Fabiano Caruana won the Young Grandmaster Tournament in Biel today. The Italian was the strongest in a necessary play-off with Maxime Vachier-Lagrave and Nguyen Ngoc Truong Son, whom he beat in the final.

The play-off final between Fabiano Caruana and Nguyen Ngoc Truong Son

The Young Grandmaster Tournament was part of the Biel Chess Festival in Switzerland, which takes place July 17-30. Anish Giri, David Howell, Fabiano Caruana, Maxim Rodshtein, Parimarjan Negi, Dmitry Andreikin, Evgeny Tomashevsky, Maxime Vachier-Lagrave, Wesley So and Nguyen Ngoc Truong Son played.

Round 9 & play-off

As leaders Caruana and Vachier-Lagrave drew in the last round, Nguyen Ngoc Truong Son was able to catch the two in the standings by beating Giri. In fact the Vietnamese finished first on tiebreak. As regulations dictated, on Thursday morning a rapid play-off was played between the players who finished on shared 1st place. It was decided that the numbers 2 and 3 played each other and the winner would play Nguyen Ngoc Truong Son.

But first things first: the final round on Wednesday. From a quiet King’s Indian Attack, Nguyen Ngoc Truong Son slowly outplayed Anish Giri, who might regret his 17th move (e.g. 17…Rfe8 looks close to equal). After a forced sequence of moves an ending was reached where White had more than enough compensation for the pawn.

Nguyen Ngoc Truong Son-Anish Giri
Biel 2010

Position after 28.Rxb7.

The Vietnamese continued to play strongly and although Black might have been able to hold the draw, the win seemed fully deserved.

Rodshtein must have missed a win somehere against Tomashevsky. Both 37.Qd4! and 40.Ne4! seem to lead to a decisive advantage. Andreikin reached equality remarkably easily against So, using the Old Indian. The ending was soon better for Black thanks to his superior knight, but it was never winning. Caruana and Vachier-Lagrave drew relatively quickly to secure the rapid play-off.

Play-off

And so we come to this morning’s action. Caruana and Vachier-Lagrave first both won one rapid game (10 minutes & 10 seconds increment) with the white pieces. What exactly happened in the first game is not yet clear to us – was one more move played (Bxg3) and did the Frenchman touch his queen? It’s more likely that the game was saved incompletely. In any case, he recovered well and won a nice, tactical ending to level the score.

Vachier-Lagrave continued strongly, and reached a promising position again with the white pieces in the Armageddon blitz game.

Vachier-Lagrave-Caruana
Biel 2010

Here 38.Rb2?! allowed 38…Qa4! and the tables turned, as …Qd1 and Ra1 cannot be prevented. White should still be able to hold it, but the defence proved too difficult.

Caruana had an even narrower escape in the first game of the final against Nguyen Ngoc Truong Son, as he defended an ending two pawns down to a draw. In the second game he struck decisively.

Nguyen Ngoc Truong Son-Caruana
Biel 2010

Here 30.Rc2 should draw. 30.b3?! was answered by the strong 30…a3! and after 31.Ra8 Ra5 32.Rxa5 bxa5 33.Nd4 Nb4 34.Nb5 Nxa2 35.Nxa3 Nc1 Black won a pawn, which was, like in almost any knight ending, decisive.

Games rounds 9 & tiebreak

Game viewer by ChessTempo

Fabiano Caruana with the winner's medal in Biel

Links

• Official website
• Games in PGN: Young GMs, Tiebreak via TWIC

Fabiano Caruana and Maxime Vachier-Lagrave are sharing the lead in Biel with one round to go. The two are on 5/8. After five more draws in round 7, the 8th round saw much more spectacle.

The Young Grandmaster Tournament is part of the Biel Chess Festival in Switzerland, which takes place July 17-30. Anish Giri, David Howell, Fabiano Caruana, Maxim Rodshtein, Parimarjan Negi, Dmitry Andreikin, Evgeny Tomashevsky, Maxime Vachier-Lagrave, Wesley So and Nguyen Ngoc Truong Son play.

Rounds 7 & 8

After our last, and slightly critical report on Biel, in which we noted the many short draws between these ten young and ambitious players, the games of the 7th round were more interesting. Nonetheless, all of them ended peacefully anyway!

From all the players it seems that Vietnamese GM Nguyen Ngoc Truong Son came closest to victory thanks to the tactical shot 16…Nxe5! but then he spoilt his advantage.

Wesley So-Nguyen Ngoc Truong Son
Biel 2010

16…Nxe5!

Today no less than four games ended in victories. Only Andreikin and Caruana split the point again; the game always looked equal and in the end Black’s activity compensated for the pawn he lost.

In another game with Black, Nguyen Ngoc Truong Son now did manage win, against Tomashevsky. And with creative play, we may add. Thanks to a strong pawn phalanx the exchange sac 27…Rxb6! was the obvious way to continue, and soon White had to give back the material, but more power moves (especially 36…d5!) decided the game.

Evgeny Tomashevsky-Nguyen Ngoc Truong Son
Biel 2010

36…d5!

Giri defeated So in a pawn ending, after some interesting tactics had appeared in the middlegame. The Philippine might still have drawn the game with 35…Qf6! because in that version, if White takes on f4, he will have a distant passer. But since the ending is quite complicated, we’ll refrain from giving a definite conclusion.

Anish Giri-Wesley So
Biel 2010

35…Qf6! instead of 35…Qxh4?

Negi is having a hard time in Biel and after a bad start the Indian is ‘even going for a draw in better positions’, as a Dutch grandmaster said today. He hadn’t seen today’s game yet, but it did look like this. Against Howell’s Alapin, Negi was fine after the opening and could have played for an advantage at some point, but instead he allowed a strong exchange sacrifice and then was outplayed in the subsequent ending.

Vachier-Lagrave played a strong game against Rodshtein but then almost let it slip away. Instead of going for mate, he somehow allowed the Israeli to continue the game, but eventually the rook ending was won anyway for the Frenchman, who thus caught Caruana in the standings.

Tomorrow is the last round with Rodshtein-Tomashevsky, Negi-Vachier-Lagrave, Caruana-Howell, So-Andreikin and Nguyen Ngoc Truong Son-Giri. There’s a possible tiebreak on Thursday morning if two players (or more) finish at the 1st place. In that case two rapid games (10 minutes & 10 seconds increment) will be played and if the result is 1-1, two blitz will be played.

Games rounds 7 & 8

Game viewer by ChessTempo

Links

• Official website
• Games in PGN via TWIC

Today is an official rest day in Biel, but yesterday, the young stars looked determined to make it not one but two breaks in a row.

After the fourth round, we expressed the hope that the youngsters would play more enterprising chess in the rounds to come, but they probably didn’t read our request – or didn’t care – since both in round 5 and 6, a majority of the games ended in quick draws.

For instance, we don’t have to spend much time on such fifth round games as Howell-Tomashevsky (draw in 16 moves) and Negi-Truong Son (draw in 22 moves). And this trend continued in the sixth: Tomashevsky-So (24 moves), Andreikin-Rodshtein (20 moves), Giri-Negi (20 moves) and the needlessly overlong Truong Son-Caruana (31 moves). What’s up with these guys? What are they afraid of? It’s anyone’s guess.

So let’s focus on the few exciting games that were played yesterday and the day before. First of all, there was the surprise loss of tournament leader Wesley So against Fabiano Caruana in round 5.

Black’s knight on g4 is attacked, but White’s knight on h7 is also an instability in the positon. So comes up with an fascinating solution:

16…cxd4! This is probably better than 16…Ngf6 17.dxc5 with an edge for White. However, Black had two other interesting moves, namely 16…Nde5!? and 16…Nxf2!?, the latter with the idea 17.Qxf2 f5! and the knight on h7 is trapped. The result is a double-edged position.

17.exd4 Probably best. After 17.hxg4 Ne5! 18.exd4 Nxd3 19.Qxd3 Qxd4 Black is fine despite the fact that he’s a piece down for the moment. Now, So did withdraw his knight, and after 17…Ngf6 18.Bf4 Qe7 the position was roughly equal. However, two moves later Black became active a move too soon:

Black is OK after a move like 20…Nd5, and even 20…Rxd4 seems possible, but after 20…b5? Caruana replied with the cunning 21.Bc7! totally disrupting the coordination of Black’s pieces. After 21…Rd7 22.Qc6 Ra7 23.Bb6 White had an edge due to the bishop pair. Still, it wasn’t all misery for Black until he failed to grab back a sacrificed pawn.

White is a pawn up, but after 33…Bd5! with the idea Nc6, Black seems to have sufficient counterplay. Instead, So played the active-looking 33…Rxf1+? 34.Kxf1 Bf3 but it transpired that White could hold on to his pawn after 35.Ke1 Nc6 36.Rb5 and Black didn’t have enough compensation – he never saw it back.

Also in the 5th round, Maxim Rodshtein played a good game against Anish Giri, basically outplaying him straight from the opening.

Black seems to be winning back the pawn, but alas, White has the strong pseudo-sacrifice 27.Qxc5! Bxc5 28.Rxc5 with a crushing bind, which he converted after a subsequent blunder by Giri. A well-deserved win for Rodshtein.

The only other decisive game of the past two days was Howell-Vachier Lagrave. David Howell is having a pretty miserable time in Biel, and in the sixth round, things went wrong once again after a well-played opening and middlegame phase.

Despite his doubled e-pawns, White has a pleasant plus due to Black’s weakened kingside. There are several attractive plans in the position, such as 26.Rg3 with the idea of doubling rooks, or 26.Rdf1 with the idea Qd1 and perhaps Qg4 to follow, but there’s also the tactical solution 26.Nxd6 Qxd6 27.Rxg5 after which something like 27…Rf2 doesn’t work in view of 28.Rdg1, winning.

But for some reason Howell played the defensive 26.Nc3? which gave Black to opportunity to grab the initiative with 26…Nf3!.

A few moves later, Black was fully activated:

Now, White’s 26th move might have been useful after all, as 31.Nxa4! seems possible: 31…Nxa4 32.Qa5 with serious counterplay. It wasn’t to be. Howell thought he had time for the solid-looking 31.Ka2? but was surprised by 31…Rh1! after which White has problems holding on to his e-pawns.

After 6 rounds, the Italian Fabiano Caruana has taken the lead with 4/6, closely followed by no less than five players with 3,5. Anish Giri has a bit of a disappointing tournament so far with 2,5 points. For Negi and Howell, the tournament can already be considered lost. Let’s hope the players use their offocial rest day well.

Standings after Round 6:

1. Caruana 4
2. So, Tomashevsky, Andreikin, Vachier Lagrave, Rodshtein 3,5
7. Truong Son 3
8. Giri 2,5
9. Negi, Howell 1,5

Games start daily at 14.00 CET, except July 25, which is a rest day.

Biel Young Grandmasters Games round 5 & 6

Game viewer by ChessTempo

Links

• Official website
• Games in PGN via TWIC

In the pentultimate round of the Dortmund Sparkassen Chess-Meeting, Arkadij Naiditsch upset Vladimir Kramnik while Peter Leko came tantilizingly close to beating Le Quang. Ruslan Ponomariov took no risk and secured his first place in the standings.

With just one round to go, the standings were seriously mixed up today after Naiditsch beat Kramnik. In the previous round, Naiditsch didn’t look half so good as Ruslan Ponomariov demolished him in an outstanding positional game.

Before moving on to today’s games, let’s see how Pono outplayed the German in round 8:

33.Be5! Rxf6 34.Rfc1! Bd7 35.Rab1! with a winning bind for White, which the Russian converted in 46 moves.

Yesterday’s other games looked bleak compared to this. As feared, Leko-Kramnik was a bloodless draw and though Mamedyarov tried hard to beat Le Quang, the young Vietnamese defended accurately and professionally secured the draw.

Today, Shakriyar Mamedyarov surprised tournament leader Ponomariov as early as move 5:

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Be7 5.g4!?

This has only been played 5 times according to the database, but never by a 2500+ player. Ponomariov bravely ‘castled into it’ with 5…0-0 but grabbed the g-pawn a couple of moves later anyway. White, of course, obtained decent compensation for it and actually seemed to be fine after the opening. However, just when thinks started to look exciting, Ponomariov traded queens after which the game suddenly became drawish.

In this position, Black has a number of interesting alternatives, such as 25…Qxf4, 25…Rae8 or 25…Bxf4, with a very exciting and complicated game. Instead, Black chose to play it safe in this stage of the tournament with 25…Qc5 26.Qxc5 bxc5 = . He is now one point ahead of his competitors, so naturally he had every reason to be satisfied!

Ponomariov, certain of (shared) first place already (photo by Georgios Souleidis)

Peter Leko finally looked ready to win his first game of the tournament with Black against Le Quang, but had to satisfy himself with a draw after 119 moves anyway. He got his chance after Le Quang played too optimistically in an otherwise normal position.

29.Rc7? bxa4 It’s hard to see what White had in mind here. Perhaps he wanted to play 29.Rc6 but ‘overstretched’ by one square. Now, after 30.Bc4 Qb8 White remained a pawn down. To the delight of his fans, Leko seemed to be making steady progress in the endgame.

Le Quang - Leko (photo by Georgios Souleidis)

However, by now we should all know how tough it is to really beat Le Quang. He kept on making tough moves and though many moves were played, Leko couldn’t find a clear win until, finally, White was on the verge of collapsing.

103.Rd7 The funny 103.Bd3 is the computer’s suggestion. 103…Rh2+ 104.Kf1 Ke3 It suddenly looks very dangerous for White, but fortunately for him, the theoretical endgame after 105.Rxd5 Rf2+ 16.Kg1 Rxe2 107.Rxe5+ Kxf3 108.Rf5 is a book draw. No doubt heavily disappointed, Leko tried for 10 more moves before offering a draw.

Naiditsch - Kramnik (photo by Georgios Souleidis)

Arkadij Naiditsch is having a weird tournament, but after today, he will probably be happy after all. He recovered excellently from yesterday’s loss by beating Vladimir Kramnik in 34 moves. It was a complex game (Kramnik played the Pirc Defence), with some very interesting tactics. Let’s have a closer look.

14…Qh4+ 15.Kd1!? After 15.Bf2 Qg5! things are also highly unclear. 15…Bxd4 Also interesting is the natural-looking 15…Re8.

16.Bxa6! e5 17.Bxc8 Rfxc8 18.c3 It looks like White is on top after all, but Black has tremendous counterplay: 18…Rab8 19.Qc4

Here, it seems Kramnik faltered with 18…c5?! where the principled 18…Rxb2 would have led to a very difficult position, offering Black a very dangerous initiative after 19.cxd4 Rxg2. Instead, after the text, White played the very strong 19.Bc1! after which he appears to be better.

Still, things were far from clear until Black again moved his c-pawn:

25…c4? A bettter chance was 25…Reb8. 26.Qd1! After this strong defensive move, White can hold on to his extra piece. Black’s attack quickly faded and Naiditsch collected the point.

Naiditsch(photo by Georgios Souleidis)

Standings after 9 rounds:

1. Ponomariov 6
2. Le Quang, Mamedyarov 5
4. Kramnik, Naiditsch 4
6. Leko 3

Games start daily at 15.00 CET and can be followed live here.

Dortmund Games round 8 & 9

Game viewer by ChessTempo

Links

• Official website
• Games in PGN via TWIC
• Previous Chessvibes report on Dortmund

Preparando unas notas para Recursos Tácticos, sobre Dobles y Descubiertos, recordé que en la Base de Minipartidas 2009/2010 (hasta 10 jugadas) que estaba organizando; varias partidas se definían con un Doble de Dama (15%).

Burradas, como decíamos en Errores en la Apertura – Minijuegos:

“Hay errores por desconocimiento, lisa y llanamente una burrada. Fallas que no son por no conocer la apertura, sino por no conocer el concepto, ni la estrategia ni la táctica. Claro que hay “celadas”, más o menos sutiles y todos podemos caer. Pero lo que son burradas, son burradas.”

Cet exercice tactique est tiré d'une partie d'échecs jouée lors du 35ème Mémorial Capablanca à Varadero (Cuba) en 2000. Le grand-maître espagnol Juan Manuel Bellon Lopez était opposé au Cubain Juan Borges Mateos. Dans cette position, les Blancs ratèrent un mat en 5 coups. Et vous ?

Chaque mardi, notre ami le maître international canadien d'échecs Jean Hébert nous propose sa lettre d'information HPE.

Aux échecs, la plupart des joueurs préfèrent avoir les Blancs car ils ont l'initiative du premier coup. Ici, George Bush semble en difficulté face à Vladimir Poutine, mais un miracle échiquéen va se produire au détour d'une combinaison noire.

Dans notre échec & mat du jour, Vladimir avec les Blancs envoie un missile stratégique SS 4 en g7, destiné à un rôle d'intimidation. George avec les Noirs réplique avec un projectile autopropulsé et guidé américain Polaris à longue portée lancé depuis un sous-marin en b8... pour mater en 5 coups. La guerre sur l'échiquier est plutôt chaude, non ?!

Nous vous invitons à aiguiser votre habilité technique avec notre rubrique quotidienne S'entraîner dans notre ligne de Menu.

Chess & Strategy Tactic pour s'entraîner aux échecs

Résolvez nos exercices de mat en 2 coups, 3 coups ou même beaucoup plus, côté blanc comme côté noir peu nous importe finalement ! A chaque fois, le niveau est indiqué (Facile, Moyen ou Fort), un indice facultatif est proposé, et bien sûr la solution est donnée. Pour un entraînement optimal des neurones, ne pas bouger les pièces sur un échiquier et bien sûr, pas de logiciel d'échecs.

Trouvez le tacticien en vous sur Chess & Strategy Tactic !

2007-2010 © Chess & Strategy - tous droits réservés

Aux échecs, la plupart des joueurs préfèrent avoir les Blancs car ils ont l'initiative du premier coup. Mais parfois, on rencontre des amateurs qui ont un penchant pour les Noirs et la contre-attaque. Ceux-là jouent volontiers la sicilienne contre 1.e4 et l'Est-indienne ou le Gambit Benko sur 1.d4, quand ce n'est pas la très tranchante défense Nimzovitsch.

C'est juste une question de goût et de style. L'important est de progresser aux échecs dans la compréhension stratégique du jeu et dans le calcul des variantes. A ce propos, nous vous invitons à tester votre habilité technique au calcul avec notre rubrique quotidienne S'entraîner.

Chess & Strategy Tactic pour s'entraîner au quotidien

Résolvez nos exercices de mat en 2 coups, 3 coups ou même beaucoup plus, côté blanc comme côté noir peu nous importe finalement ! A chaque fois, le niveau est indiqué (Facile, Moyen ou Fort), un indice facultatif est proposé, et bien sûr la solution est donnée. Pour un entraînement optimal des neurones, nous vous conseillons de ne pas bouger les pièces sur un échiquier et bien sûr, sans l'aide d'un logiciel d'échecs.

Trouvez le tacticien en vous sur Chess & Strategy Tactic !

2007-2010 © Chess & Strategy - tous droits réservés

Aux échecs, de belles combinaisons tactiques s'apparentent au jeu de la séduction entre la dame blanche et le roi noir avec souvent un feu d'artifice à la clé.

Dans le même registre, le magicien de Riga, Mikhail Tal raffolait des sacrifices qui, bien que souvent douteux, étaient quasiment impossibles à réfuter devant l'échiquier. Une mine d'or pour s'entraîner aux échecs !

Nous vous invitons à tester votre habilité technique au calcul des variantes grâce notre rubrique quotidienne S'entraîner.

Résolvez nos exercices de mat en 2 coups, 3 coups ou même beaucoup plus. A chaque fois, le niveau est indiqué (Facile, Moyen ou Fort), un indice facultatif est proposé, et bien sûr la solution est donnée. Pour un entraînement optimal des neurones, nous vous conseillons de ne pas bouger les pièces sur un échiquier et bien sûr, pas d'ordinateur avec un logiciel d'échecs entre nous.

Trouvez le tacticien en vous sur Chess & Strategy Tactic !

2007-2010 © Chess & Strategy - tous droits réservés

In the second round of the Young Grandmasters Tournament in Biel, four of the five games ended in a draw. Hero of the day was Evgeny Tomashevsky, who managed to grind down Parimarjan Negi.

Report and analyses by IM Robert Ris

Like yesterday, the games in Biel all started quietly. In Nguyen Ngoc Truong Son-Howell, White opted for a Trompovsky opening, which is a brave choice against an Englishman. Various coffeehouse chessplayers have incorporated this uncompromising opening into their repertoire, though the Vietnamese clearly had other intentions by continuing in the more solid Colle style. From a strategical point of view, however, his opening plays deserves some criticism.

9.Bxf6?! It’s hard to understand why White gives up his bishop voluntarily.

Howell equalized fairly easily after this, despite his huge time investment. This may explain why he overlooked 19…Qd7!, missing an opportunity to punish White for his primitive approach. Quickly after a mass of exchanges took place when neither side could hardly play for anything on.

An even shorter affair was the game between Caruana-Rodshtein, though it had important theoretical relevance. In a 7.Nf3/8.Be3 Grünfeld, the Israeli opted for the topical 8…Bg4, but soon the game returned to very well-known territory.

In this position, Rodshtein’s 13…Nd7! is an important innovation in a line which was considered quite dubious for Black.

Caruana accepted the invitation by taking the pawn, but Black obtained sufficient compensation due to the weakened black squares. White didn’t hesitate to return the pawn in order to mobilize his centre. Black might have prolonged the battle with 18…Nf6!?, but instead opted for liquidation which finally resulted in an unavoidable perpetual.

The third game saw an unusual Grünfeld/Slav hybrid in the duel between Wesley So and Maxime Vachier Lagrave. The Frenchman deviated from the common paths as early as move 8, but had to accept a slight edge for his opponent. The Philipino GM tried everything possible to extend his advantage, but Vachier didn’t crack. On move 64 White stopped his efforts and offered a draw.

