My role this season will be The Openings Guide.
I will round up interesting openings from each week. Since the games are played at such a fast time control, it’s often the case that dubious openings (bluffs or semi-bluffs) work out. Those are particularly interesting to me. I am checking things with Rybka 4 and Fritz 12 reference database 2010.
USCL Week 9 action sees a Caissic Horror Show brought out of the storage closet for Halloween!
Charbonneau, Pascal (NY) -Enkbhat, Tegshsuren (BAL)
Caro Hyper-Advance USCL Special
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. g4? LOL! This move is not good! White ‘forgets’ to play the mainline 4. Nc3 first covering e4. An ideal risky line in USCL fast time limit play unless black knows it (nightmare scenario).
LOL!4…Bd7?! LOL again! Black submits to white’s bully-boy ploy and transposes inadvisedly into an old Bronstein-Petrosian 1959 USSR Ch. game. Note his game is not at all bad here, but students of the Nezhmet-Mackenzie Wars (striking similarities to TV’s Clone Wars) know that black should pop into the juicy square with 4… Be4! 5. f3 Bg6 and white is hurting in all variations. For example, 6. h4 h5 7. Bd3 Bxd3 8. Qxd3 e6 and ewww. Or, 7. Ne2 hxg4 8. Nf4 Bh7 9. fxg4 e6 10. Nc3 c5! and black is faster. The nice thing is that black doesn’t have to do anything special, white’s problems are all self-inflicted with the 4. g4? lunge. Consult the above link for full gory details.
In SOME Caro lines, but definitely not here, black doesn’t want to move off the c8-f5 diagonal in fear of a white sac e5-e6. Here, though, that sac fails miserably but black didn’t know that, and this accounts for black’s mistake in the game. The reason it fails here is that white’s disgusting pawns on f3 and g4 open up the g3 square for black’s queen after Qd8-d6.
5. c4 Na6!? A nice inventive move. Black starts to redeem himself after the misstep last move. After the plausible but passive 5… e6 6. Nc3 Ne7 7. c5 (White might be better off not doing this) 7…b6! 8. b4 a5 9. Na4 Nc8! 10. Rb1 axb4 11. Rxb4 bxc5 12. dxc5 here Petrosian played 12…Qc7? and missed a great shot, namely: 12… Na6! 13. Bxa6 Qa5!! exploiting white’s uncoordinated army. After 14. Bd2 Qxa6 black is just better. In the game Petrosian held on and drew, but Bronstein stood better with the space advantage (USSR Ch. Tbilisi 1959).
6. cxd5 After 6. Nc3 the move 6…Be6!? is very interesting. For example, 7. Nh3 dxc4 8. Nf4 Qd7 9. Nxe6 Qxe6 10. f4 g6 11. b3 h5 12. f5 gxf5 13. Bxc4 Qg6 14. gxf5 Qg2 15. Rf1 Nb4 and it’s anybody’s game. Not for the faint of heart. Even so, 6. Nc3 might be stronger; note black’s big improvement on move 6 in the game.
Knight Jump! Do it!6… cxd5?! Boo! Black doesn’t follow through on his nice last move! Indicated was the logical and aesthetic knight jump 6…Nb4! exploiting the early g2-g4 opening of the c6-h1 diagonal. If 7. e6 (7. Qb3 Nxd5 8. Qxb7 Rb8 9. Qxa7 Nb4 10. Na3 Bxg4 11. Bd2 e6 and black is all right) 7…fxe6 8. Nf3 cxd5 and black is fine. Another humorous line: 7. Nc3 Qb6!? (7…Nxd5 is dead equal) and black can always take on d5 with the knight later. This game was just one big set of black missed opportunities.
7. Nc3 e6 8. h4 h5 9. gxh5 Nh6 Here, the immediate 9…Qc7 10. a3!? Nc7!? makes sense, rerouting right away the problem knight on a6.
10. Bd3 Qb6 11. Nge2 Nc7 12. a3 a5? Last chance to be competitive with 12…O-O-O! unclear.
13. Na4 Qa7 14. Rg1 Bb5 15. Bc2 We’re far afield of the opening now, but just notice that the simple 15. Bxb5+ Nxb5 16. Bxh6 Rxh6 17. Rc1 leaves black with a completely dreadful game. This is just to highlight that black drifted while white was purposefully developing.
15…Nf5 16. Bxf5 exf5 17. Ng3 Bd7 18. Be3 b5 19. Nc5 Bxc5 20. dxc5 Qa6 21. Rc1 O-O-O 22. c6 Be6 23. Qd4 g6 24. Bg5 Rde8 25. h6 Kb8 26. Ne2 Qa7 27. Qd2 Bc8 28. Bf6 Rh7 29. Nd4 Qb6 30. Rg3 Rxh6 31. Nxb5 Rxh4 32. Bxh4 Qxb5 33. Bf6 Ba6 34. Kd1 f4 35. Rgc3 d4 36. Rf3 Nd5 37. Kc2 Qxc6+ 38. Kb1 Qb6 39. e6 Nc3+ 40. Ka1 Qxe6 41. Qxf4+ Ka8 42. bxc3 Qb3 43. cxd4 Bd3 44. Rxd3 Qxd3 45. Qg3 1-0
Well, I hope next time we see the juicy 4…Be4! on the board!
I see Jan van de Mortel won Game of the Week with an interesting Dragon vs Bartholomew. The variation as a whole does not have a good reputation. I am still a fan of 14. Rc1! and am a) surprised Bartholomew did not play it and b) wondering how Jan would improve if Bartholomew had played it. The full move order being
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 0-0 8.Qd2 Nc6 9.0-0-0 Nxd4 10.Bxd4 Be6 11.Kb1 Qc7 12.Nd5 Bxd5 13.exd5 Rfc8 14.Rc1!.
