The Fabulous 00s: USCL Week 4 OOTW

USCL Week 4 Opening of the Week

Molner (NJ) – Herman (NY) Sicilian Najdorf  Bg5 AND Bc4 Combo Platter

It’s always funny when an ersatz pioneer “wings it” in a sharp opening, essentially making things up to confuse.    It didn’t work out in Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) vs Ludwig (DAL) in a prior week, but this time around white has better luck.

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Nbd7 8.Bc4 A strange two bishop combo platter to see if white can confuse.  It is a good try  in this crazy USCL time limit!

Lunch Combo Platter

8…Nc5

Not the cleanest solution but perfectly OK. First of all, 8…b5? 9. Bxe6 is bad.  How do we know?  Because Polugaevsky himself lost to Tseitlin once in 1971 starting from here; the sacrifice is strong.  8…b5? is too much provocation.  Black’s game move is fine.  However, in Najdorfs, do as Gelfand does! 8….Qb6! and after 9. Bb3 Be7 white has zero, as has been proven in a bunch of games.  After 10. f5, lurching forward, both 10…Nc5  (Ljubojevic-Gheorghiu, Palma 1972) and 10…e5 are fine for black.  Going back, after 8…Qb6! 9. Bxf6 Nxf6 10. Bb3 black is fine, Beliavsky-Gelfand Linares 1994.  He played 10…e5 eventually drawing but had 10..Be7 (more normal) as well.  Finally, 8…Qb6! 9. Qd2? Qxb2 10. Rb1 Qxa3 is just a really bad Poisoned Pawn line for white.  It wasn’t poisoned. 🙂

9.e5 h6 10.Bh4 g5? This is the culprit.  Too much junior energy.  The simple 10…dxe5! 11. dxe5 g5 leaves white with zero after 12. Bf2 Nfe4 or 12. exf6 gxh4 13. O-O h3!.

11.fxg5 Nfe4? A sharp position cannot stand two blunders in a row.  The positional problem is 11…dxe5 12. Nf3! with a significant white edge.  BUT black had to play this as his move just goes down the drain.

12.Qh5 And white is winning.   But one more cool moment coming up.

12…hxg5 13.Qxh8 gxh4 14.Nxe4 Nxe4 15.exd6? Here the shot 15. Bxe6!! demolishes black in short order and may have won Molner GOTW.

15…Nxd6? 15…Qxd6 and white is only somewhat better, nothing decisive.

16.Be2 Qg5 17.Nf3 Qa5+ 18.c3 Bd7 19.Qxh4 Nf5 20.Qg5 Qb6 21.Ne5 Qxb2 22.0-0 Qxe2 23.Rae1 Qb5 24.Qf6 Bc5+ 25.Kh1 Nd6 26.Qh8+ Ke7 27.Qf6+ Ke8 28.Qh8+ Ke7 29.Qxa8 Be8 30.Qb8 Qa5 31.Rd1 Ba3 32.Rxd6 Bxd6 33.Qxd6+ Black resigns 1-0

In Other Matters: A Nonsensical Sveshnikov Makes an Appearance

Arizona lost narrowly AGAIN 1.5  – 2.5, this time versus the Baltimore Kingfishers.  The match was very tightly contested.

I was very surprised to read a passage on the Baltimore blog, “Now, as the match began, the players clearly made adjustments for the shorter (60/30) time control as they moved quickly through their openings, especially FM Shinsaku Uesugi, who had specifically prepared much of the Sveshnikov line he played on Board 4. He appeared quite calm and strolled about observing the other three games until about 24. Nb6. He had the worse position until NM Leo Martinez played 37. h4? instead of h3!”

This might make sense if we didn’t have access to the game score.  But what actually happened is that Uesugi played a  completely losing move on move 16.  Jansa showed us why in 1996 (see postscript).

In the opening, 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bg5 a6 8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.c3 Bg7 12.exf5 Bxf5 13.Nc2 0-0 14.Nce3 Be6 15.Bd3 f5 16.0-0 f4?? Oh, dear. 16…e4 is the main line for a good reason.

