My role this season will be The Openings Guide.
I will round up interesting openings from each week. Since the games are played at such a fast time control, it’s often the case that dubious openings (bluffs or semi-bluffs) work out. Those are particularly interesting to me. I am checking things with Rybka 4 and Fritz 12 reference database 2010.
USCL Week 9 action sees a Caissic Horror Show brought out of the storage closet for Halloween!
Charbonneau, Pascal (NY) -Enkbhat, Tegshsuren (BAL)
Caro Hyper-Advance USCL Special
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. g4? LOL! This move is not good! White ‘forgets’ to play the mainline 4. Nc3 first covering e4. An ideal risky line in USCL fast time limit play unless black knows it (nightmare scenario).
LOL!4…Bd7?! LOL again! Black submits to white’s bully-boy ploy and transposes inadvisedly into an old Bronstein-Petrosian 1959 USSR Ch. game. Note his game is not at all bad here, but students of the Nezhmet-Mackenzie Wars (striking similarities to TV’s Clone Wars) know that black should pop into the juicy square with 4… Be4! 5. f3 Bg6 and white is hurting in all variations. For example, 6. h4 h5 7. Bd3 Bxd3 8. Qxd3 e6 and ewww. Or, 7. Ne2 hxg4 8. Nf4 Bh7 9. fxg4 e6 10. Nc3 c5! and black is faster. The nice thing is that black doesn’t have to do anything special, white’s problems are all self-inflicted with the 4. g4? lunge. Consult the above link for full gory details.
In SOME Caro lines, but definitely not here, black doesn’t want to move off the c8-f5 diagonal in fear of a white sac e5-e6. Here, though, that sac fails miserably but black didn’t know that, and this accounts for black’s mistake in the game. The reason it fails here is that white’s disgusting pawns on f3 and g4 open up the g3 square for black’s queen after Qd8-d6.
5. c4 Na6!? A nice inventive move. Black starts to redeem himself after the misstep last move. After the plausible but passive 5… e6 6. Nc3 Ne7 7. c5 (White might be better off not doing this) 7…b6! 8. b4 a5 9. Na4 Nc8! 10. Rb1 axb4 11. Rxb4 bxc5 12. dxc5 here Petrosian played 12…Qc7? and missed a great shot, namely: 12… Na6! 13. Bxa6 Qa5!! exploiting white’s uncoordinated army. After 14. Bd2 Qxa6 black is just better. In the game Petrosian held on and drew, but Bronstein stood better with the space advantage (USSR Ch. Tbilisi 1959).
6. cxd5 After 6. Nc3 the move 6…Be6!? is very interesting. For example, 7. Nh3 dxc4 8. Nf4 Qd7 9. Nxe6 Qxe6 10. f4 g6 11. b3 h5 12. f5 gxf5 13. Bxc4 Qg6 14. gxf5 Qg2 15. Rf1 Nb4 and it’s anybody’s game. Not for the faint of heart. Even so, 6. Nc3 might be stronger; note black’s big improvement on move 6 in the game.
Knight Jump! Do it!6… cxd5?! Boo! Black doesn’t follow through on his nice last move! Indicated was the logical and aesthetic knight jump 6…Nb4! exploiting the early g2-g4 opening of the c6-h1 diagonal. If 7. e6 (7. Qb3 Nxd5 8. Qxb7 Rb8 9. Qxa7 Nb4 10. Na3 Bxg4 11. Bd2 e6 and black is all right) 7…fxe6 8. Nf3 cxd5 and black is fine. Another humorous line: 7. Nc3 Qb6!? (7…Nxd5 is dead equal) and black can always take on d5 with the knight later. This game was just one big set of black missed opportunities.
7. Nc3 e6 8. h4 h5 9. gxh5 Nh6 Here, the immediate 9…Qc7 10. a3!? Nc7!? makes sense, rerouting right away the problem knight on a6.
10. Bd3 Qb6 11. Nge2 Nc7 12. a3 a5? Last chance to be competitive with 12…O-O-O! unclear.
13. Na4 Qa7 14. Rg1 Bb5 15. Bc2 We’re far afield of the opening now, but just notice that the simple 15. Bxb5+ Nxb5 16. Bxh6 Rxh6 17. Rc1 leaves black with a completely dreadful game. This is just to highlight that black drifted while white was purposefully developing.
15…Nf5 16. Bxf5 exf5 17. Ng3 Bd7 18. Be3 b5 19. Nc5 Bxc5 20. dxc5 Qa6 21. Rc1 O-O-O 22. c6 Be6 23. Qd4 g6 24. Bg5 Rde8 25. h6 Kb8 26. Ne2 Qa7 27. Qd2 Bc8 28. Bf6 Rh7 29. Nd4 Qb6 30. Rg3 Rxh6 31. Nxb5 Rxh4 32. Bxh4 Qxb5 33. Bf6 Ba6 34. Kd1 f4 35. Rgc3 d4 36. Rf3 Nd5 37. Kc2 Qxc6+ 38. Kb1 Qb6 39. e6 Nc3+ 40. Ka1 Qxe6 41. Qxf4+ Ka8 42. bxc3 Qb3 43. cxd4 Bd3 44. Rxd3 Qxd3 45. Qg3 1-0
Well, I hope next time we see the juicy 4…Be4! on the board!
