Saturday, October 31, 2009
My New Blog
To anyone who might be interested, I am blogging about chess these days at Prospect Chess.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Sunday, February 10, 2008
2008 State: Dimopoulos v. Strunk
My favorite game came in the third round when Prospect's Peter Dimopoulos upset Lincoln Way's Alex Strunk despite a rating differential of 500 points. Alex played the exotic Black Knight's Tango against Peters 1.d4. Despite never having encountered this opening before, Peter responded logically and aggressively. Alex let his development lag in the hopes of grabbing some pawns.
Both sides overlooked some tactical points that would have been very hard to find in a sixty minute time control without investing a good deal of one's clock, but Peter kept the pressure on and found the very pretty move 22.Nh8! to win the exchange.
A knight is usually at its absolute worst when stuck in the corner so trapping a rook by moving a knight into the corner warrants a lot of style points. Peter missed some opportunities to shorten Black's resistance after this but Alex had been forced to consume most of his time dealing with White's attack.
Both sides overlooked some tactical points that would have been very hard to find in a sixty minute time control without investing a good deal of one's clock, but Peter kept the pressure on and found the very pretty move 22.Nh8! to win the exchange.
A knight is usually at its absolute worst when stuck in the corner so trapping a rook by moving a knight into the corner warrants a lot of style points. Peter missed some opportunities to shorten Black's resistance after this but Alex had been forced to consume most of his time dealing with White's attack.
Two interesting points occurred in the ending where Peter made himself sweat more than he had to. In both cases, Fritz 11 thought that Peter's move was just as good as my proposed alternative, but since Fritz has no sweat glands, I still recommend my move. The first one occurred on his 48th move.
According to Fritz, Peter's 48.Ra5 is every bit as winning as my 48.Kc5, but the virtue of the latter move is that the rook keeps the Black king from ever getting near the White g-pawn. White simply advances the b-pawn until White is forced to give up the bishop.
One of the most important things a rook can do in the endgame is to confine the opposing king.
The next occurred ten moves later when Fritz liked Peter's 58.Ra2+ just as much as my 58.f7. After the latter move, Black queens first, but White queens with check and trades off the Black bishop and queen leaving him free to advance the b-pawn unhinderd. After Peter's move, Black has the opportunity to chase the White king around with checks for awhile.
2008 State: Whining Coaches*
At one point, I happened to overhear a coach complaining about Barrington and Cary Grove gaining an unfair advantage with the help of GM Yuri Shulman, an opinion that was apparently shared by a handful of coaches. The alleged problem was not that these two schools were paying a grandmaster to provide coaching. Instead, the disgruntled coaches were apparently concerned that Shulman had collected a database of games played by various high school players from his chess camps as well as his coaching and that this database was being used by those two schools to prepare for their opponents in the state tournament. These coaches apparently believe that Shulman’s databases should be open to everyone. Happily, the officials were not impressed with these complaints.
In my humble opinion, these coaches should grow up and quit whining. If your team loses a match, try to set an example of class and sportsmanship for your players rather than blaming the loss on some alleged malefaction. As an expert chess player, I can assure you that the advantage to be gained in preparing for specific opponents in a tournament like the IHSA Championship is minimal. Moreover, differences between schools in the resources they are willing and able to devote to training, coaching, and scouting opponents is a fact of life in every competitive activity. Finally, any player who attends one of GM Shulman’s chess camps is sure to be rewarded by an increase in chess understanding that will vastly outweigh any competitive disadvantage that comes from revealing his playing style.
The biggest hindrance to preparing for specific opponents is lack of time. Other than the first and fifth rounds, players do not know who they are going to play until minutes before the round begins. There is no time to prepare for an opponent even if there were much benefit to doing so.
In my experience, the value of preparing for a specific opponent decreases very rapidly for players below master level. When one grandmaster looks at another grandmaster’s games, he may notice a particular weakness or strength in handling a particular type of ending and take that into account in his games. However, two high school players rated in the 1500’s are never going to be able to make that kind of determination about each other. Moreover, even if they could, they are not going to have the skill to steer the game into that particular type of ending. Even with my rating of 2058, I cannot imagine any situation in which I would not be a fool to forego the move I thought objectively best in the hopes of exploiting some imagined weakness in my opponent’s skill set. Moreover, given the learning curve upon which high school players are operating, it would be foolish to assume that any player’s skill set is the same as it was as recently as a month ago.
I will admit that it is nice to know what openings my opponents are likely to play. If I know that my opponent plays a variation that I have had a great deal of trouble handling recently, I might be wise to avoid it. On the other hand, in The Road to Chess Improvement, GM Alex Yermolinsky says that deviating from openings with which you are familiar for fear of your opponent’s superior understanding is one of the worst evils. He is always delighted when his opponents do so. I know from personal experience that my biggest upsets have occurred in games where I played complex openings against strong competition.
In short, the time a high school player spends looking at his own games in order to identify and correct his own weaknesses is going to be overwhelmingly more valuable than time spent examining a potential opponent’s games in the hopes of identifying and exploiting his weaknesses. The single exception to this would be an opponent who chooses to rely on the surprise value of inferior or offbeat openings. I have only occasionally studied the Wing Gambit in the Sicilian simply because it is so rarely played. However, if I were to know that someone in the field of an upcoming event regularly plays it, I would spend some extra time looking at it and neutralize the surprise factor. Some high school players are attracted to offbeat openings and may suffer from having their repertoires generally known. However, I personally have no more sympathy for players who purposely choose crappy openings than I would have for a high school football team that tried to get by on trick plays.
The second point is that scouting is a fact of life. When a foot ball team makes the state playoffs, they try of find films of their opponents, and, I assume, they have to be willing to trade their own films in order to get them. If these coaches think that there is some advantage to be gained by scouting opposing chess teams, then they should contact coaches in other conferences to exchange databases of games. I think they would quickly find that it is very poor use of their time. As far as Schulman’s chess camps go, I am highly skeptical that he obtains information that gives the teams he coaches any tangible advantage, but to the extent he does, it is no different than coaches who see football players or baseball players at camps they run. They are certainly entitled to use their knowledge when they face those players as opponents. The only thing unethical would be to teach those players badly at camp in the hopes of exploiting those weaknesses in competition, and I don’t think anyone could ever accuse Shulman of that.
Any coach who is interested in scouting players in the Mid Suburban League or in scouting me is welcome to do it here. Barrington used this material to scout and beat Prospect this year, but that does not concern me for two reasons. First, Prospect was not outplayed in the openings which is the only place where Barrington could have gained an advantage. Second, as long as I am a volunteer coach, my goal is to promote chess generally as well as help the Prospect players. If Prospect ever decides to pay me, my attitude may change.
In sum, I hate it when coaches whine about pairings, tie breaks, or steward’s rulings. As far as I am concerned, complaining about scouting is just one more type of poor sportsmanship that sets a bad example for the players. The thing to do when you lose is to congratulate your opponent for a job well done and move on.
*These remarks are also posted on the Illinois Chess Association Discussion Forums.
In my humble opinion, these coaches should grow up and quit whining. If your team loses a match, try to set an example of class and sportsmanship for your players rather than blaming the loss on some alleged malefaction. As an expert chess player, I can assure you that the advantage to be gained in preparing for specific opponents in a tournament like the IHSA Championship is minimal. Moreover, differences between schools in the resources they are willing and able to devote to training, coaching, and scouting opponents is a fact of life in every competitive activity. Finally, any player who attends one of GM Shulman’s chess camps is sure to be rewarded by an increase in chess understanding that will vastly outweigh any competitive disadvantage that comes from revealing his playing style.
The biggest hindrance to preparing for specific opponents is lack of time. Other than the first and fifth rounds, players do not know who they are going to play until minutes before the round begins. There is no time to prepare for an opponent even if there were much benefit to doing so.
In my experience, the value of preparing for a specific opponent decreases very rapidly for players below master level. When one grandmaster looks at another grandmaster’s games, he may notice a particular weakness or strength in handling a particular type of ending and take that into account in his games. However, two high school players rated in the 1500’s are never going to be able to make that kind of determination about each other. Moreover, even if they could, they are not going to have the skill to steer the game into that particular type of ending. Even with my rating of 2058, I cannot imagine any situation in which I would not be a fool to forego the move I thought objectively best in the hopes of exploiting some imagined weakness in my opponent’s skill set. Moreover, given the learning curve upon which high school players are operating, it would be foolish to assume that any player’s skill set is the same as it was as recently as a month ago.
I will admit that it is nice to know what openings my opponents are likely to play. If I know that my opponent plays a variation that I have had a great deal of trouble handling recently, I might be wise to avoid it. On the other hand, in The Road to Chess Improvement, GM Alex Yermolinsky says that deviating from openings with which you are familiar for fear of your opponent’s superior understanding is one of the worst evils. He is always delighted when his opponents do so. I know from personal experience that my biggest upsets have occurred in games where I played complex openings against strong competition.
In short, the time a high school player spends looking at his own games in order to identify and correct his own weaknesses is going to be overwhelmingly more valuable than time spent examining a potential opponent’s games in the hopes of identifying and exploiting his weaknesses. The single exception to this would be an opponent who chooses to rely on the surprise value of inferior or offbeat openings. I have only occasionally studied the Wing Gambit in the Sicilian simply because it is so rarely played. However, if I were to know that someone in the field of an upcoming event regularly plays it, I would spend some extra time looking at it and neutralize the surprise factor. Some high school players are attracted to offbeat openings and may suffer from having their repertoires generally known. However, I personally have no more sympathy for players who purposely choose crappy openings than I would have for a high school football team that tried to get by on trick plays.
The second point is that scouting is a fact of life. When a foot ball team makes the state playoffs, they try of find films of their opponents, and, I assume, they have to be willing to trade their own films in order to get them. If these coaches think that there is some advantage to be gained by scouting opposing chess teams, then they should contact coaches in other conferences to exchange databases of games. I think they would quickly find that it is very poor use of their time. As far as Schulman’s chess camps go, I am highly skeptical that he obtains information that gives the teams he coaches any tangible advantage, but to the extent he does, it is no different than coaches who see football players or baseball players at camps they run. They are certainly entitled to use their knowledge when they face those players as opponents. The only thing unethical would be to teach those players badly at camp in the hopes of exploiting those weaknesses in competition, and I don’t think anyone could ever accuse Shulman of that.
Any coach who is interested in scouting players in the Mid Suburban League or in scouting me is welcome to do it here. Barrington used this material to scout and beat Prospect this year, but that does not concern me for two reasons. First, Prospect was not outplayed in the openings which is the only place where Barrington could have gained an advantage. Second, as long as I am a volunteer coach, my goal is to promote chess generally as well as help the Prospect players. If Prospect ever decides to pay me, my attitude may change.
In sum, I hate it when coaches whine about pairings, tie breaks, or steward’s rulings. As far as I am concerned, complaining about scouting is just one more type of poor sportsmanship that sets a bad example for the players. The thing to do when you lose is to congratulate your opponent for a job well done and move on.
*These remarks are also posted on the Illinois Chess Association Discussion Forums.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
2008 State: There's 4-3 and Then There's 4-3
Although Prospect duplicated last year's 4-3 finish and only moved up three spots in the standings from last year's 37th to 34th this year, the fact was that they had a much better tournament. Prospect's average point per match of 41 this year verses 29 last year reflects the fact that they dominated in their winning matches and were very competitive in their losses.
The MSL acquitted itself well with Barrington, Palatine, and Buffalo Grove finishing 5-2. Prospect, Conant, and Hoffman Estates went 4-3. Schaumburg and Fremd finished 3.5-3.5.
Complete results can be found at the IHSA.
Best things about this year's events:
The room was carpeted and quiet. There was a monster truck show going on in the main arena and you couldn't here it in the playing area.
The bookseller had an excellent selection of opening books. Normally, book tables are filled with books about half-assed openings that young players should never touch if they ever hope to improve. This vendor only had a single book about an opening that I would object to seeing one of my players adopt. Everything else was solid books by solid authors.
Worst thing about this year's event:
Whiny coaches complaining about unfair advantages. More about this later.
The MSL acquitted itself well with Barrington, Palatine, and Buffalo Grove finishing 5-2. Prospect, Conant, and Hoffman Estates went 4-3. Schaumburg and Fremd finished 3.5-3.5.
Complete results can be found at the IHSA.
Best things about this year's events:
The room was carpeted and quiet. There was a monster truck show going on in the main arena and you couldn't here it in the playing area.
The bookseller had an excellent selection of opening books. Normally, book tables are filled with books about half-assed openings that young players should never touch if they ever hope to improve. This vendor only had a single book about an opening that I would object to seeing one of my players adopt. Everything else was solid books by solid authors.
Worst thing about this year's event:
Whiny coaches complaining about unfair advantages. More about this later.
