More About the Capital District Invitational

We began in the last post with the last round loss by Lee Battes to the tournament winner, Grant Spraggett. The win put Spraggett well clear of the field, a point and a half ahead of Battes and Goldberg. Today we have an early round win that Battes achieved over Bruce Steffek that helped him on his way to a good result in the event. The contest shares with the previous game a short, sharp tactical profile, only this time Mr. Battes wins.

I have the benefit of analysis Bill Townsend did using Fritz and published to some of us interested parties immediately after play concluded. Where this analysis is quoted it is in quotes.

Battes, Lee - Steffek, Bruce [A04]

Capital District Invitational Albany, NY, 20.04.2002

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d3,..

No highly theoretical debate of the many well documented lines of the Open Sicilian in this battle, rather it will be a positional struggle in the Closed Sicilian shading into the King’s Indian Attack. Such an approach was very popular in the US and internationally in the 1950s and 60s when Lee and I were young. Critical lines are far less well defined in the Closed Sicilian than they are in the Open, but tactics can be just as sharp as we will see in the game.

3..., g6?!

So early and already a problematic move. It is well known, if you play .., e7-e6; in such positions, fianchettoing the Bf8 is risky. Dark squared weaknesses on the K-side can cause Black trouble the whole game long. This especially troublesome because the Black King well have to castle short.

4.Nbd2 Bg7 5.g3 Ne7 6.Bg2 0–0 7.0–0 Nbc6 8.Re1 d6

The game has transposed into a line from the KIA, not uncommon in the Closed Sicilian. Black’s last move is to prevent White from pushing the e-pawn to e5. A reasonable idea on its face. A deeper examination suggests Black could have played 8..., d5; then 9 e5 b6 10 Nb3 Qc7 11 Bg5 Nxe5 12 Ne5 f6 13 Bxf6 Rxf6 14 c3 a5; and Black has chances to find good use for his Bishops. Which route is best, the game move or the push to d5? It appears both lines are about of equal value.

9.Nf1,..

Townsend commented: "This is a thematic move for the KIA, but better is 9 c3, keeping the Black Knight out of d4 and b4." True enough and Deep Rybka agrees. Human beings probably see not much difference here believing c2-c3 can be played later if needed.

9..., Rb8

The move does get the Rook off a potentially dangerous diagonal, but is it necessary at this moment? Attending to development with 9..., b6; and 10..., Bb7; seems to be a more principled approach. As the game unfolds, we see the Rb8 does not contribute much in the way of offensive power to Black’s plans. It turns out to be so not because of a flaw in this Rook move, rather a later mistake. We have the reversed situation of the Classical KID; White is building an attack on the K-side and Black on the Q-side. With the center still fluid, the tactical potential in the position is even higher than in typical Classical KID situations with a closed center.

10.h4 b5 11.N1h2 Bb7

White wants to mass force on the dark squares around the Black King. Black has a fair number of pieces at hand to aid his monarch, With care he should not be overwhelmed. The primacy of an attack on the King is the ace for White. Any slip by Black can change the balance instantly. Townsend wrote: "This looks like mindless development to me. Better are 11..., e5; or 11..., b4." The attraction of 11..., b4; is making c2-c3 problematical for White. Black then has more or less fixed a weakness at b2 that could well influence how White deploys his forces. Of course White can go ahead in a true KIA fashion by not being too concerned about dropping the b-pawn and speeding his K-side assault.

12.Ng4 f5!?

Not the critical mistake but this move loosens up the defenses of the Black King. Better 12..., Qd7; then Black is dangling the “bright and shiny” possibility of the chance to attack his King in front of White. If White chases the bait with 13 Bg5 f6 14 Nh6+ Kh8 15 Bf4 Nd4 16 Nxd4 cxd4 17 c3 dxc3 18 bxc3 Nc6 19 Rb1 Ne5; when Black is slightly better than is White; the attack is spent, and play is beginning to shift to the Q-side where Black is stronger.

13.Nh6+?,..

Too soon. Better first 13.exf5 exf5 14.Nh6+ Kh8 15.Ng5, and because 15..., Bxh6 16 Ne6 Qb6 17 Bxh6, favors White strongly, Black has to play 15..., Qe8; then 16 Ne6 Ne5; leads to lots of tactics that seem to favor White. The situation is quite murky. It is a very difficult task to work one’s way through the complications to reach a decision.

13...Kh8 14.exf5 Nd4?

Losing the game with a single stroke. Necessary is 14..., Nxf5; and a trade of some pieces leads to a balanced position. Black now gets the worst of it. Townsend did not see this error quite as decisive as Rybka and I concluded it was. After the game move, playing out the lines with Rybka, no viable defense was discovered.

15.Nxd4 Bxd4 16.c3 Bg7

The idea of sacrificing this Bishop on f2 just does not provide enough compensation for the material, and now Black has to surrender his e-pawn giving White two extra “buttons”. Making things even more difficult is the dark squared Bishop White has can roam the fertile ground of the dark squares near the Black King. White is winning.

17.fxe6 Bxg2 18.Kxg2 Bxh6

Alternatives such as 18..., Qc7; offer a chance to hold out a bit longer without changing the eventual outcome.

19.Bxh6 Rf5 20.g4 Rf6 21.d4 d5

Black can not contemplate the possibility of a trade of Queens. The dark squares would then be even more vulnerable. If 21..., Qc7 22 dxc5 dxc5 23 Qd7, forces the trade. Black tries another way with the text, but it is hopeless also.

22.dxc5,..

Now Black will have to give up the Exchange to go along with all the lost pawns. We see the weakening of the dark squares on move three playing out these many moves later. The game is a good example of why .., e7-e6; and .., g7-g6; almost never go well together.

22..., Nc6 23.Bg5 Qe7 24.Qxd5 Rbf8 25.Bxf6+ Qxf6 26.f3 1–0

Now 26..., Rc8 27 Rad1 Qe7 (If 27..., Ne7 28 Qd4, forces the Queen exchange.) 8 Qd7, and the Queens must come off. In either event, defending the Exchange and several pawns down has no hope of success, and Mr. Steffek resigned.

More soon.

Some Local Chess History

For three days, April 19 through April 21, 2002, the Capital District Invitational was run. It was a closed round robin with the highest rated players who accepted an invitation participating. Two notable absentees were; Steve Taylor and Matt Katrine. Bill Townsend told me a similar Invitational had been run once before. I don’t recall the date he mentioned. I guess it was some time in the 1990’s when I was out of the loop on local chess doings.

Townsend and I cooked up the idea for the event in discussions at the Schenectady Club. The stock market had treated me very well that year giving the extra funds to underwrite something interesting, and Mr. Townsend was ready to take on the directing and organizing tasks. He rounded up a pretty impressive group of players: Grant Spraggett, a Canadian with a FIDE rating of about 2300, Mitchell Goldberg, originally from down-state with a USCF rating of 2210, and a four local Experts including Peter Michelman, rated 2062, Bruce Steffek, rated 2050, John Morese rated 2000 and Lee Battes rated 2000. Both Morse and Battes were at their ratings floors, however both in the not far distant past had achieved ratings over 2200.