In Week 8, we had an interesting old-school Semi-Slav Meran (think Larsen, Uhlmann, and other giants of 1960s Candidate Matches!) with lots of twists and turns.
Before proceeding, you must, must play over these titanic Uhlmann-Larsen Semi-Slav games. You’ll be glad you did. Larsen in his heyday really uncorked some nice tactics and had a nice positional flow as well. And Uhlmann was no weakie, scoring quite a few wins over Larsen in his career.
From 1968. Larsen finds a back-rank weakness to conclude the game, demonstrating the power of a Q&N versus weak pawns.
From the 1971 Candidates Match. Computers showed this to be a swindle where black should have lost but it was still a nice king-hunt.
And my personal favorite, also from the 1971 Candidates Match, Larsen ends the game with a spectacular bishop move that overloads white’s forces.
OK, now that this necessary historical detour is out of the way, on with the USCL action.
Vinay Bhat (SF) – Alexander Stripunsky (QNS) USCL Week 8, Semi-Slav Meran
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. e3 Nbd7 6. Bd3 dxc4 7. Bxc4 b5
The Meran8. Bd3
I want to draw the readers’ attention to the interesting try popularized by Larsen and Korchnoi in the 1960s, 8. Bb3!?. After, for example, 8…b4 9. Ne2 Ba6 10. O-O Be7 11. Re1 O-O 12. Nf4 Nd5? (12… c5 13. e4 c4 14. Bc2 is very complex) 13. e4 Nxf4 14. Bxf4 white was simply better in and won in the ending,1-0 Kortschnoj,V-Ciric,D/Leningrad 1964. And 8. Be2 is a totally different story, too. The text is by far the most popular, but an argument can be made not to block up the d-file.
8… Bd6 9. O-O O-O 10. Qc2 Bb7 11. a3 a5!?
Here, 11… Qe7 was met by the surprising gambit 12. Ng5!? Bxh2+ 13. Kxh2 Ng4+ 14. Kg1 Qxg5 15. f3 and black could not hold the position in the long run, 1-0 Vyzmanavin,A (2580)-Shirov,A (2710)/Tilburg 1992.
To e3-e4 or not to e3-e412. e4!? Slovenian GM Alexander Beliavsky is a connoisseur of slow build-ups. Here, he preferred 12. Bd2!? Qe7 13. h3 b4 14. axb4 axb4 15. Ne4 Nxe4 16. Bxe4 Nf6 17. Bd3 c5 18. dxc5 Bxc5 19. Rxa8 Rxa8 20. Rc1 Bd6 21. e4 Nd7 22. Bg5 f6 23. Be3 Rc8 24. Bc4 Ne5 (24… Bc5!) 25. Nxe5 Bxe5 26. Qb3 Kf8 27. f3 Rc6 28. Rd1 Bxb2?? (28…h6 +=) 29. Bb5 Rc3 30. Qxb2 Rxe3 31. Qd4! 1-0 Beliavsky,A (2545)-Platonov,I/Kiev 1978. A very nice piece win tactic at the end. With the game move, white asserts in the center. However, observe the note to black’s 15th and also black’s suggested improvement on move 16. These seem to suggest black is OK here. We might want to focus on 12. Bd2!? again as unassuming as that looks.
12… e5 13. dxe5 Nxe5 14. Nxe5 Bxe5 15. h3 Re8!?
Dubious looks 15… c5?! 16. Bxb5! (The other capture, 16. Nxb5 is met by the perplexing 16…c4! 17. Bxc4 Nxe4 with some activity) 16… Bxc3 17. bxc3 Bxe4 18. Qe2 and white was definitely better. However, black hung on and drew later, 1/2-1/2 Epishin,V (2615)-Dokhoian,Y (2545)/Moscow 1991/URS-ch
But very interesting and logical here is 15… Nh5!? 16. Ne2 Re8? (16…Qd6! 17. f4 Rad8!, a key Meran tactic to remember, and it’s fully equal!) and white won, 1-0 Maric,A (2443)-Tkeshelashvili,S (2286)/New Delhi 2000. It’s always thematic in Merans to work on the dark squares.
16. Be3
Key Moment16…Qe7? Black misses the nice resource 16… Bd4! with level chances.
17. Ne2! Now black has problems with his sleeping Bishop on b7 and strange queenside pawns.
17…Bc7 Nothing is solved by 17… Rad8 18. Rad1.
18. Bc5! Bd6 19. Bxd6 Qxd6 20. f4? Up to this point, white had a clear and pleasant advantage, with the passive B/b7. However now he’s too impulsive and lets that fellow out of the box. After the simple 20. Rad1! black is suffering. For example, (20… Qc7 21. Bxb5 Nxe4 22. Nd4 and white maintains a plus.
20… c5! We’re out of the opening now, and black opportunistically has created a good game. I will just draw attention at the end to one very USCL-style double blunder that occurred.
21. e5 Qb6 22. Rf2 c4 23. Bf5 Nd5 24. Re1 Ne3 25. Qb1 Nxg2 26. Rd1 Rad8 27. Bd7 Re7 28. Rd6 Qc5 29. Qd1 Ne3?? Time pressure? Very nice was 29… Nxf4!! 30. Nxf4 Qxe5 31. Ng2 Qg3 32. Kf1 Be4 33. Nf4 Bd3+ 34. Nxd3 Qxd6 and wins.
30. Bc6? Maybe also time trouble? White misses the escape 30. Bxb5! Rf8 31. Qd4 Qxb5 32. Nc3 Qe8 33. Qxe3 Re6 and it’s equal!
30… Rxd6 31. Qxd6 Qxc6 32. Qxc6 Bxc6 33. Nd4 Bd7 0-1
Let’s explore an interesting junior battle.
Gerald Larson (TEN) – Trevor Magness (CHI) USCL Week 7
Ruy Lopez Exchange
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.0-0 Bg4 6.h3 (?!)
Let’s try NOT doing h3 yet (this committal move gives black a ready-made lever on the kingside). I’m going to recommend here the eccentric-looking 6. d3!? Qf6 7. Nbd2 O-O-O 8. a4!? awaiting events. For example, 8. a4 g5 9. h3 Bh5 10. Qe2! Kb8 11. g4! Bg6 12. Nc4! and white has an edge. Delaying h2-h3 looks foxier. It also probably has the advantage of taking black out of the well-known channels.
6…h5! Of course! Known to be bad for white now is 7. hxg4 hxg4.
I enjoy junior games. There will always be the sharpest twist on the most innocuous starting positions. No theoretical verdict has been reached on this line. Let’s see what happened…
7.d3 Qf6 8.Nbd2 Ne7 9.Re1 Ng6 White is fairly tied up now due to the pressure on f3. His next move alters the structure but he could also eat on g4 at this moment.
Key Moment10.d4
After the only optically risky 10. hxg4!? hxg4 11. Nh2? Bc5! black had a big edge and won in Fressinet-Kazhgaleyev, Paris 1996. Correct is 11. g3! and white holds after some adventure: 11. g3! Bc5 12. Nb3! Bb6 (Looks terrible for white, doesn’t it? But… white escapes!) 13. Bg5 Qxf3 14. Qxf3 gxf3 15. Nd2 f6 16. Be3 Ba5! 17. c3 O-O-O 18. Rad1!! Rxd3 19. Nc4! and draws!
10…Nf4 11.dxe5
I guess it’s too much to ask for the nice trap 11. hxg4 hxg4 12. Nh2 Nxg2!! winning, as has occurred in a bunch of games. The rather rude point, very familiar to Marshall specialists, is 13. Kxg2 Rxh2+! 14. Kxh2 Qxf2+ 15. Kh1 g3 and mates.
11…Qg6! 12.Nh4! The only way to hold the balance! Still, black can and should have posed problems before white reaches safety.
12…Bxd1 13.Nxg6 Nxg6 14.Rxd1 0-0-0 15.e6 fxe6 The foxy 15…f6!? is perfectly possible but it’s still equal. 15…f6!? has the virtue of keeping things relatively speaking more complicated.
16.Re1 Bb4?! 16…Ne5! sets practical problems and black has the easier time of it. The text forces white to make a useful move. Anyway, we’re far afield of the opening now — black’s setup passed the theoretical test!
17.c3 Bc5 18.Nb3 Bb6 19.Be3 Rd3 20.Bxb6 cxb6 21.Rad1 Rhd8 22.Rxd3 Rxd3 23.g3 Kd7 24.Kf1 Ke7 25.Ke2 Rd8 26.Rd1 Rxd1 27.Kxd1 Ne5 28.Nc1 Nf7 29.h4 Kd6 30.Ke2 c5 31.Nd3 g5 32.hxg5 Nxg5 33.f3 Nh7 34.e5+ Kd5 35.Ke3 b5 36.Kf4 a5 37.Nf2 a4 38.Ne4 Kc4 39.Ke3 b4 40.Nd6+ Kd5 41.f4 b6 42.c4+ Kc6 43.Ke4 Kd7 44.Kd3 Nf8 45.Ne4 Ke7 46.Nf6 h4 47.gxh4 Ng6 48.h5 Nxf4+ 49.Ke4 Ne2 50.h6 Kf7 51.Nd7 Nc3+ 52.Kd3 Nxa2 53.Nxb6 a3 54.bxa3 bxa3 55.Nd7 Nb4+ 56.Kc3 a2 57.Kb2 Kg6 58.Nxc5 Kxh6 59.Nxe6 Nd3+ 60.Kxa2 Nxe5 61.c5 Kg6 62.Kb3 Kf6 63.Nd4 Ke7 64.Ka4 Kd7 65.Kb5 Kc7 66.Ne6+ Kb7 67.Nf4 Kc7 Game drawn by mutual agreement 1/2-1/2
I guess we could say it’s a gambit of structure (backward pawn on d6 after black moves e7-e5) for activity. It’s not to my taste at all, but so far this USCL season Shabalov has tried it versus Kudrin and Kiewra just tried it versus Bick. And black so far stands at 1-1.
Let’s see these games.
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Nf6 4. Nc3 cxd4 5. Nxd4 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 O-O 8. Qd2 Nc6 9. Bc4 Bd7 10. O-O-O Rb8 The characteristic move of the Chinese Dragon. In 1974-5, Paul Whitehead (upholding black) and Jay Whitehead (upholding white) were debating the merits of the other mainlines in countless blitz games at the San Francisco Mechanics Chess Club with 10…Rc8 and 10….Qa5 and ….Rfc8.
Chinese, anyone?In defense of the Chinese, I think it makes more sense than …a7-a6 which Magnus Carlsen tried a few times (notably getting crushed by Topalov). In case you were wondering how it got its name, Gallagher writes about its dubious origins in the 2002 NIC magazine. Some journalist just happened to be in China…
11. Bb3 Na5
When the Chinese Dragon first got on the radar in 2002, Chris Ward tried 11… Ne5. An unimpressed Joe Gallagher wrote in NIC magazine “I do not predict a bright and glittering future for the Chinese Dragon.” Nevertheless, that game Gallagher-Ward British Ch. 2002 ended in a draw after 12. f4 (12. Bh6 Bxh6 13.
Qxh6 b5 14. Nd5 Nxd5 15. exd5 a5 16. Nc6 Bxc6 17. dxc6 e6 18. h4 a4 is an unsound piece sac for white — 19. h5 Qf6 20. hxg6 Qxg6 21. Qxg6+ hxg6 22. Bxe6 fxe6 23. Rxd6 Kf7 and black is better.
