USCL Strange Double Blunder: Enkhbat Doesn’t Know It…Again!

Caro Double Blunder on the 4th Move!

In the recent USCL match Boston – Baltimore, we had this curiosity:

Esserman,Marc (2492) – Enkhbat,Tegshsuren (2425) [B12]
USCL Baltimore vs Boston Internet Chess Club (11), 01.11.2010

Caro-Kann Primitive Lunge Variation

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.g4?

A huge lemon!  Too soon!  Before we go on, read this article from 2009.

4. g4? - Known to be bad from 2009 USCL Action - LOL!


LOL! A gigantic reciprocal lemon!  Black misses a golden opportunity afforded by white’s premature pawn advance.  The right move, as you might have guessed, is 4…Be4!

Why?  With his 4th move, white is trying to get the bishop to go back to the horribly passive and self-blocking square of d7.  Black complies, but it was a bluff.  In many Caro variations, a bishop abandonment of the c8-g4 diagonal means white will get in the e5-e6 pawn sacrifice with good effect.  However after 4…Be4! 5. f3 Bg6, the e5-e6 move is downright weak, as a later Qd8-d6 eyes g3.  The details are in the prior article. Essentially by falling for the white bluff, black ruins his own game.  But if he knew the right move, he could exploit the weaknesses caused by white’s 4th.

5.c4 e6

At least Enkhbat should have tried 5…Na6! as he actually played in 2009!   The game could continue 6. cxd5 and now in 2009 he missed, but had at his disposal, the inventive 6…Nb4! with counterplay as was mentioned a year ago!

Talk about missed opportunities; these are opportunities already seen in Enkhbat’s prior game!

6.Nc3 Ne7 7.Nf3 Ng6 8.h4 Be7 9.h5 Nf8 10.g5 Na6 11.c5 Nc7 12.Be3 b6 13.b4 bxc5 14.bxc5 Rb8 15.Rc1 Rb2 16.Bd3 Qb8 17.Nd2 f5 18.gxf6 gxf6 19.Qg4 Kf7 20.Rg1 Ne8 21.Bxh7 Bd8 22.Bg8+ Black resigns 1-0

This game features, yet again, a double blunder on move 4!  4. g4? is very bad (it should be prepared with 4. Nc3) and then black inexplicably fails to exploit the opportunity by missing 4….Be4!.  The lemon 4…Bd7? has a pedigree – it was played by the great Tigran Petrosian vs Bronstein.  Yet 4…Be4! leads to an advantage in all lines for black.

We’ve seen this lemon line before in the USCL.   But the amazing thing is that Teshburen was involved in that game too. Incredibly, Charbonneau played 4. g4? against… the same Teshburen in 2009, who… played the weak 4…Bd7? – he didn’t learn from that incident!  However, Charbonneau, in a more recent USCL game, did demonstrate learning and found 4. Nf3! in Charbonneau-Kaufman  in earlier NY-Bal match action this year. White won that game convincingly after essaying a known gambit of the b-pawn.

The amusing thing about 4. g4? is that it really wrecks white’s game if black plays the simple 4…Be4! – white on no account wants to play f2-f3 but he has to!  With g3 weakened things go downhill!  Check the notes to Charbonneau-Teshburen for the gory details!


8 Responses to “USCL Strange Double Blunder: Enkhbat Doesn’t Know It…Again!”

  1. Hack Says:

    Hack, it wasn’t a rip on white who played a common-looking move too early, it was a rip on black who forgot the right move twice! (rare in fact I would say previously unheard of on the fourth move).

    Esserman —- Ginsburg

    1. e4 d6?? (c5!!)

    1…c6!? 2. d4 d5 3. e5!? Bf5 4. g4? Be4!; 4. Nc3!