For those that may have forgotten; Spraggett won going away scoring 4 ½ - ½. Goldberg and Battes tied for second and third with 3 -2. Clear fourth was John Morse at 2 ½ - ½. Michelman was fifth scoring 2 - 3, and Steffek trailed the field with 0 - 5. Although Mr. Steffek did not score, he made every game a very interesting fight right to the last, and it was an impressive display of grit in the face of several defeats.

With apologies to my old friend Lee Battes, we are going to begin this series with his lone loss to the eventual tournament winner.

Battes, Lee - Spraggett, Grant [B13]

Capital District Invitational Albany, NY, 21.04.2002

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bg5 dxc4 7.d5,..

At the very top of the “food chain”, among the World Champions and Candidates, this position has come up. Here are some examples:

Botvinnik, Mikhail - Flohr, Salo [B13]

Moscow/Leningrad m Leningrad (1), 28.11.1933

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bg5 dxc4 7.d5 Ne5 8.Qd4 Nd3+ 9.Bxd3 cxd3 10.Bxf6 exf6 11.Qxd3 Bd6 12.Nge2 0–0 13.0–0 Re8 14.Rad1 Bg4 15.Rd2 a6 16.Ng3 Rc8 17.h3 Bd7 18.Rfd1 g6 19.Re2 Rxe2 20.Ngxe2 f5 21.Nd4 Qe7 22.Qd2 Re8 23.Nf3 Qf6 24.Re1 Rxe1+ 25.Nxe1 b5 26.a3 Kg7 27.Nf3 Bc8 28.Kf1 Bb7 29.b4 Kf8 30.Ke2 a5 31.Qd4 Qxd4 32.Nxd4 axb4 33.Ncxb5 bxa3 34.Nxd6 a2 35.Nc2 Ba6+ 36.Ke3 Ke7 37.Nxf7 Kxf7 38.Kd4 Bf1 39.h4 Bxg2 40.Kc5 f4 0–1

Botvinnik, Mikhail - Flohr, Salo [B13]

Moscow/Leningrad m Leningrad (9), 14.12.1933

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bg5 dxc4 7.d5 Ne5 8.Qd4 Nd3+ 9.Bxd3 cxd3 10.Nf3 g6 11.Bxf6 exf6 12.0–0 Qb6 13.Rfe1+ Kd8 14.Qh4 g5 15.Qh5 Bd6 16.Qxf7 Rf8 17.Qxh7 g4 18.Nd2 Qc7 19.Qh6 Qf7 20.Nc4 Be5 21.Nxe5 fxe5 22.Qg5+ Qe7 23.Qxe5 Qxe5 24.Rxe5 Bf5 25.Rf1 Kd7 26.f3 b5 27.fxg4 Bxg4 28.h3 b4 29.Ne4 Rxf1+ 30.Kxf1 Rf8+ 31.Ke1 Bf5 32.g4 Bg6 33.Re6 1–0

The two games above are from the match that really began to make the reputation of Botvinnik. The match ended drawn 6 - 6 with two wins for each player. Flohr was the Czechoslovakian Champion and recognized as a legitimate challenger to the then WC, Alexander Alekhine when the match was played. Botvinnik had not yet reached that status.

Below are two games from more recent practice. Although Seirawan is no longer mentioned when the pundits handicap potential challengers for the World title, he is no slouch; note his fourth place finish in the just completed US Championship tourney. That is a not too shabby result for a guy who now only plays seriously occasionally in the Dutch League.

Anand, Viswanathan (2670) - Seirawan, Yasser (2600) [B13]

Amsterdam, 1992

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bg5 dxc4 7.d5 Ne5 8.Qd4 h6 9.Bh4 Ng6 10.Bg3 e6 11.d6 Ne7 12.Rd1 Ned5 13.Qe5 Nd7 14.Qe2 Nxc3 15.bxc3 g6 16.Be5 Nxe5 17.Qxe5 Rg8 18.Bxc4 Bg7 19.Bb5+ Bd7 20.Bxd7+ Qxd7 21.Qe3 Qc6 22.Ne2 b6 23.0–0 0–0–0 24.c4 Kb7 25.Nd4 Bxd4 26.Rxd4 Rd7 27.Qxh6 e5 28.Rd5 Re8 29.Qd2 Re6 30.c5 bxc5 31.Rb1+ Ka8 32.Qb2 Re8 33.Rxe5 Red8 34.Qc3 Rxd6 35.Rf1 c4 36.Re7 f6 37.Qe3 R6d7 38.Rxd7 Qxd7 39.Qf3+ Qd5 1–0

Polgar, Judit (2595) - Seirawan, Yasser (2595) [B13]

Amber-blind 2nd Monte Carlo (1), 1993

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bg5 dxc4 7.d5 Ne5 8.Qd4 h6 9.Qxe5 hxg5 10.Bxc4 a6 11.0–0–0 Qd6 12.Nf3 g4 13.Rhe1 Qxe5 14.Nxe5 Rxh2 15.d6 e6 16.Ne4 Nxe4 17.Rxe4 f6 18.d7+ Bxd7 19.Nxd7 e5 20.Nxe5 fxe5 21.Rxe5+ Be7 22.Rde1 0–0–0 23.Rxe7 Rxg2 24.Rxg7 Rxf2 25.Ree7 b5 26.Be6+ Kb8 27.Rb7+ Ka8 28.Ra7+ Kb8 29.Rgb7# 1–0

It is interesting that both Seirawan and Flohr chose 7..., Ne5 in these games. When the games were played both were in the top flight of chess competitors, booked-up and tournament sharp. The move 7..., Ne5; was the standard move recommended by theory at the time.

7...,Na5!?

An improvement, or no? The entire line where Black voluntarily gives up the center was, and maybe still is, somewhat controversial. Botvinnik wrote in 1949 in his book 100 Selected Games, 1926-1946, Pitman Press, London, 1951 in a note to White’s sixth move: “I think this the first time this system had ever been played. It is not at all easy for Black to defend d5. In the present game (The 9th game of the Flohr match in which Botvinnik equalized the score.) Black gives up altogether any attempt to keep the pawn on d5 and at once gets a bad position. Of recent years many and various systems have been proposed for Black. But I am still convinced that 7 Bg5 is one of the strongest of continuations.” For White I assume, this note was not the clearest of translations from Russian I have encountered. Later in the same work, Botvinnik went on to say: “Analysis published in the 1930s show that after 7..., Na5; 8 Nf3!, White gets a stronger attack for the pawn sacrificed.” I am not so sure this is accurate. Applying Deep Rybka’s considerable power to the line returns the following as best play by both sides; 8..., a6; and all of White’s choices here - 9 Ne5, 9 Qd4, 9 g3, etc. seem to be equal or favor Black by a little bit, that is according to Rybka. Looking at the few games with this move, 7..., Na5; in my databases show White winning five, Black winning two, with five drawn, or scoring just over 60%, and that is not far off the expected norm. So, Botvinnik’s “stronger attack” does not translate into significantly better than expected results, at least in this rather small sample.

8.Bxc4?!,..

Mr. Battes elects to recover the pawn immediately. Botvinnik and Rybka both see 8 Nf3, not rushing to level up material as the best approach for White. That makes sense, for the pawn White has a chance to get ahead in development, and the Knight on a5 is not brilliantly placed. The move played by Battes gives up the Bishop for the Knight, and it is soon evident Black is by no means trailing in development.

