American Open Round 6: Austin Powers Past the Moscow

In round 6 of the American Open in November, I played Austin Hughes, rated 2195. Although I had the white pieces he was the clear favorite in my mind going into the game (actually, that's probably not a good state of mind to be in!). He has been rated over 2200 before and I had lost a game to him a number of years ago, albeit when we were both rated quite a bit lower.

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bb5+ Bd7 4. Bxd7+ Qxd7

This is the Moscow Variation of the Sicilian, which I started playing years ago when Larry Kaufman recommended it in his interesting book The Chess Advantage in Black and White. I use it primarily as a way to avoid playing against the Najdorf but, like all of my openings, I don't necessarily play it against all opponents. It just depends on their rating and/or if I have a good idea of their opening repertoire.

Black's third move is not forced. Both 3. ... Nc6  and, even better, 3. ... Nd7  are possible. Either way, it has to be said that white voluntarily giving up his light squared bishop in the Sicilian is a bit controversial. However, he does gain some time and note that none of black's kingside pieces have moved yet.

5. O-O Nf6 6. Re1

Kaufman prefers to play 6. Qe2  followed by bringing the rook from f1 to d1, which I have also played many times. Both 6. Re1  and 6. Qe2  are the main lines here.

6. ... Nc6 7. c3 g6 8. d4 cxd4 9. cxd4 Bg7 10. Nc3 O-O 11. h3 Rad8 12. Bg5 h6 13. Be3

This look fairly natural but Fritz thinks that 13. Bxf6 Bxf6 14. Nd5! Bg7 15. Rc1  is best, with a half pawn advantage to white. However, giving up the dark squared bishop is hard for a human player to do and I think 13. Be3  is a reasonable practical choice.

13. ... d5 14. e5 Ne4 15. Nxe4?

So far, white has been ticking along nicely and had his usual slight advantage out of the opening. White's 15th move is a serious positional mistake, which will end up giving black a juicy square on f5 for his knight, control over the d file, and a central pawn majority. The simple 15. Rc1  was both natural and good, preserving a very minor edge for white. I am not sure why I didn't play this. True, it looks annoying to allow black's knight to sit on e4 but it's not the end of the world. White would still have plenty of reasonable ideas after 15. Rc1, e.g. bringing the queen to b3 or d3 (after playing a3), or to c1 to target the h6 pawn.

15. ... dxe4 16. Nd2 Nxd4 17. Nxe4 Bxe5 18. Bxh6 Rfe8 19. Rc1 Nf5 20. Qxd7?

Very careless. The position is unpleasant but still tenable for white after 20. Qe2!, with the point that 20. ... Nxh6  doesn't win a piece because of 21. Nc5!  when white will pick up to loose bishop on e5. After the text move, white will simply end up down a pawn with a much worse position. The rest of the game is simple for Austin.

20. ... Rxd7 21. Bd2 Bxb2 22. Rc2 Bg7 23. Bg5 Red8 24. Kf1 b6 25. g4 Nd4 26. Rd2 Nf3 27. Rxd7 Rxd7 28. Re3 Nxg5 29. Nxg5 Bh6 0-1

White can save the exchange with 30. f4  but, after black plays Rd4 and e5, everything is falling apart (and black is still up a healthy pawn anyway).

Although this was a disappointing game, the truth is it all stemmed from one bad decision (15. Nxe4) which gave me an uncomfortable, but still playable, position. As is common in chess, one poor move then led to another (20. Qxd7), after which black was just winning.

I decided to withdraw from the tournament after this loss. Having taken byes in the first two rounds, I would have been out of contention for any prizes and the venue was quite a commute from home. I have withdrawn from tournaments before the last round, or the last couple of rounds, quite often but it's a policy I may rethink. Perhaps it is better to play as many games as possible, particularly in a section like this one was (under 2200), when I get still get some good opponents in the last round or two.

