For me, the 2011 campaign was a return to chess after a full year away from OTB chess and two years away from the USCL. I got off to a great start, beating GM Melik Khachiyan when my main hope was not to embarrass myself, but my play was somewhat uneven. Some weeks I played well (that game and the game against Shulman), while on some weeks I was out of it (like against Amanov). Part of that was probably due to me not working on chess in between matches, so I never got into a groove. The games felt a lot more tiring than I remember then being, and I imagine most of that it because I’m not used to playing long chess games anymore.

One of the interesting things about this year was that in 4 of the 5 games, I played something totally new. In the first game against Khachiyan, I had played a few games from the black side of the Giouco Pianissimo (and many more from the white side). After that, though, I played a totally new line of the French (and was playing it well for a while) followed by the Nimzo a couple times and a Slav/Grunfeld hybrid against the Reti (that didn’t work out so well …).

I have played 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 in a few rated games before, but the “threat” of the Nimzo seemed to be too strong and I never actually faced 3.Nc3. Instead after 3.Nf3 or 3.g3, I played 3…d5. This year, though, both Shulman and Bercys chose 3.Nc3 against me, clearly indicating that the “threat” of the QGD was too much! My score with the Nimzo now is 2.5/3, so I haven’t done too badly there.

Compared to previous years, my USCF performance rating this year of 2588 was subpar, but not horrible. I scored 2.5 out of 5 games (all with the black pieces), which – somewhat amusingly – is what the ratings would predict! Inactive since last August, I underperformed by FIDE rating by 5 points. It was fun to play a little again, but I still don’t have any plans to play a rated event anytime soon.

Here’s a tally of my USCL career statistics:

• Total score across 6 seasons: 22.5/35 (64%)
• USCF performance rating: 2638 (5th best all-time apparently, amongst those who’ve played at least 20 games; I drop out of the top 10 if the cutoff is 10 games)
• FIDE performance rating: 2581
• Total MVP Points: 49 (5th all-time through end of 2011)
• With white: 10.5/15 (70%), FIDE performance rating of 2643
• With black: 12/20 (60%), FIDE performance rating of 2540

With the black pieces, I’ve played above my average rating over the years (my average FIDE was 2470 for this time), but the final performance rating is in line with my rating around 2009/2010. With the white pieces, though, I turn into a beast. I’m not really sure why that is … however, if you take my two wins against GM Hikaru Nakamura and change them into losses (odds were I’d lose both, and based on the positions, I could have lost both), my performance rating drops down to about 2545 – again close to my rating around 2009/2010, so the rating system seems to have worked out reasonably for me. Interestingly, my performance ratings with white and black would be nearly identical in that case (I’ll excerpt from my last post here, which I managed to write without looking at this scenario).

As an aside, with our season over, I think it’s safe to reveal a facet of the team’s strategy this year: maximize the number of whites for GMs Patrick Wolff and Jesse Kraai, and fit me in if needed. Thus, after Week 1 when I was in NY, every time we had black on board 1, I was in the lineup. Whenever we had white on board 1, I didn’t leave work early.

It’s not that I’m so great with the black pieces, but I guess I don’t show as big a differential in results by color as many other GMs. Looking at my database, my performance rating for the past handful of years is only a couple points below my average rating for that time. Given that the standard performance “boost” for white or “penalty” for black is around 35-40 rating points, I guess I have done relatively better than average with the black pieces. If I have to win, it’s not ideal, but otherwise I also don’t really mind playing with the black pieces.

To paraphrase Dennis Green’s immortal rant – I am what they thought I am (but only if you change a couple results).

Also, in 6 of my 8 losses over 6 seasons, the team lost the match overall. A loss to GM Alex Stripunsky in a 3-1 win for SF and an unnecessary rejection of a 3-fold repetition against Kuljasevic were the exceptions. I guess that’s not too surprising given that there are only 4 games in each match, but somehow I was hoping I had lost in slightly less important circumstances!

As an aside, with our season over, I think it’s safe to reveal a facet of the team’s strategy this year: maximize the number of whites for GMs Patrick Wolff and Jesse Kraai, and fit me in if needed. Thus, after Week 1 when I was in NY, every time we had black on board 1, I was in the lineup. Whenever we had white on board 1, I didn’t leave work early.

It’s not that I’m so great with the black pieces, but I guess I don’t show as big a differential in results by color as many other GMs. Looking at my database, my performance rating for the past handful of years is only a couple points below my average rating for that time. Given that the standard performance “boost” for white or “penalty” for black is around 35-40 rating points, I guess I have done relatively better than average with the black pieces. If I have to win, it’s not ideal, but otherwise I also don’t really mind playing with the black pieces.

So, with us having white on 1 and 3, the lineup that matched our color strategy was for all 3 GMs to finally play together with Uyanga Byambaa on board 4. I could play above Wolff, but then that’d break the color pattern, so our lineup was Wolff – Bhat – Kraai – Byambaa. As black on board 2, I faced IM Zhanibek Amanov, who’s played all of 1.e4, 1.d4, 1.c4, and 1.Nf3 in the past few years. The full game can be seen at http://www.uschessleague.com/games/zamanovbhat11.htm.

The game started out 1.c4 c6 2.Nf3 d5 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2, and here I played 4…g6. This was a new move for me – I’ve normally played 4…Bg4 or 4…Bf5 setups – but I was looking for something more solid. Maybe it wasn’t the right decision, though, as the positions are often pretty dry and don’t provide too many active prospects for Black. White followed with a double fianchetto and we brought out the rest of our pieces. After 14.e3, we reached the position in the diagram below:

(FEN: r3r1k1/1p1n1pbp/1qp2np1/p2pp3/2P5/1P1PPNPP/PBQ2PB1/1R3RK1 b - - 0 14)

This is a general problem with Black’s whole setup – he isn’t really much worse at the moment, but he doesn’t have much to do while White can still improve his position. The e5/d5 center is nice but not particularly mobile, and Black’s pieces are largely stuck guarding those pawns. I had trouble coming up with a plan, and the result maybe was a bit artificial, but I think it was reasonable given the situation.

I played 14…Rad8, which is odd having already played …a5, but I had a specific idea in mind. After the natural 15.Bc3, I responded with 15…c5!. With the bishop on c3, it’s not necessary, but after cxd5/…Nxd5/Nxe5, the Nd5 wouldn’t be hanging. Meanwhile, the natural continuation of White’s plan with 16.Qd2 leads to a big mess after 16…Qa6!. Here are a couple lines:

(1)   17.Bxa5 b6 18.Bc3 dxc4 19.bxc4 (19.dxc4 Ne4, …Nxc3, and …e4 wins) e4 21.Ne1 exd3 with good counterplay

(2)   17.cxd5 Nxd5 18.Bxa5 b6 19.e4 (19.Bc3 Nxc3 and 20…e4 wins) bxa5 20.exd5 Nf6 is at least equal for Black.

Instead, Amanov played 16.Rfe1 and I, a bit confused again, erred with 16…Qa6?!. I didn’t like either 16…e4 or 16…d4 (16…e4 17.dxe4 dxe4 18.Ng5 is troublesome, while 16…d4 17.exd4 seemed to leave me with bad choices either way), but 16…Qc7 was normal and good. I decided it was useful to have some pressure on d3 and c4, though (in case I could play …e4, for example) and so I went with a6. The game continued 17.a3 b6 18.cxd5 Nxd5 19.Bb2 Qc8 20.Rbd1.

Unfortunately, I ended up having to reroute my queen to c7 just a few moves later, so playing it there immediately on move 16 would have saved some time. White’s unlikely to take on d5 until he’s ready, so the Queen doesn’t add much pressure to d3, and …e4 is always a bit risky. Thus, if I played 16…Qc7 and the game continued with the same 17.a3 b6 18.cxd5 Nxd5, Black would have two extra tempi over what actually happened.

