No Fabers From Craig in Interesting Draw

Round 4 of the Istvanyi Open tournament took place Monday night at the Arcadia Chess Club. I was paired against Craig Faber, who is literally rated one point lower than me at 2123. We had played three times before (+0 =2 -1) and on Monday, just like every other occasion, I had the white pieces.

In a similar vein to my round 3 opponent, Gordon Brooks, Craig is very easy to prepare for because he always plays the same openings, namely the Scandinavian against 1. e4 and the Dutch against 1. d4. Again, this is helpful in terms of his opponent's preparation but, on the other hand, it means Craig is very well versed in Scandinavian and Dutch theory because he is exposed to so many games in those lines.

With white, Craig always plays the London System regardless of black's response. Therefore, I decided to be cheeky and play the London against him, just to see how he would react. In our previous games, I had opened with 1. e4 twice and 1. d4 once, where I fianchettoed my kingside bishop against his Dutch setup. This time, I had prepared an interesting pawn sacrifice recommended by Cyrus Lakdawala in his book, Play the London System. Lakdawala devotes an entire chapter to playing against the Dutch (incidentally, an opening he doesn't think too highly of) and, although I didn't have time to read it all, I had played through some of the sample games and had gleaned enough information to think I would be on solid enough ground.

The day after, I had my fourth lesson with GM Jesse Kraai and we went over this game. I have paraphrased some of his comments, adding them to my own below.

1.d4 f5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bf4 Nf6 4.h3 g6 5.e3 Bg7 6.Bc4 e6 7.g4

This is the pawn sacrifice. There are two main options for black if he wants to accept the sacrifice, both of which give him a virtually lost position already.

He can try 7. ... fxg4 8. hxg4 Nxg4 9. Ng5!  when the knight is attacked and the e pawn is falling.

Alternatively, if black tries to shut down white's bishop on c4 so that it no longer attacks e6, things turn out even worse for him after 7. ... d5 8. Bd3 fxg4 9. hxg4 Nxg4 10. Rxh7!  when black's kingside is being carved apart.

Craig was either aware of the sac or intuitively knew it was dangerous, so he wisely declined it.

7.g4 Qe7 8.Rg1 fxg4 9.hxg4 Nc6 10.Nc3 Bd7

After black's 10th move, we reached the position above. Here I was out of my book knowledge already. I knew that putting a rook on g1 was fairly standard, having seen it in one of the sample games in Lakdawala's book. After that, it made sense to put the knight on c3.

Jesse said that I should have seriously considered 11. g5  here, which really puts black's knight in an awkward position. I instinctively didn't play g5 because I figured black would just play 11. ... Nh5  but, although this move looks annoying, it's just an illusion. After 12. Bh2  the knight on h5 is horribly placed and black is virtually playing down a piece. He has no way to get the knight back into the game quickly and white still has all the trumps in the position.

As I had dismissed 11. g5, I figured I needed to castle queenside and had to decide between 11. Qd2  and 11. Qe2. Fritz says that both moves are equally good but, as Jesse said, it makes more sense to put the queen on e2 because there it defends the loose knight on f3. Therefore...

11.Qe2 0–0–0 12.0–0–0 Na5 13.Bb5

Jesse made some highly instructive comments here, both about 12. ... Na5  and also 13. Bb5. I am a little embarrassed to admit that his way of looking at this position didn't even cross my mind during the game even though, with the benefit of hindsight, his comments make total sense. When Jesse and I were going over the game, I dismissed 12. ... Na5  as being suspicious and rather artificial looking. Jesse's exact words were that he had "some sympathy for Na5", the reason being that black is cramped and wants to trade pieces. By playing 12. ... Na5, black is putting the question to white's bishop.

Equally, my assessment of 13. Bb5  was also incorrect because I felt b5 was a natural square for the bishop and there way no way black would capture it as it would bring my queen over towards the queenside where black is castled. However, as Jesse pointed out, there is an old rule in chess that the side with less space should try to trade. That way, he will free up space for his other pieces. In this position, black should want to exchange bishops for that very reason. Funnily enough, Craig obviously didn't appreciate this either because he didn't take on b5!

13. ... Rdf8 14.Bg5

After the game, Craig and I briefly analyzed it and he said he thought I would play 14. Bg5. Indeed, the computer thinks that white is still doing well here, giving a 0.4 pawn advantage. However, as Jesse pointed out, putting my bishop on g5 is another step in the wrong direction. I am basically offering to trade pieces again, which can only benefit black because he has less space.

