The Bare Bones

Here’s the tale of the tape from the US Chess League web site in this inter-divisional Week 6 matchup:

Arizona Scorpions (4.0 – 1.0) vs Baltimore Kingfishers (2.5 – 2.5)

All Time Series Record:  (Baltimore leads 1 – 0)

Starts at 9:00 PM ET       Time Control – Game in 60 with 30 second increment

Arizona Scorpions			Baltimore Kingfishers
IM Rogelio Barcenilla: 2583			GM Sergey Erenburg: 2646
IM Daniel Rensch: 2471			GM Larry Kaufman: 2452
FM Warren Harper: 2408			IM Ray Kaufman: 2433
NM David Adelberg: 2275			FM Ralph Zimmer: 2279
Avg Rating: 2434			Avg Rating: 2453
Arizona Total ——-			——- Baltimore Total

What will occur?

Read the rest of this entry »

The Week 4 Monday line-ups have been announced. The Arizona Scorpions (3 – 0) will face off against the Dallas Destiny (1 – 2) in this week’s match-up. This week’s match will be played in Tucson on Monday at 6:00 pm. Come down to cheer on your team or you can watch the action on ICC.

Date: September 13, 2010
Location: Tucson, 6:00 PM Arizona time

versus

	IM Salvijus Bercys	Board 1		IM Levon Altounian
	IM Julio Sadorra	Board 2		FM Warren Harper
	FM Keaton Kiewra	Board 3		FM Robby Adamson
	WFM Bayaraa Zorigt	Board 4		NM David Adelberg

Hello Everyone!

The 2010 United States Chess League is almost upon us. The teams (including 3 new ones) are gathering for another great season of Internet chess. Just as the league is making some changes, so are the Arizona Scorpions.

The 2010 Scorpions were announced today. Here is the official roster. The ratings in parenthesis are the official league ratings based on the September 2009 USCF supplement. Current USCF ratings are different.

IM Rogelio Barcenilla (2583)
IM Levon Altounian (2536)
IM Dionisio Aldama (2489)
IM Danny Rensch (2432)
FM Warren Harper (2357)
FM Robby Adamson (2346)
NM David Adelberg (2196)
NM Nick Thompson (2098)
Expert John Gurczak (2098)
Expert Amanda Mateer (1993)

One other change to announce. Leo Martinez has stepped down as manager of the Scorpions. Sources close to the organization, who wish to remain anonymous, say that “wanting to spend more time with his family, to work on his studies, and to focus on his health” were major factors in his decision. There were some rumors last season that Leo’s wild, partying nightlife and many female fans were a distraction to the team during their playoff run. When asked if “Leo’s Legion of Ladies” was the cause for the early playoff exit, Scorpion veteran Robby Adamson replied, “Everyone loves Leo. Women want to be with him, men want to be him. But that doesn’t matter now. The 2010 team is only focused on the 2010 season.” EJ will take over as manager of the team.

The first match of the year will be on Wednesday, August 25 at 6:00 PM (local time) against the Miami Sharks. A line-up and location will be announced prior to the match. Once again, the Scorpions will play matches in either Mesa (Abstrax) or Tucson (University of Arizona). All matches are viewable on the Internet Chess Club (ICC).

We look forward to another great season!

The University of Arizona tied for first in the Chess Park College Chess League played over a span of a couple of months. The five teams that participated were all strong including two teams that made it in the Final Four of the Pan American Championships (UTB and Stanford). The five teams involved in the league are University of Arizona, University of Texas at Brownsville, Stanford, University of Miami and New York. The league was a round robin where every team plays every other team. First place was shared between Stanford, UTB and the University of Arizona who all scored 2.5/4 match points. The University of Arizona team consisted of Arizona juniors including FM Warren Harper, NM Leo Martinez, and Experts Ben Marmont, Jon Cox, and Amanda Mateer. The match results and games can be seen at http://college.chesspark.com. Stay tuned for annoted games from some of our players !

Arizona Scorpions players FM Warren Harper and NM Leo Martinez, as well as other strong local Experts Ben Marmont, Jon Cox, and Amanda Mateer are all a part of the newly created College Chess League representing various college teams from across the nation. Although the league has just started, many strong teams are playing including the University of Arizona, Stanford, New York University as well as others. Find out more about interviews with members of the teams and about updates of when the matches will be held at the College Chess League Blog at http://college.chesspark.com/

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!

