Here are some thoughts on the Studio Quads. More on Friday updating the Schenectady Championship.
THE END OF THE QUADS.
(and some recollections of local history.)
The Capital District chess scene is going through a renaissance in recent few years. We have a Grandmaster in residence - Ronen Har-Zvi - a past under-16 World Champion, a very active scholastic program run by Brother John McManus - Make the Right Move tournaments and some new chess clubs emerging - the Guilderland Library group and in Troy - the Uncle Sam Chess Club. Even more encouraging is the number of young players making their mark. At the Schenectady club we are seeing more new young talents than we have since the 1950’s when I began my love affair with the Royal game. In those days there were most Thursday nights a half-dozen or more ten to twelve year olds getting under foot, making noise and being taught proper chess courtesy by what I must say were a very tolerant group of adults.
From 1950 to 1958 Bob Goble, Mike Valvo, Joe Rush, Ken Dean, me and others were the kids. Mike was the best of the bunch. He became an IM and contributed some significant work to the development of the IBM chess playing program. The rest of us climbed the ratings ladder to about Expert strength. Today’s youngsters are far better behaved than we were and look to have perhaps more talent. Just to mention the strongest of these; Deepak Aaron and his brother Dilip, Patrick Chi and Chen Qu not only play in the Schenectady Championship, but they make an impact. Deepak is nationally ranked in his age group and beginning to make himself a name in international events as well as winning the club championship twice. Chi and Qu are both advancing in strength and rating by leaps and bounds. I have played a number of games with Dilip Aaron and suspect he may be as talented as his brother.
In sum, chess in the Capital District is alive, vibrant and seemingly growing. That said, time stops for no man/woman or their activities. Norma Skelly is ending a significant piece of work she has done for our chess community; providing a regular venue for local competition.
The Studio of Bridge and Games began running chess events about thirty-five years ago. The series of quadrangular, four player-round robin events at the Studio became a regular playing opportunity for me from 1978 through the mid 80‘s. I played in ten of the Quads those years, winning four of the events and those victories were most helpful in reaching an Expert‘s rating.
Norma and Bill Skelly started a business in the later 1970’s in space rented from Price Chopper Supermarkets on Eastern Avenue in Schenectady. The enterprise was and still is called The Studio of Bridge and Games. Their main intent was to create a venue where the card game Bridge could be played. I think the late Bill Skelly had the notion that chess events could also be a viable product for their business. Somewhere about the time Norma and Bill were beginning to run chess tournaments, me and a couple of other local players/organizers suggested to them that four player round robins were an interesting format to use. Such events were commonly called "Quads". The pairings were simple as compared to the complications of the Swiss System events, and the tournament director would only have to take action in the case of claimed time forfeits or the like.. The chess events could be run even while Bridge tournaments were going on without too much extra work. The idea had some appeal. The Quads have been going on almost monthly - eight or ten times each year for more than thirty years.
Here is a recollection of a typical Quad at the Studio. In December 1982 I had a very successful outing at that tourney. The games that follow show play by reasonably skilled local players with all the warts and flaws visible.
In the first round of this tournament Carl Magnuson makes a misstep in the very difficult Max Lange Attack. The error ends the game quickly. Magnuson was a high school student at the time. Carl’s rating was just under 2000 when this game was played, and it was rapidly increasing. The following year Carl won the US Amateur Championship in New Jersey pushing his rating over 2200. After college Carl worked in the Far East, Japan if memory serves. I don’t believe he is still active in chess.
Round 1
Studio Quads
Studio of Bridge and Games
12-12-1982
Little, B - Magnuson, C
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bc4 Nf6
4. d4 exd4
5. O-O Bc5
6. e5 d5
7. exf6 dxc4
We are in the Max Lange Attack. This is one of those openings that require you know some very specific lines of analysis from many years ago. The debut is named for a Berlin master of the mid to late 1800s and first came to my attention through a game of Edward Lasker’s published in his book "Chess Secrets." That game, Lasker-Rotlevi, fascinated me when I first laid eyes on it.
