The Fabulous 00s: USCL Week 8

Scorpions Sting Again; ICC Kibitzers Hopelessly Confused

Well, the Scorpions did it again!  They squeaked by the Chicago Blaze 2.5 – 1.5

Let’s see a very important ending on board 3 where Mehmed Pasalic (CHI) was battling Danny Rensch. A very dramatic battle with several key, instructive moments.

Pasalic (CHI) – Rensch (ARZ)  Sicilian Najdorf

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.f4 e5 7.Nf3 Nbd7 8.Bd3 b5 9.0-0 Bb7 10.Qe2 Be7 11.Kh1 g6?! I don’t understand this move. I would just cackle. I can do …g6 later, usually as a reaction to white’s probe Nf3-h4 move.

12.fxe5 dxe5 13.Bh6 Ng4 14.Bd2 Nc5 15.Rad1?! After something like 15. h3 h5 16. a3, black’s knight is just hanging in limbo on g4 and white is better.

15…Nxd3 16.cxd3 b4 17.Nb1 h5 18.Be1 Qb6 19.Bf2 Nxf2+ 20.Rxf2 Qe6 21.Nbd2 0-0 22.Nc4 f6 Black’s kingside pawns look funny but white doesn’t have the right pieces on the board to exploit it.

23.Qe3 Kg7 24.Rc2 Rfc8 25.h3 a5 26.b3 a4 27.Qe1 Rd8 28.Re2 Ba6 29.Rc2 Bxc4 More foxy is 29…axb3 30. axb3 Rac8 and black can decide when or if to play Bxc4.

30.dxc4 axb3 31.axb3 Rxd1 32.Qxd1 f5 33.Re2 Rd8 34.Qe1 Bf6? 34…f4 kept the balance.

35.Qxb4 Rd3 36.Qb8! This is strong and black might have underestimated it.

36…fxe4 37.Qb7+ Kh6 38.Qxe4

White has control

After an up and down game, white is starting to assert himself.   It is starting to get really interesting, and this is when I started watching. It didn’t look good.

This is a good moment to pause due to a tactical nuance.

Here ICC kibitzers initially were calling for black to take on b3:  38…Rxb3.  Another kibitzer pointed out that this was not playable due to “38…Rxb3 39. Nd4!” so we thought it was unplayable. But go a little deeper!    39. Nd4 Rxh3+!! (a fantastic resource!) 40. Kg1 (40. gxh3? Qxh3+ and black is not worse at all) 40…Qb6! and black is only a little worse!

38…Qd6?

Both sides were running low on time.  Here white missed two clean wins.

The easiest, as pointed out by IM D. Fernandez, was 39. Rd2!!  Rxd2 40. Qe3+ Kg7 41. Nxd2 and white is completely winning, maintaining the e4 blockade.

The second choice, and very popular in ICC kibitzing (but inferior to Fernandez’s move but it’s harder to work out), was the more complicated 39. b4. After 39…Rd1+ 40. Re1 Rxe1+ 41. Qxe1 e4 it’s time for another interesting quiz.   What’s best here?  Answer to be posted later.

White to Play. Quiz Time (analysis)

Position after 41….e4; White to play and win (analysis).  Can you solve it?

39.Nxe5?! White bypasses both of those wins, but as we shall see, this should have been winning too.

39…Bxe5 40.Qxe5 Qxe5 41.Rxe5 Rxb3

Yermolinsky Sets Us Straight

Most ICC kibitzers felt this was totally drawn.  Only GM Yermolinsky was wise enough to enlighten us – see comment to white’s 43rd move.

42.h4! The correct first step to fix the g6 pawn.

42…Rc3

Moment of Truth

43.Rc5??

Only GM Yermolinsky recognized this as a blunder.  He laid out a winning plan that is foolproof and brilliant in its simplicity.  In hindsight obvious, but he is the only one that saw it among the gawking multitudes.  Put pawn on c5, he said, and prepare then put pawn on g3, and Rook on g5 holding everything, and move king to queenside.  Indeed, that pins black’s king to g6, and black is helpless against the white king shepherding the c-pawn.  A fantastic, simple in hindsight, and very aesthetic plan!  Black is completely powerless to stop its realization.

Clearly Pasalic missed it, but so did most of the ICC kibitzers.

43…Rc2 44.Rc7 Rd2 45.Kh2 Rd4! By bothering white’s kingside pawns, the black rook “latches on” and prevents any further progress. The Scorpions win the match by the narrow 2.5 – 1.5 margin!

46.g3 Rd3 47.c5 Rd2+ 48.Kg1 Rc2 49.Rc8 Kg7 50.Rc6 Kf7 51.Kf1 Kg7 52.Rc8 Kf6 53.c6 Kf5 54.c7 Kg4 55.Rg8 Rxc7 56.Rxg6+ Kf3 57.Kg1 Rc2 58.Rb6 Kxg3 59.Rb3+ Kxh4 60.Rb4+ Kg3 61.Rb3+ Kg4 62.Rb4+ Kg3 63.Rb3+ Kg4 64.Rb4+ Kg3 Game drawn by repetition 1/2-1/2

Wow!  A great fighting, titantic battle in the best USCL tradition!

Last year, I, too, held a draw in a bad game vs Pasalic to win a CHI-ARZ match.  Chicago must be getting tired of us!

What Else is New?

I’m involved in a fierce smutty movie debate with a female chess player on Facebook. Fear not, gentle reader — our debate is not smutty – only the movie is.

The Fabulous 00s: USCL Week 5 OOTW

USCL Week 5 Opening of the Week

The Foxy Rauser Deviation, as practiced by IM Albert Kapengut many times and also me at Lone Pine 1980.  Albert used it most recently on the NJKO USCL team to defeat IM M. Pasalic of the Chicago Blaze in USCL Week 5 action.  Let’s see the “historical game” first to gain perspective.  Interestingly, I was playing a typically well-prepared representative of the former Soviet Union and against this type of player, “eccentric” early deviations are not a surprise!

Mark Ginsburg – IM Vitaly Zaltsman Lone Pine 1980.  Sicilian Rauser, Foxy Deviation

In this tournament, held shortly before my 21st birthday, I was mired in disappointment and blunders with only a nice win over John Grefe to my credit in a “Lenderman-special” Neanderthal Ruy Lopez Cordel defense with an early Qd8-f6.  When I say “Lenderman-special” I mean that it has been tried by Lenderman and also it’s very bad.

It’s very funny to think that my “eccentric” Sicilian gambit in the Zaltsman game would resurface in a USCL game featuring veteran IM Albert Kapengut in his win over Chicago IM M. Pasalic. No wonder Zaltsman blitzed off his first 15 moves – it must be in Soviet academies!

1. Nf3 c5 2. e4 Nc6 3. Nc3 d6 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 Nf6 6. Be3

Foxy/Naive

White is being foxy (inviting black’s game response) and a little naive because this move is absolutely nothing theoretically.

6…Ng4 Tasty!  White gets what he wants!  This move aims for adventure and risk. Kapengut passes by this point in his brief annotations without comment.  But a serious argument must be made for the simple 6… e5!? aiming for Be6 and d5 liquidation.  7. Nb3 (7. Nxc6 bxc6 8. Bc4 Be7 9. O-O O-O 10. Qd3 Be6 11. Rad1 Ng4 12. Bd2 Qb6 13. Bb3 Nf6 and white has zero) 7… Be6 8. Qd2 (8. Be2 d5! 9. exd5 Nxd5 10. Nxd5 Qxd5 11. Qxd5 Bxd5
12. O-O O-O-O is totally level) 8… d5 9. exd5 Nxd5  and once again I do not see any edge.  In fact, I think Joel Benjamin played this way versus me in some tournament, once. For example, 10. Nxd5 (10. O-O-O?  Bb4! 11. Bd3 Bxc3 12. bxc3 Qc7 13. Bc5 O-O-O! is just structurally horrible for white) 10… Qxd5 11. Qxd5 Bxd5 12. O-O-O O-O-O 13. c4 Be6 14. Rxd8+ Kxd8 15. Nc5 Bxc5 16. Bxc5 and white had zero in
Nakamura,H (2452)-Zilka,S (2182)/Oropesa del Mar 2001 although as you might guess Hikaru tricked his lower rated opponent in the ending .

Conclusion:  I don’t see anything wrong with 6. Be3 e5!? which takes the fun out of white’s schemes.

7. Bb5

See the comment suggestion for another playable move, 7. Bg5 — a minature Nakamura win over Fernandez in Bermuda 2002 that John Fernandez masochistically supplied.

7…Nxe3 8. fxe3 Bd7 9. Bxc6?! This is my choice in the Zaltsman game.

Due to black’s improvement on move 10 in my game, I think my move offers very little.

Kapengut chose the more foxy 9. O-O.  I will return to Kapengut’s choice after the Zaltsman game.

9… bxc6 10. O-O e6 (10… e5 {This logical move looks good!} 11. Qf3 f6 12. Nf5 g6 13. Ng3 Be7 and black was a little better and went on to win; Meszaros,A (2310)-Groszpeter,A (2495)/Hungary 1992/EXT 2000})

11. e5 If 11. Qf3 Qf6 12. Qe2 Qg5! makes sense and black stands well.

11… Be7 12. exd6 Bxd6 13. Ne4? A blunder but by this point white has very little.  13. Nf3 Qc7 14. Qd4 e5 15. Qh4 O-O 16. Ne4 f6 is not promising.

13… Bxh2+!  Ooopsie. Since I was young, I didn’t care about this blunder very much.  Sure enough, not too many moves later, Zaltsman was totally confused and white was winning!   I was completely amazed to see in the database a white win featuring this antique blunder of mine; Skjoldborg wound up winning vs. J. Christiansen, Copenhagen 2003, but of course it had nothing to do with this blunder.

14. Kh1 Qh4 15. Nf6+ gxf6 16. Nf3 Qg3 17. Nxh2 Rg8 18. Qe2 Rg6 19. Rf3 Qe5 20. Rd1 Rd8 The greedy 20… Rh6! 21. Rf4 Qxb2! 22. Rfd4 Rd8 23. Qd2 Qb7 and black should win.

21. Rh3 h6 22. e4 c5 Black is drifting!  Again 22… Qxb2.

23. Rhd3 Ke7 24. Nf3 Qc7 25. c4 Rgg8 26. e5! Ut-oh, white is asserting himself!

26…fxe5 27. Qxe5 Qxe5 28. Nxe5 Ba4 29. Rxd8 Rxd8 30. Rxd8 Kxd8 31. Nxf7+ Ke7 32. Nxh6 Bd1 33. Kh2 Kf6 34. Kg3 Ke5?

34… Be2 is a tougher try.  35. b3 Bd3 36. Kf4 Bb1 and the struggle continues. 

35. Nf7+ Kd4 36. Kf4 Kd3 37. g4 Kc2 38. b4 cxb4 39. c5 a5 40. c6 Be2 41. c7 Ba6 42. g5 a4 43. g6 b3 44. axb3 a3 45. g7 a2 46. g8=Q a1=Q 47. Qg6+ Kxb3 48. Qxe6+ Kc2 49. Nd6 Qf1+ 50. Ke5 Kc3 51. Ne4+ Kb4 52. Qb6+?

Here wa a nice win. 52. Qd6+! Ka5 53. Qa3+ Kb5 54. Qc5+ Ka4 55. Qb6; also winning was 52. Qe7+ Ka4 53. Nc5+ Kb5 54. Nxa6.