(FEN: 2qrr1k1/3n1pbp/1p4p1/p1pnp3/8/PP1PPNPP/1BQ2PB1/3RR1K1 b - - 0 20)

Anyways, after 20.Rbd1, I went wrong again. This time, I seemed to only have one of White’s plans in mind and forgot about other ways in which he could improve his position. The plan I was on the lookout for was a d3-d4 break, and so I wanted to get my Nd7 out of the way, either to e6 or c6. I decided on 20…Nf8?, because from e6, it’s off the long diagonal and it covers c7, c5, and g7, and d4. Unfortunately, it also leaves the e5-pawn with two less defenders than it would have from c6. Thus, 20…Nb8 21.Qb1 Nc6 was definitely the better choice – the light-squared long diagonal isn’t fatal and now the dark-squared one is much more protected.

Amanov followed up with a good plan, playing 21.Qb1 Qc7 22.Qa1, pressuring e5 some more. I followed with another lemon: 22…f6?, as I completely hallucinated in a line after 22…Nd7 – I thought 22…Nd7 23.e4 Ne7 lost the e5-pawn, but Black has 3 defenders still! Thus, I ended up shutting in my Bg7 and making d4 a much more potent threat. Black’s position is still somewhat unpleasant after 22…Nd7, but there’s no reason to give up after 23.Nd2 Nb8, for example.

Finally on move 25, the d3-d4 break came and things opened up for White’s better pieces. After a number of exchanges, we reached the following position:

(FEN: 5nk1/2q3bp/3r1pp1/pp6/3B4/PP4PP/5PB1/Q3R1K1 b - - 0 31)

Material is equal, but the position is anything but. White’s two bishops are clearly much stronger than Black’s minor pieces, and Black’s queenside pawns are also vulnerable. This was definitely not the position I wanted to play, but so it goes. Wolff had gone from much better to a little worse (but holding, I thought), so I was still working towards a draw. With both of us running low on time (hovering between a minute or two, with the increment), I hoped to sneak out of it somehow.

(FEN: 8/3r1qbk/1Q4p1/5pBp/3n3P/P5P1/5PB1/1R4K1 b - - 0 46)

After a lot of time pressure influenced maneuvering (in the last 6 moves, White’s rook has moved from e1 to b1 and his queen from a6 to b6; everything else is the same for both players!), I got my first opening and I managed not to miss it by playing 46…f4!. It’s not much, but it’s a little counterplay as White’s kingside is going to get opened a little bit. Instead of White having the initiative plus the queenside, Black has some tricks now. Zhanibek continued to play well though, starting with 47.gxf4 Ne2+ 48.Kh1 Nxf4 49.Be4, and honed in on the new weakness at g6.

Black needs to find a way to either close the g-file (…Ng4) or the 6th rank (…Rd6), but he doesn’t really have time to do both and start an attack of his own. There were a couple moments where I felt I had some serious drawing chances (51…Ng4 and 55…Bxd4 were the ones I saw, and the computer adds 53…Qe6 to the list), but the two I saw did not lead to positions where I would have any winning chances. Wolff had a lost endgame by this point, and so I had to find a way to win. Under time pressure, I felt the only way to do that would be to keep the queens on the board and hope he blundered into something (or I blundered onto something!).

That strategy didn’t work out so well though – with queens on the board, there was some chance I could play …Qh3#, but it also meant I was in danger of getting checkmated too. Amanov concentrated his pieces on g6 and then decided to start pushing his a-pawn, reminding me that while things might be about equal on one side, they certainly weren’t on the other. Not able to find anything, I walked right into a skewer and lost a piece. There was one amusing final moment, though:

(FEN: 8/8/4r1Bk/6Rp/P6P/8/8/7K b - - 0 64)

The match was pretty much lost at this point, but I still did have a chance to avoid losing the game. I had put the king on h6 partly because it set up stalemate ideas, but I had only considered the bishop moving back to c2 or b1. Had I been paying more attention, I might have noticed 64…Re4!. After the game, both Wolff and Kraai thought this was a forced draw, but White is still winning.

Given a draw was enough for Amanov, maybe he wouldn’t have thought too hard about it, but after 65.Kg2 Rxa4 (65…Rxh4 would be nice, but then 66.Rxh5+! simplifies into a winning K+P endgame) 66.Bf5!, the last pawn is hanging but taboo. Here, the Kh6 gets in the way because of Rg6+ and Rg4+. With the pawn safe, White is winning.

Instead, I resigned after 64…Re1+ 65.Kg2 Ra1 66.Be8.

Thus, we lost the match 2.5 – 1.5, and LA advanced to face Chicago (who “beat” Dallas by virtue of draw-odds after a 2-2 result). I played well (or defended well) for stretches, but at a number of key moments, I didn’t find the right moves while Amanov consistently found good continuations. In time pressure I tried to muddy the waters, but nothing really stuck and he found his way quite well. It’s unfortunate that it came in a playoff match, but so it goes.

Jesse was the top performer for the team in 2011, scoring 6.5/9 (6/7 with white, including our lone win in this match), for a USCF performance rating of 2708. I’ll wrap up my USCL year and some other related items in a later entry …

The full game can be replayed here (http://www.uschessleague.com/games/bercysbhat11.htm).

I saw that Bercys had played 3.Nf3 a bunch of times, but more recently he had been favoring 4.Qc2, so this didn’t come as a surprise. A welcome difference from my game with Shulman! Bercys repeated a line that he had played a few times before with 4…0-0 5.Nf3 c5 6.dxc5 Na6 7.c6.

(FEN: r1bq1rk1/pp1p1ppp/n1P1pn2/8/1bP5/2N2N2/PPQ1PPPP/R1B1KB1R b KQ - 0 7)

Morozevich introduced this move in 2008 against Ponomariov and won a miniature. He’s since played it a bunch of times with great results – 7/9 with 2900+ performance rating. Interestingly, the rest of the crowd hasn’t scored well with it – 50% and no performance rating bump for having the white pieces.

Anyways, I think there are two reasons behind the move: (1) it’s relatively new, which is already something these days;  and (2), it attempts to close the c-file as later on in the usual lines, the c4-pawn and Queen can be a bit exposed.

The next few moves were pretty natural: 7…bxc6 8.a3 (8.g3 and 8.e3 have also been played, and I suspect they are better) Bxc3+ 9.Qxc3 Nc5. Sal now introduced a novelty with 10.Be3?!, although given his 20-minute think, I don’t think it was worked on at home.

Following the simple 10…Nce4 11.Qc2 d5, White is already in some trouble I think. The immediate threat is 12…Ng4, when White’s pawn structure is going to be ruined. Stopping that with 12.Ne5 doesn’t really further White’s development, and after 12…Qd6 13.Nd3 e5, Black is clearly better. Bercys played 12.Nd2, which covers that threat, but White still isn’t developing.

After 12…Ba6 13.Nxe4 Nxe4 14.c5 (opening the c-file with 14.cxd5 would be disastrous, although even 14.c5 shouldn’t be fun) f5, we reached the position below:

(FEN: r2q1rk1/p5pp/b1p1p3/2Pp1p2/4n3/P3B3/1PQ1PPPP/R3KB1R w KQ f6 0 15)

Black’s got nothing to complain about – after 14 moves, he has an almost winning advantage! With …f5, Black introduces ideas of either …f4 or …d4. The knight can’t be kicked with 16.f3 because of 16…f4, while 16.Bd4 Qh4 leaves the bishop on loose ground – …e5 is a threat, but 17.g3 Nxg3 picks up the bishop as well.

After 15.g3, I felt there should be something big, but although I saw the right idea, I wasn’t able to find the precise moves required. I played 15…e5, which looks nice (it prepares …d4), but I was quite tempted to play 15…Rb8!. The idea was to keep White from castling or developing, as …Qa5+ is generally a threat. Normally White would play b4 in response to …Qa5+ (as Bd2 would drop the c5-pawn after an exchange), but with the rook on b8, Black has …Rxb4. If White plays b4 before the check, then he’s probably never going to go queenside and Black can try to run him over in the center immediately with …e5 and …d4.

However, I didn’t see how to meet 16.Bd4, which indirectly covers the Ra1 and stops …e5. After 16…Qa5+, though, Black is winning: 17.b4 Rxb4! 18.axb4 Qxb4+ 19.Bc3 Nxc3 20.Qd2, Black can simply gobble some more material with 20…Qxc5. Despite being up a rook after 21.Rxa6, 21…Rb8 leaves White defenseless!

