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

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.

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

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!

Scorpions-Mechanics: Not for the Faint of Heart

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.

Each week a panel of 5 judges from around the country review all USCL games and select the top 3 of the week. By a large margin, Alejandro’s victory over GM Joel Benjamin was selected as this week’s best.

Surprise! A sweet quiet game becomes the run-away winner of Game of the Week. No doubt a big part of the decision was the crushing endgame tactic 35. f5, making way for the h-pawn to run down the board. Bonus points for the key role of this game in Arizona’s victory and for taking down one of this season’s top performers. – Michael Aigner

Alejandro’s game got the nod this week almost solely due to the final endgame combination with 35. f5!. It also didn’t hurt that he dealt Joel Benjamin his first loss of the season and helped the Knockouts to lose their undefeated record. - Greg Shahade

First prize is $150. The previous week, David Adelberg’s victory over WFM Bayaraa Zorigt nearly missed top honors (by 1 point) to earn 2nd prize ($75). Great job to both players!!!

The Fabulous 00s: USCL Week 6 Opening of the Week (OOTW)

The Inscrutable Chinese Dragon

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.

John Bick (TEN) – Keaton Kiewra (DAL)  Chinese Dragon

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.

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.

14…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

Sveshnikov Postscript: Further Weirdness

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.

Danny’s relationship with the Dragon: “I wish I could quit you!”

Dominguez Perez,L (2717) – Radjabov,T (2761) [B77]
XXVI SuperGM Linares ESP (5), 24.02.2009

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 Nc6 8.Qd2 0-0 9.Bc4 Bd7 10.h4 Rc8 11.Bb3 h5 12.0-0-0 Ne5 13.Bg5 Rc5 14.Kb1 Re8 15.f4 Nc4 16.Qd3 Qc8 17.f5 gxf5 18.exf5 Ne5 19.Qe2 Neg4 20.Rhf1 Rxc3 21.bxc3 Qxc3 22.Bc1 a5 23.Bb2 Qe3 24.Rde1 Qxe2 25.Rxe2 a4 26.Bc4 Ne5 27.Bb5 Rc8 28.Bxd7 Nfxd7 29.Nf3 Rc4 30.Nxe5 Nxe5 31.g3 Rg4 32.Rg2 Nc4 33.Bc1 Be5 34.Rf3 f6 35.c3 Kf7 36.Kc2 Ke8 37.Kd3 b5 38.Be3 Kd7 39.Bf4 Kc6 40.Rf1 Kc5 41.Rf3 Kd5 42.Rf1 Kc6 43.Rf3 Nb6 44.Bd2 Nd7 45.Bf4 Nc5+ 46.Kc2 Ne4 47.Re2 d5 48.Ree3 Kd6 49.Rf1 Rg8 50.Rd1 Kc6 51.Rf1 Bxf4 52.Rxf4 Nxg3 53.Rxe7 Ne4 54.Kd3 Rg2 55.a3 Kc5 56.Rc7+ Kd6 57.Rc8 Ra2 58.Kd4 Rd2+ 59.Ke3 Ra2 60.Kd4 Rd2+ 61.Ke3 Ra2 62.Kd4 ½-½

Dominguez Perez,L (2717) – Carlsen,M (2776) [B78]
XXVI SuperGM Linares ESP (9), 01.03.2009

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 Nc6 8.Qd2 0-0 9.Bc4 Bd7 10.0-0-0 Rb8 11.Bb3 Na5 12.Bh6 Bxh6 13.Qxh6 b5 14.g4 Nxb3+ 15.Nxb3 b4 16.Nd5 Nxd5 17.exd5 Rb6 18.Rhe1 e5 19.dxe6 fxe6 20.Re3 Rf7 21.Nd2 d5 22.Nb3 Qc7 23.Kb1 Rb8 24.Rde1 Rc8 25.R1e2 Qb6 26.h4 d4 27.Re5 d3 28.cxd3 Rxf3 29.d4 Bb5 30.R2e3 Bd3+ 31.Ka1 Qxd4 32.Rxe6 Rf1+ 33.Re1 Qxg4 34.Rxf1 Qxe6 35.Nc5 Qe2 36.Rc1 Bf5 37.Qf4 a5 38.h5 Qe7 39.Qc4+ Be6 40.Qc2 Qg5 41.hxg6 hxg6 42.a3 bxa3 43.Qc3 axb2+ 44.Kxb2 Qd5 45.Rc2 a4 46.Ka1 a3 47.Qe3 Bf7 48.Qc3 g5 49.Qe3 Re8 50.Qc3 Re2 51.Nb3 Rxc2 52.Qxc2 Qe5+ 53.Kb1 Kg7 54.Qd2 Bxb3 0-1

Thanks for listening!

Well that was close! We missed the playoffs in our first year by the narrowest of margins tying for 4th place (four teams make the playoffs in each division) only to lose on tiebreaks by 1/2 point. You can see below that we lost on the first set of tiebreaks (Game Points) to Seattle by 1/2 point.