52… Qb5+ 53. Qxb5+ Kxb5 54. Kd6 Bc8 55. Nf6 Kb6 56. Nd5+ Kb7 57. Ke7 Bh3 58. Kd8 Kc6! I can’t break the blockade!  59. Nf4 Bg4 60. Ne2 Kd6 61. Nd4 Bh3 62. Nf3 Bg4 63. Ng5 Kc6 64. Nh7 Bh3 65. Nf6 Bf5 66. Ne8 Bh3 1/2-1/2

A titanic Lone Pine (in Death Valley, CA) Wild West blunderfest!

Now, back to the Kapengut game.

Recall 9. O-O was played in Kapengut-Pasalic.  The first interesting point: 9…g6 is less bad than prior evidence suggests.  It’s not good; just not losing.

9. O-O g6 10. Bxc6 bxc6 11. Qf3 f6 12. e5 dxe5 13. Nxc6 Qc8 14. Nxe5 fxe5 15. Qf7+ Kd8 16. Rad1 has been seen in practice, and in a prior game the losing 16…Kc7?? was played.    Far better is the clever 16… Bh6 and black has significant defensive resources.

The game went on 9. O-O e6 10. Bxc6 bxc6

Kritische

The absolutely critical moment.   Kapengut played a move that leads to equal chances.

11. Qf3 Qf6 12. Qe2 and here Pasalic played the passive 12…Qd8? and white got the upper hand with a trick that is thematic for this variation, the e4-e5 break.  Much stronger is 12…Qg5! with the simple point of stopping white’s e4-e5 trick that occurred after 12…Qd8?.  As you might guess, 12…Qg5! has been seen in lots of games with decent black results.  From Kapengut’s own experience, after 13. Rf3 Qc5!? the game was about level but black managed to win eventually in Kapengut-Giorgadze 1969.  Alternatively 13.  Rf3 Be7 is also level and eventually drawn in Kapengut-A. Ivanov Minsk 1985.

Going back to move 11, the immediate break 11. e5!? is interesting and has been tried many times.   Recall I tried it in the Zaltsman game. 11…dxe5? 12. Qh5! is a big edge to white and 11…d5 12. Qf3 Qe7 13. b4! looks familiar with a white plus.

The correct move which took Vitaly about 10 microseconds to find is 11…Be7! 12. exd6 Bxd6 and it’s about equal.

The problem with 11. Qf3 is that it gave black that pesky improvement on move 12.  But the problem with 11. e5 is black has this “well known Soviet” equalizing technique.

Overall conclusion:  black can survive the 6…Ng4 adventure but again, 6…e5 looks simpler.

I would be interested to know reader experiences in this tricky line.

 

The Fabulous 00s: 2009 USCL Round 1 Openings Roundup

Week 1 Noteworthy USCL Openings

In Week 1 2009 USCL opening theory action, I will defer Scorpions Games analysis to Levon Altounian and Alejandro Ramirez. I’ll just look at other games around the league.

By the way we got some “film” from the Scorpions playing site in Round 1.

Zaremba (QNS)-Esserman (BOS)  Dutch Defense Anti-Curdo

1.d4  f5  2.Nc3 A recent SOS article talked about the humorous gambit 2. Qd3!? d6 (or 2…d5) 3. g4!? fxg4 4. h3 with light square compensation.  I don’t know what the 2. Qd3 variation is called, but it’s funny.

2… Nf6  3.Bg5  d5  4.Bxf6  exf6  5.e3  Be6  6.Bd3 An old Anti-Curdo weapon from the 1980s aimed to take the fun out of it for black; I managed to beat John in a lengthy game in some New England Swiss.  Across the ocean, Winants and Jadoul in Belgium enjoyed this system too.  In fact, Winants even beat Z. Polgar once on the black side of it at Amsterdam 1990. Objectively, it is good for a safe if tiny edge.  White has to watch out for black’s “shattered” pawns becoming mobile in the middlegame and advancing.

6… Qd7  7.Nge2  Nc6  8.a3

Time for a black plan

8…Ne7 This self-blocking move is probably not the strongest, although it has been played by GM Arteshes Minasian.    GM Spraggett played more strongly vs Huss (2380) in Zaragoza 1996 with 8…O-O-O! 9.  Na4?! (white is probably advised not to do this and play instead 9. Nf4) 9…Kb8!  (note how black doesn’t give white any easy attacking toe-holds on the queenside) 10. b4 Qe8! and with careful play Spraggett has equalized and went on to win.

9.b3?! Stronger is 9. Nf4 Bf7 10. h4.  White is preparing Na4 to attack the black king once it goes queenside, but the crux of the matter is that it shouldn’t go there in these changed circumstances.

9…Bf7 Black could play the interesting 9…a6!?and then 10…Ng6 covering c5 versus knight leaps and preparing kingside play.

10.Na4  0-0-0? This is the major strategical miscue.  After 10…b6! keeping the knight out black is all right.  There might follow 11. c4 g6! preparing Bg7 and castles short with good counter-chances. In the game, white built up a decisive attack against the very lonely black king.

11.c4  Kb8  12.Qc2  g6  13.0-0  h5  14.c5 and white scored a crushing attacking victory.

Perelshteyn (BOS) – Vovsha (QNS)  Modern Defense

1.d4  d6  2.Nf3  Bg4  3.c4  Bxf3  4.exf3 Taking toward the center with 4. gxf3 merits serious consideration.

4…Nd7  5.Nc3  g6 Not a bad setup.

6.Be3  c6  7.Qd2  Bg7  8.Be2 It is more aggressive and possibly more promising to put this bishop on d3 since in the game black achieves equal chances soon.

8…Nb6  9.d5  Nf6  10.dxc6  bxc6  11.0-0  0-0  12.Rac1  d5! Black is fine.

Equal!

13.b3  e5? Asking too much.  Black had the equalizing 13…dxc4!.  If 14. bxc4 Qxd2 15. Bxd2 Rfd8 16. Be3 Ne8! holds up Rfd1 and prepares Rab8 and Nc7 with equality.  If 14. Qxd8 Rfxd8 it simply transposes. The game is equal.

14.cxd5  cxd5  15.Bc5! and white went on to win.

Ludwig (DAL) – Lopez (MIA)  King’s Indian Saemisch

1.d4  Nf6  2.c4  g6  3.Nc3  Bg7  4.e4  d6  5.f3  0-0  6.Nge2  Nbd7  7.Be3  c5  8.Qd2  Qa5  9.d5  a6  10.Nc1 A common knight regrouping in Benonis but it’s not clear how much it offers.

Decision Time

10…Rb8 (?!) This move may not be necessary.  Black has the surprising 10…Ne5!? with the idea 11. Be2 Bd7 12. f4 Neg4 13. Nb3 Qc7 14. Bg1 (not keeping this bishop automatically gives black a good game) 14…b5! (just in time!) 15. h3 b4! and by hitting the e-pawn black has a good game.

11.Nb3  Qb4  12.Qc2  Ne5  13.a3  Qb6  14.Be2  e6  15.0-0  exd5  16.cxd5  Qc7  17.a4  Bd7 If 17…Nh5 then 18. g4! Nhf6 19. h3!  is a good answer.

18.h3?! 18. a5 looks natural and good.

18….b5  19.Nd2  Rfe8 19…b4 20. Nd1 is similar to the game.

20.Rfe1  b4  21.Nd1  Bc8  22.Rc1  Ned7? The typical Benoni device 22…b3! gives black good counterplay here.  Look at this nice shot: 22…b3! 23. Nxb3? Nxd5!! 24. exd5 Bf5! and white must play 25. Qd2 Rxb3 and black is better.  And after 23. Qb1 Rb4! black is obviously not complaining either.  Black is all right after the game move, but 22…b3! was stronger.

Here is the rest of the chaotic game in which Lopez “slimed” his opponent out of a winning position.

Friedel (SF) – Serper (SEA)  French Defense

1.e4 e6 A surprising departure from Serper’s favorite Kan. Although he lost to Friedel last year in the USCL with this, he also defeated GM Becerra in a nice game.

2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Be7 Shades of Bareev. I’ve been encountering this a lot on the ICC so it must be the new rage.

5.Nf3 Nf6 6.Bd3 Nxe4 7.Bxe4 c5 8.0-0 Nd7 9.c3 0-0 10.Bc2 Qc7 11.Re1 Rd8 12.Qd3 Nf8  13.Qe4

Bertholee Power!

13…cxd4? After the correct move 13…Bd7!  2360-rated R. Bertholee  playing black had equality and held a draw vs highly ranked GM Lev Psakhis, Amsterdam 1990.

14.Nxd4 White has a plus now.

Bd7 15.a4 a6 16.a5 Be8 17.h4 Rd5 18.Bb3 Rxa5?? Black can’t do that!  A very bad blunder from Serper. He has to go back to d7 or d8 with a bad game.

19.Rxa5? Not Friedel’s day. 19. Bf4 won for white. 19. Bf4 Qc5 20. Rxa5 Qxa5 21. Qxb7 Qd8 22. Rd1! wins as black’s queen is aesthetically caught in a crossfire.  White still has a big plus after the game move.

19…Qxa5 20.Qxb7 Qd8 21.h5 Bf6 22.Bf4 h6 23.Bc2 The paralyzing 23. Bd6! was strong.

23…a5 24.Qe4 24. Nc6! Qc8 25. Ne7+! is terrible for black.  Here is the rest of the game where Serper refuted an unsound sacrifice. The noteworthy thing about the opening is the improvement mentioned for black on move 13.

Bryan Smith (PHI) – Peter Bereolos (TEN)  Ruy Lopez

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3 Na5 10.Bc2 c5 11.d4 Nd7 12.Nbd2 exd4 13.cxd4 Nc6 14.d5 Nce5 15.a4 Rb8 16.axb5 axb5 17.Nh2

So far, so good from black’s point of view.

17…g5??

This move should have been total suicide. From an equal game this horrible weakening?    There was no danger here.  For example, 17…Re8 18. f4 Ng6 with equality.   17…Bb7 is also fine with similar play.  Black was acting as if f2-f4 had to prevented at all costs but this certainly is not the case.

18.Ndf1 18. Qh5! is very strong.  When black makes the ugly move f6, white can go back later to e2 or d1 with his queen and carry on.   After 18…Qe8 19. Ndf1 he’ll have to play f6 and suffer.  The game move is fine too.

18…Kh8 19.Ng3 Rg8 20.Ng4? Black’s position is revolting after the obvious 20. Nf5.  After, e.g. 20…c4 21. Be3 or 20..Bf8 21. Bd2 white should win in short order.

20…Nxg4 21.hxg4 Bf6 22.Nf5 Ne5 23.Ra3 Bxf5  and black held a draw in a game Philly really needed.

Kudrin (PHI) – Shabalov (TEN)  Sicilian Dragon

1.e4  c5  2.Nf3  d6  3.d4  cxd4  4.Nxd4  Nf6  5.Nc3  g6  6.Be3  Bg7  7.f3  0-0  8.Qd2  Nc6  9.Bc4  Bd7  10.0-0-0  Rb8 When I first saw the “Chinese Dragon” in the pages of New in Ches, GM Gallagher heaped scorn on it.  Yet he only drew GM Chris Ward.   Since Kudrin plays the Dragon a lot, this is a funny opening choice.

