NYS Championship

Sunday, Game #1:



6W. Fisher's preferred move against the Najdorf. I had mostly played for years Bg5 here, but had little success with it OTB. I've been doing much better with this line.
7W. Bb3 is the standard line, but in Palliser's book on the Najdorf he gives the line starting with 7 O-O where if Black plays 7 ...... Ndb7? White follows with 8 Bxe6 fxe6 9 Nxe6 Q moves 10 Nd5 Nxd5 11 exd5 with the Knight anchored on e6. I got to play this against a pretty good player in the NYS Open in 2009 and scored a quick smash. This game was very much in my mind, perhaps too much as it turned out.
7B. An aggressive response by Black.
8B. A risky move by Black where 9 Re1 by White scores very well. But:
9W. If Black blocks the defense of the e6 pawn by the Bishop, the sac is a standard one in this line. Glen didn't think it was sound in the post-mortem, but it's been played 7 times in Chessbase's database with a 57% score. I think it's perfectly playable and suits my aggressive temperament.
10B. This takes the game out of book and is an error in my IMO. Black has played Qb6 in all 7 games in the database and that seems clearly superior. In virtually every line we reviewed afterwards, the Queen returns to Qb6 anyway, so Black is simply wasting a tempo.
11W. I had the prior game in mind here but:
12W. I should listen to greenpawn more ("look at checks first"😉; the intermezzo check 13 Qh5+ is much stronger. White's attack looks very strong after either Ke7 or g6 particularly the latter. Simply taking with the pawn allows Black's next an excellent defensive move.
12B. The attack is faltering now; the Knight on e6 must either be retreated (a major concession) or allowed to be exchanged.
13W. A foolish move. Sure, if Black blunders and takes the pawn, Nc7+ wins but the chances of my opponent doing that were remote. I managed to hand him back the tempo, pin the f-pawn so it can't chase the Knight out of e5 and leave a long term weakness on c4.
14W. Another poor choice. 14 Be3 or Bb2 was the only way to keep some sort of attack going. I was counting on 14 ....... Rxf8 15 Qh5+ g6 or K moves 16 Qxh7 where I have 3 pawns for the piece, but even that line leaves Black with better development, attacking chances down the f-file and a nice centralized Knight. As it is, Black has an even stronger response.
14B. White is strategically lost after this, far behind in development, on the defensive, down in material and with a weak Queenside.

The rest isn't worth much discussion; I could have legitimately resigned after the forced exchange of Queens. I set a few easily seen traps and miscalculated at the very end missing the back row mate if I took the Knight. But there wouldn't have been any real hope even if the back rank mate wasn't available. My opponent wound up tying for second, not losing a game and gaining over 100 ratings point. A nice weekend of work, but I still think in the postmortem he underestimated White's attacking chances after the sac.

Comments and opinions on the sac would be welcome.

What is the idea behind saccing the Bxe6 at that stage? Where is the continuation?

Originally posted by enrico20
What is the idea behind saccing the Bxe6 at that stage? Where is the continuation?

[fen]r1bqkb1r/3n1ppp/p2pBn2/1p6/3NP3/2N5/PPP2PPP/R1BQ1RK1 b kq - 0 9[/fen]

The game Kman v. Mikanovic, Toronto 2006 went:

1. e4 c5
2. Nf3 d6
3. d4 cxd4
4. Nxd4 Nf6
5. Nc3 a6
6. Bc4 e6
7. Bb3 b5
8. O-O Nbd7
9. Bxe6 fxe6
10. Nxe6 Qb6
11. Nd5 Nxd5
12. exd5 Nf6
13. Re1 Bxe6
14. Rxe6+ Kf7
15. Bg5 Be7
16. Qe2 Qd8
17. Re1 Ra7
18. h4 h6
19. Be3 Rb7
20. h5 Nh7
21. Bb6 Qd7
22. Qd3 Re8
23. Qxh7 Rxb6
24. R1e3

Originally posted by no1marauder
The game Kman v. Mikanovic, Toronto 2006 went:

1. e4 c5
2. Nf3 d6
3. d4 cxd4
4. Nxd4 Nf6
5. Nc3 a6
6. Bc4 e6
7. Bb3 b5
8. O-O Nbd7
9. Bxe6 fxe6
10. Nxe6 Qb6
11. Nd5 Nxd5
12. exd5 Nf6
13. Re1 Bxe6
14. Rxe6+ Kf7
15. Bg5 Be7
16. Qe2 Qd8
17. Re1 Ra7
18. h4 h6
19. Be3 Rb7
20. h5 Nh7
21. Bb6 Qd7
22. Qd3 Re8
23. Qxh7 Rxb6
24. R1e3

12 ....... Ne5 trying to seal off the e-file looks better but White still got a strong attack with 13 Be3 Qb7 14 f4 in Brikov-Chuiko, Tula 2001.

Gotcha regarding the Bxe6 sac. As the game went 14. Nxf8 the only thing at that stage might have been to try 14. Be3 then 15. f4 and then hope for some chances catching his King in the centre.



Edit Interesting sac though, I wouldn't try it when my opponent has the chance to think in a long game but I might try it on blitz or rapid chess.

Hi No1.

Want to stay with game 1 for now.
Don't have book on Budapaest (to be honest I don't like it).



3.e3 was Marshall's choice when he first played against it.
Though in an article I read years ago he was credited with
actually inventing it(!).

Story was Breyer & Tartakower had decided that 1...Nf6
was the strongest reply to 1.d4 and was wondering what the
best move was after 2.c4.

They were pondering the position when Marshall walked past,
he played 2...e5 and walked away.

(does your book...you do have a book on this yes?....mention
who invented this opening?).

You say 3...exd4 is book. Is it 4.exd4 d5 which looks OK.



But then 4.Nf3 and I know some lovely stem for both sides games with this line.



(Stem games are games like Kman v. Mikanovic, Toronto 2006
which No1. based his sac v the Nafdorf on. A collection of stem
games and their ideas are more valuable than blind opening theory.
Stem games = traps, sharp plans, cute tricks, instructive ideas etc.)

However this may not make sense.

"Don't have book on Budapaest (to be honest I don't like it)."

"and I know some lovely stem for both sides games with line."

Why am I looking at games from the Budapest if I don't
play it as Black and will not face it as white?



I strongly suspect you knew this transpo No.1 but some of
the other lads may not.
Used your thread for a wee bit of instructive eye opening.

As I said this fizzled out (for me) You were more active
as Black in the ending and usually that is enough to win
Rook endings.

(There, You now have all I know about Rook endings).

Had a look at the Najdorf sac. Much more fun/

Will post on that tomorrow/Friday.

Some thoughts on the Najdorf game...



EDIT: Went outside to smoke a cig and had an epiphany! White needs to play 14. Be3! Qb7 15. f4!



Now black can either play 15...Bxe6 16.dxe6 Nc4 17.Bd4! seizing the long diagonal as mentioned. I believe white has an excellent position here. Qh5+ is in the air, so is Re1. White may even form a powerful pawn wedge if he has the time to play f5. I wouldn't want to be black in that scenario...



Or, black can play 15...Nc4 straight away. White can still seize the long diagonal with 16.Bd4 here as 16...Qxd5 loses to 17.Nc7+. Again, Qh5+ and Re1 seem like logical follow-ups.



Had to mention this as I just couldn't get that dark-squared bishop off my mind. I won't be able to sleep tonight with it sitting on the back rank!

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi No1.

Want to stay with game 1 for now.
Don't have book on Budapaest (to be honest I don't like it).

[fen]rnbqkb1r/pppp1ppp/5n2/4p3/2PP4/4P3/PP3PPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq - 0 3[/fen]

3.e3 was Marshall's choice when he first played against it.
Though in an article I read years ago he was credited with
actually inventing it(!).

Story was Breyer &

Had a look at the Najdorf sac. Much more fun/

Will post on that tomorrow/Friday.