WESTERN DIVISION	W	L	Game Points		Opp Avg Rating	Opps Record
# – Miami	7.0	3.0	26.5/40 (66%)		2407	47.5-38.5 (55%)
@ – San Francisco	6.5	3.5	23.5/40 (59%)		2404	46.5-39.5 (54%)
@ – Dallas	6.5	3.5	21.0/40 (53%)		2409	46.5-39.5 (54%)
@ – Seattle	4.5	5.5	18.0/40 (45%)		2400	42.5-43.5 (49%)
X- Arizona	4.5	5.5	17.5/40 (44%)		2398	48.5-37.5 (56%)
X – Chicago	4.0	6.0	19.5/40 (49%)		2392	42.0-44.0 (49%)
X – Tennessee	4.0	6.0	16.5/40 (41%)		2398	41.5-44.5 (48%)

(Opponent Record Column only counts match results against other teams,
and will only be calculated once all of the week’s matches have completed.)

However, to win our last two matches against Chicago and Seattle and to come so close to the playoffs is only stronger motivation to make it next year! As has been the case all year everyone on the team was devastated with the result but also pointed out how many improvements can be made for next year.

Okay let’s get on the games from the final week! It might seem that we lost this match from my comments but actually we seemed to be dominating throughout. This match was actually a rematch of Week 8 when we played Seattle as well. The only difference was that instead of GM Hikaru Nakamura 2749(2700 FIDE) playing board 1 for Seattle they had GM Gregory Serper 2592 who is of course very strong but better for us. Serper would be playing IM Levon Altounian 2535, our number 1 board for our Tucson team, who has done very solidly overall this season. Everyone else for Seattle and Arizona was the same so we would see some rematches from this earlier match, but with colors reversed. So for example, FM Robby Adamson 2377 would play WGM Katerina Rohonyan 2336 but with White this time. IM Mark Ginsburg 2410 would play FM Slava Mikhailuk 2437 but with Black. And NM Warren Harper 2351 would play NM Michael Lee 2314 again, this time with Black.

We needed Chicago to lose and we needed to win by a score of 3-1 to make the playoffs. I was confident Chicago was an underdog as they didn’t put up their best lineup against the defending champions, Dallas Destiny. As predicted they lost 2.5-1.5. Winning 3-1 against Seattle was going to be tougher. Winning a match in general is tough but winning 3-1 is obviously even harder. I told the whole team, including Lev, to go for a win as getting 3 points was the goal.

Arizona Scorpions			Seattle Sluggers
IM Levon Altounian: 2535	0.5	0.5	GM Gregory Serper: 2592
IM Mark Ginsburg: 2410	0.0	1.0	FM Slava Mikhailuk: 2437
FM Robby Adamson: 2377	1.0	0.0	WGM Katerina Rohonyan: 2336
NM Warren Harper: 2351	1.0	0.0	NM Michael Lee: 2314
Avg Rating: 2418			Avg Rating: 2420
Arizona Total ——-	2.5	1.5	——- Seattle Total

Board 4 NM Michael Lee (SEA) vs NM Warren Harper (ARZ) 0-1

This game was very important and matched two strong 4th boards against each other, both over the 2300 rating mark. Although Warren had lost his first two games this season he ended up winning his last three games, beating Michael Lee twice, if you include this game. In these three games he was playing three 2300s beating all of them. This game really showed that Warren can really mix it up and really went after Michael Lee from the beginning. I remember that Warren had a test on Thursday but really wanted to play and decided finally to play. However, due to this he didn’t have much time to prep so me and him prepped the 1/2 hour before the match against the almost definite 1. c4, 2. g3, 3. Nc3 setups that Michael Lee always plays. Once Lev showed up, 15 minutes before the match, he got into the preparation also which helped a lot. So 5 minutes before the game Warren went into a corner and was looking up games with this …f5 system that can be seen in the game. Not ideal but it worked! We had looked at positions very similar to what happened in the game and went over some ideas such as …Qe8 and …Qh5 and also …c6 and …d5 in some positions. The setup seemed right since we needed a win and Michael Lee had lost to this …f5 setup earlier in the season to Emory Tate. I wasn’t 100% sure about 9…Nf5, thinking 9…Qh5 was most natural but the idea is interesting. I’ve kind of learned this season that Warren doesn’t really think like me when it comes to chess but his ideas usually work anyways! The game really turned wild when White decided to castle long with 17. gxf4 and 18. 0-0-0. I thought maybe 18. Rg1 was a better try but already I kind of like Black. This is one of those positions where Black can push but has to be a little careful of overextending. Maybe one place that White can think about an improvement is 20. h3!? when after 20…dxe4 21 Bxe4 White will take on g4 next and he finally has something to work with. At least the play is completely centered around the kingside. I haven’t really looked at it too deeply but it seems logical. After this Warren really played nicely activating his pieces to the
maximum and after 29…Qe3 (diagram) the game seemed basically over.