    2. d4 Nf6
    3. Nc3 c6
    4. f4 b5
    5. e5 b4!
    6. exf6 bxc3
    7. fxg7 Bxg7
    8. bxc3 Nd7
    9. Bd3 Qa5
    10. Bd2 Nb6
    11. Nf3 Be6
    12. O-O Nc4
    13. Re1 Nxd2
    14. Qxd2 Rb8
    15. f5 Bxf5
    16. Qg5 Kf8!
    17. Bxf5 e6!
    18. Qf4 Ke7!
    19. Bxe6 fxe6!
    20. Ng5


  2. Jason Says:

    I can say with 100% confidence that Marc is aware that Nc3 is the standard move, and I wonder in that case what he has in mind for Be4….

    Take a look at the 2009 article and see if you can find something OK for white.
    It certainly doesn’t look appetizing.
    The reason Enkhbat’s 4…Bd7? is so bad is because the bishop belongs on its developed diagonal (g6 to b1). In many variations of the Caro, a possible white e5-e6 disruption pawn sacrifice is the answer if the bishop leaves the c8 to g4 diagonal. But in this case, the move 4…Be4! forces 5. f3, rendering any e5-e6 no good (due to Qd6 eyeing the newly weakened g3 square). If e5-e6 makes no sense, then white is just riddled with self-inflicted weaknesses.

  3. Matt Phelps Says:

    Right…someone else pointed that out already… The important point was it was a developing knight move. That Charbonneau-Kaufman game was another very perplexing game as Kaufman deviated from two drawn games known to theory and handed over his head before move 10.

    But Charbonneau played 4. Nf3 vs. Kaufman followed by the (S)hort move of the bishop to e2. White induced immediate resignation with g4! in that game, but it was on move 49.

    Makes me wonder about the rest of your “research.”


    -Matt “An 1800 Player Busts IM Analysis” Phelps

    Postscript: I was disappointed that a bunch of New Englanders with fake e-mail addresses (but yes, with New England IP numbers) sent personal attacks on this article. I am interested in discussing the chess following what I believe to be not such a good move, 4. g4. I would be happy if anyone had a chess comment! Also rather disturbing was the same anonymous crew posting as me on the USCL blogsite then attacking the fake-me poster in order to build up their GOTW candidate. Can’t we talk about the chess?

  4. coelacanth Says:

    I like “primitive lunge variation,” also (ala Dave Barry) an excellent name for a band. But your poll is missing an option: “I don’t know what ‘butt dialing’ is, and I’m not going to Google it.”

    I would enjoy it if a reader actually talked about the variation! I don’t mind a deluge of people from New England with fake e-mail addresses, but none of them talked about the 4. g4 (?) analysis!

  5. coelacanth Says:

    What’s to talk about? Your analysis is obviously correct: 4. g4 is a mistake, after which Black is slightly better (at least).

  6. Steve Mayer Says:

    Also, Mark, the people from NE who were giving you grief are probably very weak players and couldn’t comment one way or the other.

    On the contrary, some of them are very strong. What occurred is that a non-Boston proponent of a non-Boston candidate for GOTW faked some posts by me then some Boston fans (some of them strong) reacted badly to those fake-posts with some anonymized attacks.

    But nobody ever discussed the chess!

    • Steve Mayer Says:

      I see. I haven’t followed the silliness and thought from your article that the NE players had *initiated* the fake-posts and attacks. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

  7. Matt Phelps Says:


    I could have sworn an earlier version of this article said Charbnonneau played 4. Nc3 instead of 4. Nf3; I was merely trying to be humorous in pointing out (what I thought was) your typo.

    As for the impostor postings, I hope you’re not accusing me of them? That is one of the lowest forms of crapery on the planet in my opinion, only slightly lower than anonymous posts, which I never do, and hate as much as anyone.


    Exactly right, I had made this mistake (4. Nc3 instead of 4. Nf3) on AZScorpionChess blog site too and had to scramble to fix it everywhere!
    Don’t worry Matt you are in the clear when it comes to the cesspool of anonymous attack artists, email scamsters ,and two-bit fake-post grifters.
    Here’s what happened with the fake posts: I think some GOTW over-zealous fan from a non-Boston team faked me to boost his own candidate for GOTW, then some over-zealous Boston fans sent personal attacks with fake ID’s to various places as a response to the fake. Good times. Ono of the personal attacks had the bad grammar of a USCL personality we all know and love. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: