edge after this move. Better for Black is 7..., c5; then 8 dxc5 Na6 9 Nb3 Nxc5 10 Nxc5 dxc4 11 Bxc4 Qa5+; equalizes. Alternatively, 8 0-0 cxd4 9 exd4 Nc6; looks OK for Black.

8.Nxc4 Nbd7 9.0–0 c5 10.Re1!?,..

According to Rybka this move is not quite right. The computer suggests 10 Nfe5!? b5 11 Nd6 Qb6 12 dxc5 Qxc5 13 Nexf7 Rxf7 14 Rc1 Qe5 15 Bxh7+ Kxh7 16 Nxf7 Qxb2 17 Ng5+ Kg8 18 Qd6 Qe5 19 Qxe6+ Qxe6 20 Nxe6, a rather long and complicated sequence creating the material imbalance of a Rook and two versus B+N. GM Andrew Soltis addresses many important issues of theory in his book Rethinking the Chess Pieces, Batsford,2004 including the Rook versus minor pieces. He makes the points; Queens off favor the Rook, pawns on both sides favor the Rook, and maintaining the initiative is critical. In the analysis line White does not have a strong hold on the initiative, but the other two factors favor him. With the alternative long and not so clear, it is understandable that White takes a conservative path.

10..., b5 11.Ncd2 c4 12.Bc2 Bb7

The game is approximately even. Black has space on the Q-side and the possibility of making a passed pawn there. The White pieces are ready to flood onto the K-side and directly attack the Black King. Which nascent plan is best? It is hard to say. Probably the plan most efficiently carried out will prevail.

13.e4 Rc8 14.e5 Nd5 15.Ne4 b4?

A critical moment in the game. Black here has to decide how to execute his plan of Q-side pressure. I don’t know if he also considered defensive measures necessary to blunt the coming assault on his King. The choice evident from his move emphasizes Q-side activity. Rybka suggests; 15..., Nb4; and a later capture of the Ne4 by the Bb7 to reduce the attacking force.

16.Nfg5 h6 17.Qh5?,..

Ambitious and aggressive but it shouldn’t work. Much more likely to lead to an advantage is 17 Nh7!?, then Black will have to make a decision; take the Nh7, or try for complications on the Q-side that look questionable with 17..., b3. Capturing the Nh7 gives; 17..., Kxh7 18 Nd6+ Kg8 19 Nxb7 Qb6 20 Nd6 Rc6 21 b3 c3; and the tense and difficult battle rages on. If 17..., b3 18 axb3 cxb3 19 Bd3, Black is left with nothing better than 19..., Kxh7; giving White the better game.

17..., Nf4 18.Qh4?,..

White did not see what was about to happen, otherwise he would have played 18 Qg4, avoiding putting the Queen in a costly pin.

18..., Ng6?

Missing the shot 18..., Bxe4!, winning a piece because of the Knight pinned on g5. Black may have been a victim of Aagaard’s forced thinking idea. Chris assumed somewhere along the line that capturing on e4 with the Bishop was bad, and kept that assumption as part of his calculations right through to this point thereby forcing a decision without reexamination of the assumptions underlying the decision. Aagaard makes the point that unforced thinking, that is challenging all assumptions made earlier in the game, is the way avoid oversights in calculation.

19.Qh5 hxg5?

In chess as in life troubles often come not singly but in bunches. Black missed a chance to win material. He now overlooks a mating combination. With 19..., Qe7; Black would certainly be no worse than White and maybe a bit better.

20.Nxg5 Re8 21.Bxg6 fxg6?

Either Black didn’t see what was happening yet, or he gave up after the shock of the sacrifice. True enough Black is in deep trouble after 21..., Qxg5 22 Bxf7+ Kf8 23 Qxg5 Kxf7; with only two minor pieces for a Queen and two pawns, but there is no immediate mate. The text permits mate in three.

22.Qh7+ Kf8 23.Qh8+ 1–0

A game decided in the heat of a tactical battle. After White pushed his pawn to e5, the game began to look like some variations of the Slav where White attacks with the Queen and Knight as in the game. My guess is Mr. Caravaty was not familiar with that aspect of the Slav. Mr. Wright misconstrued the idea also. There is, however, in chess prejudice towards activity over caution. Wright’s not quite correct attack carried the day with a nice combination leading to mate.

More soon.

A Game From the Last Round in Schenectady

2011-11-29T14:47:00.000-05:00

Today’s game is from the Schenectady Chess Club’s Preliminaries, the B section. It features the Colle System, an opening I have been working on with Charles Eson.

Connors, David - Chu, Richard [D04]

SCC Prelim B Schenectady, NY, 17.11.2011

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.d4 d5 3.e3 g6 4.Nbd2 Bg7 5.Bd3 0–0 6.0–0 Nc6

Both sides have been “waiting to break”, that is assembling their forces to push forward a central pawn to open lines. The last move for Black prepares .., e7-e5; and the White pieces are poised for e3-e4. Neither side pulls the trigger. Why? Were the extra moves made by each side useful or not?

7.c3,..

One of the dynamic aspects of the Colle is White has several choices here including 7 c4. That move tries to shift the game towards a kind of Tchigorin Defense where Black does not advance of his c-pawn early. White probably did not care for 7 c4 Nb4 8 Bb1 dxc4 9 a3 Nd3 10 Nxc4 Nxc1 11 Qxc1, which Rybka calls equal but Black has the Bishop pair, a potential long term advantage. An alternative way to play the position is; 7 c4 Nb4 8 Bb1 dxc4 9 Nxc4 Be6 10 Ncd2 c5; and the position favors Black slightly

7..., Bd7!?

This does not advance the Black cause. It is by no means clear that this is a good post for this Bishop. Making a break first lets the breaking side call the tune for awhile. Black was ready on the move to play 7..., e5; then 8 dxe5 Ng4 9 e4 Ncxe5 10 Be2 Re8 11 h3 dxe4 12 Nxe4 Nxf3+ 13 Bxf3 Ne5 14 Be2 Bf5; and Black is slightly better.

8.Re1?!,..

This is an over refinement. 8 e4, immediately secures some advantage in the center for White.

8..., Re8 9.Ne5 Nxe5

White has played to forestall the Black break ..,e7-e5; but at a cost. He could have executed his own planned break with 9 e4.

10.dxe5 Ng4 11.f4 f6

Here it is somewhat more sensible to stabilize the center and apply some pressure to the White position with 11..., c6 and 12..., Qb6; before beginning to attack the head of the White pawn chain.

12.exf6?!,..

This trade is doubtful. It readily opens the e-file permitting pressure on e3 and e4. More reasonable is 12 h3 Nh6 13 Nf3, with e3-e4 coming soon. After the text Black has completely equalized and is slightly ahead in development. He still has to figure out what to eventually do with the Bd7 and that makes his development lead more optical than real.

12..., exf6 13.Nf3 c6 14.h3 Nh6 15.g4?,..

White was at a crossroads here. The text is misplaced aggression. Black supported his center with .., c7-c6. White would be well advised to do something to shake this strong central point. The natural c3-c4 suggests itself. After the text, Black has good chances to make the airy home of the white King very drafty indeed.

15..., Qb6

Diagonally pinning the e-pawn and touching b2, the Black Queen is nicely active from b6. The natural follow-on is .., f6-f5; taking control of e4 more or less permanently and leaving e3 as a long term problem for White.

16.Kg2 Nf7 17.Qc2 Nd6 18.b3 Re7?

Black had repeated opportunities to play .., f6-f5; and did not do so. He has part of the right idea; pressure on e3, but White also has a good idea; make tactical use of the momentarily awkward positioning of the Black Rook and Knight. Black’s failure to recognize the strength of the Bishop move to a3 leads to a lost position.

19.Ba3 c5 20.c4 d4 21.exd4 Rxe1 22.Rxe1 cxd4 23.c5 Qa5

No better is 23..., Qd8 24 cxd6, winning a piece.

24.Bb2?,..

After seeing and playing a pretty sequence that gave him a won game, White loses the thread of the game. With 24 cxd6 Qxa3 25 Qc7, and the follow-up moves Bc4+ and Re7, the White attack is crushing.

24..., Nb5?!

Better defensive chances are to be had with 24..., Nf7; or 24..., Rc8.

25.Bxb5 Bxb5 26.Bxd4 Bc6

The dust has settled a bit. White is up a sound pawn and his pieces are about to become even more active. Black faces a difficult task in defending his position.

27.Qc4+ Kf8 28.b4 Qd8 29.Qc3,..

Freeing the Nf3 of the pin with 29 Kg3, is better I think.

29...Bxf3+ 30.Kxf3 Qd5+ 31.Kg3 Kf7

GM Yermolinsky in his new series What Every Russian School Boy Knows on ICC has just finished covering the principles of Bishops of the same color endgames. His examples featured positions where the Queens were off or soon disappeared. The pawn structures then play an important role in the eventual outcome. In our game the Queens are traded and both sides play reasonably; Black making his pieces maximally active, and White holding on to his pawn while working towards creating a distant passed pawn. All this conforms to the principles Yermolinsky has set out. One of the less emphasized points in his presentations is the role of tactical alertness plays. Several of the examples used were possible variations that could have taken place if one of the players had not misunderstood the position and crashed on the rocks of tactical error. This happens in our game today.

32.Qe3 Bf8 33.Qe4 Rd8 34.Qxd5+ Rxd5 35.Bf2 Rd2 36.a3 a6 37.Re3 a5 38.Rc3 axb4 39.axb4 Rb2 40.Rc4 Rb3+ 41.Kh4?,..

White walks into a death trap! He had to play 41 Kg2, retaining some advantage. The text should result in the pretty finish; 41..., g5+! 42 fxg5 Kg6 43 gxf6 Bh6 44 g5 Bxg5+ 45 Kg5 h4; mate!

41..., h6?!

Missing the correct move but motivated by a similar notion.

42.Rd4?,..

White did not see the problem his King faces. Better 42 g5, then 42..., Ke6; leaves Black with the edge, but the game has some fight left.

42..., g5+!

Black has seen what White did not see. It is a two move mate.

43.fxg5 fxg5+ 0–1

How to sum up this game? Both players missed some very nice chances and found some pretty sequences and combinations. Spotty play is probably the right caption for this contest. The lesson to be learned from it is take an extra moment when there is a glaring feature on the board; a break to be made, a King in a dangerous position, etc. It is then GM Aagaard’s wisdom about forced and unforced thinking should be applied. Forced thinking is assuming that what you decided about a position earlier in the game still hold true. Unforced thinking means to look at each new position putting aside conclusions and assumptions made earlier in the creation of the current position and asking yourself what can be done now.

More soon.

Another Game From Saratoga

2011-11-27T12:16:00.001-05:00

Another game last Sunday in Saratoga featured Joshua Kuperman against Alan Le Cours. Joshua is the son of Max Kuperman, a long time fixture on the local chess scene. Max’s career goes back to sometime in the 1970s, but oddly I can find no record of he and I ever playing a serious game. After hanging around chess for a very long time, usually I have played a local chess player somewhere along the line. In Max’a case no such luck. Joshua’s career was short and successful in the late 1990s according to USCF records. Those were the days when I played very little in general and almost not at all locally. That is the reason why Sunday evening, first I knew his name but had to introduce myself to Joshua, and second, realized I never had laid eyes on him before.

Alan provides the first surprise, he played the French! I expected a 1..., e5; answer to Joshua’s 1 e4. Mr. Le Cours has a number of pet lines in the Two Knights and the Ruy Lopez, Schliemann variation that he knows very well and has used with success. This time Alan tries the French. Mr. Kuperman took a not usual tack for White and a short sharp interesting game came about.

Kuperman, Joshua - Le Cours, Alan [C17]

Saratoga Championship Saratoga Springs, NY, 20.11.2011

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Bd2,..

Much more common is 4 e5, when the game enters the mainlines of the Winawer variation of the French. Even so great an exponent of 1 e4, as Bobby Fischer had a hard time finding wins in the Winawer for White. On that basis alone this was my choice for thirty-five years until I converted to the Pirc.

The text is a sideline that comes up occasionally. Alexander Alekhine, the 4th World Champion, defeated one of his toughest rivals in the 4 Bd2 line many years ago:

(17662) Alekhine, Alexander - Flohr, Salo [C15]

Nottingham 1936

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Bd2 dxe4 5.Nxe4 Qxd4 6.Bd3 Bxd2+ 7.Qxd2 Qd8 8.0–0–0 Qe7 9.Nf3 Nf6 10.Rhe1 Nxe4 11.Rxe4 Nd7 12.Rg4 f5 13.Rf4 Nf6 14.Re1 Bd7 15.Rxf5 0–0–0 16.Ra5 Kb8 17.Ne5 Be8 18.g3 Nd5 19.Re4 Nb6 20.Qe3 Rd5 21.Ra3 Qc5 22.Qxc5 Rxc5 23.f4 Rd5 24.Nf3 Bd7 25.Ng5 Re8 26.c4 Rf5 27.Rd4 Rff8 28.c5 Nd5 29.Bxh7 Bc6 30.Bg6 Re7 31.Nf3 Nf6 32.Ne5 Bd5 33.Re3 Rh8 34.h4 c6 35.Bc2 Rd8 36.Bb3 Rc7 37.Nf3 Re8 38.Ne5 Rec8 39.Bc4 Ka8 40.b4 Rb8 41.g4 b6 42.g5 bxc5 43.bxc5 Nd7 44.Nxd7 Rxd7 45.h5 Rf7 46.Rxe6 Bxe6 47.Bxe6 Rfb7 48.Bb3 Rh8 49.h6 gxh6 50.g6 Rg8 51.f5 Rf8 52.Bc2 h5 53.Rd6 Re7 54.f6 Re1+ 55.Kd2 Rf1 56.f7 h4 57.Rd7 1–0

4..., Ne7 5.e5,..

Alekhine again, this time showing that the alternative idea;5 exd5, does not lead to an easy life for White.:

(7094) Speijer, Abraham - Alekhine, Alexander [C15]

DSB–17.Kongress Hamburg (3), 1910

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Bd2 Ne7 5.exd5 exd5 6.Qf3 Nbc6 7.Bb5 0–0 8.Nge2 Bf5 9.0–0–0 a6 10.Bd3 Bxd3 11.Qxd3 Na5 12.a3 Bxc3 13.Bxc3 Nc4 14.Rde1 Nc6 15.Nf4 Qd6 16.Qf3 Rad8 17.Nd3 a5 18.Qf4 Qxf4+ 19.Nxf4 b5 20.Nd3 Rb8 21.Ne5 N6xe5 22.dxe5 c5 23.b3 d4 24.bxc4 dxc3 25.Re3 b4 26.a4 Rbd8 27.Rhe1 Rd4 28.Re4 Rxe4 29.Rxe4 Rd8 30.e6 fxe6 31.Rxe6 Rd2 32.Re5 Rxf2 33.Kb1 Rf1+ 34.Ka2 Rc1 35.Rxc5 Rxc2+ 36.Kb1 Rb2+ 37.Kc1 Rxg2 38.Rb5 Kf7 39.c5 Ke6 40.c6 Kd6 41.c7 Kxc7 42.Rxa5 Rxh2 0–1

4..., c5 6.Nb5 Bxd2+ 7.Qxd2 0–0 8.dxc5 Nd7 9.b4,..

I played the French pretty frequently and the Winawer was a favorite line, but this stuff never came up in my games. While watching this contest I thought these guys are well out of the book. Wrong again! Turns out all this is really mainstream theory. Karpov played similarly up to this move in;

(222300) Karpov, Anatoly (2750) - Nogueiras, Jesus (2575) [C17]

World Cup Rotterdam, 1989

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 Ne7 5.Bd2 c5 6.Nb5 Bxd2+ 7.Qxd2 0–0 8.dxc5 Nd7 9.f4 Nxc5 10.Nd4 Qb6 11.0–0–0 Bd7 12.Ngf3 Rfc8 13.Qe3 Rc7 14.Kb1 Rac8 15.Rc1 a6 16.g4 Nc6 17.h4 Ne4 18.Rh2 Na5 19.Bd3 Nc5 20.c3 Na4 21.Ka1 Bb5 22.Bb1 Nc4 23.Qe1 Ncxb2 24.Rxb2 Nxb2 25.Kxb2 Be2+ 26.Ka1 Bxf3 27.Nxf3 Qa5 28.Nd4 Qa3 29.Nb3 b5 30.f5 b4 31.Rc2 Rxc3 32.Rb2 a5 33.Qd2 a4 34.Nd4 R3c4 35.fxe6 fxe6 36.Nxe6 Qc3 37.Qxd5 Kh8 38.Ng5 Rf4 39.Ne4 Qc1 40.Rxb4 a3 41.Rb3 1–0

When a former World Champion plays a line against a strong GM, it is by definition theory. During the postmortem of today’s game there was a discussion about whether or not 9 f4, was an improvement over 9 b4. Karpov played the f-pawn forward and castled long, but he by no means got an easy game out of that plan. Nogueiras built a very dangerous looking attack on the White King, and it took all of Karpov’s considerable skill to hold it off. It wasn’t until move 34, after suffering for several moves under serious pressure, did Karpov finally see Nogueiras slip. With the preternatural alertness that the very top players have, Karpov found the right moves and won the game. Given the difficulties Anatoly Karpov experienced, 9 f4, is not markedly superior to the game move.

9..., Nxe5 10.f4 N5c6 11.Nf3 b6!?

During the game I thought this to be the right move. Rybka disagrees. The computer prefers 11..., a5; and then 12 c3 axb5 13 cxb5 Ng6 14 Bd3 Qf6; wins a pawn. White can improve in this line with 14 Rd1, but then 14..., Qf6 15 g6 e5; promises much trouble for the White King. Black is a bit better than equal after the game move, but he could have had more.

12.Nd6 bxc5 13.bxc5 Rb8!?

Another move that I thought well of during play. Once again Rybka sees things differently preferring the counter-intuitive 13..., Nb8. The computer line continues; 14 Qc3 Qc7 15 Bb5 Na6!? 16 Ne8!? (Winning the Exchange because of the mate threat at g7.) 16..., Rxe8 17 Bxe8 Nxc5; and even though White can extract the Bishop from deep behind enemy lines, Black has a considerable initiative. One example of how things go is; 18 Bb5 Qb3 19 Nd4 Ne4 20 Qe3 Qa5+ 21 c3 Ba6. It seems the exposed White King gives Black enough to eventually collect the c-pawn. With two pawns for the Exchange Black has good winning chances.

All that is very complicated, and I am not sure human beings would think that way. It does illustrate what computers can show us about chess positions and expands our view of what is possible on the board.

14.Bd3 Qa5?!

This natural looking move is a mistake. If White plays 15 Qxa5, he obtains a playable game with an edge perhaps after 15..., Nxa5 16 0-0, when Black’s slightly less developed forces need a move or two to get rolling. That is enough time for White to prepare to fight for the b-file. Notice also how difficult it is for Black to line up forces to harvest the isolated pawn at c5. Rybka suggests 14..., Na5; as a better choice for Black at this point. That suggestion by the computer leads to unclear play where White has a decent game.

15.Ng5?!,..

So, instead of a transition to a balanced ending, White creates complications. Why do we chess players go off into the high weeds like this sometimes? Occasionally it is forced upon us by the sporting circumstances; a win is the only useful result. More often it is because we don’t quite grasp all that is going on in a position. I suspect Mr. Kuperman judged the pawn at c5 doomed and went searching for counter-play. The viable alternative mentioned above would have given him an entirely playable game, but he may have undervalued the possibilities available.

15..., h6?

There was a near winning advantage to be had by indulging White in his quest for complications. Correct is 15..., Qxc5; then 16 Bh7+ Kh8 17 Nxc8 Rfxc8 18 Bd3 Kg8 19 c3 Na5; and the awkward White King gives Black a near winning advantage; or, 18 Qd3, threatening 19 Bg8, when 18..., Qb4+ 19 c3 Qxf4; and the Queen trade is forced on White ending the complications to Black’s advantage.

16.Qxa5 Nxa5

White changed his mind after expending a valuable tempo. Black now has a slight edge.

17.Nf3 Bd7 18.Ne5 Ba4 19.a3?,..

The balance has been teetering since the exchange of Queens. White could have continued the delicate struggle with 19 Kd2, solving many problems including connecting his Rooks. The square b4 from which the Black Rook can attack the pawn at f4 superficially looks worrisome, but danger around f7 keeps the doubling of the Black Rooks on the b-file at bay. Also, if Black tries to prepare for doubling of the Rooks with .., f7-f6; the Knight jumps to g6 hitting the Rf8 and the Ne7. The Knight trade brings the White Bishop to g6 ready with its compatriot Nd6 to do damage on e6. In other words playing 19..., Rb4; leads to quite a complicated battle where White has chances. Preventing that possibility while neglecting fixing a big problem in the White position was an incorrect choice.