Additionally, white has much better options such as 14. Bh2!, a move Jesse suggested and actually something I did consider during the game. However, I was already getting a little low on time here and, through inertia, playing the more forcing Bg5.

14. ... Qe8 15.Bxd7+ Qxd7

We reached the above position after black's 15th move. White is still better but it's not as good as it could have been. As Jesse said, "black owes us a tempo with his knight on a5" because it's so poorly placed. However, my next series of moves are a bit suspect. Not losing or anything but definitely not in the spirit of the position.

16.Bxf6 Bxf6 17.Ne5

This move looks nice and flashy, the point being that 17. ... dxe5 18. dxe5  and black regains the piece with a slightly favorable position. The other main idea behind this move was to keep black's queen off the c6 square, which was I was a bit concerned about. However, black is not obligated to take on e5 and I am really starting to sour what had been a very promising position.

17. ... Qe8 18.Nc4

Attempting to justify my knight sortie to e5 but why on earth would I want to trade my good knight for black's horrible knight on a5? This is a result of me not fully understanding the position and also my time trouble, which by this point was getting serious.

18.Nc4 Nc6 19.Ne4 Kb8 20.Nxf6 Rxf6 21.g5 Rf7 22.Nd2 e5 23.d5 Ne7 24.Ne4 Qa4

By now, things have gone badly awry for me. I knew that black would play 24. ... Qa4  but I couldn't see what else I could do except to take the plunge and play my Ne4 plan anyway.

25.Nc3 Qa5

A huge surprise. I had assumed that black would play 25. ... Qh4  when I am going to have trouble holding both my f2 and g5 pawns. I'm not sure if Craig saw a ghost and perhaps thought his queen would be short of squares on h4, or if he just flat out missed it (he was also getting low on time by this point).

26.Kb1 Rhf8 27.f4 exf4 28.exf4 Nc8 29.Rh1 Qb4 30.Qd2 Nb6 31.a3 Qc4 32.Rde1 Rxf4 33.Rxh7 Rd4 34.Qe3 a6 35.Qe7 Rc8 36.Rg7

The wrong piece! Correct was 36. Qf7, as Jesse pointed out, because after I capture on g6 with the queen she will be guarding my c2 pawn. Also, my rook really doesn't want to be in front of the pawn. Jesse said it's something common we tell children, "rooks belong behind passed pawns!" He is quite right, of course, and my only excuse is that I had only a few minutes left on the clock. Indeed, I'd had only 4 minutes left to make 9 moves after making my 31st move.

36. ... Nxd5 37.Nxd5 Qxd5 38.Rxg6 Rd1+ 39.Rxd1 Qxd1+ 40.Ka2 Qd5+ 41.Kb1 Qd1+ ½–½

I was surprised that Craig didn't capture my pawn on c2 and play on for a bit. He really has nothing to lose and can bail out into a perpetual check any time he wants it. During the post-game analysis he said he thought my g pawn was dangerous and he couldn't be sure if he was winning or losing if he didn't take the perpetual, so I suppose it was an understandable decision.

I thought this was a very interesting game. Looking back on it, with Jesse's comments still ringing in my ears, I think that neither my opponent or I fully grasped what was happening most of the time. I kept offering to trade pieces, despite having a big space advantage, and black kept declining despite the fact that this would have helped free up his position. On the other hand, I thought my opening preparation was pretty good and that both Craig and I fought well. A draw was the fair result in the end.

Here is the entire PGN of the game:

Hayes,Matthew (2124) - Faber,Craig Allen (2123) [A80]

Istvanyi Open Arcadia (4), 22.09.2014

1.d4 f5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bf4 Nf6 4.h3 g6 5.e3 Bg7 6.Bc4 e6 7.g4 Qe7 8.Rg1 fxg4 9.hxg4 Nc6 10.Nc3 Bd7 11.Qe2 0–0–0 12.0–0–0 Na5 13.Bb5 Rdf8 14.Bg5 Qe8 15.Bxd7+ Qxd7 16.Bxf6 Bxf6 17.Ne5 Qe8 18.Nc4 Nc6 19.Ne4 Kb8 20.Nxf6 Rxf6 21.g5 Rf7 22.Nd2 e5 23.d5 Ne7 24.Ne4 Qa4 25.Nc3 Qa5 26.Kb1 Rhf8 27.f4 exf4 28.exf4 Nc8 29.Rh1 Qb4 30.Qd2 Nb6 31.a3 Qc4 32.Rde1 Rxf4 33.Rxh7 Rd4 34.Qe3 a6 35.Qe7 Rc8 36.Rg7 Nxd5 37.Nxd5 Qxd5 38.Rxg6 Rd1+ 39.Rxd1 Qxd1+ 40.Ka2 Qd5+ 41.Kb1 Qd1+ ½–½

