News From Saratoga

Sunday evening I drove to Saratoga to drop in on the Saratoga Staunton Chess Club. While I’ve covered the Albany and Schenectady clubs quite a bit this year, there has been little about Saratoga. They are in the middle of a double (!) round-robin tournament. Turnout was small this year. Only six players signed up, and one had to drop out after two rounds of play; Hrebenach. After Sunday’s round the standings are:

1 Le Cours 1911 4 - 1

2 Feinberg 2046 3 - 1

3 Farrell 1973 3 - 2

4 Kuperman, J 1715 2 - 5

5 Connors 1487 1 ½ - 4 ½

6 Hrebenach 1621 ½ - 1 ½ Dropped out.

The standings present a somewhat skewed picture. With the rescheduling that is common in local club events everyone has not met everyone yet. Mr. Le Cours piled up his points against just two opponents; Connors and Kuperman, winning two games from each. His lone loss came at the hands of Gary Farrell. Farrell and Jonathan Feinberg have played each other twice with honors even with one win apiece. The coming contests between and among Le Cours, Feinberg and Farrell will certainly determine the eventual Champion for this year.

Today’s game pit’s the two highest rated participants. Mr. Farrell won their first game, and Mr. Feinberg was no doubt looking for revenge.

Farrell, Gary - Feinberg, Jonathan [A02]

Saratoga Championship Saratoga Springs, NY, 20.11.2011

1.f4 g6 2.Nf3 Bg7 3.e3 c5 4.Be2 Nc6 5.0–0 e6 6.d3 Nge7

The Bird’s Opening is a specialty of Farrrell’s. It is not popular internationally and virtually none of the elite players of recent times have used it even sparingly. This leaves the databases almost useless for providing insights on this opening. That maybe the attraction for Gary. His opponents can’t come to the board equipped with reams of GM analysis. Here is one example of two German masters and the Bird’s.

(1168783) Mueller, Erich (2237) - Scherer, Max (2346) [A02]

Oberwinden op Oberwinden (11), 14.04.2007

1.f4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.e3 Bg7 4.Be2 e6 5.0–0 Ne7 6.d3 Nbc6 7.Nbd2 b6 8.Qe1 d5 9.e4 Qc7 10.Nh4 0–0 11.Bd1 f5 12.e5 b5 13.Nhf3 a5 14.Nb3 Nd8 15.a4 b4 16.d4 Ba6 17.Rf2 cxd4 18.Nbxd4 Nec6 19.Be3 Re8 20.Be2 Nxd4 21.Nxd4 g5 22.g3 Nb7 23.Nb5 Qd7 24.Bd4 gxf4 25.gxf4 Kh8 26.Kh1 Rg8 27.Bd3 Rac8 28.Qe3 Qf7 29.Rg1 Qh5 30.Be2 Qf7 31.Nd6 Nxd6 32.exd6 Bxe2 33.Rxe2 Rce8 34.Be5 h6 35.Rxg7 Rxg7 36.Rg2 Reg8 37.Rxg7 Rxg7 38.Qg3 Kg8 39.Qxg7+ Qxg7 40.Bxg7 Kf7 41.Bxh6 Ke8 42.Bf8 Kxf8 43.h4 d4 44.b3 Ke8 45.h5 Kd7 46.h6 1–0

And here is an earlier one from the Russians.

(3270738) Chuprov, Dmitry (2465) - Gajsin, Evgenij (2400) [A02]

