Mechanic’ Institute Chess Club Newsletter #680
August 29, 2014
In a long match a player goes very deep into himself, like a diver. Then he comes up very fast. Every time, whether I win or if I lose, I am so depressed I want to die. I cannot get back in touch with other people. I want the other chess player. I miss him. Only after a year will the pain go away. A year.
—Boris Spassky, quoted in More Than a Game, 2009
1) Mechanics’ Institute Chess Club News
FIDE Master Andy Lee of Berkeley, who is seeking to win his third consecutive Tuesday Night Marathon, is tied for the lead after four rounds of the 86-player Jay Whitehead Memorial TNM. National Master Uyanga Byambaa of Oakland is also 4–0. It’s still possible to enter the nine-round event with 1½ points for the first four games.
|Black to move (Lee–Steger after 29 Bxh4)||Black to move (Lee–Steger after 42 Kh2)|
|White to move (Matz–Uzzaman after 16...Nd4)||White to move (Matz–Uzzaman after 23...Qxa4)|
|White to move (Matz–Uzzaman after 25...Qd7)||White to move (Klinetobe–Chalissery after 41...Kf5)|
|Black to move (Furukawa–Flores after 33 b3)||White to move (Allen–Rosenstein after 25...dxc4)|
|For the solutions, see the game scores for round 4.|
There were many hard fights in round four, including this one on board one:
C54 Giucco Piano 4 c3
Andy Lee (2361)–Alex Steger (2029)
Jay Whitehead TNM (4) 2014
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bb6 5.a4 a6 6.c3 Nf6 7.d3 d6 8.Nbd2 0–0 9.0–0 Ne7 10.d4 Ng6 11.dxe5 Nxe5 12.Nxe5 dxe5 13.Qb3 Ne8 14.Nf3 Nd6 15.Rd1 Bg4 16.Be2 Qf6 17.c4 Bxf3 18.Bxf3 Bd4 19.Rb1 b5 20.c5 Nc4 21.Rf1 Qg6 22.Qc2 c6 23.Be2 Rfd8 24.a5 h5?
24...Rd7 was solid and equal.
25.Rb3! h4 26.Rh3 Qf6 27.Rf3
27.Bxc4 bxc4 28.Qxc4 Rab8, and it is not easy for White to utilize his extra pawn.
27...Qe6 28.Bg5?! f6! 29.Bxh4?!
29.Bc1 was much safer, but not as interesting.
29...Nd2! wins the exchange without weakening Black’s king.
30.Bg3 Nd2 31.Rf5 Nxf1 32.Bxf1 Ra7 33.h4 g4?!
33...Rg7 looks more solid.
34.h5 Rg7 35.Be2 Rg5 36.Rxg5+
36.Bh4 Rxf5 37.exf5 Qd7 38.Bxg4 might be better.
36...fxg5 37.Qc1 Rd7 38.Qxg5+ Rg7 39.Qd8+ Kh7 40.Qa8 Qa2
40...Qb3 41.Kh1 (not 41.Kh2? Bxf2! or 41.Qxa6?? Qxg3) 41...Qxb4 42.Qc8 Qe1+ 43.Kh2 Qxe2 44.Qf5+ Kh6 (or 44...Kh8 45.Qf8+ Kh7 46.Qf5+) 45.Qf6+ Kh7 46.Qf5+ draws.
41.Bf1 Rf7 42.Kh2 Bxf2??
Black has played very well, but with the draw in sight he falters in time pressure. He would have split the point after 42...Rxf2 43.Qxc6 (43.Qb7+?? Qf7 winning) 43...Rxf1 44.Qg6+.
43.Bxe5 g3+ 44.Kh1 Rg7 45.Bxg7 Kxg7 46.Qxc6 1–0 Black lost on time.
Congratulations to Daniel Naroditsky. The 18-year-old Grandmaster from Foster City crossed the 2600 FIDE barrier by tying for third in the Riga Technical University Open last week.
Congratulations also go to Josiah Stearman, who became a USCF master a few weeks ahead of his tenth birthday.
2) Six-time US Champion Walter Browne Annotates
Queen’s Indian E15
Vignesh Panchanatham (2300 FIDE)-Walter Browne (2453 FIDE)
Best of the West 2014 (3) 2014
A very instructive game. I made conversion to a win much trickier than it should have been.
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.Qa4 Bb7 6.Bg2 c5 7.dxc5 Bxc5 8.0–0 0–0 9.Nc3 Be7 10.Rd1 Na6 11.Bf4 Nc5 12.Qc2 Qc8 13.Nb5
Interesting was 13.Rd4!? d5 14.Rc1 Nce4 15.Nxe4 dxe4 16.Ne5 h6 17.Rd2 Rd8 18.Rcd1 Rxd2 19.Rxd2 Bc5 with equal chances.
An importing alternative was 14.Nc7. After 14 Rb8 White can force a draw with 15.Nb5 but Black has two more ambitious tries that lead to complicated play with chances for both sides.
a) 14...g5 15.Be5 Nxf2!! 16.Nxa8 Nxd1 17.Nxb6 axb6 18.Rxd1 Bc5+ 19.Bd4 Bxf3 20.exf3 Bxd4+ 21.Rxd4 Qc5 22.Qf2 Rc8.
b) 14...Nxf2! 15.Kxf2 Ng4+ 16.Kg1 (16.Ke1? Bb4+ 17.Rd2 e5 18.Nxe5 Nxe5 19.Bxe5 Bxg2 20.Kf2 Bb7 21.Nxa8 Qc5+ 22.Bd4 Qh5 is clearly in Black’s favor) 16...Bc5+ 17.Nd4 e5 18.Bxb7 Qxb7 19.Nd5 Bxd4+ 20.Rxd4 exd4 21.Qe4 Kh8 22.Qf5 Ne3 23.Bxe3 dxe3 24.Nf6!.
Maybe better was 14...Bc5!? 15.e3 a6 16.Nd6 Nxd6 17.Bxd6 Be4 18.Qd2 Bxd6 19.Qxd6 Qb7 20.Ne1 Bxg2 21.Nxg2 Rfc8 22.b3 b5 23.c5 b4 with a slight advantage for Black.
15.Nd6? Bxd6 16.Bxd6 Nxd6 17.Rxd6 Qc5
Black already has a slight pull. 17...Bd5 18.Rxb6 Qc5 19.Rb3 Qxc4 20.Qxc4 Bxc4 21.Rc3 was equal.
Better was 18.Rdd1 b5 19.b3 Rfc8 20.Qd2 bxc4 21.bxc4 a5 (21...Qxc4 22.Ne5 Qc7 23.Rdc1=) 22.Rab1 Ba6 keeping Black’s advantage to a minimum.
19.Qa3!? Qxc4 20.Ne5 Qxe2 21.Bxd5 exd5 22.Nd3 Ne4 23.Rxb6 Qf3 24.Re1 Rfc8 25.Qb3 (25.Rxa6 Rab8 favors Black) 25...Nd2! 26.Ne5 Qxb3 27.axb3 f6 28.Rd1 fxe5 29.Rxd2 Rc6 30.Rb7 Rd6 and Black has a clear advantage.
19...exd5 20.cxd5 Rac8 21.Nd4
21.Qxa6 Ne4 22.e3 Qc2 23.Rf1 Qxb2 24.Nd4 Ra8 and 21.e3 Qc4 22.Qa3 Qxd5 23.Qxa6 Ra8 24.Qxb6 Rfb8 25.Qc7 Rxb2 26.Nd4 Qa5 are both in Black’s favor.
21...Qb4! was my original intention: 22.Rb1 Qc4!. I saw this, but I felt it a bit too complex, but 23.d6 Qxa2 24.e3 Rc5 clearly favors me.
22.Nf5 Qc2 23.Nd6 Rxe2 24.Qxa6 Rb8 25.Qa7 Rf8 26.Qxb6 Qxb2
26...Ng4!. Once again I saw this move, but felt I was winning without it. 27.Bf3 (27.Rf1 Qxb2 28.Qxb2 Rxb2 29.a3 Rfb8) 27...Rxf2 28.Bxg4 Rg2+ 29.Kf1 Rxg3 30.Be2 Qg6 31.Re1 Rh3 32.Qb4 Qg3 wins.
27.Qxb2 Rxb2 28.a4 Rfb8 29.Nb5 Rb4?!
Clearly better was... 29...Rc8 30.Bf3 or 30.Nd4 Rc4 31.Nf5 Rcc2 32.Rf1 Ng4 33.a5 g6 34.Nd4 Rxf2 35.Rxf2 Rxf2 36.Bf3 Rd2) 30...Rcc2 31.Rf1 g6 winning.
30.d6 Ne4 31.Bxe4 Rxe4 32.Nc7 Reb4 33.a5?!
Correct was 33.Kg2 Rb1 34.Ra2 R8b2 35.Rxb2 (35.Ra3? Rd2 36.a5 Rbb2 37.Kf3 Rxf2+ 38.Ke3 Ra2 39.Rb3 Rfe2+ 40.Kf3 g6 favors Black) 35...Rxb2 36.a5 Ra2 37.a6 Ra3 38.Kf1 g6 39.g4 Kg7 40.g5 with equal chances.
33...Rb1+ 34.Rxb1 Rxb1+ 35.Kg2 Ra1 36.a6 Ra3
Or 36...f5 37.Kf3 Kf7 38.Ke3 Ra4 39.Kd3 f4 (39...Kf6 40.f4 Kg6 41.Kc3 Kh5 42.Kb3 Ra1 43.Kc4 Kg4 44.Kb5 Kxg3 45.Ne6 Rb1+ 46.Ka5 dxe6 47.d7 Rd1 48.a7 favors White) 40.gxf4 (40.Kc3 f3 41.Kb3 Ra1 42.Kc4 Kg6 43.Kd4 Kf5 winning) 40...Kg6 41.Kc2 Kh5 42.Kb3 Ra1 43.Kb4 Kxh4 44.Kb5 h5 45.Ne6! Kg4 46.f3+ Kxf3 47.Nc5 h4 48.Nxd7 h3 49.Ne5+ Kg3 50.d7 Rb1+ 51.Kc6 h2 52.d8Q h1Q+ 53.Kc7 Qc1+ 54.Nc6 Qxf4+ 55.Kc8 and the game should end in a draw.
37.g4? h5! 38.f3 hxg4 39.fxg4 Kh7–+ 40.Kf2 Kg6 41.Ke2 f5 42.h5+ Kg5 43.gxf5 Kxf5
43...Kxh5 44.Ne6 Rxa6 45.Nxg7+ Kg5 46.Ke3 Kf6 47.Ne8+ Kxf5 48.Kd4 Ra4+ 49.Kd5 Ra5+ 50.Kd4 Ke6 wins.
44.Kd2 Ke5 45.Kc2 Ra5 46.Kc3 Kxd6 47.Kb4 Rxh5?
47...Ra2 48.Ne8+ (48.Nb5+ Kc6 49.a7 Kb6 50.Nd6 (50.Kc4 Ra4+) 50...Kxa7 wins) 48...Kc6 49.Nxg7 Rxa6 50.Nf5 Kd5 51.h6 Ra1 52.Kc3 Rh1 53.Ne3+ Ke6 54.Ng4 Rh4 winning.
48.a7 Rh8 49.a8Q Rxa8 50.Nxa8 Kc6 51.Ka5 g5 52.Nb6 d5 53.Na4?
White misses a miracle draw with 53.Nc8!! g4 54.Ne7+ Kc5 55.Ng6 d4 56.Ka4 d3 (56...g3 57.Nf4 Kc4 58.Ka3 d3 59.Kb2 Kd4 60.Ng2 Ke4 61.Kc3=) 57.Kb3 Kd4 58.Nf4 Ke4 59.Nh5 Ke3 60.Kc3 d2 61.Kc2 Ke2 62.Nf4+ Ke3 63.Nh5.
53...g4 54.Nc3 d4 55.Ne4 d3 56.Kb4 g3 57.Kc3 g2 58.Kxd3 g1Q 59.Nc3 Kc5 60.Ne4+ Kd5 61.Nc3+ Ke5 62.Kc4 Qg8+ 63.Kd3 Qb3 64.Kd2 Kd4 65.Ne2+ Kc4 66.Ke1 Qe3 67.Kd1 Kb3 68.Ke1 Kc2 69.Kf1 Kd2 70.Ng1 Qg3 0–1
3) Bent Larsen on his Experiences as Bobby Fischer’s Second
My relations with Bobby during the 1959 Candidates’ tournament were completely fine. In any case the experience I had with Bobby was probably better than William Lombardy in Portoroz (1958) and Anthony Saidy in Zurich (1959)—in the latter Bobby was not satisfied with the hotel that was designated for the participants, and the one that he found and met his expectations turned out to be more expensive. Saidy, who had to pay for all his own expenses, simply could not afford the new hotel, but Bobby seemed completely indifferent to the “stupid” financial problem. In the 1970s Saidy was one of the few American chess players who actually had personal contact with Fischer. Before the match against Spassky in Reykjavik, Bobby was holed up in the house of Saidy’s father in New York, surrounded by the press and paparazzi.
Perhaps my job was somewhat easier as Bobby realized early on that he could not win the tournament. Only once did we engage in an extensive analysis session—completely for nothing, in my opinion. In one of his games against Pal Benko, Bobby had a very poor position, until as always the Hungarian-American got into time trouble, and committed a blunder. The game was adjourned, but the position didn’t offer much. Bobby could reach various rook endings with three versus two pawns on the queenside. He certainly had one pawn more, but it was completely drawn. The whole night I had to analyze this position that offered no prospects with him. Of course, this is somewhat silly from the point of view of the second. However, it is thankful that the work of the second is also at least partially psychological in nature.