8. Re1+ Be6
9. Ng5 Qxf6??
The standard move is 9..., Qd5; and a rigorous struggle is in the offing. Properly played, Black does not fear too much White’s capture on g7, believing that he can castle long and make use of potential open lines on the K-side and his strong pawn presence in the center to hold the initiative for a long time. White thinks he can prove the Black pawn center is hollow and keep the White pawn soon to appear on g7 with the resource Bc1-h6, thereby frustrating any attack based on the open files. All-in-all, a remarkably difficult game for both sides.
A good recent example of how play can go is Bergez, L - Flear, G from Montauban, 2000. There the game continued 9..., Qd5; 10 Nc3, Qf5; 11 Nce4, 0-0-0; 12 g4, Qe5; 13 Nxe6, fxe6; 14 fxg7, Rhg8; 15 Bf6, and White won in 40 moves. All this has been known for about one hundred years. The Bishop sortie was an innovation by Teichmann from about 1905. Teichmann passed the idea on to Edward Lasker who used it successfully against Rotlevi in a German event to secure the master title.
Carl was not familiar with all this before our game. That was something of a surprise since we played a similar game just two years before. In that game Carl made a mistake earlier. Maybe he did not research the opening fully afterwards.
10. Nxe6 fxe6
11. Qh5+ ….
This is why Black has to enter the thicket of complications cited above.
11.…. Kd7
12. Qxc5 Rhf8
13. Rf1 Rad8?
Too casual. If Black wanted to fight on, it is better to try 13..., e5. The extra piece should be enough to win for White, but he will have to take some care not to allow tactics on the f-file combined with the advance of the e-pawn to offset the material advantage.
14. Bg5 Resigns.
Now a full Rook is lost and Carl was not interested in continuing the battle.
Round 2
Mike Mockler showed up at this event sporting an Expert’s rating. The last time I had seen Mike he was a red-headed kid with glasses who played in the scholastic tourneys that I helped John Dragonetti run ten years earlier. Mike, in those early days, was nearly as successful Steve Taylor and about on par with Jim Troyan and Scott Boyce in the scholastic events. No longer short or skinny, Mike’s rating was a very respectable 2064 and he had overhauled Troyan and Boyce if not Taylor when this game was played. Unfortunately for him, luck was not on his side and he made an error, and the game ended rather sloppily in my favor.
Mike is still playing in the area. He played in local tournaments for some time. In recent years his activity has picked up. Mike is a regular fixture in the Schenectady Club Championship making the finals every year he played. Mike has seen many of games published locally in Bill Townsend’s column. All too often for Mike’s taste the published games have been his losses. Now I’ve done the same thing and published a Mockler loss. The rational must be he has a high rating and such defeats are few and newsworthy. To balance the account, appended to this article is a recent victory Mike got from Pete Henner.
Studio Quad
Studio of Bridge and Games, Schenectady, NY
12-12-1982
Mockler, M - Little, B
1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 c5
3. d5 b5
4. cxb5 a6
5. bxa6 Bxa6
6. Nc3 g6
7. g3 ….
White chooses to hold back the e-pawn for awhile so that he can get his K-side pieces deployed and the King safely castled.
7.… Bg7
8. Bg2 d6
9. Nh3 …..
White would be better off with the more normal 9 Nf3. Perhaps, Mike was thinking in terms of making a pawn storming attack in the center and on the K-side. That idea may just be too slow since Black’s Q-side counter-play develops quickly.
9.… O-O
10. O-O Nfd7
11. f4 Nb6
12. Re1 N8d7
13. e4 Rb8
The pressure is growing on b2 and the related c3 square.
14. Qc2 Nc4
15. b3? ….
White needed to bring his Nf3 back into game via f2 and then to d1 to reinforce the Nc3. The text presents me with a chance to end the game very quickly with 15..., Bd4+.
15.…. Qa5?
Missing the idea completely..