The most spectacular encounter of the day by far was the game Giri-Andreikin. The outcome of the opening must have satisfied Black, as Giri couldn’t get anything with White. While White hesitated to execute an central thrust, Black quickly seized the initiative on the queenside. A complex middlegame arose, where Black certainly missed some chances.

Here Black took on f3, whereas 34…Qa5! would have remained better for Black.

Giri showed his tactical abilities and survived the complications. After the time-control Black had to defend a famous ending of rook against bishop with both sides having an h-pawn. Andreikin actually had an extra d-pawn, but as soon his king was driven to the edge, he correctly understood he had to give it up.

(Position after 67…Ke6)

This ending is reminiscent of Kasparov-Yusupov, Linares 1993 (in a mirrored position) and, more recently, Naiditsch-So, Corus 2010. (The famous Timman-Velimirovic, Rio de Janeiro 1979 ending was with pawns on a2 and a3.) Kasparov in fact could have won that Linares game, and it’s instructive to see what Black has to avoid in this ending.

Kasparov-Yusupov
Linares 1993

Here, Kasparov missed his chance with 102.Re7+? allowing the black king to escape. Instead, 102.Rd8!! was the correct way to proceed. White carefully needs to put Black into zugzwang: 102…Kc7 103.Rd4! (targeting a4) Kb7 104.Rd7+ Kc8 105.Kc6 Bc2 106.Rd4 Bb3 107.Kb6 and Black has no move.

Andreikin didn’t let it come that far. On move 109, Giri abandoned the struggle and settled for the inevitable draw.

The only decisive game was Tomashevsky-Negi, with the Indian again as the victim. In a QGD with 5.Bf4, White obtained an edge typical for this variation. When Negi was finally close to equalize, he lost a pawn and had to suffer an unpleasant ending with a minus pawn. However, the Indian fought like a lion and accurately defended – until he missed a clear-cut way to draw.

Now, 64…Kf6 would have probably just been a draw, but unfortunately for Negi, he went for 64…Qe4+? after which he had to suffer for many more moves to come. The Russian Club-2700 member didn’t give him another chance and on move 94, Negi had to resign.

Standings after Round 2:

1. Tomashevsky, So, Rodshtein 1,5
4. Vachier-Lagrave, Caruana, Giri, Andreikin, Truong Son 1
9. Howell 0,5
10. Negi 0

Games start daily at 14.00 CET, except July 25, which is a rest day.

Biel Young Grandmasters Games round 2, analysed by Robert Ris

Game viewer by ChessTempo

Links

• Official website
• Games in PGN via TWIC

In round 4, Quang Le from Vietnam showed he did not come to Dortmund to serve as cannon fodder! After the 2700+ aggression he faced in round 3, Quang Le was able to gear up and confront Ponomariov with some tactics of his own.

Report by Daan Zult

Until move eleven of a Grünfeld Indian, both players were familiar with the position from the white perspective. Earlier this year the position arose in Quang Le – Sasikiran (Moskou, 1-0) and Ponomariov – Carlsen (Nice, 0-1). Now Ponomariov was the first to deviate from both games with 11… b6, where Sasikiran played 11… Bd7 and Carlsen 11… Rd8.

Ponomariov’s move was only played twice before, both times by Gata Kamsky in 1991, in which he won and lost a game. The move might be a little bluff, because after 12.dxc5 dxc5 13.Qd5 or 12.dxc5 Ne5 the move is essentially a pawn sacrifice in a complicated position where white seems to have the better chances. This is further confirmed by the loss of Kamsky against Rao Vivek, who did accept the sacrifice and won the game. Quang Le rejected the sacrifice and played the more solid and careful 12.Bf4, after which he retained a small but evident advantage.

Whether Ponomariov tried to complicate the position in an eager to win or whether he thought it was a wise plan is unclear, but with 18… h5? he asked too much of his position.

It gave Quang Le the opportunity to show his true color, when with 19.Nxg6! Nxg6 20.Bd6 he unleashed some excellent tactics that gave him a pawn and the bishop pair. Fortunately for Ponomariov the position did not end in a clear cut win position and he might still have drawn it with accurate play. However, in an ending with bishops of opposite color Ponomariov showed once more it was not his day.

With 31… h4, he gave Quang Le the opportunity to create two connected passed pawns, starting with 32.f4, 33.e5, followed by g2-g3, which Quang Le confidently converged into a full point. With his victory Quang Le bounced back to a 50% score and brought new tension into the tournament standings. He also once again showed that Vietnam is a chess country to reckon with in the future. Kudos to Quang Le.

Liem Quang Le (photo by Georgios Souleidis)

In terms of ‘fire on the board’, the other games where less interesting. In particular Mamedyarov – Kramnik, which was a big exchange feast in the QGD and could be considered the first rest day for both players, although in fact Black seemed slightly more pleasant after the opening.

Mamedyarov - Kramnik (photo by Georgios Souleidis)

Mamedyarov will probably be happy now that he is in sole lead. Kramnik can also be satisfied with his play, and he can now try to get back in the tournament with white against Naiditsch in round 5.

The game Naiditsch – Leko, a Ruy Lopez Arkhangelsk, was not much different. With 15.Qd2 Leko was the first to deviate from a game Leko – Shirov, played in 1997, where he played 15.Qg3. This new move is unlikely to attract a bunch of screaming fans, because it did not change the evaluation and result of the game, which after a couple of exchanges ended in a drawn rook endgame.

Naiditsch - Leko (photo by Georgios Souleidis)

The big winners of round 4 were Quang Le and Skakhriar Mamedyarov, who is now in sole lead. Round 5 (played today) might show some fighting chess, because in Leko – Quang Le and Kramnik – Naiditsch, the rating favorites have white and might not let black walk with an easy draw.

Moreover, we have the number 1 and 2 of the standings competing against each other, where Pono might try to get back on top by having a shot at Shakh with white. However, the statistics on the FIDE site show this would be a surprise, because all their six previous rated games ended in a draw.

Standings after 4 rounds:

1. Mamedyarov 3
2. Ponomariov 2,5
3. Le Quang 2
4. Kramnik, Naiditsch, Leko 1,5

Games start daily at 15.00 CET and can be followed live here.

Dortmund Games round 4

Game viewer by ChessTempo

Links

• Official website
• Games in PGN via TWIC

Sauriez-vous résoudre nos exercices tactiques aux échecs en moins de temps qu'Alice ?

Pour le savoir, rien de plus facile !

Nous vous invitons à tester votre habilité technique au calcul des variantes grâce notre rubrique quotidienne S'entraîner.

Résolvez nos exercices de mat en 2 coups, 3 coups ou même beaucoup plus. A chaque fois, le niveau est indiqué (Facile, Moyen ou Fort), un indice facultatif est proposé, et bien sûr la solution est donnée. Pour un entraînement optimal des neurones, nous vous conseillons de ne pas bouger les pièces sur un échiquier et bien sûr, non plus d'ordinateur avec un logiciel d'échecs entre nous. Bonne chance à tous !

Rendez-vous avec Alice sur Chess & Strategy Tactic

2007-2010 © Chess & Strategy - tous droits réservés

From July 5th to July 11th, the 38th Greek Team Championship took place in Athens, Greece. This year’s edition was clouded by the economic crisis which has been keeping the country busy for many months.

Report and photos by IM Georgios Souleidis

Until the end of May, I couldn’t get a clear confirmation if the Team Championship would even be organised this year. In the end it was mostly thanks to the organising club of Peristeri (Athens) and their sponsor that the Greek chess scene didn´t have to suffer a lapse in its major competition.

As a Greek citizen born in Germany – and living there all my life – I’ve always somehow felt trapped between two cultures. Of course, I’m trying to extract only the advantages of both cultures for my own life. I prefer living in Germany: everything is so well organised! For example, you always know how much a taxi driver will charge you, and that he’ll leave you alone when you don’t want to have a chat.

Whenever I’m visiting Greece (basically every summer), I look forward to the friendly people, the multiple hugs and kisses, the nice weather, the “wealthy food”, the “Frapé”… I simply look forward to the mediterranean way of life. But, of course, my “double nationality” – and this is not a real advantage – qualifies me to answer some existential questions which are related to both countries. This year, I had to answer the following question: “What is Merkel doing to us?”

In the light of the financial crisis, Germany and its female chancellor Angela Merkel nowadays are seen as the chief portrayal of the enemy – at least, this was my superficial perception. Greek taxi drivers in particular can be very, very annoying when it comes to politics (but not only that). It’s not at all easy to avoid talking about it.

Though I´m a chessplayer and so should be able to calculate the possible answers in advance, I tried to convince them that Merkel is not the author of some modern-day Greek tragedy. I learned this was a big mistake – never again, dudes, never again… Next time I’ll just respond with: “Yes, Sir you are absolutely right”, and vehemently nod my head for the rest of the ride.

While I´m talking about big mistakes, let me just show you what happened to me in the second round of the Greek Championship:

Georgiadis, Ioannis (2457) – Souleidis, Georgios (2410)
38th Greek Team Championship Olympic Boxing Center, Peristeri (2.1), 06.07.2010

Here is the position after 48.Kf1. Tactics for beginners lesson 10: Move and mate in one and a half!

No, I didn´t play 48…Qd1+ etc. Come on guys, that would have been too easy!

I decided to torture my opponent and myself for one and a half more hours and played 48…Qf5+ …

My position is still won, so what? But in the end I felt so sorry for my opponent that I made a draw after exactly 100 moves. Well, it was my birthday, after all, and people were so nice to me, so I had to give something back… Actually, I just found the perfect moment for one of the most pleasant details of my report: on the same day as me, a Dutch girl named Lisa Schut has her birthday. Lovely Lisa, now 16 years old, joined my team Kydon Chania (Crete) this year, and made sure that we now have ascertained a full point on one of the junior boards.

Lisa Schut scored 6,5 out of 7 and conquered the heart of Kydon Chania

Wait, junior board? Yes, not only Greek taxi drivers are different – the playing system in the Greek league is also unique. We play on twelve boards, as follows:

Board 1-5: Men’s boards
Board 6: Women’s boards
Board 7-12: U18 (Boys and Girls) U16 (Boys and Girls) U14 and U12

Every team has the right to include two foreign players (one EU and one Non-EU player). This year, 22 teams took part in the Championship, but there was nearly no team from Northern Greece. One reason is the financial crisis – at least, everybody says this is the reason – another is that many clubs were “not amused” about the playing conditions/venue etc. In my opinion, the current location was the best playing hall of the past decade: built for the 2004 Olympic Games, it is a modern and airconditioned boxing hall. Perhaps a small disadvantage was the fact that the players were located in a hotel in the centre of Athens and had to be brought to the playing venue by public transport .

Olympic Boxing Center Peristeri

As I mentioned above, Peristeri (Athens) organised this year’s Championship. Apart from this fact, they were also the clear favourites to win the title. On the men’s boards, the team boasted five GMs: a certain Mr. Kotronias played on board 5 (!), and in order not to leave anything to chance, they even “bought” some of the best Greek junior players in their respective categories. Under these circumstances, the wire-to-wire victory came as no surprise. The question whether one of their grandmasters would lose a game was much more exciting. (The answer was no.)

The winning team of Peristeri with Vassily Ivanchuk holding the cup

The teams from Chania (Crete) respectfully followed. Kydon Chania won the silver and S.A. Chania took the bronze medal. Despite the one-sides championship, chess lovers enjoyed watching the first six matches live in the internet – there was some real fighting and first-class chess. This was first of all due to the fact that draws before move 30 were forbidden, and secondly, because the first two boards were mainly occupied by top grandmasters.

The absolute highlight of the championship was the appearance of Vassily Ivanchuk, who played for Peristeri. He scored 6 points out of 7, mainly against grandmasters above 2600. Ivanchuk was by far the best player of the championship. Another player who scored very well was Jon Ludwig Hammer. The young Norwegian achieved 5,5 out of 7 on the first board.

Jon Ludwig Hammer scored 5,5 out of 7

I’ve selected 17 games, mainly played on the top two boards and by top grandmasters. I included some brief annotations. Enjoy!

Game viewer by ChessTempo

Impressions from the 38th Greek Team Championship

GM David Navara (Czech Republic)

GM Evgeny Postny (Israel)

GM Stelios Halkias (Greece)

Impressions from the 2010 Greek Team Championship

Impressions from the 2010 Greek Team Championship

The German GMs Arik Braun and Arkadij Naiditsch

Links

• Official website
• Games in PGN via TWIC

After so much (Dutch) football subjectivity over the past weeks (yeah yeah, Spain won deservedly), it’s a delight to read something objective again: Lars Schandorff has written an extremely solid and honest book on the Caro-Kann in the Grandmaster Repertoire series from Quality Chess.

I’ve never really liked the Caro-Kann. As White, I find it an extremely tough opening, and as Black, I find it so much less attractive than the Sicilian or even the French. But of course I’m wrong, as Danish GM Lars Schandorff convincingly shows in his monograph The Caro-Kann, which, although it is officially a repertoire book for Black, is highly recommended for serious White players as well. Here’s an example.

Suppose you’re one of those chess players who kind of hates the solidity of the Caro-Kann: you can bet your life that Black players who employ the Caro-Kann often know their theory better than you do, so you’re looking for something funny to get Black to think for himself right from the start.

Suppose you’re considering playing the line 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bf5 5.Nc5!?

This is a rare sideline that, according to my database, has nevertheless been played by giants like Fischer, Shirov, Morozevich and Carlsen. Surely this is an interesting choice for White? Well, Schandorff is not impressed. Instead of the automatic 5…b6, he recommends:

5…e5!? A radical attempt to benefit from White’s extravagance and solve all Black’s problems in one blow.

6.Nxb7 Retreating with 6.Nb3 makes little sense. After 6…Nd7 Black is already somewhat better.

6…Qb6 7.Nc5 exd4 The most natural choice. The other way of regaining the pawn, 7…Bxc5 8.dxc5 Qxc5, might in fact also be playable. On first sight the position after 9.c3 looks slightly better for White due to his bishop pair. Closer inspection reveals that it is maybe not so simple. Consider something like 9…Nf6 10.Be3 Qe7 unclear, as in Riemens-Hoogendoorn, Netherlands 1994. Black’s bishop is very active and his knight can harass the white bishop from d5.

8.Nb3 Bb4+ Basic chess knowledge: Black exchanges the dark-squared bishop before putting his pawns on dark squares.

9.Bd2 Nf6

Black certainly has no development problems, and the far-advanced d-pawn can be protected by c6-c5, so it can hardly be called a weakness. Not surprisingly, White has had difficulties proving any advantage at all. (…)

I think such a fragment is interesting for both sides: Black players will certainly gain confidence that such a sharp variation is theoretically more than OK. Also, Schandorff explains the essentials of the position (however unusual it may look) from an objective point of view, explaining that even seemingly-obvious judgements may not be so obvious after all. And White players may want to look hard for something concrete in this line, otherwise it’s absolutely useless to study. (Actually, my engine suggests the weird but at least consistently-weird 8.Na4!?, which may be worth a try.)

Schandorff’s treatment of the Classical Variation (3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bf5) is one of the highlights of the book. It’s clear from every page that he thoroughly understands the position, which he explains in a systematic and rigorous manner. Here’s another example where he combines objectiveness with a distinct opinion:

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bf5 5.Ng3 Bg6 6.h4 h6 7.Nf3 Nd7 8.h5 Bh7 9.Bd3 Bxd3 10.Qxd3 e6 11.Bf4 Qa5+ 12.Bd2 Bb4 13.c3 Be7 14.c4 Qc7 15.0-0

Castling to the wrong side. This is quite complicated and of course playable, but come on – it can’t be better than castling long!

15…Ngf6 16.Rfe1 The most natural. We can have a quick look at a couple of alternatives [16.d5 and 16.Qe2] (…).

16…0-0 17.Nf5

An important tactical idea that is frequently seen in the Caro: rook to the e-file followed by a knight to f5.

17…Bd6! I prefer not to compromise my pawn structure and am therefore reluctant to take on f5, although some strong players have tried it. 17…exf5 18.Rxe7 Qd8 19.Re2 Ne4 seemed pretty solid for Black in Browne-L.B.Hansen, Philadelphia 2006, but I suspect White is more comfortable.

There are other ways to respond to the knight move. We do not need an alternative, but it is useful to understand White’s standard tactical ideas: 17…Rfe8 is always a good option, when 18.Rxe6!? fxe6 19.Nxg7 is spectacular, but after 19…Bf8 20.Nxe8 Rxe8 21.Re1 Bg7 the piece looks more valuable than the pawns, Jonkman-Kroeze, Netherlands 2006. (…)

18.Nxd6 The sacrifice 18.Nxh6+ gxh6 19.Bxh6 Rfe8 should of course be checked, but it doesn’t look so scary (…). White should probably settle for the quiet 20.Qd2 with some compensation after 20…Bf8 21.Bxf8 Rxf8 22.Qh6.

18…Qxd6 19.Qb3 19.Ne5? is an instructive mistake. After 19…Nxe5 20.Rxe5 Ng4 -/+ the king is not at all well placed on g1, Omarsson-Kjartansson, Reykjavik 2007.

19…a5!? with counterplay. Often it makes sense to push the a-pawn. (…)

While this is great stuff, I didn’t find Schandorff’s explanations that clear throughout the entire book. For instance, the chapter on positional lines (4.c3, 4.Be3 and 4.Nd2) in the Advance Variation (3.e5 Bf5) left a lot of questions unanswered in my head.

One of the lines that has become popular in recent years is 4.Be3 followed by Nd2-b3 with the idea of blocking the c5 square. However, after 4…e6 5.Nd2 Nd7 Schandorff lists the alternatives to 6.Nb3 but doesn’t explain the basics of the position very clearly.

For example, after 6.Ngf3, why doesn’t Black instantly ‘punish’ White for not playing 6.Nb3 (which is the main line) by playing 6…c5 himself? I suspect this may seem totally obvious to Schandorff or others players of his calibre, so perhaps it doesn’t need an explanation – but interestingly, according to my database, the move 6…c5 is Black’s second most popular move in the position, even though it has never been played by anyone rated over 2200!

I think this indicates there is a sustantial gap in knowledge between how strong and weak players understand this position – or even the Caro-Kann in general. Schandorff, unfortunately, doesn’t help us out in this case.

Actually, I’ve always found this one of the most intriguing aspects of these position lines of the Advanced Variation: White seems to want to prevent c6-c5 by all means (Be3, Nd2-b3), but then when Black gets the opportunity to play it, he doesn’t do it! In fact, Black often doesn’t play c5 at all, as Schandorff nicely shows:

6.Nb3 Ne7 7.Be2 Nc8!?

Once you see this idea you can’t get it out of your head. It will take a trained psychotherapist to delete it. 7…Bg6 with the idea …Nf5 is standard and of course is also fully playable.

8.f4 Be7 9.Nf3 0-0 Black finishes his development with the minimum of fuss and without compromising his position at all. That’s the beauty of this simple idea. By temporarily putting the knight on the back rank everything is made possible and Black demonstrates that his lack of space isn’t necessarily fatal. There is no practical evidence from this position, but I am sure Black is okay. Well, that’s not the whole truth. Black is okay, don’t worry, but there has been one game, albeit only a blitz game by me. Since there is nothing else, we will look at a few moves of my blitz effort.

10.0-0 a6 11.Rc1 b5! 12.c3 Ncb6

Black is already somewhat better because of my active play on the queenside. (…)

No c5, but b5! Useful though such a fragment may be (it certainly is an eye-opener to chronical dogmatists such as myself), Schandorff doesn’t in the end reveal the true mystery behind this type of play. His final conclusion that “if White tries to play a slow manoeuvring game then Black is well prepared”, immediately raises the question why 4.Be3 and 4.Nd2 are so popular of late. While Schandorff does admit that “where the elite leads, the masses follow”, he forgets to tell us why the elite prefers this road.

But perhaps this is an unjust complaint. After all, the series in which The Caro-Kann was published, is called ‘Grandmaster Repertoire’. It really is a very high-level book, for serious club players and beyond. I think it’s fair to say that it doesn’t have much to offer to amateurs and casual readers. But if you want to incorporate the Caro-Kann Defence into your tournament repertoire, or find out why it’s so bloody difficult to prove anything against it, Lars Schandorff is your man.

Links

• Get yourself a copy of The Caro-Kann
• Read more book reviews

How did the late Russian grandmaster deal with this situation?

Smyslov-Ribli, London 1983.

White to move.

The life of a professional chess-player is mentally and physically challenging. After the age of 40, for most professionals, there is a seemingly inevitable slide down the rankings. Garry Kasparov retired at 42, rated No 1 in the world, but I suspect he felt that the chasing pack was getting too close. That's why Vassily Smyslov's career was so remarkable. Smyslov, who died earlier this year, became world champion in 1957 at the age of 36, but continued playing at the highest levels, qualifying for the final of the world championship at the age of 63. This was the victory that got him there and shows his ability to calculate incisively.

RB In sequences involving the calculation of more than three or four moves ahead I am always nervous about making that one false move. But this seems quite clear: 1 Qh8+ Ke7 2 Rxe6+ fxe6 3 Qxg7+ Kd6, and now White can win the enemy queen with 4 Ne4+ Kxd5 5 Qxb2. Unless I'm seriously deluding myself, this looks like curtains for Black.

DK When calculating, it's nice to have an obvious and reasonable move at your disposal. Here 1 dxe6 is possible. A check is threatened on e7, so Black must recapture – 1... fxe6 – and the exposed king should give White the better chances, even if there is no clear way to continue the attack.

Returning to the starting position, let's try the spectacular. It's always worth considering forcing moves and the most forcing are checks, so 1 Qh8+ Ke7, and going further: 2 Rxe6+ fxe6 3 Qxg7+. With the queens on the same diagonal, a tactic appears. Ronan has pointed out one way to win, but Smyslov had to show a little more ingenuity after the game continuation, 3...Nf7. White needs to deliver a check with the knight to win Black's queen, and this he achieves with the subtle 4 d6+, clearing the d5 square for the knight. After 4...Rxd6 5 Nd5+ Rxd5 6 Qxb2 the queen was in the bag and Black didn't last much longer.

chess@guardian.co.uk

During my holidays I received a lot of chess books from various publishers. There’s lot to look forward to! One of the most interesting books is the latest volume of John Watson’s ambitious project to explain and analyse all chess openings. But the book became much more than just another opening manual.