The next game to finish was on board 1.
Board 1 IM Levon Altounian (ARZ) vs GM Gregory Serper (SEA) 1/2-1/2

This game was pretty interesting as it seemed that both players knew that a draw was most likely outcome but neither was really shying away from complications. Lev was another person that didn’t really have much time to p

repare for the game, coaching non-stop throughout the week and having a young girl, but with White Lev is strong and very tough to beat. I relayed this game for a while and could see that Levon was really into it. We talked about his game for a while afterward and he said he was looking for complications at a number of points, playing 7. Nxc6!? bxc6 8. c4 instead of the

normal and more timid 7. Nb3 followed by a later c4 with a most likely draw.

12…Rac8 was slightly strange and after 13. e4 the game seemed to be at a critical point. White

won a pawn after 14. Bxf6 Qxf6 15. ed5 cd5 16. cd5 but after 16…Bd4! 17. Rac1 e5! Black had a

lot of compensation with his two bishops and pressure on the c3 knight. Although both of these players are at least a couple of levels above me I will do my best to point out a couple areas of interest.

Maybe one area of interest was 19. b3!? (diagram) followed by either Ne4 or Ne2. At least this gets rid of the pressure on b2 and the c3 knight. However this continuation looks more dangerous as White has some loose pieces. After 19. Kh1 the game seemed to forceably peter out to a draw and after 22. fe5 Qe5 23 Rfe1 Bc3 24. Re5 Bd2 25 Rc6 Rfc8 26 Rc7 Rc7 it was pretty obvious the game was going to end in a draw.

The next two games were FM Slava Mikhailuk (SEA) vs IM Mark Ginsburg (ARZ) on board 2 and FM Robby Adamson (ARZ) vs WGM Katerina Rohonyan (SEA) on board 3. We needed 1.5/2 in order to get to the magic number of 3 points in order to make the playoffs. Robby’s game was prepared up to move 17 and both players blitzed out these moves very quickly. However, as seems to happen a lot both players made up for this time by spending a lot of time on the next couple of moves.

I was pretty confident in Robby’s chances but after 30…Rc3 (diagram) I slowly changed my mind as it is unclear where White can really breakthrough while if White wastes time Black will quickly get a lot of play with …Kg7-f6-e5 and …f5-f4 ideas putting pressure on White. However, just one move after thinking this Robby was winning! White played 31. Rb4 and Black played 31…Rd7? (31…Kxg7 looks natural with the idea that after 32. Rb6 Black plays 32…a5 33. Rb5 Rec7) completely changing the game as White wins the pawn on e4 with 32. Rxe4!. After this Black’s pressure and space advantage are completely gone and the d5 pawn is weak. Although it seemed like at certain points Robby’s technique could have been better the win was never really in doubt.
At the same time Mark’s game was going on and he was also doing well. All we needed was a draw on this board, based on Robby’s games turn of events. However, Mark didn’t know this and was still playing the game out. You can see all of his annotations to his game and his thought process during the match on his blog at http://nezhmet.wordpress.com/2008/11/01/the-fabulous-00s-uscl-week-10/ . Although he had a couple of draws or more clear cut moves with 1-2 minutes on the clock this is tough. Unfortunately, he ended up losing it in a rook vs. pawn endgame.

This was a tough match and to get to that magic number of 3 points was not possible this time. However, with all we’ve learned from this first season and the obvious mistakes we made throughout the season, learning on our way, there is no real doubt in my mind that we will be improved and more ready next season. I want to also say a quick thank you to all of those who helped the Arizona Scorpions throughout the season (in no specific order):

all of the players on the team who took a large chunk out of their schedule in order to play, Alan Anderson, Sean Higgins, John LaLonde, Amanda Mateer, Pasha Savine, Jean Hoffman, Sam Hoffman, Jon Cox, Ben Marmont, Kevin Zhang, Danny Rensch, Robby Adamson, Satheesh Aradhyula, Jim Blackwood, Levon Altounian, Rogelio Barcenilla, James Martin. I am sure I missed some people but thank you to you also! I also want to thank our sponsors: Abstrax, SACA, ACFI, Checkmate Chess Instruction, and the University of Arizona. Thank you!

My Second USCL Match

In this week’s match against the Chicago Blaze, I find out that my opponent is scholastic chess star Ilan Meerovich. And, as in my last match, I start digging for information about my opponent.

The first bit of information comes from an old blog at:

http://chesslodge.blogspot.com/2005/12/ilan-meerovich.html

Tuesday, December 06, 2005

Ilan Meerovich

Ilan is 14 years old and highest rated player in Illinois for his age group, which also makes him one of the hot prospects for the future of US chess (USCF rating – 1972). He was the winner of numerous junior events and has also participated in The Internet Scholastic Chess Championship.

