Some Local Chess History

For three days, April 19 through April 21, 2002, the Capital District Invitational was run. It was a closed round robin with the highest rated players who accepted an invitation participating. Two notable absentees were; Steve Taylor and Matt Katrine. Bill Townsend told me a similar Invitational had been run once before. I don’t recall the date he mentioned. I guess it was some time in the 1990’s when I was out of the loop on local chess doings.

Townsend and I cooked up the idea for the event in discussions at the Schenectady Club. The stock market had treated me very well that year giving the extra funds to underwrite something interesting, and Mr. Townsend was ready to take on the directing and organizing tasks. He rounded up a pretty impressive group of players: Grant Spraggett, a Canadian with a FIDE rating of about 2300, Mitchell Goldberg, originally from down-state with a USCF rating of 2210, and a four local Experts including Peter Michelman, rated 2062, Bruce Steffek, rated 2050, John Morese rated 2000 and Lee Battes rated 2000. Both Morse and Battes were at their ratings floors, however both in the not far distant past had achieved ratings over 2200.

For those that may have forgotten; Spraggett won going away scoring 4 ½ - ½. Goldberg and Battes tied for second and third with 3 -2. Clear fourth was John Morse at 2 ½ - ½. Michelman was fifth scoring 2 - 3, and Steffek trailed the field with 0 - 5. Although Mr. Steffek did not score, he made every game a very interesting fight right to the last, and it was an impressive display of grit in the face of several defeats.

With apologies to my old friend Lee Battes, we are going to begin this series with his lone loss to the eventual tournament winner.

Battes, Lee - Spraggett, Grant [B13]

Capital District Invitational Albany, NY, 21.04.2002

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bg5 dxc4 7.d5,..

At the very top of the “food chain”, among the World Champions and Candidates, this position has come up. Here are some examples:

Botvinnik, Mikhail - Flohr, Salo [B13]

Moscow/Leningrad m Leningrad (1), 28.11.1933

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bg5 dxc4 7.d5 Ne5 8.Qd4 Nd3+ 9.Bxd3 cxd3 10.Bxf6 exf6 11.Qxd3 Bd6 12.Nge2 0–0 13.0–0 Re8 14.Rad1 Bg4 15.Rd2 a6 16.Ng3 Rc8 17.h3 Bd7 18.Rfd1 g6 19.Re2 Rxe2 20.Ngxe2 f5 21.Nd4 Qe7 22.Qd2 Re8 23.Nf3 Qf6 24.Re1 Rxe1+ 25.Nxe1 b5 26.a3 Kg7 27.Nf3 Bc8 28.Kf1 Bb7 29.b4 Kf8 30.Ke2 a5 31.Qd4 Qxd4 32.Nxd4 axb4 33.Ncxb5 bxa3 34.Nxd6 a2 35.Nc2 Ba6+ 36.Ke3 Ke7 37.Nxf7 Kxf7 38.Kd4 Bf1 39.h4 Bxg2 40.Kc5 f4 0–1

Botvinnik, Mikhail - Flohr, Salo [B13]

Moscow/Leningrad m Leningrad (9), 14.12.1933

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bg5 dxc4 7.d5 Ne5 8.Qd4 Nd3+ 9.Bxd3 cxd3 10.Nf3 g6 11.Bxf6 exf6 12.0–0 Qb6 13.Rfe1+ Kd8 14.Qh4 g5 15.Qh5 Bd6 16.Qxf7 Rf8 17.Qxh7 g4 18.Nd2 Qc7 19.Qh6 Qf7 20.Nc4 Be5 21.Nxe5 fxe5 22.Qg5+ Qe7 23.Qxe5 Qxe5 24.Rxe5 Bf5 25.Rf1 Kd7 26.f3 b5 27.fxg4 Bxg4 28.h3 b4 29.Ne4 Rxf1+ 30.Kxf1 Rf8+ 31.Ke1 Bf5 32.g4 Bg6 33.Re6 1–0

The two games above are from the match that really began to make the reputation of Botvinnik. The match ended drawn 6 - 6 with two wins for each player. Flohr was the Czechoslovakian Champion and recognized as a legitimate challenger to the then WC, Alexander Alekhine when the match was played. Botvinnik had not yet reached that status.

Below are two games from more recent practice. Although Seirawan is no longer mentioned when the pundits handicap potential challengers for the World title, he is no slouch; note his fourth place finish in the just completed US Championship tourney. That is a not too shabby result for a guy who now only plays seriously occasionally in the Dutch League.