Also possible is 12. h4 b5 13. h5 Nc4 14. Bxc4 bxc4 15. h6 Bh8 16. Nf5 Bxf5! (not 16…gxf5?? 17. Bb6! winning) 17. exf5 Qa5 18. fxg6 Ne4 19. fxe4 Qxa2! (the tempting at first glance 19…Rxb2? 20. g7! wins for white) 20. Nxa2 Bxb2+ 21. Kb1 Bc3+ with a humorous draw!
12… Neg4 13. Bg1 b5 14. h3 b4 15. hxg4 bxc3 16. Qxc3 Rc8 17. Qg3 Bxg4 18. Re1 Qa5 19. c3 e5 20.
fxe5 dxe5 21. Nf3 Rxc3+! Not very hard to see but nevertheless a pleasing drawing combination from Chris Ward, Dragon aficionado.
22. bxc3 Qxc3+ 23. Kb1 Rc8 24. Bxa7 Qd3+ 25. Kb2 Qc3+ 26. Kb1 Qd3+ 27. Kb2 Qc3+ {And drawn, Gallagher-Ward British CH 2002.})
Conclusion: 11…Ne5 potentially needs re-examination because the way this game goes isn’t very pleasant for black. Keep this in mind as you study move 14 alternatives for black in the game.
12. Bh6 Bxh6
It’s not risky per se to have the white queen drawn out to h6, but it can always go back and black has not gained time. 12… b5 13. Nd5 Nxb3+ 14. Nxb3 Bxh6 15. Qxh6 doesn’t look too different from the game and black has problems.
13. Qxh6 b5 The weird gambit 13… e5 14. Nde2 b5? (marginally better 14… Nxb3+ {Kurnosov-Pavlovic, Hastings 2009 but black faced the usual difficulties and white won} was played in Zambrana-Yuan, Sao Paulo 2008. White then played the lemon 15. h4? and lost but he should have taken on d6 with an edge.
14. Nd5! Of course! This is a key moment.
Decisions, Decisions14…e6?! As Shabalov played against Kudrin earlier in the USCL year, but this position is just suffering for black. Die-hard Chinese-ites will play 14….e5 here and claim near-equality. And maybe they are right – it’s hard to break down black’s game. Addendum: Maybe 14…e5 15. Nf5!? gives white a small plus – this needs further work.
From black’s point of view, it’s worth also looking at 14…Nxb3+. This is actually transposing, usually, to 14…e5. Then, 15. Nxb3 e5 is best met with 16. Nxf6+ Qxf6 17. h4!? or the simple 17. Kb1 and white has a small edge. Instead, Robson played 16. h4?! against Papp in Spice(B) 2009, and Papp gained equality after 16…Nxd5 17. Rxd5 Rb6. Papp lost later after weakening himself unnecessarily with …g6-g5? on the solid kingside and falling prey to a tactic. Conclusion: this is the last spot for black to avoid getting a lasting disadvantage with either 14….e5 or 14…Nxb3 (these two often converge). We’ll have to ask the all-knowing Dragon Sage Mikhail Golubev what he thinks.
15. Nxf6 Qxf6 16. h4 Qg7 17. Qg5! Excellent, as Kudrin played against Shabalov. Black is under pressure. This move pinpoints black’s positional deficiencies and is exactly why I don’t like the 14…e6?! line for black.
17…Nc4
It’s hard to recommend anything. What do the waiting 17…Rb7 or 17…Rfe8 accomplish? Shabalov played 17…Qe5 18. Ne2 Bc6 19. Rd2 Rfd8 20. Rhd1 Nb7 (clearly black is suffering) 21. Nf4 a5 22. a3 Re8 and here Kudrin could have capped his fine play with the powerful 23 .Qxe5! dxe5 24. Nd3 f6 (forced) 25. g4! and white will break up black’s king side structure with a winning edge. This nice sequence is hard to see in the rapid USCL time control. Unfortunately, Kudrin went wrong with 23. Nd3? Qxg5 24. hxg5 Kg7 25. e5 Red8 26. exd6 Rxd6 27. Ne5 (white is still better) 27…Rxd2 28. Rxd2 Be8 and now he missed another shot to keep the edge, 29. Ng4! stopping h6.
After Kudrin’s second lemon, 29. Ba2? h6! black liquidated a weakness and was fine; Shabalov went on to turn the tables in a key match victory, Kudrin (PHI) – Shabalov (TEN) USCL 2009.
18. Bxc4 bxc4 19. h5?! 19. Qe7! looks good while black is still disorganized.
19…c3?! Tempting but not good. There is no real attack here. Leaving the pawn on c4 is stronger, for example 19…Rb7 preparing to double on the b-file. Black then would have very good chances to hold the game.
20. b3 Now the c3 pawn is a goner and black is in big trouble.
20…Rb4 21. h6 21. Qe3 also kept a big edge for white.
21…Qh8 22. Ne2 Rb6 23. Ng3? The easiest win is 23. e5! d5 24. Nxc3.
23… Rb5? 23…Bb5 was the toughest. Anyway, we’re far afield from the opening now, so we will show the rest rapidly.
24. Qe7 Qe5 25. Qxd7 Ra5 26. a4 Easiest was 26. Kb1! Qxg3 27. Qxd6 since the game motif 27… Qxg2 is met by 28. Qd4! e5 29. Qxc3 and wins.