Two years ago, I wrote a generally positive review of Mastering the Chess Openings Volume 3 (I also liked the first and second volumes), but in the fourth part of his series (published by Gambit), Watson goes a step further than he had gone before. In fact, he’s returning to some of his favourite chess themes, which were also discussed in his most famous books Secrets of Grandmaster Strategy (1998) and Chess Strategy in Action (2003).

This fourth volume begins conventionally enough, with two very solid chapters on the Réti Opening and an excellent overview of black kingside fianchetto systems such as ‘Tiger’s Modern’ and the Averbakh Variation (although I didn’t know it was called that way) starting with 1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.c4, but then Watson switches to a more experimental way of explaining openings. In the chapter called ‘Modern Queenside Fianchetto’, he discusses various (you’ve guessed it) queenside fianchetto systems from the perspective of both Black and White. This means he not only writes about the Owen Defence (1.e4 b6) and the English Defence (1.d4 e6 2.c4 b6), but also about Larsen’s Opening (1.b3).

True to his style, Watson clearly explains the differences between playing the queenside fianchetto with Black and playing it with White. the author thereby takes a look at Ilya Odessky’s recent book on 1.b3 (which I reviewed last year) as well and comes up with some sensible improvements. For instance, in the line 1.b3 e5 2.Bb2 Nc6 3.e3 d5 4.Bb5 Bd6 5.f4 (Watson: “This is certainly the usual continuation in both the Owen and the English Defences: when the f-pawn can’t be captured, it makes sense to use it to break up the opposing centre.”) 5…f6 Odessky gave 6.Nh3

a ‘dubious’ sign (?!) because of the line 6…Nge7 7.fxe5 fxe5 8.0-0 Bf5! after which 9.Qh5+ and 9.Bxc6+ are unconvincing, but following Watson’s suggestion 9.c4 a6 10.Bxc6+ bxc6 11.d4!? with the threat c4-c5, White seems to be on top.

After this chapter, the book steers into even more broad-ranging waters, starting off with a chapter on gambits (in general) in which Watson discusses and explains gambits as diverse as the Göring and Morra Gambit, the Millner-Barry Gambit, various Wing gambits (both with b2-b4 and g2-g4), the famous Evans Gambit and, of course, the Benkö Gambit.

This chapter contains good stuff (although I don’t think serious gambit-players or gambit-busters will find too much shockingly new in it), but I was even more intrigued by the book’s next chapter, called ‘f-Pawns and Reversed Openings’. I’m sure some people would dismiss it as too philosophical for an opening book, but many fragments – however digressive they may appear to the practical player – had me on the edge of my seat:

The study of reversed openings will increase your understanding of what can and cannot be achieved in openings. Many chess players are mathematically oriented, with a facility for logical thinking. So it’s only natural to assume that there must be some way to make use of an extra move. After all, chess moves have value, and you wouldn’t voluntarily give a move away under normal circumstances. However, as we’ve talked about throughout these volumes, the worth of an extra move isn’t a straightforward matter. In reversed positions of the English Opening, for example, it’s remarkable how seldom White can actually claim to have the better game. For one thing, any advantage is limited by the fact that he will usually be playing what are essentially defensive or counterattacking lines. In addition, there’s a paradoxical benefit of not having to move, in that Black gets a better look at what his opponent is up to and is able to react accordingly. (…)

Stepping outside the practical realm, this difficulty (of converting a move into something of value) is also revealing about the nature of chess itself. The paradox of information applies to every move, whether in a reversed position or not. In some sense, however sound and logical a move is, it contains the risk of leaving you worse off! That enormously magnifies the complexity and subtlety of the game. If advantages and disadvantages were additive in some linear fashion, chess would be a minor game at best. But we have geniuses who do little else but study and play chess from the time they are five years old into their forties, and they make multiple mistakes in nearly every game, often quite serious ones! As an exercise, set up a reversed opening and try to find ways to make even modest improvements to your position without destabilizing something elsewhere on the board. You’ll find that the most trivial-seeming change always seems to show up in one or another line of analysis where you’re least expecting it.

Watson then goes on to explain the subtleties of the Dutch Defence and the Bird Opening (1.f4) in lucid fashion, but as said, he also discusses other reversed openings such as the Ponziani (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3) which Watson points out, after 3…f5!? is in fact “a Vienna Game (1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4) with reversed colours and as if Black had an extra …c6!” Or what about 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5, which the entire world knows as the Schliemann or Jänisch Defence of the Ruy Lopez, yet is described by Watson as…

[A] Vienna Game (1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4) in which White has the extra move Bb5. Strange to say, this would hurt White if he tried the standard remedy to the Vienna position, which is 4.d4 fxe4 5.Nxe5?! (5.Bxc6 dxc6 6.Nxe5 Nf6 is about equal) as 5…Nxe5 6.dxe5 c6 (in the reversed position, White’s bishop is still on f1, so this tempo-gain isn’t possible) 7.Bc4 (having come this far, White normally tried the unclear piece sacrifice 7.Nc3 cxb5 8.Nxe4) 7…Qa5+ followed by 8…Qxe5 wins a pawn. (…)

OK, I can’t resist one more example:

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bc4 Bb4

Now we have a reversed Classical Variation of the Ruy Lopez (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bc5), with Black a whole tempo down. The Classical can be a pretty active system, so let’s see if White can make good use of the extra tempo.

4.Nf3 (…) 4.f4 has White playing the Schliemann Defence to the Ruy Lopez but with the extra move Bc4. The problem is that this gives Black the tactic 4…Nxe4! Then if White follows the normal Vienna Game strategy of 5.Qh5 (…), Black plays 5…0-0!, a move unavailable in the Vienna Game. (…)

4…Bxc3 5.dxc3 d6

The last reversal: Black has played the Exchange Ruy Lopez, and apparently given White much better development than he gets in the reversed position. But in fact, Black doesn’t generate many powerful attacks in the Exchange Ruy Lopez, and in this reversed position, White has nothing to be particularly excited about.

I could be wrong, but I don’t think I have seen this funny perspective applied in Vienna or Ruy Lopez text books before. Similarly, the chapter ‘Symmetry and its Descendants’ offers a refreshing point of view to infamously ‘boring’ openings such as the Petroff and the Four Knights Game. The chapter on ‘Irregular Openings and Initial Moves’ continues in this vein. What are irregular or ‘unorthodox’ openings anyway? Watson points out that

[t]he Trompowsky Attack 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 has become popular and universally accepted, but one could argue that 2.Bg5 itself is not an ‘orthodox’ move; on the flip side, the form of the Torre Attack with 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bg5 is orthodox by the classical standards of development, but it isn’t very popular any more. In a similar way, classically oriented openings such as the Ponziani Opening (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3) and the Hungarian Defence (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Be7) are orthodox in strategic terms, but rare in master practice; today, they could legitimately be called ‘irregular’.

Apart from this terminology issue, there’s what’s Watson calls ‘the appeal of the irregular’:

You make counterintuitive moves, waste time, or sacrifice pawns, and yet some not-so-obvious factor is working in your favour to give you positive chances. It’s a break from the drudgery of ‘correct’ play and following those tired old principles. Even if you don’t secure the better game, you can at least irritate your opponent and present him with multiple opportunities to go wrong. The most entertaining irregular openings also contain tactical traps into which one innocent victim after another falls.

These are not trivial, run-of-the-mill observations. Many opening book authors and even chess-improvement books fail to mention these human and very recognizable aspects of chess openings, even though keeping them in mind might help avoid some well-known mistakes in practical play. Thus, for instance, the line 1.e4 Nc6 2.Nf3 f5!?

in the Nimzovich Opening, which is played by some fairly strong members of my local chess club and which Watson also mentions in his book, is not just ‘irregular’, ‘ugly’ and ‘bad’, but does contain some ‘not-so-obvious factors’ working in Black’s favour. White should be aware of this or he will get tricked, as I’ve personally seen many times.

Actually, I was particularly interested in what Watson wrote about the Nimzovich Opening because I sometimes play it myself and because I’ve seen lots of crazy analysis over the past years from enthusiastic club members. Crazy analysis which are often not so bad for Black as they look on first sight! And indeed, to his credit, Watson doesn’t dismiss the opening easily at all and calls it “one of the best of the irregular openings versus 1.e4.”

One of the lines Watson analyses is 1.e4 Nc6 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e5 Ng4 4.d4 d6 5.h3 Nh6.

His nuanced look at even such an obscure line is characteristic of his approach:

Black has a pretty ugly position that nevertheless has some merits. His decentralized knight is an undoubting disadvantage, but he has prospects of chipping away at White’s centre, after which that piece might be reintroduced by …Nf5. Of course, White can hardly complain about his prospects, but he shouldn’t expect too much from the capture Bxh6, which gives up the bishop-pair. 5…Nh6 introduces a wide a range of eccentric possibilities that are typical of irregular openings.

Watson now analyses no less than four alternatives for White, but in the end concedes that “Black’s position is within playable boundaries”. This is rather more realistic than my own initial opinion (”absolutely horrible for Black”) of this particular variation! (To my defence, I pretty soon realized that things were not so simple once I started studying the line in more detail.) I hope this small digression shows to what lengths Watson is willing to go to illustrate the versatility of various lesser known opening lines.

The book’s penultimate chapter on ‘Choosing and Preparing Openings’ is equally insightful, although some advices may of course sound familiar to readers who’ve bought other recent books on more general aspects of opening play. To my delight, Watson also quotes the great Korchnoi who “bluntly” said that if you want to improve your chess, you should play a new opening. Interestingly, Watson also recommends playing blitz games as a way of practising your opening preparation (”in sensible, non-addictive quantities”).

Watson ends his book with yet another philosophically-inclined chapter on the future of openings. Unavoidably, there are some echoes from his earlier books here, but it’s useful and entertaining all the same. Mastering the Chess Openings vol. 4 is a book any chess lover should have a look at – if not for its openings, then surely for its general awesomeness.

Links

• Get yourself a copy of Mastering the Chess Openings vol. 4
• Read more book reviews

?

Beautiful Days In Roseto

? Roseto, Saturday ,12th of June, 2 o?clock in the afternoon, the Roseto tournament has just ended, and we settle down at the bar for a coffee with Oleg Mikhajlovic Romanishin : it?s time for that interview that was promised us. Romanishin speaks fluent English,? as was evident during the magnificent coaching session held on Wednesday night. Luckily, the Scacchierando team is in full force, with LightKnight and Stefano Bellicampi who are far more proficient than me.

The prize giving ceremony with the town councillor, Dr. Antonio Porrini

Le belle giornate di Roseto

Roseto, sabato 12 giugno, ore 14, il torneo si è appena concluso. Per il caffè del dopopranzo ci sediamo al bar con Oleg Mikhajlovhic Romanishin: è il momento della promessa intervista. Romanishin parla un inglese fluente, come già dimostrato nel magnifico stage tenuto mercoledì sera. Per fortuna Scacchierando è presente in forze, con LightKnight e Stefano Bellincampi che se la cavano molto meglio di me.

Per una ventina di minuti si è seduto con noi ad ascoltare anche Lorenzo Pescatore, alle prese con un gelato. Giovanissimo speciale Lorenzo, scacchisticamente e non solo! Il clima della chiacchierata è immediatamente piacevole e cordiale: non si parte con una domanda ma parlando di scacchi azzurri.

Romanishin: Gli scacchi in Italia stanno sicuramente crescendo e si disputano molti tornei. Ho incontrato molti giocatori italiani: ho giocato con Mariotti, a Leningrado nel 1977, un giocatore molto creativo, molte volte con Godena, giocatore interessante, sempre molto solido, e con tanti altri. Ho anche avuto modo di tenere un breve training con Vocaturo e Piscopo, organizzato da Nicola Pienabarca.

Scacchierando: Che impressione ha di Caruana?

Romanishin: con tutta evidenza un giovane di talento, ma non saprei dire di più senza conoscerlo direttamente, giocarci e analizzare con lui.

S. : Qui ha giocato con Axel Rombaldoni.

Romanishin: Sì, l?avevo già incontrato a Bratto. Ho vinto entrambe le volte, anche se è un giovane con buone qualità e potenzialità. Forse, per ora, tende a sbilanciarsi troppo in attacco. Ho incontrato due volte anche Denis.

S. : Quando è venuto per la prima volta in Italia?

Romanishin: Nel 1978, a Genova, in occasione di una Festa dell?Unità, tenendo diverse simultanee. Sono tornato nel 1984, sempre per delle simultanee, in varie città. Il primo torneo è stato quello di Reggio Emilia 1984 / 85 . Da allora sono venuto molte volte e mi trovo sempre benissimo in Italia, mi piace molto la cucina e adoro il caffè. Durante il Torneo di Frascati, nel 2006, ho avuto modo di passeggiare per Roma con la mia famiglia e di prendere un caffè a Piazza di Spagna: ho un magnifico ricordo di quella giornata. Prima di ripartire (per un torneo in Ungheria, a Heviz, sul lago Balaton) mi fermerò un giorno?a passeggiare per Roma, città che mi piace moltissimo.

S. : Ha imparato a giocare a 5 anni.

Romanishin: Sì, con mio padre, che era un forte giocatore, ha vinto anche un Campionato di Leopoli (Lvov), la nostra città. Mio padre aveva molti libri e a casa c?era una bella atmosfera scacchistica. Io sono l?ultimogenito: anche i miei fratelli giocavano ma con minor dedizione.

S. : C?era grande spazio per gli scacchi nell?Unione Sovietica di allora.

Romanishin: Ah, sì, erano il gioco più seguito dopo il calcio! Il governo promuoveva il gioco, che era davvero molto diffuso. Si parlava di scacchi sui giornali, non solo su quelli specializzati ma anche sui quotidiani, e c?erano delle trasmissioni alla radio. Durante il match tra Botvinnik e Petrosjan, nel 1963 (Romanishin aveva allora 11 anni - ndr), c?era un aggiornamento ogni ora, con le mosse giocate. Io e mio padre seguivamo le partite alla scacchiera, analizzando e in attesa delle mosse successive.

S. : Poi ha studiato con Viktor Kart. Oltre che un ottimo istruttore, Kart era un forte giocatore?

Romanishin: Non proprio allora, era un buon Candidato Maestro (ricordando che un CM sovietico dell?epoca corrisponde almeno a un forte FM di oggi - ndr), in un certo qual modo è cresciuto anche lui con noi, il suo primo gruppo di allievi, con me, Alexander Beliavsky e Adrian Mikhalchishin. I successi di Stejn, buon amico di Kart, avevano entusiasmato l?ambiente scacchistico di Lviv. Nel 1973 io vinsi il titolo europeo dei giovani e Beliavsky vinse il mondiale. Viktor si dedicava con passione e capacità. Invitava forti giocatori per un periodo di allenamento con noi, ad esempio Korchnoj, nel 1976. Oggi vive in Germania, ha 80 anni, siamo ancora in contatto.

Beliavsky, Viktor Kart e Romanishin a Lviv in occasione del festeggiamento dell'80? compleanno di Kart (foto Chessbase - segnalo il bell'articolo http://www.chessbase.com/newsprint.asp?newsid=5548?)

?

S. : La sua crescita è stata rapida?

Romanishin: Abbastanza, sono diventato Candidato Maestro a 14 anni e Maestro a 16. Ho avuto il titolo di Maestro Internazionale con la vittoria all?europeo e sono arrivato a quello di GM nel 1976 (dopo aver già partecipato a due finali del Campionato Sovietico, con un fantastico secondo posto nel 1975, con Tal, Vaganjan, alle spalle di Petrosjan? Altri tempi e altri titoli! ? ndr).

S. : Come giovane promettente fu affiancato a Tal.

Romanishin: No, questo non è esatto. Sono stato mandato a giocare un torneo insieme a Tal. Poi, nel 1975, abbiamo giocato di nuovo insieme e siamo diventati ottimi amici. Abbiamo svolto tre periodi di training insieme. Nel 1977 abbiamo vinto a pari merito il torneo di Leningrado, davanti a Karpov, Smyslov, Vaganjan, Taimanov, Ribli, Balashov, Beliavsky? Io sono stato fortunato, ho avuto modo di giocare e lavorare con grandissimi campioni.

Mikhalchishin, Romanishin e Beliavsky?(foto Chessbase)

?

S. : Il suo stile è stato ispirato da qualcuno in particolare?

Romanishin: Non direi? Si apprende da tutti, da tanti diversi stili. Era la forza dell?Unione Sovietica di allora, c?erano tanti fortissimi giocatori, una grande diversità di idee e di fermenti. Ho sempre dato molto valore alla molteplicità dei punti di vista. Ho giocato con quasi tutti, anche con Leonid Stejn (detto con un sorriso, nel ricordo del grande campione ucraino, prematuramente scomparso). Oggi i giovani lavorano molto con i database ma hanno minori opportunità di allenarsi con i grandi campioni. Gli scacchi sono cambiati, sono diventati più veloci, forse troppo, i giovani hanno l?energia giusta per gli scacchi di oggi. Io dopo una partita di 5 ? 6 ore sono esausto, per non parlare di un doppio turno.

S. : Lei è un attaccante e un grande teorico delle aperture.

Romanishin: Era maggiormente possibile proporre novità teoriche una volta, se lavoravi molto alla scacchiera. Oggi giochi una novità e dopo poche ore è conosciuta in tutto il mondo. Io ho sempre giocato cercando la vittoria, senza calcoli rispetto al torneo. Quando ho usato prudenza non sempre è andata benissimo. Nel 1975 giocai un torneo ad Olot, in Spagna. Ad un certo punto della gara ero in testa con 7,5 insieme a Csom e Filip. Il turno dopo giocavo con il bianco contro Csom, che usava spesso una sorta di ?Riccio?. Pensai poco prima della partita a una novità nella sequenza 1.Cf3 Cf6 2.c4 e6 3.Cc3 b6 4.e4 Ab7 , giocando Ad3 al quinto tratto (la mossa era stata già sperimentata da Huebner contro Johannessen a Oslo, l?anno precedente, ma allora non c?erano i database e Romanishin non conosceva quella partita - ndr). Tuttavia non volli rischiare, giocai in modo diverso e persi malamente. Ci restai malissimo e passai tutta la notte ad analizzare la partita e la nuova variante. Alla fine dello stesso anno, al Campionato Sovietico disputato a Yerevan, giocai con Petrosjan e stavolta utilizzai Ad3: vinsi una bella partita! ( http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1107067?) Il giorno dopo Lev Polugaevsky giocò allo stesso modo contro Boris Gulko, poi è stata una variante giocata anche da Tal e da molti altri. In quel Campionato giocai un?altra buona novità contro Geller. Ricordo che Petrosjan mi disse che potevo anche giocare due buone novità a torneo ma che poi dovevo anche giocare tutte le altre partite! C?è una piccola curiosità successiva: nel 1996, 21 anni dopo, durante le Olimpiadi di Yerevan, andai in una farmacia e l?uomo dietro il banco esclamò: ?Io la conosco! Lei ha distrutto il nostro grande Petrosjan nel Campionato del 1975!?. Mi sono trovato in una situazione simile al penultimo turno di Groningen, nel 1993, in una partita con il nero contro Beliavsky, decisiva per la qualificazione al Torneo dei Candidati della PCA. Due ore prima della partita pensai ad una novità nella variante Capablanca della Nimzoindiana, con Donna f5 (1.d4 Cf6 2.c4 e6 3.Cc3 Ab4 4.Dc2 d5 5.cxd5 Dxd5 6.Cf3 Df5 ). Stavolta, a differenza di Ad3, la giocai e vinsi! ( http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1105910?) All?ultimo turno affrontai Benjamin, non feci calcoli, giocai per vincere e andò bene, chiudendo con 7 su 11.

S. : Ha giocato con molti campioni del mondo.

Romanishin: Si, molte volte. Sono in vantaggio con Tal, Petrosjan, Spassky, anche con Kasparov, anche se ho giocato con lui solo quando era molto giovane, prima che arrivasse al titolo mondiale. Ho uno score tremendamente negativo con Karpov. Parlando della molteplicità degli approcci, Karpov ha una visione della scacchiera molto globale: di fronte a una posizione tende a valutare quali pezzi cambiare, quali valorizzare, a formulare un piano generale più che varianti. All?estremo opposto c?è Ivanchuk, con il quale ho svolto un periodo di training. Ivanchuk si affida alle sue eccezionali capacità di memoria e di calcolo, con varianti profondissime, anche di una quindicina di mosse!

S. : Ha vinto qui a Roseto!

Romanishin: Oh si, ho vinto, ma gli avversari mi hanno aiutato!

S. : Ha vinto molti tornei, ricorda quanti?

Romanishin: No, assolutamente! Poi bisogna distinguere tra i diversi tornei. Un secondo o terzo posto in una gara di valore mondiale ha un peso rilevante. Ho vinto tornei importanti, come a Odessa 1974, Hastings 1976, il già citato Leningrado 1977, Jurmala 1983, Mosca 1985, ma ricordo anche con piacere, ad esempio, il secondo posto a Tilburg 1979, a mezzo punto da Karpov e precedendo tanti grandissimi giocatori, come Portisch, Larsen, Spassky, Timman, Smyslov, Huebner, Hort, Sax, Sosonko e Kavalek? Un torneo durissimo!

S. : C?è una partita a cui è maggiormente legato?

Romanishin: Tutte! Forse di alcune sono particolarmente orgoglioso, come quella con Tibor Karolyi, a Tbilisi nel 1986, con un bel sacrificio, una partita incredibile (?http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1118572 ). Anche quella con Amador Rodriguez, nel 1977, una partita particolare,?con tantissime mosse consecutive di pedone. Poi sicuramente la vittoria con Spassky a Tilburg (?http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1118162 ), le già citate partite con Petrosjan e Beliavsky.