After the game continuation of 15…e5 16.0-0-0 Rb8, Black is still on top, but with the moves reversed (15…Rb8 16.0-0-0), Black would like to play 16…Bc4 instead when he’s pretty much winning. As it was, after 16…Rb8 17.f3, Black has a decision of where to put the knight.

This was where I made a real error – not objectively, but practically. My original intention was to play 17…Ng5 here (leaves the f5-pawn guarded and heads for e6, where it’ll hit c5), but then I noticed the interesting maneuver 18.Qa4 Bb5 19.Qh4. That still is better for Black, but I expected more from the position and I started looking at 17…Nf6. Both moves looked good and I couldn’t make up my mind. Instead of just picking one then, I squandered almost all of my time advantage trying to find a big difference. In the end, I sacrificed the f5-pawn and played for a more direct initiative with 17…Nf6.

The game continued 18.Qxf5 Qe7 19.Qc2 Bc4 20.b4 a5 21.Bd2 axb4 22.axb4 Ra8 23.Bc3 Ra2 24.Bb2 Rb8 25.Qc3, reaching the position below:

(FEN: 1r4k1/4q1pp/2p2n2/2Ppp3/1Pb5/2Q2PP1/rB2P2P/2KR1B1R b - - 0 25)

I played 25…Qf7 with 16 seconds on the clock (there was a 30-sec increment after every move as well). As we’ll see, 25…Qa7 was a little better, as the check on b3 isn’t particularly serious so long as the Ra2 is guarded. However, 25…Qf7 prepared a nice idea, so I’m happy about that.

The threat of …d4 forces 26.e3, and after 26…Bxf1 27.Rhxf1, I got to play my big idea with 27…d4! 28.exd4 Nd5 29.Qb3 Qa7. The clearance of the d5-square has brought all of Black’s pieces to bear on the queenside, and I expected this to now be a simple win. That’s true, but what I hadn’t counted on were a couple specific variations and the pressure of the clock.

The first unpleasant shock was after 30.Rf2 Rxb4 31.Qd3.

(FEN: 6k1/q5pp/2p5/2Pnp3/1r1P4/3Q1PP1/rB3R1P/2KR4 b - - 0 31)

My original plan was to play 31…Ra1+ here – after 32.Bxa1 (32.Kc2 Rxb2 and 33…Qa2 is mate) Qxa1+ 33.Kd2 Qa5, White’s only way out of discovered checks is 34.Ke2. But after 34…Rxd4, I thought I had a winning attack with 35…Nc3+ next. It was only now that it hit me that 35.Qb3 pins the d5-knight! Uh oh.

Spooked by that miscalculation, I played 31…Qa4 and after 32.dxe5, I wanted to gain some time – so I played 32…Rc4+ 33.Kb1 Rb4. Because my only aim with the rook moves was to gain time with the increment, I didn’t realize that 33…Rxb2+! was winning (34.Kxb2 Qb5+ and 34.Rxb2 Nc3+ do the trick). Instead, after 34.Kc1, I ran down to 3 seconds and played 34…Rb3. After 35.Qe4, we reached the following position:

(FEN: 6k1/6pp/2p5/2PnP3/q3Q3/1r3PP1/rB3R1P/2KR4 b - - 0 35)

I was very, very close to playing 35…Ra1+ here. I had even typed the move in and was about to hit ‘Enter’, but I just wasn’t able to pull the trigger. With 2 seconds left on my clock, I instead played 35…Qa5?.

Here, though, is how Black should have won with 35…Ra1+: 36.Bxa1 Qxa1+ 37.Kd2 Qa5+ 38.Kc1 – I had seen this far, but I wasn’t sure I had seen a real win. The actual win is with 38…Qa3+! 39.Kd2 Re3!, cutting White off the e-file and forcing White’s queen to a more exposed position. For example, 40.Qd4 Qa2+ or 40.Qc4 Qa5+ and …Rc3+ wins.

Instead 35…Qa5? actually loses after 36.Rxd5! Ra1+ 37.Bxa1 Qxa1+ 38.Kd2 Rb2+ 39.Ke3 Qe1+ 40.Kf4 Qxe4+ 41.fxe4! (not 41.Kxe4 cxd5+ 42.Ke3 d4!+, winning the rook) Rxf2+ 42.Ke3 and white should win. Not the easiest line to see with less than 45 seconds I suppose. Both us missed it (or at least the 41.fxe4 nuance). So luckily for me, Bercys played the entirely logical 36.Rc2?. Phew.

Black again has a couple ways to win (36…Rba3! and 36…Rbxb2!, followed by some precise checks), but I completely missed …Rba3 and I didn’t see the very specific checks after …Rbxb2. At almost a dozen moves now with less than a minute on the clock, I wasn’t seeing much. I played 36…Re3? and after 37.Qd4 Ra4 38.Rc4 Ra2 (diagram below), I was desperately hoping for more time to think after a repetition with 39.Rc2.

(FEN: 6k1/6pp/2p5/q1PnP3/2RQ4/4rPP1/rB5P/2KR4 w - - 0 39)

Instead, Bercys completely surprised me with 39.e6!. I had forgotten that White could make some threats too. After my initial shock, I was actually not so unhappy about it as I played 39…Qa7 and thought I had covered g7 and would pick up the e6-pawn next. At least then I could continue to play and try and win maybe. That idea was banking on 40.Rc2 Rxe6, but White has two other serious moves – one I saw, one I didn’t.

First the one I did see: 40.Qxe3?. The idea is simple: if Black takes back, it’s mate on d8. However, Black now has an aesthetically pleasing series of sacrifices to sweep the board – 40…Ra1+! 41.Bxa1 Qxa1+ 42.Kd2 Qxd1+ 43.Kxd1 Nxe3+ 44.Kd2 Nxc4+ and wins.

The move I didn’t see was 40.Rb4!. Again the Nd5 is stuck, but there’s a big threat of 41.Rb8+ here that Black can’t escape. After 40…h6 41.Rb8+ Kh7, White has the brilliant 42.Ra8!! to overload Black’s queen and win the game.

If you’re guessing along at home, I did win this game, so Bercys probably didn’t play 40.Rb4!. Instead, he kindly obliged by playing 40.Qxe3. I typed in 40…Ra1+ quickly, double checked I had entered the move correctly, hit enter and breathed a big sigh of relief. He resigned a couple moves later.

As the Giants announcer, Mike Krukow, would say – this was “Just another – ha ha ha ha – laugher!”

This win, coupled with Jesse’s win over Julio Sadorra (an excellent game that won Game of the Week honors) were our only 2 points of the match. On board 3, IM Conrad Holt continued his ridiculous run this year by trampling over IM David Pruess, while on board 4, Todd Rumph was ground down. The tie, though, wasn’t the end of the world, as it kept us in a 3-way tie for 3rd – 5th places going into the final week of the regular season.

As Dallas and Miami (two of the teams in that group) would be facing each other, we’d still have excellent chances of making it in and in fact, SF did just that, with a final week victory over St Louis. Coupled with a Dallas victory over Miami, and SF entered the playoffs tomorrow as the 3rd seed in the West. We’d have to overcome draw odds against the LA Vibe, but that match will have to wait for another post.

The CEOs of the organization are GM Falko Bindrich and IM Tobias Hirneise. For those interested in some more info, here’s an interview with the ACO’s President, Lothar Hirneise. (permalink here).

Chicago can feature a 3 GM lineup with a current 2200-USCF player on board 4 which makes them a pretty tough matchup for any team. Against us, though, they had GMs Shulman and Amanov on boards 1 and 2, followed by IM Angelo Young, and NM Sam Schmakel. San Francisco countered with me on board 1, followed by GM Jesse Kraai, IM Daniel Naroditsky, and Uyanga Byambaa. After heading over from work, the games got underway at 5:30 PM. The full game can be replayed on the USCL website here.

