Thursday evening and the Schenectady Finals and Consolation Swiss round of play got off to a slow start with some games beginning later than the scheduled 7:45 pm start time. Nevertheless, there was quite a bit of action.
In the Swiss these were the results:
Chu - Kline, Mike, 0-1. An upset. Kline, unrated and a new member, defeats the #2 rated.
Capitummino - Finnerman, 0-1
Clough - Connors, 1-0
Neither Chu nor Kline wanted to see their game in the blog saying errors in the early middle game took away too much of the interest in the game. The other games are below.
Mike Stanley was unable to play, the game Stanley - Northrup will be played next week. The next full round in the Swiss will be the week following.
Capitummino, Jeff - Finnerman, David [A40]
Consolation Swiss Schenectady, NY, 17.02.2011
1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 g6 3.e3 Bg7 4.b3 c5 5.Bb2 Nf6 6.dxc5 Qa5+ 7.Qd2 Qxc5 8.Qc3 Nbd7 9.Nbd2 0–0 10.Qxc5 Nxc5 11.0–0–0 Nfe4 12.Nxe4 Nxe4 13.Rd3 Nxf2 14.Rg1 Nxd3+ 15.Bxd3 Bh6 16.Kd2 e5 17.g3 Be6 18.Ba3 Rfd8 0–1
The game went on for a move or two more but Black’s advantage was too much for protracted resistance.
Clough, Matthew - Connors, David [B00]
1.e4 b6 2.d4 Bb7 3.Bd3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Nge2 Bb4 6.0–0 0–0 7.Bg5 Be7 8.f3 d5 9.e5 Nfd7 10.Bxe7 Qxe7 11.Nb5 Rc8 12.f4 a6 13.Na3 c5 14.c3 Nc6 15.Rc1 cxd4 16.cxd4 Nb4 17.Rxc8+ Rxc8 18.Bb1 f6 19.Rf3 fxe5 20.fxe5 Nxe5 21.dxe5 Qc5+ 22.Kf1 d4 23.Rh3 g6 24.Qxd4 Qc6 25.Qg4 1–0
The standings in the Consolation Swiss are:
Finnerman, David 2-0, wins from Northrup and Capitummino
Kline, Michael 2-0, wins from Connors and Chu
Chu, Richard 1-1, won from Clough, lost to Kline
Clough, Matthew 1-1, lost to Chu, won from Connors
Capitummino, Jeff 1-1, won from Stanley, lost to Finnerman
Connors, David 0-2, lost to Klein and Clough
Northrup, Cory 0-1, lost to Finnerman, game to be played with Stanley
Stanley, Michael 0-0, lost to Capitummino, game to be played with Northrup
These early returns show a contest for first between Finnerman, an experienced tournament player and Klein a newcomer to the arena. Klein, with wins over a pair of veterans, Chu and Connors looks to be a worthy opponent for the top rated Finnerman. They will likely meet in the next round and we may get some indication of the eventual winner the consolation Swiss.
Two games were played in the Finals Thursday: Phillips - Sells, ending in a mild upset, and a draw between Dilip Aaron and Alan Le Cours that has to be considered a significant upset.
The younger Aaron, Dilip, is beginning to make a mark on the local scene. Last week he won his game against me. This week he holds Alan Le Cours to a draw. Another Aaron to take into account when handicapping the Schenectady Club title competition? I think so. Two years ago GM Har-Zvi and I debated at a Simul he was giving about how far Dilip might go in chess. Ronen was uncertain, and I held Dilip could be as strong as his brother Deepak. His results so far in the SCC Finals argues my opinion just may be justified.
Aaron, Dilip - Le Cours, Alan [C57]
SCC Finals 2010–11 Schenectady, NY, 17.02.2011
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Bxf7+ Ke7 6.Bd5 Qe8 7.d3 Rf8 8.Nf3 d6 9.Bg5 h6 10.Bxf6+ Rxf6 11.h3 Nd4 12.Nbd2 c6 13.Bb3 Qf8 14.c3 Ne6 15.Bxe6 Bxe6 16.Nb3 Bb6 17.d4 Bc4 18.Qd2 Rxf3 19.gxf3 Qxf3 20.Rg1 Qxe4+ 21.Qe3 Qxe3+ 22.fxe3 g5 23.0–0–0 Rf8 24.Nd2 Be2 25.Rde1 Bd3 26.h4 Rg8 27.hxg5 hxg5 28.Rg3 e4 29.Rh1 Rg7 30.Rg4 d5 31.Rh6 Be2 32.Rg1 Bc7 33.Nf1 Bxf1 34.Rxf1 g4 35.Rff6 g3 36.Rhg6 Rh7 37.Rh6 Rg7 38.Rhg6 Rh7 ½–½
A rare example of Philip Sells not winning in difficult time trouble.