Monday, January 28, 2008
2008 MSL Tournament (1):Prospect goes 2-2
The Mid-Suburban League Tournament was played on January 26th. In the first round Hoffman Estates avenged the 52-16 loss that Prospect inflicted last month with 42-26 victory. Prospect got back to even with a 52.5-15.5 win over Fremd in the second round and put itself in a position to play for the top spots by beating Conant 46.5-21.5 in the third round. However, Prospect lost a hard fought match to Barrington in the last round by 47-21.
Prospects lower boards played very well with Dhruvin Talati and Max Zwolenik finishing 4-0 and Mike Zwolenik and Parth Patel finishing 3-1. The complete results can be seen at the ICCA Website.
Prospects lower boards played very well with Dhruvin Talati and Max Zwolenik finishing 4-0 and Mike Zwolenik and Parth Patel finishing 3-1. The complete results can be seen at the ICCA Website.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Tim Just Winter Open: "Guile and Treachery"
At last year's edition of the this event, I managed escape a losing position by bamboozling the 2nd highest rated nine-year-old in the country, Alexander Velikanov, when he was in time trouble. This left Zhe Quan, who was the top rated eleven-year-old when I played him in 2002, as the youngest player to beat me. Alas, my luck did not hold this year when I faced Alexander as the 7th highest ten-year-old. However, I still managed a respectable 3.5-1.5 score by drawing the 39th fifteen-year-old and beating the 18th fifteen-year-old, the 38th fourteen-year-old, and some crazy old man who was playing his first tournament in twenty-five years.
In the first round, I faced York High School sophomore Byron Chen, who I have known since he was a second grader coming to the Elmhurst Chess Club. The game was fairly even for twenty-six moves when a mistake by Byron gave me a chance to win a piece. However, I thought I saw a way to win an exchange that would have gotten the queens off the board. Since I had less than ten minutes to reach the forty move time control, I thought this the wiser course. Unfortunately, I overlooked a knight fork at the tail end of the combination which enable Byron to restore the equilibrium with bishops of opposite colors after which we agreed to a draw. Byron went on to have a great tournament at 4-1, knocking off Master Chris Nienart. He gained a stunning 80 rating points from 1878 to 1958!
In the second round, I faced fourteen-year-old Aakaash Meduri, who I have also known for years. Aakaash outplayed me thoroughly in the opening and I was expecting to pay the price for my recent lack of study, however, a couple of minor oversights enabled me to turn the game around. In the third round, I finally faced an opponent who shaved. Alan Davenport's son was playing in his first tournament in the reserve section so Alan decided to play in his first tournament in twenty-five years. He could not quite overcome the two decades of rust (which I well understand), but I suspect he will sharpen pretty quickly if he keeps at it.
Round four saw my rematch with Alexander Velikanov who played 6.Bg5 against my Najdorf Sicilian. I got the cramped but solid position that I was supposed to get but Alexander did a terrific job of keeping me tied up. My attempt to generate counterplay backfired with the loss of an exchange which my young opponent returned to reach a won king and pawn ending. Alexander's other victims in the tournament included 2209 Aleksander Stamnov and 2121 Patrick Lacey only losing in the last round to 2365 Mergen Amanov. Alexander boosted his rating from 1956 to 2013.
In the last round I faced fifteen year old expert Trevor Magness who played a system against the English Opening that I had not seen for several years ago and did not remember very well. Amazingly, the game followed book for the first twelve moves when I failed to come up with the plan endorsed by theory. Trevor grabbed the initiative but committed a tactical oversight that dropped the exchange. In the resulting queen and rook vs. queen and knight ending, Trevor had a very solid pawn structure and I had to maneuver carefully to break down his position while keeping his knight from becoming active.
The title of today's post is a reference to a statement made of me by Brad Rosen on his 64 Square Jungle blog: "Vincent demonstrates that every once in a while that age, guile, and treachery will triumph over youth, skill, and brilliance." While Brad is the father of 22nd ranked fourteen-year-old Eric. Brad and his wife Andi are supporters of chess players of all ages. At the Tim Just Winter Open, youth and brilliance came out on top more often than not with several veteran adult players finishing at the bottom of the cross-table.
The important thing is to approach the kids with the right attitude. After my loss to young Zhe Quan in 2002, one of the adults watching the game sought to comfort me by saying "These kids are too tough." In irritation, I responded "No they're not. They're tough, but they're not too tough." They may be young and energetic with more time to play and study then I have, but they still have to find the right moves over the board.
In the first round, I faced York High School sophomore Byron Chen, who I have known since he was a second grader coming to the Elmhurst Chess Club. The game was fairly even for twenty-six moves when a mistake by Byron gave me a chance to win a piece. However, I thought I saw a way to win an exchange that would have gotten the queens off the board. Since I had less than ten minutes to reach the forty move time control, I thought this the wiser course. Unfortunately, I overlooked a knight fork at the tail end of the combination which enable Byron to restore the equilibrium with bishops of opposite colors after which we agreed to a draw. Byron went on to have a great tournament at 4-1, knocking off Master Chris Nienart. He gained a stunning 80 rating points from 1878 to 1958!
In the second round, I faced fourteen-year-old Aakaash Meduri, who I have also known for years. Aakaash outplayed me thoroughly in the opening and I was expecting to pay the price for my recent lack of study, however, a couple of minor oversights enabled me to turn the game around. In the third round, I finally faced an opponent who shaved. Alan Davenport's son was playing in his first tournament in the reserve section so Alan decided to play in his first tournament in twenty-five years. He could not quite overcome the two decades of rust (which I well understand), but I suspect he will sharpen pretty quickly if he keeps at it.
Round four saw my rematch with Alexander Velikanov who played 6.Bg5 against my Najdorf Sicilian. I got the cramped but solid position that I was supposed to get but Alexander did a terrific job of keeping me tied up. My attempt to generate counterplay backfired with the loss of an exchange which my young opponent returned to reach a won king and pawn ending. Alexander's other victims in the tournament included 2209 Aleksander Stamnov and 2121 Patrick Lacey only losing in the last round to 2365 Mergen Amanov. Alexander boosted his rating from 1956 to 2013.
In the last round I faced fifteen year old expert Trevor Magness who played a system against the English Opening that I had not seen for several years ago and did not remember very well. Amazingly, the game followed book for the first twelve moves when I failed to come up with the plan endorsed by theory. Trevor grabbed the initiative but committed a tactical oversight that dropped the exchange. In the resulting queen and rook vs. queen and knight ending, Trevor had a very solid pawn structure and I had to maneuver carefully to break down his position while keeping his knight from becoming active.
The title of today's post is a reference to a statement made of me by Brad Rosen on his 64 Square Jungle blog: "Vincent demonstrates that every once in a while that age, guile, and treachery will triumph over youth, skill, and brilliance." While Brad is the father of 22nd ranked fourteen-year-old Eric. Brad and his wife Andi are supporters of chess players of all ages. At the Tim Just Winter Open, youth and brilliance came out on top more often than not with several veteran adult players finishing at the bottom of the cross-table.
The important thing is to approach the kids with the right attitude. After my loss to young Zhe Quan in 2002, one of the adults watching the game sought to comfort me by saying "These kids are too tough." In irritation, I responded "No they're not. They're tough, but they're not too tough." They may be young and energetic with more time to play and study then I have, but they still have to find the right moves over the board.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Prospect v. Palatine (3): Guarding f7
What is the most vulnerable square at the start of the game? Here's a hint:
If you guessed the square occupied by the f-pawn, you were absolutely right. f2 and f7 are the squares upon which the earliest checkmates happen because they are only guarded by the kings. Protecting and exploiting these squares should be part of any opening strategy.
Palatine suffered on 6th Board and 8th Board due to the weakness of f7. Palatine's Steve Skara played the Two Knights Defense against Parth Patel on 6th and failed to properly counter 4.Ng5. Parth's inaccuracies allowed Steve to survive the opening, but his king was stuck in the middle. This proved to be his downfall. On the bottom board, Palatine's Jeff Leach left f7 completely unguarded when he castled queenside and overlooked Max Zwolenik's attack on the square. As sometimes happens in chess, a single oversight led to the complete unraveling of a position.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Prospect v. Palatine (2): Tough Decisions
The hardest decisions in chess often involve deciding what to do with an advantage once it is achieved. The path to victory frequently requires a player to convert an advantage in initiative or space advantage into a advantage in material or a middlegame advantage into an endgame advantage. Timing these conversions is often critical, but complicated by the fact that the advantage a player presently enjoys is always easier to appreciate than the one he hopes to enjoy.
The most interesting game of the match was Kevin Kostka's loss on 3rd Board against Palatine's K.C. Stenerson. K.C. neutralized Kevin's King's Gambit whereupon Kevin sacrificed a piece in an effort to salvage some initiative. In his eagerness to simplify the position, K.C. let Kevin obtain two powerful pawns deep in Black territory, but Kevin was unable to find the right point to convert that advantage into a strong ending.
On 2nd Board Palatine's Kyle Shymanik obtained a space advantage and superior piece activity against Andrew Berowski, but gave them up to quickly leading to a drawn ending. On 4th Board, Palatine's Ian Salyers obtained a space advantage and an extra pawn, but failed to take the measures necessary to neutralize Tejas Shah's counterplay and wound up overlooking a mate threat.
The most interesting game of the match was Kevin Kostka's loss on 3rd Board against Palatine's K.C. Stenerson. K.C. neutralized Kevin's King's Gambit whereupon Kevin sacrificed a piece in an effort to salvage some initiative. In his eagerness to simplify the position, K.C. let Kevin obtain two powerful pawns deep in Black territory, but Kevin was unable to find the right point to convert that advantage into a strong ending.
On 2nd Board Palatine's Kyle Shymanik obtained a space advantage and superior piece activity against Andrew Berowski, but gave them up to quickly leading to a drawn ending. On 4th Board, Palatine's Ian Salyers obtained a space advantage and an extra pawn, but failed to take the measures necessary to neutralize Tejas Shah's counterplay and wound up overlooking a mate threat.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Endgame Rule Number One--STRAIGHT BACK DRAWS
Here is the first thing every player should learn about endgames: straight back draws. Consider the following position:
With White to move, he draws if he drops his king straight back to e1 but loses if he drops the king back to f1 or d1. After either 1.Ke1 Kd3 2. Kd1 e2+ 3.Ke1 and 1. Kd1 Kd3 2. Ke1 e2, the following position is reached:
So why does it matter whether White drops straight back or not? BECAUSE IT DETERMINES WHOSE MOVE IT IS IN THE POSITION! If White dropped straight back, it is Black's move and he must abandon his pawn or play 3...Ke3, which is STALEMATE. If White dropped back at an angle than it is his move and he must play 3.Kf2 to which Black responds 3...Kd2 with 4...e1=Q coming next move.While it is only that last drop back that determines whether White draws or not, I recommend that all the drop backs are handled that way. Consider the following position:
It does not matter whether White plays 1.Kd3, 1.Ke3, or 1.Kf3. It only matters that he plays Ke1 at the appointed time. However, I always feel much better when I see one of my players move 1.Ke3 because it gives me confidence that he understands STRAIGHT BACK DRAWS.
Their is an entire body of endgame theory regarding the principle of "opposition" which applies to most endings where only kings and pawns are left and the player who understands it will be able to figure out this position at the board. However, even if a player does not remember the opposition or is too low on time to figure it out, STRAIGHT BACK DRAWS will enable him to save the half point. It will also tell him whether he want to trade off rooks in a position where he has a rook and king against his opponent's pawn, rook and king.
So remember, STRAIGHT BACK DRAWS or "SBD," which I am confident can be turned into a scatological mnemonic device by any high school age male.
Prospect v. Palatine (1): Prospect Wins!
However hopeless the situation appears to be there yet always exists the possibility of putting up a stubborn resistance. And it is the player’s task to find these opportunities and make the best of them. When the player with the upper hand is continually confronted by new problems, when, at every moment, one renders the win as difficult as possible, then it is likely that his powers will eventually weaken and he may make some mistake. Paul Keres
Prospect scored its first win ever over Palatine by a score of 52.5-14.5. While it is true that Palatine was playing without a couple of strong players, Prospect played well to pull off the upset. Palatine players had strong positions on each of the top four boards, but stubborn play by all the Prospect players yielded two wins and a draw.
The win was anchored by 1st Board Peter Dimopoulos who won on time against Palatine's Syed Hassan. Peter grabbed a big advantage in space in the opening, but took a little too long to get his attack rolling which allowed Syed to generate dangerous counterplay. The ending looked bad for Peter with rook, bishop and four pawns against Syed's rook, bishop and six pawns. However, Peter still had the space advantage which he nursed carefully to keep Syed's rook and bishop passive. Syed used all his time trying to find a way to untangle his position.
