BCCF E-MAIL BULLETIN #44

To subscribe, send me an e-mail (swright2@telus.net) or sign up via the BCCF
webpage (www.chess.bc.ca); if you no longer wish to receive this Bulletin, just
let me know.

Stephen Wright

[back issues of the Bulletin are available on the BCCF web site:
www.chess.bc.ca/newsletters.html]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


VANCOUVER JUNIOR GRAND PRIX #7

Thirty-two players took part in the seventh leg of the junior Grand Prix, held
April 18 at the Vancouver Bridge Centre.  In the Open Section Fanhao Meng and
Lucas Davies agreed to an extremely short draw in the last round to tie for
first with James Chan; the U1800 prizes were also split three ways, between
Louie Jiang, Andrey Kostin, and Ivan Petrov.  Vlad Gaciu and Stefan Trandafir
tied for first in the U1500 Section, with Kevin Au and Kristof Juhasz claiming
the U1200 prizes.  The Booster Section required playoffs, but in the end the
trophies were awarded to Alex Sabaratnam, David Choi, and Marko Mitrovic.

With seven of the eight Grand Prix events now played, the overall first and
second prizes have already been determined: mathematically no one can catch
Fanhao Meng or Lucas Davies.  However, there is still fierce competition for the
remaining places, particularly when it is remembered that only a player's six
best results count toward the Grand Prix.  Thus, the leaders will be trying to
improve on their previous worst results, while those who have played fewer than
six events have an opportunity to close the gap.

Fanhao Meng  16
Lucas Davies  14
Noam Davies  12
Valentina Goutor  11.5
Ben Daswani (U1900)  11.5
Ivan Petrov (U1700)  11
Andrey Kostin (U1900)  9.5
Alexander Reid (U1700)  9.375
Lane van Weerdhuizen (U1700)  9
Luc Poitras  7
Evgeni Goutor (U1900)  7
Richard Reid (U1900)  7

U1500 SECTION

Stefan Trandafir  13.625
Vlad Gaciu (U1300)  13.375
Brad Wong   10.875
Richard Huang  7
Kevin Au (U1300)  6.875
Brianna Reid (U1300)  6
Thomas Chow (U1300)  5.75


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


2004 B.C. CHAMPIONSHIP

We have received two sets of annotations of B.C. Championship games, from Jack
Yoos and Mike Stanford - many thanks to you both!