At this point, I know he is a very highly rated high school senior. Then, I check out his past games played in the U.S. Chess League. I notice that he won the two games that he played against higher rated opponents, which means that he is likely stronger than his posted rating. In both of his games, he played fairly wide open and aggressive. Below are the two games.

Meerovich,Ilan (2131) – Harper, Warren (2301) [E25]

US Chess League

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 c5 6.f3 d5 7.cxd5 Nxd5 8.Qd3 f5 9.e4 fxe4 10.fxe4 Ne7 11.Nf3 0–0 12.Be2 Nec6 13.0–0 Nd7 14.Be3 Qe7 15.e5 h6 16.Qg6 Qf7 17.Qg3 Qh5 18.Nh4 Qxe2 19.Bxh6 Rf7 20.Rxf7 Kxf7 21.Qxg7+ Ke8 22.Qg8+ Nf8 23.Qxf8+ Kd7 24.Qd6+ Ke8 25.Rf1 1–0

Meerovich,Ilan (2131) – Wheeler (FM), Jerry (2204) [E94]

US Chess League, 10/20/2008

1.d4 g6 2.c4 Bg7 3.Nc3 d6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.e4 0–0 6.Be2 e5 7.0–0 Nbd7 8.d5 Nc5 9.Qc2 a5 10.Ne1 Ne8 11.f3 f5 12.Be3 b6 13.Nd3 Nf6 14.Nxc5 bxc5 15.a3 f4 16.Bf2 g5 17.b4 Nd7 18.bxc5 Nxc5 19.Na4 Nxa4 20.Qxa4 h5 21.c5 Bd7 22.c6 Bc8 23.Qd1 Rf6 24.Rb1 Rg6 25.h3 Bf6 26.Rb5 Qf8 27.Be1 Qg7 28.Rxa5 Rxa5 29.Bxa5 g4 30.fxg4 hxg4 31.Bxg4 Bxg4 32.hxg4 Rxg4 33.Qe2 Rh4 34.Qf3 Rg4 35.Rb1 Kf7 36.Rb7 1–0

Next step is to scan the internet for more games, and just like that I find this “youtube” video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgs9Q-08Yv0

This game tells me that he has a rough time dealing with cramped positions. He loses to a weaker player because he is unable to deal with his opponent’s positional maneuvers. A very nice video put together by Matt Pullin.

Meerovich, Ilan (2066) – Pullin, Matt (1895) [D09]

2007 Illinois Open Internet Chess Club (5), 2007

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.g3 Bf5 6.Nh4 Be6 7.Qa4 g5 8.Nf3 h6 9.Bg2 Qd7 10.Qb5 0–0–0 11.Nfd2 Bh3 12.Bxc6 Qxc6 13.Qxc6 bxc6 14.f4 Be7 15.Nf3 g4 16.Nfd2 d3 17.exd3 Bc5 18.Ke2 Ne7 19.Nb3 Bg2 20.Re1 Bf3+ 21.Kd2 Bf2 22.Rf1 Bd4 23.Na3 Nf5 24.Nc2 c5 25.Re1 h5 26.Ncxd4 cxd4 27.Kc2 h4 28.Nd2 hxg3 29.hxg3 Nxg3 30.Rg1 Ne2 31.Rf1 Rh1 32.Rxh1 Bxh1 33.Nf1 g3 34.Nxg3 Nxg3 35.Bd2 Rh8 36.Rg1 Rh3 37.Be1 Nf5 38.Rg8+ Kd7 39.Rf8 Rh7 40.b4 Bf3 41.a4 Ke7 42.Rc8 Kd7 43.Rf8 Ne3+ 44.Kd2 Rh2+ 45.Kc1 Rc2+ 46.Kb1 Re2 47.Bh4 Nd1 48.Rxf7+ Kc8 49.Rf8+ Kb7 50.Rd8 Nc3+ 51.Kc1 Rh2 52.Bg5 Rh1+ 53.Kd2 Rd1+ 54.Kc2 a5 55.bxa5 c5 56.f5 Rg1 57.Bd2 Bd1+ 58.Kb2 Rg2 59.Kc1 Bxa4 60.a6+ Ka7 0–1

The next game provides me with information about how he handles the Grand Prix attack, my normal line against the Sicilian. My feeling is that I should avoid this line, mainly because this is what he will likely expect based on all of my games that are “out there”.