16. bxc4?? ……
For reasons unknown the possibility 16 e4-e5 just didn’t come within my ken and it seems to have not occurred to Mike either. Given the 16 e4-e5, resource, I should have played 15.…, Bd4+!; and then the game is well in hand after 16 Nf2, Qa5; 17 Bd2, Nxd2; 18 Rac1, Nf6!; the "horse" is headed for g4 hitting the pinned Nf2.and Black has many dangerous threats as is hoped for in the Benko. The text was a nervous reaction from White after getting into a position he did not know very well at all.
16.…. Bxc3
17. Rd1 …..
To keep the fight going White might have tried 17 Bd2, and then 17..., Bxd2; 18 Rd1, Bc3; 19 Rab1, Rxb1; 20 Rxb1, Bxc4; and Black will emerge from the coming play a full piece and a pawn to the good.
17.….. Bxa1
18 Resigns.
Oversights can take the heart out of a player and have a terrible effect on results.
After the preceding games, both with fortuitous victories, all I had in front of me was Marc Daniels, a "B" Class player from the Albany area. Mark and I had not played before, but the way my luck had been so far this looked to be a not so tough game. Wrong again! Today Marc is not playing as frequently as he did in past years. He does show up at some of the speed tournaments sponsored by the Schenectady Mission at Proctor’s and a few of the big Open events run by the Continental Chess Association.
Round 3
Studio Quad
Studio of Bridge and Games, Schenectady, NY
12-12-1982
Daniels, M - Little, B
1. e4 e6
2. d4 d5
3. exd5 …..
While we had not met over the board before, Marc likely knew my fondness for the French and decides to opt for the Exchange line.
3.…. exd5
4. Bd3 Bd6
5. Nf3 Ne7
This line has worked well for Black. The databases show Black coming out on top with 83 wins, 105 draws and only 63 losses.
6. c3 Bf5
This is a fairly unusual move. I found only one example; Nunchert, E - Nowarra, W, DDR Women’s Ch., Strasbourg, 1971 where the game was drawn in 24 moves. The text dangles the often poisoned b-pawn. White correctly does take the bait.
7. O-O O-O
8. Re1 Nbc6
9. Ne5 …..
This seems to be a little off the mark. By moving the Knight twice in the opening White falls behind in development.
9.… f6?!
Conceding some compromise of my pawn formation in the interest of staying ahead in development.
10. Nxc6 bxc6
Necessary because the Bf5 is defended by the Ne7.
11. Bxf5 Nxf5
12. Qg4 ….
White may have thought the Knight was going to retreat to h6 giving access to e6 for the White Queen. Catching up in development with 12 Nd2 is better.
12.…. Re8
White’s tardy development permits Black to gain ascendancy on the e-file.
13. Bd2 Nh6
14. Qh3 Rxe1+
15. Bxe1 Qe7
16. Nd2 Re8
17. Nf3 Nf7
18. Bd2 Ng5
19. Nxg5 fxg5
Black has compromised his pawn formation on both sides of the board to obtain some say on the e-file.
20. Qd3?! …..
Thinking of a raid on the broken Q-side pawns. The text ignores the power of the Black Queen and Rook battery on the e-file. Probably best is 20 Be3 closing off immediate threats to the back rank.
20.…. Qe2
Virtually forcing the off the Queens and getting a Rook to the second rank.
21. Qxe2 Rxe2
22. Rd1 Bf4
23. Bxf4 gxf4
24. Rb1 Kf7
25. Kf1 Rc2
26. Ke1 g5
27. a3 h5
28. h3 g4
29. hxg4 hxg4
30. g3? …..
Up to this point I had been disappointed. The "B" player had not made any error that would allow me to roll over him. All these years later I can still recall vaguely the irrational notion crossing my mind that it wasn’t fair that Marc just wasn’t blundering. Here, if he’d not worried overmuch about the move …, f4-f3; the try 30 Kf1, intending if 30..., f3; 31 gxf3, gxf3; 32 Kg1, the Black King moves to e6 or f6; 33 Kh2, Rxf2+; 34 Kg3, Rc2; 35 Kxf3, and next Re1+ and Re2 should the Black King be on the e-file, White is alright. In this line Black has something of an initiative, but White has the better pawn formation and the game is balanced. After the text, Black is on top..