Yoos,J - Wu,H [B67] BC ch Vancouver (5), 11.04.2004
[Yoos]
I think that this was my best game of the tournament.  This is appropriate as I
thought that Howard played extremely well this tournament.  My impression is
that the best game played in the tournament was Howard's win over Bobby.
Congratulations to Howard for tying for second - it was well deserved.
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Bg5 e6 7.Qd2 a6 8.0-0-0 Bd7
9.f4 b5 Howard also played this line against me last summer in a Victoria RR
tournament.  He got a decent position so I was not surpised to see it again.
This line has always been considered a backwater line and most of the theory has
come from GM Kozul, who has stuck with it for a long time.  However, I think
that this line is a bit underrated.  Interestingly, I noticed that GM Kevin
Spraggett has recently taken it up for Black. 10.Bxf6 gxf6 11.Kb1 Qb6 12.Nxc6
Bxc6 13.Qe1 This line is suggested in Beating the Sicilian 3 by Nunn and
Gallagher, which is a very good introductory book if you want to play
aggressively as White in the open Sicilian.  The idea of this move is that it
anticipates ...b4. [13.Bd3 can reach similar positions; 13.f5 is also
reasonable.] 13...0-0-0!? This is probably the best line in this variation.  I
previously have had little problems with the alternative moves.  The problem for
Black in this position is that it is very easy for White to get a strong grip on
the central squares. [13...Be7 14.f5 (14.Bd3) 14...b4 (14...Qc5) 15.Ne2 e5
(15...Bxe4?! 16.fxe6 fxe6 17.Ng3 Bd5 18.Rxd5!) 16.Ng3 h5 17.h4 xh5.
Yoos-Khassanov, Canadian ch. 1999; 13...Ra7 14.f5 (14.Bd3) 14...b4 (14...Qc5)
15.Ne2 e5 16.Ng3 h5 17.Be2 Rh6 18.Bc4+= I. Gurevich-Kozul, Biel interzonal 1993;
13...b4?! 14.Nd5] 14.Bd3 [14.f5 b4 15.Ne2 Bxe4 does not work as well for White
now that Black's king is out of the centre.] 14...b4! [14...h5 This gives time
for White to get a grip on the centre.  White is a little bit better after this
via many different plans. 15.f5 (15.Rf1 Kb8 16.a3 Bb7 17.f5+= Lalic-Kozul,
Croatia 1997; 15.Qh4 Be7 16.Rhe1 Rde8 17.Qh3 Kb8 18.f5 Lau-Grosar, Graz 1993)
15...Qc5 16.Rf1 Bb7 17.Qh4 Qe5 18.Ne2 Bh6 19.Qf2 h4 20.Nd4 Bg5 21.c3+=
Benjamin-Yermolinsky, Baltimore 1991; 14...Kb8 15.f5 Rg8 16.g3 (16.Rf1 Rxg2
17.fxe6 fxe6 18.Rxf6 Bg7 19.Rxe6 Qf2 20.Qxf2 Rxf2 .5-.5 Knezevic-Cabrilo, Nis
1995) 16...b4 17.Ne2 d5 18.fxe6 fxe6 19.Nf4 unclear.] 15.Ne2 d5! This is what I
like about this line for Black: now that Black's king is safely to the side, he
rips open the centre to make use of his powerful bishop pair. 16.Ng3 [16.e5 was
played in our previous encounter and Howard came up with a very strong plan to
get good counterplay.  16...f5 (16...Bg7 17.Ng3 unclear; 16...Be7 17.Qh4
unclear) 17.Nd4 Bb7 18.Nf3 (18.Be2 Rg8 19.g3 Bc5 20.Qd2+=) 18...Be7 19.Qe2 Rhg8
20.Nd2 Rg4! 21.Rhf1 Rdg8 22.g3 h5 with an attack x g3 was Yoos-Wu, Victoria
2003.  Though I won the game, I was not at all happy with the middlegame
position I had achieved.  16.exd5 Bxd5 opens the position up before White's
knight has found a post.] 16...h5 This is a new move according to my database.
It is very logical and it is much more aggressive than Tukmakov's choice.  White
is a bit awkwardly developed and so Howard is using the vulnerably-posted knight
to further weaken the white squares. [16...dxe4 17.Nxe4 Be7 18.Qe2 Kb8 19.Nd2?!
(19.Rhe1; 19.f5) 19...Rhg8 20.Nf3 Bb5 21.Bxb5 Qxb5 22.Qxb5+ axb5 23.g3 Kb7 24.c3
bxc3 25.bxc3 was a complex but relatively balanced ending which Black won in
Belotti-Tukmakov, Ticino Open 1999] 17.Qe2!? Looking for a tempo to develop.
17...h4 18.exd5 At the time my intuition told me that the weakness of the Black
king would justify my last two moves, after closer inspection my intuition seems
right. [18.Nh5 Be7 19.g4!?; 18.Nf1 dxe4 unclear is very messy.(18...h3!?) ]
18...Bxd5 [18...hxg3 19.dxc6 A) 19...gxh2? 20.Bxa6+ Kc7 21.Rxd8 Kxd8 22.Qd3+ Kc7
23.Qd7+ Kb8 24.Qc8+ Ka7 25.Bf1 (25.c7 Bg7 26.Qxh8 Qg1+ 27.Bf1 Bxh8 28.c8Q Qxh1)
25...Bg7 26.Qd7+ Kb8 27.Be2 Rd8 (27...Qg1+ 28.Bd1) 28.c7+ Qxc7 29.Qb5+ą; B)
19...Rxh2 B1) 20.Bxa6+ Kc7 xBa6 21.Rhe1 (21.Bb7 Qf2!-/+; 21.Rhg1 Rxd1+ 22.Rxd1
Qxc6) 21...Rxd1+ 22.Rxd1 Qxc6 23.Qd3 Bd6 24.Bb5 Qd5 25.Qxd5 exd5 26.Bf1 Kc6=+;
B2) 20.Rhf1 20...Qxc6 21.Be4! Rxd1+ 22.Rxd1 Qb5 23.Qe3ą] 19.Ne4 Bb7 [19...h3
20.g3 f5? 21.Ng5 Bxh1 22.Nxf7] 20.f5! Black was threatening to play ...f5 where
his bishop could come to life on g7.  This keeps the dark-squared bishop under
control and I think it achieved an advantage for White. 20...e5 [20...exf5
21.Nd2 Qe6 22.Qf2; 20...h3 21.g4] 21.Bc4 This is a solid plan for White.
Considering I had a lead in the tournament I wanted to minimize my risk.  The
idea is to just grab the extra pawn and then maintain my strongly-posted knight
on e4.  The downside of this plan is that Black can achieve opposite-coloured
bishop positions with good drawing chances.  [21.Rhe1 is a more aggressive
alternative I was considering.  The idea is now that h3 is no longer a threat I
can move my knight off of e4 and replace it with the bishop.  If the
light-squared bishops get exchanged, Black's king will become vulnerable to
attack.  Objectively, I think that this is the more dangerous plan for Black.
When I was younger and had less patience I would have chosen the more agressive
plan in a heart beat.] 21...Be7 22.Rd3!? My knight is dominating the board on
e4, but it is precariously posted.  I was concerned that I would lose this great
post if I relinquished control of the d-file or alternatively allowed the rooks
to be exchanged off down the d-file. 22...Rxd3 [22...Rd4?! 23.Rxd4 Qxd4 24.Bxa6
Qxe4?? 25.Qxe4] 23.cxd3 This is the point.  It is a double-edged idea as the d3
square is a weakness. 23...Kb8 24.Re1 Supporting my most valuable asset and
freeing up the queen for possible adventure.  The f7 pawn isn't going anywhere.
[24.Ng5 This fancy move would backfire and besides White doesn't really want the
knight on f7.. 24...h3] 24...Qd4 25.Bxf7 a5 26.Qe3 I figured I would have good
chances to win with the queens off because of the overextended a5 and b4 pawns.
It was also a practical decision as I was ahead in the tournament and there is
little risk of losing after the queens are exchanged. 26...Rd8 27.Qxd4 Rxd4
28.Kc2! To try to win my king needs to be active. 28...Bxe4 Howard figures his
best chance to hold is by achieving opposite-coloured bishops. [28...Ba6 29.Bc4
(29.Re3 Bxd3+ 30.Rxd3 Rxe4 31.Kb3 seems close to a draw, but Black would have to
defend here too.) 29...Bxc4 30.dxc4 Rxc4+ 31.Kb3 will be very difficult for
Black as my knight on e4 is dominant.; 28...a4!? taking away the b3 square for
the White king looks like Black's best chance for a draw.] 29.dxe4 Bf8 Black is
intending on making use of his dominant rook.  White can't oppose the rook as a
rook exchange would result in an easy draw for Black. 30.g3! I needed to get my
rook in the game. 30...hxg3 [30...h3 xh3] 31.hxg3 Bh6?! [31...a4 was Black's
last chance to try to prevent White's king from getting active.  32.Be8 a3
33.bxa3 bxa3 34.Bf7] 32.Kb3 Ka7 33.Rh1 With Black's pieces playing on my side of
the board, his king will be left alone to fend off my pieces. 33...Bg5 34.Bd5
Kb6 35.Rh8 Kb5 36.Rb8+ Ka6 37.Ka4 Bh6 38.Re8 b3+ Black sacrifices a pawn to keep
the White king at bay.  [38...Rd2, ignoring the active White king, leads to a
dangerous mating attack: 39.Re6+ Ka7 40.Kxa5 Kb8 (40...Rxb2 41.Re8 is a mating
net.) 41.Rxf6+- (41.Kb6 Be3+) ] 39.Kxb3 Bg5 Black has constructed a bit of a
fortress.  White needs to create a pawn break on the queenside to get through.
40.Re6+ Ka7 41.Rc6 Rb4+ 42.Kc3 Rd4 43.a3 Rd1 44.Re6 Rd4 45.b4 Now the king is
alone and defenceless against the pawn rushing down the board. 45...axb4+
46.axb4 Bd2+ 47.Kc2 Bg5 [47...Bxb4 48.Rxf6+-] 48.b5 Rb4 49.Ra6+ Kb8 50.b6 Kc8
51.Ra8+ 1-0

Yoos,J - Tegzes,L [B33] BC ch Vancouver (7), 12.04.2004
[Yoos]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bf4 e5 8.Bg5 a6
9.Na3 b5 10.Bxf6 gxf6 11.Nd5 f5 Laszlo is a tenacious defender of the
Sveshnikov.  From what I have seen, he scores quite well with it too. [11...Bg7
is the main alternative: the idea is to exchange off the knight on d5 - 12.Bd3
Ne7 13.Nxe7 Qxe7] 12.Bd3 This coupled with c4 is the most aggressive set up in
the gxf6 Sveshnikov. 12...Be6 13.Qh5 The most aggressive move order. [13.0-0 is
the alternative move order. A) 13...Bxd5 14.exd5 Ne7 15.c3 (15.Nxb5 Bg7 with
compensation) 15...Bg7 16.Qh5 Qc8! is a fashionable line these days; B) 13...Bg7
14.Qh5 transposing to the game.] 13...Bg7 This is the old main line.  In recent
times this has been thought to be too passive, though it is not exactly easy
sailing for White.  Evidence of this is that it is still popular among
correspondence players.  [13...Rg8 is what the GMs play these days and it leads
to very sharp play.] 14.0-0 f4 [14...0-0?! 15.exf5 Bxd5 16.f6+- is a well known
trap.  16...e4 17.fxg7 Re8 18.Qxd5 Nb4 19.Qb3] 15.c4 bxc4 16.Bxc4 [16.Nxc4?!
loses control over the d5 and d4 squares.] 16...0-0 Black has a bad dark-squared
bishop and weak squares all over the centre and queenside.  To obtain
counterplay, Black will have to fight for the centre squares.  If the centre
opens then Black's two bishops will come to life and a kingside counterattack
could ensue.  Black is often willing to sacrifice pawns to achieve this. 17.Rac1
xNc6 17...Rb8 This is a useful tempo move as it moves the rook out of potential
knight forks on b6 and c7.  The a6 pawn is weak either way and taking it
prematurely can often be a costly waste of time for White. [17...f5 18.Rc3 Na5
19.Rh3 h6 20.Qg6 Bf7 21.Rxh6!+-; 17...Ne7 18.Rfd1 Rc8 19.Nxe7+ Qxe7 20.Rc3 Kh8
21.b3 f5 22.Rh3 h6 23.Bxe6 Qxe6 24.Rhd3 Rcd8 25.Qe2ą Short-Sax, Saint John 1988;
17...Nd4 18.Nc2] 18.b3 [18.Nxf4 Bxc4 19.Rxc4 Ne7 20.Nd3 f5 with counterplay.]
18...Qd7 Black is supporting the weak bishop on e6 and the weak knight on c6 to
be able to prepare f5. [18...Nd4 19.Nc2; 18...f5 19.Nxf4 Bxc4 20.Rxc4; 18...Kh8
19.Nxf4 Bxc4 20.Rxc4 Na5 21.Nd5 Nxc4 22.Nxc4 Qd7 23.Nde3 with compensation;
18...Bxd5 is what Laszlo played in our previous encounter in this opening.  This
move solves Black's problems with his loose knight on c6 and potentially loose
Bishop on e6, but exchanging pieces allows White to maintain a stronger grip on
the central squares. 19.Bxd5 Ne7 (19...Nb4 20.Rfd1 Nxa2 21.Rc6 Rb6 22.Rxb6 Qxb6
23.Nc4 Qc7 24.Nxd6) 20.Rfd1 Black's d-pawn will become very weak after Nc4.
20...Rc8 (20...Qa5 21.Nc4 Qxa2 22.Nxd6 Nxd5 23.exd5 Qxb3 24.Nf5,; 20...Ng6
21.Rc6) 21.Rxc8 Nxc8 (21...Qxc8 22.Nc4 Qc7 23.Nxd6 Nxd5 24.Rxd5 Rd8 25.Qd1)
22.Nc4 Now the knight is stuck on c8 defending the d6 pawn. 22...Qd7 23.a4 Kh8
24.h3 Preparing to oppose queens and creating a luft for the king.  White does
not have to worry so much about an attack on his king as Black's remaining minor
pieces are in very passive positions.  24...Qe7 25.Qg4 Bf6 26.Qh5 Bg5 27.b4 Qf6
28.Bb7 Qe6 29.Bxa6+- Yoos-Tegzes, BC Ch 2003; 18...Qa5 19.Nb1!] 19.Rfd1 Kh8
[19...Bg4 20.Qg5; 19...Nd4 20.Nc2] 20.Qh4 xf6 [20.h3?! Someone once
appropriately described h3 in this position as a "hang nail." As Black's
counterplay often involves an attack on White's king, White is better off
avoiding making weaknesses in front of his king. 20...Nd4 21.Nc2 Nxc2 22.Rxc2 f5
with counterplay.] 20...f5!? Sacrificing pawns to get the centre rolling.
[20...Bxd5 Again, exchanging pieces makes it easier for White to maintain a grip
over the central squares. 21.Bxd5! (21.Rxd5?! Nb4 22.Rd2 f5 23.exf5 d5 24.Rcd1
Rbc8 25.h3 Rc5 with counterplay, Dvoiris-Gorelov, Barnaul 1984) A) 21...Nd4
22.Rc4 (22.Nc2? Ne2+) 22...f5 23.Nc2 fxe4 24.Nxd4 exd4 25.Bxe4 Be5 26.Qh5ą
Sveshnikov-Vyzmanavin, Moscow 1987; B) 21...Nb4 22.Rd2 f5 23.Qh3 f3 24.Nc4 Qe7
25.exf5 e4 26.Ne3 fxg2 27.Bc4 Be5 28.Rcd1ą Ernst-Benjamin, Reykjavik 1990;
20...Rg8 21.Kh1 Nd4 22.Nc2 Nxc2 23.Rxc2 f5 24.Nf6+-; 20...Nd4 21.Nf6] 21.Nxf4
exf4 [21...Bxc4?! 22.Ng6+] 22.Bxe6 Qxe6 23.Rxc6 fxe4 [23...Rbc8 24.exf5 Qe2
25.Rcxd6ą Dolmatov-Figuero, Sevilla 1993] 24.Rcxd6 Qe8 25.Nc4 e3 26.fxe3 fxe3
27.Re1 Qf7 [27...Rb4 28.Qg3 e2 29.Qd3ą; 27...e2 28.Rd2 Rf1+ 29.Rxf1 exf1Q+
30.Kxf1 Qf7+ 31.Kg1 Rf8 32.Ne3 Qe6 33.Rd3 Qb6 34.Qe7 Qa5 35.Nd1 Qxa2 36.Rd8 Rg8
37.Rxg8+ Kxg8 38.Qe8+ Bf8 39.Qe6+ Kg7 40.Ne3ą] 28.Nxe3 Rbe8 This is all theory!
And we played it in a matter of minutes.  It is actually the main line in the
book on the Sveshnikov by Krasenkov. Krasenkov says Black is okay, though he
only gives 29.Nc4. (And he doesn't even mention the line I give here with
30...Bd4!)  Laszlo is a time-pressure player and I guess it was to his benefit
to play so many book moves quickly with out much thought.  I considered this,
but I decided it was still best to just play the best line I knew. 29.h3 This
takes away a lot of the tactics on the back rank.  White's plan here is to
redevelop his awkward knight to a solid post and then endeavour to trade off a
set of rooks.  The more pieces that come off, the easier it will be for White to
fend off Black's counterattack.  White wants to make it to the endgame where the
extra pawns will win the game. [29.Nc4?! Re4! 30.Qg3 Bd4+! with couterplay;
29.Rf1!? Qa7 (29...Qc7 30.Rxf8+ Bxf8 31.Qd4+ Bg7 32.Qd3 Qc1+ 33.Nf1 Qc5+ 34.Kh1
Qf2 35.a4ą Intending Rd8) 30.Rxf8+ Bxf8 31.Qf6+ Bg7 32.Qf2 Bd4 33.Re6 Qd7 34.Re4
Bxe3 35.Qxe3 Qd1+ 36.Kf2 Qc2+ 37.Kf3ą; 29.Nc2? Re4 30.Qg3 Be5-+] 29...Qa7!
According to my database this is new, though emphasizing the pin makes lots of
sense.  I didn't prepare for this but I noticed the idea when we were rattling
off the opening moves. [29...Bf6 A) 30.Qc4 Bg5 (30...Qg7) 31.Qc3+ Bf6 32.Qc4
.5-.5 Wedberg-Kharlov, Solett Open 1999; B) 30.Qf2 This is what I had in mind.
30...Qe7 (30...Bg5 31.Qxf7 Rxf7 32.Rd3 Rfe7 33.Kf2 Rf7+ 34.Ke2 Rfe7 35.Kd2ą)
31.Qd2 Be5 32.Rd7 Qh4 33.Rf1 Rg8 34.Rff7 Qxh3 35.Ng4! Rxg4 36.Rxh7+ Qxh7
37.Rxh7+ Kxh7 38.Qd7++-] 30.Rd3 Rf6? I think that this lets White off the hook -
now White should be winning after some patient defence.  Stephen Wright
mentioned in the Bulletin that over the course of the tournament I was only in
trouble in this game.  I disagree with that: in my opinion, the game I was in
the most trouble was not this one, but rather my game against Mike Stanford in
the 2nd round which ended up as a draw. [I stand corrected - ed.] [30...Bf6 with
counterplay xNe3. I was very concerned about this move during the game. The idea
is to bounce the queen away from protecting the e1 rook and then to go forward
with working over the pinned knight on e3.  White will have a lot of trouble
untangling here and the game would still be very unclear.] 31.Kh1 Ref8!? Black
finds another method of counterplay rather than the pinned knight on e3.  The
back rank is now a problem for White as g1 could be a brutal queen check.
[31...Qe7 32.Rdd1ą] 32.Rdd1 Rf4 [32...Rf2 33.Rd8] 33.Ng4 I was imagining putting
my knight on f3. [33.Qg5!?; 33.Qg3!? Be5 34.Qg5 Qxe3 35.Qxe5+] 33...Qc7
[33...Bc3 34.Re7 Rf1+ 35.Rxf1 Rxf1+ 36.Kh2 Qb8+ (36...Qg1+ 37.Kg3 Bg7 38.Re1!+-)
37.g3 Bg7 38.Rd7ą] 34.Rc1 I don't want to leave the queen on this diagonal as it
covers the escape square for my king - h2. 34...Qd7 35.Red1 Qb5 [35...Qe6 36.Qg3
Qe2 37.Rd7] 36.Qe1 Qh5 Threatening Rxg4. 37.Qe6! With the idea of Rc8.  White is
finally untangling now. 37...Qb5 38.Nh2 [38.Rd7 Rxg4 39.hxg4 Qg5 40.Qe1 Qh6+
41.Kg1 Qb6+ 42.Kh2 Qh6+ 43.Kg1=] 38...Rf2 39.Rc8 Qg5 [39...Qe2 40.Qxe2 Rxe2
41.Rxf8+ Bxf8 42.a4 Rb2 43.Rf1 Bd6 44.Rf3] 40.Rxf8+ Bxf8 41.Ng4 Rxa2 Black gets
a pawn back, but in return it will be White's turn to attack. [41...Rf4] 42.Rf1
For me, defending is like eating brussels sprouts as a kid.  It is not something
that I enjoy, but I must do it sometimes to get to the dessert.  Well after some
suffering, the dessert is finally coming in this game. 42...Qg7 43.Rf7!
[43.Rf3ą; 43.Qe8? Ra1] 43...Ra1+ This leads to a boomerang tactic. [43...Qg8
44.Qf5 Bg7 (44...Ra1+ 45.Kh2 Bd6+ 46.Ne5+- with the threat of Qf6 46...Qg6
47.Qf4) 45.Rc7 Ra1+ 46.Kh2 Qb8 47.Qd7+-] 44.Kh2 Bd6+ [44...Qg8 45.Rxf8 Qxf8
46.Qe5+ is the same thing.] 45.Qxd6 Qxf7 46.Qe5+ Qg7 At this point I wondered
how many of the spectators thought we were about to draw by perpetual check.
47.Nf6! 1-0

