Make-up Games From Schenectady

Thursday night saw three make-up games played at the Schenectady Chess Club. No upset results were recorded.

In Preliminary Section A Michael Mockler defeated Mike Stanley in a game that appeared about equal for sometime well into the middle game. In the long run, Mockler’s experience told and he took the full point.

It is still unclear in Section A who will get the coveted third qualifying spot. Chi at 7 ½ and Phillips at 7 have the first two places nailed down. Little at 5 and Mockler at 4 ½, both with one game to play contend for the last qualifying place. Richard Chu and Brij Saran at 5 and no games left to play have a glimmer of a chance if both of his Geezers teammates, Mockler and Little, manage to lose their games. In that event, Richard, Brij and Little would have a playoff for the last spot.

In Preliminary Section B John Barnes used a risky opening idea to win quickly over David Connors. The game is set out below. Also, Jeff Capitummino lost to Alan Le Cours. This was another game where the lower rated player had a reasonable game until going astray in the later middle game. The third qualifying spot is just a murky as in Section A. Richard Moody, at 4 ½ with one game to play against Sells, has an outside chance to make it. More likely the second and third qualifiers will be Alan Le Cours and John Barnes. They both have 5 points and have one game left to play against each other. Should either win their game, and if Moody can draw with Sellls, a playoff for the third place will be necessary If Le Cours and Barnes draw and Moody wins from Sells, a three player playoff comes up. Next week we have a good chance of seeing most of the questions regards qualifying in Both Sections answered.

Our game for today is not quite so clear cut as its short length suggests.

Barnes, John - Connors, David [D00]

SCC Ch Prelim B Schenectady, NY , 06.01.2011

1.e4 d5

The Scandinavian, or Center Counter Gambit, has had something of a revival locally the past couple of years. I even tried it a time or two and managed two draws against Experts. However, after those experiments I drifted back to the Pirc. My experience with the Scandinavian was, even when I played well, anything more than a draw against a seriously good player depended on my opponent erring. I could not find enough in the way of serious threats to make and lacked the patience to wait for some positional mistake. That combination is bad if you want to be Center Counter Gambiteer.

2.d4?!,..

Maybe John Barnes feels as I do about the Scandinavian, or maybe he seeks to overwhelm his less experienced opponent with a surprise. This is a risky move, but there are many tricks that can grow out of it. Black gets a pawn without having to make any positional concessions, and at this early point can claim some advantage. There are many players who like this Blackmar-Deimer Gambit. In the databases I have at hand it shows up in Blitz events and such tournaments as the Girls under 12 WC regularly. The few examples of the B-D Gambit in serious play found are from the 2300 - 2400 level. I am suspicious of early opening deviations from classic principles that don’t show up in the practice of 2600 and up crowd.

2..., dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 Bg4!?

Black begins to indicate he may not be well booked up on this line. The text is natural enough in appearance. White has given a pawn for an extra tempo of development and a chance to use the open file to pressure f7. This presents Black with classic choice: enter the development race even though behind, or begin taking measures to build a defensive fortress?

Getting into a “cut and thrust” fight is not always a good idea for Black in the Blackmar-Diemer. It is an opening in which Black has to maintain composure, and find a workable plan that meets the very direct attacking notions White has in mind.

In the Blackmar White very often castles long, puts a Rook on the f-file and pushes the g and h-pawns down the board. A well established principle of defense is to trade down material to reduce the virulence of an attack. That principle could be applied as here in a sample line; 5..., e6 6 Bf4 Bd6 7 Qd2 Bxf4 8 Qxf4 0-0 9 0-0-0 Qd6 10 Qxd6 cxd6 11 Nb5 Ne8 12 Bd3 Bd7; and while Black still lags in development, the attacking chances for White are much reduced. As material comes off the extra pawn will give Black real chances to win.

6.h3 Bh5 7.g4 Bg6 8.Ne5 Nbd7 9.Nxg6 hxg6 10.Qf3 c6 11.Bd3?!,..

Thematic is 11 g5 Nh5 12 Bc4 e6 13 Rf1 Qe7; with strong pressure on the Black position. Rybka says Black is OK, but trying to find the moves that keep him in the game is not a task anyone other than a computer would see as congenial.

11..., Nb6!?

Properly followed up this move is viable. Other options here are a) 11..., e5!?; with a very tactical interlude spicing the middle game, and b) 11..., Qb6; anticipating g4-g5 when the Knight goes to h5 and the pawn on f7 is retuned to White letting Black get his King away to the Q-side.

12.Rf1 g5?

David, it seems, just did not see 12..., Qxd4! 13 g5 Qh5+ 14 Rf2 Qxh3; and Black obtains four pawns for the piece. If White varies with 13 Be3 Qe5 14 0-0-0 0-0-0 15 g5 Nbd5! 16 gxf6 (Better here is 16 Rde8, but 16..., Nxc3; creates another path where Black can get some pawns for the Nf6. ) Qxe3+ with a winning advantage. After the game move Black has troubles.

13.Bxg5 Qxd4 14.0–0–0 e6?

Losing quickly. The moves 14..., Qe5; or 14..., Qb4; are necessary. White has more than decent chances after either of the alternatives, but Black does not lose immediately.

15.Ba6 Qc5 16.Bxf6 gxf6 17.Bxb7 1–0

All of the standard threats White could want from a Blackmar manifest themselves in the final position. A lesson for the Scandinavian devotees out there; the Blackmar-Diemer has to be prepared for lest you find yourself in strange position demanding extraordinary moves.

More soon.