SCORPIONS STING THE MONSTER AND AGREE TO A HANDSHAKE.

1^ST PLACE IN THE WESTERN DIVISION IS CLINCHED!

This is exciting! Not only I get to write an article about the Week 9 Match against the monster St.Louis team (how else do you describe a team that has 2 US Champions and  a mere 2600 GM on board 3?) and officially declare our win of the super-competitive Western Division with 1 round to spare!

Their traditional line up with GMs Nakamura, Shulman, Finegold remind me of the Great Recession 2008. Remember when the Banks were supposedly regulated, CEO’s had a cap on their payout yet things still got out of hand? The USCL overall wonderful system of having a rating cap at 2580, mixed with finding ways to enhance chess and push everyone towards having the best players on their teams reminds me of that same system of pre-2008. All was nice and cozy in the world of USCL until St.Louis showed up this year and made a 3 Super-GM team. And not just super-GMs but people like Nakamura on the team. They did not need a 5-year old as Mark Ginsburg reminded us in his article (see the article below) and instead…. had Ben Finegold’s son. Money talks so to speak.  However, when money has power, Karma steps in too. As scary as St.Louis team is, they still have to fight hard in round 10 to qualify into the Playoffs, while Arizona is already in.

Don’t get me wrong- St.Louis Chess club and its Founders and members in short 3 years proved United States can and will be one of the strongest Chess Centers in the world and I immensely enjoyed playing there at the 2010 US Championship. But USCL is not a US Championship and I hope next year some rules will be reconsidered by Greg Shahade.

I figured if Chicago, Miami and others can do it, we can do it too!

So how did we stack against St.Louis in this match? A bit of a gamble that I would call Arizona Gambit (though as Robby correctly reminded me- hard to have a great team against their line-up no matter what you put up. When the cap is 2400 and they legally sport a 2521 rating… life cannot be easy.

Let me copy Mark Ginsburg’s point count system for how we were “supposed” to score as to how we actually ended up at the final critical juncture. Strange math of chess: 0.3+0.3+0.4+0.7 ends up sometimes greater being greater than 2.0 with the right ingredients.

BOARD 1: GM BARCENILLA-GM NAKAMURA. Logically: 0.3- Ends 0.8 (final position).

Very experienced Rogelio Barcenilla vs Naka. What is funny is that Naka is scary on ICC and tournament play because he plays a very strange chess, calculates like crazy and makes people uncomfortable. Just look at his games with D. Gurevich. Game 1- he can lose a pawn, but Gurevich doesn’t want to get into tactics and misses the chance. Game 2- Gurevich decides he will get into tactics, loses a piece. Fixes it back by positional means, then sees white move rooks back and forth in most illogical looking way and when he is finally fine- gets mated in 1 move as soon as tactics start again. But in real life Naka  is a normal guy with usual normal looks and last time when I saw him- very lovely girlfriend . He doesn’t need introduction. It is enough to say that when Kasparov talks about new generation of chess players, he mentions Nakamura together with Magnus Carlsen, while Peter Svidler says “Naka is bad for ICC” How can we put aside Naka fear and just play chess? I would suggest everyone to carry his picture to all USCL games and put on the laptop while playing. The rest of my plan you can imagine and interpret in your own way…….I was going to do so had I been playing this week. Keeps things in perspective. I have great respect for “Barci”myself. I totally agree with Mark that one of the things that is scary about Naka is his speed and usual accuracy (and sometimes inaccuracy). I was hoping Rogelio will remember his bad loss to Naka from last year (if he is like me- stuff like that eats you for the whole year) and would have done some self-therapy.  It started with the half-joke opening Mark ( once again) mentioned as a joke  describing Barcenilla’s opening powers in one of his old articles ( 1e4-c5 2 c4!!). For some strange reason Naka was 30 min late. Unfortunately it started looking bad for us somewhere on move 8….. It started looking like a repetition of the 2009 encounter- Barci playing slow, getting into trouble and Naka starting with 45 minutes and 15 moves or so later…. having 46 minutes! Then the real magic started. Naka played some moves that I could not figure out, looked like a mouse slip even and soon his edge seemed more of a general edge than anything exact. 5 minutes later when I returned, Barci had “helped” Naka go from slightly better to almost losing. 4 pawns and a rook vs Rook and  Bishop. I couldn’t help but feel that Barci was getting more and more confident as things were getting simpler and in blitz type chess he feels right at home too. Barci can’t lose but can he win? It seems like he didn’t try hard and was happy with a draw. Drawing Naka is extremely hard and only the best get to draw and beat him. Still very good if you ask me!

BOARD 2: IM ALDAMA- GM SHULMAN. Logically: 0.3- Ended: 0.9 (final position)

The “Arizona Gambit” main character-Dionisio Aldama. Our secret weapon for this match.