S. : Ha giocato alle Olimpiadi sia con l?Unione Sovietica che con l?Ucraina.

Romanishin: Nel 1978, a Buenos Aires, venni convocato in quanto mancava Karpov, impegnato per il match con Korchnoj. Sono stato vicino alla convocazione altre volte ma quella fu l?unica occasione olimpica con l?URSS, mentre ai Campionati Europei ho vinto sei medaglie d?oro. Con l?Ucraina alle Olimpiadi ho vinto due argenti e due bronzi. Non mi piace molto il sistema attuale delle Olimpiadi, con i punti squadra. Soprattutto non mi piace la tolleranza zero nell?arrivo alla scacchiera, una regola idiota, in particolare alle Olimpiadi, con migliaia di persone in sala. Basta nulla per un ritardo. E? una regola insensata per gli scacchi. Nel tennis, e il tennis ha grandi esigenze televisive, è ammesso un ritardo di un quarto d?ora! E nel tennis e in molti altri sport il riscaldamento pre - gara si svolge in campo, a scacchi non è così! A Wijk Aan Zee si paga una penale per il ritardo, più alta per il torneo A. E? già un buon compromesso.

S. : Gioca a scacchi da 50 anni, ha ancora la stessa passione?

Romanishin: Da giovane ero più motivato, avevo molte ambizioni. Oggi vivo di scacchi, e si, comunque, li amo molto tuttora.

S. : C?è un campione del passato che le piace particolarmente?

Romanishin: Tutti! E? come ho accennato per la scuola sovietica, la molteplicità di punti di vista e di stili è un valore. Mi dispiace non aver mai giocato con Keres, lui ha disputato il suo ultimo Campionato Sovietico nel 1973 e io il primo nel 1974. Ma l?ho conosciuto! (con un sorriso molto simile a quello fatto ricordando Stejn, con un segnale di stima, e di affetto per il ricordo ? ndr).

La premiazione, con l'Assessore al Turismo di Roseto, Dr. Antonio Porrini?

Qui si conclude l?intervista, durata ben due ore, ma non il pomeriggio con Oleg! Ci offriamo di dargli un passaggio per la premiazione, che si svolgerà nella piazza del comune; nell?attesa ci troviamo davanti a una scacchiera della sala analisi e Stefano chiede a Romanishin delle valutazioni su alcune varianti minori della Nimzoindiana. Ne esce fuori una diversa sequenza di mosse, naturalmente segreta!! Si va alla premiazione e dopo accompagniamo Romanishin a fare il biglietto per il pullman, verificando in albergo la possibilità di essere accompagnato l?indomani mattina presto alla stazione. Alla compagnia si aggiunge il Maestro Internazionale Pap. In macchina si chiacchiera, non solo di scacchi. Si parla di Roma e risulta evidente l?interesse che susciterebbe un bel Festival nella città eterna. Romanishin trova un interesse in comune con Stefano nel tennis, sport che ha scoperto tardi ma che gli piace molto. Oleg ha anche una figlia sedicenne che è una buona promessa del tennis?e disputa già tornei internazionali giovanili. Dopo il torneo sul Balaton, Romanishin giocherà un open in Germania e il suo carnet di impegni è già pieno fino ai primi di settembre, senza la previsione per ora di altri tornei in Italia.

Si torna al Villaggio?e dopo cena ci salutiamo con grande cordialità. In macchina verso Roma io e Stefano commentiamo le belle giornate di Roseto e lo splendido pomeriggio. E? stato davvero un grandissimo piacere conoscere Oleg Mikhajlovhic Romanishin!

?

England's best chess players have often been globetrotters. Joseph Blackburne, world No3 in the late nineteenth century, played in the US, Australia and Cuba as well as on the European tournament circuit of his time. The peripatetic tradition was maintained by Harry Golombek, Bob Wade, and Tony Miles, but their cosmopolitan tours have been eclipsed by Nigel Short. The former world title challenger has so far visited around 90 countries for tournaments, matches, or exhibitions. Recently he competed in the Bangkok Open, and this week he finished a good third at Havana's annual Capablanca Memorial.

Short was only seeded fifth of six grandmasters in the elite double-rounder, and he began with a loss and a draw, complaining of excessive heat in the tournament hall. Then he recovered strongly and was in second place until losing this brilliancy to a fast rising 19-year-old Russian who is already in the world top 40.

Short's rare 11 Qe1 in the Sicilian Dragon shows how computer-influenced opening play has become sharper. Routine strategy for White is 11 Qd2 followed by Kh1, Bf3, Rad1 and trying to utilise a small space advantage. 11 Qe1 provokes Black's dubious Nb4xc2 tactic which gives White missed chances for advantage (17 e5! 21 e6!) before Short's 25 Rg1? (25 Bh6) lets in Black's imaginative queen sac 25...Nxg2! and 27...Qxa2!

N Short v I Nepomniachtchi

1 e4 c5 2 Nc3 d6 3 f4 Nc6 4 Nf3 g6 5 d4 cxd4 6 Nxd4 Bg7 7 Be3 Nf6 8 Be2 Bd7 9 Nb3 Rc8 10 O-O O-O 11 Qe1 a6 12 Kh1 b5 13 Rd1 Nb4?! 14 Rd2 Nxc2 15 Rxc2 b4 16 Bxa6 Ra8 17 Bd3? bxc3 18 bxc3 Ra4 19 e5 Nd5 20 Bd4 Bc6 21 Rd2? Qa8 22 exd6 exd6 23 Bxg7 Re8 24 Qa1 Ne3 25 Rg1? Nxg2! 26 Rgxg2 Rxa2 27 Rxa2 Qxa2! 28 Bf1 Bxg2+ 0-1

3145 1 Qh5+! If gxh5 2 Rxh7+ Kg5 3 f4+ Kg4 4 Rg7+ Kh3 5 Bg2 mate. If Kxh5 2 Rxh7+ Kg5 3 f4+ Kg4 4 Rh4 mate.

Nous vous proposons un petit exercice tactique ce matin. Retour sur le championnat de France d'échecs féminin encore appelé Top12.

1. 12 chess tactics and how to use those to gain advantage – Part 5 If you have understood the concepts of Pin as a...
2. 12 chess tactics and how to use those to gain advantage – Part 4 We have already discussed different forms of check that constitute...
3. 12 chess tactics and how to use those to gain advantage – Part 2 2. Discovered Check In the first part of this series,...

Thanks to a marvellous start in the first half of the tournament, Vassily Ivanchuk managed to win the Capablanca Memorial for the 4th time in his career. Final report by IM Robert Ris from Havana, Cuba.

By IM Robert Ris

Whereas the first cycle was being dominated by Chucky, the second half of the tournament was Nepomniachchi’s. With three consecutive wins he succeeded to close the gap to only half a point, two rounds prior to the end. His victories over Evgeny Alekseev and Lazaro Bruzon were mainly of technical value, while against Nigel Short the 20-year old Russian demonstrated once more his tactical abilities.

Nepomniachtchi took revenge for a tactical oversight he conducted in their first game, as this time it was Short who overlooked the back-rank mate motive. Ironically, the Englishman didn’t seem warned enough, as during lunch before the game he praised his opponent to be ‘a dangerous tactical beast’. Now he should know better!

Short-Nepomniachtchi, after 23.Bxg7 Re8 24.Qa1 Ne3

Black has been reluctant to recapture the bishop on g7 and instead launches a counterattack on the White king. 25. Rg1? Short commits a horrible blunder. Instead he should have played 25.Bd4 Bxg2+ 26.Kg1 Bxf1 (26…Nxf1 27.Rxg2) 27.Bxf1 Nxf1 28.Qxf1 Rxa2 when the game remains double-edged. 25…Nxg2 26.Rgxg2 Rxa2! 27.Rxa2 (27.Qxa2 Re1+ and mate; 27.Qc1 Bxg2+ simply wins material.) 27…Qxa2 28.Bf1 Bxg2+ and here White resigned in view of 29.Bxg2 Qxa1+ 30.Nxa1 Re1+.

The playing hall with the top boards

Being trailed by just half a point, Chucky felt it was the right time to clarify matters. In the penultimate round he obtained a solid edge right out of the opening against Bruzon which he duly converted on move 63. It seems the Ukrainian felt more comfortable in his Black games during the tournament, winning three of them, while against Dominguez he mishandled a promising positional exchange sacrifice. To draw the contrast, he must only have been content with his second round win over Alekseev, while in his other four White games his opponents weren’t confronted with a difficult task.

A last-round win over Alekseev brought Dominguez on a shared third place, together with Short. With this victory he managed to save the Cuban honour, as his countryman Bruzon didn’t win a single game in the entire tournament. Towards the end, Bruzon seemed to be running out of energy, which caused him three unnecessary losses in the second half. Alekseev’s performance (3 out 10, 4 losses) was pretty uninspired as well, which resulted in a shared bottom place with Bruzon.

Alekseev vs Nepomniachtchi

The premier group became a triumph for local Yunieski Quesada with 6 out of 9, remaining unbeaten throughout the tournament. On one point distance he was followed by GMs Emilio Cordova, Ildar Khairullin and Holden Hernandez.

Curiously enough the Open was won by FM Hector Delgado Ramos (2414) with 8 out of 10, leaving numerous GMs and IMs behind him. Many Cuban players are simply underrated, as they don’t all have the opportunity to go abroad for tournaments. This explains the high number of FMs, while they are actually playing at GM strength. The high level of the tournament was confirmed by the average rating of 2306 by a number of 110 participants!

The running campaign for the upcoming FIDE elections has also reached the Americas. Two weeks ago Garry Kasparov and Nigel Short (both supporting the Karpov team) visited Nicaragua, which was greatly covered in various national television programmes. This time Cuba took honours for current FIDE president Kirsan Ilyumzhinov and his rival Anatoly Karpov, who both attended the last couple of days of the event.

A press conference with Ilyumzhinov, Karpov and officials

In his speech Ilyumzhinov announced to donate 500,000 US$ from his own fund to organize two new events in the region: the Caribbean Cup and the Latin America Cup. A promising initiative, though like many other current FIDE events, we rather first see than believe whether it’s going to take place at all.

The tournament got some extra glance when Ivanchuk joined a traditional Cuban dance during the closing ceremony. The long, standing ovation was certainly not misplaced for someone who is so passionated by the game and loves sharing his thoughts about it with everyone. A better compliment couldn’t have been wished by the organisation, who despite the reduced financial possibilities still managed to bring an interesting field together.

Ivanchuk joining a traditional Cuban dance

Games rounds 6-10

Game viewer by ChessTempo

The view over Havana with on the left Malecón road and the Caribbean Sea

Hotel Riviera's beautiful pool

Chess fans following a game on an old demo board

Links

• First report: Ivanchuk leads Capablanca Memorial halfway
• Official website
• Games in PGN: Elite | Premier | Open via TWIC

Liviu-Dieter Nisipeanu defeated Wang Yue with the black pieces in round 8 of the Kings Tournament in Bazna, Romania. Gelfand-Carlsen and Radjabov-Ponomariov ended in a draw. Games commented by GM Dorian Rogozenco & videos.

The fourth Kings Tournament takes place in Medias, Romania from June 14 till 25. Against it’s a 6-player, double round-robin, with two rest days. This year Carlsen, Gelfand, Nisipeanu, Ponomariov, Radjabov and Wang Yue play. The rate of play is 2 hours for the first 40 moves, one hour for the next 20 moves and then 15 minutes plus an increment of 30 seconds per move.

The rounds start each day at 15.30 which is 14.30 CET and 08.30 EDT. They can run well into the evening, as we won’t see ultra-short draws in this tournament – no draw agreement by the players are allowed before move 30, except for cases of a triple-repetition, a perpetual or a theoretically drawn position.

The event is organized by Romgaz and the Chess Club Society “Elisabeta Polihroniade”. This year the tournament is officially part of the Grand Slam, substituting the cancelled MTel Masters. Venue is the brand new Romgaz Center in Medias (near Bazna), but the organizers are considering to move back to Hotel Complex Balnear Expro in Bazna, where everyone is staying.

ChessVibes will be at the tournament from start to finish, providing videos for the official website:

Videos

Source files: (for iPhone users and others)

Round 8

The eighth round saw the clash between the numbers one and two in the standings. For Gelfand, who played with the white pieces, it was an excellent opportunity to do something about Carlsen’s supreme reign in the tournament. And the Israel grandmaster got his chances, when his opponent allowed some complicated tactics on move 16.

In a more or less forced sequence of moves, both sides ‘won’ an exchange and the resulting position was analysed in the hotel lobby by Ponomariov and Radjabov, who had drawn a quiet game in thirty moves. “It looks promising for White, but Carlsen is a tricky guy, very tricky,” Ponomariov said.

And indeed the Norwegian appeared to be safe throughout the game, and even had the better chances in the end. Black’s activity is more important than White’s a-pawn, but there is no clear way to profit from the pin.

Nisipeanu was rewarded for his persistance in an ending against Wang Yue. At move 36 his second Viorel Iordechascu couldn’t find more ideas for Black and expected a draw soon, but his boss managed to find a way to get his king in. Then, on move 63, he said he wasn’t sure if ‘Dieter’ would find 63…Kc3 and especially 65…Rf1, which he called a ‘computer move’ to cut the king. But Nisipeanu found it (depicted below).

Round 8 games commented by GM Dorian Rogozenco

Game viewer by ChessTempo

Links

• Official website
• Games in PGN via TWIC

The Bulgarian is an aggressive player. But the Catalan doesn't bring about a quick victory

Topalov-Leko, Amber Blindfold 2008. Concluding our look at the Catalan, White to play.

RB When you see that the player with the move is Topalov you immediately start thinking tactics – quiet, careful improvement is not the Bulgarian's style. So, using the player's identity as a clue, and with an additional hint provided by the absence of a knight on f6, my eye is immediately drawn to 1 Ng5, with the twin threats of 2 Qxh7 mate and 2 Bxb7.

Let's have a look at how Black might counter: 1...g6 might not be as bad as it first appears. After 2 Bxb7 Rb8 both the bishop and knight are en prise. Here I would be tempted to play 3 Bc6, rather than retreat the bishop all the way back to its defensive post at g2, and try to maintain it there, cramping Black's queenside pawns. Black might be better off playing 1...Bxg5, in which case 2 Bxb7 Rb8 also allows the same idea of taking advantage of Black's backward c-pawn and light-square weakness with 3 Bc6.

DK Unmasking the Catalan bishop is a common tactic. Here it does not force the win of material, but allows White to take a firm hold of the position. 1 Ng5 Bxg5 (Ronan is wrong about 1...g6 because 2 Bxb7 Rb8 3 Ne4 Rxb7 4 Qc6 Rb6 5 Qxd7 wins) 2 Bxb7 Rb8 3 Bc6 was the game continuation. Black's backward c-pawn is a long-term problem: he could easily find himself condemned to passive defence. That's why Leko countered with 3...Nb6 4 Rd1 Qd6 5 Bg2 e5, but after 6 Nc3 (threatening Ne4) 6...f5 (preventing Ne4 but weakening the king) 7 dxe5 Qxe5 8 Nd5 Nxd5 9 Rxd5 White was still in control. See online for the rest of the game.

If you play the Catalan with White, don't expect a quick victory, but enjoy the space advantage, the solid king position and the sound pawn structure. Last week we recommended Play the Catalan by Nigel Davies (Everyman Chess, £14.99). For more advanced players, Grandmaster Repertoire 1 d4 Volume One by Boris Avrukh (Quality Chess, €24.99) has an excellent section on the Catalan.

chess@guardian.co.uk

In the seventh round of the Kings Tournament, which has returned to Bazna, Carlsen won against Radjabov. Gelfand is still a point behind the Norwegian after beating Nisipeanu with Black. Games commented by GM Dorian Rogozenco & videos.

The fourth Kings Tournament takes place in Medias, Romania from June 14 till 25. Against it’s a 6-player, double round-robin, with two rest days. This year Carlsen, Gelfand, Nisipeanu, Ponomariov, Radjabov and Wang Yue play. The rate of play is 2 hours for the first 40 moves, one hour for the next 20 moves and then 15 minutes plus an increment of 30 seconds per move.

The rounds start each day at 15.30 which is 14.30 CET and 08.30 EDT. They can run well into the evening, as we won’t see ultra-short draws in this tournament – no draw agreement by the players are allowed before move 30, except for cases of a triple-repetition, a perpetual or a theoretically drawn position.

The event is organized by Romgaz and the Chess Club Society “Elisabeta Polihroniade”. This year the tournament is officially part of the Grand Slam, substituting the cancelled MTel Masters. Venue is the brand new Romgaz Center in Medias (near Bazna), but the organizers are considering to move back to Hotel Complex Balnear Expro in Bazna, where everyone is staying.

ChessVibes will be at the tournament from start to finish, providing videos for the official website:

Videos

Source files: (for iPhone users and others)

Round 7

Monday morning the tournament organizers decided to move back to Bazna, where the first three editions of tournament were held as well. It was clear that the players weren’t really fond of the half an hour drive to Medias and back each day, but the final ‘drop’… were the drops of rain that fell on Carlsen and Ponomariov’s board in round 6.

To avoid any further problems as result of the unpredictable weather, all boards, pieces and other things were moved to the conference room of the hotel complex. The players and seconds were all quite happy about this. One of the reasons might have been that they now have some more football to watch each day!

After a somewhat slow start (certainly from hindsight) it’s now full steam ahead for Magnus Carlsen, who won his fourth game in a row. His tournament performance rating is now 2960 according to TWIC, 2955 according to Chessbase. (Who is right? Well, it doesn’t matter too much.) His live rating is now 2825.

“I thought it was a very good game actually,” said a cheerful Carlsen afterwards. The Norwegian pointed out that both he and his opponent Teimour Radjabov had probably played the strongest moves up till the rook ending. “He handled the position very well. I thought I should at least make him work a little bit for the half point,” said Carlsen, and after the inaccurate 32…Rc5 Black indeed needed to work hard. Radjabov had gotten into timetrouble and after 39…Kg8 the rook ending was lost. We are using Carlsen’s own words when we say that the rest was a ‘matter of technique’.

Liviu-Dieter Nisipeanu was clearly disappointed after his loss against Boris Gelfand, which brought the local hero on minus two. The Romanian was mostly disturbed by the simple tactics he missed in the middlegame. He had planned 21.Rxe4 dxe4 22.Qxe4 but this is refuted by 22…Qxc6.

Ruslan Ponomariov had no reason to be happy either after his draw with Wang Yue. The Ukrainian had been clearly better and a healthy pawn up, but couldn’t win the ending. It was surprising that he didn’t play the positional standard move 28.h4, and later he simply overlooked 37…Ng6 completely.

Round 7 games commented by GM Dorian Rogozenco

Game viewer by ChessTempo

Links

• Official website
• Games in PGN via TWIC

Chaque mardi, le maître international canadien d'échecs Jean Hébert nous propose sa lettre d'information HPE.

Three victories for the white pieces shook up the standings completely at the Kings Tournament in Media, Romania. Carlsen and Radjabov took over the lead from Gelfand and Nisipeanu, going into the first rest day. Now with commentary by GM Dorian Rogozenco & a long video with Radjabov explaining in ‘Corus style’ his win against Gelfand.

The fourth Kings Tournament takes place in Medias, Romania from June 14 till 25. Against it’s a 6-player, double round-robin, with two rest days. This year Carlsen, Gelfand, Nisipeanu, Ponomariov, Radjabov and Wang Yue play. The rate of play is 2 hours for the first 40 moves, one hour for the next 20 moves and then 15 minutes plus an increment of 30 seconds per move.

The rounds start each day at 15.30 which is 14.30 CET and 08.30 EDT. They can run well into the evening, as we won’t see ultra-short draws in this tournament – no draw agreement by the players are allowed before move 30, except for cases of a triple-repetition, a perpetual or a theoretically drawn position.

The event is organized by Romgaz and the Chess Club Society “Elisabeta Polihroniade”. This year the tournament is officially part of the Grand Slam, substituting the cancelled MTel Masters. Venue is the brand new Romgaz Center in Medias (near Bazna), but the organizers are considering to move back to Hotel Complex Balnear Expro in Bazna, where everyone is staying.

ChessVibes will be at the tournament from start to finish, providing videos for the official website:

Videos

Source files: (for iPhone users and others)

• Round 4
• Radjabov
• Round 3
• Round 2
• Round 1

Round 4

It was three times 1-0 at the Kings Tournament in Media, Romania today. In the best round so far, Carlsen used the King’s Gambit to beat Wang Yue; Ponomariov came up with novelty of his second Moiseenko to defeat Nisipeanu in a Blumenfeld and Radjabov managed to outprepare Gelfand in a Petroff.

Especially Carlsen’s second move attracted the attention at the start of the round. He is now clearly the highest rated player to ever try the most romantic of all openings, the King’s Gambit, in an official game, and who would mind to see it more often as a way to avoid the Petroff?

Unfortunately for decades more than one way to reach (at least) full equality has been known, and Wang Yue wasn’t worse after the opening either. However, after some inaccuracies White’s d-pawn became strong, and thanks to a nice tactic Carlsen managed to get it all the way to d7. Getting into a king of Zugzwang, China’s number one then decided to give an exchange to get rid of it, and thought the ending might have been a draw, if he hadn’t blundered with …g5.

Ponomariov recovered well from his loss in round 3, and used the strong novelty 7.e4! of his second Alexander Moiseenko to beat Nisipeanu in the Blumenfeld Gambit. White soon got a huge space advantage and only optically the Romanian seemed to get back in the game. “It was always very bad for me,” he said himself after the game.

The first game that finished was Radjabov-Gelfand, where the Azeri GM managed to outprepare his opponent in the Petroff. When Black went …Bd6 instead of …Bf6 it was basically already over. Don’t miss the 20-minute video with Radjabov explaining the game with a demo board!

