1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Be3 Bg7 More popular is to play 4...c6 so that Bh6 can be met with Bxh6 without the loss of a tempo. Still many players continue to play 4...Bg7, since with 4...c6 White can still switch plans and play for f4 where c6 is not an ideal move to have in. I had a completely different plan in mind. 5.f3 Known as the 150 Attack, which Dan Scoones tells me is named after a 150 rating in England equivalent to somewhere below expert. Apparently this is because it is so easy and straightforward to play that even these 150 rated players can make it look good. I have played this line from both sides for many years and I can attest that it is a very dangerous line. [The 150 Attack is Be3 in conjunction with Nf3; 150 BCF rating = 1800 Elo - ed.] 5...0-0 6.Qd2 White's plan in this system is much like that in a Yugoslav Attack Dragon - pry open the h-file, trade off the defending fianchetto bishop and then sac - sac - mate. 6...e5 This is my plan - to strike back immediately in the centre before White gets to generate his kingside attack. This is still very dangerous and the outcome will depend on whether Black has sufficient resources to counter in the open centre. 7.Nge2 Closing the centre with 7.d5 is not as threatening since White's attack is not so dangerous with Black having some space on the kingside. One important theme is that Black can then defend across the 7th rank with a queen or rook. 7...exd4 8.Nxd4 d5 Consistent with the theme of trying to force the action away from kingside attack and toward the centre of the board. 9.e5 [9.exd5 Nxd5 10.0-0-0 Nb6 and I think that Black should be okay.] 9...Nfd7 10.Bg5! This move is new to me, I didn't find a single game with it in my database. [10.f4 Nb6 unclear is the main line of the known theory.] 10...Qe8 11.f4 [11.Nxd5? Qxe5+ 12.Ne2 Qxb2 13.Rd1 Re8-+ 14.Nxc7 Bc3; 11.0-0-0 c6 12.f4 transposes] 11...c6 12.0-0-0 Nc5 [In hindsight, maybe 12...f6 is Black's best defence. I considered it during the game, but was afraid that with my queenside still undeveloped I would have trouble defending an onslaught on the g6-h7 structure on the kingside. 13.exf6 Nxf6] 13.h3! Preparing g4 and taking squares on the kingside. 13...Nba6 I really wanted to play b5-b4, but I was too concerned about a piece sacrifice on d5 or b5. So I decided to play Na6-c7 first for some support. 14.Bxa6! When I first saw this I didn't think much of it. Now after seeing what happened I am very impressed by this move. It goes against common sense to trade the "good" bishop for a barely activated knight, but the time gained in the race to attack is critical. 14...Nxa6 15.Rhe1 White plays his attack patiently. Patience can a very underappreciated attribute among attacking players. 15...Nc7 16.g4 Ne6 No time for counterattacking anymore. I conceded that my position was awful and decided to just bear down and suffer. This move was intended to try to remove an attacker - please let me remove any attacker! 17.Bf6! This was a pain in my neck for many moves. It paralyzes me because if I ever capture I will have to deal with a mate threat on g7 for the rest of the game. After this White is extremely close to winning. 17...Bh6 Trying to provoke g5 so that f5 is not an option also, but I missed a zwischenzug. 18.g5 Bg7 19.Qf2 Nxd4 20.Rxd4 Bf5 21.Qh4? This move was not so bad in itself, but the whole plan resulting from it is. The attacking theme that White plays for here was just not effective. The culprit is that White does not use all of his pieces in the attack. Instead White should play for h4-h5 and then bring every single piece into the attack. 21...Qe6 Threatening h5! 22.Rg1 Rfc8 with the intention of Rc7, defending across the seventh rank in case he wants to open the h-file. [22...h5!] 23.Rg4 I saw this theme, but I kept thinking that as White got closer he would see it didn't work and regroup to play h4-h5. 23...h5 [23...Bxg4? 24.hxg4 Bxf6 25.gxf6 Qe8 26.Rd1 Kh8 27.Ne2 Qg8 28.Nd4 -Nf3-Ng5] 24.gxh6 Bxf6 25.exf6 [25.h7+ Kg7] 25...Kh7-/+ 26.Rg3 Re8 27.Rd1 Rad8 I am reminded of that kids' game where you try to slap the other person's hands while they try to dodge. He missed and so now it's my turn to attack. 28.b3? It's always hard to switch gears when the game turns around. [28.Nb1] 28...d4 29.Nb1 Qe2 30.Nd2 [30.Rd2 Qf1+ 31.Rd1 Qf2 32.Rd2 Re1+ 33.Kb2 Rxb1+] 30...Re3 31.Rgg1 Rc3 0-1