Milicevic,D - Stanford,M [A36] BC ch Vancouver (3), 10.04.2004
[Stanford]
1.e4 c5 2.c4 I guess I shouldn't be surprised to see Dragoljub play this line,
as it's flankish and offers good kingside attacking chances (while constricting
Black's counterplay). 2...Nc6 3.Nc3 e6 4.g3 g6 5.Bg2 Bg7 6.Nge2 Nge7 7.0-0 0-0
8.d3 d6 [8...Rb8!?] 9.Be3 [9.a3 b6 10.Rb1 Bb7 11.b4: expansion on the queenside
would've likely made Black's position a little more uncomfortable.] 9...Nd4
10.Qd2 b6 11.f4 [11.Rab1 Bb7 12.b4=] 11...Bb7 12.Bf2 This is a very common move
in these Closed Sicilian-type positions.  Dragoljub's plan is to play Nxd cxd
Ne2 and work over my d4 pawn.  He could take the knight right now, but that
would cost him the bishop pair. 12...Nxe2+ 13.Nxe2 f5 14.Nc3 Nc6 15.Rfe1
[15.Rae1 I couldn't understand why Dragoljub went with the other rook... plans
to attack on the queenside?  I doubt it; 15.exf5!?] 15...Qd7 16.Ne2 e5 17.exf5
gxf5 18.Nc3 This knight sure likes moving back and forth! 18...Rae8 19.Nd5 Ne7
20.Nc3 [20.Nxe7+ Rxe7 21.Bxb7 Qxb7 Black has an easier position to play.]
20...Bxg2 21.Kxg2 Ng6 22.Nd5 [22.fxe5 dxe5 and I would've played on here because
of the weak d3 pawn, and Black's good attacking chances on the kingside with
f4-f3..] ½-½