26…Qxg3 27. Qxd6 Qxg2 28. Qd4 Qg5+ 29. Kb1 Qe5 30. Ka2 Qxd4 31. Rxd4 f5 32. Rc4 fxe4 33. fxe4 Rh5 34. Rxh5 gxh5 35. Rxc3 h4 36. b4 Rf4 37. Re3 Kf7 38. Kb3 Kg6 39. b5 Kxh6 40. a5 Rf1 41. Kc4 Kg5 42. Rb3 Rf8 43. b6 axb6 44. axb6 Kg4 45. b7 Rb8 46. Kc5 h3 47. Kc6 h2 48. Rb1 Rg8 49. Kc7 Rg7+ 50. Kb6 Rg8 51. Ka7 Kf3 52. b8=Q Rxb8 53. Kxb8 h5 54. c4 Kxe4 55. Rd1! 1-0
I’m not understanding why Herman in Herman (NY) – Uesugi (BAL) USCL Week 6 diverged from the very risky Uesugi Week 4 effort in the same opening! After all, it’s possible Uesugi has not visited this website. 
The Foxy Rauser Deviation, as practiced by IM Albert Kapengut many times and also me at Lone Pine 1980. Albert used it most recently on the NJKO USCL team to defeat IM M. Pasalic of the Chicago Blaze in USCL Week 5 action. Let’s see the “historical game” first to gain perspective. Interestingly, I was playing a typically well-prepared representative of the former Soviet Union and against this type of player, “eccentric” early deviations are not a surprise!
Mark Ginsburg – IM Vitaly Zaltsman Lone Pine 1980. Sicilian Rauser, Foxy Deviation
In this tournament, held shortly before my 21st birthday, I was mired in disappointment and blunders with only a nice win over John Grefe to my credit in a “Lenderman-special” Neanderthal Ruy Lopez Cordel defense with an early Qd8-f6. When I say “Lenderman-special” I mean that it has been tried by Lenderman and also it’s very bad.
It’s very funny to think that my “eccentric” Sicilian gambit in the Zaltsman game would resurface in a USCL game featuring veteran IM Albert Kapengut in his win over Chicago IM M. Pasalic. No wonder Zaltsman blitzed off his first 15 moves – it must be in Soviet academies!
1. Nf3 c5 2. e4 Nc6 3. Nc3 d6 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 Nf6 6. Be3
White is being foxy (inviting black’s game response) and a little naive because this move is absolutely nothing theoretically.
6…Ng4 Tasty! White gets what he wants! This move aims for adventure and risk. Kapengut passes by this point in his brief annotations without comment. But a serious argument must be made for the simple 6… e5!? aiming for Be6 and d5 liquidation. 7. Nb3 (7. Nxc6 bxc6 8. Bc4 Be7 9. O-O O-O 10. Qd3 Be6 11. Rad1 Ng4 12. Bd2 Qb6 13. Bb3 Nf6 and white has zero) 7… Be6 8. Qd2 (8. Be2 d5! 9. exd5 Nxd5 10. Nxd5 Qxd5 11. Qxd5 Bxd5
12. O-O O-O-O is totally level) 8… d5 9. exd5 Nxd5 and once again I do not see any edge. In fact, I think Joel Benjamin played this way versus me in some tournament, once. For example, 10. Nxd5 (10. O-O-O? Bb4! 11. Bd3 Bxc3 12. bxc3 Qc7 13. Bc5 O-O-O! is just structurally horrible for white) 10… Qxd5 11. Qxd5 Bxd5 12. O-O-O O-O-O 13. c4 Be6 14. Rxd8+ Kxd8 15. Nc5 Bxc5 16. Bxc5 and white had zero in
Nakamura,H (2452)-Zilka,S (2182)/Oropesa del Mar 2001 although as you might guess Hikaru tricked his lower rated opponent in the ending .
Conclusion: I don’t see anything wrong with 6. Be3 e5!? which takes the fun out of white’s schemes.
7. Bb5 Nxe3 8. fxe3 Bd7 9. Bxc6?! This is my choice in the Zaltsman game.
Due to black’s improvement on move 10 in my game, I think my move offers very little.
Kapengut chose the more foxy 9. O-O. I will return to Kapengut’s choice after the Zaltsman game.
9… bxc6 10. O-O e6 (10… e5 {This logical move looks good!} 11. Qf3 f6 12. Nf5 g6 13. Ng3 Be7 and black was a little better and went on to win; Meszaros,A (2310)-Groszpeter,A (2495)/Hungary 1992/EXT 2000})
11. e5 If 11. Qf3 Qf6 12. Qe2 Qg5! makes sense and black stands well. Remember that, we will see that in Kapengut-Pasalic, below!
11… Be7 12. exd6 Bxd6 13. Ne4? A blunder but by this point white has very little. 13. Nf3 Qc7 14. Qd4 e5 15. Qh4 O-O 16. Ne4 f6 is not promising.
13… Bxh2+! Ooopsie. Since I was young, I didn’t care about this blunder very much. Sure enough, not too many moves later, Zaltsman was totally confused and white was winning! I was completely amazed to see in the database a white win featuring this antique blunder of mine; Skjoldborg wound up winning vs. J. Christiansen, Copenhagen 2003, but of course it had nothing to do with this blunder.
14. Kh1 Qh4 15. Nf6+ gxf6 16. Nf3 Qg3 17. Nxh2 Rg8 18. Qe2 Rg6 19. Rf3 Qe5 20. Rd1 Rd8 The greedy 20… Rh6! 21. Rf4 Qxb2! 22. Rfd4 Rd8 23. Qd2 Qb7 and black should win.
21. Rh3 h6 22. e4 c5 Black is drifting! Again 22… Qxb2.
23. Rhd3 Ke7 24. Nf3 Qc7 25. c4 Rgg8 26. e5! Ut-oh, white is asserting himself!
26…fxe5 27. Qxe5 Qxe5 28. Nxe5 Ba4 29. Rxd8 Rxd8 30. Rxd8 Kxd8 31. Nxf7+ Ke7 32. Nxh6 Bd1 33. Kh2 Kf6 34. Kg3 Ke5?
34… Be2 is a tougher try. 35. b3 Bd3 36. Kf4 Bb1 and the struggle continues.
