More Slow News From Schenectady

Yard work and weather without feet of snow on the ground have combined to make my postings slower than I would really wish. I have vowed to myself to do better in future.

The post today is not wholly about our local games. I stay away from commenting on international chess games and events. There are better placed observers more qualified to tell the stories of those games and dramas. The passing of Smyslov is an exception. On the 27 March, 2010 Vasily Vasilyevich Smyslov died at age 89. The details of his career are well documented in excellent articles on TWIC as well as several nice pieces posted on the ICC. Today I want to add just a few thoughts about the 7th World Champion from someone who began to play chess when Smyslov was one of the very best in the world.

In 1950 I began to learned chess. These were the early days of the dominance by the USSR of international chess. The chess books available to me then extolled the virtues of Alekhine, Capablanca and Lasker. Their day was long passed by today’s standards, but the lead times for publication in the pre-computer age were considerable. Printed material about the contemporary players battling for the top spot in the world came to my attention in fits and starts from copies of the Kashdan’s Chess Review, or B.H. Woods’ column in the Illustrated London News that happened cross my path. Nevertheless, Vasily Smyslov’ name was well known to even us in the hinterlands of Upstate New York. Second in the World Championship tournament of 1948, the “Crown Prince” of Russian Chess was a name to conjure with when anticipating one of the matches for the world title that came up every three years. It seemed that the contest was going to be always between Botvinnik and Smyslov.
Botvinnik’s drawn match with Bronstein in 1952 was put down to the World Champion just not preparing seriously for someone other than Smyslov.

With few sources of news about chess available, we knew very little about Smyslov’s games themselves. His brief term as Champion of the World in 1957 saw a game or two of his published in Chess Life, or Chess Review. The games, or at least the annotations of the games, left one with the impression of a player with immense technical expertise and little of the dash and daring that so recommended Bronstein to us. It was not until 1980 when I obtained my copy of Jim Marfia’s translation of David Bronstein’s excellent book on the 1953 inter-zonal tournament at Zurich did I see the full talent of Smyslov displayed. There on the stage of one of the truly great chess events, while some of the pre-WWII stars (Reshevsky, Stahlberg, Najdorf, Euwe, Boleslavsky and Keres) faced off against the immediate post WWII talent (Smyslov, Bronstein, Petrosian, Geller, Taimanov, etc.), Smyslov demonstrated a creative approach that was clearly broader and more consistent than his competitors. He won the event two full points clear of the field.

Smyslov, like Korchnoi and Lasker of long ago, continued well into his later years playing at a very high level. He was eliminated by the eventual WC, Gary Kasparov, in the 1982-84 cycle after defeating Zoltan Ribli in the semi-finals. Now there is something remarkable; 1948 finishing second to Botvinnik, and 35+years later finishing in effect third to Kasparov and Karpov! There has been a spate of Smyslov games published on the occasion of his death. Playing through these games brings home to me how under appreciated this man’s talent and contribution was. We always knew he was good, but perhaps did not understand how infrequently such a talent comes our way. It is sad he is now gone, it is sadder one of the very best to ever play our game spent his final years in poverty and neglect.
　
As was said earlier in this piece, Alekhine, Capablanca and Lasker were the heroes of chess literature in my youth. They were all dead then, Alekhine in 1946 and Lasker and Capablanca in the early 1940’s. The living heroes of the chessboard of my youth are just about all gone now also; Botvinnik, Keres, Bronstein, Reshevsky, and now Smyslov. And so the orders pass and the ages roll.

Now on to a game far from the level of Smyslov‘s play. John Barnes and I met in the third round of the Consolation Swiss last Thursday. For awhile we played pretty decent chess, then strangeness set in, and we messed up what could have been a good game.

Consolation Swiss
Date: 4-1-2010
White: Little, B
Black: Barnes, J

1. e4 c5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bb5 g6
Kramnik and Anand like to play this way as Black against the Rossolimo variation.

4. O-O Bg7
5. Re1 Qc7?
This move looks wrong. Kramnik and Anand have tried 5..., Qb6; here. Kasparov has used 5..., Nf6. Polugaevsky used 5..., e5. All are probably better choices than the text. I do not see the active idea behind the game move.