19..., Nb7

The gift of a tempo gives Black several choices here; 19..., Nc8; 19..., f6; and 19..., Rb2; as well as the text. Long term Black wants the dangling c-pawn. All the options aim at exploiting the Nd6 to make gathering in the pawn on c5 as easy as possible.

20.Bb5?,..

Seemingly letting the c-pawn go to gain time to correct defects with 20 Nxb7 Rxb7 21 Kd2 Rc7 22 Rhb1 f6 23 Nf3, and there is an indirect defense of c5 because of the possible answer Rb1-b7, and if .., Rfc8; the shot Bd3-a6 is a reserve move. Eventually Black will probably find away to collect the pawn, but in the meantime White mobilizes his pieces to obtain counter-play. The game move pins hope on keeping the material balanced by capturing the a-pawn. This hope is flawed because White never connected his Rooks.

20..., Bxb5 21.Nxb5 Nxc5 22.Nxa7?,..

The Grandmasters tell us often in their works it takes more than one mistake to lose a chess game. This is the final error for White. Here 22 Nd4, keeps the fight going even though Black has a winning advantage. After the text extracting the Knight can not be done.

22..., Rb6 23.a4 Ra8

Since the Ra1 is undefended 24 Nb5, meets 24..., Rxb5.

24.Nd3 Nxd3+ 25.cxd3 Rxa7 26.Kd2 Rba6 0–1

An interesting game with positions not commonly met in our local arena. It was particularly satisfying to find some new ideas in lines I thought I knew well. The game was entertaining as well.

More soon.

News From Saratoga

2011-11-23T14:26:00.002-05:00

Sunday evening I drove to Saratoga to drop in on the Saratoga Staunton Chess Club. While I’ve covered the Albany and Schenectady clubs quite a bit this year, there has been little about Saratoga. They are in the middle of a double (!) round-robin tournament. Turnout was small this year. Only six players signed up, and one had to drop out after two rounds of play; Hrebenach. After Sunday’s round the standings are:

1 Le Cours 1911 4 - 1

2 Feinberg 2046 3 - 1

3 Farrell 1973 3 - 2

4 Kuperman, J 1715 2 - 5

5 Connors 1487 1 ½ - 4 ½

6 Hrebenach 1621 ½ - 1 ½ Dropped out.

The standings present a somewhat skewed picture. With the rescheduling that is common in local club events everyone has not met everyone yet. Mr. Le Cours piled up his points against just two opponents; Connors and Kuperman, winning two games from each. His lone loss came at the hands of Gary Farrell. Farrell and Jonathan Feinberg have played each other twice with honors even with one win apiece. The coming contests between and among Le Cours, Feinberg and Farrell will certainly determine the eventual Champion for this year.

Today’s game pit’s the two highest rated participants. Mr. Farrell won their first game, and Mr. Feinberg was no doubt looking for revenge.

Farrell, Gary - Feinberg, Jonathan [A02]

Saratoga Championship Saratoga Springs, NY, 20.11.2011

1.f4 g6 2.Nf3 Bg7 3.e3 c5 4.Be2 Nc6 5.0–0 e6 6.d3 Nge7

The Bird’s Opening is a specialty of Farrrell’s. It is not popular internationally and virtually none of the elite players of recent times have used it even sparingly. This leaves the databases almost useless for providing insights on this opening. That maybe the attraction for Gary. His opponents can’t come to the board equipped with reams of GM analysis. Here is one example of two German masters and the Bird’s.

(1168783) Mueller, Erich (2237) - Scherer, Max (2346) [A02]

Oberwinden op Oberwinden (11), 14.04.2007

1.f4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.e3 Bg7 4.Be2 e6 5.0–0 Ne7 6.d3 Nbc6 7.Nbd2 b6 8.Qe1 d5 9.e4 Qc7 10.Nh4 0–0 11.Bd1 f5 12.e5 b5 13.Nhf3 a5 14.Nb3 Nd8 15.a4 b4 16.d4 Ba6 17.Rf2 cxd4 18.Nbxd4 Nec6 19.Be3 Re8 20.Be2 Nxd4 21.Nxd4 g5 22.g3 Nb7 23.Nb5 Qd7 24.Bd4 gxf4 25.gxf4 Kh8 26.Kh1 Rg8 27.Bd3 Rac8 28.Qe3 Qf7 29.Rg1 Qh5 30.Be2 Qf7 31.Nd6 Nxd6 32.exd6 Bxe2 33.Rxe2 Rce8 34.Be5 h6 35.Rxg7 Rxg7 36.Rg2 Reg8 37.Rxg7 Rxg7 38.Qg3 Kg8 39.Qxg7+ Qxg7 40.Bxg7 Kf7 41.Bxh6 Ke8 42.Bf8 Kxf8 43.h4 d4 44.b3 Ke8 45.h5 Kd7 46.h6 1–0

And here is an earlier one from the Russians.

(3270738) Chuprov, Dmitry (2465) - Gajsin, Evgenij (2400) [A02]

RUS Cup Qualifier 4 chessassistantclub.com INT, 25.11.2004

1.f4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.e3 g6 4.Be2 Bg7 5.0–0 e6 6.d3 Nge7 7.Nc3 d5 8.e4 0–0 9.Kh1 Rb8 10.Qe1 b5 11.e5 Nd4 12.Bd1 Nef5 13.Ne2 Nxf3 14.Rxf3 h5 15.Ng3 Nxg3+ 16.Rxg3 d4 17.Bxh5 gxh5 18.f5 f6 19.Bh6 Rb7 20.Qe4 exf5 21.Qxb7 Bxb7 22.Rxg7+ Kh8 23.Rxb7 Rg8 24.exf6 Qxf6 25.Bf4 Rg7 26.Re1 Qc6 27.Rxg7 Kxg7 28.h4 c4 29.Be5+ Kf7 30.Bxd4 cxd3 31.cxd3 Qd5 32.Bg1 a6 33.Re3 Qxa2 34.Re5 Kg6 35.Bd4 Qb1+ 36.Kh2 Qxd3 37.Bg1 f4 38.Rg5+ Kf6 39.Rxh5 Qg3+ 40.Kh1 f3 41.Rh6+ Kg7 42.Bd4+ Kxh6 43.Be3+ Kg6 44.gxf3 Qxf3+ 45.Kh2 Qxe3 46.Kg2 Kf5 47.h5 Qd2+ 48.Kf3 Qxb2 49.h6 Qh8 0–1

These two games exhaust useful examples, that is games between strong players, from databases with over five million games. Theory exemplified by master practice is very thin.

It is worth looking at Farrell’s own practice. Here is a game of his with Jim Troyan from a few years ago.

Farrell, Gary - Troyan, James [A03]

CDCL Match Saratoga v Schenectady A, Saratoga Springs, NY, 11.06.2006

1.f4 e6 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d3 d5 4.e3 Be7 5.Be2 Nbd7 6.0–0 b6 7.Qe1 Nf8 8.Ne5 Bb7 9.Bf3 Ng6 10.c4 0–0 11.Nc3 c5 12.Qf2 a6 13.Bd2 Qc7 14.d4 cxd4 15.exd4 dxc4 16.Bxb7 Qxb7 17.Nxc4 Rac8 18.Ne3 Rfd8 19.f5 Nf8 20.fxe6 Nxe6 21.Nf5 Nxd4 22.Nxe7+ Qxe7 23.Bg5 Rc6 24.Qh4 Ne2+ 25.Nxe2 Qxe2 26.Rae1 Qxb2 27.Rf2 Qd4 28.Bxf6 gxf6 29.Re8+ Kg7 30.Qg3+ Kh6 31.Qh3+ ½–½

I should add that Gary does not play the Bird’s exclusively by any means. He’s been known to try 1 e4, 1 c4, and 1 Nf3, a man with a wide taste for first moves. For those who will face him in the future, be aware that in each opening choice Mr. Farrell comes to the board with some well researched scheme.

7.c3,..

This is outside of my opening book, although it may be mentioned in some specialist work on the Bird’s. Deep Rybka likes it as well as the other choices here; 7 e4, and 7 Na3. What we have are two savvy players delicately maneuvering about the control of key squares; d4 and e5. The move c2-c3 fits into that scheme.

One general idea, I say can’y plan, for White in the Bird’s is a push to f5 and/or the opening of the f-file. The Black set-up, pawns on g6 and e6 and the Knight e7, make that push difficult to achieve. This similar to the recommended layout of forces Black uses against the Gran Prix Attack in the Sicilian for much the same reasons. Another is pushing the e-pawn to e4, the reason underlying the occasional Qd1-e1 that is sometimes seen.

7..., Rb8

Although the position does not show up in theory, it is enough similar to various other lines and other openings that the idea of putting the Rook on b8 to support .., b7-b5; grabbing space looks normal.

8.a4!?,..

White wants to restrain the space grab. Unfortunately, that is not possible. Natural is 8 e4, and the game is tending towards equality. After the text maintaining the balance becomes more difficult for White.

8..., a6 9.Na3 d5

Maybe White was counting on if Black pushes the pawn to b5 too soon, after some trades there, he can gain some time for a central push with d3-d4 uncovering an attack on whatever Black piece is standing on b5. The text supports a .., c5-c4; answer to d3-d4.

10.Bd2 0–0 11.Rb1,..

White goes about his business and clears his Rook from a1-h8 diagonal.

11..., b5

It can’t be stopped.

12.axb5 axb5 13.b4 cxb4!?

Is 13..., c4; a better move? Rybka thinks so. I am not so sure; after 13..., c4 14 d4, the Black pieces are a little freer and White’s a bit tangled, and Black has a possible break with .., f7-f6; .., e6-e5; but the very closed nature of the position gives White good chances to hold.

14.cxb4 d4!?

Black decides to take control of d4 by occupation. It is true the pawn on d4 obstructs the Bg7, but the well supported d-pawn exerts control over c3 and e3. Black may have also calculated that dangling the d-pawn might tempt White into maneuvers to attempt surround it. Mr. Feinberg may have concluded those maneuvers will get the White pieces less effectively placed while the d-pawn can be defended successfully.

15.e4 Qb6 16.Be1,..

White is beginning to think about putting this Bishop on f2, the Na3 on c2 and maybe Qd1/b3/b2 for maximum pressure on d4.

16..., Ra8

Black counts on threats to create dynamic potential for his pieces and indirectly defending d4.

17.Ra1,..

If 17 Nc2 e5 18 fxe5 Nxe5 19 Nfxd4? Nc6; and loses a piece. This indirect defense lets Black claim some advantage.

17..., Bd7 18.Nc2 e5 19.fxe5?,..

White stays focused on his attack on d4. Here he could have kept the game balanced with 19 Bg3, turning his attention to e5. One likely continuation is 19..., f5 20 Rxa8 Rxa8 21 Kh1, with complicated play.

19..., Nxe5 20.Bf2 Nxf3+ 21.Bxf3 Nc6 22.Kh1?,..

Black has had the initiative since the exchange on e5. His last move takes control of e5 and begins to build pressure on b4. General chess wisdom says often in closed positions you can make certain “housekeeping” moves without penalty. The current position at first sight appears to be closed, but there really are tactical threats in it. This time such housekeeping hands over a tempo that Black uses ruthlessly.

22..., Be6 23.Qe2 Rfc8 24.Rfb1,..

Trying a stubborn defense. More risky is 24 Rxa8 Rxa8 25 Bg4?! Bxg4 26 Qxg4, hoping for 26..., Ra2?!; for then 27 Qd7, threatens if 27..., Rxc2? 28 Bxd4!, winning. Black certainly does not have to go along with White on this line. Instead of 26..., Ra2; he can play; 26..., Qc7; preventing the entry of the White Queen and retaining a solid edge.

24..., Be5 25.Rxa8?,..

After prolonged tension, White opts for clearing off the Rooks in the hopes of easing it. Mr. Farrell’s usual good chess judgment fails him here. White could have tried 25 Bg4 Bxg4 26 Qxg4 Qd8; when Black still is some better according to Rybka, but nothing decisive is evident yet.

25..., Rxa8 26.Ra1?,..

Fatal. Still possible is 26 Bg4, etc., when the control of the a-file by Black increases his advantage, but a defense is still possible by White. The problem with the text is the weak White b-pawn falls.

26..., Rxa1+ 27.Nxa1 Qa6!?

Capturing on b4 straight away is better I think, but either way a pawn is gone.

28.Qb2 Nxb4 29.Bxd4,..

White gave this move a lot of thought, or let us say he worked through all the alternatives and rejected them then hit on this move as a chance to test his opponent’s nerves.

28..., Nxd3 0–1

White resigned here because 29 Qc3 b4; collects a full piece. Worse yet is the tactics after 30 Qd2 Bxd4 31 Nb3 Nf7+; when the coming discovered check will kill all counter-play. Black won the battle for d4 and e5. He used those squares to stifle the White Bishops and then surrounded and won the b-pawn. It then turned out his bottled up pieces could not prevent further losses. It would be interesting to see the earlier game between these guys.

More soon.

The Other Upset From AACC This Week

2011-11-20T16:19:00.000-05:00

The big upset from last week’s games at AACC was the win by Northrup over Howard. It was remarkable not only for the outcome as well as being the second week running that Dean Howard got himself into a tough clock situation.

Northrup showed a rather high level of skill in this game marred by overlooking tactical opportunities. Howard did not display his usual keen alertness to danger and gave his opponent too many chances. That tendency combined with time trouble led to a situation where even the resourcefulness of last year’s Champion could not prevail. It is a game with sudden shifts fortune and missed shots.

Northrup, Cory - Howard, Dean [D58]

AACC Championship Guilderland, NY, 16.11.2011

1.d4 e6 2.c4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.Nf3 h6 6.Bh4 0–0 7.e3 b6

A position very familiar to Mr. Howard. He has defended it against John Phillips and Patrick Chi within the last year. It has been very popular internationally. Looking at just players over 2500, World Champions such as Spassky, Tal and Karpov have used the Tartakower Defense to the QGD as well as many other distinguished Grandmasters.

Here is a game from twenty+ years ago that is similar to the game we are examining;

(223097) Tisdall, Jonathan D (2465) - Olafsson, Helgi (2545) [D58]

Espoo zt Espoo, 1989

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 0–0 7.e3 b6 8.Qc2 Bb7 9.Bxf6 Bxf6 10.cxd5 exd5 11.0–0–0 c5 12.h4 Nc6 13.g4 cxd4 14.exd4 g6 15.g5 hxg5 16.hxg5 Bxg5+ 17.Kb1 Kg7 18.a3 Bf6 19.Rg1 Rh8 20.Bd3 Rh6 21.Ne2 Qd6 22.Qd2 Re8 23.Nf4 Re4 24.Bxe4 dxe4 25.Ng5 Na5 26.Ne2 Rh5 27.Nc3 Qe7 28.Nxf7 Qxf7 29.Qe2 Rf5 30.Nxe4 Bxe4+ 31.Qxe4 Rxf2 32.Rd3 Nc4 33.Ka1 Rxb2 34.Rdg3 Ra2+ 0–1

For those not familiar with Tisdall; he now is a Norwegian citizen, chess writer and Grandmaster, but “Tis” started out playing in this area as a youngster. He is from Syracuse, and in the 60s and early 70s he showed up a few times in some weekend events John Dragonetti and I ran. Jon was rated about 1800 in 1969 when he thumped me convincingly in the Schenectady Winter Rating Tournament.

8.Qc2,..

While watching the game, this move struck me as questionable. Looking it up in the databases showed the move, together with subsequent long castling, has been tried by many strong players; Lputian, Portisch and Vanganian are examples. Borisenko and Ilivitzki were two middle-of-the- field participants in several of the USSR Championships of the middle 1950s when these events were clearly the strongest tournaments in the world. Here is how they played the position:

(43934) Borisenko, Georgy K - Ilivitzki, Georgi A [D58]

URS-ch sf Sverdlovsk (10), 1957

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bg5 Be7 5.Nf3 h6 6.Bh4 0–0 7.e3 b6 8.Qc2 Bb7 9.Bxf6 Bxf6 10.cxd5 exd5 11.0–0–0 Nc6 12.h4 Nb4 13.Qd2 c5 14.g4 cxd4 15.Nxd4 Qc8 16.Kb1 Qxg4 17.Bh3 Qh5 18.Rdg1 Bc8 19.a3 Bxh3 20.Rxh3 Nc6 21.Nxc6 Qf5+ 22.e4 Qxh3 23.Qxh6 Qf1+ 24.Rxf1 gxh6 25.Nxd5 Bxh4 26.Rh1 Bxf2 27.Nce7+ Kh7 28.Nf5 f6 29.Rxh6+ Kg8 30.Rg6+ Kh8 31.Nxf6 Rxf6 32.Rxf6 Bc5 33.e5 a5 34.Kc2 Kg8 35.Kd3 Rd8+ 36.Kc4 Rd1 37.e6 Kh7 38.e7 Re1 39.Kd5 Re2 40.Re6 Rd2+ 41.Kc6 Bxe7 42.Rxe7+ Kg6 43.Nd6 Rxb2 44.Nb5 1–0

It is of interest to see the logic of the opposite side castled position dictates similar tactics as in our game. Interest is extended further because the distribution of attacking forces in the appended game is a R+2Ns as in the Northrup - Howard game.

8...Bb7 9.Bxf6 Bxf6 10.cxd5 exd5 11.0–0–0 a5

The book move is 11..., c5; with 11..., Nd7; and 11..., Nc6; being mentioned as alternatives. The text takes the game out of theory. It is logical however. Black easily foresees the pawn change coming on the other side of the board and wants to get his own pawn assault going.

12.h4 c6?

This move is not so logical. The natural 12..., c5; is better. The text concedes a tempo. That is always dangerous in opposite side attacking situations when an extra tempo is precious. It could be Mr. Howard just didn’t accurately assess the position after 12..., c5 13 dxc5 Bxc3; when Black creates open lines on the Q-side more quickly than White does on the other side of the board.

13.g4!,..

Exactly correct. White has the advantage now.

13..., g6?

Potentially making things worse than they have to be. Either 13..., Qd6; clearing d8 for the Bishop, or 13..., Be7; and 14..., Qd6; fighting to keep lines partially closed leading to the Black King are better alternatives.

14.Bd3!?,..

Slow when speed is call for. Better 14 g5, to open the h-file after 14..., hxg5 15 h5, with troubles multiplying for the Black King. Perhaps I am being too critical of White’s play. The text builds pressure on g6 and prepares to bring the Rd1 to the g-file. Those ideas conform to the principle of getting all your pieces in on an attack. What we have here is an apparent conflict between two pieces of chess wisdom; mass your forces before taking action and opening lines for an attack. Making such a choice is at the heart of chess skill. The so-called Russian School of Chess emphasizes “concrete and dynamic” aspects of play. Concrete means calculating exact lines of play far enough ahead to reach a conclusion about a specific line then comparing it to all other options, and dynamic means, in this instance, a prejudice towards choices that give you more options for your pieces. Following the guidance of the Russian School it seems opening lines is superior to massing force here.

14..., Kg7?

Played to shore up g6 but incorrect. Black for some reason not apparent does not believe White will make the Black King very uncomfortable soon. Better 14..., Na6; threatening .., Nb4; and keeping g7 open for a retreat of the Bf6 to g7, if required. After the game move, White has a dangerous attack beginning 15 g5!, then 15..., hxg5 16 hxg5 Bcg5? 17 Rdg1, with a sacrifice coming at g6. Or, 16..., Be7 17 Ne5 Qe8 18 f4, and with the second rank clear there are several sequences where White quickly makes use of the h-file to finish off the Black King.

15.Ne2!?,..

Again slower rather than faster. Mr. Northrup prefers a slow build up of force when there is a good driving move to hand - 15 g5!

15..., Ba6?

Black senses things are not going well for him and seeks solace by trading White’s light squared Bishop. Retreating the Bf6 to e7 holds some hope of avoiding an immediate break through on the K-side.

16.Nf4 Bxd3 17.Qxd3 Na6?

Black has consistently undervalued the possibility of g4-g5. Strangely White has done so also. The text presents White one more opportunity to play the forcing move 18 g5.

18.a3!?,..

He instead prefers caution.

18..., b5?!

With 18..., Kg8; Black could have prepared a better defense to a possible g4-g5.

19.Rdg1!?,..

Once again 19 g5, is the right move.

19..., Rh8?

Black has resisted getting the Bishop off f6 to reduce the impact of an advance of the g-pawn. 19..., Be7, was a last chance to avoid some of the coming problems.

20.g5!,..

Finally. White now has a winning advantage.

20..., hxg5 21.hxg5 Be7 22.Rxh8?,..