Here is the full PGN of the game vs Austin Hughes:

(594) Hayes,Matthew (2133) - Hughes,Austin (2195) [B52]

American Open Orange (6), 29.11.2014

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bb5+ Bd7 4.Bxd7+ Qxd7 5.0–0 Nf6 6.Re1 Nc6 7.c3 g6 8.d4 cxd4 9.cxd4 Bg7 10.Nc3 0–0 11.h3 Rad8 12.Bg5 h6 13.Be3 d5 14.e5 Ne4 15.Nxe4 dxe4 16.Nd2 Nxd4 17.Nxe4 Bxe5 18.Bxh6 Rfe8 19.Rc1 Nf5 20.Qxd7 Rxd7 21.Bd2 Bxb2 22.Rc2 Bg7 23.Bg5 Red8 24.Kf1 b6 25.g4 Nd4 26.Rd2 Nf3 27.Rxd7 Rxd7 28.Re3 Nxg5 29.Nxg5 Bh6 0–1

　

An Interesting New Chess Clock

I recently stumbled upon a terrific looking new chess clock that is in its final development stages. Developed by Shelby Lohrman, he recently trialed the clock at the Amateur Team East tournament. There is a thread on the USCF website about the clock which seems to have generated a slightly negative reaction, which surprised me. Some people said the clock didn't have enough presets, others said it was going to be too expensive. Well, for one the clock is still in the beta stages and it's possible more presets will be added. Secondly, you can always customize the time controls and save them as favorites. Finally, the suggested prices being thrown around were roughly comparable with the Chronos, which would be this clock's main competitor. As a Chronos owner myself, I know how hard it can be to set properly. I am now used to it but, every now and then, I have to consult the manual if I need to set it to an unusual time control.

Lohrman has three videos up on YouTube about the as yet unnamed clock. From what I can see, it offers several advantages over the Chronos:

1) Easier to set
2) Larger display that includes a second line of text that shows information about the time control, can show a move counter, etc.
3) The ability to copy settings and presets from one clock to another
4) An external battery cover (us Chronos owners know what a hassle it is to have to carry a screwdriver in our chess bags!)

So far, I can see a few disadvantages to the Chronos as well:

1) It seems to have far fewer presets, as forum posters have noted, but my hope is that will change as the clock gets closer to its launch date
2) The price is likely to be comparable to the Chronos but, as the Chronos price seems to have decreased in recent months, the new clock might end up being more expensive
3) It uses the older Chronos style plunger buttons which are great for tactile feedback but wear out more easily

I should also note that I have no idea what the build quality will be like. Those who saw the clock at the Amateur Team East can perhaps attest to that. From the videos, however, it looks sturdy and it very much resembles the Chronos, just with a larger display.

I will be keeping an eye on developments with the clock with keen interest.

Here is a link to a YouTube video introducing the clock:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3huaFY0L9o

American Open Round 5 - Dual (or Duel?) Analysis

In round 5 of the American Open in November, I faced off against Abhishek Handigol, an expert rated 2067. He'd had a terrific tournament so far, winning his first three games before coming unstuck against Agata Bykovtsev. Unfortunately for Abhishek, he made some risky, unsound moves against me, particularly leading up to the time control, which left him in a lost position.

Interestingly, Abhishek posted this game on a round-by-round analysis he did of his American Open tournament in his blog on chess.com. I have added some of his comments to mine below.

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 g6 3. c3 Bg7 4. d4 cxd4 5. cxd4 d5 6. exd5 Nf6

Obviously, I attempted to go into the Accelerated Dragon but white had other ideas. The position has transposed into some sort of Grunfeld. Abhishek said that next time he will play 6. e5  in this position, a move that is certainly more aggressive but Fritz rates it about the same as 6. exd5. A pawn being on e5 isn't as disruptive for black as one might think because the knight on g8 will come into the game via h6 or e7 to f5.

7. Nc3 Nxd5

Abhishek commented that this position now resembles a Caro-Kann, which I can see. The Panov-Botvninik Attack would have a similar structure.

8. Bc4 Nb6 9. Bb3 O-O 10. O-O Bg4 11. d5 N8d7 12. h3 Bxf3 13. Qxf3 Nc5

The computer prefers 13. ... Ne5, with an equal position. After the text move, Fritz thinks white is at about +0.3 but there's not much in it. To my mind, Ne5 was a more natural human move because it attacks the queen, but actually putting the knight on c5 makes a lot of sense because it pressurizes a key defender of the d5 pawn. White would have to acquiesce to a trade of knight for bishop or put the bishop on the inferior c2 square where it's not clear what it is doing.

14. Bc2 Rc8 15. Rd1 Nc4 16. Qe2 Nd6

Blockading a pawn with a knight like this is a key motif, "in the style of Nimzovich" as Abhishek noted. The pawn on d5 isn't truly passed because of black's e7 pawn but the knight is useful on d6 because we don't want white to have any encouragement to push the pawn to d6 himself at some point. The knight may also have the option to come to f5 after a late Qd7 to support it.