Prep Suicide Bluff

White found the right response with  17.Qh5! and yes, he is now officially winning.

17…Rf7 (forced) 18.Bxh7+ (sadly, 18. Qxh7+ and Bg6 next is also completely winning with similar lines) 18…Kf8 19.Bf5 and yes, White played fine and this is winning (although 19. Bg6 ALSO winning is more to my taste than the game 19. Bf5, as it allows less – I refer you to the Postscript for a completely crushing Jansa victory that should have wound up in the textbooks?   Everything was fine until the possible 3-fold repetition came up on moves 22 and 23.  It’s hard in a team event to know what to do – white is lower rated going in, and a draw in the abstract seems really good and IS good, for our team.  But white’s position is so good!  Our fourth board spaced out at this juncture for many minutes, not really looking at the board, just well…spacing out. Robby, our third board, and I noticed this and we each started praying independently he would repeat. The tough thing was none of boards 1, 2, or 3 were clear at all at this specific juncture. -it was still the early going  In the USCL time limit nothing is “winning” unless a player is likely to have a firm handle on all the tactics (see Benjamin-Kacheishvili, NJ vs NY Week 4, for an example of time pressure ruining a well played effort by white). But our 4th board in the end did not repeat, and it was pretty much a given considering his mental state he wouldn’t sense all the tactics and tricks coming up.  He wasn’t focused at all on his board. That’s exactly what happened; he missed a pretty simple tactic a few moves later and lost (by this time having very little time, since he spent a lot of time during the big space-out).    So in a twisted sense the Uesugi high-level bluff (‘prepping’ a losing move?!?) paid off big-time for Baltimore since it put our fourth board into deep orbit when the possible repetition came up.

Postscript: The Jansa Solution

The solution to the “Uesugi Problem” aka “Uesugi Bluff” was shown to us in 1996 by veteran GM Vlastimil Jansa.  In this game, Jansa shows fantastic tactical foresight.  Here is what happened in Jansa-Salai Hungarian League 1996.  I would assume this is in Sveshnikov handbooks, but readers…?

18. Bxh7+ Kf8 19. Bg6! Raa7 (nothing better) 20. Bf5!! A fantastic switch.  Why lure the rook to a7 you ask?  You’ll see!  20…Rxf5 21. Nxf5 Bxd5 22. Rfd1! Bf7 23. Qh7 Bg8 24. Qg6 and white win in short order as black collapses (that was the game continuation).  But if black follows the “Uesugi keep the white knights dangling plan” and plays 18. Bxh7+ Kf8 19. Bg6! Raa7 20. Bf5!! Qe8, then white shows the brilliance of his 19th move.  He plays 21. Bxe6 Qxe6 22. Qg4 and look!  Black can’t follow Martinez-Uesugi with 22…Qh6 due to 23. Qc8+ and mate!  Wow!  If 22…Qe8, for example, 23. Nc2 and white is winning.  What a nuance! So white just has a pawn up and all the light squares in an ending.

In case you are wondering, for completeness we have to look at one other defense, one that Salai avoided for good reason in the 1996  Jansa game.  18. Bxh7+ Kf8 19. Bg6 fxe3 20. fxe3 Raa7 loses to the nice domination  21. Bxf7 Rxf7 22. Rxf7+ Bxf7 23. Rf1 Qd7 24. Qg6 Nd8 25. b4 Ne6 26. Qg4 Qe8 (26…Ke8 27. Qxg7!! wins)  27. h4 and black is in total zugzwang

By the way for amusement here are the 16…f4?? USCL player’s ICC finger notes.  Joel Benjamin opined that he simply got confused because …f4 is perfectly playable in the Bd3-c2 retreat line (but not in the Martinez move order).

Uesugi-BAL has not played any rated games yet.

1: If you play 1.e4, I will play c5
2: If you play 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3, I will play Nc6
3: If you play 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4, I will play cxd4
4: If you play 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4, I will play Nf6
5: If you play 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3, I will play e5
6: If you play 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5, I will
play d6
7: I do not lie, be prepared

Advertisement

The Fabulous 80s: The Pan-Am Intercollegiates 1981

The 1981 Pan Am Intercollegiates were in New York City, I think at the Statler Hotel. This was my first year in graduate studies at Columbia University. The University of Toronto featuring Ian Findlay won this year (the middle year of a 3-year run by UT). If I am not mistaken, both Steve Odendahl (with a Nimzovich Defense, 1….Nc6) and Gregory Markzon upset Joel Benjamin at this event.

2/29/08 note from Dave Gertler:  “I don’t know about Markzon, but Odendahl did beat Benjy (w/Nimzovich) at ’81 Pan-Am.  In fact, in the Yale-Swarthmore match, black won on all 4 games! Tragically, I was white on bd. 2.  “

Photo Time

From left (standing): Jon Schroer, the author, Steve Odendahl, and Eric Tall.

We were not on the same team – this was a staged photo around the trophy that Ian Findlay took home to Canada (U. Toronto). Seated: Michael Wilder, I think he was a high school student/observer.

New York City, December 1981

Steve Odendahl (left), Michael Wilder (center), and the author. Pan-Ams December 1981, NYC.

Three Games from the Event

Here are three amusing games. There is also some good theoretical content.

Richard Costigan (2353, U. Pittsburgh) – M. Ginsburg (2478, Columbia “A”), Pan-Am 12/1981. Round 6. Time control: 40/2

Sicilian Pelikan.

My opponent is still going strong, he is an IM now and I played him in the World Open 2007.

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Ndb5 d6 7. Bf4 e5 8. Bg5 a6 9. Na3 Be6!? This is an interesting move that I used to beat Joel Benjamin also in 1981. It has good surprise value versus the regular “Sveshnikov” move 9…b5.

10. Nc4 Rc8

Position after 10…Rc8. New-Age Pelikan.

11. Nd5 Joel played 11. Ne3 inviting a strange gambit sequence. That game went 11.Ne3 Qb6! 12.Rb1 Nxe4! A crazy gambit line that Jon Tisdall showed me. 13.Nxe4 h6! Regaining the piece due to 14. Bh4 Qb4+! – a strange lineup along the 4th rank. 14.c3 hxg5 15.Bc4! White gets good compensation on the light squares. 15…Nd8 16.Bb3 Be7 17.O-O Qc6 18.Nd5 Bxd5 19.Bxd5 Qd7 20.Qb3 O-O 21.Rfd1 g6 22.c4 Ne6 23.Qh3 Kg7 24.Bxe6 fxe6 25.b3 Rf4 26.Qe3 Qc6 27.Ng3 Qc5 28.Qe2 Rcf8 29.Rd2 R8f7 30.Rbd1 Qc6 31.h3 g4! 32.hxg4 Rxf2! Very strong. White cannot withstand the long ranging queen, center pawns, and strong dark squared bishop and eventually goes under. 33.Qxf2 Rxf2 34.Rxf2 d5 35.Rfd2 Bg5 36.Re2 Bf4 37.Nf1 e4 38.Kh1 Be5 39.g5 d4 40.Nd2 e3 41.Nf3 Qe4 42.Ree1 d3 43.Rxd3 Qxd3 44.Nxe5 Qc3 45.Nf3+ e5 46.Re2 e4 47.Ng1 Qd4 48.Nh3 Qd1+ 49.Ng1 Qd2! The beginning of the end. 50.Kh2 Kf7 51.Kg3 Ke6 52.Kh2 Kf5 53.g3 Kxg5 54.Kg2 Kg4 55.c5 Qd4 56.b4 Qxb4 57.Rxe3 Qd2+ 58.Re2 Qd3 59.Kf2 Qxg3+ 0-1, Benjamin-Ginsburg, NYC 1981. This game wound up in an early Kasparov / Keene “BCO” oeuvre.