I see Jan van de Mortel won Game of the Week with an interesting Dragon vs Bartholomew. The variation as a whole does not have a good reputation. I am still a fan of 14. Rc1! and am a) surprised Bartholomew did not play it and b) wondering how Jan would improve if Bartholomew had played it. The full move order being
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 9.0-0-0 Nxd4 10.Bxd4 Be6 11.Kb1 Qc7 12.Nd5 Bxd5 13.exd5 Rfc8 14.Rc1!.
In Week 8, we had an interesting old-school Semi-Slav Meran (think Larsen, Uhlmann, and other giants of 1960s Candidate Matches!) with lots of twists and turns.
Before proceeding, you must, must play over these titanic Uhlmann-Larsen Semi-Slav games. You’ll be glad you did. Larsen in his heyday really uncorked some nice tactics and had a nice positional flow as well. And Uhlmann was no weakie, scoring quite a few wins over Larsen in his career.
From 1968. Larsen finds a back-rank weakness to conclude the game, demonstrating the power of a Q&N versus weak pawns.
From the 1971 Candidates Match. Computers showed this to be a swindle where black should have lost but it was still a nice king-hunt.
And my personal favorite, also from the 1971 Candidates Match, Larsen ends the game with a spectacular bishop move that overloads white’s forces.
OK, now that this necessary historical detour is out of the way, on with the USCL action.
Vinay Bhat (SF) – Alexander Stripunsky (QNS) USCL Week 8, Semi-Slav Meran
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. e3 Nbd7 6. Bd3 dxc4 7. Bxc4 b5
The Meran8. Bd3
I want to draw the readers’ attention to the interesting try popularized by Larsen and Korchnoi in the 1960s, 8. Bb3!?. After, for example, 8…b4 9. Ne2 Ba6 10. O-O Be7 11. Re1 O-O 12. Nf4 Nd5? (12… c5 13. e4 c4 14. Bc2 is very complex) 13. e4 Nxf4 14. Bxf4 white was simply better in and won in the ending,1-0 Kortschnoj,V-Ciric,D/Leningrad 1964. And 8. Be2 is a totally different story, too. The text is by far the most popular, but an argument can be made not to block up the d-file.
8… Bd6 9. O-O O-O 10. Qc2 Bb7 11. a3 a5!?
Here, 11… Qe7 was met by the surprising gambit 12. Ng5!? Bxh2+ 13. Kxh2 Ng4+ 14. Kg1 Qxg5 15. f3 and black could not hold the position in the long run, 1-0 Vyzmanavin,A (2580)-Shirov,A (2710)/Tilburg 1992.
To e3-e4 or not to e3-e412. e4!? Slovenian GM Alexander Beliavsky is a connoisseur of slow build-ups. Here, he preferred 12. Bd2!? Qe7 13. h3 b4 14. axb4 axb4 15. Ne4 Nxe4 16. Bxe4 Nf6 17. Bd3 c5 18. dxc5 Bxc5 19. Rxa8 Rxa8 20. Rc1 Bd6 21. e4 Nd7 22. Bg5 f6 23. Be3 Rc8 24. Bc4 Ne5 (24… Bc5!) 25. Nxe5 Bxe5 26. Qb3 Kf8 27. f3 Rc6 28. Rd1 Bxb2?? (28…h6 +=) 29. Bb5 Rc3 30. Qxb2 Rxe3 31. Qd4! 1-0 Beliavsky,A (2545)-Platonov,I/Kiev 1978. A very nice piece win tactic at the end. With the game move, white asserts in the center. However, observe the note to black’s 15th and also black’s suggested improvement on move 16. These seem to suggest black is OK here. We might want to focus on 12. Bd2!? again as unassuming as that looks.
12… e5 13. dxe5 Nxe5 14. Nxe5 Bxe5 15. h3 Re8!?
Dubious looks 15… c5?! 16. Bxb5! (The other capture, 16. Nxb5 is met by the perplexing 16…c4! 17. Bxc4 Nxe4 with some activity) 16… Bxc3 17. bxc3 Bxe4 18. Qe2 and white was definitely better. However, black hung on and drew later, 1/2-1/2 Epishin,V (2615)-Dokhoian,Y (2545)/Moscow 1991/URS-ch
But very interesting and logical here is 15… Nh5!? 16. Ne2 Re8? (16…Qd6! 17. f4 Rad8!, a key Meran tactic to remember, and it’s fully equal!) and white won, 1-0 Maric,A (2443)-Tkeshelashvili,S (2286)/New Delhi 2000. It’s always thematic in Merans to work on the dark squares.
16. Be3
Key Moment16…Qe7? Black misses the nice resource 16… Bd4! with level chances.
17. Ne2! Now black has problems with his sleeping Bishop on b7 and strange queenside pawns.
17…Bc7 Nothing is solved by 17… Rad8 18. Rad1.
18. Bc5! Bd6 19. Bxd6 Qxd6 20. f4? Up to this point, white had a clear and pleasant advantage, with the passive B/b7. However now he’s too impulsive and lets that fellow out of the box. After the simple 20. Rad1! black is suffering. For example, (20… Qc7 21. Bxb5 Nxe4 22. Nd4 and white maintains a plus.
20… c5! We’re out of the opening now, and black opportunistically has created a good game. I will just draw attention at the end to one very USCL-style double blunder that occurred.
21. e5 Qb6 22. Rf2 c4 23. Bf5 Nd5 24. Re1 Ne3 25. Qb1 Nxg2 26. Rd1 Rad8 27. Bd7 Re7 28. Rd6 Qc5 29. Qd1 Ne3?? Time pressure? Very nice was 29… Nxf4!! 30. Nxf4 Qxe5 31. Ng2 Qg3 32. Kf1 Be4 33. Nf4 Bd3+ 34. Nxd3 Qxd6 and wins.
30. Bc6? Maybe also time trouble? White misses the escape 30. Bxb5! Rf8 31. Qd4 Qxb5 32. Nc3 Qe8 33. Qxe3 Re6 and it’s equal!
30… Rxd6 31. Qxd6 Qxc6 32. Qxc6 Bxc6 33. Nd4 Bd7 0-1
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 controlAfter 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
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 Truth43.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!
Let’s explore an interesting junior battle.
Gerald Larson (TEN) – Trevor Magness (CHI) USCL Week 7
Ruy Lopez Exchange
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.0-0 Bg4 6.h3 (?!)
Let’s try NOT doing h3 yet (this committal move gives black a ready-made lever on the kingside). I’m going to recommend here the eccentric-looking 6. d3!? Qf6 7. Nbd2 O-O-O 8. a4!? awaiting events. For example, 8. a4 g5 9. h3 Bh5 10. Qe2! Kb8 11. g4! Bg6 12. Nc4! and white has an edge. Delaying h2-h3 looks foxier. It also probably has the advantage of taking black out of the well-known channels.
6…h5! Of course! Known to be bad for white now is 7. hxg4 hxg4.
I enjoy junior games. There will always be the sharpest twist on the most innocuous starting positions. No theoretical verdict has been reached on this line. Let’s see what happened…
7.d3 Qf6 8.Nbd2 Ne7 9.Re1 Ng6 White is fairly tied up now due to the pressure on f3. His next move alters the structure but he could also eat on g4 at this moment.
Key Moment10.d4
After the only optically risky 10. hxg4!? hxg4 11. Nh2? Bc5! black had a big edge and won in Fressinet-Kazhgaleyev, Paris 1996. Correct is 11. g3! and white holds after some adventure: 11. g3! Bc5 12. Nb3! Bb6 (Looks terrible for white, doesn’t it? But… white escapes!) 13. Bg5 Qxf3 14. Qxf3 gxf3 15. Nd2 f6 16. Be3 Ba5! 17. c3 O-O-O 18. Rad1!! Rxd3 19. Nc4! and draws!
10…Nf4 11.dxe5
I guess it’s too much to ask for the nice trap 11. hxg4 hxg4 12. Nh2 Nxg2!! winning, as has occurred in a bunch of games. The rather rude point, very familiar to Marshall specialists, is 13. Kxg2 Rxh2+! 14. Kxh2 Qxf2+ 15. Kh1 g3 and mates.
11…Qg6! 12.Nh4! The only way to hold the balance! Still, black can and should have posed problems before white reaches safety.
12…Bxd1 13.Nxg6 Nxg6 14.Rxd1 0-0-0 15.e6 fxe6 The foxy 15…f6!? is perfectly possible but it’s still equal. 15…f6!? has the virtue of keeping things relatively speaking more complicated.
16.Re1 Bb4?! 16…Ne5! sets practical problems and black has the easier time of it. The text forces white to make a useful move. Anyway, we’re far afield of the opening now — black’s setup passed the theoretical test!
17.c3 Bc5 18.Nb3 Bb6 19.Be3 Rd3 20.Bxb6 cxb6 21.Rad1 Rhd8 22.Rxd3 Rxd3 23.g3 Kd7 24.Kf1 Ke7 25.Ke2 Rd8 26.Rd1 Rxd1 27.Kxd1 Ne5 28.Nc1 Nf7 29.h4 Kd6 30.Ke2 c5 31.Nd3 g5 32.hxg5 Nxg5 33.f3 Nh7 34.e5+ Kd5 35.Ke3 b5 36.Kf4 a5 37.Nf2 a4 38.Ne4 Kc4 39.Ke3 b4 40.Nd6+ Kd5 41.f4 b6 42.c4+ Kc6 43.Ke4 Kd7 44.Kd3 Nf8 45.Ne4 Ke7 46.Nf6 h4 47.gxh4 Ng6 48.h5 Nxf4+ 49.Ke4 Ne2 50.h6 Kf7 51.Nd7 Nc3+ 52.Kd3 Nxa2 53.Nxb6 a3 54.bxa3 bxa3 55.Nd7 Nb4+ 56.Kc3 a2 57.Kb2 Kg6 58.Nxc5 Kxh6 59.Nxe6 Nd3+ 60.Kxa2 Nxe5 61.c5 Kg6 62.Kb3 Kf6 63.Nd4 Ke7 64.Ka4 Kd7 65.Kb5 Kc7 66.Ne6+ Kb7 67.Nf4 Kc7 Game drawn by mutual agreement 1/2-1/2
Wow, I am still freaking out a day later. The Arizona Scorpions and the SF Mechanics played a titantic match on 10/14/09 that will go down in USCL annals as one of the most topsy-turvy matches ever.
I was really pleased to see David Adelberg play the Kan on board 4 for Arizona, consistent with my match preview! Although he got fatigued and eventually lost his way, I am very happy with how well the fearsome Kan did in the opening.
Here is Board 2’s madness.
IM John Donaldson (SF) – IM Dionisio Aldama (ARZ)
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 0-0 5.0-0 d6 6.d4 Nc6 7.Nc3 a6 8.d5 Na5 9.b3 c5 10.dxc6 Nxc6 11.Bb2 Bd7 12.Qc1 Rc8 13.Nd5 Nxd5 14.Bxg7 Kxg7 15.cxd5 Ne5 16.Qb2 f6 17.Nd4 Qb6 18.Qd2 a5 19.f4 Kg8 20.e3 Nf7 21.Rac1 Rc5?