11.Bb3  Na5  12.Bh6  Bxh6  13.Qxh6  b5  14.Nd5! GM Emmanuel Berg got nowhere with 14. h4 e5! with equality, Berg-P. Carlsson Halstahammar 2003.

14…e6  15.Nxf6+  Qxf6  16.h4  Qg7  17.Qg5!

One big exclam to cover all of white’s prior moves; he has a safe edge now.  Black is not helped now by 17…Nxb3+ 18. Nxb3! Rb6 19. h5! with a plus.

17… Qe5  18.Ne2! Give yourself tactical skill points if you noticed white could have played the unusual 18. Qxe5 dxe5 19. Nf5!? here and give yourself positional skill points if you notice black is OK in the resulting position.

18…Bc6  19.Rd2?! The bizarre 19. Nf4! is very strong, threatening to trade queens and play Nd3!

19…Rfd8  20.Rhd1  Nb7  21.Nf4! Still a good idea.  21…a5  22.a3  Re8? 22…a4! is stronger with only a small white edge.

23.Nd3? White would have a huge plus after 23. Qxe5! dxe5 24. Nd3! f6 (forced) 25. g4! and he controls the board.  With the game move he only has a small edge, and unfortunately for Philadelphia   Black went on to score a lengthy, dramatic victory in a tough ending.

And Did You Know?

In NIC magazine, GM Rustam Kasimzhdanov indicates his favorite movie is David Lynch’s Mulholland Dr. This is a bizarre choice for favorite movie, as I wouldn’t even rate it highly among Lynch’s own oeuvres.

A Final Shot

Enjoy the image.

The Fabulous 00s: Championing Dubious Systems

Say What?

A lot of authors champion some pretty bad things.  A duo of Dutch  amateurs champion a passive Philidor-type system starting with 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nbd7 and call it the “Black Lion” for reasons that are not clear on the surface.  It looks more like zebra meat a lion might enjoy as a snack.   A review by Arne Moll points out some of the authors’ analysis biases. In a worse vein,  German amateur Stefan Buecker used to champion the hideous Vulture (1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 Ne4?) and subjectively bias the lines so that black was on top more often that not.  And I won’t even talk about what American blogger “Dana M.” is espousing in terms of opening systems.

Moving up the ranks of respectability in terms of both author and subject matter, GM Victor Moskalenko champions the Budapest (1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5) in a recent book. What’s there to say?  Black relies on piece play without pawns in front, in violation of Kasparov’s famous attacking edicts.  I guess black is hoping white messes up, because it certainly looks like a safe += in the mainlines. Just to prove its tricky nature, though,I tried it as black versus an IM and was rewarded with a lucky win in ICC Blitz.   In passing, the Albin (1. d4 d5 2. c4 e5) is fairly tough to break too, as GM Morozevich has proven in many games.   The Budapest and Albin are both apparently better than their long-standing reputations.

Event “ICC 5 0″]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "2009.05.20"]
[Round "-"]
[White "IM Dali"]
[Black "aries2"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ICCResult "White resigns"]
[WhiteElo "2291"]
[BlackElo "2421"]
[Opening "Budapest: Adler variation"]
[ECO "A52"]
[NIC "QG.01"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 Moskalenko’s Fabulous Move.

3. dxe5 Ng4 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. e3 White opts for the common, slow treatment, but since he hasn’t done anything wrong and black’s just floating out there in the center, I would be happy as white.   Slow pawn expansion should punish the dancing knights.

5…Ngxe5 6. Nc3 Bb4 7. Bd2 O-O 8. a3?! This cannot promise much. Quite interesting is 8. Nxe5 Nxe5 9. f4!? Nc6 10. Nd5! and white can claim a small edge.  Is this line a novelty?

8…Bxc3 9. Bxc3 d6 10. Be2 Be6 10…Nxf3+ is quite a reasonable alternative and black might be able to reaches full equality.  For example, 11. Bxf3 Ne5 12. Be2 Be6 13. b3 Qf6! 14. Rc1 Qg6 15. O-O Bh3 16. Bf3 Rfe8 and it’s balanced.

11. b3 a5 11…Qf6!? is interesting here.  12. Rc1 Qg6! and with this typical transfer, it’s equal.

12. a4 I wouldn’t be in a rush to do this as white but it doesn’t seem bad.

12…b6?! Once again black misses the Qf6! motif.

13. Nd4 Just 13. O-O first and wait and see.

13…Bd7?! Black misses the more active 13…Qg5! =.

14. O-O After numerous imprecisions, white now has a stable edge.

14…Qe7 15. Nb5 Rac8 16. Qd2 Rfe8 17. Rae1 What can black do?  17. Rad1 is also unpleasant.

17…Ng6 17…Ng4 18. Qb2! is not fun.

18. Bd3 Nce5 19. Bc2 White is gearing up for the central pawn blitz so I have to do something.

19…Nf3+?! OK.  Here we go.  I’m attacking without any pawns.  Chess principles say this cannot work.

20.  gxf3 Nh4 21. Kh1 Forced but good.

21…Nxf3

22. Qd5 This is fine.  To give us the satisfied feeling that chess principles are not broken in this game, those with sharp tactical vision see 22. Qd1! and now both 22…Bc6 23. e4! interference theme! and 22…Bg4 23. Rg1! are terrible for black. White should win after 22. Qd1!.  The presence of two good moves for white at this juncture mean black’s 19th was hopelessly unsound.

22…Bg4 23. Rg1 Qh4 Of no use is 23…c6 24. Qd3! Qh4 25. Qxh7+!  winning.

24. Rg2 Nxe1? Slightly better is 24…Re5 25. Bxe5 Nxg1 26. Bxg7! and white should win.

25. Qd4! Crushing!

25…Re5 26. Rxg4? A bad gaffe in blitz and where the game starts to turn 180 degrees.  After 26. Bxe1 black can resign.

26…Qxf2 27. Be4? A typical blitz collapse. White had to play 27. Bxe1 but black can play on there and doesn’t need to take a draw.

27…Nf3 28. Bxf3 Qf1+ 29. Rg1 Qxf3+ 30. Rg2 Rg5!

A nice finale.  The double threat on g2 and Qf1+ decides.

31. Qd2 Qf1+ {White resigns}
0-1

And the Next Stop on this Train is….

Now That’s a Dome!

Happy Marriage of Princeton and Yale: Sotomayor!

Referring to the recent Obama Supreme Court nominee, traditional conservative CNN windbag columnist Ruben Navarette writes, “How about on sheer qualifications? Sotomayor sure has them. Raised by her mother after her father died, Sotomayor graduated from Princeton University summa cum laude and from Yale Law School.”  He goes on to note, “radio talk show host [pill-popper] Rush Limbaugh called her “an affirmative action case extraordinaire,” although affirmative action doesn’t help you graduate summa cum laude from an Ivy League university.”   This is a good point, I hope “Rush” (what a name!) takes notice. I was not an affirmative action case and had a miserable GPA because the student union building also doubled as pizza and beer; New Jersey was a “18″ state for drinking at the time.  I also noticed that critics routinely omitted the honors; I presume on purpose. An example of the omission: dogmatic conservative columnist Jeffrey Rosen rushes to omit by saying “She was raised by her mother, a nurse, and went to Princeton and then Yale Law School.”   Nice foxy omission, Jeff but it’s not going to work; she will get confirmed in a landslide.  At the very least, critics should get the bio right before falling over themselves to attack the candidate on the grounds of ethnic favoritism.  Postscript:  Newt Gingrich ‘tweeted’ (sorry, Newt is a cretin racist name) “White man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw.”   Newt?  Does this withered prune fellow have any credibility?   Did some young fascist Republican show him how to Tweet?  I can’t fathom the guy even logging on.  “Newt” and “Rush” are amusing cretin hillbilly names – quite predictable they would spew vitriol more often than not.   We could switch them around, two new hate-filled personas “Nush” and “Rewt”.   VIVA this happy union of Princeton and Yale.   It reaffirms an earlier post regarding Yale’s excellent graduate programs and Princeton’s tigerhold in the undergraduate arena.

Postscript 5/28/09:  Ed Rollins, Chairman of the RNC, agrees!:

“There can be no debate over her qualifications. Her lifetime achievements in the academic world, in the legal world and the judicial world are unchallengeable. If that was the only measure, she would be confirmed unanimously.

That isn’t going to happen! We are into full-bore political battle within the Republican Party, with conservatives and pragmatists arguing over what are the best tactics to stop the direction that this young president and his congressional allies are taking us.

But I just offer a word of caution. The confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor is not the battle to be waged and it won’t be won.”

Search Terms to Reach This Site

Note the various permutations of supermodel Anne V. If this keeps up, my site will become an official “spoke” in the Anne V hub-o-verse.

Search	Views
cochrane gambit	4
yelena braylovsky	3
anne v	2
arthur bisguier	2
valery salov	2
“1.e4 c5 2.d3″ sicilian	2
mark ginsburg blog	2
handwriten poets	2
1990s style	1
kimmy st petersburg torrent	1

Yesterday

Search	Views
anne	4
chess artwork	3
mark ginsburg	3
anne v	3
“jack young” chess openings	2
annev	2
robin spital	2
cat hat lime peeling	2
karpov wife	2
erotic computer art	1

The Fabulous 00s: WGM Hou Yifan’s 8th Move Offends me to the Very Core of My Chess Being and Hanken foists some nonsense on CL Readers

Hou Yifan Offends and Wins

Corus “B” Wijk aan Zee 2009 [Round "12"] WGM Hou Yifan” (2571) – Vallejo Pons (2702)

Watch what young WGM Hou Yifan does in this game.  I could not believe it when I replayed it on ICC.

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bb5 g6 5. e5 Ng4 6. Bxc6 dxc6 7. h3 Nh6 8. g4?

OMFG.  What a horrible move.  She gives up her light square bishop then opens up the d5-h1 diagonal to create a “fake bind” against the black knight on h6.  I wasn’t there, but Pons may have glanced at her with a pitying “you’re a beginner” look.  Pawns-don’t-move-backward.  The last time I saw a hideous lunge like this was the “fugly” Caro varation discussed in a prior post. The fact, as a commentator pointed out, that the move has scored well in Megabase 2008 means very little – it’s still incredibly unaesthetic.

So Fugly

Position after 8. g4? : Is Corus “B” a beginner’s sandbox? Then the game proceeded incomprehensibly (giving the false appearance of a smooth and logical white victory) which seems to have “tricked” newspaper columnists Peters and Kavalek by the Siren’s Song of the Final Result (a typical bias in the rushed day to day life of the newspaper writer).

8…Bg7 9. d3 f5 10. exf6 exf6 11. Qe2+ Kf7 12. Be3 Re8 13. O-O-O Kg8 14. d4 cxd4 15. Nxd4 Qc7 16. Rhe1 Nf7 17. Qc4 Qh2 18. Nce2 Qxh3 19. Nf4 Qxg4 20. Rg1 Qd7 21. Nde6 Qe7 22. Nxg7 Kxg7 23. Nh5+ Kh8 24. Bc5 Qe6 25. Rge1 Qxe1 26. Qxf7 Qxd1+ 27. Kxd1 Bg4+ 28. Kd2 Rad8+ 29. Kc3 Bxh5 30. Bd4 Rxd4 31. Qxe8+ 1-0 and the 2700-rated Pons had suffered a humiliating defeat.

