Chicago Open (4) -- Who Needs Opening Theory?

As I had done very little opening preparation before this tournament, I figured at some point I would get crushed by some high school kid who was up on the latest theory of the Sicilian. I thought that point might have come in the fourth round when Davis Whaley opened with 1.e4, but after 1...c5, he went with 2. Nc3 Nc6 and then suprised me with the virtually unknown 3.g4!?






After the game he told me that he just wanted to get away from book openings, obviously not realizing how happy that made me. The game wound up in a closed Sicilian sort of position which suited me fine although I could not find a way to punish his agressiveness and wound up with a draw.

My luck ran out in the sixth round, although it was not the Sicilian that did me in. Gauri Shankar played a fairly new idea in the Classical Nimzo-Indian. After 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 0-0 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.Qxc3 b6 7.Bg5 Ba6 8.Qf3!?

I was actually aware of this move and had a vague idea of the idea behind it, but that did not help me much. I got out of the opening alive, but then let him penetrate my position with his queen after which the game was over quickly. I would think that I would have learned my lesson having gotten beat that way in the past, but somehow I always think that I am going to be able to get away with it.

Whaley v. Hart & Shankar v. Hart


My rating after the Chicago Open is 2049. It was the ninth tournament in a row in which my rating has increased dating from March 2006 when my rating stood at 1948. Over those 45 games, I have won 32, lost 9 and drawn 4. I think that the biggest factor in my increase has been my ability to handle lower rated players. In the 32 games in which I outrated my opponent by more than 15 points, I have yield only a single loss and a single draw. However, if I am going to improve on my 2 wins, 7 losses, and 2 draws against higher rated players, I think I am going to have to work on some openings.