Prospect scored its first win ever over Palatine by a score of 52.5-14.5. While it is true that Palatine was playing without a couple of strong players, Prospect played well to pull off the upset. Palatine players had strong positions on each of the top four boards, but stubborn play by all the Prospect players yielded two wins and a draw.
The win was anchored by 1st Board Peter Dimopoulos who won on time against Palatine's Syed Hassan. Peter grabbed a big advantage in space in the opening, but took a little too long to get his attack rolling which allowed Syed to generate dangerous counterplay. The ending looked bad for Peter with rook, bishop and four pawns against Syed's rook, bishop and six pawns. However, Peter still had the space advantage which he nursed carefully to keep Syed's rook and bishop passive. Syed used all his time trying to find a way to untangle his position.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Prospect v. Barrington (3): Opening Moves I Hate
Two of Prospect's three victories came from the Zwolenik brothers, Mike on 5th Board against Zach Youman and Max on 8th Board against Cory Hunter. Both Zwoleniks have demonstrated potential on some occassions and sloppiness on others, but they both came up with some accurate moves in complex positions to win their games.
There are several reasons I hate this move: (1) blocking the d-pawn immobilizes it and stops it from exerting control of the center or performing any other useful function; (2) blocking the d-pawn makes it harder to develop the other bishop; and (3) the bishop is wasted because it is performing the function of a pawn. Not surprisingly, you will rarely see a bishop developed this way in games between strong players.
In Mike's case, the hated move was placing the queen in front of an undeveloped bishop with 5...Qe7.
The reason I hate this move is that it delays the development of the bishop and delays castling. It rarely yields benefits commensurate with the loss of development, however, there are in fact a few opening in which you will see this move played at the top level. Most of them involve situations where the opponent suffers a loss of development because he is forced to play the same move to deal with threats on the e-file. One such case occurs in the Petrov defense after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 2.Nxe5 Nxe4?! 3.Qe2. Black is now forced to play 3...Qe7 because he will lose his queen after 3...Nf6?? 4.Nd6+.
While I hate to pour salt in a player's wounds after a loss, I love to jump on a player's mistakes after he wins, and each of the Zwoleniks played an opening move that made me cringe. In Max's case it was putting a bishop in front of an unmoved central pawn with 4.Qd3 .
There are several reasons I hate this move: (1) blocking the d-pawn immobilizes it and stops it from exerting control of the center or performing any other useful function; (2) blocking the d-pawn makes it harder to develop the other bishop; and (3) the bishop is wasted because it is performing the function of a pawn. Not surprisingly, you will rarely see a bishop developed this way in games between strong players.In Mike's case, the hated move was placing the queen in front of an undeveloped bishop with 5...Qe7.
The reason I hate this move is that it delays the development of the bishop and delays castling. It rarely yields benefits commensurate with the loss of development, however, there are in fact a few opening in which you will see this move played at the top level. Most of them involve situations where the opponent suffers a loss of development because he is forced to play the same move to deal with threats on the e-file. One such case occurs in the Petrov defense after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 2.Nxe5 Nxe4?! 3.Qe2. Black is now forced to play 3...Qe7 because he will lose his queen after 3...Nf6?? 4.Nd6+.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Prospect v. Barrington (2): The Anti-Sicilians
The most popular opening at the grandmaster level is the the Sicilan Defense. After 1.e4 c5, the most dynamic lines are known generally as the Open Sicilian when White plays 2.Nf3 d6 (or 2...e6 or 2..Nc6) 3.d4 cxd4, 4.Nxd4.
The Open Sicilian includes many well-known variations such as the Najdorf, the Dragon, the Classical, the Schevenginen, the Taimanov, the Paulsen, the Sveshnikov and the Kalishnakov. Chess books are filled with exciting games played in the Sicilian and many are tempted to try it out.
One big problem with playing the Sicilian Defense is that your opponent may know nothing about opening theory and he may not realize how exciting the Open Sicilian is, or he may know and decide that he is not in the mood for that kind of excitement. He may play one of many variations that are known collectively as Anti-Sicilians, including the Grand Prix Attack, the c3 Sicilian, Closed Sicilian, the Alapin, the Wing Gambit, the Morra Gambit, the Moscow, the Rossolimo. He may even play a perfectly logical move like 3.Bc4 that has no name at all. Whichever one of these White plays, it assures that Black will not get to play that exciting opening that he studied.
When I returned to competitive chess in 1996 after a twenty year hiatus since high school, I decided to play the Sicilian Defense. I started out with the Najdorf but soon switched to the Dragon. I had good results in these lines but I found that most of my opponents avoided them The most common Anti-Sicilians I encountered were the Closed Sicilian and the c3 Sicilian, although I did poorly against all the Grand Prix Attack as well, so poorly that I began to experiment with other defenses to 1.e4. Finally I figured out how to play against them and now I am actually happy to face an Anti-Sicilian. When I see one, I am pretty sure that my opponent is not going to surprise me with some devastating innovation from the latest super-GM event.
While the Anti-Sicilians are not considered the most testing lines, they cannot be taken lightly. Black can find himself in trouble if he simply follows his usual scheme of development without considering the strengths and weaknesses of White's approach. For example, when fianchettoing the bishop against several Anti-Sicilians, the Black knight is better placed on e7 rather than f6. Here is a position from the Closed Sicilian that is reached by 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.d3 e6 6.f4 Nge7 7.Nf3 0-0 8.Be3 d6.
The Open Sicilian includes many well-known variations such as the Najdorf, the Dragon, the Classical, the Schevenginen, the Taimanov, the Paulsen, the Sveshnikov and the Kalishnakov. Chess books are filled with exciting games played in the Sicilian and many are tempted to try it out.
One big problem with playing the Sicilian Defense is that your opponent may know nothing about opening theory and he may not realize how exciting the Open Sicilian is, or he may know and decide that he is not in the mood for that kind of excitement. He may play one of many variations that are known collectively as Anti-Sicilians, including the Grand Prix Attack, the c3 Sicilian, Closed Sicilian, the Alapin, the Wing Gambit, the Morra Gambit, the Moscow, the Rossolimo. He may even play a perfectly logical move like 3.Bc4 that has no name at all. Whichever one of these White plays, it assures that Black will not get to play that exciting opening that he studied.