Stanford,M - Fullbrook,N [B75] BC ch Vancouver (5), 11.04.2004
[Stanford]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 Nc6 8.Qd2 Bd7
Black's idea is simple: delay 0-0 to speed up a queenside attack after I go
0-0-0. [8...0-0 The main stuff.] 9.0-0-0 [9.Bc4 Rc8 10.Bb3 Ne5 11.0-0-0 Yoos -
Fullbrook earlier in the event; 9.g4 Rc8 10.0-0-0 Ne5 11.h4 h5 12.g5 Nh7 is
something I have played vs. Fullbrook twice before, and didn't feel like playing
into it again.] 9...Rc8 10.Kb1 a6 11.Be2 b5 12.g4 h5 13.h3 b4?? Amazingly
enough, I think this is the losing move! [better is 13...0-0] 14.Nd5 a5
[14...hxg4 15.Nxc6 Rxc6 (15...Bxc6 16.Bxa6 Rb8 17.hxg4 Rxh1 18.Rxh1 Qa5
19.Bc4+-) 16.hxg4 Nxd5 17.Rxh8+ Bxh8 18.exd5 Rc8 19.Bxa6+-; 14...Nxd5 15.exd5
Nxd4 (15...Ne5 16.Qxb4 a5 17.Qd2 Nc4 18.Bxc4 Rxc4 19.Qd3 Rb4 20.c3+-) 16.Bxd4
Bxd4 17.Qxd4 Rg8 18.Bxa6 Ra8 19.Bc4+-] 15.Nxc6 [15.Nf5 is actually the move I
had considered before focusing on Nxc6. 15...Bxf5 (15...gxf5?? 16.Bb6 oopsy.
16...Nxd5 17.Bxd8 Nc3+ 18.bxc3 Bxc3 19.Qc1 Kxd8 20.exf5+- but Black has some
compensation) 16.gxf5 A) 16...gxf5 17.Rhg1 Kf8 18.Bb6 Qd7 19.Rxg7! Kxg7 20.Qg5+
Kf8 21.Nxf6 Qe6 (21...exf6 22.Qxf6 Rg8 23.Rxd6+-) 22.Nd5 fxe4; B) 16...Nxd5
17.exd5 Ne5 18.f4! Nc4 19.Bxc4 Rxc4 20.fxg6+-] 15...Rxc6 16.Bb5 Nxd5 17.Bxc6
Nxe3 [17...Nc3+ When looking at 15.Nxc6, I expected Nigel to go into this line.
Partly because I thought it gave Black some interesting chances, but mainly
because of my previous result against him. 18.bxc3 bxc3 19.Bxd7+ Qxd7 20.Qc1
(20.Qd5 clearly winning.  I hadn't considered this move when looking at Nxc6;
20.Qd3?? Qb7+ this kind of trick :).) 20...Qb5+ 21.Ka1 Qe2 22.Rhf1+- still great
for me, but Black has some tricks... and Nigel's the trickiest player I've ever
met!] 18.Bxd7+ Qxd7 19.Qxe3 hxg4 [19...a4 20.Qb6 a3 21.Qxb4 axb2 22.c3+-]
20.hxg4 0-0 21.f4 Although White's up the X, I felt that I should act quickly
and not let Black regroup his pieces to pressure me on the dark diagonal. Qf6
a4-a3 type stuff could be very annoying. 21...Qxg4 [21...a4 22.f5 Qc6 23.Qd3 a3
24.fxg6 axb2 (24...fxg6? 25.Qb3+) 25.Rdf1 fxg6 26.Qb3+ d5 27.Qxd5+ Qxd5 28.Rxf8+
Kxf8 29.exd5+-; 21...Qe6 22.g5 Rc8 23.Qh3!] 22.f5 gxf5 23.Rdg1 Qxe4 24.Rxg7+ 1-0