21…Nh6! and black is fine.
22.Ne6! Rxc1 23.Rxc1 Rc8 24.Rxc8+ Bxc8 25.Qd4 Qxd4 26.Nxd4 Bd7 26…Nh6! to hold white to a small edge.
27.Kf2 Kf8 28.Ke2 Ke8 29.Kd3
Black has an awful position. His next few moves make it worse.
29…Kd8 30.Ne6+ Kc8 31.Nf8! This should have been the winning move. Robby Adamson and I were not sanguine about black’s chances. GM Ramirez also wondered what the hell black was doing. We were like hens in a henhouse virtually running around in our little cyber barn.
31…Kd8
Snap on h7?
32.Ne6+? What’s this? There is no way John is going to repeat, I told myself (and others) – he’s just gaining time on the clock. But then:
32…Kc8 33.Nf8 Kd8 34.Ne6+? Game drawn by repetition 1/2-1/2
Go back to the diagrammed position. You have very good tactical and positional endgame insight if you can spot the lines which gives white a big plus, which I have posted in the comments. The solutions (multiple!) are instructive.
Take on h7? Take on d7? A king move? Very tempting possibilities, and hard to work out in the USCL time limit! Scroll down to find the answer but don’t cheat!
The other matchups were equally nuts and very tense for players and spectators alike. It was only decided in the wee hours when Arizona’s Barcenilla won Q vs R against San Francisco’s Vinay Bhat.
Answer:
From the diagram, correct for white curiously enough are several different moves. The variations vividly show the power of the long-range bishop over the constricted knight in various pawn structures where white can force a king entry.
The first candidate and clearly winning move is 32. Kc4!.
32…b5+? 33. Kd4 Ke8 34. Nxd7! Kxd7 35. Bf1! b4 36. Kc4! and wins.
Tougher is 32…b6 33. a4! Ke8 34. Ne6 Nd8? 35. Nc7+ Kf7 36. Na8! and wins. Or, 34…h5 35. Bh3 Nh6 36. Ng7+ Kd8 37. Bxd7 Kxd7 38. h3! and white will win.
For those who like simpler solutions, by the way, also very strong is the simple and straightforward 32. Nxd7! Kxd7 33. Bh3+! Kc7 34. Be6 Nd8 35. Bg8 h6 36. Bh7! g5 (black is now very soft) 37. Kc4 b6 38. a3 Nb7 39. b4 axb4 40. axb4 Kd7 41. Kd4 Nd8 42. Bf5+ Kc7 43. Bg4 Nf7 44. Bh5! Nd8 45. Ke4 and white’s king walks in and wins. Very methodical and nice domination of the B versus the N.
Not correct, on the other hand, is the tempting 32. Nxh7? Ke8 35. e4 Nh6! 36. e5 Bf5+! and there no advantage for white.
Thank ye, thank ye, good to be hither.
From the USCL website, the tale of the tape for Arizona’s week 7 match:
| Arizona Scorpions | San Francisco Mechanics | ||
| IM Rogelio Barcenilla: 2583 | GM Vinay Bhat: 2504 | ||
| IM Dionisio Aldama: 2473 | IM John Donaldson: 2408 | ||
| FM Daniel Rensch: 2434 | FM Daniel Naroditsky: 2371 | ||
| David Adelberg: 2160 | NM Gregory Young: 2242 | ||
| Avg Rating: 2413 |
Avg Rating: 2381 |
||
| Arizona Total ——- | ——- San Francisco Total |
Arizona plays white on boards 1 and 3. Due to some obscure rule, the Mechanoids play white on boards 2 and 4.
Robby predicts, “Arizona Scorpions vs. San Francisco Mechanics
Let’s see – I picked against them last time (though I really didnt). Lets try sort of picking them again – ok thats dumb. AZ wins.” This is a toughie – a veritable Minotaur’s Maze to predict.
The Minotaur's Maze
Well, we can attempt a prediction. Let’s try the board by board method and thorougly confound matters with a heavy dose of perplexing Alburtian percentages. You might also like a quick video preview.
Board 1. Our RoBa, fresh from a nice spanking of IM Ippolito, looks to revert to form after a couple of losses to Nakamura and Bercys. His opponent, though, is a very tough and experienced international competitor, GM Vinay Bhat aka VB aka Visual Basic. I am very impressed with how VB calmly makes a move on a physical board then deliberately wheels himself around in a chair to then duplicate that same move on a computer screen, even when low on time. Nerves of steel! RoBa is very opportunistic and usually has a time advantage, but VB usually does not let a time disadvantage lead to his defeat. RoBa is very tactical but Visual Basic is no slouch at calculation – an excellent matchup. This USCL time limit does work well for RoBa though unless he falls into a Naka funk and plays something he’s not familiar with. In summary, as GM Alburt used to say, “75% chance of draw”. For a decisive result, the other 25% I divide up equally between the two players.