35. Nf7+ Kd4 36. Kf4 Kd3 37. g4 Kc2 38. b4 cxb4 39. c5 a5 40. c6 Be2 41. c7 Ba6 42. g5 a4 43. g6 b3 44. axb3 a3 45. g7 a2 46. g8=Q a1=Q 47. Qg6+ Kxb3 48. Qxe6+ Kc2 49. Nd6 Qf1+ 50. Ke5 Kc3 51. Ne4+ Kb4 52. Qb6+?
Here wa a nice win. 52. Qd6+! Ka5 53. Qa3+ Kb5 54. Qc5+ Ka4 55. Qb6; also winning was 52. Qe7+ Ka4 53. Nc5+ Kb5 54. Nxa6.
52… Qb5+ 53. Qxb5+ Kxb5 54. Kd6 Bc8 55. Nf6 Kb6 56. Nd5+ Kb7 57. Ke7 Bh3 58. Kd8 Kc6! I can’t break the blockade! 59. Nf4 Bg4 60. Ne2 Kd6 61. Nd4 Bh3 62. Nf3 Bg4 63. Ng5 Kc6 64. Nh7 Bh3 65. Nf6 Bf5 66. Ne8 Bh3 1/2-1/2
A titanic Lone Pine (in Death Valley, CA) Wild West blunderfest!
Recall 9. O-O was played in Kapengut-Pasalic. The first interesting point: 9…g6 is less bad than prior evidence suggests. It’s not good; just not losing.
9. O-O g6 10. Bxc6 bxc6 11. Qf3 f6 12. e5 dxe5 13. Nxc6 Qc8 14. Nxe5 fxe5 15. Qf7+ Kd8 16. Rad1 has been seen in practice, and in a prior game the losing 16…Kc7?? was played. Far better is the computer-inspired and clever 16… Bh6 and black has significant defensive resources. But the bottom line is that 9…g6 is very risky and not quite equalizing. However, in blitz… a good try!
The game went on 9. O-O e6 10. Bxc6 bxc6
The absolutely critical moment. Kapengut played a move that leads to equal chances.
11. Qf3 Qf6 12. Qe2 and here Pasalic played the passive 12…Qd8? and white got the upper hand with a trick that is thematic for this variation, the e4-e5 break. Much stronger is 12…Qg5! with the simple point of stopping white’s e4-e5 trick that occurred after 12…Qd8?. As you might guess, 12…Qg5! has been seen in lots of games with decent black results. From Kapengut’s own experience, after 13. Rf3 Qc5!? the game was about level but black managed to win eventually in Kapengut-Giorgadze 1969. Alternatively 13. Rf3 Be7 is also level and eventually drawn in Kapengut-A. Ivanov Minsk 1985.
Going back to move 11, the immediate break 11. e5!? is interesting and has been tried many times. Recall I tried it in the Zaltsman game. 11…dxe5? 12. Qh5! is a big edge to white and 11…d5 12. Qf3 Qe7 13. b4! looks familiar with a white plus. But it does not develop….
The correct move which took Vitaly about 10 microseconds to find is 11…Be7! 12. exd6 Bxd6 and it’s about equal.
The problem with 11. Qf3 is that it gave black that pesky improvement on move 12. But the problem with 11. e5 is black has this “well known Soviet” equalizing technique.
Overall conclusion: black can survive the 6…Ng4 adventure but again, 6…e5 looks simpler.
I would be interested to know reader experiences in this tricky line.
IM Jonathan Schroer – GM Joel Benjamin King’s Indian Defense
Two stalwart denizens of the 1980′s Manhattan Chess Club (located at the world-famous Carnegie Hall) go at it in 2009-style online combat.
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nf3 Bg7 4.g3 0-0 5.Bg2 d6 6.0-0 c6 7.Nc3 Bf5!?
There’s something positionally appealing about setting up a d6,c6 pawn chain, getting this bishop out, and preparing a later d5. In a related setup, black can try Nc6 (instead of c6) and then B to g4. Then his idea is hit in the center with e7-e5 after the N on f3 is diverted or traded.
For example, Ron Henley – MG Lone Pine 1980 went
1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 O-O 5. O-O d6 6. c4 Nc6 7. Nc3 Bg4!? Unusual but interesting. I can recommend this for further research to KID explorers out there.
8. Ne1 Qc8 9. b3 e5 10. d5 Ne7?
Here I go wrong and go ‘passive’. The bubbly 10… Nd4! is correct with level chances. For example, 11. f3 Bh3 12. e3 Bxg2 13. Kxg2 Nf5 14. Nc2 c5! and black is fine.
11. f3 Bh3 12. e4 Bxg2 13. Kxg2. White has a definite pull now and I was lucky to draw.
Let’s return to the diagram position. What should white do? This is the key theoretical moment.
8.b3?! White is giving too much respect to black’s offbeat idea. Our first guess based on prior evidence is that 8. Ne1! is correct. It accomplishes several aims. Mostly, it aims to establish a white square pawn chain and induce black to trade B/f5 for B/g2. Secondly, it prevents Nf6-e4 which is strong in the game!
Let’s look at 8. Ne1! more closely. We only give it an exclam here due to its success statistically in ChessBase prior games. As we shall see, this may be misguided.
After the possible followup 8…Qc8!? 9. e4 Bh3 10. f3 Bxg2 11. Kxg2 we reach another critical moment. In practice, white has been scoring very highly here with his space advantage. However, a single database game stands out for an interesting black response:
11. … c5! An amazing two-step with the black c-pawn. It makes sense! Rather than wait passively for a white build-up, black takes action to clarify the structure. On the other hand, WEAK is 11…e5? 12. dxe5 dxe5 13. Be3! with a pleasant exchange-KID style safe edge for white, who has gotten rid of his problem child light squared bishop! (Don’t remind Bruci Lopez about Exchange KIDs after he lost to Jesse Kraai in Weak 3 action, apparently an Altounian “special” delayed exchange variation because white cannot lose. And who, after all, wouldn’t mind a KID where white cannot lose!).
