Saturday, November 21, 2009
Game of the Year Wildcards
So with only the Championship Match left to be played in this USCL season, it's once again also time to look forward towards the Game of the Year (GOTY) contest for this year. For the most part, we plan to run this contest in the same basic fashion as last year, the contest running about the same amount of overall time (one month) and once again with twenty games in contention: the thirteen Game of the Weeks (which can be seen here) along with seven Wildcard games, which will be picked by the GOTW Judges right after the season ends.
We have considered making a slight increase in the number of judges we have for this season's contest though (please vote in the poll at the right so we know how you feel), and aside from knowing your views on that, we'd naturally also like your input on which games you think should be the Wildcards! So please let us know your view on what you think the proper number of judges is and what games definitely deserve to be in the GOTY contest which did not already win GOTW.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Semifinals Game of the Week
This year we have five judges for Game of the Week, each ranking their top five games. The games are then given from one to five points, based on these rankings, and whichever game receives the most total points wins the award. First place each week will receive a $150 bonus prize, second place $75, and third place $50. Our five judges are: IM Greg Shahade, FM Jim Dean, NM Michael Aigner, NM Jeff Ashton, and NM Arun Sharma. Click here for more details.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st Place: GM Pascal Charbonneau (NY) vs IM Dean Ippolito (NJ) 1/2-1/2
In an already wild position, GM Charbonneau threw the spectators for another loop with a very interesting Queen sacrifice, 13. Nxd4!?, creating a severely unbalanced position which eventually, after many more interesting moments, ended in a draw.
Michael Aigner: The Semifinal round saw two thrilling matches, both won by the lower seeded team against draw odds. Unfortunately, there was no obvious Game of the Week, certainly no aesthetic win by sacrificial attack. Pruess and Charbonneau both tried to play entertaining chess, yet neither was able to win. In fact, I believe the two most exciting games both ended in draws (Boards One and Two of New Jersey vs New York).
I selected the wild, yet imperfect, draw between Charbonneau and Ippolito for the Semifinals' Game of the Week. Black stirred the pot in the Four Knight's with 4... Nd4, 7... d5, and the Knight sacrifice 10... Nxe4. Not to be outdone, White raised the stakes with a Queen sacrifice on move thirteen! When the dust settled, White had a pair of Bishops and two Pawns against a Black Queen. White liquidated into an endgame of Rook and Bishop against Queen which he held without adventure. This was a great back-and-forth battle that allowed both combatants to show off their chess skill.
I thought for a long time about how to rank the draw between Benjamin and Kacheishvili and the miniature by Moreno Roman. It came down to the shocking result of the latter's King's Gambit game, with White completely busted after move twelve. Black simply offered up a piece to develop quickly and castle, then found the efficient move order 10... Bxf3, 11... Re8+, and the quiet move 12... Qh5. Bravo to Moreno Roman for being prepared to do battle in such an aggressive opening. Unfortunately, White's lack of resistance (9. Qe1 instead of 9. cxb7+) contrasts starkly to the battle between Charbonneau and Ippolito.
I considered the Benjamin vs Kacheishvili game as well, but to me it lacked a signature move such as Charbonneau's Queen sacrifice. Either player may have earned GOTW by finding a single tactic: 30. Be6 for White and 55... R6c5+ for Black. Finally, Bhat scored a nice win against Lugo, but I could not justify recognizing a player on the losing side in the playoffs. (1st place: 2 points)
Jim Dean: Although this game ended in a draw, it seemed like it was definitely the most interesting game played this week. The opening variation was entertaining, both players played well, and the material imbalance made the game difficult to evaluate at times. Congrats to both players. (1st place: 2 points)
Greg Shahade: Definitely the most interesting game of the week, with a shocking queen sacrifice by Charbonneau. Incredible that both times that these two players faced off, the game ended up winning Game of the Week! (1st place: 2 points)
Jeff Ashton: It is hard for me to select a draw as GOTW. This was by far the most interesting and hard fought game. I did not expect this game to end up in a draw.
On Pruess losing in three moves:
It is inexcusable for Pruess to lose a game like this. In a team tournament, in the Semifinals, with the White pieces, against a lower rated player, seeing the final position is just nauseating.
Of course hindsight is 20/20, but if I were on the team I'd be irritated by my teammate's play while watching it, outraged if he loses, and if he wins I'd tell Pruess "Whew! Don't scare us again like that again!"
And yes, I know that White got a better position that was marred by his own error, but I still don't really like what Pruess did. It's not practical.
I feel bad for Pruess since he's one of the nicest junior players I grew up with and I like to see the beloved San Francisco team win games.
I know Pruess occasionally likes have "fun" with his openings (I remember sitting next to him and seeing him play the Latvian Gambit), but I think he should save it for the World Open or perhaps take up bungee jumping. (1st place: 2 points)
Arun Sharma: This to me was definitely the most interesting game played this week, with some very daring and creative play by both sides in the opening. I considered ranking this first like the other judges, but as often is the case, this creativity also came with some errors (Black playing 14... Bg4 instead of 14... Bxc2!, and White choosing 28. Bf4 instead of 28. Rd8+!). In the end, it was a close decision, but I chose the Moreno Roman game as first simply because even though it was much shorter than I like my choices to generally be, it still managed to be a very interesting game - after every move there was a myriad of possible variations, and it also seemed like the victor really didn't make any mistakes, accurately punishing his opponent's errors. (2nd place: 1 point)
Total Score of Charbonneau vs Ippolito: 9 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Considered Games (judges' scores in parenthesis)
5 points (Arun 2, Michael 1, Jim 1, Greg 1): IM David Pruess (SF) vs IM Alejandro Moreno Roman (MIA) 0-1
1 point (Jeff 1): IM Blas Lugo (MIA) vs GM Vinay Bhat (SF) 0-1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st Place: GM Pascal Charbonneau (NY) vs IM Dean Ippolito (NJ) 1/2-1/2
In an already wild position, GM Charbonneau threw the spectators for another loop with a very interesting Queen sacrifice, 13. Nxd4!?, creating a severely unbalanced position which eventually, after many more interesting moments, ended in a draw.
Michael Aigner: The Semifinal round saw two thrilling matches, both won by the lower seeded team against draw odds. Unfortunately, there was no obvious Game of the Week, certainly no aesthetic win by sacrificial attack. Pruess and Charbonneau both tried to play entertaining chess, yet neither was able to win. In fact, I believe the two most exciting games both ended in draws (Boards One and Two of New Jersey vs New York).
I selected the wild, yet imperfect, draw between Charbonneau and Ippolito for the Semifinals' Game of the Week. Black stirred the pot in the Four Knight's with 4... Nd4, 7... d5, and the Knight sacrifice 10... Nxe4. Not to be outdone, White raised the stakes with a Queen sacrifice on move thirteen! When the dust settled, White had a pair of Bishops and two Pawns against a Black Queen. White liquidated into an endgame of Rook and Bishop against Queen which he held without adventure. This was a great back-and-forth battle that allowed both combatants to show off their chess skill.
I thought for a long time about how to rank the draw between Benjamin and Kacheishvili and the miniature by Moreno Roman. It came down to the shocking result of the latter's King's Gambit game, with White completely busted after move twelve. Black simply offered up a piece to develop quickly and castle, then found the efficient move order 10... Bxf3, 11... Re8+, and the quiet move 12... Qh5. Bravo to Moreno Roman for being prepared to do battle in such an aggressive opening. Unfortunately, White's lack of resistance (9. Qe1 instead of 9. cxb7+) contrasts starkly to the battle between Charbonneau and Ippolito.
I considered the Benjamin vs Kacheishvili game as well, but to me it lacked a signature move such as Charbonneau's Queen sacrifice. Either player may have earned GOTW by finding a single tactic: 30. Be6 for White and 55... R6c5+ for Black. Finally, Bhat scored a nice win against Lugo, but I could not justify recognizing a player on the losing side in the playoffs. (1st place: 2 points)
Jim Dean: Although this game ended in a draw, it seemed like it was definitely the most interesting game played this week. The opening variation was entertaining, both players played well, and the material imbalance made the game difficult to evaluate at times. Congrats to both players. (1st place: 2 points)
Greg Shahade: Definitely the most interesting game of the week, with a shocking queen sacrifice by Charbonneau. Incredible that both times that these two players faced off, the game ended up winning Game of the Week! (1st place: 2 points)
Jeff Ashton: It is hard for me to select a draw as GOTW. This was by far the most interesting and hard fought game. I did not expect this game to end up in a draw.
On Pruess losing in three moves:
It is inexcusable for Pruess to lose a game like this. In a team tournament, in the Semifinals, with the White pieces, against a lower rated player, seeing the final position is just nauseating.
Of course hindsight is 20/20, but if I were on the team I'd be irritated by my teammate's play while watching it, outraged if he loses, and if he wins I'd tell Pruess "Whew! Don't scare us again like that again!"
And yes, I know that White got a better position that was marred by his own error, but I still don't really like what Pruess did. It's not practical.
I feel bad for Pruess since he's one of the nicest junior players I grew up with and I like to see the beloved San Francisco team win games.
I know Pruess occasionally likes have "fun" with his openings (I remember sitting next to him and seeing him play the Latvian Gambit), but I think he should save it for the World Open or perhaps take up bungee jumping. (1st place: 2 points)
Arun Sharma: This to me was definitely the most interesting game played this week, with some very daring and creative play by both sides in the opening. I considered ranking this first like the other judges, but as often is the case, this creativity also came with some errors (Black playing 14... Bg4 instead of 14... Bxc2!, and White choosing 28. Bf4 instead of 28. Rd8+!). In the end, it was a close decision, but I chose the Moreno Roman game as first simply because even though it was much shorter than I like my choices to generally be, it still managed to be a very interesting game - after every move there was a myriad of possible variations, and it also seemed like the victor really didn't make any mistakes, accurately punishing his opponent's errors. (2nd place: 1 point)
Total Score of Charbonneau vs Ippolito: 9 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Considered Games (judges' scores in parenthesis)
5 points (Arun 2, Michael 1, Jim 1, Greg 1): IM David Pruess (SF) vs IM Alejandro Moreno Roman (MIA) 0-1
1 point (Jeff 1): IM Blas Lugo (MIA) vs GM Vinay Bhat (SF) 0-1
Friday, November 13, 2009
Quarterfinals Game of the Week
This year we have five judges for Game of the Week, each ranking their top five games. The games are then given from one to five points, based on these rankings, and whichever game receives the most total points wins the award. First place each week will receive a $150 bonus prize, second place $75, and third place $50. Our five judges are: IM Greg Shahade, FM Jim Dean, NM Michael Aigner, NM Jeff Ashton, and NM Arun Sharma. Click here for more details.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Due to the lower number of games played, in the Quarterfinals only the first and second place prizes mentioned above will be given out, and in the Semifinals and Championship only the first place prize will be.
1st Place: GM Giorgi Kacheishvili (NY) vs GM Larry Christiansen (BOS) 1-0
GM Kacheishvili had played a very strong game, yet GM Christiansen had done a remarkable job in creating counter chances, but wound up missing his only real chance to save the game with 50... Rbd8!!
Michael Aigner: Heading into the playoffs, the intensity of each game increases. A single poor move on one board can change the course of all four games in the match. To some extent, I feel this stifled the creativity of the players in the Quarterfinal round; few games rose to the level of previous weeks.
One player, however, tried his best to be brilliant, even if a bit too aggressive. New York's top board GM Kacheishvili faced the legendary Bostonian ace GM Christiansen in by far the tightest match of the week. For the first forty moves, Kacheishvili maneuvered his Rooks and Bishop pair to steadily increase his opening advantage, but alas, time pressure changed the course of the game. Bonus points to Kacheishvili for trying to play sharp and exciting chess with few minutes on the clock, even if his bold Rook sacrifice 48. Rxg6 failed to the stunning 50... Rbd8!. It wasn't perfect, but the tight match made it all the more thrilling.
I ranked this game slightly ahead of Perelshteyn vs Charbonneau (Board Two in the same match) only because it was the sharper middlegame. Frankly, it might have been proper to split the top honors between teammates Kacheishvili and Charbonneau, but the Commissioner won't let me. I also seriously considered Benjamin vs Erenburg, but Benjamin clearly took his foot off the gas pedal after an exciting opening for team-based strategic reasons.
Finally, I need to add a few words about the Becerra vs Nakamura non-contest, which I ranked third. No doubt this was the most shocking twelve move game in League History! However, as a fan of both players, I must express my disappointment that we were not treated to a more worthy battle. It is obvious that Nakamura simply did not come mentally ready to play a game. And while Becerra pushed wood, any young student of Morphy could have found his moves.
Throughout the season, I have consistently refused to rank highly a game where the loser self-destructed (unforced errors) more than the winner playing creatively. I ranked the game as third mostly because of the lack of other exciting games played at a reasonably high level. (1st place: 3 points)
Greg Shahade: The game wasn't perfect as some mistakes were made in time trouble (with White missing 47. Rxg6! mainly,) but it seemed like it was by far the most exciting game of the round, and was relatively well played on top of this. (1st place: 3 points)
Arun Sharma: I admit the dual mistakes late (White missing 47. Rxg6+!! and Black missing 50... Rbd8!!) did give me pause as to whether this game should be ranked first. But on the whole, I felt this game was still definitely the best of the week. Both sides played quite well in totality; Kacheishvili slowly but surely building on a small edge with one strong move after another, and Christiansen fighting back tenaciously in the only real opportunity he was given. Considering the extreme time pressure also and the rather difficult nature of the position, it would have been fairly unrealistic to not expect a couple of strong moves to be overlooked and given how many strong moves were still found, I had to rank this game first. (1st place: 3 points)
Jim Dean: This was a pretty exciting game that I gave consideration to, though it seemed less accurate than some of Kacheishvili's other USCL gems. What a find 50... Rbd8 would have been, which appears to force a draw in a wild position. (NR: 0 points)
Jeff Ashton: This is the first game that I saw this week. I assumed that I would probably end up ranking it first. After thinking about it, I'm surprised that it ended up getting bumped down to fourth. I think Kacheishvili played very well (like he usually does when he has White,) and LarryC put up some good resistance but eventually cracked. Nice game. Also this was an important game; maybe I will regret not voting it higher later? (NR: 0 points)
Total Score of Kacheishvili vs Christiansen: 9 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2nd Place: GM Eugene Perelshteyn (BOS) vs GM Pascal Charbonneau (NY) 0-1
GM Charbonneau played the very strange looking, but powerful 35... Rf8!, nicely utilizing the pin on the White Rook to force the game into a winning ending.
Jim Dean: I enjoyed this game a lot as Charbonneau really made nice use of his Queenside Pawn mass. Cutting off the King at the last minute so that the "wrong" colored Bishop doesn't matter was a nice finish to an impressive win with the Black pieces. (1st place: 3 points)
Michael Aigner: In typical USCL fashion, the action went back and forth, with Black finally picking up the point. Charbonneau won the opening battle and later converted an elegant endgame of Bishop against Pawns, but in between Perelshteyn had his chances after the seizing the initiative with a temporary sacrifice 18. Nxf7. The highlight was watching Charbonneau calmly pick off the White pawns with his Bishop in the endgame. Most significantly, all of this happened in the context of a super tight match that came down to this board and the top board. (2nd place: 2 points)
Jeff Ashton: Black had many ways to defend although White maintained pressure for a large part of the game. Charbonneau showed great defensive skills in a critical game. It seems like Perelshteyn took risks which we didn't see in his other USCL wins. (2nd place: 2 points)
Greg Shahade: I ranked this game in third but barely. Charbonneau played quite a good game, but his technique at the end was actually quite poor. Black could have won very easily by not rushing tp Queen the b-pawn and instead keeping it on b3 and playing 39... Bf7 and Kg7 first, leaving White totally helpless and avoiding the final rhity or so moves of the game in which it seemed as if White at least had some chance to draw. Despite that the first forty or so moves were very interesting by both sides, and so I have no real qualms with this finishing in second place. (3rd place: 1 point)
Arun Sharma: I did consider this game as it certainly was one of the more interesting ones of the week along with being the ultimate difference maker in the match result. However, quality wise it just didn't seem to quite have it to me as it seemed that White got in some trouble in the opening for no real reason, and that Black nearly managed to let White escape much later into a drawn ending (39... b2? where instead, 39... Bf7! 40. Bf5 Kg7!, and Black wins immediately).
However, there is no question that White played some strong ideas like 18. Nxf7! after what seemed to be a dubious opening, and that Black played the later part of the middlegame very well, especially the way he used the pin in tandem with the powerful b-pawn to achieve the victory so I definitely can understand why the other judges found this game appealing.
Personally I found the Benjamin vs Erenburg and Adamson vs Naroditsky games a bit more appealing than this one. The Naroditsky game might not have been particularly exciting but seemed very well played by the victor. The Benjamin game, I have a feeling the other judges were rather turned off by the way the game ended, with Black ending up taking a suicidal King march. But looking at that game from the beginning to the point where Black declined the perpetual in the ending, it seemed like a really great game to me, very interesting and creative play from both sides with no seeming huge errors, honestly exactly what I look for in GOTW. The fact that Black had to decline the perpetual solely because he HAD to try to win for the team at that point and then wound up losing because of it, should not, imo, detract too much from that game's overall appeal which is why I ranked it second. (NR: 0 points)
Total Score of Perelshteyn vs Charbonneau: 8 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Considered Games (judges' scores in parenthesis)
4 points (Jeff 3, Michael 1): GM Julio Becerra (MIA) vs GM Hikaru Nakamura (SEA) 1-0
4 points (Greg 2, Arun 1, Jim 1): FM Robby Adamson (ARZ) vs FM Daniel Naroditsky (SF) 0-1
3 points (Arun 2, Jeff 1): GM Joel Benjamin (NJ) vs GM Sergey Erenburg (BAL) 1-0
2 points (Jim 2): WIM Tsagaan Batsettseg (BAL) vs Sean Finn (NJ) 0-1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Due to the lower number of games played, in the Quarterfinals only the first and second place prizes mentioned above will be given out, and in the Semifinals and Championship only the first place prize will be.
1st Place: GM Giorgi Kacheishvili (NY) vs GM Larry Christiansen (BOS) 1-0
GM Kacheishvili had played a very strong game, yet GM Christiansen had done a remarkable job in creating counter chances, but wound up missing his only real chance to save the game with 50... Rbd8!!
Michael Aigner: Heading into the playoffs, the intensity of each game increases. A single poor move on one board can change the course of all four games in the match. To some extent, I feel this stifled the creativity of the players in the Quarterfinal round; few games rose to the level of previous weeks.
One player, however, tried his best to be brilliant, even if a bit too aggressive. New York's top board GM Kacheishvili faced the legendary Bostonian ace GM Christiansen in by far the tightest match of the week. For the first forty moves, Kacheishvili maneuvered his Rooks and Bishop pair to steadily increase his opening advantage, but alas, time pressure changed the course of the game. Bonus points to Kacheishvili for trying to play sharp and exciting chess with few minutes on the clock, even if his bold Rook sacrifice 48. Rxg6 failed to the stunning 50... Rbd8!. It wasn't perfect, but the tight match made it all the more thrilling.
I ranked this game slightly ahead of Perelshteyn vs Charbonneau (Board Two in the same match) only because it was the sharper middlegame. Frankly, it might have been proper to split the top honors between teammates Kacheishvili and Charbonneau, but the Commissioner won't let me. I also seriously considered Benjamin vs Erenburg, but Benjamin clearly took his foot off the gas pedal after an exciting opening for team-based strategic reasons.
Finally, I need to add a few words about the Becerra vs Nakamura non-contest, which I ranked third. No doubt this was the most shocking twelve move game in League History! However, as a fan of both players, I must express my disappointment that we were not treated to a more worthy battle. It is obvious that Nakamura simply did not come mentally ready to play a game. And while Becerra pushed wood, any young student of Morphy could have found his moves.
Throughout the season, I have consistently refused to rank highly a game where the loser self-destructed (unforced errors) more than the winner playing creatively. I ranked the game as third mostly because of the lack of other exciting games played at a reasonably high level. (1st place: 3 points)
Greg Shahade: The game wasn't perfect as some mistakes were made in time trouble (with White missing 47. Rxg6! mainly,) but it seemed like it was by far the most exciting game of the round, and was relatively well played on top of this. (1st place: 3 points)
Arun Sharma: I admit the dual mistakes late (White missing 47. Rxg6+!! and Black missing 50... Rbd8!!) did give me pause as to whether this game should be ranked first. But on the whole, I felt this game was still definitely the best of the week. Both sides played quite well in totality; Kacheishvili slowly but surely building on a small edge with one strong move after another, and Christiansen fighting back tenaciously in the only real opportunity he was given. Considering the extreme time pressure also and the rather difficult nature of the position, it would have been fairly unrealistic to not expect a couple of strong moves to be overlooked and given how many strong moves were still found, I had to rank this game first. (1st place: 3 points)
Jim Dean: This was a pretty exciting game that I gave consideration to, though it seemed less accurate than some of Kacheishvili's other USCL gems. What a find 50... Rbd8 would have been, which appears to force a draw in a wild position. (NR: 0 points)
Jeff Ashton: This is the first game that I saw this week. I assumed that I would probably end up ranking it first. After thinking about it, I'm surprised that it ended up getting bumped down to fourth. I think Kacheishvili played very well (like he usually does when he has White,) and LarryC put up some good resistance but eventually cracked. Nice game. Also this was an important game; maybe I will regret not voting it higher later? (NR: 0 points)
Total Score of Kacheishvili vs Christiansen: 9 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2nd Place: GM Eugene Perelshteyn (BOS) vs GM Pascal Charbonneau (NY) 0-1
GM Charbonneau played the very strange looking, but powerful 35... Rf8!, nicely utilizing the pin on the White Rook to force the game into a winning ending.
Jim Dean: I enjoyed this game a lot as Charbonneau really made nice use of his Queenside Pawn mass. Cutting off the King at the last minute so that the "wrong" colored Bishop doesn't matter was a nice finish to an impressive win with the Black pieces. (1st place: 3 points)
Michael Aigner: In typical USCL fashion, the action went back and forth, with Black finally picking up the point. Charbonneau won the opening battle and later converted an elegant endgame of Bishop against Pawns, but in between Perelshteyn had his chances after the seizing the initiative with a temporary sacrifice 18. Nxf7. The highlight was watching Charbonneau calmly pick off the White pawns with his Bishop in the endgame. Most significantly, all of this happened in the context of a super tight match that came down to this board and the top board. (2nd place: 2 points)
Jeff Ashton: Black had many ways to defend although White maintained pressure for a large part of the game. Charbonneau showed great defensive skills in a critical game. It seems like Perelshteyn took risks which we didn't see in his other USCL wins. (2nd place: 2 points)
Greg Shahade: I ranked this game in third but barely. Charbonneau played quite a good game, but his technique at the end was actually quite poor. Black could have won very easily by not rushing tp Queen the b-pawn and instead keeping it on b3 and playing 39... Bf7 and Kg7 first, leaving White totally helpless and avoiding the final rhity or so moves of the game in which it seemed as if White at least had some chance to draw. Despite that the first forty or so moves were very interesting by both sides, and so I have no real qualms with this finishing in second place. (3rd place: 1 point)
Arun Sharma: I did consider this game as it certainly was one of the more interesting ones of the week along with being the ultimate difference maker in the match result. However, quality wise it just didn't seem to quite have it to me as it seemed that White got in some trouble in the opening for no real reason, and that Black nearly managed to let White escape much later into a drawn ending (39... b2? where instead, 39... Bf7! 40. Bf5 Kg7!, and Black wins immediately).
However, there is no question that White played some strong ideas like 18. Nxf7! after what seemed to be a dubious opening, and that Black played the later part of the middlegame very well, especially the way he used the pin in tandem with the powerful b-pawn to achieve the victory so I definitely can understand why the other judges found this game appealing.
Personally I found the Benjamin vs Erenburg and Adamson vs Naroditsky games a bit more appealing than this one. The Naroditsky game might not have been particularly exciting but seemed very well played by the victor. The Benjamin game, I have a feeling the other judges were rather turned off by the way the game ended, with Black ending up taking a suicidal King march. But looking at that game from the beginning to the point where Black declined the perpetual in the ending, it seemed like a really great game to me, very interesting and creative play from both sides with no seeming huge errors, honestly exactly what I look for in GOTW. The fact that Black had to decline the perpetual solely because he HAD to try to win for the team at that point and then wound up losing because of it, should not, imo, detract too much from that game's overall appeal which is why I ranked it second. (NR: 0 points)
Total Score of Perelshteyn vs Charbonneau: 8 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Considered Games (judges' scores in parenthesis)
4 points (Jeff 3, Michael 1): GM Julio Becerra (MIA) vs GM Hikaru Nakamura (SEA) 1-0
4 points (Greg 2, Arun 1, Jim 1): FM Robby Adamson (ARZ) vs FM Daniel Naroditsky (SF) 0-1
3 points (Arun 2, Jeff 1): GM Joel Benjamin (NJ) vs GM Sergey Erenburg (BAL) 1-0
2 points (Jim 2): WIM Tsagaan Batsettseg (BAL) vs Sean Finn (NJ) 0-1
Friday, November 6, 2009
Week 10 Game of the Week
This year we have five judges for Game of the Week, each ranking their top five games. The games are then given from one to five points, based on these rankings, and whichever game receives the most total points wins the award. First place each week will receive a $150 bonus prize, second place $75, and third place $50. Our five judges are: IM Greg Shahade, FM Jim Dean, NM Michael Aigner, NM Jeff Ashton, and NM Arun Sharma. Click here for more details.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Due to Michael Aigner currently being on vacation, for this week again we will have only four judges.
1st Place: GM Gregory Serper (SEA) vs IM Jan van de Mortel (CHC) 1-0
GM Serper played the clever Rook lift 26. Rb4!, and the multiple threats compelled IM Van de Mortel to significantly weaken his structure with 26... e5, after which White soon won a clear Pawn that he skillfully converted in an endgame.
Jeff Ashton: It seems like it's impossible for Serper to lose with White when he gets these set-ups. I don't really get it ... it seems like White just moves back and forth and next thing you know it he's winning. Is 15... f5 bad? By the way, does anyone else detect the pattern? Will someone beat Serper next week to win GOTW? (1st place: 5 points)
Jim Dean: A really nice game by Serper who created pressure all over the board before finally transitioning into a winning ending. I liked the Rook swings along the fourth rank, and Serper's technique once the game simplified looked excellent. Extra credit for taking out Jan, who had the "hot hand" in the USCL recently. (1st place: 5 points)
Arun Sharma: Being one of the league's most successful players every season, it's rather amazing that it took Serper nearly four full seasons to win GOTW, but I'm glad that he finally managed to do so!
I suppose Serper's typical style of slowly outplaying his opponent and often winning in an endgame (just like this game!) isn't the most conducive style for garnering GOTW votes, but I think this game was definitely a worthy winner. As usual, Serper just played one strong move after another, never allowing any counterplay, continually forcing his opponent into making concessions, and eventually grinding his opponent down. It's always impressive to beat such a strong player in a fashion where it's not really clear where the opponent went wrong and yet still seemed to lose without much of a fight, never garnering any play of their own. (1st place: 5 points)
Greg Shahade: Amazing that this is the first time Serper wins Game of the Week, especially since I think it's far from his best league game. Serper made it look easy, and we continue the trend of the previous week's GOTW winner being the loser the following week! Seattle may want to consider resting Serper in the first round of the postseason! (4th place: 2 points)
Total Score of Serper vs Van de Mortel: 17 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2nd Place: IM Bryan Smith (PHI) vs IM Jonathan Schroer (CAR) 1-0
IM Smith played the simple 38. Nh4!, leaving IM Schroer no satisfactory way to defend his g-pawn, winning White a Pawn and soon after the game.
Greg Shahade: I liked Smith's c4, creating a new weakness on c6. It felt like he displayed a great deal of patience and skill in the endgame, with lots of subtle maneuvers that eventually led to Schroer cracking. Please note that this was one of the weakest overall weeks for GOTW in my opinion. I think Bryan's earlier game against Vovsha, which I didn't even rank, was probably a better GOTW candidate than this one even though I gave it first place! Also let me state that if Irina Krush didn't blunder at the end of her loss to Shmelov, I think she would have won the prize easily. (1st place: 5 points)
Jim Dean: This game didn't look like much fun for the Black side, as White slowly improved his position once the Queens came off. Smith never allowed much counterplay, and basically just played really well the entire game. (2nd place: 4 points)
Jeff Ashton: White played nicely. The more I look at this game, I can't believe it did so well in GOTW. Pretty dry for GOTW if you ask me. But what can I say, I voted for it. Also, Bryan Smith did play incredibly well. See previous GOTW comments for my thoughts about Smith's play. (3rd place: 3 points)
Arun Sharma: I admit I probably underestimated this game, and even though I didn't rank it, it seems like a definite worthy game for second place. My first impression when I looked at it was that it was headed towards a lifeless draw but that Black went astray in the endgame, and White punished him for it.
However, that likely was a bit of a superficial assessment, as Smith really did play the ending well, making very life very tough for Schroer, and I think White definitely did more to win this game than Black did to lose it - which was quite contrary to my initial impression.
As I mentioned the combination of slightly misjudging why this game had the result that it did, and it simply not seeming particularly inspiring to me when I looked at it, caused me not to rank it. But again, I do think it was quite deserving, and congrats to Smith on a very strong season.
In regards to Greg's comment about the Krush vs Shmelov game, I essentially agree that that game (and also perhaps the Zaikov vs Bartell game) would likely have won had they not each been marred by a huge blunder near the end. While the debate for how much one big blunder at the end should detract from a good game in this contest has never really been resolved, I typically am not in favor of ranking such games highly. But since I felt the collection of games this week was not especially inspiring, and both of those games were very interesting and quite well played (aside from the ending blunders!), I thought they were the best choices for those top spots. (NR: 0 points)
Total Score of Smith vs Schroer: 12 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3rd Place: SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) vs GM Giorgi Kacheishvili (NY) 0-1
GM Kacheishvili nicely liquidated with 27... Ne3!, forcing the game into an ending at the cost of an exchange, and the multiple extra Black Pawns quickly proved to be too much there.
Jeff Ashton: I was impressed by how much play Sammour-Hasbun got for the Pawn. I assumed his initiative would have ended earlier. Kacheishvili defended well. Nice game for Black. When Kacheishvili wins, he makes it look easy. (2nd place: 4 points)
Greg Shahade: Nice defense from Kacheishvili after some interesting sacrifices from Sammour-Hasbun. The fans thought that Jorge went nuts, but he definitely did have reasonable compensation, and this game was a real tough fight from beginning to end. Jorge's time trouble really hurt him once the game reached its final stages though. (3rd place: 3 points)
Arun Sharma: Really was not sure what to think about this game. Like most of the observers, I assumed Jorge had gone badly astray in the opening rather than it being prepared by him. I certainly can't say that I felt this double Pawn sac gave White sufficient compensation, but Jorge has played many a masterpiece under this general idea, i.e. sacrificing material for long term compensation while continually putting his opponent to tough decisions so it's hard to question his decision too much.
It mostly seemed to work out the way he probably had planned, before he went a bit astray in time pressure. I thought Kacheishvili played that portion of the game very well, especially the giving up of an exchange to enter the endgame - an ending which at first glance I felt was not really clear. But the fact that he won it so quickly and with such seeming ease was a nice demonstration of how well he'd assessed the position and had played to reach it. (4th place: 2 points)
Jim Dean: I strongly considered this game but eventually decided that I liked a handful of other games better. Not surprisingly, Kaceishvili plays another good game in this one though. It seemed like White got a questionable opening position by playing 9. Bxf6 rather than 9. e5. Even so, it seemed like White had some decent compensation for a while, but just wasn't able to maintain it thanks to some nice maneuvering by Black. (NR: 0 points)
Total Score of Sammour-Hasbun vs Kacheishvili: 9 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Considered Games (judges' scores in parenthesis)
8 points (Arun 4, Greg 4): FM Oleg Zaikov (CAR) vs FM Tom Bartell (PHI) 1-0
4 points (Jim 3, Arun 1): FM Peter Bereolos (TEN) vs FM Ralph Zimmer (BAL) 0-1
3 points (Arun 3): IM Irina Krush (NY) vs SM Denys Shmelov (BOS) 0-1
2 points (Jeff 2): IM Alejandro Moreno Roman (MIA) vs FM Robby Adamson (ARZ) 1-0
2 points (Jim 2): IM Daniel Ludwig (DAL) vs GM Patrick Wolff (SF) 1-0
2 point (Jeff 1, Jim 1): John Timmel (CAR) vs NM Elvin Wilson (PHI) 0-1
1 point (Greg 1): Jared Defibaugh (BAL) vs David Justice (TEN) 1/2-1/2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Due to Michael Aigner currently being on vacation, for this week again we will have only four judges.
1st Place: GM Gregory Serper (SEA) vs IM Jan van de Mortel (CHC) 1-0
GM Serper played the clever Rook lift 26. Rb4!, and the multiple threats compelled IM Van de Mortel to significantly weaken his structure with 26... e5, after which White soon won a clear Pawn that he skillfully converted in an endgame.
Jeff Ashton: It seems like it's impossible for Serper to lose with White when he gets these set-ups. I don't really get it ... it seems like White just moves back and forth and next thing you know it he's winning. Is 15... f5 bad? By the way, does anyone else detect the pattern? Will someone beat Serper next week to win GOTW? (1st place: 5 points)
Jim Dean: A really nice game by Serper who created pressure all over the board before finally transitioning into a winning ending. I liked the Rook swings along the fourth rank, and Serper's technique once the game simplified looked excellent. Extra credit for taking out Jan, who had the "hot hand" in the USCL recently. (1st place: 5 points)
Arun Sharma: Being one of the league's most successful players every season, it's rather amazing that it took Serper nearly four full seasons to win GOTW, but I'm glad that he finally managed to do so!
I suppose Serper's typical style of slowly outplaying his opponent and often winning in an endgame (just like this game!) isn't the most conducive style for garnering GOTW votes, but I think this game was definitely a worthy winner. As usual, Serper just played one strong move after another, never allowing any counterplay, continually forcing his opponent into making concessions, and eventually grinding his opponent down. It's always impressive to beat such a strong player in a fashion where it's not really clear where the opponent went wrong and yet still seemed to lose without much of a fight, never garnering any play of their own. (1st place: 5 points)
Greg Shahade: Amazing that this is the first time Serper wins Game of the Week, especially since I think it's far from his best league game. Serper made it look easy, and we continue the trend of the previous week's GOTW winner being the loser the following week! Seattle may want to consider resting Serper in the first round of the postseason! (4th place: 2 points)
Total Score of Serper vs Van de Mortel: 17 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2nd Place: IM Bryan Smith (PHI) vs IM Jonathan Schroer (CAR) 1-0
IM Smith played the simple 38. Nh4!, leaving IM Schroer no satisfactory way to defend his g-pawn, winning White a Pawn and soon after the game.
Greg Shahade: I liked Smith's c4, creating a new weakness on c6. It felt like he displayed a great deal of patience and skill in the endgame, with lots of subtle maneuvers that eventually led to Schroer cracking. Please note that this was one of the weakest overall weeks for GOTW in my opinion. I think Bryan's earlier game against Vovsha, which I didn't even rank, was probably a better GOTW candidate than this one even though I gave it first place! Also let me state that if Irina Krush didn't blunder at the end of her loss to Shmelov, I think she would have won the prize easily. (1st place: 5 points)
Jim Dean: This game didn't look like much fun for the Black side, as White slowly improved his position once the Queens came off. Smith never allowed much counterplay, and basically just played really well the entire game. (2nd place: 4 points)
Jeff Ashton: White played nicely. The more I look at this game, I can't believe it did so well in GOTW. Pretty dry for GOTW if you ask me. But what can I say, I voted for it. Also, Bryan Smith did play incredibly well. See previous GOTW comments for my thoughts about Smith's play. (3rd place: 3 points)
Arun Sharma: I admit I probably underestimated this game, and even though I didn't rank it, it seems like a definite worthy game for second place. My first impression when I looked at it was that it was headed towards a lifeless draw but that Black went astray in the endgame, and White punished him for it.
However, that likely was a bit of a superficial assessment, as Smith really did play the ending well, making very life very tough for Schroer, and I think White definitely did more to win this game than Black did to lose it - which was quite contrary to my initial impression.
