Sandpoint Chess Tournament

Sandpoint, Idaho is a small community of less than 9000 residents that sits on the north end of Lake Pend Oreille. About thirty years ago, Lou Domanski, an A-Class chess player, moved there after retirement and developed some chess programs, including an annual chess tournament. Organized by Sandpoint Parks and Recreation, the event draws 20-50 chess players of all ages, an impressive turnout for a community this size.

In 2009, I was asked by a local who had been bringing his daughter to youth events that I ran in Spokane, whether I could run the event as Lou Domanski was no longer able to do so. It has become an event that I look forward to every April. A 75-90 minute drive from my home, depending on the weather, Sandpoint is a terrific community to visit.

I sometimes play in the event to reduce byes in the open section. One year, I played because I was looking for revenge after losing to Savanna the previous year. I had coached her a bit prior to her success as Idaho Girl's Co-Champion, which earned her a trip to Susan Polgar National Invitational for Girls, where she finished 9th. At the next event where we faced each other, she beat me again. The final moves of that game found their way into Forcing Checkmate (2017), which can be purchased through Amazon. For a few years as she finished school, Savanna regularly won the open section. I beat her the second time I played in the event, but lost to another player and still finished in 2nd place.

Coming back after two years without the event due to COVID, yesterday's event was small. There were five players registered for the open section, and fifteen in the other two. I opted to play so no one would get a bye. It gave us a round robin, albeit paired via Swiss System rules.

In the first round, I played the horrid 5...a6 from this position.

Black to move

My opponent punished the error and my position grew worse with further errors. However, when my opponent gave me a free piece with 15.Bxh7+, I clamored back into the game and eventually won.

Round two found me playing the risky and inaccurate 4.c3 in the Italian Two Knights

White to move

Play continued 4...d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.O-O Bg4 7.d4 e4?

White to move

After this error, I was able to take control of the game.

In round three, I gained a nice position from the Nimzo-Indian Defense and finished the game with a nice move here.

Black to move

Round four gave me an opportunity to show that Damiano's Gambit is a clear win for White, but I threw it away.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6?! 3.Nxe5 fxe5?

3...Qe7

4.Qh5+ Ke7 5.Qxe5+ Kf7 6.Bc4+ d5 7.Bxd5+ Kg6

White to move

8.Qg3+

This move is not best. 8.h4 presents Black with unsolvable difficulties.

8...Qg5 9.Qxc7 Ne7

White to move

This position was not new to me. I had it earlier this year in a rapid game on Lichess. It led to my only loss with Damiano's Gambit.

10.Qd6+??

From winning to equal. 10.h4 was the correct move.

10...Kh5

On Lichess, my opponent answered 10...Qf6, and after 11.e5??, I went from equal to losing.

11.e5 Bg6 12.Nc3??

Hunting for checkmate, I am blind.

12...Bxd6-+

I should have lost this game, but my opponent returned the gift of the queen three moves later.

My last round opponent is fairly new to active play and was eager for resources to develop his game. We had a nice conversation.

I quickly gained the upper hand with Black after the opening moves 1.e4 c5 2.Bc4 e6 3.h4 Nc6 4.c3 Nf6 5.Qe2 Be7 6.Nf3 d5

White to move

The annual Lou Domanski Chess Festival is friendly unrated competition that I run in accordance with USCF rules, sans clocks until the last 20 minutes of each one-hour round and no expectation of scorekeeping. Although my play was less than stellar, it was a good day. I enjoyed seeing again and playing some of the regulars at this event. It was a nice road trip, too. 

 

Botvinnik -- Capablanca, AVRO 1938

A Strategic Masterpiece

As one of the most important games from one of the strongest tournaments ever held, it makes sense that Botvinnik -- Capablanca, AVRO 1938 should be highly regarded. The game is deceptively simple, which leads some critics to dismiss it as not worthy of consideration as one of the greatest games ever played. However, it is historically significant--a watershed event in the development of professional chess. It is also a rich strategic masterpiece. Early in the game, both players adopted clear plans that were clear to their opponent. Mikhail Botvinnik's plans succeeded, while Jose R. Capablanca's plans proved too slow.

What accounts for the difference? Surely, Botvinnik did not calculate to the end to realize that his plans were superior. Was his success the result of home preparation? An interesting statement by an unsigned annotator appears at the end of the game in the ChessBase PowerBook database:

Capablanca's resignation, in my opinion, symbolized the end of an heroic era of chess titans, dominating the field with their natural genius. Since this historic moment the professional touch has played a more and more important role as an integral part of chess, the path to ultimate success.
ChessBase PowerBook*

This game is one of two that received a perfect score from the editors of The World's Greatest Chess Games (1998)--Graham Burgess, John Nunn, and John Emms. That was sufficient for me to include it on my list of ten candidates for the "Best Chess Game Ever Played." After last week's Spring Break Chess Camp, I decided to spend more time with these ten games.

Over the past several days, I have repeatedly gone through this game on my iPad and with select students. On Sunday, I sat at the table in front of a chess board and played through the game with Botvinnik's annotations in One Hundred Select Games (1960). Then, I read the annotations in Garry Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, Part II (2003); and in The World's Greatest Chess Games. I also watched videos by Kingscrusher, Jerry at ChessNetwork,  and A. J. Goldsby.