Last time I played Yury, it was the 1st round of the US Championship and I surprised him with the Queen’s Gambit Declined, via a 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 move order. This time Yury played 3.Nc3 instead, so I followed through with my “threat” to play the Nimzo Indian with 3…Bb4. Then a bombshell dropped – 4.Nf3.

(FEN: rnbqk2r/pppp1ppp/4pn2/8/1bPP4/2N2N2/PP2PPPP/R1BQKB1R b KQkq - 0 4)

This is obviously pretty common, but when I saw this move, I pretty much said “oh s%!$” to myself. When preparing for the game, I did notice that he had played a bunch of games with 3.Nc3 in the past. However, all those games continued with 3…Bb4 4.e3, a line that I have played with the white pieces. With over 20 games of experience in that line and having tried virtually every move order possible for White, I felt like I’d be able to navigate the opening without much specific preparation. Moreover, I only saw one game in the past decade where Yury had gone that route.

With this in mind, I didn’t even bother reviewing any Nimzo lines in advance of the game. Now I was facing 4.Nf3 (a move I’ve never played) and I hadn’t looked at the Nimzo for Black in almost 16 months. I knew that 4…c5 is the main move, with 4…b6 and 4…d5 pretty respectable as well, but I figured Yury might have looked at those a little bit at least. So I played 4…0-0, a move that was later described as “sketchy” by some GM friends. After 5.Bg5 c5, I had already spent 10 minutes on the clock.

After 6.d5, the central pawn structure begins to resemble the Benoni in some ways. The main difference is that Black’s bishop is on b4 instead of fianchettoed on g7. On the plus side, there’s a bit more central pressure (the e4 + d5 squares aren’t quite as securely in White’s grasp), but the Nf6 misses a defender and the bishop might have more influence on the long diagonal. In any case, it was following the Benoni themes that drove my next few moves: 6…exd5 7.cxd5 h6 (I wanted to get this in before White played something like Qc2, when …h6 might be met with h4) 8.Bh4 d6 9.e3 Bg4 10.Be2 Bxf3.

(FEN: rn1q1rk1/pp3pp1/3p1n1p/2pP4/1b5B/2N1Pb2/PP2BPPP/R2QK2R w KQ - 0 11)

This type of exchange is typical in the Benoni, as the light-squared bishop often doesn’t have a great square to go to. I was less sure of its necessity here, as the bishop does have the f5-square, but I didn’t want to see him set up a knight on c4 later on and I wasn’t sure my bishop would have all that much to do on the h7-b1 diagonal anyways.

Yury thought for a while here, so I figured he was considering 11.gxf3, but this move didn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. White is still behind in development, so I didn’t think he’d be able to launch an attack very quickly. After something like 11…Nbd7 12.Qc2 Qa5, I didn’t see much trouble for Black.

After the normal 11.Bxf3, the game continued on a pretty logical path: 11…Nbd7 12.0-0 Re8 13.Be2 a6 (covering b5) 14.Qc2 Rc8 (setting up …c4 ideas later on – …b5 doesn’t make any sense with Black’s bishop on b4, the pawns will just be a weakness) 15.Rad1 Qe7 16.Bd3.

Note that on 16.Bg4, Black plays 16…g5 17.Bxd7 Qxd7 18.Bg3 Bxc3 and 19…Ne4 and I don’t think Black should be any worse. Thus, Shulman tried to increase the pressure on the Nf6 by pinning the Nd7 from f5. Because …g5 then wouldn’t force a trade on d7, I needed to get out of the way with 16…Rc7, reaching the position in the diagram below:

(FEN: 4r1k1/1prnqpp1/p2p1n1p/2pP4/1b5B/2NBP3/PPQ2PPP/3R1RK1 w - - 0 17)

Although I wasn’t particularly comfortable up to this point, I didn’t think I was much worse and estimated the position to only be slightly more pleasant for White. In his notes to the game, Yury seems to suggest that he thought he had more than that, but was unable to find anything great.

As it was, his 17.Bf5?! g6 18.Bd3?! was a bad plan. I was thinking about 18.Be6!?, but as far as I could tell, 18…fxe6 19.dxe6 (not 19.Qxg6+ Qg7, which is an easy win) Qxe6 20.Qxg6+ and 21.Qxh6 was just unclear. White’s got some pawns for the piece, but he doesn’t have many attackers.

After 18.Bd3, I assume Yury missed 18…Bxc3!, a slightly surprising trade of bishop for knight. On 19.bxc3, my idea was to play 19…c4! 20.Be2 Qe4!, hitting c2 and h4. That forces a trade of queens, after which White is saddled with weak pawns on c3 and d5, while his bishop pair doesn’t have any open diagonals.

To avoid that prospectless endgame, Shulman tried 19.Qxc3 Nxd5 20.Qc4, reaching the position in the diagram below:

(FEN: 4r1k1/1prnqp2/p2p2pp/2pn4/2Q4B/3BP3/PP3PPP/3R1RK1 b - - 0 20)

Objectively, I was pretty sure that 20…N5f6 was best here, but I ended up playing 20…Ne5 on practical grounds. The main plus of …N5f6 is that it keeps the pawn, but down to 5 minutes (against Yury’s 25 minutes), I felt that White might have some annoying pressure. Black will probably get to play …d5 at some point, but if he ever plays …g5, then the light squares will be very weak, and otherwise the d5-pawn will never be fully secure. Meanwhile, with 20…Ne5, I felt the resulting endgame would be a pretty easy hold and we seemed to be doing at least alright on the other boards. Jesse’s board 2 game with white had already ended in a draw, while we seemed to be doing fine on board 3 and better on board 4. The game continued 21.Bxe7 Nxc4 22.Bxc4 Nxe7 23.Rxd6 Kg7 24.Rfd1 Nc6, reaching the following position:

(FEN: 4r3/1pr2pk1/p1nR2pp/2p5/2B5/4P3/PP3PPP/3R2K1 w - - 0 25)

Some people seemed to think this endgame should be better for White by virtue of his control of the d-file and “advantage” of bishop over knight. However, White’s bishop has few prospects here (it can always be chased away by knight or b-pawn) and the d-file has no real targets – Rd7 can generally be met with …Re8-e7. Black has a simple plan in advancing his queenside majority, while White’s kingside majority isn’t as easy to set in motion. Maybe after retreating with his bishop to e2 (to get out a fork from e5), White should think about Rd7, Rxc7, f4, and Kf2.

What happened in the game turned good for me in a hurry. The game continued 25.h3 b5 26.Be2 c4 27.a3 Re5 (trying to control the 5th with …Rc5 and either …c3 or maybe …a5 and …b4 if needed) 28.Rd7 Ree7 29.Rxc7 Rxc7 30.Rd6.

(FEN: 8/2r2pk1/p1nR2pp/1p6/2p5/P3P2P/1P2BPP1/6K1 b - - 0 30)

At first, this looks nice for White, as the Nc6 seems to be pinned to the a6-pawn. Meanwhile, advancing with …a5 might invite Rd5, when the b-pawn is stuck guarding the c4-pawn. But with the advance of my pawns to c4 and b5, the b2-pawn is a fixed weakness, and I can use that to my advantage.

I played 30…Kf8! here, and after 31.Bf3, I continued with 31…Ne5 32.Be4 Ke7! 33.Rxa6 Nd3. White doesn’t have time to exchange on d3 and get his rook back into position, so the b2-pawn is a goner. After 34.Rb6 though, it looks like he might still escape as if 34…Nxb2 35.Rxb5 c3 36.Bc2, the pawn is blockaded. Black has the little zwischenzug of 34…f5!, forcing the bishop off the key diagonal. After 35.Bd5 Nxb2 (35…Rc5 might be slightly more accurate, although it might also transpose after 36.e4 Nxb2) 36.Rxg6 Rc5!.

Black needs to get off the 7th rank as if 36…c3? 37.Bb3 c2 38.Rg7+ Kd6 39.Rxc7 Kxc7 40.Bxc2 leaves White winning. When I played this whole …Kf8 maneuver, I missed this line and thought I was already winning …

Actually, I thought I was winning after 36…Rc5 as well, as if 37.Bg8, Black can just run with the pawn. Shulman’s 37.e4 was thus an unpleasant surprise, and with both of us having 1.5 minutes left (plus a 30-second increment the rest of the way), neither of us was going to have a lot of time to calculate things out.