As I mentioned the combination of slightly misjudging why this game had the result that it did, and it simply not seeming particularly inspiring to me when I looked at it, caused me not to rank it. But again, I do think it was quite deserving, and congrats to Smith on a very strong season.
In regards to Greg's comment about the Krush vs Shmelov game, I essentially agree that that game (and also perhaps the Zaikov vs Bartell game) would likely have won had they not each been marred by a huge blunder near the end. While the debate for how much one big blunder at the end should detract from a good game in this contest has never really been resolved, I typically am not in favor of ranking such games highly. But since I felt the collection of games this week was not especially inspiring, and both of those games were very interesting and quite well played (aside from the ending blunders!), I thought they were the best choices for those top spots. (NR: 0 points)
Total Score of Smith vs Schroer: 12 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3rd Place: SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) vs GM Giorgi Kacheishvili (NY) 0-1
GM Kacheishvili nicely liquidated with 27... Ne3!, forcing the game into an ending at the cost of an exchange, and the multiple extra Black Pawns quickly proved to be too much there.
Jeff Ashton: I was impressed by how much play Sammour-Hasbun got for the Pawn. I assumed his initiative would have ended earlier. Kacheishvili defended well. Nice game for Black. When Kacheishvili wins, he makes it look easy. (2nd place: 4 points)
Greg Shahade: Nice defense from Kacheishvili after some interesting sacrifices from Sammour-Hasbun. The fans thought that Jorge went nuts, but he definitely did have reasonable compensation, and this game was a real tough fight from beginning to end. Jorge's time trouble really hurt him once the game reached its final stages though. (3rd place: 3 points)
Arun Sharma: Really was not sure what to think about this game. Like most of the observers, I assumed Jorge had gone badly astray in the opening rather than it being prepared by him. I certainly can't say that I felt this double Pawn sac gave White sufficient compensation, but Jorge has played many a masterpiece under this general idea, i.e. sacrificing material for long term compensation while continually putting his opponent to tough decisions so it's hard to question his decision too much.
It mostly seemed to work out the way he probably had planned, before he went a bit astray in time pressure. I thought Kacheishvili played that portion of the game very well, especially the giving up of an exchange to enter the endgame - an ending which at first glance I felt was not really clear. But the fact that he won it so quickly and with such seeming ease was a nice demonstration of how well he'd assessed the position and had played to reach it. (4th place: 2 points)
Jim Dean: I strongly considered this game but eventually decided that I liked a handful of other games better. Not surprisingly, Kaceishvili plays another good game in this one though. It seemed like White got a questionable opening position by playing 9. Bxf6 rather than 9. e5. Even so, it seemed like White had some decent compensation for a while, but just wasn't able to maintain it thanks to some nice maneuvering by Black. (NR: 0 points)
Total Score of Sammour-Hasbun vs Kacheishvili: 9 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Considered Games (judges' scores in parenthesis)
8 points (Arun 4, Greg 4): FM Oleg Zaikov (CAR) vs FM Tom Bartell (PHI) 1-0
4 points (Jim 3, Arun 1): FM Peter Bereolos (TEN) vs FM Ralph Zimmer (BAL) 0-1
3 points (Arun 3): IM Irina Krush (NY) vs SM Denys Shmelov (BOS) 0-1
2 points (Jeff 2): IM Alejandro Moreno Roman (MIA) vs FM Robby Adamson (ARZ) 1-0
2 points (Jim 2): IM Daniel Ludwig (DAL) vs GM Patrick Wolff (SF) 1-0
2 point (Jeff 1, Jim 1): John Timmel (CAR) vs NM Elvin Wilson (PHI) 0-1
1 point (Greg 1): Jared Defibaugh (BAL) vs David Justice (TEN) 1/2-1/2
Friday, October 30, 2009
Week 9 Game of the Week
This year we have five judges for Game of the Week, each ranking their top five games. The games are then given from one to five points, based on these rankings, and whichever game receives the most total points wins the award. First place each week will receive a $150 bonus prize, second place $75, and third place $50. Our five judges are: IM Greg Shahade, FM Jim Dean, NM Michael Aigner, NM Jeff Ashton, and NM Arun Sharma. Click here for more details.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Due to Michael Aigner currently being on vacation, for this week and the next we will have only four judges.
1st Place: IM John Bartholomew (DAL) vs IM Jan van de Mortel (CHC) 0-1
IM Van de Mortel played the interesting novelty 17... Rc5!? and eventually utilized it to good effect, gaining great pressure brought about by this sac which IM Bartholomew was unable to withstand.
Jeff Ashton: Another exciting Dragon (the other one that comes to mind is Bryan Smith's win a few weeks ago). Jan really heated up in his last few games. Bonus points for "GOTWing" last week's GOTW winner. (1st place: 5 points)
Greg Shahade: I felt that this was the most interesting game this week. While 17... Rc5 might not be great for Black, it's certainly very interesting and posed White some peculiar problems. I suspect it was the kind of move where White just sat there thinking "This can't be good, I must be crushing him", but it was never quite as easy as he wanted it to be. And after trying to figure out how to crack this strange exchange up position, things slowly started drifting away, and Black developed a dangerous counterattack. What can I say, I just liked this game.
Note that according to Jan's analysis, I supposedly analyzed this opening with him about ten years ago! I've never played this line myself so it probably had to do with preparing him for one of his opponents. In any case I cannot remember it, and while watching the game one of the kibitzers was strongly in favor of Rc5, and I remember thinking he had lost some marbles, but then a few minutes later it was played on the board! (1st place: 5 points)
Jim Dean: It seems like we've had several interesting Dragon games in the League this season, and this one was played well on both sides. Unfortunately for White, it felt a lot easier to play Black's position during the critical stages of the game. Mating with a Bishop and Knight was a nice final touch. Congrats to Jan on another top GOTW finish. (3rd place: 3 points)
Arun Sharma: Although I didn't rank this game, I wasn't surprised to see it get ranked by the others as it definitely was one of the more interesting games played this week, though I'm still surprised it wound up winning. While Van de Mortel's novelty 17... Rc5 was very interesting, I had a hard time being able to ascribe it as a strong novelty as despite the result of the game, it seemed that Bartholomew was doing very well for the majority of the game.
However, Black did play quite well, putting White under tremendous pressure which he understandably was not able to endure, especially when getting in time trouble. But despite that, the combination of the novelty seeming somewhat dubious along with White self destructing a bit more than I feel the games which finish high in this contest ought to generally allow, I ended up not ranking this game.
But whatever way I happened to judge this game, congratulations to Van de Mortel on his second consecutive very strong GOTW finish and for his third victory in a row. Even if it's too late for his team this season, it's nice to see him get some recognition for his fine play. (NR: 0 points)
Total Score of Bartholomew vs Van de Mortel: 13 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2nd Place: GM Eugene Perelshteyn (BOS) vs FM Bruci Lopez (MIA) 1-0
GM Perelshteyn struck with 34. Ne6! Rf6 35. Bh5, putting FM Lopez in a virtual zugzwang, compelling him to bite the bullet and snatch the d5 Pawn, after which White nicely infiltrated with his Rook and soon finished the game with a strong attack, mating with a paucity of material.
Jim Dean: I felt Perelshteyn played extremely well in this game and really never let Lopez have any fun throughout. Lopez has shown in previous USCL matches that he can handle the Black side of the King's Indian Defense quite well, but could not have been happy with his position virtually at any point in this game. Cute minor piece mate to finish it off. (1st place: 5 points)
Arun Sharma: This, along with the Bhat game, I felt were definitely the two highest quality games played this week which is why I chose to rank them in the top two spots. In both I felt that the winner played very well, winning in very clean fashion, without any huge errors from their opponent.
What impressed me most about this game was the nice endgame technique. Perelshteyn really made it look so easy, winning in such short order when it seemed likely that it would be a very long grind in order to reach victory. (2nd place: 4 points)
Jeff Ashton: An example of why the King's Indian Defense is the hardest opening to play in chess. Black's game seemed difficult, and White sat comfortably throughout. Nice precise play by Perelshteyn. Perelshteyn is definitely one of my favorites this season, and I'm glad that his games are getting recognition. (3rd place: 3 points)
Greg Shahade: This game seemed a bit too easy to me, and also when Lopez simply hangs mate in two at the end, it was hard for me to get too excited. Admittedly, Black is already lost there, but this is just not the type of game I'm generally ranking highly in GOTW. (NR: 0 points)
Total Score of Perelshteyn vs Lopez: 12 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3rd Place: FM Todd Andrews (TEN) vs GM Vinay Bhat (SF) 0-1
GM Bhat broke through with 40... e3!, utilizing his pressure on the g-file to deadly effect and ending the game in short order.
Arun Sharma: As mentioned above, this was one of those games which, in addition to being well played by the victor, had them winning without any obvious errors by the opponent. I know I often rank these types of games a bit higher than the other judges who mostly tend to prefer games with a bit more flash, even if they come with some fair errors. As such, it wasn't a big shock that I appreciated this and the Perelshteyn game a bit more than the other judges on the whole.
Like the Perelshteyn game, I was impressed by how easy Bhat made this game look, drumming up his strong attack with seeming ease and then conducting it very efficiently, never allowing any real counterplay and again managing to do this without any obvious errors by Andrews.
Personally, I felt the two most interesting games this week were the Charbonneau game and the Herman game (in that order). The Charbonneau game contained a ton of creative play and interesting moments, and but for a few very critical errors late, I definitely would have ranked it higher (likely first). In the Herman game, Black seemed to play very well, building up his attack well and then conducting it precisely, but like the Van de Mortel game (which I did not rank), I felt the losing side self destructed a bit too much to rank the game above the high quality efforts of Bhat and Perelshteyn. (1st place: 5 points)
Jeff Ashton: These "slow build-up" attacks are fun to watch. I really like the way Black handled the opening and middle game and then transitioned into a Kingside attack. (2nd place: 4 points)
Jim Dean: Bhat played a really nice game here and was constantly improving his position and making progress on both sides of the board. My biggest knock against this game was that I didn't understand White's plan at any point during it, and I'm not sure if White ever really managed to make even a single threat. Todd is an excellent player and a former teammate of mine, but this just wasn't a good game on his end. (NR: 0 points)
Greg Shahade: Yet another game that didn't inspire me. Bhat played well of course, but sometimes a game simply doesn't grab my attention, and this was one of those games. (NR: 0 points)
Total Score of Andrews vs Bhat: 9 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Considered Games (judges' scores in parenthesis)
7 points (Greg 3, Jim 2, Arun 2): GM Pascal Charbonneau (NY) vs IM Tegshsuren Enkhbat (BAL) 1-0
6 points (Arun 3, Greg 2, Jeff 1): WGM Sabina Foisor (BAL) vs NM Matt Herman (NY) 0-1
4 points (Jim 4): FM Marcel Martinez (MIA) vs SM Denys Shmelov (BOS) 1-0
4 points (Greg 4): GM Patrick Wolff (SF) vs IM Ron Burnett (TEN) 1-0
2 points (Jeff 2): IM Levon Altounian (ARZ) vs FM Slava Mikhailuk (SEA) 1-0
1 point (Jim 1): FM Oleg Zaikov (CAR) vs IM Yury Lapshun (QNS) 1-0
1 point (Greg 1): David Justice (TEN) vs NM Yian Liou (SF) 1-0
1 point (Arun 1): GM Hikaru Nakamura (SEA) vs GM Alejandro Ramirez (ARZ) 1/2-1/2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Due to Michael Aigner currently being on vacation, for this week and the next we will have only four judges.
1st Place: IM John Bartholomew (DAL) vs IM Jan van de Mortel (CHC) 0-1
IM Van de Mortel played the interesting novelty 17... Rc5!? and eventually utilized it to good effect, gaining great pressure brought about by this sac which IM Bartholomew was unable to withstand.
Jeff Ashton: Another exciting Dragon (the other one that comes to mind is Bryan Smith's win a few weeks ago). Jan really heated up in his last few games. Bonus points for "GOTWing" last week's GOTW winner. (1st place: 5 points)
Greg Shahade: I felt that this was the most interesting game this week. While 17... Rc5 might not be great for Black, it's certainly very interesting and posed White some peculiar problems. I suspect it was the kind of move where White just sat there thinking "This can't be good, I must be crushing him", but it was never quite as easy as he wanted it to be. And after trying to figure out how to crack this strange exchange up position, things slowly started drifting away, and Black developed a dangerous counterattack. What can I say, I just liked this game.
Note that according to Jan's analysis, I supposedly analyzed this opening with him about ten years ago! I've never played this line myself so it probably had to do with preparing him for one of his opponents. In any case I cannot remember it, and while watching the game one of the kibitzers was strongly in favor of Rc5, and I remember thinking he had lost some marbles, but then a few minutes later it was played on the board! (1st place: 5 points)
Jim Dean: It seems like we've had several interesting Dragon games in the League this season, and this one was played well on both sides. Unfortunately for White, it felt a lot easier to play Black's position during the critical stages of the game. Mating with a Bishop and Knight was a nice final touch. Congrats to Jan on another top GOTW finish. (3rd place: 3 points)
Arun Sharma: Although I didn't rank this game, I wasn't surprised to see it get ranked by the others as it definitely was one of the more interesting games played this week, though I'm still surprised it wound up winning. While Van de Mortel's novelty 17... Rc5 was very interesting, I had a hard time being able to ascribe it as a strong novelty as despite the result of the game, it seemed that Bartholomew was doing very well for the majority of the game.
However, Black did play quite well, putting White under tremendous pressure which he understandably was not able to endure, especially when getting in time trouble. But despite that, the combination of the novelty seeming somewhat dubious along with White self destructing a bit more than I feel the games which finish high in this contest ought to generally allow, I ended up not ranking this game.
But whatever way I happened to judge this game, congratulations to Van de Mortel on his second consecutive very strong GOTW finish and for his third victory in a row. Even if it's too late for his team this season, it's nice to see him get some recognition for his fine play. (NR: 0 points)
Total Score of Bartholomew vs Van de Mortel: 13 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2nd Place: GM Eugene Perelshteyn (BOS) vs FM Bruci Lopez (MIA) 1-0
GM Perelshteyn struck with 34. Ne6! Rf6 35. Bh5, putting FM Lopez in a virtual zugzwang, compelling him to bite the bullet and snatch the d5 Pawn, after which White nicely infiltrated with his Rook and soon finished the game with a strong attack, mating with a paucity of material.
Jim Dean: I felt Perelshteyn played extremely well in this game and really never let Lopez have any fun throughout. Lopez has shown in previous USCL matches that he can handle the Black side of the King's Indian Defense quite well, but could not have been happy with his position virtually at any point in this game. Cute minor piece mate to finish it off. (1st place: 5 points)
Arun Sharma: This, along with the Bhat game, I felt were definitely the two highest quality games played this week which is why I chose to rank them in the top two spots. In both I felt that the winner played very well, winning in very clean fashion, without any huge errors from their opponent.
What impressed me most about this game was the nice endgame technique. Perelshteyn really made it look so easy, winning in such short order when it seemed likely that it would be a very long grind in order to reach victory. (2nd place: 4 points)
Jeff Ashton: An example of why the King's Indian Defense is the hardest opening to play in chess. Black's game seemed difficult, and White sat comfortably throughout. Nice precise play by Perelshteyn. Perelshteyn is definitely one of my favorites this season, and I'm glad that his games are getting recognition. (3rd place: 3 points)
Greg Shahade: This game seemed a bit too easy to me, and also when Lopez simply hangs mate in two at the end, it was hard for me to get too excited. Admittedly, Black is already lost there, but this is just not the type of game I'm generally ranking highly in GOTW. (NR: 0 points)
Total Score of Perelshteyn vs Lopez: 12 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3rd Place: FM Todd Andrews (TEN) vs GM Vinay Bhat (SF) 0-1
GM Bhat broke through with 40... e3!, utilizing his pressure on the g-file to deadly effect and ending the game in short order.
Arun Sharma: As mentioned above, this was one of those games which, in addition to being well played by the victor, had them winning without any obvious errors by the opponent. I know I often rank these types of games a bit higher than the other judges who mostly tend to prefer games with a bit more flash, even if they come with some fair errors. As such, it wasn't a big shock that I appreciated this and the Perelshteyn game a bit more than the other judges on the whole.
Like the Perelshteyn game, I was impressed by how easy Bhat made this game look, drumming up his strong attack with seeming ease and then conducting it very efficiently, never allowing any real counterplay and again managing to do this without any obvious errors by Andrews.
Personally, I felt the two most interesting games this week were the Charbonneau game and the Herman game (in that order). The Charbonneau game contained a ton of creative play and interesting moments, and but for a few very critical errors late, I definitely would have ranked it higher (likely first). In the Herman game, Black seemed to play very well, building up his attack well and then conducting it precisely, but like the Van de Mortel game (which I did not rank), I felt the losing side self destructed a bit too much to rank the game above the high quality efforts of Bhat and Perelshteyn. (1st place: 5 points)
Jeff Ashton: These "slow build-up" attacks are fun to watch. I really like the way Black handled the opening and middle game and then transitioned into a Kingside attack. (2nd place: 4 points)
Jim Dean: Bhat played a really nice game here and was constantly improving his position and making progress on both sides of the board. My biggest knock against this game was that I didn't understand White's plan at any point during it, and I'm not sure if White ever really managed to make even a single threat. Todd is an excellent player and a former teammate of mine, but this just wasn't a good game on his end. (NR: 0 points)
Greg Shahade: Yet another game that didn't inspire me. Bhat played well of course, but sometimes a game simply doesn't grab my attention, and this was one of those games. (NR: 0 points)
Total Score of Andrews vs Bhat: 9 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Considered Games (judges' scores in parenthesis)
7 points (Greg 3, Jim 2, Arun 2): GM Pascal Charbonneau (NY) vs IM Tegshsuren Enkhbat (BAL) 1-0
6 points (Arun 3, Greg 2, Jeff 1): WGM Sabina Foisor (BAL) vs NM Matt Herman (NY) 0-1
4 points (Jim 4): FM Marcel Martinez (MIA) vs SM Denys Shmelov (BOS) 1-0
4 points (Greg 4): GM Patrick Wolff (SF) vs IM Ron Burnett (TEN) 1-0
2 points (Jeff 2): IM Levon Altounian (ARZ) vs FM Slava Mikhailuk (SEA) 1-0
1 point (Jim 1): FM Oleg Zaikov (CAR) vs IM Yury Lapshun (QNS) 1-0
1 point (Greg 1): David Justice (TEN) vs NM Yian Liou (SF) 1-0
1 point (Arun 1): GM Hikaru Nakamura (SEA) vs GM Alejandro Ramirez (ARZ) 1/2-1/2
Friday, October 23, 2009
Week 8 Game of the Week
This year we have five judges for Game of the Week, each ranking their top five games. The games are then given from one to five points, based on these rankings, and whichever game receives the most total points wins the award. First place each week will receive a $150 bonus prize, second place $75, and third place $50. Our five judges are: IM Greg Shahade, FM Jim Dean, NM Michael Aigner, NM Jeff Ashton, and NM Arun Sharma. Click here for more details.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st Place: IM John Bartholomew (DAL) vs GM Julio Becerra (MIA) 1-0
IM Bartholomew played the strong 30. d5!, after which the variety of potential threats against e6 (d5 x e6, e5-e6, and N to f4-e6) compelled GM Becerra to sac the exchange. Even so, White still managed to invade on f7 soon after to compel resignation.
Arun Sharma: Very strong, creative game by Bartholomew. What I liked most about this game was how Bartholomew just relentlessly applied pressure, refusing to quit on his attack, even though at a few points it definitely seemed like his Kingside attack would amount to nothing, and that he would wind up getting steamrolled on the Queenside or in the center. But again, Bartholomew kept putting Becerra to tough decisions, and not surprisingly he could not meet all of them adequately, and White eventually broke through. Ok, sure if Black had defended perfectly, he would have probably defused the attack, but obviously it's ridiculous to expect anyone to play perfectly, and White's strong, daring play, especially 30. d5!, was a big reason as to why. (1st place: 5 points)
Michael Aigner: In this week's top game, White demonstrates what it takes to beat a strong GM: center control, open lines, weaknesses to attack, strong desire to play aggressively, and some luck. While watching the game, I truly got the impression that White simply wanted to win really badly. He kept probing the holes on the Kingside until Black cracked on move twenty nine.
To be fair, Black could have defended better. Both Rybka and Fritz 12 give a decisive advantage to Black with Queenside pawn play, e.g. b7-b5 or a7-a5 on move twenty seven. White also missed a spectacular mate in five on move thirty five that would have put an exclamation mark on this game. These criticisms led me to select this game as second instead of first. (2nd place: 4 points)
Greg Shahade: A nice game by Bartholomew against the two time MVP. It would have been nicer if Bartholomew had played 35. Rxg6+ instead of 35. R2f2, leading to a much more beautiful and quicker win (although the line he chose is totally winning also). There also seemed to be some real theoretical relevance to this game as I've never before seen the line that Becerra chose, although it has been played by Morozevich recently. (2nd place: 4 points)
Jeff Ashton: Nice game. Black defended relatively well, and Bartholomew maintained pressure. (3rd place: 3 points)
Jim Dean: I guess I probably underestimated this game as White did play creatively for a nice win against a very strong player. I thought Black was doing fine for quite a while during the game, but it is definitely challenging for Black to find a constructive plan throughout. Congratulations to Bartholomew for winning during a week of many well played games. (NR: 0 points)
Total Score of Bartholomew vs Becerra: 16 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2nd Place: GM Boris Gulko (NJ) vs GM Eugene Perelshteyn (BOS) 1-0
GM Gulko played the strong 31. Rxe7! following it up with 32. Ne5!, after which the dual threats against c6 and g6 compelled GM Perelshteyn to return the exchange at the cost of a pawn, and White converted without much difficulty.
Jeff Ashton: Gulko is showing his positional versatility this season. 31. Rxe7 was clever. It is such a strange move and very easy to overlook or underestimate. It is hard to find obvious fault in Perelshteyn's play. (1st place: 5 points)
Jim Dean: This game was my favorite of the week, as I thought Gulko played another gem here. I enjoyed his handling of the entire middlegame, and the temporary exchange sacrifice on e7 seemed like a nice practical decision. Perelshteyn couldn't keep everything together in the transition to the endgame, and Gulko converted without allowing any tricks. (1st place: 5 points)
Michael Aigner: GM Gulko improved his record to 4-0 this season and 7-0 lifetime in the USCL by defeating a third straight GM opponent! There was never much doubt in this one. Black was slightly worse from the opening and, with maybe the exception of move thirty two, never had a chance to get back into the game. Despite such a glowing review, I ranked this game only fourth because the win was less spectacular than games against Zaikov (Week 3) and Charbonneau (Week 4).
Amazingly, after eight weeks of reading my commentaries, it appears that my fellow judges developed a good taste for positional grinds! I like! (Ironically, after weeks of promoting positional masterpieces, I ranked this game below a violent knockout by Seattle teenager Howard Chen against John Bick). (4th place: 2 points)
Greg Shahade: An impressive display by Gulko although I didn't rank it as highly due to the lack of flashy tactics and violent Kingside attacks that usually get me going. However, I couldn't overlook Gulko's impressive technique from beginning to end, with special attention paid to the temporary exchange sacrifice, 31. Rxe7. (4th place: 2 points)
Arun Sharma: Another very strong performance by Gulko, winning in his usual League fashion, mercilessly grinding his opponent down from a small opening edge without ever really allowing any counterplay. The exchange sac was also a nice touch, definitely not something that seems immediately clear to be good for White, but unsurprisingly Gulko demonstrated why it was so strong, converting in short order. I definitely could have ranked this game higher as the other judges did, just the games I did rank higher I personally found to be a bit more exciting generally, containing more interesting moments than I felt this one did. (5th place: 1 point)
Total Score of Gulko vs Perelshteyn: 15 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3rd Place: NM Victor Shen (NJ) vs IM Marc Esserman (BOS) 1-0
NM Shen struck with the nice tactic 19. Bxh6!, where the potential of 20. Qc1+ compelled IM Esserman to play 19... Bxe1 instead of Kxh6, and after some liquidation, White strongly took advantage of the dual edges of Black's weakened King and undeveloped Queenside.
Michael Aigner: This impressive attacking game was my top choice for Week Eight. Moves such as the well-timed 15. d4, 19. Bxh6, 23. Qe5, 25. d6, 30. g4, and 38. Nf6 left zero doubt who was the better player this week. The game felt smooth and convincing, despite facing a newly minted and successful IM. I plan to incorporate this game in my future classes on how to conduct an attack as White against 1. e4 e5. (1st place: 5 points)
Greg Shahade: I was really pulling for this game. It was a long fight in which White showed constant energy and put endless pressure on his strong opponent while facing stiff resistance throughout. It was an especially impressive display from someone rated just barely above 2300 and perhaps was one of the most complete USCL games in history by someone of Shen's rating level. (1st place: 5 points)
Arun Sharma: Very strong game by Shen all around. It seemed that he developed a nice edge in the opening, then played a strong tactical sequence to gain a large advantage when Esserman tried to mix it up, and finally finished up the game quite efficiently, not allowing any real counterplay after tying down his opponent. A nice upset also considering that it didn't seem like Black made any obvious mistakes, making White's victory that much more impressive. (2nd place: 4 points)
Jeff Ashton: Pretty nice, I guess. I considered ranking it, and it most likely makes my top ten list. After Esserman made some tactical errors, Shen was alert tactically. Other than that, I will probably forget this game's existence within a few hours of hitting the 'send' button ... now. (NR: 0 points)
Jim Dean: I was surprised this game made the Top Three. Shen did play well, but I felt Black picked a very dubious plan early on starting with 13... Kh7, and after Shen appropriately opened up the center Black was left to scrape and claw to try to and keep things somewhat interesting. A nice performance by Shen, but there were a handful of games this week that I felt were stronger candidates. (NR: 0 points)
Total Score of Shen vs Esserman: 14 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Considered Games (judges' scores in parenthesis)
8 points (Jeff 4, Jim 4): IM Ron Burnett (TEN) vs GM Hikaru Nakamura (SEA) 0-1
6 points (Michael 3, Jim 3): NM Howard Chen (SEA) vs FM John Bick (TEN) 1-0
3 points (Arun 3): IM Richard Costigan (PHI) vs FM Ralph Zimmer (BAL) 0-1
3 points (Greg 3): IM Dionisio Aldama (ARZ) vs IM Florin Felecan (CHC) 1-0
3 points (Arun 2, Greg 1): IM Angelo Young (CHC) vs IM Rogelio Barcenilla (ARZ) 1-0
3 points (Jim 2, Michael 1): IM Lev Milman (QNS) vs IM John Donaldson (SF) 0-1
2 points (Jeff 2): GM Pascal Charbonneau (NY) vs IM Jonathan Schroer (CAR) 1-0
1 point (Jeff 1): GM Vinay Bhat (SF) vs GM Alex Stripunsky (QNS) 0-1
1 point (Jim 1): FM Oleg Zaikov (CAR) vs IM Irina Krush (NY) 1-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st Place: IM John Bartholomew (DAL) vs GM Julio Becerra (MIA) 1-0
IM Bartholomew played the strong 30. d5!, after which the variety of potential threats against e6 (d5 x e6, e5-e6, and N to f4-e6) compelled GM Becerra to sac the exchange. Even so, White still managed to invade on f7 soon after to compel resignation.
Arun Sharma: Very strong, creative game by Bartholomew. What I liked most about this game was how Bartholomew just relentlessly applied pressure, refusing to quit on his attack, even though at a few points it definitely seemed like his Kingside attack would amount to nothing, and that he would wind up getting steamrolled on the Queenside or in the center. But again, Bartholomew kept putting Becerra to tough decisions, and not surprisingly he could not meet all of them adequately, and White eventually broke through. Ok, sure if Black had defended perfectly, he would have probably defused the attack, but obviously it's ridiculous to expect anyone to play perfectly, and White's strong, daring play, especially 30. d5!, was a big reason as to why. (1st place: 5 points)
Michael Aigner: In this week's top game, White demonstrates what it takes to beat a strong GM: center control, open lines, weaknesses to attack, strong desire to play aggressively, and some luck. While watching the game, I truly got the impression that White simply wanted to win really badly. He kept probing the holes on the Kingside until Black cracked on move twenty nine.
To be fair, Black could have defended better. Both Rybka and Fritz 12 give a decisive advantage to Black with Queenside pawn play, e.g. b7-b5 or a7-a5 on move twenty seven. White also missed a spectacular mate in five on move thirty five that would have put an exclamation mark on this game. These criticisms led me to select this game as second instead of first. (2nd place: 4 points)
Greg Shahade: A nice game by Bartholomew against the two time MVP. It would have been nicer if Bartholomew had played 35. Rxg6+ instead of 35. R2f2, leading to a much more beautiful and quicker win (although the line he chose is totally winning also). There also seemed to be some real theoretical relevance to this game as I've never before seen the line that Becerra chose, although it has been played by Morozevich recently. (2nd place: 4 points)
Jeff Ashton: Nice game. Black defended relatively well, and Bartholomew maintained pressure. (3rd place: 3 points)
Jim Dean: I guess I probably underestimated this game as White did play creatively for a nice win against a very strong player. I thought Black was doing fine for quite a while during the game, but it is definitely challenging for Black to find a constructive plan throughout. Congratulations to Bartholomew for winning during a week of many well played games. (NR: 0 points)
Total Score of Bartholomew vs Becerra: 16 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2nd Place: GM Boris Gulko (NJ) vs GM Eugene Perelshteyn (BOS) 1-0
GM Gulko played the strong 31. Rxe7! following it up with 32. Ne5!, after which the dual threats against c6 and g6 compelled GM Perelshteyn to return the exchange at the cost of a pawn, and White converted without much difficulty.
Jeff Ashton: Gulko is showing his positional versatility this season. 31. Rxe7 was clever. It is such a strange move and very easy to overlook or underestimate. It is hard to find obvious fault in Perelshteyn's play. (1st place: 5 points)
Jim Dean: This game was my favorite of the week, as I thought Gulko played another gem here. I enjoyed his handling of the entire middlegame, and the temporary exchange sacrifice on e7 seemed like a nice practical decision. Perelshteyn couldn't keep everything together in the transition to the endgame, and Gulko converted without allowing any tricks. (1st place: 5 points)
Michael Aigner: GM Gulko improved his record to 4-0 this season and 7-0 lifetime in the USCL by defeating a third straight GM opponent! There was never much doubt in this one. Black was slightly worse from the opening and, with maybe the exception of move thirty two, never had a chance to get back into the game. Despite such a glowing review, I ranked this game only fourth because the win was less spectacular than games against Zaikov (Week 3) and Charbonneau (Week 4).
Amazingly, after eight weeks of reading my commentaries, it appears that my fellow judges developed a good taste for positional grinds! I like! (Ironically, after weeks of promoting positional masterpieces, I ranked this game below a violent knockout by Seattle teenager Howard Chen against John Bick). (4th place: 2 points)
Greg Shahade: An impressive display by Gulko although I didn't rank it as highly due to the lack of flashy tactics and violent Kingside attacks that usually get me going. However, I couldn't overlook Gulko's impressive technique from beginning to end, with special attention paid to the temporary exchange sacrifice, 31. Rxe7. (4th place: 2 points)
Arun Sharma: Another very strong performance by Gulko, winning in his usual League fashion, mercilessly grinding his opponent down from a small opening edge without ever really allowing any counterplay. The exchange sac was also a nice touch, definitely not something that seems immediately clear to be good for White, but unsurprisingly Gulko demonstrated why it was so strong, converting in short order. I definitely could have ranked this game higher as the other judges did, just the games I did rank higher I personally found to be a bit more exciting generally, containing more interesting moments than I felt this one did. (5th place: 1 point)
Total Score of Gulko vs Perelshteyn: 15 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3rd Place: NM Victor Shen (NJ) vs IM Marc Esserman (BOS) 1-0
NM Shen struck with the nice tactic 19. Bxh6!, where the potential of 20. Qc1+ compelled IM Esserman to play 19... Bxe1 instead of Kxh6, and after some liquidation, White strongly took advantage of the dual edges of Black's weakened King and undeveloped Queenside.
Michael Aigner: This impressive attacking game was my top choice for Week Eight. Moves such as the well-timed 15. d4, 19. Bxh6, 23. Qe5, 25. d6, 30. g4, and 38. Nf6 left zero doubt who was the better player this week. The game felt smooth and convincing, despite facing a newly minted and successful IM. I plan to incorporate this game in my future classes on how to conduct an attack as White against 1. e4 e5. (1st place: 5 points)
Greg Shahade: I was really pulling for this game. It was a long fight in which White showed constant energy and put endless pressure on his strong opponent while facing stiff resistance throughout. It was an especially impressive display from someone rated just barely above 2300 and perhaps was one of the most complete USCL games in history by someone of Shen's rating level. (1st place: 5 points)
Arun Sharma: Very strong game by Shen all around. It seemed that he developed a nice edge in the opening, then played a strong tactical sequence to gain a large advantage when Esserman tried to mix it up, and finally finished up the game quite efficiently, not allowing any real counterplay after tying down his opponent. A nice upset also considering that it didn't seem like Black made any obvious mistakes, making White's victory that much more impressive. (2nd place: 4 points)
Jeff Ashton: Pretty nice, I guess. I considered ranking it, and it most likely makes my top ten list. After Esserman made some tactical errors, Shen was alert tactically. Other than that, I will probably forget this game's existence within a few hours of hitting the 'send' button ... now. (NR: 0 points)
Jim Dean: I was surprised this game made the Top Three. Shen did play well, but I felt Black picked a very dubious plan early on starting with 13... Kh7, and after Shen appropriately opened up the center Black was left to scrape and claw to try to and keep things somewhat interesting. A nice performance by Shen, but there were a handful of games this week that I felt were stronger candidates. (NR: 0 points)
Total Score of Shen vs Esserman: 14 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Considered Games (judges' scores in parenthesis)
8 points (Jeff 4, Jim 4): IM Ron Burnett (TEN) vs GM Hikaru Nakamura (SEA) 0-1
6 points (Michael 3, Jim 3): NM Howard Chen (SEA) vs FM John Bick (TEN) 1-0
3 points (Arun 3): IM Richard Costigan (PHI) vs FM Ralph Zimmer (BAL) 0-1
3 points (Greg 3): IM Dionisio Aldama (ARZ) vs IM Florin Felecan (CHC) 1-0
3 points (Arun 2, Greg 1): IM Angelo Young (CHC) vs IM Rogelio Barcenilla (ARZ) 1-0
3 points (Jim 2, Michael 1): IM Lev Milman (QNS) vs IM John Donaldson (SF) 0-1
2 points (Jeff 2): GM Pascal Charbonneau (NY) vs IM Jonathan Schroer (CAR) 1-0
1 point (Jeff 1): GM Vinay Bhat (SF) vs GM Alex Stripunsky (QNS) 0-1
1 point (Jim 1): FM Oleg Zaikov (CAR) vs IM Irina Krush (NY) 1-0
Friday, October 16, 2009
Week 7 Game of the Week
This year we have five judges for Game of the Week, each ranking their top five games. The games are then given from one to five points, based on these rankings, and whichever game receives the most total points wins the award. First place each week will receive a $150 bonus prize, second place $75, and third place $50. Our five judges are: IM Greg Shahade, FM Jim Dean, NM Michael Aigner, NM Jeff Ashton, and NM Arun Sharma. Click here for more details.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st Place: IM Daniel Fernandez (DAL) vs FM Oleg Zaikov (CAR) 0-1
FM Zaikov essentially finished off the wild game with 28... Bf3!, after which the mating threat beginning with Rb8+ allowed him to easily liquidate into a winning ending.
Jim Dean: It is nice to see Zaikov on the winning side of a GOTW winner as he has played the victim in some highly ranked games lately. This was a wild one that followed Kohlweyer vs Tomczak 1987 for twenty two moves ... though I'd be a bit surprised if these two were familiar with that game. It turns out that taking on c3 is probably incorrect after 22... Nc3, and Zaikov pounces nicely with some accurate play. (1st place: 5 points)
Arun Sharma: Very entertaining game as these Nd5 sacrifices in Najdorf positions always create interesting play. As always, I'm certainly not qualified to determine how sound any of this really was, but as he's seemed to become accustomed to doing, with only a slight material edge, Zaikov very coolly defended a very tough looking position and then pounced with a nice counterattack when the time was right. (1st place: 5 points)
Greg Shahade: A fun game by both sides. Honestly I wasn't familiar with the theory, I just liked the energy displayed by both players, and Black's defensive efforts, which showed that passive defense isn't always best when up material as he viciously counterattacked the White King instead. (1st place: 5 points)
Jeff Ashton: Daniel Fernandez has a style that is perfect for winning GOTW, unfortunately it didn't end so well for him.