I have Moskalenko's excellent and enthusiastic The Fabulous Budapest Gambit. He gives credit for the opening to Hungarian player Geza Maroczy and gives as its stem game Adler-Maroczy, Budapest (naturally!) 1896:




It's first Grandmaster victim was the great Rubinstein who got ambushed by Vidmar in a famous game in Berlin 1918:



Black gets immediate activity plus you don't have to memorize a bunch of boring positional lines. Of course, if White knows what they are doing it's usually a tough ride, but in my experience few White players have the faintest clue (I've gotten the most curious looks after 2 ..... e5 including from my opponent here) and we're either out of book quickly or into lines where Black can easily equalize.

Hi No1.

If the book and the opening has caught you then good.
If you think it suits you (and you will know better than anyone else)
go with it.

I've played it a couple of times but I am far too dogmatic to see my Knight
getting the boot against what I consider a sound set-up.
One unhappy memory playing it that cost me quids still haunts me.
Mind you I tried to play it off the cuff v a good player and got what I deserved.

I'll play the Latvian against IM's and GM's and have done so but this
one I'll pass on. I love my KID and Benko Benoni's OTB.

I played next to this crazy Bulgarian player for two years in league matches
who played the 'Buda' all the time.
Todor Dimitrov, he would get these amazing positions with fantastic mates.
But when he met a good player..... (same story I guess with every opening).

Horses for courses though don't let me swing you.
Run with it and if you are enjoying yourself and winning why stop.

I would advise having a second string to your bow v 1.d4, just to broaden
your play and catch preparers off guard.

I went racking around my boxes of junk and found the CHESS that had
the article about the Birth of the Budapest.
Volume 46 from 1981.

I have actually written in pen on the cover 'Budapest Analysis'.
I did that in 1981 because I just knew I'd be looking for this in 2010. 🙂

I got a few names mixed (not bad after 30 years) but Marshall is mentioned
in the article and game he played in 1912.
Aboyni and Barasz get the main credit.
It was Barasz who pushed the pawn to e5 and walked away.

Good article this by Josef Staker. Whole mag is rather good.
No good to me anymore.

PM me your address and I'll send it to you as this years Christmas present.

Like to thank you for giving me the excuse to go racking, found some
wonderful old treasures and articles. (future BLOG material re-hashed.)

Cheers.

Greenpawn.

Hi

Let's look at the OTB sac v the Najdorf.



Always liked to beat up the Najdorf when I played 3.d4.
I still maintain this is a strong players opening and weak
players either get slaughtered playing or they get away with
it because their opponent has not been sharp enough (sadly as here).

They follow book moves seriously lagging behind in development
one slip and bang, it's over.

There are more White miniature wins against the Najdorf
in OTB games than any other opening.



9.Nbd7 looks like it is tempting the e6 sac.

A brave sac this as it is unclear.
The postion has appeared 11/12 times on the 1400 DB with nobody
saccing on e6.

Into the lion's den jumps No1. a snarling and a gnashing.

Right away after the sac Black plays a lemon 10..Qa5? typical
Najdorf boy, out of the book and into hot water.

I see I get a mention in No1's notes. (Check all checks).



Yes 12.Qh5+ and 13. Qxd5 gives White a massive attack.

12.Qh5+ g6 13.Qxd5 Rb8 14.Bg5.



Look at that lovely jubbly. White is threatening;
15.Ng7+ and Qe6+ mates also 16.Nc7+ and Qe6+ mates.
Nice position that showing dual clearance sacs and strength
of a Knight on e6.

(and how smothering is that Knight on d7?)

So why was it missed?

No.1 was asked about the e6 sac and quoted a game.
Kman v. Mikanovic, Toronto 2006

This game must have had an influence on him,
call it a stem game if you will.
Think we had better see it.



Why was the Qh5+ idea not tried in the stem game.

If we put the Black Queen on b6 and play the Qh5+ and Qxd5.



We can see right away Black has Bb7 and that is that.

What may have happened was the stem game took over.
No1 missed how out of play the Queen was on a5 and
recalling the game remembered the pawn taking back on d5
because it held the Knight on e6.

If we were playing over this game in my pub/club one of the lads
would crack a wee joke and say No.1 played his trap 13.b4?
to force the Queen back onto b6 where it was in the stem game
so he could recognise the position. 😉

(chess players are often cruel to be kind).