RUS Cup Qualifier 4 chessassistantclub.com INT, 25.11.2004

1.f4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.e3 g6 4.Be2 Bg7 5.0–0 e6 6.d3 Nge7 7.Nc3 d5 8.e4 0–0 9.Kh1 Rb8 10.Qe1 b5 11.e5 Nd4 12.Bd1 Nef5 13.Ne2 Nxf3 14.Rxf3 h5 15.Ng3 Nxg3+ 16.Rxg3 d4 17.Bxh5 gxh5 18.f5 f6 19.Bh6 Rb7 20.Qe4 exf5 21.Qxb7 Bxb7 22.Rxg7+ Kh8 23.Rxb7 Rg8 24.exf6 Qxf6 25.Bf4 Rg7 26.Re1 Qc6 27.Rxg7 Kxg7 28.h4 c4 29.Be5+ Kf7 30.Bxd4 cxd3 31.cxd3 Qd5 32.Bg1 a6 33.Re3 Qxa2 34.Re5 Kg6 35.Bd4 Qb1+ 36.Kh2 Qxd3 37.Bg1 f4 38.Rg5+ Kf6 39.Rxh5 Qg3+ 40.Kh1 f3 41.Rh6+ Kg7 42.Bd4+ Kxh6 43.Be3+ Kg6 44.gxf3 Qxf3+ 45.Kh2 Qxe3 46.Kg2 Kf5 47.h5 Qd2+ 48.Kf3 Qxb2 49.h6 Qh8 0–1

These two games exhaust useful examples, that is games between strong players, from databases with over five million games. Theory exemplified by master practice is very thin.

It is worth looking at Farrell’s own practice. Here is a game of his with Jim Troyan from a few years ago.

Farrell, Gary - Troyan, James [A03]

CDCL Match Saratoga v Schenectady A, Saratoga Springs, NY, 11.06.2006

1.f4 e6 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d3 d5 4.e3 Be7 5.Be2 Nbd7 6.0–0 b6 7.Qe1 Nf8 8.Ne5 Bb7 9.Bf3 Ng6 10.c4 0–0 11.Nc3 c5 12.Qf2 a6 13.Bd2 Qc7 14.d4 cxd4 15.exd4 dxc4 16.Bxb7 Qxb7 17.Nxc4 Rac8 18.Ne3 Rfd8 19.f5 Nf8 20.fxe6 Nxe6 21.Nf5 Nxd4 22.Nxe7+ Qxe7 23.Bg5 Rc6 24.Qh4 Ne2+ 25.Nxe2 Qxe2 26.Rae1 Qxb2 27.Rf2 Qd4 28.Bxf6 gxf6 29.Re8+ Kg7 30.Qg3+ Kh6 31.Qh3+ ½–½

I should add that Gary does not play the Bird’s exclusively by any means. He’s been known to try 1 e4, 1 c4, and 1 Nf3, a man with a wide taste for first moves. For those who will face him in the future, be aware that in each opening choice Mr. Farrell comes to the board with some well researched scheme.

7.c3,..

This is outside of my opening book, although it may be mentioned in some specialist work on the Bird’s. Deep Rybka likes it as well as the other choices here; 7 e4, and 7 Na3. What we have are two savvy players delicately maneuvering about the control of key squares; d4 and e5. The move c2-c3 fits into that scheme.

One general idea, I say can’y plan, for White in the Bird’s is a push to f5 and/or the opening of the f-file. The Black set-up, pawns on g6 and e6 and the Knight e7, make that push difficult to achieve. This similar to the recommended layout of forces Black uses against the Gran Prix Attack in the Sicilian for much the same reasons. Another is pushing the e-pawn to e4, the reason underlying the occasional Qd1-e1 that is sometimes seen.

7..., Rb8

Although the position does not show up in theory, it is enough similar to various other lines and other openings that the idea of putting the Rook on b8 to support .., b7-b5; grabbing space looks normal.

8.a4!?,..

White wants to restrain the space grab. Unfortunately, that is not possible. Natural is 8 e4, and the game is tending towards equality. After the text maintaining the balance becomes more difficult for White.

8..., a6 9.Na3 d5

Maybe White was counting on if Black pushes the pawn to b5 too soon, after some trades there, he can gain some time for a central push with d3-d4 uncovering an attack on whatever Black piece is standing on b5. The text supports a .., c5-c4; answer to d3-d4.