　

How to Lose a Drawn (or Won!) Position

It doesn't matter who you are, whether you are 600 rated junior, a 1500 rated club player, or World Champion Magnus Carlsen. At some point in your chess career, you have had an opponent totally crushed only to blunder in spectacular style and be left sitting with your head in your hands. I suspect it's happened to most of us more than we would care to admit and I know I have had my fair share of disasters where I have blown beautiful games by either overlooking simple tactics or, even worse, by relaxing and assuming a position will win itself.

I would like to share a few games of mine where this has happened and I had the black pieces in all four games. In the first two games, I was the one who ended up losing what should have been won or drawn games. In the final two games, I turned the tables on after my opponents blundered in vastly superior positions.

Game 1 - My First Swiss Game

The first position is one I have reconstructed from memory as I no longer have the game score. This was my first ever game in a weekend Swiss tournament. It was played in Portsmouth, England in about 2001. I had completely outplayed my opponent and had been sat in my chair for some time wondering when he was going to resign. I was up a rook and three pawns and just couldn't understand why he was playing on. I had just pushed my c pawn and my opponent moved his queen to e7, threatening checkmate by Qh7#  and Qf7#. I had foreseen this move and thought it was no big deal because I would just defend on the 7th rank. Surely then my opponent would call it quits!

NN - Hayes, Portsmouth 2001

Thinking I had everything under control, I flicked out 1. ... Rb7, which defended against both mating threats from white's queen. There is only one problem with this move, which I am sure you'll see. White was actually threatening a third checkmate and he slowly reached his hand towards the bishop on g6 and played 2. Bh7#.

Ouch! To make matters worse, my opponent even said, "I'm sorry" as he planted the bishop on h7. I sat there dumbfounded for a couple of minutes, wondering where it had all gone wrong. The truth was, it went wrong when I started to relax and didn't take white's threats seriously. I assumed I had a winning position, which was true, but I also assumed the game would win itself and that white would throw in the towel without making any effort. Big mistake!

Game 2 - Singing the Wrong Song

The position below was taken from a game I played earlier this year against NM Melandro Singson. I had comfortably equalized as black against his London System and we reached this position after white's 30th move:

Singson - Hayes, Arcadia 2014

Black should be completely fine here. In fact, Fritz thinks that black is just fractionally better (by less than 0.1 pawns). After the normal looking 30. ... Qd6, white would have to be a little concerned about his king's safety. It's nothing special but should be easier to play for black. Instead, I had a meltdown in time trouble and played the horrible 30. ... g5??  which loses on the spot to 31. Qxe7+. I had hallucinated that this move wasn't possible because of 31. ... Rxe7, winning white's queen, but of course white just plays 32. Rxe7+, which not only regains the queen but also picks up the a pawn to boot. Seeing that I would be down two pawns for zero compensation, I resigned right away and wished the game hadn't been on top board where so many people had crowded round!

Game 3 - Acon Artist

The third game is one where I should have been totally busted but swindled a win. In the Pacific Southwest Open in July 2007, I had had a miserable tournament. Going into the last round, I had only won one game and that was against a 1600 player. I was paired against Jennifer Acon, rated 1856 but she had been around 2000 before. She had obviously had a similarly miserable tournament and was eager to finish on a high note. For a long while, it looked as though that would be the case as she outplayed me in the middlegame and I was forced to give up the exchange to stave off her mating threats.

After 29 moves we reached the position below. In the long term this will be winning for white, not only because of the exchange but also because her queen is beautifully centralized, her rook on f1 controls the only open file on the board, and her king is much safer than mine. I had kept my knight on e5 to play for the only trick I could potentially see in the position and, fortunately for me, Jennifer fell right into it. Most moves should be good for white here. The computer assesses that both 30. Qd5  and 30. Kh1  give white a two pawn advantage. My opponent got a little greedy and decided to pile up on my d6 pawn, presumably thinking of playing for b4 and then c5 afterwards. She played the natural looking 30. Rd1. Try to work out why this is a terrible blunder.

Acon - Hayes, Burbank 2007

The answer is the surprising looking 30. ... Qxh3!!, leading to a highly favorable (probably winning) rook endgame for black after 31. gxf3 Nf3+, regaining the queen and leaving white with a shattered pawn structure. I eventually converted the ending without too many problems.

