[chessmind] Dennis Monokroussos: Another look back at the North American Open

[Email subscription to blog articles]

Posted by Dennis Monokroussos:
Another look back at the North American Open
http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/posts/1199861511.shtml


   A few days ago [1]I presented a snippet from my 6th round game at the
   North American Open, together with [2]a cute puzzle shown to me by a
   friend. Tonight, it's time for another excerpt and story, this time
   from the final round.

   ([3]show)

   With a +2 score, I expected to be paired up, and I wasn't
   disappointed. My last round opponent was Mongolian GM Dashzeveg
   Sharavdorj, but despite his title and his possession of the white
   pieces, I was both calm and ready. His rating wasn't so terrifying,
   and I was in decent form and reasonably prepared for the opening.
   Sure enough, things went well. Sharavdorj never had more than a small
   edge throughout the game, though once or twice I had some anxious
   moments before finding the best move. Let's start with this position:
   [sharavdorj_dm_nao2007_1.jpg]
   White has just played 26.Qe2-b5, eying my a4- and b7-pawns, and also
   threatening to threaten my e-pawn as well. The most obvious rejoinder
   is 26...Bxh3, but White is under no obligation to take the bishop.
   After 27.Bxb7 White re-establishes material equality while threatening
   to take on e5 and a4, so it looks as if White's up a pawn for nothing.
   At least that was my thought during the game, but the oracle informs
   me that Black can continue patiently: 27...h5 28.Qxe5 (28.Qxa4 Bg4 is
   fine: Black either achieves a drawn opposite-colored bishop ending or,
   on a knight move, plays either ...Bc5 or ...Qb6) Bg4! 29.Qxf6+ Kxf6
   30.Nd2 Bc5 31.Bc6 Bd4 32.Bxa4 Bxb2 33.Nc4 Bc1 followed by ...Be2 and
   ...Bxc4, with a drawn opposite-colored bishop ending.
   Unfortunately, White can play better, and I saw this, too. After
   26...Bxh3, White plays 27.Qxb7, threatening 28.Nxe5. I can withdraw my
   bishop and overprotect f7 with 27...Be6, but after 28.Bxe6 Qxe6 29.Qb5
   White wins a pawn, and this time it looks more meaningful than in the
   27.Bxb7 variation.
   So am I in a bit of trouble here? Not at all! Your faithful blogger
   played 26...Qf4! This nifty move has several virtues. First, by
   leaving the bishop on c8, there's no Qxb7 to worry about just yet.
   Second, there are perpetual, or rather, near-perpetual possibilities
   involving Qc1-f4. (It's not yet perpet, because White can play Kh2,
   Kh1, and Ng1.) Third, 27.Qxa4 can be met by 27...Qc1+ and 28...Qxb2.
   And fourth, the ...Bxh3 idea is more serious now, on account of the
   follow-ups ...Qg4 and ...Bxg2 Kxg2 Qg4+.
   27.Qc4 (27.Bxb7 Bxb7 28.Qxb7 Qc1+ 29.Kh2 Qf4+ 30.Kh1 Qc1+ and now
   White should accept the perpetual, because 31.Ng1?! Qb1! leaves White
   scrambling. [The immediate 31...Bc5 isn't as strong, on account of the
   annoying 31.Qc7.] Black's queen eyes e4 and b2, and ...Bc5 is in the
   offing.) 27...Bxh3 28.Qc3!
   [sharavdorj_dm_nao2007_2.jpg]
   A very nice move by Sharavdorj, and now I was a bit concerned. He's
   threatening Nxe5, with evil intent on the long diagonal. He's also
   threatening to take the bishop, and he has neutralized both my ...Bxg2
   and ...Qg4 ideas. The first fails, of course, because the Nf3 is
   protected, and the second loses as well: 28...Qg4 29.Qxe5+ Kg8 30.Qh2!
   and my poor bishop is trapped. Black has only one decent move, but
   fortunately it's good enough: 28...Be6. Let's fast forward through the
   next few moves: 29.Bxe6 fxe6 30.Qc7+ Kf6 31.Qc8 Kf7 32.Qxb7+ Be7
   33.Qc6 g5! 34.Qc3 Bf6 35.Nd2 h5 36.Nc4 Kg6 (So that after 37.g3 I can
   play 37...Qxe4.)
   [sharavdorj_dm_nao2007_3.jpg]
   Now White's best move is probably 37.Qe1, with a slight advantage, but
   Sharavdorj's move demanded an accurate reply as well.
   37.Qe3
   Now White wants to play Nb6 and Nxa4, so Black's best move is
   37...Bd8.
   [sharavdorj_dm_nao2007_4.jpg]
   Now White's knight has nothing to do and the queen trade is peachy for
   Black. If White does nothing, then I'll keep advancing my kingside
   pawns. So White doesn't have too many options, but he can keep trying.
   Sharavdorj continued 38.Qc5, and since I had already decided many
   moves ago that I wanted to maintain both e-pawns as a shield for my
   king, I returned the bishop to f6: 38...Bf6. (Note that there's no
   perpetual, because White's queen covers f2 after 38...Qc1+ 39.Kh2 Qf4+
   40.g3.) Now I'm threatening to take on e4, and moves like 39.Qc6 or
   39.Qc8 allow an immediate perpetual. Sharavdorj therefore retreated
   with 39.Qe3, and I followed suit with 39...Bd8.
   [sharavdorj_dm_nao2007_4.jpg]
   It's time for White to try something else if he hopes to win, and so
   he played 40.Qe1. His idea is to play g3 and then swing the queen to
   c3 or b4, so I prepared for this by overprotecting my e-pawn:
   40...Bc7. Now my bishop is ideally placed for defense, and I'm ready
   to push the kingside pawns, achieving either an easy perpetual or, if
   White goes crazy, some winning chances.