Here is the recap of the last three matches of the Scorpions. Week 9 is reviewed by Robby Adamson and Weeks 7 and 8 by Leo Martinez. Please also check out Mark Ginsburg’s blog for his thoughts on the match at http://nezhmet.wordpress.com/2008/10/23/the-fabulous-00s-uscl-week-9/.

Week 9 Chicago Blaze vs Arizona Scorpions

The Arizona Scorpions played their best match of the year in downing the playoff contending Chicago Blaze, by a surprising 3-1 score. This marks the second time this year that Arizona defeated the Chicago Blaze, as they previously won their first match of the USCL season 2.5-1.5.

With the win, Arizona can do the unthinkable – make the playoffs with a victory over the Seattle Sluggers next week by a score of at least 3-1, and hope that Dallas tops Chicago. Although this scenario requires some good fortune, the Scorpions will go out and do their best and whatever happens, happens.

Board 1 - GM Mitkov – IM Rogelio Barcenilla 0 -1

It was great to see Rogelio Barcenilla play an outstanding game with the black pieces and defeat GM Mitkov. In a game that featured opposite colored bishops, a rook and queen each from virtually the late opening/early middle game, Rogelio untangled somewhat and was able to achieve a favorable game. Although he might have missed an easier win in the queen and bishop ending, Rogelio found the very powerful g5! in the opposite colored bishop ending. While several ICC kibitzers were claiming draw, Rogelio kept his chances alive, by creating 3 passed pawns (2 is not enough in the game because the d and b pawns are too close to each other). Congrats Rogelio on your first win! I would also add that Rogelio has faced all GMs thus far – Alex Stripunsky, Jan Ehlvest, Vinay Bhat, Julio Becerra, and Nikola Mitkov – and has an even score (win versus Mitkov, loss vs. Ehlvest, and rest draws. Very impressive!

Board 2 – IM Mark Ginsburg – IM Jan Van de Mortel 1-0

While I was happy with Rogelio’s first win, I was even more happy with IM Mark Ginsburg’s win, his first this year, with a solid win over IM Jan Van de Mortel. Mark has taken a lot of criticism this year, but it really is a different skill to play over the internet than over the board. Until you play in this environment, you can not appreciate the pressure and differing environment. In any event, Jan is a noted Dragon expert, but Mark, to my surprise, busted out 1.e4 and went straight into the Open Sicilian! Mark got a slight edge and was able to force Jan to sacrifice the exchange when he was unable to make much progress on the queenside. Mark carefully played the endgame which was more complicated than it looked and netted the full point.

Board 3 - IM Emory Tate – FM Danny Rensch 1-0

Although Danny has not played well this year in the USCL, he did just have a fantastic performance in Reno this past weekend at the Western States Open where he defeated 2 GMs, Alexander Ivanov and Alexander Yermolinsky. Unfortunately his success this past weekend did not translate to his game this week, as he was outplayed by the unusually patient IM Emory Tate in a Hedgehog. Danny fought hard once he got a bad position but it was simply not to be.

Board 4 – NM Joel Johnson – Ilan Meerovich 1-0

Did we make a mistake by not playing Joel more often this year? This week Joel crushed his opponent in what turned into a Closed Sicilian, from a Pirc Defense. Black mistakenly locked up the center with c4, after which Joel got a great game, and crashed through on the kingside, with an eventual obvious sacrifice on d5! Joel moved to 2-0 on the season. Nice job again Joel!

Wish us luck next week in our last match of the season against the Seattle Sluggers.

Week 8 Seattle Sluggers vs Arizona Scorpions

So another loss for the Scorpions this week unfortunately. Seattle is of course tough as GM Hikaru Nakamura, with his 2742 rating, overshadows almost everyone on 1st board in the entire league and puts pressure on boards 2-4 to win. However, this match could have easily been drawn despite strong play at times by both Robby and Warren.

Board 1
GM Hikaru Nakamura vs. IM Levon Altounian
This was a tough match but I remember Lev saying before the match that he was happy about one thing: he didn’t have to prepare to much because Hikaru plays basically everything. He said something like he would’ve had to prepare for e4, d4, c4, g3, Nf3, and b3 all on move 1. The game seemed to go pretty smoothly and Levon didn’t seem to have a lot of problems. One moment that was strange was after 11 Ne3 Rfe8 White didn’t take the free pawn with 12 Bd7 Nd7 13 ed5 cd5 14 Nd5. I’m not really sure what Hikaru saw but Lev was very nervous about this option. Probably Hikaru wanted to just keep the game more under control and solid and use his time advantage. Maybe one improvement is 16…Ng5 with the idea of 17. Bg2 Bb4 and trading off White’s two bishops. After 16…Nd4 of the game White’s plan of Bg2, f4, and e5 activating the light squared bishop seemed to strong.