Both players should be commended. Daniel for his risky and exciting efforts, and Zaikov for his precise defense. Although the winner and loser don't share GOTW prize money, I think Zaikov should buy Daniel a steak dinner. (NR: 0 points)
Michael Aigner: The game followed mainstream Najdorf theory for fifteen moves and followed Alekseev vs Najer 2004 to move eighteen. The novelty 18... Kc8 was approved by computer engines, and five moves later, White blundered away the entire game with 23. bxc3, albeit in a very sharp position. Finally, Black simply had an extra piece in the endgame after the flashy (but unnecessary) tactic 28... Bf3.
Between moves fifteen and twenty three, White sacrificed two pieces. After that, Black made three critical moves: walking away with Kc8, giving back material on h8, and finally sacrificing the Knight on c3. Very nicely done! Still, none of these moves are terribly shocking; sacrifices, especially on c3, are a trademark for this opening.
I admit that I underestimated this game a little and would have ranked it as high as third or fourth if I had another chance. However, compared to a truly competitive Najdorf game like Herman vs Naroditsky, this week seemed way too one-sided. There's just no way that a game like Fernandez vs Zaikov should take top honors when two judges didn't even vote for Herman in Week 5! (NR: 0 points)
Total Score of Fernandez vs Zaikov: 15 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2nd Place: IM Jan van de Mortel (CHC) vs GM Jaan Ehlvest (TEN) 1-0
Following an exchange sac, IM Van de Mortel continued strongly with 23. Bxe5!, after which the numerous threats against the Black King were too much for Black to handle, allowing White to enter an ending up a whopping three pawns.
Jim Dean: While this was probably not a performance Ehlvest was proud of, I think a win versus such a strong player in an opening that he authored a book on deserves a lot of credit. White gets a fantastic opening position before Black goes a bit nutty with 19... Bh3, but even without this mistake Black could not have been pleased with his position. White used a lot more clock time and was careful not to allow too much counterplay, helping to secure a victory for the Blaze. (2nd place: 4 points)
Arun Sharma: Like Jim, I feel a win against a major authority on this opening deserves some great credit, even if it was not Ehlvest's best day. I feel it's too easy in these kinds of games to claim that the winner did nothing special, that the result was more due to the loser self destructing. While of course that is true in any decisive game to some extent, in this case, against an authority on this opening who had not lost in fifteen USCL games prior and also had a more than two hundred point rating advantage in this game, I don't feel viewing the game in that way is giving the winner his due credit. Those latter factors, along with the flashiness of the game, forced me to give it a high ranking. (2nd place: 4 points)
Jeff Ashton: I liked this game very much. Van de Mortel is such a strong player and a class act. He had a bumpy start this season so it was a pleasure to see this nice win. Ehlvest is one of my favorite US players that happens to be playing well lately so it was sad for me to see him on the losing end though. Ehlvest made mistakes in a tough position, but I look forward to watching him come back strong for the rest of the USCL. (2nd place: 4 points)
Greg Shahade: I gave this game three points mainly due to the fact that it was a huge upset that swung the match to Chicago because in all honesty White won this game very easily with not much resistance from his higher rated and previously undefeated opponent. Congratulations to Van de Mortel on being able to do something (beat Ehlvest in the USCL) that no one was able to do in Ehlvest's first fifteen games in the league and also for playing such a fine attacking game. (3rd place: 3 points)
Michael Aigner: As a longtime Leningrad Dutch player, watching this deeply saddened me. White earned a tie for Game of the Week because Black self-destructed! I always found 11... g5 to be suspicious, yet still people seem to play it. But jean puhleeze, what in Caissa's name was 19... Bh3??? Black simply hangs the c6 pawn, plus e7 to boot! Of course, the fact that Black spent all of seven minutes (plus the thirty second increment) for the first nineteen moves (and thirteen minutes for the entire game) troubles me as well.
I will give White credit for playing smoothly and efficiently. However, he can't take credit for much more, as the plan of 12. e4, 18. Bb1 and 19. f4 is hardly anything new. Depending on your philosophy, I can see this game earning some fourth or fifth place votes for GOTW, but no way should it be tied for first! (NR: 0 points)
Total Score of Van de Mortel vs Ehlvest: 15 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3rd Place: GM Giorgi Kacheishvili (NY) vs IM Bryan Smith (PHI) 0-1
In a game that had mostly been dictated by Pawn tensions, IM Smith made a strong addition to them with 19... e5!, after which the threats on the long diagonal forced White to liquidate the exchange.
Jeff Ashton: Finally Bryan Smith gets some recognition. He is one of the biggest "sleepers" in US chess. For those who don't know that expression, it basically means he doesn't get the respect and recognition that he deserves from the public.
He is a strong player and he contributes much to the chess community. I have officially joined the Bryan Smith fan club.
And finally, I would like to apologize for unintentionally jinxing Kacheishvili with my "always wins with White" comment last week. (1st place: 5 points)
Jim Dean: In my experience, playing against an opening system like the one White employs here is rarely tons of fun, but Smith was able to create an enjoyable position for himself here. Black appears to get the upper hand around move sixteen, and never really lets up. After winning the exchange, Smith cruises in a fairly easy endgame. (3rd place: 3 points)
Arun Sharma: Another game where, like Van de Mortel, the upset factor really stood out and caused this game to be something special in my mind. While again some might be tempted to attribute this result to GM Kacheishvili having an off day, IM Smith really deserves credit for mixing it up well with such a strong player with the Black pieces, really going for the jugular right out of the opening with both 15... b4! and 19... e5! (4th place: 2 points)
Greg Shahade: A very nice game from Smith as Kacheishvili is very hard to defeat, especially with the Black pieces. I ranked this behind the Van de Mortel game only because that one was a bit more flashy, but it's hard to ignore anyone who pulls off such an upset with Black against such a solid player. (4th place: 2 points)
Michael Aigner: Thank you to Mr. Smith for demonstrating proper technique to embarrass these bizarre looking openings. In a week with so many games decided on blunders, I was glad to see one sensible game! While I can't imagine it was that hard to play, it was nonetheless a nice win against a GM with the Black pieces. (4th place: 2 points)
Total Score of Kacheishvili vs Smith: 14 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Considered Games (judges' scores in parenthesis)
12 points (Michael 5, Greg 4, Arun 3): IM Angelo Young (CHC) vs FM John Bick (TEN) 1-0
6 points (Michael 4, Jim 1, Arun 1): IM Rogelio Barcenilla (ARZ) vs GM Vinay Bhat (SF) 1-0
5 points (Michael 3, Jeff 2): GM Hikaru Nakamura (SEA) vs GM Julio Becerra (MIA) 1-0
4 points (Jeff 3, Michael 1): GM Larry Christiansen (BOS) vs IM Eli Vovsha (QNS) 0-1
3 points (Jim 2, Greg 1): Miguel Recio (MIA) vs NM Joshua Sinanan (SEA) 0-1
1 point (Jeff 1): GM Alex Shabalov (TEN) vs FM Florin Felecan (CHC) 1-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st Place: IM Daniel Fernandez (DAL) vs FM Oleg Zaikov (CAR) 0-1
FM Zaikov essentially finished off the wild game with 28... Bf3!, after which the mating threat beginning with Rb8+ allowed him to easily liquidate into a winning ending.
Jim Dean: It is nice to see Zaikov on the winning side of a GOTW winner as he has played the victim in some highly ranked games lately. This was a wild one that followed Kohlweyer vs Tomczak 1987 for twenty two moves ... though I'd be a bit surprised if these two were familiar with that game. It turns out that taking on c3 is probably incorrect after 22... Nc3, and Zaikov pounces nicely with some accurate play. (1st place: 5 points)
Arun Sharma: Very entertaining game as these Nd5 sacrifices in Najdorf positions always create interesting play. As always, I'm certainly not qualified to determine how sound any of this really was, but as he's seemed to become accustomed to doing, with only a slight material edge, Zaikov very coolly defended a very tough looking position and then pounced with a nice counterattack when the time was right. (1st place: 5 points)
Greg Shahade: A fun game by both sides. Honestly I wasn't familiar with the theory, I just liked the energy displayed by both players, and Black's defensive efforts, which showed that passive defense isn't always best when up material as he viciously counterattacked the White King instead. (1st place: 5 points)
Jeff Ashton: Daniel Fernandez has a style that is perfect for winning GOTW, unfortunately it didn't end so well for him.
Both players should be commended. Daniel for his risky and exciting efforts, and Zaikov for his precise defense. Although the winner and loser don't share GOTW prize money, I think Zaikov should buy Daniel a steak dinner. (NR: 0 points)
Michael Aigner: The game followed mainstream Najdorf theory for fifteen moves and followed Alekseev vs Najer 2004 to move eighteen. The novelty 18... Kc8 was approved by computer engines, and five moves later, White blundered away the entire game with 23. bxc3, albeit in a very sharp position. Finally, Black simply had an extra piece in the endgame after the flashy (but unnecessary) tactic 28... Bf3.
Between moves fifteen and twenty three, White sacrificed two pieces. After that, Black made three critical moves: walking away with Kc8, giving back material on h8, and finally sacrificing the Knight on c3. Very nicely done! Still, none of these moves are terribly shocking; sacrifices, especially on c3, are a trademark for this opening.
I admit that I underestimated this game a little and would have ranked it as high as third or fourth if I had another chance. However, compared to a truly competitive Najdorf game like Herman vs Naroditsky, this week seemed way too one-sided. There's just no way that a game like Fernandez vs Zaikov should take top honors when two judges didn't even vote for Herman in Week 5! (NR: 0 points)
Total Score of Fernandez vs Zaikov: 15 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2nd Place: IM Jan van de Mortel (CHC) vs GM Jaan Ehlvest (TEN) 1-0
Following an exchange sac, IM Van de Mortel continued strongly with 23. Bxe5!, after which the numerous threats against the Black King were too much for Black to handle, allowing White to enter an ending up a whopping three pawns.
Jim Dean: While this was probably not a performance Ehlvest was proud of, I think a win versus such a strong player in an opening that he authored a book on deserves a lot of credit. White gets a fantastic opening position before Black goes a bit nutty with 19... Bh3, but even without this mistake Black could not have been pleased with his position. White used a lot more clock time and was careful not to allow too much counterplay, helping to secure a victory for the Blaze. (2nd place: 4 points)
Arun Sharma: Like Jim, I feel a win against a major authority on this opening deserves some great credit, even if it was not Ehlvest's best day. I feel it's too easy in these kinds of games to claim that the winner did nothing special, that the result was more due to the loser self destructing. While of course that is true in any decisive game to some extent, in this case, against an authority on this opening who had not lost in fifteen USCL games prior and also had a more than two hundred point rating advantage in this game, I don't feel viewing the game in that way is giving the winner his due credit. Those latter factors, along with the flashiness of the game, forced me to give it a high ranking. (2nd place: 4 points)
Jeff Ashton: I liked this game very much. Van de Mortel is such a strong player and a class act. He had a bumpy start this season so it was a pleasure to see this nice win. Ehlvest is one of my favorite US players that happens to be playing well lately so it was sad for me to see him on the losing end though. Ehlvest made mistakes in a tough position, but I look forward to watching him come back strong for the rest of the USCL. (2nd place: 4 points)
Greg Shahade: I gave this game three points mainly due to the fact that it was a huge upset that swung the match to Chicago because in all honesty White won this game very easily with not much resistance from his higher rated and previously undefeated opponent. Congratulations to Van de Mortel on being able to do something (beat Ehlvest in the USCL) that no one was able to do in Ehlvest's first fifteen games in the league and also for playing such a fine attacking game. (3rd place: 3 points)
Michael Aigner: As a longtime Leningrad Dutch player, watching this deeply saddened me. White earned a tie for Game of the Week because Black self-destructed! I always found 11... g5 to be suspicious, yet still people seem to play it. But jean puhleeze, what in Caissa's name was 19... Bh3??? Black simply hangs the c6 pawn, plus e7 to boot! Of course, the fact that Black spent all of seven minutes (plus the thirty second increment) for the first nineteen moves (and thirteen minutes for the entire game) troubles me as well.
I will give White credit for playing smoothly and efficiently. However, he can't take credit for much more, as the plan of 12. e4, 18. Bb1 and 19. f4 is hardly anything new. Depending on your philosophy, I can see this game earning some fourth or fifth place votes for GOTW, but no way should it be tied for first! (NR: 0 points)
Total Score of Van de Mortel vs Ehlvest: 15 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3rd Place: GM Giorgi Kacheishvili (NY) vs IM Bryan Smith (PHI) 0-1
In a game that had mostly been dictated by Pawn tensions, IM Smith made a strong addition to them with 19... e5!, after which the threats on the long diagonal forced White to liquidate the exchange.
Jeff Ashton: Finally Bryan Smith gets some recognition. He is one of the biggest "sleepers" in US chess. For those who don't know that expression, it basically means he doesn't get the respect and recognition that he deserves from the public.
He is a strong player and he contributes much to the chess community. I have officially joined the Bryan Smith fan club.
And finally, I would like to apologize for unintentionally jinxing Kacheishvili with my "always wins with White" comment last week. (1st place: 5 points)
Jim Dean: In my experience, playing against an opening system like the one White employs here is rarely tons of fun, but Smith was able to create an enjoyable position for himself here. Black appears to get the upper hand around move sixteen, and never really lets up. After winning the exchange, Smith cruises in a fairly easy endgame. (3rd place: 3 points)
Arun Sharma: Another game where, like Van de Mortel, the upset factor really stood out and caused this game to be something special in my mind. While again some might be tempted to attribute this result to GM Kacheishvili having an off day, IM Smith really deserves credit for mixing it up well with such a strong player with the Black pieces, really going for the jugular right out of the opening with both 15... b4! and 19... e5! (4th place: 2 points)
Greg Shahade: A very nice game from Smith as Kacheishvili is very hard to defeat, especially with the Black pieces. I ranked this behind the Van de Mortel game only because that one was a bit more flashy, but it's hard to ignore anyone who pulls off such an upset with Black against such a solid player. (4th place: 2 points)
Michael Aigner: Thank you to Mr. Smith for demonstrating proper technique to embarrass these bizarre looking openings. In a week with so many games decided on blunders, I was glad to see one sensible game! While I can't imagine it was that hard to play, it was nonetheless a nice win against a GM with the Black pieces. (4th place: 2 points)
Total Score of Kacheishvili vs Smith: 14 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Considered Games (judges' scores in parenthesis)
12 points (Michael 5, Greg 4, Arun 3): IM Angelo Young (CHC) vs FM John Bick (TEN) 1-0
6 points (Michael 4, Jim 1, Arun 1): IM Rogelio Barcenilla (ARZ) vs GM Vinay Bhat (SF) 1-0
5 points (Michael 3, Jeff 2): GM Hikaru Nakamura (SEA) vs GM Julio Becerra (MIA) 1-0
4 points (Jeff 3, Michael 1): GM Larry Christiansen (BOS) vs IM Eli Vovsha (QNS) 0-1
3 points (Jim 2, Greg 1): Miguel Recio (MIA) vs NM Joshua Sinanan (SEA) 0-1
1 point (Jeff 1): GM Alex Shabalov (TEN) vs FM Florin Felecan (CHC) 1-0
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Week 6 Game of the Week
This year we have five judges for Game of the Week, each ranking their top five games. The games are then given from one to five points, based on these rankings, and whichever game receives the most total points wins the award. First place each week will receive a $150 bonus prize, second place $75, and third place $50. Our five judges are: IM Greg Shahade, FM Jim Dean, NM Michael Aigner, NM Jeff Ashton, and NM Arun Sharma. Click here for more details.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st Place: GM Alejandro Ramirez (ARZ) vs GM Joel Benjamin (NJ) 1-0
GM Ramirez played the deflecting 35. f5!!, after which the swift h-pawn in tandem with the threat of Bd4 and b3 winning the Black Knight were enough to bring home the full point.
Michael Aigner: Surprise! A sweet quiet game becomes the run-away winner of Game of the Week. No doubt a big part of the decision was the crushing endgame tactic 35. f5, making way for the h-pawn to run down the board. Bonus points for the key role of this game in Arizona's victory and for taking down one of this season's top performers.
I must, however, complain about the lack of good games this week. Many games were marred by blunders and missed opportunities. Others were too one-sided where the loser self-destructed more than the winner playing a nice combination. On my spreadsheet, this week was the lowest score for my top game over all six weeks! (1st place: 5 points)
Greg Shahade: Before I comment on this game, I want to make a few comments about my judging this week. In past weeks I have tried to choose games that I felt were played well and exciting. This week there were a lot of well played games, but many of them had no flash or excitement that drew me to them. I also notice that in past weeks judges have been mercilessly criticized for their selections. So this week, due to my lack of overall inspiration by many of the games, I decided to use a different judging criteria than I usually did.
Instead of picking all of the best games, I picked two games that I felt stood out, and then the other three games were simply the games that I felt were the most exciting and interesting to the fans. My point is that this is a subjective contest in which there are no set rules or guidelines to determine what a "Game of the Week" is. It's simply the combined opinion of five people as to what games they enjoyed the most. I am well aware that the games I ranked from third to fifth place contained numerous errors from both players, but they were also extremely exciting for the fans.
Anyway, Alejandro's game got the nod this week almost solely due to the final endgame combination with 35. f5!. It also didn't hurt that he dealt Joel Benjamin his first loss of the season and helped the Knockouts to lose their undefeated record. (1st place: 5 points)
Jim Dean: Ramirez puts on a really nice performance here and shows impressive technique. White plays very logically throughout and gets to exploit a superior Bishop versus a Knight before finding a clever way to create an outside passer to seal the deal. White managed to put this win together despite no major blunders from Black, and such a victory over such a strong opponent makes this a very deserving Game of the Week. (2nd place: 4 points)
Arun Sharma: This, in my view, was not a super inspiring week for Game of the Week so I'm not surprised that other than on this game, our opinions differed so much (however, as I've commented below, I still really do not agree with the games that wound up getting second and third being that high, even if this was a below average week).
However, I'm quite glad that this game at least managed to win as I feel it was definitely one of the few very good games played this week. It clearly was a fairly high quality game (something that really seemed to be lacking this week), and the endgame play by Ramirez, starting with 34. Rxg6, undoubtedly seeing at the time the long term winning idea of marching the h-pawn along with the threat to win the Black Knight with Bd4 and b3, was very impressive. (2nd place: 4 points)
Jeff Ashton: I liked this game quite a bit, but at first I was surprised to see it get first place. I considered ranking it higher, but I eventually decided that very few fans might be able to appreciate this game, and some other games were just more "fun" for everyone, including myself. It pains me to say this, but for the first time in USCL history I might have made a mistake. If I were to vote again I would probably rank it third place instead of fourth! I apologize for making my first and last ever judgment error.
This game is educational and entertaining (maybe) for players of all levels (those who have an attention span greater than a fly). I kind of wonder if other people gave it "cool points" because it involves such a young GM grinding down an older more experienced GM in a Queen-less game. Some might say "Oh it looks like the tables have turned!" If Benjamin had White and Ramirez had Black, would it have dominated in GOTW? Benjamin has consistently been grinding down players in technical positions in USCL so it's a bit ironic to see him lose to young Ramirez this way (and also to be on the losing end of GOTW). Although Benjamin rejected my compliments for his strong play last week, I still think he is one of this season's MVPs, and his play is inspiring. It's a shame to see his first GOTW appearance on the losing end as I thought he would have placed several times in the past.
Overall, Ramirez played very nicely in a game where Benjamin showed strong resistance. USCL has helped me gain great respect for both Ramirez's and Benjamin's positional and endgame skills. (4th place: 2 points)
Total Score of Ramirez vs Benjamin: 20 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2nd Place: SM Marc Esserman (BOS) vs FM Oleg Zaikov (CAR) 1-0
SM Esserman finished off the game with the aesthetically pleasing interference tactic, 20. Be6+!!
Jeff Ashton: One hundred years from now I won't be surprised if these games are listed as "Esserman-NN", and people will debate whether or not these games were played in competition or simply home analysis. In Mega Database 3009, Esserman's games will be listed among other great games such as Zaremba-NN from earlier this season.
Are Esserman's games scripted? Is there some elaborate conspiracy designed for him and Boston to win GOTW every week? Am I saying this to encourage Boston fans to leave interesting comments when in fact I am 100% kidding? Honestly, Esserman is just very good, and now we know that it is not just a short term fluke.
As of October 2009 I have officially joined the Esserman bandwagon. His aggressive play with consistent results is a joy to watch. I, like Michael, experience some deja vu when I see his games, but I can't hold it against him. Esserman is still playing aggressive, high risk, attacking chess, and his wins are very convincing.
If Esserman keeps this up, he will soon be giving blindfold simuls and playing without his Queen's Rook. (2nd place: 4 points)
Michael Aigner: Marc Esserman was at it again, knocking out the ever dangerous Zaikov. I ranked this game third behind wins by Ramirez and Bick because of how unsoundly the opponent played. At least Esserman had to work a bit for the win this week though, finishing off with the crushing yet non-obvious interference sacrifice 20. Be6+! (3rd place: 3 points)
Greg Shahade: Obviously not the greatest game ever, but it certainly excited the fans. Zaikov's opening was terrible, and I think that Esserman did a relatively poor job of cleaning up from there. Also Zaikov blundered one move before the end of the game, when 19... Bd6 would have been quite playable. I only ranked this game because of it's excitement factor and my lack of inspiration from the other games. (5th place: 1 point)
Jim Dean: This game was a tough one to rank for me. I was loving the game, right up until the big blunder at the end. I thought both sides had played well and certainly in an exciting fashion before the fatal mistake. I wish 19... Bd6 had been played, where it appears the result is still very much in the air. (5th place: 1 point)
Arun Sharma: I didn't rank this game, and frankly I was very surprised to see it make the Top Three. The game did contain a lot of interesting moments and tactical ideas, especially the one which forced instant resignation so I do understand why the other judges found it attractive. But when the losing side mixes up the opening (or something of that general nature) and as a result winds up in a dead lost position on move six, I'm sorry, but I just cannot rank a game like that.
However, some credit is definitely due to White for mostly playing the attack well and to Black for tenaciously defending such a hopeless looking position after a disastrous opening, but again mainly for the reason mentioned above and the fact that White nearly managed to let him escape before Black lost the game instantly with 19... Bg7?? (after 19... Bd6, White still seems to have a very long road to victory), I could not justify ranking this game. (NR: 0 points)
Total Score of Esserman vs Zaikov: 9 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3rd Place: GM Giorgi Kacheishvili (NY) vs GM Leonid Kritz (BAL) 1-0
GM Kacheishivli played the clever 24. Ra1!, tactically justifying his snatching of a Pawn three moves earlier, which soon liquidated him into a solid Exchange up position that he had no trouble converting.
Jeff Ashton: Has anyone else noticed that in his whole career, Kacheishvili has never lost or drawn a game with the White pieces? Maybe I'm wrong, but it kind of seems that way. We rarely get to see such a one-sided Hedgehog among such strong players, but then again, who had White in this game? (1st place: 5 points)
Jim Dean: This was another game that reminded me to pass when I get the opportunity to face a GM as Black in a Maroczy Bind structure. The main knock against it I felt, was that it almost looked too easy. It seems to me like White has a much easier position to play as they enter the middlegame, and Kacheishvili plays one good move after another to prove it. (4th place: 2 points)
Michael Aigner: I have to say that Kacheishvili gets an A+ for homework! For the second week in a row, he makes an opponent crumble with a sharp line (not technically a novelty, but off the beaten track). It did seem a bit too easy this week, compared to the extended combination (three sacrifices) against Friedel last week. That's why I didn't rank this game, although perhaps it still deserved honorable mention. (NR: 0 points)
Greg Shahade: This one I didn't rank for two main reasons:
(a) It was way too easy for White, and there were no really difficult moves to find.
(b) Kritz basically blitzed the whole game, giving the impression that he wasn't taking it seriously.
Not sure what else to say. (NR: 0 points)
Arun Sharma: This was another game that I didn't really agree with being in the Top Three, but I suppose it really comes down to what context you put it in. On the plus side, the victor played very well, coming up with a nice tactical sequence which won him the game instantly.
On the other hand, this certainly was not a very hard game for the winner, using only about twenty minutes total for the entire game. But the main thing that soured me on it was that that Black basically blitzed out the first fifteen or so moves (spending only about five minutes total on them) and seemed to be in a really bad looking position already at that point. Then, instead of trying to defend like he probably should have (who knows, maybe it was too late even for that by then), he then blitzed out into a tactical sequence, which as shown above, ended up being essentially instantly winning for White.
On the whole it's psychologically very difficult to consider a game which lasted less than an hour (especially on Board One) to be a reasonable candidate for GOTW, unless it was a ridiculous brilliancy by the winner (and while the winner played well, I don't think it rose to the level of that). But again, the winner did play very well so I can't rightly dispute this game being here too much. (NR: 0 points)
(NOTE: We again had to bring in a tiebreaker judge because this game and Mitkov vs Lenderman were tied on points and on all tiebreakers for third place. Thanks this time to FM Jake Kleiman for assisting us in this regard)
Tiebreaker Judge, FM Jake Kleiman: The Mitkov vs Lenderman game was very exciting, but Lenderman's position is so suspect. I am certain Mitkov missed many opportunities which is understandable due to his time pressure. However, the Kacheishvili vs Kritz game showed very nice domination by Kacheishvili where Black's counter chances were always one step too slow.
Total Score of Kacheishvili vs Kritz: 7 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Considered Games (judges' scores in parenthesis)
7 points (Jim 5, Greg 2): GM Nikola Mitkov (CHC) vs IM Alex Lenderman (PHI) 0-1
5 points (Arun 5): GM Sergey Erenburg (BAL) vs GM Pascal Charbonneau (NY) 1-0
5 points (Greg 4, Arun 1): GM Patrick Wolff (SF) vs GM Julio Becerra (MIA) 1-0
5 points (Jim 3, Arun 2): IM Lev Milman (QNS) vs GM Gregory Serper (SEA) 0-1
4 points (Michael 4): FM John Bick (TEN) vs FM Keaton Kiewra (DAL) 1-0
4 points (Greg 3, Michael 1): IM Salvijus Bercys (DAL) vs GM Alex Shabalov (TEN) 1-0
3 points (Jeff 3): IM Dean Ippolito (NJ) vs IM Rogelio Barcenilla (ARZ) 0-1
3 points (Arun 3): NM Ilya Krasik (BOS) vs NM Udayan Bapat (CAR) 1-0
2 points (Michael 2): FM Marcel Martinez (MIA) vs GM Jesse Kraai (SF) 1-0
1 point (Jeff 1): NM Matt Herman (NY) vs FM Shinsaku Uesugi (BAL) 0-1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st Place: GM Alejandro Ramirez (ARZ) vs GM Joel Benjamin (NJ) 1-0
GM Ramirez played the deflecting 35. f5!!, after which the swift h-pawn in tandem with the threat of Bd4 and b3 winning the Black Knight were enough to bring home the full point.
Michael Aigner: Surprise! A sweet quiet game becomes the run-away winner of Game of the Week. No doubt a big part of the decision was the crushing endgame tactic 35. f5, making way for the h-pawn to run down the board. Bonus points for the key role of this game in Arizona's victory and for taking down one of this season's top performers.
I must, however, complain about the lack of good games this week. Many games were marred by blunders and missed opportunities. Others were too one-sided where the loser self-destructed more than the winner playing a nice combination. On my spreadsheet, this week was the lowest score for my top game over all six weeks! (1st place: 5 points)
Greg Shahade: Before I comment on this game, I want to make a few comments about my judging this week. In past weeks I have tried to choose games that I felt were played well and exciting. This week there were a lot of well played games, but many of them had no flash or excitement that drew me to them. I also notice that in past weeks judges have been mercilessly criticized for their selections. So this week, due to my lack of overall inspiration by many of the games, I decided to use a different judging criteria than I usually did.
Instead of picking all of the best games, I picked two games that I felt stood out, and then the other three games were simply the games that I felt were the most exciting and interesting to the fans. My point is that this is a subjective contest in which there are no set rules or guidelines to determine what a "Game of the Week" is. It's simply the combined opinion of five people as to what games they enjoyed the most. I am well aware that the games I ranked from third to fifth place contained numerous errors from both players, but they were also extremely exciting for the fans.
Anyway, Alejandro's game got the nod this week almost solely due to the final endgame combination with 35. f5!. It also didn't hurt that he dealt Joel Benjamin his first loss of the season and helped the Knockouts to lose their undefeated record. (1st place: 5 points)
Jim Dean: Ramirez puts on a really nice performance here and shows impressive technique. White plays very logically throughout and gets to exploit a superior Bishop versus a Knight before finding a clever way to create an outside passer to seal the deal. White managed to put this win together despite no major blunders from Black, and such a victory over such a strong opponent makes this a very deserving Game of the Week. (2nd place: 4 points)
Arun Sharma: This, in my view, was not a super inspiring week for Game of the Week so I'm not surprised that other than on this game, our opinions differed so much (however, as I've commented below, I still really do not agree with the games that wound up getting second and third being that high, even if this was a below average week).
However, I'm quite glad that this game at least managed to win as I feel it was definitely one of the few very good games played this week. It clearly was a fairly high quality game (something that really seemed to be lacking this week), and the endgame play by Ramirez, starting with 34. Rxg6, undoubtedly seeing at the time the long term winning idea of marching the h-pawn along with the threat to win the Black Knight with Bd4 and b3, was very impressive. (2nd place: 4 points)
Jeff Ashton: I liked this game quite a bit, but at first I was surprised to see it get first place. I considered ranking it higher, but I eventually decided that very few fans might be able to appreciate this game, and some other games were just more "fun" for everyone, including myself. It pains me to say this, but for the first time in USCL history I might have made a mistake. If I were to vote again I would probably rank it third place instead of fourth! I apologize for making my first and last ever judgment error.
This game is educational and entertaining (maybe) for players of all levels (those who have an attention span greater than a fly). I kind of wonder if other people gave it "cool points" because it involves such a young GM grinding down an older more experienced GM in a Queen-less game. Some might say "Oh it looks like the tables have turned!" If Benjamin had White and Ramirez had Black, would it have dominated in GOTW? Benjamin has consistently been grinding down players in technical positions in USCL so it's a bit ironic to see him lose to young Ramirez this way (and also to be on the losing end of GOTW). Although Benjamin rejected my compliments for his strong play last week, I still think he is one of this season's MVPs, and his play is inspiring. It's a shame to see his first GOTW appearance on the losing end as I thought he would have placed several times in the past.
Overall, Ramirez played very nicely in a game where Benjamin showed strong resistance. USCL has helped me gain great respect for both Ramirez's and Benjamin's positional and endgame skills. (4th place: 2 points)
Total Score of Ramirez vs Benjamin: 20 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2nd Place: SM Marc Esserman (BOS) vs FM Oleg Zaikov (CAR) 1-0
SM Esserman finished off the game with the aesthetically pleasing interference tactic, 20. Be6+!!
Jeff Ashton: One hundred years from now I won't be surprised if these games are listed as "Esserman-NN", and people will debate whether or not these games were played in competition or simply home analysis. In Mega Database 3009, Esserman's games will be listed among other great games such as Zaremba-NN from earlier this season.
Are Esserman's games scripted? Is there some elaborate conspiracy designed for him and Boston to win GOTW every week? Am I saying this to encourage Boston fans to leave interesting comments when in fact I am 100% kidding? Honestly, Esserman is just very good, and now we know that it is not just a short term fluke.
As of October 2009 I have officially joined the Esserman bandwagon. His aggressive play with consistent results is a joy to watch. I, like Michael, experience some deja vu when I see his games, but I can't hold it against him. Esserman is still playing aggressive, high risk, attacking chess, and his wins are very convincing.
If Esserman keeps this up, he will soon be giving blindfold simuls and playing without his Queen's Rook. (2nd place: 4 points)
Michael Aigner: Marc Esserman was at it again, knocking out the ever dangerous Zaikov. I ranked this game third behind wins by Ramirez and Bick because of how unsoundly the opponent played. At least Esserman had to work a bit for the win this week though, finishing off with the crushing yet non-obvious interference sacrifice 20. Be6+! (3rd place: 3 points)
Greg Shahade: Obviously not the greatest game ever, but it certainly excited the fans. Zaikov's opening was terrible, and I think that Esserman did a relatively poor job of cleaning up from there. Also Zaikov blundered one move before the end of the game, when 19... Bd6 would have been quite playable. I only ranked this game because of it's excitement factor and my lack of inspiration from the other games. (5th place: 1 point)
Jim Dean: This game was a tough one to rank for me. I was loving the game, right up until the big blunder at the end. I thought both sides had played well and certainly in an exciting fashion before the fatal mistake. I wish 19... Bd6 had been played, where it appears the result is still very much in the air. (5th place: 1 point)
Arun Sharma: I didn't rank this game, and frankly I was very surprised to see it make the Top Three. The game did contain a lot of interesting moments and tactical ideas, especially the one which forced instant resignation so I do understand why the other judges found it attractive. But when the losing side mixes up the opening (or something of that general nature) and as a result winds up in a dead lost position on move six, I'm sorry, but I just cannot rank a game like that.
However, some credit is definitely due to White for mostly playing the attack well and to Black for tenaciously defending such a hopeless looking position after a disastrous opening, but again mainly for the reason mentioned above and the fact that White nearly managed to let him escape before Black lost the game instantly with 19... Bg7?? (after 19... Bd6, White still seems to have a very long road to victory), I could not justify ranking this game. (NR: 0 points)
Total Score of Esserman vs Zaikov: 9 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3rd Place: GM Giorgi Kacheishvili (NY) vs GM Leonid Kritz (BAL) 1-0
GM Kacheishivli played the clever 24. Ra1!, tactically justifying his snatching of a Pawn three moves earlier, which soon liquidated him into a solid Exchange up position that he had no trouble converting.
Jeff Ashton: Has anyone else noticed that in his whole career, Kacheishvili has never lost or drawn a game with the White pieces? Maybe I'm wrong, but it kind of seems that way. We rarely get to see such a one-sided Hedgehog among such strong players, but then again, who had White in this game? (1st place: 5 points)
Jim Dean: This was another game that reminded me to pass when I get the opportunity to face a GM as Black in a Maroczy Bind structure. The main knock against it I felt, was that it almost looked too easy. It seems to me like White has a much easier position to play as they enter the middlegame, and Kacheishvili plays one good move after another to prove it. (4th place: 2 points)
Michael Aigner: I have to say that Kacheishvili gets an A+ for homework! For the second week in a row, he makes an opponent crumble with a sharp line (not technically a novelty, but off the beaten track). It did seem a bit too easy this week, compared to the extended combination (three sacrifices) against Friedel last week. That's why I didn't rank this game, although perhaps it still deserved honorable mention. (NR: 0 points)
Greg Shahade: This one I didn't rank for two main reasons:
(a) It was way too easy for White, and there were no really difficult moves to find.
(b) Kritz basically blitzed the whole game, giving the impression that he wasn't taking it seriously.
Not sure what else to say. (NR: 0 points)
Arun Sharma: This was another game that I didn't really agree with being in the Top Three, but I suppose it really comes down to what context you put it in. On the plus side, the victor played very well, coming up with a nice tactical sequence which won him the game instantly.
On the other hand, this certainly was not a very hard game for the winner, using only about twenty minutes total for the entire game. But the main thing that soured me on it was that that Black basically blitzed out the first fifteen or so moves (spending only about five minutes total on them) and seemed to be in a really bad looking position already at that point. Then, instead of trying to defend like he probably should have (who knows, maybe it was too late even for that by then), he then blitzed out into a tactical sequence, which as shown above, ended up being essentially instantly winning for White.
On the whole it's psychologically very difficult to consider a game which lasted less than an hour (especially on Board One) to be a reasonable candidate for GOTW, unless it was a ridiculous brilliancy by the winner (and while the winner played well, I don't think it rose to the level of that). But again, the winner did play very well so I can't rightly dispute this game being here too much. (NR: 0 points)
(NOTE: We again had to bring in a tiebreaker judge because this game and Mitkov vs Lenderman were tied on points and on all tiebreakers for third place. Thanks this time to FM Jake Kleiman for assisting us in this regard)
Tiebreaker Judge, FM Jake Kleiman: The Mitkov vs Lenderman game was very exciting, but Lenderman's position is so suspect. I am certain Mitkov missed many opportunities which is understandable due to his time pressure. However, the Kacheishvili vs Kritz game showed very nice domination by Kacheishvili where Black's counter chances were always one step too slow.