30.…. f3?
Much better is 30..., fxg3; 31 fxg3; Rh2; and the threat of checking on h1 picking up the Rook means there is a good chance the g3-pawn will fall.
31. b3 Kf6
A nice little tricky offer of a pawn that is fully poisoned. If 32..., Rxc3??; 33 Kd2, traps the hapless Rook
32. c4 ….
The chickens of my error on move 30 are coming home to roost. Marc, after some uninspired play in the middle of the game, makes a good effort to activate his Rook.
32.…. Re2+!?
Not the only way forward. Black could also play 32..., dxc4; 33 bxc4, Rxc4; 34 Rb7, Re4+; 35 Kf1, and the weakness on f2 along with mating possibilities coming about from the confined situation of the White King will make the Black c-pawn faster than the White a-pawn.
33. Kf1 Rd2
34. cxd5 cxd5
35. Rc1 Rxd4
36. Ke1 ….
The first payment resulting from the poor position of the White King.
36.… Re4+
37. Kf1 ….
Another payment.
37.… Re2
38. Rc6+ Kf5
39. Ra6 Ke4
40. Rf6 ….
If 40 Rg6, d4; 41 Rxg4+, Kd3; and the d-pawn will cost White his Rook. And one more payment is extracted from White.
40.…. Kd3
41. Rf4 Re4
42. Rf7 d4
43. Rxc7 Kd2
44. Kg1 d3
45 Resigns.
The d-pawn is just too fast for White to holdout much longer. The game illustrates how near a thing a contest can be for a higher rated club player who follows the doubtful policy of waiting for his lower rated opponent to make an error.
Sadly the Studio of Bridge and Games will not be running the monthly Quads in the future. On November 22, 2009 the series will end. All who have enjoyed the regular competition there will miss this convenient, low-cost opportunity to try out their chess ideas. From casual discussions around the local chess clubs, it appears that many of the regulars for the 1980’s are going to play in this last Quad. I know I want to be there to recognize Norma’s outstanding efforts over the years. If you never have played the Quads this is your last chance to do so, it just might be interesting to see what chess around here was like twenty to thirty years ago.
Here’s a win by Mike Mockler of recent vintage to balance the loss cited above.
SCC Championship
2008-2009
White: Henner, P"]
Black: Mockler, M
Both Mike and Peter made the finals at last year’s championship. Their clash was a worthy contest showing both to advantage.
1. d4 f5
2. c4 Nf6
3. Nc3 g6
4. g3 Bg7
5. Bg2 d6
6. Nf3 O-O
7. O-O ….
All really main line play in the Dutch. Karpov, Karnnik, and their like have played this way with White. Ivanchuk, Yusupov, Bareev and Nikolic have defended the Black side against strong opposition. So do we have a good theoretical discussion about to take place? Possible but not likely with Mr Mockler involved.
7.… a5!?
A favorite of Pelikan, J. a strong Argentine IM who lost Smyslov with this, a pet of his, in the 1960’s. Mike enjoys finding these slightly out of style ideas that have some bite.
8. Be3 ….
Smyslov put this Bishop on g5 and pushed his center pawns through to strangle Pelikan in less than 30 moves. My computer likes the text. The game has left the pathways of theory.
8.… Qe8
Slightly strange. Black aims at an expansion in the center. Pelikan played the Black pieces so as to lure the White center forward counting on getting counter-play from the gaps a central advance leaves in its wake.
9. Qb3 ….
White is thinking of crafting some tactics based on the Queen’s action along the a2-g8 diagonal after c4-c5 and the Nf3 hopping to g5 to strike at e6. Peter is too sophisticated a chess player to expect Mockler would miss that idea. Perhaps he was looking to provoke some weakening move by Black. My best guess Peter thought to get Black to play 9..., e6; then maybe he intended 10 Rad1, leaving White comfortably placed with some pressure down the b-file.