Velazquez, Kevin – Meerovich, Ilan (2100) [B23]

ICA High School Invitational

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Bb5 Nd4 6.Bd3 d6 7.Nxd4 cxd4 8.Ne2 e5 9.0–0 Ne7 10.c3 Nc6 11.cxd4 Qb6 12.Kh1 Nxd4 13.Nxd4 Qxd4 14.Bb5+ Ke7 15.Qf3 f6 16.fxe5 dxe5 17.b3 Be6 18.Ba3+ Kf7 19.Rac1 Rac8 20.d3 a6 21.Bc4 Qd7 22.Qh3 b5 23.Bxe6+ Qxe6 24.Qe3 Rhd8 25.Bb2 Kg8 26.d4 exd4 27.Bxd4 Rxc1 28.Rxc1 Bh6 29.Qxh6 Rxd4 30.Qf4 Rxe4 31.Qb8+ Qe8 32.Qg3 Qe5 33.Rc8+ Kg7 34.Rc7+ Kh6 35.Qh3+ Kg5 36.Qg3+ Qxg3 37.hxg3 Re2 38.a4 bxa4 39.bxa4 Re4 40.Rxh7 Rxa4 41.Ra7 Kg4 42.Kh2 Ra5 43.Rg7 Rh5+ 44.Kg1 Rg5 45.Rf7 Rf5 46.Rg7 g5 47.Ra7 a5 48.Kh2 Rb5 49.Ra6 f5 50.Ra8 Kh5 51.Ra6 g4 52.Kg1 Rb1+ 53.Kf2 Ra1 54.Ke3 Kg5 55.Ke2 a4 56.Kf2 Ra3 57.Kf1 Rxg3 58.Rxa4 Rb3 59.Ra8 Rb4 60.Rf8 Rb1+ 61.Ke2 0–1

And this game reaffirms that he plays the Sicilian Defense regularly with Black against e4.

Menon, Gopal – Meerovich, Ilan (2100) [B78]

ICA High School Invitational

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 g6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 0–0 8.Bb3 d6 9.f3 Bd7 10.Qd2 Ne5 11.0–0–0 Rb8 12.f4 Neg4 13.h3 Nxe3 14.Qxe3 Nh5 15.Rhf1 Nxf4 16.Rxf4 e5 17.Rxf7 Rxf7 18.Bxf7+ Kxf7 19.Ndb5 Bxb5 20.Nxb5 Bf8 21.Kb1 a6 22.Nc3 Kg7 23.Nd5 Be7 24.g3 Qd7 25.h4 h5 26.g4 hxg4 27.h5 gxh5 28.Qb3 Rf8 29.Ne3 Rf3 30.Nf5+ Qxf5 31.exf5 Rxb3 32.cxb3 Kf6 33.Kc2 Kxf5 34.Kd2 g3 35.Ke3 Kg4 36.Ke2 h4 37.Kf1 h3 0–1

Ok, so basically, I am dealing with an underrated young scholastic superstar looking to make a name for himself. He will likely play the Sicilian Defense and fully expects me to play the Grand Prix. And, like many young players, seems to have difficulty playing positionally. Based on this information, I decide that it is best to play a Closed Sicilian against him. The next step is to determine which line. I have played several types of lines in the past, as in the following games:

Johnson, Joel (2220) – Donaldson (IM), John (2468) [B20]

Joshua Tree Open Joshua Tree, CA (3), 02.06.2007

1.e4 c5 2.d3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.f4 d6 6.Nf3 Nf6 7.0–0 0–0 8.h3 b5 9.a4 b4 10.Nbd2 Bb7 11.Qe2 Nd7 12.Rb1 Rc8 13.b3 Nd4 14.Nxd4 cxd4 15.Nc4 Nb6 16.Bd2 Nxc4 17.dxc4 a5 18.f5 e6 19.fxe6 fxe6 20.Qg4 Qd7 21.h4 Rxf1+ 22.Rxf1 Rc5 23.Bh3 Re5 24.Bg2 Rc5 25.Bg5 Qe8 26.Bf6 h5 27.Qe2 Bxf6 28.Rxf6 Kg7 29.Rf2 Qe7 30.Qd2 e5 31.Qg5 Rc7 32.Kf1 Qxg5 33.hxg5 Rf7 34.Rxf7+ Kxf7 35.Ke2 Bc6 36.Kd3 Bb7 37.Bh3 Ke7 38.Bg2 Ba6 39.Bh3 ½–½

Johnson, Joel (2220) – Martinez, Leo (2200) [B25]

Master Trek (ASU) Tempe, AZ (2), 16.06.2007

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.f4 d6 6.d3 e6 7.Nf3 Nge7 8.0–0 0–0 9.Kh1 Rb8 10.a4 a6 11.Qe1 Nd4 12.Qf2 Nec6 13.g4 (An aggressive move aimed at opening up Black’s kingside.) 13…f5 14.gxf5 gxf5 15.Rg1 (The Rook belongs on the open g-file.) 15…Kh8 16.Be3 b5 17.axb5 axb5 18.Nd1 (The move is designed to relocate the Knight closer to the kingside, while chasing the Black Knight on d4 from its’ outpost.) 18…Bd7 19.c3 Nxf3 20.Bxf3 Qf6 21.Qg2 (Increasing the pressure along the g-file and the h1–a8 diagonal.) 21…Ne7 22.Ra7 Rbd8 23.e5! (Black has major issues. The c-Pawn is a problem, as well as, the d4-h8 diagonal.) 23…dxe5 24.fxe5 Qxe5? (Black needed to try 24. … Qf7 25. Bh5 Bc6 26. Bxf7 Bxg2+ 27. Rxg2 Rxf7 28. Bxc5 Bf8 29. d4 f4 30. Nf2, even though White is in full control of the game.) 25.Bxc5! (The Black Queen is tied down defending the checkmate on g7.) 25…Qf6 26.Qxg7+! Qxg7 27.Rxg7 1–0

Next, I look at other Closed Sicilian lines and I am drawn to the two following games.