Board 2. Here we field a mystery man, never before seen in USCL play, IM Dionisio Aldama aka Aldo Nova aka Freshmeat aka New Guy. At tournaments, I’ve only seen Aldama’s games from a distance and they are often sharp. He is playing black against Joe Solid, or should I say John Solid, IM Donaldson. I note Freshmeat’s relatively high rating but cannot speak to his USCL skills – although he does ICC blitz a lot. Does that help? Maybe. John is not “Danger Man” to use European tournament parlance and is not terribly ambitious in his opening schemes. It is a question of whether our mystery man will meet him on solid terms or go all out for a black victory which can, as we know, sometimes not work out. As GM Alburt would say, “perhaps a napkin” (GM Alburt’s introductory ‘food order’ at a communal Lone Pine lunch). What else would Alburt say? “60% chance of draw.” For the other 40%, we’ll have to give some credence to New Guy’s relatively high rating but also note that John is white and New Guy might go nuts trying to combat some sleepy-time system. Let’s give John Solid 15% of the decisive pie and Freshmeat 25%. I would hasten to add that it’s important for us to learn New Guy’s favorite food and drink ahead of time and provide them at the playing site.
Breaking news: New Guy is blitzing on ICC Tuesday at noon vs. IM Cyrus Lakdawala. And I learned something, he has an extra name “Degournay”!
Statistics for maton(IM) On for: 2:25 Idle: 0
maton is currently involved in a match against Kawas(IM).
rating [need] win loss draw total best
Wild 1779 [6] 1 1 0 2
Crazyhouse 2082 [6] 0 1 0 1
Bullet 2126 [8] 35 41 4 80 2181 (06-Aug-2002)
Blitz 2388 [4] 1753 1839 269 3861 2998 (06-Jun-2003)
5-minute 2345 1389 887 193 2469 2544 (12-Oct-2009)
1-minute 2001 12195 11150 919 24264 2381 (21-Jan-2004)
15-minute 1300 4 3 0 7
Name : Dionisio Aldama Degournay
Groups : Mexico IMs
Board 3. Here we see a newly minted IM, Danny “Statistical” (“Stat”) Rensch, go against Lil’ Talent, Daniel (Danya) Naroditsky, aka Shortbread. I’ve watched Danya’s chess improve palpably over the last few years and it is a pleasure to behold. No more g4?? butcheries such as a 2008 Shortbread-Angelo Young game best forgotten. Instead, clean, logical chess and better opening prep. From Stat, likewise, we see more confidence following the IM result at the Spice cup. He held a tough game against Molnar last week and this has to be a confidence booster after his bad luck early in this season and last season. On Stat’s side, statistically unseen numeric forces are at work to improve his USCL record to date.
I do know this: these two guys are very sharp and we will be looking at a crazy tactical battle here. And Stat is much better with white than black. OTOH (on the other hand), Shortbread has shown excellent prep as black in recent times. It will be a battle royale to be sure. To quote Boris Spassky, we have here “drunken machine gunners.” Boris meant the players fling pieces around and que sera, sera. At the time, (historical note), Spassky was referring to Swedish wild man GM Ferdinand Hellers.
Shortbread was on the wrong side of a drunken machine gunner in the NY – SF match and I am sure he is looking to correct his ledger in that sort of game. I would only award this game a 30% peace proportion, and for the remaining 70%, I will give Stat a very slight nod 36% to 34% over Lil’ Talent simply because he is white.
In case you are wondering what happens if BOTH players are drunken machine gunners – well then we have a classic DDMG (Double Drunken Machine Gunner) battle. The victor is usually the more ‘drunk’ (you can take this to mean utterly random) player. – cf. the Fernandez-Zaikov USCL game from this week’s action
Board 4. Here we have David Adelberg aka Kid Cactus aka Astroboy (“I was made ready!”) playing black against another kid, Gregory “Youngster” Young aka G-Yo. I was unfamiliar with G-Yo’s play and looked up his USCL games. He has a pretty good score but one time fell into a sweet tactic and got mated in the opening vs NM Chris Williams. Did you happen to notice the opening in that debacle? It was a foxy Sicilian Kan! Kan Konquers Kiddies because the positional complexities required to handle the white side are usually far beyond the pale of the kiddie tactician. I also found another, fairly bizarre, effort of his in a Dragon. He held that game, but his opponent Zorigt was one of Astroboy’s victims this season. And, as we all know, young David has been a revelation and a tremendous addition to Arizona’s team this year on the bottom board. Well, it looks like it’s going to be a Kiddie Najdorf. since that is what Kid Cactus plays and it looks like G-Yo always sticks with Open Sicilians. I am not sure who Ehlvest’s handlers are in Tennesse, but they should tell him “don’t play into Kiddie Najdorfs!” He would have come out of the opening better against Ludwig if he had avoided theory altogether. There’s a time for theory, Jaan, and a time for understanding. The USCL with its fast time limit should be a forum to claim superiority based on understanding, not whip out oodles of theory – unless we have two juniors playing and then it’s practically inevitable – cf. this board 4 encounter. OTOH, if I had to make one Caissic wish, it would be that Astroboy retools and whips out a Kan! Kiddie can ken* Kan!
* Ken (v): Chiefly Scot.
| a. | to know, have knowledge of or about, or be acquainted with (a person or thing). |
| b. | to understand or perceive (an idea or situation). |
It’s funny how tight matches often come down to a fourth board that is utterly unpredictable before the first move. Kiddie temperaments and energy at the board wax and wane** frequently; there is no way to know who will be more engrossed in chess iron logic when the moment comes to fight – truly Chaos On Board. And once again Board 4 might be the crucial matchup! As Lev Alburt would say, “only 20% chance draw.” I would divide up the decisive portion almost equally between these two young combatants. I will say Kid Cactus 38% and Gregory 42% as a nod to G-Yo’s master rating. Dateline Weds.: Incredible postscript: Kid Cactus just became a NM after the LA Open. So now it’s dead heat, 40% to both!