White can also play 11. Bd3 Be7 12. O-O O-O (or 12… b5 13. Nd2 Nb4 14. Be2 O-O 15. Bxf6 Bxf6 16. a3 Nc6 17. Nd5 Nd4 18. c3 Nxe2+ 19. Qxe2 Rc5 with an OK game) 13. Qe1 Nb4 14. Ne3 Ng4 15. Bxe7 Qxe7 16. a3 Nxd3 17. cxd3 Nxe3 18. Qxe3 and white went on to win, 1-0 [37], Nijboer,F (2375)-Ligterink,G (2455)/Wijk aan Zee 1988/EXT 1997.

11… Bxd5 12. exd5 Possible is 12. Bxf6 gxf6 13. exd5 (or 13. Qxd5!?; according to my scorepad, this occurred in Kudrin-MG, NYC Futurity Swiss 1981. I rated the position as unclear. There might follow 13…Nb4 14. Qd2 d5 15. exd5 Qxd5 and white can claim a small edge.) In this game, white tries a dubious gambit but I am able to refute it.

12… Ne7 13. Qd3 Nexd5! 14. O-O-O (1:04) Rc5! (1:16) A strong TN. Black is better after accepting the center pawn gambit.

Position after 14…Rc5! – black won the opening discussion.

15. f4 Qc7 16. fxe5 dxe5 17. Qf5? 17. Qb3 Be7 18. Ne3 h6 19. Nxd5 Nxd5 20. Bxe7 Nxe7 and white is worse, but not yet lost.

17… Be7 18. Nd2 (1:41) g6! 19. Qf3 Rxc2+ 20. Kb1 O-O (1:39) Now black is just winning.

21. Bd3 Rc6 22. h4 Nb4 23. h5 Nxd3 24. Qxd3 Nxh5 25. Ne4 f5 26. Qd5+ Kg7 27. Bxe7 (1:58) Qxe7 28. Nd6 Nf6? A more tactically alert player would find the much stronger is 28… Nf4 29. Qd2 Rf6 and white’s knight is trapped! The text unnecessarily prolongs the game but the final result is not affected since white had no time left to think.

29. Qd2 Ng4 30. Qb4 Rc7 (1:56) 31. Qb6 Nf6 32. Qe3 Rd7 33. Qh6+ Kg8 34. Nc4 Rxd1+ 35. Rxd1 And white lost on time. Columbia won the match 3-1.

0-1

In the next game I faced sharpshooter Dmitri London, a very dangerous and active opponent. I attach the USCF ratings at the time as a historical curiosity. I believe we lost Dmitri to the workforce at some point in the late 80’s or early 90s.

M. Ginsburg (2478, Columbia “A”) – Dmitri London (2383, Brooklyn College) Gruenfeld Defense.

Round 7.

 

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. c4 Bg7 4. Nc3 d5 5. Qa4+ Bd7 6. Qb3 dxc4 7. Qxc4 O-O 8. e4 Bg4 9. Ne5 Nc6! Excellent. Black gains full equality.

10. Nxc6 bxc6 11. f3 Be6 12. Qa4 Nd7 13. Be3 Nb6 14. Qb4 Qd6 15. Qxd6 cxd6 16. O-O-O Rab8 17. Bg5 Rfe8 18. h4 h6 19. Bf4 a5 20. g3 a4 21. Rh2 Rb7 22. Rc2 White’s maneuvers are slow and ponderous, but enough to hold the balance.

22…Reb8 23. Kb1 Nc4 24. Bxc4 Bxc4 25. e5 g5 26. hxg5 hxg5 27. Bxg5 dxe5 28. Nxa4 Rb4 29. Nc5 exd4 30. a3 d3 31. Nxd3 Ra4 32. Bf4 Rd8? A mistake. 32… e5! is right – this surprising move gives equality: 33. Nxe5 Bb3 34. Rd3 Bxc2+ 35. Kxc2 Rb5 36. Re3 Rc5+ 37. Kb1 Rb5 38. Ka2 Ra8 39. Nc4 Rd5 40. Kb1 Bd4 41. Re7 Rh5 – about equal.