In this game, Robert Hess outplays a young Rob Robson in a line that was popular in the 80s. In particular, former World Champion Anatoly Karpov loved playing this line.

Robert Hess (2412) – Ray Robson (2293) [B25]

US Championships Stillwater USA (Round 3), 05/17/2007

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.d3 d6 6.f4 e6 7.Nf3 Nge7 8.0–0 0–0 9.Bd2 Rb8 10.Rb1 b5 11.a3 a5 12.a4 b4 13.Nb5 Nd4 14.c4 Nec6 15.Be3 Nxf3+ 16.Bxf3 Ba6 17.Re1 Qd7 18.Bg2 Rfe8 19.Kh1 Rbd8 20.Qf3 Bb7 21.Qf2 Qc8 22.Rbd1 Ba6 23.e5 dxe5 24.Bxc5 exf4 25.gxf4 Bxb5 26.axb5 Bd4 27.Bxd4 Nxd4 28.b6 Qc5 29.b7 f6 30.Re4 Nb3 31.Qe1 Kf7 32.d4 Qb6 33.c5 Qc7 34.Qe3 a4 35.f5 gxf5 36.Qh6 Kg8 37.Rg1 Kh8 38.Qxf6+ Qg7 39.Rxe6 Qxf6 40.Rxf6 Nxd4 41.c6 Re7 42.Rd6 1–0

In the next game, I really like this type of position that Fedorov gets against the former World Champ and decide that if I can refine White’s play, I believe that I can make this line work out well. And, with the help of student, Jerry Snitselaar, we tear apart this game and determine ways to improve upon White’s play. We conclude this preparation a half an hour before game time and after a couple of quick reviews and a “head butt”, I am ready to conquer!

Alexei Fedorov (2575) – Garry Kasparov (2849) [B20]

Corus Wijk aan Zee NED (2), 14.01.2001

1.e4 c5 2.d3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.f4 d6 6.Nf3 Nf6 7.0–0 0–0 8.h3 b5 9.g4 a5 10.f5 b4 11.Qe1 Ba6 12.Qh4 c4 13.Bh6 cxd3 14.cxd3 Bxd3 15.Re1 Bxh6 16.Qxh6 Qb6+ 17.Kh1 Ne5 18.Nbd2 Rac8 19.Ng5 Rc2 20.Rf1 Bxf1 21.Rxf1 Rfc8 22.fxg6 hxg6 23.Nb3 Rxg2 24.Kxg2 Rc2+ 25.Kg3 Qe3+ 0–1

As for the match itself, we were on the verge of elimination, with our backs against the wall. We needed to trounce these guys to remain in contention and we did just that!! Here are the three favorable decisive games from the match:

GM Nikola Mitkov – CHC (2601) – IM Rogelio Barcenilla – ARZ (2560) [C28] ICC 60 30 u

Internet Chess Club, 10/22/2008, Board 1

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d3 Nc6 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.Nge2 d5 6.exd5 Nxd5 7.0–0 Nxc3 8.Nxc3 0–0 9.f4 Na5 10.Bb3 Nxb3 11.axb3 exf4 12.Bxf4 Qd4+ 13.Kh1 Bxc3 14.bxc3 Qxc3 15.Ra4 b5 16.Re4 Qc6 17.Re7 Bh3 18.Qd2 Rac8 19.Be5 f6 20.Bd4 Rce8 21.Rfe1 Rxe7 22.Rxe7 Rd8 23.Bxa7 Ra8 24.Bg1 Ra2 25.Re2 Bg4 26.Rf2 h5 27.b4 Kf7 28.d4 Rb2 29.d5 Qd6 30.h3 Bd7 31.Qd1 Qxb4 32.Qxh5+ Kg8 33.Qe2 Rb1 34.Qe3 Rd1 35.c3 Qb1 36.Rd2 Re1 37.Re2 Rf1 38.Kh2 Qf5 39.Qd4 Rf4 40.Qa7 Rf3 41.Re3 Rxe3 42.Bxe3 Qe5+ 43.Kg1 Qxc3 44.Bf4 b4 45.d6 b3 46.Qa8+ Kh7 47.Qe4+ f5 48.Qe7 Qd4+ 49.Be3 Qa4 50.Bc1 Qd4+ 51.Kh2 Qxd6+ 52.Qxd6 cxd6 53.Kg3 g5 54.Kf2 Kg6 55.g3 f4 56.gxf4 gxf4 57.Kf3 Kf5 58.Bb2 Bc6+ 59.Kf2 Ke4 60.h4 Kd3 61.h5 Kc2 62.h6 Be4 White resigns 0–1