** Wax and wane: Increase and decrease, as in size, number, strength, or intensity, as in Enrollments in these programs wax and wane from year to year. This expression alludes to the phases of the moon, with its periodic changes in size. It was first recorded in the 1300s.
To make absolutely sure that you learn something from this post, I recently visited a Harley dealership and complained that my 883 custom “Sunglo Red” paint job was distinctly less lustrous than new. The mechanic brought out a bottle of “Throttle Body” (a product made by Würth Industries). “Throttle Body”, dear readers, is an amazing automotive and motorcycle cleaning product! An arbitrary tidbit? No! I first rode dearly departed “Wild Black”, a CB750, on the streets of San Francisco getting tangled up with the cable car groove on Market St. And Arizona is playing SF… well, you get the picture . Now go out and buy your own “Throttle Body” and let the USCL games begin.
I guess we could say it’s a gambit of structure (backward pawn on d6 after black moves e7-e5) for activity. It’s not to my taste at all, but so far this USCL season Shabalov has tried it versus Kudrin and Kiewra just tried it versus Bick. And black so far stands at 1-1.
Let’s see these games.
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Nf6 4. Nc3 cxd4 5. Nxd4 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 O-O 8. Qd2 Nc6 9. Bc4 Bd7 10. O-O-O Rb8 The characteristic move of the Chinese Dragon. In 1974-5, Paul Whitehead (upholding black) and Jay Whitehead (upholding white) were debating the merits of the other mainlines in countless blitz games at the San Francisco Mechanics Chess Club with 10…Rc8 and 10….Qa5 and ….Rfc8.
Chinese, anyone?In defense of the Chinese, I think it makes more sense than …a7-a6 which Magnus Carlsen tried a few times (notably getting crushed by Topalov). In case you were wondering how it got its name, Gallagher writes about its dubious origins in the 2002 NIC magazine. Some journalist just happened to be in China…
11. Bb3 Na5
When the Chinese Dragon first got on the radar in 2002, Chris Ward tried 11… Ne5. An unimpressed Joe Gallagher wrote in NIC magazine “I do not predict a bright and glittering future for the Chinese Dragon.” Nevertheless, that game Gallagher-Ward British Ch. 2002 ended in a draw after 12. f4 (12. Bh6 Bxh6 13.
Qxh6 b5 14. Nd5 Nxd5 15. exd5 a5 16. Nc6 Bxc6 17. dxc6 e6 18. h4 a4 is an unsound piece sac for white — 19. h5 Qf6 20. hxg6 Qxg6 21. Qxg6+ hxg6 22. Bxe6 fxe6 23. Rxd6 Kf7 and black is better.
Also possible is 12. h4 b5 13. h5 Nc4 14. Bxc4 bxc4 15. h6 Bh8 16. Nf5 Bxf5! (not 16…gxf5?? 17. Bb6! winning) 17. exf5 Qa5 18. fxg6 Ne4 19. fxe4 Qxa2! (the tempting at first glance 19…Rxb2? 20. g7! wins for white) 20. Nxa2 Bxb2+ 21. Kb1 Bc3+ with a humorous draw!
12… Neg4 13. Bg1 b5 14. h3 b4 15. hxg4 bxc3 16. Qxc3 Rc8 17. Qg3 Bxg4 18. Re1 Qa5 19. c3 e5 20.
fxe5 dxe5 21. Nf3 Rxc3+! Not very hard to see but nevertheless a pleasing drawing combination from Chris Ward, Dragon aficionado.
22. bxc3 Qxc3+ 23. Kb1 Rc8 24. Bxa7 Qd3+ 25. Kb2 Qc3+ 26. Kb1 Qd3+ 27. Kb2 Qc3+ {And drawn, Gallagher-Ward British CH 2002.})
Conclusion: 11…Ne5 potentially needs re-examination because the way this game goes isn’t very pleasant for black. Keep this in mind as you study move 14 alternatives for black in the game.
12. Bh6 Bxh6
It’s not risky per se to have the white queen drawn out to h6, but it can always go back and black has not gained time. 12… b5 13. Nd5 Nxb3+ 14. Nxb3 Bxh6 15. Qxh6 doesn’t look too different from the game and black has problems.
13. Qxh6 b5 The weird gambit 13… e5 14. Nde2 b5? (marginally better 14… Nxb3+ {Kurnosov-Pavlovic, Hastings 2009 but black faced the usual difficulties and white won} was played in Zambrana-Yuan, Sao Paulo 2008. White then played the lemon 15. h4? and lost but he should have taken on d6 with an edge.
14. Nd5! Of course! This is a key moment.
Decisions, Decisions14…e6?! As Shabalov played against Kudrin earlier in the USCL year, but this position is just suffering for black. Die-hard Chinese-ites will play 14….e5 here and claim near-equality. And maybe they are right – it’s hard to break down black’s game. Addendum: Maybe 14…e5 15. Nf5!? gives white a small plus – this needs further work.
From black’s point of view, it’s worth also looking at 14…Nxb3+. This is actually transposing, usually, to 14…e5. Then, 15. Nxb3 e5 is best met with 16. Nxf6+ Qxf6 17. h4!? or the simple 17. Kb1 and white has a small edge. Instead, Robson played 16. h4?! against Papp in Spice(B) 2009, and Papp gained equality after 16…Nxd5 17. Rxd5 Rb6. Papp lost later after weakening himself unnecessarily with …g6-g5? on the solid kingside and falling prey to a tactic. Conclusion: this is the last spot for black to avoid getting a lasting disadvantage with either 14….e5 or 14…Nxb3 (these two often converge). We’ll have to ask the all-knowing Dragon Sage Mikhail Golubev what he thinks.
