I have only four of the eight games played in the two final CDCL matches of this season; playing against Alan Le Cours on board four for the Geezers was too demanding of my time to allow the gathering of more game scores. What is in hand however will permit some of the interesting pieces of the story of these matches to be told.
To begin: The first board of the headline match between Schenectady A and Albany A saw Howard Dean, a well established Expert face Patrick Chi, the youngest ever Schenectady Club Champion. The opening was a kind of Larsen’s/English that transposed into a more normal looking QGD by move 8. Still, all was not quite standard; Black had gotten his light squared Bishop outside his solid pawns chain e6/d5/c6, and equalized the game. It was a pretty good result for Black. Some operations in and around the center favored White slightly, and then, an uncharacteristic error by Mr. Howard overlooking a Knight fork picking up the Exchange, made for an early end to hostilities.
Howard, Dean - Chi, Patrick [A12]
Albany A v SCC A CDCL Match Schenectady, NY, 23.06.2011
Board 1
1.b3 d5 2.Bb2 Nf6 3.e3 c6 4.Nf3 Bg4 5.Be2 Nbd7 6.d4 e6 7.0–0 Bd6
Deep Rybka reports this position as the “English Opening with 1..., c6; and b3 by White”. Nomenclature of these lines in the English is beyond my complete understanding. From what I have gathered, if White advances the c-pawn to the fourth rank somewhere in the opening, the classification is the English. If White chooses to keep back the c-pawn, then we have Larsen’s Opening.
In some chess books anything beginning with 1 b3, is classified as Larsen’s Opening. The move 1 b3, had its first blush of popularity in the Hyper-Modern revolution post WWI. It did not fare well and disappeared soon enough. The late Bent Larsen brought it back in the 1970s with a couple of plans; to play in the style of the nineteenth century Henry Bird and get in f2-f4, or entice the Black pawns forward to d5 and e4 so that the Bb2 could freely range the a1-h8 diagonal. In Larsen’s innovation the c-pawn does not advance to c4. Larsen had a number of success with these plans individually and combined. Later some heavy defeats by the very top flight players such as Spassky persuaded even Larsen the whole scheme was not quite ready for the elite level in chess, and it has become rather rare at Grandmaster contests.
8.c4 0–0 9.Nc3 Qe7 10.Re1 Rac8 11.Nd2!?,..
White undertakes an operation aimed at advancing his e-pawn. Some slight doubt attaches to the notion because to make it happen White trades off the potentially better of his two Bishops. Howard was wagering that he could bring enough pressure on d5 to make Black give up his blockade there, and once the pawn on d4 is no longer stopped by a pawn on d5, the Bb2 can be a force in the game.
11..., Bxe2 12.Qxe2 dxc4!?
Voluntarily giving the Bb2 a chance to breath. This decision seems to be based on a reluctance to follow a more standard looking path; 12..., e5 13 cxd5 cxd5 14 Qb5 Nb6 15 dxe5 Bxe5 16 Rac1 Ne4 17 Ndxe4 exd4. This could be because Mr. Chi did not really like having to give up a pawn to the move 18 Qa5, even though he has some sort of compensation after 18..., Rfd8 19 Qxa7 Rc6; it is not quite enough for a pawn. Other possibilities here are; 12..., e5 13 cxd5 Nxd5; leading to another slightly different isolated QP position, and the slow, positional approach 12..., Rfe8. None of the options have the element of risk that is attached to the text move.
13.Nxc4 Bb8 14.Ba3 c5 15.dxc5?,..
Missing a chance to make Black pay for the risks taken with the move 15 Qf3. Then, after 15..., b6 16 e4, White will achieve a favorable central position and some advantage. The text leads the game back towards equality.
15..., Nxc5 16.e4 Rfd8!?
Slightly safer is 16..., Nfd7.
17.g3 Qc7 18.e5 Ne8 19.Rac1?,..