Also 12.exd5 opening the e-file, cementing the Knight was a
hard move to resist.

If you have played over the stem game you will see
the play White got down the e-file.
He infact tripled the big pieces on the e-file.

So perhaps No1 thought he could get a better version of
what happened in the stem game.

It was 13.b4? and 14.Nxf8? that did the damage.
(bad moves come in two's)



13.f4 looks better than chasing the Queen to where it wants to go.
But all that is a different game.

The Knight in the stem went to f6 instead of e5 and No.1
was now on his own a piece down with an unclear postion
and the clock ticking.

In these unclear postions all you have to guide is
judgements and intuition.
Black has swap-off's on his side and he can always
toss the piece back at you when you least expect it.

One move traps like 13.b4 betray something is wrong
at the board. Possibly inner depression because a good
move has been missed. You get this uncomfortable feeling
that a win has slipped through your fingers.
You cannot see it but your inner self is telling it was there.

I've played so many moves like 13.b4 in my OTB games,
I know the feeling all to well.

Even after 13.b4? 14.Be3 and 15 f4 as was suggested,
would have left Black with OTB problems.

You still had chances to be active but the seeds of
doubt bore fruit with 14.Nxf8? when there was still
a chance to set him problems.

Play it over again and you will come to the simple
conclussion that it was a bad game by White.

It happens. White missed Qh5+ which puts Black in
a very awkward postion to defend.
Under 2000 players defend terribly, put that with
everyone likes to attack and you have a 90% chance
that this would have been a White win.

After 14.Nxf8 Black took over and his play from here on in
was good.

Makes me think Black may one day be a Najdorf player but
only after he has had his butt kicked about.
It should have been kicked about in this game.

So chin up No1, it was just a bad day at the office.
You must re-adjust when you see new positions and
if you had thought;

"Why did Black not play Qa5 in the main game, what's wrong with it?"
You may have seen the strength of Qh5+, It looked an obvious try.

Don't lose faith in the stem games, dust yourself off,
this one got away, next time you will win a game you
should have lost, swings and round abouts.

Well you know what's coming next.

Check all Checks and look for unprotected pieces. (Rook on a8).

By coincidence, and it was a coincidence, I just posted
a Qh5+ then Qe5 hitting a loose Rook on h1 postion in the
interesting thread started by Varenka on computers.

Thanks for posting and good self criticising notes.

(I would have liked them stuck inside the game, hope you have not started a trend.) 😉

Game #2 on Sunday - the one where I had the least fun:




6B. I'm normally a Najdorf player and have had excellent success with it OTB. But I've found the lines with e5 a bit of a bother recently on the net; the game pretty much revolves on control of d5 and Black doesn't get as much of the dynamic play as in other lines. So I had decided to play the Scheveningen against 6 Be2 or Be3 as Kasparov normally did. But quite frankly I don't know this opening as well and proceeded to just automatically place my pieces to where I thought they were supposed to go in the system. This autopilot approach predictably leads to trouble.
8B. I think b5 planning Bb7 pressuring the center and grabbing Queenside space was a better plan.
10W. A rather unusual choice; aggressively advancing the f pawn to f4 or playing a4 restraining Black on the Queenside are more "normal".
11W. Out of book finally; White has played rather passively.
11B. A lot of games where I play the Sicilian I eschew castling altogether to minimize the chances of the usual White kingside pawn storm, but that hardly seems to be a problem now.
12B. b5 would have been a lot better and would have avoided some of my further troubles. The Rook isn't terribly well placed on d8.
13W. Threatening to win the exchange with Bb6. The hole at b6 and my failure to keep a Knight from having access to it becomes a major irritant.
15W. I didn't quite understand this move; obviously an exchange on e5 favors Black.
16B. Played to get rid of the annoying Knight on b6 which White promptly obliges me by swapping on d7.
18B. The boxes think this is best, but I think it's a positional error inconsistent with the ideas behind the line i.e. using pawns to control e5 and d5. Rc8 would have been better with a plan of doubling the Rooks and putting typical Sicilian pressure down the c-file.
20B. This looks logical, but perhaps this would have been a good time for the lever d5. I never play it and my dark Bishop winds up very bad.
24B. The position is rather drab, but I have an obvious weakness on d5 (ironic that I decided not to play the e5 Najdorf just to avoid such a weakness). Therefore, a Queen exchange is not in my favor and I shouldn't have been in a hurry to get one. Qe3 would have led to some complications and would have been best. If Black grabs the b7 pawn, I can force a draw by by R8c7 26 Qb8+ Rc8 etc. as the White bishop is under attack. My move overlooks White's excellent reply which forces an exchange of Queens which is favorable to him.
25W. Well played.
27W. The Bishop takes up a dominant post at d5 while my Bishop is weak.
27B. An easily refuted threat which leaves my Rook out of bounds.
28B. a4 would have been more consistent. I was having a hard time devising a plan here; there don't seem to be any good spots to relocate the Bishop to.
33B. Pointless. Maybe Rc5 planning to double the Rooks and pressure the b-pawn would have done something like tying up White's Rooks. I was afraid of the coming King side pawn assault and realized that my Rooks were cut off from defending it.
37B. In retrospect, this seems foolish. I had Rcc7 which seems to hold at this point, but I hated playing such a defensive position. I justified the exchange sac by saying the Bishop on d5 was stronger than my Rook in this position. Perhaps that is so, but the exchange on d5 also opens up the position much to White's favor. I really need to develop my patience.