(FEN: 8/4k3/6Rp/1prB1p2/2p1P3/P6P/1n3PP1/6K1 b - - 0 37)

I wasn’t sure what to do here – 100 seconds to make a move, and I had to decide between 37…c3, 37…fxe4, 37…Nd3, while briefly considering some other options. I thought for a second about 37…Rxd5, seeing that 38.exd5 c3 39.Rc6 Nc4 blocks the c-file, but then I realized the rook can get back via the e-file (not to mention that 40.a4 in that line also wins).

In the end, with 10 seconds left, I played 37…Nd3, angling to play …Nf4 and chase the bishop off the diagonal. I couldn’t properly evaluate all the …c3/…c2 endgames, but I figured if I cut down the diagonal, I could push the pawn safely.

Down to 14 seconds, Yury played the brilliant 38.g3!, a move that had completely escaped me. During my think about …Nd3 and his think afterwards, I had only looked at 38.Rxh6 and 38.Re6+.

On 38.Rxh6, I planned 38….Nf4 39.Bg8 Kf8!, and Black wins as the bishop can’t stick around on the diagonal. There’s an extra nuance that the endgame after 39.Kh2 Nxd5 40.exd5 c3 41.Re6+ Kd7 42.Re1 c2 43.Rc1 Kd6 is won for Black (White’s kingside pawns aren’t fast enough).

The short move g3 is the best because it takes away the …Nf4 resource. Down from 40 seconds to 7, I played 38…c3, and the game continued with 39.Bb3 c2 40.Bxc2 Rxc2 41.exf5 Rxf2. The endgame should be won with best play I think, but from this point onwards, I let some outside distractions get to me. The moves I ended up playing for a little while were still good, but I wasn’t focusing so well and gaining time on the clock.

Anyways, after some further moves, we reached the following position after Shulman’s 49.Rc6:

(FEN: 8/5k2/2R5/8/Ppn3PP/3r4/6K1/8 b - - 0 49)

It’s a very trivial win with 49…Rc3 here, as the b-pawn can be quickly pushed to b2, and then …Rc1 will queen the pawn. Instead, I started off on the wrong path with 49…Ne3+?, which gets all my pieces tangled up with one another.

It’s still winning after 50.Kf3 Ra3!, but it gets a little trickier. However, 50…Ra3 is the only way I see to win the endgame. Instead, my 50…b3? threw the win away immediately as I had completely overlooked 51.Ke2!.

I was already kicking myself for 49…Ne3+, but then I thought that if 50…b3 51.Ke4, I could still win with 51…Rd1!. The threat of …b2 and …b1/Q means that White has to play 52.Rb6, but then 52…Nc4! saves the knight, hits the rook, and indirectly guards b3 because of …Nd2+. None of that is possible after 51.Ke2. Yury offered a draw with the move, and with my best option being R + N vs R (after 51…b2 52.Rb6 Ra3), I decided not to think anymore (and lose on time) and accepted it.

By the time my game was over, we had already lost on board 4 while Naroditsky was headed for a drawn endgame on board 3. After playing pretty well for 48 moves, thanks to my miss with 49…Ne3? and 50…b3?, I went from a won position to a drawn one, and from a tied match to a loss. Sigh.

I’ll try and follow up with annotations of my Week 9 win against Bercys (also in a Nimzo) in a few days.

As usual, GM Julio Becerra lurked on Board 1 when the lineups were posted. He’s the MVP points leader in USCL history and has also racked up the most wins. We had played a couple times previously in the USCL and both those games ended in draws. Last time I played him with black, I played the Poisoned Pawn Variation of the Winawer for the first time in my life. That game can be seen here.

Not having looked at that line or any main line Lopez in over a year, I decided that instead of rushing to update my lines (and walking into his prep), I might as well try to surprise him. I looked at what I could do, and decided on the Burn Variation of the Classical French (3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 dxe4). The lines looked relatively easy to pick up on one night’s notice …

The next day, it was the moment of truth. Becerra had played 1.c4 in his first USCL game this year, but our game started with what I expected: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 dxe4. After following the main line Burn for a few moves, his first small surprise was 8.Bg5-e3 (the whole game can be replayed here):

(FEN: r1bqkb1r/ppp2pp1/4pn1p/8/3P4/4BN2/PPP2PPP/R2QKB1R b KQkq - 0 8)

He had played this move once before, but most recently (and by far more often), he had chosen 8.Bg5-h4. That’s where I had focused my attention, but I did look at a couple games after 9.Be3. Unfortunately, at the board, I didn’t recall too much beyond my next few moves: 9…Nd5 10.Bd3 (10.Bd2 is also popular) Nxe3 11.fxe3 Bd6 12.e4 c5.

I think the theoretical reputation of this line is pretty solid for Black, but there are still some imbalances to play with. The first real interesting moment came after Becerra played 18.dxc5 to reach the following position:

(FEN: 2k4r/ppqrbpp1/2b1p2p/2P1P3/4B3/5N2/PPP1Q1PP/1K1R1R2 b - - 0 18)

Should I take on c5, d1, or e4, and in what order? As it turns out, this position had been seen before, and actually at a tournament I was at! That’d be the Montreal International in 2009, where the 10th round game between Bacrot and Akobian reached this position. Akobian played 18…Rxd1+ 19.Rxd1 Bxc5, which is pretty natural. After 20.Bxc6 Qxc6 21.Ne1 Rd8 22.Nd3 Bd4 23.Rf1, White has set his sights on Black’s f7-weakness, which Var took care of with 23…f6. After the exchange, that left an isolated e-pawn, but it wasn’t quite enough for Bacrot and the game ended in a draw after 72 moves. I didn’t remember any of this, though.

Instead of exchanging on d1, I hoped to provoke an exchange on d7, so as to stay in touch with the f7-pawn. I also didn’t want to see him transfer his knight to d3, where it closes off the d-file and opens the f-file for him. With that in my mind, I played 18…Bxe4 19.Qxe4 Rhd8. The c5-pawn can be had later on, as if 20.Rxd7 Qxd7 21.b4 (21.Qe3 Qd1+ is no problem for Black) Qb5!, Black hits the Rf1 and can play …Bxc5 next to recover the pawn. Instead, Becerra played 20.Rd3 and the game continued with 20…Bxc5 21.a3, leaving me with another decision.

(FEN: 2kr4/ppqr1pp1/4p2p/2b1P3/4Q3/P2R1N2/1PP3PP/1K3R2 b - - 0 21)

What do I do about the d-file and the backward f-pawn? With a3 played, White is thinking about playing Rc3 and using the c-file. I could sidestep with …Kb8, and then sidestep further with …Qb6 if Rc3. I’m not sure it matters too much either way to the evaluation – the position is about equal – but it’s about what kind of position I want to play. I decided to trade on d3, and after 21…Rxd3 22.cxd3 Kb8 23.Rc1 Qb6 24.Ka2, we reached the position in the following diagram:

(FEN: 1k1r4/pp3pp1/1q2p2p/2b1P3/4Q3/P2P1N2/KP4PP/2R5 b - - 0 24)

I played 24…Bf8 here, essentially resigning myself to passive defense. This was my first real mistake of the game, as the position goes from “equal” to “equal, but slightly easier for White to play.” The correct move was 24…Bd4!, which of course I saw, but I didn’t see the correct follow up after 25.Rc2. I wasn’t sure what my bishop was doing on d4, as it seemed like it had nowhere to go, but here is where Black should get rid of the f7-weakness with 25…f5! 26.exf6 Bxf6. The f7-weakness has been replaced by one on e6, but now the bishop stays on the diagonal eyeing b2, and the d-pawn has no safe square on the file anymore. Black should have no trouble in this position.