17. Bg5 Re8 18. Rac1 a6 19. Na4 Nd7 20. Bb3 b5 21. Rxc8 Nxc8 22. Nc3 Nf6 23. Bxf6?

For me, this is the first real questionable move of the game. I can see no justification for white exchanging off his dark squared bishop like this, at least not for a knight. Abhishek said, "I think it was more wise to avoid trades here. Even if the knight gets to d6 it's just a blockader." I agree it was wise to not trade bishop for knight but don't understand his comment about the knight getting to d6. Surely it's the knight on c8 that will just go to d6 in one move?

23. ... Bxf6 24. Ne4 Bg7 25. a4 Nd6 26. axb5 Nxe4 27. Qxe4 axb5 28. Qb4 Qb8

It looks like black is tied up but, at the time, I thought the position was equal. Fritz agrees, giving a slight advantage to black (about -0.2) but nothing too special. True, black's queen has to defend the pawn on b5 but it's hard for white to attack it with a second piece. White also has to contend with defending the b2 pawn.

29. Re1 Be5 30. f4??

A blunder that essentially costs white the game. I think Abhishek just missed my next, simple move. White needs a plan and I think that was his problem; he wasn't sure what to do and so tried to make things tactical but it backfired. Abhishek said of this move, "Lesson learned: If I DON'T know what to do, just do nothing." Well, I'm not sure it's as easy as that because passing isn't an option in chess (if it was, stalemate and zugzwang wouldn't exist!) but white didn't need to lash out like this. Fritz thinks that both 30. h4  and 30. g3  are reasonable, rating the position as a bit better for black but nothing that white shouldn't be able to handle.

30. ... Bd6! 31. Qe4 Bxf4 32. d6 Qxd6

White was already down a pawn but this just compounds the error. White gets some tactical shots in but still ends up in a lost position.

33. Bxf7+ Kxf7 34. Rf1 e5 35. g3 Re6 36. gxf4 exf4

Abhishek said, "Now I'm down a pawn. whoops. I should have just sat around in time pressure. He was also in pressure so it could have affected him also." True, I get into time trouble so often that, although I should be used to it, it does affect my play.

37. Qxf4+?

Taking with the rook was better. Exchanging queens leads to an endgame that is likely just losing for white.

37. ... Qxf4 38. Rxf4+ Ke7 39. Rb4 Re5 40. Kf2 Kd6 41. Kf3 Kc5 42. Rg4 b4 43. b3 Re1 44. Rc4+ Kb5 45. Rd4?

Now the position really is just winning for black.

45. ... Rc1 46. Rd7 Rc3+ 47. Kg4 h5+ 48. Kh4 Rxb3 49. Rb7+ Kc4 50. Rg7 Rd3 51. Rxg6 Rd5 52. Rc6+ Rc5 53. Rf6 b3 54. Rf4+ Kc3 55. Rf3+ Kb4 56. Rf1 b2 57. Rb1 Kb3 58. Rf1 Rc1 59. Rf3+ Rc3 60. Rf1 Ka2 61. Rf2 Ka1 62. Rf1+ b1=Q

White should resign but he plays on until the bitter end, trying for a couple of stalemate tricks. Ordinarily, I would say this was rather cheap but he had nothing to lose. The game was up anyway.

63. Rf5 Rxh3+ 64. Kg5 Qxf5+ 65. Kh6 Qf6+ 66. Kh7 Rc3 67. Kg8 Rc8+ 68. Kh7 Rh8# 0-1

Here is PGN:

(593) Handigol,Abhishek (2067) - Hayes,Matthew (2133) [D94]