Total Score of Kacheishvili vs Kritz: 7 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Considered Games (judges' scores in parenthesis)
7 points (Jim 5, Greg 2): GM Nikola Mitkov (CHC) vs IM Alex Lenderman (PHI) 0-1
5 points (Arun 5): GM Sergey Erenburg (BAL) vs GM Pascal Charbonneau (NY) 1-0
5 points (Greg 4, Arun 1): GM Patrick Wolff (SF) vs GM Julio Becerra (MIA) 1-0
5 points (Jim 3, Arun 2): IM Lev Milman (QNS) vs GM Gregory Serper (SEA) 0-1
4 points (Michael 4): FM John Bick (TEN) vs FM Keaton Kiewra (DAL) 1-0
4 points (Greg 3, Michael 1): IM Salvijus Bercys (DAL) vs GM Alex Shabalov (TEN) 1-0
3 points (Jeff 3): IM Dean Ippolito (NJ) vs IM Rogelio Barcenilla (ARZ) 0-1
3 points (Arun 3): NM Ilya Krasik (BOS) vs NM Udayan Bapat (CAR) 1-0
2 points (Michael 2): FM Marcel Martinez (MIA) vs GM Jesse Kraai (SF) 1-0
1 point (Jeff 1): NM Matt Herman (NY) vs FM Shinsaku Uesugi (BAL) 0-1
Friday, October 9, 2009
2009 Midseason All Stars
Now that we are at about the midpoint of the season, it's once again time to name who I would put on the three All Star Teams as of now so everyone has a good idea as to who has jumped out to an early lead in qualifying for the official All Star Teams that will be announced at season's end. I will be using the same sort of criteria that has been applied for the last couple of seasons (see this post from last year for an example). Note of course that the five game minimum needed by season's end will not apply here as I will not be enforcing any minimum number of games at this stage.
So without further ado, here is what we have.
Board One:
1st Team: GM Hikaru Nakamura (SEA)
A fairly easy decision as being perfect on the top board, even though not quite having as many games as some others, is always a rare feat. Add to that, how tight each match for Seattle has been in each of his victories, two of which have ended up in the Sluggers' favor (by scores of 3-1 and 2.5 - 1.5), and the other being a tie, it's quite clear how clutch Nakamura has been for them so far. Having helped Seattle storm out to an impressive 5.0 - 1.0 record which has them currently tied for the League lead and being the current MVP Leader, he was an easy choice for the First Team.
Record: 3.0 / 3 (100%)
Performance Rating: 2983
2nd Team: GM Eugene Perelshteyn (BOS)
Another fairly easy decision, as Perelshteyn shares the distinction of being perfect on the top boards with several games under his belt and like Nakamura has also been very important in helping his team jump out to a 5.0 - 1.0 record, also tied for the current League lead.
Such perfection at the highest level would typically be worthy of the First Team, but given both of the players have managed to accomplish that, I felt at this point the higher honor had to go to Nakamura, with him having the much higher performance rating along with the fact that two of Perelshteyn's wins occurred in matches which wound up being total blowouts (score-wise) in Boston's favor.
However, likely there are many more games in both players' futures this season, and it will be interesting to see if one or both players can continue their great starts later on, especially when the plot thickens in the postseason.
Record: 3.0 / 3 (100%)
Performance Rating: 2866
3rd Team: GM Joel Benjamin (NJ)
Unlike the top two spots, who should have been on the third team at this stage was a much tougher decision as there were several players with very similar records to Benjamin (listed in the "Other Candidates") who could have been argued to here instead. I felt that Benjamin deserved the nod at this point for the combination of two reasons: he has played every match thus far and all of his games have been very critical to his team, with four of five New Jersey victories being by the narrowest margin. Add to that the fact that his team does also have the League leading 5.0 - 1.0 record, I elected him to take this spot.
With the Knockouts' being virtually assured of the postseason at this point, it will be very interesting to see if their leader's current good form can be a springboard to ensuring that the troubles they've endured in the later half of the year in their first two seasons do not occur again, to ensure them of both good playoff positioning and then a successful postseason run.
Record: 4.0 / 6 (67%)
Performance Rating: 2703
Other Candidates: As mentioned, there are several other strong players who were close to being on the third team themselves. Perennial Top All Star GM Julio Becerra (MIA) (4.0 / 6, 2702 Performance), has virtually identical stats to Benjamin and has also played in every match and therefore would probably have been given the third spot with the slightest change for the better in almost any stat, but as mentioned I felt Benjamin should get that spot at this stage due to his results on the whole being a bit more integral to his team's success (and of course his team having a bit more success in general with their superior record). Another very strong contender at this point is GM Alejandro Ramirez (ARZ) (3.0 / 4, 2798 Performance). I also nearly gave him the spot over both Benjamin and Becerra with his far superior Performance Rating, but decided, especially at this stage of the season, that with such superb showings by all three of them, it should be valued higher when such stronger performances come in a large number of games (something I do not think is quite the case when dealing with the entire season). Nevertheless, I'm glad this is one of those decisions that really does not count for anything at this point as I know how much trouble I'd have making it at the end of the season when it really matters. But whether endowed with that spot at this point or not, it's very clear how important Ramirez has been to the Arizona team, with them sporting a 3.0 - 1.0 record when he plays and a 0.0 - 2.0 record without him. The other very strong contender is GM Jaan Ehlvest (TEN) (3.5 / 5, 2716 Performance), also boasting similar stats to the other three, who for the same reasons mentioned would have been a very worthy addition to the third team also, even though at this point I'd have to consider him slightly below the others as his strong performance has not brought around overall team success like the rest, with Tennessee only managing a 1.0 - 4.0 record during his strong run.
Board Two:
1st Team: IM Alex Lenderman (PHI)
Another fairly easy pick, with Lenderman having picked up right where he left off from his MVP performance last season, scoring win after win for his team and easily being the best Board Two performer to date along with being in the thick of the MVP race again.
Unfortunately for him, his great success has not been accompanied by the great team success that came with it last year, and his team has a long road ahead of itself to make the postseason. But if he can continue to perform at the rate that he has, I definitely can see them making a very good run at doing just that.
Record: 3.5 / 4 (88%)
Performance Rating: 2778
2nd Team: GM Sergey Erenburg (BAL)
A Board One Second Team All Star last season, the sight of Erenburg on Board Two has to be a scary thing for any team to see, and it's lived up to its potential so far, with him scoring two big wins for Baltimore there and has been a big part of their already far eclipsing the dismal record brought about by last season's struggles.
While by season's end, it seems rather certain that should Erenburg be All Star eligible, it will be on the top board, given his team's need to generally use an alternate to put him on second board. But even so, it goes without saying that wherever he might be eligible, he's someone to watch out for, and as long that's the case, with the rest of the Baltimore team contributing to his effort much more than last year, the same can definitely be said for the Kingfishers.
Record: 2.5 / 3 (83%)
Performance Rating: 2781
3rd Team: GM Boris Gulko (NJ)
Gulko finds himself in a similar spot as last season, scoring perfectly, though not in an excess of games. Unfortunately, as well as he played last year, his low number of games (three), kept him from receiving All Star consideration then, and one can only guess at this point if that might be the case again this season. Given how well he's done though, it's a certainty that Knockout fans are fervently hoping that at the very least the five game minimum will be met this season, and with the Knockouts almost certain to be in the postseason this year, they obviously will have more time to ensure that that happens.
Record: 2.0 / 2 (100%)
Performance Rating: 2874
Other Candidates: Board Two at this point definitely is the board with the least number of clear candidates as at this point as other than the three mentioned above, no players eligible for this board have scored at least +2. Not to say that there aren't some potential candidates, as FM Slava Mikhailuk (SEA) (2.5 / 4, 2626 Performance), IM Dean Ippolito (NJ) (2.5 / 4, 2618 Performance), FM Bruci Lopez (MIA) (2.0 / 3, 2650 Performance), IM Tegshsuren Enkhbat (BAL) (2.0 / 3, 2610 Performance), and IM Blas Lugo (MIA) (2.0 / 3, 2577 Performance) have all had some critical games for their team. Especially with Erenburg unlikely to be eligible on this board by season's end, really any of them with a great push in the second half of the season has a very real chance of making it onto one of the All Star Teams when it really counts.
Board Three:
1st Team: FM John Bick (TEN)
This was really the easiest decision of them all as Bick, due mostly to Tennessee's monster double GM lineup is by far the lowest rated of the Board Three regulars, and when you combine that with the fact that he has the best record amongst the Board Three's (albeit with a couple of games played on Board Four), it makes for a rather trivial decision.
Although I'm sure it's very disappointing that his team has only managed a 2.0 - 4.0 record despite the very strong play by both him and Ehlvest, as they have suffered some very tight and close defeats, they are still very much in real contention to make it to the postseason, and his continuing to perform so magnificently will definitely be a key ingredient in making that happen.
Record: 4.5 / 5 (90%)
Performance Rating: 2600
2nd Team: IM Angelo Young (CHC)
A near All Star last season, Young also has picked right off where he left last season, now being undefeated in ten league games. Combine that with being out-rated in the majority of these games and having one his victories this season being a more than two hundred point upset against one of the best league performers in history, IM Sam Shankland, only makes this statistic more impressive.
But unfortunately, just as for the other two Board Three All Stars, the team has not managed to keep reasonable pace with their star, with the Blaze currently languishing at the bottom of the West. However, being in that spot now is a very different thing from being there at the end of the regular season, and the Blaze are still very well within striking distance of changing that. They can only hope to turn that around in their other spots while Young continues to be one of the League's biggest surprises which together can add up to a big turn around.
Record: 3.5 / 4 (88%)
Performance Rating: 2715
3rd Team: FM Andrei Zaremba (QNS)
With similar stats to IM Young, it was a close decision of which to give the higher spot, but eventually I felt that it should go to Young with his lower league rating and higher Performance Rating, even though Zaremba has played more games.
Zaremba has been a huge spark for the Pioneers, having won a couple of very crucial games for them, but unfortunately his victories have mostly turned potentially losing matches into drawn ones rather than into winning ones which has prevented his team from taking as much advantage of his great run that I'm sure they would have liked. But just as is true for his fellow Board Three All Stars, his team is still well within striking distance of making the playoffs and continued production from their All Star will definitely be integral to trying to make such a turn around happen.
Record: 4.0 / 5 (80%)
Performance Rating: 2617
Other Candidates: The main other candidate at this point should be no surprise, being last year's second team All Star on this board, SM Marc Esserman (BOS) (3.5 / 5, 2528 Performance), another player who managed to pick up where he left off last season, having another very strong season. It's also extremely clear how important he has been to his team, his league rating being around one hundred points lower than his current rating. Add to that the fact that his team's only loss occurred the one week that he did not play, another statistic which speaks for itself, he seems very poised to make help Boston to make another Championship run.
Board Four:
1st Team: NM Yaacov Norowitz (NY)
I'm sure it's not a huge surprise to anyone to see Norowitz in this spot, as the Knights opted for a strategy of heavily stacking their Board Four (rating-wise) when using him. While everyone has their own opinion on whether stacking any particular board is wise or not, it certainly cannot be argued that the spot that New York chose to do this in has more than delivered, with Norowitz having only been nicked for one draw in five games by his chief competitor for this top spot, NM Yian Liou, when he had the Black pieces, in a match that his team fairly dominated.
Although he (like almost any All Star) might be disappointed that his team's results haven't quite measured up to his own, given how much the Knights have tended to struggle early in the season for the past few years, they must be happy that due in large part to him, they do not have a huge mountain to climb in the second part of the season to even make the Playoffs. Add to that New York's tendency to catch fire in the later part of the season, if he can continue on his torrid run, the Knights are going to be a very scary team for anyone to face.
Record: 4.5 / 5 (90%)
Performance Rating: 2427
2nd Team: NM Yian Liou (SF)
As mentioned above, it was a rather tough decision as to whom between Liou and Norowitz should be on the First Team at this juncture, with Norowitz being a bit superior in the most important statistic (record), and Liou holding a small advantage in a few of the other categories, having played more games, having a slightly higher Performance Rating, and having a lower league rating. This really could have gone either way as it seemed nearly dead even on the whole, but I went with Norowitz since, as mentioned above, he did draw with Black in their head to head encounter. However, this is another decision I'm quite happy to not have to make when it really counts as it was extremely tough, and I hope they create some distance between themselves by the time this decision really counts.
At season's beginning, I and others were skeptical of the Mechanics' strategy of using the same bottom board in every single match, certainly a risky strategy as naturally any player is capable of going on a bad streak (which can generally be overcome by the team with the luxury of having multiple players available to play instead). But fortunately, San Francisco seems to have chosen well as Liou's performance has been incredible so far, and should he continue as such, their fearsome lineup of Friedel/Kraai/Shankland/Liou, which helped the Mechanics storm out to a 3.5 - 0.5 start, may well match up favorably against any other lineup in the league.
Record: 4.5 / 6 (75%)
Performance Rating: 2454
3rd Team: NM Joshua Sinanan (SEA)
At the beginning of the year, I would have guessed Seattle's success would mostly hinge upon the success of the player I envisioned them using on Board Four most of the time to facilitate the use of the double GM lineup, NM Howard Chen. But having only relied upon that lineup once, Sinanan has taken on most of the Board Four responsibilities, and he hasn't disappointed, having won his last three games, all in very close matches (two of which ended up 2.5 - 1.5 in his team's favor), obviously very key in the Sluggers' League leading 5.0 - 1.0 start.
With Sinanan and Nakamura both performing extremely well so far, and their last year's All Star, Mikhailuk, seeming to return to form after a tough inaugural game this season, it's very clear that with or without their double GM lineup, the Sluggers are a team to be reckoned with.
Record: 4.0 / 5 (80%)
Performance Rating: 2415
Other Candidates: There are two other players who definitely have been very important to their teams also and could well make showings on the All Star Teams at season's end. Last year's third team All Star, NM Ilya Krasik (BOS) (3.0 / 4, 2452 Performance), has also scored some important wins for his team against rather tough opposition (as evidenced by his high performance rating in comparison to several of his All Star competitors). Also, David Adelberg (ARZ) (3.0 / 4, 2352 Performance), being the first Board Four in quite a long time to finish highly in the Game of the Week voting and being undefeated in four games despite being one of the lowest rated regular Board Fours in the League is another very strong candidate and like his teammate Ramirez, his importance is also very apparent from his team's 3.0 - 1.0 record with him and 0.0 - 2.0 record without him.
Good luck to everyone in the second part of the season and congratulations to everyone who's performed well enough to be on the Team so far, all of whom have played some great games to greatly entertain us spectators, and I hope the second half of the season can be even better!
Friday, October 2, 2009
Week 5 Game of the Week
This year we have five judges for Game of the Week, each ranking their top five games. The games are then given from one to five points, based on these rankings, and whichever game receives the most total points wins the award. First place each week will receive a $150 bonus prize, second place $75, and third place $50. Our five judges are: IM Greg Shahade, FM Jim Dean, NM Michael Aigner, NM Jeff Ashton, and NM Arun Sharma. Click here for more details.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st Place: GM Giorgi Kacheishvili (NY) vs GM Josh Friedel (SF) 1-0
GM Kacheishvili played the powerful 19. Rxd4! Bxd4 20. Qf5+ and quickly overwhelmed the exposed Black King to force liquidation into an easy ending.
Michael Aigner: I tried hard to find a way to rank this game lower than first, but I simply could not. Kacheishvili essayed a brilliant piece of opening preparation in a line of the Nimzo Indian that, at least statistically, was supposed to be decent for Black. The Panda never stood a chance; he played perfectly according to Rybka and still became extinct by move thirty. The efficient exchange sacrifice 19. Rxd4 sealed Black's fate. The game stands out way above this week's competition because of
(a) Theoretical Significance
(b) Depth of the Combination (three sacrifices of a piece or exchange)
(c) Strength of the Opponent
(1st place: 5 points)
Greg Shahade: Before I get started please let me point out that I think this was a great week for the Game of the Week contest. I believe that there were at least five games that would likely have won if they were played last week, and maybe even more?
In any case I thought this was a great game by Kacheishvili. It had most of the key ingredients:
(a) Nice opening preparation
(b) Strong play by the winning side and reasonable defense by the losing side
(c) Some exciting tactics and sacrifices.
In my mind this game was a very worthy winner.
(2nd place: 4 points)
Jeff Ashton: I liked this game:
(a) Interesting opening variation with theoretical significance.
(b) Exciting dynamic middlegame play and fun high risk chess for the fans to watch.
(c) Excellent endgame play by Kachieshvili. This was my favorite part of the game.
(2nd place: 4 points)
Jim Dean: This game just didn't capture my interest much despite the fact that Kacheishvili clearly played very well. Friedel played what may be a new move with 12.. Nc6 (my database is not completely up to date, so I'm not certain), and it might be quite good, but to my eyes Black's position looks really difficult to play right out of the gate. Kacheishvili makes the exposed King extremely uncomfortable with a series of accurate moves and didn't seem to have any problems with his endgame technique. (NR: 0 points)
Arun Sharma: This was a game I had a very difficult time deciding on as it kept on moving around in my rankings, at one point being at the top, another point near the middle, and in the end winding up sixth. It was a very good game by Kacheishvili with a very strong novelty (I think a novelty), 17. Qc2! Add to that how well the winner played on the whole, this was a natural choice for a top pick and would have been in most weeks.
However, there were many great games this week, and I had a really hard time deciding which good ones would not end up making the Top Five, and unfortunately this wound up being amongst those few that did not do so. The main issue I had with it was the position before 17. Qc2! is fairly well known, and while Kacheishvili found a great novelty, that in my view was really the only truly salient point of this game as 19. Rxd4 is fairly obvious and after 20. Qf5+, Black's position is close to resignable already.
Nevertheless, one cannot dispute the fact of how well the victor in this game played so I definitely cannot argue with the decision to make this this week's winner even if I personally found some other games more intriguing. (NR: 0 points)
Total Score of Kacheishvili vs Friedel: 13 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2nd Place: WFM Bayaraa Zorigt (DAL) vs David Adelberg (ARZ) 0-1
Young Adelberg pounced with the typical, but well timed, exchange sac 15... Rxc3! and followed up very strongly, overwhelming White's defenses and never allowing any counterattack.
Jim Dean: I really enjoyed this game and was impressed with young Adelberg's handling of the attack after the thematic exchange sacrifice. Black doesn't hesitate to boldly grab the initiative with 15... Rxc3 and really poured it on with constant pressure while not giving white anything in the way of counter-attacking chances. An excellent win that was much needed by his team who struggled on the middle boards. (1st place: 5 points)
Michael Aigner: Twelve year old star David Adelberg shatters his opponent's King position with a thematic 15... Rxc3 exchange sacrifice and then follows up with crisp tactics. Moves such as 19... b4 and 20... d5 demonstrate an understanding of the essence of the Najdorf: material means little in the Hunt for the White King. The Bishop and Knight checkmate at the end put an artistic exclamation mark on an already elegant game. Bonus points for the win against a higher rated and higher titled opponent with the Black pieces. I ranked this game third behind Herman vs Naroditsky mainly because of the non-aggressive play by White leading up to the exchange sacrifice, almost daring Black to go for it. Which Adelberg did, spectacularly! (3rd place: 3 points)
Arun Sharma: Very high class play by Adelberg topped off with a cute finish. This was another game I was not sure how to rank since as other judges noted, the Rxc3 idea is not exactly a novel one. On the other hand, it seemed that Adelberg played very well throughout (something which is quite rare for Board Four games), conducting the attack very precisely and not permitting any counterplay. As such, I think this game was very deserving of the strong ranking it received. (3rd place: 3 points)
Jeff Ashton: This game was simple and thematic. The attack on the Queenside and ideas such as Rxc3 have been seen countless times. Nonetheless, I can't let that take away from such a beautiful game with an immaculate finish. When I watch Sportscenter on ESPN, I am usually impressed by similar slam dunks even if I've "seen the idea" before. I can appreciate this game even though I've seen the idea so many times. Great play by Adelberg. (5th place: 1 point)
Greg Shahade: Maybe I was a bit harsh on this game, considering that it was played on Board Four. The thing is that I used to play this opening, and I won many games like this in blitz and action chess all of the time. Nothing that David did was something I haven't seen many times before as when they let you take on c3 like that, often it results in a relatively easy victory. Again, I try to give extra consideration to Board Four, because it's obviously tougher to play like a 2700 GM when your rating is 2200, but I just got the feeling that it was too easy for David, and honestly I'm happy I didn't rank it because I feel strongly that this game should not have won first place (and it would have if I had simply given it fourth place!). (NR: 0 points)
Total Score of Zorigt vs Adelberg: 12 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3rd Place: NM Matt Herman (NY) vs FM Daniel Naroditsky (SF) 1-0
Herman played the somewhat atypical 19. Bd5, daring Black to accept a d5 sac of a Bishop rather than the more usual Knight. Naroditsky declined but was still unable to stop White's vicious attack when it inevitably came anyway.
Greg Shahade: A lot of comments have been made about how Jeff Ashton, or other judges, may be "whacko" judges. At this point I have no option but to agree! First of all in a game this complex I find it absurd to rely so heavily on Fritz/Rybka analysis. The time control is 75+30, do we really expect players to find perfect moves in such an insanely sharp position?
Secondly, I'm not sure if it was a deep bit of preparation from Herman or just over the board inspiration, but he played so many sharp attacking moves, and the game was so energetic and exciting, that as I saw the GOTW results coming in I was deeply disappointed in my fellow judges (Until Aigner sent his in last, and it was granted a reprieve and a tie for third place. Fortunately the very strong IM Cyrus Lakdawala gave it the nod for third place!). Don't be surprised to see this game chosen as one of my Wildcard picks, as I think it will likely crack the Top Ten if given the chance, even without the huge name recognition of the players involved.
I noticed there were many awesome games this week while watching, and when I sat down to look at them I honestly had no clue which ones I would rank highly, but after just one look at the energy of this game I couldn't imagine how any other game could surpass it. (1st place: 5 points)
Michael Aigner: This game was by far the most spectacular of the week. However, my initial impression was that the players traded mistakes somewhere around move nineteen or twenty. After time to reflect, with help from Rybka and friends, I found out that White had way more attacking resources than I expected. Veritable insanity! While it wouldn't surprise me if Black holds the fort somehow, we cannot expect a perfect defense in a practical game played between two human beings at a modestly fast time control. (2nd place: 4 points)
Arun Sharma: This was a very tricky game to rank, a game I'm really not surprised that there were very different opinions on. I personally tend to fall somewhere in the middle in terms of where this game should be (as you can see by my ranking!). I understand why Greg and Michael ranked it so highly as it was definitely the most creative and probably most interesting game of the week. I also understand why Jeff and Jim did not rank it given that there obviously were numerous errors.
Honestly, my first instinct when I looked at candidates this week was to rank this game first or second, but I agree with Greg that there were many good games this week, and I just happened to like the games I picked higher a bit better than this one. I did not use a computer to analyze this as others might have so I didn't really have a sense of how "sound" the ideas were, but again I tend to still appreciate those who play such creative ideas even if they are refutable with perfect play as obviously no one plays perfectly in the league (or anywhere!).
I was fairly surprised the game I ranked first got no other votes as it was a very clean and well played game by the victor where the losing side did not really make any big errors, but again there were a bunch of good games this week, and it doesn't shock me that there were varying opinions. (4th place: 2 points)
Jeff Ashton: Seeing this game is a real treat - if you look at it in Chessbase while holding down the "right arrow" key and not letting go until the end.
With some closer examination, it appears that White is rewarded for making poor decisions.
Maybe the sacrifice was fun for others to watch. Not me. I don't care for this game at all. I wish I could delete it from my memory. It would be more appropriate to fine Herman $50 than to award him this amount.
The sacrificial play should have lead to an easy win for Black, not White winning a GOTW prize.
I have a routine of first looking over the games without computer assistance. My first reaction was that White's sacrifices cannot be 100% sound, but it could lead to interesting complications in a fast time control. Also, there is a chance that the sacrifice is actually better than it appears. There is no way that this move can actually be as bad as it looks. When I looked at the game more closely with both Rybka 3 and Fritz 11, it seems that I was being way too nice in my initial assessment! I have never seen a GOTW contender (let alone top finisher) receive so many "red lights" from both Rybka and Fritz.
White did show creativity. I think it's ok that Herman won the game. These things happen. Heroic play should be rewarded with lucky wins. Attacking is cool. Attackers are the good guys, defenders are the bad guys, I get it. I just can't be happy with that kind of play leading to a GOTW prize and outranking much better games.
I don't have a huge problem with unsound sacrifices in general, but it seems that even after Black defends inaccurately he should still be better and winning. If a sacrifice leads to a losing position when accepted or declined, then it is just a bad sacrifice. It is a usually a waste of clock time to even analyze such an idea.
I do understand that there have been many less sound sacrifices made by great players (Mikhail Tal, Emory Tate, etc.) so I will try my best to move on.
I do want to mention how some other players got robbed this week. There were two other games with interesting sacrifices (Smith vs Vovsha and Moreno Roman vs Klein) that were actually sound. Furthermore, I think Joel Benjamin should finally finish high in GOTW. Benjamin is playing incredible well every single game, but unfortunately his games have been too technical for many people to enjoy. Finally, he played a game that is simple enough for players of all levels to appreciate. I was hoping Joel Benjamin would get his due credit with a Top Three finish.
This week was one of the hardest weeks to judge. There were so many games that I had trouble placing in a first through fifth order, and this did not even strike me as a contender. After hearing the news that it won third place, I had to look at the game to see if I made some obvious mistake ... but nope!
I do not claim to have a complete understanding of this game so if anyone knows if team "Jeff-Rybka-Fritz" is overlooking something, please share it with the rest of us!
To Mr. Herman: Please don't be too offended by my rant. I am still in shock while writing this. I do think you are playing well above your rating in general (not this game), and I appreciate your contributions to chess. I am just completely outraged by my fellow judges so I apologize for taking out my anger on your sacrifices. While your fans are sending me hate mail, I will be doing the same to my fellow judges. (NR: 0 points)
Jim Dean: I strongly considered this game for my list based on the fact that it was wild and entertaining. Both players played with gusto, but such positions are very difficult to play accurately, and as such, there were quite a few evaluation swings and arguable missteps. With 26... Re6, Black seems to really put the nail in his own coffin as 27. Bd4 is a killer. Still, Black was very much in the game until then. (NR: 0 points)
(NOTE: We had to bring in a tiebreaker judge because this game and Vovsha vs Smith were tied on points and on all tiebreakers for third place. Thanks to IM Cyrus Lakdawala for graciously agreeing to assist us in this capacity)
Tiebreaker Judge, IM Cyrus Lakdawala: Both games were really nice, but I thought the Najdorf was the more creative game and would give it the prize.
Total Score of Herman vs Naroditsky: 11 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Considered Games (judges' scores in parenthesis)
11 points (Jeff 5, Arun 4, Jim 2): IM Eli Vovsha (QNS) vs IM Bryan Smith (PHI) 0-1
8 points (Jim 4, Michael 2, Jeff 2): IM Alejandro Moreno Roman (MIA) vs FM Mike Klein (CAR) 0-1
5 points (Arun 5): IM Salvijus Bercys (DAL) vs IM Rogelio Barcenilla (ARZ) 1-0
5 points (Greg 3, Michael 1, Jim 1): IM Albert Kapengut (NJ) vs IM Mehmed Pasalic (CHC) 1-0
3 points (Jeff 3): GM Joel Benjamin (NJ) vs IM Jan van de Mortel (CHC) 1-0
3 points (Jim 3): GM Sergey Kudrin (PHI) vs GM Alex Stripunsky (QNS) 0-1
3 points (Greg 2, Arun 1): FM Oleg Zaikov (CAR) vs IM Blas Lugo (MIA) 0-1
1 point (Greg 1): FM Tom Bartell (PHI) vs FM Andrei Zaremba (QNS) 0-1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st Place: GM Giorgi Kacheishvili (NY) vs GM Josh Friedel (SF) 1-0
GM Kacheishvili played the powerful 19. Rxd4! Bxd4 20. Qf5+ and quickly overwhelmed the exposed Black King to force liquidation into an easy ending.
Michael Aigner: I tried hard to find a way to rank this game lower than first, but I simply could not. Kacheishvili essayed a brilliant piece of opening preparation in a line of the Nimzo Indian that, at least statistically, was supposed to be decent for Black. The Panda never stood a chance; he played perfectly according to Rybka and still became extinct by move thirty. The efficient exchange sacrifice 19. Rxd4 sealed Black's fate. The game stands out way above this week's competition because of
(a) Theoretical Significance
(b) Depth of the Combination (three sacrifices of a piece or exchange)
(c) Strength of the Opponent
(1st place: 5 points)
Greg Shahade: Before I get started please let me point out that I think this was a great week for the Game of the Week contest. I believe that there were at least five games that would likely have won if they were played last week, and maybe even more?
In any case I thought this was a great game by Kacheishvili. It had most of the key ingredients:
(a) Nice opening preparation
(b) Strong play by the winning side and reasonable defense by the losing side
(c) Some exciting tactics and sacrifices.
In my mind this game was a very worthy winner.
(2nd place: 4 points)
Jeff Ashton: I liked this game:
(a) Interesting opening variation with theoretical significance.
(b) Exciting dynamic middlegame play and fun high risk chess for the fans to watch.
(c) Excellent endgame play by Kachieshvili. This was my favorite part of the game.
(2nd place: 4 points)
Jim Dean: This game just didn't capture my interest much despite the fact that Kacheishvili clearly played very well. Friedel played what may be a new move with 12.. Nc6 (my database is not completely up to date, so I'm not certain), and it might be quite good, but to my eyes Black's position looks really difficult to play right out of the gate. Kacheishvili makes the exposed King extremely uncomfortable with a series of accurate moves and didn't seem to have any problems with his endgame technique. (NR: 0 points)
Arun Sharma: This was a game I had a very difficult time deciding on as it kept on moving around in my rankings, at one point being at the top, another point near the middle, and in the end winding up sixth. It was a very good game by Kacheishvili with a very strong novelty (I think a novelty), 17. Qc2! Add to that how well the winner played on the whole, this was a natural choice for a top pick and would have been in most weeks.
However, there were many great games this week, and I had a really hard time deciding which good ones would not end up making the Top Five, and unfortunately this wound up being amongst those few that did not do so. The main issue I had with it was the position before 17. Qc2! is fairly well known, and while Kacheishvili found a great novelty, that in my view was really the only truly salient point of this game as 19. Rxd4 is fairly obvious and after 20. Qf5+, Black's position is close to resignable already.
Nevertheless, one cannot dispute the fact of how well the victor in this game played so I definitely cannot argue with the decision to make this this week's winner even if I personally found some other games more intriguing. (NR: 0 points)
Total Score of Kacheishvili vs Friedel: 13 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2nd Place: WFM Bayaraa Zorigt (DAL) vs David Adelberg (ARZ) 0-1
Young Adelberg pounced with the typical, but well timed, exchange sac 15... Rxc3! and followed up very strongly, overwhelming White's defenses and never allowing any counterattack.
Jim Dean: I really enjoyed this game and was impressed with young Adelberg's handling of the attack after the thematic exchange sacrifice. Black doesn't hesitate to boldly grab the initiative with 15... Rxc3 and really poured it on with constant pressure while not giving white anything in the way of counter-attacking chances. An excellent win that was much needed by his team who struggled on the middle boards. (1st place: 5 points)
Michael Aigner: Twelve year old star David Adelberg shatters his opponent's King position with a thematic 15... Rxc3 exchange sacrifice and then follows up with crisp tactics. Moves such as 19... b4 and 20... d5 demonstrate an understanding of the essence of the Najdorf: material means little in the Hunt for the White King. The Bishop and Knight checkmate at the end put an artistic exclamation mark on an already elegant game. Bonus points for the win against a higher rated and higher titled opponent with the Black pieces. I ranked this game third behind Herman vs Naroditsky mainly because of the non-aggressive play by White leading up to the exchange sacrifice, almost daring Black to go for it. Which Adelberg did, spectacularly! (3rd place: 3 points)
Arun Sharma: Very high class play by Adelberg topped off with a cute finish. This was another game I was not sure how to rank since as other judges noted, the Rxc3 idea is not exactly a novel one. On the other hand, it seemed that Adelberg played very well throughout (something which is quite rare for Board Four games), conducting the attack very precisely and not permitting any counterplay. As such, I think this game was very deserving of the strong ranking it received. (3rd place: 3 points)
Jeff Ashton: This game was simple and thematic. The attack on the Queenside and ideas such as Rxc3 have been seen countless times. Nonetheless, I can't let that take away from such a beautiful game with an immaculate finish. When I watch Sportscenter on ESPN, I am usually impressed by similar slam dunks even if I've "seen the idea" before. I can appreciate this game even though I've seen the idea so many times. Great play by Adelberg. (5th place: 1 point)
Greg Shahade: Maybe I was a bit harsh on this game, considering that it was played on Board Four. The thing is that I used to play this opening, and I won many games like this in blitz and action chess all of the time. Nothing that David did was something I haven't seen many times before as when they let you take on c3 like that, often it results in a relatively easy victory. Again, I try to give extra consideration to Board Four, because it's obviously tougher to play like a 2700 GM when your rating is 2200, but I just got the feeling that it was too easy for David, and honestly I'm happy I didn't rank it because I feel strongly that this game should not have won first place (and it would have if I had simply given it fourth place!). (NR: 0 points)
Total Score of Zorigt vs Adelberg: 12 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3rd Place: NM Matt Herman (NY) vs FM Daniel Naroditsky (SF) 1-0
Herman played the somewhat atypical 19. Bd5, daring Black to accept a d5 sac of a Bishop rather than the more usual Knight. Naroditsky declined but was still unable to stop White's vicious attack when it inevitably came anyway.
Greg Shahade: A lot of comments have been made about how Jeff Ashton, or other judges, may be "whacko" judges. At this point I have no option but to agree! First of all in a game this complex I find it absurd to rely so heavily on Fritz/Rybka analysis. The time control is 75+30, do we really expect players to find perfect moves in such an insanely sharp position?
Secondly, I'm not sure if it was a deep bit of preparation from Herman or just over the board inspiration, but he played so many sharp attacking moves, and the game was so energetic and exciting, that as I saw the GOTW results coming in I was deeply disappointed in my fellow judges (Until Aigner sent his in last, and it was granted a reprieve and a tie for third place. Fortunately the very strong IM Cyrus Lakdawala gave it the nod for third place!). Don't be surprised to see this game chosen as one of my Wildcard picks, as I think it will likely crack the Top Ten if given the chance, even without the huge name recognition of the players involved.
I noticed there were many awesome games this week while watching, and when I sat down to look at them I honestly had no clue which ones I would rank highly, but after just one look at the energy of this game I couldn't imagine how any other game could surpass it. (1st place: 5 points)
Michael Aigner: This game was by far the most spectacular of the week. However, my initial impression was that the players traded mistakes somewhere around move nineteen or twenty. After time to reflect, with help from Rybka and friends, I found out that White had way more attacking resources than I expected. Veritable insanity! While it wouldn't surprise me if Black holds the fort somehow, we cannot expect a perfect defense in a practical game played between two human beings at a modestly fast time control. (2nd place: 4 points)
Arun Sharma: This was a very tricky game to rank, a game I'm really not surprised that there were very different opinions on. I personally tend to fall somewhere in the middle in terms of where this game should be (as you can see by my ranking!). I understand why Greg and Michael ranked it so highly as it was definitely the most creative and probably most interesting game of the week. I also understand why Jeff and Jim did not rank it given that there obviously were numerous errors.
Honestly, my first instinct when I looked at candidates this week was to rank this game first or second, but I agree with Greg that there were many good games this week, and I just happened to like the games I picked higher a bit better than this one. I did not use a computer to analyze this as others might have so I didn't really have a sense of how "sound" the ideas were, but again I tend to still appreciate those who play such creative ideas even if they are refutable with perfect play as obviously no one plays perfectly in the league (or anywhere!).
I was fairly surprised the game I ranked first got no other votes as it was a very clean and well played game by the victor where the losing side did not really make any big errors, but again there were a bunch of good games this week, and it doesn't shock me that there were varying opinions. (4th place: 2 points)
Jeff Ashton: Seeing this game is a real treat - if you look at it in Chessbase while holding down the "right arrow" key and not letting go until the end.
With some closer examination, it appears that White is rewarded for making poor decisions.
Maybe the sacrifice was fun for others to watch. Not me. I don't care for this game at all. I wish I could delete it from my memory. It would be more appropriate to fine Herman $50 than to award him this amount.
The sacrificial play should have lead to an easy win for Black, not White winning a GOTW prize.
I have a routine of first looking over the games without computer assistance. My first reaction was that White's sacrifices cannot be 100% sound, but it could lead to interesting complications in a fast time control. Also, there is a chance that the sacrifice is actually better than it appears. There is no way that this move can actually be as bad as it looks. When I looked at the game more closely with both Rybka 3 and Fritz 11, it seems that I was being way too nice in my initial assessment! I have never seen a GOTW contender (let alone top finisher) receive so many "red lights" from both Rybka and Fritz.
White did show creativity. I think it's ok that Herman won the game. These things happen. Heroic play should be rewarded with lucky wins. Attacking is cool. Attackers are the good guys, defenders are the bad guys, I get it. I just can't be happy with that kind of play leading to a GOTW prize and outranking much better games.
I don't have a huge problem with unsound sacrifices in general, but it seems that even after Black defends inaccurately he should still be better and winning. If a sacrifice leads to a losing position when accepted or declined, then it is just a bad sacrifice. It is a usually a waste of clock time to even analyze such an idea.
I do understand that there have been many less sound sacrifices made by great players (Mikhail Tal, Emory Tate, etc.) so I will try my best to move on.
I do want to mention how some other players got robbed this week. There were two other games with interesting sacrifices (Smith vs Vovsha and Moreno Roman vs Klein) that were actually sound. Furthermore, I think Joel Benjamin should finally finish high in GOTW. Benjamin is playing incredible well every single game, but unfortunately his games have been too technical for many people to enjoy. Finally, he played a game that is simple enough for players of all levels to appreciate. I was hoping Joel Benjamin would get his due credit with a Top Three finish.
This week was one of the hardest weeks to judge. There were so many games that I had trouble placing in a first through fifth order, and this did not even strike me as a contender. After hearing the news that it won third place, I had to look at the game to see if I made some obvious mistake ... but nope!
I do not claim to have a complete understanding of this game so if anyone knows if team "Jeff-Rybka-Fritz" is overlooking something, please share it with the rest of us!
To Mr. Herman: Please don't be too offended by my rant. I am still in shock while writing this. I do think you are playing well above your rating in general (not this game), and I appreciate your contributions to chess. I am just completely outraged by my fellow judges so I apologize for taking out my anger on your sacrifices. While your fans are sending me hate mail, I will be doing the same to my fellow judges. (NR: 0 points)
Jim Dean: I strongly considered this game for my list based on the fact that it was wild and entertaining. Both players played with gusto, but such positions are very difficult to play accurately, and as such, there were quite a few evaluation swings and arguable missteps. With 26... Re6, Black seems to really put the nail in his own coffin as 27. Bd4 is a killer. Still, Black was very much in the game until then. (NR: 0 points)
(NOTE: We had to bring in a tiebreaker judge because this game and Vovsha vs Smith were tied on points and on all tiebreakers for third place. Thanks to IM Cyrus Lakdawala for graciously agreeing to assist us in this capacity)
Tiebreaker Judge, IM Cyrus Lakdawala: Both games were really nice, but I thought the Najdorf was the more creative game and would give it the prize.
Total Score of Herman vs Naroditsky: 11 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Considered Games (judges' scores in parenthesis)
11 points (Jeff 5, Arun 4, Jim 2): IM Eli Vovsha (QNS) vs IM Bryan Smith (PHI) 0-1
8 points (Jim 4, Michael 2, Jeff 2): IM Alejandro Moreno Roman (MIA) vs FM Mike Klein (CAR) 0-1
5 points (Arun 5): IM Salvijus Bercys (DAL) vs IM Rogelio Barcenilla (ARZ) 1-0
5 points (Greg 3, Michael 1, Jim 1): IM Albert Kapengut (NJ) vs IM Mehmed Pasalic (CHC) 1-0
3 points (Jeff 3): GM Joel Benjamin (NJ) vs IM Jan van de Mortel (CHC) 1-0
3 points (Jim 3): GM Sergey Kudrin (PHI) vs GM Alex Stripunsky (QNS) 0-1
3 points (Greg 2, Arun 1): FM Oleg Zaikov (CAR) vs IM Blas Lugo (MIA) 0-1
1 point (Greg 1): FM Tom Bartell (PHI) vs FM Andrei Zaremba (QNS) 0-1
Friday, September 25, 2009
Week 4 Game of the Week
This year we have five judges for Game of the Week, each ranking their top five games. The games are then given from one to five points, based on these rankings, and whichever game receives the most total points wins the award. First place each week will receive a $150 bonus prize, second place $75, and third place $50. Our five judges are: IM Greg Shahade, FM Jim Dean, NM Michael Aigner, NM Jeff Ashton, and NM Arun Sharma. Click here for more details.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st Place: SM Marc Esserman (BOS) vs FM Tom Bartell (PHI) 1-0
SM Esserman finished the game with the nice 26. Qxf8+!, forcing a win of decisive material.
Jim Dean: Loved this game. I really like the fact that Esserman shamelessly plays the Smith-Morra Gambit vs 2400+ competition. I think it takes even more guts to do so in team play when your teammates are depending on you. From move seventeen until the finish at move twenty seven White applies constant pressure and finishes in real style. I love that even the "g" pawn participates greatly in potential mating nets at the end if Black doesn't toss his Rook away and go into the lost ending. (1st place: 5 points)
Arun Sharma: This was one of the most unusual weeks for GOTW. There were a ton of very interesting games, but in basically all of them both sides committed a big blunder late which severely marred the game's overall appeal, and whether to rank such games higher than some fairly boring but clean games was as usual a tough and very subjective decision. As you can see based on my second and third place picks, I went with the former.
That being said, I think this game was definitely the best choice for the top game as it was fairly flashy and had one very important attribute that the other very interesting games did not: the victor played very well throughout. Yes Black should have put up more resistance, but White played basically perfectly (ok, other than playing the Smith-Morra!) and ended the game with a cute finish. (1st place: 5 points)
Jeff Ashton: My first pick for the week because:
(a) Simple and sweet
(b) Precise tactical play
(c) Much better than the Week 1 game (ouch)
(d) Daring opening
(e) Fun to watch and re-watch
An easy first place winner in my opinion. I recommend Esserman for corporate sponsorship. (1st place: 5 points)
Greg Shahade: Honestly I felt that Marc's Week 2 game was much better than this one, and that the entire slate of games this week was marred by unfortunate inaccuracies near the end, making it difficult for me to pick them as Game of the Week Winner. I think that in Weeks 2 + 3 this game may not have finished in the top three. I know that the fans can get angry when I am relatively unimpressed by an entire week's worth of games, and I actually voice my opinion, but this week just didn't do it for me ... sorry!
In any case this game was played well by White, 17. Nxe5 wasn't so obvious, but in all honesty after that move the game played itself. It's just that I really didn't want to see any of the other games that were littered with gigantic inaccuracies at the end of the game, make in the Game of the Year Contest so I'd rather have a pretty simple one sided crush make it. (1st place: 5 points)
Michael Aigner: Psst, secret advice to Hikaru Nakamura: If you want to win Game of the Week, make sure to play 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5. Of course, your opponent will have pre-moved 2... Nc6 by now. Now play the slick 3. Bc4. Surely Black continues to develop normally with 3... Nf6 and... BINGO! You've won GOTW! (It doesn't matter that Black is an idiot).
There is no question that Esserman is a great player and a worthy attacker. This week, he gave a worthy demonstration of the Nxe5 tactic in the Smith-Morra Gambit. Thanks to Professor Esserman, we all see (once again) why the Black Queen should quickly move off the d-file when attacked by the White Rook.
In fact, neither I nor my silicon companion can find fault with any of White's moves. The game was short, sweet, and decisive. By that measure, Esserman deserved to win GOTW as would the Scholar's Mate example that I suggested (in jest) to Nakamura above. However, there have been so many variants of Nxe5 in history, even a few in my own blitz games (with me as Black). If you play the Smith-Morra Gambit often, you are conditioned to look for Nxe5. But your opponent isn't supposed to make it this easy!
Therefore, I must emphatically disagree with the other four judges. This game was nice; it was my sixth pick and actually tied for fourth with Kelleher and Molner on my rankings. Still, in my very humble opinion, a miniature that demonstrates such little risk or creativity and merely applies a single theme found in books does not deserve GOTW in the face of more complex and creative games like those of Sammour-Hasbun and Gulko. (NR: 0 points)
Total Score of Esserman vs Bartell: 20 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2nd Place: GM Pascal Charbonneau (NY) vs GM Boris Gulko (NJ) 0-1
GM Gulko played the strong 45... Ra8!, drumming up a surprise mating attack against the White King despite the small amount of material on the board.
Jim Dean: This was a fun game containing many positions that I found difficult to evaluate. I thought Gulko came up with a very interesting piece configuration on the Kingside in the first twenty moves and later on White's Knights were giving me a headache. Unfortunately for White, it appears that 55. Nd5! is a cute drawing continuation. It is easy to miss such moves in the heat of the game, however, especially if you get infatuated with a move like 55. Nf5, when the Knight still can't be taken. Overall, a somewhat messy game that an engine will probably play much better than a human, but I thought both players played well under the circumstances. (2nd place: 4 points)
Arun Sharma: As I alluded to above, I was really unsure how to rank this game due to the double error of Black allowing 55. Nd5! and then White not taking advantage of it.
But aside from that, this game was obviously very interesting, many interesting tactics from both sides and was certainly very dramatic given the match situation. Add to that the nice mating attack that Gulko came up with in what seemed destined to be a dry ending compelled me to rank this game highly despite the earlier fact. (2nd place: 4 points)
Michael Aigner: Can we give Gulko his second Game of the Week in a row? The endgame combination starting on move forty five with Ra8, Rf8, Be4, Nh3 and Rf1 was as spectacular as any other this week. Moreover, the pattern was unusual, demonstrating the creativity (or calculation skill) of the veteran GM. Bonus points to Gulko for winning with Black and for carrying his team in the decisive game of a 2.5 - 1.5 match victory. I ranked this game second only because Gulko allowed the swindle 55. Nd5, which (fortunately for him) was overlooked in White's time pressure. (2nd place: 4 points)
Jeff Ashton: Although this game might be remembered more for the endgame (brilliantly played of course), I was attracted to the middlegame. Gulko showed great positional understanding and adaptability in an atypical Kan set-up. Bonus points should be awarded for the fianchettoed Knight. This might be one of the richest middlegames played this season. (4th place: 2 points)
Greg Shahade: I just can't rank a game highly when one side blunders a forced draw right at the end of the game, and the other side misses it. Sure they were in time trouble, but I don't think it's that difficult to see for players of this caliber. I couldn't imagine this game being in the Game of the Year contest with such a relatively obvious double blunder at the very end. It's certainly excusable to miss such a thing, but I just can't give it a high ranking in this case. I almost ranked it around fourth place but just couldn't do it for the above stated reasons. (NR: 0 points)
Total Score of Charbonneau vs Gulko: 14 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3rd Place: SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) vs GM Sergey Kudrin (PHI) 1-0
SM Sammour-Hasbun played the clever 27. a4!, gaining two connected passers in the process which he used to good effect.
Michael Aigner: This was my top game for Week 4. Why is it that nobody seems to like endgames? Fans prefer flashy tactics resulting in gruesome miniatures. Is a twenty five move checkmate really more worthy than a twenty plus move strategical plan in a Rook endgame?
I give credit to Sammour-Hasbun not for being spectacular nor for outplaying his opponent in every phase of the game. Black seemed fine before he sacrificed the d-pawn, but the long term weakness on d5 and the potential of a bad Bishop versus Knight endgame seemed worrisome.
The key position was on move twenty seven. White can win a piece with 27. d6 Re2 28. Nd3 Rxg2 29. d7 Rxh2 30. Ne5 h5 31. d8=Q+ Bxd8 32. Rxd8+ Kh7 33. Kc1 f6 34. Nc6 a6, but Black's three connected passers suddenly are quite fast and scary. Sammour-Hasbun calmly found the right plan. Moves like 27. a4, 29. c5 and 37. Nc3 are as beautiful to me as Knight sacrifices in the Sicilian.
I confess, I am a whacko judge! Too bad there are six more weeks left. ;-) (1st place: 5 points)
Jeff Ashton: This game was very entertaining. Sammour-Hasbun was aggressive early on and showed precise tactical play. His endgame technique in time pressure was the icing on the cake. Nicely done! When Sammour-Hasbun is playing this well, the rest of the league should watch out. Congratulations to Boston for coming out strong this week. (2nd place: 4 points)
Jim Dean: A really clean performace by Sammour-Hasbun as he had little trouble dealing with Kudrin's 18... d5 break. It seems as if White calculated a bit further after the d5 sequence and later evaluated correctly that his connected passed pawns would be too strong if Kudrin captured with 27... bxa4. That said, White was probably doing well no matter how Black responded to 27. a4. Jorge made it look pretty easy after that and cruised to victory. (4th place: 2 points)
Arun Sharma: I could have ranked this game higher as White played very well and solidly throughout, something that could definitely not be said about a couple of the games I ranked higher. But as mentioned, I found the games in question simply too interesting and dramatic not to rank them above this game, even if they weren't quite as clean.
However, I think this game was certainly a reasonable choice for third place since as noted, White played very well in all phases, responding to the 18... d5 break calmly, liquidating with a nice tactic to the Pawn up ending, and then conducting the ending very well, making it look very easy. It's also somewhat surprising, that the winner of such a game would be Sammour-Hasbun, someone who always seems to go for imbalances and outplays people with amazing tactics, yet this game seemed like exactly the opposite kind of victory, just slowly grinding down the opponent. (5th place: 1 point)
Greg Shahade: I don't know, somehow this game just didn't do it for me, what can I say! Jorge played well, but it just didn't touch me at all. Forgive me for being such a downer this week! (NR: 0 points)
Total Score of Sammour-Hasbun vs Kudrin: 12 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Considered Games (judges' scores in parenthesis)
9 points (Jim 3, Arun 3, Michael 3): GM Jesse Kraai (SF) vs FM Florin Felecan (CHC) 1-0
4 points (Greg 4): GM Julio Becerra (MIA) vs GM Jaan Ehlvest (TEN) 1/2-1/2
3 points (Jeff 3): FM Slava Mikhailuk (SEA) vs IM Daniel Ludwig (DAL) 1-0
3 points (Greg 3): NM Yian Liou (SF) vs IM Mehmed Pasalic (CHC) 1-0
3 points (Greg 2, Michael 1): SM Mackenzie Molner (NJ) vs NM Matt Herman (NY) 1-0
2 points (Arun 2): IM Bryan Smith (PHI) vs SM Denys Shmelov (BOS) 1/2-1/2
2 points (Michael 2): Jeff Kelleher (QNS) vs NM Craig Jones (CAR) 1-0
2 points (Jim 1, Jeff 1): NM Leo Martinez (ARZ) vs FM Shinsaku Uesugi (BAL) 0-1
1 point (Greg 1): IM Dmitry Schneider (QNS) vs FM Oleg Zaikov (CAR) 0-1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st Place: SM Marc Esserman (BOS) vs FM Tom Bartell (PHI) 1-0
SM Esserman finished the game with the nice 26. Qxf8+!, forcing a win of decisive material.
Jim Dean: Loved this game. I really like the fact that Esserman shamelessly plays the Smith-Morra Gambit vs 2400+ competition. I think it takes even more guts to do so in team play when your teammates are depending on you. From move seventeen until the finish at move twenty seven White applies constant pressure and finishes in real style. I love that even the "g" pawn participates greatly in potential mating nets at the end if Black doesn't toss his Rook away and go into the lost ending. (1st place: 5 points)
Arun Sharma: This was one of the most unusual weeks for GOTW. There were a ton of very interesting games, but in basically all of them both sides committed a big blunder late which severely marred the game's overall appeal, and whether to rank such games higher than some fairly boring but clean games was as usual a tough and very subjective decision. As you can see based on my second and third place picks, I went with the former.
That being said, I think this game was definitely the best choice for the top game as it was fairly flashy and had one very important attribute that the other very interesting games did not: the victor played very well throughout. Yes Black should have put up more resistance, but White played basically perfectly (ok, other than playing the Smith-Morra!) and ended the game with a cute finish. (1st place: 5 points)
Jeff Ashton: My first pick for the week because:
(a) Simple and sweet
(b) Precise tactical play
(c) Much better than the Week 1 game (ouch)
(d) Daring opening
(e) Fun to watch and re-watch
An easy first place winner in my opinion. I recommend Esserman for corporate sponsorship. (1st place: 5 points)
Greg Shahade: Honestly I felt that Marc's Week 2 game was much better than this one, and that the entire slate of games this week was marred by unfortunate inaccuracies near the end, making it difficult for me to pick them as Game of the Week Winner. I think that in Weeks 2 + 3 this game may not have finished in the top three. I know that the fans can get angry when I am relatively unimpressed by an entire week's worth of games, and I actually voice my opinion, but this week just didn't do it for me ... sorry!
In any case this game was played well by White, 17. Nxe5 wasn't so obvious, but in all honesty after that move the game played itself. It's just that I really didn't want to see any of the other games that were littered with gigantic inaccuracies at the end of the game, make in the Game of the Year Contest so I'd rather have a pretty simple one sided crush make it. (1st place: 5 points)
Michael Aigner: Psst, secret advice to Hikaru Nakamura: If you want to win Game of the Week, make sure to play 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5. Of course, your opponent will have pre-moved 2... Nc6 by now. Now play the slick 3. Bc4. Surely Black continues to develop normally with 3... Nf6 and... BINGO! You've won GOTW! (It doesn't matter that Black is an idiot).
There is no question that Esserman is a great player and a worthy attacker. This week, he gave a worthy demonstration of the Nxe5 tactic in the Smith-Morra Gambit. Thanks to Professor Esserman, we all see (once again) why the Black Queen should quickly move off the d-file when attacked by the White Rook.
In fact, neither I nor my silicon companion can find fault with any of White's moves. The game was short, sweet, and decisive. By that measure, Esserman deserved to win GOTW as would the Scholar's Mate example that I suggested (in jest) to Nakamura above. However, there have been so many variants of Nxe5 in history, even a few in my own blitz games (with me as Black). If you play the Smith-Morra Gambit often, you are conditioned to look for Nxe5. But your opponent isn't supposed to make it this easy!
Therefore, I must emphatically disagree with the other four judges. This game was nice; it was my sixth pick and actually tied for fourth with Kelleher and Molner on my rankings. Still, in my very humble opinion, a miniature that demonstrates such little risk or creativity and merely applies a single theme found in books does not deserve GOTW in the face of more complex and creative games like those of Sammour-Hasbun and Gulko. (NR: 0 points)
Total Score of Esserman vs Bartell: 20 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2nd Place: GM Pascal Charbonneau (NY) vs GM Boris Gulko (NJ) 0-1
GM Gulko played the strong 45... Ra8!, drumming up a surprise mating attack against the White King despite the small amount of material on the board.
Jim Dean: This was a fun game containing many positions that I found difficult to evaluate. I thought Gulko came up with a very interesting piece configuration on the Kingside in the first twenty moves and later on White's Knights were giving me a headache. Unfortunately for White, it appears that 55. Nd5! is a cute drawing continuation. It is easy to miss such moves in the heat of the game, however, especially if you get infatuated with a move like 55. Nf5, when the Knight still can't be taken. Overall, a somewhat messy game that an engine will probably play much better than a human, but I thought both players played well under the circumstances. (2nd place: 4 points)
Arun Sharma: As I alluded to above, I was really unsure how to rank this game due to the double error of Black allowing 55. Nd5! and then White not taking advantage of it.
But aside from that, this game was obviously very interesting, many interesting tactics from both sides and was certainly very dramatic given the match situation. Add to that the nice mating attack that Gulko came up with in what seemed destined to be a dry ending compelled me to rank this game highly despite the earlier fact. (2nd place: 4 points)
Michael Aigner: Can we give Gulko his second Game of the Week in a row? The endgame combination starting on move forty five with Ra8, Rf8, Be4, Nh3 and Rf1 was as spectacular as any other this week. Moreover, the pattern was unusual, demonstrating the creativity (or calculation skill) of the veteran GM. Bonus points to Gulko for winning with Black and for carrying his team in the decisive game of a 2.5 - 1.5 match victory. I ranked this game second only because Gulko allowed the swindle 55. Nd5, which (fortunately for him) was overlooked in White's time pressure. (2nd place: 4 points)
Jeff Ashton: Although this game might be remembered more for the endgame (brilliantly played of course), I was attracted to the middlegame. Gulko showed great positional understanding and adaptability in an atypical Kan set-up. Bonus points should be awarded for the fianchettoed Knight. This might be one of the richest middlegames played this season. (4th place: 2 points)
Greg Shahade: I just can't rank a game highly when one side blunders a forced draw right at the end of the game, and the other side misses it. Sure they were in time trouble, but I don't think it's that difficult to see for players of this caliber. I couldn't imagine this game being in the Game of the Year contest with such a relatively obvious double blunder at the very end. It's certainly excusable to miss such a thing, but I just can't give it a high ranking in this case. I almost ranked it around fourth place but just couldn't do it for the above stated reasons. (NR: 0 points)
Total Score of Charbonneau vs Gulko: 14 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3rd Place: SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) vs GM Sergey Kudrin (PHI) 1-0
SM Sammour-Hasbun played the clever 27. a4!, gaining two connected passers in the process which he used to good effect.
Michael Aigner: This was my top game for Week 4. Why is it that nobody seems to like endgames? Fans prefer flashy tactics resulting in gruesome miniatures. Is a twenty five move checkmate really more worthy than a twenty plus move strategical plan in a Rook endgame?
I give credit to Sammour-Hasbun not for being spectacular nor for outplaying his opponent in every phase of the game. Black seemed fine before he sacrificed the d-pawn, but the long term weakness on d5 and the potential of a bad Bishop versus Knight endgame seemed worrisome.
The key position was on move twenty seven. White can win a piece with 27. d6 Re2 28. Nd3 Rxg2 29. d7 Rxh2 30. Ne5 h5 31. d8=Q+ Bxd8 32. Rxd8+ Kh7 33. Kc1 f6 34. Nc6 a6, but Black's three connected passers suddenly are quite fast and scary. Sammour-Hasbun calmly found the right plan. Moves like 27. a4, 29. c5 and 37. Nc3 are as beautiful to me as Knight sacrifices in the Sicilian.
I confess, I am a whacko judge! Too bad there are six more weeks left. ;-) (1st place: 5 points)
Jeff Ashton: This game was very entertaining. Sammour-Hasbun was aggressive early on and showed precise tactical play. His endgame technique in time pressure was the icing on the cake. Nicely done! When Sammour-Hasbun is playing this well, the rest of the league should watch out. Congratulations to Boston for coming out strong this week. (2nd place: 4 points)
Jim Dean: A really clean performace by Sammour-Hasbun as he had little trouble dealing with Kudrin's 18... d5 break. It seems as if White calculated a bit further after the d5 sequence and later evaluated correctly that his connected passed pawns would be too strong if Kudrin captured with 27... bxa4. That said, White was probably doing well no matter how Black responded to 27. a4. Jorge made it look pretty easy after that and cruised to victory. (4th place: 2 points)
Arun Sharma: I could have ranked this game higher as White played very well and solidly throughout, something that could definitely not be said about a couple of the games I ranked higher. But as mentioned, I found the games in question simply too interesting and dramatic not to rank them above this game, even if they weren't quite as clean.
However, I think this game was certainly a reasonable choice for third place since as noted, White played very well in all phases, responding to the 18... d5 break calmly, liquidating with a nice tactic to the Pawn up ending, and then conducting the ending very well, making it look very easy. It's also somewhat surprising, that the winner of such a game would be Sammour-Hasbun, someone who always seems to go for imbalances and outplays people with amazing tactics, yet this game seemed like exactly the opposite kind of victory, just slowly grinding down the opponent. (5th place: 1 point)
Greg Shahade: I don't know, somehow this game just didn't do it for me, what can I say! Jorge played well, but it just didn't touch me at all. Forgive me for being such a downer this week! (NR: 0 points)
Total Score of Sammour-Hasbun vs Kudrin: 12 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Considered Games (judges' scores in parenthesis)
9 points (Jim 3, Arun 3, Michael 3): GM Jesse Kraai (SF) vs FM Florin Felecan (CHC) 1-0
4 points (Greg 4): GM Julio Becerra (MIA) vs GM Jaan Ehlvest (TEN) 1/2-1/2
3 points (Jeff 3): FM Slava Mikhailuk (SEA) vs IM Daniel Ludwig (DAL) 1-0
3 points (Greg 3): NM Yian Liou (SF) vs IM Mehmed Pasalic (CHC) 1-0
3 points (Greg 2, Michael 1): SM Mackenzie Molner (NJ) vs NM Matt Herman (NY) 1-0
2 points (Arun 2): IM Bryan Smith (PHI) vs SM Denys Shmelov (BOS) 1/2-1/2
2 points (Michael 2): Jeff Kelleher (QNS) vs NM Craig Jones (CAR) 1-0
2 points (Jim 1, Jeff 1): NM Leo Martinez (ARZ) vs FM Shinsaku Uesugi (BAL) 0-1
1 point (Greg 1): IM Dmitry Schneider (QNS) vs FM Oleg Zaikov (CAR) 0-1
Friday, September 18, 2009
Week 3 Game of the Week
This year we have five judges for Game of the Week, each ranking their top five games. The games are then given from one to five points, based on these rankings, and whichever game receives the most total points wins the award. First place each week will receive a $150 bonus prize, second place $75, and third place $50. Our five judges are: IM Greg Shahade, FM Jim Dean, NM Michael Aigner, NM Jeff Ashton, and NM Arun Sharma. Click here for more details.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st Place: GM Boris Gulko (NJ) vs FM Oleg Zaikov (CAR) 1-0
GM Gulko played the strong exchange sacrifice 27. Rxb3!, and utilized it to great effect showcasing the power of the two Bishops.
Greg Shahade: My fellow judges probably breathed easy when seeing that Boston would have no candidates in the GOTW contest this week. I do have to say I must have scored some big points with the Boston crowd last week, picking their games in first, second, and third place! In any case, onto this game...
Gulko finally gets some credit for his impeccable USCL record. This game just struck me as being really clear and simple. Sure White was never clearly winning or anything like that, but the calm way in which Gulko kept sacrificing material was nice. Also, every time I took a look at the position I was like "Oh this should be okay for Black, I'm sure he'll figure out something", but in reality it was quite difficult to play and Gulko did a fantastic job attacking with his two Bishops in the endgame. (1st place: 5 points)
Michael Aigner: This game had something for everyone, from the opening to the endgame. At first, Gulko demonstrated his ability to grind in an English middlegame, highlighted by moves such as 20. e4 and 21. d4. When Black refused to roll over, Gulko channeled Misha with an Exchange sacrifice followed by a Queen sacrifice. I find the position on move thirty five beautiful just because White's Bishops and Pawns leave absolutely no weaknesses for Black to attack. Gulko finishes the game prosaically with 36. e5, allowing his Bishops to hunt the Black King. A well deserving GOTW winner! (1st place: 5 points)
Arun Sharma: Another very nice league effort by Gulko, moving to 4 - 0 in his career using the style that he seems to employ in the league, just getting a small advantage and then grinding his opponent down mercilessly. The thing I liked most about this game was how the position with Rook and two Bishops against Queen and Knight did not really seem at all clear to me as to who was even better, but Gulko won with such ease, using the two Bishops very effectively, overwhelming his Black's defenses without any perceptible mistakes by his opponent. (3rd place: 3 points)
Jim Dean: I'll start by saying once again I thought there were many interesting games this week. Having said that, upon further review of this game I can't say that my omission of this one is fully justified. Though it was by no means easy, I thought Gulko had the chances in this game more or less throughout, and I gave credit to some games that I found more exciting and unclear to my eyes. However, it is clear that Gulko played superbly with the material imbalance and found many accurate moves in succession. As such, his precise play makes him a deserving winner even though I appreciated some other games more. (NR: 0 points)
Jeff Ashton: I am a big fan of Gulko, but this game did not make my Top Five list.
I had a feeling that the imbalanced endgame would make this a top contender. Black enjoyed a nice position for most of the game. After Black's error 30... Rb8, the game is roughly even. After this, although the game is equal, Black has many more opportunities than White to err. This illustrates how being "objectively equal" and "having equal chances of winning" are completely different things.
Black's first critical error is 38... Kg7 and then White finally has a decisive (objectively speaking) advantage. Kg7 is an easy mistake to play as it appears to be logical though. Both players played well this game. (NR: 0 points)
Total Score of Gulko vs Zaikov: 13 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2nd Place: GM Julio Becerra (MIA) vs GM Josh Friedel (SF) 1-0
Despite his material deficit, GM Becerra plunged forward with 29. d4! getting his passed pawns rolling and leaving Black with a very tough defensive task which he was unable to achieve in time pressure.
Jim Dean: I found this game very interesting as Becerra didn't seem to get much from the opening despite being an accomplished Ruy Lopez player. In the early middlegame I felt I preferred Black's position, but then some beautiful Pawn play erupted in the center and on the Queenside and things became very unclear. It seemed that Friedel was handling the complications very well until he declined his opportunity to take one of the dangerous connected passed pawns with 35... Bxd7! After going astray with 35... Ba6, Becerra finished the game off in style with several accurate moves. (1st place: 5 points)
Greg Shahade: A great game that I would have been fine with finishing first place. Okay so it wasn't perfect, and so Black had some defenses but come on it's almost impossible to play so many creative sacrificial moves and have them all work out perfectly. This isn't Rybka versus Deep Blue here! As always, Becerra caused problems for his opponent, and if his opponent played perfectly he would have done well, but it's very hard to play perfectly. (2nd place: 4 points)
Arun Sharma: I was really unsure how to rank this game. Part of me thought it should be ranked lowly if at all, while another part of me thought it should be far and away the winner. The fact that White seemed to be struggling early and that Black erred in time pressure obviously did not warm me to this game.
On the other hand though, imo, this was far and away the most creative/exciting game of the week, and even though White was struggling early on, Becerra played very, very well later on, really putting Friedel to many tough decisions which unsurprisingly he was unable to meet in his time pressure.
In general although this might not be the most natural application of this (White probably didn't intend to go down that material), I tend to respect people who play perhaps somewhat unsound ideas, but really put their opponent on the hot seat forcing them into the tough decisions. In the end this game was just too interesting to not be ranked highly by me. I almost ranked it first, but I instead went with a game, Sammour-Hasbun vs Ludwig (which I'm very surprised was ranked by only one of the other four judges), which was also quite interesting (not as much so though) but was also quite clean. (2nd place: 4 points)
Michael Aigner: Julio Becerra earned second place strictly on his lofty league history or maybe due to the absence of quality games this week. I refuse to give GOTW honors to a game where the loser was doing reasonably well for most of it and should have been up an uncompensated pawn less than ten moves before the end. Becerra would not have won, nor have been a serious candidate for GOTW, if Black had simply found 35... Bxd7 36. cxd7 Ra7 leaving Black up a passed Pawn and a solid position. With the Mechanics up 3 - 0 by now and the bashful youngsters Shankland and Liou partying like chimpanzees, it is understandable that Friedel lost the thread and lost.
Frankly, I found Lee's comeback against Rensch to be more compelling than this choice and ranked it third. Unlike Miami's Board One, Lee never would have been down a clear pawn because he always had lingering pressure against the White central pawns (e.g. Bc7, Rh3 and Nb4-d5). What's more, Lee won with the Black pieces in a game that decided the match, unlike Becerra's win on the short side of a 3 - 1 blowout.
My other GOTW picks went to two attacking wins by Grandmasters against lesser masters (second Benjamin vs Schroer and fourth Ehlvest vs Felecan) and finally fifth to some impressive technique by Kritz vs Kudrin. At least these games were not marred by 'unforced errors' by the opponent, so that the loser could have won (or drawn) on the spot simply by finding a two to three move tactic at the right moment. (NR: 0 points)
Jeff Ashton: This game was very exciting to watch. It was a very complicated tactical battle with errors on both sides. This type of game is very difficult to play in a fast time control setting, so errors naturally happened.
Without taking away anything from White's creative play, Black missed a few critical defensive opportunities. (NR: 0 points)
Total Score of Becerra vs Friedel: 13 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3rd Place: GM Pascal Charbonneau (NY) vs IM Dmitry Schneider (QNS) 1-0
GM Charbonneau opened up the position with the quiet but strong 13. d3! and left Black in a very uncomfortable position which he could not manage to defend.
Jeff Ashton: Although they are roommates, it is nice to know that both players were out for blood. Rumor has it that before this game was played, Schneider ate one of Charbonneau's Hot Pockets without asking. BIG MISTAKE.
This game was extremely tactical and with one imprecise move any side could be on the losing end of a miniature. This type of high risk play is great for chess fans and the USCL. (1st place: 5 points)
Jim Dean: This game was was very well played from White's side and happened to feature an opening that I have a great deal of personal interest in. It turns out that 11... e4 is probably not testing enough and Charbonneau's reply (which is a novelty as far as I can tell) that threatens mate may be as good or better than either of the capturing moves. Black struggles on, but White was able to develop his pieces with ease while creating immense pressure on Black's uncastled King. The final position looks like an absolute disaster for Black, but it is easy to find yourself in such situations when you have a misstep or two with Black in such a sharp opening system. (3rd place: 3 points)
Greg Shahade: I felt there was a steep drop off between my first through third place selections (Gulko vs Zaikov, Becerra vs Friedel, and Sammour-Hasbun vs Ludwig) and this game. First off, as mentioned many times already, Black was 25 minutes late to show up. Also, it wasn't very competitive, there was basically a beginning and an end. My top three selections all had a beginning, an end, and an actual middlegame! Anyway obviously I'm not so shocked that it finished in third place, as I selected it for fourth place, because even though it was quick, there were a lot of accurate and weird moves in quick succession. I'm just trying to explain why I didn't rank it higher. (4th place: 2 points)
Arun Sharma: While this was quite an interesting game (this variation always seems to create interesting action), it seemed that Black got into time pressure very quickly (largely due to being twenty five minutes late), and likely as a result committed two big errors right out of the opening which left him lost immediately (not a surprise in such a sharp opening). On the other hand, White did play really well punishing Black's mistakes appropriately and ending the game very swiftly. For that reason, I think this game was a reasonable choice for third place, even though due to the previous factor, I could not justify ranking it. (NR: 0 points)
Michael Aigner: OK, this is completely nuts! Black arrives twenty five minutes late, then essays a sharp gambit in the Two Knights apparently without knowing the theory (fifteen minutes spent on move seven). I wish my opponents would do that more often!!! Subsequently, White won the game in short order, either because he knew his book or because he was proficient in the tactical style of play common over 100 years ago. By move eighteen, it was all over, and Rybka even saw the inevitable as soon as move fourteen. Maybe this game qualifies for "Opening Goof of the Week", but there's no way I would give it any points for GOTW. (NR: 0 points)
Total Score of Charbonneau vs Schneider: 10 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Considered Games (judges' scores in parenthesis)
10 points (Jeff 4, Jim 4, Michael 2): GM Jaan Ehlvest (TEN) vs FM Florin Felecan (CHC) 1-0
8 points (Arun 5, Greg 3): SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) vs IM Daniel Ludwig (DAL) 0-1
7 points (Michael 4, Jim 2, Jeff 1): IM Jonathan Schroer (CAR) vs GM Joel Benjamin (NJ) 0-1
3 points (Jeff 3): IM Alex Lenderman (PHI) vs GM Larry Kaufman (BAL) 1-0
3 points (Michael 3): FM Daniel Rensch (ARZ) vs FM Michael Lee (SEA) 0-1
3 points (Arun 2, Michael 1): GM Leonid Kritz (BAL) vs GM Sergey Kudrin (PHI) 1-0
2 points (Jeff 2): IM Rogelio Barcenilla (ARZ) vs GM Hikaru Nakamura (SEA) 0-1
1 point (Arun 1): IM Jacek Stopa (DAL) vs GM Larry Christiansen (BOS) 1-0
1 point (Greg 1): GM Jesse Kraai (SF) vs FM Bruci Lopez (MIA) 1-0
1 point (Jim 1): FM Peter Bereolos (TEN) vs IM Mehmed Pasalic (CHC) 0-1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st Place: GM Boris Gulko (NJ) vs FM Oleg Zaikov (CAR) 1-0
GM Gulko played the strong exchange sacrifice 27. Rxb3!, and utilized it to great effect showcasing the power of the two Bishops.