9.… Na6
Mike ignores the possible discovered check and the possible Knight tour Nf3-g5-e6 reasoning no doubt White has to make those moves for the threat to be real and maybe it won‘t too serious a threat. He goes about completing his development offering Peter the temptation to execute the threat.
10. c5+ Kh8
11. Ng5 c6
12. Ne6 Bxe6
13. Qxe6 dxc5
White played the small tactical sequence just completed without too much worry I’m sure and doing so pretty much turned the small edge usual for White into equality. He got some of what he wanted; the Bishop pair, and a dangerous looking post for his Queen right in the heart of the enemy camp. The cost was high. Three tempos were used up by the Knight (Ng1-f3-g5-e6) to have it taken off by the Bc8. Maintaining Queen on e6 does not look possible, Na6 can evict her with a backward leap to c7. Her natural helpmate, the White King’s Knight, is gone making attacking difficult in any case. The interesting placement of White’s Bishop on e3 turns out to be not very dynamic since it is now guarding the pawn on c5 and has limited mobility for the moment. All these factors may have been seen by Michael when he decided to present Peter with the opportunity to carryout the threat.
14. dxc5 Ng4
15. Na4 Nc7
16. Qb3 Nxe3
17. Qxe3 ….
Things get very murky if White goes for material with 17 fxe3, Nd5; 18 Qxb7, Rb8; 19 Qa6, Nxe3; 20 Bxc6, Rf3; and Black is well ahead here. White ignores temptation with the game move and we enter a period of maneuvering where the game is approximately equal.
17.… Nb5
18. Rad1 Rd8
19. Rd3 Qf7
20. b3 Rxd3
21. Qxd3 e5
Possible is 21..., f4; when White will likely have shuffle his Rook back to f1. Black gains a tempo but it would not effect the balance much. The game has been even for the last several moves according to the computer.
22. Rd1 e4
23. Qd2 Bf6!?
Does Mike slip here? The computer suggests Black needs to guard the a-pawn with 23..., Qc7; but after the moves 24 Qd7, Qb8; 25 Nb6, the White pieces look very aggressively placed and Black is on the defensive. Computers are very materialistic and a pawn is after all a pawn. Knowing Mockler well, I believe he rejected that possibility and willing tossed a pawn over the side to obtain activity. Now White gets a pawn for his troubles and Black has some initiative. The computer likes White in this position by about one-half of a pawn. Chess software likes material. This valuation can indicate all is not perfect in the White position.
24. Qxa5 Nd4
25. Bf1 ….
There are better chances for White with 25 e3, driving back the intruding Black Knight and following up with 26 Nb6, preparing to advance the White Q-side pawns. It is true Black may be able to engineer some kind of direct attack on the White King’s field. White, however, has resources with which a defense can be constructed; primarily trading the Bg2 for the Black Knight if it goes to f3 and bringing the Queen to e1 from a5. Should these defensive ideas be sufficient, the danger the advancing Q-side pawns will soon occupy Black’s attention. Of course it is easy to suggest such in the quiet of my study with a trusty computer program to check for hidden tactics. As former World Champion Tal famously said minutes of calculation in a game is not the same as hours of analysis. In hindsight the game move looks passive; and giving Mockler a tempo always risks him finding something creative.
25... Rd8
26. Kg2!? ….
Mike had done no more than improve the position of his Rook with the tempo given. Placing the monarch on g2 allows Mike the chance to be creative. As is expected, Mike chooses to commence the assault now when he sees a way to close with his opponent‘s King. Safer was 26 Kh1 which also eliminates discovered attacks by the Nd4 and leaves g2 unoccupied for the Be1 to block if some awkward check by the Black Queen from d4 shows up in a variation.
26.… e3?!
More controlled is 26..., Kg7; eliminating back rank checks that may derail future action. The game move is not justified. If White makes use of his chances coming up, the sudden rush forward can be beaten off, and once repulsed, Black aggression will have only worsened his position. This a critical moment in the contest. The great Emmanuel Lasker, World Champion from 1894 to 1921, spelled out the idea, in chess, the game is a struggle between two people not a bloodless contest of emotionless calculators; emotions and confidence are as important as the purely technical chess ideas. Mockler is a pretty good chess player with sound knowledge of the theory of many aspects of chess. He is more importantly an outstanding reader of his opponent. Here he must have judged Peter was having a problem quickly adjusting to changing circumstances and decided to move into close combat.