Round 4 games with commentary by GM Dorian Rogozenco

Game viewer by ChessTempo

Links

• Official website
• Games in PGN via TWIC

Vassily Ivanchuk, who won the 2009 Kings Tournament, couldn’t play in Bazna this year as he had already signed for the 45th Capablanca Memorial. Halfway through the tournament in Cuba, the Ukrainian leads the top group, ahead of Nigel Short and Leinier Dominguez. IM Robert Ris plays in the open group, and reports from Havana.

By IM Robert Ris

The start of the tradition began in 1962 when revolutionist Ernesto “Che” Guevara could give the tournament a financial impulse. At that time he gained control over the National Bank and became minister of Industries. As has been said, Che used to be a fanatic chess player himself and liked to compete with strong local players.

In 1965 Che left the country to initiate other revolutions in Africa and Latin-America. Fortunately, the continuation of the tournament was never in danger, despite the tense relations with the USA due to the outbreak of the Cold War. After an absence of almost three years, Fischer accepted to participate in its 4th edition. However, he couldn’t obtain a visa and hence it was decided he would participate from New York by telephone. His games took much more time and so the American ran out of energy towards the end of the tournament, when he eventually lost to Geller and Kholmov, enabling Smyslov to take clear first. Since then Cuba has been considered as one the most chess-friendly nations worldwide, where a lot of top player have executed their moves.

The popularity can still be seen among its inhabitants. Before the tournament I went together with my friend IM Ruud Janssen for a couple of days to Santiago de Cuba, the second largest city of the country located on the eastern part of the island. Walking around the town we noticed people playing our royal game in parques and on the streets, something very unfamiliar to many other countries. People really breath chess in Cuba and are not afraid to play a game or two with their foreign friends.

Locals in Cuba play chess wherever they can...

...and happily meet the foreigners...

...though this old man preferred his chess pieces to be used for checkers!

This year the organizers even managed to increase the strength of the Elite Group. With the participation of Vasily Ivanchuk (winner in 2005, 2006 and 2007), Nigel Short, Evgenij Alekseev, Ian Nepomniatchi (reigning European Champion), Leinier Dominguez (winner 2004, 2008 and 2009) and Lazaro Bruzon (winner in 2002) a spectacular event has been once more guaranteed.

The first part of the tournament was mainly dominated by Ivanchuk. The Ukrainian GM doesn’t seem to be upset being surpassed on the latest rating list by his countryman Eljanov. In Havana, Chucky seem to have his nerves under control and is on 4 out of 5, a clear point ahead of Nigel Short, whom he beat in the very first round. The Englishman had to sacrifice a piece and even got 4 pawns in return. However, Chucky’s bishops proved to be much stronger and could easily collected them all.

Short vs Ivanchuk at the start of the game

Ivanchuk’s superiority over his colleagues was proven in the other rounds as well. In fine manoeuvring battles he outplayed Alekseev and Nepomniachtchi, while in his black game against Dominguez he seemed to have the better of the play for a long time, before settling for a draw.

The tournament is being held in Salon Internacional of the 5-star hotel Habana Riviera, where the heat seems to influence the players. Especially the invited players from abroad seem to suffer, which logically results in bad blunders. A typical example is the following one, where the current European Champion overlooks a simple tactic.

Nepomniachtchi-Short

Something has gone wrong for Black in the middlegame and he has to fight for a draw now. 29…Rb3 Play could have been simplified by 29…Bxe5 but after 30.Rxe5 Rxc3 31.Rxe6 Rxc7 32.Rxa6 Rb7 33.Ra4 the rook ending is still quite unpleasant, as White will bring his king to the b-pawn. Therefore, Short decides to play for a cheap trick. 30.Rf3? Falling for the trap. With 30.Re1! White keeps his extra pawn. 30…Bxe5 and now Nepomniachtchi realized the pawn on f7 is untouchable due to back rank mate. Hence, the Russian went for 31.Rc8+ (31.Rfxf7? Rb1+) when the players agreed to split the point.

In subsequent rounds Short managed to add two wins to his account against Alekseev and Bruzon. Until now he and Ivanchuk are the only players who managed to win a single game. Cuba’s number one Leinier Dominguez still has to get his motor running and so far only produced five draws. Bruzon and Nepomniatchi both only lost once, while Alekseev is probably the most unhappy about his minus two performance so far.

Besides this Elite group, another closed GM tournament and a big open is being held to please the other Cuban players as well. Halfway the tournament, Peruvian GM Emilio Cordova and Cuban GM Yunieski Quesada Perez are sharing the first place with 3.5/5 in the Premier group. In the Open section Cuban IM Jose Angel Guerra Mendez still has the perfect score, followed by Danish IM Karsten Rasmussen, who in the next round will meet each other.

Game viewer

Game viewer by ChessTempo

Links

• Official website
• Games in PGN: Elite | Premier | Open via TWIC

Ever since Justus Williams burst on the scholastic scene, the word on him was, he had a very mature style for a scholastic player. With many scholastic players, there is a tendancy to over-emphasize openings and tactics to the neglect of sound positional principles.

There is also another attribute spectators notice about young Justus… his patience and board demeanor. These are rare qualities and perhaps prerequisites to reaching National Master level. So the new question is, “When will Justus Williams reach Master level?” The answer is an open-ended, “Soon.”

Justus won the 2010 K6 Elementary championship last month adding yet another notch to his impressive start. He is already a scholastic All-American and will represent the U.S. at the World Youth Championship in Haldiki, Greece in October. He is currently playing in the New York International and hopes to compete in the World Open in July.

Justus is someone to keep an eye on!

We formulated ten questions related to Developing Chess Talent and every Monday we’ll ask them to an interesting personality in the chess world.

1. Please introduce yourself (name, age, nationality, etc.)!
Emanuel Berg, 28, living in the town Arvika in Sweden, near the Norwegian border. I am the current Swedish Champion (2009).

2. What is your role in the chess world?
I am a professional chess player, but also working as a coach for young people every now and then.

3. How did you develop your chess talent as a kid?
I played a lot of games and was taught to play gambits, which developed my tactical skills.

4. Who had a profound influence on your chess development?
I don’t know. Many different people I guess. I had a few coaches from abroad when I was a kid.

5. What are your favourite sports besides chess?
Football and tennis.

6. What would be your advice for young people?
Don’t get lost studying all chess theory. Take your time to study endgames first as well as go through classical games.

7. What has your main concern in life besides chess?
My family (wife and 4 children).

8. What is the best chess game you played?
Hard to pick one, but Berg-Bareev, Göteborg 2005 is one of my favourites.

9. What’s your connection with ‘Developing Chess Talent’?
Chess talent is a gift that some people have. Having talent makes it easier to be a promising chess player at an early stage without too much effort. However, hard work is also needed for the talented player in order to reach the top. Players with less talent need to work harder from the start, but might not reach a top position in the chess rating. My impression is that talented players often are lazy, while less talented players are hard working and ambitious. The best would of course be to be both talented and to work hard.

10. What question do you miss and what would be your answer?
Who is your favourite chess arbiter? Hans Olav Lahlum, Norway.

Background information

These interviews are produced for the Facebook Group Developing Chess Talent

Chessvibes is hosting them here and they will be linked to from the Facebook Group

The book Developing Chess Talent is written by Karel van Delft and Merijn van Delft and can be ordered via www.chesstalent.com

Chaque mardi, le maître international canadien d'échecs Jean Hébert nous propose sa lettre d'information HPE.

Copper State, Version 2!

The second installment of Danny Rensch’s Copper State International was a big success, especially for norm hunters.  The event was made possible by the generous support of John Lalonde and his Abstrax, Inc. playing site in Mesa, AZ.

Mackenzie Molner made a 2nd GM norm with a superb score of 6/9 in the “A” group round-robin and what a bunch of games he played!  In the “B” Swiss, numerous norms were made too.  All the games posted here are from the Monroi website.

GM Timur Gareev (left) watches as Mackenzie Molner shows him the last round Bartholomew-Molner game that gave Mackenzie a GM norm

Here’s Molner’s last round game, a romantic 19th century Evans Gambit!

[Event "2010 COPPER STATE INTERNATIONAL"]
[Site "Mesa, Arizona"]
[Date "2010.06.09"]
[Round "9"]
[White "Molner, Mackenzie"]
[Black "Bartholomew, John"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteELO "2439"]
[WhiteTitle ""]
[BlackELO "2451"]
[BlackTitle "IM"]
[Source "MonRoi"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4

GM Nigel Short did much to bring this opening back at top-level.  Kasparov has also toyed with it.

4…Bxb4 As is well known, this gambit must be accepted.  Declining gives white an edge.

5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.Qb3 Qe7 8.O-O Bb6 9.cxd4 Nxd4 10.Nxd4 Bxd4 11.Nc3 Nf6 12.Bg5 c6 13.Rad1 Qe5 14.Bxf7 Kd8 15.Ne2 Bc5 16.Bf4 Qxe4 17.Qg3 Rf8 18.Nc3 Qf5 19.Rde1 d6 20.Qxg7 Nd7 21.Bg5 Kc7 22.Re7 Bd4 23.Qxf8 Qxg5 24.Ne4 Qf4 25.Qe8 Be5 26.Ng3 Kb6 27.Rxd7 Bxd7 28.Qxd7 Rf8 29.Bh5 d5 30.Qxh7 Qd2 31.Bf3 Bxg3 32.hxg3 Ka6 33.Qe7 1-0

Weirdly, earlier in the tournament Bartholomew playing black lost to Stopa in… a similar Evans.  But in that game Stopa was dead lost and only Bartholomew’s time trouble made him go wrong.

And from Round 3, a game that won Molner the brilliancy prize (this prize covered both A and B sections):

[Event "2010 COPPER STATE INTERNATIONAL"]
[Site "Mesa, Arizona"]
[Date "2010.06.05"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Shankland, Samuel"]
[Black "Molner, Mackenzie"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteELO "2507"]
[WhiteTitle "IM"]
[BlackELO "2439"]
[BlackTitle ""]
[Source "MonRoi"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.d5 b5 5.dxe6 fxe6 6.cxb5 a6 7.bxa6 Bxa6 8.g3 Nc6 9.Nc3 Be7 10.e4 Qb6 11.Be2 Bxe2 12.Qxe2 Nd4 13.Nxd4 cxd4 14.Nd1 Qa5 15.Bd2 Bb4 16.f3 O-O 17.a3 Bxd2 18.Qxd2 Qa6 19.Qxd4 d5 20.e5 Nd7 21.Kf2 Rac8 22.Ne3 Nc5 23.Rae1 Nb3 24.Qd1 Qb7 25.f4 d4 26.Nc2 g5 27.Nb4 gxf4 28.g4 d3 29.Qf3 Qb6 30.Kg2 Nd2 31.Qxd3 Qb7 32.Kh3 Nf3 33.g5 Rcd8 34.Qa6 Nxg5 35.Kg4 Qf3 0-1

A very creative treatment in the Blumenfeld and an impressive relentless hunt of white’s king!

More Chess

A rout by IM Pruess playing black over a strong GM!

[Event "2010 COPPER STATE INTERNATIONAL"]
[Site "Mesa, Arizona"]
[Date "2010.06.06"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Panchanathan, Magesh"]
[Black "Pruess, David"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteELO "2549"]
[WhiteTitle "GM"]
[BlackELO "2361"]
[BlackTitle "IM"]
[Source "MonRoi"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5 3.c4 c6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.a4 Bf5 6.Ne5 Nbd7 7.Nxc4 Qc7 8.g3 e5 9.dxe5 Nxe5 10.Bf4 Nfd7 11.Bg2 g5 12.Bxe5 Nxe5 13.Nxe5 Qxe5 14.O-O Be6 15.a5 a6 16.e4 h5 17.Nd5 O-O-O 18.f4 gxf4 19.gxf4 Qg7 20.Nb6 Kc7 21.Qe2 Bb4 22.f5 Rd2 23.Qf3 Rg8 24.Qf4 Rd6 25.Qf3 Rd3 0-1

A last round rout by Pruess over the tournament leader GM Fridman!  Fridman had been leading by a full point but this shocking defeat sent him back to a three-way tie for first.  Fridman recovered and won the blitz playoff (over GMs Kacheishvili and Kekelidze).

[Event "2010 COPPER STATE INTERNATIONAL"]
[Site "Mesa, Arizona"]
[Date "2010.06.09"]
[Round "9"]
[White "Pruess, David"]
[Black "Fridman, Daniel"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteELO "2361"]
[WhiteTitle "IM"]
[BlackELO "2654"]
[BlackTitle "GM"]
[Source "MonRoi"]

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3 dxe4

As Pruess tells it, he wanted to see black play 3….e6 as he was in the mood to just play that closed game.  In the game, Fridman goes a much riskier route (Fridman has even written about this in magazines) but gets annihilated!    3….Qb6!? is all the rage and favored by Georgian grandmasters.  For example,  the recent game annotated in New In Chess, Nepomniatchi – Jobava saw 3…Qb6!? 4. a4!? with insanity.

4.fxe4 e5 5.Nf3 Bg4 6.Bc4 Nd7 7.O-O Ngf6 8.Bg5 Bxf3 9.Qxf3 Qb6 10.Nd2 Qxd4 11.Kh1 b5 12.Bb3 Be7 13.Rad1 Qb6 14.Qf5 Rd8 15.Nf3 g6 16.Nxe5!

It’s so pleasing to land an elementary and decisive tactical blow like this versus a tough professional who competes in the top German Bundesliga!  How often does it happen?  Not often!

Rf8 17.Qf4 Nxe5 18.Qxe5 Rxd1 19.Rxd1 Ng8 20.Bxe7 Nxe7 21.Qd6 Rg8 22.Qd7 Kf8 23.Bxf7 Kxf7 24.Rf1 Kg7 25.Qxe7 Kh6 26.Rf3 1-0

Here’s a smooth effort by GM Amanov, a contender for best game prize.

[Event "2010 COPPER STATE INTERNATIONAL"]
[Site "Mesa, Arizona"]
[Date "2010.06.06"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Amanov, Mesgen"]
[Black "Bercys, Salvijus"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteELO "2479"]
[WhiteTitle "GM"]
[BlackELO "2427"]
[BlackTitle "IM"]
[Source "MonRoi"]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 c6 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8.Bg3 b5 9.Be2 Bb7 10.O-O Nbd7 11.Ne5 Bg7 12.Qc2 h5 13.Nxd7 Nxd7 14.Rad1 e5 15.dxe5 Qe7 16.e6 Qxe6 17.Rd6 Qe7 18.Rfd1 Nc5 19.R6d2 Be5 20.b4 cxb3 21.axb3 Bxg3 22.hxg3 a5 23.e5 Qxe5 24.Bxb5 O-O 25.Bc4 Kg7 26.Re2 Qf6 27.Re3 Ba6 28.Bxa6 Rxa6 29.Rf3 Qg6 30.Qe2!

Incredibly strong.  The rook on a6 is tied to the knight on c5; the knight cannot move, but the queen by force picks up the knight!  Black cannot defend it!

Kg8 31.Qc4 1-0

And the actual winner of the Best Game prize was this nice game by veteran IM Nikolai Andrianov, coming off a three year period of no chess!   His victim, talented young player IM Jacek Stopa, was one of the pre-event favorites by rating, but had a horrible start.  He recovered somewhat in the 2nd half.

[Event "2010 COPPER STATE INTERNATIONAL"]
[Site "Mesa, Arizona"]
[Date "2010.06.04"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Andrianov, Nikolai"]
[Black "Stopa, Jacek"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteELO "2409"]
[WhiteTitle "IM"]
[BlackELO "2474"]
[BlackTitle "IM"]
[Source "MonRoi"]

1.Nf3 e6 2.b3 b6 3.g3 Bb7 4.Bg2 f5 5.Bb2 Nf6 6.O-O Be7 7.d4 O-O 8.c4 Qe8 9.Nc3 Ne4 10.d5 Na6 11.Nd4 Qg6 12.Nxe4 fxe4 13.dxe6 c5 14.Nf5 Qxe6 15.Nxg7 Qc6 16.Nh5 Bg5 17.h4 Be7 18.e3 Rf7 19.Qd2 h6 20.Rad1 Rd8 21.Qc3 Kh7 22.Rd5 Qe6 23.Nf4 1-0

My own play was unconvincing.  I made  solid draws as black vs GM Yermolinsky and IM Altounian but early on I had an incredible miss, one that I definitely thought about after it was over.

[Event "2010 COPPER STATE INTERNATIONAL"]
[Site "Mesa, Arizona"]
[Date "2010.06.04"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Ginsburg, Mark"]
[Black "Troff, Kayden"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[WhiteELO "2393"]
[WhiteTitle "IM"]
[BlackELO "2201"]
[BlackTitle ""]
[Source "MonRoi"]

1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 g6 4.e3 Bg7 5.d4 cxd4 6.exd4 d6 7.d5 Ne5 8.Nxe5 Bxe5 9.Be2 Bd7?! 10.O-O Rc8?! 11.Be3 Qa5? This queenside demonstration greatly worsens black’s position, losing multiple tempi, and these are important tempi helping white with the break that he wants, c4-c5.

12.a3 Nf6? Leaving the bishop out to dry.

13.b4 Qc7 14.Rc1 a5 15.f4 White also had Nb5-d4 with a huge advantage.

Bxc3 16.Rxc3 axb4 17.axb4 h5 18.Bd4 With this forever bishop, white is winning easily.

Rg8 19.Re1 Kf8 20.Bf1 Bf5 21.Rce3 h4 Black is making rather aimless moves all over the board.  Well, he has to, he’s almost in total zugzwang already. But an important principle comes to mind:  if black has played very weakly so far (far below his published rating) he has to be good at something!  And that something in this game is resourcefulness in lost games.  Still, the position has put black well over the edge into losing territory.  White’s next elementary tactical blow requires only a small amount of accuracy.

22.Rxe7 One way to win. Another elementary win is 22. Qe2 and e7 collapses.    I am not sure why I did not look at the obvious 22. Qe2.  After 22. Qe2 black has to resign.

22…Qxe7 23.Rxe7 Kxe7 24.Qe1+ Ne4 25.Bd3

25. c5! wins.    25. c5! Rge8 26. Qxh4+ Kf8 27. cxd6 and black collapses. The text also wins.

25…Rge8 26.Qxh4+? What a bad move! The first simple miss.  26. Bxe4 Kf8 (forced) 27. Qxh4 Rxe4 28. Bf6! Ke8 and now do you see it?  I thought black’s king was running so I didn’t go for this line, but here white wins easily. The answer is the nice quiet move 27. Qh7! (I overlooked this) and the threat of Qg8+ and Qxf7 is unstoppable and wins immediately.

26…Kd7 Black takes his chance to run in another direction but this should have been hopeless.  For some reason, I started playing quickly for no reason and let him totally escape. Quite an upsetting turn of events.  From this point forward, my calculation ability was non-existent!

27.c5! Of course.  White is still winning.  So far, so good.

27…dxc5 28.Bb5+? White doesn’t understand that better is 28. bxc5! Nxc5 29. Bb5+ Kd6 30. g4! and wins. For example, 30…Bd7 31. Qf6+! (this is why white needs to get the black knight away from e4!) 31…Kc7 32. Bxc5! and wins.

28…Kd6 29.Be5+?? A terrible blunder.  If white had paused a little, there are two wins remaining.  Win 1.  29. Bxc5+ Nxc5 30. Qf6+ (this resource was never on my radar) 30…Kxd5 31. Bxe8 Rxe8 32. Qxf7+ and wins.  Win 2.   29. bxc5+ Nxc5 30. g4! and wins decisive material.

29…Rxe5 What am I doing? 30.fxe5 Kxd5 31.g4? Yet another terrible move blitzed out.  31. Qe7 keeps good winning chances.  For example, 31. Qe7 cxb4 32. Qxf7+ and white will also pick up b4 and should convert the win.

31…Be6 Now all the wins have disappeared.  What an amazing number of bad blunders to not win!

32.Qe7 cxb4 33.Bd3 Kxe5 34.Qxb4 Nd6 35.Kf2 Bc4 36.Qe1 Kd5 37.Qe3 Bxd3 38.Qxd3 Ke6 39.h4 Rc4 40.Kf3 b5 41.h5 gxh5 42.gxh5 Nf5 43.Qd8 Rh4 44.Qe8 1/2-1/2

In a later round I played another little talented kid and  played better, but only won one rating point.  That’s the problem playing little kids.

[Event "2010 COPPER STATE INTERNATIONAL"]
[Site "Mesa, Arizona"]
[Date "2010.06.07"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Gurevich, Daniel"]
[Black "Ginsburg, Mark"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteELO "2007"]
[WhiteTitle ""]
[BlackELO "2393"]
[BlackTitle "IM"]
[Source "MonRoi"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 e6 3.f4 a6 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.g3 d5 6.d3 Nf6 7.e5 Nd7 8.Bg2 Be7 9.O-O O-O 10.g4 b5 11.Qe1 b4 12.Ne2 f6 13.exf6 Nxf6 14.g5 Nh5 15.Qh4 g6 16.Ng3 Ng7 17.Bd2 Bd6

White never took his chance to play c2-c3 or c2-c4 in the early stages of the game, moves he needed to get chances.

18.h3 Ra7 19.Nh2 h5! Stopping the obvious threat of Nh2-g4. Now white’s king side pawns are fixed awkwardly. 20.Nf3 Raf7 21.Ne2 Nf5 22.Qf2 Qc7 23.Nh4 Nxh4 24.Qxh4 Nd4! Simple chess.  The f4 point collapses and the game.