IM Mark Ginsburg – ARZ (2410) – IM Jan van de Mortel – CHC (2460) [B76] ICC 60 30 u Internet Chess Club, 10/22/2008, Board 2

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 Qd7 15.g4 b5 16.c4 Qb7 17.h4 bxc4 18.Bxc4 Rc7 19.b3 Rac8 20.Qb2 h5 21.gxh5 Nxh5 22.Bxg7 Nxg7 23.h5 Rxc4 24.Rxc4 Rxc4 25.bxc4 Qxb2+ 26.Kxb2 gxh5 27.Kb3 Kh7 28.Kb4 Kg6 29.Kb5 Nf5 30.Ka6 Ne3 31.Kxa7 Nxc4 32.a4 e6 33.Ka6 Kg5 34.Kb5 exd5 35.a5 Nxa5 36.Kxa5 h4 37.Kb4 Kf4 38.Rxh4+ Kxf3 39.Kc3 f5 40.Kd2 f4 41.Rh6 Kg2 42.Rg6+ Kf3 43.Rxd6 Ke4 44.Ke2 f3+ 45.Kf2 d4 46.Rd8 d3 47.Rd7 Black resigns 1–0

NM Joel Johnson – ARZ (2211) – Ilan Meerovich – CHC (2131) [B20]

ICC 60 30 u Internet Chess Club, 10/22/2008, Board 3

1.e4 d6 (No need to panic. I am sure that he wants to play a Sicilian and this move does not change my opinion of that fact.) 2.d3 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 Nf6 5.f4 0–0 6.Nf3 c5 (Ah, yes, all is well now.) 7.0–0 Nc6 8.h3 d5 (Even though this is the best move in the position for Black, I felt comfortable playing against this line. The move that I spent the most time on here was 8. … b5.) 9.e5 Nd7 10.c3 e6 (Even though this is a solid move, I was happy to see it. Practically speaking, it seemed better for him to counter with 10. … Nb6 and 11. … Bf5. Part of the problem with e6 is that Black has to play very precise to avoid having his Bishop on c8 becoming locked out of the game.) 11.Na3 a6 12.Nc2 b5 13.d4 c4 (Black continues to play moves that make it more and more difficult to fre his locked in light-squared Bishop on c8. And, even though it would appear that the situation is a wash because of my locked in dark-squared Bishop on c1, I plan on making kingside Pawn advances that will provide my Bishop with some real future value.) 14.Qe1 (My goal now is to secure the queenside, then turn my full attention to building up a kingside attack.) 14…a5 15.a3 Rb8 16.Kh1 Qe7 17.Bd2 Rb6 18.g4 Ndb8 19.Qg3 b4 20.axb4 axb4 21.Ne3 bxc3 22.bxc3 f5 23.exf6 Bxf6 24.Rae1 Qc7 25.Ne5 Nxe5 26.fxe5 Bg7 27.Rxf8+ Bxf8 28.Rf1 Rb2? (I had expected him to play 28. … Bg7, after which I had planned on playing g5, followed by Ng4 and Nf6 with a growing advantage.) 29.Qf4 (My intention is to play Nd5! on the next move, but it is also very good here. One of the lines I was looking at here was 29. … Bg7 30. Nd5! ed5 31. Bd5 Kh8 32. Qf8!! Bf8 33. Kg7 Rg8#.) 29…Qe7 30.Nxd5 exd5 31.Bxd5+ Black resigns (All moves lead to checkmate, for example: 31. … Be6 32. Be6 Kh8 33. Qf8 Qf8 34. Rf8 Kg7 35. Rg8#; 31. … Kh8 32. Qf8 Qf8 33. Rf8 Kg7 34. Rg8#; 31. … Kg7 32. Qh6 Kh8 33. Rf8 Qf8 34. Qf8#) 1–0

And, one last time, my first US Chess League game:

Joel Johnson – ARZ (2211) – FM John Bick – TEN (2249) [C30]