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 6.a3 Nh6 After Dan's success with this opening in November he decides to give it another go. 7.Bd3!? It's funny, but this common-sense move is generally not covered in the books. However, it is a common theme in this type of position and transpositions to known lines are likely. In my opinion this is quite likely the best move in this position. [7.b4 was what I played against Dan last time.] 7...a5 [7...Bd7 8.Bc2 cxd4 9.cxd4 Nf5 10.Bxf5 exf5 11.Nc3 Be6 is very comparable to known lines.] 8.b3 [8.0-0 a4!] 8...Nf5 [8...Bd7 9.Bc2 Nf5 10.0-0 cxd4 11.Bxf5 exf5 12.cxd4 Be7 13.Nc3 Be6 transposes to the game.] 9.0-0 cxd4 10.Bxf5 exf5 11.cxd4 [11.Nxd4 Nxd4 12.cxd4 and Black's bad bishop has more range to roam.] 11...Be6 12.Nc3 Be7 13.Na4 Qa7 [13...Qc7? 14.Bg5!; 13...Qd8!?] 14.Qd3 Spying b5 and f5 while opening a square for the rook. 14...0-0 15.Rd1 Freeing up my minor pieces. This also anticipates g5 as my rooks are locked before Ne1. 15...Rab8? This is a big mistake because it allows me to trade off the dark-squared bishops, which makes Black's light-squared bishop problem more acute. [15...Rfb8 16.Bg5 Bf8; 15...h6] 16.Bg5 Bxg5 17.Nxg5 b6 To better defend the queenside squares. 18.Nc3 The knight was no longer functioning to its potential on a4. 18...Qe7 19.Nh3 Going to greener pastures. 19...Rfc8 [19...g5 20.f4 g4 21.Nf2 And white can consider Nh1-g3.] 20.Nb5 Na7 Trading off another minor piece was tempting as it further isolates Black's bad bishop, but my knight is so much better than his that I decided to keep it. 21.Nd6 Rc7 22.Nf4 [22.Nxf5 Bxf5 23.Qxf5 Rc3 is good for White, but Black would be happy to just be rid of the bad bishop.] 22...g6 23.Qf3 Nc8 24.Nb5 [Again White can try to grab a pawn if he allows Black to give up his bishop. This time it would truly backfire: 24.Nxc8 Rbxc8 25.Nxd5 Bxd5 26.Qxd5 Rd7 27.Qf3 Rcd8 28.Qe3 Qc5 29.dxc5 Rxd1+ 30.Qe1 Rxe1+ 31.Rxe1 bxc5; 24.Nxd5 Bxd5 25.Qxd5 Rd7 26.Nxc8 Rxc8 is the same thing as 24.Nxc8.] 24...Rd7 25.Rdc1 Qd8 26.Rc6 Qe7 27.Rc2 Avoiding the exchange of knights by ...Na7. 27...Kg7 28.h3 Probably not neccesary, but I did not feel in a hurry and I didn't want any surprises later on. 28...Na7 29.Nd6 Rc7 30.Rxc7?! [Dan pointed out that I could take the d-pawn safely with 30.Nxd5 Bxd5 31.Rxc7 Qxc7 32.Qxd5+-. This time I think it would have been well worth it.] 30...Qxc7 31.Qg3 Qe7 32.Nh5+? As Ian Martinovsky pointed out, I missed a shot that easily won [32.Nxd5!+-]. 32...Kh8 33.Nf6 Nc8 34.Qh4 h5 35.Qg5 Qf8 36.Nb5? [Another shot I missed which Ian pointed out is... 36.Nxf7+! Kg7 (36...Bxf7 37.Nd7+-) 37.Nxh5+ Kh7 (37...Kxf7 38.Qf6++-) 38.Nf6+ Kg7 39.Nd8!+-] 36...Ne7 37.Rc1 Ng8 38.Rc6 Ne7 39.Rc7?! [And there is another missed shot. LOL! In my defence, I wasn't looking that hard for tactics as I wanted to stay ahead on the clock and I figured that Dan's bishop problem wasn't going away. 39.Rxe6 fxe6 40.Nd7+-] 39...Ng8 40.Nd6 [And another shot! :) 40.Qxg6 ] 40...Qh6? Allowing a final finishing combo. In all fairness to Dan, after he made his move, I could tell that Dan saw right away the shot that was coming. Dan chose not to resign on purpose. I think that Dan just played it out for aesthetic purposes and also to be a nice guy by giving me the pleasure of making the moves. 41.Nxf7+ Bxf7 42.Rxf7 Qxg5 43.Rh7# 1-0