8..., Nxc4 9.Qa4+ Bd7 10.Qxc4 h6 11.Bf4,..

Unappetizing at first glance is 11 Bxf6, when White faces a middle game with two Knights versus two Bishops. For the moment he is OK, but everything depends on holding on to the pawn on d5 and the threat to advance it to d6. A direct build up against the pawn by Black does not look to be immediately possible, however Black can mobilize his Bishops and Rooks after 11 Bxf6 exf6 (The alternative 11..., gxf6; is a bit more tactical, but White has the resources to meet an attack down the g-file.) 12 Nge2 Be7 13 Rd1 Rc8 14 Qf4 Bc5 15 d6 0-0; with equality for the moment. Playing out the line with Rybka gives mixed results with Black winning some and losing some.

11..., Rc8 12.Qd4 Qb6 13.Qxb6 axb6 14.a4?,..

Safer and more principled is 14 Nge2, and if 14..., b5; 15 a3, and the White pieces get out more normally than in the game. The text weakens the Q-side for White, and he will regret not being able to castle.

14..., e6 15.d6?,..

A consistent bold plan but very probably wrong. Leading to a position where Black retains some advantage is; 15 dxe6 Bxe6 16 Nge2 Bc5 17 0-0 0-0. The operation trading the d-pawn for the pawn on b6 results in Black establishing a solid edge.

15..., Nh5 16.Be5 f6 17.Bd4 Bxd6 18.Bxb6 Nf4

The point g2 is dreadfully weak, and development for White is tardy.

19.Rd1 Bb4 20.Nge2 Nd5

Equally good is 20..., Nxg2+. A question that I have wondered about occasionally is; are players who compete in the international arena very different from the good local players? This game illustrates some degree of difference. Grandmaster Har-Zvi said to his students often: “GM’s don’t get mated.” What he tried to convey was not that the GM is all powerful, rather that they see or sense danger early on and then take the path that avoids a disastrous immediate loss preferring a arduous defense instead. Grant Spraggett is and was a well experienced internationalist. Not a GM, he is of the class of players from which Grandmasters come however. GM’s and those who aspire to the title learn early in the crucible of international chess to take advantage of every opportunity. Lee Battes epitomizes a good local talent. Spraggett is alert to chances presented, while Lee doesn’t quite take action soon enough to avoid having his King forced into the open. The Black text increases tension in the position counting on tempting White to forego castling to try to keep the material balanced.

21.a5,..

Better than any of the alternatives.

21..., Bb5 22.Rc1 0–0 23.Kd1?,..

Beginning a long journey that comes to a bad end. Following Har-Zvi’s dictum about not getting mated, better would have been 23 Rd2, preparing to give up the Exchange to avoid worse. And, 23 h4, trying to get the useless Rh1 into the game, or 23 f3, creating a breathing hole for the White King, certainly offer more resistance than the game move.

23..., Bc4 24.Re1?,..

Cutting off any chance of the King retracing his steps.

24..., Bb3+

Forcing the King out into a very hostile open field. The end can easily foreseen now; the Bishops and Rooks will find a way to mate.

25.Kd2 Nxb6 26.axb6 Rfd8+ 27.Ke3 Bc5+ 28.Kf3 Rd3+ 29.Ke4 Rcd8 30.Nb5 f5+ 31.Kf4,..

A little more resistant is 31 Ke5, but in the long run the mate is still there. Have some fun working out the exact sequence if you will.

31..., g5+ 32.Ke5 Kf7 33.Rxc5 R3d5+ 34.Rxd5 Rxd5# 0–1

A nice finish, but it can be said Mr. Battes lost faith in his position when he played 23 Kd1. After that concession crafting any reasonable defense was impossible.

A game Lee played a few years later had a King hunt in it that was similar to the one seen here. This time he was on the winning side of the hunt. It is a game from the Schenectady Chess Club Championship 04-05.

Battes, Lee - Lack, Jonathan [C11]

SCC Ch 04–05 Schenectady, NY, 26.05.2005

1.e4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.d4 c5 6.Bg5 f6 7.Bf4 Nc6 8.exf6 Nxf6 9.Nb5 Qa5+ 10.c3 cxd4 11.Nc7+ Kd7 12.Nxa8 dxc3 13.bxc3 Qxc3+ 14.Bd2 Qa3 15.Bb5 Qd6 16.Qa4 Qb8 17.Rc1 Qxa8 18.Rxc6 Bd6 19.Rxd6+ Kxd6 20.Qb4+ Kc7 21.Qc5+ Kd8 22.Ng5 Bd7 23.Nf7+ Ke8 24.Nd6+ Ke7 25.Nf5+ Kf7 26.Qe7+ Kg6 27.Qxg7+ Kxf5 28.Qg5+ Ke4 29.Qf4# 1–0

Lee could have won somewhat faster with 22 Qd6+, but it was a pretty finish in any event. I wonder if he recalled the experience with Spraggett when he was the hunted while doing his own hunting?

More to come from the Capital District Invitational soon.

Just for Fun Chess at Schenectady

Last night, Thursday, the latest Just for Fun event took place at the Schenectady Chess Club. Six players took part in a round robin Game in 20/15 tournament. It began as a Game in 20 Quad, but a couple of late joiners increased the number of rounds and we had to dial back the time limit.

The results were:

Tied for first and second place;

Glen Perry, 3 - 2 with wins from Little, Chu and Zack Calderone, and losses to Saran and Herman Calderone.

Herman Calderone, 3 - 2 with wins from Perry, Saran and Zach Calderone, and losses to Little and Chu.

In third;

Bill Little, 3 - 1 with wins from Chu, Herman Claderone and Zack Calderone and a loss to Perry. One game un-played with Saran.

In fourth;

Richard Chu 2 ½ - 2 ½ with wins from Saran and Herman Calderone, losses to Little and Perry and a draw with Zack Calderone.

In fifth;

Brij Saran 1 - 2 with a win from Perry and losses to Chu and Herman Calderone. Brij had to leave early with two un-played games versus Little and Zack Calderone.

In sixth;

Zack Calderone ½ - 3 ½ with a draw with Chu and losses to Perry, Little and Herman Calderone and an un-played game with Saran.

I had to take a seat in the tourney to make an even number of participants and did better than expected. The real surprise was Zack Calderone, a rising scholastic star who plays fast chess very well, not having a good night. The unexpected is the norm in these events this year. There has not been one event won by the highest rated participant yet. Regardless of the upsets, all seemed to enjoy the not-quite-skittles atmosphere. Play was over by 10:15 pm, and we all were on our way home by 10:30. And truly that was the goal; to have two or three hours of chess and get home by a decent hour.

It is planned to have another such event on July 28th in a faster time control. Most probably it will be Game in 10 the next time. Again, no prizes, no rating and no entry fee, just a chance to play chess! Come on out to try your latest opening idea and to tune up for the State Championship.

We have reached the doldrums of the “chess year” locally. The club titles are all decided, the Capital District League has finished play, and without the long running saga of the Studio Quads, there are no local games on which to report. Rummaging around through a closet in my office a handful of pictures from the Capital District Invitational came to light. That was a tournament Bill Townsend and I put together about ten years ago. Playing were a couple of masters and four local Experts. Somewhere I have the games. The photos inspired digging the games out and publishing some analysis during this lull. Look for the post soon.