Game 4 - A Tasty Skewer

David Argall has been a regular opponent of mine for a number of years. He won most of our early encounters, back when he was a strong expert and long before I was rated over 2000. Back then, I was content to scrap for the odd draw among the numerous losses David inflicted on me. In the last few years, however, the tables have turned somewhat and, out of the last five games we have played, I have won four and the other was a draw.

In this game, I had suffered a catastrophe in the middlegame, had shed a pawn, and then bizarrely went into an endgame that was completely lost for me. I had just played 46. ... Ke6, which is a total bluff. At a glance, it looks like I am threatening to play Ra5+, picking up the rook, but this is an illusion. White should just play 47. c7  and it's all over. Sure, I can win the rook but what am I going to do when he queens his c pawn? The position is resignable for black but, then again, it had been for some time and I was playing for a swindle.

Argall - Hayes, Arcadia 2010

David obviously believed my bluff because he didn't play 47. c7. He disregarded that move, probably saw that his a pawn was inconveniently hanging, and figured that trading his a pawn for my g pawn was a fair exchange. I could hardly believe my eyes when he flicked out 47. Rxg5??, which lost on the spot to 47. ... Ra5+, skewing the king and rook. There is no hope that white can queen his c pawn afterwards either; it's simply not advanced enough and black will have no problem stopping it with his king and rook.

I hope you enjoyed these blunder-fests. It goes to show that we all make mistakes but, more importantly, that it's always worth playing on a while even in a bad position. I know some people will say it's disrespectful not to resign but let's take the first game for example. Yes, my opponent in Portsmouth was completely busted for a long time but who am I to tell him he should have resigned a game that he ended up winning? I don't believe in playing on until checkmate but I think one should at least make the opponent show that he knows how to win. Plus, you never know, he might overlook something and suddenly you have turned a lost game into a draw or win.

It's Better to be Lucky Than Good

Last night at the Arcadia Chess Club I faced off against long-time nemesis Gordon Brooks. Gordon and I had played each other ten times previously, with the score heavily in my favor (+5 =4 -1). However, I was extremely lucky in at least a couple of those games, taking advantage of Gordon's addiction to time trouble to turn lost or drawn positions into wins. Gordon has also been making a bit of a comeback lately; after hovering near his 1900 rating floor for a long time, he is back up to 1962. As he used to be rated over 2100, I couldn't take anything for granted.

I knew I would have the black pieces and knew that Gordon would play the English Opening. He is one of those players who is easy to prepare for, because he usually plays the same thing, but what he does play he knows very well and this can make him a dangerous opponent. I had done some preparation over the weekend but, right up until I made my first move, I wasn't 100% sure if I would play 1. ... e5 or 1. ... c5. I had prepared something in both lines based on the moves Gordon had made in our earlier games. As it turned out, I opted for 1. ... e5 and obtained what I thought was a pleasant position out of the opening but Fritz disagrees completely.

1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nc6 3.Bg2 f5 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.d3 Bb4

In a previous game of ours in this line, Gordon had played 5. Nf3?!  which is a bit dubious after 5. ... e4. 5. ... Bb4  is a standard response (Bc5 is also playable), looking to trade on c3 and double white's pawns.

6.Bd2 0–0 7.Nf3 d6 8.0–0 Bxc3

The first of several dubious decisions by me. Capturing on c3 makes more sense if white has spent a tempo by playing a3 first. I was concerned about the knight jumping into d5 but, with hindsight, I don't think this is particularly dangerous.

9.Bxc3 Qe8

A standard maneuver for black in the e5 English.

10.Qd2 h6

Probably OK but I should have seriously considered shoring up the queenside first by playing Rb8 and b6 at the earliest opportunity. 10. ... h6 does prevent black from playing his queen to g5 but I shouldn't have been so concerned about that. Black can either trade queens or drop his own queen back and play h6 later.

11.b4 Qh5 12.b5 Ne7 13.a4 Ng4

Fritz doesn't like this at all. White is starting to get some serious play on the queenside, the very side of the board I have been neglecting. Again, black would have still had decent attacking chances after securing the queenside first.

14.h3 Nf6 15.Nh2

After white's 15th move, we reached this position:

It's clear that white is counting on his queenside activity to distract black from his own play on the kingside. However, in addition to unleashing the bishop on g2, 15. Nh2  had another point: white wants to play f4. I knew Gordon wanted to play f4 and had to decide how to meet this. The computer says that black should play 15. ... f4!  himself and, even though white is slightly better, there's not too much in it. Unfortunately, I decided to be hyper-aggressive and banged out the scary looking but incorrect...