Throwing away a big chuck of the advantage that had fallen to White as a result of the g-pawn push. The right move is 22 Nxg6! Rxh1 23 Rxh1 fxg6 24 Ne5 Qe8 25 Rh6, taking decisive control of g6, and the White Queen, Rook and Knight are closing on the Black King. As generous as White has been so far in the game, he has never given Black the chance to take control of the game.

22..., Qxh8 23.Qf1?!,..

This move comes close to allowing Black a real chance to make a fight for the initiative. Correct is 23 Ne5, reinforcing threats on g6.

23..., Qc8 24.Rh1 c5!?

Black had a choice here; it is possible 24..., b4 25 a4 Qf5; might have offered better chances. Suddenly danger looms around the White King. The text has the same intention, but White gets his own chances because of the vulnerable situation of the Black King.

25.Kd1 cxd4 26.exd4?,..

White could have kept some slight edge with 26 Nxd4, but after 26..., Bxg5 27 Nxd5 Qc5 28 Qxb5 Qxb5 29 Nxb5 Rd8 30 Nbc3 Nc7 31 e4 Nxd5 32 exd5 Bf6; White can not hold the extra pawn. The ensuing Rook and pawns ending has the pawns unevenly distributed making for fight with chances on both sides. A drawn outcome is the logical result, but there is much play left in the position. The game move should have cost White dearly.

26..., b4 27.axb4 Nxb4 28.Qe2 Qd7?

Time was getting short for Black but not real time trouble. Dean had about ten minutes remaining on his clock when he made this move. He misses a shot. With 28..., Bd6; Black is firmly in control of the game because the Queen check on e5 is prevented with the subsequent roaring attack on the Black King.

29.Qe5+!,..

Black is utterly lost objectively. He now has no choice but to throw some material away to try and string out the game. It should not work.

29..., f6 30.gxf6+ Bxf6 31.Ne6+ Kg8

Necessary because 31..., Kf7 32 Rh7+ Ke8 33 Nc7+, wins decisive material.

32.Qxf6 Qa4+ 33.Ke2 Qb5+ 34.Ke3?!,..

White is still winning after this move, however, 34 Ke1 Nc2+ 35 Kd2, costs Black the Knight without offering any relief for the beleaguered Black King.

34..., Qd3+ 35.Kf4 Qf5+ 36.Qxf5 gxf5 37.Kxf5,..

White is a solid piece ahead, and he has mating possibilities in hand also.

37..., Nd3 38.Rg1+ Kh8 39.Rg7?,..

But not this way. Better 39 Nfg5, threatening 40 Nf7+, and 41 Rh1 mate and Black will have to consider losing more material The text lets Black fight on.

39..., Ra6?

Black misses his best chance to make things a bit murky with 39..., Rg8. White still wins with 40 Ra7, but the board situation is murky enough for mistakes to creep in.

40.Re7,..

Also good is 40 Nfg5.

40..., Nxb2 41.Nfg5 Ra8

Taking at e6 with the Rook breaks up the immediate mate but going down a whole Rook is too obviously lost, so Black tries anything else. The move presents White with a mate.

42.Rf7?,..

And White misses his chance. It is mate in three with 42 Rh7+ Kg8 43 Rg7+ Kh8 44 Nf7 mate.

42..., Nc4 43.Rf8+?,..

Miss-firing on the mate a second time. Peter Henner and I were watching the game side-by-side at this point. We stepped outside of the playing room to confirm the missed mate, and to ponder if it was possible that Mr. Howard just might find away out of his troubles. Black’s clock was looking pretty thin by now.

43..., Rxf8+ 44.Nxf8 a4 45.Nf3,..

This Knight will be in time to stop the a-pawn from making a Queen or will take off the Lady when she appears .

45..., a3 46.Ne1 Nb2 47.Nc2 a2 48.Ke5?,..

White does not take enough care that his Expert opponent is ever resourceful. With 48 Ng6+, he can safely take the d-pawn with his Knight keeping a winning edge. After the text there is play in the position for Black. White keeps some edge after 48 Kf6, but after Black captures the pawn at f2 there are chances for Black to give the Knight for the last White pawn. Since two Knights versus a single pawn can not mate without the side with the pawn having several moves. With a pawn standing one move from making a Queen, I doubt there is any winning chances for the Knights.

48..., Nd3+ 49.Kxd5 Nb4+ 50.Nxb4 a1(Q)

At this point in the game I had to leave the playing site. Dean’s clock was down to about one minute, nevertheless I thought the worse he could achieve was a draw with endless checks. I was wrong. The next evening at the Schenectady Club Cory generously gave me a copy of the complete game score.

51.Nc6 Qa2+ 52.Kd6?,..

The change in fortunes costs White his concentration and one of his Knights. That loss presents Black the opportunity to maybe win the game. Better for White is 52 Ke5. Black can easily force a just about guaranteed draw with 53..., Qxf2; and later giving the Queen for the d-pawn. Regardless of his time smash, Howard must have felt morally obligated to try for the full point. I don’t think he gave a moment’s thought to the drawing possibility.

52..., Qa3+ 53.Ke6 Qxf8 54.d5 Qc8+ 55.Ke7 Qc7+ 56.Ke6 Kg7 57.Ne5 Kf8

Checking with the Queen does not let the d-pawn go to the 6th rank and is a little better.

58.d6 Qc8+ 59.Kd5 Qa8+ 60.Ke6 Qa2+

Cory noted on his score sheet that Black’s clock had one second remaining at this move. Dean has to play the rest of the game with only the five second delay for thinking.

61.Kd7 Qa4+ 62.Nc6 Qb5?

Letting the game become drawn with best play. Maintaining winning chances with 62..., Qf4 63 Nd8 Qf5+ 64 Kc7 Ke8; is preferable. The text makes a threat, 63 Qb7+, collecting the last White Knight. Unfortunately for Black a natural move meets the threat and clears the path of the d-pawn

63.Kc7 Qh5?!

More certain is 63..., Qf5; and if 64 d7 Qf4+ 65 Kc8 Qf5.

64.d7 Qh7 65.f4,..

Suddenly a new actor is on the field

65..., Qf7 66.Ne5 Qg7?

There was obviously no time for Black to calculate. If there was he could have tried 66..., Qxf4!?; then it does not appear the extra Knight is enough to win for White say after 67 d8(Q)+ Kg7 68 Qe7+ Kh6. Figuring out such complications requires a calm mind, something that is in short supply when your clock is hanging.

67.Kc8 Qg1 68.d8Q+ Kg7 69.Qg5+,..

The final trick in tricky endgame. Black is lost. The game rolls on only because there not sufficient time to resign.

69..., Qxg5 70.fxg5 Kf8 71.Kd7 Kg7 72.Ke7 Kh7 73.Kf6 (73.Kf7 Kh8) 73...Kh8 74.Kf7 Kh7 75.g6+ Kh8 76.g7 1–0

The two move mate; 77 g8 (Q)+ and 78 Qg3, is too clear to be missed. This game was epic in its swings of fortune and its length. Very infrequently do we see games go so far in this era of sudden-death time controls. Both sides made serious mistakes. There is nonetheless educational value in these errors. I admire the fighting spirit both players demonstrated from beginning to the end of the contest. In this kind of good fighting game it is a shame someone has to lose.

More soon.

Results From SCC and AACC

2011-11-18T09:28:00.000-05:00

Wednesday night saw the third round of the AACC Championship played in Guilderland. The results were: Tim Wright won from Chris Caravaty, and Arthur Alowitz upset tournament leader Gordon Magat. Jon Lack and Peter Henner drew. Dean Howard lost to Cory Northrup, and the game between Jason Denham and Akhil Kamma was postponed by mutual agreement.

The standings after the third round are:

1&2 Magat 2 - 1

1&2 Alowitz 2 - 1

3&4 Kamma 1 ½ - ½

3&4 Lack 1 ½ - ½

5&6 Howard 1 ½ - 1 ½

5&6 Wright 1 ½ - 1 ½

7 Henner 1 - 1

8 Northrup 1 - 2

9 Denham ½ - 1 ½

10 Caravaty ½ - 2 ½

The two upsets; Alowitz over Magat and Northrup over Howard marked the round results as surprising. Arthur has been playing well this year so maybe this was less than a full blown upset. Still the rating difference was greater than two hundred points and approaching three hundred, and that is upset territory. While there is still a long way to go in the event, clearly no one has broken to the front except perhaps Mr. Alowitz with two draws and a win. He made all his points against contenders for the title; Magat, Henner and Wright.

Northrup over Howard was an big upset no matter how you cut it. A nearly five hundred rating point spread between the players is a big gap. Cory missed some chances to put away the point as time pressure built for Dean. Mr. Howard showed great resourcefulness as his clock ticked down and with a trick he made a Queen. I had to leave the playing site at this point in the game and expected a Queen versus two Knights could be no worse than a draw for Howard. Mr. Northrup hung in and managed to take the whole point. He has been playing frequently of late. That steady practice paid dividends Wednesday. A good result for Cory and a disappointment for Dean.

Today’s game brought Arthur Alowitz into a tie for first place.

Alowitz, Arthur - Magat, Gordon [B20]

AACC Championship Guilderland, NY, 16.11.2011

1.e4 c5 2.d3 e6 3.g3 d5 4.exd5 exd5 5.Bg2 Nc6

What began as a closed treatment of the Sicilian has morphed into something else. It is not a terribly popular position in any event. Very few examples are found in the databases and none from the elite players. Below is one game between titled players. White takes a different tack than does Arthur in today’s game. It does not work very well.

(260660) Zayac, Elena (2325) - Ivanov, Oleg (2390) [B24]

URS-sf Voronezh, 1991

1.e4 e6 2.d3 c5 3.g3 Nc6 4.Bg2 d5 5.exd5 exd5 6.Nc3 Nf6 7.Nge2 Be7 8.0–0 0–0 9.d4 cxd4 10.Nb5 Qb6 11.Nbxd4 Bg4 12.f3 Nxd4 13.Nxd4 Bc5 14.c3 Bd7 15.Kh1 Rfe8 16.Bg5 Bxd4 17.Qxd4 Qxd4 18.cxd4 Re2 19.Bxf6 gxf6 20.f4 Rc8 21.Bxd5 Rcc2 22.Rfc1 Rxb2 23.Rab1 Rbd2 24.Rd1 b6 25.h4 Be6 26.Bxe6 Rh2+ 27.Kg1 Rdg2+ 28.Kf1 fxe6 29.f5 Rxa2 30.Kg1 Rag2+ 31.Kf1 Kf7 0–1

6.Nf3!?,..

The usual practice according to the databases is 6 Ne2, or 6 Nc3 and then 7 Ne2.

6..., Bg4

Deep Rybka suggests 6..., Qe7+; pretty much forcing the Queens off and Black is entirely equal if not slightly better. This is another case where the higher rated player, Magat, probably feels the obligation to win the game because of a near three hundred point rating edge. One path towards that goal is to keep material on as he does here.

7.0–0 Nf6 8.Re1+ Be7 9.Nbd2?!,..

Slow. 9 Nc3, leaves the path clear for the Bc1 to go to g5 without further ado.

9..., 0–0 10.Nf1 d4 11.N1d2 Re8 12.Nc4 b5 13.Nce5 Nxe5 14.Rxe5 Qd7

The fight has resolved itself into a positional struggle about control of the e-file and whether the space Black seized in the center did or did not leave serous weaknesses in its trail. White spent some tempi to lure the d-pawn forward to d4, and Black, as a result, is ahead in development.

15.Bg5 Rac8 16.Qe2?,..

Presenting Black with the chance to clear off the Rooks and transition to a Queen and minor piece endgame with extra space and the Bishop pair.

16..., Bd6?

This is more complicated but not better than 16..., h6. Then White either saves the Bishop with 17 Bd2 Bd6 18 Rxe8+ Rxe8; when the White Queen goes to f1 to try to fight on the e-file or to d1 leaving the e-file in Black’s hands for some while; or he trades the Bishop on f6 and Black has comfortable game anyway after 17 Bxf6 Bxf6 18 Rxe8+ Rxe8 19 Qf1 c4. White then pretty much has to trade Rooks on the e-file, and the game is opening up which will favor the Bishop pair.

17.Rxe8+ Rxe8 18.Qd2 Nh5 19.Qa5?!,..

Active and ambitious and dangerous. If Black elects to take the game into a tactical phase, White seems to come out the worse. The positional treatment beginning with 19 Qc1 Bc7 20 Bd2 h6 21 a3, did not appeal to Mr. Alowitz. I can see why, his pieces are crowded and tangled. Black has lots of space. White will be struggling to find useful moves while Black searches for the killing break through.

19..., h6?!

Here Black takes a little bit rather than a lot. The forceful and tactical 19..., Qf5; attacking the Bg5 and the Nf3 leads to a an advantage for Black after; 20 Qxb5 Re6 21 Nd2 Qxg5 22 Ne4 Qe7 23 h3 Be2 24 Re1 Nxg3 25 Nxg3 Bxd3 26 Rxe6 Bxb5 27 Rxe7 Bxe7; and Black has a sound extra pawn and has kept the Bishop pair intact. Calculating all that, especially with potential back rank mate problems included, make most of us concerned about errors. Often we will accept a smaller advantage than is possible in the interest of clarity. This may be the case here.

20.Bd2 Nf6

While watching the game, I thought for a moment there might be something for Black in the idea 20..., Qb7; thinking of .., Bc7; the White Queen goes to a3 then .., b4; and attack the Queen again with .., Be6. Fantasy of course; the Queen still has a4 as a haven. After mulling it for thirty seconds, I realized 21 Nxe4, just spoils the concept entirely. The text move is best.

21.Re1 Be6?

Black has had some advantage up to here. This move lets it slip away. It was likely in the interest again of keeping more material on rather than trading Rooks. Trading would have left Black slightly better after 21..., Rxe1+ 22 Nxe2 Be6. The way this sequence is played Black has to give up the Bishop pair and the edge passes to White.

22.Ne5 Bxe5

Takes the game to equality. The alternative 22..., Qc7 23 Qxc7 Bxc7 24 Bc6 Rb8; sees the White minor pieces getting very active.

23.Rxe5 Nd5 24.Qa3?!,..

This move is a bit of a mystery. More active is 24 a4, and if 24..., bxa4 25 Qxc5, but then 25..., Rc8; entering complications that according to Rybka work out to equality. The game move has the advantage of not initiating those complications even though I can’t see any greater purpose than that and a real deficit in the Queen’s awkward position.

24..., Qd6 25.Re1 Ra8?!

Better is the straight forward 25..., a6; guarding the b-pawn and leaving the White Queen to ponder how she can return to active service. By this point in the game, Gordon had used up seventy of his ninety minutes, and Arthur had used only about thirty-five minutes.

26.b3 b4

Black is justifiably worried about c2-c3 coming to break down his central pawn mass, so he puts in a stopper.

27.Qc1 Rd8 28.a4 Qd7 29.Re5 f6 30.Re1 Bg4 31.Be4 Bh3

Now time trouble begins to effect Black’s play. Likely better is 31..., Rf8; shoring up the K-side and threatening something with .., f5-f4; to worry White. Black was down to under ten minutes remaining. White can now win a pawn easily with 32 Bxh6! If 32..., gxh6 33 Qxh6 Bf5 34 Bxd5+! Qxd5 35 Re7, will cost Black his Queen for a Rook and Bishop. In that position the Queen is ideally placed to make something out of her facility to make double attacks giving White the win.

32.Bg2?,..

Passing on the win of a pawn. White had plenty of time on the clock. He may have been led astray by his opponent’s coming time problem and the wish to make him move quickly. I know I have done the same against Gordon more than once in the past. The game now tilts back towards equality.

The next operations take the game to an ending that is nearly balanced. White with the time advantage puts no obstacles in Black’s path to simplification. That is probably not the best way to proceed. Avoiding exchanges of material keep more things on the board for the time challenged opponent to think about.

32..., Bxg2 33.Kxg2 Qg4 34.h3 Qh5 35.Qd1 Qxd1 36.Rxd1 Re8 37.Re1 Rxe1 38.Bxe1 Kf7

Black has a small advantage. He just has to worry about the Bishop trying to attack the pawn at c5, and his King is hurrying up to keep that from happening.

39.Kf3 Ke6 40.Ke4 f5+ 41.Kf3 g5 42.Bd2 Nf6 43.Kg2 Nd5 44.h4 f4 45.gxf4 gxf4 46.Kf3 Kf5 47.Bc1,..

Mr. Magat is always resourceful. He has created some glimmer of winning chances about the White h-pawn and kept the Bishop stifled. His next move is a shocker.

47..., Ne3!?

A piece sacrifice to what end? Any other reasonable move holds the game, 47..., h5; for instance. I believe once more rating difference influences a decision; White gambles in hopes of defeating a lower rated opponent.

48.fxe3 dxe3?

Losing the game without any hope. The only try is 48..., fxd3; and even then White has a win after 49 a5, it is important to get this pawn forward, 49..., a6 50 Bxe6 dxe6 51 Kxe6, and if Black goes for the h-pawn with 51..., Kg5 52 d4 cxd4+ 53 Kxd4 Kxh4 54 c3 bxc3 55 Kxc3 Kg3 56 b4 h5 57 b5; and one way or another a White a-pawn Queens far enough ahead of Black to win. If Black does not go for the h-pawn and plays 51..., Ke5; 52 h5 Kd5 53 d4! cxd4+ 54 Kd3, with a tricky pawn ending where White eventually recovers the d-pawn and then makes a timely run to the K-side to win the h-pawn while Black always has to be concerned about White’s a and b-pawns forcing a Queen. The text allows White to use the Bishop, via b2, to pick off the Black pawns on the dark squares.

49.Bb2 a6 50.Bg7 Kg6 51.Bf8 Kh5 52.Be7 Kg6 53.Bxc5 Kh5 54.Be7 a5 55.Bd8 e2 56.Kxe2 Kg4 57.Kf2 h5 58.d4 1–0

If the Black King moves away from h5, the rest of his Q-side pawns fall. This was a significant upset. Congratulations to Mr. Alowitz for a fine result.

Thursday evening saw not quite a full schedule of play in the 6th round of the Schenectady Championship Preliminaries. In Section A David Connors lost to Richard Chu as did Ahkil Kamma to Alan Le Cours. The game Matt Clough - Herman Calderone was not finished when I left the site. Matt was up a piece in a B&N versus N ending with pawns across the board. There was enough of an imbalance in the distribution of material to make the decision not quite clear. I will try to have the result of this game for my next post.

In Section B only one game was played; Northrup - Capitummino. Cory was not able to build on his success from Wednesday, he went down material and Jeff found a ruthless finishing line that simplified the game leaving him up the Exchange and many pawns. Resignation followed immediately.

More soon.

More Games From AACC

2011-11-16T16:03:00.001-05:00

Thursday last saw nearly a full schedule played at the Schenectady Chess Club. One game from Section A, Jeff Capitummino - Mike Stanley, was postponed. The other games were; Carlos Varela won from Zack Calderone and Dilip Aaron won from Cory Northrup. All scheduled games were played in Section B. Richard Chu lost to Ahkil Kamma, Herman Calderone and David Connors played to a draw and John Phillips won his game against Matt Clough.

The only mathematically certain qualifier in Section B is Ahkil Kamma with a 4 - 1 score and only one game to play. John Phillips with a score of 4 - 0 and two games to play looks to be pretty sure of making the Finals also. With delayed and postponed games it is hard to say who will be the third qualifier there. My bet is on Alan Le Cours but he has a number of games to make up.

In Section A things are somewhat more clear. Zack Calderone, Philip Sells and Carlos Varela are all at 3 - 1 with Dilip Aaron just behind at 2 - 2. It appears the three qualifiers from this Section will come from these four barring some shocking break down in form.

Returning to the Albany Area Chess Club event, here are two more games;

Howard, Dean - Denham, Jason [C10]

AACC Championship Guilderland, NY, 09.11.2011

Jason Denham can play some pretty good chess when the mood takes him. In this game he sets some problems for last year’s title holder, and those problems use up a lot of time leaving Mr. Howard with just seconds on his clock at the end.

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bd7 5.Nf3 Bc6

Long ago Capablanca as Black used these moves to win a casual game in 1902 from Corzo y Prinzipe, the father of Juan Corzo, the Champion of Cuba that Capablance defeated in 1900 to burst on the world stage at just twelve years old. At the still chronologically youthful age of fourteen, the future World Champion might have been still experimenting, but in later years we see a number of distinguished Grandmasters play the Rubinstein variation of the French against equally well known opponents. True enough most of the time it seems their intention is to obtain a safe and sane draw when needed. A short and incomplete list of these Grandmasters is; Pelikan, Matulovic, Kholmov, Suba, Kirov, Luputian, Hodgson, Epishin, Khalifman, Korchnoi, Kamnick, Karpov on more than one occasion, Speelman, Dreev, and so on. We can conclude it is not a particularly fighting defense but is considered a solid drawing possibility by the some of the best players.