The Final Game From the CDCL, for this year

A last post about the recent conclusion of the CDCL matches. On the top board for the Geezers, Michael Mockler had the difficult task of playing Gordon Magat representing the Saratoga A team. Gordon is a tough fighter who is not easily discouraged, and he keeps searching for opportunities right to the end of the game. These opponents have met each other many times and had a pretty good idea of what to expect. Since this match was crucial for the determination of the League Champion, they both came to the board well aware of the vital nature of the outcome, and both knew the fight on the first board could set the tone for the match.

Before getting into this game, I should mention that Philip Sells posted a very interesting article on his game from the Schenectady A - Albany A match. It is a couple of posts back on the enyca blog. If you missed it, it is worth the effort to page back for a read. Mr. Sells gives a very clear explanation of his thoughts and concerns during the game. That sort of insight into what a player is thinking is most useful to the student of chess.

Mockler, Michael - Magat, Gordon [B21]

Geezers v Saratoga A CDCL Match Schenectady, NY, 23.06.2011

Board 1

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 e6 3.f4 d5

The game is at the intersection of the 2 f4 Sicilian and the Morra Gambit, not exactly the mainstream of theory but popular on the weekend Swiss circuit.

4.Nf3 dxe4 5.Nxe4 Nf6 6.Bb5+ Bd7 7.Nxf6+ Qxf6 8.Bxd7+ Nxd7 9.d4?!,..

A little better is 9 d3, but White probably did not like the situation after the suggested move. Then, 9..., Bd6; forces 10 g3, and the development of the Black forces has proceeded rather smoothly, while White is trailing in development, and the White King will end up sheltering behind a loosened set of pawns on the K-side. Disliking that possibility, Mr. Mockler takes the route of seeking some simplification.

The next operation includes what is best for both sides and results in a position that favors Black by a small amount. From the perspective of chess theory the opening worked out well for Black and not so well for White. Theory holds White should reach this point in the game retaining his edge from moving first. If Black equalizes, he has done well. If Black has any kind of an advantage, White probably missed something.

9..., cxd4 10.Qxd4 Bc5 11.Qxf6 Nxf6 12.Ne5?!,..

Behind in development, White makes a second move with the Knight. Again, theory would condemn such. However, Mr. Mockler has most likely judged the position correctly. If he does not panic, there are resources enough in the White position to balance the game. The next operations undertaken by both sides illustrate this.

12..., Rd8 13.Nd3 Bb6 14.Ke2 0–0 15.Bd2 Ne4!?

Black returns a tempo. If he wanted to try for more, then 15..., Rd4; or 15..., Rc8; are promising. The options for Black are more promising than the text only in that they strive for a greater initiative. White has resources in these lines also. The Knight move leads to further simplification and equality. The next set of operations cooperatively eliminates more material.

16.Be3 Bxe3 17.Kxe3 Nd6 18.b3 Nf5+ 19.Ke2 h5 20.c3 Rd6 21.Rhd1 Rfd8 22.Nf2 Rxd1 23.Rxd1 Rxd1 24.Nxd1 Kf8 25.Nf2,..

The game is level. I wonder if the players disagreed in their assessment of the endgame chances for either side. The pawns are unbalanced; three to two for White on the Q-side and four to three for Black on the K-side. The Black Knight has a solid outpost on f5, but the White Knight is not dominated. He does not have a secure outpost, but so far Black has not taken away very many squares this Knight might want to use. The White King is a step closer to the center than is Black’s. In sum, there is little to suggest a plan leading to significant advantage either way.

25..., Ke7 26.Ne4 f6 27.a4 Nd6 28.Kd3 Nxe4 29.Kxe4 Kd6

The game has reached a level pawn-only endgame.

30.b4 g6?!

Weaker than 30..., b6; followed by 31..., a6; making the advance of the White Q-side pawns less dangerous. The text makes a gesture at K-side play to distract White in his exploitation of the Q-side majority.

31.c4?,..

A slip and an instructive error. Here 31 a5, is safer and a real try for the win. After 31 a5, play could go; 31..., b6 32 axb6 axb6 33 c4, establishing a potential outside passed pawn. The potential passer reduces the options Black has in position. If White can time things correctly, the passer will give him access to vulnerable points on the K-side, and since the entire White pawn formation is just enough further advanced than is Black’s, any penetration has good chances of forcing through a pawn to make a Queen. To make all this happen White has to be patient running out moves for Black to force some clarification on the K-side and opening possible lines for his King to use.

The alternative plan for Black is to stand pat avoiding any opening of lines on the K-side as long as possible. To that end play could go; 31..., Ke7 32

c4 Kd7 33 h3 h4?! 34 Kf3, and the Black h-pawn is threatened and that will result in the opening up of the K-side. If Black continues standing pat with 33..., Kd6; then 34 g4 hxg4 35 hxg4, and all the White pawns are on the 4th rank while the Black pawns are on the 6th and 7th ranks. Just that difference favors White. He threatens g4-g5 opening access to e5. Overall hangs the possible advance to the White Q-side majority. The position is quite probably won for White objectively if he pushed the a-pawn forward.

31..., b6?

Missing the chance. With 31..., a5; Black could have tried for the full point. After 31..., a5 32 bxa5 Kc5 33 Kd3 Kb4 34 Kd4 Kxa4 35 Kc5 Kxa5 36 Kd6 Kb4 37 c5 Kc4; and it is now a counting exercise that shows Black Queening just quickly enough to prevent White from Queening at all. The Black King is close enough to the f-file and its White pawn to make an eventual mate very likely even though the f-pawn can reach the 7th rank. The extra pawn moves White has in hand mean stalemate tricks are out of the question.

Both players, well aware of the importance of the match and desiring not to record a loss on the top board, seem to have decided about here a draw was the natural result of this game.

32.Kd4 Kc6

No longer will the .., a7-a5; shot work well enough to win: 32..., a5 33 bxa5 bxa5 34 c5+ Kc7; and Black wants to be able to put his King on c6 when the white King occupies c4. While there are some of tricks in the pawn endgame, careful play looks to a drawn result.

33.g3 Kd6 34.Ke4 Kc6 35.Kd4 Kd6 36.Ke4 Kc6 37.Kd3 Kd6 38.Kd4 Kc6 39.b5+!?,..

One can not fault Mr. Mockler for his fighting spirit. A safer path to the draw can be had with 39 a5, then 39..., bxa5 40 bxa5 Kd6 41 h3 a6 42 g4 hxg4 43 hxg4 g5 44 fxg5 fxg5 45 c5+ Kc6 46 Ke5, and counting out the remaining play sees both sides Queening one after another, and with normal care, the game is drawn. After the game move, White has to be accurate because the c5 square is only defended by the King with the b-pawn no longer backstopping the monarch.

39..., Kd6 40.c5+?,..

The usually cool endgame play from Michael is not evident here. He must have missed something in calculation. Better is 40 h4 e5+ 41 fxe5 fxe5+ 42 Ke4, Ke6 43 Kd3, and if the Black King heads towards the K-side with 43..., Kf5; then 44 c5, is strong for White. If Black tries for progress on the Q-side with 43..., Kd6 44 Ke4 Kc5? 45 Kxe5 Kxc4 46 Kf6, and White is just far enough ahead in the race capture pawns and make a Queen to win the game. Since both flanking attempts are bad for Black, there will be a zugswang dance that is even with care.