15. ... g5 16.f4 gxf4 17.gxf4 Ng6 18.e3

Which lead us to this position:

 

 

The position is now becoming critical and I realized I had committed one of GM Jesse Kraai's cardinal sins, namely playing with my "pretty pieces" before I had completed my development. True, the bishop on c8 does potentially play a role in the attack but my rook on a8 isn't too happy, especially with white's g2 bishop eyeing it. I should just bite the bullet and play 18. ... Rb8  and then develop the bishop to d7 or e6. Instead, I decided to be flashy but made a crucial miscalculation. I decided I would sac the exchange on a8 in return for winning white's h pawn. This wouldn't have won a pawn, since black would also win my b7 pawn, but I thought it would open his king up enough to give me some chances. This was really playing "hope chess" in many ways because, if we look at the force count over on the kingside, black will have at best four attackers (the queen, rook and both knights) but that won't happen immediately because I'm going to spend two tempi capturing the bishop on a8 once it takes my rook and then moving it back to f8. In the meantime, white already has queen, rook and knight defending his kingside and it's easy to get the other rook involved via a2. Watch what happens...

18. ... Be6 19.Bxb7 Qxh3 

Here I have missed my last chance to bail out and just accept being down a pawn and having a significantly worse position. If I had moved the a8 rook to safety instead of sacrificing the exchange, black is much worse but I can play on. Instead, I had played 19. ... Qxh3  thinking I would have reasonable compensation for the exchange due to white's insecure king and my dangerous looking knights. In reality, white's king would be perfectly safe tucked away on h1 and my king's safety isn't much better. It's nowhere near enough for the exchange.

Here's what I had missed:

20.Bxa8 Rxa8 21.Qg2!

And I have a major problem. I had hallucinated that this move wasn't possible because of 21. ... Qxe3+  but it doesn't work. White will just play 22. Kh1  and suddenly my a8 rook and g6 knight are en prise. Black would be totally busted. This was another consequence of my dubious g5 pawn push earlier in the game; opening the g file has been to white's benefit, not black's.

Funnily enough, Fritz says that 20. Rf3  is even better when black's queen is suddenly in danger of being trapped. The text move is still winning, however.

After white's 21st move, I knew I was dead lost with the queens coming off the board but what to do? All I can do is play on and try to find some way to generate complications.

21.... Qxg2+ 22.Kxg2 Kf7 23.fxe5 dxe5 24.Nf3 Ng4

At least now I am finally following all of the computer's top recommended moves. Better late than never! After black's 24th move we reached the position below. Gordon was starting to get a bit low on time (as was I) and he had cracked in time pressure in some of our games in the past. White should play 25. Rfe1  but Gordon played 25. Rae1  instead. At a glance, it looks natural to want to keep the rook on f1 where it is because it opposes black's king on f7. However, there is no real way to exploit that at the moment and we'll see in a moment why 25. Rae1  is a mistake.


 

25.Rae1 Rd8!

White suddenly has problems holding all of his pawns.

26.d4 Bxc4 27.Nxe5+ N4xe5 28.Rxf5+ Ke6

Here Gordon's time pressure was getting severe and he had a total meltdown. He should just concede that things have gone awry and play 29. Rxe5+ Nxe5 30. dxe5  and we reach an endgame where white is up a pawn but black has excellent drawing chances. Psychologically, that's a tough adjustment to make when white was winning only a few moves ago. Instead, Gordon opts to go into a position where black has two pieces for a rook and is much better.

29.Rh5 Nd3 30.Rd1

And we reached the position below. Black to play and win.

30. ... Ndf4+ 31.Kf2

Compounding the problem. White needs to play 31. exf4  so at least he is only dropping the exchange and not an entire rook.

31. ... Nxh5 32.Rh1 Rf8+ 33.Ke1 Ng3 34.Rxh6 Rf1+ 35.Kd2 Ne4+ 36.Kc2 Rf2+ 0–1

Gordon resigned. Even though black isn't winning a piece immediately (if I take the c3 bishop my knight on g6 hangs), black can just play the calm 37. ... Kf6  (after white's king moves out of check) and white is down two pieces, his bishop is still en prise, and is king is close to being in a mating net too.