When I returned to competitive chess in 1996 after a twenty year hiatus since high school, I decided to play the Sicilian Defense. I started out with the Najdorf but soon switched to the Dragon. I had good results in these lines but I found that most of my opponents avoided them The most common Anti-Sicilians I encountered were the Closed Sicilian and the c3 Sicilian, although I did poorly against all the Grand Prix Attack as well, so poorly that I began to experiment with other defenses to 1.e4. Finally I figured out how to play against them and now I am actually happy to face an Anti-Sicilian. When I see one, I am pretty sure that my opponent is not going to surprise me with some devastating innovation from the latest super-GM event.
While the Anti-Sicilians are not considered the most testing lines, they cannot be taken lightly. Black can find himself in trouble if he simply follows his usual scheme of development without considering the strengths and weaknesses of White's approach. For example, when fianchettoing the bishop against several Anti-Sicilians, the Black knight is better placed on e7 rather than f6. Here is a position from the Closed Sicilian that is reached by 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.d3 e6 6.f4 Nge7 7.Nf3 0-0 8.Be3 d6.
Since White played d3 rather than d4, the e4 pawn is secure and White can thumb his nose at a knight on f6. However, on e7 the Black knight is ready to go to c6 after ...Nd4 and it also serves to deter White from playing f5. The same formation for Black is also seen against the Grand Prix Attack.
This position is reached by 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Bc4 e6 6.0-0 Nge7 7.d3 0-0. From both of the positions above Black can consider expanding on the queenside with ...a6 and ...b5 or challenging the center with ...d5.
The Importance of Exchanges
Against Barrington, Tejas Shah struggled to find counterplay on 4th Board against the closed game Luc Norman played against the Sicilian. However, the game was decided by two exchanges made by Tejas that allowed Luc to bring pieces to dominating positions. Too often, young players exchange pieces automatically. However, a capture can do great harm when the recapturing piece is much stronger than the original piece that occupied the square.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Prospect v. Barrington (1)
Prospect fell short in its bid to be the only team to beat Barrington for three years running. The Zwolenik brothers, Mike and Max, played their best chess of the year to beat Zach Youman and Cory Hunter on 5th Board and 8th Board and Andrew Berowski continued his hex on Kevin Karande on 2nd Board this time. Unfortunately, those were all the points Prospect could muster. Peter Dimopoulos put up a good fight against 1957 rated Zach Kasiurak on 1st but could not pull off the upset while Kevin Kostka could not quite make his exchange sacrifice pay off on 3rd Board against David Lilien. On 4th Board, Norman Luc kept Tejas Shah on the defensive most of the game. Parth Patel's game on 6th Board could have gone either way before Grant Wagner prevailed in the ending. On 7th Board, Dhruvin Talati obtained a decent postion against Zach Bakal but dropped a knight in a miscalculation.
Rumor has it that Barrington used this blog to scout Prospect, which pleases me no end, particularly since the Prospect players came out of the openings fine.
Rumor has it that Barrington used this blog to scout Prospect, which pleases me no end, particularly since the Prospect players came out of the openings fine.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Prospect v. Schaumburg (3): Too Many Pawn Moves
Pawn moves in the opening can be quite useful. They provide space for the pieces to develop and they help control the center. But excessive pawn moves create weaknesses and allow an opponent to get a lead in development. Three of Schaumburg's losses can be traced to excessive pawn moves. On 4th Board, five out of Brandon Hunt's first seven moves against Mike Zwolenik were pawn moves. On 7th Board, Ryan Wehmeier used six of his first eight moves for pawns against Mike's brother Max, and on 8th Board, Ryan Koutnik made six straight pawn moves to open the game against Mike Busby. The results were lags in development and vulnerable kings.
On 2nd Board, Schaumburg's Alexander Savoy got his pieces into the action, but his single minded attack on Andrew Berowski's king was parried by accurate defense and White ran out of ammo. On 3rd Board, Schaumburg's Ben Wu developed his pieces reasonably but overlooked a double attack on move 13 that cost him a knight after which Tejas Shah maintained control.
The most interesting game of the match was played on 1st Board between Peter Dimopoulos and Schaumburg's Craig McIlvain. Craig played the opening somewhat timidly and wound up down a pawn with an exposed king, but Peter could not find a way to open the lines he needed to open to bring his rooks to bear. Craig in turn missed the chance to exploit the open lines available to his rooks and a rook and pawn ending was reached that probably should have been drawn. However, Craig allowed Peter to trade rooks to reach a winning king and pawn ending but Peter was too eager to advance his pawn and Craig managed Schaumburg's sole win in the match.
On 2nd Board, Schaumburg's Alexander Savoy got his pieces into the action, but his single minded attack on Andrew Berowski's king was parried by accurate defense and White ran out of ammo. On 3rd Board, Schaumburg's Ben Wu developed his pieces reasonably but overlooked a double attack on move 13 that cost him a knight after which Tejas Shah maintained control.
The most interesting game of the match was played on 1st Board between Peter Dimopoulos and Schaumburg's Craig McIlvain. Craig played the opening somewhat timidly and wound up down a pawn with an exposed king, but Peter could not find a way to open the lines he needed to open to bring his rooks to bear. Craig in turn missed the chance to exploit the open lines available to his rooks and a rook and pawn ending was reached that probably should have been drawn. However, Craig allowed Peter to trade rooks to reach a winning king and pawn ending but Peter was too eager to advance his pawn and Craig managed Schaumburg's sole win in the match.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Prospect v. Schaumburg (2): Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?
If you've never missed a flight, you're spending too much time in airports. Economist Stephen Landsburg.
If you never get in time trouble, you're making your moves too fast. Chess Expert Vince Hart.
The nicest thing about working chess problems in a book is that little phrase "White to play and win." The reader knows there is a good move there if he spends the time to look for it. In a real game, no one tells the player when he should move quickly and when he should invest some time in looking for a move that can change the course of the game. He has to figure that out for yourself.
A complicating factor in deciding how much time to allocate to a particular move is the fact that the player never knows how many moves the game is going to last. In the MSL, the player usually has sixty minutes to make all his moves, but I have seen move lengths ranging from eight moves to eighty-five moves over the last few years at Prospect. The player who spends three minutes per move is going to run out of time if the game lasts longer than twenty.
This complicating factor is somewhat offset by the fact that the last ten to fifteen to twenty moves of a very long game often consist of a player with an overwhelming material advantage picking off his opponent's remaining pawns, queening his own pawn, and tracking down the opponent's king to deliver checkmate. A great deal of time need not be budgeted for these moves as they can be played fairly quickly, often within the five second delay.