40..., bxc5+ 41.Kc4 e5!

It could be Mockler just overlooked the strength of this move.

42.fxe5+ fxe5 43.a5 e4

Black has a won game.

44.h4 Kc7 45.Kc3 Kb7 46.Kc4 Kc7 ½–½

The game was agreed drawn?! Mr. Magat must not have seen the tricky finish that would have taken the full point; 46..., Kc8!; then White can make no successful defense. Play may continue; 47 a6 Kc7 48 Kc3 e3!, and the charging e-pawn draws the White King like a magnet. Black ends up with distant passed pawns that guarantee victory. Another try by White is; 47 Kc3 Kd7 48 Kd2 c4; opening up the square c5 from which the Black King will eat the White Q-side pawns. The game has many moves for a game-in-105 time control. It is possible that Gordon was in some time trouble accounting for the oversight.

Instructive errors by both parties after the 30th move illustrate tension can affect even very strong players. Tension comes in two flavors in chess; technical - pieces and pawns attacking each other and that which arises out of the importance of the contest to individual or team. This game was of some sporting importance, and both team leaders convinced themselves the game was drawn before that issue was objectively decided. Reaching that conclusion, in the end was more costly to Gordon Magat, he accepted a draw in a winning position. Many, many of us have had similar, or worse experiences. A good example was my resignation to Gordon in last year’s Albany Club Championship. I don’t know of a cure for that sort of judgment error. Maybe experience and the adoption of the philosophic position that chess has a leveling kind of injustice. For all the times you drop a half, or full point, there are balancing occasions you are the better side of such outcomes, and in the broad sweep of your chess career things balance out.

More soon. A reminder to my readers; this Thursday there will be a just for fun event at the Schenectady Chess Club, game in 15, no prizes, no entry fee. Come out and play!

Another Story on the Final CDCL Matches

The real drama of the two matches was played out on the bottom two boards of the Geezers - Saratoga A match. The near sweep by Schenectady A in their match with Albany A was all the Geezers could have wished for, and that contest was over fairly quickly. At least it finished soon enough that the Geezers on the lower boards; Phillips, Little and Chu, had some indication of the eventual outcome. My last post detailed the excellent job done by John Phillips for the Geezers against a strong opponent.

The game on board four was preceded by a discussion of Yakov Dadashev’s age. Mr. Dadashev does not have a lot of English, but with the help of Alan Le Cours’ Russian language skill, we gathered Yakov was just about to turn 90! It is not often the Geezers’ captain Richard Chu faces someone more senior than he is. This time such was the case. All those years did not seem to weight heavily on Dadashev as he took advantage of an error or two and won the game in a decisive fashion.

Dadashev, Yakov - Chu, Richard [B06]

Geezers v Saratoga A CDCL Match Schenectady, NY, 23.06.2011

Board 4

1.e4 d6 2.d4 g6 3.Bd3 Bg7 4.Be3 Nf6 5.Ne2 0–0

The Modern Defense blending towards the Pirc.

6.0–0 Nbd7 7.h3 e5 8.c3 c6 9.f4?!,..

This is an slip. In the Modern/Pirc Black is focused on blowing up the White center. The text presents him with just the right opportunity. Better are; 9 Qc2, laying some groundwork for an eventual f2-f4/f5, and 9 Nd2, continuing to develop.

9..., exf4?

Capturing the wrong way. Much better is; 9..., exd5; if then 10 cxd5? Nxe4 11 Bxe4 Re8 12 Qd3 Qe7 13 Nbc3 d5; recovering the piece with advantage. The better alternative, 10 Bxd4, is met by 10..., Nc5 11 Bxc5 dxc5 12 Qc2 Be6; and White most likely has to play 13 c4, to prevent 13..., c5; and the game becomes level. Not a bad result out of the opening for Black. Worse than just missing the chance to wreck the White pawn center is that the text opens the f-file, a route into the heart of the Black position.

10.Bxf4 Nb6 11.Bg5 Nbd7 12.Nd2 b5?!

When Black has to resort to the .., b5; move in the Modern/Pirc it often means he hasn’t been able to detonate the White center as is the case in the present contest. Another purpose for putting a pawn on b5 is to make building a battery of the Queen and Bishop on the diagonal a2-g8 difficult. Richard is aware of the sensitivity of f7 at this moment if we believe the evidence the game move offers. As a rule in the Modern/Pirc advancing the b-pawn so is not without risk. The White center is mobile, not blocked. Some kind of timely advance there can result in the loss of a wing pawn unless Black is both alert and tactically imaginative. And, many times White has some basic straight forward operations to embarrass the laggard development by Black. Better for Black here is; 12..., Qe7 13 Qb3 b6; when White has the initiative firmly in hand, but Black has not yet been forced to make any terrible concessions.

13.Nf3?!

Overlooking the natural 13 a4. Black then likely plays 13..., Qb6; and the reasonable continuation 14 Rf2 h6 15 Bf4 d5 16 e5 Ne8; leaves White comfortably ahead.

13...Qc7 14.Bf4 Nh5?

Passing on his last chance to carry out the standard theme for Black in the Modern/Pirc; damaging on the White center. This time it is with 14..., c5. Then, if 15 Bxb5 Nxe5: and the White center is far from as imposing as it was, or if 15 a4 c4 16 Bc2 Bb2; and Black is getting things organized, or finally, 15 e5 dxe5 16 Nxe5 Qb6; and again the powerful center is evolving towards an isolated QP position. Passed though the Queen pawn will be, fighting against it with the known tactics of blockade is entirely possible. The text uncovers the tender point f7, doesn’t really disturb the Bishop much at all and wastes precious time. In the Modern/Pirc Black offers up space to lure the White central pawns forward. His fundamental plan is undermine this impressive structure with counter attacks. Black can ill afford to spend even a single move that does not work towards that goal or the lack of space can become permanent and fatal.

15.Bh2 Re8!?

I was playing close by and could see this game unfold without leaving my seat. When Mr. Chu made this move I thought it wrong. He took away a support for f7, and White has attacks immediately available on that point. Computer analysis reveals it is not so cut dried as all that. Marginally better is 15..., Bb8; or 15..., Rb8; but the text has its points also.

16.Ng5 Nhf6

Richard missed a strategic moment earlier, now he misses a tactical chance. Given how things fall apart for Black in the next few moves, taking some substantial risks here may be worth consideration. Of course, as the cliché says; hindsight is 20/20, but what about 16..., Ndf6? The Nh5 looks uncomfortable, but the situation on the K-side is rapidly becoming muddled. A line of play possible goes; 16..., Ndf6 17 Qb3 Re7; tempting White to try 18 g4?!, and after 18..., Bh6 19 Nf3? Nxe4 20 gxh5 Bxh3; Black has excellent compensation for the piece in the form a pair of pawns and a naked White King who will require some tending. White can improve in this line with 19 Nxf7, then 19..., Be3+ 20 Kg2 Be6; with a very difficult position for both sides to work out. White is probably somewhat better. There are plenty of tactics to go through and much room for mistakes.

17.c4,..

My computer likes 17 Qb3, more than this move. Playing out the line with the computer does not demonstrate any great advantage to its recommendation. White has a nicely creative idea behind the text; removing potential blockers on the a2-g8 diagonal.