25.Nxd4 cxd4 26.Rf2 Bxf4 27.Bxf4 Rxf4 28.Qg3 h4 29.Qh2 Qe5 30.Rxf4 Rxf4 31.Kh1 Qxg5 32.Rg1 Qf6 33.Re1 Kg7 34.Qg1 Rf2 35.Qh2 Qf4 36.Qxf4 Rxf4 37.Rc1 e5 38.c4 dxc3 39.bxc3 Bf5 40.cxb4 Rxb4 41.Bxd5 Bxd3 42.Re1 Rb1 0-1

In the fourth round, I was astounded to see this discredited opening appear:

[Event "2010 COPPER STATE INTERNATIONAL"]
[Site "Mesa, Arizona"]
[Date "2010.06.06"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Pruess, David"]
[Black "Ravichandran, Siddharth"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteELO "2361"]
[WhiteTitle "IM"]
[BlackELO "2454"]
[BlackTitle ""]
[Source "MonRoi"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Qb6? Amazing brinkmanship but unplayable!  Joel Benjamin annotated the game Hess-Lapshun in US Chess Online but both players were not familiar with that.  Ravichandran had apparently consulted some other theory source.  Ravichandran said after the game he wanted to catch white by surprise with this.  Well, it’s a shock for sure.

White starts out responding in the best way.

6.e5! Correct. 

6…Bc5 Black blitzed this out; he has no choice.

7.Be3!? This move is not bad.   Hess found the more forcing 7. e4-e5! and now Lapshun lost miserably with 7…Ng8.  The f2 pawn is untakeable.

For fun, look at 7. e5! Bxf2+ 8. Ke2 (8. Kd2 Qe3 mate would be embarrassing!) 8…Nd5 9. Nd6+ Ke7 10. Nxd5+ exd5 11. Qd5 Rf8 12. Bg5+f6 13. exf6 gxf6 14. Qe5+!! and forced mate!

For completeness, 7. e5! Bxf2+ 8. Ke2 Ng4 9. h3! Ng4 and now white goes on a king walk to win: 10. Nd6+! Ke7 11. hxg4 Qf2+ 12. Kd3 Nc6 and now white can win a brilliancy prize: 13. Nf5+!! exf5 14. Nd5+ Kf8 15. Be3! and wins!  If black put his king on f8 in this line, white can vary with 13. Nce4! and wins a piece.

I asked Ravichandran after the game and he said he intended 7….a6.  Apparently his theoretical source points to that.  Well, it’s the best move!

Pruess said after the game (separately) he was concerned about the 7…a6 resource since 8. Nd6+ is not clear.

Some junior at the tournament ran 7….a6 through an engine and told me later on that 7…a6 8. Qf3! (a resource not seen by Pruess but known to his opponent) is strong.  Computer power! Nevertheless, 8. Qf3 Nd5 9. Nxd5 exd5 10. Nc3 Bb4! and black can fight on with a worse, but defensible, position.  What did we learn?  Not much, except that black in this game was successful with the early brinkmanship!

7…Nd5 8.Nxd5 exd5 9.Nf5? A big lemon.  White must have miscalculated something.

After the strong 9. Nb5! white can still fight for an edge.  9…Bxe3 10. fxe3 Qxe3+? 11. Qe2 is terrible for black. He loses after, e.g., 11…Qxe2+ 12. Bxe2 Na6 13. Nd6+ Ke7 14. O-O Rf8 15. Nf5+ and wins.  Needless to say, taking on e3 is not forced. 10..O-O 11. Qd4! leaves white with an edge but again black can defend.   Another example line:  9. Nb5! O-O 10. Bxc5 Qxc5 11. Qd2 a6 12. Nd6 Nc6 13. O-O-O with a white plus.

Qxb2 10.Nxg7 At this stage, it was impossible to realize the computer recommendation of 10. Bd4 is stronger with equal chances.

Kd8 11.Bg5+? The real losing move.  White must have been totally disoriented and thinking about earlier missed chances. After this white is just dead.  11. Be2 Bxe3 12. fxe3 and white can play that position and have good prospects to draw.  11. Be2 Bb4+? is bad: 12. Kf1 and black can’t take on e5 due to Bd4.

Kc7 12.Bf4  Qc3+ A lethal intermediate check well known to Sveshnikov lovers, this occurs in many early Be6 lines of the Sveshnikov forcing white to do acrobatics.

13.Bd2 The problem is that 13. Ke2 Qc4+ 14. Kf3 Qe4+ 15. Kg3 Bxf2+!  wins.

13…Qxe5 14.Be2 Qxg7 15.O-O d6 16.Bf3 Be6 17.c4 dxc4 18.Qa4 Nd7 19.Qb5 Rab8 20.Ba5 b6 21.Qc6 Kd8 22.Rad1 bxa5 0-1

So this dubious variation is marginally playable and in the game above, even netted black a quick victory!  It seems a little unjust.

GM Alejandro Ramirez (center) recycles girls

Carlos Ruiz Zafón, el gran escritor barcelonés, que reside a los Estados Unidos tiene la siguiente opinión del ajedrez en la siguiente novela:

Ian observó su amigo desde el patio del Palacio y decidió de permitirle que disfrutara de uno de los últimos retiros espirituales; mientras tanto, él volvió a la tarea con qué había estado ocupando su tiempo y el de la Sheere a lo largo de la última hora: mirar de explicar a la chica los fundamentos del juego del ajedrez, usando un juego que tenía la Chowbar Society en su sede. Las piezas estaban reservadas para los campeonatos anuales, que se celebraban en diciembre y que eran ganados invariablemente por la Isobel, con una superioridad que era casi insultante.

-Hay dos teorías respecto de la estrategia del ejedrez -explicó Ian-. En realidad, hay millares, pero sólo dos realmente cuentan. La primera dice que la llave del juego recae en la segunda hilera de piezas: rey, caballo, torre, reina, etc. Según esta teoría, los peones no son más que piezas que hace falta sacrificar mientras se desarrolla la táctica. La segunda teoría, en cambio, defiende que los peones pueden y deben ser las piezas de ataque más efectivas y que una estrategia inteligente los ha de emplear de esta manera si se quiere salir victorioso. A mí, si debo de ser franco, no me funcionan ninguna de las dos teorías, pero Isobel es una ferviente defensora de la segunda.

La mención de su compañera le llevó de nuevo al pensamiento i la inquietud respecto a su paradero. Sheere advirtió su expresión perdida y lo rescató con una nueva cuestión respecto del juego.

-Cuál es la diferencia entre táctica y estrategia? -preguntó-. Es una cuestión puramente técnica? Ian calibró la pregunta de la Sheere y sospechó que no tenía respuesta.

-Es una diferencia literaria, no real -afirmó la voz de Ben desde las alturas-. La táctica es el conjunto de pequeños pasos que haces por llegar a algún lugar. La estrategia son los pasos que haces cuando ya no puedes ir a ninguna parte.

Sheere levantó la mirada y sonrió a en Ben.

-Juegas a ajedrez, Ben? -preguntó Sheere. Ben no respondió.

-Bien odia al ajedrez -explicó Ian-. Según él, es la segunda forma más inútil de derrochar la inteligència humana.

-Y cual es la primera? -preguntó la Sheere, divertida.

-La filosofía -respondió Sheere, divertida.

-La filosofía -respondió Ben desde su atalaya.

-Ben dixit -sentenciado Ian-. Por qué no bajas ya, Ben? Los otros deben estar a punto de llegar.

-Me esperaré -dijo Ben, volviendo a su lugar entre las nubes.

Ben no bajó hasta media hora más tarde, cuando Ian estaba embrancado en la explicación del salto del caballo y en Roshan y en Siraj aparecieron por la Puerta del Palacio de la Medianoche.

Desde el pasado sábado 5 de Junio hasta la tarde del lunes 7, se ha disputado la 8ª Ronda del Campeonato Individual Absoluto de Ajedrez de  La Gomera,  que otra vez nos ha dejado otra vez sorpresas, además de muchas partidas bien luchadas.

No obstante, seguimos con un líder en solitario,  pero esta vez no es Vicente Padilla Méndez,  sino el Veterano Reinhartd Pietjohn, monitor de Valle Gran Rey,  pues ganó en la primera mesa. Vicente planteó la Defensa india de Dama con negras frente a un sistema irregular de doble fiancheto de Reinhartd, e incluso entrando en el medio juego tenía ligera ventaja, pero después de que Vicente hiciera algunas jugadas dudosas seguidas, quizás por tensión nerviosa y sin plan, favoreció a que el blanco lanzara un ataque muy fulminante contra el flanco de rey.

En la Mesa 2,  se vieron las caras el fuerte jugador local Sergio Aguilar frente al número 1 del ranking,  Pedro Machín que protagonizaron una aguda lucha en el medio juego, donde Sergio al sacrificar un peón se queda con mucha actividad, después de que el negro planteara un Defensa Francesa.  Pero Machín se defiende muy bien, haciendo casi 10 jugadas únicas y se queda en un final con peón de más, que le da la victoria tras un cambio dudoso de torre del blanco. Descargar la partida.

En la mesa 4,   el niño promesa local Severo Arteaga logró hacer unas tablas meritorias frente al fuerte jugador local Carlos Castilla;  que a pesar de llegar a un final con peón de menos, consiguió una posición teórica de tablas.

En la Mesa 5, el monitor de Playa Santiago Marcel Baartz se enfrentó al Veterano Antonio Vera.  Jugaron una correcta partida hasta entrar en un final con ligera ventaja blanca, pero Marcel como favorito y  después de rechazar las tablas, comete un error garrafal unas 5 jugadas después, que Antonio lo aprovecha muy bien, rematándolo en una bonita red de mate.

En la Mesa 6,  libraron otra lucha el Veterano Juan Pelegrino frente al táctico Miguel Chico , esta vez el jugador con blancas tomó muy rápido la iniciativa, pues Miguel hizo jugadas de espera en la apertura;  pero tras entrar en el campo de batalla,  Miguel tumba tenazmente a Juan tras varios cambios de piezas.

Destacar también otras muchas partidas muy interesantes como las de Alfredo Herrera frente a Gonzalo Castilla y la de la fémina Eva Wolf contra Jose Misael Díaz; con resultados de tablas muy luchadas.  Además,  la victoria del joven Alexander Ebert de Hermigua frente a la joven con talento  de Vallehermoso,  Angélica Moreno Mesa.

En cuanto a la Clasificación general,  el monitor Reinhardt Piepjohn es el nuevo líder en solitario con 7 puntos, pero le siguen muy cerca Vicente Padilla y Pedro Machín con 6,5 puntos;  y luego los veteranos Rafael Cernuda y Antonio Vera, con  6 puntos.
El próximo sábado se celebrará la última  Ronda, donde puede ocurrir de todo, dependiendo principalmente de lo que haga Rafael Cernuda contra Reinhardt.

En caso de empate entre los 3 primeros puestos, el sistema de desempate será por un match cerrado de doble vuelta a 10 minutos a finísh por jugador.  Los demás puestos de la clasificación serán por los sistemas de desempate habituales.

Recordar el enlace de Chess-Results.com:  http://www.chess-results.com/tnr32894.aspx?ix=1&art=2&rd=2&lan=2&flag=30&m=-1&wi=1000&turdet=YES o  en la página del mundillo del Ajedrez en La Gomera: http://ajedrezlagomera.blogspot.com/

Se adjuntan  varias partidas del torneo hasta la ronda 6,  que poco a poco las está pasando el colaborador Marcel Baartz.

Descargar partidas

Espero que disfruten de las crónicas y hasta la próxima y última jornada, que ya nos dará un Campeón absoluto de La Gomera, después de un largo torneo lleno de sorpresas y resultados inesperados, pues el Ajedrez es como la vida misma; nunca se sabe.

The battle for the FIDE Presidency took another lurch towards chaos on Thursday when FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov announced he was suing Presidential Candidate Anatoly Karpov. Meanwhile, the Ilyumzhinov campaign has just declared its ticket and claimed the support of 35 countries, including… Russia. An update on the latest political developments.

By Colin McGourty

Ilyumzhinov takes Karpov to court

In an on-line interview with Gazeta.ru, Ilyumzhinov said that the case against Karpov was being brought by the FIDE Presidential Council before courts in Moscow (where Karpov is resident), an international court (where FIDE is registered) and the FIDE Ethics Commission. The charge is libel for Karpov’s alleged comments about corruption in FIDE, a topic that was already covered three weeks ago in an article by Arne (and see Mig Greengard’s comments below it). The legal case looks weak, and Mark Crowther may well be correct when he writes at TWIC that it seems “a completely empty threat”. Perhaps that explains why in the interview Ilyumzhinov focussed on the less newsworthy Ethics Commission. A court case might drag on and damage both candidates, but could the Ethics Commission come to a quick ruling that would exclude Karpov from running in the election?

Legal threats are, however, a double-edged sword. In the same interview Ilyumzhinov responded to the question of why Karpov and Kasparov have united against him:

“They need the financial and political resources of FIDE. 15 years ago they did everything they could so that FIDE wouldn’t be united. Now, when FIDE is a prosperous international organisation in a financial sense, and has great political authority, they need a platform for their ambitions. As chess players they’ve exhausted themselves, people have begun to forget about them and with their inadequate declarations they’re trying to draw attention to themselves again.”

Setting aside the dubious content, the above echoes earlier statements by Chairman of the Supervisory Board of the Russian Chess Federation Arkadij Dvorkovich which provoked Karpov to respond with an official letter on his campaign website: “It is ironic that Mr. Dvorkovich libels me as pursuing the presidency of FIDE for improper purposes”.

Makropoulos: ‘Only dirt’

FIDE Deputy President Georgios Makropoulos, if anything, went even further in an interview a few days ago. He says only “dirt” is coming from Karpov, that he “doesn’t like to work”, that, “Gary can write a programme for Anatoly. But Anatoly himself can’t”. Kasparov is exploiting the campaign for his own political ends and, to cap it all, “Karpov is being used as a Trojan horse”, according to Makropoulos, in order to end the one-country, one-vote system (the “logic” seems to be that Russia already has great influence now despite only having one vote). Another almost surreal example of the depths to which the campaign has sunk came in an interview Karpov gave to argumenti.ru:

“Interviewer: They’ve started to say all sorts of things about you. In particular there are hints about a homosexual tie to the current President of the chess federation, Alexander Bakh. What do you have to say to your opponents? Are you going to sue?

Karpov: Thanks for the revelation. It’ll really help me to establish better ties with the mayors of the largest cities: Paris, London, Berlin (laughs). But of course I won’t sue. In my time I’ve heard so much, they’ve thrown so much dirt, that I understood that it’s better not to pay attention.”

New vote!?

Of course as well as libel, Karpov’s camp have accused Dvorkovich and others of much more serious offences. A continually developing story revolves around claims that some of the delegates who supported Karpov’s nomination at the Russian Chess Federation meeting last month failed to represent the wishes of their local organisations. The official website now has a colourful map of Russia with links below it to signed letters that together are meant to demonstrate that Ilyumzhinov really is the “people’s choice”. A new council may well vote to nominate Ilyumzhinov. In the argumenti.ru interview mentioned above Karpov commented on that situation:

“Now they’re trying to twist the arms of certain members of the council in the regions. They demand that they rethink their positions. They threaten them with dismissal, repression and even physical violence. I never thought that I’d live to see such fighting in chess. The most peaceful of games is living in a state of war.”

Still, perhaps it’s worth taking a step back from these recriminations to try and assess the current campaign on the level of ideas and normal debate. The following comparison pays particular attention to the opinions of well-known GMs, as well as comments on Russian chess forums (where the debate has been fiercest):

Ilyumzhinov:

Pros: Although enthusiastic voices are few and far between (his campaign website even chooses to quote GM Alexander Khalifman’s: “But, I think that the criticism addressed to the incumbent President is deserved”), Ilyumzhinov’s FIDE finally has a unified World Champion and runs a regular series of events. GM Vassily Ivanchuk was quoted in Odessa as saying that the life of a chess professional has improved during Ilyumzhinov’s reign. Khalifman notes that if required Ilyumzhinov, “reaches in his own pocket”.

Cons: The question of finance works both ways. Should a reputable international organisation have a president who, in the interview where he announced suing Karpov, also boasted: “For 15 years I was his sponsor. I personally set aside a few million American dollars from my fund and the money of my businessmen friends…”? Major sponsors may be wary of becoming involved with Ilyumzhinov, even if they do not credit, for instance, the accusations of the Jabloko political party, who said that the nomination of Ilyumzhinov brought shame on Russia (they refer to the murder of the Kalmykia opposition journalist, Larisa Yudina). Apart from these serious issues, Ilyumzhinov has also lately become something of a figure of fun. In the same interview, instead of laughing off his alien comments, he addressed the topic in total seriousness, adding:

“When the American astronaut Armstrong set down on the Moon his first phrase was: they’re here. Later they concealed it (…) For the first time I’m officially declaring: I don’t work for any alien intelligence.”

Despite the above, Ilyumzhinov himself is perhaps not even the main issue. Chess players seem almost unanimously united against Ilyumzhinov’s team, with Makropoulos (now confirmed on the new ticket), the focus of much anger for his alleged contempt for grandmasters and his handling of chess finances. In a recent Russian radio interview on poker, Grischuk said he had no enthusiasm for either candidate but would, if forced, come down in favour of Ilyumzhinov. But he mentioned that he could only ever actually support Ilyumzhinov if Makropoulos and others were removed from the ticket.

Karpov:

Pros: Sponsors and political figures should be happy to be seen meeting a former world champion, and the support of Carlsen and Kasparov is a great international PR success. He offers at least the prospect of change, and should be able to bring the perspective of a player to bear on chess organisation.

Cons: For now his programme, ticket and potential sponsors remain a mystery (Khalifman calls his campaign “words, words, words”), with some sub-elite grandmasters worried that the money the World Cup and similar knockout events provided will disappear. Also, although his self-destructive tendencies in interviews are no match for Ilyumzhinov, Shipov and others have noted his tendency to go overboard on self-promotion when mentioning e.g. his medals from Yeltsin and Putin, or the extraordinary number of schools in his name. Though, at times, you perhaps want to cheer him on:

“But why should he (Dvorkovich) set any conditions? I’m the world of chess. If he wants to be in the world of chess then he has to respect world champions. And not only me, but also Kasparov and the other champions. Stalin once said to his minister of culture: “I don’t have any other writers for you!” Just as there are no other world champions for Dvorkovich.”

The other dominant issue has been Kasparov, whose involvement has provoked predictable questions about his motivation, and divided opinion. Karpov is adamant that politics are not involved, and that his condition for working with Kasparov was focussing solely on chess.  In fact, he even half-joked:

“I think that the authorities should be grateful to me: Kasparov has barely engaged in politics for three months now, and won’t until the end of September. He’s got no time, we’ve agreed to travel around different countries and promote chess!”

Which is a reminder that the FIDE elections are still three months away! Karpov’s team had an early lead, with only Turkey having come out in support of Ilyumzhinov at one point. In the interview mentioned above Makropoulos claimed that countries had adopted a waiting stance after Karpov persuaded them that Ilyumzhinov might not even be a candidate. That now seems to have changed, with the Ilyumzhinov campaign website claiming the support of 35 federations.

Ticket announced; more candidates!?

They have also announced their ticket. As well as confirming Makropoulos’ involvement the other name that perhaps stands out is that of Ignatius Leong as General Secretary. The Karpov campaign site had previously quoted Leong as saying that he would not stand beyond the current term…

Where does the campaign go from here? All that’s certain is that we can expect many more twists and turns in the coming months. One likelihood is that it’s all about to become even more complicated. In the same interview where Ilyumzhinov managed to mention libel, and aliens, and that Karpov was “his friend”, he also added:

“At present I know of two more candidates who want to come forward”.

— How to Win Miniatures in Chess to learn how to mate in 2, 3 and 4 moves in opening
— Elementary Chess Combinations to learn simple tactical methods
— Chess Combinations for Club Players to learn advanced tactical methods

— Chess: Simple Defense to learn how to defend your pieces from capturing
— Chess: Easy Ways of Taking Pawns and Pieces to learn how to capture the pieces
— Attack on the King I to learn how to attack the king in middlegame and mate in 2
— Attack on the King II to learn how to attack the king in middlegame and mate in 3 & 4

All courses cost €25.60 / $32.

Igor Khmelnitsky (col Nero) impegnato contro Alex Yermolinsky nella finale del Campionato USA 1996

Dopo un’assenza di ben sei anni dai tornei avevo deciso di riprendere gradualmente il gioco attivo soprattutto in vista delle modifiche apportate alla fase di qualificazione per la finale assoluta del Campionato USA. Infatti, a differenza delle precedenti edizioni in cui solo i top 14 o giù di lì maturavano di diritto l’ammissione alla più prestigiosa manifestazione scacchistica degli Stati Uniti, grazie a questa revisione qualunque giocatore meritevole poteva guadagnare coi propri risultati sul campo la partecipazione alla finalissima. Ovviamente mi sentivo alquanto arrugginito dato che la mia vera attività scacchistica era interamente dedicata alla crescita dei miei allievi e a qualche sporadica partitina lampo su Internet, cadenza 3 minuti a partita, nonchè ovviamente alla gestione del progetto online www.IamCoach.com. Ma per fortuna la ruggine accumulata non era tantissima e, senza neanche troppa fatica, son riuscito ad ottenere un discreto score di +1=4-2 contro i 7 GM con cui ho giocato e +2 contro i non-GM. In questa partita che vi vorrei presentare mi son trovato ad affrontare un vecchio amico le cui prime frequentazioni risalgono ai tempi dei nostri primi tornei giovanili in Ucraina. Ma sulla scacchiera questa è stata la nostra prima battaglia. Nel turno precedente  Avevo sconfitto il GM Ivanov e pertanto mi sentivo già abbastanza appagato in  qaunto a condizioni di spirito ma appena la partita ebbe inizio le cose cambiarono drasticamente: debbo dire che è stata vera guerra fino alla stretta di mano conclusiva.