American Open Orange (5), 29.11.2014

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.c3 Bg7 4.d4 cxd4 5.cxd4 d5 6.exd5 Nf6 7.Nc3 Nxd5 8.Bc4 Nb6 9.Bb3 0–0 10.0–0 Bg4 11.d5 N8d7 12.h3 Bxf3 13.Qxf3 Nc5 14.Bc2 Rc8 15.Rd1 Nc4 16.Qe2 Nd6 17.Bg5 Re8 18.Rac1 a6 19.Na4 Nd7 20.Bb3 b5 21.Rxc8 Nxc8 22.Nc3 Nf6 23.Bxf6 Bxf6 24.Ne4 Bg7 25.a4 Nd6 26.axb5 Nxe4 27.Qxe4 axb5 28.Qb4 Qb8 29.Re1 Be5 30.f4 Bd6 31.Qe4 Bxf4 32.d6 Qxd6 33.Bxf7+ Kxf7 34.Rf1 e5 35.g3 Re6 36.gxf4 exf4 37.Qxf4+ Qxf4 38.Rxf4+ Ke7 39.Rb4 Re5 40.Kf2 Kd6 41.Kf3 Kc5 42.Rg4 b4 43.b3 Re1 44.Rc4+ Kb5 45.Rd4 Rc1 46.Rd7 Rc3+ 47.Kg4 h5+ 48.Kh4 Rxb3 49.Rb7+ Kc4 50.Rg7 Rd3 51.Rxg6 Rd5 52.Rc6+ Rc5 53.Rf6 b3 54.Rf4+ Kc3 55.Rf3+ Kb4 56.Rf1 b2 57.Rb1 Kb3 58.Rf1 Rc1 59.Rf3+ Rc3 60.Rf1 Ka2 61.Rf2 Ka1 62.Rf1+ b1Q 63.Rf5 Rxh3+ 64.Kg5 Qxf5+ 65.Kh6 Qf6+ 66.Kh7 Rc3 67.Kg8 Rc8+ 68.Kh7 Rh8# 0–1

　

American Open Round 4

I haven't posted in a while, again having been busy with work and life in general. Continuing from where I left off in my last blog post, I played in the American Open in November 2014. After beating Randy Hough in round 3 (following byes in the first two rounds), I had white against Joseph Warhula, rated 1926. I had seen Joseph on the tournament scene for years but we had never played before. The game was a Scandinavian and one where I was always at least slightly better and in control for the entire game. It's always nice when that happens!

1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nf3 Bg4

This is probably the move I see most often in this line. I think it's a natural move but harmless enough. 3. ... Bf5  can also be played but is possibly less accurate.

4. Be2 Nf6 5. d4 c6 6. O-O e6 7. Bf4 Be7 8. Nc3

Slightly unusual for me. I typically play c4, if not here than earlier. However, I was reminded of something Jesse Kraai said, namely that you don't want to make unnecessary pawn moves. That means that Nc3 is better on general principles because it develops a piece with tempo, although the c4 push is also good it has to be said. I wanted to do something a bit different here, hence 8. Nc3.

8. ... Qa5 9. Re1 Nbd7 10. a3 Nd5 11. Nxd5 cxd5 12. Ne5 Bxe2 13. Qxe2 Nxe5 14. Bxe5 Bf6 15. Bxf6 gxf6 16. Qf3 Qd8 17. Re3 Rc8 18. Qh5

Black is already in serious trouble. There are mounting threats against the weak points on f7 and e6. White already threatens to play Rxe6+ which would be crushing.

18. Qh5 Qb6 19. Rae1 Ke7 20. Qh4?!

Fritz isn't crazy about this move. The point is that, yes white is threatening to play Rf3 next move and hit the f6 pawn. Unfortunately, black can easily prevent this via 20. ... h5  and 21. ... Rh6. It looks ugly but I can't see an immediate way for white to exploit the strange placement of black's kingside pieces. Luckily for me, my opponent panicked and blundered a pawn.

20. ... Rhg8? 21. Qxh7 Rh8??

Black is probably lost anyway but this move seals the deal. Black will have two rooks vs the queen but his pawns are vulnerable and scattered; just the kind of position a hungry queen enjoys.

22. Rxe6+ Qxe6 23. Rxe6+ Kxe6 24. Qd3 Rh4 25. c3 Rc6 26. f3 a6 27. g4 1-0

Here is the complete PGN:

(592) Hayes,Matthew (2133) - Warhula,Joseph (1926) [B01]

American Open Orange (4), 28.11.2014

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nf3 Bg4 4.Be2 Nf6 5.d4 c6 6.0–0 e6 7.Bf4 Be7 8.Nc3 Qa5 9.Re1 Nbd7 10.a3 Nd5 11.Nxd5 cxd5 12.Ne5 Bxe2 13.Qxe2 Nxe5 14.Bxe5 Bf6 15.Bxf6 gxf6 16.Qf3 Qd8 17.Re3 Rc8 18.Qh5 Qb6 19.Rae1 Ke7 20.Qh4 Rhg8 21.Qxh7 Rh8 22.Rxe6+ Qxe6 23.Rxe6+ Kxe6 24.Qd3 Rh4 25.c3 Rc6 26.f3 a6 27.g4 1–0