17..., h6 18.Nxf7 Kxf7 19.cxb5 Kg8

A tempo that has to be used because of the creative play be White. If 19..., cxb5? 20 Qb3+ Ke7 21 e5 dxe5 22 Bxg3, and the Black King terribly placed with something bad lurking just off stage.

20.Rc1!? c5?

Up to here, Black has just about been holding his own in the complications beginning on move 15. White could have proceeded the move of the Rook to c1 with 20 e5, with some of the same ideas as in the game, and the additional notion of Qb3+ and Qf7. Black now is in trouble. The only try that keeps things going for awhile is; 20..., Nxe4; then 21 Qb3+ Kh8 22 Qf7 Bb7 23 Nf4, with a ferocious attack for White, but the complications are such that he might go astray. A thin hope, but the line chosen fails more obviously.

21.dxc5 Nxe4?

The defense collapses. The only try is 21..., Nd5; even then 22 cxd6 Qb6+ 23 Kh1 Bd7 24 Nc3, and the four pawns White has perhaps can’t all be held, but certainly enough of them will survive to make the Black game a losing struggle.

22.Bxe4 Rxe4 23.Qd5+,..

Neatly scooping up the Exchange and more material falls into White’s hands almost effortlessly. I had arrived at a position in my game with a safe central edge about here and had a few minutes to look at Richard’s game as it got worse over the next few moves. Seeing that it was clearly lost, and combining that with my mistaken view that John Phillips was no better than even with Farrell, I came to the decision to go for a win.

23..., Kh7 24.Qxe4 Qb7 25.Qxb7 Bxb7 26.c6 Bxc6 27.Rxc6 Re8 28.Rc2 Ne5 29.Bxe5 Bxe5 30.Rc7+ Kg8 31.Rxa7 Bxb2 32.Rc1,..

Simpler is 32 b6, but the text wins similarly. Such is your fate when the opponent has too many pawns.

32..., Bxc1 33.Nxc1 Re1+ 34.Kf2 Rxc1 35.b6 Rb1 36.b7 Kf8 37.Ra8+ Ke7 38.b8Q Rxb8 39.Rxb8 Kd7 40.Rh8 h5 41.Rg8 Kc6 42.Rxg6 Kc5 43.Rg5+ Kc4 44.Rxh5 1–0

Watching the 4th board loss, and knowing the first board was nearing a draw - another mistaken judgment I made - it seemed to me the Geezers were not going to succeed in wresting the title from the “Big Three” this year.

Little, Bill - Le Cours, Alan [D00]

Geezers v Saratoga A CDCL Match Schenectady, NY, 23.06.2011

Board 3

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 h6 4.Bf4 c6 5.e3 Bf5

A rare position and one not found among the practice of the masters. On the first move I had steeled myself to face the Grunfeld once more. Alan surprised me with 1..., d5. My good friend and teammate Michael Mockler had lent me the Secrets of Opening Surprises, Volume 6 recently. In it Kogan outlined what he calls the Tarzan Attack; an early Nc3 and Bf4 in a 1 d4, opening. A little bit of study and I thought it would be an interesting way to close my serious chess career and so, we arrive at this offbeat position.

6.h3 Nbd7 7.Bd3 Bxd3 8.cxd3!?,..

A little bit suspect at the very least. Safe and sane is 8 Qxd3, taking no unnecessary risks with the pawn structure.

8..., e6 9.0–0 Be7 10.e4,..

Lots of options here for White; 10 Rc1, 10 Qc2, and so forth. The text is motivated by a wish to clarify things in the center, and find out if the capture at d3 by the c-pawn was really risky or not.

10..., 0–0 11.Qd2 Kh7

Mr. Le Cours is cautious. The potential threat on h6 is nowhere near ready. For example 11.., Qb6 12 Bxh6? Gxh6 13 Qxh6 Nh7; and neither I nor Rybka can find a way to continue the assault, therefore, 11..., Qb6; or 11..., Rc8; are probably better and more active choices.

12.Be3,..

Not a particularly inspired plan; with the Bishop not on f4, the push of the e-pawn will force the Nf6 back to e8 creating a rather cluttered position for Black. If the Knight goes to h5 in that scenario he is trapped by g2-g4. I thought those possibilities might provoke 12..., dxe4.

12..., dxe4

And it happens! Leaving White with the not great looking doubled d-pawns is better I think. 12..., a5; snagging some space on the Q-side is likely option.

13.dxe4 Bb4 14.Qc2 Kg8 15.a3 Be7

White has reached an entirely satisfactory position; he has some control in the center and his pieces are a bit more actively placed than are Black’s.

16.Rfd1 Rc8 17.Rac1 Nb6 18.Qe2 Re8 19.Ne5,..

The move covers c5 and has the notion of a sacrifice on f7 of the Knight.

19..., Bf8 20.Qf3 Qe7

Alan is guarding his points of danger very carefully.

21.Qe2?,..

I have run out of confidence. It is not that I see the position as troublesome for White, rather it is an irrational reluctance to follow the dictates of the position. White has mustered his Queen, Knight and Bishop on the K-side. Logic tells me the natural continuation is some kind of advance on the K-side. One line of play examined was; 21 Ne2 Nbd7 22 Rd3 Nxe5 23 dxe5 Nd7 24 f4, with h2-h4, and Rcd1 to follow. White would then have done something instead of fiddling around. That way there would be pressure building around the Black King, and White has some control of the d-file. Altogether not enough to claim any great advantage. It is, however, aggressive and positive. The text move is a signal of a failure of inspiration as well as confidence. That is why it is marked with a query.

21..., Nfd7 22.Nf3 Red8 23.e5,..

The defeat for the Geezers on board four had become clear now. My quick peek at board two led me to the wrong conclusion that the best we could hope for there was a draw. Mr. Mockler on board one was on the way to a draw also. The match situation had me believing we had to win this game to split the match, and that was the motivation behind this move. Rather than making a game changing decision here, I could have continued maneuvering with 23 Bf4, just keeping the pressure on waiting for the tension to perhaps provoke something.

23..., Nd5 24.Ne4 Qe8 25.Nc5?!,..

Although I did not realize it at the time, this is where the game begins to slip out of control for me. Better is 25 Nfd2, reinforcing the strong Knight on e4. Then if 25..., f5 26 exf6 (e.p.) Nxf6 27 Nxf6+ Nxf6 28 Nf3, and White has maintained a very slight edge. Nothing to write home about but a little more space in the center, and the battle remains to be decided. After the text the strong Ne4 is gone and shortly thereafter the Be3. White is then left with pawns on the same color as the opponent’s Bishop. My judgment was I could keep the Bishop restricted. Mr. Le Cours demonstrates in short order to do so requires some accuracy by White.

25..., Nxc5 26.dxc5 Nxe3 27.Qxe3 Rxd1+ 28.Rxd1 Rd8 29.Rxd8?

An error that gives Black the favorable endgame. The only try here is 29 Rd4!?, then if 29..., Bxc5? 30 Rxd8 wins. Of course I would not have expected Alan to fall into something that simple. Most likely Black would continue 29..., Qe7; then 30 b4 b6 31 cxb6 axb6 32 Rg4, and Black is just a bit better than White. There are chances for both sides, but Black has the better endgame.