Let’s see this ingenious 11…c5!.
Position after 11…c5!
12. dxc5 Qxc5 and black is OK; or
12. d5 Nbd7 (in Amann-Martinovic, Austria 1998, the weaker 12…Na6 was played but black still drew) 13. Nc2 a6 and black has an acceptable Benoni with level chances. 12…Nh5 is also playable.
Well, let’s see, we might have to re-think and go back. Maybe 8. Ne1 is not so fearsome! What else? 8. Nh4 has been tried by such luminaries as Karpov and Portisch but that’s not dangerous; the WN is offside there. 8. Qb3!? is another try which has some logic, after all black’s Bf5 unguarded b7. After 8. Qb3!? Qb6 9. Re1!? (Wojo used to try this)
White emerges with a small edge after the optically scary 9…Qxb3(?!) 10. axb3 Bc2 11. b4 Na6 12. b5 Nb4 13. e4!. Wojo was a big openings expert so it makes sense to focus further research on his idea. Even so, black doesn’t have to take, and can play e.g. 9…Na6. His position looks fine.
Conclusion: there’s no clear path for a white advantage in this KID sideline!
Returning to the game, recall that Schroer has reacted cautiously and rather passively with 8. b3. This permits…
8… Ne4! Black is completely OK already; an opening success. In subsequent play Schroer vacillated between “solid” and “aggressive” with predictable results.
9.Bb2 Nxc3 10.Bxc3 Be4 11.Qd2 e6 12.Qe3 d5 13.Bh3 Bxf3 14.Qxf3 f5 15.Qd3 Nd7 16.f3 a5 17.Kh1 Qg5 18.Bg2 Qh5 19.Qe3 Rfe8 20.Qd3 Nf6 21.e4 dxe4 22.fxe4 Rad8 23.Rad1 c5 24.Bf3 fxe4 25.Bxe4 Ng4 26.Qe2 Rf8 27.Bf3 Rxf3 28.Rxf3 Nxh2 29.Kg2?
This has nothing to do with the opening, but the inhuman machine finds a way for white to get a half point here. 29. Qxe6+! Kh8 30. Rf7!! Qxd1+ 31. Kxh2 cxd4 (31…Qc2+ 33. Kh3 Qxc3 34. Rxg7! and draws) 32. Bxa5 Qh5+ 33. Kg1 Qxa5 34. Qe7 Rg8 35. Rxg7! with a draw! What a line!
29…Qxf3+ 30.Qxf3 Nxf3 31.Kxf3 b6 32.Ke4 cxd4 33.Rd3 e5 34.c5 bxc5 35.Bxa5 Ra8 36.Bb6 Rxa2 37.Bxc5 Re2+ 38.Kf3 Re1 39.Kf2 Rc1 40.b4 e4 41.Ra3 e3+ 42.Ke2 Rc2+ 43.Ke1 Be5 44.Ra8+ Kf7 45.Rf8+ Ke6 46.Re8+ Kd5 White resigns 0-1
I went over some opening highlights from Round 1 games around the league (not Arizona games, I’m leaving that up to Levon and Alejandro).
1.d4 f5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bg5 d5 4.Bxf6 exf6 5.e3 Be6 6.Bd3 An old Anti-Curdo weapon from the 1980s; I managed to beat John in a lengthy game in some New England Swiss. Across the ocean, Winants and Jadoul in Belgium enjoyed this system too. In fact, Winants even beat Judit Polgar once on the black side of it. Objectively, it is good for a safe if tiny edge. White has to watch out for black’s “shattered” pawns becoming mobile in the middlegame and advancing. See this blog entry’s Comments section for a link to an amazing win by Walter Browne over Robert Byrne in this line!
6… Qd7 7.Nge2 Nc6 8.a3 Ne7 This self-blocking move is probably not the strongest, although it has been played by GM Arteshes Minasian. GM Spraggett played more strongly vs Huss (2380) in Zaragoza 1996 with 8…O-O-O! 9. Na4?! (white is probably advised not to do this and play instead 9. Nf4) 9…Kb8! (note how black doesn’t give white any easy attacking toe-holds on the queenside) 10. b4 Qe8! and with careful play Spraggett has equalized and went on to win.
9.b3?! Stronger is 9. Nf4 Bf7 10. h4. White is preparing Na4 to attack the black king once it goes queenside, but the crux of the matter is that it shouldn’t go there in these changed circumstances.
9…Bf7 Black could play the interesting 9…a6!?and then 10…Ng6 covering c5 versus knight leaps and preparing kingside play.
10.Na4 0-0-0? This is the major strategical miscue. After 10…b6! keeping the knight out black is all right. There might follow 11. c4 g6! preparing Bg7 and castles short with good counter-chances. In the game, white built up a decisive attack against the very lonely black king.
11.c4 Kb8 12.Qc2 g6 13.0-0 h5 14.c5 and white scored a crushing attacking victory.
1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 Bg4 3.c4 Bxf3 4.exf3 Nd7 5.Nc3 g6 Not a bad setup.
6.Be3 c6 7.Qd2 Bg7 8.Be2 It is more aggressive and possibly more promising to put this bishop on d3 since in the game black achieves equal chances soon.
8…Nb6 9.d5 Nf6 10.dxc6 bxc6 11.0-0 0-0 12.Rac1 d5! Black is fine.
13.b3 e5? Asking too much. Black had the equalizing 13…dxc4!. If 14. bxc4 Qxd2 15. Bxd2 Rfd8 16. Be3 Ne8! holds up Rfd1 and prepares Rab8 and Nc7 with equality. If 14. Qxd8 Rfxd8 it simply transposes. The game is equal.
14.cxd5 cxd5 15.Bc5! and white went on to win.