My reaction at first when I played this continuation over is that Pons must have missed many ways to get a good game.  This was validated with Rybka 3 and indeed, Rybka found some really amazing resources for black.

Quiz for the readers:  how should black play after white’s 8th?  To help answer the question, what does 8. g4 do wrong?  Verbalizing the answer helps construct the responses.

1) It helps the player with the bishop pair try to open the game later with pawn breaks such as f6 or f5, or h5 after the N on h6 moves.  In addition, when the black king is safe and he breaks with f6, after white takes on f6, he can break again with f6-f5!  After the second break, black’s knight finds a great home on f7 attacking and defending.

Black only needs to be mindful to do this when his king has been secured (Pons forgot that).

2) It does not develop. Let’s now see the various ways black can react – by preserving dynamic potential and not letting his kingside pieces get hemmed in the “fake bind” of P/g4.  It’s a position where time is important, so black should try to do things with gain of time in order to wrest the initiative – a big factor with the latent power of the bishop pair.

And of course, king safety is a consideration – for both sides.   The “executive summary” is that black must try to expose the complex of weak squares that g2-g4 created. We start with the game moves 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bb5 g6 5. e5 Ng4 6. Bxc6 dxc6 7. h3 Nh6 8. g4? – I’m sorry, this move is just a lemon.

A.   8…Bg7 Safe and sound.  Pons played this. Let’s consider this last.

B.  8…Ng8!? Challenging.    Black dispenses with Bg7 and will hit right away with h7-h5 and we get some very unusual positions. Let’s see some sample lines. 8… Ng8 9. d3 h5 10. Rg1? (pretty much forced is 10. g5 Be6 11. Be3 Qd7 and now, e.g.,  12. Bxc5 Bxh3 13. Qe2 Bg4 and this is a position of “mutual ugliness” – for example, 14. Qe3 Bg7 15. d4 b6 16. Ba3 O-O-O and black is OK; there are other lines but black always has nice posts for his QB) 10… hxg4 11. hxg4 Nh6 12. g5 Nf5 and black has a great game.

C  8… c4!? Also very interesting.   Black dissolves his doubled pawns and retains the bishop pair for the time being. 8….c4!? 9. Qe2 Be6 10. Ng5 Going to nullify the bishop pair.  This sortie, moving a developed piece twice, fizzles out to equality. Note in passing Rybka 3 shows a truly amazing resource on the plausible 10. b3  cxb3 11. axb3 Bg7 12. d4 Ng8 13. Be3 h5 14. g5 Qd7 15. h4 Bg4 16. Rg1 Rh7!!  A fantastic, inhuman Rybka move 17. Rg3 e6 18. Ne4 Ne7 19. Nd6+ Kd8

Position after 19…Kd8 (analysis).  Rybka steered for this position (!!). 20. Nxf7+ Kc7 21. Nd6 Nf5 22. Nxf5 Bxf5 23. Kf1 Bf8 24. c4 Rf7 and black has juicy  compensation – an incredible line where black connived to leave white with useless pieces by suckering the active knight deep to f7 where it was then exchanged.  Did anyone expect the mysterious R on h7 to get so active? It could only do so by luring the WN to f7 to win a pawn.  A fantastic and original conception.

Going back to the move 10. Ng5, 10… Qd4! gums up the works. 11. Nxe6 fxe6 12. Qe4 O-O-O 13. Qxd4 Rxd4 14. d3 cxd3 15. Be3 Rd7 16. cxd3 Nf7 17. d4 c5 18. Rc1 cxd4 19. Nb5+ Kb8 20. Bxd4 (On 20. Nxd4 black has the cool 20…Bh6!  totally equalizing.  For example, 21. Nxe6 (21. Bxh6? Rxd4 22. Be3 Ra4  and black is on top) 21… Bxe3 22. fxe3 Nxe5 and it’s equal) 20… b6 and again this is equal.

Let’s go back to (A), 8…Bg7, as played by Pons.  Nothing wrong with this.  It develops and prepares castling. 9. d3 f5?!  Pons played this but there was no rush.  He could have simply castled with a fine game.  Once his king is safe, he can break with no qualms and black will being work against white’s weak squares. For example, 9… O-O 10. Be3 f6!  and it’s surprisingly safe to “lose” the c5 pawn.  White is way behind in development. In fact, this line is very easy to find and I’m surprised Pons did not do it.

Position after 9…f6! – not even a sacrifice.

A1.  11. Bxc5 fxe5 and black cannot complain.

A2.  11. exf6 exf6 12. Bxc5?!  Prima facie, very risky.   (12. Qd2 Nf7 13. O-O-O Qa5 14. Kb1 f5 15. gxf5 Bxf5 16. Nd5 Qd8 17. Nc3 b6 and black is fine, or 12. O-O f5 13. g5 Nf7 14. Bxc5 Re8 15. h4 Qa5 16. Bd4 Bxd4 17. Nxd4 Qb4 18. Nce2 c5! and black is doing well) 12… Re8+ 13. Be3 f5! 14. g5 f4 15. gxh6 Bxh6 and black is on top) The above sample lines give a rich idea of black’s resources.

Even in the game Pons was fully OK until later. Going back to the Pons game, his miscue was not fatal. After 10. exf6 exf6 11. Qe2+ Kf7 12. Be3 Re8 13. O-O-O Kg8 14. d4  he made a more serious misstep with 14…cxd4? opening the game at the wrong moment.  He had the rather simple 14… f5! 15. dxc5 Qe7!  with excellent play.  After, for example, 16. g5 Nf7 17. Qe1 (17. Rhe1??  Bxc3! 18. bxc3 f4 ooops!) 17… Ne5 18. Nxe5 Bxe5 and black has great activity.

Returning the the Pons game, 15. Nxd4 Qc7 16. Rhe1 Nf7 17. Qc4 Qh2 18. Nce2 Qxh3 19. Nf4 Qxg4 20. Rg1 Qd7 21. Nde6 Qe7?  Here is where he missed his last chance.  He had  21… b5!? hoping white will follow the tactical course in the game. After the tactical shot 21…b5!?, if 22. Qc3 b4 23. Qc4? (wrongly following the actual game’s tactics; 23. Qxb4! is correct with a white plus) 23… Qe7 24. Nxg7 Kxg7 25. Nh5+ Kh8 26. Bc5 Qe6 27. Rge1 Qxe1 and now if white plays as in the game, 28. Qxf7??  backfires horribly and gets White mated to 28… Qxd1+ 29. Kxd1 Bg4+ 30. Kd2 Rad8+ and the pawn on b4 plays a key part hemming in the white king.  So white would have to play 28. Rxe1 with a complex struggle.  After this missed final chance, Pons did indeed go down the drain.

Chess Life Editor Asleep at the Switch: Hanken allowed to write chess comments unedited and CL Suffers!

Jerry Hanken annotations cannot be passed through to the readership unedited!  In a recent February 2009 CL, Hanken “annotates” a main line Dragon.  But he goes horribly awry, puzzled over the main line move.    This would be bad analysis in even a state magazine; I hate to be the bearer of really sickening news, but here is what he wrote, incredibly enough, on page 29 of the 2/09 CL.

Sevillano – Khachiyan  American Open 2008 Dragon MAINLINE – BUT VIRGIN TERRITORY FOR HANKEN

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cd 4. N:d4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 Nc6 8. Qd2 O-O 9. O-O-O d5 10. exd5 Nxd5 11. Nxc6 bxc6 This position has occurred in thousands of master games. Yet Hanken acts like he’s never seen it before. Sevillano played the normal and strong move 12. Bd4!.  Hanken, led astray by the RESULT of the game (a common blunder by would-be commentators, but CL desparately needs better), says “White’s move here is hard to understand.   He yields one tempo for what?” What an incredibly bad comment.  White, obviously, is shutting down the h8-a1 diagonal after the game continuation 12…e5 13. Bc5.  As master games have shown, white scores better than 50% from here, keeping the diagonal shut and black’s counterplay on the queenside, in most cases, is insufficient.  Check, for example, Friedel – Harper, Foxwoods ‘08.  And many other games. White is not yielding a tempo.  He makes black block the diagonal, then repositions the bishop.    It is normal, strong, and postionally motivated.  A brief glance by any master would “reveal” this elementary conclusion. Someone MUST supervise Hanken’s comments or else there is no hope for CL.

Conclusion:  CL Editor, you must check Hanken’s chess notes and pass them off to a competent second set of eyeballs!  The net effect, as it stands, is that CL continues to be a laughingstock in the chess world.  It used to be different with Gligoric and Benko and Kavalek writing lengthy, thoughtful, articles.  Reclaim chess accuracy in the notes!

If you agree, I would think a letter to the CL Editor is in order.  Changes need to happen.

The Fabulous 00s: The North American Open 2008

This amusing annual Bill Goichberg event (always at the Bally’s hotel, Las Vegas) was, well… amusing again.   In one droll episode, NM Zimbeck arrived late for a game with SM Bryant.  Zimbeck bashes out 1. d4 without filling in the player names or the move on his scoresheet and Bryant plays 1… Nf6.  Zimbeck continues to not keep score and emphatically blitzes out one of the worst moves possible, 2. f3.  I found it quite droll that this move merited not keeping score.  To continue with the drollity, in his middlegame Zimbeck was visited by a lady friend who seemed to be tubercular, emitting continuous coughs that were not alleviated by a cough drop.  Since I was right next to all this, it was good theater – except I #$%*#* drew Rubshamen.  I will present the Rubshamen game so you see the irritation.

The chess for me was hard slogging.  Many of the lower rated masters, such as the Champion of Hawaii (!) Rubshamen (2260), defended doggedly coming up with many defensive resources (in both the G/75 and the 40/2 games).  Lower rated players must be getting stronger?

I played in four such tiring G/75 games (2.5 out of 4), drew the aforementioned agonizing superior middlegame vs. Rubshamen by transposing into the wrong ending, then recouped somewhat in the last two rounds with a win over ICC personality “f-pawn” (Aigner) and a rather fortunate draw with black against tough GM Cicak (2664) in the last round, so finishing with 4.5 out of 7.    Let’s see a sharp Round 2 struggle versus GM Alex Shabalov.

Ginsburg – GM Shabalov NAO 08, Round 2.  G/75.   1…b6.

The last time and only time I played Alex, Reno 1992 (one of my three blacks in a row courtesy of the bizarre Weikel “policy” of occasionally awarding three blacks in a row for no reason in critical last rounds – Weikel defended the policy by bellowing incoherently at the top of his lungs), he misplayed as white and I took a draw in a winning position, not realizing it was winning.  I was chided by Bruce Leverett in the chess newsgroups (remember those, they were big in 1992). Time for the second game.

1. c4 b6 2. d4 e6 3. a3 f5 I had pleasant memories of this offbeat variation from my Hammer game. Of course, remembering prior games precisely is not always easy. And not everyone would sacrifice early like Jon Ludwig.

4. Nc3 Nf6 5. d5 Ba6 A strange move, but in the wise words of GM Hellers, “you have to do something.”  It was indicative of my state of mind that I considered 6. e4!? seriously here – I mut have been in crazy attack mode. In the end, I settled for a good, solid, move.  But in fact 6. e4!? is fine, since 6…fxe4! (note that black is worse in the nice forcing sequence after 6…Nxe4? 7. Nxe4 fxe4 8. Qh5+ g6 9. Qe5 Rg8 10. dxe6 Nc6 11. exd7++ Kxd7 12. Qd5+ Bd6 13. Be2!) 7. dxe6 dxe6 8. Qxd8+ is just equal.