27. fxe3 Qd5+
Black decides go for a win. Not such a hard choice given the alternative 27..., Ne6; leaves Black a pawn down with a clear path ahead for White.
28. Kf2 Qh1
29. exd4?! …
The cold blooded 29 Rxd4, takes a lot of the heat out of Black’s attacking idea after 29..., Qxh2+; 30 Bg2, Rxd4; 31 exd4, Bxd4+; 32 e3, Bxe3; 33 Kf3!, Bg1; 34 Qd8+, Kg7; 35 Qh4, looks to be winning The Queens must come off and a single pawn for a piece is not enough compensation. Black will have a pair of connected passed pawns, but the extra piece and the weakness of the Black Q-side will very likely lead to the loss of another pawn and the game. Could it be that Peter believed using straight forward positional moves was the best antidote for an opponent desiring to "set the board on fire" with tactics? There are some situations that demand ruthless tactics be answered by tactics just as ruthless. This, I believe, is one such situation.
29.… f4!
In for a penny, in for a pound. Sacrificial attacks must be fed with material. The reduced numbers of units does not bode well for Black, unless aggression carries the day. The computer evaluates the game as favoring White by more than a full pawn. We have one of the very interesting chess questions to contemplate; White probably has a near winning advantage, and Black has some very threatening attacking possibilities; which will prevail?
30. Qc3 Qxh2+
31. Bg2? ….
The crisis has arrived. At this crucial point White fails to remember an important aspect of good technique; some extra material can be returned to cool off a heated assault. By playing 31 Ke1, when 31..., fxg3; is met by 32 Qf3, Bxd4; 33 e3, Qf2+; 34 Qxf2, gxf2+; 35 Ke2, leaving White too large a material edge while Black’s forces are so reduced they can not finish the attack successfully.
In this one move the balance swings from a pawn and one half favoring White to just about the same amount favoring Black. That is about the three pawn change in valuation in single turn, almost enough to warrant the dreaded "??" denoting a blunder. To be fair, seeing the difference between 31 Bg2, and 31 Ke1, would be a challenge for most of us playing locally. It isn’t that there are several long, complex lines requiring careful calculation - as Kotov described in Think Like a Grandmaster, a "bushy tree" of variations, rather it is a case of seeing what is actually there in front of your eyes, two relatively short reasonably clear lines and making an accurate judgment about them. And, doing this after two or three hours of intense concentration on all that has transpired so far in the game. What seems to happen too often is we become blind to what going on right now and,our thinking is effected by what has gone before in the game. We then a move without enough consideration, or what maybe worse, a move that chosen on basis of general principles/rules of thumb. The latter may have occurred here. In a tactical melee there is no replacement for clear sight and accurate calculation.
31.… fxg3+
Mockler now finishes the game without offering Henner a chance to get back into it.
32. Kf1 Rf8
33. Qf3 Bg7
34. Qxf8+ Bxf8
35. e4 Qh5
You could quibble that 35..., Qh4; is a bit stronger, but the truth is there is not much to be done to save the game. The final moves are pretty well forced.
36. Rd3 Qg5
37. Ke2 Qf4
38. Bf3 g5
39. d5 g4
40. d6 gxf3+
41. Rxf3 Qxe4+
42. Re3 Qc2+
43. Kf3 Qf2+
44. Ke4 Bh6
45. Rd3 Qf4 Checkmate
This game is worth looking over. Its lessons are about how attack can overwhelm defense when it is pursued with single minded focus, and if you are wagering on an attack to carry the day, shrinking from putting material to the sacrifice is incorrect. There may be one very specific lesson to be drawn about Mike Mockler; giving him the opportunity to get into a very tactical battle is dangerous.