Up to here White was making progress. This move must be a simple case of “chess blindness”, acute and momentary in the case of an Expert, but fatal nevertheless. By playing something simple such as 19 Red1, White retains his advantage and poses the question to Black; how does your formation generate serious activity? Before the game move, the edge White possesses is not great, but it can be built upon. After the game move the Exchange is gone and survival is in doubt. It is possible that Dean confused himself thinking there were tactical outs to be had with 20 Bd6, or 20 Nd6, but I don‘t think so. My experiences playing against Mr. Howard is he may lose a game here and there, but he does not become befuddled in calculation. That judgment brings me back to a momentary lapse as the explanation.
19..., Nd3 20.Ne4 Nxc1 21.Rxc1 Qd7 22.Qe3 0–1
With 22..., Qd3, or d4, the Queens will just about be forced off. Further resistance is of no great purpose and the game ended.
The top board duties for the Schenectady A team were performed by Deepak Aaron and Patrick Chi very successfully. They contributed a great deal to the ultimate accomplishment of winning the title once again.
Appearing for the first time this year was Carl Adamec as the second board for Schenectady. Carl had been dissatisfied with his play and withdrew from serious chess a couple of years ago. Many players go through periods like that. It seems our creative well runs dry and the appetite for battle wanes. A year, or a season, maybe two without the game, and the appetite returns, this is demonstrated in the following game.
Adamec, Carl - Leisner, Jon [A81]
SCC A v Albany A CDCL Match Schenectady, NY, 23.06.2011
Board 2
1.d4 f5 2.Nd2 Nf6 3.g3 e6
Mr. Leisner has a long term affection for the Dutch Defense.
4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nh3!?,..
GM’s Igor Khenkin and Vladimir Kramnik wrote an article for one of Dvoretsky’s books; Positional Play, on the modern treatment of the Dutch Defense. I read it in 2002 and liked the ideas. The few times since the Dutch came up in my games their recommendations gave me good play out of the opening. I don’t know if Carl read the same article, but he adopts the methods suggested by the two K’s in this game with a slight twist. Both writers mentioned developing the Knight to h3 specifically against the Stonewall formation. It does not always work well against other formations Black can take in the Dutch. In this game Black never pushes a pawn to d5 and his plan appears to be to drive the e-pawn forward to e5, however, the methods the two K’s outlined worked pretty well this time.
The idea was further explained to me by GM Har-Zvi as follows; White wants to move the dark squared Bishop to f4 and on to e5. Trading the Bishop off for a Black minor piece is good from a positional perspective, a “bad” Bishop for almost any other minor piece is a good deal. The Nh3 can go to f4 and then to d3, while the Nb1 travels to d2, f3 and later e5. White’s c-pawn goes forward only to c3 reinforcing d4 and opening the way for the Queen to b3 to possibly create pressure on the a2-g8 diagonal. The minor piece maneuvers help White to hold back the push .., e6-e5; that can signal a try by Black for an advantage. All this was explained in terms of a Stonewall Defense. If the Stonewall does not occur, do these maneuvers work well for White? Sometimes.
5..., 0–0 6.0–0 d6 7.c3 c6
Khenkin’s recommendation for Black is; first .., c7-c6; followed by .., d7-d5; taking the game into the Stonewall proper. Black seems to be trying to create an alternate scheme that combines some Stonewall ideas and the e5 push. Khenkin also mentions a resource for Black if White tries Qd1-b3, .., that is Nb8-a6!, Khenkin gives the move an exclamation point. Conquest played so against him at Gausdal, 1991 obtaining a fine position out of the opening and winning later.
There are not many master games with this position in my database. One of the few is:
Rogers, Ian (2485) - Bohm, Hans (2435) [A81]
Hoogovens-B Wijk aan Zee (11), 01.1985
1.d4 e6 2.g3 f5 3.Bg2 Nf6 4.Nh3 Be7 5.0–0 0–0 6.c3 d6 7.Nd2 c6 8.Qb3,..
Rodgers carries out one key idea according to Khenkin. He obtains a good game and eventually wins.