Position after 5…Ba6

6. Qa4 exd5 The subtleties of this variation are beyond me.  As black, I would not do this (yet) and play 6…Bd6 instead.  The risky 6…Bc5 is also available. 

7. cxd5 Bd6 8. Bf4! An unusual set-up (Qa4 protecting f4) allows this trade which is to white’s advantage.

8…Qe7 Not absurd is 9…O-O!? 10. Bxd6 cxd6 10. Nf3 Qc8!?.

9. Bxd6 Qxd6 10. Rd1! No reason to put the king on the open queenside.  10…O-O 11. Nf3 Re8 12. e3! Bxf1 13. Kxf1 Ne4! The best way to keep activity but white has an edge. 14. Nb5 Qc5 15. Qb3! White is getting alarming attacking chances.

15…Kh8

Position after 15…Kh8.  Go for the throat?

16. d6? I am too excited to make a direct attack in this action game.  As Shabalov mentioned after the game, the simple g2-g3 and Kf1-g2 keeps a very solid edge for white. For example, 16. g3 Na6 17. Kg2 c6 18. dxc6 dxc6 19. Nbd4 and black’s position is very bad.

16…cxd6 17. h4 a6 Another good move here is 17… f4! with a sample variation 18. Rd5 Qc6 19. exf4 Qc1+ 20. Rd1 Qc5 21. Nfd4 Nc6 22. Qd3 Rac8 23. Rh3 d5 and it’s balanced.

18. Nbd4? Another mistake.  18. Rd5! is clearly right.  18… Qc1+
19. Rd1 Qc5 repeats, and 18….Qc6 19. Nc3! (I did not see this move) is a white edge as the dangerous N/e4 is eliminated, freeing the WN on f3 to do damage.  Black should therefore give the check to repeat.   If black does not repeat with 18…Qc1+ 19. Rd1 Qc6?, then 20. Nbd4 Qc5 21. Ng5! is crushing.  For example, 21…Nxg5 22. hxg5 Nc6 23. g6 h6 24. Rxh6+! (a typical attacking idea) 24…gxh6 25. Qf7 and wins.

18… Nc6 19. Ng5 Re7! Excellent play.  I didn’t see this which explains the prior mistake. If white gives a check on f7, black takes, takes on d4, and invades with the queen, winning.

20. Ne2 Rf8 21. Nf4? Again, I am too focused on attack against the BK when it’s high time to figure out the best ending to hold.  A better try is 21. Rd5 but black has the nice and aesthetic shot 21…Re5!! keeping a small edge.  On the other hand, the move I saw, 21… Na5 22. Rxc5 Nxb3 23. Rc7 Nf6 24. g3 Re5 25. Nc3 Rc5 26. Ra7 a5 is about equal.

21… Na5 22. Qd5 Nc4 Of course.  Black’s once dormant knight is now a powerhouse on c4.

23. h5?? Completing the ‘attack suicide’.   White can only stay in the game with 23. Nxe4 fxe4 24. Qxc5 dxc5 25. b3 Nxa3 26. Ra1 Nb5 27. Rxa6 Rb8 and although black is better, much work remains.  It’s important in action games to resist like this.

23… Nxe3+! Did I really expect 23… Nxg5 24. Ng6+ hxg6 25. hxg6+ mating?  Absurd. since 23…Ng3+ also won easily for black.

24. fxe3 Ng3+ and white resigned  0-1 in view of ruinous material loss.  Since each G/75 game followed the prior one by a short span you can see how much nervous energy is lost in the course of a single day.  Still, many players such as Shavadorj, Ehlvest, etc., tried their luck in this format.

Here is one of the tough slog G/75 games versus Show Kitagami (2075).

Ginsburg – Kitagami Round 4 (G/75) King’s Indian Averbakh

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Be2 O-O 6. Bg5 c5 7. d5 h6 8. Be3 e6 9. Qd2 exd5 10. exd5 Kh7 11. h3 b5?! A good way to make counter-play in an action game, although it is not objectively good.

12. cxb5 a6 13. Nf3 axb5 14. Bxb5 Na6 15. O-O Nc7 16.Bc4? (It was criminal for white to miss 16. Bc6! Rb8 17. Rfe1 Bb7 18. Rab1 Nfxd5 19. Bxd5 Bxc3 20. bxc3 Bxd5 21. Bxh6 and white should win.)

16… Rb8 17. Rfe1 Nd7 18. a3 (18. Rac1 Nb6 19. Bb3 Re8 20. Bf4!) 18… Nb6 19. Ba2 Ba6 20. Rab1 (Again good for white was 20. Bf4! Nc4 21. Bxc4 Bxc4 22. Re4 Bxc3 23. Qxc3 Bxd5 24. Bxh6) 20… Nc4 21. Bxc4 Bxc4 22. b4! cxb4 23. Rxb4 Rxb4 24. axb4 Even so, this is good for white.

24…Qa8 25. Bd4! Bxd4 26. Qxd4 Bxd5 27. Re7 (The strong move 27. Nh4!  never occurred to me)

27… Bxf3 28. gxf3 Ne6 29. Qf6 Ng5 30. Ne4 Kg8 31. Kg2 By far the simplest was 31. Nxg5 hxg5 32. b5! and this is clearly good for white.
31… Nxe4 32. fxe4 Qb8 A truly amazing variation was behind the scenes.  32… d5! is a good move. If  the tempting 33. e5 (33. b5! dxe4 34. b6! is stronger)  33….d4+  34. Kh2 Qd8? (34… Qb8! is correct but the text has the merit of a fantastic combination coming up) 35. e6 d3  and now study this position.  White to play and win.  The solution is really incredible.

The solution:

36. f4! (36. exf7+?? Kh7 37. f4 Qc8 38. Qd4 Qc2+ 39. Kg3 d2 40. Rd7 Qb3+ 41. Kg2 d1=Q 42. Qxd1 Qxb4 and it’s drawn) 36… d2 37. exf7+
Kh7 38. f5 gxf5 (38… Qb8+ loses more slowly and less elegantly)

39. Qxf5+ Kg7 40. Qg4+ Kh7 and now let’s pause again.  White to play and mate.  The stunning conclusion:

41. Qg8+!! Rxg8 42. f8=N double check!! Kh8 43. Rh7 mate!  Wow!  That mating pattern is not often seen!

Returning to the prosaic game, with both sides low on time,

33. Qd4 Qd8 34. Qa7 Re8!! (Escaping the bind elegantly) 35. Rxf7 (35. Rxe8+ Qxe8 36. Qb7 Qd8 37. Qd5 Qb6 38. b5 Kf8 and black is fighting)

35… Qg5+ 36. Kf3 Qh5+ 37. Ke3 Qe5 (Black misses a great blow, 37…Qxh3+ 38. f3 Rxe4+!! 39. Kxe4 Qe6+ 40. Kd4 Qxf7 41. Qxf7+ Kxf7 42. b5 Ke6) 38.  Rf4 Qe6! I had actually forgotten about this simple defense. 39. Qd4 Qxh3+ 40. Rf3 Qf1 41. Rf6 Qe1+ 42. Kf4 Qc1+ 43. Qe3 g5+ 44. Kf5 Re5+ 45. Kg6 and this crazy position the players descended into blitz chess chaos and I eventually won somehow.

Here’s the round 6 Aigner game in which I find myself once more permanently fighting against the Leningrad Dutch (I’ve previously discussed games with Fishbein, Guillermo Rey, Jack Young on this site).

Ginsburg – NM Aigner   NAO Round 6 40/2

1. d4 f5 Tigran Petrosian exclaimed “What a delight!  I love playing against the Dutch” when he faced Bent Larsen in San Antonio 1972.  I concur.

2. g3 No crazy gambit with 2. Nc3 d5 3. e4!? dxe4 4. Bf4! for me today, although white does get good play.  See my strange Fishbein game. Also well motivated is 2. Nc3 d5 3. Bg5.

2…Nf6 3. Bg2 g6 4. Nf3 There is a strong argument for the well-motivated and solid 4. Nh3! Bg7 5. c3! here, blunting the black bishop and preparing e2-e4.  For example, 5…O-O 6. Qb3+! d5 7. Nf4 e6
8. h4 c5 9. h5 gxh5 and white was better and went on to win, Hebden,M (2530)-Motwani,P (2470)/London 1990}  See also former Women’s Champ Antonia Stefanova’s crushing defeat over veteran GM Mikhail Gurevich in this line at Gibraltar 2008.  I played over this amazingly one-sided game in NIC magazine with great interest – an off-day for Gurevich who has scored many wins in this system.   Antonia did without c3 and just went right for the caveman h2-h4-h5.  Gurevich at one point had a fully acceptable game but succumbed quickly to the onslaught.

4… Bg7 5. O-O d6 6. c4 O-O 7. Nc3 Qe8 8. Qb3 More than twenty years ago I greatly surprised IM (!) Evgeny Bareev in Naestved, Denmark with 8. Nd5 Nxd5 9. cxd5 Qb5 10. e4! TN (my TN; other moves are totally harmless) and after 10…fxe4 11. Ng5! wild complications ensued.  For example, 11…Qxd5?! (he did not play this) 12. Bxe4 Qb5 13. a4 Qb4 14. a5 and white has dangerous threats. Students should look at this line some more as it has many resources for both sides.  Of course, it’s an amazing blitz weapon!  There’s no way black can navigate this position easily.  One of white’s ideas is the crude Bg2xe4, followed by Ng5xh7 and Qh5+ tearing black’s king apart.

This was the first and only time I played a 2560 FIDE-rated IM.  The game with Bareev is presented in detail here.

By the way, I picked up Bareev and Levitov’s book “From London to Elista” at the NAO Bookstore and it’s amazingly good.

8…Na6! White is hoping for black to execute his plan and … get a lost game with 8… e5?? 9. c5+ Kh8 10. cxd6 cxd6 11. Nb5! Qe7 12. Nxd6! and wins.

Position after 8…Na6 – an important moment.

9. Qa3?! The try 9. Ng5!? is very dangerous.   The tricky 9…e5  10. dxe5 Nc5?? backfires horribly – 11. exf6!! Nxb3 12. Bd5+! and white is better.

Another very serious move is 9. Rd1! and white is somewhat better.  Objectively 9. Rd1! may be the best. The moves Qb3 and Rd1 taken together are very logical to anticipate black’s telegraphed e7-e5 break.  The text prepares b2-b4 but leaving the c-pawn alone gives black fairly easy to find counter-chances.

9… c6 9… Qf7 is well met by 10. d5 h6 11. Be3 Ng4 12. Bd2 Nc5 13. h3 Nf6 14.  Ne5!! TN  (in a tournament game white missed this tactic) 14…Qe8 15. Nb5 Na6 16. Nd3 c6 17. dxc6 bxc6 18. Nc3 and white is much better.

10. b4 Nc7 10… e5 looks to best met by  11. dxe5 dxe5 12. b5! with white initiative.  Black is better off with the text move to activate the offside knight.