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Nge2 Nbd7 7.Be3 c5 8.Qd2 Qa5 9.d5 a6 10.Nc1 A common knight regrouping in Benonis but it’s not clear how much it offers.
10…Rb8 (?!) This move may not be necessary. Black has the surprising 10…Ne5!? with the idea 11. Be2 Bd7 12. f4 Neg4 13. Nb3 Qc7 14. Bg1 (not keeping this bishop automatically gives black a good game) 14…b5! (just in time!) 15. h3 b4! and by hitting the e-pawn black has a good game.
11.Nb3 Qb4 12.Qc2 Ne5 13.a3 Qb6 14.Be2 e6 15.0-0 exd5 16.cxd5 Qc7 17.a4 Bd7 If 17…Nh5 then 18. g4! Nhf6 19. h3! is a good answer.
18.h3?! 18. a5 looks good.
18….b5 19.Nd2 Rfe8 19…b4 20. Nd1 is similar to the game.
20.Rfe1 b4 21.Nd1 Bc8 22.Rc1 Ned7? The typical Benoni device 22…b3! gives black good counterplay here. Look at this nice shot: 22…b3! 23. Nxb3? Nxd5!! 24. exd5 Bf5! and white must play 25. Qd2 Rxb3 and black is better. And after 23. Qb1 Rb4! black is obviously not complaining either. Black is all right after the game move, but 22…b3! was stronger.
Here is the rest of the chaotic game in which Lopez “slimed” his opponent out of a winning position.
1.e4 e6 A surprising departure from Serper’s favorite Kan. Although he lost to Friedel last year in the USCL with this, he also defeated GM Becerra in a nice game.
2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Be7 Shades of Bareev. I’ve been encountering this a lot on the ICC so it must be the new rage.
5.Nf3 Nf6 6.Bd3 Nxe4 7.Bxe4 c5 8.0-0 Nd7 9.c3 0-0 10.Bc2 Qc7 11.Re1 Rd8 12.Qd3 Nf8 13.Qe4 cxd4? After 13…Bd7! 2360-rated R. Bertholee playing black had equality and held a draw vs GM Lev Psakhis, Amsterdam 1990.
14.Nxd4 White has a plus now.
Bd7 15.a4 a6 16.a5 Be8 17.h4 Rd5 18.Bb3 Rxa5?? Black can’t do that! A very bad blunder from Serper. He has to go back to d7 or d8 with a bad game.
19.Rxa5? Not Friedel’s day. 19. Bf4 won for white. 19. Bf4 Qc5 20. Rxa5 Qxa5 21. Qxb7 Qd8 22. Rd1! wins as black’s queen is aesthetically caught in a crossfire. White still has a big plus after the game move.
19…Qxa5 20.Qxb7 Qd8 21.h5 Bf6 22.Bf4 h6 23.Bc2 The paralyzing 23. Bd6! was strong.
23…a5 24.Qe4 24. Nc6! Qc8 25. Ne7+! is terrible for black. Here is the rest of the game where Serper refuted an unsound sacrifice. The noteworthy thing about the opening is the improvement mentioned for black on move 13.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3 Na5 10.Bc2 c5 11.d4 Nd7 12.Nbd2 exd4 13.cxd4 Nc6 14.d5 Nce5 15.a4 Rb8 16.axb5 axb5 17.Nh2
So far, so good from black’s point of view.
17…g5??
This move should have been total suicide. From an equal game this horrible weakening? There was no danger here. For example, 17…Re8 18. f4 Ng6 with equality. 17…Bb7 is also fine with similar play. Black was acting as if f2-f4 had to prevented at all costs but this certainly is not the case.
18.Ndf1 18. Qh5! is very strong. When black makes the ugly move f6, white can go back later to e2 or d1 with his queen and carry on. After 18…Qe8 19. Ndf1 he’ll have to play f6 and suffer. The game move is fine too.
18…Kh8 19.Ng3 Rg8 20.Ng4? Black’s position is revolting after the obvious 20. Nf5. After, e.g. 20…c4 21. Be3 or 20..Bf8 21. Bd2 white should win in short order.
20…Nxg4 21.hxg4 Bf6 22.Nf5 Ne5 23.Ra3 Bxf5 and black held a draw in a game Philly really needed.
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.Bc4 Bd7 10.0-0-0 Rb8 When I first saw the “Chinese Dragon” in the pages of New in Ches, GM Gallagher heaped scorn on it. Yet he only drew GM Chris Ward. Since Kudrin plays the Dragon a lot, this is a funny opening choice.
11.Bb3 Na5 12.Bh6 Bxh6 13.Qxh6 b5 14.Nd5! GM Emmanuel Berg got nowhere with 14. h4 e5! with equality, Berg-P. Carlsson Halstahammar 2003.
14…e6 15.Nxf6+ Qxf6 16.h4 Qg7 17.Qg5!
One big exclam to cover all of white’s prior moves; he has a safe edge now. Black is not helped now by 17…Nxb3+ 18. Nxb3! Rb6 19. h5! with a plus.
17… Qe5 18.Ne2! Give yourself tactical skill points if you noticed white could have played the unusual 18. Qxe5 dxe5 19. Nf5!? here and give yourself positional skill points if you notice black is OK in the resulting position.
18…Bc6 19.Rd2?! The bizarre 19. Nf4! is very strong, threatening to trade queens and play Nd3!
19…Rfd8 20.Rhd1 Nb7 21.Nf4! Still a good idea. 21…a5 22.a3 Re8? 22…a4! is stronger with only a small white edge.
23.Nd3? White would have a huge plus after 23. Qxe5! dxe5 24. Nd3! f6 (forced) 25. g4! and he controls the board. With the game move he only has a small edge, and unfortunately for Philadelphia Black went on to score a lengthy, dramatic victory in a tough ending.
US Chess League News
