A Little More Clarity in SCC Ch. Qualifying

Just for the record I am posting this not very riveting draw. Patrick wanted to preserve his unbeaten record in the Preliminaries, and I wanted to get through to the Finals after last year’s debacle. Our interests coincided and neither of us made a serious effort to unbalance the game.

Little, William - Chi, Patrick [B18]

SCC Ch Prelim A Schenectady, NY, 30.12.2010

1.e4 c6 2.Nf3 d5 3.Nc3,..

Reaching back to the glory days of Robert James Fischer. This was one of his pet lies for awhile. Fischer had a 7 wins, 5 draws and 3 losses in the 15 games he played in this line in the late 1950s and into the mid-1960s. Losses at the hands of Keres(2) and Petrosian(1) in the 1959 Candidates Tournament in Bled caused Fischer to look for other ways of treating the Caro-Kann, at least against elite opponents. He took up the Panov-Botvinnik line alternating with a closed treatment playing early d2-d3.

3..., dxe4

Both Keres and Petrosian used 3..., Bg5; to give Bobby the most trouble in the 1959 Candidates. That move leads to imbalances pretty quickly. I should not leave the impression that all is by any means easy for Black.

Later in this tournament Olafsson and Benko fell in this line to Fischer, no mean players they at that point in history. Fischer for his day and time was so well prepared in his pet lines especially, that many of the top Grandmasters tried to stay away from anything he was known to like. For example, Portisch, at the Stockholm Inter-zonal in 1963 played as in our game. Fischer then used his extraordinary endgame skill to outplay this very strong Grandmaster in a Rook and Pawn ending. It must be said however, Bobby got no advantage out of the opening at all.

In picking the Two Knights variation against Patrick’s Caro, I thought to maybe find something for which Chi was not too well prepared. Maybe I did and maybe I did not. In any event, the Two Knights line is not testing enough to challenge my opponent.

4.Nxe4 Bf5 5.Ng3 Bg6 6.d4 Nd7 7.Bc4,..

More pressing are either 7 h4, or even 7 Bd3.

7..., e6 8.0–0 Ngf6 9.c3 Bd6 10.Qe2 0–0

White has made no great progress with the first move. The game is level.

11.Ne5 c5 12.Nxg6 hxg6 13.dxc5 Nxc5 14.Be3 Qc7 15.Bxc5 Bxc5 16.Ne4 Nxe4 17.Qxe4 Rad8

Things have proceeded in a rather straight forward fashion with no large amount of tension being constructed by either side. During the game I thought 17..., Rac8; might be a way for Black to try for an advantage. After consideration the conclusion was that move could be answered by 18 Rad1, and the capture on f2 by the Bishop is not really dangerous; 18..., Bxf2+ 19 Rxf2 Qxc4 20 Qxc4 Rxc4 21 Rd7, threatening both f7 and b7 is good for White. Of course, nothing forces Black to take on f2. Black could play 18..., Rfd8; and then White may avoid all complications with simply 19 Bb3. If White wants some complications, he can try 19 g3!?, then 19..., Bxf2+ 20 Kxf2 Rxd1 21 Rxd1 Qxc4 22 Qxc4 Rxc4 23 Rd8+ Kh7 24 Rd7, when, after 24..., f5; Black sets up a difficult Rook and pawns endgame where the Black central majority is matched against the White Q-side majority. Applying Rybka to the position did not confirm my judgment that White had an advantage. Now the game quickly winds down.

18.Qe2 a6 19.Rad1 Bd6

Black seems to be uncertain hereabouts. He shifts his aim to h2 from f2. More forceful is 19..., b5 20 Bb3 Qb6; maintaining pressure on f2. Such pressure is strong but not quite enough to give Black a measurable edge.

20.g3 Bc5

And now back again to looking at f2 giving White time to reposition his Bishop.

21.Bb3 Qb6 22.Kg2 Rxd1 23.Rxd1 Rd8 24.Rxd8+ Qxd8 25.Bc2,..

I offered a draw here, and Mr. Chi played;

25..., Qd5+

Patrick thought maybe 26 Qf3!?, would allow him some advantage. The computer sees it differently. If 26 Qf3 Qd2 27 b4, and even this tactically adventurous line comes to equality.

26.Be4,..

Here Patrick offered the draw and I accepted. If 26..., Qxa2 27 Bxb7 Ba3 28 Qxa6 Qxb2 29 Qc6, and the game is entirely level. ½–½

This game completed Patrick Chi’s schedule giving him a 8-1 score and clear first place in the Preliminary Section A. Another good result for this rising talent.

For me, the result certainly helps towards qualification for the Finals. I have one game to play with Mike Stanley. If rating and past head-to-head results count for anything, there is a good chance for me to win the game. However, this year has been marked by some good results spiced by glaring blunders; a whole Bishop dropped against Tim Wright in the AACC Qualifying tourney, an entire point against Gordon Magat when I had an advantage in a later round of the same event and another full point versus Zach Calderon in the Schenectady event. The foregoing means the game with Stanley has to be treated seriously. I am not at all sure how to deal with this latest trend other than to concentrate even more and to double check the position before making a move. A win will get me into the Finals. Any other result opens the door for Michael Mockler to pass me by. With a bit of luck we will have an answer by Thursday.

More soon.