I would say that forty moves is probably a good first guess for the length of the game. That allows for 1.5 minutes per move. If a player finds that he has made twenty moves in the first ten minutes, then he knows he should start taking more time. If he finds that he has played only fifteen moves in a half an hour, he might consider picking up his pace, however even this is subject to the position on the board. In a complicated position where the right move might decide the game, it may be worth risking a time shortage later.
There will of course be times when a player invests all his time in the hopes of reaching a decisive position only to find himself continuing to face a complicated position with inadequate time to think. If it happens all the time, the player needs to start playing faster. However, occasionally facing time pressure is much better than consistently finishing a game with forty-five minutes left on the clock.
So when is a player warranted in spending a little more time looking for a decisive move? As usual, I steal my material from National Master Dan Heisman. In an article titled The Seeds of Tactical Destruction he lists the types of things that give rise to tactical possibilities.
If you never get in time trouble, you're making your moves too fast. Chess Expert Vince Hart.
The nicest thing about working chess problems in a book is that little phrase "White to play and win." The reader knows there is a good move there if he spends the time to look for it. In a real game, no one tells the player when he should move quickly and when he should invest some time in looking for a move that can change the course of the game. He has to figure that out for yourself.
A complicating factor in deciding how much time to allocate to a particular move is the fact that the player never knows how many moves the game is going to last. In the MSL, the player usually has sixty minutes to make all his moves, but I have seen move lengths ranging from eight moves to eighty-five moves over the last few years at Prospect. The player who spends three minutes per move is going to run out of time if the game lasts longer than twenty.
This complicating factor is somewhat offset by the fact that the last ten to fifteen to twenty moves of a very long game often consist of a player with an overwhelming material advantage picking off his opponent's remaining pawns, queening his own pawn, and tracking down the opponent's king to deliver checkmate. A great deal of time need not be budgeted for these moves as they can be played fairly quickly, often within the five second delay.
I would say that forty moves is probably a good first guess for the length of the game. That allows for 1.5 minutes per move. If a player finds that he has made twenty moves in the first ten minutes, then he knows he should start taking more time. If he finds that he has played only fifteen moves in a half an hour, he might consider picking up his pace, however even this is subject to the position on the board. In a complicated position where the right move might decide the game, it may be worth risking a time shortage later.
There will of course be times when a player invests all his time in the hopes of reaching a decisive position only to find himself continuing to face a complicated position with inadequate time to think. If it happens all the time, the player needs to start playing faster. However, occasionally facing time pressure is much better than consistently finishing a game with forty-five minutes left on the clock.
So when is a player warranted in spending a little more time looking for a decisive move? As usual, I steal my material from National Master Dan Heisman. In an article titled The Seeds of Tactical Destruction he lists the types of things that give rise to tactical possibilities.
- Loose (unguarded) pieces - "Loose Pieces Drop Off" = LPDO
- Pieces that can easily be attacked by enemy pieces of less value
- One or more pieces than can be attacked via a "discovered
attack" - Weak back rank
- Pieces on the same diagonal that may vulnerable to a bishop skewer or pin,
- Pieces along the same rank or file that may be vulnerable to a rook pin or skewer
diagonal - Pieces that may be vulnerable to Knight forks
- Inadequately guarded pieces
- Overworked pieces that are guarding more than one piece or square (which, if removed, will make another piece loose or inadequately guarded)
- A big lead in development
- Pawns nearing promotion
- King uncastled or lacking pawn protection (especially with Queens on the
Board) - Open lines for Rooks, Queens, and Bishops towards opponent’s King
Pieces with little mobility that might be trapped if attacked - A large domination of one side's forces in one area of the board
These are the kinds of things that players should be looking for all the time. When they appear on the board, it is worth spending some extra time to see if they can be exploited.
The Chronos chess clock has a feature that will record the time that each player spends on each move so that it can be reviewed after the game. For the Schaumburg match, I had Dhruvin Talati use the clock for his game on 6th Board against Schaumburg's Chuck Novak. Dhruvin frequently demonstrates nice tactical vision, but he often finishes his game with more than forty minutes left on his clock (which is actually an improvement over last year when he would finish with fifty minutes left on his clock). As a result, he commits some painful blunders.
Against Schaumburg, Dhruvin got a big lead in development when his opponent failed to get all his pieces into the action, but Dhuvin did not take the time to find a way to exploit the advantage. He eventually found some Knight forks to gain a substantial material advantage but then proceeded to give much of it back on two consectutive moves on which he spent three and twenty-one seconds. Luckily, he retained enough of an advantage that he was able to win the game.
Prospect v. Schaumburg (1): Opening Principles
On November 1, Prospect beat Schaumburg by a score of 56-12. If the match had been decided purely on the number of tactical blunders made by each side, the score would have been much closer. The main reason for the lopsided score was that the Schaumburg players neglected the three basic goals of the opening: (1) Development, (2) Control of the center. and (3) King safety. It is very difficult to put up a good fight if you don't play the opening with these concepts in mind. As always, I highly recommend the article Opening Principles by National Master Dan Heisman.
Development is job one. More pieces in action means more possibilities to attack your opponent. More pieces in action means more pieces your opponent must keep track of meaning more possibilities that he will overlook what one of them is up to. More pieces in action means more possibilities of responding when your opponent does something unexpected. More pieces in action means more possibilities that you can defend something that needs to be defended. More pieces in action means more possibilities that you can create such strong threats of your own that you can ignore the unexpected thing your opponent did.
An exellent rule for less experienced players to follow: Move every piece once before you move any piece twice unless there is a good reason to do so. In the context of development, piece means knight, bishop, rook or queen, not pawn. Good reason usually means that you can win material by moving a piece twice or you can avoid losing material by doing so.
The second purpose of the opening is to control the center. Take a look at this diagram of the Battle of Gettysburg.
Development is job one. More pieces in action means more possibilities to attack your opponent. More pieces in action means more pieces your opponent must keep track of meaning more possibilities that he will overlook what one of them is up to. More pieces in action means more possibilities of responding when your opponent does something unexpected. More pieces in action means more possibilities that you can defend something that needs to be defended. More pieces in action means more possibilities that you can create such strong threats of your own that you can ignore the unexpected thing your opponent did.
An exellent rule for less experienced players to follow: Move every piece once before you move any piece twice unless there is a good reason to do so. In the context of development, piece means knight, bishop, rook or queen, not pawn. Good reason usually means that you can win material by moving a piece twice or you can avoid losing material by doing so.