8..., Qb6 9.Re1 Qxb3 10.axb3 Nbd7 11.Nf4 Nb6 12.e4 Kf7 13.Nd3 fxe4 14.Nxe4 Nxe4 15.Bxe4 Nd5 16.c4 Nf6 17.Bg2 Ne8 18.b4 Nc7 19.b3 Bf6 20.Be3 a6 21.Ra2 Bd7 22.Bf4 Ne8 23.c5 d5 24.Ne5+ Bxe5 25.Bxe5 Nf6 26.f3 h5 27.h4 Rh8 28.Kf2 Rae8 29.Ke3 Ng8 30.Kd3 Ne7 31.Bh3 Nf5 32.Rae2 Rhg8 33.Kc3 Bc8 34.g4 Nxh4 35.gxh5 Nf5 36.Rg1 Kf8 37.Reg2 Kf7 38.Bxf5 exf5 39.Rxg7+ Rxg7 40.Rxg7+ Ke6 41.h6 1–0
8.e4!,..
This seems to be exactly right and maybe an improvement on the game by Rodgers.
8..., Kh8?!
And this maybe wrong. Rybka likes 8..., fxe4 9 Nxe4 Nxe4 10 Bxe4, and if 10..., e5? 11 Qh5, will end with the Black King stripped bare of pawn protection and White having three pawns and a Rook for two minor pieces. Worse than the material deficit is the White Rooks will come to the center files while Black has a tough time getting his Q-side pieces out and working. With the better 10..., Nd7 11 Nf4 Nf6 12 Bb1, Black has entirely acceptable game no worse than the usual plus White has from the first move.
9.exf5 exf5 10.Re1 d5
I can’t find a better move for Black. If there is nothing better, the operation beginning with 8..., Kh8; is called into question. White can now execute the Khenkin plan, and does so.
11.Nf3 Ne4 12.Bf4 Nd7 13.Be5 Bf6 14.Bxf6 Qxf6 15.Ne5 Qh6!?
If 15..., Nxe5 16 dxe5 Qxe5? 17 f3, wins material. Black can build tension into the position with 16..., Qe7; then 17 Nf4 b6 18 Qd4 seems to favor White. The more direct 17 f4 b6 18 Qa4 Qc5+, is more than OK for Black. Delaying the trade of Knights on e5 as in the game does not work to the advantage of Black.
16.f3 Nxe5 17.dxe5 Ng5 18.Nxg5 Qxg5 19.f4 Qh6
The operation ends with Black somewhat the worse off; his Bishop is not great and White has a protected passed pawn that will be a long term problem as protected passed pawns so often are. Its existence means Black must treat every line leading to a pawn endgame with great care not allowing any point of penetration for the White King if he hopes to hold. The game is not clearly lost for Black, but he has a tough defensive task ahead.
20.a3 Be6 21.Qd2 Rf7 22.b4 Rg8 23.h4!?,..
Black threatens to open the g-file, and White counters with a committal pawn move. It is possible to defend the g-file with piece moves; 23 Qe3, and 24 Rf1 avoiding the advance of the h-pawn.
23..., Rd7 24.Qf2 Ra8!?
Possibly better is 24..., a6; not using a piece to defend a flank pawn. The position is still quite closed up, and Black may have decided a stubborn passive defense was the best course. It must be remembered that the game has a sudden-death time control, Game in 90 minutes I believe for the Schenectady A - Albany a match. That puts some pressure on the side with an advantage, he must do something active with the edge or see it fade in the inevitable time scramble.
25.Qd4 Qg6 26.Qf2 Qf7 27.Bf3 b6
When conducting a passive defense every pawn move has to viewed with suspicion. This move, however, creates the possibility of Black getting activity on the c-file offsetting the less-good Bishop with greater activity of his Rooks.
28.Red1 Rc8 29.Qe3 c5 30.Rd2 cxb4 31.cxb4 h6
Mr. Leisner takes care of back rank mates before trying to makes use of the c-file.
32.Rad1 Rcd8!?
The operation beginning with 27..., b6; obtained some control of the c-file. This may be the moment to try to make use of that positional plus. To that end, worthwhile is 32..., Rc4!?; then if 33 Be2 Re4 34 Qf3 d4; and a complex tactical interlude commences. Playing out the lines with Rybka sees White doing well, but there are certainly chances for Black to find compensation. The long term problem mentioned in the note to move 19 crops up frequently in the lines explored with Rybka. Black has to cope with that problem even if he happens to win the White a-pawn. The passed e-pawn keeps the Black King on a not so long leash if and when the Queens come off. All those considerations likely persuaded Jon to continue the passive defense rather than switch over to active operations.