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 [2.Bg5 h6 3.Bh4 c6 was our game against each from last year's Keres. She got an advantage out of the opening, but I was ready with something different this time.] 2...Nc6 3.Bf4 This move was also the choice of both Georgi Orlov and Juan Bellon against me. 3...Bg4 4.c3?! This is unusual and I think it is a concession as White has to recapture on f3 with a pawn. 4...Bxf3 5.gxf3 [5.exf3 is also reasonable and will lead to a much different game. Though I don't think that it is very threatening as White does not have any tension in the centre to take advantage of the open lines and quick development.] 5...e6 I have to live with e4 and so I decided to treat the structure à la French Defence. 6.Rg1 Nge7 7.Qb3 Rb8 [I thought a bit about Na5, but because of White's crippled pawn structure and potential space advantage I decided that I didn't want to get into any action early on. 7...Na5 ] 8.h3?! This did not turn out to be a useful move. 8...Ng6 9.Bg3 Be7 10.e4 a6 This not only keeps the bishop off b5: it is natural to assume that White will castle queenside, in which case Black can launch an attack with b5, Na5, Nc4 & b4. 11.Be2 Valeria is not playing very actively so far. After the game I felt like I had not beaten the same player that I had faced on other occasions. Later I got an idea of why as Lynn told me that Valeria was still recovering from jet lag. 11...0-0 12.Nd2 Bg5! Now White is in trouble as the bishop on this diagonal paralyzes White's position. 13.Nf1 Threatening Bxc7 [13.0-0-0 b5] 13...Nf4 14.Bxf4 Bxf4 15.Rg4 Bh6 16.e5 I thought for some time after this move as I was at risk of falling into a dangerous attack. White is threatening Qc2 & Bd3 when it will be awkward to defend my h7 square. Defending h7 with g6 will likely run into h4-h5 and possible a piece sacrifice on g6. 16...f5! [Similarily 16...f6! is also a consideration.] 17.Rg1 [17.exf6 Qxf6 18.Ng3 Ne7 19.Qc2 e5-/+] 17...Qh4! Taking control of the weak squares on the kingside. 18.Qc2 Ne7 19.Nd2 Ng6 [19...Be3 20.0-0-0 Qxf2 21.Rde1 c5 is also extremely good for Black.] 20.Bf1 c5! Opening a second front. 21.Nb3 cxd4 22.cxd4 [22.Nxd4 Rfe8 23.Rd1 Nxe5-+] 22...Rfc8 23.Qd1 Rc6 Anticipating Nc5 and preparing to double rooks. 24.Rxg6 Valeria was in terrible time pressure at this point. She seemed to be having trouble finding a move and so this was probably just a rushed decision to try to take some of the pressure off. 24...hxg6 25.Bd3 Be3 [25...Rbc8 is also quite strong.] 26.Qe2 Bxd4 27.Rd1 Bb6 28.Qf1 Qf4 29.Qe2 And Valeria fell on time. 0-1
On January 15 and 16, 2005, the University of British Columbia Chess Club hosted a Team Tournament.
The event tested no less than four innovative approaches:
1. UBC as a site. As reflected in the poll on the BCCF website, peoples opinions on whether UBC was a good site vary (presumably according to where they live). The Student Union Building site was rent-free, readily accessible by car and bus and fine as far as space, lighting, noise and food services was concerned.
[The use of UBC as a site for chess tournaments is not exactly innovative: events have been played there for a long time, at least as far back as Vancouver 1975 - ed.]
2. Team Tournament format. Each team consisted of five players, of different rating levels (U1500, 1500-1800, 1800-2000, 2000-2200, 2200+). This meant players were paired against comparably rated opponents, which led to more interesting and hard-fought games (at least in most cases). Poll results indicate a high level of support for this format, including expanding it into a regular league.
3. Sponsorship. Five people each donated $140 to guarantee a $1,000 prize fund. The standard 30 players showed up for the event. Poll results indicate that prizes don t seem to be considered all that important by players (at least not in Vancouver), so there would seem to be little point in making efforts to obtain sponsorship for future events.
This means that increasing the number of players at Vancouver events depends other factors, such as the event location, date, format, publicity and, perhaps most of all, the size of the pool of players who play in organized chess events.
4. Anti-draw rules. The event also tested an anti-draw rule, in which each player had two hours at the start of the first game. If the first game was drawn, each player received 1/3 of a point, then a second game was played with colours reversed, using the remaining time. This continued until one player won, with the winner getting the other 1/3 of a point.