The second purpose of the opening is to control the center. Take a look at this diagram of the Battle of Gettysburg.
The Union Army under General George Meade controlled the center of the battlefield and was able to shift forces quickly from one point to another as the battle dictated. The Confederate Army under General Robert E. Lee had a very difficult time coordinating its attacks. The same thing happens in chess. The player who controls the center of the board finds it much easier to redeploy his forces and concentrate them where they will do the most good.
For beginning players, the most natural way to to obtain central control is to occupy it with pawns. There are some opening setups in which the center is controlled with pieces alone, but they tend to require more advanced knowledge. There are also openings in which one side cedes control of the center in the hopes that his opponent's position will become over extended and weak. These openings are even trickier and probably should not be attempted until a player is comfortable with the simpler methods.
The third goal of the opening is finding a safe spot for the the king. This usually means castling on a side of the board where the king will have good pawn cover. The great thing about castling is that it often meets the first two goals as well because it develops the rook to a square where it can support and control the center.
On 5th Board, Schaumburg's Michael Simboli neglected opening development in favor of queenside pawn expansion and left his king in the center. Although Prospect's Parth Patel did not counter as sharply as he might have, Michael found it difficult to defend his advanced pawns. When Michael continued to operate on the queenside, Parth took advantage of the White king's vulnerability to put the game away.Monday, October 22, 2007
Prospect v. Buffalo Grove (4): Loose Pieces Drop Off
English Grandmaster John Nunn frequently writes about a princple that he refers to as LPDO which stands for "loose pieces drop off." The idea is that even among strong players, all the opening theory and middle game strategy often comes to nought as the game is decided when an undefended piece falls victim to a tactic. If players learn early on to be circumspect about leaving loose pieces on the board, they would find their results improving more rapidly.
Prospect's 1st Board Peter Dimopolous and 3rd Board Tejas Shah both played the Queen's Gambit as white and Buffalo Grove's Yuriy Nartov and Nedium Bajramovic both accepted. Peter and Tejas both wound up with a loose bishop on c4 which came under attack from a knight on e5. It is there that the similarity ends. Peter responded to the attack by moving his bishop to safety while Tejas opted for a tactical response that involved planting a loose bishop on f4. Can you guess who won their game and who lost their game?
Prospect's 1st Board Peter Dimopolous and 3rd Board Tejas Shah both played the Queen's Gambit as white and Buffalo Grove's Yuriy Nartov and Nedium Bajramovic both accepted. Peter and Tejas both wound up with a loose bishop on c4 which came under attack from a knight on e5. It is there that the similarity ends. Peter responded to the attack by moving his bishop to safety while Tejas opted for a tactical response that involved planting a loose bishop on f4. Can you guess who won their game and who lost their game?
Friday, October 19, 2007
Prospect v. Buffalo Grove (3): An Interesting Endgame
I think the most impressive game of the match was played by Buffalo Grove's freshman Andrey Puzanov on 5th Board against Prospect's Mike Zwolenik. After a fairly uneventful opening and middle game, the players reached a double rook ending where Andrey was up a pawn. Rook endings have a tendency to be drawish in part because rooks are wonderful attackers but somewhat clumsy defenders. Moreover they don't seem nearly as adept as knights, bishops and queens at simultaneously attacking and defending. They often are forced to choose one or the other. What frequently happens is one player starts attacking his opponent's pawns while leaving his own pawns undefended. The result is both players left with nothing but a king and a rook.
Andrey did a terrific job of maneuvering his rooks patiently while waiting for the right moment to attack. Mike defended well, but a subtle mistake gave Andrey the opportunity to go on the attack at a point when Mike was not quite ready to do so thereby allowing Andrey to briefly go ahead by two paws. While Andrey could not maintain the second pawn, Mike was forced to allow the exchange of rooks. In the resulting king and pawn ending, Andrey played very precisely to win the full point.
Andrey did a terrific job of maneuvering his rooks patiently while waiting for the right moment to attack. Mike defended well, but a subtle mistake gave Andrey the opportunity to go on the attack at a point when Mike was not quite ready to do so thereby allowing Andrey to briefly go ahead by two paws. While Andrey could not maintain the second pawn, Mike was forced to allow the exchange of rooks. In the resulting king and pawn ending, Andrey played very precisely to win the full point.
Prospect v. Buffalo Grove (2): Winning a Won Game
Sometimes when your opponent makes a mistake that allows you to gain a material advantage, his position falls apart completely and the game is easily won. On other occasions, you may need to use a couple of moves to pick up the material while your opponent winds up with some compensation for the deficit in terms of space or development. On such occasions, it is vitally important to recognize the weakness you have incurred. You must work to consolidate your advantage rather than expecting the position to win itself.
On 2nd Board, Prospect's Andrew Berowski was confronted with the offbeat Polish Opening from George Karavaev. Andrew kept his wits about him and reacted reasonably and spotted the opportunity to win some material with a knight foray. However, Andrew did not take into account the weaknesses that had been created in his own position and unexpectedly found his opponent's pieces occupying the kind of painful positions in his rearward areas that usually require the attention of a medical specialist.
On 6th Board, Prospect's Parth Patel got the opportunity to play the legendary Fried Liver Attack (which is discussed more thoroughly in Patel v. Barjamovic) against Max Gorbunov. Max found himself down two pawns and deprived of the right to castle at an early stage of the game. However, Parth did not realize how badly he had neglected his development in order to accrue these advantages. By virtue of careful defense, Max neutralized Parth's advantages and gained the upper hand. However, an unfortunate blunder late in the game gave the point to Parth.
On 2nd Board, Prospect's Andrew Berowski was confronted with the offbeat Polish Opening from George Karavaev. Andrew kept his wits about him and reacted reasonably and spotted the opportunity to win some material with a knight foray. However, Andrew did not take into account the weaknesses that had been created in his own position and unexpectedly found his opponent's pieces occupying the kind of painful positions in his rearward areas that usually require the attention of a medical specialist.
On 6th Board, Prospect's Parth Patel got the opportunity to play the legendary Fried Liver Attack (which is discussed more thoroughly in Patel v. Barjamovic) against Max Gorbunov. Max found himself down two pawns and deprived of the right to castle at an early stage of the game. However, Parth did not realize how badly he had neglected his development in order to accrue these advantages. By virtue of careful defense, Max neutralized Parth's advantages and gained the upper hand. However, an unfortunate blunder late in the game gave the point to Parth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