33.Rd4 Rc7 34.Rc1 Rdc8 35.Rxc7 Rxc7 36.Qd2 Rd7 37.Bd1 Kg8 38.Bb3 Kh7 39.Qa2 Kh8 40.Qd2 Kh7 41.a4,..
The game is now getting rather “long in the tooth”. I don’t have any notes on the clock time for either party, but over forty moves played probably means they are beginning to see the shadow of time trouble on the horizon. White has danced around the Black d-pawn testing out if Black is paying attention to guarding it well, and Black has calmly maintained the guard.
41..., Kh8 42.Bd1 Qe7 43.Bf3 Qf7 44.a5,..
White begins something concrete, and advance on the Q-side to take space.
44..., b5?
The first concession. Pawns on light squares are targets for the White Bishop and a hindrance for Black’s. As Soltis so aptly wrote; many have criticized bad Bishops as “tall pawns”, but few Grandmasters are willing to give up a bad Bishop for less than full compensation. It seems this is so because even a very bad Bishop can defend target pawns at the very least.
Rybka suggests 44..., bxa5 45 bxa5 Rd8! (A hard to move to make in an important game. It sets up some indirect defenses for the d-pawn letting Black activate his pieces.) 46 Kh2 Qc7; and if 47 Bxd5? Qd7; pins and wins material. Another line is; 46 Kg2 Qc7 47 Bxd5?, when the eventual pin by the Queen from c6 wins for Black.
After taking the difficult decision to undertake a passive defense, it is very hard to find just the right moment to strike out for activity. This was it in this game. Missing this chance probably cost Black the point.
45.Rd3 a6 46.Qd1 Rc7 47.Qd2 Rd7 48.Rc3 Rc7 49.Qc1 Rxc3 50.Qxc3 Qd7 51.Kf2 Kg8 52.Ke3,..
Somewhere about here my score for the game became unclear. I had to reconstruct a move of two to allow the White King to reach f4 on move 56. My apologies to the players if the reconstruction is not correct. Again, absent contemporary notes, it can not said for certain what the clock time situation is, but my guess is someone is in time trouble now.
52...Kh7 53.Qc5 g5 54.hxg5 hxg5 55.fxg5 Qd8 56.Kf4?,..
Time trouble? Correct is 56 Qa7+ Kg6 57 Qxa6 Qxg5+ 58 Ke2 Kf7 59 Qa7+, and White is winning. Easy for a computer program to see, but very hard for a human being to grasp when little time available and great tension in the air.
56..., Kg7?
If 56..., Kg6; White has nothing better than 57 Ke3, because of the threat 57..., Qxg5 mate. The same comments about computers and humans apply here also.
57.Qd6,..
Not as good as 57 Qc6, but still sufficient to win the game.
57...Qxd6
Losing more quickly is 57..., Qc8. Play then could continue 58 Qe7+ Kg8 59 Qc5 Qxc5 60 bxc5 Kf8 61 c6 Ke7 62 g4 fxg4 63 Bxg4 Bxg4 64 c7 Kd7 65 g6, and the White pawns win the race to Queen. I suspect the final moves were played at breakneck speed trying to stay ahead of falling flags.
58.exd6 d4 59.Ke5 Bd7 60.Kxd4 Kg6 61.Ke3 Kxg5 62.Bb7 Kf6 63.Bxa6 Ke5 64.Bb7 Kxd6 65.Kf4 Be6 66.Bg2 Bc8 67.Bf1 Kc6 68.Bd3 Kd5 69.Bxb5 Kd4 70.Bf1 Kc3 71.b5 Kb4 72.a6 Ka5 73.Bd3 Bd7 74.Bxf5 Bxb5 75.a7 Bc6 76.Be4 Bd7 77.a8Q+ 1–0
Schenectady A got the benefit of an error on the top board and won this positional struggle on board 2. The combined results were a big piece of their fine victory over a fighting effort by Albany A. That was all the Geezers could have asked for in their quest to take the title. With such good support from their fellow club members, the Geezers had every hope of finally winning a title. Unfortunately, they, more correctly I was not up to the task. More on that story in the next post.