6.Bd3 Nd7 7.c4 Ngf6 8.Nc3 Bxf3 9.Qxf3 c6

Bringing the game to an interesting theoretical position. In some lines of the Slav and the Scandinavian as well as the Rubinstein French, Black sets up a “pawn fence” on the light squares b7, c6, e6 and f7, to blunt the action of White’s light squared Bishop. Black often wants to trade off his own light squared Bishop along the way typically for a Knight. The set up does not have a lot of bite. It has however proven to be a solid way to hold the draw.

10.0–0 Bd6 11.Bg5,..

Ambitious but it gives Black a chance for activity. The game has reached the far border of theory. In databases with abut five million games in them I found only one example of this position. We see White taking a different tack at this point and winning. In our game White used a chunk of time hereabouts looking for a way to obtain the advantage no doubt.

Van Riemsdijk, Herman C (2392) - Carbonell, Marcelo [C10]

Sao Paulo Interclubes Paulista Sao Paulo (2), 25.02.2007

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bd7 5.Nf3 Bc6 6.Bd3 Nd7 7.c4 Ngf6 8.Nc3 Bxf3 9.Qxf3 c6 10.0–0 Bd6 11.Rb1 0–0 12.b4 e5 13.d5 cxd5 14.Nxd5 Nxd5 15.Qxd5 Qc7 16.c5 Be7 17.Bb2 Bf6 18.Rfd1 Rad8 19.Be4 b5 20.Qc6 Qxc6 21.Bxc6 Nb8 22.Bxb5 e4 23.Bxf6 gxf6 24.Kf1 Rc8 25.Rd6 Kg7 26.Rc1 Rfd8 27.Rxd8 Rxd8 28.c6 1–0

So it seems White can play a little more slowly and still create dangers for Black. That points up a characteristic of these very technical and refined lines we come across in chess where a GM plays confidently heading towards a drawn position; to use them there is required a comprehensive understanding of the position, or the memorization of an large number of variations. Absent these the chances to go wrong are many.

11..., Qc7 12.Qh3,..

Another long think for White. This time probably was used on the line 12 c5 Bxh2+ 13 Kh1 h6 14 Bd2 h5 15 g3 Ng4; when Rybka says White is comfortably ahead. It is one thing for a computer program to cold-bloodedly reach such a conclusion and entirely another for a human player

to do likewise. Dean was likely weighing up the pluses and minuses of having the Black minor pieces so close to his King. He avoids that with the text.

12..., Bf4!

Fitting in with the general concept of the variation, Black ruthlessly forces simplification.

13.Qh4,..

White again used a good deal of time on this move. Dean likely looked at 13 Bxf4 Qxf4 14 Qe3 Qxe3 15 fxe3, and White has some advantage. He has a bit more control in the center and the half open f-file on which to work. The position has no glaring weaknesses for Black and he has every chance to hold. And that maybe the motivation for Mr. Howard using a lot of time thinking. Mr. Denham is rated 1446 and Howard over 2000. The six hundred rating point difference suggests strongly that Howard should win the game. The position resulting from the above line is fine for White but by no means winning, so he looks for more with some maneuvering.

13..., Bxg5 14.Qxg5 0–0

Also playable are 14..., Qb6; and 14..., Qd6.

15.Rfd1 Rad8 16.Qh4 Rfe8 17.Rac1 Qa5 18.a3 Qh5

White is preparing to expand on the Q-side, and Black pursues his plan of working towards trading down. Both are logical operations.

19.Qg3 Nb6 20.b4 Qg4 21.Qe3 Kf8!?

The King edges closer to the center anticipating the endgame. Not a bad idea but there things that have to be calculated. Moving the King away from a square where the Bd3 can check by capturing on h7 increases the tension around the center squares, but Black is not immediately ready to break with .., e6-e5.

22.Be2 Qh4 23.a4 Re7?

This is an error. A timely repositioning of forces is called for with 23..., Nc8 24 b5 Ne7 25 bxc6 bxc6 26 Qe5, when the Black Q-side pawns are beginning to look frail.

24.a5 Nc8 25.g3 Qh3 26.Bf1 Qg4 27.h3 Qh5 28.Kg2?,..

Time was getting short for both players. Dean had about seven minutes and Jason a much more comfortable twenty-four minutes remaining. Here the logical continuation of White’s plan is 28 a6, then Black has unpalatable choices; a) 28..., bxa6 29 Ra1, increasing pressure on the Black Q-side with good chances to collect a pawn soon, b) 28..., b6 29 b5 cxb5 30 Nxb5, with a slightly different pressure on the Black Q-side, or seeking salvation in tactics with 28..., Nd6?!; which leads to 29 g4, when Black can sacrifice a Knight on g4 for very limited compensation, or keep the material balance with 29..., Qh4 30 c5 Nde8 31 b5, increasing the tension while the Black pieces are not well situated to deal with it. Time trouble looms for White and he hits upon an operation threatening the Black Queen as a way to get some moves played quickly.

28..., Red7 29.Ne2 Qg6 30.Nf4 Qe4+

Pointing up the problem for White; d4 is not well defended forcing the exchange of Queens.

31.Qxe4 Nxe4 32.Bd3?,..

Giving up the pawn without a fight. I suspect that Dean relied on his many years of experience telling him the d-pawn can not be successfully defended by 32 Ne2 Ne7 33 f3 Nf6 34 g4 e5. He therefore goes for the opening of the d-file and simplification.

32..., Rxd4 33.Bc2 ½–½

Jason was down to four minutes here while Dean had just about a minute left. The draw was offered and accepted. Black is of course better, maybe even winning here, but the clock is part of the game. Denham was obviously not completely certain he could execute the moves needed to win the game in the time remaining, and Howard had to be happy to escape with only dropping a half-point. A nice result for Mr. Denham.

Magat, Gordon - Northrup, Cory [A29]

AACC Championship Guilderland, NY, 09.11.2011

The English Four Knights is a positional debut that can turn tactical in a flash.

1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.g3 d5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.Bg2 Be6 7.a3,..

A normal looking move but not mainstream theory. Normal here is 7 0-0. The text is probably a good alternative. Here is a game where Black tries to exploit his chances against 7 a3, but things don’t work out in the long run.

(592176) Hoffman,Alejandro (2491) - Bertona,Fernando (2405) [A20]

ARG-ch Buenos Aires (10), 20.10.2000

1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 Nc6 4.a3 d5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.Nc3 Be6 7.Nf3 Nxc3 8.bxc3 e4 9.Ng1 Bd5 10.f3 f5 11.Qa4 Bc5 12.fxe4 fxe4 13.Bxe4 Bxg1 14.Rxg1 0–0 15.Bb2 Re8 16.Bc2 Qe7 17.e3 Ne5 18.0–0–0 Bc4 19.Bb3 Qe6

With 19..., b5; Black could have extended his advantage.

20.Bxc4 Nxc4 21.Rgf1 Rad8

Again the advance of the b-pawn to b5 offers Black chances to win.

22.Rf4 Ne5 23.d4 b5

Too late to make a difference.

24.Qc2 Nc4 25.Re1 c5 26.Qf5 cxd4 27.Qxe6+ Rxe6 28.cxd4 Rxe3 29.Rxe3 Nxe3 30.Re4 Nd5 31.Re5 Kf7 32.Kd2 a6 33.Kd3 Rd7 34.Bc1 h6 35.Bd2 Rd8 36.g4 Nf6 37.h3 Rd5 38.Re1 Ng8 39.Bf4 Ne7 40.Rc1 h5?

Black never quite gets his head around the ending and shortly allows White a favorable opportunity to trade the Rooks. After that the passed d-pawn and the active Bishop are too much for the Knight and King.

41.Ke4 Ke6 42.Rc7 Rd7 43.Rxd7 Kxd7 44.gxh5 Ke6 45.Be5 Kf7 46.d5 Nc8 47.Bc7 Ke7 48.Kf5 Nd6+ 49.Kg6 Ne8 50.Ba5 Kd6 51.Kf7 1–0

7..., Be7 8.0–0 0–0 9.Qc2 Qd7 10.Rd1 f5

Black harbors serious intentions on the K-side; pieces and pawns against a sturdy looking King’s field. White seems to be counting on obtaining something from getting to play d2-d4, instead of the more restrained d2-d3. The game is about equal now.

11.d4 Nxc3?!

More in line with the layout of the Black pieces is 11..., e4 12 Ne5 Nxe5 13 dxe5 Qc6. Then Black still can think about .., f5-f4; at some point in the future. He may have been worried about 14 f6, but then tactics break out with 14..., Rad8 15 fxe4 Qc5+ 16 Kh1 fxe4 17 Bxe4 Nxc3 18 bxc3 Rxd1+ 19 Qxd1 Qxe5; and if 20 Bxb7? c6! 21 Bxc6 Qxc3 22 Bd5 Rf1+; wins for Black. As Philip Sells mentioned a week or two ago, there are times when local club players just don’t calculate lines out far enough to see the real outcome. I guess that is the case here for Cory. After the text White obtains free play for his pieces and some advantage. Black, on the other hand gives up most of his designs on the K-side.

12.bxc3 exd4 13.Nxd4 Nxd4 14.Rxd4 Qc8 15.Rb1 c6 16.a4 a5 17.Qb2 Bc5 18.Rd1 Rf7 19.Bg5 h6?

Losing material with a too casual move. Black must have assumed the back rank is well guarded so pushing back the adventurous Bishop is no big deal. It cost him his Queen for a Bishop and a Rook. Not quite enough to call the game won for White. Although Mr. Northrup did manage to gin up some counter-play, eventually the power of the Queen to do double attacks carried the day.

20.Rd8+ Qxd8 21.Bxd8 Rxd8 1–0

More soon.

A Game From the AACC Championship

2011-11-14T23:35:00.000-05:00

I have been slothful in getting out the results and games from the Albany Area Chess Club title event. Today is to make up for that neglect.

Wednesday evening saw a full round, the second, played, and there were a couple of surprises; Dean Howard, the defending Champion was held to a draw by Jason Denham as was Peter Henner by Art Alowitz. The latter is not so big a surprise as the former. Alowitz is always a difficult opponent. His results against the Class A/Experts locally has been improving the last few years.

One game from the first round was not played and rescheduled to a later date; Lack - Henner. The standings after Wednesday’s play are:

Gordon Magat leads with 2 - 0. He is followed by Dean Howard and Akhil Kamma at 1 ½ - ½. Next is Jonathan Lack at 1 - 0, then Art Alowitz at 1 - 1. Peter Henner stands at ½ - ½, followed by Tim Wright, Jason Denham. and Chris Caravaty with ½ - 1 ½. Trailing the field is Cory Northrup at 0 - 2.

It is way too early to draw any conclusions about what the ultimate outcome will be. Gordon has yet to meet any of the top rated players; Howard, Wright , Henner and Lack. Dean was not able to generate any real play against Denheam’s Petronsian style Rubinstein variation of the French even after using a great deal of time in the middle game. He had to concede a draw in this second round game. Tim Wright spoiled his start to the event with an error early on against Lack. That coupled with the draw he had with Alowitz in round one makes a high finish for Mr. Wright a matter of doing well against the contenders from here on out; possible but difficult. Art Alowitz won the trophy for best under 1800 in last year’s AACC tournament, and he is off to an excellent start to repeat with draws against Wright and Henner. To really understand who’s leading we will need a couple of more rounds of play.

To obtain scores of the games herein published, I record the games underway for the most part. My experience has been that three games are about all I can handle at once. Trying for more works pretty well enough through the middle game, but once time trouble shows up, or a bunch of moves are made in a rush, making an accurate record suffers. In that light, choosing which games to record is a challenge. My rule has been to always try to record games where contenders play contenders, then games where emerging talents are playing, and finally, games with openings that in which I am interested. Today’s game is one between new talents and it is a Slav Defense. Ever since GM Har-Zvi’s Saturday lectures of a while back on the Slav, it has been a favorite of mine, and so today’s choice.

Caravaty, Chris - Kamma, Akhil [D11]

AACC Championship Guilderland, NY, 09.11.2011

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3,.

Most common here is 4 Nc3. The text is the second choice among the GMs.

4...,Bg4

Much more frequently played is 4..., Bf5; we are still well within known theory.

5.Nc3 e6 6.Qb3 Qc7 7.Ne5 Bh5?!

Now the game is out in the high weeds of the non-theoretical. Normal is 7..., Bf4. There is not a lot of material in the databases on this position, but there are some games by high level players. Here are two:

(627747) Burmakin, Vladimir (2522) - Gurevich, Mikhail (2688) [D11]

EU-ch 2nd Ohrid (7), 07.06.2001

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 c6 4.e3 Bg4 5.Nc3 e6 6.Qb3 Qc7 7.Ne5 Bf5 8.Bd2 Nbd7 9.f4 Be7 10.Be2 0–0 11.0–0 Ne4 12.Nxe4 Bxe4 13.Nxd7 Qxd7 14.Bb4 b6 15.Bxe7 Qxe7 16.Rac1 c5 17.cxd5 exd5 18.Qa3 Rac8 19.Rc3 Rc6 20.Bf3 Bxf3 21.Rxf3 Qc7 22.dxc5 bxc5 23.Rf1 h6 24.Rd1 Rd8 25.Rcd3 d4 26.Qa4 Rcd6 27.Qa3 Qb6 28.g3 Re8 29.exd4 cxd4 30.Qb3 Qc5 31.Qa3 Qd5 32.Qb3 Qc5 33.Qa3 Qc6 34.R3d2 d3 35.Rf2 Re3 36.Qc3 Qd5 37.Qb3 Qd4 38.Qc3 Qa4 39.Qc8+ Kh7 40.Qf5+ Kg8 41.Qc8+ Re8 42.b3 Qe4 43.Qc3 Red8 44.Qe5 Qc6 45.Qe3 d2 46.Qxa7 Ra8 47.Qe3 Re8 48.Qxd2 Rxd2 49.Rfxd2 Kh7 50.Kf2 Qb6+ 51.Kg2 Re3 52.Rf2 Qc6+ 53.Kg1 g6 54.Rdf1 Qe4 55.Rd1 Kg7 56.Rdf1 h5 57.Rd1 Kh6 58.Rdf1 Qd5 59.Rc1 Rd3 60.Rcf1 Kg7 61.Re1 Kf6 62.Rfe2 Rd2 63.Kf2 Qd4+ 64.Kf3 Qd5+ 65.Kf2 Qc5+ 66.Kf3 Qc6+ 67.Kf2 Qb6+ 68.Kf3 Qb7+ 69.Ke3 Rd6 70.Kf2 Ra6 71.Ra1 Qb6+ 72.Kg2 Qc6+ 73.Kf2 Qc5+ 74.Kg2 Qd5+ 75.Kh3 Re6 76.Rf2 Re3 77.Raf1 Qe4 78.Rd1 Kg7 79.Rdd2 Re1 0–1

(1192478) Rukavina, Josip (2382) - Rogic, Davor (2512) [D11]

Pula op Pula (4), 26.06.2007

1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 c6 3.e3 Nf6 4.d4 Bg4 5.Nc3 e6 6.Qb3 Qc7 7.Ne5 Bf5 8.Be2 Nbd7 9.f4 h5 10.0–0 Be7 11.Bd2 g5 12.cxd5 gxf4 13.Nxd7 Qxd7 14.dxc6 bxc6 15.Bf3 fxe3 16.Bxe3 Bd6 17.Ne2 Rb8 18.Qc3 Nd5 19.Bxd5 cxd5 20.Bf4 Rg8 21.Rac1 h4 22.b3 Rg4 23.Qf3 e5 24.h3 Rg6 25.dxe5 Be4 26.exd6 Bxf3 27.Rxf3 Rxd6 28.Nd4 Rb4 29.Re1+ Kf8 30.Be5 Rg6 31.Ref1 Qe7 32.Rf5 Ke8 33.Rc1 Qd7 34.Rh5 f6 0–1

Both of these games see White converting the situation to something resembling a Bird’s formation with 9 f4. In both cases Black won. Overall, the databases show White at plus 1 over eight games. The player’s ratings in this selection of games are rather mixed from unrated to GM. For players above 2350 the results are even, +2 and -2. Drawing a conclusion re: the goodness of 9 f4, has to wait for more GM games and/or some serious analysis. Our game proceeds differently.

8.Bd3 dxc4 9.Bxc4 Bd6 10.Bxe6?!,..

White launches a highly speculative attack. It should not work. The complications are sufficient that the temptation is obvious. I’ve lost a casual game or two to Mr. Caravaty and can testify to his ambitious aggression at the board. This time I think he may have been carried away with the chance for a sprightly win.

10..., fxe6

At first glance declining the offer gives up a pawn for nothing. After 10..., 0-0 11 Bh3 Bxe5 12 dxe5 Qxe5 13 Qxb7, White seems to have the pawn safely in hand, but if the analysis is carried forward Black just might get compensation with 13..., Nbd7 14 0-0 Bg4; and White’s tardy development is a worry. Trying to improve the line by interjecting 14 Bxd7, seems to lead to a material imbalance favoring White after 14..., Nxd7 15 Qxc6 Rac8 16 Qd5 Rxc3 17 Qxe5 Rxc1+ 18 Rxc1 Nxe5; giving him a Rook and two pawns for the Bishop and Knight. It is true White will have to work hard to turn the material plus into a victory, but it should be possible.

I was watching the game and this passage closely. Akhil gave some serious thought to this move debating declining the offer no doubt.

11.Qxe6+ Be7?

Either 11..., Kf8; or 11..., Kd8; would be better. The text seems to be played with the hope of eventually castling. Until the White Queen can be shifted from her post whisking the Black King away is impossible. White has some more aggression in mind that keeps Black busy for a few moves. These moves alter the terrain significantly.

12.g4!,..

A nice as well as necessary move. Now Black is at a crossroads; giving some material to ease the heat of the attack is reasonable, but how to do so? Worth a thought is; 12..., Nxg4 13 Nxg4 Qd7 14 Qxd7 Nxd7; returning the piece and emerging down a pawn but with the Bishop pair as compensation and a more compact pawn structure; two versus three islands. There was no chance to interrogate the participants after the game to discover if either took under consideration the old wisdom that one of many things can be done is to return sacrificed material to ease the pressure against your position.

12..., Bg6 13.g5 Nfd7?

Of the three possible moves; 13..., Nd5; 13..., Nh5; and the text, it is the worst of the three. The other two alternatives lead to interesting play where Black has real chances to hold up the pawns, and slowly work towards winning back some of them.

14.Nxg6 hxg6 15.Qxg6+ Kf8 16.Qf5+ Ke8 17.Qg6+ Kf8 18.h4,..

Maybe Black was hinting at a draw offer. White declines. This is the best way to try for more according to Rybka.

18..., Qd6 19.Qxd6?!,..

This move is puzzling. White made a sacrifice to reach a position where the Black King is awkwardly placed, and now he agrees to a trade of Queens that relives a good deal of the awkwardness. Additionally, his Bc1 and Ra1 are not close to participating in the game and White exchanges his most active piece. The only reason the move does not get a straight out query is there is a possible and interesting line of play that allows White to solve many of his problems; 19 Qxd6 Bxd6 20 h5!? Na6 21 Ne4 Bc7 22 Ke2, and White is on his way to getting all his pieces out; the Bishop goes to d2 and then the Ra1 may be used on the c, f or g-files as required.

A better choice for White is 19 Qf5+, and after 19..., Ke8; the main alternatives are; a) 20 Bd2, with long castling mobilizing all forces to support the extra pawns. b) 20 h5, when 20..., g6; introduces a complex fight. c) 20 e4, offering a pawn to get his pieces out after 20..., Qxd4 21 Be3 and eventually Ra1-d1. Instead of these options, White chooses to take the game to an ending where Black’s pieces have every chance to blockade the advancing pawns.

19..., Bxd6 20.f4 Na6 21.a3 Kf7 22.h5,..

White has purposefully advanced this h-pawn; it was a key part of his ambitious play to this point in the game. That makes it curious how he forgets about it later in the game.

22..., Ke7 23.b4,..

It was around this point in the game another of the spectators asked me why Chris wasn’t developing his pieces. The only answer I can think of is he was more worried about the Black pieces infiltrating his position than making the maximum use of his own forces.

23..., Nc7 24.e4,..

This looks risky but it is probably the best move in the situation. The Ra8 is ready to come in to the fight, White therefore wants to crowd the Black minor pieces as much as possible. The next operation continues this idea.

24..., Ne6 25.e5 Bc7 26.d5 cxd5?

This move concedes the advantage to White. Black could play 26..., Nxe5; seeking counter-play in complications by returning material, or 26..., Nd4 27 d6+ Ke6 28 Rb1 Bb6; when Black is close to blockading the pawns completely.