29..., Qxd8 30.b4 a5?

Giving White chances he does not deserve. Better is 30..., b6.

31.Nd2?,..

And I fail to see the chance. Better is 31 Qd4, then if Black avoids the exchange of Queens with 31..., Qa8 32 Nd2 axb4 33 axb4 g5 34 Ne4, and White should have no trouble holding this position. The alternative trade of Queens is not troubling either; 31..., Qxd4 32 Nxd4 g5 33 Kf1 axb4 34 axb4 35 Nf3 f5 36 exf6 Bxf6 37 Ne1 Bc3 38 Nc2, and White marches his King to the square c4 securing everything. In fact, in this line White is marginally better than Black.

31..., axb4?!

This move is too easy on me. Superior is 31..., Qd5; because White really can not capture on a5 yet. By playing so Black would increase the activity of his pieces delaying the trade on b4 until it is necessary.

32.axb4 Qd5 33.f4 Be7 34.Ne4?,..

A final piece of imprecise play. The Knight and Queen were about as well placed as they could be to hinder a raid by the Black Queen. Going to e4 with the Knight just gives the Lady in Black space in which to rampage. Better for White is 34 Kh2, getting one of the royal pair off a dangerous diagonal. After the move played, there is no way to hold the game.

34..., Qc4 35.Qe1 Qd4+ 36.Kh1 b6!

Not a hard move to find, but a move that makes it painfully clear White is in deep trouble. The final moves were made with a sinking heart. I could see the end coming fast and had the feeling I had botched the game in some fashion. Just where the errors came were not understood until Rybka looked the game over.

Sadly, the rather reckless decisions on moves 23 and 25 kept the Geezers from even taking clear second place in the League. If we had drawn the match, our 5 ½ match points would have tied Schenectady A. They still would have the title on the game point tie break; 20 ½ to the Geezers 17 ½.

37.Qb1 bxc5 38.bxc5 Bxc5 39.Qb8+ Bf8 40.Qb1 c5 41.Qc2 c4 42.Nd6 Qa1+ 43.Kh2 c3 44.f5 Qb2 45.Qa4 c2 46.Nxf7 c1Q 47.fxe6 Qf2 48.Nxh6+ gxh6 0–1

Third place for the Geezers is about as good as the Geezers have done in the League, and there is always next year as the Brooklyn Dodgers fans used to say.

More soon.

Yet more from the climactic Capital District League matches

Greetings, folks. I thought I'd put up the score of the game on board three of the league match between Schenectady A and Albany A, since our regular reporter, Bill Little, didn't have the game score at his disposal. This was a game driven less by calculation or tactics than by general concepts, at least in my perception, so my annotations will focus more on the general ideas of the game, as well as the progress of my thoughts during it, which may be interesting in the competitive context. I think it may also be useful to point out something about the choice of opening, especially since most of our readers here are amateur players. This is better said here than in the course of the game commentary, where it would just make for clutter.

The Scheveningen Sicilian is rather neglected at the club level these days--I hardly ever see it played among non-masters. Theoretician Lubomir Ftacnik refers to it as not merely a variation, but a whole world containing a great many ideas; and Jaan Ehlvest maintains in his autobiography that the Scheveningen leads to many of the basic positions that one has to understand in order to play most Sicilian variations as Black. I haven't made up my mind yet as to how far this applies to the 'anti-Sicilian' lines, but as far as the Open Sicilians are concerned, the more I think about it, the more it seems to me that Ehlvest is right. This has nothing to do with the question of transposition between variations, which is very common in Scheveningen move orders, but rather the fact that the Scheveningen lines show you ideas that apply to almost all of the Open variations. I am coming to think of the Scheveningen as being at the core of the Open Sicilian in general, with many of the other main variations--Najdorf, Classical, Taimanov, Kan, even the Sveshnikov to some extent--forming a sort of conceptual network around it, which in turn can be organized into subregions around certain structural themes. So if you understand the Scheveningen, you know a fair amount intuitively about all of these others as well, even before digging into their independent theory.

With these views in mind, I decided some time ago to go back to basics with the Sicilian, and insofar as I have any time for opening study these days, when I am working on Sicilian matters, the bulk of my effort is going into the Scheveningen now. I encourage you to consider the merits of such an approach for yourself, if learning the Sicilian Defense is a goal of yours.

Now, to the game:

Wright,Timothy (1920) - Sells,Philip (1986)
Capital District League (7), 23.06.2011

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6
For this last match, our team needed a win to have a chance at the league title, so I chose a line that would give plenty of opportunity for me to play for a win with Black.

3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Bb5+
For White players interested in challenging for the greatest possible advantage in this opening, the variations of current interest will generally be 6.g4, the Keres Attack--I have gotten this most often from master opponents--or 6.Be3, the English Attack. Other major ways to play against the Scheveningen with White are the main line with Be2 or setups with an early f2-f4, which are perfectly fine. Or if you want something nice and sharp, you can go for the Bc4 arrangements (Fischer/Sozin/Velimirovic). The line chosen in this game is no challenge for Black because its main effect is to make Black's development easier than usual.

6...Bd7 7.Bxd7+
7.Qe2 has been played occasionally without making any extraordinary impact. Black's best reaction seems to be simply to gain space with 7...a6 8.Bxd7+ Qxd7, after which he has no complaints.

7...Qxd7
7...Nbxd7 is also perfectly fine, but it seems to me that with the light-squared bishops having been traded, it's not as important for Black to hang back with this knight on d7. If White has a bishop on b3, for example, this knight very often goes to c5 to get rid of it.

Also, one natural way for Black to develop his light-squared bishop in a structure like this is to put it on the long diagonal; putting his knight on d7 instead of c6 keeps these two pieces from interfering with each other. But since the light-squared bishops have been exchanged, neither of these points applies.

8.0–0 Nc6 9.Be3 Be7 10.f4 0–0 11.Nxc6
11.Qf3 Nxd4 12.Bxd4 a6 is equal.

11...Qxc6 12.Qf3 Rfc8
I obviously want a rook on the c-file, but in order to use the queen's rook, I would probably need to play ...a7-a6 first. I was trying to avoid this in order not to have to waste a tempo. There was also the idea of playing either ...Bf8 or ...Ne8 as needed, depending on how White chooses to attack. Also, there is a prophylactic motive: considering that I would like to play ...b7-b5 soon, with this rook now on c8, my queen will be defended in case White tries for any trick based on the e4-e5 discovery.

13.f5
This is perfectly sensible, trying to expose the drawback of Black's previous move, which left f7 weak. I was actually wondering if I had overlooked something, when it dawned on me that I could defend f7 from along the second rank.

13...Bd8!?
I was irritated to find that the normally desirable move 13...d5 loses a pawn after something like 14.fxe6 dxe4 15.exf7+ Kxf7 16.Nxe4.

After the text, though, if I need to, I can play either ...Rc7 or ...Qd7 to cover the f7 invasion point. In any case, White's attack isn't quite fast enough, because he has no way to quickly force my knight to leave f6, which needs to happen in order for White to really use his battery on the f-file. My other intention here was ...Bb6 to get rid of another of White's important attacking units, the dark-squared bishop.