This was a very curious game, probably quite typical of amateurs where the advantage shifted dramatically from one side to the other in the space of a few moves. I was not at all happy with how I played up to move 22 but, once I had calmed down and realized that, yes, my position was objectively lost but I could still create some complications, I felt I played quite well. I was certainly aided by Gordon making a number of terrible blunders, which can at least partly be explained by his time trouble. The crowd of people that had gathered around to watch the game only increased the tension.

I will look forward to my next encounter with Gordon. Our games are usually very interesting and this wasn't the first time I had gotten out of jail, so to speak. In fact, it was at least the third time (although ironically, in our last game it was the other way around where I had thrown the game away after absent mindedly walking into a pawn fork on my king and rook).

 Here is the complete PGN:

Brooks,L Gordon (1962) - Hayes,Matthew (2124) [A25]

Istvanyi Open Arcadia (3), 15.09.2014

1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nc6 3.Bg2 f5 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.d3 Bb4 6.Bd2 0–0 7.Nf3 d6 8.0–0 Bxc3 9.Bxc3 Qe8 10.Qd2 h6 11.b4 Qh5 12.b5 Ne7 13.a4 Ng4 14.h3 Nf6 15.Nh2 g5 16.f4 gxf4 17.gxf4 Ng6 18.e3 Be6 19.Bxb7 Qxh3 20.Bxa8 Rxa8 21.Qg2 Qxg2+ 22.Kxg2 Kf7 23.fxe5 dxe5 24.Nf3 Ng4 25.Rae1 Rd8 26.d4 Bxc4 27.Nxe5+ N4xe5 28.Rxf5+ Ke6 29.Rh5 Nd3 30.Rd1 Ndf4+ 31.Kf2 Nxh5 32.Rh1 Rf8+ 33.Ke1 Ng3 34.Rxh6 Rf1+ 35.Kd2 Ne4+ 36.Kc2 Rf2+ 0–1

　

Introduction Part 6: A Local to SoCal

After the Blacknight Memorial Day event, I played in two more tournaments in 2004. In July I travelled six hours from the Monterey area to Los Angeles for the 44th Pacific Southwest Open. Here I made the mistake of getting very little sleep (a real killer for most people's chess creativity) and paying the price by losing the first two rounds. I did win the rest of my games after that but the damage was done and I finished outside the prizes. Regardless, I loved every minute of it because I stayed at the LAX Hilton, where the tournament was being held, and met several new chess friends. I may post a later blog on this tournament and the lessons I learned.

In October 2004 I "played" in the Burlingame Open near San Jose. I hesitate to use the word "played" simply because I withdrew after the first round following a total debacle against a 1500. This would be the only time I would withdraw from a tournament after one bad game, although I have since withdrawn after a series of good  games in order to protect my rating. I then played no further rated games for over a year.

Playing black against Bob Head at the
Arcadia Chess Club.

In August 2005 I moved to Southern California to start a new job. I quickly started looking around for a chess club and found that the chess scene in the Los Angeles area is quite vibrant. It's not on the same level as New York but there are many clubs and a lot of strong players. I soon settled on the Arcadia Chess Club, where I have been playing ever since. The club meets on Mondays at 6:00pm and, because there are a number of strong experts and masters who have played there, my chess education grew in leaps in bounds. I was rated 1682 in my first tournament in Arcadia, the Richard Morris Memorial in December 2005, and went as high as 2132 (currently 2124). Admittedly, that 450 point jump came over a period of about eight years but, on the other hand, I was in my late 20's and early 30's and it is not easy to gain so many points when one is older. True, I was not old physically but, in chess years, most people make that kind of progress when they are a teenager and not well into adulthood. Oh to be one of those kids who gains hundreds of points and makes expert in their early teens or sooner!

This marks the end of the introduction to my chess career thus far. My future blog posts will focus mostly on my current chess activities, analyzing recent games and so forth. I will also make some posts about past games but they won't follow any particular chronological order like the introduction has.

Introduction Part 5: The Schiller Test

The first round pairings of the Blacknight Memorial Day tournament had me as white against FM Eric Schiller. This would be the first titled player I had ever played and I was not optimistic about my chances. As it turned out, the game was much closer than I had anticipated and should have been drawn with best play. Indeed, Eric later admitted he completely missed my 13th move. Looking back over the game now through "expert eyes", I think I played exceptionally well given that I was rated under 1800 and my opponent was a well known FIDE Master.

This is the first crucial position. Schiller has just played 12. ... Qxd5 and Fritz says that black is slightly better, probably because of his better development (the rook on c8) and white's isolated d pawn. There is also some uncomfortable pressure on the knight on f3 thanks to the pin from black's bishop.