McLaren,B - Stanford,M [B26] BC ch Vancouver (6), 12.04.2004
[Stanford]

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 [4...Rb8 5.b3!? Bg7 6.Bb2 d6 7.Nge2 e5 0-1
McLaren - Yoos 24 moves. rd 4] 5.d3 d6 6.Be3 e5 7.Qd2 Nge7 [7...Nf6 8.h3 Nd4
9.Nd1 Be6 10.c3 Nc6 11.Ne2 0-0 12.0-0 1/2 1/2 McLaren - Wu rd 2] 8.Bh6 Bxh6
9.Qxh6 Nd4 10.Rc1 [10.Qd2 mainline] 10...Qb6 11.Nd1 Be6 I believe that theory
considers this position to be slightly better for Black. 12.c3 Ndc6 13.a3 Qa6 I
chose this move because I thought it forced White to spend a tempo bringing back
his queen, and allowed me to regroup my pieces a little (b6 Qc8). [13...0-0-0 is
the other move I was considering at this point, but thought it played into
White's hands. 14.b4; 13...d5!? 14.Nf3 0-0-0 15.0-0 f6 16.Qg7 Rdf8 17.b4 c4
18.Nb2 cxd3 19.Na4 unclear.] 14.Qe3 [14.Bf1!? not an easy move to make.
14...0-0-0 (14...b5 15.Nf3) 15.d4? Qa4-/+] 14...b6 [14...Na5!? a move I hadn't
even considered!  Probably better to boot. 15.f4 (15.b4?? Nb3 16.Rb1 Qxa3-+;
15.Ne2 Nb3 16.Rc2 0-0 17.h4 c4 18.d4 Qa4 19.dxe5 dxe5 20.0-0) 15...exf4 16.gxf4
Nb3 17.Rb1 0-0-0 18.Bh3 (18.Ne2 d5 19.Nf2 d4) 18...Bxh3 19.Qxh3+ Kb8 20.Ne2
f5-/+] 15.Nf3 Bg4 [Better is 15...0-0=] 16.0-0 0-0 [16...Bxf3 17.Qxf3 0-0 18.Ne3
Kg7 19.Qe2+=] 17.Nd2 Rad8 18.f3 [18.f4 I believe that this is stronger than what
White chose because his next move will be Nf2, forcing my bishop to move
anyways.] 18...Be6 19.Nf2 Kg7 20.f4 f6 21.Nf3 exf4 Here I offered him a draw. I
didn't think he'd accept it, but felt that it didn't hurt to try. 22.Qxf4
[22.gxf4?! d5=+ 23.e5? d4-/+ 22...Ne5 [22...d5 probably a little better, as it
relieves some of his pressure.  I thought the text also did this.] 23.d4 Nxf3+
[23...Nc4!? 24.b3 Na5 25.d5 Bc8] 24.Bxf3 Qc8 25.h4 h6 26.Rfe1 g5 27.Qe3 Ng6
28.Bh5 [28.h5 is still =, but gives White more practical chances.] 28...Bf7
29.Kh2 Rde8 30.Qf3 Qd8 31.Bxg6 Bxg6 32.h5 Bh7 I am not worse. 33.g4 played to
contain me and prevent f5. 33...Qe7 34.Re2?? [Better is 34.b4=] 34...f5! This
move probably doesn't deserve a '!', since it's following a '??' move... but
hey, I'm the one annotating this game :). 35.gxf5 [35.e5 fxg4 36.Qxg4 (36.Qd5
Bg8 37.Qe4 Qf7 38.Qxg4 dxe5 39.dxe5 Rxe5!-+) 36...dxe5 37.dxe5 Bf5 38.Qg3 Qf7-+]
35...Rxf5 36.Qg3 [36.exf5 Qxe2 37.Qxe2 (37.f6+ Kf7 38.Qd5+ Re6) 37...Rxe2 is a
winning endgame.] 36...Rf4 37.Rce1 Qf7 38.e5 Rf3 [38...Qxh5+ should be winning
for me, but I was fairly certain that the text won quickly.] 39.Qg2 Qf4+ 40.Kh1
Rg3 41.Qb7+ [41.Re4 Bxe4 42.Qxe4 Qf7!-+] 41...Kh8 42.Ne4 [42.Nd1 Qh4+ 43.Rh2 Rh3
(43...Rg1+ is also decisive.) 44.Rxh3 Qxe1+ 45.Kh2 Be4-+] 42...Qf3+ mate is
unavoidable. 0-1