Still, this wasn’t too serious a mistake and we continued to maneuver only to reach the following position:

(FEN: 8/kp1rbpp1/p3p2p/q3P3/2QP4/P1R2N1P/1PK3P1/8 b - - 0 30)

I’m not sure what it was, but I had a total brain fart with 30…Bd8? here. Even though Black is passive, there’s no real way for White to make progress, and my original plan was simply to sit tight with 30…Qb6. White has no entry anywhere and he has to keep an eye on d4 himself. Instead after 30…Bd8?, exactly what I had told myself to avoid earlier occurred – White traded queens.

When he played 31.Qc5+, it was probably best to try and get White to execute the trade with 31…Qb6, but I thought that maybe I had an out with 31…Qxc5?!. Unfortunately, that was a miscalculation as after 32.dxc5 (32.Rxc5 Bb6 is a little awkward for White because of the d-pawn), Black has no way to take advantage of the temporarily weak state of the e5- and c5-pawns.

My original plan was to play 32…Rd5 here (stopping 33.Rd3 because of Rxc5+), and after 33.b4, continue with 33…Bc7 to force White to guard the e5-pawn. That’d be nice, but 34.Rd3! can be played anyways, as Black can’t take on e5! Uh oh.

The trade with dxc5 then leaves Black in a real bind – he’s got no answer to White’s queenside majority and his bishop has no prospects. Although the computer doesn’t sense the danger, I thought this endgame was lost as soon as I realized I couldn’t play 32…Rd5, and the GMs I talked to about this position all agreed with me. Sigh.

Black can’t really avoid a trade of rooks, and the resulting minor piece endgame is no fun:

(FEN: 8/1pb3p1/p1k1pp1p/2P1P3/PP6/3K1N1P/6P1/8 w - - 0 38)

I thought my only hope of activating my kingside pawns was connected to …f6, but Becerra alertly realized that he didn’t have to take on f6. Taking on e5 with the bishop would always leave me with a lost K+P endgame, while winning a pawn with …fxe5 would be short-lived because White can always bring his king to e4.

Here, with my clock running down to just 10 seconds (there was a 30-second increment though), I tried 37…Kc6, hoping that I might be able to sneak in …fxe5 if his king came to c4. However, after 38.Kc4!, taking on e5 is useless, since after b5+, White can bring his king back to e4 and round up the e5-pawn without letting Black out. Meanwhile, 38…b5+ 39.axb5 axb5 40.Kd4 is no fun either, as the b5-pawn is going to be a real problem when White gets around to playing Nd4+.

With that in mind, maybe 36…f5 was a better defensive try, with some thoughts of meeting h4 with …g5 anyways. I’m not sure if changes the evaluation with correct play, but what I played didn’t offer that much resistance.

By this point, we had pretty much lost the match (we had lost on board 4, and we had been lost on board 3 from around move 20, but I was still hoping to scrape a draw out of the game. My last hope was in the following position:

(FEN: 2k5/1pP1b3/1P6/3K2p1/4N1P1/8/8/8 w - - 0 55)

White’s up a pawn, and that pawn is on c7! Now 55.Nd6+?? is pretty bad, as 55…Bxd6 56.Kxd6 is clearly stalemate, but I was hoping for 55.Ke6. Looks pretty obvious, but then 55…Bc5 was the plan. He can’t take on c5 because its stalemate, so Black picks up both the b6- and c7-pawns. The endgame actually is winning for White after 56.Nxg5 Bxb6 57.Ne4 Kxc7 58.g5, but still, I have to try something. Julio didn’t fall for it though, instead going with the very precise 55.Nc3!, heading for a7. As there’s no way to stop that, I resigned.

As Black against the higher rated Becerra on board 1, my main task was to at least not lose, but I managed to waste my equal position. Coupled with losses on boards 3 and 4, Jesse’s win on board 2 against FM Eric Rodriguez was for naught and we ended up with a 3-1 loss against Miami.

Finally, here is a quick rundown of our setup -  Danya is the only one playing without a board, while I’m the only one playing with a clock (and an analog one at that!) …

After having played in the USCL from 2005 through 2009, I skipped the 2010 season and I wasn’t particularly certain about playing this year. But with my office moving to just a couple blocks away from the Mechanics Institute and one of the regular SF GMs moving away (Josh Friedel moved to Wisconsin, opening up an extra spot), I decided to give it a go.

My first game back was going to be as black against GM Melik Khachiyan. I was pretty nervous before the game. I had played a handful of blitz games on ICC since August 2010 and no slow games, and I never executed on my grand plans to study before the USCL season. It’s one thing when you’re playing individually, but here, in addition to not wanting to embarrass myself, I didn’t want the team to lose because I missed a mate in 1.

Luckily that didn’t happen … (the whole game can be replaced here)

(FEN: r2qr1k1/bpp2pp1/p1npbn1p/4p3/4P3/1BPP1N1P/PP3PP1/R1BQRNK1 w - - 0 12)

I had expected an Exchange Ruy Lopez, but I guess Melik wanted to change things up from our last (in-person) game. Instead, he went with the Giuoco Pianissimo, and while I had some trouble recalling all the correct move orders, I did get to a position I recognized at this point. During the game, I actually thought this was how my game against Vocaturo last summer went, but it was only a marginally different move order and position. We could have transposed to that after 12.Be3 Bxb3 13.Qxb3 Qd7.

Melik chose 12.Ng3 instead, which tries to avoid the exchange of dark-squared bishops. If White can arrange a setup with his knights on g3/h4 and f5 along with a queen on f3, he’d really like to have that bishop to drop on h6 at some point. I’m not sure that Black has any real way of preventing a knight transfer to f5, and if he plays the position with an eventual …Ne7, he loses some central influence and allows d3-d4.

Thus, I continued with 12…Bxb3 13.axb3 (if 13.Qxb3, I was planning to play like I did against Vocaturo with 13…Qd7 – the b7-pawn is taboo because of 14.Qxb7 Reb8 15.Qxa6 Bxf2+ winning) d5. Black needs to strike in the center and on the d-file before White can achieve that ideal setup. After 14.Qe2 Qd7 15.Nh4 Rad8 16.Nhf5 dxe4 17.dxe4 Qd3, the following position was reached:

(FEN: 3rr1k1/bpp2pp1/p1n2n1p/4pN2/4P3/1PPq2NP/1P2QPP1/R1B1R1K1 w - - 0 18)

I think Melik got a little careless here, as he played 18.Be3. It’s a natural move and I don’t think it’s a serious mistake, but it allows Black to fix the queenside structure while White’s b-pawns are still weak. Instead, I think both 18.Kf1 (bringing the king closer in advance of the endgame) and 18.Qxd3 Rxd3 19.b4 were a little better. I also considered 18.Nh5!?, but I though that Black’s position was maybe a little easier to play after 18…Qxe2 19.Nxf6+ gxf6 20.Rxe2 Rd1+ 21.Kh2 Kh7 (21…h5 is also interesting).

After 18.Be3, though, I played 18…Qxe2 19.Rxe2 Bxe3 20.Nxe3 a5!, fixing the b3-pawn in its place. The a5-pawn is not so secure at the moment, but it can be supported with …b6 if need be. I don’t think White is really worse yet, but he does have to be a little careful that he doesn’t allow a knight hop to c5. For the time being, that’s not really possible because it would allow a knight into d5 …

Fortunately for me, Melik seemed to miss a slightly unnatural recapture later on. The game continued 21.Ree1 (I’d prefer 21.Kf1 or 21.f3 I think) Rd7 22.Red1 Red8 23.Rxd7?, reaching the position in the digram below:

(FEN: 3r2k1/1ppR1pp1/2n2n1p/p3p3/4P3/1PP1N1NP/1P3PP1/R5K1 b - - 0 23)

The most natural recapture here would be 23…Rxd7. Black just doubled rooks on the d-file, so this maintains his control of the file while not walking into any pins by taking back with the knight. However, the situation has changed from a few moves ago when I said that Black shouldn’t allow a knight into d5!

With the trade of rooks, Black no longer has a rook on e8 that could be hit with Nd5xc7. So here, after 23…Nxd7! 24.Nd5 Nc5!, White is in serious trouble. If he takes on c7, then Black takes on b3 and invades on d2, while if 25.b4, then 25…Nxe4 just picks up a pawn immediately.