There's little to say about the rest; the position quickly became hopeless.

I hadn't lost two OTB games in a day in almost 3 years; in fact, I had only lost 2 of my last 30 (granted mostly against weaker competition). It was a pretty depressing night; I thought about giving up OTB tournament play altogether. But there was a game to play in the morning ...................................

(To be continued)

Last game, Monday (I had taken a bye in the final round before the tourney started). It's the best and worst of me; a well-prepared attack in an obscure variation which left me in a winning position followed by an appalling oversight of an obvious winning move and the acceptance of a draw in a superior position:




3W. Never cared for all that memorization required to play the Lopez; the Scotch has given me great results.
6W. The Blumenfeld Variation. In Emms Scotch book, he says it's "worth a punt" and I had won a game last year using it. My opponent was absolutely puzzled by it and used a ton of time in the opening.
11B. Up to here the game had followed the one Emms gave in the Scotch Game - Kritz v. Hohler, Triesen 2005. Here Hohler played Nf6 but there are a few games with Ne7.
12B. I knew he would pawn grab.
13W. This is a novelty but looks stronger than the immediate Qc7+ played in Berek v. Sosovicka, Bratislava, 2010.
14B. I think Black should be cooked after this; maybe Nf5 is better.
16W. I spent 27 minutes on this move (my first significant time used), but I'm not sure why - it seems an obvious attempt to strip a crucial defending piece.
16B. Not good, but it looks like White wins a piece no matter what.
17B. As good as anything.
19W. Up a piece and only needing to free the Knight on a8.
19B. Black blocks the protection of the c4 Knight and threatens Kg7 winning back the piece. But White has a simple winning move;
20W. Which I miss! How could I not see Qd6+? The Queen exchange is forced and after 21 Nxd6 Ne5 22 Rd8+ or Rxb7 Black can resign.
What explains such an oversight? I had almost an hour of time and spent over 10 minutes on the move. Furthermore, I failed to see it in a brief postmortem with my opponent either. Fatigue was perhaps a factor, but I had played flawlessly up to this point. I really don't understand how I missed it.
20B. My opponent actually offered a draw here. I thought this was a bit cheeky; I'm going to lose back the piece but I'm still up material. I analyzed 21 Qxb7 Rb8 22 Qc7 Rxa8 and saw a long, uncertain endgame with my weak king side pawns and his Queen having back row checks. 22 Rxf7 Qxc6 is perhaps better, but it's still a hard fight.

It was the third day of a tough tournament, I had no chance of winning prize money, the game was three hours old already and it was a beautiful Labor Day outside. I cashed my chips and accepted the draw.