27.Nxd5+ Kd8

A little more stubborn defense might be 27..., Kf7; keeping the Rooks connected.

28.Nxc7?,..

This natural looking move lets slip most of the advantage White obtained so recently due to the Black errors. It is better to complete mustering all the White forces with 28 Be3, and if 28..., Nb6 29 0-0-0, than it is to trade this active Knight

28..., Kxc7 29.Be3 Raf8 30.Rc1+ Kb8 31.Rc4 Nb6 32.Bxb6 axb6 33.Rh4,..

The Rooks defending pawns in this way are a bit awkward.

33...,b5 34.Re4 Rd8?

This is the moment to bring the Black King closer to the scene of the action with 34..., Kc7. The Black pieces are well place to fight against the advance of the White pawn hoard. Why go adventuring?

35.Ke2 Nd4+ 36.Kf2 Nf5 37.Rh3 Rd2+ 38.Re2 Rd4 39.Kf3 Rd3+ 40.Kg4 Rxh3 41.Kxh3?,..

We now see why; Black must have had this general operation in mind all along. White probably did not see it clearly otherwise he could have defended better with 38 Kf3 Rd3+ 39 Kg4 Rxa3 40 Kxf5, and although White is down a Rook, his pawns are becoming mobile, the Black g-pawn is very weak while the Black King is about one move short of being able to help effectively.

Of course here White should have played for the win with 41 Kxf5!, and after 41..., Kc7 42 Kg6 Rxa3 43 e6 Raa8 44 e7 Kd7 45 Kf7 Rhe8 46 Kxg7 Rxe7+ 47 Rxe7+ Kxe7 48 h6, this pawn will cost Black his Rook. White has then an easily won ending.

41..., Rc8??

The dreaded double query is given because 41..., Rxh5+; wins for Black after 42 Kg4 g6; and if 43 e6? Rh4+; and 44..., Nd4+; is a final blow. The better alternative for White 43 Ra2, leaving Black just about winning after 43..., Kc7. What is just as bad as missing the immediate tactical point is the text begins an operation that gives White a winning possibility.

42.Kg4 Nd4 43.Re4 Rc4?

Self pinning the Nd4 making the potential push h5-h6 very strong indeed.

44.e6?!,..

A strong move but not clearly winning as is 44 h6! . How then does Black stop the coming Queen on the h-file? The most reasonable try; 44..., gxh6 45 gxh6 Rc6 46 Rxd4 Rxh6 47 f5, is obviously won for White with little counter-play for Black.

44..., Nc6 45.Kf5??,..

White fails to count. Now simply 45 Rxc4 bxc4 46 h6. White will Queen with check gaining enough time to bring the new Queen to h1 stopping or delaying the c-pawn from reaching the first rank, and there is always the White e-pawn waiting in the wings to Queen with or without the help of the f6-pawn.

45..., Ne7+ 46.Ke5 Nc6+ 47.Kd5 Ne7+ 48.Ke5,..

The clocks were becoming a problem for both sides now. White did not have the leisure to calculate a last winning try with 48 Kd6, which looks won for him. He here decides on a split of the point.

48..., Nc6+ 49.Kf5 Ne7+ 50.Ke5 ½–½

The draw was offered and accepted. The game has it flaws, but both sides had ideas and were making every effort to win the game. The participants demonstrated ambition and imagination, they both also have some problems in calculation. Some more outings in the crucible of tournament chess will, if they seriously analyze their games, will certainly see improvement in calculation. It will be interesting to see how high they climb in the local pecking order.

More soon.

A Game From A Week Ago

2011-11-06T12:30:00.000-05:00

My last post mentioned an upset win by Jeff Capitummino over Philip Sells. Here is that game.

Capitummino, Jeff - Sells, Philip [E15]

SCC Prelim A Schenectady, NY, 27.10.2011

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6

Not the most common way to proceed in the QID. It has been quite popular with elite players over the years; Nimzovitsch used it in the 1930s, Taimanov and Bronstein in the 1950s, Keres and Smyslov in the 1960s and 70s, Karpov versus Kasparov in their 1984 match and on down to the likes of Karlakin, Ivanchuk and Adams in rapid games at Wilk aan Zee in recent years. Conclusion; it is a perfectly good way to introduce some variety into the QID formations.

5.e3?,..

But this is a not so good answer. It weakens the light squares in the White camp. More common answers used by the Grandmasters here are; 5 b3, and 5 Qc2.

5..., c6

Black plays to pressure the pawn at c4. That is reasonable, but the method selected seems slow. 5..., d5; is possible right away, or Black can try 5..., Nc6; with the Knight going to a5 soon and .., d7-d5; planned. White has the resources to support c4. Black’s intention with such operations is to reach some middle game position where he is comfortable while maintaining central tension.

6.Qc2 d5 7.b3 Nbd7 8.Bb2 Rc8 9.Nbd2 Be7

A bit more aggressive is 9..., Bd6; but Black does not want to have to worry about e3-e4 at some point and the subsequent exchange of some minor pieces. Mr. Sells, taking into account the difference in rating and experience with his opponent, prefers to avoid reducing material if he can’t see the chance for advantage.

10.Rc1 0–0 11.a3!?,..

A trifle slow. Either 11 Be2, 11 Bd3, with castling to follow is sensible.

11..., c5!

Not a hard move to find but certainly on point. White has lagged his development and Black has gotten all his pieces out. Threatening to open up the game in the middle of the board is a natural operation to begin now.

12.Qb1 Re8

Black still does not see any big opportunity coming by releasing tension in the center. He undertakes an small operation to improve the position of his pieces anticipating a later trade-off of central pawns.

13.Bd3 Bf8

Potentially more useful is 13..., h6; recognizing that White has pieces lining up to attack h7.

14.0–0 Rc7 15.Rc2 Qb8

The game is closely balanced. Neither side has nailed down the initiative and positional maneuvering is the order of the day.

16.Qa1 b5!?

Activity with some risk attached. Deep Rybka suggests 16..., h6; but I am not clear as to why that move is best.

17.Rfc1?!,..

The right idea and the wrong move order. If White wants to fight for the c-file, it is better to first play 17 cxd5, opening the file. Black can now keep the c-pawn as a target.

17..., bxc4 18.bxc4 cxd4 19.Bxd4 Rb7

Black may have been concerned about a White Rook occupying the b-file, and then, if he blocks with his own Rook on b7, a pair of Rooks will be traded making the position less complex.

20.Bf1 dxc4 21.Bxc4 Bxc4 22.Rxc4 Qd6 23.a4 Qa6 24.Kg2,..

After the game Jeff made an interesting comment. He said the purpose behind this move was to not let Black capture on the back rank with check. Implied was getting the Rook on the 8th and the Bishop going to c5 operation was somewhere in his thoughts. A pretty sophisticated approach from a young man without a great deal of chess experience.

24..., Nd5

Black logically takes aim at the exposed White a-pawn.

25.Rc8,..

White responds by forcing off some Rooks.

25..., Rxc8 26.Rxc8 N7b6!?

Eliminating the annoying pin on the Bf8 with 26..., Rb8; is the safest path.

27.Rd8 Qxa4?

White has won the a-pawn per the program. The cost is high; all the White pieces now can get into the fray while the Black pieces are tied up. Mixing things up with 27..., Rd7; may be the best way to go. White would have to try the sacrificial line 28 Rxf8 Kxf8 29 Bxg7+ if he wants to go for the win. The line is however a long calculation and tricky. The task of deciding on such an adventure might have caused the opponent bail out with 28 Rxd7, leaving Black with his threats on the a-pawn and not a bad game at all.

I had the game score and it was correct, but making sense of Philip’s resignation was difficult. Last Thursday, a week after the game was played, Sells and I had the opportunity to look at the game together. It was then the full story became clear to me. After White’s 28th , Mr. Sells grabbed his Queen to take off the hanging Black Lady on a1, only picking up his Queen did he see that it was mate on the move for him. Mr. Sells of course resigned immediately.

Interestingly, Philip was not in time trouble at this juncture, in fact his clock was looking better than his opponent’s. This momentary, acute attack of chess blindness is unusual for Sells. We have many examples of him fending off tricks with only seconds on the clock for several moves. Such happens to all chess players occasionally, The surprise is it happening to someone who rarely slips.

The game could have continued if Black had played 28..., Ne7; but White has the better game. It might have gone; 29 Qxa4 Nxa4 30 Bd6 h6 31 Nc4 Nb6 32 Nxb6 axb6 33 Ne5, heading towards d7 to win a piece. Alternatively, 28..., Ne7 29 Qxa4 Nxa4 30 Bd6 f6 31 Nd4 Kf7 32 Ne4, and if 32..., e5 33 Bxe5, and if 33..., fxe5? 34 Nd6+ Kg6 35 Nxb7 exd4 36 Rxf8 is won for White. On move 33 Black could try 33..., Ng6; but 34 Bd6 Rb6 35 Bxf8 Nxf8 36 Nf5 Re6 37 Ned6+ Kg8 38 Ne8 g6 39 Nh6+ Kh8 40 Nc7, and Black loses material.

28.Bc5 1–0 More soon.

This Week's Doings at SCC and AACC

2011-11-05T13:34:00.002-05:00

There is a flurry of local news today. Wednesday the Albany Area Chess Club began its annual championship event. Playing are; Dean Howard, Gordon Magat, Peter Henner, Tim Wright, Jonathan Lack, Art Alowitz, Cory Northrup, Jason Denham, Akhil Kamma and Chris Caravaty. This is a slightly smaller turnout than last year and follows a trend. The big local clubs, Schenectady, Albany and Saratoga have seen a slightly reduced participation in their title events. This maybe just a blip of no great significance, or the effect of some older players scaling back their chess activity. Several new faces showing up, Kamma, Caravaty, Varela and others, indicate the chess community has vitality.

Thursday the 4th round of the Schenectady Prelims was played amid nicer weather than last week. Only two games were delayed; Le Cours - Chu and Connors - Phillips both from Section B. The results of the games played were:

Zack Calderone - Capitummino 1-0, Sells - Varela 1-0, Stanley - Aaron 0-1, Kamma - Herman Calderone 1-0.

Today’s game is the clash between two newer participants in the Schenectady Championship wars. In an off-beat line they do pretty well until a moment’s in attention causes an early end to the festivities.

Calderone, Zack - Capitummino, Jeff [B01]

SCC Preliminary Section A, Schenectady, NY, 03.11.2011

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.b4!?,..

After the game Zack asked if I had any information on this line. He said there wasn’t much to be found in ECO. I told him John Emms, the British GM had written The Scandinavian, Everyman Chess, London, 2004 and had done some analysis of the line. Boiling down Emms’ comments; this is the Mieses Gambit. A speculative try that is not particularly worrying for Black if he keeps his head. Black should just grab the pawn and say ’thank you’ with 4..., Qxb4 5 Rb1 Qd6 6 d4 Nf6 7 Nf3 a6; preventing any White piece from going to b5. Then Emms recommends as the best try for White; 8 g3!? (there is no great joy for the Bishop at d3 or c4, why not g2?) 8..., b6 9 Bg2 Bb7 10 0-0 0-0 11 Ne5!, with pressure on the Q-side.

There are not many games in my databases on this line. Here are some:

This game was crucial to Naka beating out our own GM Har-Zvi for the title that year. It is a blitz game but the participants are very, very good at blitz.

(1161166) Nakamura, Hikaru (2651) - Har Zvi, Ronen (2515) [B01]

Dos Hermanas Internet f 8th Internet ICC (2.4), 23.03.2007

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.b4 Qxb4 5.Rb1 Qd6 6.Bc4 Nf6 7.Nf3 a6 8.d4 b5 9.Bb3 Bb7 10.0–0 e6 11.Re1 Be7 12.Ng5 Nd5 13.Nce4 Qd7 14.Qh5 Bxg5 15.Nc5 Nf6 16.Qxg5 Qc6 17.Bxe6 0–0 18.Bb3 Nbd7 19.Nxb7 Qxb7 20.Qg3 Qc6 21.Bb2 Nd5 22.Qf3 N7b6 23.Ba3 Rfd8 24.Bc5 Nc4 25.Bxc4 bxc4 26.Re5 Qd7 27.h3 h6 28.Rbe1 c6 29.Qe2 c3 30.Qh5 Rab8 31.Ba3 Nf4 32.Qf3 Nd5 33.Qh5 Nf4 34.Qf3 Nd5 35.g3 Qxh3 36.Qd3 Qd7 37.Kg2 Re8 38.Qxa6 Rxe5 39.Rxe5 Qg4 40.Bc1 Qxd4 41.Re2 Qg4 42.Qd3 Ra8 43.a3 h5 44.Re4 Qg6 45.Qd4 h4 46.Rg4 Qf6 47.Qxf6 Nxf6 48.Rxh4 Nd5 49.Rc4 Ra6 50.Kf3 f6 51.Ke4 Kf7 52.Kd4 Ke6 53.Kc5 Kd7 54.Kd4 Kd6 55.Kd3 Ra8 56.Rg4 g5 57.a4 c5 58.Ba3 Kc6 59.Rc4 Ra5 60.g4 Nb6 61.Rxc3 Nxa4 62.Rb3 Nb6 63.c4 Ra4 64.Bb2 Rxc4 65.Rxb6+ 1–0

One hundred years ago Mieses authored his Gambit to no great success against the very strong international player Leonhardt.

(6196) Leonhardt, Paul Saladin - Mieses, Jacques [B01]

Prague (1), 1908

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.b4 Qxb4 5.Rb1 Qd6 6.Nf3 Nf6 7.d4 c6 ,8.Bd3 b6 9.0–0 e6 10.Qe2 Be7 11.Ne4 Nxe4 12.Qxe4 Qd5 13.Qg4 Bf6 14.c4 Qd8 15.Ba3 Nd7 16.Rfe1 Nf8 17.Rbd1 Qc7 18.Bc1 Ng6 19.h4 0–0 20.h5 Ne7 21.Qe4 g6 22.Bf4 Qd7 23.Be5 Bxe5 24.dxe5 Bb7 25.Qf4 Qe8 26.Qf6 h6 27.hxg6 Nxg6 28.Nh4 Qd8 29.Bxg6 Qxf6 30.exf6 fxg6 31.Rxe6 Bc8 32.Rxc6 Bf5 33.Nxf5 gxf5 34.Rd7 Rf7 35.Rd5 Re8 36.Rxf5 Re1+ 37.Kh2 Ra1 38.Re5 Rxa2 39.f4 Rd2 40.f5 Rdd7 41.Re8+ Kh7 42.Rce6 h5 43.R6e7 Kh6 44.Rxd7 Rxd7 45.Re7 Rd4 46.Re8 Rd7 47.Kg3 Kg5 48.Re7 Rd3+ 49.Kf2 Kxf6 50.Rxa7 ½–½

The future World Champion tried out the move in an exhibition and was not overly pleased with the result.

(8397) Capablanca, Jose Raul - Portela, R [B01]

Havana simul, 06.09.1913

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.b4 Qxb4 5.Rb1 Qd6 6.d4 Nf6 7.Nf3 e6 8.Bd3 c5 9.0–0 Be7 10.Nb5 Qd8 11.Bf4 Na6 12.dxc5 Bxc5 13.Qe2 0–0 14.Rfd1 Qe7 15.Nd6 Nb4 16.Be5 Rd8 17.Ne4 Nxd3 18.Bxf6 gxf6 19.Rxd3 Rxd3 20.Qxd3 b6 21.Qc3 e5 22.Nh4 Be6 23.Qf3 Rd8 24.Nf5 Bxf5 25.Qxf5 Kg7 26.Qg4+ Kh8 27.Qf3 Kg7 28.Ng3 Kh8 29.Rd1 Rxd1+ 30.Qxd1 ½–½

Not taking the pawn is not really a better choice.

(41734) Milner Barry, Philip Stuart - Mahishkar, B [B01]

Moscow ol (Men) qual-C Moscow (9), 1956

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.b4 Qe5+ 5.Be2 c6 6.Nf3 Qc7 7.0–0 Bg4 8.Rb1 e6 9.b5 Bd6 10.Ne4 Ne7 11.Nxd6+ Qxd6 12.Rb3 c5 13.d4 Nd7 14.Ba3 Rc8 15.Rd3 Bf5 16.dxc5 Qc7 17.Rc3 Nd5 18.Rc4 Qa5 19.Bb2 0–0 20.Qd4 N7f6 21.a4 Rfd8 22.Qh4 Nd7 23.Qg3 f6 24.Nd4 Nxc5 25.Nxf5 exf5 26.Rd1 Ne4 27.Rxc8 Rxc8 28.Qb3 Rc5 29.Bc4 1–0

These two well known British internationalists had many good fights between them in their careers. This game was not one of them. Sir George Thomas got the drop on Winter with his own special treatment of the Black side and Winter cracked early.

(25895) Winter, William - Thomas, George Alan [B01]

London-B London (11), 1946

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.b4 Qxb4 5.Rb1 Qd6 6.Qf3 c6 7.Bc4 Nf6 8.Nge2 Nbd7 9.d4 Nb6 10.Bf4 Bg4 11.Qd3 Qd7 12.Bb3 e6 13.0–0 Bd6 14.Bg5 Nbd5 15.Nxd5 Nxd5 16.c4 Bxe2 17.Qxe2 Nc3 18.Qg4 Nxb1 19.Rxb1 Be7 20.Bxe7 Qxe7 21.Qxg7 0–0–0 22.d5 exd5 23.cxd5 c5 24.d6 Qe4 25.Qb2 Rhg8 26.f3 Qe3+ 27.Kh1 Rxd6 28.Be6+ Rxe6 29.Qxb7+ Kd8 30.h3 Qd3 31.Qb8+ Ke7 32.Rb7+ Kf6 33.Qf4+ Kg7 0–1

In this game Black demonstrates a few of the tricks available to him in this line.

(400806) Lendwai Reinhard (2385) - Sommerbauer, Norbert (2385) [B01]

AUT-ch Voitsberg (9), 1995

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.b4 Qxb4 5.Rb1 Qd6 6.Nf3 Nf6 7.d4 e6 8.Bd3 a6 9.0–0 Nbd7 10.Re1 Be7 11.Qe2 c5 12.d5 Nxd5 13.Nxd5 Qxd5 14.Be4 Qd6 15.Bxb7 Bxb7 16.Rxb7 Qc6 17.Qe4 Qxe4 18.Rxe4 Nf6 19.Ra4 0–0–0 0–1

To sum up; the Mieses Gambit may surprise an unprepared opponent, but if he has a little bit of knowledge, White has to prove the pawn was invested and not just lost.

4..., Qxb4 5.Rb1 Qd6 6.Nf3 Nf6 7.d4 a6 8.Bd3,..

If the Bishop goes to c4, Black gains time with 8..., b5.

8..., e6

A couple of alternatives may well be better; a) 8..., g6; with .., Nc6 coming soon, and 8..., Nc6; right away. White seems to be planning to pressure the Black Q-side, the obvious point to the pawn sacrifice. In the game the pressure retards Black’s development there. This is the moment for Black to recognize and avoid the problem.

9.Bg5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6?!

I like White’s idea. He wants to increase the Q-side pressure by creating a home for his light squared Bishop on e4, and the Bishop and Rook working together might just tie up the Black pieces for some good while. That is not to say the plan is water tight. It is however creative and is appealing. Black should not fall in with it. Here 10..., gxf6; keeps the Bishop from long occupying e4, problematically opens the g-file and retains the pair of Bishops. The usefulness of the g-file to Black is debatable; the other two factors are pluses for Black.

11.Ne4 Qe7 12.Nxf6+ Qxf6 13.Rb3,..

White has carried out his idea, but this move is questionable. There is nothing immediately tactically wrong with it, but its only active intention must be to act along the 3d rank. Will that be enough to tip the balance? More direct is 13 Be4, then Black has to play the un-handsome move 13..., Ra7; however there are sufficient resources for Black to make a defense in this line also.

13..., c6?!

As several Grandmasters have said from time to time; a pawn is worth some trouble. In this case, Black is making things much too difficult for himself by playing to just keep the pawn. Perhaps he was worried about 13..., 0-0 14 Be4?, but then 14..., Qf4; and 15 Bxb7?, loses to 15..., Bxb7 16 Rxb7 Qe4+.

14.Ne5!?,..

An adventure with some risks attached. The logical 14 0-0, is reasonable with whether or not White has compensation for the pawn still to be determined. White has some scheme in mind involving an attack with pieces if Black castles I guess. Black apparently believes this is possible and plays to avoid the imagined attack. Is there really the makings of such an assault? A quick test seems to say no; 14..., 0-0 15 Be4 Qf4 16 Qe2? f5; and Black is fine. Or, 14..., 0-0 15 0-0 g6 16 c3, giving up the idea of using the Rook along the third rank. It seems if Black castles there is no immediate assault about to break over his position.