Anand, Viswanathan (2670) - Seirawan, Yasser (2600) [B13]

Amsterdam, 1992

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bg5 dxc4 7.d5 Ne5 8.Qd4 h6 9.Bh4 Ng6 10.Bg3 e6 11.d6 Ne7 12.Rd1 Ned5 13.Qe5 Nd7 14.Qe2 Nxc3 15.bxc3 g6 16.Be5 Nxe5 17.Qxe5 Rg8 18.Bxc4 Bg7 19.Bb5+ Bd7 20.Bxd7+ Qxd7 21.Qe3 Qc6 22.Ne2 b6 23.0–0 0–0–0 24.c4 Kb7 25.Nd4 Bxd4 26.Rxd4 Rd7 27.Qxh6 e5 28.Rd5 Re8 29.Qd2 Re6 30.c5 bxc5 31.Rb1+ Ka8 32.Qb2 Re8 33.Rxe5 Red8 34.Qc3 Rxd6 35.Rf1 c4 36.Re7 f6 37.Qe3 R6d7 38.Rxd7 Qxd7 39.Qf3+ Qd5 1–0

Polgar, Judit (2595) - Seirawan, Yasser (2595) [B13]

Amber-blind 2nd Monte Carlo (1), 1993

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bg5 dxc4 7.d5 Ne5 8.Qd4 h6 9.Qxe5 hxg5 10.Bxc4 a6 11.0–0–0 Qd6 12.Nf3 g4 13.Rhe1 Qxe5 14.Nxe5 Rxh2 15.d6 e6 16.Ne4 Nxe4 17.Rxe4 f6 18.d7+ Bxd7 19.Nxd7 e5 20.Nxe5 fxe5 21.Rxe5+ Be7 22.Rde1 0–0–0 23.Rxe7 Rxg2 24.Rxg7 Rxf2 25.Ree7 b5 26.Be6+ Kb8 27.Rb7+ Ka8 28.Ra7+ Kb8 29.Rgb7# 1–0

It is interesting that both Seirawan and Flohr chose 7..., Ne5 in these games. When the games were played both were in the top flight of chess competitors, booked-up and tournament sharp. The move 7..., Ne5; was the standard move recommended by theory at the time.

7...,Na5!?

An improvement, or no? The entire line where Black voluntarily gives up the center was, and maybe still is, somewhat controversial. Botvinnik wrote in 1949 in his book 100 Selected Games, 1926-1946, Pitman Press, London, 1951 in a note to White’s sixth move: “I think this the first time this system had ever been played. It is not at all easy for Black to defend d5. In the present game (The 9th game of the Flohr match in which Botvinnik equalized the score.) Black gives up altogether any attempt to keep the pawn on d5 and at once gets a bad position. Of recent years many and various systems have been proposed for Black. But I am still convinced that 7 Bg5 is one of the strongest of continuations.” For White I assume, this note was not the clearest of translations from Russian I have encountered. Later in the same work, Botvinnik went on to say: “Analysis published in the 1930s show that after 7..., Na5; 8 Nf3!, White gets a stronger attack for the pawn sacrificed.” I am not so sure this is accurate. Applying Deep Rybka’s considerable power to the line returns the following as best play by both sides; 8..., a6; and all of White’s choices here - 9 Ne5, 9 Qd4, 9 g3, etc. seem to be equal or favor Black by a little bit, that is according to Rybka. Looking at the few games with this move, 7..., Na5; in my databases show White winning five, Black winning two, with five drawn, or scoring just over 60%, and that is not far off the expected norm. So, Botvinnik’s “stronger attack” does not translate into significantly better than expected results, at least in this rather small sample.

8.Bxc4?!,..

Mr. Battes elects to recover the pawn immediately. Botvinnik and Rybka both see 8 Nf3, not rushing to level up material as the best approach for White. That makes sense, for the pawn White has a chance to get ahead in development, and the Knight on a5 is not brilliantly placed. The move played by Battes gives up the Bishop for the Knight, and it is soon evident Black is by no means trailing in development.

8..., Nxc4 9.Qa4+ Bd7 10.Qxc4 h6 11.Bf4,..

Unappetizing at first glance is 11 Bxf6, when White faces a middle game with two Knights versus two Bishops. For the moment he is OK, but everything depends on holding on to the pawn on d5 and the threat to advance it to d6. A direct build up against the pawn by Black does not look to be immediately possible, however Black can mobilize his Bishops and Rooks after 11 Bxf6 exf6 (The alternative 11..., gxf6; is a bit more tactical, but White has the resources to meet an attack down the g-file.) 12 Nge2 Be7 13 Rd1 Rc8 14 Qf4 Bc5 15 d6 0-0; with equality for the moment. Playing out the line with Rybka gives mixed results with Black winning some and losing some.