Board 2
IM Mark Ginsburg – IM Slava Mikhailuk

This game was wild from the very beginning to the very end. I was commenting on the game and thought White was doing well but the position is more complicated than it seems. I am going to refer you to his analysis at his blog:

http://nezhmet.wordpress.com/2008/10/16/uscl_week_8/

for Mark’s own analysis of the game.

Board 3
WGM Katerina Rohonyan – FM Robby Adamson
This game was pretty wild despite pieces getting traded. Robby switched up his openings from the Benko to the 2 Knights Tango after Rohonyan suprised him with 1. d4. This switch seemed to work out really well as he got a strong initative and seemed to be doing really well after 18…f5. With Black threatening both …f4 and …Rf6 moves I thought White’s position was looking dangerous. After 19…Rf6? White seemed to just save himself after 21 Rc8!. After 19…f4 I’m not sure how White saves himself really. After for example 20. Qxb7 Rae8 looks winning while also 20. Qe7 Rf6 21 Rc7 Rg6 looks over. Seattle dodged a bullet with that as Rohonyan saved the game a couple moves later with a 3 fold repitition.

Board 4
NM Warren Harper – NM Michael Lee
This was a very nice game by Warren Harper as he continues to show his strength after his bad season start. He has now beaten two 2300′s in his last two games after losing to lower rated players earlier in the season. In this game the position became pretty closed early on and after that Warren seemed to think that 10…0-0-0 was completely wrong after the game. After this it is easy for White to attack on the Queenside while to attack the White king is completely unclear. The whole rest of the game after move 10 White seemed to build up on the Queenside while Black just maneuvered around not really doing or acheiving anything. A nice game by Warren!

Week 7 Arizona Scorpions vs Miami Sharks

Well in hindsight this match looks better than it did when it was played. Losing 3.5-0.5 is pretty tough but after this match Miami went on to beat Dallas by 3.5-0.5 and beat New Jersey by 3-1. Both of those teams are very strong and Miami is now in 2nd place in the West. This was a match where at one point I got up from my game and looked at all the games and I didn’t think there was one game that I worried about. Once time trouble hit the tide switched though.

Board 1
IM Rogelio Barcenilla vs GM Julio Becerra
This was another Exchange Ruy for Rogelio and he seemed to play it better than against GM Bhat this time. However, at one point it seemed clear that Becerra knew the opening and the plans very well and was blitzing out moves like 16…Rh7 and 17…Be7 and 18…Bd8. Black didn’t seem to have to many problems throughout the game but neither did White really. White used a completely different plan than the game against GM Bhat in playing to use the d5 square and playing his knights to e3 and c3 and later playing Ncd5. However, due to the two bishops a draw seemed the most likely result and occured not to long later.

Board 2
FM Osmany Perea vs FM Danny Rensch
This game also looked promising to me after 15 moves or so. Black seemed to have a solid Benoni type position without the light squared bishop which is sometimes his problem piece. The critical moment of the game according to Danny after the game was on move 21 where he could have played either 21…Ng4 or 21…Nxd5. 21…Nxd5 looks best and most obvious but Danny was afraid of complications like 22 ed5 Qe1 23 Nxd6 Re7 24 Nde4 or something similar. Even after the move played in the game Black seemed alright and after 30 Nxh5 can play 30…de5 with a crazy game still. Unfortunately after 30…gh5 played in the game Black went down quickly.

Board 3
FM Robby Adamson vs FM Charles Galofre
This opening of this game has an interesting story. Robby prepared for a while for the Berlin that he knew was coming but still wasn’t sure what to do when we got ready to take the trip to Phoenix. He had like 3 options and he wasn’t sure which one was best and thought they were equal. I suggested some line I saw in some magazine and he liked it as it was playable and also little known. So after some preparation he basically just used the prep on the drive there. Anyways he seemed to have the slightly better game after 21 Bf4 and then just went for the throat with 22 Nxg6. Unfortunately this sacrifice was less clear than it looked and Galofre defended pretty well it seemed. So this was another game that seemed to turn after getting a good position.