11. Bb2 Be6 Surprisingly here 11… e5!? is tactically feasible. If 12. dxe5 (12. e3  is not ridiculous) 12… dxe5 13. Qa5 and here the double-attack on c7 and e5 looks dangerous….but, 13…Qe7! is an effective answer.  If  14. Qxe5 (14. Nxe5 Ne4 15. Nxe4 fxe4 16. Rab1 Rf5! 17. Bxe4 Rxe5 18. Bxe5 Bxe5 and black is doing well) 14… Qxb4 and again black is fine.  In a similar Dutch position Viktor Korchnoi indeed did use the c7 and e5 double attack to quickly defeat Sergey Dolmatov as Viktor explains in his “Best Games” series.

12. d5?! A little crazy.  My eyes were burning from the lengthy games I had conducted previously in this tournament and I could not bear another slog.   If 12. Nd2 d5 13. c5 Ne4 14. Nf3 Qd8 15. e3 a5 black is fine and the game is locked up and turgid.

12… cxd5 13. Ng5 13. Nd4?? is just a blunder due to 13…Bf7!.

13… dxc4 14. Nxe6 Nxe6 15. Bxb7 Rb8 16. Bg2 I don’t eat with the queen on a7 because nasty pins can occur with the queen and bishop lined up.  The plan was long-term compensation with the bishops but it’s not correct.

16…Nd4! 17. Rac1 Ne4! 18. Nxe4? An unsound adventure.  Correct is 18. Kh1 and white can fight on although it’s uphill.

18… Nxe2+ Black also had 18… Nb5!?, which I had not forseen in my moribund state.   Fortunately white can hold with 19. Qe3 Bxb2
20. Ng5 c3!? (20… Bxc1? 21. Rxc1 e5 22. Bd5+ Kh8 23. Rxc4 Qe7 24. Rh4 h5 25. Ne6  and this variation is nice because white builds up an attack out of nowhere with the funny Rc4-h4 motif) 21. a4 Nc7 22. Qxa7 and the game toddles on.

19. Kh1

Position after 19. Kh1.  Black has a winning path.

19…Bxb2? A clear and serious misstep.  Correct is 19… Nxc1! 20. Bxg7 Kxg7 21. Ng5 and my anemic calculations only went this far anticipating an attack on black’s king, a clear case of hope-chess.  The computer quickly shows 21…Nd3! cutting off white’s queen for the moment. If 22. Ne6+ (22. Qc3+ Rf6 23. Qxc4 Nxb4 and black wins) 22… Kh6! and this is the ultimate cold shower; black is winning.  Now white is on the b2-h8 diagonal and black’s king is in big trouble.

20. Qxb2 Nxc1 21. Ng5! Nd3 22. Qd4! This position I considered to be completely hopeless for black due to the numerous threats but
the computer still finds moves.

22… h6? Collapse.  Another lemon is 22… e5 (black was reaching for this move then retracted his hand) as 23. Qxc4+ Kh8 24. Qc7! kills.

The toughest is the natural 22…Nxb4 23. a3! (23. Ne6?? Rf6) 23… h6 24. Ne6 Rf6 25. axb4 Rxb4 and the machine shows black can fight on although of course white is better.  The game ended prosaically.

23. Bd5+ Qf7 24. Bxf7+ 1-0

Study Material – The Gibraltar Upset

[Event "Gibraltar"]
[EventDate "2008.01.22"]
[Round "2"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Antoaneta Stefanova"]
[Black "Mikhail Gurevich"]
[ECO "A81"]
[WhiteElo "2464"]
[BlackElo "2607"]

1. d4 f5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Nh3 g6 4. Nf4 Bg7 5. Bg2 O-O 6. h4 Nc6 7. h5 g5 8. h6 Bh8 9. Nd3 Nxd4 10. Bxg5 Ne6 11. Bh4 d5 12. Nd2 c6 Black is actually OK here and only tosses the game away later. 13. c4 Ne4 14. cxd5 cxd5 15. Nf3 Qd6 16. Qb3 Bd7 17. Nf4 Bc6 18. Nxe6 Qxe6 19. Rd1 a5 20. Nd4 Qf7 21. g4 Bxd4?! 22. Rxd4 e5? 23. gxf5 exd4 24. Bxe4 Rae8 25. Qg3+ Kh8 Now it’s very obvious black’s king is too exposed.  He probably underestimated his opponent.

26. Bd3 b5 27. Qf4 Qa7 28. Qd6 Qf7 29. Rg1 b4 30. Rg7 Qh5 31. Rg8+! 1-0 A brutal finale.

Elsewhere on the Internet – No Comeback for Bad Bird’s

I noted with horror from Michael Goeller that attempts were being made in some quarters to rehabilitate some pretty bad variations of the Bird Defense to the Ruy Lopez.

Fortunately (for chess logic) it’s easy to see they are no good.

For example, 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nd4?! (a move that doesn’t make much sense) 4. Nxd4 exd4 5. O-O g6? was one such bad line presented as perhaps OK. But it’s not.  White has the simple move 6. c3! (not considered in the article, where 6 d3 is called the “main line”).  Yet the extremely simple and logical  6. c3! is clearly strong.  After 6…dxc3 7. Nxc3 Bg7 8. d4 black has a horrible game.    Openings genius Kenny Regan in the 1970s was actually the paragon of Bird enthusiasts but he kept to the straight and narrow with …Bc5 and …c6  lines.

After 6. c3! Bg7 white can swing for the fences with 7. e5 but then with 7…Nh6! black holds on.    After 6…Bg7 with the straightforward 7. cxd4! Bxd4 it’s not hard to see the floating black bishop is not going to bode well.    The best there is 8. d3! (deferring Nc3 because it’s not certain the N belongs there) and white is well on top, scoring 100% in the database examples I have. Even more amusingly, there is a second way for white.  The TN 7. Qa4! c6 8. Bd3 is also very good for white.  For example, 8….b5 9. Qb3 Ne7 10. a4! and white is having a lot of fun.

Conclusion:  5….g6? is terrible.

The Fabulous 70s: Trying to Make the Early Bishop Move Work

In the 1970s, I spent a lot of time (with some help from future IM Steve Odendahl) trying to make this work:

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Bb4!?

Position after 5…Bb4!? – the so-called “Pin Variation”.

I was particularly interested in 6. e5 Nd5 7. Qg4 g5!? with bizarre complications. Unfortunately the computer shows this is not very good (details shortly). Interestingly, the computer (Rybka in this case; sometimes I use Fritz) does have a good answer for the response advocated by theory: 6. e5 Nd5 7. Bd2. After 7…Nxc3 8. bxc3 Be7 9. Qg4, the computer plays 9….g6 (not 9…O-O?! 10. Bh6 and black has insufficient compensation for the exchange) and has some cleverness in store – see below. The situation is very sharp with white hoping to prove attacking chances outweigh the damaged structure. ICC tests are ongoing.

In the meantime let’s see some analysis.

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Bb4

Variation “Zero” (an early ‘digression’ sideline): 6. Nb5!? Note I don’t write 6. Ndb5 because the c-knight is pinned!

Position after 6. Nb5!? – an early digression.

Before we get into the main move, 6. e5, first we have to look at 6. Nb5!? - an interesting try. Very safe but rather static for black then is 6…O-O 7. a3 Bxc3+ 8. Nxc3 d5 9. Bd3 (or 9. exd5 exd5 10. Bd3 Re8+ 11. Ne2 Nc6 with equality) 9…d4 10. Ne2 Nc6 11. O-O e5 with an equal game. For more dynamism, my ICC blitz reaction move, 7…Ba5!? is riskier but playable and better to play for a win. It just looks nicer to keep this bishop. For example, 8. b4 Bb6 9. e5 Ne8 and it’s not clear what white has, since 10. Bd3? a6! 11. Nd6 Nxd6 12. exd6 Qf6! is good for black (although white won a minor league game, S. Schubert-T. Geissler, Bochum 1992, after some bad blunders by black later).

Black can also immediately grab but it’s risky: 6…Nxe4?! 7. Qg4! Nxc3 8. bxc3 Bf8 9. Qg3! and white has more than enough compensation.

Conclusion: on 6. Nb5!? black should play 6…O-O and then on 7. a3 he can decide to go simple with 7…Bxc3+ or go complex with 7…Ba5. In both cases, he is fine.

Variation Zero-2: An Even Rarer Early Digression Sideline. 6. Bd3. White is not hoping for anything special; he just wants to avoid black’s preparation after 6. e5. IM Bobby83 likes to play this on ICC. More on this move later.

Let’s go ahead now and look at the main move, 6. e5.

6. e5 Nd5 A preliminary comment. This position does not look so bad for black. Therefore, I predict a revisiting of black’s chances in over the board play as, inevitably, strong players resuscitate forgotten lines with computers. White has some major tries now.

The first thing to notice is that

A. 7. a3 gives nothing: 8…Bxc3+ 8. bxc3 Qc7 9. Nb5 Qxe5+ 10. Qe2 Qxe2+ (note that 10..Qf6 is playable too) and black has no problems; in fact agreed drawn at this point in 1/2-1/2 Alzate,D (2419)-Pazos,P (2363)/Medellin 2000. A possible humorous and realistic continuation is 11. Bxe2 a6 12. c4 axb5 13. cxd5 exd5 with a fantastic rare pawn formation and of course… equality since black’s ruined formation gives him no real chances despite the pawns to the plus.

Position after 13…exd5. The rare “Expanded Pawn Square” formation. It’s equal!

B. Let’s try 7. Qg4. The best reply is 7…g6 -there is insufficient compensation after 7…O-O?! 8. Bh6 g6 9. Bxf8, as has been shown many times, although some points were scored from the black side in early (For example, Julian Hodgson) due to surprise value. And, unfortunately, my 70’s funkiness of 7…g5?!! (TN) is met by 8. Ndb5! and black has a bad game after 8…Nc6 9. Qxg5! Qxg5 10. Bxg5 O-O 11. Bd2 and white keeps an edge.

Let’s go back to 7. Qg4 g6. White has three common responses; the first one being the least important.

B0. 8. a3 – slow. Black’s best reponse is 8…Bxc3+ 9. bxc3 Qc7! 10. Qg3 (what else?) and now black can play 10…Nxc3 11. Bd2 Ne4! or 11. Bd3 Nc6! in both cases with an OK game. For example, 11. Bd3 Nc6 12. Nxc6 Qxc6 13. Bh6 b6! 14. O-O Bb7 with equal chances. Previously, the weak 10…a6? (Czerniak-Van Scheltinga, Helsinki 1952, 1-0 was played). Black also has the somewhat weaker 10…Qxc3+?! 11. Qxc3 Nxc3 12. Bd2 and now 12…Ne4! is correct with a very small white edge and not 12…Nd5? 13. Nb5 and white was on top and won convincingly in Toth-Blasko Fuzesabony 1994.

B1. 8. Qg3 which looks and is slow – but not quite as slow as 8. a3, since it does guard e5.

B2. 8. Bd2 – more logical.

Let’s go through each of these in turn.

Variation B1, 8. Qg3

Position after 8. Qg3.

B1. 8. Qg3 Nc6! This is correct and not 8…Nxc3? 9. bxc3 Be7 10. Bh6 and white has an edge. If 9. Ndb5?! O-O 10. Bh6 a6! 11. Bxf8 Qxf8 and black is getting huge compensation, for example 12. Nd6 f6! 13. Nxc8 Rxc8 14. exf6? Nd4! and black is way on top.