White tried to hold all his pawns together with 23…Nxd7! 24.Nc4 b6 25.Rd1 f6 26.Nf1 Kf7 (there’s no rush) 27.f3 Nc5 28.Rxd8 Nxd8 29.N1d2, but there are too many holes in his position to cover. I continued with 29…N8e6 (threatening to come into f4 maybe) 30.g3 Nd3 31.Kf1 Nec5 (stopping Ke2 because of …Nc1+ and …Nxb3).

After waiting a few more moves for White to make some kingside weaknesses and bring his king farther away from the center, I went to work on the b-pawns.

(FEN: 8/2p3p1/1p3pk1/p1n1p2p/2N1P1PP/1PPn1P2/1P1N2K1/8 b - - 0 34)

I wasn’t sure whether to continue with 34…Nc1 or 34…a4 here – after 34…a4 35.b4 b5!, Black uses the fact that knights are horrible against rook pawns to win a pawn. But at the same time, the resulting structure (after 36.Na3 Nb3! 37.Nxb3 axb3 38.Nb1 Nxb2 39.Nd2 Nd1 40.Nxb3 Nxc3) is one where White’s one pawn restrains both of Black’s and on general grounds, I didn’t want to have my b- and c-pawns held back like that.

After 34…Nc1 35.b4 axb4 36.cxb4 N5d3 37.b5 Ne2, I took advantage of the fact White’s king had left f1 to come back and grab the b5-pawn (with …Nd4). The amazing thing is that White’s knights can inflict no damage on Black’s position – everything is well defended! Melik played on for a while, but he never really had any chance to save this knight and pawn endgame and I chalked up the win after 55 moves.

When I started to gain an advantage, the other games were mostly in flux (except for Jesse’s, who I thought was clearly better). But by the time my game had ended, we already had 2.5 points on the board, so this win was the icing on the cake.

On board 2, GM Jesse Kraai was the first to finish with a win over IM Zhanibek Amanov. The full game can be replayed here. He emerged from the opening with a solid plus:

(FEN: 1rb2rk1/pp2pp1p/2nb2p1/2N5/1PP5/6PP/R2BPPB1/1R4K1 b - - 0 19)

White has just played 19.Rb1, and it’s not clear to me how Black can develop his queenside without further concessions. Amanov was also unable to find any decent way, as after 19…Rd8 20.Ne4 Bc7 21.b5 Ne5 22.Bf4, he was just losing the a7-pawn. Jesse wrapped it up nicely after that.

On board 3, Yian Liou snatched a pawn in the opening against FM Michael Casella, but I’m not totally sure that was a good idea (the full game is here):

(FEN: rn2kb1r/pp2pp1p/2p1bnp1/8/2pq4/N5P1/PPQPPPBP/R1B1NRK1 w kq - 0 9)

Black has just played 8…Qd5-d4, and while Casella’s 9.e3 looks pretty reasonable, I’d suggest 9.d3 instead. After 9…cxd3 10.Nxd3, White is well developed and will gain more time against Black’s queen (and possibly the Be6 too) for the cost of a single pawn. Even after 9.e3 Qg4, 10.e4!? looks more testing to me than 10.f3?!, which needlessly weakened the a7-g1 diagonal. After 10…Qf5 11.e4 Qc5+, Black managed to hang onto his pawn while not falling too far behind in development.

Finally, on board 4, Sam Sevian and Konstantin Kavutskiy fought to a draw in a King’s Indian Attack. The full game can be replayed here, and while much of the game featured long maneuvers, there was one interesting moment I noticed.

(FEN: 3rr2k/1bq1bpp1/1pn1p2p/p1pn4/P1N3NP/2PP2P1/1P2QPB1/R1B1R1K1 w - - 0 17)

Black has just played 16…Kg8-h8, almost daring White to take on h6. I’m not sure if Sam seriously considered the idea, but instead of his 17.Ng4-e5, which didn’t accomplish much after 17…Bf6, I think he should have taken on h6 with some minor piece.

Probably 18.Nxh6 gxh6 19.Bxh6 is best, as Black’s kingside is ripped open, and the Bishop cuts off squares better than the Knight and doesn’t get in the Queen’s way quite as much. Something like 19…Bf8 20.Bxf8 Rxf8 21.Qh5+ wins (the rook or bishop will use the e4-square to deliver the final blow), while 19…Nf6 20.Bf4! is a surprising resource that highlights all sorts of problems in Black’s position (the b6-pawn, the e5-square, etc). White already has two pawns and is likely to get one or two more, and he might get an enduring initiative to boot.

The final tally was 3.5-0.5 for San Francisco over Los Angeles, and I managed to win in my first game back with the black pieces against a GM. All in all, an excellent week!

“But where you at, I was, and where you been, I left
Utilize my experience to guide your step”

- Mos Def in “Little Brother”

I was flipping through Lars Bo Hansen’s book Improve Your Chess the other day – I haven’t played in 11 months now and I haven’t seriously studied in about as long, but I still enjoy flipping reading a chess book now and then – when I came across an example from page 96 of the book.

(FEN: 6k1/1prnnp1p/p5p1/3p4/3N1N2/1P2PP1P/P5P1/3R2K1 w - - 0 29)

The game is Larsen – Gheorghiu, Palma de Mallorca 1968. Hansen gives the game as an example of how to play against Isolated Queen’s Pawns, but for me, the interesting part starts here.

White played 29.g4!, and Hansen gives the comment “White prepares to open a second front, a typical theme in strategic endings; you usually need two weaknesses to win.”

The game continued 29…h6?, to which Hansen notes, “It is understandable that Black does not want to wait passively, but this merely aids White.”

After 30.Kf2 Ne5 31.h4! Rc8 32.h5!, the position in the following diagram was reached:

(FEN: 2r3k1/1p2np2/p5pp/3pn2P/3N1NP1/1P2PP2/P4K2/3R4 b - - 0 32)

Again, quoting Hansen:

“Now it becomes clear why Black should have left the pawn on h7. In that case, 33.hxg6 would be less of a threat as Black could keep his defensive lines intact after 33…hxg6. However, now Black has to abandon either e6 or f5, which allows White to carry out his plan of encircling the d5-pawn.”

Black blundered pretty quickly here, and the rest isn’t particularly interesting in my view: 32…Kg7 33.Ke2 g5? (Black’s position was difficult, as White can think about Rh1, exchanging on g6, and Nfe6+ ideas) 34.Nxd5! Nxd5 35.Nf5+. White is up a pawn and Black blundered a whole piece in a couple more moves.

Fast forward 43 years to the Bazna Kings tournament in Romania that finished a little over a month ago, and check out the game between Magnus Carlsen and Vassily Ivanchuk from round 7. The full game can be replayed in a bunch of places, but I’d suggest the ChessVibes article for the round, which also has some notes from GM Dorian Rogozenko.

(FEN: 2r5/1p3pk1/p4npp/3pn3/3N4/1P2PP1P/P3NKP1/3R4 b - - 0 35)

This is the position in the Carlsen-Ivanchuk game after Carlsen’s 35.Ng3-e2. Looks pretty similar to the first Larsen-Gheorghiu position above, right?

Ivanchuk’s 35…Kf8 goes without comment here, but that’s probably a product of Rogozenko having to do live commentary.

Using what I saw in the Larsen game, this move is already a mistake to me. After Carlsen’s 36.g4!, White sets up the same advantageous pawn-structure on the kingside that Larsen did. Although Chucky put up more resistance than Gheorghiu, after 36.g4 Nc6 37.Rc1 Ke7 38.h4 Kd6 39.h5 Ne7 40.Rh1, White was already clearly better (diagram is below).

(FEN: 2r5/1p2np2/p2k1npp/3p3P/3N2P1/1P2PP2/P3NK2/7R b - - 0 40)

Going back to the first Carlsen-Ivanchuk diagram, I think I found a serious improvement for Black:

Instead of playing 35…Kf8, I think Ivanchuk should have played 35…h5!. The idea is straightforward: if White wants to play g4, he will have to acquiesce to an exchange of pawns and give up the idea of using the h-pawn as a lever to force a kingside concession.