The move I played is the computer's first choice and equalizes for white. The computer's second choice, 12. ... h3?!, gives black a 0.6 pawn advantage.

In this position I played 13. Ne5! which radically resolves the problem of the pinned knight. I am essentially offering a queen trade. At a glance it looks like black can win a pawn by playing 13. ... Qxg2+ 14. Kxg2 Bxd1 15. Rfxd1 Nxe5 16. dxe5 Bxe5  but black will have his a pawn en prise at the end of the combination. White is also not obliged to play 15. Rfxd1 and could flick in 15. Nxc6  instead. Schiller opted to play the first three moves of the combination but then played his knight to b4 instead of capturing the pawn on e5.

As the game went on, more pieces were traded off and we ended up in a rook ending. Rook endings are notoriously tricky things, even for high rated players, and it's no surprise that I blundered.

In the position above, I had already tried to be too flashy by temporarily sacrificing a pawn, figuring I would just pick off his a pawns. This was faulty logic for two reasons: 1) My b pawn is a potential target, and 2) I still need to spend a tempo to actually capture the sacrificed pawn and then another to grab the other a pawn.

Consequently, the game is now in the balance and I had to decide between 33. Kf2  and 33. Kf3  (of course, taking either a pawn is out of the question because my g pawn is hanging). Unfortunately, I blundered by playing 33. Kf2? and Eric banged out 33. ... Rb1 immediately. The reason the king should be on f3 is because, when black captures my b pawn, it won't be with check. I can't defend the pawn with my rook and I am still down a pawn. I resigned a few moves later, after trying a couple of cheapos.

After the game, Eric and I had lunch at Denny's where he regaled me with tales of his dealings with Kasparov and Kramnik in their 2000 World Championship match. As I had been in the audience for two of the games, this was especially interesting to me.

Here is the complete PGN of my game with Schiller:

Hayes,Matthew (1775) - Schiller,Eric (2223) [B14]

Blacknight Memorial Day San Jose (1), 29.05.2004

1.d4 g6 2.Nf3 Bg7 3.e4 c5 4.c3 cxd4 5.cxd4 d5 6.exd5 Nf6 7.Nc3 0–0 8.g3 Nxd5 9.Bg2 Nc6 10.0–0 Bg4 11.Be3 Rc8 12.Nxd5 Qxd5 13.Ne5 Qxg2+ 14.Kxg2 Bxd1 15.Rfxd1 Nb4 16.Rac1 Rfd8 17.a3 Nd5 18.Nd3 Kf8 19.Kf3 Ke8 20.h3 b6 21.Ne5 Nxe3 22.Kxe3 f5 23.Nc6 Rd6 24.Ne5 Rxc1 25.Rxc1 Bxe5 26.dxe5 Rd5 27.f4 Kd7 28.Rc4 b5 29.Rc2 Rd1 30.Rc5 a6 31.a4 bxa4 32.Ra5 Rg1 33.Kf2 Rb1 34.Rxa6 Rxb2+ 35.Ke3 Rb3+ 36.Kd4 Rxg3 37.Rxa4 Rxh3 38.Ra7+ Ke6 39.Ra6+ Kf7 0–1

　

Introduction Part 4: Provisionally Rated

A few months after my success in the Paso Robles Winter Open, I signed up to play in their Spring Open tournament. The turnout was a little disappointing but not as discouraging as my play. In the first round, I took on Randy Hough but contrived to get my knight trapped in a drawish looking ending. After a couple of routine wins against lower rated players, I then lost horribly to a 1600 and finished on only 2/4. This took my provisional rating from 1772, earned after the Winter Open, to 1761. Hardly a huge drop but I was more annoyed by how I had played than any rating points lost.


Chatting with Tim Forney at the
2004 Paso Robles Spring Open tournament.

On the plus side, I did make some new acquaintances, including the very amiable Tim Forney and strong expert John Williams (who I would finally get to play years later in the Amateur Team West). John tied for second with Arthur Wang (sadly now deceased), half a point behind winner Danyul Lawrence.

My appetite for tournament chess had been whetted and, just a couple of weeks later, I played in my first ever two day tournament (the Paso Robles tournaments had both started and finished the same day). The Blacknight Memorial Day tournament was held in San Jose, which was a bit of a distance so I stayed overnight at a hotel near the playing venue. It took me a while to find exactly where the playing room was because the tournament was at a large, sprawling school that had nobody around I could ask for directions.