Phillips, John - Sells, Philip [E27]
SCC Finals 210–11 Schenectady, NY, 17.02.2011
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3,..
A well known, if not so popular, line, most writers call it the Samisch Variation.. Much more usual are 4 e3, 4 Qc2, and 4 a3. Back in the 1950s(!) Viktor Korchnoi used it as his main weapon against the Nimzo-Indian in some international events and the 21st USSR Championship in Kiev. It made appearances regularly for such lights as Spassky, Ragozin, Polugaevsky and Taimanov through the 1950s. Gheorghis and Portisch were the main supporters in the 60s, and in the 70s and 80s Moskalenko and Flear took it up as a primary method of combating the Nimzo. In later years it has made only occasional appearances in Grandmaster practice, but fashions in openings change and it may be due for a revival.
The positional idea underlying the move 4 f3, to build a broad center, is entirely sound. White usually does not get to play the e-pawn forward to e4 in one bold jump. However, with patience, he can make good use of the threat to do so, and obtain chances for advantage.
Here are two games from sixty years apart that illustrate play typical in this variation:
(26611) Szabo,Laszlo - Kottnauer,Cenek [E49]
Staunton mem Groningen (12), 1946
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 0–0 6.f3 d5 7.e3 c5 8.cxd5 exd5 9.Bd3 b6 10.Ne2 Ba6 11.Bxa6 Nxa6 12.0–0 Re8 13.Qd3 c4 14.Qc2 Nb8 15.Ng3 Nc6 16.Bd2 Na5 17.e4 Nb3 18.Rae1 Nxd2 19.Qxd2 Qe7 20.Nf5 Qe6 21.Qg5 g6 22.g4 dxe4 23.fxe4 Nxe4 24.Nh6+ Kg7 25.Rxe4 f6 [25...Qxe4 26.Rxf7+] 26.Rxe6 fxg5 27.Rxe8 Rxe8 28.Nf7 Re3 29.Nxg5 Rxc3 30.Ne6+ Kh6 31.d5 Rc2 32.d6 Rd2 33.Rf3 1–0
(1136291) Krush,Irina (2443) - Hess,Robert L (2394) [E27]
Marshall CC-ch 90th New York (5), 03.12.2006
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 d5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 0–0 7.e3 Re8 8.cxd5 exd5 9.Bd3 b6 10.Ne2 Ba6 11.Bxa6 Nxa6 12.Qd3 Qc8 13.0–0 c5 14.Ng3 cxd4 15.cxd4 Qc4 16.Qxc4 dxc4 17.e4 Red8 18.Nf5 Rd7 19.Bb2 Rc8 20.Bc3 Ne8 21.a4 Nac7 22.Rfb1 h5 23.d5 f6 24.Kf2 Nd6 25.Nxd6 Rxd6 26.Ke3 Kf7 27.Ra2 Re8 28.Kd4 Rc8 29.Bb4 Rd7 30.Rc2 Ne6+ 31.Ke3 Nc7 32.Rbc1 Rxd5 33.Rxc4 Rd7 34.Rc6 Ke8 35.Kf2 Kd8 36.Bd6 Rf7 37.Kg3 a6 38.f4 1–0
Take note of the idea of trading off the light squared Bishops used in both of these games.
4..., d5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 0–0 7.e3 b6 8.cxd5 Nxd5?!
I can find no tactical problem with this move, and it has some positional justification - using the long diagonal to pressure the center. However, the game move is not found in the databases I have available. That is something over 2 million games with a large percentage played by GMs. That amount of data and no examples found coupled with the common treatment by strong players of trading off the light squared Bishops, leads me to suspect the text may be not correct.
9.c4 Ne7 10.Bd3 Nd7
This move looks to be slower to bring pressure against the center than is required. Rybka suggests 10..., c5; and so does a quick review of the GM games in this variation.
11.Ne2 c5 12.Qc2 f5!?
Black makes the first concession; loosening his King’s protection. More solid are 12..., g6; or 12..., Nf5. White has some advantage. Black needs to find a plan to obtain effective counter-play.
13.0–0 cxd4 14.exd4 e5!?
True to his style, Mr. Sells seeks space in the center. The alternative is not significantly better: 14..., Nf6 15 Re1 Ba6 16 Bb2 Qd6 17 Qb3, with White retaining an edge.
15.d5!?,..