So white should play the more sensible 9. Nxc6 and we reach an important position. 9….dxc6 is OK, but kind of boring, after 10. Bd2 Qa5 11. Be2 Nxc3 12. bxc3 Be7 13. O-O O-O. More dynamic is 9…bxc6!?, for example 10. Bc4 Qa5 11. Bd2 Ba6! with balanced play. Or, 10. Bh6? Qa5! and black is just better: 11. Bd2 (crawling retreat) 11…O-O with an edge, or 11. Kd2? craziness, refuted by 11…Qc5! and the threat of 12…Nxc3 coupled by 13…Qd4+ next will win for black.

Conclusion in Variation B1: 8. Qg3 is harmless and is defused by 8….Nc6!

Variation B2, 8. Bd2

Position after 8. Bd2.

Let’s look at Variation B2, 8. Bd2. Black should play 8…O-O and now there is a large branch. Let’s see some lines.

B20. 9. Qg3 Nc6! transposes to variation B1 and black is happy.

B21. 9. a3?! Bxc3+ 10. bxc3 f5! gives white a bad structure.

The crazy looking but not bad

B22. 9. h4!? is met by the calm 9…d6! 10. h5 dxe5 11. hxg6 fxg6 12. Nf3 Bxc3 13. bxc3 Nc6 14. Bd3 Qf6 and black has sufficient defensive chances. Black also has an alternate defense: 9. h4 Nc6!? 10. Nxc6 dxc6 11. h5 Qc7!? to guard laterally.

On the developing move

B23. 9. Bd3!?, black is advised to play 9…d6! 10. exd6 (or the slow 10. Nf3 Nc6 with equal chances) and then play 10…e5! – looks fine. For example, 11. Nf5 Bxf5 12. Bxf5 Bxc3 13. bxc3 Qxd6 and white has nothing. Chigorin would enjoy his knights here.

A trap to avoid: On 9. Bd3, not 9…Qa5 10. O-O Nxc3 11. a3!! Nxe2+ 12. Qxe2 Bxd2 13. Nb3 and white has an edge! – a fantastic tactical shot.

Another possibility: the weird

B24. 9. Bc4?! is met by the simple two-step 9…d6 10. Nde2 Nxc3 11. Nxc3 d5! – for example, 12. Be2 Nc6 13. f4 f6! and black is doing well. Similarly, 12. Bb3 Nc6 13. O-O-O Qc7 14. f4 Nd4! and black is again fine. On the other hand, the frisky 10…dxe5 11. O-O-O Nc6 12. Bh6 f5 13. Qg3! is dangerous. It’s important to leave white with a bad structure and very few attacking chances.

Finally, we have to consider the primitive capture that displaces white’s own king to weaken only temporarily black’s pawns.

B25. 9. Nxd5?! Bxd2+ 10. Kxd2 exd5. As you might imagine, black has no problems. For example, 11. Qf4 Nc6 = or 11. Bd3 d6 12. Qf4 dxe5 13. Qxe5 Nd7 =.

Conclusion: in variation B2, 8. Bd2 O-O, black has to be very alert because there are numerous attacking tries, each with specific defensive responses. No easy day at the office, but black has enough resources.

In the next post, I will look at Variation C, the main line, which is 7. Bd2.

My original 1970’s notes on 6. e5 Nd5 7. Qg4 g5?! are on tiny pieces of Hotel Lombard (New York City) stationery! This is a good illustration of pre-computer work, very disheveled.

The only organized pre-computer person I saw was backgammon and poker-player IM Elliott Winslow. His notes were in micro-small handwriting with a fine-tip pen – incredibly precise and legible even in tiny (I would say 6 pt. font) writing. He would put incredible margin notes into ECO’s and Informants. What a diligent worker! I wonder how many important TNs came from his writings (one cannot say ’scribblings’).

Similarly, others have tried another audacious early bishop maneuver to get active on the c5-f2 diagonal and dispense with the “Kan” preventative …a7-a6:

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Bc5!?

Position after the cheeky 4…Bc5!? – The Basman-Sale Variation

We’ll have to discuss this one too because the two tries are thematically linked.

Watch this space for the discussion. For now, simply notice that forcing variations are great in blitz. The chances are high that a rare variation will catch the opposition by surprise, even if they are dubious. Which of the two lines above is ’superior’ objectively? Hard to say. It might turn out to be the Pin Variation. That’s one of the things we will figure out as the discussion grows. Does this (4…Bc5) have a name? News bulletin as of January 12, 2008: according to chessmanitoba, this is called the Basman-Sale variation (see comments).
Readers: send in any games that are interesting with the Pin Variation or the Early Bc5 Bishop Sortie lines.

The Fabulous 70s: Washington Plumbers win the 1976 National Chess League!

Before the current day US Chess League, there was the pre-Internet phone matches conducted between various cities in the National Chess League.

Here is a photo of the 1976 season winners, the Washington Plumbers (so named after Nixon’s squad of burglars who broke into the Watergate hotel and started the snowball of corruption that sank the Nixon presidency). The photo was taken at the “It’s Your Move” chess club in Georgetown, Washington DC – this club has long been defunct, the victim of rising rents in popular Northwest Washington.

The 1976 National Chess League Victors, the “Washington Plumbers” (click several times to see details)

Some classic personalities in this photo. Starting from left, masters Sam Greenlaw and Robert Eberlein helped out in key matches. Third from left, very strong master Charlie Powell scored a clutch win (figuring out immense complications in severe time trouble) vs Jack Peters in a semifinal round. Next to Charlie is team captain, BVI’s own Bill Hook. Next to Bill is one of the Meyer brothers, John Meyer. Next to John is senior master Larry Gilden with his hand in the plunger, a player with one of the highest ratings in the country in the early 1970s. As Charlie Hertan writes recalling 1972, “Senior masters were very rare in those days, and except for national tournaments like the U.S. Open or fledgling World Open, you wouldn’t expect to see more than one, sometimes two, at a weekend event. Larry Gilden was usually the top-ranked player, with a “monster” rating of about 2410.”

I still remember Larry showing me a “philosopher’s wheel” (a circular chart he had made with lots of tiny Elliott Winslow-style letters). In the latter part of the 1970s, Gilden suffered a decline in playing strength. Nevertheless, he defeated me in a long up and down game where he was white in a g2-g3 Sicilian Taimonov. After the game, he exclaimed “Thank you!” I looked at him and he said, “You made me feel like a Gilden again.” This is a pretty cool after-game speech.

And next to Larry, second from right, is 1976 World Junior Champ Mark Diesen – he went to Potomac HS, the HS right next to mine (Walt Whitman HS in Bethesda). Finally, on the right, we had our star, Czech emigrant GM Lubosh Kavalek. It also didn’t hurt in 1978 that we were able to play guest star Swedish GM Ulf Anderssen in a match (Ulf was in town losing a short match 1 1/2- 4 1/2 to Lubosh in a Volvo exhibition match). I played on this team in the 1978 season.
For more information on this ancient precusor to today’s US Chess League and some games, click here.

January 2008 Postscript on Larry Gilden

I saw this in the liquor store review blogosphere: (pay close attention to the end of the interview)

“Larry!”

I was standing in a nearly empty Pearson’s this evening, just before closing time. A gray-haired gentleman with coke-bottle-thick, black-rimmed glasses looked up from the shelf that he was stocking.

He had no idea who I was.

“How would you have done against Bobby Fischer?”

Without even thinking about it, he replied, “I played him in 61. Beat him head-to-head.”

“I don’t believe you.”

We talked further.

It was the New York Chess and Checkers Club, and Larry Gilden, later named a chess FIDE Master, played Fischer in about 25 games of 5-minute speed chess.

“Beat him once, played him to a draw three times.”

“He won twenty games?”

“Yeah, about that.”

“Was he that good?”

He nodded his head. “He was a genius. It’s a shame he didn’t get the rest of his life in order.”

“Is it true you have a gambit named after you?”

I had heard of the Gilden Gambit.

He denied it. “I’m in the books, but I don’t think there’s anything named after me.”

I think the author of the italicized quote is “Don Rockwell.” At any rate, I have the Ginsburg Gambit – maybe our names are similar and things got confused. 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Bc4!!?? Nxe4 - the Ginsburg Gambit. I wonder if Gilden knows about it? I will post my 1970s analysis on it, on this site, shortly. I did realize Larry worked in a liquor store, now we know (thanks to the blogosphere) which one!   The liquor blog also contained a link to a nice finish in the game Gilden-Jakobsen, World Junior Champ., The Hague, Netherlands, 1961.

How Fearsome is the Keres Attack?

I have always wondered how to best meet the primitive move of Paul Keres, the audacious 6. g4!? in the Sicilian Scheveningen. This is a very interesting question; it greatly depends on the temperment of the two players. For example, if white is one-dimensional (attack-only) the answer might be quite different than a white player who is more positionally sophisticated. Likewise, is black yearning to counter-attack or is he content, à la Ulf Andersson, to slowly accumulate positional advantages?  Before we start, I refer interested readers to a postage stamp featuring Mr. Keres!

Let’s examine these issues in a crazy game I played as black in the Swiss “A” Team League vs. GM Lothar Vogt.

GM L Vogt (Biel) - IM Mark Ginsburg (Riehen)    2000

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e6 6. g4!?

Is it just me, or does this move look weakening?  Maybe I am being too Soviet here (“pawns do not move backward”).  One of the key squares weakened is f4.   Maybe black can get a knight there later?  Maybe black can interfere with white castling long (make him castle short) and then exploit the overextended kingside pawns? Strangely, as a junior playing white, I saw no objection to 6. g4 and played it a lot – scoring both a win and a loss versus NM John Meyer when very young. White’s agenda is clear – g4-g5 and further space gaining.  If 6…h6, black has slowed white down a little bit but he’s given white a “lever” that might help the future pawn storm. Let’s focus on the less usual methods that avoid 6…h6.

6…Nc6!?  An interesting suggestion in the old book by Kasparov and Nikitin on the Scheveningen. Black plans Nc6xd4 at some point followed, usually, by a timely …e6-e5.  This is particularly effective if white has played f2-f4.

 7. g5 Nd7 8. Be3  Logical.  A very natural alternative (but one that does not develop!) is 8. h4.  Black can then respond with 8…Nxd4 or 8…Be7 or even the provocative 8…Nde5!? aiming to exchange off a pair of knights to lessen the defensive burden.  The first one appears rather weak but the other two are more playable.  Let’s take a look.

A. Not equalizing is 8. h4 Nxd4?! 9. Qxd4 Ne5 10. Be2 Nc6 11. Qd3 Ne5 12. Qg3 Bd7 13. f4 Nc6 14. Be3 Qa5 15. O-O-O Rc8 16. a3 and white is better.