IM Igor Khmelnitsky (2479) – GM Alexander Stripunsky (2542) ½-½

Seattle, US 2002 Championship

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Cc3 Ab4 4.Da4+ Cc6 5.Cf3 Ad7

[5...Cf6 6.Ce5 Ad7 7.Cxc6 Axc3+ 8.bxc3 Axc6 9.Da3 Ce4 = Paehtz 2450 - Dizdar 2500 1/2:1/2 (20) Halle 1987]

6.Db3 N

6.Qc2=

6…Cf6 7.Ad2 De7 8.a3 dxc4 9.Dxc4 Ad6 10.Cb5

Con lo scopo di ottenere la coppia degli Alfieri ed anche di aprire un varco per la Donna.  D’altro canto il Bianco non si può dire che appaia riluttante alla “perdita” del suo Alfiere “cattivo” in d2 in cambio del Cf6.

10…O-O 11.e3 Ce4 12.Ad3 Cxd2 13.Cxd2 Tac8

Il Nero si prepara a giocare per il controllo della colonna c, da aprire al più presto.

14.Dc2 g6 15.f4!

Posizione dopo 15.f4!

Cambio di rotta! Il Bianco cerca adesso di giocare contro il pericoloso Ad6 [15.Cxd6?! cxd6 16.Dd1 Tc7 e il Nero sta leggermente meglio!]

15…a6 16.Cc3 Ca7 17.Cde4 Ab5

Il Nero si disfa del suo Alfiere “cattivo”,  ma questo a scapito del suo Cavallo passivo e di una struttura pedonale indebolita

18.Cxb5 axb5 19.Cxd6 cxd6 20.Db3!?

Decisione alquanto difficile da prendere. Ero davvero soddisfatto della mia posizione dal punto di vista strategico,  tuttavia l’aggressiva e6-e5 ha un peso enorme. La mia decisione è quella di sacrificare un Pedone e di entrare in un mediogico complicato dove il mio Alfiere potesse rivelarsi più forte del Cavallo avversario. [20.Dd2 e5]

20…e5 21.fxe5

Il Bianco guadagna spazio

21…Dh4+ 22.g3 Dg5 23.Ae4

[23.exd6? Dxe3+ 24.Rf1 Df3+ 25.Rg1 Cc6]

23…dxe5 24.Axb7

[24.dxe5!? Ero ancora propenso a non deviare dal mio piano originale e a non prendere in considerazione questa interessante mossa! 24...Dxe5 [24...Cc6 25.O-O Dxe5 26.Ad5] 25.Ad5 Tce8 26.e4 Cc6 ÷ Il mio Re appare alquanto in bilico!]

24…Tc7 25.Ad5 exd4 26.O-O

[26.e4!? Tc1+ 27.Txc1 Dxc1+ 28.Dd1 Dxb2 oltrepassando il punto di non ritorno!! [28...De3+ 29.De2 Dc1+ 30.Dd1 De3+ =]]

26…dxe3!?

Posizione dopo 26...dxe3!?

Il Nero sceglie di non cambiare  le Donne. Alcuni finali che possono derivare sono favorevoli al Bianco a causa della superiorità dell’Alfiere sul Cavallo in posizioni aperte con strutture pedonali asimmetriche. Nondimeno in questo caso, per via della presenza sulla scacchiera ancora di tutte e quattro le Torri ed anche a causa della vulnerabilità dell’Alfiere in d5, la cattura della Donna in e3 appare oltremodo promettente! [26...Dxe3+!? 27.Dxe3 dxe3 28.Tae1 Te8 29.Tf4! La Torre punta alla casa b3 da dove attaccherebbe la casa b5, quella e3 e difenderebbe anche b2 [29.Tf3 Tce7 30.Rf1 e2+ 31.Rf2 Td8 µ] 29…Te5 30.Af3 Tc2 31.Tb4 ³ Cc6 32.Axc6 Txc6 33.Te2 Rg7 34.Tb3 Tce6 35.Rg2 h5 36.Rf3 =]

27.Tae1 Te7 28.Tf4

Per via della posizione passiva del Cavallo e del Pedone e3 sentivo di avere un compenso sufficiente.

28…Cc8

Il Nero cerca di portare in gioco il Cavallo. Per esempio via d6 da dove proteggerebbe i Pedoni deboli in b5 e in f7.  Tali Pedoni sembrano “avvelenati”. Quello in b5 a causa dell’inchiodatura. Quello in f7 per via della Donna Bianca “sovraffaticata” dal doppio compito di  attaccare il Pedone e3 e di dover contemporaneamente difendere l’Alfiere in d5.

29.Txe3!

Posizione dopo 29.Dxe3!

Be’, di fatto solo uno dei due Pedoni era davvero “avvelenato”! [29.Dxb5? Te5 30.Txf7 Txd5 [30...Txf7? 31.Axf7+ Rxf7 32.Dc4+ Rg7 33.Dxc8 ±] 31.Txf8+ Rxf8 -+]

29…Cd6

[29...Txe3? 30.Axf7+ +- L'intermedia! 30...Rg7 31.Dxe3 Txf7 32.Txf7+ Rxf7 33.Dxg5]

30.Txe7

La pressione sul Pedone arretrato f7 si fa via via maggiore [30.h4!? La transizione al finale appare promettente. Alfiere e Torre sono superiori a Cavallo e Torre.  Di contro il Nero ha del controgioco per via del Pedone debole in g5. 30...Txe3 31.hxg5 Txb3 32.Axb3 Tc8 [32...Te8?! 33.Tf6 Te1+ 34.Rf2 Tb1 35.Ad5 Txb2+ 36.Rf3 Cc4 37.Axf7+ Rg7 38.Ad5 ±] 33.Rg2 Tc5 34.Td4 Cc4]

30…Dxe7

La posizione si fa sbilanciata.  I Pezzi del Bianco sono senza dubbio in posizione attiva ed i Pedoni del Nero in b5 e f7 sono di fatto deboli. Tuttavia questo è compensato per il Nero dalla posizione esposta del Re Bianco. Infine l’Alfiere in d5 ha bisogno di supporto adeguato.

31.Db4 De3+ 32.Rg2 Cf5 33.Dxb5 Td8

Posizione dopo 33...Td8

A corto di tempo mi sfugge questa replica e la mia giocata per  giunta è alquanto fiacca. Mi son reso conto che il mio Re aveva una casa di fuga in h3 ma la combinazione mi è sfuggita lo stesso. Semplice “profilassi” e sarei rimasto con le prospettive migliori!

34.Aa2??

[34.Rh3! ±]

34…Td1? ±

[34...Td2+! Al mio avversario non sfugge la combinazione ma sottovaluta il finale di Donna e Cavallo contro Donna e Alfiere. 35.Rh3 Txh2+! 36.Rxh2 Dxg3+ 37.Rh1 Dxf4 38.De8+ Rg7 39.Dxf7+ Rh6 µ Pur con materiale pari, il Bianco appare senza speranza contro le minacce di matto del Nero così come di fronte all'attacco di Re e Pedoni. 40.Db7! Cg3+ [40...Ce3 41.Ag8 Df1+ 42.Rh2 Cg4+ 43.Rg3 Cf6 44.Ad5 Rg5 µ] 41.Rg2 Ce4 42.Db6 Rh5]

35.Rh3 Td2 36.Db8+ Rg7 37.Dc7

Difendendo la Torre in f4

37…Rh6 38.Txf5

[38.Axf7 De2! 39.Th4+ Rg5 [39...Cxh4?! 40.Df4+ Rg7 41.Ac4 Dxh2+ 42.Rg4 -+] 40.Df4+ Rf6 -+] [38.Dxf7 Txh2+ 39.Rxh2 Dxg3+ 40.Rh1 Dxf4 Cfr. sopra per 34...Td2+ e 35...Txh2]

38…gxf5 39.Dxf7

Posizione dopo 39.Dxf7

Il Nero deve ora forzare la patta

39…Txh2+ 40.Rxh2 De2+ ½-½

Il Re non riesce a sfuggire agli scacchi! Una partita davvero densa di emozioni e di capovolgimenti!

Scarica qui la partita in formato pgn

il MI Igor Khmelnitsky

Igor Khmelnitsky ha ottenuto il titolo di Maestro Internazionale nel 1990 a seguito della brillante vittoria nella prima edizione del Memorial Leonid Stein a Lvov, in Ucraina.
Igor ha vinto numerosi tornei in Russia, Bulgaria, Ucraina, Germania, Yugoslavia e negli Stati Uniti. Tra gli innumerevoli avversari sconfitti si annoverano nomi del calibro di: Alburt, Alterman, Aseev, Bologan, Brodsky, Golod, Golubev, Dimitry Gurevich, Dlugy, Michalchishin, Romanishin, Sveshnikov, Shabalov, Wolf, Yermolinsky e molti altri ancora.
Igor si dedica da tempo all’attività di trainer, campo nel quale è altamente apprezzato. Le sue prime esperienze di coach ad alto livello risalgono al 1986, anno in cui ha seguito la nazionale giovanile Ucraina. Diversi giocatori di quella squadra sono poi diventati Grandi Maestri di spicco nello scenario internazionale (tra essi Vassily Ivanchuk e Boris Alterman).
Dopo essersi trasferito negli Stati Uniti nel 1991, Khmelnitsky si è dedicato quasi esclusivamente a tempo pieno all’insegnamento, riuscendo a seguire, sia di persona che su Internet, allievi pressocché di ogni nazione del mondo e di ogni età e livello, dai principianti ai Maestri.
Il primo libro scritto da Igor “ESAME DI SCACCHI – Conoscere le proprie potenzialità e scoprire dove migliorare” è stato fin dalla pubblicazione un grande successo, salutato positivamente sia dalla critica che dai lettori. L’opera ha vinto nel 2005 il Cramer Award, premio assegnato dall’associazione dei giornalisti di scacchi americani al miglior libro dell’anno. Negli Stati Uniti è giunto alla quarta edizione ed è stato tradotto in Francia, in Italia ed in Russia!
Nel 2007, appare in libreria il secondo libro di Khmelnitsky nella serie “Esame di Scacchi”:  il titolo è: “Chess Exam and Training Guide: Tactics” (IamCoach Press), titolo anch’esso divenuto un immediato bestseller scacchistico e che speriamo presto di veder tradotto anche in italiano.
Nel 2009 un altro nuovo libro: “Chess Exam Matches against Chess Legends – You vs. Bobby Fischer” (IamCoach Press), testo nel quale ha presentato il suo innovativo approccio didattico in un nuovo formato tipo “match” in cui il lettore è chiamato a cimentarsi direttamente addirittura contro il leggendario Bobby Fischer.
Khmelnitsky ha anche contribuito, in qualità di coautore, alla stesura del bestseller “Masters of Success” di Ivan Mizner. E’ inoltre uno dei tre autori di “Teaching Chess Step by Step” il testo scolastico in tre volumi pubblicato nel 2006 dalla “Garry Kasparov’s Chess Foundation”.
Khmelnitsky ha inoltre scritto innumerevoli articoli e contributi pubblicati su numerose riviste internazionali di successo quali: Chess Informant, New in Chess, ChessBase, 64, Chess Life e Chess Today.
Igor segue direttamente i suoi due progetti internet dedicati agli scacchi: www.IamCoach.com e www.ChessExam.com.
Chi fosse interessato a contattarlo può farlo direttamente qui

Ejemplos Magistrales para ver y ejercitar.

En nuestro artículo Recursos Tácticos dimos un pantallazo sobre los mismos.

Como dijimos entonces, se trata de ejercitarse y divertirse a través de una serie de los ejercicios que vamos publicando.

La importancia de esto es ir asimilando distintos recursos e ideas.

La ejercitación no sólo aporta conocimiento sino que mejora la capacidad de cálculo.

Recordamos que un doble se produce cuando una sola pieza genera un ataque simultáneo contra dos piezas (o más). La amenaza por tanto es doble y es complejo de resolver ambas al mismo tiempo.

Esta batería de Recursos Tácticos está dedicada a Doble de Peón.

Las posiciones fueron seleccionadas de la práctica magistral y no necesariamente son ganadoras. En algún caso no se concreta el doble de peón, sino que la jugada basa su fuerza en la amenaza del doble de peón. Como también dijimos, son recursos que alteran la posición ya sea para obtener ventaja, mejorarla o defenderse.

Doble de Peón - JUEGAN LAS BLANCAS

Posición de Ejemplo Zona de Ajedrez, 2010

JUEGAN LAS BLANCAS

La ventaja es clara y varias son las jugadas ganadoras. El Rey Negro está demasiado expuesto y los peones unidos y pasados dan muchas posibilidades. El recurso táctico es evidente y decisivo.

1.Ce4+ Rg6 2.d6 Dd8 3.dxe7 +- 1-0

Artículos relacionados

Recursos Tácticos Doble de Caballo 1/3
Recursos Tácticos: Doble de Caballo 2/3
Recursos Tácticos: Doble de Caballo 3/3

{iframe height="730"}visor3/problema.php?archivo=/tactica/DOBLE DE PEON-BASE COMPLETA.pgn{/iframe}

Loek van Wely won the Chicago Open tournament in Wheeling, Illinois. In the 9-round Swiss, the Dutch GM was the only player to score 7.5 points. Adams, Najer, Mikhalevski and Stocek ended shared second with 7 points. Interview with Van Wely added.

Loek van Wely in Chicago | Photo: Rose Homa

The 19th annual Chicago Open was held May 27-31 and organized by the Continental Chess Association. This year the organizers added two more rounds to their traditional 7-rounder, making norms possible.

The tournament was traditionally held during the Memorial Weekend. The rate of play in the Open Section was 2 hours for 40 moves plus another hour to finish the game.

For the different sections (besides the Open there was an Under 1000, Under Under 1300, Under 1500, Under 1700, Under 1900 and Under 2100) there was a US $100,000 unconditionally guaranteed prize fund.

The venue was the Westin Chicago North Shore Hotel in Wheeling, Illinois

Like in previous years, the tournament attracted several very strong grandmasters from the US and abroad. Besides US Championship participants Ben Finegold, Varuzhan Akobian, Aleksandr Lenderman, Melikset Khachiyan, Alex Yermolinsky, Samuel Shankland, Alexander Shabalov, Dmitry Gurevich and Jaan Ehlvest (who defended his title in Chicago), the tournament had for instance Michael Adams (England), Evgeny Najer (Russia), Victor Mikhalevski (Israel) and Jiri Stocek (Czech Republic) from abroad. One name we didn’t mention yet is that of Dutch GM Loek van Wely, who won the tournament with 7.5 points.

GM Loek van Wely (a pic from last year in Chicago) | Photo Chris Bird

Van Wely won after beating IM Sam Shankland in the final round, while Akobian, who went into the round tied with Van Wely and Shankland, lost to Adams.

Van Wely-Shankland

From the moment the move c4-c5 was possible tactically on move 15, the bishop on a7 had been out of the game. Now Van Wely decided the endgame with 28.Bxa6! bxa6 29.Nd4 Bd7 30.Bd6 and White was basically a piece up.

Adams-Akobian

Can you see how White won a pawn (and later the game)? Answer below in the game viewer.

Selection of games

Game viewer by ChessTempo

Links

• Tournament website
• Games in PGN via TWIC

Interview

We talked with Loek van Wely through Skype on Tuesday night (Dutch time; afternoon in the US), while he was at Chicago airport, on his way back to The Netherlands. He told us that he played Chicago together with his girlfriend Lorena Zepeda from El Salvador, who didn’t do bad either (5/9). Before Van Wely will play the Dutch Championship (June 10-20 in Eindhoven), he will first compete in the French team championship and travel to France together with Anish Giri (’I'm in the same team so I can be his driver!’), that other Dutchman who won a tournament this week.

When was your last victory at a big open?
“That must have been Foxwoods, in 2006. In the U.S. I won the World Open in Philadelphia in 1994, and the New York Open in 1996. The funny thing was that Mickey Adams played his last tournament in the States in New York in 1996, the one I also won. He said to me he was bringing me luck.”

That last round looked quite easy, but what were the more difficult moments in this tournament?
“Against Mulyar in round 3 was tough. We got this very sharp line from the Slav, from the Anand-Kramnik match, and at some point I deviated from what I intended to play. I won a piece, but then I saw that I had to simplify the position as quickly as possible. And the games against Yermo and Dmitry Gurevich were both very tricky.”

Does this mean you were also lucky, or do you feel you did play the best chess in Chicago?
“Well, in those games against Yermolinsky and Gurevich I was the one who was pushing. Against Yermo, for instance, I declined a draw offer and played an ending a pawn down. You always take some risks, you know. Against Gurevich it was very sharp, and I deliberately went for complications, based on some calculations. This means it can go well, or bad.”

“What’s the main difference between tournaments in the US and Europe, for you?
In Europe, with all these strong Russians, and with just one round a day, openings are much more important than over here. In the States it comes down to stamina, tactics, those kind of things. In Europe preparation plays a much bigger role.”

Does such a tournament, with 9 rounds in 5 days, suit you better?
“Well, I don’t know, I wouldn’t mind to play one game a day here, but for some players over here it’s a bigger problem. My physical condition is not bad, I would like to do a bit more sports, but I can’t complain. But for some players that’s different.”

And what about bringing your own chess set and clock, I cannot imagine that big names like you, or Mickey Adams, walk into the playing hall with a chess set under their arm?
“Well, you think wrong, mate! We do. Some people don’t, and hope that the opponent will bring material, but this means you might get into the situation that your opponent isn’t there yet, and you cannot press his clock.”

Does a victory like this make you want to play more often?
“Well, one victory doesn’t suddenly change the world, you know. And in fact I play more than you might think. After this I play the French team championship, then the Dutch championship, then a tournament in Norway, then Amsterdam, then the Spanish league and then the Olympiad.”

Yes, that’s a pretty tough schedule. What about the Olympiad team? I presume Anish will play, and…?
“Yes, Anish is in team, Jan Smeets is, and I am, for the moment. The other two spots will be clear after the Dutch Championship. But it comes down to the following, I believe: if Dimitri Reinderman doesn’t win, it will be Erwin l’Ami and Daniel Stellwagen by rating.”

On Facebook Anish teased you, that staying ahead of him was an extra motivation for you to win in Chicago. Is it still important to you to be the number one on the Dutch rating list?
“Let’s say it’s always good to keep Anish down as long as possible. ”

The World Cup is approaching. It will be the most highly-anticipated chess tournament in the world. No… I’m not confused. The 32 teams going to South Africa will be pitted against each other in four groups to determine the best of the best nations in football. However, one may see the similarities between chess and football. There are two determined opponents, an ebb-and-flow with beautiful tactical skirmishes and combinations.

The game called “soccer” in North America and “futbol” in Latin America is a game with 11 of the world’s highly-conditioned athletes moving about the “pitch” and engaging in offensive and defensive schemes. These setups are similar to openings and defenses we see in chess with some offering more attacking chances (4-4-2) and others allowing for better defense (3-4-3). (See soccer formations)

The teams assembled represent the best players in the world and the best each nation has to offer. No other sport can claim such a collection of stars spanning the globe. there is the dazzling speed of Argentina’s Lionel Messi, the creativity of Brazil’s Fabiano and the determination of Cote d’Ivoire’s Didier Drogba. These are three of the many marquee stars that will be showcased in the month-long tournament. The tournament will feature 32 teams with the following breakdown. Europe (13 teams), The Americas (8 teams), Africa (6 teams), Asia/Pacific (5 teams).

Unfortunately some of the key names will be missing in this tournament for a variety of reasons. High-octane stars such as Michael Ballack (Germany), Ronaldinho (Brazil), Ronaldo (Brazil), and Klaas Huntelaar (Netherlands) will be watching from home. Instead, fans will have Gervinho (Cote d’Ivoire), Luis Suarez (Uruguay) and the USA’s Landon Donovan to watch. It should be a strong showing!

The first matches will begin on June 11th and the final match for the World Cup will be in July 11th.