A number of chess writers have made a point about trusting your opponent too much. GM Jacob Aagaard does so in his book; Excelling at Chess Calculation. Everyman Chess, London 2004. Aagaard says when your opponent undertakes an operation you must test it and not blindly accept the scheme is valid. Otherwise you can be chasing ghosts. Aagaard has another piece of wisdom regards ‘unforced thinking‘, his terminology. He believes we chess players all too often make assumptions about positions - in today’s game Jeff accepts there is really a dangerous piece attack possible on his King - and thereafter we force our thought process with that perhaps erroneous assumption in mind. Aagaard recommends developing the habit of unforced thinking to open up all the possibilities available.

14..., Nd7

The natural move, Black wants to get his Q-side pieces out and about.

15.Nxd7 Kxd7?!

Playable but why put yourself through the difficulties? Black grabbed the pawn offered in the opening and has held on to it grimly. The text continues this idea. Here may be the point where abandoning that plan is the better course. Concrete calculation shows Black wins after 15..., Bxd7 16 Rxb7 Qxd4 17 Bxa6? Qxd1+ 18 Kxd1 Bc8; so capturing on d7 with the Bishop is at least possible. Of course White could improve his play in this line with 17 0-0, vice 17 Bxa6? A reasonable line of play is 15..., Bxd7 16 Rxb7 Qxd4 17 0-0 Rd8 18 Bxa6 Bc8 19 Qxd4 Rxd4 20 Rb8 Kd7; when a position is reached where Black has cashed in his pawn plus for a slightly better pawn structure, a more active King, freedom for his pieces and most importantly, the opportunity to contest the initiative.

Transformations of advantages is an essential part of chess playing skill. In this game Black loses because he refuses to transform his material advantage into something else. There times when you get a pawn up and can hold it until later to win in a King and pawn ending. Judging when this is possible and when something other has to be tried takes experience and study. From this point to the end White retains the initiative. Lacking any chance to fight for the initiative Black is reduced to reacting to the threats White makes. It is possible to do this but accuracy is required. Any slip can be fatal, and it is a very uncomfortable kind of a game to play for the player without the initiative.

16.Be4 Ke7 17.Rf3 Qg5 18.0–0 g6 19.Rd3!?,..

White decides that the winning operation will be some sort of central advance. It turns out not to be quite enough to win. Probably better to go a little slower with 19 Re1, mustering more force before deciding a specific plan.

19..., Rd8 20.Re1 Kf8 21.c4!?,..

Energetic and motivated by the belief there is something positive to be gained by breaking open the center quickly. More measured is 21 Bf3, and 22 h3, improving the position before hurling thunderbolts.

21..., Rb8?

Here 21..., Qa5; gives Black the chance to take the initiative at the cost of the extra pawn after 22 Qc1 e5 23 dxe5 Rxd3 24 Bxd3 Be6; when the Black pieces are about to become very active and the White pieces are becoming less so. Black has forced his thinking into the narrow path of keeping the extra pawn ignoring the dynamic alternatives.

22.d5 cxd5 23.cxd5 exd5 24.Rxd5 Rxd5 25.Bxd5 Qf6 26.Qa4?!,..

Still believing there is an win to be found with active play, White makes an ambitious move. Organizing his position for more maneuvering with 26 h3, making a luft for his King, and denying full freedom for the Black Bc8, is a better try to use the fleeting advantage in piece activity he has.

26..., Qd8?

Missing the chance to balance the game with 26..., Bf5; then 27 g4 Rd8 28 Bxb7 Bd3 29 Rd1 Kg7; or 29..., Be2 30 Bxa6!? Bxa6 31 Qxa6 Qd1+; both take the game to a drawn outcome. The text leaves unsolved the development of the Black Q-side pieces and worse presents White with real tactical opportunities.

27.Qd4?,..

Seemingly strong and it does keep some advantage. Far more forceful is 27 Qf4, winning immediately by attacking the Rb8 and threatening mate at f7. Then 27..., Bf5 28 g4, wins the Bf5, or allows mate after 28..., Rc8 29 gxf5 Qxd5 30 Qh6+ Kg8 31 f6, and there is no defense.

27..., Kg8??

The relentless pressure that Zack kept on Jeff finally causes a blunder and the Black Queen is lost. Black should have played 27..., Be6; then 28 Qe5 Kg8 29 Bxe6 fxe6 30 Rc1 b5 31 Qxe6+ Kg7 31 Qxa6, favors White by quite a lot, but there are moves to be made and the outcome is not yet clear.

28.Bxf7+ 1–0

Educational this game was, to use the Yoda phraseology. The Mieses Gambit has value as a surprise weapon but shouldn’t strike fear in the hearts of Scandinavian players, forced thinking limits our understanding of what is available to us in a given position, and judging when to cash in a material advantage is no easy task. The Grandmasters writing about chess tell us when a material advantage is so small as a pawn, giving it up for piece activity and one or more other positional pluses is usually a good idea.

I was impressed with Zack Calderone’s energetic planning and focused play. His plans were not without holes, but they had purpose behind them. Experience will soon make him formidable to all our local talent. Jeff Capitummino played a stubborn defense and had chances right down to the end. This effort, albeit a losing one, coupled with Jeff’s fortuitous win last week from Philip Sells, show he is making serious progress. A loss thus is painful but useful for correcting thinking habits that need improvement.

More soon.

Round 3 of the SCC Prelims

2011-11-01T16:17:00.000-05:00

On an all too typical wet and cold Thursday night, the 27th O October, the third round of the preliminaries of the SCC Championship were held. Well let’s say some games were played. Schedule conflicts and maybe the nasty weather caused four out the six games to be delayed to later dates. The two game that took place carried plenty of excitement.

One of the new faces at the Schenectady Chess Club is Akhil Kamma. Going into the third round he was tied with John Phillips for first place in the Preliminary Section B. Watching the game, I thought John obtained an edge out of the opening. Sober reflection with the help of Rybka and referencing notes from the old Saturday group sessions with GM Har-Zvi changed my opinion. White did OK but really did not have any big advantage. A hasty decision by White to trade off pieces in the center led to Black having a big plus. This grew until a blunder turned the tables completely. The remainder of the game was a series of oversights that spoiled the game as an artistic effort but certainly kept the spectators on the edge of their seats.

Phillips, John - Kamma, Akhil [D15]

SCC Prelim B Schenectady, NY, 27.10.2011

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 dxc4

A few years ago several of us local players met most Saturdays with GM Ronen Har-Zvi for group lessons. The first eight or nine such sessions focused on the Slav in all its many flavors. The Saturday lessons ran for two to three hours each giving us twenty to thirty hours of high level insight to the theory of the Slav. The exposure was interesting and had an effect; I took up the Slav as Black and even began some games with 1 d4, after near sixty years of devotion to 1 e4. Ronen’s departure for Brownsville, Texas and my mixed results with trying to change a lifetime’s habits have seen me revert to 1 e4. I still find the Slav useful as an alternative to my favorite KID in answer to 1 d4.

I can claim no great expertise in the Slav; there was just not enough practice accumulated late in my career to reach some serious understanding of all the factors of this defense. This was made clear to me while watching today’s game.

5.e4,..

A moment where White has a choice; he can try 5 a4, the most popular line, or 5 e3, 5 Ne5, 5 g3, and 5 Bg5. Each option comes with a whole bag of theory and GM games galore. The text is the most immediately aggressive.

The Slav has been know for a very long time. It came to the attention of the chess public in the World Championship matches; Alekhine - Bolgoubov 1934, Alekhine - Euwe 1935 and Alekhine - Euwe 1937 where it was explored in great detail.

Alekhine held that 3 Nc3, was the most testing line for White to play. He said that then 3..., dxc4 4 4 e4, gave White an edge in development that is significant. The way this game went, 3..., Nf6 4 Nf3 dxc4; is more sedate but only relatively so. The line as played is styled the Geller Gambit.

Glenn Flear in his book The Slav for the Tournament Player, Batsford, London 1988 wrote: “So with 5 e4 White occupies the center immediately and with a further e5 will engineer attacking chances quickly - this has the drawback of gambiting a pawn on a near permanent basis - so the Geller is a true gambit!”

5..., b5 6.e5 Nd5 7.a4 b4?!

The game now leaves the well trodden paths of theory. The move looks normal doesn’t it? In the game Bondarevski-Kalantar USSR 1947 play went; 7..., b4 8 Ne4 e6 9 Bxc4 Nd7 10 0-0 Bb7 11 Nfg5 N7b6 12 Bd3 a5 13 Qh5 Qd7 15 Nc5, with a big advantage for White. There are a couple of attacking ideas for White in this position; Ng5 as in the cited game and the pawn push e5-e6 whenever Black’s Bishop leaves the c8-h3 diagonal. This why the move .., e7-e6; happens early rather than late in the GM games. Standard play is; 7..., e6 8 axb5 Nxc3 9 bxc3 cxb5; when White frequently launches into serious tactics with 10 Ng5, and 11 Qh5. The extra pawns Black has on the Q-side and the wonderful a8-h1 diagonal favor his cause if he can survive whatever attack White whips up on the Black King.

8.Ne4 Bf5 9.Ng3 Bg6 10.Bxc4,..

Safe and sound but White could have also continued in true gambit fashion with 10 e6!?, then things become really interesting after a) 10..., fxe6 11 Bxc4, and Black has a real mess of a position, or b) 10..., c3; 11 Bd3 cxb2 12 Bxg6 hxg6 13 exf7+ Kxf7 14 Bb2, when Black has two pawns and many weaknesses while White has the attacking chances.

10..., e6 11.h4?!,..

During the game I thought this was a pretty good idea reminding me of similar ideas from the Caro-Kann. What I misunderstood was the significance of the White e-pawn remaining on the board. In the Caro position there is no e-pawn and the e-file is available to White with sacrifices at e6 possible. Here such is foreclosed and the h-pawn push distracts White from the things he should be about. The more promising line of play is; 11 Bg5 Qa5 12 0-0 h6 13 Bh4 Bh7 15 Nh5, and White has made short castling unappealing for Black setting him a long term worry about where to put his King.

11..., h6 12.h5 Bh7 13.Qb3?,..

White undertakes an operation that does not improve his position. Making lemonade from the h-pawn push with 13 Rh4 Be7 14 Rg4, keeps the pressure on the K-side. The theory as I recall GM Har-Zvi telling us is for White to attack, and even sacrifice, on the K-side while keeping any advantage Black has on the Q-side to a minimum.

13..., Be7 14.Bxd5 Qxd5 15.Qxd5 cxd5

The position is very favorable for Black; the White pieces gathered on the K-side don’t look to be able to make much headway while Black has promising possibilities on the Q-side. We can only guess at what was in Mr. Phillips’ mind when he chose this line. An experienced tournament player with many years in the trenches I don’t believe the choice John was but a whim. My surmise is he had evaluated the position after Black’s 12th move as favoring Black and believed clearing off the Queens and a set of minor pieces was the best way towards reaching an endgame that White can hold. The result of this mistake is White has the worse minor piece - the Bishop, Black has both of his clerics and they have squares, and c2 is a weakness in the White camp that can become terrible.

As I looked in on the game from time to time, my opinion was that White had the better chances. Objectivity was lost on my part. Influenced by the great difference in experience between the players, I believed White was doing better that he was.

It is not uncommon for non-masters to misread a position. This game had at least three players fail to grasp what was really going on at different points in the game; me here as the game transitioned from the opening to middle game and the to participants later. As a rule I don’t publish games of my colleagues when mistakes come in bunches. This game is an exception. Here two pretty experienced players, Phillips and I, as well as a talented newcomer failed to understand what was happening on the board at different points in the game. It is worth considering why this was so.

This phenomenon, the failure to see facts when they are immediately in front of your eyes, is often labeled chess blindness. All the local players seemed to have stories of their own moments of blindness at the board. Usually the blindness is acute and a short lived incident where a piece is lost or a mate missed. Rarer are the occasions where the position is misread by both sides for a number of moves. This emphasizes the need to look objectively at each position as it comes up on the board and not make assumptions about positions.

16.Be3 Nc6 17.Rc1 Rc8!?

Building tension in to the position, not a bad thing if you really want to try for the win. The problem here is tactics. More testing is the positional approach 17..., Na5; if then White recklessly sends the Rook into the lion’s den with 18 Rc7 Kd8 19 Rc1 Nb3 20 Rd1, Black will control the c-file and pick up the Exchange with 20..., Bc2. White may have to concede a pawn with 18 Nd3 Kd7 19 0-0 Rac8 20 Rfd1 Rxc1 21 Rxc1 Rc8 22 Rxc8 Kxc8 23 Ne2 Bc2; collecting the a-pawn. The resulting position is very nearly won for Black, but some technique is required.

18.Nd2 Bd3!?

A most interesting move. Black had to weigh up the difference between holding up White from castling and the option of getting all of his own pieces coordinated before undertaking any action. He went for holding the White King in the center. Castling is the more principled move. With both sides lagging in development so late in the game, the chances of some kind of tactical surprise is certainly afoot.

19.f4?!,..

White obviously did not like how the situation was developing. It had gradually dawned on me that White was in serious trouble. His next operation grows out of the need to change the course of the game lest the Black Knight ends up on a5 giving Black all the say on the Q-side of the board, and obviously White has no balancing tactics on the K-side.

19..., 0–0 20.f5 exf5 21.Ne2 Rc7?

The game now enters a phase where error rules the day. Why do both sides suddenly lose the ability to see? Jacob Aagaard, the Danish GM living and working in Scotland now, wrote Excelling at Chess Calculation, Everyman Chess, London, 2004, where in part he discusses assumptions, blunders and other sins. He says: “You can’t see a theme and then make assumptions about it. Chess is too complicated for us to guess our way through it.” Another of his comments is we sometimes trust our opponent too much. Chess games are won by mistakes and examining each and every move by the opponent for error is the correct path. Aagaard goes on to say it is better to calculate wide rather than deep and one must force oneself to be concrete in calculation to identify mistakes. All of that wisdom would have been useful to both sides for the balance of the game.

Now 21..., Bg5; would have avoided White’s intentions and cemented a material advantage for Black after 22 Kf2 Bxe3+ 23 Kxe3 Bxe2 24 Kxe2 Nxd4+ 25 Kd3 Ne6; and Black is up two pawns. Time is not yet a problem for either side.

22.Nf4 Be4?

Black could have kept things about even with 22..., Bg5. He just does not see what White intends.

23.Nxe4 dxe4 24.d5!,..

The point of the operation beginning 19 f4. A Black piece now falls.

24..., Rfc8 25.dxc6?!,..

Of three possible continuations White elects to take the least promising. Better is 25 Rxc6, removing one pair of Rooks right away reducing chances of Black getting a Rook on the second rank. Also possible is 25 d6!?, again eliminating one pair of Rooks for the same result.

25..., Rxc6 26.Ke2?,..

Permitting the invasion of the second rank. Trading now with 26 Rxc6, simplifies the technical problems White will have exploiting his extra piece. Black now obtains enough counter-play to offset the missing piece.

26..., Rc2+ 27.Kd1 b3

Maybe White overlooked this resource.

28.Ne2?!,..

White passes on the reasonable 28 Rxc2 Rxc2 29 Bc1 Bg5 30 g3 a6 31 Re1 Bxg4 32 gxf4 Rh2; when the lone Black Rook is so active that the many Black pawns balance the game. After earlier gaining the piece White is reluctant to steer towards calmer waters, he assumes after gaining material he must play for the victory.

28..., Rd8+ 29.Ke1 Rxb2 30.Kf2 Rd3 31.Rb1?,..

White has no choice but to keep things confused. This way unfortunately gives Black the chance to redress the material imbalance. White could have tried here 31 Rc8+, then Black would have to find work through lines difficult to calculate: a) 31..., Bd8; and b) 31..., Kh7. Both lines probably favor Black in the long run and require some calculation. Each side was now approaching time trouble. White had used seven minutes to pick 30 Kf2, and had thirteen minutes remaining. Black had about twenty minutes left.

31..., Ra2?

A second best move that leaves the advantage with Black, but it misses a strong shot; 31..., Bh4! Now if 32 Rxh4 Rxb1 33 Nf4 Rxe3; and Black b-pawn can not be stopped after 34 Kxe4 b2. Alternatively, 32 g3 Bxg3+ 33 Kxg3 Rxe3+; and since 34 Kf4??, is impossible because 34..., Rf3; is mate, White has to lose the Ne2 with check leaving him without a defense to the further advance of b-pawn.

32.Bxa7 Rdd2?

Second best again. Black assumes that two Rooks on the second must be worth leaving unguarded the b-pawn to its fate. I remember similarly dropping a passed pawn to a young lady from Serbia in the Saratoga Championship a few years ago. There it turned a win in to a draw. Ultimately this error is more costly. Best here is; 32..., f4; then if 33 Rhd1 f3 34 Rxd3 Rxe2+ 35 Kf1 exd3 36 gxf3 b2 37 Bd4 Ba3 38 a5 Rc2; and Black is winning in all lines.

33.Rhe1 f4 34.Kf1 Bh4 35.Bf2 Bxf2 36.Kxf2 g5!?

By now time trouble had appeared for Black. His clock showed 4 ½ minutes remaining. White had played quickly over the past several moves and had about 10 minutes on his clock. I was impressed by the text. In the complicated position, overlaid with the tension of the leaders striving to take over the unchallenged first place in the section, Mr. Kamma goes all out to win. It is a brave decision, but misguided. He could maintain some advantage with 36..., b2.

37.hxg6 fxg6 38.Rxb3 g5

After many “Alarums and Excursions” White emerges with some advantage. The dangerous b-pawn is gone, and if the on-rushing Black K-side pawns can’t win something, White can well bring home the point.

39.Rb7!?,..

Trying to set up his own threats on the Black King. Both sides were now having to take in to account the dwindling time available. A more secure path for White was 39 Rb4, guarding the a-pawn and forcing Black make provision for the defense of his pawn mass. White assumes holding on to the Knight is necessary if he wants to win. Letting go of the piece would ease his task; after 39 Rb4 e3+ 40 Kf3 g4+ 41 Kxg4 Rxe2 42 Rxe2 Rxe2 43 Kxf4 Rxg2 44 Kxe3, or 43..., Re1 44 Kf3, leave White with good winning chances.

39..., g4 40.Kf1 f3 41.gxf3?,..

An instinctive reaction, there is almost no time to think now for either side. With 41 Nf4, White could have set up perpetual checking possibilities after 41..., e3 42 gxf3 exf3 43 Reb1! The clocks were now drifting towards just a couple of minutes each.

41..., exf3 42.Nf4 Rh2!

A move that should win the game.

43.Kg1 g3?

Akhil, after some very energetic play, just misses the chance to close out the game in fine style with 43..., f7+ 44 Kxh7 fxe8 (Q)+; when White can only give up his Rook on b2 to delay the mate for a move.

44.Rb8+ Kh7 45.Rb7+ Kg8 46.Rb8+ Kg7 47.Rb7+ Kf8

After a little hesitation, Black starts his King towards the annoying Rook. Once the Black King is safe from harassment, two Rooks on the second with two pawns on the third in close support should win for Black.

48.Ng6+,..

What else to do? Continuing to check with the Rook and the Black King will close with his harasser ending the checks, then the threat of ..,f3-f2+ wins handily.

48..., Ke8 49.Re7+ Kd8 50.Rd1+ Kc8?

Mr. Kamma is either under the incorrect assumption that maintaining the Rooks on the second is utterly essential for his game, or he just forgets these Rooks can block the check. With 50..., Rad2; the game is over. After 51 Rxd2 Rxd2; mate is threatened and sacrificing the remaining Rook only buys a move or two at most. If 51 Rb1, threatening his own mate, 51..., Rdg2+ and 52..., Rh1; is mate.

51.Re8+ Kc7 52.Rc1+ Kd7?

Again blocking with a Rook wins for Black. Worse than missing a killer move, the text gives White the whip hand. I am pretty sure Mr. Phillips, even in serious time trouble, knew that Black had the Rook move resource. There are times when your game is so bad and you can’t resign all there is to do is keep a “poker face” and play the best you can find. A game with mutual time problems is such a case.

53.Re7+?,..

Both clocks were approaching one minute now. White misses a neat finish; 53 e6+!, and 53..., Kxe8 54 Rc8 mate, or 53..., Kd6 54 Rd8 mate. When your chess life has been dangling by a thread for some while in a game, it is difficult to recognize and take advantage of a sudden opportunity. That is one trait the masters and Grandmasters seem all to have; if they play on in poor position their alertness to tactical chances remains very high. They rarely miss such opportunities. Us lesser lights too often see them pass by finding them only in the post mortem.

53..., Kd8 54.Rd1+ Kc8?