ICC 75 30 u United States Chess League, 09/17/2008, Board 4

1.f4 e5 2.e4 Bc5 (At this point, I just sat and twiddled my thumbs for five or six minutes. Much like playing poker online, you need to create the illusion that you were somewhat taken aback by his bet (move), 2. … Bc5 and needed time to come up with a response.) 3.Qh5! (The surprise move! From this point forward, Black’s clock starts seriously ticking and ticking. It is obvious that I have blindsided him and now, everything related to this game is in my favor.) 3…Nc6 4.fxe5 g6 5.Qe2 (As in my key game, P Buecker – M Maier, I like placing the Queen here instead of Qf3, which happens in many of the other sample games.) 5…Nd4 (Here, John plays the move that I had just finished looking at, prior to the start of play. Not that it mattered because my preparation has resulted in a huge time advantage already and a great idea of how to proceed.) 6.Qd3 Qe7 7.c3 Nc6 8.Qg3 (I have reached the position that I wanted, when I decided to play this line.) 8…d6 (In several of the sample games, Black frequently employed the move, Bxg1 to avoid losing the tempo after White plays 9. d4 attacking the Black Bishop. The extra tempo is important to Black’s defensive chances.) 9.d4 Bb6 10.Bb5 (At this point in the game, I really want to play Bg5, but I can see that Black will respond with f6, and the eventual capture of my e-Pawn on e4. So, by playing 10. Bb5 first, I am threatening to win his Knight on c6 with the move d5 and on the eventual Qxe4+, I will be able to get all my pieces developed without blocking in this Bishop, say after the move Ne2.) 10…Bd7 11.Bg5 f6 12.exf6 Qxe4+ 13.Ne2 Ne5? (This is a desperate attempt by Black to complicate the position. However, I routinely play complicated games and have no problems sifting through everything.) 14.Nd2 (This is the key move to refuting Black’s 13. … Ne5?. The point is Black has no place good to relocate his Queen. On 14. … Qf5, White wins after 15. Rf1, 16. f7+, and 17. fxg8(Q)+. On 14. … Qc2, White wins by playing 15. Rc1 Qxb2 16. Rb1 Qxa2 17. dxe5. And, on 14. … Qd5:) 14…Qd5 15.c4! (Black wanted to capture my Bishop on b5 in response to me grabbing his Knight on e5 and should I decide to snatch the Bishop on d7, he would simply recapture with his Knight on e5. The move c4 foils Black’s plan by protecting the White Bishop on b5 and leaving Black’s Knight on e5 hanging.) 15…Nd3+ (Black is still trying to hold onto his piece.) 16.Qxd3 Qxg5 17.f7+! (This move wins the piece for good.) 17…Kxf7 18.Bxd7 Nf6 19.0–0 Rad8 20.Ne4 Black resigns 1–0

And, with one week to go, as I understand it, we can make the playoffs if we beat Seattle next week by at least a 3-1 score and Chicago loses to Dallas (a distinct possibility, as Dallas is one of the better teams).

Lastly, I am an alternate on the team, and according to the rules, I am ineligible to play any more games for the team (see below). So, it looks like I will have a perfect 2-0 record for the team this year! Hopefully, I will be able to play a larger role on the team next year. Go Scorpions!!

US Chess League

E. Alternate Rules

1. Two players of any rating can be declared as alternates by each team before the season.

2. Each of these players may play at most two games, and a combined total of at most three games.

3. Alternates are not eligible to compete in the postseason (semi-exception in E6 though).

4. The main intent of the alternate spots is to give each team an extra degree of flexibility. As such, the alternates should really be local players who will generally fill in during extreme circumstances (though teams can use them whenever they see fit). For example, naming a GM from the other side of the country who is scheduled to be in your city for a tournament would not be considered in the spirit of the alternate system. In general, any GM or IM alternate will need to reside in reasonable locale to the team in question to be allowed as an alternate. The League has the right to declare ANY alternate who is felt not to be in the spirit of the system as ineligible.

5. Once the alternates are named, and your season begins, they can only be replaced by a player who lives approximately within 100 miles of your playing site. Once an alternate has played a game, they cannot be replaced on the alternate list under any circumstances. Any team replacing an alternate who hasn’t played a game yet during in the season must comply with the same rules that are used to replace someone on the main roster, in that they must be either rated U2400 or within 50 points of the player they are replacing.

6. For teams wishing to switch players on the main roster with those who are alternates after the season begins, or simply wanting to switch an alternate to the main roster, this is how it works. Regardless of which of the three below scenarios this switch or replacement follows, this change must also fall under the rule of general replacing outlined in A7.

(a) Assuming neither player has played a game, teams may switch a main player and alternate with no penalty (i.e. this does not require the use of one of their two allowed replacements).

(b) If the alternate has already played a game, then when moving them to the main roster, the player they replace is removed from the roster entirely (i.e. cannot switch to an alternate spot). The team effectively loses that alternate spot, and this, unlike (a), does require the use of one of the teams’ two replacements.

(c) If the main player has already played a game and the alternate has not, then once again the main player is removed from the roster entirely, but in this situation, the team is permitted to replace that alternate (following the rule mentioned in E5, but again they cannot be replaced with the main player who’s place they are taking). This also does use up one of the teams’ two allowed replacements.

Note that if a team switches an alternate to the main roster, any games that player has already played still count towards the three total allowed for alternates. Also, when an alternate moves to the main roster they must play at least two regular season games AFTER being added to the main roster (i.e. at least two games as a non-alternate) to be allowed to compete in the playoffs; this is done since we don’t want teams putting an alternate on the main roster during the final week, realizing that player might be more useful than some other in the postseason.

Anybody see a loophole? Robby, you are the lawyer!