15. Nxf6 Qxf6 16. h4 Qg7 17. Qg5! Excellent, as Kudrin played against Shabalov. Black is under pressure. This move pinpoints black’s positional deficiencies and is exactly why I don’t like the 14…e6?! line for black.
17…Nc4
It’s hard to recommend anything. What do the waiting 17…Rb7 or 17…Rfe8 accomplish? Shabalov played 17…Qe5 18. Ne2 Bc6 19. Rd2 Rfd8 20. Rhd1 Nb7 (clearly black is suffering) 21. Nf4 a5 22. a3 Re8 and here Kudrin could have capped his fine play with the powerful 23 .Qxe5! dxe5 24. Nd3 f6 (forced) 25. g4! and white will break up black’s king side structure with a winning edge. This nice sequence is hard to see in the rapid USCL time control. Unfortunately, Kudrin went wrong with 23. Nd3? Qxg5 24. hxg5 Kg7 25. e5 Red8 26. exd6 Rxd6 27. Ne5 (white is still better) 27…Rxd2 28. Rxd2 Be8 and now he missed another shot to keep the edge, 29. Ng4! stopping h6.
After Kudrin’s second lemon, 29. Ba2? h6! black liquidated a weakness and was fine; Shabalov went on to turn the tables in a key match victory, Kudrin (PHI) – Shabalov (TEN) USCL 2009.
18. Bxc4 bxc4 19. h5?! 19. Qe7! looks good while black is still disorganized.
19…c3?! Tempting but not good. There is no real attack here. Leaving the pawn on c4 is stronger, for example 19…Rb7 preparing to double on the b-file. Black then would have very good chances to hold the game.
20. b3 Now the c3 pawn is a goner and black is in big trouble.
20…Rb4 21. h6 21. Qe3 also kept a big edge for white.
21…Qh8 22. Ne2 Rb6 23. Ng3? The easiest win is 23. e5! d5 24. Nxc3.
23… Rb5? 23…Bb5 was the toughest. Anyway, we’re far afield from the opening now, so we will show the rest rapidly.
24. Qe7 Qe5 25. Qxd7 Ra5 26. a4 Easiest was 26. Kb1! Qxg3 27. Qxd6 since the game motif 27… Qxg2 is met by 28. Qd4! e5 29. Qxc3 and wins.
26…Qxg3 27. Qxd6 Qxg2 28. Qd4 Qg5+ 29. Kb1 Qe5 30. Ka2 Qxd4 31. Rxd4 f5 32. Rc4 fxe4 33. fxe4 Rh5 34. Rxh5 gxh5 35. Rxc3 h4 36. b4 Rf4 37. Re3 Kf7 38. Kb3 Kg6 39. b5 Kxh6 40. a5 Rf1 41. Kc4 Kg5 42. Rb3 Rf8 43. b6 axb6 44. axb6 Kg4 45. b7 Rb8 46. Kc5 h3 47. Kc6 h2 48. Rb1 Rg8 49. Kc7 Rg7+ 50. Kb6 Rg8 51. Ka7 Kf3 52. b8=Q Rxb8 53. Kxb8 h5 54. c4 Kxe4 55. Rd1! 1-0
I’m not understanding why Herman in Herman (NY) – Uesugi (BAL) USCL Week 6 diverged from the very risky Uesugi Week 4 effort in the same opening! After all, it’s possible Uesugi has not visited this website. 
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
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 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. Remember that, we will see that in Kapengut-Pasalic, below!
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!
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 computer-inspired and clever 16… Bh6 and black has significant defensive resources. But the bottom line is that 9…g6 is very risky and not quite equalizing. However, in blitz… a good try!
The game went on 9. O-O e6 10. Bxc6 bxc6
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. But it does not develop….
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 recent USCL Week 4 GOTW Esserman-Bartell put the Smith-Morra on the map yet again! I thought it was dead and gone ever since Smith-Evans and Smith-Mecking, San Antonio 1972.
After listening carefully to Manest (Alex Lenderman) material presented on ICC Chess.FM, I came up with improvements for black in what I think should be the main line of defense,
1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3
Losing a Center Pawn for….White gambits a center pawn for space and a lead in development. If black can catch up in development without making any concessions, he will be left with that extra pawn. The best defensive lines always involve being careful not to make concessions.
3…dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Bc4 d6 6. Nf3
And now I term the “Flexible Variation” the careful 6…a6!? leaving the option of Bc8-g4 open. It is very appealing to me not to shut in the B/c8 quite yet. However and of course, thousands of games have seen black defend with an early e7-e6 as well. The “Flexible Variation” was espoused by GM Evans all those moon ago (tournament book, San Antonio, 1972).
A manuscript in PDF format on the Flexible Variation (Lenderman white suggestions with my additional lines) has been very popular with thousands of downloads. The amusing thing about many of the lines in the manuscript is that black manages to get an attack on the white king when white overpresses, a highly unusual occurrence in this variation! I think this is the way to play that is the soundest coupled with the most chances for counter-attack and victory. However, there is a more solid option, namely…
We note in the Esserman-Bartell game, black chose to shut in the B/c8 with an early ….e6 which is perfectly sound if he plays accurately. In fact, a Lenderman-Gulko game did see black play the right way so we should mention it. I have no doubt that Gulko’s defense was taught to thousands of school kids in Soviet chess academies but since we don’t have those, Bartell was left out in the proverbial cold.