Polls results are split on this format, with those who played in the event and those who didn t both being roughly equally divided in their opinions.
I liked the anti-draw rules, although I think they could be improved. I have a feeling that some people don t understand the object of the rules, which were discussed at length on ChessTalk some months ago. They are not aimed at the players who contest an ultimately drawn game in a spirited and sporting manner, but rather at players who don t make any effort to win, either tacitly or expressly agreeing to make a fast draw. Most of us have been in both categories at different times. The idea is to make a peaceful splitting of a point impossible, therefore removing the temptation from players to play for a draw.
I think exhortations to fight hard are a bit silly, especially at the higher levels of competitive chess. There are just too many reasons to draw. It will be interesting to see how the big money tournament in Minnesota in May turns out (all participants apparently have to sign a pledge not to make quick draws). I think such efforts are doomed to failure.
The 1/3 anti-draw system takes a different approach - you keep playing until someone wins. The only problem with the system as we tested it, in my view, was that the "playoff" games became too short. In one playoff game, one player had something like one minute and the other player had 30 seconds.
One obvious alternative is increments, but the problem is that two players who are determined not to play can then just go on forever.
I think the system might work better with a hybrid time control. Each player gets (say) one and a half hours to start, with or without increments. If the game is drawn, each player receives an additional five minutes and a second game is played, with no increments. If a third game is required, each player receives an additional four minutes. Eventually (if the players get to a seventh game), the players fight it out with whatever time they have left, and so one player might just run out of time.
There is always a balance between the length of the round and giving the players enough time to play more than one game. In the above example, a 40-move draw which went to the wire would take about three hours, with 10 minutes for the second game, 8 minutes for the third game, and so on. Each round would therefore take a maximum of four hours.
In the Team Tournament, around 20 games went to a second game. Only a handful went to a third. In part this was because players ran out of time, but I think in practice no more than two or three games would be required because with less time, someone usually wins.
In any case, a modified version of the anti-drawing system is worth trying again, as anything is preferable to the five-move draws that are ruining chess.
Turning to the event itself, here were the final standings:
Team Captain |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
Total |
1 Nick Paleveda |
|
2/3 |
2 1/3 |
1 2/3 |
---- |
1 1/3 |
6 |
2 Jack Yoos |
4 1/3 |
|
2 |
---- |
1 2/3 |
1 1/3 |
9 1/3 |
3 Lucas Davies |
2 2/3 |
3 |
|
2 2/3 |
4 |
---- |
12 1/3 |
4 Paul Brown |
3 1/3 |
---- |
2 1/3 |
|
3 |
4 |
12 2/3 |
5 Alfred Pechisker |
---- |
3 1/3 |
1 |
2 |
|
3 1/3 |
9 2/3 |
6 Bruce Harper |
3 2/3 |
3 1/3 |
---- |
1 |
1 2/3 |
|
9 2/3 |
The winning team was captained by Paul Brown. His teammates were Tyler Johnson, Vas Sladek, Louie Jiang and Donovan Zhao. Louie and Donovan were the anchors of the team, constantly racking up victories when needed. Tyler Johnson came through in the clutch, however, defeating Len Molden in their second (3-minute) playoff game, to give his team the lead by exactly 1/3 of a point.
The second place team was captained by Lucas Davies. His teammates were Noam Davies, Travis Lane, Jamie Harper and Aviv Milner.
Tied for third place were Alfred Pechisker s team and Bruce Harper s all-girl team, which was in contention until it collapsed in the last round.
Individual results:
Thanks to everyone for volunteering for this experimental event, which saw a lot of good chess!
Games and photographs from the Team Tournament are available on the BCCF website - many thanks to Paul Brown for his customary timely and efficient delivery of information via the website.
Surcharge $25 extra for those players who wish to play in the Open Section, but who have a lifetime highest rating under 2000
Registration please mail cheques (payable to BCCF) to:
British Columbia Chess Federation, PO Box 15548, Vancouver, BC V6B 5B3
Those registering after the respective deadlines (5:00 pm Friday for the Open, 9:30 am Saturday for the other sections) will receive pot-luck pairings or a half-point bye in the first round
Miscellaneous CFC rated, Open Section also FIDE rated; half-point byes may be requested for all but the last round; sets and boards provided, please bring clocks
Contact Stephen Wright, swright2@telus.net , (604) 221-7148
It came out afterwards at an inquest held on the furniture, that two of the members had mated each other simultaneously, and the remaining members joined battle to decide which had been first.
But the most hopeful line of thought which would have made this column of entrancing interest has been lost for ever.