Botvinnik,Mikhail -- Capablanca,Jose Raul [E49]
AVRO Holland (11), 22.11.1938

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3

Lots of moves have been tried here, but this remains the most popular. Botvinnik's comment is interesting.

The Nimzo-Indian Defence is not to be refuted in this way, but recent practice has shown that it is doubtful whether there is any refutation.
Bovinnik, One Hundred Select Games, 154.

4...d5

Possibly dubious for reasons made clear in this game.

5.a3

5.Nge2 dxc4 6.a3 Ba5 7.Qa4+ c6 8.Qxc4 0–0 9.Ng3 Nbd7 10.f4 Nb6 11.Qd3 c5 12.dxc5 Qxd3 13.Bxd3 Bxc3+ 14.bxc3 Na4 and drawn in 33 moves. Euwe,M -- Capablanca,J, Amsterdam 1931.

5.Qa4+ Nc6 6.Nf3 0–0 7.Bd2 Bd7 8.Qc2 Re8 9.Rd1 Bd6 10.Bc1 a5 11.a3 a4 12.c5 Bf8 and White won in 57 moves. Eliskases,E -- Ragozin,V, Moscow 1936. One of the games that led to the name and principles of the Ragozin System.

5.Nf3 is the main line 5...0–0 6.Bd3 c5 7.0–0 Nc6 8.a3 Bxc3 9.bxc3 b6 10.a4 cxd4 11.cxd5 Qxd5 12.exd4 Bb7 13.Re1 Rfd8 and drawn in 42 moves, Alekhine,A -- Keres,P, Holland 1938. From the same tournament.

5...Bxc3+

5...Be7 is playable, but Black has given up a tempo to assist White's queenside expansion.

6.bxc3 c5

6...0–0 7.cxd5 exploits the inaccuracy of 4...d5.
6...c6.

7.cxd5 exd5

White has undoubled his pawns, casting doubt on the wisdom of 4...d5.

8.Bd3

8.f3 has become popular.
8.dxc5 was played in the previous game that reached this postion 8...0–0 9.Bd3 Nbd7 10.Ne2 Nxc5 11.Bb1 b6 and Black won in 52 movess, Landau,S -- Keres,P, Zandvoort 1936.

8...0–0 9.Ne2

When I was racing through this game quickly, this was the first move that caught my eye. As I began to understand this game, however, it became clear that this was a vital part of White's overall plan. Botvinnik understood the sort of position in which Philidor's famous advice was apropos. The knight must support and not impede the advance of the e- and f-pawns.

Black to move

Both players have clear middlegame plans rooted in their respective pawn majorities. White will expand in the center and kingside; Black will play on the queenside. In the ensuing battle, White's plan proves to be faster.

9...b6 10.0–0 Ba6 11.Bxa6

Giving up the bishop pair may seem odd, but this move gains a tempo or two.

11.Bc2 Botvinnik suggested that maybe he "should have" retreated the bishop (154), but it is worth noting that doing so did not work out so well for White two years earlier. 11...Nc6 12.Re1 Re8 13.f3 Rc8 14.dxc5 bxc5 15.Ng3 d4 16.exd4 cxd4 17.Rxe8+ Qxe8 18.cxd4 Nxd4 19.Ba4 Qe5 20.Rb1 Nd5 21.Bb2 Nc3 22.Bxc3 Rxc3 23.Kh1 h5 24.Bd7 Rd3 25.Qa4 Bb7 26.Ne4 Bxe4 27.fxe4 Nf3 0–1 Stahlberg,G (2531) -- Keres,P (2567), Bad Nauheim 1936.

11...Nxa6 12.Bb2?!

An inaccuracy, according to Botvinnik.

12.Qd3, provoking Qc8 was better.

12...Qd7!

Capablanca understands the light-squared battle ahead. This move also threatens penetration on the queenside.

13.a4

Necessary to prevent Qa4.

13...Rfe8?

"A surprising mistake for Capablanca to make" (Botvinnik, 155).

13...cxd4 14.cxd4 Rfc8 and Black is slightly better. "White would probably have sufficient resources available for his defence" (Botvinnik).

14.Qd3 c4? 15.Qc2

Black to move

Yellow, as in the game; or green (my suggestion)?

15...Nb8

Knowing how the game concluded makes it easier to find fault with Black's plan.

I like 15...Nc7 with the idea of employing the knight in defense.

16.Rae1! Nc6 17.Ng3 Na5 18.f3 Nb3 19.e4 Qxa4 20.e5 Nd7 21.Qf2 

21.f4? produces a useful tactics exercise

Black to move (analysis diagram)

21...Nbc5! 22.Qe2 Nd3 23.Rb1.

21...g6 22.f4 f5

Another exercise from this game. Does the student understand the strategic requirements of the position?

White to move

23.exf6

The only chance for an advantage.

23...Nxf6 24.f5 Rxe1 25.Rxe1 Re8

Yet another useful training position. I played out this position with a student on Monday. His 26.fxg6 presented some challenges at the rapid pace that we played. It does seem inferior to Botvinnik's move, however.