Greg Shahade: My fellow judges probably breathed easy when seeing that Boston would have no candidates in the GOTW contest this week. I do have to say I must have scored some big points with the Boston crowd last week, picking their games in first, second, and third place! In any case, onto this game...
Gulko finally gets some credit for his impeccable USCL record. This game just struck me as being really clear and simple. Sure White was never clearly winning or anything like that, but the calm way in which Gulko kept sacrificing material was nice. Also, every time I took a look at the position I was like "Oh this should be okay for Black, I'm sure he'll figure out something", but in reality it was quite difficult to play and Gulko did a fantastic job attacking with his two Bishops in the endgame. (1st place: 5 points)
Michael Aigner: This game had something for everyone, from the opening to the endgame. At first, Gulko demonstrated his ability to grind in an English middlegame, highlighted by moves such as 20. e4 and 21. d4. When Black refused to roll over, Gulko channeled Misha with an Exchange sacrifice followed by a Queen sacrifice. I find the position on move thirty five beautiful just because White's Bishops and Pawns leave absolutely no weaknesses for Black to attack. Gulko finishes the game prosaically with 36. e5, allowing his Bishops to hunt the Black King. A well deserving GOTW winner! (1st place: 5 points)
Arun Sharma: Another very nice league effort by Gulko, moving to 4 - 0 in his career using the style that he seems to employ in the league, just getting a small advantage and then grinding his opponent down mercilessly. The thing I liked most about this game was how the position with Rook and two Bishops against Queen and Knight did not really seem at all clear to me as to who was even better, but Gulko won with such ease, using the two Bishops very effectively, overwhelming his Black's defenses without any perceptible mistakes by his opponent. (3rd place: 3 points)
Jim Dean: I'll start by saying once again I thought there were many interesting games this week. Having said that, upon further review of this game I can't say that my omission of this one is fully justified. Though it was by no means easy, I thought Gulko had the chances in this game more or less throughout, and I gave credit to some games that I found more exciting and unclear to my eyes. However, it is clear that Gulko played superbly with the material imbalance and found many accurate moves in succession. As such, his precise play makes him a deserving winner even though I appreciated some other games more. (NR: 0 points)
Jeff Ashton: I am a big fan of Gulko, but this game did not make my Top Five list.
I had a feeling that the imbalanced endgame would make this a top contender. Black enjoyed a nice position for most of the game. After Black's error 30... Rb8, the game is roughly even. After this, although the game is equal, Black has many more opportunities than White to err. This illustrates how being "objectively equal" and "having equal chances of winning" are completely different things.
Black's first critical error is 38... Kg7 and then White finally has a decisive (objectively speaking) advantage. Kg7 is an easy mistake to play as it appears to be logical though. Both players played well this game. (NR: 0 points)
Total Score of Gulko vs Zaikov: 13 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2nd Place: GM Julio Becerra (MIA) vs GM Josh Friedel (SF) 1-0
Despite his material deficit, GM Becerra plunged forward with 29. d4! getting his passed pawns rolling and leaving Black with a very tough defensive task which he was unable to achieve in time pressure.
Jim Dean: I found this game very interesting as Becerra didn't seem to get much from the opening despite being an accomplished Ruy Lopez player. In the early middlegame I felt I preferred Black's position, but then some beautiful Pawn play erupted in the center and on the Queenside and things became very unclear. It seemed that Friedel was handling the complications very well until he declined his opportunity to take one of the dangerous connected passed pawns with 35... Bxd7! After going astray with 35... Ba6, Becerra finished the game off in style with several accurate moves. (1st place: 5 points)
Greg Shahade: A great game that I would have been fine with finishing first place. Okay so it wasn't perfect, and so Black had some defenses but come on it's almost impossible to play so many creative sacrificial moves and have them all work out perfectly. This isn't Rybka versus Deep Blue here! As always, Becerra caused problems for his opponent, and if his opponent played perfectly he would have done well, but it's very hard to play perfectly. (2nd place: 4 points)
Arun Sharma: I was really unsure how to rank this game. Part of me thought it should be ranked lowly if at all, while another part of me thought it should be far and away the winner. The fact that White seemed to be struggling early and that Black erred in time pressure obviously did not warm me to this game.
On the other hand though, imo, this was far and away the most creative/exciting game of the week, and even though White was struggling early on, Becerra played very, very well later on, really putting Friedel to many tough decisions which unsurprisingly he was unable to meet in his time pressure.
In general although this might not be the most natural application of this (White probably didn't intend to go down that material), I tend to respect people who play perhaps somewhat unsound ideas, but really put their opponent on the hot seat forcing them into the tough decisions. In the end this game was just too interesting to not be ranked highly by me. I almost ranked it first, but I instead went with a game, Sammour-Hasbun vs Ludwig (which I'm very surprised was ranked by only one of the other four judges), which was also quite interesting (not as much so though) but was also quite clean. (2nd place: 4 points)
Michael Aigner: Julio Becerra earned second place strictly on his lofty league history or maybe due to the absence of quality games this week. I refuse to give GOTW honors to a game where the loser was doing reasonably well for most of it and should have been up an uncompensated pawn less than ten moves before the end. Becerra would not have won, nor have been a serious candidate for GOTW, if Black had simply found 35... Bxd7 36. cxd7 Ra7 leaving Black up a passed Pawn and a solid position. With the Mechanics up 3 - 0 by now and the bashful youngsters Shankland and Liou partying like chimpanzees, it is understandable that Friedel lost the thread and lost.
Frankly, I found Lee's comeback against Rensch to be more compelling than this choice and ranked it third. Unlike Miami's Board One, Lee never would have been down a clear pawn because he always had lingering pressure against the White central pawns (e.g. Bc7, Rh3 and Nb4-d5). What's more, Lee won with the Black pieces in a game that decided the match, unlike Becerra's win on the short side of a 3 - 1 blowout.
My other GOTW picks went to two attacking wins by Grandmasters against lesser masters (second Benjamin vs Schroer and fourth Ehlvest vs Felecan) and finally fifth to some impressive technique by Kritz vs Kudrin. At least these games were not marred by 'unforced errors' by the opponent, so that the loser could have won (or drawn) on the spot simply by finding a two to three move tactic at the right moment. (NR: 0 points)
Jeff Ashton: This game was very exciting to watch. It was a very complicated tactical battle with errors on both sides. This type of game is very difficult to play in a fast time control setting, so errors naturally happened.
Without taking away anything from White's creative play, Black missed a few critical defensive opportunities. (NR: 0 points)
Total Score of Becerra vs Friedel: 13 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3rd Place: GM Pascal Charbonneau (NY) vs IM Dmitry Schneider (QNS) 1-0
GM Charbonneau opened up the position with the quiet but strong 13. d3! and left Black in a very uncomfortable position which he could not manage to defend.
Jeff Ashton: Although they are roommates, it is nice to know that both players were out for blood. Rumor has it that before this game was played, Schneider ate one of Charbonneau's Hot Pockets without asking. BIG MISTAKE.
This game was extremely tactical and with one imprecise move any side could be on the losing end of a miniature. This type of high risk play is great for chess fans and the USCL. (1st place: 5 points)
Jim Dean: This game was was very well played from White's side and happened to feature an opening that I have a great deal of personal interest in. It turns out that 11... e4 is probably not testing enough and Charbonneau's reply (which is a novelty as far as I can tell) that threatens mate may be as good or better than either of the capturing moves. Black struggles on, but White was able to develop his pieces with ease while creating immense pressure on Black's uncastled King. The final position looks like an absolute disaster for Black, but it is easy to find yourself in such situations when you have a misstep or two with Black in such a sharp opening system. (3rd place: 3 points)
Greg Shahade: I felt there was a steep drop off between my first through third place selections (Gulko vs Zaikov, Becerra vs Friedel, and Sammour-Hasbun vs Ludwig) and this game. First off, as mentioned many times already, Black was 25 minutes late to show up. Also, it wasn't very competitive, there was basically a beginning and an end. My top three selections all had a beginning, an end, and an actual middlegame! Anyway obviously I'm not so shocked that it finished in third place, as I selected it for fourth place, because even though it was quick, there were a lot of accurate and weird moves in quick succession. I'm just trying to explain why I didn't rank it higher. (4th place: 2 points)
Arun Sharma: While this was quite an interesting game (this variation always seems to create interesting action), it seemed that Black got into time pressure very quickly (largely due to being twenty five minutes late), and likely as a result committed two big errors right out of the opening which left him lost immediately (not a surprise in such a sharp opening). On the other hand, White did play really well punishing Black's mistakes appropriately and ending the game very swiftly. For that reason, I think this game was a reasonable choice for third place, even though due to the previous factor, I could not justify ranking it. (NR: 0 points)
Michael Aigner: OK, this is completely nuts! Black arrives twenty five minutes late, then essays a sharp gambit in the Two Knights apparently without knowing the theory (fifteen minutes spent on move seven). I wish my opponents would do that more often!!! Subsequently, White won the game in short order, either because he knew his book or because he was proficient in the tactical style of play common over 100 years ago. By move eighteen, it was all over, and Rybka even saw the inevitable as soon as move fourteen. Maybe this game qualifies for "Opening Goof of the Week", but there's no way I would give it any points for GOTW. (NR: 0 points)
Total Score of Charbonneau vs Schneider: 10 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Considered Games (judges' scores in parenthesis)
10 points (Jeff 4, Jim 4, Michael 2): GM Jaan Ehlvest (TEN) vs FM Florin Felecan (CHC) 1-0
8 points (Arun 5, Greg 3): SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) vs IM Daniel Ludwig (DAL) 0-1
7 points (Michael 4, Jim 2, Jeff 1): IM Jonathan Schroer (CAR) vs GM Joel Benjamin (NJ) 0-1
3 points (Jeff 3): IM Alex Lenderman (PHI) vs GM Larry Kaufman (BAL) 1-0
3 points (Michael 3): FM Daniel Rensch (ARZ) vs FM Michael Lee (SEA) 0-1
3 points (Arun 2, Michael 1): GM Leonid Kritz (BAL) vs GM Sergey Kudrin (PHI) 1-0
2 points (Jeff 2): IM Rogelio Barcenilla (ARZ) vs GM Hikaru Nakamura (SEA) 0-1
1 point (Arun 1): IM Jacek Stopa (DAL) vs GM Larry Christiansen (BOS) 1-0
1 point (Greg 1): GM Jesse Kraai (SF) vs FM Bruci Lopez (MIA) 1-0
1 point (Jim 1): FM Peter Bereolos (TEN) vs IM Mehmed Pasalic (CHC) 0-1
Friday, September 11, 2009
Week 2 Game of the Week
This year we have five judges for Game of the Week, each ranking their top five games. The games are then given from one to five points, based on these rankings, and whichever game receives the most total points wins the award. First place each week will receive a $150 bonus prize, second place $75, and third place $50. Our five judges are: IM Greg Shahade, FM Jim Dean, NM Michael Aigner, NM Jeff Ashton, and NM Arun Sharma. Click here for more details.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st Place: GM Josh Friedel (SF) vs IM Marko Zivanic (DAL) 1-0
GM Friedel uncorked the beautiful 18. Nd5+!!, forcing the win of Black's Queen and soon after the game.
Jeff Ashton: Although a lot of this game is theory, it is nice to see someone get crushed for making moves like h5 and Bd6 (with a Pawn on d7). This game was very exciting and simple. Black made one very bad move: 16... Bd4. After that White got to chase Black's King around and capture all of Black's pieces. (1st place: 5 points)
Jim Dean: It almost seemed as if Friedel had prepared this entire game as he handed out a savage beating while just using a little over ten minutes off his clock. It turns out 16... Bd4 is a large blunder as Black cannot avoid the ugly sequence that follows starting with 17. Qh8+. (2nd place: 4 points)
Michael Aigner: After two weeks, Friedel's future opponents stand warned that he has a propensity to sacrifice Knights in the center! What better way to make up for last week's brain slip Nxe6 by promptly tossing away yet another equine?! The resulting game was elegant and spectacular, even if rather one sided and essentially over by move seventeen. Of course, that was not Friedel's fault. Nonetheless, I simply could not give the top ranking to a game that was almost completely previously played in Chessbase (Haker vs Budisin, Germany 1995), even if both players were supposedly unaware of it. (2nd place: 4 points)
Arun Sharma: Great attacking effort by Friedel, spurred by the very nice tactical sequence started with 17. Qh8+. I ranked this game highly mostly since it seemed that White basically played basically perfectly and the exquisiteness of the 18. Nd5+! tactical sequence. I am a bit surprised that it won though as Black did make a rather big mistake (in a probably already worse position) with 16... Bd4?, and for me the two games that I chose to rank higher, I felt the victor won in somewhat similar fashion, without any huge mistakes from their opponent. Nevertheless, I think this was definitely still a very worthy winner, not too dissimilar in form to Friedel's mentor, GM Christiansen's, Sicilian slaughter of Zivanic last year which won Game of the Year. (3rd place: 3 points)
Greg Shahade: I have to admit I'm a bit surprised this game won, given the immense horribleness of Black's 16... Bd4. White's attack after that was actually pretty simple, and I only ranked it so high because of the sheer violence of it (the King running all over the place etc.). I felt that all of the three games I ranked above it involved much more resistance by the opponent, and while Arun compares it to Christiansen vs Zivanic from last season, I think it's much different, as once the attacking sequence begins with 17. Qh8+ and 18. Nd5+, the game is pretty much immediately over and almost anyone rated above 1600 could find the follow up after those relatively simple moves. Again, I tend to like games like this, seeing as I did rank it in fourth place, but it was just a bit too quick and one-sided even for my sometimes barbaric tastes. (4th place: 2 points)
Total Score of Friedel vs Zivanic: 18 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2nd Place: SM Marc Esserman (BOS) vs FM Ron Simpson (CAR) 1-0
SM Esserman tore open Black's position with 13. Rxc6! Qxc6 14. Nxe5, after which the numerous threats against f7, d5, and on the e-file were too much for Black to handle.
Jim Dean: This game had a Paul Morphy-like quality to it. I thought Esserman made a somewhat odd decision with 8. Nc3, but he certainly made it look good. One impressive feature of this game was that it seemed that Simpson didn't do anything horribly wrong or illogical but still wound up with a dreadful position after a long series of accurate moves by White. The final position is very depressing for Black in that there is no answer to the coming 23. Ra1. An excellent way for Esserman to come back after a Week One disaster. (1st place: 5 points)
Greg Shahade: I liked this game a lot better than the actual winner because it's not immediately clear that Black's moves were so horrible. White had to sacrifice the exchange, with the idea of then sacrificing a piece on f7, and it all leads to a pretty cute, yet long forcing variation with wins for White. I also believe that White's winning variation was much harder to see than in Friedel vs Zivanic. In the previous game you can see in like ten seconds that after 17. Nd5+ that the Black King will certainly be destroyed. In this game, it's not totally obvious that White wins instantly after 15. Nxf7, leaving himself down an entire rook. (1st place: 5 points)
Arun Sharma: Very impressive game by Esserman, sacrificing a Pawn for a powerful initiative right out of the opening and then utilizing it to brutal effect, essentially ending the game on move thirteen without any huge mistakes from his opponent. Simpson put up a valiant defensive effort afterward, but Esserman played the attack with great precision, allowing no opportunity for escape. (2nd place: 4 points)
Jeff Ashton: I'm not going to make any comments about White making up for last week's embarrassing episode against Mr. Zaremba or discuss things like "redemption". But ouch, it hurts to think about that game.
I will say that White played perfectly this game. The more I think about it, it doesn't make sense that this game should be ranked lower than Friedel vs. Zivanic. Unfortunately, we don't give out ties. Maybe 18. Nd5+ is more fun to watch than 13. Rxc6 and 15. Nxf7 ideas. I do know that both games followed a similar pattern:
1. White applies pressure
2. Black defends improperly
3. White attacks perfectly to win
Let games one and two be a reminder to all scholastic players out there: Castle to avoid a hassle! (NR: 0 points)
Michael Aigner: The lack of clear candidates for the brilliancy prize left me with a logjam of four games for fourth to seventh place in my rankings. Esserman's Fried Liver Attack in an obscure open Ruy Lopez line featured a nice double sacrifice, first on c6 and then on f7. However, neither move was profound or hard to find, unless perhaps my fellow judges never studied the Fried Liver line of the Two Knights Defense. I even ranked Esserman's teammate Krasik's game slightly higher, not because Krasik's game was objectively better, but rather his counterattack from an inferior opening was far more instructive to watch and required more than just two tactics at the end to win. (NR: 0 points)
Total Score of Esserman vs Simpson: 14 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3rd Place: GM Jaan Ehlvest (TEN) vs GM Alejandro Ramirez (ARZ) 1-0
GM Ehlvest played the quiet but strong 38. Be2+!!, trumping Black's valiant save attempt of 37... Qxc2, to which there was no defense.
Arun Sharma: I must say that I was rather surprised that this game got relatively little love from the other judges, but I'm glad that it still managed to squeak onto the medal platform as I definitely think it was deserving of that in the least. It seemed like Ehlvest played a very, very good game throughout, building up his small advantage very effectively, allowing Black no real counterplay and then finishing the game with a nice tactical sequence. (1st place: 5 points)
Jim Dean: While I watched this game I kept thinking ... Ehlvest is really, really good. He builds a nice advantage with a Maroczy Bind structure and just keeps improving his position. He made it look easy versus a very strong player and fellow GM. (4th place: 2 points)
Jeff Ashton: It is very depressing to lose games like this. Black "had no legal moves" this game. It seems that Black didn't do anything horribly wrong. 27... Qc8 was kind of weak and 33... Bf6 could have been improved on, but it is very difficult to play Black in this game.
And let this game be a reminder to all scholastic players out there: Don't play the Black side of a Maroczy Bind formation when you are playing a strong Grandmaster, and if you do, ideas such as a5-a4 aren't as cool as they look! (4th place: 2 points)
Greg Shahade: I had this game in sixth place. Probably I could have ranked it a bit higher, but I wanted to give some love to some fourth board games. Ehlvest made it look really easy, kind of just slowly strengthening his position and then going for the kill when the moment arose. I just wasn't particularly inspired by any of it. It was certainly an impressive display, but the final sequence seemed pretty obvious and the rest of the game was just a slow build up. One thing that's for sure: Ehlvest is good at chess, especially in the USCL. (NR: 0 points)
Michael Aigner: I was also somewhat surprised to see this game ranked so highly by my fellow judges. I thought Black was holding on in a slightly worse opposite color bishop middlegame when he unwisely abandoned his Kingside with 31... Qa6 and 32... Qa4. The subsequent 33. f4-f5 break is hardly a surprise, and almost immediately Black is dead lost. If anything, this game was only a demonstration of Ehlvest milking a position until his opponent cracked. (NR: 0 points)
Total Score of Ehlvest vs Ramirez: 9 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Considered Games (judges' scores in parenthesis)
9 points (Jeff 4, Greg 3, Arun 2): GM Eugene Perelshteyn (BOS) vs IM Jonathan Schroer (CAR) 1-0
6 points (Michael 5, Jeff 1): GM Pascal Charbonneau (NY) vs GM Gregory Serper (SEA) 1-0
6 points (Greg 4, Michael 2): NM Craig Jones (CAR) vs NM Ilya Krasik (BOS) 0-1
4 points (Jim 3, Arun 1): FM Bruci Lopez (MIA) vs IM Jan van de Mortel (CHC) 1-0
3 points (Jeff 3): FM Andrei Zaremba (QNS) vs FM Shinsaku Uesugi (BAL) 1-0
3 points (Michael 3): GM Nikola Mitkov (CHC) vs GM Julio Becerra (MIA) 0-1
1 point (Jim 1): Rahul Swaminathan (PHI) vs Anna Matlin (NJ) 0-1
1 point (Greg 1): Miguel Recio (MIA) vs Trevor Magness (CHC) 1-0
1 point (Michael 1): IM Levon Altounian (ARZ) vs IM Ron Burnett (TEN) 1/2-1/2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st Place: GM Josh Friedel (SF) vs IM Marko Zivanic (DAL) 1-0
GM Friedel uncorked the beautiful 18. Nd5+!!, forcing the win of Black's Queen and soon after the game.
Jeff Ashton: Although a lot of this game is theory, it is nice to see someone get crushed for making moves like h5 and Bd6 (with a Pawn on d7). This game was very exciting and simple. Black made one very bad move: 16... Bd4. After that White got to chase Black's King around and capture all of Black's pieces. (1st place: 5 points)
Jim Dean: It almost seemed as if Friedel had prepared this entire game as he handed out a savage beating while just using a little over ten minutes off his clock. It turns out 16... Bd4 is a large blunder as Black cannot avoid the ugly sequence that follows starting with 17. Qh8+. (2nd place: 4 points)
Michael Aigner: After two weeks, Friedel's future opponents stand warned that he has a propensity to sacrifice Knights in the center! What better way to make up for last week's brain slip Nxe6 by promptly tossing away yet another equine?! The resulting game was elegant and spectacular, even if rather one sided and essentially over by move seventeen. Of course, that was not Friedel's fault. Nonetheless, I simply could not give the top ranking to a game that was almost completely previously played in Chessbase (Haker vs Budisin, Germany 1995), even if both players were supposedly unaware of it. (2nd place: 4 points)
Arun Sharma: Great attacking effort by Friedel, spurred by the very nice tactical sequence started with 17. Qh8+. I ranked this game highly mostly since it seemed that White basically played basically perfectly and the exquisiteness of the 18. Nd5+! tactical sequence. I am a bit surprised that it won though as Black did make a rather big mistake (in a probably already worse position) with 16... Bd4?, and for me the two games that I chose to rank higher, I felt the victor won in somewhat similar fashion, without any huge mistakes from their opponent. Nevertheless, I think this was definitely still a very worthy winner, not too dissimilar in form to Friedel's mentor, GM Christiansen's, Sicilian slaughter of Zivanic last year which won Game of the Year. (3rd place: 3 points)
Greg Shahade: I have to admit I'm a bit surprised this game won, given the immense horribleness of Black's 16... Bd4. White's attack after that was actually pretty simple, and I only ranked it so high because of the sheer violence of it (the King running all over the place etc.). I felt that all of the three games I ranked above it involved much more resistance by the opponent, and while Arun compares it to Christiansen vs Zivanic from last season, I think it's much different, as once the attacking sequence begins with 17. Qh8+ and 18. Nd5+, the game is pretty much immediately over and almost anyone rated above 1600 could find the follow up after those relatively simple moves. Again, I tend to like games like this, seeing as I did rank it in fourth place, but it was just a bit too quick and one-sided even for my sometimes barbaric tastes. (4th place: 2 points)
Total Score of Friedel vs Zivanic: 18 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2nd Place: SM Marc Esserman (BOS) vs FM Ron Simpson (CAR) 1-0
SM Esserman tore open Black's position with 13. Rxc6! Qxc6 14. Nxe5, after which the numerous threats against f7, d5, and on the e-file were too much for Black to handle.
Jim Dean: This game had a Paul Morphy-like quality to it. I thought Esserman made a somewhat odd decision with 8. Nc3, but he certainly made it look good. One impressive feature of this game was that it seemed that Simpson didn't do anything horribly wrong or illogical but still wound up with a dreadful position after a long series of accurate moves by White. The final position is very depressing for Black in that there is no answer to the coming 23. Ra1. An excellent way for Esserman to come back after a Week One disaster. (1st place: 5 points)
Greg Shahade: I liked this game a lot better than the actual winner because it's not immediately clear that Black's moves were so horrible. White had to sacrifice the exchange, with the idea of then sacrificing a piece on f7, and it all leads to a pretty cute, yet long forcing variation with wins for White. I also believe that White's winning variation was much harder to see than in Friedel vs Zivanic. In the previous game you can see in like ten seconds that after 17. Nd5+ that the Black King will certainly be destroyed. In this game, it's not totally obvious that White wins instantly after 15. Nxf7, leaving himself down an entire rook. (1st place: 5 points)
Arun Sharma: Very impressive game by Esserman, sacrificing a Pawn for a powerful initiative right out of the opening and then utilizing it to brutal effect, essentially ending the game on move thirteen without any huge mistakes from his opponent. Simpson put up a valiant defensive effort afterward, but Esserman played the attack with great precision, allowing no opportunity for escape. (2nd place: 4 points)
Jeff Ashton: I'm not going to make any comments about White making up for last week's embarrassing episode against Mr. Zaremba or discuss things like "redemption". But ouch, it hurts to think about that game.
I will say that White played perfectly this game. The more I think about it, it doesn't make sense that this game should be ranked lower than Friedel vs. Zivanic. Unfortunately, we don't give out ties. Maybe 18. Nd5+ is more fun to watch than 13. Rxc6 and 15. Nxf7 ideas. I do know that both games followed a similar pattern:
1. White applies pressure
2. Black defends improperly
3. White attacks perfectly to win
Let games one and two be a reminder to all scholastic players out there: Castle to avoid a hassle! (NR: 0 points)
Michael Aigner: The lack of clear candidates for the brilliancy prize left me with a logjam of four games for fourth to seventh place in my rankings. Esserman's Fried Liver Attack in an obscure open Ruy Lopez line featured a nice double sacrifice, first on c6 and then on f7. However, neither move was profound or hard to find, unless perhaps my fellow judges never studied the Fried Liver line of the Two Knights Defense. I even ranked Esserman's teammate Krasik's game slightly higher, not because Krasik's game was objectively better, but rather his counterattack from an inferior opening was far more instructive to watch and required more than just two tactics at the end to win. (NR: 0 points)
Total Score of Esserman vs Simpson: 14 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3rd Place: GM Jaan Ehlvest (TEN) vs GM Alejandro Ramirez (ARZ) 1-0
GM Ehlvest played the quiet but strong 38. Be2+!!, trumping Black's valiant save attempt of 37... Qxc2, to which there was no defense.
Arun Sharma: I must say that I was rather surprised that this game got relatively little love from the other judges, but I'm glad that it still managed to squeak onto the medal platform as I definitely think it was deserving of that in the least. It seemed like Ehlvest played a very, very good game throughout, building up his small advantage very effectively, allowing Black no real counterplay and then finishing the game with a nice tactical sequence. (1st place: 5 points)
Jim Dean: While I watched this game I kept thinking ... Ehlvest is really, really good. He builds a nice advantage with a Maroczy Bind structure and just keeps improving his position. He made it look easy versus a very strong player and fellow GM. (4th place: 2 points)
Jeff Ashton: It is very depressing to lose games like this. Black "had no legal moves" this game. It seems that Black didn't do anything horribly wrong. 27... Qc8 was kind of weak and 33... Bf6 could have been improved on, but it is very difficult to play Black in this game.
And let this game be a reminder to all scholastic players out there: Don't play the Black side of a Maroczy Bind formation when you are playing a strong Grandmaster, and if you do, ideas such as a5-a4 aren't as cool as they look! (4th place: 2 points)
Greg Shahade: I had this game in sixth place. Probably I could have ranked it a bit higher, but I wanted to give some love to some fourth board games. Ehlvest made it look really easy, kind of just slowly strengthening his position and then going for the kill when the moment arose. I just wasn't particularly inspired by any of it. It was certainly an impressive display, but the final sequence seemed pretty obvious and the rest of the game was just a slow build up. One thing that's for sure: Ehlvest is good at chess, especially in the USCL. (NR: 0 points)
Michael Aigner: I was also somewhat surprised to see this game ranked so highly by my fellow judges. I thought Black was holding on in a slightly worse opposite color bishop middlegame when he unwisely abandoned his Kingside with 31... Qa6 and 32... Qa4. The subsequent 33. f4-f5 break is hardly a surprise, and almost immediately Black is dead lost. If anything, this game was only a demonstration of Ehlvest milking a position until his opponent cracked. (NR: 0 points)
Total Score of Ehlvest vs Ramirez: 9 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Considered Games (judges' scores in parenthesis)
9 points (Jeff 4, Greg 3, Arun 2): GM Eugene Perelshteyn (BOS) vs IM Jonathan Schroer (CAR) 1-0
6 points (Michael 5, Jeff 1): GM Pascal Charbonneau (NY) vs GM Gregory Serper (SEA) 1-0
6 points (Greg 4, Michael 2): NM Craig Jones (CAR) vs NM Ilya Krasik (BOS) 0-1
4 points (Jim 3, Arun 1): FM Bruci Lopez (MIA) vs IM Jan van de Mortel (CHC) 1-0
3 points (Jeff 3): FM Andrei Zaremba (QNS) vs FM Shinsaku Uesugi (BAL) 1-0
3 points (Michael 3): GM Nikola Mitkov (CHC) vs GM Julio Becerra (MIA) 0-1
1 point (Jim 1): Rahul Swaminathan (PHI) vs Anna Matlin (NJ) 0-1
1 point (Greg 1): Miguel Recio (MIA) vs Trevor Magness (CHC) 1-0
1 point (Michael 1): IM Levon Altounian (ARZ) vs IM Ron Burnett (TEN) 1/2-1/2
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Jeff Ashton explains his GOTW judging methods
I'm too indecisive, and this took too long, but I think I have a good judging system down that IS PROVEN BY SCIENCE!
Overall I was looking for two things:
(a) Makes people like chess more. i.e. entertaining attack or creative play
(b) Good quality game (not too idiotic). Basically provides a cool "luckometer" trend analysis/Rybka infinite analysis tests.
Step 1
Intuitive Rough Draft: Made a quick "feeling" order. Ranked them without too much thought. Malcolm Gladwell "Blink" style.
Step 2
Used my super scientific simulations (PROVEN BY SCIENCE) and basically paired off games against other games using Swiss System. If they were roughly equally interesting, I'd give it a draw. Note, this is how I pick where I go to vacation and stuff. Usually this ends up matching my intuitive rough draft somewhat but kind of ends up in a tie in third place usually.
Note: I do use ONE "Wild-card" trick that makes this simulation slightly more randomized. I can explain more later if necessary. This is so all the people who are trying to CRACK MY CODE (scientifically proven formula) will not be able to.
Step 3
Run them with Rybka 3 and look at the cool "luckometer" evaluation profile graphs. Pretty graphs = cool
Step 4
Go back and think about my criteria again. Was it fun? Do I like chess more? What would Joe McDumbDumb think about this game? What would Boris McGoodPlayer think?
Step 5
Usually end up going with pretty much my intuitive feeling and realizing some games that I thought were good, were actually kind of boring and lame.
Step 6
Mess with the "sort" order of the database so it matches my rankings somewhat.
Luckometer graphs for my top six games from Week 1:
Ippolito vs Charbonneau
Zaremba vs Esserman
Perelshteyn vs Vovsha
Ramirez vs Mitkov
Kudrin vs Shabalov
Becerra vs Bartholomew
Please give me your feedback on my methods!
Friday, September 4, 2009
Week 1 Game of the Week
This year we have five judges for Game of the Week, each ranking their top five games. The games are then given from one to five points, based on these rankings, and whichever game receives the most total points wins the award. First place each week will receive a $150 bonus prize, second place $75, and third place $50. Our five judges are: IM Greg Shahade, FM Jim Dean, NM Michael Aigner, NM Jeff Ashton, and NM Arun Sharma. Click here for more details.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st Place: IM Dean Ippolito (NJ) vs GM Pascal Charbonneau (NY) 1-0
With the match tied at 1.5 and having only a couple of minutes left on his clock, IM Ippolito managed to win this famous endgame and help score a big match win for his team.
Jeff Ashton: Dean Ippolito, a renowned chess trainer, asked me a few hours before this game if I could recommend any good material on checkmating with two Knights against a King and Pawn. Apparently he wanted to show some examples to his students. I told him "No, you'll just have to create your own teaching material", and it seems he took my advice literally.
Ok, I wish that story were true, but alas it is not.
This game was good. Dean does what he does best; play solidly and squeeze (sometimes bore) his opponent to death. Dean is very strong and experienced in these Fianchetto set-ups. Also, Rybka 3 (with no tablebase) has a worse understanding of this specific endgame than Dean.
Even if the game did not end with a "fun" finish it would have been a top nominee. The fact that he checkmated with only two Knights against King and Pawn (in time pressure) sealed the deal. (1st place: 5 points)
Arun Sharma: Nice grind by Ippolito and a fairly clean game by both sides. The middle game both sides seemed to play well with White seeming to nurse a small edge for the majority of the game which he took into the ending. The ending I really was not as sure about - it seemed like White should have been able to win more convincingly as Black had very real drawing chances for much of it, but then probably made it a bit too easy for White to convert by going into the two Knights vs Pawn ending. However, considering the low amount of time, obviously some minor mistakes had to be expected, and the finish of the endgame was obviously nice especially considering the fast pace it had to be played at. A strong win by Ippolito to help start the Knockouts off on the right foot. (2nd place: 4 points)
Jim Dean: This was a really well played game by White which featured the rare two Knights vs. Pawn ending. I really have only seen this ending show up once before in a "serious" game. (2nd place: 4 points)
Greg Shahade: A tough game to decide upon. It certainly wasn't the most exciting game for the first forty moves or so, with Ippolito trying to squeeze the former MVP. Also, it's quite probable that Charbonneau had better defensive chances, even at the very end (before sacking the Bishop on e5). However, this game decided the match result, Ippolito played quite well, and it's very rare that you get to see a mate with only two Knights, even if it's a relatively simple one so I think this game was a deserving winner. Ironically, I believe that the second place GOTW winner, FM Andrei Zaremba, is the only player that I personally know to have been on the wrong side of this type of endgame before (against IM Sarkar in a US Cadet Championship a long time ago). (2nd place: 4 points)
Michael Aigner: No doubt my fellow judges were impressed by the rare two Knights versus Pawn endgame, which was nicely executed. However, I ranked this third behind the more spectacular games by Shabalov and Zaremba. A solid middlegame leading to an instructive endgame would indeed be GOTW material, but it is not clear to me whether this minor piece ending was really winning. For example, 47... Nd8 leaves White's last two Pawns on the color of Black's Bishop with a Knight blockade in place (Black's King might then go to h7 and g6). (3rd place: 3 points)
Total Score of Ippolito vs Charbonneau: 20 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2nd Place: FM Andrei Zaremba (QNS) vs SM Marc Esserman (BOS) 1-0
Having been building up a strong attack for many moves, FM Zaremba crashed through Black's position with the nice 28. Rxa7+! and soon afterward scored a nice victory.
Greg Shahade: Whenever I'm not extremely inspired by the choices for Game of the Week, I tend to by default just choose the most violent game. Zaremba played very well and had a few simple but nice tactical tricks to deal Esserman his first loss of his USCL career. (1st place: 5 points)
Jeff Ashton: Black is a very strong player, and he got absolutely annihilated. White attacked with great precision and not a single tactic was overlooked. I personally suspect that Zaremba got lucky on some of his tactics, but if so he should never admit it (but seriously Andrei, you know you were scared when he played 33... Bf7, and you luck-boxed your way into mate in three).
The game was simple and enjoyable to watch. This game is exciting and educational to players of all levels. Black's best plan for most of the game was to wait, move his pieces back and forth and pray that White blunders. The interesting thing is that Black didn't do anything that was obviously bad. Did he really deserve such punishment? (2nd place: 4 points)
Michael Aigner: As a Dutch player myself, I can only congratulate Andrei Zaremba on successfully executing a spectacular attack. Whether home preparation or inspiration matters not; it was instructive to watch! Sadly, Black's resistance ended way too soon and by move twenty it was already over. We can only speculate what would have happened if Black had hesitated with castling and continued with 9... g5 10. O-O Ng6 11. Na4 h5. (2nd place: 4 points)
Arun Sharma: Nice, strong play from Zaremba throughout, building his attack up well, and then carrying it out with some nice tactics, in particular the game ending combination. In many cases, I might have ranked a game of this style higher than the two games I ended up ranking ahead of it, due in large part to the nice tactics (something those two games couldn't really match this one in). However, the stage at which the flashy moves occurred just seemed too easy for White, having so many ways to win as Black never seemed to develop any real counter play, and in the two games I chose to rank higher, it seemed that the winner had to work much harder for the victory. (3rd place: 3 points)
Jim Dean: This was a nice attacking game by Zaremba that had a cute finish. I didn't rank this game quite as highly as it finished because I thought it was a bit one-sided and Esserman's play in general was uncharacteristic as he generated virtually no offense. Still, no fault of Zaremba's as he played his attack very well. (4th place: 2 points)
Total Score of Zaremba vs Esserman: 18 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3rd Place: GM Sergey Kudrin (PHI) vs GM Alex Shabalov (TEN) 0-1
GM Shabalov cleverly shied away from what seemed destined to be a promotion race with 60... Rh8! and caught his opponent in a surprise mating attack.