B.  8. h4 Be7 9. Be3 Qc7 10. Qd2 a6 11. O-O-O with a small edge.

C. The most principled try is 8. h4 Nde5!? 9. Be2 a6 10. Be3 Na5 11. f4 Nec4 12. Bc1 Qb6 with murky play.  White can also play 9. Nb3, avoiding the knight exchange. Then we have this example game:  8….Nde5 9. Nb3 Be7!  10. f4 Ng6 11. Qd2 h6 12. gxh6 Bh4+ 13. Bf2 Rxh6  Black is fine here. 14. O-O-O Bxf2 15. Qxf2 Qh4 16. Qxh4 Rxh4 17. Nb5 Kf8 18. f5 (18. Nxd6 Nxf4 is about level) 18… exf5 19. exf5 Bxf5 20. Nxd6 Bg4 21. Rd2 Bf3 22. Rg1 Nce5 23. Bg2 (Relatively best is 23. Nd4 Rf4 24. c3 Rd8 25. N6f5 Nc6 26. Bb5 Rd5 27. Rxg6 fxg6 28. Ne6+ Kf7 29. Nxf4 Rxd2 30. Kxd2 gxf5) 23… b6 24. Nd4 Bxg2 25. Rgxg2 Rf4 and black drew the game eventually,  1/2-1/2 Willumsen,H-Larsen,O/Aarhus 1989/EXT 1998

In this line, rather dubious is 8….Nde5 9. Nb3 Na5?! (as above, 9…Be7! is correct and not the time-wasting text) 10. Nxa5 Qxa5 11. f4 Nc6 12. Qd2 a6 13. O-O-O Be7 14. Qf2 Qc7 15. Bb6 Qb8 (white has a huge edge; I just provide the rest for tragi-comedy) 16. h4 O-O 17. f5 Bd8 18. Be3 b5 19. f6 Ne5 20. fxg7 Re8 21. Bd4 Qc7 22. Ne2 Bb7 23. Ng3 Rc8 24. Kb1 d5 25. Bd3 Nc6 26. Bc3 d4 27. Bd2 Ne5 28. Bf4 Nxd3 29. cxd3 Qd7 30. Rdf1 b4 31. Bd2 a5 32. g6 hxg6 33. h5 g5 34. h6 f5 35. Rh5 Ba6 36. Qe2 f4 37. Bxf4 gxf4 38. Rxf4 (Poor GM Kindemann!  Time trouble? He misses a forced mate with the elegant 38. h7+ Kxg7 39. h8=Q+! Rxh8 40. Qg4+ Kf7 41. Qxf4+ Ke7 42. Rh7+!! Rxh7 43. Qf8 mate) 38… Rc1+!!  A stunning black defense that must have shocked the Grandmaster. 39. Kxc1 Qc7+ 40. Kb1 Qxf4 41. Rh3 Kh7 42. Nh5 Qf7 43. Rf3?  (And now white even loses). 43…Qxh5 44. Rf8 Qxe2 45. g8=Q+ Kxh6 46. Qh8+ Kg5 47. Qg7+ Kh4 48.Qh6+ Kg3 49. Qg6+ Kh3 0-1 and black pulled off an improbable and very lucky upset, Kindermann,S (2500)-Dietze,W (2290)/Germany 1991/GER-chT.  I could not find this fiasco on chessgames.com.

 8…Be7?!  Very interesting is 8…Nde5!? here, carrying out the principal idea without delay. 

 

Position after 8…Nde5!? (Analysis) 

For example, 9. Be2 Na5!? 10. f4 Nec4 11. Bc1 (11. Bf2!?) 11…d5! with a very unclear game where black has sufficient chances.  

If white decentralizes tries the interesting 9. Nb3 avoiding exchanges, 

 

Position After 9. Nb3 – This might be pretty good 

black has the simple 9…Be7 10. f4 Ng6! with a reasonable game. The knight is well placed on g6 observing the weak squares that white’s 6th move created.  For example, 11. Qd2 h6! 12. gxh6 Bh4+ and black is fine, as was shown in Willumsen-O. Larsen 1/2, Aarhus 1989.  But 11. Qd2 looks weak; see the next paragraph for an improvement; namely 11. h4!  – in retrospect, 9. Nb3 might be good. This needs further work.

December 2007 note: recently I had the opportunity to test this line versus GM BOOrrj on ICC in a 5-minute game.

GM BOOrrj – Aries2  ICC 5-Minute, 12/28/07

9.  Nb3 Be7 10. f4 Ng6 11. h4! and this indeed is critical. White wants to swamp black and punish the unusual N on g6.  The game went: 11….h6 12. Qf3 and I could find nothing better than 12…hxg5 13. hxg5 Rxh1 14. Qxh1 and white obviously has an edge. This line needs revisiting.

 9. Rg1!? is another logical try.  9. Rg1 Nxd4 10. Bxd4 Nc6 11. Be3 Qa5! is a good move.  There might follow 12. Qd2 Be7 13. h4 O-O 14. O-O-O Rb8! Another good move to get the rook behind the battering b-pawn ram. 15. Kb1 b5 16. h5 b4 17. Ne2 Bb7 18. g6 b3!! A tactical motif well worth remembering.  Black has dynamic equality after 19. Qxa5 bxc2+.

9. h4 O-O 10. Qe2!?  White also has 10. Qd2 here but after 10…Nde5 black has no particular problems.  For example, 10. Qd2 Nde5! 11. Be2 (white has to watch the N fork on f3) 11…Na5! 12. b3 (what else?) Nac6 and black forced white into a rather ugly concession. 

The eagle-eyed reader would have noticed by now another path. Completely different is the surprisingly strong gambit line 10. g6! and white gets a strong attack after 10…hxg6 11. h5 g5 12. h6!.  Black can also defend with 10. g6!? Nde5, but after 11. gxh7+ Kh8 12. Rg1 it is looking very good for white.  Conclusion: the game move 8…Be7 is inaccurate and black would be better off with 8…Nde5 which needs practical tests.

10…Nxd4 11. Bxd4 e5   This is very commital, of course. Black gives away d5 to commence active operations.

There is the interesting (a little crazy, but interesting) gambit 11… b5!? here to scare white away from the natural plan of castling queenside. There might follow 12. Nxb5 Ba6 (Also possible is 12… Qa5+ 13. Nc3 or 13. Bc3) 13. a4 and white looks to be better, but this is a good blitz try. Black will enjoy some open lines.

The slower 11… a6 12. O-O-O b5 13. g6 fxg6 14. Bh3 Nb6 15. e5 d5 16. Qg4 Nc4 17. h5 b4 18. Ne2 g5 19. h6 g6 20. Qg3 a5 21. c3 gives white some edge.

12. Be3 Nb6 Following Nikitin and Kasparov to prepare Be6 and Rc8 and temporarily guard d5.

13. Bh3  White can play 13. O-O-O; but there are tricks. Here is an example of a pitfall line, 13…Be6 14. Rg1 Rc8 (Obvious intentions) 15. h5? Rxc3! 16. bxc3 Nc4! and black is much better after the forced and sad 17. Qf3 Qa5 18. Bxc4 Bxc4 with a huge attack.  And note that 15. Nd5? Nxd5 16. exd5 Bf5! is also very good for black. Thus black is not too afraid of 13. O-O-O.

13…Be6?!  A very cool tactical break-out here and a great blitz try is 13… d5!!?

 

Position after 13….d5!!?  (Analysis) 

14. Bxb6! (Note that 14. Bxc8? Qxc8 15. exd5 Ba3!! is very good for black!) 14…Qxb6 15. O-O-O! (The best reaction, other moves give nothing) 15…d4 16. Nd5 Qc5 17. Rdg1 Be6?! (nobody likes to play the more passive 17… Kh8 18. Bxc8 Raxc8 19. Rh3 f5 20. gxf6 Bxf6 21. h5 Rc6 and white is a bit better) 18. Nf6+! Kh8 19. Qh5 gxf6 20. Bxe6 d3 21. Bb3 Qxf2 and black is hanging on but it’s not a lot of fun.

14. g6! Our familiar gambit line is still good. Black has to play and pretend that everything is in order, but in reality white has a huge edge.

14…hxg6 15. Bxe6 fxe6 16. h5 Most accurate is 16. O-O-O! Qe8 17. Qg4 Rf6 18. Bg5 Rxf2 19. Qxe6+ Kf8 20. Qg4 and white has a big initiative.

16… gxh5 17. Rxh5?! Here, 17. Qxh5! Nc4 18. O-O-O Nxe3 19. Rdg1! Bf6 20. fxe3 Qe8 21. Rg6 is very strong and really too much for black to handle.

 17… Rc8 18. O-O-O  A good alternative here is 18. Qg4! Qd7 19. O-O-O Nc4 20. Rh6 Bf6 21. Nd5 Nxe3 22. fxe3 with a big white plus.

18… Bf6 19. Qg4 Kf7 20. Bg5  The obvious 20. Rh7 Nc4 21. Bh6 Rg8 22. Rd3 with a big attack is too strong.  However, white hasn’t done anything wrong yet – see the note to his next move.

20… Rh8 21. Rd3? Now white misses a really crushing shot. 21. Nb5! is very hard to handle. 21… Nc4 22. b3 a6 23. Na7 Ra8 24. bxc4 Rxa7 25. Bxf6 gxf6 26. Rxd6! and white wins.

21… Rxh5 22. Qxh5+ Kg8 23. Bxf6 Qxf6 24. Qe2?  Another bad miscue. 24. Rxd6! Rf8 25. Kb1 Qxf2 26. Rd1 Nc4 27. Rh1 Ne3 28. Ne2 Nf1 29. a3 Nd2+ 30. Ka2 Nf3 31. Nc3 Qxc2 32. Qg6 and white is better.

24… Qg5+ 25. Kb1  Now black is completely OK.

25…Rxc3?!!  This move was not necessary.  Black is fine after the safe and sound 25… Rc6 26. Nb5 d5 27. Nxa7 Rc4 28.exd5 exd5 29. Rg3 Rh4 30. a3 Qf4 31. Qb5 Rh6 and even has winning chances due to his superior coordination. White’s knight is sadly offside. 

26. bxc3 Na4  Yes, this looks optically great for black.  But there is no KO.

27. Qd1 d5  Black gains nothing from 27…Qh4 28. Ka1 Qxf2 29. Rxd6.

28. Ka1 Nb6   The attacking 28… Qe7 29. exd5 (white also has the simple 29. Qh5! and the black queen cannot move off of the defense of e8) 29…Qa3!? can be met by 30. Qb1 e4 31. Rh3 e3 32. Rxe3 Nxc3 33. d6! Nxb1 34. Rxa3 Nxa3 35. d7 and wins.

29. Rg3 Qf4 30. Qg1 Qf7  Playable is 30… Qf6 31. Rg6 Qf7 and black holds.

31. Rh3 dxe4  Natural and good was 31… Qf4 with a solid game.

32. Qg4 Qf5  Perfectly good is 32… Nd5 33. Qh5 Qxh5 34. Rxh5 Nxc3 35. Rxe5 Kf7 36. Kb2 Nd1+ 37. Kc1 Nxf2 38. Kd2 b6 and black has enough pawns to bother white – the chances are balanced.   The weird computer-y move 32…Nd7 is also OK: 33. Qxe4 Qxf2 is equal.

33. Rg3 Qxg4??  Awful.  Mild time trouble was no excuse.  Black holds on after 33… Qf6 or 33… Qf7 34. Rg1 Nd5 35. Qxe4 Qxf2 36. Re1 Kf7 37. Qxe5 Qf5. The exchange of queens is clearly suicide.

34. Rxg4 Now white wins easily.

34…Kf7 35. Rxe4 Kf6 36. Rb4 Kf5 37. c4 g5 38. c5 Nd7 39. Rxb7
Nxc5 40. Rxa7 g4 41. Rc7 Ne4 42. a4 Kf6 43. a5 Nxf2 44. a6 g3 45. Rc3 1-0

Very sad.  But let the investigation of defending the Keres Attack without ….h6 begin!