In the waning seconds of the game I kept asking myself why not block the check with a Rook? Aagaard’s assumption thesis is the only answer. Somewhere along the line Akhil determined maintaining the doubled Rooks on the second was the key for him. Sticking with that assumption costs him the game.

55.Re8+ Kb7 56.Re7+!?,..

Maybe signaling a draw would be acceptable, if 56..., Kc8 57 Re8+, etc. Forcing is 56 Rd7+, but a drawn outcome is likely. Black now fixes on a3 as sanctuary for his King. A natural idea. If there had been more time Black may have realized that it is a false hope.

56..., Kc6 57.Rd6+ Kc5 58.Rc7+ Kb4 59.Rd4+ Ka3?

Shelter that provides no succor. Keeping the balance with 59..., Ka5; maybe best. The Black King does not want to be checked on the third rank. Such a check clips the pawn on f3 eliminating some of mating prospects Black has had for awhile.

60.Rd3+? Kb2?

Continuing the fight with 60..., Kb4 is possible which is why 60 Rc3+, is a better choice for White.

61.Rxf3,..

The tables have now turned with a vengeance. If a pair of Rooks come off; 61..., Ra1+ 62 Rf1 Rxf1 63 Kxf1, the two separated but advanced passed pawns give White all the winning chances. Alternatively, 62..., Rxa4 63 e6, is no picnic for Black either.

61..., Rxa4 62.Rxg3,..

The extra piece and the passed e-pawn are sufficient for White to win.

62..., Re2 63.Rg2 Rxg2+ 64.Kxg2 Re4?

During play several of us thought 64..., Rg4+ tips the game back towards a draw. That is probably not true. After 64..., Rg4+ 65 Kf3, the Black King is cut off from the White passed pawn, and The White King is close enough to effectively escort the e-pawn forward. The Black h-pawn is just not far enough advanced to make much of a difference.

65.Kf3 Re1 1–0

The game went on for a few more moves but was effectively over. Both players seemed to have at different points illustrated the ideas behind Aagaard’s comments about assumptions in chess. Talking with Philip Sells while this game was going on about positions from his game last week against Dilip Aaron brought the comment regards the several chances Sells had to sacrifice on e6; “I saw it but just didn’t calculate the line far enough.” Such may have occurred in today’s game also, in particular White’s decision to trade Queens moves, 13 through 15, and not getting rid of a pair Rooks around move 25.

There is one of the paradoxical aspects of chess wisdom on display here. Aagaard says calculate wide not deep, and Sells comments about not looking far enough to see the point in a sacrifice. Aagaard’s advice focuses on finding more of the resources in a given position. Sells’ comment, Aagaard touches on a similar idea later in his work, highlights the art of a chess player; when you grasp most or all of what a position offers, you have to chose a path to follow. When calculating the moves to be played down a particular line it behooves the player to see it through to the end. Judging where to break off the calculation is a measure of chess skill. Grandmasters do this very well, the rest of us not nearly so well consistently.

The standings after the partial round three are:

Section A

1&2 Zach Calderone 2 - 0

1&2 Carlos Vaerla 2 - 0

3 Philip Sells 2 - 1

4 Jeff Capitummino 1 - 1

5 Mike Stanley 0 - 1

6&7 Dilip Aaron 0 - 2

6&7 Cory Northrup 0- 2

Section B

1 John Phillips 3 - 0

2 Ahkil Kamma 2 - 1

3 Alan Le cours 1 - 1

4 Herman Calderone ½ - ½

5 Richard Chu ½ - 1 ½

6 David Connors 0 - 1

7 Matt Clough 0 - 2

More soon.

The First Board From the Albany - Schenectady Match

2011-10-28T12:10:00.000-05:00

Dean Howard, the defending champion of the Albany Club and first board in the “big” Albany versus Schenectady match this year, kindly sent me as much of the score as is available of his game with Patrick Chi. Dean was in some time trouble and stopped recording about move 37. With the help of Mr. Chi, Dean was able to find and forward the game through move 52 along with his notes on the game.

After the last move recorded the classic Rook pawn + Bishop pawn and Rook versus a lone Rook ending arose. Almost every writer on endgames has had something to say about this one. The position came to the attention of the chess world when Marshall drew it against Rubinstein at San Sebastian, 1911. Spielmann, Rabinovich, Belavenets, Maizelis, Zek, Keres, Botvinnik, Rogozin Flohr, Levenfish and Smyslov, Fine and in recent years Dvoretsky have explored this ending in great detail. The consensus is it is probably drawn if the defender knows the basic rule: Don’t let your King be cut off on the back rank. The side with the pawns wants to give up the Rook pawn at some point and win with the remaining Bishop pawn. The only chance for such a plan to work is if the defending King is cut off on the back rank. Avoid this and the long struggle is drawn.

Mr. Howard was so short of time he was not able to keep his King away from the back rank. The sudden-death time controls bring many good things to our game and some bad. A bad thing is the impossibility of staying out of time trouble in a long game and the resultant increase in endgame errors.

Howard, Dean - Chi, Patrick [B19]

Albany - Schenectady Match Schenectady, NY, 13.10.2011

Dean Howard’s notes are italicized.

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bf5 5.Ng3 Bg6 6.Nf3 Nd7 7.h4 h6 8.h5 Bh7 9.Bd3 Bxd3 10.Qxd3 e6

Dean’s comment is “I’ve had this position many times in casual games, but never got around to studying it. The line I chose was OK. If someone named Bill has the time to find out what the Grandmasters have done here, I’ll leave it to them.” Note: Dean sent the game to Bill Townsend also.

The position is quite fertile for researching GM games. It is popular with many of the top flight players. Here are a couple of examples;

(658043) Anand, Viswanathan (2770) - Dreev, Alexey (2676) [B19]

FIDE-Wch k.o. Moscow (4.2), 05.12.2001

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bf5 5.Ng3 Bg6 6.h4 h6 7.Nf3 Nd7 8.h5 Bh7 9.Bd3 Bxd3 10.Qxd3 e6 11.Bf4 Bb4+ 12.c3 Be7 13.0–0–0 Ngf6 14.Kb1 0–0 15.Ne5 Qa5 16.Nxd7 Nxd7 17.Ne4 Rad8 18.Qg3 Kh8 19.Bc7 Qf5 20.f3 Rc8 21.Ka1 Nf6 22.Nd6 Bxd6 23.Bxd6 Rfd8 24.Be5 c5 25.dxc5 Nxh5 26.Rxd8+ Rxd8 27.Bxg7+ Kh7 [27...Nxg7 28.Qh4 f6 29.Qxh6+ Kg8 30.Qh8+ Kf7 31.Qxd8] 28.Qh4 Rd2 29.Bxh6 Kxh6 30.g4 Qg5 31.Qxh5+ Qxh5 32.Rxh5+ Kg7 33.a4 Rd3 34.c6 bxc6 35.Ra5 Rxf3 36.Rxa7 e5 37.a5 Kf6 38.a6 e4 39.Ra8 Rd3 40.Re8 Rd5 41.b4 Rd7 42.c4 1–0

(955096) Sadvakasov, Darmen (2605) - Dreev, Alexey (2705) [B19]

RUS-chT Sochi (7), 25.04.2005

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bf5 5.Ng3 Bg6 6.h4 h6 7.Nf3 Nd7 8.h5 Bh7 9.Bd3 Bxd3 10.Qxd3 e6 11.Bf4 Ngf6 12.0–0–0 Be7 13.Kb1 Qa5 14.Ne5 0–0 15.Nxd7 Nxd7 16.Ne4 Nf6 17.Nd6 Bxd6 18.Bxd6 Rfd8 19.Be5 Ng4 20.Bg3 Nf6 21.Be5 Ng4 22.Bg3 Nf6 23.Qe2 Qb5 24.c4 Qf5+ 25.Ka1 b5 26.f3 bxc4 27.Be5 Nd5 28.g4 Qg5 29.Rc1 f6 30.Bg3 Nb6 31.f4 Qb5 32.g5 Qf5 33.Bh4 Kf7 34.Rhg1 Rg8 35.Rc3 Rad8 36.Ra3 Rd7 37.Rag3 hxg5 38.fxg5 Rxd4 39.Rf3 Qe4 40.Re3 Qd5 41.g6+ Ke7 42.Re5 Rd2 43.Rxd5 Rxe2 44.Ra5 Nc8 45.Rc5 Re4 46.Bg3 e5 47.Rxc6 Rg4 48.Kb1 Rh8 49.Kc2 Kd7 50.Rc5 Nd6 51.Rd5 Rxh5 52.Rgd1 Rxg3 53.Rxd6+ Ke7 54.R1d2 Rd3 55.Ra6 Rxd2+ 56.Kxd2 f5 57.Rxa7+ Kf6 58.Ra6+ Kg5 59.Re6 e4 60.a4 Rh3 61.a5 Kf4 62.a6 c3+ 63.bxc3 Rh2+ 64.Kc1 e3 65.Kb1 Rh8 66.Kc2 Kf3 67.c4 e2 68.c5 Kf2 69.Kd3 e1Q 70.Rxe1 Kxe1 71.c6 Re8 0–1

There are lots of draws in the databases too. It seems that the really good players understand this line of the Caro is sound enough for Black to hold his own and even try for a win if White gets too ambitious.

11.Bf4 Qa5+ 12.Bd2 Qc7 13.0–0–0 Ngf6 14.Ne4 Nxe4 15.Qxe4 Nf6 16.Qe2 0–0–0

The game is still in well known theory with even results according to the databases.

17.g3 Bd6 18.Ne5,..

Here Dean gives this move the edit mark (?!), and says;“Not a losing move, but Black’s reply will make White squirm a little.” I am not so sure this is true. If White is not bound by prejudice about Knights versus Bishops he can obtain play for the minor Exchange.

18..., c5 19.Nc4,..

Worth trying is 19 Bf4, then 19..., Nd5 20 dxc5 Nxf4 21 gxf4 Bxc5; and White has the open g-file with which to pressure the Black K-side pawns. I’d mark this move with the (?!). White surrenders a pawn and goes over to the defensive.

19..., cxd4 20.Nxd6+ Qxd6 21.Bf4 Qc6 22.Rhe1 Rd5 23.Be5 Rhd8 24.Qf3?,..

Mr. Howard correctly is critical of this move and queries it. He writes: “It’s a sign of good play by both sides that my computer says this is the third-worst move of the game. White is almost equal after 24 Rd3, or 24 Kb1.”

24..., d3?

Mr. Howard’s comment here was: “Fortunately for me , Black responds with the second-worst move of the game. After 24..., Qc5 25 Bxf6 gxf6 26 Qxf6 Rf5 27 Qxf6 Rxf2 29 Qxd2 Qxh5 Black is a clear pawn ahead with better attacking chances.” Deep Rybka agrees.

25.Rxd3 Rxd3 26.Qxc6+ bxc6 27.cxd3 Rxd3 28.Bxf6,..

Dean said: “After this exchange, White’s active Rook and better pawn structure almost make up for the missing pawn.”

28..., gxf6

The Black pawns are at first glance looking somewhat ragged and the White pawns not so bad. Delving a bit deep into the position brings to light that the active Black Rook can attack the White K-side pawns easily while White has a much harder time finding a role for his Rook to play.

29.Re4 Rf3?!

With 29..., Rd5; Black would have set a difficult task for White. Play might have gone; 30 Rg4 Kd7 31 Rf4 Ke7 32 Rb4 Rb5 33 Rc4 Kd6 34 Rd4+ Rd5; and so forth with Black owning an extra pawn White can not accept a trade of Rooks. That being the case, Black can bit by bit improve the position of his King until such time as White can no longer avoid the trade of Rooks. The text goes straight for attacking the pawns and leads to near equality.

30.Rg4 Rf5

Dean’s comment was: “It’s very hard to know what is correct here, but this is probably wrong. Fritz considered 30..., Rxf2, Kc7, Kd7, a6 and a5. 30..., Rxf2 was a little better.” Dean gave the move (?!) and I think that is fair.

31.Rg7 Rxh5 32.Rxf7 Rf5 33.f4 a5 34.Re7,..

As Dean said in his notes here both sides made some tenth-of-a-pawn mistakes along the way, and this looks like one of those. It is better to activate his King with 34 Kd2, and a drawn outcome is very probable. One of the problems in Rook and pawns endgames is very small differences have large implications.

34..., e5 35.fxe5 Rxe5 36.Rf7 Rf5 37.Rh7,..

Here is another chance for White to play his King to d2. It should be said that here Mr. Howard had fallen below five minutes on his clock and stopped recording moves. In time pressure deep contemplation is out, and you play what you see. The rest of the game is presented without comment.

37..., h5 38.Kc2 Rf2+ 39.Kc3 Rf3+ 40.Kc4 Rxg3 41.Rxh5 Rg4+ 42.Kc3 Rg5 43.Rh7 Rd5 44.Rf7 f5 45.Kc4 Kd8 46.Rf6 Kc7 47.Rf8 Kd7 48.Rf7+ Ke6 49.Rc7 Kd6 50.Rf7 Rb5 51.Rf6+ Kc7 52.Kd4 Rxb2 53.Rxf5 Rxa2 0–1

Patrick’s score sheet ran out here. The game continued for several more moves. Dean’s comments were”.. With almost no time , without knowing the risks to avoid, I allowed my King to be forced to the back rank, and removed all doubt by missing a mate when I was down to 30 seconds..” This was a game played at a level higher than we typically see in local contests. It reflects well on both players. Dean’s closing note captures a feeling I’ve had every once in a while: “It was a hard loss, but I learned lessons about the opening and endgame. That “almost” compensates for the lost King.”

More soon.

The SCC Championship is Underway

2011-10-24T22:22:00.001-05:00

Thursday night the second round of the preliminary sections of the Schenectady Championship was played. The event has some of the regulars playing and some new faces for Schenectady. Patrick Chi is not defending his title this year, and Philip Sells is the only Expert in the event. New faces for Schenectady are Akhil Kamma of the Albany Club and Carlos Varela from the RPI team. Returning after a couple of years off is Jeff Capitummino.

Today we have a game where the young Dilip Aaron had chances against the Expert Sells. I can say the chances were deserved. They came about not so much through Dilip’s efforts, rather they were created by too routine treatment of the position by Mr. Sells. Unfortunately for Aaron he did not spot his opportunity. Sells then proceeded to rack-up the point in workmanlike fashion.

Sells, Philip - Aaron, Dilip [B01]

SCC Prelim A, Schenectady, NY, 21.10.2011

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.Nf3 Bf5

Last year in the Preliminaries Dilip tried 5..., Bg5; an equally good alternative. He got his Queen completely out of play in the later middle game eventually losing a tense fight.

6.Qe2 e6 7.d3 c6 8.Bd2 Qc7 9.0–0–0 Bd6

The game has arrived at a normal looking but not quite standard position. I was not able to find an example in a two million game database. White has avoided pushing the d-pawn to the fourth rank reducing tension in the position, and Black has not gotten all his pieces into the fray yet nor has he castled. White counts on this retarded state of development for Black to allow him to beat off the obvious pawn storm on the Q-side.

10.h3!?,..

Anticipating K-side castling by Black, maybe. Making his own pawn storm is a worthy intention, but Black makes close contact first delaying White’s plans.. Probably best is 10 Ne4, then 10..., Bxe4 11 dxe4 Nbd7 12 Rhe1 Ne5 13 Nxe5 Bxe5 14 g3 0-0-0 15 f4 Bd4; when White has some central space and the two Bishops, while Black is well organized for defense. The grant of time given by White allows Black to come to grips right away.

10..., b5 11.Bb3 a5

I like this operation Black trys. He has set the stage to rip open the defenses in front of the White King. It is not necessarily correct, but it is dynamic.

12.a4,..

White could seek complications with 12 g4?!, but after something like 12..., Bg6 13 Nh4 a4 14 Bxe6 fxe6 15 Nxg6 hxg6 16 g5 Nh5 17 Qxe6+ Kd8 18 Qxg6, things are unclear; Black has a piece and White has two pawns and the position requires careful examination. The text certainly looks to be best.

12..., Bb4?

It may be the calculations needed to make sense of the position were more than Dilip was ready to deal with, or he became impatient with the problems. In the line where White plays d2-d3 and puts his Queen on e2, there is always hanging the threat of a piece sacrifice at e6. While making a judgment about when to pull the trigger on the sacrifice is a challenge for White, Black also has to consider it at every turn. This kind of persistent problem can become so annoying a player just goes for something out of left field. Such is the text move. It is surprising but not particularly pertinent to the position on the board. Castling right now is probably good: 12..., 0-0 13 axb5 a4 14 Ba2 a3 15 b3 Rc8 16 Nd4 Bb4; and the Black forces are have closed with the defenders of the White King while White is some moves away from reaching a similar state on the other side of the board.

13.Nd4 Bxc3 14.Bxc3 Bg6?

Necessary is 14..., b4. By removing the Bishop from the defense of e6 the stage is set for troubles.

15.axb5?!,..

The move played in the game holds on to a solid advantage, but the natural and thematic 15 Nxe6!, offers so much more. After 15..., fxe6 16 Qxe6+, and all Black’s answers are hopeless. The point of the formation White adopted, Bishop on the a2-g8 diagonal, Queen on e2, with a Knight coming to d4 or g5, is the piece sac at e6. Why a skillful player passes that by is hard to explain. Mr. Sells may have become focused on Aaron’s building attack and forgot about his own possibilities.

15..., c5?

With 15..., 0-0; Black could have avoided bigger problems.

16.Nf3?,..

Neither side seems to see the danger around e6. Here White could have played 16 Nxe6 fxe6 17 Qxe6+ Qe7 18 Qc8+ Qd8 19 Rhe1+, and so forth as it easy to see White picks up a decisive material advantage. Curious that both players so undervalued the sacrifice at e6. After the text Black is still worse but he can play on.

16..., a4 17.Bc4?!,..

Once more Mr. Sells opts for a little instead of a lot. 17 Bxe6, brings home the point soon after 17..., fxe6 18 Qxe6+ Kf8 19 Bxf6 Qf4+ 20 Kb1 gxf6 21 Qc8+ Kg7 22 Qb7+ Nd7 23 Qxd7+ Bf7 24 Rhe1 Rhd8 25 Qg4+

17..., 0–0 18.Ne5 Nd5 19.Bd2?,..

This last move seems to be motivated by the wish to retain the Bishop pair. The game move gives up just about all of the advantage White has held for some time. Mr. Sells works very hard at the board. Up to this point the has used one hour more than Mr. Aaron on the clock so we can’t blame haste for any slips. Here White could nail down a permanent advantage with 19 Bxd5 exd5 20 Nxg6 hxg6 21 Qe5, when the mate threat forces off the Queens, after which the Bishop at e5 is much stronger than is the Knight. Coupled with the extra pawn, this leads to a won ending. Play could then go on; 21..., Qxe5 22 Bxe5 Nd7 23 Bd6 Rfe8 24 Rhe1 c4 25 Rxe8+ Rxe8 26 dxc4 dxc4 27 Rd4, when the Black Q-side pawns are vulnerable in the extreme.

19..., a3 20.bxa3 Rxa3 21.Kb2 Ra8 22.Rhe1 Nd7 23.Nc6!?,..

An aggressive choice. Somewhat more sober but not necessarily better is 23 Nxg6. At this moment White was down to 5 ½ minutes on the clock. Black had well over one hour remaining. Sobriety has its pluses in time trouble.

23..., N7b6 24.Ra1?,..

A most natural move. It is a mistake that should be costly. Correct is 24 Qe5, offering the Queen trade. As later in the game, if the Queens come off Black is worse.

24..., Ne7?

Dilip misses his golden opportunity. With the move 24..., Nxc4+; Black obtains an advantage. Granted it requires a fairly long and complicated calculation, but much of it is forced easing the burden of the task. Play continues; 25 dxc4 Qxc6! 26 bxc6 Rhb8+ 27 Bb4! (the only way to fight on) 27..., Rxb4+ 28 Kc1 Rxa8+ 29 Kd2 Ra2 30 Rc1 Nb6; when White will have to find tough moves such as 31 Ke1, avoid the worst. The position has a lesson worth knowing; when you embark on a sacrificial line as Black did in this game - he gave up a pawn on the Q-side - very frequently the justification is only found in further sacrifices. Also frequent is what happens if you can’t find the sacrificial continuation; the game turns against you. After the game move Black is in serious trouble. Another motivator for Black is the time situation. Jerking the game out of normal channels makes finding the proper answers when the clock is running towards its final minutes even more trying.

25.Qe5 Qxe5+ 26.Nxe5 Nf5

With the Queens off the potential for some tactical surprise is much reduced. Black should have avoided this exchange. Now the passed b-pawn looms large for White. Sells takes control of the game, and while it takes many moves with less than four minutes on the clock, Mr. Sells demonstrates once more his skill at fast play.