Jim Dean: In this game I thought Shabalov made a brave opening choice as Kudrin always seems to be well prepared with his White openings, and playing the Dragon certainly doesn't avoid theoretical pathways. Shabalov played the game in a very scrappy and uncompromising way throughout and most importantly earned the crucial victory for his new team in what may have been the biggest win in Tennessee Tempo history!?!? (1st place: 5 points)
Michael Aigner: People looking for a quick knockout instead were treated to a heavyweight brawl that went the distance. After driving all the way to Tennessee and with the other boards tied 1.5 - 1.5, Shabalov wanted to get his money's worth. Both players had chances in the endgame, but Kudrin was low on time. At the end, Shabalov instructively demonstrated how connected central passers, supported by a King, are far superior to flank passers. The checkmate finale was simply the act to a wild game, which was my top choice for Game of the Week. (1st place: 5 points)
Jeff Ashton: Shabalov is simply good at finding ways to win though this was not a typical Shabalov attacking display that the world has learned to love. The audience gets to see Shabalov's defensive skills as well as his strong endgame ability.
Tennessee might be the most underrated team in the league. Also, Tennessee might be the most underrated state in the US. Sports, economy, clean air, health insurance, nice people, etc. For more information visit: http://www.state.tn.us (5th place: 1 point)
Arun Sharma: When I first thought about what my GOTW choices were going to be this week, this game was definitely at the top of my list given how dramatic it was, its importance to the match situation, and the nice fighting spirit showed in what I assumed would be a short draw in the endgame. However, despite those attributes, it did also seem that the endgame play was rather sloppy at several junctures (not surprising considering the extreme time pressure on both sides), and in the end, I ended up giving my highest rankings to a couple of games both of which seemed cleaner on the whole, albeit less exciting. In any case, nice win and fight by Shabalov to put Tennessee in the unfamiliar spot of having started the season off on the right foot which I'm sure they're hoping will blossom into something bigger. (5th place: 1 point)
Greg Shahade: I didn't rank this game for a few reasons. First, I thought the opening was pretty boring, and secondly I thought the endgame was relatively sloppy from both sides. I remember watching when Black played the strange 49... Bf3, allowing White to defend with 51. Ra1, and suddenly things became much tougher for Black, where instead it seemed that Black would have won pretty easily if he just played the natural 49... Rxb5. There were just too many evaluation changing mistakes for me and the bulk of the game wasn't exciting enough. The only things that it had going for it, in my view, was that it decided the match and the name recognition of the players. (NR: 0 points)
Total Score of Kudrin vs Shabalov: 12 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Considered Games (judges' scores in parenthesis)
9 points (Arun 5, Jeff 3, Michael 1): GM Eugene Perelshteyn (BOS) vs IM Eli Vovsha (QNS) 1-0
6 points (Jim 3, Greg 3): IM Eric Tangborn (SEA) vs IM David Pruess (SF) 0-1
4 points (Jeff 2, Michael 2): GM Alejandro Ramirez (ARZ) vs GM Nikola Mitkov (CHC) 1-0
2 points (Arun 2): FM Robby Adamson (ARZ) vs IM Mehmed Pasalic (CHC) 1-0
2 points (Greg 2): GM Julio Becerra (MIA) vs IM John Bartholomew (DAL) 1-0
1 point (Jim 1): IM Daniel Ludwig (DAL) vs FM Bruci Lopez (MIA) 0-1
1 point (Greg 1): FM Ron Simpson (CAR) vs GM Larry Kaufman (BAL) 0-1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st Place: IM Dean Ippolito (NJ) vs GM Pascal Charbonneau (NY) 1-0
With the match tied at 1.5 and having only a couple of minutes left on his clock, IM Ippolito managed to win this famous endgame and help score a big match win for his team.
Jeff Ashton: Dean Ippolito, a renowned chess trainer, asked me a few hours before this game if I could recommend any good material on checkmating with two Knights against a King and Pawn. Apparently he wanted to show some examples to his students. I told him "No, you'll just have to create your own teaching material", and it seems he took my advice literally.
Ok, I wish that story were true, but alas it is not.
This game was good. Dean does what he does best; play solidly and squeeze (sometimes bore) his opponent to death. Dean is very strong and experienced in these Fianchetto set-ups. Also, Rybka 3 (with no tablebase) has a worse understanding of this specific endgame than Dean.
Even if the game did not end with a "fun" finish it would have been a top nominee. The fact that he checkmated with only two Knights against King and Pawn (in time pressure) sealed the deal. (1st place: 5 points)
Arun Sharma: Nice grind by Ippolito and a fairly clean game by both sides. The middle game both sides seemed to play well with White seeming to nurse a small edge for the majority of the game which he took into the ending. The ending I really was not as sure about - it seemed like White should have been able to win more convincingly as Black had very real drawing chances for much of it, but then probably made it a bit too easy for White to convert by going into the two Knights vs Pawn ending. However, considering the low amount of time, obviously some minor mistakes had to be expected, and the finish of the endgame was obviously nice especially considering the fast pace it had to be played at. A strong win by Ippolito to help start the Knockouts off on the right foot. (2nd place: 4 points)
Jim Dean: This was a really well played game by White which featured the rare two Knights vs. Pawn ending. I really have only seen this ending show up once before in a "serious" game. (2nd place: 4 points)
Greg Shahade: A tough game to decide upon. It certainly wasn't the most exciting game for the first forty moves or so, with Ippolito trying to squeeze the former MVP. Also, it's quite probable that Charbonneau had better defensive chances, even at the very end (before sacking the Bishop on e5). However, this game decided the match result, Ippolito played quite well, and it's very rare that you get to see a mate with only two Knights, even if it's a relatively simple one so I think this game was a deserving winner. Ironically, I believe that the second place GOTW winner, FM Andrei Zaremba, is the only player that I personally know to have been on the wrong side of this type of endgame before (against IM Sarkar in a US Cadet Championship a long time ago). (2nd place: 4 points)
Michael Aigner: No doubt my fellow judges were impressed by the rare two Knights versus Pawn endgame, which was nicely executed. However, I ranked this third behind the more spectacular games by Shabalov and Zaremba. A solid middlegame leading to an instructive endgame would indeed be GOTW material, but it is not clear to me whether this minor piece ending was really winning. For example, 47... Nd8 leaves White's last two Pawns on the color of Black's Bishop with a Knight blockade in place (Black's King might then go to h7 and g6). (3rd place: 3 points)
Total Score of Ippolito vs Charbonneau: 20 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2nd Place: FM Andrei Zaremba (QNS) vs SM Marc Esserman (BOS) 1-0
Having been building up a strong attack for many moves, FM Zaremba crashed through Black's position with the nice 28. Rxa7+! and soon afterward scored a nice victory.
Greg Shahade: Whenever I'm not extremely inspired by the choices for Game of the Week, I tend to by default just choose the most violent game. Zaremba played very well and had a few simple but nice tactical tricks to deal Esserman his first loss of his USCL career. (1st place: 5 points)
Jeff Ashton: Black is a very strong player, and he got absolutely annihilated. White attacked with great precision and not a single tactic was overlooked. I personally suspect that Zaremba got lucky on some of his tactics, but if so he should never admit it (but seriously Andrei, you know you were scared when he played 33... Bf7, and you luck-boxed your way into mate in three).
The game was simple and enjoyable to watch. This game is exciting and educational to players of all levels. Black's best plan for most of the game was to wait, move his pieces back and forth and pray that White blunders. The interesting thing is that Black didn't do anything that was obviously bad. Did he really deserve such punishment? (2nd place: 4 points)
Michael Aigner: As a Dutch player myself, I can only congratulate Andrei Zaremba on successfully executing a spectacular attack. Whether home preparation or inspiration matters not; it was instructive to watch! Sadly, Black's resistance ended way too soon and by move twenty it was already over. We can only speculate what would have happened if Black had hesitated with castling and continued with 9... g5 10. O-O Ng6 11. Na4 h5. (2nd place: 4 points)
Arun Sharma: Nice, strong play from Zaremba throughout, building his attack up well, and then carrying it out with some nice tactics, in particular the game ending combination. In many cases, I might have ranked a game of this style higher than the two games I ended up ranking ahead of it, due in large part to the nice tactics (something those two games couldn't really match this one in). However, the stage at which the flashy moves occurred just seemed too easy for White, having so many ways to win as Black never seemed to develop any real counter play, and in the two games I chose to rank higher, it seemed that the winner had to work much harder for the victory. (3rd place: 3 points)
Jim Dean: This was a nice attacking game by Zaremba that had a cute finish. I didn't rank this game quite as highly as it finished because I thought it was a bit one-sided and Esserman's play in general was uncharacteristic as he generated virtually no offense. Still, no fault of Zaremba's as he played his attack very well. (4th place: 2 points)
Total Score of Zaremba vs Esserman: 18 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3rd Place: GM Sergey Kudrin (PHI) vs GM Alex Shabalov (TEN) 0-1
GM Shabalov cleverly shied away from what seemed destined to be a promotion race with 60... Rh8! and caught his opponent in a surprise mating attack.
Jim Dean: In this game I thought Shabalov made a brave opening choice as Kudrin always seems to be well prepared with his White openings, and playing the Dragon certainly doesn't avoid theoretical pathways. Shabalov played the game in a very scrappy and uncompromising way throughout and most importantly earned the crucial victory for his new team in what may have been the biggest win in Tennessee Tempo history!?!? (1st place: 5 points)
Michael Aigner: People looking for a quick knockout instead were treated to a heavyweight brawl that went the distance. After driving all the way to Tennessee and with the other boards tied 1.5 - 1.5, Shabalov wanted to get his money's worth. Both players had chances in the endgame, but Kudrin was low on time. At the end, Shabalov instructively demonstrated how connected central passers, supported by a King, are far superior to flank passers. The checkmate finale was simply the act to a wild game, which was my top choice for Game of the Week. (1st place: 5 points)
Jeff Ashton: Shabalov is simply good at finding ways to win though this was not a typical Shabalov attacking display that the world has learned to love. The audience gets to see Shabalov's defensive skills as well as his strong endgame ability.
Tennessee might be the most underrated team in the league. Also, Tennessee might be the most underrated state in the US. Sports, economy, clean air, health insurance, nice people, etc. For more information visit: http://www.state.tn.us (5th place: 1 point)
Arun Sharma: When I first thought about what my GOTW choices were going to be this week, this game was definitely at the top of my list given how dramatic it was, its importance to the match situation, and the nice fighting spirit showed in what I assumed would be a short draw in the endgame. However, despite those attributes, it did also seem that the endgame play was rather sloppy at several junctures (not surprising considering the extreme time pressure on both sides), and in the end, I ended up giving my highest rankings to a couple of games both of which seemed cleaner on the whole, albeit less exciting. In any case, nice win and fight by Shabalov to put Tennessee in the unfamiliar spot of having started the season off on the right foot which I'm sure they're hoping will blossom into something bigger. (5th place: 1 point)
Greg Shahade: I didn't rank this game for a few reasons. First, I thought the opening was pretty boring, and secondly I thought the endgame was relatively sloppy from both sides. I remember watching when Black played the strange 49... Bf3, allowing White to defend with 51. Ra1, and suddenly things became much tougher for Black, where instead it seemed that Black would have won pretty easily if he just played the natural 49... Rxb5. There were just too many evaluation changing mistakes for me and the bulk of the game wasn't exciting enough. The only things that it had going for it, in my view, was that it decided the match and the name recognition of the players. (NR: 0 points)
Total Score of Kudrin vs Shabalov: 12 points
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Considered Games (judges' scores in parenthesis)
9 points (Arun 5, Jeff 3, Michael 1): GM Eugene Perelshteyn (BOS) vs IM Eli Vovsha (QNS) 1-0
6 points (Jim 3, Greg 3): IM Eric Tangborn (SEA) vs IM David Pruess (SF) 0-1
4 points (Jeff 2, Michael 2): GM Alejandro Ramirez (ARZ) vs GM Nikola Mitkov (CHC) 1-0
2 points (Arun 2): FM Robby Adamson (ARZ) vs IM Mehmed Pasalic (CHC) 1-0
2 points (Greg 2): GM Julio Becerra (MIA) vs IM John Bartholomew (DAL) 1-0
1 point (Jim 1): IM Daniel Ludwig (DAL) vs FM Bruci Lopez (MIA) 0-1
1 point (Greg 1): FM Ron Simpson (CAR) vs GM Larry Kaufman (BAL) 0-1
Friday, August 28, 2009
New Upset Prize for 2009
For each week of the regular season in 2009, we will have a new prize given to the player who has the biggest upset of the week, a t-shirt of that player's choice from Endgame Clothing.
This "biggest upset" will be based upon the largest rating difference, using August 2009 ratings. Note that these are the ratings used in the Schedule page (not the League Ratings which vary amongst different months for teams). For example, last year in Week 1, the prize would have gone to Meerovich over Harper.
Draws are also eligible to receive this upset prize, once again using the rating difference, but a draw counts for only half of that rating difference when tallying the biggest upset.
For those wondering, yes it's not going to be especially common for a draw to win this prize, but it is certainly possible. For instance, last year in Week 5 the three biggest upsets of that week all happened to be draws (Costigan vs Ippolito, Krasik vs Naroditsky, and Perea vs Bereolos).
We hope that everyone enjoys this new feature of the League!
Thursday, August 27, 2009
2009 USCL Rosters announced
Now that the 2009 USCL Rosters are virtually complete, before the season begins, it seems like a good idea to try to give readers some insight into what each team seems to have in mind by doing some brief analysis of their rosters and possible lineups.
However, this year I will be doing this from a nearly strictly factual standpoint - not with predictions as I've done for the past few seasons. That job I will leave to the far more witty, two-time prediction champion, Ron Young, and any other loyal fans who might choose to join him.
There might be some speculation as to why I've made this change in the way I'll be doing things, and the conclusion that most will probably come to is that I was simply too humiliated by the fact that I kept making wrong predictions over and over to continue to do so. However, should you feel the need to ask me if that's actually the reason, I can say only one thing:
I take the Fifth.
But now that that's out of the way let's move on to examining the teams' rosters (as always when mentioning teams' lineups, these will be only lineups which do not use alternates).
Eastern Division:
Baltimore Kingfishers:
Best Lineups:
1st: Kritz
2nd: Erenburg
3rd: Battsetseg
4th: Defibaugh
1st: Kritz / Erenburg
2nd / 3rd: Two of Enkhbat / L Kaufman / Foisor
4th: Defibaugh
1st: Kritz / Erenburg
2nd: Enkhbat / L Kaufman / Foisor
3rd: Zimmer / Uesugi
4th: Battsetseg
(can't use Enkkbat + Zimmer here)
1st: Enkhbat
2nd: L Kaufman
3rd: Foisor
4th: Zimmer / Uesugi / Battsetseg
General Notes: After a miserable 2008 season, several new faces on the Baltimore roster have to provide hope to Kingfisher fans that their new members will cause 2009 to go much better than 2008. The addition of another strong GM, Kritz, can solidify their one bright spot from 2008, the top board. That, along with the additions of WGM Foisor and the still improving FM Uesugi, who likely will together take on much of the Board Three duties - Baltimore's main weak spot in 2008, may well help create a team which will make their fans soon forget about the 2008 woes.
Boston Blitz:
Best Lineups:
1st / 2nd: Two of Christiansen / Perelshteyn / Sammour-Hasbun
3rd: Esserman / Corke
4th: Wang
1st / 2nd: Two of Christiansen / Perelshteyn / Sammour-Hasbun
3rd: Martirosov
4th: Krasik
1st: Christiansen / Perelshteyn / Sammour-Hasbun
2nd / 3rd: Two of Shmelov / Esserman / Corke
4th: Martirosov / Krasik / Wang
(can't use Christiansen / Perelshteyn + Shmelov + Esserman + Martirosov)
General Notes: Last year's runner up return this year with a very similar roster to last season and likely will rely this season on the same type of lineups which worked so well for them last year. Unfortunately, their incredible lineup(s) of two of Christiansen / Perelshteyn / Sammour-Hasbun + Esserman + Krasik which carried them to the Finals last year, no longer works, but on the bright side they still get to use IM-elect Esserman at more than 100 points below his current rating. Likely much of the Blitz's success will depend on whether he can duplicate his great run on Board Three last year while their new weapon when using two of Christiansen / Perelshteyn / Sammour-Hasbun up top, Andrew Wang, provides similar support to that lineup as Krasik did last season, or if Shmelov can ably fill the Board Two spot in place of one of their top three while using Martirosov or Krasik on four. Given those two strong lineup forms, along with their always enthusiastic team, the Blitz seem very likely to be Championship contenders again.
Carolina Cobras:
Best Lineups:
1st: Schroer
2nd: Zaikov
3rd: Simpson
4th: Jones / Klein / Mabe / Bapat / Agner
General Notes: In one sense it's hard to be optimistic about the Cobras' upcoming season as their highest lineup has average only 2371 while all other teams can get very near the 2401 cap. On the other hand, the main lineup which took the Cobras to the regular season Eastern Division title and then to the Semifinals last year was Milman + Zaikov + Simpson + Jones - likely not too dissimilar to the lineup I expect them to use a great deal this season (the same players but with Schroer in place of Milman). Carolina's success last season came largely from always having their best lineup available and all their players in good form. I see no reason why those two factors should be any different this season, and so I wouldn't be ruling out the Cobras to surprise fans again in 2009.
New Jersey Knockouts:
Best Lineups:
1st: Benjamin
2nd: Gulko
3rd: Ippolito / Molner / Kapengut
4th: Matlin / A Shen
1st: Benjamin
2nd: Gulko
3rd: V Shen
4th: Ng
1st: Benjamin / Gulko
2nd / 3rd: Two of Ippolito / Molner / Kapengut
4th: Matlin / A Shen
1st: Benjamin / Gulko
2nd: Ippolito / Molner
3rd: Kapengut / V Shen
4th: Ng / Matlin / A Shen
1st: Ippolito
2nd: Molner
3rd: Kapengut
4th: V Shen / Ng
General Notes: The Knockouts are another team who have returned in 2009 with a very similar roster structure as their 2008 campaign. Once again, they have brought a severely underrated Board Four player to the table, this year in A Shen (last year in Ng), which will enable them (with him or Matlin) to have a triple 2500 player lineup for the second straight year. It's anyone's guess how their season might have turned out last year had they been able to use that fearsome lineup more often, but how much they are able to use the synonymous one they now have for this season could well be a great determiner of whether the Knockouts suffer another postseason disappointment. But they certainly have some very good medium type lineups also with the still improving, near IM, Molner, new face Kapengut, and the still underrated NMs Shen and Ng. Facing off against the team that has ruined their playoff dreams the last two seasons, a team that has typically not fared well in the early part of the season, New York, may well be a great detector as to how both teams' early seasons may play out.
New York Knights:
Best Lineups:
1st / 2nd: Two of Kacheishvili / Charbonneau / Fedorowicz / Krush
3rd: Bonin / Norowitz
4th: Sturt
1st: Kacheishvili
2nd: Fedorowicz
3rd: Norowitz
4th: Rosenberg
1st: Kacheishvili
2nd: Charbonneau
3rd: Norowitz
4th: Herman / Rosenberg
1st: Kacheishvili
2nd: Krush
3rd / 4th: Two of Norowitz / Herman / Rosenberg
1st / 2nd: Two of Charbonneau / Fedorowicz / Krush
3rd / 4th: Two of Norowitz / Herman / Rosenberg
General Notes: New York as always comes to the season bearing a roster which has many fearsome lineups as the large pool of players in their area always ensures that they are able to have both strong GMs and strong underrated juniors to play for them. However, the last three seasons, the Knights have had a miserable first half of the season and a magical second half, and I haven't really seen any explanation as to why that is. As always, all the teams are strong, and I would caution teams not to sputter out of the gates and then rely on their immense strength to carry them when they need it most later on. However, I've told the Knights not to do that for the last three years, and each time they've done exactly that and then defied the odds to still make the postseason. It should be interesting to see how the season begins for them this year, especially in a Week 1 match against the neighboring Knockouts, whose playoff chances they've ruined in the final week the last two seasons.
Philadelphia Inventors:
Best Lineups:
1st: Kudrin
2nd: Lenderman
3rd: Smith / Bartell
4th: Swaminathan / Sivakumar
1st: Kudrin
2nd: Lenderman
3rd: Costigan
4th: Katz
1st: Kudrin / Lenderman
2nd: Smith / Bartell
3rd / 4th: Two of Costigan / J Shahade / Katz
(can't use Kudrin + Smith + Costigan + J Shahade)
1st: Lenderman
2nd: Smith
3rd: Bartell
4th: Katz
General Notes: The Inventors definitely seem like the team who have taken the greatest strides in trying to change their outlook from last season - no doubt partly due to their disappointing 2008 campaign. With their veterans, Costigan, M Shahade, and Wilson all having been a part of their team from the very beginning, Phildelphia has always had a good batch of ~2250 players, but always underrepresented on the ends of the spectrum, generally having few to none players above 2400 and never having any young improving juniors. With the addition of 2008 MVP Lenderman and youngsters Swaminathan and Sivakumar, that has changed quite a bit in 2009 and will now allow Philadelphia to have a much greater variety of lineups, being able to put a ~2400+ player on Board Three along with a double GM lineup (Lenderman being GM-elect) - both luxuries not afforded to them previously. With this new power and flexibility, the Inventors are another team not to be overlooked in 2009.
Queens Pioneers:
Best Lineups:
1st / 2nd: Two of Stripunsky / Vovsha / Milman / Schneider / Lapshun
3rd: Zaremba
4th: Katz / Vicary / Smith
(can't use Stripunsky + Vovsha + Zaremba + Katz)
1st / 2nd: Two of Vovsha / Schneider / Lapshun
3rd: Milman
4th: Vicary / Smith
(can't use Vovsha + Vicary here)
General Notes: Queens made a strong off-season acquisition in GM-elect Milman who, after spending three seasons playing on Board One only, will be able to play as low as Board Three on his new team! If he can remember (which I doubt!) how to play against 2300-2400s rather than only how to play against strong GMs, then Queens is certainly going to be a very strong team. Much of their success is likely to depend on their Board Four players, Katz, Vicary, and Smith who generally, using current ratings, are likely to be a bit out rated in most of their games. But if they can score reasonably there, being able to often have a triple 2500 roster at the top is definitely going to be a recipe for success.
Western Division:
Arizona Scorpions:
Best Lineups:
1st / 2nd: Two of Ramirez / Barcenilla / Altounian / Aldama
3rd: Rensch / Adamson
4th: Adelberg / Mateer
1st: Ramirez / Barcenilla / Altounian / Aldama
2nd: Rensch
3rd: Adamson
4th: Martinez
1st: Altounian
2nd: Aldama
3rd: Adamson
4th: Martinez
General Notes: Arizona seems to have taken something of the opposite approach to their 2008 campaign in 2009. In 2008, using a fairly balanced lineup where they often had a 2300+ player on Board Four, Warren Harper, generally giving them a rating advantage there while having a disadvantage elsewhere. However, for 2009 they have chosen the route that most teams go on, adding an underrated junior, now near master Adelberg, to the team who likely will take on much of their Board Four duties. In contrast to last year, using his league rating, he will likely be out rated in the majority of their matches but will allow them use near double GM lineups (Barcellina being GM-elect and Altounian being a strong IM) in exchange - something they really lacked last year. Like many teams who have chosen a strategy of this nature, their success may well come down to how well their young talent fares against the young talents of the other cities.
Chicago Blaze:
Best Lineups:
1st: Shulman / Mitkov
2nd / 3rd: Two of Van de Mortel / Felecan / Pasalic / Young
4th: Rosen / Magness
1st: Van de Mortel
2nd: Felecan
3rd: Pasalic
4th: Young
General Notes: The Blaze have chosen to go with virtually the same strategy that served them well in 2008 before a tough last few weeks left them barely out of the playoffs. In 2008, their most common lineup was GM + two IMs (or three IMs) along with an underrated junior (Meerovich or Strunk), and as noted in the lineups above, that seems very likely to be their exact lineup form once again 2009 (just with some new youngsters manning the bottom board). They have also returned with another four IM lineup, something which also served them well when they used it a couple of times last season. Given the success in both those regards, along with the optimism they have to have that the addition of 2008 US Champion Yury Shulman to their team will help them solve their only troublesome spot of 2008, Board One, the Blaze have to be optimistic about their chances in 2009.
Dallas Destiny:
Best Lineups:
1st / 2nd / 3rd: Three of Zivanic / Stopa / Bartholomew / Ludwig / Bercys
4th: Jayakumar
1st / 2nd: Two of Zivanic / Stopa / Bartholomew / Ludwig / Bercys
3rd: Kiewra
4th: Yang
(can't use Zivanic + Stopa + Kiewra + Yang or Zivanic + Bartholomew + Kiewra + Yang )
1st / 2nd: Two of Zivanic / Stopa / Bartholomew / Ludwig / Bercys
3rd: Kiewra / Yang
4th: Zorigt
(can't use Zivanic + Stopa + Kiewra + Zorigt)
General Notes: The Destiny return in 2009 still bearing the lineup form which lead them to the 2009 Championship of two strong IMs + strong FM + Zorigt. But this year, Dallas seems like they will keep their opposition more on their toes guessing as to their lineup stucture as they too have taken the plunge in adding young talents to their team for the first time in Yang and Jayakumar. While the loss of their two time All Star, Kuljasevic, has to be somewhat troublesome, the return of their other two time All Star, Stopa, should be a real asset as should the ability, like many other teams to also have a triple 2500 lineup. Plus, with GM Ramirez having switched to the Arizona team, the Destiny have managed to maintain a no GM roster - undoubtedly something that was done since no one can forget the fact that in four seasons of the league a team with a GM on their roster has still never won the league. Given that and the other factors, the chances for Dallas three-peat seem bright.
Miami Sharks:
Best Lineups:
1st: Becerra
2nd: Lopez / Martinez
3rd: Lugo / Moreno Roman / Rodriguez
4th: Alvarez / Recio
1st: Becerra
2nd: Lugo
3rd: Moreno Roman
4th: Rodriguez
1st: Lopez
2nd: Martinez
3rd: Lugo / Moreno Roman
4th: Rodriguez
General Notes: Last year's Western Division regular season champs have also returned in 2009 with a very similar roster that served them so well in 2008. One notable omission is the lack of perhaps their brightest new star of 2008, near All Star Perea. However, Miami has, like many other teams, come bearing two strong underrated players in last year's All Star Rodriguez along with Alvarez. With them, together with the always strong two time MVP, Becerra, and the strong support crew of Martinez, Lugo, and Moreno Roman, Miami is definitely looking like a team that can take the division crown again.
San Francisco Mechanics:
Best Lineups:
1st / 2nd: Two of Wolff / Friedel / Kraai / Bhat / Donaldson
3rd: Shankland
4th: Liou
1st / 2nd: Two of Friedel / Kraai / Bhat
3rd: Donaldson
4th: Liou
1st: Wolff
2nd: Bhat
3rd: Donaldson
4th: Liou
1st / 2nd: Two of Wolff / Friedel / Kraai / Bhat / Donaldson / Shankland
3rd: Naroditsky
4th: Liou
General Notes: Bearing the league's first quadruple GM roster (nearly quintuple given how close Shankland is), the Mechanics obviously have no shortage of strength at the top. They have however taken an unusual path, essentially relying on Liou to carry the day for them on Board Four for nearly the whole season (other than maybe a couple of matches with an alternate). I personally would never advocate that a team use such a risky strategy as that, but on the other hand having a Board Four player who is 200 points underrated for every match can obviously not be a bad thing. Add to that the fact that Dallas did virtually did the same thing last season with Zorigt, and they wound up winning the Championship, I guess it's more likely that I just have no clue what I'm talking about.
Seattle Sluggers:
Best Lineups:
1st: Nakamura
2nd: Serper
3rd: Rohonyan / Lee / Readey / Sinanan
4th: Chen
1st: Nakamura / Serper
2nd: Tangborn
3rd: Mikhailuk
4th: Chen
1st: Nakamura / Serper
2nd: Tangborn / Mikhailuk
3rd: Rohonyan / Lee / Readey
4th: Sinanan
1st: Nakamura / Serper
2nd: Rohonyan
3rd: Lee
4th: Readey
1st: Tangborn
2nd: Mikhailuk
3rd / 4th: Two of Rohonyan / Lee / Readey
General Notes: When examining Seattle's possibilities for the upcoming season, I mentioned how I thought their success might hinge on finding another underrated player to fill the void that Michael Lee had filled on Board Four for them for so long. Well they seem to have answered that challenge well with the still underrated Sinanan and the new face of Chen, nearly 200 points underrated. With those assets along with Lee likely now to be a quite a force on Board Three, the Sluggers' Achilles heal in 2008, and still having powerful double GM lineups available, teams may well be faced with the strongest Seattle team to date.
Tennessee Tempo:
Best Lineups:
1st: Ehlvest
2nd: Shabalov
3rd: Burnett / Andrews / Bereolos / Bick
4th: Justice
1st: Ehlvest
2nd: Shabalov
3rd: Bick
4th: Larson
1st: Ehlvest / Shabalov
2nd / 3rd: Two of Burnett / Andrews / Bereolos / Bick
4th: Larson
1st: Ehlvest / Shabalov
2nd: Burnett / Andrews
3rd: Bereolos
4th: Bick
General Notes: For the first time the Tempo seem to have a good variety of lineups all of which are near the rating cap. As always, their success likely will hinge on just how many matches they will have at least one GM in the lineup. Having two on the roster can only imply that the answer to that is probably a number higher than last season (which was six), and given they missed the postseason by only half a point last year, Tempo fans may really be given something to cheer about this season.
I hope everyone enjoyed this brief roster analysis of all the teams and that everyone is looking forward to the coming season as much as I am. Be sure to tune in on Monday to watch opening night and enjoy the season!
Game of the Week Procedures for 2009
With the fifth season of the league imminent, it seems appropriate to outline how Game of the Week (GOTW) will work in 2009.
First off, this year's GOTW prizes will be (for the regular season):
1st: $150
2nd: $75
3rd: $50
(once again if one or more of these is a drawn game, the prize is split equally between those two players)
The system for picking the winning games will mostly be the same - once again each judge will independently rank their Top Five games, with their top pick getting five points, second four points, and so on with the games then being ranked by highest totals.
The big change however will be with our judging panel. This year we will have five judges instead of three. This year's panel is:
IM Greg Shahade
FM Jim Dean
NM Michael Aigner (Blog)
NM Jeff Ashton (Website)
NM Arun Sharma
Many thanks to NM Jonathan Hilton for his extensive work in GOTW and other areas of the League over the last two seasons. Unfortunately, due to entering college and his extensive work on his Wojo book, he will not be returning this season.
We hope that the improved prizes and the expanded judging panel will help make this year's GOTW contest, along with this season of the USCL, the best one yet!
Friday, August 7, 2009
GM Alex Shabalov joins the Tennessee Tempo
While many were impressed by the Tempo's marked improvement in 2008, they are clearly aiming even higher in 2009. With both GM Jaan Ehlvest and GM Alex Shabalov now a part of their campaign this season, this new one-two punch may take the Tempo to the postseason for the first time and could very well also make them into Championship contenders.
Will this new firepower make the difference in turning the Tempo into the playoff team that they've strived to be for three seasons? Be sure to tune in soon to find out, as the new season is less than a month away!
Thursday, July 16, 2009
New Rule Regarding Female Players
Due to popular opinion, there will no longer be a rating bonus for using females in your lineup beginning with the upcoming season. In past seasons, using one female resulted in a team being allowed to use a lineup rated up to 2410, instead of the usual 2400. This rule has been eliminated for 2009 and onward.
While we want to encourage female participation, many did not feel that to be an appropriate way of doing so. However, in order to continue to try to do so, from this point on each team will be able to have a nine player roster, instead of the regular eight player roster - with the only stipulation being that to qualify for the nine player roster, they must have at least one female on the main roster.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Game of the Year -- 1st Place
This is the final part in a series of articles which has counted down to revealing what game was voted as the 2008 USCL Game of the Year. For more information on exactly how this process worked and the prize information, please refer to: Game of the Year Contest.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st Place: GM Larry Christiansen (BOS) vs IM Marko Zivanic (DAL) 1-0
Not content to have only one piece hanging, Christiansen began a parade of tactics with 15. Bxb5+!, never letting up and never giving his opponent a chance to recover.
Below are the comments from the judges on why they ranked the game where they did and in parentheses is the ranking given by that judge and the number of points awarded for that ranking.
IM Ben Finegold (1st Place, 20 points): This is clearly the Game of the Year:
(A) Last week of the event.
(B) Christiansen plays like Christiansen!
(C) White's tactical ability this game is like a SUPER computer! Larry's play is amazing.
(D) High quality + fun to watch, more so than any other game!
(E) BRUTAL!
Winning a game of this quality (all of White's moves are perfect) when the chips are down, makes this GOTY!
FM Ingvar Johannesson (1st Place, 20 points): When looking over all the games, this one catches your eye immediately. Crushing attack, lots of flashy moves, and many of them unexpected, at least for me. At the end of the day this is the kind of game that chess fans like seeing, and I feel the same way. This is I think the prettiest game and so my vote for GOTY!
FM Daniel Ludwig (2nd Place, 19 points): When I stopped and took a deeper look at this game, there was no doubt that this game would be put high up there. Just try and think of the biggest blowout you have ever seen at the highest stage in sports. This game was just as bad, and it became ugly quick. According to the databases, the position after 9... Qxf4 has only occurred six times, but it seems that the previous assessment of this position is that Black is no worse. After 10. Rf1 Qc7 it seems that Black is fine with easy defenses, and apparently even Rybka agrees ... for a couple of minutes. Letting the computer mull over things for a little while allows him to discover the ideas that Christiansen used which gave him a winning position. 11. Qh5 is a theoretical novelty and a darn good one as well. After Christiansen calmly played 14. 0-0-0, Zivanic must not have seen the deadly threat and blindly walked into 15. Bxb5+! The rest was history, but not before Larry threw down the equally nice 17. Rxd6! and 18. Rxf6! It really is mind boggling to think of how badly poor Marko got crushed for the slightest inaccuracy 10... Qc7. Christiansen has always been known to be ruthless, but this was something even more frightening. Let's also not forget at what stage this game took place — the biggest of them all: Board One in the Championship Match. Phenomenal game by Christiansen, unfortunately for him I felt that the Erenburg vs Sammour-Hasbun game was just a little deeper.
FM Ron Young (2nd Place, 19 points): Perhaps it was naive of Black to accept White's pawn sac, but Larry has surrendered bigger things in the opening for less compensation. In any case, this game featured an impressive series of notable moves and almost got my first place vote. In the end though I favored a game where the coolness was deeper even if less abundant.
GM Jan Gustafsson (3rd Place, 18 points): A trademark Larry C storming the barricades effort. I haven't seen this 8. Bd3 pawn sac before, but accepting it against Christiansen seems very risky to say the least. Probably after 14. O-O-O Black is already in deep trouble, but I'm unable to suggest a decent improvement from moves ten through fourteen for Black, and White executes with ruthless precision. I especially like the quiet 16. Rf3! and afterward some roads lead to Rome. 18. Rxf6 and 19. Nd5 are definitely spectacular and at the same time an accurate way to do the job. White never lets his guard down, and both 25. Bc6! and 26. Rd6 deserve praise too.