26.Re6! Rxe6 27.fxe6 Kg7 28.Qf4 Qe8 29.Qe5

29.Qc7+ has been suggested by several students, and appears to be as strong as Botvinnik's move in the game. 29...Kg8 30.Qe5 Kg7 31.Ba3.

Black to move

29...Qe7?

Botvinnik stated that this move was "inevitable" (156).

However, 29...h6 seems to be the best try. Burgess, et al. offer several detailed lines. I am presenting a fraction of these here with a few improvements made possible by stronger computers in the nearly twenty years since their book was published.

a) 30.Qc7+ Kg8 and the e-pawn needs protection, according to Burgess et al. Even so, Stockfish likes 31.Qd6 with a clear advantage for White.

b) 30.Ba3 Qd8 31.Qf4! is better than the suggestion in Burgess, et al. (31.Ne2) White seems to have the upper hand.

c) 30.Ne2 Na5 does not seem to lead to victory, as noted by Burgess, et al.

d) 30.h4 credited to Nunn in Burgess, et al. 30...Na5 31.Bc1! Qe7 32.Bg5

d1) 32...hxg5 is an important sideline that Burgess, et al. reject 33.hxg5 Nc6 34.gxf6+ Qxf6 35.Qxd5

After 35.Qxd5 (analysis diagram)

35...Ne7 seems to hold, according to Stockfish (Burgess, et al. have 35...Nd8)

d2) 32...Nc6 33.Bxf6+ Qxf6 34.Qxd5

After 34.Qxd5 (analysis diagram)

34...Nd8! (34...Qxh4 is suggested in Burgess, et al. It is the computer's third choice.) 35.Qd7+ Kf8 36.Qc8 and White seems to have a way to victory.

e) Stockfish likes 30.Qd6 30...Na5 31.Bc1 Nc6 32.Qc7+ Ne7 33.Qxa7+-.

Back to the game as played.

White to move

30.Ba3

The textbook deflection!

30...Qxa3

30...Qe8 31.Qc7+ Kg8 32.Be7 Kg7 33.Bd8+ Kf8 34.Bxf6+-.

31.Nh5+ gxh5 32.Qg5+ Kf8 33.Qxf6+ Kg8 34.e7 

34.Qf7+ also wins.

Black to move

For White's deflection to assure victory, he has to foresee this position and calculate to the point where Blaack runs out of checks.

34...Qc1+ 35.Kf2 Qc2+ 36.Kg3 Qd3+ 37.Kh4 Qe4+ 38.Kxh5 Qe2+ 39.Kh4 Qe4+

39...Qe1+ 40.g3 h5 41.Qg6+ Kh8 42.e8Q+

40.g4 Qe1+ 41.Kh5 1–0

Botvinnik won because his strategy was superior, and because he found the necessary tactics when they appeared on the board. This game is worthy of consideration as one of the best. Even so, Capablanca's surprising strategic errors in the late stages of the opening mar it somewhat.


*I suspect that whoever annotated this game for ChessBase MegaBase wrote these words, but I do not have MegaBase.

Playing Tired

Who thinks well when they are sleep deprived? I certainly do not.

This past week was the first of a two week event at the Spokane Chess Club. We are calling it Game 61, a dull name that has the merits of accurate description. The United States Chess Federation has several rating pools based on different time controls. I have a USCF standard rating--the important one--and also a correspondence rating, a quick rating, blitz, and even online blitz. If a game is less than fifteen minutes, it is blitz. Fifteen minutes to one hour per player is rapid. Longer than an hour is standard.

That seems simple enough, but the USCF complicates matters. Games longer than thirty minutes per player are also standard rated. Thus, games between thirty and sixty minutes are dual rated.

Some players refuse to play dual rated. I am one of these. There are exceptions. When I have been the highest rated player at the Spokane Chess Club, or nearly so, I have felt an obligation to play in certain events even when I did not like the time control. When I have played in dual rated events in the past ten years, I have done well. I played in four such events 2008-2010 and placed first in three of them. 2010 was the last time I played in a dual rated event.

My problem with dual rated is that I have several playing styles. My blitz and rapid style is often reckless. FM Jim Maki has called it "swashbuckling". In standard tournament games, however, I prefer a methodical, positional style that seeks the truth of the position. In a dual rated event, which one of my chess personalities needs to show up? It confuses me.

Using a time control of Game 61, we manage to avoid the dual rating, but at the same time the pace is fast enough that we can play two games in one night. Thus we can have a four round event that lasts only two weeks.

Unfortunately, this week was the beginning of Daylight Savings Time. That means sleep-deprivation for those of us whose bodies awake early without need of an alarm clock. Add to that my choice over the past few weeks to finish my first Kindle book, Essential Tactics (2017). The extra time in front of my computer, attending to the details of editing a book manuscript, gave me a stiff neck. The stiff neck left me with a serious headache on Wednesday afternoon, and I went to bed early. Thursday morning, I was wide awake at 3:15 am, instead of my usual 4:45 am.

Thursday night was rounds one and two of the Game 61. I opted to enter the event, play round one, take a round two bye, and hope that I would be better rested for the second week.

I was paired against Ted Baker in the first round. My rating is always substantially higher than Ted's, but he has beaten me a significant number of times. He is never an easy opponent. This time, however, I took care of business, and he never had a clear advantage. Rather, I won a pawn early in the game. He gained a slight initiative for the pawn, but not enough to cause me real trouble. Nonetheless, as the game neared the end, my ability to focus was declining.

Here is the end of the game.


Ted Baker (1437) -- James Stripes (1853) [E24]
Game 61 Gonzaga University (1), 16.03.2017

Black to move

After 21.f5

21...Qf6

Aftre 21...f6 Black's kingside pawn structure is the sort that Magnus Carlsen thought he could exploit in the game that proved to be one of Karjakin's best defensive efforts in the recent World Championship (see "Karjakin -- Carlsen 2016: Critical Positions"). In that game, however, the structure was White's queenside. Using the queen as a blockading piece provokes the voices in my head to begin speaking. I am being scolded by Aron Nimzovitch, who tells me that minor pieces blockade pawns better than queens.

22.Kh1 Rac8?

According to Stockfish, I had a one pawn advantage, but now it is gone.

I had several better choices:

22...Rfe8 seize the open file!
22...a5
22...a6
22...Bc6

23.g4

Ted had 23.Qa2 fork 23...a6 24.Qxd5 Bc6 25.Qb3.

23...Rc6

I knew that I was inviting further loss of tempi and the exchange of bishops. But, oblivious to White's manner of winning back the pawn, I was relatively unconcerned with White's threats on the queenside. This portion of the game reveals that I still have much work to do understanding my opponent's resources. Forced to defend against a pawn assault, I was insufficiently attentive to the greater mobility of the White pieces due to a space advantage. Although my position was not worse, as it had been in so many other recent games, I have squandered a clear advantage.

24.Bb5

Ted still had 24.Qa2!

a) 24...a6 25.Qxd5 Rc7
b) 24...Rd6 25.Qxa7
c) 24...Rc7 25.Qxa7 Rfc8

24...Rc7 25.Bxd7 Rxd7 

White to move

White's pieces are more mobile, but also his king might prove to be the more vulnerable.

26.Qg2 Re8 27.Rf3 Qg5

I would like to exchange some pieces because I am a pawn ahead.

27...a5 seemed to me a decoy effort without a clear purpose in the center.

28.Rcf1 Re3 29.f6!

Black to move

29...g6

29...Rxf3 30.Qxf3 Qxf6 31.Qxf6 gxf6 32.Rxf6 Kg7

30.Qh3 

30.Qg3 makes Black work harder 30...Rxf3 31.Rxf3 Rd8 (31...Qc1+ 32.Kg2 Qc2+ does not seem to offer much for me).

30...Rxf3 31.Qxf3 Rd6

I was satisfied that now my a-pawn might become a useful decoy for allowing me to eliminate White's f-pawn, and then my king would be secure on g7.

32.Kg2 Re6 33.h4

"I miscalculated, missing that the queen could go back." Ted Baker, after the game.

33...Qxh4 34.Qxd5

White planned 34.Rh1 missing 34...Qg5.

34...Qxg4+ 35.Kh1

Black to move

35...Re3

My mate is one threat can be stopped, but not without significant loss of material.

I considered 35...Re2 but for some reason the elementary checkmate sequence was eluding me. I knew that I was tired before the game began, which is why I arranged for a round two bye before entering the event. With enough sleep, I would have found the quickest and most precise win in this position.

36.Rf3 Qxf3+

After thirty seconds looking for the checkmate that I suspected was there, I decided that I didn't need to think about chess any more. When I'm tired, I become lazy.

After the game, we looked at 36...Re1+ 37.Kh2 Qg1+ (but we overlooked 37...Re2+ 38.Rf2 Rxf2+ 39.Kh1 Qd1#) 38.Kh3 Qh1+ 39.Kg4 Rg1+ 40.Kf4 Qh2+ 41.Ke4 Re1+ 42.Re3 (42.Kd3 Qe2#) 42...Qg2+ 43.Kd3 Rxe3+.

37.Qxf3 Rxf3 0–1

I squandered the advantage that I had earned in the early middlegame, but was helped by my opponent, who failed to find the route back to equality. When exhaustion gave way to laziness, my advantage was strong enough that it no longer mattered.

The Bishop Pair

This position arose in a game presented as master vs. amateur in The Road to Chess Mastery (1966) by Max Euwe and Walter Meiden.

White to move

How would you play this position as White? Why?

Lesson of the Week

Preparing for State

My students this week are seeing a position from a game played by Irina Krush. Advanced students are seeing the entire game, and many get to try their hand at playing the attack that she used to finish the game. I found the game on a video put on YouTube to advertise Krushing Attacks by U.S.. Women's Champion Irina Krush, sold by OnlineChessLessons.net. I bought the video.

I have been going through Krush's games looking for positions from which to create chess problems for a contest that will take place during the 2015 Washington State Elementary Chess Championship, for which I am the Event Director. Irina Krush will there. She will run a chess camp the day before the championship, and play a simul. During the championship, she will offer game analysis all day. Then she will play a a blindfold vote chess game against youth players at a reception that evening.

Krush,Irina -- Liete [E12]
New York Open, 1996

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 b6 5.Nf3

Krush points out in the video that she could have played 5.e4 here.

5...Bb7 6.Bg5 0–0 7.e3 d6 8.Bd3 Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 h6 10.Bh4 Nbd7 11.0–0 e5 12.Bf5 Qe8 13.Nd2 g6 14.Bd3

14.Bh3? g5 15.Bg3 g4 would be terrible for White.

14...Kg7 15.Rae1 Nh5 16.f4 f5 17.h3 e4

Krush suggests that 17...Qf7 is probably better.

18.Be2 Qe6 19.Kh2 Kh8 20.g4 Nhf6 21.gxf5 gxf5 22.Rg1 Rg8 23.Nb3 a5

23...c5 was worth considering.

24.d5 Qf7 25.Nd4 Nh7

25...Ne8 26.Ne6 Nc5 27.Qd1 Nxe6 28.Bh5 Qd7 29.Rxg8+ Kxg8 30.dxe6 Qxe6 31.Rg1++-.

26.Ne6 Nc5

White to move

This is the position that I present to all students. Some of them have found the correct move with a guidance.

27.Qd1!

Krush threatens both Bh5 and Qd4. Her move is clearly the strongest in the position.

27...Nf8

27...Nxe6 28.dxe6 Qxe6 29.Qd4+.

28.Bh5 Qd7 29.Qd4+ Kh7 30.Rxg8 Nfxe6

30...Kxg8 Some of my students have faltered playing from this position. 31.Rg1+ Kh7 32.Nxf8+ Rxf8 33.Bg6+ Kg8+-.

31.Qh8# 1–0

Anand -- Carlsen, Game 3

Mid-afternoon in Sochi, Russia is very early in the morning in Spokane, Washington, USA. I opted to sleep until my normal 6:00 am wake-up time this morning. When I awoke, Viswanathan Anand was in the midst of a long think after Magnus Carlsen's 24...Qd7.

Carlsen leads his World Championship Defense 1.5 - 0.5 as a consequence of his strong performance on Sunday.

It is clear that Anand prepared something against Carlsen's Nimzo-Indian Defense. He appears to have a good chance to even the score. As the official commentators, Peter Svidler and Sopiko Guramishvili, put it, I am "flying solo". That is, I am commenting on the games without tuning on any chess engines.

Anand,Viswanathan (2792) -- Carlsen,Magnus (2863) [D37]
WCC Sochi (3), 11.11.2014

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bf4 0–0 6.e3 Nbd7 7.c5

Anand played 7.a3 against Kramnik in Bonn 2008. Carlsen has lost the Black side of this position once, Nyback -- Carlsen, Dresden 2008.

7...c6 8.Bd3 b6 9.b4 a5 10.a3 Ba6

After Carlsen's 10...Ba6

11.Bxa6

Aronian and Karpov have both played this move.

11...Rxa6 12.b5 cxb5 13.c6 Qc8 14.c7 b4 15.Nb5 a4

Karpov -- Georgiev, Dubai 2002 continued 15...Ne4 and White went on to win in 50 moves.

16.Rc1 Ne4 17.Ng5 Ndf6 18.Nxe4 Nxe4 19.f3 Ra5

After Carlsen's 19...Ra5

20.fxe4

Aronian -- Adams, Bilbao 2013 continued 20.Qe2 and was drawn after 40 moves.

20...Rxb5 21.Qxa4 Ra5 22.Qc6 bxa3 23.exd5 Rxd5 24.Qxb6 Qd7

After Carlsen's 24...Qd7

25.0–0 Rc8 26.Rc6 g5 27.Bg3 Bb4!?

Anand is way ahead on the clock, but is taking his time to calculate matters. Svidler stated that 27...Bb4 was an interesting move that forces Anand to calculate. He went on to point out that Anand calculates extremely well.

After Carlsen's 27...Bb4

28.Ra1 Ba5 29.Qa6 Bxc7 30.Qc4 e5 31.Bxe5 Rxe5 32.dxe5 Qe7 33.e6 Kf8 34.Rc1 1-0

With a few seconds remaining, Carlsen resigned.

Anand started his comments during the press conference with reference to Aronian -- Adams.

Aronian,L (2795) - Adams,Mi (2753) [D37]
6th Final Masters Bilbao ESP (3.1), 09.10.2013

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bf4 0–0 6.e3 Nbd7 7.c5 c6 8.Bd3 b6 9.b4 a5 10.a3 Ba6 11.Bxa6 Rxa6 12.b5 cxb5 13.c6 Qc8 14.c7 b4 15.Nb5 a4 16.Rc1 Ne4 17.Ng5 Ndf6 18.Nxe4 Nxe4 19.f3 Ra5 20.Qe2 Qd7 21.fxe4 Rc8 22.exd5 exd5 23.axb4 Rxb5 24.0–0 Rxb4 25.Qa6 h6 26.Rc6 Bg5 27.Bxg5 hxg5 28.Rfc1 Rc4 29.R1xc4 dxc4 30.Qxb6 a3 31.Rxc4 a2 32.Qa5 Qe6 33.Qxa2 Rxc7 34.Qa8+ Kh7 35.Rxc7 Qxe3+ 36.Kf1 Qf4+ 37.Qf3 Qxc7 38.Qh5+ Kg8 39.Qxg5 Qc4+ 40.Kf2 Qxd4+ ½–½