6. c3 e6
Possibly better is 6..., a6; making White decide whether to take on c6 or retreat the Bishop to f1. One idea in the Rossolimo/Alapin lines is to push the White e-pawn to e5 before Black has advanced the d-pawn from the 7th rank. Then when the d-pawn advances, White can capture en passant on d6 with a slightly favorable IQP formation in the offing. A Black pawn on e6 just might help White with this plan.

7. Na3?! ….
Now White begins to try to invent something new. Good luck only kept me from paying a price for such a radical development. I really don’t need a Nc2 to support the d2-d4 push, it can be done immediately. The text is a wasted tempo.

7.… Nge7
8. d4 cxd4
9. cxd4 d5
10. e5 O-O
11. Bg5 a6
12. Bf1 h6
Now we see where the tempo used to put the Knight on a3 might have been better spent; if my Queen was on d2 this move would not have been possible. My intention here was 13 Bf6. However, the more I looked at how things would roll out after 13 Bf6, the less liking I had for the move. True enough Black’s pride, the Bg7 would be gone, but holding the pawn on f6 looks impossible and the Black Ne7 could travel through f5 to a very nice post on d6. White has not made anything substantial out of a slight lead in development. The eccentric placement of the Na3 and the quirky “un-development” of the Bishop to f1, are certainly not precursors of some sparkling attack. It was pleasing, in a negative fashion, to recognize this reality before pushing on as I have so often done in the past and start down another path.

13. Bd2 …..
With no happiness to be found with 13 Bf6, I thought there might be something to do on the other side of the board.

13.… Bd7
14. Rc1 Rac8?!
This move looks natural, but better is 14..., Qb6; pressing on b2 and d4, then if 15 Bc3, f6; beginning operations to reduce the White center bulwark at d4 and e5. The game is about equal now.

15. Nc2 Qb6
An alternative plan for Black is to attack the White pawn wedge with …, f7-f6. That move could have been tried here.

16. Bc3 Na5
17. Nb4 Nc4?!
Better 17..., Rfe1; defending a loose piece, and opening a track for the Bg7 into action on the Q-side. The adventure of the Black Knight around c4, a3, and b5 seems to spoil the coordination of the Black pieces. White has ideas of putting a Knight on c5, and/or using his dark squared Bishop on the a3-f8 diagonal. White has obtained some advantage.

18. b3 Na3
19. Nd3 Nb5
20. Bb4 Rxc1
21. Qxc1 Rc8
22. Qb2 Nc6
23. Bc5 Qa5?
White has built the advantage up with Black’s help. Here 23..., Qd8; is a more careful choice. The text creates a tangle of Black pieces that should be exploited.

24. Rc1? ….
And I respond by missing the chance to deal Black a heavy blow. It was clear to me we were approaching the critical moment. Unfortunately, I was not able to muster the effort to calculate precisely and so picked a move that felt good in a general sense. Once more we see the truth of what the Russian School teaches; concrete calculation is usually superior to general principles. Rather than putting my Rook on the c-file, the correct continuation is; 24 a4! Because 24..., Nba7; 25 b4, Qxa4; loses after 26 Ra1, when the Black Queen is well and truly trapped, the retreat to c7 or d8 are the only options. The threat of b4-b5 will pick up material, but I’m not certain that is best. In the interest of keeping counter-play to a minimum, White might continue after 24..., Nba7; 25 b4, Qc7; 26 Bd6, to be followed by 27 a5, and 28 Nc5. White has an iron grip on the Q-side that will eventually cost Black a pawn and the game. I must become giddy when my plans are blessed with success, and then begin to think that serious work is no longer required. That is the explanation that fits the many, many occasions this has happen to me. After all the years of striving to correct that flaw in my chess character, it is doubtful such change will ever be accomplished.

24.…. Qd8
Better 24..., Nc7. The text allows White to get some greater advantage than he deserves.