11..., Rc8 12.Qd4 Qb6 13.Qxb6 axb6 14.a4?,..

Safer and more principled is 14 Nge2, and if 14..., b5; 15 a3, and the White pieces get out more normally than in the game. The text weakens the Q-side for White, and he will regret not being able to castle.

14..., e6 15.d6?,..

A consistent bold plan but very probably wrong. Leading to a position where Black retains some advantage is; 15 dxe6 Bxe6 16 Nge2 Bc5 17 0-0 0-0. The operation trading the d-pawn for the pawn on b6 results in Black establishing a solid edge.

15..., Nh5 16.Be5 f6 17.Bd4 Bxd6 18.Bxb6 Nf4

The point g2 is dreadfully weak, and development for White is tardy.

19.Rd1 Bb4 20.Nge2 Nd5

Equally good is 20..., Nxg2+. A question that I have wondered about occasionally is; are players who compete in the international arena very different from the good local players? This game illustrates some degree of difference. Grandmaster Har-Zvi said to his students often: “GM’s don’t get mated.” What he tried to convey was not that the GM is all powerful, rather that they see or sense danger early on and then take the path that avoids a disastrous immediate loss preferring a arduous defense instead. Grant Spraggett is and was a well experienced internationalist. Not a GM, he is of the class of players from which Grandmasters come however. GM’s and those who aspire to the title learn early in the crucible of international chess to take advantage of every opportunity. Lee Battes epitomizes a good local talent. Spraggett is alert to chances presented, while Lee doesn’t quite take action soon enough to avoid having his King forced into the open. The Black text increases tension in the position counting on tempting White to forego castling to try to keep the material balanced.

21.a5,..

Better than any of the alternatives.

21..., Bb5 22.Rc1 0–0 23.Kd1?,..

Beginning a long journey that comes to a bad end. Following Har-Zvi’s dictum about not getting mated, better would have been 23 Rd2, preparing to give up the Exchange to avoid worse. And, 23 h4, trying to get the useless Rh1 into the game, or 23 f3, creating a breathing hole for the White King, certainly offer more resistance than the game move.

23..., Bc4 24.Re1?,..

Cutting off any chance of the King retracing his steps.

24..., Bb3+

Forcing the King out into a very hostile open field. The end can easily foreseen now; the Bishops and Rooks will find a way to mate.

25.Kd2 Nxb6 26.axb6 Rfd8+ 27.Ke3 Bc5+ 28.Kf3 Rd3+ 29.Ke4 Rcd8 30.Nb5 f5+ 31.Kf4,..

A little more resistant is 31 Ke5, but in the long run the mate is still there. Have some fun working out the exact sequence if you will.

31..., g5+ 32.Ke5 Kf7 33.Rxc5 R3d5+ 34.Rxd5 Rxd5# 0–1

A nice finish, but it can be said Mr. Battes lost faith in his position when he played 23 Kd1. After that concession crafting any reasonable defense was impossible.

A game Lee played a few years later had a King hunt in it that was similar to the one seen here. This time he was on the winning side of the hunt. It is a game from the Schenectady Chess Club Championship 04-05.

Battes, Lee - Lack, Jonathan [C11]

SCC Ch 04–05 Schenectady, NY, 26.05.2005

1.e4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.d4 c5 6.Bg5 f6 7.Bf4 Nc6 8.exf6 Nxf6 9.Nb5 Qa5+ 10.c3 cxd4 11.Nc7+ Kd7 12.Nxa8 dxc3 13.bxc3 Qxc3+ 14.Bd2 Qa3 15.Bb5 Qd6 16.Qa4 Qb8 17.Rc1 Qxa8 18.Rxc6 Bd6 19.Rxd6+ Kxd6 20.Qb4+ Kc7 21.Qc5+ Kd8 22.Ng5 Bd7 23.Nf7+ Ke8 24.Nd6+ Ke7 25.Nf5+ Kf7 26.Qe7+ Kg6 27.Qxg7+ Kxf5 28.Qg5+ Ke4 29.Qf4# 1–0

Lee could have won somewhat faster with 22 Qd6+, but it was a pretty finish in any event. I wonder if he recalled the experience with Spraggett when he was the hunted while doing his own hunting?

More to come from the Capital District Invitational soon.