14.fxe6 fxe6 15.Kh1?!
15.Qh3 would have been logical and was what I had been spending some of my time thinking about after 13.f5, but it's adequately dealt with by 15...d5 leading to an equal position. Having seen this idea was actually what decided me in favor of 13...Bd8. One other consequence of exchanging the light-squared bishops so early is that White can't put much pressure on the e6-pawn.

The game move avoids the exchange of bishops, but gives me a chance to undermine the center. It took me some time to convince myself that this would work.

15...Ba5
The e4-pawn is frequently a target for Black's pieces in Scheveningen structures. Here, White has no good way to defend it.

16.Bd2 Rf8
It's interesting that White opened the f-file, but now Black is benefiting from it.

17.Qe2 Bxc3 18.Bxc3 Qxe4
I was in more of a hurry than I needed to be: an interesting point that I didn't notice at the time was that Black can play to restrict White's bishop with 18...e5! since White still can't save his e-pawn due to the weakness of his back rank: 19.Rae1 (19.Rfe1 Nxe4 is even worse for White because now he has to worry about Black invading on f2 as well) 19...Nxe4!.

19.Qd2
White certainly won't be happy in the endgame, so he has to avoid the exchange of queens.

19...Nd5
I spent a fair amount of time here trying to think of a good way to plant the knight on e4, which seems like its natural destination, together with ...d6-d5 to cement it on its outpost and block the central files so that White's rooks can't use them to get counterplay. The problem with such a scheme is that the dark squares would get very weak for Black then, e5 in particular, so White could get play on that basis. Consequently, I felt that the exchange of the last minor pieces had to be forced so that the bishop would no longer be around to trouble me. In order to keep my opponent from having the time to save his bishop while also minimizing the speed of his counterattack against my central pawns, I felt obliged to choose this less desirable placement of the knight.

20.Rxf8+ Rxf8
Time left: White 31 mins, Black 21 mins. By this time, Barnes and Perry had drawn their game, I believe.

21.Re1 Nxc3 22.Qxc3 Qf5?!
I got myself down to 4 minutes remaining with this move, compared to 29 minutes for my opponent. A better idea would have been 22...Rf2, again using White's back-rank weakness, but I must have thought there would be some problem for me after 23.Qc8+ Kf7 24.Qd7+ Kg6, which doesn't seem to be the case in retrospect. Other decent ideas here were 22...e5 and 22...Qd5. Time pressure was starting to nag me.

23.h3 e5 24.Qb3+ Qf7 25.Qa3 Qf2 26.Qb3+ Rf7 27.Rd1 Qf6?!
27...Qc5 again was a better idea. My extra pawn is now lost. The concept of White finding compensation by attacking my central pawns has been in the game ever since 15...Ba5, and now we see it bearing fruit.

28.Qd5 Kf8 29.Qxd6+ Qxd6 30.Rxd6
This endgame is pretty equal--White has an active rook to compensate for his king being somewhat out of play. My opponent still had a big lead on the clock--times remaining were about 23 minutes to 3 minutes. I would argue that the position is easier for me to play than for my opponent, so the time disadvantage didn't hurt me much.

30...Rf1+ 31.Kh2 Ke7 32.Rd2 h5
Anticipating White's attempt to activate his king through g3, as well as removing one potential weakness from the second rank.

33.Kg3 Rf4 34.Re2 h4+ 35.Kh2 Ke6 36.g3
I think this is a reasonable idea, to try to break a path for White's king toward the center while reducing my kingside space advantage.

36...hxg3+ 37.Kxg3 Rf1
The game still felt rather even to me at this point. My goal for the moment is to try to keep White's king from reaching the center while inching my passed pawn down the board. White is active enough, though, that he should be able to keep my king out; and White has only one real weakness that he needs to keep watch on, that being the h3-pawn.

38.c4 Rc1 39.b3 Rf1 40.Kg2 Ra1
White has to be careful about committing his rook to anything active because of the weakness of his queenside pawn chain. He is managing that well enough by leaving his rook where it is now.

41.Kf3 Kf5 42.Kg2 e4 43.Rf2+ Ke6
43...Ke5 is playable because White's a-pawn hangs if White uses his rook on the seventh rank.

44.Kg3 g5 45.Kg4?
This ruins the game for White--his king will be marooned on the edge of the board until it is too late. In spite of his big advantage on the clock--still something like 20 minutes to 3--White played too quickly here, probably encouraged by the fact that I had necessarily been playing at blitz tempo for some time. Black will now effectively be playing with an extra piece, namely his centralized king, which will make the win easy. Generally, the king needs to be centralized in the endgame as much as possible. White's king was not in a bad place on g3, so he should have played 45.Rd2, for example, continuing to focus on keeping my king from invading. With that approach, he would probably have held the draw, since it's not so easy for me to make progress in such a position.

45...Rg1+ 46.Kh5 Ke5 47.Kg6 e3 48.Rf7 Ke4 49.Re7+
There is no chance for White after 49.Rxb7 e2 50.Rxa7 e1Q 51.Re7+ Kf4 52.Rxe1 Rxe1, either.

49...Kd3 50.Rd7+ Kc3 51.Re7 Kd2 52.Rd7+ Ke1 53.Kf5 e2 54.Ke4 Kf1
0–1
The rest of the story of that night has been made clear by Bill's previous posts.

Chess For Fun at Schenectady

Thursday night, June 30th saw another in the summer series of casual events at the Schenectady Chess Club. This time it was a six player round robin Game in 20 minute tournament. Participating were: Dean Howard, John Phillips, Tim Wright, Glen Perry, Richard Chu and Cory Northrup. The last one of these, a couple of weeks ago had a surprise winner. This time there was different kind of surprise; a four way tie for first! The final standings were; tied at 3 - 2 Tim Wright, Glen Perry, Cory Northrup and John Phillips! Dean Howard finished at 2 - 3, and Richard Chu had a 1 - 4 score.

When the group began to gather for the sign up, it appeared members of the Albany Chess Club would be the majority with Wright, Howard and Perry joining only Chu from Schenectady. The late arrival of Phillips and Northrup made for fifty-fifty split of Schenectady and Albany players.

In the first round results were as ratings predicted. After that the upsets commenced. In round two Cory Northrup defeated Expert Dean Howard, and I began to get the feeling we’d see something akin to what happened two weeks ago. In round three Northrup again pulled off another upset defeating Glen Parry. The headline for round four was that Cory could not upset Tim Wright, rather Glen Perry managed a minor upset of John Phillips. In round five the Black side won all the games. Wright lost to Phillips, Howard was upset by Perry, and Chu lost a game to Northrup in which Chu had the better of it for some time. The game then became a fairly standard Rook versus Rook and Knight draw. Mr. Chu somehow found a tactical error that allowed mate and lost the game.

These two recent just-for-fun unrated events have shown at fairly quick time controls even the high rated local players are vulnerable, and even the guys well down the rating list are dangerous. The most noteworthy result from Thursday was Cory Northrup, with a rating just under 1600, stayed with the Class A players; Wright, Perry and Phillips to tie for first.

The group consensus was these game 20/15 unrated events were enjoyable and should continue. It is planned to hold another on July 14 at Schenectady. If you are interested; the door opens at 7:15, registration from then to 7:35 with play beginning before 7:45. The next event will be Game in 15 again. The slightly quicker time control will allow play to finish before 10:00pm. Come on out and see if you can upset an Expert!