10.Bd2 0–0 11.Rb1,..

White goes about his business and clears his Rook from a1-h8 diagonal.

11..., b5

It can’t be stopped.

12.axb5 axb5 13.b4 cxb4!?

Is 13..., c4; a better move? Rybka thinks so. I am not so sure; after 13..., c4 14 d4, the Black pieces are a little freer and White’s a bit tangled, and Black has a possible break with .., f7-f6; .., e6-e5; but the very closed nature of the position gives White good chances to hold.

14.cxb4 d4!?

Black decides to take control of d4 by occupation. It is true the pawn on d4 obstructs the Bg7, but the well supported d-pawn exerts control over c3 and e3. Black may have also calculated that dangling the d-pawn might tempt White into maneuvers to attempt surround it. Mr. Feinberg may have concluded those maneuvers will get the White pieces less effectively placed while the d-pawn can be defended successfully.

15.e4 Qb6 16.Be1,..

White is beginning to think about putting this Bishop on f2, the Na3 on c2 and maybe Qd1/b3/b2 for maximum pressure on d4.

16..., Ra8

Black counts on threats to create dynamic potential for his pieces and indirectly defending d4.

17.Ra1,..

If 17 Nc2 e5 18 fxe5 Nxe5 19 Nfxd4? Nc6; and loses a piece. This indirect defense lets Black claim some advantage.

17..., Bd7 18.Nc2 e5 19.fxe5?,..

White stays focused on his attack on d4. Here he could have kept the game balanced with 19 Bg3, turning his attention to e5. One likely continuation is 19..., f5 20 Rxa8 Rxa8 21 Kh1, with complicated play.

19..., Nxe5 20.Bf2 Nxf3+ 21.Bxf3 Nc6 22.Kh1?,..

Black has had the initiative since the exchange on e5. His last move takes control of e5 and begins to build pressure on b4. General chess wisdom says often in closed positions you can make certain “housekeeping” moves without penalty. The current position at first sight appears to be closed, but there really are tactical threats in it. This time such housekeeping hands over a tempo that Black uses ruthlessly.

22..., Be6 23.Qe2 Rfc8 24.Rfb1,..

Trying a stubborn defense. More risky is 24 Rxa8 Rxa8 25 Bg4?! Bxg4 26 Qxg4, hoping for 26..., Ra2?!; for then 27 Qd7, threatens if 27..., Rxc2? 28 Bxd4!, winning. Black certainly does not have to go along with White on this line. Instead of 26..., Ra2; he can play; 26..., Qc7; preventing the entry of the White Queen and retaining a solid edge.

24..., Be5 25.Rxa8?,..

After prolonged tension, White opts for clearing off the Rooks in the hopes of easing it. Mr. Farrell’s usual good chess judgment fails him here. White could have tried 25 Bg4 Bxg4 26 Qxg4 Qd8; when Black still is some better according to Rybka, but nothing decisive is evident yet.

25..., Rxa8 26.Ra1?,..

Fatal. Still possible is 26 Bg4, etc., when the control of the a-file by Black increases his advantage, but a defense is still possible by White. The problem with the text is the weak White b-pawn falls.

26..., Rxa1+ 27.Nxa1 Qa6!?

Capturing on b4 straight away is better I think, but either way a pawn is gone.

28.Qb2 Nxb4 29.Bxd4,..

White gave this move a lot of thought, or let us say he worked through all the alternatives and rejected them then hit on this move as a chance to test his opponent’s nerves.

28..., Nxd3 0–1

White resigned here because 29 Qc3 b4; collects a full piece. Worse yet is the tactics after 30 Qd2 Bxd4 31 Nb3 Nf7+; when the coming discovered check will kill all counter-play. Black won the battle for d4 and e5. He used those squares to stifle the White Bishops and then surrounded and won the b-pawn. It then turned out his bottled up pieces could not prevent further losses. It would be interesting to see the earlier game between these guys.

More soon.