33. Rcd2 Be6 34. Ne5 Rxd2 35. Rxd2 c5 36. Rd8+ Kh7 37. Kc2 Ra7 38. Nc6 Rb7 39. Be5 f6 40. Bf4 Bd7 41. Na5 Ra7 42. b4 In this pleasant position and obviously superior position, I offered a draw here to clinch a win for our team.

42… Ba4+ Black refuses! He is battling for his team – but he has a bad game!

43. Kd2 Ra6 44. Be3 cxb4 45. axb4 Nothing much has changed – I offer a draw again.

45…f5 And black declines again! Good fighting spirit, but what can be accomplished on the board?

46. g4 fxg4 47. fxg4 Re6 48. Rd5 Re4 Now black offers a draw. But it’s now painfully clear white can play on with no risk. And so I advance my passed pawn.

49. b5 Rxg4?! Black immediately goes wrong. He should sacrifice to get rid of the potential threat with 49… Bxb5 50. Rxb5 Rxg4 51. Nc6 Kg6 52. Nxe7+ Kf7 53. Nf5 Rg2+ 54. Kd3 Rb2 55. Ra5 Rb3+ 56. Ke4 Rb4+ 57. Kd5 Bf6 and it should be drawn.

50. b6 Rg2+ 51. Kd3 e6? A decisive mistake. Correct is 51… Bc2+! 52. Kc4 Be4! 53. Rd1 Kg6 54. Kb5 Bf3 55. Rg1 Rxg1 56. Bxg1 Ba8 57. Ka6 Bd5 and black will be able to hold this.

52. Rh5+ Kg6 53. Rc5 It’s now winning for white.

53…Bd1 54. b7 Be2+ 55. Ke4 Rg4+ 56. Bf4 Black resigned. We won the match 3-1.

1-0

 

And finally here’s a battle from the last round.

James Thibault (2318, Rhode Island College “A”) – M. Ginsburg (2478, Columbia “A”) Round 8. Sicilian, 2. c3.

My opponent won the 1977 National High School on tiebreaks – see the amusing National High School history page written by Steve Immitt. I was present at that tournament but lost chances at top honors when I claimed a win on time in the penultimate round but my opponent, Mark Stein, stunned me by ignoring my valid claim (I neglected to stop the clocks, or even more radically seize the clock as I have seen many excited players do) and simply making a move. I then made a move in reply and got up to get the TD, nullifying my claim. Bravo! It pays to know the rules in these common situations.

1. e4 c5 2. c3 d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. d4 Nf6 5. Nf3 e6 6. Bd3 Nc6 7. O-O cxd4 8. cxd4 Be7 9. Nc3 Qd6 10. Be3 O-O 11. Rc1 a6 12. a3 Rd8 Very solid but a little passive.

13. Ne4 Nxe4 14. Bxe4

Position after 14. Bxe4

14…Bf6 Playable is 14… Bd7 15. d5 exd5 16. Qxd5 Qxd5 17. Bxd5 Be8 18. Be4 Bf6 19. b4 Bd7 20. h3 and drawn shortly, 1/2-1/2 Short,N (2485)-Sosonko,G (2575)/Amsterdam 1982.

15. Qc2 g6 Bad is 15…h6? 16. Rfd1 Ne7 17. Ne5 Nd5 18. Nc4 Qc7 19. Qb3 b5 20. Ne5 Bxe5 21. Rxc7 Bxc7 22. Rc1 Bb7 23. Rxc7 Nxc7 24. Bxb7 and white won, 1-0 Iordachescu,V (2601)-Dutreeuw,M (2389)/Turin 2006.

16. Rfd1 Ne7 17. Ne5 Nd5 18. Ng4 Bg7 19. Bg5 Rf8 Stronger is 19… f6! 20. Bxd5 exd5 21. Nh6+ Bxh6 22. Bxh6 Bf5 and it is equal.

20. Bxd5?! 20. Nh6+ Kh8 21. Qc5 Qxc5 22. Rxc5 b6 23. Rc6 Rb8 is only a tiny bit worse for black.

20… exd5 21. Nh6+ Kh8 22. Qc7 Qxc7 23. Rxc7 Be6! Black is all right.

Position after 23…Be6! Black stands well.