When I finally found the playing room, I noticed that the top seed was FM Eric Schiller, famous (or infamous?) in chess circles for his prolific writing. I also recognized him from the Kasparov-Kramnik World Championship match in 2000, where Eric was the arbiter. I had attended two of the games in the match and Eric was always on stage when the games were starting and ending. I was secretly hoping I would get the chance to play him, despite the likelihood of being soundly beaten. Sure enough, when the pairings were posted, I had white against Eric. My first ever game against a titled player was about to be very interesting.

Introduction Part 3: California Dreamin'

I moved to California in August 2002 but neglected chess for some time, not playing in any tournaments, until I found the Paso Robles Chess Club in 2003 which was about 45 minutes away. I got to know the club's President, Dennis Steele, a very pleasant but curious character who would later run for Governor of Vermont. I stayed over at Dennis' house after helping him with a scholastic tournament and he showed me the early work he had done on a new site he was launching called Chess Maniac.

Another interesting character I came across was Warren Williamson, who mostly played in San Luis Obispo (which I had also begun to attend, albeit infrequently) but also played in Paso Robles from time to time. We travelled together to my first ever tournament in the U.S., the Central California Chess Congress in Stockton. Warren was rated around 1900 at the time so had to enter the Open section, whereas I was unrated and so played in the lower section.

Despite his rather distracting habit of bringing his own kettle with which to brew tea during games, Warren was a very nice and sporting player who I looked up to in my early chess days in California. He was good at blitz, had a keen eye for tactics, and had previously been an expert with a 2000 rating. This was something that seemed a long way off for me and I was very impressed to meet somebody with such a high rating!


Paso Robles Winter Open, 2004. I am in the bottom left,
engrossed in thought against expert Remy Le.

The Central California Chess Congress turned out to be a successful proving ground and I finished tied for second place in my section. However, the player who actually finished first was ineligible for some reason (I forget why) and I won the trophy courtesy of a playoff against the other people who I had tied with. This first tournament gave me a provisional rating of 1619.

After this initial success, I continued to play in Paso Robles and San Luis Obispo but did not play any rated games for nearly a year. In early 2004, the Paso Robles Chess Club held its first ever tournament, the Winter Open, and I duly signed up. The tournament was a big success for me as I tied for first and had my first draw against an expert, an exchange student named Remy Le. He wasn't best pleased about conceding the draw and naturally had to point out the multitude of ways he could have won but for his carelessness. I won my other three games to finish with 3.5/4. Also tied for first was Randy Hough who, although I didn't know it yet, would become a friend and one of my regular opponents in Southern California.

Introduction Part 2: Hot Stuff

After a few months of studying and repeated viewings of Searching for Bobby Fischer, I felt confident enough to return to my childhood chess club. Horsham Chess Club had been in existence since 1879 and was one of the oldest in Great Britain. As a kid, I had always attended the junior classes and hadn't been allowed to play against the adults. At the ripe old age of sixteen, I decided I was now ready to play in the "grown up" tournaments.

London Road Methodist Church where
Horsham Chess Club played (and still plays to this day).

I turned up at the club thinking I was hot stuff. All those weeks of studying my beginner level chess books would surely pay off, right? Wrong! I did manage to beat my brother, who accompanied to the club for a few weeks before calling it quits, but aside from that I lost game after game after game. In fact, it was a full two months before I even earned my first draw. That draw would be my reward for much perseverance. Even though I had a completely winning position, I was so grateful when my opponent offered a draw that I nearly snatched his hand off trying to shake it.

Eventually, I started to win games, at first infrequently but it soon became common place. To be sure, I was hardly one of the better plays at the club but there were plenty of players I could hold my own against. I remember defeating Peter Harbott, consistently one of the club's higher rated players at that time, and drawing club champion James Mansson in a cup game (even though he comfortably won the rematch). Yes, things seemed to be looking up and, after a year or two, I was representing the club in team matches and was asked to play for the county, West Sussex, in the U125 section. (For those who don't know, the English Chess Federation uses a different rating system than the USCF.)

There were still some comical moments, like the two times I missed a mate in one on my move (fortunately, I still won one of the games but lost the other) or the time I dropped a piece on move eight in a match against another club, but overall my play was improving. A real highlight was winning Horsham Chess Club's Rook Trophy, awarded for coming first in the club's lower level tournament. I also won the Knight Trophy, given out to the Horsham player who had the best % in team competition.

By this time I had turned 22 years of age and, in an inexplicable moment of folly for my glittering chess career, decided to move to the middle of nowhere in central California.