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


ALCAN ANNIVERSARY TOURNAMENT by Mike Bateman

Alcan has asked me to organize a chess tournament for their 50th anniversary
celebration here in Kitimat, on the 31st of July.  It will be a 15 minutes per
game per side, clocked event with 5 rounds.  It will start at 13:00 hours, (1 in
the afternoon) and go till 17:00 hours (or 5 in the afternoon).  It will be held
in the main ceremonies tent at the Riverlodge Rec Center.  This is not a rated
event because it is open to all persons partaking in the Alcan celebrations.  I
will be purchasing 10 new sets and 10 new clocks which I hope to be using as
prizes.  If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.  This is a
free event.

mbateman@telus.net




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


TD'S CORNER: A 10.2 CASE STUDY

Article 10.2, the so-called "Quickplay Finish," was previously examined in
Bulletin #40, but I have since been contacted about a recent game where this
article might have been a factor.  The game was played between Mikhail Strazhnik
and Jason Feng in a Saturday Night tournament at the Vancouver Bridge Centre on
April 17; Jason (the defender) describes the end of the game: "Basically it was
rook and knight vs. rook, normally a drawn position but my opponent had 30
minutes and I had about 90 seconds.  A number of people said I could claim a
draw, but from my understanding, I couldn't (and would have been penalized
anyways).  The problem is, I had no time to 'prove' the draw.  If I stopped the
clock, how much time would I have to prove the draw?  It was fairly evident that
my opponent was 'playing for the win.'  What is your take on the issue?"

Some Background

The ending R + N vs. R is generally more drawish than R + B vs. R; usually the
superior side only has winning chances if the defender's king is cutoff on the
side of the board or a corner.  The prominent arbiter Stuart Reuben discussed
Article 10.2 in his Chess Organiser's Handbook, which has gone through two
editions; he gives an example of R + N vs. R in both editions, but they are
different.  In the first edition (1997) he presents a position where the
defender has no particular problems, and notes that an arbiter's response to a
draw claim under 10.2 should be "Play on.  You should count the number of moves
made.  If White [defending] makes something like 46 moves before his flag falls,
then you can award a draw if Black has no forced mate."  This is reasonable,
although I would be likely to award the draw if the attacker was not making any
progress.

However, Reuben's opinion in the second edition (2001) is substantially
different.  Here is the new position he presents:



His comment now is "Reject the claim.  The position is theoretically drawn, but
Kasparov recently beat Judit Polgar from such a position.  However you may
prefer to postpone the decision and award Black an extra two minutes.  Then, if
White's flag falls, you might allow the claim if the number of moves without
capture is close to 50."

Personally I find the idea of rejecting the claim in such a position perverse:
White has the best possible defensive position imaginable (the superior side's
king is cutoff) and should draw easily.  The Polgar-Kasparov game he mentions
was at Dos Hermanas in 1996, and reached this position:



This position is obviously far worse for the defender than the one Reuben cites,
yet it is still a theoretical draw: Polgar lost because she did not defence
accurately (see diagram 8.03 in Müller and Lamprecht's Fundamental Chess Endings
for a complete analysis).

Strazhnik-Feng

Apparently a gamescore of the ending does not exist (White, who had 30 minutes,
should really still have been recording), but I gather that Black's king was
cutoff on the side of the board, thus giving White reasonable chances to play
for a win.  So the two pertinent questions are: 1) should Jason have claimed a
draw under article 10.2 (on the basis that "the position cannot be won by normal
means"); and 2) what should the arbiter have done if he did?

1) Yes.  Article 10.2 was designed for precisely this sort of situation.  As
noted above, Jason was worried about being penalized and not being able to prove
the position was a draw.  For the former, the "penalty" in this case would
potentially be two extra minutes awarded to the opponent; since White was so far
ahead on time anyway, this shouldn't have been a deterrent (obviously it might
be if both players were low on time).  For the latter, except for certain very
clear cases, most of the time the arbiter will not ask you to verbally "prove"
the position is a draw - much more likely you will have to demonstrate it
through the continued game.

2) As I stated in Bulletin #40 this article is somewhat subjective, but
personally I would postpone my decision and have the game continue.  While the
position might be a theoretical draw, the fact that Black's king was cutoff does
give White good reason to play for a win, and I tend to feel that unless the
draw is extremely clear, the defender should be given the chance to go wrong.
If the defender plays accurately and the superior side is not making progress,
then it is reasonable to award the draw when the defender's flag falls.  Keep in
mind that other factors might also apply - the 50-move rule, triple-repetition,
or possibly the portion of article 10.2 that deals with the opponent "not trying
to win by normal means," i.e., merely shuffling pieces about and trying to flag
the opponent.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


MORE THAN THIRTY YEARS AGO by Jonathan Berry

[In the last Bulletin] Bruce Harper mentioned the successes of Nigel Fullbrook
and Tyler Johnson with the Alekhine Defence in Canadian Junior Championships.
This opening has a longer history in BC's attempts to scale the national youth
Olympus, and not so thoroughly with success.

I played in two Canadian Juniors, in 1970 and 1972, and didn't finish any better
than 3rd.   In those years the World and Canadian Juniors were biennial.

In 1970, John MacPhail (who eventually finished 2nd) hallucinated, sacrificing
on move 11.  He finished a piece down for two inconsiderable pawns.  However,
don't write the game off there, I managed to lose when a measly pawn came back
to haunt me.