Aldama is not as accomplished as Yuri Shulman (also the rating difference- 300+ points!) but 2 things worked in our favor, as we all hoped: First, Aldama is a very dangerous tactician and secondly, Yuri is playing very badly on USCL this year. This was a classic match of a “Russian positional chess” vs “Tactical Cuban chess” My biggest fear was not the rating difference (having played both players numerous times) but the colors. Tactical chess works well against higher rated players with White but is highly unsuccessful when Black. Last time I saw a tactical guy beat a higher rated “Russian chess guy” was Bareev (2700+FIDE) lose with white against a 2500 rated Sevillano when trying to win the Las Vegas Tournament 2009. This game also didn’t start too well for us: in a normal line of Benoni  (Aldama’s new favourite) white seemed to get an upper hand. But the bad time management by Yuri + the tactical prowess of Aldama soon turned the tables around. Then the unthinkable happened: In a winning position Aldama played too fast, made some very simple mistakes… and agreed to a draw in a position where the only question that was there was: does Black win or does White get a chance to draw? The reason- he wanted to insure we win the Division. Great result again but I was seriously hoping we can knock St.Louis out!

BOARD 3: IM RENSCH-GM FINEGOLD. Logically: 0.4, Ended:  0.3.

Danny in my opinion was a good match against the ever-ellusive and dangerous Ben. Danny is aggressive, well prepared and ready to go for it. The opening was normal too (Danny didn’t want to repeat the strange line he played against Pruess) but I have a nagging feeling that not only Ben was sure this line would take place but also Danny was not sure which set-up to implement. They actually had exact my position against GM Amanov from the Week 8, but Danny was down 1 move. Soon, black was fine and then I have a feeling Danny blundered that he is losing an Exchange. The rest was not fun to watch or play.

BOARD 4: MATEER-FINEGOLD. Logically: 0.7, Ended: 0.5

Amanda had to win if we were to have any chance to draw or win the match. Finegold repeated the line  of his dad, that worked so well for Daddy Ben in the previous week. Somewhere on move 15 White was winning already in that game and by employing the 2 b3 move. I recall when I played 2 b3 twice in tournaments, both my 2000 rated opponents wrote down 2 g3 instead and then looked at the board and with great seriousness asked me “are you sure? I think you accidentally moved the wrong pawn on the wrong side”. Finegold got a nice game, as Amanda was not sure what to do and which structure to employ. I think the pressure on her to win also had a say in her opening moves. At that moment, looking at all 4 boards I had a bad feeling…. But just like other games, Amanda recovered, fixed the problems and in mutual time pressure proved she is capable of overcoming issues. Finegold blundered, then blundered again and it was all over.That made me very happy because 4 months ago she survived against me a horrific position by making “computer-like” great moves and without making any bad moves I ended up worse and drew. Seeing this game now I don’t feel “alone”. Great job!

In conclusion- great job guys, today’s draw I view as one of the highlights of what our team is capable of and I am personally proud to be a member of this wonderful team.

As Greg Shahade put it- “St.Louis was lucky to escape with a draw!” and I could not agree with him more.

Next match against LA doesn’t matter at all for the Playoffs, so lets see if we go 4:0 or 0:4 on that one and no matter what- stay tuned for the Playoffs! We plan to win the Finals but don’t tell it to others please. Yet.

Danny Rensch earned his IM title in the middle of last season. Since that tournament, Danny has scored 4.0/5.0 pts (3 wins and 2 draws) in USCL regular season play. His resurgence has been noticed not only on the team, but throughout the league. His Week 3 game against WFM Tatev Abrahamyan was honored with two first place votes and 3 second place votes to earn him his first USCL Game of the Week!

Congratulations to IM Danny Rensch!

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!

Let’s quickly look and see what Week 9 has in store for us. NJ is going to try and clinch the East, while Seattle closes in on the West. Everyone seems to be alive in the East while the West is seed-to-be-determined, with Dallas having an outside chance. I have done much lately in picking, although of course that’s all luck.

Queens Pioneers vs. Carolina Cobras

Queens wins to keep mathematically alive. Queens wins 2.5-1.5.

Dallas Destiny vs. Chicago Blaze

A battle for Dallas to stay alive in the West – Dallas and Chicago battle to 2-2 tie.

San Francisco Mechanics vs. Tennessee Tempo

San Francisco wins 3-1 – they have more to prove than Tennessee, who has been eliminated from playoff contention.

Philadelphia Inventors vs. New Jersey Knockouts

Gulko = win for NJ – should wrap up the division and may dash the playoff hopes of Philly. NJ wins 2.5-1.5.

Baltimore Kingfishers vs. New York Knights

The biggest match of the night perhaps. NY has the edge on board 4. Erenberg probably needs a win with white for Baltimore to have a chance. NY wins 2.5-1.5.

Boston Blitz vs. Miami Sharks

A match with significance for both teams. No Becerra, no LarryC – should be a tight match. Perelshteyn gives Boston the edge and a very narrow win. Boston wins 2.5-1.5.

Seattle Sluggers vs. Arizona Scorpions

I predict my Scorpions and Seattle battle to a tie, 2-2.

Last week – 5-2! (That is 10-4 in 2 weeks!).

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!!!

USCL Week 5 Opening of the Week

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!

Now, back to the Kapengut game.

Kapengut (NJKO) – Pasalic (CHI)  Week 5 USCL

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.

2009 USCL Opening of the Week – Round 3

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