1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Bc4 d6 6. Nf3 e6 7. Qe2 Be7 Note Gulko plays e6 and Be7 before Nf6.
8. O-O Nf6 9. Rd1 e5 and now Lenderman went wrong with the illogical 10. Bb5? Bg4 11. Qc4 O-O 12. Bxc6 Rc8 and white had a bad game. Gulko duly won. I think this was a World Open a few years back…?
The question is, what does black do if white plays normally?
Well, let’s say he gears up with a3 and b4 as Esserman played in the Bartell game.
10. a3 O-O 11. b4 Be6! Black is smart to not play a6 yet. It is much more important to get development completed fast to check what white is up to. This well-timed …Bc8-e6 is just in time to neutralize white.
As Solid as GulkoAnd now… nothing is really going on!
12. Bxe6 fxe6 13. Qa2 Qd7 is actually slightly better for black since 14. Ng5 Nd8! leads nowhere; and on 12. Nd5 black has the luxury of ignoring it and playing 12…Rc8!. This is smart because white gets nowhere with 13. Nxe7+ Qxe7 winning the bishop pair but getting rid of his own most active piece and black is quite solid with an extra pawn.
Note in the Bartell game black incautiously took on d5 at a bad moment, after wasting time with Bc8-d7-e6, and got driven completely back and flattened. He also didn’t want or need the move b7-b5.
Conclusion: The Gulko Defense is smart because we dispense with …a6 and get on with development to neutralize white’s initiative.
Overall Conclusion: It’s a tossup to play solidly (the Gulko Defense) or try the sharp counterattacking ideas in my “Improved Manest Flexible Variation” which starts with 6…a6 reserving the possibility later of …Bc8-g4. The latter variation probably offers more winning chances and so appealing to Sicilian players….
2nd Overall Conclusion: Any Sicilian Player needs to be ready with one of these.
Take a quick look at the Esserman-Bartell game score.
1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 e6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Qe2 Nf6 9.Rd1 e5 10.Be3 0-0 11.Rac1 Bd7 12.a3 a6 13.b4 b5 14.Bb3 Be6 (obvious time-wasting, much better and perfectly playable was 14…Rc8! Black can always do Be6 later if need be, without tactical problems) 15.Nd5 Bxd5? (15…Rc8! is still the most careful! After, e.g., 16. h3 (what else?) now black can safely play 16…Bxd5 17. exd5 Nb8 with a fighting middlegame in prospect, 18. Nxe5?? fails to 18…Rxc1. The fact that the BR is on c8 makes all the difference.) 16.exd5 Nb8? Despite the earlier inaccuracies, this is really the huge blunder. 16…Na7! and 17. Nxe5? does not work due to 17…dxe5 18. d6 Bxd6 19. Bc5 Nc8!. After, e.g., 17. h3 Qd7 black is not by any means losing. It’s not optically nice with the N on a7 but at least he has an extra center pawn.
17.Nxe5! It’s gone already but it was pleasing to GOTW judges. They don’t like defense or a well-contested game except for, apparently, Michael Aigner and Greg Shahade judging from the post-GOTW commentary.
17…dxe5 18.d6 Bxd6 19.Bc5 Bxc5 20.Rxd8 Bxf2+ 21.Qxf2 Rxd8 22.g4 a5 23.g5 Nfd7 24.Qxf7+ Kh8 25.Qe7 Rf8 26.Qxf8+ Nxf8 27.Rc8 Black resigns 1-0
Given our discussion of the Gulko defense, where is the key improvement? Yes, you guessed it, 11…Be6! is the right move.
11…Be6! The Right Defense!In defense of white’s opening choice, after 11…Be6! the wild wing lunge 12. b4! (something Esserman likes to play) black is only equal after 12…Nxb4 or 12…Bxc4; no trace of an advantage. The game will fizzle out and sail into Draw Harbour. There are some other kooky lines here too. After 11…Be6 12. Bxe6 fxe6 white again can try the wild 13. b4 – a move I’ve seen Esserman play in similar situations. Black can defend with 13…Ng4! 14. Bc5 Qe8! 15. Bxd6 Bxd6 16. Rd6 Qe7! lining up the rook and the b4 pawn. Or, 13…Ng4! 14. b5 Nxe3! 15. Qxe3? Nd4! and black stands well due to the tactical point 16. Nxd4 Bg5! – OUCH! Better would be 15. fxe3 Na5 16. Nxe5 and at least white got his pawn back at the cost of structure. That position is equal after 16…Qe8 or 16…Bg5.
Finally, a variation from Outer Absurdistan: 11…Be6! 12. Bd5 Ng4 13. Bc5!? Nf6 14. Be3 Ng4 repeating! Black can also risk 12…Qe8 to play on or tempt white into the amusing 12…Bxd5 13. exd5 Nb8 and hope white plays 14. Nxe5 analogous to the Bartell game. If 14. Nxe5 the whole thing might blow up in white’s face: 14…dxe5 15. d6 Bxd6 16. Bc5?? Bxc5 17. Rxd8 Rxd8 18. Qxe5 Bxf2!+ (This old tactical chestnut!) and black wins. Or, 16. Nb5 Ne8 17. Bc5 Nc6! and black is better. Bartell unfortunately allowed really one of the only structures where the Nxe5 trick works. Usually it backfires as in these lines.
I am particularly interested in reader comments on the Flexible Variation PDF manuscript.
US Chess League News