Board 4
NM Eric Rodriguez vs NM Leo Martinez
This was a painful game in that I had a one move win of a Queen that I missed. On move 37 I remember I expected 37 Nc8 which I think is the best move and when he played 37 Rc8 I was surprised and just blitzed out 37…Nxc8 38 Qxc8 Bf8 believing my opponent completely. However White has 39 Nc4! there winning the game on the spot. What me and my opponent completely overlooked in time pressure was that simply 38…Re8+ is check and wins the Queen and the game on the spot. At least this game didn’t affect the entire match but was another disappointing game that started out well.

Here is Danny’s analysis of the Week 5 match with the Carolina Cobras (For Mark Ginsburg’s recap click here):

Levon Altounian vs. Lev Milman U.S. Chess League Week #5 Carolina vs. Arizona

Honestly I found this game hard to read for the majority of the opening and middle game. I would venture to guess that Levon got what he wanted: A position with a slight pull that offers Black very limited ability to change the structure and make it wild. However, as a spectator I was worried about Levon’s time disadvantage throughout. I will admit that I myself have something to learn about Increment Based Time Controls and how this affects both time management and preparation. I especially feel that way after watching Levon (and Robby last week against Andrews) trail a significant amount on time for the majority of the game, but still increase their advantages comfortably to eventually achieve clearly winning positions. This was the case in Levon’s game and after the move 46.Bb5, it seemed to be only a matter of technique for Levon, especially when I considered that Lev Milman was now the player down on time. Unfortunately however, we started to see some of the effects of converting a winning, but complicated position, “on line”. I think I am in the majority with my feelings that Levon would never have missed a mate in two (available to him after Black played Qh6 on move 56) in a live game. Obviously Kramnik missed mate in one not too long ago, so I guess it happens, but needless to say, not winning this game was a tough break for the Scorpions!

Oleg Zaikov vs. Mark Ginsburg U.S. Chess League Week #5 Carolina vs. Arizona

Viewing the game live, I had a much better feel for the position than I did in Levon’s game. Mark’s opening choice was something I have played before, and it was therefore more familiar to me. I felt he handled the position very well even after Zaikov’s rare choice of 9.g3. Technically, 9.g3 has been played before (one time according to my database) but the question is whether or not Zaikov was really prepared for this “new idea and approach” to the position, or if he just didn’t quite know the line that well. My guess is the former, but judging by his time-management, maybe he did make the whole thing up over the board. Who knows? With that perspective in mind (the one where we assume Zaikov prepared this line with 9.g3) I have to give Oleg credit for his choice and even his lash out move 16.f4!?. The position remained unclear for sometime, but from a practical perspective: A young underdog against an experienced International Master; Zaikov did exactly what he needed to do to win. He applied pressure. Despite Mark’s accurate defense (and Mark did do a good job dealing with the tactics and shooting down tricks), once time pressure began to play a role, Mark blundered and lost immediately. This was obviously a critical game and even in hindsight, I don’t think Mark could have played much better (some small improvements to the defense might have been 23…Re8 or even the aggressive 23…Qxa3) but over all Zaikov “won” the game more than Mark “lost it”. Taking the “unbiased Rybka approach” you might say “well, if Mark had only played 31…Rg6 instead of 31…Qd1+?? He would have most likely drawn”. Although that is true, given the circumstances of Mark’s time pressure and Zaikov’s attacking chances, unless Mark was going to take the draw right then, it was still going to be a hard game for Black. Mark will avenge himself this week against David Pruess of the San Francisco Auto Mechanics or whatever!

Robby Adamson vs. Ron Simpson U.S. Chess League Week #5 Carolina vs. Arizona

Despite my previous accusations, Ron is not related to Bart or Homer in any way…J In all seriousness though; this game was another tough break for the Scorps. Robby was the favorite in this game and he had White. After taking Ned Flanders bad advice, Mr. Simpson chose the dubious 7…Bg4?! (Which I guess is hard to call dubious given that no other move helps the line anyway). My guess: Ron was planning on a repeat of the game Gufeld-Balinas, Las Vegas U.S. Senior Cup 1995 which although reads 1-0 in the database, was a wild and crazy affair in which Black had really good attacking chances. Robby made the right decision with 8.Bd5, but he should have captured on c6 and gone into the game quoted above with 10. Nxe5 instead of 10.d4. Then, even if White doesn’t want the complications that occur after 14.Nd2 and 15.Qxg7, 14.f4 (Rybka) seems to give White a slight pull. Nonetheless, after Robby missed this opportunity out of the opening it still seemed as though his “veteran savvy” might pull off a surprising win in the rook ending (Lord knows he should know something about them by now). Although it doesn’t seem to offer much, in a practical sense I think Robby needed to play more actively with a move like 43. Rb8, although I must admit as long as Mr. Simpson doesn’t stray too far from Springfield he should be fine. In the end it wasn’t destined to be for Robz to get the win, and he settled on a draw after 76 moves of fighting.