Mr. Phillips is also unafraid of taking risks. More cautious is first 15 Bb2. White will not be able to exclude the Black Knight from c5 in the long run. It therefore is sensible to get on with development. My guess is John had in mind the making the passed d-pawn a “bone in the throat” for Black. He could have converted the potential passed center pawn into a lead in development and favorable piece placement after 15 Bb2 exd4 16 Nxd4 Nc5 17 Rad1, and the next White move will be 18 Rfe1, almost no matter what Black may do. The threat to the pawn on f5 restricts the choices for Black. White then has his whole army actively deployed and the search can begin for a plan to make use of the advantages. After the text, Black is at least equal, and maybe better than White.
15..., Nc5 16.Bb2 Ba6 17.Nc3 Nxd3 18.Qxd3 Rc8 19.Nb5 Bxb5 20.cxb5 Rc5?
Curious. I am certain that Philip saw 15..., Qxd5 16 Qxd5 Nxd5 17 Bxe5, as leading to a reasonably balanced ending, but he likely thought that having his Q-side pawns stuck on the same color as White’s Bishop meant playing for a win to be a doubtful enterprise. Sells likes to keep winning possibilities in the position. Doing so this time seems to be a mistake.
21.d6 Ng6
This move is just as good as 21..., Qd7 22 a4 Ng6 23 Rac1, because then White has cleared a3 to help support the pawn on d6.
22.Rac1 Kh8?!
The cautious removal of the Black King from the possible checks along the a2-g8 diagonal makes sense, but it also self-creates back rank problems for Black. White also is granted a tempo which increases his initiative. The balance is tilting towards White significantly.
23.Rxc5 bxc5 24.Qd5 Qb6 25.Qc6!?,..
More forceful and in line with the theme Mr. Phillips picked for the middle game, driving the passed d-pawn forward, is 25 d7. The threat to Queen the pawn becomes the pivot for both sides. After 25 d7 Rd8 26 Rd1 Qxb5 27 Bxe5 Nxe5 28 Qxe5 h6 29 Rd6, there are many ways for White to win decisive material. The attraction of this line is clarity brought on by the forcing nature of the moves by White.
It should be noted the inklings of time trouble were beginning to become apparent. Phillips had 26 and Sells had 7 minutes remaining. Both guys are quite competent dealing with time shortages. Philip Sells can said to be famous locally for his ability to survive, and thrive, with almost nothing on his clock. When I first observed him running into time trouble there were doubts he could win titles with that habit. His success over the last few years dispelled the doubts. Philip Sells does not begrudge those precious minutes even near the end of the game spent to find out all that is possible about a position. Very often the understanding gained allows Sells to play even a poor position so much better than his opponent a full point or a draw is salvaged.
25..., Rd8 26.Rd1 Qa5
This time the almost five minutes Mr. Sells used to get here were not enough to overcome the serious deficits in his position.
27.Qxc5 a6
Sells is now down to 48 seconds and Phillips has 14+ minutes.
28.Bxe5 Nxe5 29.Qxe5 Qxb5 30.Qe6?!,..
Better is 30 f4, securing the dominating post for the White Queen.
30..., Qd7
I did not get the remaining moves of the game. In general what happened is White gave up the d-pawn for the f-pawn and forced a pawn through to Queen bringing about a QvRP ending. Mr. Phillps’ time ran down to less than two minutes and Sells was in his usual situation, only a bare handful of seconds left.
It was then the twin devils of tension and a lack of thinking time got to play their tricks. First in the position: WQ on a8, WK on b6 and BK on g3, BP on h3, Phillips missed what I call “a technique fragment”; Qa8-h1. That is not something much discussed in the literature of endings, but anyone who plays their home computer at fast time limits will recognize it; the simplest way to eliminate all possibilities of a slipup by letting Black Queen his pawn or fall into a stalemate. Some moves later the position arose: WK on b3, WQ on g4 and BK on h2, BP on h3. Mr. Phillips repeated the position a couple of time and then found the solution; any move by his King forces Black to play .., Kh1; dropping the pawn, and then it is just a matter of bringing up the White King to mate.
I bring up these fumbles at the end of a most interesting and well fought game by two successful local players not be overly critical, rather to make the point I have mentioned before; in this era of sudden-death time controls, knowing cold the basic endgames is more important than it ever was back in the day of 50 moves in two hours and 25 moves per hour afterwards. Then the only worry was not to fall into a draw by repetition. Avoid that and there was plenty of time to think through how to take the full point or slip out to a stalemate. In today’s chess in the US, as my friends here did, often you arrive at a dead won position with not much more than the five-second delay available to consider the problem before you. With hours of effort on the line, the inherent tension can blind even the good player to obvious moves. Armed with endgame knowledge you are less likely have regrets when in time trouble.
1–0
More soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment