A Game from the Hauptturnier

Ok, this is not the greatest game ever, but it is one free of major mistakes, and an opportunity to take a look at the Cambridge Springs Defense.

2007 Hauptturnier -- Round 5
October 8, 2007

Edward Chisam (2063) vs. David Glickman (2027)

1. c4

[In my last Hauptturnier (2000), I relied solely on 1. e4 in order to minimize the number of likely adjournments in a long tournament. But adjourned games are a thing of the past now.]

1.... c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 e6 5. Bg5

[There was a time when the development of the queen's bishop early in the Queen pawn openings was frowned upon, because of black's possible counterplay on the queenside with the bishop absent for defensive purposes. Boylston chess club member Harry Pillsbury was among the first to demonstrate the strength of this bishop move in Queen pawn games.]

5.... Nbd7 6. e3 Qa5

Glickman chooses the Cambridge Springs Defense.

7. cxd5

[I was aware that 7. Nd2 is the most popular move here, but this would not surprise Glickman, who would be well versed in those lines.]

7...... Nxd5 8. Qd2 N7b6

[This surprised me. I remembered that ...Bb4 was a system here, but did not consider this move, remembering that Tarrasch said that a knight on b6 is always misplaced. ]

9. e4!?

[A sign of ambition. Of course, I could play 9. Nxd5 Qxd2+ 10. Nxd2 exd5 11. Bd3 and shake hands a few moves from now. However, this would have the drawback of me being greeted by FM Chris Chase in the tournament room, chastising me for yet another boring game in this tournament. After due deliberation, I decided that it was critical not to allow this to occur.]

9...... Nxc3 10. bxc3 Na4!

[After this move, I knew that Glickman had outwitted me. Black would not be playing this way, so quickly, without a reason. Sure enough, after 11. Rc1? Black plays ....Nxc3 anyway and white is in serious trouble. Still, staying calm, one realizes that White does have a development lead, so he can just gambit this pawn and get the king into safety, with reasonable compensation.]

11. Bd3! Qxc3!

[After 11..... Nxc3 12. 0-0 Black has some problems. Aside from white's development lead, black is in an inconvenient pin, and has to deal with ideas like Ne5 and Nc4.]

12. Qxc3 Nxc3 13. a4

[Black is confronted with the problem of how to rescue his knight.]

13....... b5

[The alternative 13.....f5 lead to a draw in the game Johner-Becker, Carlsbad 1929, with 14. exf5 exf5 15. 0-0 Bd6 16. Rfe1+ Kf7 17. Ne5+ Bxe5 18. Rxe5 19. Bd2 Nd5 20. Bxf5 Bxf5 21. Rxf5+]

14. axb5 Nxb5

[The alternative is 14....cxb5 15. Bd2 b4 16. Bxc3 bxc3 17. Ke2, and analysis shows that black cannot prevent white from winning back the pawn.]

15. 0-0! Be7

[White is a pawn down, but black needs several moves to complete his development, while white is already mobilized. White must do something in the next few moves to address his pawn deficit.]

16. d5

[This is ok, but stronger was 16. Be3 avoiding the exchange and eying a7.]

16...... Bxg5

17. dxc6

[White does not recapture his piece right away, but takes advantage of the opportunity to remove one of the two black queenside pawns that in the long run could win the game for black. With two pieces attacked, black cannot hang onto both.]

17...... Be7

[More natural is 17..... Bf6 18. e5 Nc7 19. exf6 gxf6, and black is an extra doubled pawn ahead on the kingside, and slightly better. This would be punishment for white's failure to play 16. Be3.]

18. Bxb5 0-0 19. Ba6

[This is OK because black is prevented from running his a pawn down the board. The drawback is that black can exchange off the c8 bishop which has no scope. 19. Rfd1 is an alternative.]

19..... Bc5 20. Rfc1 Bb6 21. Kf1 Bxa6+ 22. Rxa6 f6!

[The last few moves have been good play by both sides. With ....f6, Glickman keeps white's knight out of e5.]

23. Nd2

[Here 23. Ra4 is more flexible, because white is going to have to double rooks on the c file soon anyway, to preserve the c6 pawn.]

23....... Rac8! 24. Ra4 Rfd8 25. Nb3 e5

[After 25...... Rd3 26. Rb4 is OK for white.]

26. Ke2 Rd6 27. Rac4 Kf7 28. f3 Ke7 29. Nd2

[White dreams of putting this knight on d5, but Black makes sure this doesn't happen.]

29.... Rd4 30. R4c2! Rd6 31. Nf1 Bd4 32. Ne3 Bxe3

Draw Agreed.

1/2 - 1/2

[33. Kxe3 a5 will soon lead to the trade of black's a pawn for white's c6 pawn.]

Playing kid's games

BDK asked the questions; The Kenilworthian tagged me and now, assuming he still stops by here on occasion, I tag Java Joe of the Chess Castle of Minnesota.

1. How long have you been playing chess? Have you played it consistently since you started, or were there lulls in your play? How did these lulls affect your performance?

When I was about 10 years old, I fell rather ill with asthma and was laid up in bed for about three weeks. During this time, a friend of my mother's gave me a book on how to play chess. Having nothing else to do, I read it cover to cover several times. After that, I played chess casually with friends now and again, but never took it too seriously.

Several years later I picked up a book on the Fischer-Spassky world championship match and played over each of the games. I'm not sure I really understood what was going on, and while I continued to play friendly games, I still didn't get serious about it.

When I was a freshman in high school, I decided to join the chess club since you were "supposed" to be involved in activities and I was hardly a candidate to join the football team. Chess was fairly serious at my high school. The team had won several State Championships over the years and always competed in the Nationals. The previous July, recent graduate and Expert Alan Trefler had shared first in the 1975 World Open with GM Pal Benko. Alan's brother Leon was in my class and was the best player on the team. Alan took me to my first tournament a couple months later, The Greater Boston Open. I think I achieved an even score in the lowest section and a month later I was proudly sporting my first official rating, 1098.

From that point on, I played constantly -- at school, in scholastic tournaments, and at weekend events. By my junior year, I was a B-player and played 2nd Board on the team behind Leon. During our senior year, we won the Massachusetts State Championship, the New England Championship, and finished in the top 10 at the High School Nationals.

Once I started college, I drastically curtailed my chess playing. Over the next 5 years or so, I probably played less than five tournaments. Nevertheless, during this period I achieved a rating of about 1900. Some of this was due to playing relatively well, but frankly, I think the main driver was that USCF was intentionally inflating ratings during this period of time.

For the next six or seven years, I didn't play at all. Instead, I was preoccupied with my first job, getting married and going to graduate school. Later, out of school and not particularly happy with my job, I came home one day and told my wife I was going to go nuts if I didn't get involved in some diversion that I enjoyed. At that moment, the grand "one night of chess per week" bargain was struck.

I returned to the friendly haunts of the Boylston Chess Club on Clarendon St., where I'd played frequently during high school, and entered the Thursday Night Swiss. For the first few months I played terribly and lost about 100 rating points, but then regained my form and my points. In the ten or so years since, I've played consistently one night a week at the club and only on very rare occassion have I played larger tournaments (for example, I played the US Open several years ago when it was in Framingham, but only after reminding my wife about it every week for the entire year prior).

Only in the last couple of years have I seen an improvement in my rating to the point where I'm peaking my nose over the 2000 barrier more often than not. I'd like to think that I'm improving as player, but since my primary training activity is blogging it's hard to explain why. Then again, maybe USCF is inflating ratings again?

2. Aside from playing games, what is your primary mode of training?

Outside of blogging and reading chess blogs, I typically do three things:

1. Re-read the opening books I have on the openings I most frequently play, over and over again
   
   
2. Use the ChessBase on-line database to review Master games in lines that I am studying or preparing
   
   
3. Analyze and annotate all my tournament games with the help of Fritz

I've also been playing quite a bit of on-line poker (with play chips only), but I'm not sure how much that helps my chess game.

3. What is the single most helpful method of improvement that you have ever used?

I'm really not sure, but if I had to guess I would think it might be all the time I spent in High School learning K+P endings inside out. I've never made a concerted effort to study tactics, so I would imagine that my game would benefit if I did.

4. What is your favorite opening to play as white? As black against e4? As black against d4?

Since plenty of club members read this blog, I'm not inclined to make their opening preparation easier. Therefore, I'll limit my comments to what everyone already knows.

I play 1.e4. If you want to play against the c3-Sicilian, then play 1...c5. Otherwise, play something else.

Against 1.e4, I play the French. However, I've learned lots of different sub-variations in order to avoid being predictable. If I think you've prepared for my French, then on occasion I'll trot out something else, just to keep you honest.

The rest you have to learn about over the board.

5. Who are your favorite chess players and why?

Korchnoi - Because he's been one of greatest defenders of the French Defense and because he bears a significant resemblance to my grandfather.

Sveshnikov - Not just "because he plays some of my favorite lines" (as Michael Goeller wrote), but because he effectively reinvented them, many times over. The c3-Sicilian would have been played out years ago without his on-going efforts and creativity.

6. What is your favorite chess book?

Probably Hans Kmoch's Pawn Power in Chess -- though it's not too useful for beginners.

7. What book would you recommend for a friend who knows only the rules of chess?

I don't know, but I suppose you could do a lot worse than pointing him in the direction of De La Maza's two articles [1 & 2], not his bloated book, or Dan Heisman's archive at Chess Cafe.

8. Do you play in in-person tournaments? What is your favorite tournament experience?

I am a regular at the BCC Thursday Night Swiss except during Championship Season when I typically play in the Reubens/Landey and Hauptturnier. I've played in very few weekend tournaments over the past ten years for the usual reasons - family, job, etc.

Not much great insight here, but beating masters is usually a kick.

9. Please give us a link to what you consider your best two blog posts.

I'm particularly fond of my post on the Pete Tamburro chess journalism awards, though I understand he didn't care for it that much. There are also several pieces in my USCL coverage which are worthy contenders (2005 coverage, 2006 coverage).

10. What proportion of total chess time should be spent studying openings for someone at your level?

I suspect I commit too high a percentage of my time to openings, but since I typically play the same people several times a year, I feel like I need to change things up so it is more difficult for my opponents to prepare lines against me. At the same time, when I know my opponent advance, I will often try to prepare a line against what he typically plays.

It's all downhill from here

Only one day into the new year and I can already declare that from a chess point of view 2007 is a major success. At yesterday's Herb Healy Open I defeated International Master Joe Fang in the second round. Of course there were mitigating factors -- it was an unrated section; the time control was G/45; after achieving an easily winning position I played pathetically during the time scramble and gave my opponent all sorts of unnecessary chances; I had just six seconds left on my clock when my opponent walked into a mate. Who cares? I defeated an IM!

Because of the time scramble I don't have a complete score of the game, but I do have the part where I played well:

[Event "2007 BCC Herb Healy Open - Unrated"]
[Site "Somerville, MA"]
[Date "1/1/2007"]
[Round "2"]
[White "IM Joe Fang"]
[Black "DG"]
[Result "0-1"]

1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. c4 c6 4. e3 e6 5. Nbd2 Nbd7 6. Bd3 Bd6 7. e4 e5 8. cxd5 cxd5 9. dxe5 Nxe5 10. Nxe5 Bxe5 11. O-O O-O 12. exd5 Qxd5 13. Nc4 Bd4 14. Be3 Rd8 15. Be2 Be6 16. Qa4 b5 17. Qa5 bxc4 18. Qxd5 Rxd5 19. Bf3 Bxb2 20. Rab1 c3 21. Bxd5 Bxd5 22. a4 Be4 23. Rbd1 Nd5 24. Bd4 Bc2 25. Bxc3 Bxd1 26. Bxb2 Bxa4 [and Black won after a time scramble] 0-1

P.S. The picture in Bob Oresick's Herb Healy post below is from IM Fang-DG.

Four!

Over the past couple months, I've read a few posts about the IbeatGarry.com website which applies the six degrees of separation model to the 2005 Megabase to determine how many defeated opponents stand between you and Garry Kasparov. The most recent post at the Streatham & Brixton Chess Club blog finally motivated me to try it on myself.

Since I don't have any won games in the database, I approached the problem by entering the names of the best opponents I've beaten and then added one to their number. I started with Masters that I've defeated.

Shapiro, Daniel E vs. Riordan, Charles 0-1, US op swiss USA 2001
Shapiro, Daniel E vs. Kreiman, Boris 1-0, Nassau CC-ch swiss USA 1995
Yermolinsky, Alex vs. Kreiman, Boris 0-1, World op swiss USA 1997
Kasparov, Garry vs. Yermolinsky, Alex 0-1, Leningrad game URS 1975

Charles' Kasparov Number = 4; My Kasparov Number = 5

Cherniack, Alex vs. Godin, Eric J 0-1, Boylston CC-ch tourn USA 1997
Cherniack, Alex vs. Paschall, William M 1-0, Boylston CC-ch tourn USA 1994
Yermolinsky, Alex vs. Paschall, William M 0-1, New York Syracuse swiss USA 1995
Kasparov, Garry vs. Yermolinsky, Alex 0-1, Leningrad game URS 1975

Eric's Kasparov Number = 4; My Kasparov Number = 5

But surprisingly my lowest Kasparov Number comes from an expert, my friend and clubmate Alex Slive.

Slive, Alex vs. Paschall, William M 1-0, Boylston CC-ch tourn USA 1994
Yermolinsky, Alex vs. Paschall, William M 0-1, New York Syracuse swiss USA 1995
Kasparov, Garry vs. Yermolinsky, Alex 0-1, Leningrad game URS 1975

Alex's Kasparov Number = 3; My Kasparov Number = 4

BCC Hauptturnier Rd. 4: Lee-DG 0-1

We'll finish off our coverage of the 2006 BCC Championship season with one contest from the Hauptturnier -- my game against 2nd place finisher Jon Lee.

Lee,Jon (1801) - DG (1991) [C12]
Hauptturnier Somerville, MA (4), 29.09.2006

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Bb4 5.e5 h6 6.exf6 hxg5 7.fxg7 Rg8 8.h4 Nc6 9.hxg5 Qxg5 10.Rh8 Qxg7 11.Rxg8+ Qxg8 12.Qd2 Bd7 13.0-0-0 0-0-0 14.f4 f6 15.Nf3 e5 16.fxe5 fxe5 17.a3 Bxc3 18.Qxc3 e4 19.Nd2 Re8 20.Re1 Qg5 21.Re3 Rg8 22.Kb1 Qf6 23.Qc5 Qxd4 24.Qxd4 Nxd4 25.c4 Nf5 26.Re1 c6 27.cxd5 cxd5 28.Rc1+ Kb8 29.Rc5 Ne3 30.b3 b6 31.Rc1 Nxf1 32.Nxf1 Rxg2 33.Ne3 Rd2 34.Re1 Be6 35.Kc1 Rd3 36.Kb2 d4 37.Nc2 e3 38.b4 Rd2 39.Kc1 Bf5 40.Na1 Be6 41.Nc2 Bb3 42.Na1 Ba4 43.Rg1 Rf2 44.Re1 d3 0-1

Put the champagne back in the fridge

The Chess Journalists of America (CJA) announced their 2005 prize winners on August 10th at the U. S. Open Chess Championships in Phoenix, Arizona during the annual CJA meeting.

My acceptance speech -- well, it's going to have to wait.

Chess Horizons Editor Mark Donlan submitted my article "2004 Boylston Chess Club Championship" (based on content from my blog of the same name) in the Best Magazine Tournament Report category. The bad news is that I was beat out by articles written by Mig and Tim Redman; the good news is that I received an Honorable Mention (see category 14).

I can imagine the judges reviewing the submissions: "Mig, Redman, Heisman, uh huh; Kavalek, Shabazz, Nunn, sure; DG...who the heck is this guy?"

Further down the list, you'll see that our occasional Guest Blogger Howard Goldowsky won the award for Best Editorial. Congratulations!

This leads me to a bit of editorializing of my own. Two years ago the CJA finally caught up with the new media trend by introducing internet-based award categories. This was certainly a major step forward in recognizing the role the web is playing in communicating chess-related information. In fact, I would be inclined to argue that web-based chess journalism far exceeds print at this point in time (at least in quantity, if not quality).

Yet, the current CJA internet categories are rather limiting given the broad range of web-based chess content being produced. For example, Michael Goeller had no better choice than to submit The Kenilworth Chess Club site under the Best General Website category. While he had little chance of winning in that category, I suspect he would have been a very strong contender in the unavailable Best Chess Club site category.

More importantly (and I'm sure you saw this coming from a hundred miles away), there are no categories for chess blogs. In fact, had 2004 Boylston Chess Club Championship not been adapted into a print article, there would have been no logical category to submit the site to (they don't even have a Web-Based Tournament Report category). Surely sites like Mandelamaza and The Chess Mind deserve the opportunity to receive recognition for the quality chess journalism they represent.

As a start, I would like to encourage the CJA to reevaluate the web-based award categories. Specifically, I believe -- at a minimum -- a Best Chess Blog category should be added. Should we be lucky enough to achieve this objective, in the future they might even consider sub-Blog categories, e.g. Best Chess Improvement Blog, Best Chess Analysis Blog, etc.

What do you think?