Craig Jones vs. Warren Harper U.S. Chess League Week #5 Carolina vs. Arizona

I personally had a lot of anticipation in this game as I knew that Warren’s first two showings in the League were not a good example of his true strength. (Let’s hope the same is so for me this week against Shankland right.) Curiously enough in this game, Craig played 9.g3 just as Zaikov played 9.g3 against Ginsburg: Coincidence? I think NOT! I am on to Carolina’s little game, and whoever plays them next week should look into this little 9.g3 shenanigan! Anyway, a typical Queen’s Indian was reached and they followed the game Sjodahl-Wessman Sundsvall 1989, until Craig varied with 16.dxc6. It is unclear whether or not that move was an improvement for Craig, and it seems to me that at that point Black already has a comfortable position. Warren’s defense, as his kingside became open, was impressive until the blunder 33…Rxd5? (33.Qe7 keeps an edge as White can’t capture the f7-pawn without getting mated on f1.) After that Craig had a clear advantage, but then “old faithful” time pressure set in and Craig trapped his own knight with 40.Kf2?! and 41. Ne7? (40.Ne7 immediately was much better). The finish was certainly entertaining (don’t you just love when the bishop dominates the knight). Warren wins a nice game.

SUMMARY:

Although some good things happened in this match, the Scorpions definitely let one slip away. An extra half a point on anyone of the top 3 boards would have done it, but hindsight is always 20-20. I liked our aggressiveness as well as our “will to push on” in games like Robby’s. Let’s go get em’ against San Fran and hope for the best!! Go Scorpion Nation…

Week 5 is underway for the Scorpions on Wednesday with a match against the Carolina Cobras. This is a match that had caught my eye from the beginning of the season as my good friend Craig Jones is the manager and usual 4th board for the Cobras. Craig used to live and coach in Tucson for a long time but moved to North Carolina 6 years ago. I have had many talks with Craig about the league and about other teams in the league as well as our respective teams. Now our teams will have to face each other!

Carolina is a team that many expected to finish last in the Eastern Conference but have surprised some people with a 2-2 record from the first four matches with an especially impressive 4-0 win last week versus the struggling New York Knights. Being a clash of teams with 2-2 records in opposite divisions this becomes a very important match for each team as the middle of the season approaches.

Let’s look at the lineups for each team (Photos by Amanda Mateer and James Martin):

Board 1
IM Levon Altounian 2535 vs. IM Lev Milman 2502

This is a very interesting matchup pitting two strong International Masters against one another. These two have played once before in the 2005 US Championships a while back that ended in a draw. However, considering Levon’s strength playing White and Milman’s impressive win last week against GM Shabalov this game should be anything but peaceful.

Board 2
FM Oleg Zaikov 2376 vs. IM Mark Ginsburg 2410

Another close match of an experienced International Master that has been on the scene for a couple decades versus a strong college student that has done well in the US Chess League in the past. Although Oleg has generally played the most and done best on board 3 in past seasons he does have strong wins over IM Justin Sarkar and FM Todd Andrews on board 2 this season.

Board 3
FM Robby Adamson 2377 vs. FM Ron Simpson 2346

Both of these players have played board 3 most of the season and both come off wins for their respective teams with Robby defeating FM Todd Andrews to help Arizona beat Tennessee and Ron Simpson beating IM Jay Bonin of New York. This is also the first season for both players as Ron Simpson is a new addition to the Cobras. Both are aggressively minded which should create a lot of fireworks!

Board 4
NM Craig Jones 2320 vs. NM Warren Harper 2350

Like all the others, rating wise this matchup is very close. Warren will have a chance to avenge his previous losses in the league while also playing his toughest competitor yet in Craig Jones. Craig comes off a very nice win against WFM Iryna Zenyuk of New York. These two fourth boards are both very strong and pit two of the highest rated 4th boards in the league against one another.

As you can see all four of these games are very close in rating and strength and literally anything is possible. Check out the match live at the University of Arizona, Cesar Chavez Building (5th Floor) 1110 E James E. Rogers Way Tucson, AZ or on ICC at 6:00 PM AZ time. Go Scorpions !