MacPhail,J - Berry,J [B05] CAN jun Toronto (5), 29.12.1970

1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.Nf3 d6 4.d4 Bg4 5.Be2 e6 6.Ng5 Bf5 7.Bh5 Bg6 8.Bxg6 hxg6
9.Qf3 Qd7 10.c4 Nb6


11.Nxf7 Qxf7 12.Qxb7 c5 13.Qe4 Qf5 14.Qxf5 gxf5 15.dxc5 dxc5 16.Na3 Nc6 17.f4
O-O-O 18.Be3 g5 19.fxg5 Nxe5 20.b3 Ng4 21.Ke2 Rxh2 22.Rxh2 Nxh2 23.Rh1 Ng4
24.Rh7 Nxe3 25.Kxe3 Nd7 26.g6 Bd6 27.Nb5 Bb8 28.Re7 f4+ 29.Ke2 e5 30.g7 Rg8
31.Nc3 Kd8 32.Nd5 e4 33.Rxd7+ Kxd7 34.Nf6+ Ke7 35.Nxg8+ Kf7 36.Nf6 f3+ 37.gxf3
exf3+ 38.Kxf3 Kxg7 39.Ne4 Kg6 40.Nxc5 Kf5 41.Ke3 Be5 42.Na6 Ke6 43.Ke4 Bh2
44.Kd4 Bg1+ 45.Kc3 Kd6 46.Kb4 Kc6 47.Ka5 Bb6+ 48.Ka4 Be3 49.Nb4+ Kc5 50.Ka5 Bd2
51.a3 Bc3 52.Ka6 1-0

Yes, I felt bad after that game!

In the 1972 event, Jean Hebert was seen as a "dark horse" by Lawrence Day to win
the championship.  Not so soon, although he did become an IM, postal GM,
columnist, book author, magazine editor ....

This game, with its flashy finish, is one of the few Canadian games ever to be
published in the Soviet magazine 64.  Another that I remember is Bob Zuk's
meritorious loss to Boris Spassky at the 1971 Canadian Open in Vancouver,
annotated.  This one appeared without notes.

Hébert,J - Berry,J [B02] CAN jun London (7), 30.12.1972

1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.Nc3 Nxc3 4.bxc3 d5 5.Ba3 b6 6.d4 c5 7.f4 e6 8.Nf3 Qc7 9.Kf2
Nc6 10.Bd3 Bd7 11.Rb1 Be7 12.dxc5 bxc5 13.c4 dxc4 14.Bxc4 Na5 15.Qe2 Nxc4
16.Qxc4 O-O 17.Rhd1 Bc6 18.Qc3 Bd5 19.Nd4 f6 20.Nb5 Qc6 21.exf6 Rxf6 22.g3 g5
23.Qe5 Rf5 24.Qc7


24...gxf4 25.Qxe7 fxg3+ 26.Kxg3 Rf3+ 27.Kh4 Rh3+ 28.Kxh3 Bg2+ 29.Kh4 Qe4+ 30.Kg5
Qf5+ 0-1

MacPhail beat me again in 1972 -- maybe I should have tried the Alekhine instead
of the Incredible Defence 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Qe7 -- and he won the
tournament, though I extracted partial revenge at the 1972 Zonal.  For decades
he retired from tournament chess, but recently came back.  I have +2=2-3
"lifetime" against him, but we're not finished yet.  By coincidence, John's
uncle became a neighbour and good friend to my parents when they retired to
Mexico, also more than three decades ago.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


UPCOMING EVENTS

To save space, from now on I will only give basic information for events - date,
place, and type.  Full details for all the events listed here may be found on
the BCCF site, www.chess.bc.ca.

Junior Events

May 1-2  Provincial CYCC, Vancouver
May 8  Body and Brain Open, Surrey
May 16  Vancouver Grand Prix #8

For full details see www.chess.bc.ca or http://members.shaw.ca/victoriachess/

Individual Chess Matches

Players interested in participating in rated individual chess matches with other
players of comparable or dissimilar ratings can contact Luis E. Azmitia at
azmitia@interchange.ubc.ca  Please make sure to include in the e-mail: your
name, your rating, type of game preferred (i.e. active), and the rating range of
possible opponents.  Note that the games will be held in the Vancouver area.

Apple Blossom Open

Date: May 1 & 2
Place: Holiday Inn Express, 4716 34th St., Vernon
Type: 5-round Swiss

29th Paul Keres Memorial

Date: May 21-24
Place: Croatian Community Centre, Vancouver
Type: 6 or 7-round Swiss
http://www.keresmemorial.com/

SUPER Vancouver Saturday Night Chess (3)

Dates: Saturdays June 5, 12, 19, 26 and July 3.
Place: Vancouver Bridge Centre, 2776 East Broadway (at Kaslo), Vancouver
Type: 5-round Swiss
First prize - $400!!

Western Canadian Open

Date: July 9-18
Place: Vancouver Airport Conference Resort
Type: 10 round single-section Swiss

Vancouver Saturday Night Chess (4)

Dates: Saturdays July 24, 31, and August 7, 14, 21
Place: Vancouver Bridge Centre, 2776 East Broadway (at Kaslo), Vancouver
Type: 5-round Swiss

Rod Planas Memorial Chess Tournament


Dates: August 7-8, 2004
Place: Sandman Inn, 2130 Harvey Avenue, Kelowna
Type: 5-round Swiss

Kamloops Grand Prix #4

Date: Sept. 18
Place: South Kamloops Secondary School Cafeteria, 821 Munro Street, Kamloops, B.C.
Type: 4-round Swiss
Kamloops Grand Prix #5
Date: Oct. 23
Place: South Kamloops Secondary School Cafeteria, 821 Munro Street, Kamloops, B.C.
Type: 4-round Swiss

Silver Star Challenge (Interior Qualifier)

Date: Nov. 13 & 14
Place: Holiday Inn Express, 4716 34th St., Vernon
Type: 5-round Swiss

Kamloops Grand Prix #6
Date: Nov. 20
Place: South Kamloops Secondary School Cafeteria, 821 Munro Street, Kamloops, B.C.
Type: 4-round Swiss