A questioner during the press conference noted another game which had reached a similar position, but with a White pawn on h3. This move could have been played instead of Bd3. Peter Svidler also mentioned the game in his brief postgame recap. Here in that game:

Tomashevsky,Evgeny (2646) -- Riazantsev,Alexander (2656) [D37]
RUS-ch superfinal 61st Moscow (10), 14.10.2008

1.c4 e6 2.Nc3 d5 3.d4 Be7 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bf4 0–0 6.e3 Nbd7 7.c5 c6 8.h3 b6 9.b4 a5 10.a3 Ba6 11.Bxa6 Rxa6 12.b5 cxb5 13.c6 Qc8 14.c7 b4 15.Nb5 a4 16.Rc1 Ne4 17.Nd2 Ndf6 18.f3 Ra5 19.Nxe4 Nxe4 20.fxe4 Rxb5 21.Qxa4 Ra5 22.Qc6 bxa3 23.exd5 Rxd5 24.Qxb6 Qd7 25.0–0 Rc8 26.Rc6 h6 27.Rfc1 Kh7 28.Qa6 Rf5 29.Bd6 Bh4 30.Qxa3 Bf2+ 31.Kh1 Rd5 32.Bf4 f5 33.Qc3 Bh4 34.Rb6 Bg5 35.Be5 Bd8 36.Rb8 1–0

Opening Inaccuracy

Chess is so deep and varied that even on the sixth move in a familiar line, one can reach new positions. Yesterday, I had the Black side of a Nimzo-Indian Defense that transposed into a somewhat obscure line of the Queen's Gambit Declined.

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Nf3 d5

4...c5 is the normal move in the spirit of the Nimzo-Indian Defense.

5.Qa4 Nc6 6.e3

6.Bg5 is almost as popular and is given in the first four lines of the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings. It may be of interest that in Chess Informant 10/600 Vladimir Sokolov judged 6.Bg5 as dubious, suggesting 6.e3. Perhaps 6.e3 is slightly more accurate than 6.Bg5. Even so, both moves have been played often.

Black to move

6...O-O appears to be the normal move here. My 6...Bd7 is the second most popular choice. Zoltan Gyimesi is the highest rated player who has played 6...Bd7 and he lost that game in a queen ending with most of the pawns remaining on the board and a nearly locked position.

It is hard to blame the opening for that loss. Nonetheless, the scoring percentage differences between 6...O-O and 6...Bd7 seem significant. White scores 55.6% over 411 games after Black castles. In the 55 available games with 6...Bd7, White's score jumps to 68.2%.

In my game, my position quickly grew poor with terrible piece coordination. My position was lost until my opponent blundered an exchange that led to an ending where I had a rook against a knight. All the pawns eventually came off and the game was drawn.

Is 6...Bd7 an inaccuracy, perhaps even an error? I think so.

6...Bd7 forces White's queen to move a second time due to the threatened discovery. 6...O-O steps out of the pin. Perhaps the queen then has less purpose on a4 and will be compelled to move again when Black's bishop is no longer a target.

Why is it an error? Does the bishop have a better square? It may. In games where Black castles, the bishop often goes to d7, but sometimes it goes to e6 or f5. In a few games, it takes up a position on b7. The major problem with 6...Bd7 is that it wastes time. Pieces should be placed on their best squares when they move for the first time. It is not clear in the diagram position where this bishop will be best placed. It is clear, however, that Black will castle kingside.

Gelfand -- Aronian, Tata Steel 2014

In round seven of the Tata Steel Grandmaster tournament in Wijk aan Zee, Levon Aronian has Black against Boris Gelfand. So far, Gelfand has been having a poor tournament, although he seemed to have the advantage for a time yesterday against Anish Giri. Aronian is leading the event a full point ahead of Giri and Sergey Karjakin.

I am following Aronian's games live, but am not getting out of bed early enough in the morning to see them from the beginning. When I awoke this morning after sleeping in past 6:00 am, 25 moves had been played. As has been the pattern in this event, Aronian had a substantial lead on the clock and the position appeared to be one that calls for some subtle maneuvers.

Gelfand,Boris (2777) -- Aronian,Levon (2812) [D39]
Tata Steel Wijk aan Zee (7), 19.01.2014

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.Bg5 dxc4

Aronian last played this move against Shakhriyar Mamedyarov in 2006.

6.e4

Gelfand's move transposes to a position these two players have contested before.

Reference Game:
Gelfand,Boris (2733) -- Aronian,Levon (2754) [D39]
Nalchik FIDE GP Nalchik (9), 24.04.2009
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.e4 Bb4 6.Bg5 c5 7.Bxc4 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 Qa5 10.Bb5+ Bd7 11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.Bxd7+ Nxd7 13.0–0 a6 14.Rb1 Qc7 15.Qh5 Nc5 16.Rb4 Qe5 17.Qh4 Rd8 18.Nf3 Qxc3 19.e5 Rg8 20.Qxh7 Ke7 21.Rf4 f5 22.Qh4+ Ke8 23.g3 Ne4 24.Rxe4 fxe4 25.Qxe4 Rd5 26.Qf4 Qc2 27.Ng5 Qf5 28.Qxf5 exf5 29.Nh7 Rg6 30.Nf6+ Rxf6 31.exf6 Rd6 32.Re1+ Kf8 33.Re5 Rxf6 ½–½

6...b5 7.a4 c5

Aronian's last two moves have drawn this game into positions rarely seen. Gelfand used nearly two minutes for 7.a4 and nearly eight for the next move.

8.axb5 cxd4

White to move

9.Bxf6

Gelfand spent eighteen minutes on this move.

9...gxf6 10.Qxd4 Nd7

Here Aronian thought for four and one-half minutes, his first move that exceeded the increment. 10...Qxd4 had been played in Glek -- Sveshnikov 1983 and the game was drawn in fifteen moves.

11.Qxc4 Bc5 12.Be2 Bb7 13.0–0 Rc8 14.Qd3 Bb6 15.Na4 Nc5

White to move

16.Qxd8+ Rxd8 17.Nxc5

My initial impulse says to grab the bishop, but then White's doubled b-pawns are going nowhere. Gelfand chooses a dynamic route.

17...Bxc5 18.Rfc1 Bb6 19.Rc4 Ke7 20.Kf1 Rd6 21.e5 Rd5 22.exf6+ Kxf6 23.Rf4+ Ke7 24.Bc4 Rh5

White to move

The moves had been coming fast, but here Gelfand thought for six minutes, followed by another ten for the next two moves. Aronian used nearly twelve minutes for the next three moves.

25.h3 Rc8 26.b3 Bc7 27.Rxa7!? Bxf4 28.Rxb7+ Rc7

White to move

I like Gelfand's play here. The imbalances that he created seem to give Aronian no winning chances. But if Black gets sloppy, the White pawns will become a menace.

29.Rb6 Rd7 30.Ke2 Bd6 31.Ra6 Bb4 32.h4 Rc5 33.Ra8 Bc3 34.g3 h6 35.Bd3 Rcc7

White to move

36.Ra6 Rd6 37.Ra8 Bd4 38.Nxd4 Rxd4 39.Bc4 Rd8 40.Rxd8 Kxd8

The players have made the time control. Gelfand had been playing on the increment for the past few moves.

White to move

41.g4 1/2-1/2

Gelfand was in time pressure, but to my eyes his position was never worse. Indeed, he seemed to be the aggressor for a portion of the game. This game was the first to finish today.

Anand -- Carlsen 2013, Game 9

This was the correct choice. I have no regrets about that.
Viswanathan Anand, Press Conference

World Champion Viswanathan Anand went all out trying to checkmate Magnus Carlsen. There were some sharp lines that both players needed to calculate. In the end, Carlsen defended accurately and Anand may have missed a line where he could have saved a half-point. Carlsen needs one draw in the next three games. He has White tomorrow.

Anand,Viswanathan (2775) -- Carlsen,Magnus (2870) [E25]
FWCM 2013 Chennai (9), 21.11.2013

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 d5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 c5 7.cxd5 exd5 8.e3

Black to move

8...c4

This move was first played by Alberic O'Kelly against Victor Kortchnoi in 1954. The game was drawn. Eight years later, O'Kelly had the White side and lost.

8...O-O is the most popular line, but White scores well.
8...Qc7 scores well for Black, as does the line played by Carlsen

9.Ne2

This move was first played by Viktors Pupols.

9...Nc6

Reference Game:

9...Bf5 10.Nf4 0–0 11.g4 Bg6 12.h4 h6 13.Bg2 Bh7 14.0–0 Nc6 15.g5 hxg5 16.hxg5 Ne8 17.e4 Nc7 18.e5 b5 19.Qe1 Ne6 20.Qg3 Nxf4 21.Bxf4 a5 22.Kf2 Bg6 23.Rh1 Qe7 24.Rae1 f6 25.gxf6 1–0 Pupols,V -- Wang,A Seattle 1982.

10.g4

This pawn thrust was played on move 9 in O'Kelly's games.

10...0–0 11.Bg2 Na5 12.0–0 Nb3 13.Ra2 b5 

White to move

14.Ng3

Reference Game:

14.g5 Nd7 15.e4 Nb6 16.e5 Bf5 17.f4 Na4 18.Rf3 Bb1 19.Rc2 a5 20.Rh3 b4 21.Be3 Bxc2 22.Qxc2 g6 23.axb4 axb4 24.cxb4 Nb6 25.f5 Qd7 26.Ng3 Ra1+ 27.Bf1 Nc8 28.Rh6 Ne7 29.Qg2 Nxf5 30.Qh3 Rfa8 31.Rxh7 Kf8 32.Ne2 Nxe3 33.Qxe3 Qg4+ 34.Ng3 R8a2 35.e6 Rxf1+ 36.Kxf1 Qd1+ 37.Qe1 Qf3+ 0–1 Gardner,R (2202) -- Shabalov,A (2534) Calgary 2012.

14...a5

The game's novelty.

14...Bb7 was played in a short draw in 2011.
14...Re8 was played in a game on the Internet Chess Club that White won.

15.g5 Ne8 16.e4 Nxc1 17.Qxc1 Ra6 18.e5 Nc7 19.f4

19.Rb2 may have been considered.

Carlsen discussed the position after 19.f4 during the press conference. "There were an amazing number of complicated lines," he noted. He would have liked to play g6 and maneuver his knight to f5 to blockade the pawns. But, then White can build up pressure on the queenside. Consequently, Carlsen explained, "I had to go all out for counterplay."

19...b4 20.axb4 axb4 21.Rxa6 Nxa6

White to move

22.f5

22.cxb4 may lead to equality, but that is not Anand's intent.

22...b3 23.Qf4

"I wasn't sure what to do. As it happens, my moves weren't that complicated. I had to play the only moves all the time." Magnus Carlsen, Press Conference

23...Nc7

Anand said that he anticipated 23...Kh8 24.f6 g6 25.Qh4 b2 with the difference that after Rb1, Black has Qa5.

24.f6

Black to move

24...g6

24...gxf6 is an option, but "25.Nh5 looked very dangerous here" (Carlsen).

25.Qh4 Ne8 26.Qh6

26.Ne2 might have been possible.

In the press conference, Anand went through a line where he tried to explain what he missed while anticipating this moment from an earlier position, but his line is hard to follow because Carlsen's b-pawn disappears from the board.

Where's Carlsen's b-pawn?

It was the speed of Anand's analysis that was hard to follow. Note that White's knight, too, is missing. The pawn promoted and the queen was exchanged.

26...b2 27.Rf4 b1Q+

White to move

28.Nf1?

28.Bf1 Qd1 29.Rh4 Qh5 30.Nxh5 gxh5 31.Rxh5 (In the photo above, Anand was looking at 31.Bh3, and the problem is that Black has 31...Qb6) 31...Bf5 32.Bh3 Bg6 33.e6 Nxf6 34.gxf6 Qxf6 35.Re5 (the computer likes 35.Rf5 Qxe6 36.Rf1) 35...fxe6 36.Qe3 and White can hold. Carlsen showed this line in the press conference, stating that he and Anand had discussed it after the game.

28...Qe1 0–1

12th Soviet Championship: Smyslov

I am poring through the games of Vasily Smyslov from the beginning. My iPad has an old database of his games that I downloaded from Guenther Ossimitz's megasite several years ago. There are some available games missing from this database, and the game scores are not always reliable. ChessBase's newest database--I have Big Database 2011 (the full database without annotations)--is also missing some games. Some gaps can be filled by games from RUSBASE 1920-1994.

Smyslov emerged upon the chess scene on the eve of World War II when he won the national junior championship in 1938 and then tied for first in the Moscow Championship. In his first Soviet Championship, he placed third behind Andor Liliethal and Igor Bondarevsky. His games from that event concern me today. We start with his games as Black.

Isaak Boleslavsky missed an opportunity to maintain the advantage when he played 35.Kf1 from this position.

White to move


Smyslov's king appeared vulnerable after Peter Dubinin sacrificed material for an unsound attack. The attack failed, but Black's inaccurate 25...Rd8 let White escape with a draw.

Black to move


25...Qh1+ wins decisively.

Against Alexander Kotov, Smyslov invested a knight to remove a defender and win a pawn. Demonstrating fine technique, he systematically worked his isolated queen pawn towards promotion.

Black to move


18...Nxh2! 19.Bxh2 Nxd4

Vladimir Makogonov handed the young future World Champion his only loss in the event. Makogonov found the strong 24.Re5! from this position.

White to move


Smyslov's extra pawn was of no value against Vladas Mikenas after 51.Rg7 from this position.

White to move


Smyslov's Dragon prevailed over Vasily Panov's Yugoslav Attack. Of course, the name Yugoslav Attack, or Velimirovic variation, would not acquire that name until Dragoljub Velimirovic began playing it in the 1960s. After 22...Nd7, Panov's king strolled over to the kingside in search of security.

White to move


Later Smyslov sacrificed the exchange and a pawn to maintain pressure.

Black to move


The game ended 41...Qg3 42.Qe7 Rd2 43.Qe8+ Bf8.

White's defenses failed when Smyslov found 27...Nxf2! This victory came from one of his several efforts with the Nimzo-Indian Defense in this event. Iosif Rudakovsky defended well after this move, but when the smoke cleared, Black was two full pawns ahead. With three connected passed pawns on the kingside, pawns on both wings, and Black's bishop against a knight, there was no reason to make young Vasily grind it out.

Black to move


Smyslov gave endgame lessons to Mark Stolberg in this finish from a Caro-Kann.

Black to move


36... Kf5 37.Kc2 f6 38.Kd3 e5 39.Ra1 g4 40.fxg4+ hxg4 41.Ra2 Rc8 42.Nxa4 e4+ 43.Ke2 Rh8 44.Kf2 e3+ 45.Kg1 Rb8 46.Ra1 Nxa3 47.Nc5 Nb1 48.Na4 g3 49.hxg3 Kg4 50.Kf1 Kxg3 51.Ke2 f5 52.Ra2 f4 53.Kd3 Nd2 54.Nb2 Re8 55.Ra1 Kxg2 56.Re1 f3 0–1

This game is replayable on the Chess.com version of my blog.