24. Be3 If 24. Rxb7 there is a tactical trick: 24…f6 25. Bd2 g5! black has a good game: 26. Bb4 Bxh6 27. Bxf8 Bxf8 28. Rb6 Bf7 29. Rxf6 Kg7 30. Rc6 Be7.

24… b5 25. Rc6 a5 26. b3?? A bad mistake fatally weakening the queenside pawns.

26…Rfc8 27. Rdc1 Rxc6 28. Rxc6 Bf8 29. Bf4 Maybe black will overlook the mate threat?

29…Kg7 30. Bc1 Re8? Easily winning is the simple tactical sequence 30… a4! 31. b4 (31. bxa4 Rxa4 32. h3 – sadly white has to waste time to extricate the h6 knight – 32…Bxa3 33. Bxa3 Rxa3 34. Ng4 b4 35. Rb6 b3 and wins) 31…Bxb4! and wins rapidly and efficiently.

31. g4 In this terrible position, white offers a draw! Black of course declines.

31…Bd7 32. Rc7 Re1+ 33. Kg2 Rxc1! White could resign after this simple blow. However, black shows shaky technique at several points and we reach a weird ending: R, B and wrong rook pawn versus Rook!

34. Rxd7 Kxh6 35. Rxf7 Bxa3 36. h4 g5? Very easy was 36… Rc3 37. f3 g5 38. hxg5+ Kxg5 39. Rxh7 Rc2+ 40. Kf1 Kf4 and wins in a few moves.

37. Rf6+ Kg7 38. hxg5 Be7 39. Rb6 b4 40. Rb7 Kf7 41. Ra7 Ra1?! Simple was 41… Rd1 42. f4 Rxd4 43. Kf3 Rd3+ 44. Kf2 Rxb3 and wins.

42. f4 Ra2+ 43. Kg3 a4? 43… Ra3 is yet another simple win. Now the game enters the tortuous ending phase.

44. bxa4 Ra3+ 45. Kf2 b3 46. Rb7 Rxa4 47. Rxb3 Rxd4 48. Kf3 Bd6 49. Rb7+ Kg8 50. f5 Rf4+ 51. Ke2 d4 52. f6 Bf8 53. Rd7 Rxg4 54. Kf3 Rxg5 55. Rxd4 Rg6 56. Rf4 Kf7 57. Rh4 Bh6 58. Ra4 Rxf6+ 59. Kg4 Kg6 60. Rb4 Bg5 61. Rb7 h5+ 62. Kg3 h4+ 63. Kg2 Kh5 64. Rb4 Rc6 65. Kh3 Rc3+ 66. Kh2 Be7 67. Rd4 Bf6 68. Re4 Bd8 69. Rb4 Bc7+ 70. Kh1 Kg5 71. Ra4 Bf4 72. Ra1 Kg4 73. Rg1+ Bg3 74. Rg2 Kh3 75. Rh2+ Kg4 76. Rg2

Position after 76. Rg2. Care is required.

Naturally black has to be alert to stalemate tricks and not trade rooks with the wrong rook pawn, if white’s king is near the h1 corner!

76…Rc1+ 77. Rg1 Rc6 78. Rg2 Kf3 79. Rg1 Rc2 80. Rg2 Bf2 81. Kh2 Rc1 82. Kh3 Bg3 83. Rg1 Rc2 84. Rg2? A mistake. Tougher is 84. Rh1 (not 84. Rf1+ Rf2 85. Rh1 Kf4! with zugzwang) 84…Rf2 85. Rf1! Ke3! This is the right move, to triangulate to f4. 86. Rh1 Kf4! with the same zugzwang as in the prior note. Or, 86. Re1+ Kf4 87. Rh1 Kf5! with a similar zugzwang. White’s rook is tied to h2, defending the mate, and he has no moves.

84…Rf2! And in light of 85. Rxf2 Kxf2! giving the white king an escape hatch at g4 to release the stalemate but not letting him back to the h1 corner, White resigned.

0-1

The match was drawn 2-2. (RIC “A” vs Columbia).