25. a4 Nba7
26. b4? ….
Still thinking anything wins and not really seeing the facts on the board, I played this move not realizing the game is just about equal now. Other moves such as 26 Nf4, 26 Qa3, or Be2, offer better chances to keep some edge. At about this point in the game the fate of my Bf1 began to bother me. Whatever was to happen that Bishop had to be gotten into the game. The pawn on a6 is a natural target for the Bishop.

26.… b6
27. Bd6 Bf8?
This natural appearing move is an error. White now has the opportunity to get back to an advantage.

28. Bxf8 Qxf8
29. a5 bxa5
30. Nc5 Qd8
31. Bxa6 Rb8
I achieved my intention. The light squared Bishop is fully in the fight and White is somewhat better than Black.

32. b5? ….
This time at least I considered the better move, 32 Qd2. The consideration was once more superficial. Just a quick glance and I saw Black would have to play 32..., Kg7; and without more than a moment’s thought I dismissed the line. Again my assessment of the position was wrong. With 32 Qd2, White would win the vital a-pawn after 32..., Kg7; 33 Nxd7, Qxd7; 34 bxa5. The outside passed pawn is enough to make the defense Black must undertake very difficult. This is particularly so with John’s clock running down. He was not in desperate time trouble yet with a bit more than five minutes remaining but it would have been unpleasant. The way in which I played brings the game back to a rough equality.

32.… Nb4
33. Nb7 Qb6
34. Nxa5?? ….
Throwing away hours of work with almost no thought. White let slip the advantage a couple of times previosly in the game. Here once more I fail control my nerves, play a hasty move and should rightfully lose on the spot after 34..., Nd3. I thought my answer 35 Qd2, with the Queen and Knight threatening to combine to mate the Black King was a defense. My computer exposed the flaw in this idea. John must have seen some of the combination and decide not to play 34..., Nd3. He did not see enough to go for the win. A sample line is; 34 Nxa5??, Nd3; 35 Qd2, Nc1; 36 Qxh6, Nc1; 37 Ng5, Bxb5+!; and the weakness of my King’s situation will be decisive. There is just not enough time for my Q+N assault to work.

34.… Nxa6?
The ticking clock led Mr. Barnes to take what looks to be a safer path to an advantage. Black is still nicely ahead in this position.

35. Qd2 Kg7?
It takes two poor choices by Black to toss away the huge edge I conceded with the error on move 34. Capturing on b5 with any of the possible pieces would lead to a quick win for Black. I just do not have the needed couple of moves to make the threat to the Black King real.

36. bxa6 Qxa6
37. Ra1 …..
In defense of Black’s decision, the clock was becoming a serious problem now. John and I were leading the Consolation Swiss going into this game. A defeat for either of us would put the loser out of the running for first place. Time pressure in a critical game has caused all of us middle-of-the-pack chess players to make bad decisions and see danger where there is none. I can’t claim the justification of time trouble for my mistakes, they were just poor play.

37.… Nc6
38. Nb3 Draw by agreement.
I made my last move and offered a draw. After a moment’s thought John agreed to the splitting of the point. He could have tried 38..., Qxa1+; 39 Nxa1, Rb1+; 40 Ne1, Nxd4; and so on with a R+B+P for the Queen. That is a hard situation to win with fewer than five minutes on the clock in a Sudden Death time control. I had about thirty minutes on my clock. The time difference probably tipped the balance in John’s decision.

It is difficult to explain how two pretty experienced players, who didn’t do too badly up to a point, both lost their objectivity and understanding of a position so completely at almost the same instant. It has happened before and will again. I suspect the cause has something to do with the tension of an important game and our ability to successfully deal with the tension.

There are several games from Thursday last on my desk for publication. The aim is to get them out by Monday night. A quick summary of the results are:

Finals; Mockler - Chi was won by Patrick Chi in 54 moves
Sells - Phillips was won by Philip Sells in moves 60+ moves.

Swiss: LeCours - Little was won by Little in 33 moves
Chu - Qu was won by Richard Chu in 57 moves
Stanley - Capitummino was won by Mike Stanley
Northrup - Dipre was won by Cory Northrup
Some games from this round of the Swiss were delayed and will played next week. the final round pairings will be made after the delayed games are finished.

More soon.