Actually, even with the pawn on h7, I think 35…h5 might be the correct move. With the pawn on h7, White might not pry open the h-file in the same way, but he can still seize a lot of kingside space by pushing his g- and f-pawns.

After …h5, though, some of that potential pressure is relieved after 36.g4 hxg4 37.hxg4. White has no immediate way to win a pawn, but the idea of 38.Nf4 and 39.g5 is annoying (and …g5 from Black gives up the f5-square). So with that in mind, I’d suggest 37…Ng8, preemptively rerouting the knight to a safe square (e7) which still guards the d5-pawn. After 38.Nf4 Ne7, we reach the following position:

(FEN: 2r5/1p2npk1/p5p1/3pn3/3N1NP1/1P2PP2/P4K2/3R4 w - - 0 39)

Black’s making use of some tactics to hold onto d5, but these tactics don’t seem all that surprising to me. After something like 39.Nde2 Rc5, White can win the pawn with 40.b4, but that doesn’t lead to anything positive.

After 40…Rc2 41.Nxd5 Nxd5 42.Rxd5 Nc4, White can’t keep his extra pawn. Both 43.Rd7 b5 and 43.a4 Nb6 44.Rd7 Nxa4 equalize the material (in the last case, the threat of 45…Nc3 means White can’t take on b7).

Meanwhile, something like 40.g5 gains a bit of space on the kingside, but Black can simply play 40…a5 and ask White what he wants to do. With h-pawns still on the board, maybe White could play h4-h5-h6, fixing the h7-pawn as a potential problem later on. With those pawns exchanged, I don’t see any plan for White.

This seems like a nice advertisement for why we shouldn’t forget about the top players of the past … the game has moved on in many ways, but some things never change.

ChessBase hasn’t been particularly good with regards to chess news for some time in my view, but every once in a while, they still manage to get a good annotator for their games. The latest example of the new normal – poor annotations – is from their article about round 1 at the World Team Championships involving the game between GM Alexander Areshchenko and IM Samy Shoker.

(FEN: r3k2r/p4p1p/q2p1npQ/8/1pnRP3/1N3N1P/PpP2PP1/1K1R4 w - - 0 23)

Quoting ChessBase:

“Instead of taking an easy win with 23.Qg7 GM Alexander Areshchenko, rated 2682, blundered with 23.e5??

[23.Qg7 Rc8 24.Ne5]”

Wow, what’s next?

 “The fool didn’t see Ne5, how did he get to be rated 2682?”

“Title inflation, I tell you!”

“Revoke his GM title!”

If only all of us could play with an engine running to help us out.

By the way, for those trying to figure this out without the benefit of Fritz or Rybka, the point is that 23.Qg7 Rc8 24.Qxh8+ Ke7 25.Qg7 Na3+ 26.Kxb2 Rxc2+ 27.Ka1 Nb5 wins for Black (the mating attack is overwhelming).

Meanwhile, after 23.Qg7 Rc8 24.Ne5!!, if 24…Nxe5, then 25.Rxd6 crashes through (no more mating net), and if 24…dxe5 25.Rd8+! Ke7! (25…Rxd8 26.Qxh8+ and 27.Qxd8+ wins) 26.Qxh8 Na3+ 27.Kxb2 Rxc2+ 28.Ka1 wins for White. You still have to see that 28…Rxa2+ 29.Kxa2 Nc4+ doesn’t draw, but that’s really a footnote to a footnote if you have the engine running. Obviously.

Sigh.

First up, Adams – Ehlvest, from round 4.

(FEN: r4rk1/4pnbp/2pp1pp1/Pq6/2NPP1b1/P4N2/1B3PPP/2RQR1K1 w - - 0 18)

Ehlvest had just sacrificed a pawn on a5 (16…a5 17.bxa5 Bg4), and probably was banking on some loose pieces in White’s camp to recover it. It does look like the Nc4 is a bit overloaded, having to watch over the Bb2 and the pawn on a5, while the pin from the Bg4 might also be annoying with …Ng5 on tap.

Adams’s next move was a bit confusing at first, but there’s a reason he was consistently in the top 10 of the world. He played 18.h3!, and after 18…Bxf3 19.Qxf4 d5 20.exd5 cxd5, the position in the diagram below was reached:

(FEN: r4rk1/4pnbp/5pp1/Pq1p4/2NP4/P4Q1P/1B3PP1/2R1R1K1 w - - 0 21)

White seems to have gotten himself in a bit of a pickle here, as the overloaded knight is now under attack. White’s next of 21.a4 makes some sense, but after 21…Qb7, it still looks like trouble – the knight is safe for the time being, but …Ng5 ends the pin on the d5-pawn, and playing 22.h4 is too slow because then Black just needs to guard his queen (with 22…Rfb8 for example), and then both minors are hanging. So what to do?

Adams uncorked the brilliant 22.Ba3! at this point (although the whole idea had to seen with 18.h3), seemingly ignoring the threat to his knight. After 22…Ng5 23.Qe2, the main line must be to take the knight, but Ehlvest found it didn’t work and played 23…Re8 instead. After 24.Rb1 Qa6 25.Nb6, White emerged a pawn up in the endgame and won without too much more trouble.

But what happens if Black takes the knight?

(FEN: r4rk1/1q2p1bp/5pp1/P5n1/P1QP4/B6P/5PP1/2R1R1K1 b - - 0 24)

After 23…dxc4 24.Qxc4+, Black has three reasonable moves, none of which seem to work:

(1)   24…Kh8 25.Rxe7 Qa6 26.h4 Qxc4 27.Rxc4 Nf7 28.Rd7! – a short move that leaves Black completely helpless along the 7th rank.

(2)   Black is similarly tied up on the 7th after 24…Nf7 25.Rxe7 Qa6 26.Qa2!, when the threat of 26.Rcc7 to follow means that Black needs to exchange the rook on e7, but doing so uncovers the Ba3’s attack on the Rf8.

(3)   24…Rf7 doesn’t seem to drop material, but Black is completely tied up after 25.Rxe7 Qb8 26.a6!. After a further 26….Bf8 27.Rb7 Qd8 28.Bxf8 Qxf8 29.Qb3!! (diagram below), Black is toast:

(FEN: r4qk1/1R3r1p/P4pp1/6n1/P2P4/1Q5P/5PP1/2R3K1 b - - 0 29)

Black can’t take on a6 because of 30.Rb8, while 29…Kg7 30.h4! Ne4 31.Rxf7 Qxf7 32.Qb7! hits all of Black’s pieces (including the Ne4).

A brilliant example of domination.

One amusing moment I saw was from Van Wely – Smirin in round 6:

(FEN: 3b2k1/r1pq3p/1p1p2pB/1P1Pp3/P3P3/2R4P/2Q3PK/8 b - - 0 1)

White is definitely in the driver’s seat, but I’m not sure he can make progress against good defense here. White can’t really switch between the weaknesses on the c- and f-files so easily (and he’s got a weak pawn on a4 to watch over as well).

However, while that might be true after 34…Ra8, Smirin let his guard down with 34…Be7?. Van Wely executed a nice breakthrough with 35.a5! here – taking with the rook allows 36.Rxc7, while 35…bxa5 36.b6! cxb6 37.Rc8+ Bd8 38.Qf2! Qe7 (covering mate on f8) 39.Qxb6 Rc7 40.Ra8 is winning for White. As in the Adams game above, Black is completely tied up.

Smirin tried 35…Bd8, but after 36.axb6 cxb6 37.Rc8 Rc7, problems on the f-file cost him time as 38.Qf2 Qe7 39.Ra8 is similar to that above line. Black resigned a few moves later.

On 34…Ra8 in the above diagram though, the same idea doesn’t work since the Bd8 nicely covers the c7-pawn. And if White switches to the f-file with 35.Rf3, then 35…Be7 36.Qf3 Qe8 covers the soft f8- and f7-squares, leaving White with nothing better than to repeat with 37.Qc2. As they like to say in every sports telecast, it’s a game of inches …