27.Ba5 Nxc4+ 28.dxc4 Nd4 29.Nxg6 hxg6 30.Re5 Rfc8 31.Ra3 f6 32.Re1 Rcb8 33.Rea1 Rb7 34.Bd2 Rab8 35.Be3 e5 36.Ra6,..

Making things simpler with 36 Ra8, might have lessened the task. White, however, was down to about 49 seconds here, and it is more important he plays what he sees rather than what he can find if he had the time.

36..., Kh7 37.c3 Nxb5

Despairing at the task in front of him, Dilip seeks relief with a sacrifice. It is too late. More stubborn but not objectively better is 37..., Nf5; then 38 Bxc5 Rc8 39 Rb6, etc. The only virtue of the line is it might cause Sells to have to think a bit.

38.cxb5 Rxb5+ 39.Kc1 Rb3 40.Bd2 Rd8 41.Kc2,..

White has spied out a safe haven on c4 for his King that keeps him well guarded by any tactics Black’s Rooks may try.

41..., Rdb8 42.Rc6 R3b5 43.Be3 Rb2+ 44.Kd3 f5 45.Bxc5 e4+ 46.Kc4 1–0

The game continued for several more moves with White’s clock hanging at nine seconds. Mr. Sells did not need more than the five second delay to find the path to victory. I like Dilip’s idea of ripping up the Q-side to obtain counter-play. In this game Sells gave his young opponent chances to turn the tables. If Aaron studies this game carefully and internalizes the lessons available, he will much more dangerous to the Experts in the club.

in the future.

After play finished Thursday the standings were:

Section A

1-3 Zack Calderone 2 - 0

1-3 Philip Sells 2 - 0

1-3 Carlos Varela 2 - 0

4-5 Dilip Aaron 0 - 2

4-5 Cory Northrup 0 - 2

6-7 Mike Stanley 0 - 1

6-7 J. Capitummino 0 - 1

In Section A next Thursday the most interesting match-up is the game between Dilip Aaron and Zack Calderone, the established scholastic star versus a rising challenger.

Section B

1-2 Akhil Kamma 2 - 0

1-2 John Phillips 2 - 0

3 Alan Le Cours 1 - 1

4 Herman Calderone ½ - ½

5 Richard Chu ½ - 1 ½

6 David Connors 0 - 1

7 Matt Clough 0 - 2

In Section B the game of interest is the clash of the two leaders, Phillips and Kamma. Although unrated, Kamma has demonstrated some talent in casual and speed games at the Albany Club. On the other hand, Phillips has qualified several times for the SCC Title Finals and is well experienced in the local chess wars. Will we see the emergence of a new title threat? Stay tuned.

More soon.

Another Game From the U1800 Section

2011-10-20T14:12:00.001-05:00

The previous game I published by Dave Finnerman had some doubtful points. This victory from the second round is far more clearly a dominating win by Mr. Finnerman over the quickly improving scholastic player Calderone.

Calderone, Zachary - Finnerman, David [B07]

133d NYS Champ U1800 Albany, NY, 07.09.2011

1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.f3,..

Typically played to avoid a Pirc player’s preparation in the well studied lines of the Austrian (4 f4), the Classical (4 Nf3) and the Bishop move variations (4 Bc4 & 4 Bg5). Black has several ways to achieve an acceptable middle game including the Old Indian (a quick e5 and ..,Be7) and an early (3..., d5;) looking to transpose into a French Defense if Black does not play ..,g7-g6 early. Taking up the standard Pirc setup also works as in the game.

4..., Bg7 5.Be3 0–0 6.Qd2 e5 7.dxe5 dxe5 8.0–0–0 Qe7!?

The Grandmasters prefer 8..., Qxd2+; aiming for equality. Mr. Finnerman wants more.

9.Bg5?!,..

The basic moving-a-piece-twice opening error. Logical are; 9 g4, or 9 h4, getting on with the K-side pawn assault. Also reasonable are the prophylactic 9 Qf2, 9 Bd3 and 9 Kb1. If White wants to develop straight forwardly he can try 9 Bc4. The text has the virtue of setting the possibility of elimination of the Nf6, but the cost of a tempo that can be better used and the disappearance of the better of the White Bishops is too great a price.

9..., Be6 10.Bd3 c5?!

Likely this move is just too risky for Black. Better 10..., Rd8.

11.Nd5,..

A worthy alternative here is 11 f4, then 11..., Qd7 12 Nf3 exf4 13 Qxf4 Nh5 14 Qd2 Nc6 15 a3, and the battle is undecided. Both sides retain chances to try for the advantage.

11..., Bxd5 12.exd5 Qd6 13.Bxf6?,..

This move is illogical, and it changes a unclear but dynamically balanced position into one that is promising for Black. The fundamental reason is the dark squared Bishop is useful for White. Remaining on g5 it stifles its Black counterpart. White may have been concerned that the Nf6 could travel Ne8/Nd6 taking up a good blockading post, but that regrouping of pieces takes several moves since the Black Queen will have to move away. The text is also contrary to the essence of the position. Opposite side castling most often signals sacrificial attacks with the result turning on who gets there first. As in the game, Black should probably think about giving the a & b-pawns to obtain open lines on the White King.

13..., Qxf6 14.c4 Nd7

Here Black could play 14..., b4; right away, and if 15 cxb4 c4 16 Bxc4? Rc8; is promising.

15.Ne2 b5 16.cxb5 c4 17.Bb1 a6

White now sees that things are going wrong with his position.

18.bxa6 Rfb8 19.Nc3 Rxa6 20.Qe2?,..

In a tough situation Mr. Calderone errs. It should be said the game is very close to being lost no matter what White plays. The text however lets Black finish up with a flourish. With 20 Rhe1 Rxa6 21 Re4 Rxb2 22 Qxb2 Rxb2 23 Kxb2 Qa6; Black has a winning edge, but White can fight on for awhile.

20..., Bh6+

The dormant Bishop springs to life becoming part of a neat mating combination.

21.Kc2 Qb6 22.Qxc4 Qxb2+ 23.Kd3 e4+ 24.Kxe4 f5+ 25.Kd4 Qf2+ 26.Kd3 0–1

White played his last move and resigned seeing 26..., Ne5; mate. I very much like the combination that ends the game. White misunderstood the opening ideas and Black took a chance in the opening provoking an error by White. Black recognized the basic requirement in opposite side castling positions; speedy attacking is crucial and brought home the point with the mating combination. A good performance by the winner of the Under 1800 Section of the State Championship.

More soon.

David Finnerman, U1800 Winner at the NYS Championship

2011-10-18T10:33:00.000-05:00

The U1800 Section of the 133d NYS Tourney

2011-10-18T10:32:00.000-05:00

There was one section of the recent NYS Championship that I did not cover and it was the section where local players did very well indeed. In the Under 1800 Section Dave Finnerman took first with a 5 - 1 score, Dilip Aaron and Richard Moody tied with Daniel Brule at 4 ½ - 1 ½ for second through fourth places.

Today’s game is the fifth round match-up of Finnerman and the latest Aaron to make his mark on the local chess scene. This win made the difference for Dave. He stopped the hard charging scholastic star making his chances for the title very good with one round to play.

Finnerman, David - Aaron, Dilip [A13]

133d NYS Championship Albany, NY, 03.09.2011

1.c4 e6 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 d5 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.0–0 dxc4!?

This is the English Opening (A13) with .., e6. The opening books recommend 5..., 0-0; here. Black usually tries to keep the h1-a8 diagonal closed later moving the Nc6 and playing .., c7-c6; if possible. White typically does not worry too much about recovering the pawn counting on the open Q-side files to allow him to pressure Black seeking a tactical solution. Here is an example from recent times:

(1176424) Lushenkov, Mikhail M (2387) - Ivanov,Alexey2 (2425) [A13]

RUS-chT2 Sochi (3), 05.05.2007

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Bg2 dxc4 5.0–0 Nc6 6.Qa4 Qd5 7.Nc3 Qc5 8.b3 cxb3 9.Qxb3 Qb6 10.Qc2 Bb4 11.a3 Bxc3 12.Qxc3 Qa5 13.Qe3 0–0 14.Bb2 Nd5 15.Qe4 f6 16.Rfc1 Bd7 17.d4 Rfe8 18.Rc5 Qb6 19.Rb1 a5 20.h4 a4 21.Bc1 Qa6 22.Bd2 Rab8 23.e3 Nce7 24.h5 b6 25.Rcc1 b5 26.Qd3 c6 27.h6 g6 28.e4 Nb6 29.Nh2 Nc4 30.Bb4 e5 31.dxe5 Nxe5 32.Qd6 1–0

6.Qa4 Be7 7.Ne5!,..

A nice move emphasizing the dangers on the long diagonal for Black.

7..., Bd7 8.Nxc6 bxc6 9.Bxc6 0–0 10.Qxc4 Rb8

It may be better to rid the position of light squared Bishops with 10..., Bxc6. The upshot of the operation beginning 6 Qa4, is White has the better pawn formation while Black is ahead in development. Neither side has staked out anything in the way of pawn control of the center squares. Silman’s theory of imbalances says; evaluate the pluses and minuses and work to increase the pluses and repair the minuses in your position. White needs to get on with development, and Black wants to find a way gin up something from the lead in development. The problem for White is he must watch for tactics where Black obtains compensation for his weakened pawn structure.

11.Bf3,..

Defending e2.

11..., Bb5 12.Qc2 Bd6?!

Reasonable but wrong. Not much is threatened by posting the Bishop on d6. Better is 12..., Nd5. White won’t take the Nd5 giving up his light squared Bishop, and the Knight clears f6 for the Be7. The Knight may go on to b4 to further harass the White Queen. All this is not enough to claim the advantage for Black, however this sort of operation that makes a little something out of that most transient of pluses; a lead in development. The text guards c7; but it also grants time for White to catch up in development.

13.Nc3 Bd7 14.b3 Qe7 15.Bb2 Rfe8?

Apparently Black wants to advance the e-pawn at some point in the future. The Rook behind the Queen is a questionable support for such a plan. The operation 15..., c5 16 Rac1 Be5 17 Ne4 Bxb2 18 Qxb2 Nxe4 19 Bxe4 Rbc8; etc. holds hopes for Black to equalize, or at least keep the disadvantage to a minimum.

16.Rfe1?,..

Both players are suddenly overtaken with the urge to advance the e-pawns. Why now? Good is emphasizing the Bishops’ play with 16 Ne4 Nxe4 17 Bxe4 g6 18 Rac1, and if 18..., e5 19 Bc6, when the Black a-pawn looks vulnerable.

16..., e5 17.e4 Bg4?!

The last operations have reduced the effectiveness of White’s light squared Bishop. Black now makes a trade of this less than prepossessing piece for his now pretty good counterpart.

18.Nd5?..,

Instigating a tactical interlude that does not help his game. The positional continuation 18 Bxg4, getting rid of potentially active Bg4 right away looks better. Then 18..., Nxg4 19 Nd5, retains the advantage for White.

18..., Nxd5 19.Bxg4 Nb4

In the space of just few moves the solid edge White has enjoyed is seriously reduced. It happened not so much because Black found some resource, rather White may have just miss-judged the position.

20.Qc3 Bc5 21.Qc4?,..

Necessary is 21 Be2, to defend d3. The text overlooks that d2 is undefended.

21..., Red8 22.Re2,..

The cold-blooded 22 Be2 Rxd2 23 Bc3 Rxa2; pins White’s hopes on using his two Bishops to offset the extra pawn Black has. Would such a plan work? It has the virtue of keeping lots of play in the position, but a pawn is a pawn.

22..., Nd3

And the worm has turned. From a worse position, Black emerges with some advantage.

23.Bc3 Qg5 24.Bf3 Qf6 25.Kg2 Rd6?

The wrong Rook if Black is considering using it for some kind of frontal attack on the White King. This Rook defends the Nd3 and is not free for extra duties. Better 25..., Rb6.

26.b4 Bb6 27.a4 Rbd8 28.Rf1 Rc6 29.Qb3 Qg6 30.Kh1 Rf6 1-0

Here my copy of the score runs out, or at least the intelligible portion of it. The game ultimately ended with White winning. My record says 31 g4 was played but that move seems hugely wrong. Conversations with Mr. Finnerman, both email and faced-to-face, told me the position from my score was not quite right. David does not yet have the game transcribed to his computer so we have not been able to nail down the actual moves.

If, and it is a big if, White plays 31 Kg2?, in the this position, Black has the pretty resource 31..., Rxf3!; which wins after 32 Kxf3 Qh5+; gaining decisive material. After Black’s 30th move, Deep Rybka evaluates the position as favoring Black by about three-quarters of a pawn (0.73). If White plays Rybka’s suggested move, 31 a5, then 31..., Rxf3 32 axb6 cxb6; leaves Black with the better position, not quite winning for sure but better. With some luck we will obtain the correct moves and I will publish the actual finish of this game.

More soon.

The "big" Albany - Schenectady Match

2011-10-14T10:09:00.000-05:00

Back to work. I have not posted since early this month. My wife and I were off on a vacation in South Carolina for a week or so. The drive down and back along the I88/I81/I77 route was very pretty with Fall colors present all the way to the SC border. The route follows the western side of the Catskills, the Endless Mountains in PA, the Blue Ridge in Virginia and the Southern Appalachians in North Carolina. If you have the time, and enjoy “leaf peeping”, it is a trip worth taking.

Now to news. Last night, Thursday October 13th saw the latest incarnation of the “big” Albany - Schenectady matches. Albany brought twelve players this year, and Schenectady had thirteen show up. Schenectady won the contest rather decisively 8 to 4. The Schenectady side dominated on the top boards scoring 4 ½ to 1 ½ on the top six boards. Their edge was less on the lower boards, 3 ½ to 2 ½. Albany was designated the home team and had White on the odd numbered boards. The results were:

Albany Schenectady

Board 1 Dean Howard - 0 Patrick Chi - 1

Board 2 Jon Leisner - 0 Ashok Aaron - 1

Board 3 Gordon Magat - 1 Philip Sells - 0

Board 4 Tim Wright - 0 John Phillips - 1

Board 5 Peter Henner - 0 Michael Mockler - 1

Board 6 Bill Little - ½ Bill Townsend - ½

Board 7 Jonathan Lack - 0 David Fennerman - 1

Board 8 Glen Perry - 1 Dilip Aaron - 0

Board 9 Arthur Alowitz - ½ Richard Chu - ½

Board 10 Charles Eson - 0 Matt Clough - 1

Board 11 *Chris Caravaty. - 0 Cory Northrup - 1

Board 12 K. Kamma - 1 Zach Calderone - 0

* I made a typical reporter’s mistake and did not obtain the correct spelling of this player’s last name. Bill Townsend and I both recorded his last name as “Carvaty“, but this is wrong. With help from Cory Northrup we got the spelling right this morning.

Bill Townsend and I played a game with a couple of significant mistakes that rather spoiled what was a tense contest between opponents with a history over many years of hard fights. I dropped a pawn is a silly fashion resulting in a material imbalance of a Queen and a Rook plus a pawn versus two Rooks and a Knight. Bill then had the opportunity to simplify by trading off a pair of Rooks and getting a distant two-to-one pawn majority on the Q-side. Fortunately for me a shortage of time on the clock caused Bill to miss a further winning chances and the game petered out to a draw in about 75 moves. Our game ran long making obtaining scores of other games impossible. Mr. Townsend does have some of the game scores. He’ll likely be publishing some in his Schenectady Gazette column.

A personal note; I received a trophy for finishing second in the Saratoga Championship last season. Alan LeCours was to present it to me last week, but I missed it because of the South Carolina vacation. My thanks to Alan for the effort directing the event, and my apologies for my absence for his presentation. Since I’ve retired from serious competition, this is probably the last trophy for me. Over the many, many years of serious play I was able to win the Schenectady title a few times and the Albany title once, 2007. Making the “triple”, Albany, Schenectady and Saratoga titles just was not in the cards for me. The best I could do was a couple of second places at Saratoga, this year and 2006-07. Although I fell short of a goal, the pleasure of the competition and the comradeship of my opponents were certainly the real rewards of playing chess. My thanks to all my opponents.

More soon.

Schenectady CC Championship start

2011-10-09T22:58:00.000-05:00

Hello to our readers! This post will cursorily cover the blast-off of the 2011-12 Schenectady Chess Club Championship, which occurred on October 6 after dark.

As usual for us, there are two round-robin qualifying sections feeding into a six-man round-robin final. The two qualifying sections each yield qualifying spots for the top three scores. Turnout seems to be light this year--so far there are only seven players in each section, though this may change in the next week. Fortunately, with an odd number in each section, a late joiner could be accommodated relatively easily at this point by just putting the newcomer in the 'Bye' slot on the crosstable. I understand there are a couple of other people who intend to play but who couldn't be present for the first round last week for various reasons. One of those people, interestingly, is not defending club champion Patrick Chi! Probably school and whatever other activities he has going are making too many demands on his time at the moment, so it sounds like he won't be with us for this year's engagement.

Let's take a look at the field as it exists officially right now. I don't really have time to make nice tables just now, so here's a bare list of players and current USCF ratings. (I'll have you know, by the way, that while I'm typing this up, I'm having a nice glass of a red wine from the Berkshires, which will have no effect whatsoever upon the accuracy of this post. It will also not cause me to try to come up with silly nicknames for the players... at least not yet.) Bill Townsend prepared his usual nice color-coded crosstables for each section, which I'll attempt to mimic here, although the specific shade of orange that Bill used for the Section A paper doesn't seem to be available to me, which is a pity, because it's really a very nice shade of orange. Oh, well, close enough.

Section A

Philip Sells 2010
Carlos Varela 1751
Dilip Aaron 1738
Cory Northrup 1576
Zachary Calderon (aka 'Calderon fils') 1517
Jeff Capitummino 1366
Michael Stanley 1030

Section B

John Phillips 1924
Alan LeCours 1911
Richard C. Chu 1642
Matt Clough 1577
Herman Calderon (aka 'Calderon pere') 1493
David Connors 1487
Akhil Kamma UNR

Results of Thursday, Oct 6, round 1:

Section A

Northrup 0-1 Sells

Aaron 0-1 Varela

Stanley 0-1 Calderon, Z.

Capitummino: bye

Section B

Phillips 1-0 Chu

Clough 0-1 LeCours

Connors 0-1 Kamma

Calderon, H.: bye

***

If anyone is looking for a bit of tournament activity, the Western New England Open is next weekend, Oct. 15-16, in North Adams. 5-round Swiss, G/120 with prizes and probably a good shot at playing some of the usual suspects from Connecticut. That is, if you're not already committed to the Deepak Aaron simul at RPI that Saturday. (I only found out about this tournament on Friday myself.)

If you're a member of either the Albany Area Chess Club or the Schenectady Chess Club, don't forget the Albany vs. Schenectady match on Thursday the 13th!

The Schenectady Handicap Blitz Results

2011-10-03T12:43:00.002-05:00

On Thursday, September 29th the Schenectady club held its annual Handicap Blitz tournament. The “usual suspects” showed up for the most part, twelve in all. That is one more than came out for the Blitz Championship event held September 15th . We did not have Deepak Aaron and Bobby Rotter in the field, but it was pretty strong nonetheless with Ashok Aaron (the Club Blitz Champion), Patrick Chi (the Club Champion), Jon Leisner, John Phillips, Peter Henner and the fast rising Zack Calderone all playing.

The handicap was time distributed by rating. If the rating difference was less than 200 points both side had five minutes each. Up to 400 rating points difference the time was four minutes to six minutes with higher rated having the lesser amount of time, and so forth. The greatest time imbalance was two minutes to eight minutes. That is a very hard task for the higher rated player, although Chi and Aaron seemed to handle it very well.

The results were:

1 - Patrick Chi 9 ½ - 1 ½; losing only to Matt Clough and drawing with Jon Leisner.

2 - Ashok Aaron 9 - 2; losing only to Bill Little and drawing with Clough and Chi

3&4 - Jon Leisner and Zack Calderone tied at 7 - 4 and Zack won the head-to-head encounter.

5 - Peter Henner 6 - 5

6&7 Bill Little and Cory Northrup 5 - 6 and Cory won the head-to-head encounter.

8 - Herman Calderone 4 ½ - 6 ½

9&10 - R. Ellsworth and John Phillips 4 - 7 and Ellsworth won the head-to-head encounter.

11 - Matt Clough 3½ - 7½ notably winning from Patrick Chi and drawing with Ashok Aaron, the top two finishers.

12 - Mike Laccetti 1 ½ - 9 ½

Once again John Barnes did the director’s job without a hitch and the well run event was wrapped up before 11:00pm. Good Job John!

Bill Townsend was in attendance, and he managed - I don’t know how - to record a game or two from this very fast play event. Look for the games in one of Bill’s future columns in the Schenectady Gazette.

More soon.