World Cup (FIFA)
Teams

De cómo Yorch (un aficionado) se plantó frente al GM Iván Salgado López y salió airoso.
Nuestro compañero Yorch (Manuel J. Pérez Lorenzo) comenta como un jugador del Club Ajedrez Postal puede jugar sin complejos ante quien se supone superior.
 Como todo jugador que quiere progresar en ajedrez y se respeta a si mismo, analiza su partida frente al GM Iván Salgado López. Como afirmaba Botvinik: “El jugador que no analiza las partidas propias no llegará a ningún lado.” Y Yorch lo hace con espíritu crítico, análisis serios, objetivos, claros y sin ocultar nada. Generosamente vuelca todo su proceso de pensamiento y trabajo y lo pone a disposición y consideración de los lectores. Esperamos que los lectores utilicen su propio espíritu crítico y metódicamente descubran y se aproximen a la verdad, para superar los errores y las insuficiencias en el juego; ya que esta es una de las principales fuerzas del progreso. Lamentablemente falta una de las voces, pero no es ni por decisión de la página ni por decisión de Yorch. Más allá de anécdotas, historias, caída de aguja o lo que fuese, Yorch debe estar orgulloso de su juego. Así que le cedemos la palabra y de tanto en tanto agregaremos algún comentario. Mi intención, a la hora de plantearme hacer el comentario de mi propia partida, no puede ser la de ofrecer una clase magistral de Ajedrez, ni mucho menos. Soy un buen aficionado, que ama el Ajedrez, y estudiarlo, pero que no tiene los conocimientos suficientes para abandonar esa categoría de “aficionado", y, ni siquiera, para poder realizar un comentario profundo de una partida; tarea que encaro por primera vez en mi vida. Sin embargo, sí que quiero hacer partícipes a todos los habitantes de Zona, del fruto de mi propio estudio (de libros y partidas) y de mis propias comeduras de coco, a lo largo de esta partida, que, a pesar de acabar abruptamente, me ha ofrecido una inmensa satisfacción. Ojalá le sirva a alguien de algo. Al ataque. (Yorch)

GM Iván Salgado -Yorch  [A90]
Ajedrez Postal Game Ajedrez Postal, 11.01.2010
Comentarios: Yorch

1.d4 e6 Los jugadores de Francesa suelen elegir esta jugada. Siempre recuerdo un comentario de Petrosian, respecto de su partida con Larsen en San Antonio 1972, tras 1.d4 e6 y que palabras más o menos, era así: "¿Qué es esto? Una invitación a la Francesa, incluso con 3.Cd2. No, a 2.e4 seguramente jugaría 2. ... c5 entrando en la Siciliana. Y a 2.c4? La Holandesa, Eso sería bueno para mi." [ Poco después de iniciada esta partida, tras 1...f5 Iván jugó 2.Ag5 Salgado Lopez,I (2584)-Iljushin,A (2551); Aeroflot Open-9th-A, Moscow (6), 2010 (1-0/27) que comentáramos en Aeroflot Open 2010 - Ronda 6 y es lo recomendado en Análisis del GM Viktor Moskalenko (luigi)]

2.c4 f5 ¿Por qué no la Holandesa? La Defensa Holandesa me parece una estructura que combina tres o cuatro características que la hacen muy interesante para el jugador de las Negras. Su nombre se debe al jugador y teórico holandés Elías Stein (1748-1812), que publicó un estudio sobre ella (lo digo, no porque no lo sepa ya todo el mundo, sino para demostrar que yo también lo sé). Es una estructura sólida (sobre todo si hablamos de la formación Stonewall), que, inmediatamente busca la ganancia de espacio en el Flanco de Rey, y que, además, lejos de ser pasiva, tiene un gran potencial de ataque sobre dicho Flanco de Rey Blanco. Por otro lado, bajo mi punto de vista, es lo suficientemente rica como para albergar distintas filosofías de juego, desde estructuras con d6 y b6, que se pueden emparentar con la Nimzoindia, hasta el Muro de Piedra, pasando por la magnífica Leningrado; y, una cosa todavía muy importante, pues quien domine la Holandesa puede perder el miedo a la incertidumbre sobre qué esquema cerrado utilizarán las Blancas: nos da igual, pues nuestro esquema servirá prácticamente para todos. Evidentemente, respondiendo 1. __, e6, las Negras tienen que ser jugadoras también de la Francesa. Pero, ¿dónde está el problema? En esta época de Petrovs y Sicilianas, la Francesa es un soplo de anti pensamiento único y “libertad estructural". Además, dicho sea con la modestia necesaria de quien solamente es un buen aficionado al Ajedrez, lejos de profesionales y maestros, creo que ofrece muy buenas posibilidades de ir a ganar, incluso en la “tablífera" Variante del Cambio. ¿Por qué responder 1. __, e6, en lugar de directamente f5? A título personal, puedo responder que porque, cuando yo juego 1. d4, y me enfrentan 1. __, f5, me gustan esquemas como 2. e4 (Gambito Staunton), 2. Cc3 y 2. Ag5, y, por lo tanto, no me gusta que me los hagan a mí. Pero si mi criterio no es -lógicamente- demasiado considerado, téngase en cuenta que, por ejemplo, Botvinnik prefería llegar de esta forma a la Holandesa, porque, al parecer, “temía" el Staunton, y no voy a ser yo quien tenga nada que decir al respecto. (Yorch) ¿Por qué Iván, siendo un muy buen jugador de Francesa, tanto con Blancas como con Negras, no jugó 2.e4? Será interesante ver como un GM juega contra la Holandesa. Hay un antecedente de Iván, con Negras, en la que se jugó el Gambito Staunton (1.d4 f5 2.e4). Este orden de jugadas lo impide y es común entre jugadores de Francesa, como Jussupow y Short, Radjabov o Dreev por ejemplo. Sin embargo, en los últimos años no hay partidas de jugadores de alto nivel planteando la Holandesa en partidas a ritmo normal. ¿Es entonces que, el GM, pensó como Petrosian y que Yorch no era Larsen? A veces esto es peligroso. (luigi)

3.g3 Cf6 4.Ag2 d5 Ciertamente, aquí parece aconsejarse demorar d5, jugando 4. __, c6. La idea de 4. __, c6, es “desmotivar" a las Blancas a jugar 5. Ch3, que podría ser respondido con 5. __, Ae7!, favoreciendo una estructura con d6 y e5, aprovechando que el Ch3 no controla la casilla e5, con lo que, además, se puede privar al Caballo Blanco de “su" casilla f4, amenazando con que quede de invitado durante muchos movimientos (p.e. Mils Michaelsen-Eckhard Schmittdiel, Bundesliga 1997/8, que siguió: 5. Ch3, Ae7!; 6. 0-0, 0-0; 7. Cd2, d6!; 8. b3, e5; 9. dxe5, dxe5; 10. Cf3, Dc7; 11. Ab2, Cg4!, defendiendo e5 por medios agresivos; y que terminó con victoria Negra en 36 jugadas). Sin embargo, en mi ánimo estaba, precisamente, jugar contra Ch3, porque considero que no es tan fiero el león como lo pintan. Una única cosa más, antes de seguir con la partida. Para aquéllos a quienes no les guste enfrentarse en la Holandesa contra un Ch3, recomiendo llegar a ella a través de los movimientos 1. d4, d5; 2. c4, c6; 3. Cf3, e6, y, un posterior 4.__, f5, planteando directamente un Stonewall que ya no se va a enfrentar al esquema Blanco con g3 y Ch3. (Yorch) Yorch define inmediatamente la ubicación del peón d. Crea tensión en el centro al entrar en contacto con el peón c Blanco. Hay que evaluar si en algún momento puede ser ventajoso para alguno de los jugadores el cambio. Hay muchos antecedentes y los jugadores mencionados la han jugado, como Agdestein que es un especialista en Holandesa. También Spassky, Korchnoi, Tal. (luigi)

5.Ch3 Tal y como decíamos, una vez la Negras han jugado directamente 4.__, d5, parece que no hay impedimento para que el Caballo salga por el extremo del Tablero. ¿Por qué tiene tantos adeptos esta jugada? Parece ser que por una confluencia de circunstancias. Por una parte, se entiende que el Caballo se encuentra muy bien situado en f4, a donde puede llegar sin dificultad desde h3; desde f4, toca e6 y d5, y molesta la casilla g6, si las Negras pretenden un h6 para buscar g5. Por otro lado, las Blancas se encuentran preparadas para cambiar en d6 el posible Alfil Negro ahí situado, sin tener que aceptar el doblaje de peones, Y, por fin, también parece que dificulta la llegada (o estancia) de un Caballo Negro a e4, puesto que tiene a mano la jugada f3. (Yorch)

5...c6 Ya tenemos el famoso Muro de Piedra, o Stonewall, que es, precisamente, lo que yo quería jugar: Stonewall contra formación Blanca con Ch3. (Yorch)

6.0-0 Ad6 Esto no tiene ningún misterio. En efecto, hoy en día se juega mucho más que Ae7. Mi intención era tratar de demostrar (o de comprobar) que el Caballo de Rey y el Alfil de Dama Blancos se pueden estorbar, poniendo en tela de juicio la estructura Blanca. (Yorch) 7.Af4

Lo usual y aparentemente el mejor plan de las Blancas. Plantea el cambio del Alfil “bueno" del Negro. (luigi)

7...Ae7 Tampoco nada novedoso. Ahora, se trata de demostrar si, en efecto, el Af4 estorba al Caballo de h3, atascando la posición Blanca. Véase cómo, además de por lo dicho, el que se muevan dos veces seguidas el Alfil Rey Negro, no puede verse como una pérdida de tiempo, porque, en todo caso, podría recuperarse más adelante, con un hipotético g5, que lo atacaría, a la vez que dejaría fuera de juego al Ch3. (Yorch). El Negro tiene su plan y su idea. La textual es la elección de estos tiempos. [Es posible 7...0-0 8.Dc2 ( 8.Axd6 Dxd6 9.Cd2 b6 ( 9...Ce4; 9...Ce4) 10.Tc1 Cbd7 11.b4 a5 = 1/2 Tunik, G (2505)-Gleizerov, E (2576); RUS-Ch, Krasnodar (1),2002.) 8...b6 ( 8...Ca6; 8...dxc4; 8...Ae7) 9.Tc1 ( 9.Cd2 Ab7 +/=; 9.Axd6 Dxd6 =) 9...Ae7 10.cxd5 cxd5 11.Cd2 Ad7 12.Ac7 De8 13.Cf4 Cc6 14.Ae5 Tc8 15.Dd1 Cg4 = Illescas Cordoba, M (2598)-Vaganian, R (2600); Casino Barcelona (7), 2007 (0-1/43) (luigi)]

8.Cd2 Db6

Soy jugador de Francesa, y ese movimiento de Dama me es conocido y, además, me gusta en esta posición. Me parecía un movimiento ágil, que ataca a la vez los Peones de b2 y d4; y, por otro lado, no me apetecía experimentar con las variantes que terminan con un Caballo Blanco en f3 y otro en f4, ni tampoco con el cambio en f4; situaciones que habitualmente vienen tras 8.__, 0-0. (Yorch) [Plausible espíritu. Interesante plan. Una jugada no común, sólo encontré 4 antecedentes. Un par del IM FIDE noruego Yvan Bern, varias veces representante Olímpico, GM de Ajedrez Postal y Campeón Mundial en el 17th WCh ICCF (Federación Internacional de Ajedrez Postal), celebrado entre 2002 y 2007. Los que han jugado la Francesa, conocen esta jugada. En este caso, las Negras posponen el 0-0 y amenazan los peone d y b. Sabemos los riesgos de sacar a pasear la Dama, los tiempos de desarrollo que se pierden en eso y la ventaja en desarrollo y espacio que puede representar para el Blanco. Sin embargo no es claro que el Negro tenga mejores caminos ni que el Blanco lo pueda aprovechar contundentemente en este tipo de posiciones. 8...0-0 9.Dc2 Ca6 10.Tfd1 h6 11.a3 g5 12.Ae5 Cg4! = Aleksandrov, A (2530)-Gleizerov, E (2525); Voskresensk 1993 (1-0/75) (luigi)]

9.cxd5 [Creo que es la mejor forma de afrontar el esquema Negro. De esta manera, se defienden los dos Peones. Podrían buscarse otras soluciones, pero no me disgustaban. Por ejemplo, con el sacrificio de un Peón: 9.Dc2 Dxd4 10.Ae3 1/2 Linna Asko-Bern, I (2592); Corr WCh-17th, 2002 10...De5 11.Af4 Dd4 12.Ae3 repitiendo jugadas y forzando las Tablas.; O, más bestia, con el sacrificio de dos Peones, como, en Yakovich-Bern, Bergen 2002: 9.Cb3 dxc4 10.Cd2 Dxd4 11.Dc2 Cd5 ( 11...b5) 12.Cxc4 Cxf4 ( 12...Dc5) 13.Cxf4 0-0 14.e4 Df6 15.e5 Dh6 16.Tad1 g5 17.Cd3 f4 18.Tfe1 Ca6 19.Cd6 Cc7 con juego complejo. (Yorch) Esta fue la elección del GM inglés Keith Arkell en la que parece ser la primera partida en que se jugó 8. ... Db6. Una de las posibilidades lógicas en la posición. Se abre la columna c. El Negro tiene varias posibilidades y su sufrido Ac8 tendrá más juego. (luigi)]

9...cxd5 [No es bueno 9...Cxd5 10.Cc4 Db4 11.Dc2 Cxf4 12.Cxf4 Ag5 13.Cd3 De7 14.e4 +/-; Si era posible 9...exd5 10.Cb3 a5 11.a3 0-0 12.Dc2 Cbd7= (luigi)]

10.Cb3 La jugada que salta a la vista, protege al mismo tiempo ambos peones (b2 y d4) . Acá se ve la diferencia con la variante principal 8. ... 0-0, ya que el Cd2 suele jugarse normalmente a f3. Puede decirse que ésto da sentido a la jugada 8. ... Db6 en lugar de 8. ... 0-0 No parecen mejores ni 10.e3 ni 10.Dc2 (luigi)

10...Ad7 [La “natural" 10...Cc6 no me gustaba. No parecía bueno que, tras esa jugada, el Peón de e6 quedara sin la protección de la Dama, y que tanto la columna “c", como la diagonal e8-h4 quedaran bloqueadas por el propio Caballo.; También pensé la posibilidad de 10...a5 pero tendrá que ser para otra vez. (Yorch); Las Negras tienen su propia idea. Veamos la partida antecedente, demostrativo de la solidez de la línea 10...Cc6 11.Ag5 0-0 12.Cf4 Ad6 13.Axf6 Txf6 14.e3 Ad7 15.Cd3 Cb4 16.Cdc5 Ab5 17.Te1 = Arkell,K (2442)-Shaw,D (2114); Winter Congress Wigan (4), 2001 (1-0/54); (luigi)]

11.Tc1 Entre las jugadas posibles, el Blanco elige la “natural" ocupación de la columna abierta. (luigi)

11...Ca6 Desde la anterior, ya vislumbré, más o menos, cómo iba a quedar el teatro de operaciones, con posibles Ab5 o Ab4, 0-0 y Tac8, y me gustaba. (Yorch)

12.Ag5 He de reconocer que esta jugada me sorprendió. ¿Yo había tenido razón? ¿Se estorbaban el Alfil y el Caballo Blancos? (Yorch) El Blanco planea la reorganización de sus piezas y mejorar su acción. (luigi)

12...0-0 [Ciertamente, me pensé seriamente 12...Rf7 sin embargo, no yo quería que mi Ae7 dejase de controlar c5, y sabía que, tras Rf7 Negro y un Cf4 Blanco, existía una posibilidad muy seria de romper mi estructura. Tras Rf7, aunque juegan Negras y no Blancas (y me faltaría un movimiento), veía que Axf6 tendría que ser contestado con Axf6, para evitar gxf6 o Rxf6?? (horrible jugada). Con 12. __, 0-0, pretendía responder al Axf6 Blanco con Txf6, antes que hacerlo con el Alfil y perder el control de c5. (Yorch); No creo que haya problemas en jugar 12...Rf7 13.Axf6 Axf6 14.Cf4 ( 14.Cc5?! Cxc5! 15.dxc5 ( 15.Txc5? Thc8 -/+) 15...Db5 16.Cf4 Tac8 =/+) 14...Thc8 15.Dd2 Aa4 16.Tc3 Txc3 17.bxc3 Tc8 = lo que no quiere decir que sea mejor que la efectuada en la partida. Lo que quiero resaltar es que el Negro tiene varias posibilidades y esto es indicativo de la corrección de su plan, la comprensión de la posición y su toma de decisiones es consecuencia de todo ello. (luigi)]

13.Cf4 Activa el Caballo. Ésta fue la idea de Ag5. Es bueno observar que el Alfil no tiene casillas de retroceso; por eso suele aconsejarse no jugar Ag5 habiendo hecho g3, salvo que la intención sea canjearlo. Esta es la valoración del Blanco cambiarlo si fuese necesario por el Cf6 y si fuese posible por el Ae7. (luigi)

13...Tac8 [Hay que pelear por la columna “c" y seguir metiendo presión sobre c5. Yo seguía con mi leit motiv: si a 13...Tac8 14.Txc8 Txc8, seguía manteniendo el control de c5, pese a Axf6 y Axf6.; Pensé como alternativa 13...Aa4 pero me pareció que 14.Tc3 solucionaba los posibles problemas Blancos: si luego venía 14...Tac8 parecía que las Negras estuvieran ayudando a las Blancas a mejorar su posición (y, si era 14...Ab4 tras 15.Te3 tampoco me gustaban las Negras. (Yorch)) ; Durante los análisis previos me parecía interesante, aunque complejo 13...h6 14.Axf6 Axf6 15.Dd2 ( tal vez mejor, aunque pacífica sea 15.e3 Rh7 16.Dc2 Tac8 17.Dd2 Ae7 18.Txc8 Txc8 19.Tc1 Txc1+ 20.Cxc1 g5 21.Cfd3 Cb4 =) 15...g5 16.Cg6 Tf7 17.h4 gxh4 18.Cxh4 Ag5 19.f4 Axh4 20.gxh4 Tg7 y no me disgusta la posición de las Negras, pero hay que animarse.; Lo primero que se me ocurrió y me parecía interesante, como dije en su momento, era 13...Aa4 14.Tc3 Ab4 15.Axf6 Txf6 16.Te3 Ad7 17.a3 Ad6 y hay un aparente y delicado equilibrio. No creo sea preferible a la jugada en la partida. (luigi)]

14.Ch5 Esto sí que me sorprendió, pero pensé: “tanto tiempo para reubicar Caballo y Alfil, ¿para ahora cambiarlos?". Ciertamente, pensé que algo debía de estar haciendo bien. (Yorch) Llamativa jugada. Aprovecha la indefensión el Ae7 y eso es un recurso táctico; planteando la posibilidad de cambiar ya no sólo Axf. No se veía nada muy interesante para el Negro. Podía haber cambiado directamente, podía haber jugado Dd3. Pero el Negro no tiene problermas, así que realiza una simplificación y tratará de generar una mayoría de peones en el Flanco Dama y explotar alguna debilidad estática del Negro (e3). (luigi)

14...Txc1 Yorch decide cambiar y parece correcto. Tiene la posibilidad de ocupar transitoriamente o no la columna c, seguir su plan y permitir los cambios al GM. El Negro debe estar satisfecho de la posición conseguida y sus posibilidades. El GM debe encontrar algún plan que desbarate los del Negro y eso implicaría asumir algunos riesgos. Marchamos hacia un pre-final y eliminadas varias piezas ver si hay chances de desnivelar. [ Ahora 14...Aa4 15.Tc3 Tc4 no da mucho y tiene varias intermedias para analizar. (luigi)]

15.Dxc1 Aa4 [ ¿Qué debía mover aquí? Creo que la Dama Blanca no está bien en c1, y, si hubiera jugado 15...Tc8 ayudaría a que la Dama dejara esa casilla, con lo que dejaría espacio a la Torre Blanca en c1 y, además, tendría que solucionar la posible rotura de Flanco de Rey con los cambios. Me decidí, por fin, por Aa4, y, prácticamente, forcé la continuación de la partida. La verdad es que vi hasta 18. Cc5, y me gustaba. (Yorch); La jugada esperada. Buen espíritu de Yorch. Creo que tras 15...Tc8 16.Db1 Aa4 17.Tc1 Txc1+ 18.Dxc1 Rf7 19.Cxf6 Axf6 20.Axf6 Rxf6 21.Dc8 ( 21.Cc5 Cxc5 22.dxc5 Db4 =) 21...Axb3 22.Df8+ Rg6 23.De8+ Rf6 24.Df8+ el Blanco no tiene mucho por hacer y puede optar por esta variante de tablas o seguir en una lucha estéril. (luigi)]

16.Axf6 [Es lo mismo 16.Cxf6+ Axf6 ( 16...gxf6 17.Ah6 +/=) 17.Axf6 Txf6 (luigi)]

16...Axf6 17.Cxf6+ Tal vez haya otros planes, pero seguramente este cambio es necesario. El Af6 apunta al d4 y a b2. No parece bueno dejar la pareja de Alfiles ni tendría mucho sentido el Ch5. (luigi)

17...Txf6 [Es posible 17...gxf6 pero no aporta mucho y obviamente la textual es lo lógico. (luigi)]

18.Cc5 Lo lógico era mover el Caballo y no permitir el cambio en b3. En esta casilla genera un cambio que da alguna chance. [No promete mucho 18.Cd2 Cb4 19.Cf3 Cxa2 20.Dc5 Dxc5 ( 20...Ac6) 21.dxc5 a5 22.Cd4 Cb4 23.Ta1 Ae8 24.Txa5 Cc6 y no se ve que las Blancas puedan llegar a mucho. (luigi)]

18...Cxc5 19.dxc5

[La verdad es que no me gustaba un Peón Blanco en c5, pero lo aceptaría si, a cambio, podía llevarme el botín de un Peón (¿?). Para la textual 19.dxc5 tenía pensado 19...Da6 y, tras la defensa (o el movimiento del e2), 20.Te1 hacer 20...Ab5 y tomar mi botín. Pero la vida no era tan bella: 21.Df4 impedía indirectamente tomar cualquiera de los dos Peones, y mi gozo en un pozo.; También luego de 19.dxc5 Da6 20.Af3 mis anteriores planes se derrumbaban y no tuve suficiente tiempo para seguir buscando soluciones (iba un poco apurado en ese movimiento). Si hubiera visto lo que aconseja Luigi en sus comentarios 20...Da5 21.a3 Dc7 22.De3 f4 23.Dd4 Ab5 24.Tc1 creo que lo hubiera hecho, pero no lo vi. La verdad es, que tras el shock de no haber visto a la primera la posibilidad de 21. Df4, tras el hipotético 20.__, Ab5, creo recordar que descarté totalmente 19. __, Da6. (Yorch); Las pequeñas posibilidades del Blanco necesitan de la Dama en el tablero. 19.Dxc5 Dxc5 20.dxc5 Ab5 deja a las Negras con una buena posición en la que el Blanco sólo puede aspirar a Tablas. (luigi)] Y jugué, 19...Db4 Tras esta jugada, ya se encontraba el plan que seguí después. (Yorch) Yorch tiene su idea y no está mal. No es esta jugada inferior a las referidas en el comentario anterior. (luigi)

20.a3 Lógica. Ahora el Negro debe mostrar su idea. De paso se prepara la cadena de peones con b4. (luigi)

20...Dd4 No es la única opción del Blanco. Aunque no se ve que sean mejores y si que no sean muy útiles. [ Desde luego no 20...Dc4?? 21.Dxc4 dxc4 22.Axb7 +- (luigi)]

21.e3 Vuelve a interrogar a la Dama. Pero también controla d4 y f4. De nuevo el Negro debe ubicar bien su Dama. [21.b4 f4 si bien no varía mucho el relativo equilibrio de la partida, al menos permite activar un poco a las Negras. (luigi)]

21...Dd3 Mi idea era mantener centralizada la Dama, y no tenerla “encerrada" en mi Flanco de Dama. Además, así, al menos de momento, paraba su juego en su Flanco de Dama, ante una situación en la que ya no estaba cómodo y en la no hubiera entrado si hubiera visto antes aquel hipotético 20. Df4. (Yorch)