   How is White to avoid this? Frankly, the position is completely equal,
   but he's the higher-rated player, needing to win to make any sort of
   decent money. That gives him motivation, and having just made the time
   control, he has the means to work out something serious. He burned a
   fair amount of time here - 11 minutes - and indeed, both of us had
   used a decent amount of time over the last few moves. Here's a
   summary:
   37. Qe3 (3 minutes) Bd8 (4 minutes)
   38. Qc5 (10 minutes) Bf6 (5 minutes)
   39. Qe3 (6 minutes) Bd8 (instantly)
   40. Qe1 (8 minutes) Bc7 (3 minutes)
   And now:
   41. Qe3 (11 minutes)
   Given that almost 3/4 of an hour had passed since I made my 37th move,
   and that we had crossed the psychologically significant threshold of
   the time control, it's understandable that Sharavdorj had forgotten
   about the game's continuity with the previous few moves. But have a
   look at those moves, especially numbers 37, 39, and now 41. See a
   pattern? If not, look at the last two diagrams.
   If you notice a three-time repetition available for the taking if I
   play 41...Bd8, you're right. It's up to me whether to take it, and
   maybe I should have played 41...h4 or taken on e3. It's dead equal in
   any case, but as my higher-rated opponent was under more pressure to
   make something happen, the psychologically astute decision may have
   been to offer him a little rope, just in case he'd rather hang himself
   than accede to the draw.
   Having been on the defensive side for quite a while, however, and with
   hopes of a decent payday even with the draw, I announced my intention
   to draw with the move 41...Bd8. And here something amazing happened:
   my opponent disputed the claim. For the reasons given earlier, it was
   entirely understandable that he had overlooked the repetition. But
   once the claim is made, it's as obvious as can be, by perusing the
   scoresheet, that the exact same position will occur three times when I
   retreat the bishop to d8.
   Much to my surprise, Sharavdorj rebutted my claim based on my having
   played 36...Kg6 before the repetition. The relevance of this was lost
   on me, but rather than argue this with people around us trying to
   play, I went for a TD, Carol Jarecki. She had no trouble ascertaining
   the correctness of my claim in just a few seconds, but Sharavdorj
   still didn't believe or accept it. After that we spoke with another
   director, Chris Bird, and he too more or less instantly approved it. I
   think by this point Sharavdorj finally accepted it, but I'm not sure
   he understood why it was a draw. My impression is that he believed
   that the whole move sequence needed to be repeated three times, but
   that's not the rule. What needs to be repeated is the position, not
   any sequence of moves. As long as the position occurs three times,
   with the same player to move each time, the claim can be made. (More
   accurately, the player declares his or her intention to repeat the
   position the third time. You must not execute the board, as once it's
   the opponent's turn it's too late - he or she can vary.)
   So the game was drawn, and I had the incredible experience of seeing a
   grandmaster unfamiliar with a basic rule of the game, one that works
   the same way in FIDE competitions as well as in the USCF. Yet it
   turned out that he wasn't the only player in the tournament unfamiliar
   with some of the rules of the game!
   About a year and a half or so ago, I was talking with Tim McGrew on
   the ICC, and he mentioned to his dismay that the USCF had just
   disallowed the practice of letting players write their moves before
   playing them. He disliked it because his students couldn't use that
   technique as an aid against blundering; my view was that the rule
   change was a good one for precisely that reason. The point of
   recording the moves isn't to take notes or to provide any sort of
   help, but to have a record of the game for posterity and to settle
   disputes (about time controls, three-time repetitions, etc.).
   Fast forward to round 1. My opponent wrote a move down before playing
   it, and I "informed" him that it was illegal. He apologized and
   refrained from the practice, and the game continued normally. Later,
   in round 4, it happened again, but this time when I admonished my
   opponent, he rejected my claim! So, off to the TD, who told me
   that...my opponent was right. Apparently the USCF (mostly) rescinded
   the rule (except in cases of "excessive" crossing-out of moves,
   however that's supposed to be quantified), so this time it was my turn
   to contritely apologize (and I did). So twice in the tournament I
   failed to know fairly basic rules, and twice my opponents failed in
   that respect as well. Sheesh.
   ([4]hide)

References

   1. http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/posts/1199503795.shtml
   2. http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/posts/1199731674.shtml
   3. file://localhost/var/www/powerblogs/chessmind/posts/1199861511.html
   4. file://localhost/var/www/powerblogs/chessmind/posts/1199861511.html