Total Score of Christiansen vs Zivanic: (1st Place, 96 Points)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final 2008 Game of the Year Standings:
1st Place (96 Points): GM Larry Christiansen (BOS) vs IM Marko Zivanic (DAL) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
2nd Place (86 Points): GM Sergey Erenburg (BAL) vs SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
3rd Place (76 Points): SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) vs IM David Pruess (SF) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
4th Place (72 Points): IM Davorin Kuljasevic (DAL) vs GM Vinay Bhat (SF) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
5th Place (70 Points): GM Joel Benjamin (NJ) vs GM Sergey Erenburg (BAL) 0-1 Article Elimination Article
6th Place (64 Points): GM Jaan Ehlvest (TEN) vs GM Sergey Erenburg (BAL) 1/2-1/2 Article Elimination Article
7th Place (62 Points): IM Alex Lenderman (QNS) vs IM Dean Ippolito (NJ) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
8th Place (60 Points): GM Vinay Bhat (SF) vs IM Emory Tate (CHC) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
9th Place (59 Points): GM Alex Shabalov (NY) vs SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) 0-1 Article Elimination Article
10th Place (54 Points): IM Alex Lenderman (QNS) vs FM Oleg Zaikov (CAR) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
11th Place (51 Points): IM Lev Milman (CAR) vs GM Alex Shabalov (NY) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
12th Place (46 Points): GM Sergey Kudrin (PHI) vs GM Larry Christiansen (BOS) 1/2-1/2 Article Elimination Article
13th Place (44 Points): IM Alex Lenderman (QNS) vs IM Emory Tate (CHC) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
14th Place (42 Points): GM Pascal Charbonneau (NY) vs GM Sergey Kudrin (PHI) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
15th Place (35 Points): FM Bruci Lopez (MIA) vs GM Gregory Serper (SEA) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
16th Place (34 Points): IM Davorin Kuljasevic (DAL) vs GM Julio Becerra (MIA) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
17th Place (32 Points): GM Patrick Wolff (SF) vs IM Marko Zivanic (DAL) 1/2-1/2 Article Elimination Article
18th Place (27 Points): IM Dmitry Schneider (QNS) vs GM Eugene Perelshteyn (BOS) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
19th Place (22 Points): FM Oleg Zaikov (CAR) vs SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) 1/2-1/2 Article Elimination Article
20th Place (18 Points): GM Jaan Ehlvest (TEN) vs IM Rogelio Barcenilla (ARZ) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
Game of the Year -- 2nd Place
This is the final part in a series of articles which has counted down to revealing what game was voted as the 2008 USCL Game of the Year. For more information on exactly how this process worked and the prize information, please refer to: Game of the Year Contest.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2nd Place: GM Sergey Erenburg (BAL) vs SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) 1-0
Already having a dangerous attack, Erenburg effectively finished the game with the very nice 22. Rd3!, instead of settling for the banal 22. Bh5 and defeated a very strong opponent in a seemingly perfect effort.
Below are the comments from the judges on why they ranked the game where they did and in parentheses is the ranking given by that judge and the number of points awarded for that ranking.
FM Daniel Ludwig (1st Place, 20 points): This to me was perhaps the deepest attacking game of the year, and as Erenburg made clear in his responses on the USCL blog, none of this was by accident. So what makes a great attacking game? Kings castled on opposite sides, check. Pawn storms, check. Pawn sacrifices, check. Exchange sacrifices, check. Rook lift, check. This game was just so complete and oh so brutal. The biggest knock on this game was that it was so one sided, and thus was not a really great game. I for one am so sick of this one sided argument. One sided implies that one side played well, and the other side played poorly thus making it a wipe out. However, did people even take a close look at this game?! Sammour-Hasbun played great defense, and yet people act as though he played terribly. If someone defends well, and yet still gets crushed, that to me is the sign of a great game. It seems to me like most of the judges enjoy this crap where one side has a great position, but then blows it with a bad move, only to get the better position back when the other side also plays bad moves, and etc., etc., until move fifty or so when someone comes up with a cool looking tactic. I'm sorry, but that to me is not a great game, it is a comedy of errors. It is these kind of people who enjoy following Nakamura's one minute games on ICC rather than watching Linares. The same thing goes for the game Christiansen vs Zivanic. Erenburg took the time to post some of his own thoughts on this game, and how he was especially proud of his 17. Rhe1 move, instead of putting the Rook on the natural g1 square. He was of course correct in doing so, and just about every move he made this game was perfect. I'm especially impressed by 14. f5, because when he plays that, he knows that he is probably giving up the exchange. Not only was the exchange sac good on a psychological level, but according to my engine it was sound technically as well! Not surprisingly, Jorge declined to take the Rook on h1, and intended to go for a rock solid position with 16... f6 and 17... Ne5. However, once again Erenburg was right on the money with his response, 18. g6! Once again, I'm sure that Sergey had this line figured out in advance and when it came time, he struck soundly with the beautiful 22. Rd3, winning soon after. The recipient of this gem is especially notable. Sammour-Hasbun has always been the one dishing out nasty defeats, but this time, he gets a taste of his own medicine. Erenburg is a big fan of this line against the Najdorf, and he even dealt me a painful loss in a similar looking position. This was a truly spectacular game, the only downfall being that the game was not longer, so we could not see even more brilliancies from White! Congratulations to Erenburg on an excellent season and getting my vote for Game of the Year.
IM Ben Finegold (3rd Place, 18 points): Sammour-Hasbun gets punished for playing 15... exf5? This fatally opens up the b1-h7 diagonal after a later f6 by White, as well as giving up the d5 square. Erenburg never lets up and wins quickly against a strong opponent in brutal fashion. But this game was so one sided, I could not rank it higher as it seemed like it was over before it started. Black needs to play either 15... Rfe8 or 15... Ne5 to have chances in this line and leave the Kingside as closed as possible.
FM Ingvar Johannesson (4th Place, 17 points): A very impressive Sicilian slaughter by Erenburg. 22. Rd3! is the star move, and all I can say is that Sammour-Hasbun is DE ... wait for it ... NIED ... DENIED! But it's also impressive that it's not at all clear where Black goes wrong. The 16... f6 move seems to be a novelty, but maybe Black must just bite the bullet and accept the first exchange offer.
FM Ron Young (5th Place, 16 points): White expressed the opinion that this was a very good game, and he ought to know. Black seemed to think otherwise, but he should realize, like the Duke of Brunswick, that it takes two to create a great game and be proud of his part in creating this one.
GM Jan Gustafsson (6th Place, 15 points): A very good effort by Erenburg, making it look easy against a strong opponent. I lack knowledge about this Sicilian to say where Black went wrong as he already seems in big trouble after 14. f5!. 18. g6! also looks like a good decision, and 22. Rd3!! is a nice way to finish the game off. The game might be a bit one sided, but to win with such ease without obvious mistakes from his opponent is impressive for sure.
Total Score of Erenburg vs Sammour-Hasbun: (2nd Place, 86 Points)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st Place (96 Points): GM Larry Christiansen (BOS) vs IM Marko Zivanic (DAL) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
2nd Place (86 Points): GM Sergey Erenburg (BAL) vs SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
3rd Place (76 Points): SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) vs IM David Pruess (SF) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
4th Place (72 Points): IM Davorin Kuljasevic (DAL) vs GM Vinay Bhat (SF) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
5th Place (70 Points): GM Joel Benjamin (NJ) vs GM Sergey Erenburg (BAL) 0-1 Article Elimination Article
6th Place (64 Points): GM Jaan Ehlvest (TEN) vs GM Sergey Erenburg (BAL) 1/2-1/2 Article Elimination Article
7th Place (62 Points): IM Alex Lenderman (QNS) vs IM Dean Ippolito (NJ) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
8th Place (60 Points): GM Vinay Bhat (SF) vs IM Emory Tate (CHC) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
9th Place (59 Points): GM Alex Shabalov (NY) vs SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) 0-1 Article Elimination Article
10th Place (54 Points): IM Alex Lenderman (QNS) vs FM Oleg Zaikov (CAR) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
11th Place (51 Points): IM Lev Milman (CAR) vs GM Alex Shabalov (NY) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
12th Place (46 Points): GM Sergey Kudrin (PHI) vs GM Larry Christiansen (BOS) 1/2-1/2 Article Elimination Article
13th Place (44 Points): IM Alex Lenderman (QNS) vs IM Emory Tate (CHC) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
14th Place (42 Points): GM Pascal Charbonneau (NY) vs GM Sergey Kudrin (PHI) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
15th Place (35 Points): FM Bruci Lopez (MIA) vs GM Gregory Serper (SEA) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
16th Place (34 Points): IM Davorin Kuljasevic (DAL) vs GM Julio Becerra (MIA) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
17th Place (32 Points): GM Patrick Wolff (SF) vs IM Marko Zivanic (DAL) 1/2-1/2 Article Elimination Article
18th Place (27 Points): IM Dmitry Schneider (QNS) vs GM Eugene Perelshteyn (BOS) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
19th Place (22 Points): FM Oleg Zaikov (CAR) vs SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) 1/2-1/2 Article Elimination Article
20th Place (18 Points): GM Jaan Ehlvest (TEN) vs IM Rogelio Barcenilla (ARZ) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Game of the Year -- 3rd Place
This is the eighteenth part in a series of articles which will count down to revealing what game was voted as the 2008 USCL Game of the Year. For more information on exactly how this process works and the prize information, please refer to: Game of the Year Contest.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3rd Place: SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) vs IM David Pruess (SF) 1-0
Sammour-Hasbun had been building up an attack for many moves, having sacrificed two pawns early in the game, and finally crashed through Black's position with 31. Nxe6!! after which the g pawn, which had previously seemed to be serving as more of a defender to the Black King, ended up proving its worth.
Below are the comments from the judges on why they ranked the game where they did and in parentheses is the ranking given by that judge and the number of points awarded for that ranking.
FM Ron Young (1st Place, 20 points): A double pawn sac for long term compensation, then a piece sac (31. Nxe6), and followed by a quiet move (32. Qf4), make this the Game of the Year, in my opinion. If it was all unsound, sorry, nobody told me.
FM Ingvar Johannesson (3rd Place, 18 points): Very entertaining game. Sammour-Hasbun goes all in with an inventive attack starting with 12. Nb5 - d6 followed by 15. f5 - f6. It was interesting, but somehow the attack ends up in a positional bind for White, down two pawns. There seems to be no way through, but an inaccuracy by Black allows another sacrifice and after that Sammour-Hasbun's raw tactical talent showcases itself, and he finishes the game in impressive fashion.
GM Jan Gustafsson (5th Place, 16 points): Not sure what to think about this one. I've never liked these French positions with that ugly c8 Bishop for Black, but that's highly subjective obviously. Castling Queenside and allowing 10... c4 etc. is risky business for sure though. Sammour-Hasbun's concept starting with 12. Nb5 and peaking in 15. f5! and 16. f6 is creative for sure, even though I'm not sure White was actually better after it as my computer is pretty happy with Black. Anyways, he got decent positional compensation and finished very nicely with the fancy 31. Nxe6!! after getting the chance from 30... Qf8. Nice stuff and far from easy to calculate that White is actually winning after 34. Qc7 and 36. Qd6!
Interesting concept, cute finish, but not at the top of my list since I'm not so sure about the objective merits of White's concept and how the position actually was before Pruess went astray with 30... Qf8?? (26... Kg8 also looks strange).
FM Daniel Ludwig (7th Place, 14 points): This was Jorge's finest game of the season. Typically Jorge beats you with some nice tactical shot that you completely overlooked but not in this case. In this case, Pruess had a long time to see what Jorge was doing, and was still unable to find a way to prevent the catastrophic break through with 31. Nxe6! In fact, Jorge spent moves twenty five through thirty preparing this idea, and during all that time, all Pruess could do was push his Pawns forward in what was a useless attempt to counterattack. Also, Jorge was one of the very fortunate people who had the opportunity to train with Tal, and I could definitely see a lot of Tal's influence in this game. 15. f5! was a great idea, regardless of what a computer might think. It is a deep double pawn sacrifice for long lasting pressure and open files. Tal was known for these sacrifices, without any concrete forced win in mind, just putting his opponent on the hot seat, forcing him to make all the tough choices. Unfortunately for Pruess, when the time came, he didn't have the gusto to play his last big opportunity, 30... e5! However, I can't blame him for not doing this, as I highly doubt I would play it either, considering how out of sync this seems to be with the position. After 31. Nxe6 the game is not quite over, but due to Jorge's relentless play, it seemed easier than it probably was.
IM Ben Finegold (13th Place, 8 points): A typical game between the weak players of the USCL. White sacrifices a pawn for nothing; Black has no idea how to defend so White equalizes. Then Black misses an obvious tactic and completely falls apart. Looks like a simul game. Once again, don't look at this game with Rybka or Fritz as you will be disappointed. I ranked it pretty highly though because the players have spirit!
Total Score of Sammour-Hasbun vs Pruess: (3rd Place, 76 Points)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stay tuned for the final article in the next few days as we will announce the 2008 Game of the Year!
Week 8: GM Sergey Erenburg (BAL) vs SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) 1-0 Article
Championship: GM Larry Christiansen (BOS) vs IM Marko Zivanic (DAL) 1-0 Article
Eliminated:
3rd Place (76 Points): SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) vs IM David Pruess (SF) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
4th Place (72 Points): IM Davorin Kuljasevic (DAL) vs GM Vinay Bhat (SF) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
5th Place (70 Points): GM Joel Benjamin (NJ) vs GM Sergey Erenburg (BAL) 0-1 Article Elimination Article
6th Place (64 Points): GM Jaan Ehlvest (TEN) vs GM Sergey Erenburg (BAL) 1/2-1/2 Article Elimination Article
7th Place (62 Points): IM Alex Lenderman (QNS) vs IM Dean Ippolito (NJ) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
8th Place (60 Points): GM Vinay Bhat (SF) vs IM Emory Tate (CHC) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
9th Place (59 Points): GM Alex Shabalov (NY) vs SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) 0-1 Article Elimination Article
10th Place (54 Points): IM Alex Lenderman (QNS) vs FM Oleg Zaikov (CAR) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
11th Place (51 Points): IM Lev Milman (CAR) vs GM Alex Shabalov (NY) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
12th Place (46 Points): GM Sergey Kudrin (PHI) vs GM Larry Christiansen (BOS) 1/2-1/2 Article Elimination Article
13th Place (44 Points): IM Alex Lenderman (QNS) vs IM Emory Tate (CHC) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
14th Place (42 Points): GM Pascal Charbonneau (NY) vs GM Sergey Kudrin (PHI) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
15th Place (35 Points): FM Bruci Lopez (MIA) vs GM Gregory Serper (SEA) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
16th Place (34 Points): IM Davorin Kuljasevic (DAL) vs GM Julio Becerra (MIA) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
17th Place (32 Points): GM Patrick Wolff (SF) vs IM Marko Zivanic (DAL) 1/2-1/2 Article Elimination Article
18th Place (27 Points): IM Dmitry Schneider (QNS) vs GM Eugene Perelshteyn (BOS) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
19th Place (22 Points): FM Oleg Zaikov (CAR) vs SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) 1/2-1/2 Article Elimination Article
20th Place (18 Points): GM Jaan Ehlvest (TEN) vs IM Rogelio Barcenilla (ARZ) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
Friday, January 23, 2009
Game of the Year -- 4th Place
This is the seventeenth part in a series of articles which will count down to revealing what game was voted as the 2008 USCL Game of the Year. For more information on exactly how this process works and the prize information, please refer to: Game of the Year Contest.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4th Place: IM Davorin Kuljasevic (DAL) vs GM Vinay Bhat (SF) 1-0
After cleverly luring Black's Queen away from the Kingside, Kuljasevic brought his own Queen back with 46. Qd2! and struck a fatal blow to the Black King before Bhat could recover.
Below are the comments from the judges on why they ranked the game where they did and in parentheses is the ranking given by that judge and the number of points awarded for that ranking.
FM Daniel Ludwig (3rd Place, 18 points): One word is all it takes to describe this game: clutch. Both players were under five minutes when it became clear that in order for Dallas to advance, Davorin had to win. I recall watching and being amused by all the Dallas fans who were convinced Davorin was winning, and all the San Francisco fans who were likewise convinced it was a draw. I myself had doubts about Kul-J's chances, but that's when he began playing the best moves for about the final fifteen moves. I especially liked the idea he used of transferring the Queen to the Queenside and then immediately back to the Kingside, with the deep idea of throwing the Black Queen out of defensive position. You can dissect this game however you like, but in the end, it isn't doing the game justice if you don't consider the context, and with that in mind it was a great game even though the moves weren't all that spectacular because if it were simply about the entertainment value of the moves, this game would probably be placed closer to thirteenth than third.
GM Jan Gustafsson (4th Place, 17 points): Another great game by Mr. Kuljasevic; I'm really starting to wonder why I'd never heard of this guy!
A topical line of the Slav was played, resembling some Topalov vs Kramnik games. I used to think Black was absolutely fine there, but suffering badly against both Bacrot and Vaganian in that very line has taught me otherwise. Kuljasevic makes another good case for White's chances in that line, the space advantage and attacking chances seem to more than compensate White's "bad" Bishop and Black's play on the c-file.
Both sides played well in this game, but I am a bit skeptical about Bhat's decision to go 22... g5, which seems to ease White's attack. Bhat played very well to stay in the game afterward though; 34. Nf4 might not have been the most precise (34. Rg3!), and 39... R8c3 looks like an improvement, when Black might still be fine. As it was, White built up a decisive attack with simple looking, logical moves getting rid of the key defenders.
Not quite flashy enough to be a winner, but again I am impressed with Kuljasevic's strong and logical play. I might just have to hire him for my Hamburg team!
IM Ben Finegold (7th Place, 14 points): White plays pretty well and has a slight edge, then Black equalizes. After a lot of random moves, Black plays 45... Qb6? and loses. A difficult maneuvering game. I ranked this game higher than normal as Bhat is really tough to beat in the USCL.
FM Ron Young (8th Place, 13 points): Sometimes I'll overstuff a bag of garbage and have difficulty pushing it down the chute in the hallway. I'll push the hatch closed, but the bag will not go quite all the way in, so I open the hatch, push the bag some with my hand, close the hatch again, open and nudge the bag, etc., until finally the bag is all the way in and falls down the chute. The play here from moves forty four through forty six resemble this action, and 47. Nf4 finally sends Black down the chute.
FM Ingvar Johannesson (11th Place, 10 points): Somehow this game didn't do much for me even though I understand the situation was tense because of the match situation and the winner advancing. A pretty hard fought game which seemed pretty even near the end. What kills the mood for me is I don't know if what decided the game was brilliant accuracy by White or if he just got lucky maneuvering around in time trouble. Although it didn't do much for me, it was rather well played overall plus it had some drama, and I feel it deserves a ranking in the middle of the pack.
Total Score of Kuljasevic vs Bhat: (4th Place, 72 Points)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stay tuned for two more such articles as the field shrinks by one game every couple of days to see which of the following games will be the 2008 Game of the Year!
Week 5: SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) vs IM David Pruess (SF) 1-0 Article
Week 8: GM Sergey Erenburg (BAL) vs SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) 1-0 Article
Championship: GM Larry Christiansen (BOS) vs IM Marko Zivanic (DAL) 1-0 Article
Eliminated:
4th Place (72 Points): IM Davorin Kuljasevic (DAL) vs GM Vinay Bhat (SF) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
5th Place (70 Points): GM Joel Benjamin (NJ) vs GM Sergey Erenburg (BAL) 0-1 Article Elimination Article
6th Place (64 Points): GM Jaan Ehlvest (TEN) vs GM Sergey Erenburg (BAL) 1/2-1/2 Article Elimination Article
7th Place (62 Points): IM Alex Lenderman (QNS) vs IM Dean Ippolito (NJ) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
8th Place (60 Points): GM Vinay Bhat (SF) vs IM Emory Tate (CHC) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
9th Place (59 Points): GM Alex Shabalov (NY) vs SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) 0-1 Article Elimination Article
10th Place (54 Points): IM Alex Lenderman (QNS) vs FM Oleg Zaikov (CAR) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
11th Place (51 Points): IM Lev Milman (CAR) vs GM Alex Shabalov (NY) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
12th Place (46 Points): GM Sergey Kudrin (PHI) vs GM Larry Christiansen (BOS) 1/2-1/2 Article Elimination Article
13th Place (44 Points): IM Alex Lenderman (QNS) vs IM Emory Tate (CHC) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
14th Place (42 Points): GM Pascal Charbonneau (NY) vs GM Sergey Kudrin (PHI) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
15th Place (35 Points): FM Bruci Lopez (MIA) vs GM Gregory Serper (SEA) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
16th Place (34 Points): IM Davorin Kuljasevic (DAL) vs GM Julio Becerra (MIA) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
17th Place (32 Points): GM Patrick Wolff (SF) vs IM Marko Zivanic (DAL) 1/2-1/2 Article Elimination Article
18th Place (27 Points): IM Dmitry Schneider (QNS) vs GM Eugene Perelshteyn (BOS) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
19th Place (22 Points): FM Oleg Zaikov (CAR) vs SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) 1/2-1/2 Article Elimination Article
20th Place (18 Points): GM Jaan Ehlvest (TEN) vs IM Rogelio Barcenilla (ARZ) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Game of the Year -- 5th Place
This is the sixteenth part in a series of articles which will count down to revealing what game was voted as the 2008 USCL Game of the Year. For more information on exactly how this process works and the prize information, please refer to: Game of the Year Contest.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5th Place: GM Joel Benjamin (NJ) vs GM Sergey Erenburg (BAL) 0-1
How does one thwart a mating threat by a Queen and Bishop battery on h7? Many possible ways, but walking your King into the center with the majority of pieces still on the board probably isn't high on most people's lists. However, Erenburg showed no fear, doing just that, and via playing flawlessly, eventually made the wandering White Queen a bigger liability than his weakened King and ground his opponent down with impressive technique.
Below are the comments from the judges on why they ranked the game where they did and in parentheses is the ranking given by that judge and the number of points awarded for that ranking.
IM Ben Finegold (2nd Place, 19 points): I watched this game live and was impressed by Erenburg's slow buildup to a winning position. White is slightly better, then, from moves twenty five to thirty gets outplayed, and Erenburg seems fine with his King walk. A gutsy performance, walking his King to the center, especially against such a strong and experienced opponent. The game was long and tedious, but, I give it extra marks for the following reasons:
(A) Usually in the USCL, the GOTW is the one where White WINS after such a Black King walk.
(B) Erenburg beat Benjamin with Black.
(C) Black had excellent technique.
(D) The game seamlessly changes phases. First White attacks, then Black equalizes, then Black wins a pawn, and then technique sets in. A long brutal battle, and a high quality game, between two strong GMs. There were no obvious errors which is very unusual for USCL games.
FM Daniel Ludwig (5th Place, 16 points): This game was only one of two Black wins eligible for Game of the Year. What's more, this victory was against a 2600+ opponent and a three time US champion and was the only game of its kind which was eligible. Most of the games that do well in these sorts of contests have beautiful crushing attacks, and occasionally you see fine positional victories. But not this game; the name of the game here was defense, something that often gets overlooked in great players' games. In fact, I would say that the biggest progression we have seen in chess over the twentieth century is tougher defense. Now this game never got much love because it was apparently just some good endgame technique and some missed opportunities on Joel's part. However, I did analyze it pretty deeply, and it seems to me that Joel didn't really miss anything except for the prophylactic computer move 23. Bd3, preventing 23... Nc4, instead of 23. Bf4 which allowed the maneuver Nc4 – Nd6. I really did like the way that Sergey allowed White to invest so much into this attack that came to nothing. After 25. Be5, 25... Qa5! was especially nice, opening up the Bishop and producing counter threats. If White had played 26. Bxf6 then Erenburg would have responded with 26... Bxf3 27. gxf3 Qd2! protecting h6, thus keeping the Pawn and the advantage after 28... gxf6. This idea of 25... Qa5 was really, really deep. Not only was it good for the reason I just mentioned, but he had the idea of playing 27... Rc8, exchanging the pieces, and then meeting 29. Qg8 the way he did with 29... Qc3! With all this in mind, it is no wonder that Joel went for 23. Bf4, probably thinking that he was nearly winning. I also really liked how the White Queen went from being a menace to a prisoner of war in a matter of several moves. White probably could not stand seeing his strongest asset sit behind iron bars on Black's back rank, and thus decided to give up the pawn with 34. Ne5. It seems to me that people just don't appreciate how difficult it is to accurately defend a position like this with the King in the middle of the board as many would crumble in the situation Erenburg was in. A truly great game with lots of excitement, tons of chances to go wrong, yet very few mistakes in what was a long tense battle.
FM Ingvar Johannesson (6th Place, 15 points): I am very impressed with this game by Black. He equalizes and then goes on to outplay a very strong GM in very clinical fashion with the Black pieces. A fantastic technical effort by Erenburg.
GM Jan Gustafsson (11th Place, 10 points): Strange game. To me the early phase of the game looks like a success for Benjamin as I'm always skeptical about h6 in these IQP positions, it's just so weakening. Erenburg was forced to allow 19. Qh7 and run with his King. I can't believe White isn't better around there – both 20. Rfe1 and 20. b3 come to mind, and 24. Bd3 might also still keep an edge. The way it went Erenburg played some very precise non-obvious moves (25... Qa5! and 27... Rc8!) and took over the advantage. 34. Ne5 looks somewhat panicky, instead after 34. d5 things are probably not that bad. Erenburg finishes with good technique, but I'm a bit disappointed by the way Benjamin mishandled his nice position and miss the special achievement by the winner.
FM Ron Young (11th Place, 10 points): It is hard for Black to win a spectacular game so let us honor Black's cool King walk, tactical alertness (e.g., the initiative seizing 27... Rc8), and solid technique. How I rank it will depend on how I rank the others, and I haven't decided about that yet. In the meantime though, let us all praise this game.
Total Score of Benjamin vs Erenburg: (5th Place, 70 Points)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stay tuned for three more such articles as the field shrinks by one game every couple of days to see which of the following games will be the 2008 Game of the Year!
Week 5: SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) vs IM David Pruess (SF) 1-0 Article
Week 8: GM Sergey Erenburg (BAL) vs SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) 1-0 Article
Quarterfinals: IM Davorin Kuljasevic (DAL) vs GM Vinay Bhat (SF) 1-0 Article
Championship: GM Larry Christiansen (BOS) vs IM Marko Zivanic (DAL) 1-0 Article
Eliminated:
5th Place (70 Points): GM Joel Benjamin (NJ) vs GM Sergey Erenburg (BAL) 0-1 Article Elimination Article
6th Place (64 Points): GM Jaan Ehlvest (TEN) vs GM Sergey Erenburg (BAL) 1/2-1/2 Article Elimination Article
7th Place (62 Points): IM Alex Lenderman (QNS) vs IM Dean Ippolito (NJ) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
8th Place (60 Points): GM Vinay Bhat (SF) vs IM Emory Tate (CHC) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
9th Place (59 Points): GM Alex Shabalov (NY) vs SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) 0-1 Article Elimination Article
10th Place (54 Points): IM Alex Lenderman (QNS) vs FM Oleg Zaikov (CAR) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
11th Place (51 Points): IM Lev Milman (CAR) vs GM Alex Shabalov (NY) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
12th Place (46 Points): GM Sergey Kudrin (PHI) vs GM Larry Christiansen (BOS) 1/2-1/2 Article Elimination Article
13th Place (44 Points): IM Alex Lenderman (QNS) vs IM Emory Tate (CHC) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
14th Place (42 Points): GM Pascal Charbonneau (NY) vs GM Sergey Kudrin (PHI) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
15th Place (35 Points): FM Bruci Lopez (MIA) vs GM Gregory Serper (SEA) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
16th Place (34 Points): IM Davorin Kuljasevic (DAL) vs GM Julio Becerra (MIA) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
17th Place (32 Points): GM Patrick Wolff (SF) vs IM Marko Zivanic (DAL) 1/2-1/2 Article Elimination Article
18th Place (27 Points): IM Dmitry Schneider (QNS) vs GM Eugene Perelshteyn (BOS) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
19th Place (22 Points): FM Oleg Zaikov (CAR) vs SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) 1/2-1/2 Article Elimination Article
20th Place (18 Points): GM Jaan Ehlvest (TEN) vs IM Rogelio Barcenilla (ARZ) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Game of the Year -- Top Five Analysis
So we have reached the prize stage of this contest, and these are the games that remain:
Week 5: SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) vs IM David Pruess (SF) 1-0 Article
Week 8: GM Sergey Erenburg (BAL) vs SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) 1-0 Article
Quarterfinals: IM Davorin Kuljasevic (DAL) vs GM Vinay Bhat (SF) 1-0 Article
Finals: GM Larry Christiansen (BOS) vs IM Marko Zivanic (DAL) 1-0 Article
Wildcard #2: GM Joel Benjamin (NJ) vs GM Sergey Erenburg (BAL) 0-1 Article
Undoubtedly, the biggest surprise is the continued survival of the Kuljasevic vs Bhat encounter, which the four predictors had placed in 10th, 11th, 16th, and 16th (maybe that's why none of us are actual judges?). Little else really is out of the ordinary though with the other four games all predicted to be near there from the start. For reference though, these are the rankings remaining for the Top Five games for the five judges and the the four predictors:
IM Ben Finegold: 1, 2, 3, 7, 13
GM Jan Gustafsson: 3, 4, 5, 6, 11
FM Ingvar Johannesson: 1, 3, 4, 6, 11
FM Daniel Ludwig: 1, 2, 3, 5, 7
FM Ron Young: 1, 2, 5, 8, 11
NM Jonathan Hilton: 2, 4, 9, 10, 16
IM Greg Shahade: 1, 2, 6, 9, 16
WGM Jennifer Shahade: 1, 2, 3, 4, 11
NM Arun Sharma: 1, 6, 7, 8, 10
Unfortunately, my triumph in being the only one to get nine of the top ten games correct seems to have been short lived as I'm now the only one to get a mere one of the top five correct (with Daniel Ludwig and Jennifer Shahade being on top, getting four of five correct).
While my incompetence in that regard cannot be debated, I'm really not surprised by any Top Five game, other than Kuljasevic vs Bhat like most people probably are. Even though I personally thought both Sammour-Hasbun vs Pruess and Christiansen vs Zivanic were not quite deserving of the Top Five (personally, I felt those players' other games, Shabalov vs Sammour-Hasbun and Kudrin vs Christiansen, were better, but again maybe that's why I'm not a judge!), I definitely am not surprised to see either of them make it here (the judges probably decided to really rub in my face by making those games finish first and second). Nevertheless, I am quite happy to see that my Wildcard pick, Benjamin vs Erenburg, did manage to make it to the promise land as I really felt that it deserved that in the least (and I still hold out hope that it will win!).
So which of these games will win the $500 Grand Prize? Stay tuned to see as it will be announced within the next couple of weeks!
Monday, January 19, 2009
Game of the Year -- 6th Place
This is the fifteenth part in a series of articles which will count down to revealing what game was voted as the 2008 USCL Game of the Year. For more information on exactly how this process works and the prize information, please refer to: Game of the Year Contest.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6th Place: GM Jaan Ehlvest (TEN) vs GM Sergey Erenburg (BAL) 1/2-1/2
Following a strong exchange sacrifice by Ehlvest, Erenburg cleverly defended with 27... Bf5! After some more nice tactics by both sides, the game liquidated into a drawn endgame.
Below are the comments from the judges on why they ranked the game where they did and in parentheses is the ranking given by that judge and the number of points awarded for that ranking.
GM Jan Gustafsson (2nd Place, 19 points): We need more Petroffs! Ok, Ehlvest's opening treatment is hardly a refutation, and Black got a very decent position quickly. But the middlegame phase is highly impressive. While the exchange sac 23. Rxf6! was done out of necessity, it also carries a lot of venom, and both sides had to be very precise and creative. 25. e4! Nf4!, 27... Bf5!, and 28. Kh2! are all very strong, non obvious moves – attack and defense on a great level! 28... Kh8 might have been slightly inaccurate, 28... Kg7 covering f6 is probably better. On move thirty Black had the great 30... Qe5! 31. Qxe5 Rxh4 32. Kg3 Rh3 33. Kg2 Rxe5 34. exf5 Rxd3! 35. cxd3 Rxd5 with a good Rook ending, but missing that with low time is hardly a crime. In the game the balance wasn't seriously disturbed, and after the cute 34... Rh1, it quickly finished peacefully. 36. Rh5 might have been a chance to try for more for White actually. A very spectacular game. I was very seriously considering making this one number one, but somehow having a draw as GOTY doesn't seem right, and I also slightly miss more critical opening play. If these should really be criteria is up for discussion of course. Anyways, a cool effort by both sides!
FM Ron Young (4th Place, 17 points): Some people see a Petroff and figure that a dull draw is in store. But every once in a while, you get an exciting draw that leaves you longing for the next Petroff and looking for a Petroff thematic tournament to play in.
FM Ingvar Johannesson (7th Place, 14 points): Had all the makings of a boring Petroff draw, at least the opening and the very end in the Rook ending. But somehow in the middle it seemed like most of the pieces on the board developed some kind of random Tourette syndrome, and the pieces just dropped every which way with no regard for human life. An array of surprising moves in this game like 23. Rxf6, 27... Bf5 and 31... Rh1, although mostly forced. So this game ranks pretty high for its inventiveness and entertainment value.
FM Daniel Ludwig (12th Place, 9 points): I have to admit, Erenburg is quickly becoming one of my favorite GMs in the United States. His play is typically sharp, and he's always trying to win. In this game against Ehlvest, Jaan plays unorthodox as always and gets a worse position out of the opening. After Black played a nice Rook lift, the pressure was too much that White decided to sacrifice the exchange. Black was clearly in control of the game after 12. Be3? and played sharply and accurately to achieve a nearly winning position until he blew it with 30... Bh7 instead of the strong 30... Qe5! This was truly a great game in many respects. It could have easily been Top Five but for two major things. First of all, Ehlvest was just asking for a beating by playing 12. Be3. This move is ridiculous, and I'm sure that Erenburg was upset with himself for having not finishing the job. Secondly, it ended in a draw even though the position was clearly better, if not winning, for Black.
IM Ben Finegold (16th Place, 5 points): Pretty interesting draw. White is outplayed and worse throughout, but plays very resourcefully, and Black misses his chances to be better with 30... Qe5! Pretty well played draw and by far the best of the draws submitted.
Total Score of Ehlvest vs Erenburg: (6th Place, 64 Points)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stay tuned for four more such articles as the field shrinks by one game every couple of days to see which of the following games will be the 2008 Game of the Year!
Week 5: SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) vs IM David Pruess (SF) 1-0 Article
Week 8: GM Sergey Erenburg (BAL) vs SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) 1-0 Article
Quarterfinals: IM Davorin Kuljasevic (DAL) vs GM Vinay Bhat (SF) 1-0 Article
Championship: GM Larry Christiansen (BOS) vs IM Marko Zivanic (DAL) 1-0 Article
Wildcard #2: GM Joel Benjamin (NJ) vs GM Sergey Erenburg (BAL) 0-1 Article
Eliminated:
6th Place (64 Points): GM Jaan Ehlvest (TEN) vs GM Sergey Erenburg (BAL) 1/2-1/2 Article Elimination Article
7th Place (62 Points): IM Alex Lenderman (QNS) vs IM Dean Ippolito (NJ) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
8th Place (60 Points): GM Vinay Bhat (SF) vs IM Emory Tate (CHC) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
9th Place (59 Points): GM Alex Shabalov (NY) vs SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) 0-1 Article Elimination Article
10th Place (54 Points): IM Alex Lenderman (QNS) vs FM Oleg Zaikov (CAR) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
11th Place (51 Points): IM Lev Milman (CAR) vs GM Alex Shabalov (NY) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
12th Place (46 Points): GM Sergey Kudrin (PHI) vs GM Larry Christiansen (BOS) 1/2-1/2 Article Elimination Article
13th Place (44 Points): IM Alex Lenderman (QNS) vs IM Emory Tate (CHC) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
14th Place (42 Points): GM Pascal Charbonneau (NY) vs GM Sergey Kudrin (PHI) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
15th Place (35 Points): FM Bruci Lopez (MIA) vs GM Gregory Serper (SEA) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
16th Place (34 Points): IM Davorin Kuljasevic (DAL) vs GM Julio Becerra (MIA) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
17th Place (32 Points): GM Patrick Wolff (SF) vs IM Marko Zivanic (DAL) 1/2-1/2 Article Elimination Article
18th Place (27 Points): IM Dmitry Schneider (QNS) vs GM Eugene Perelshteyn (BOS) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
19th Place (22 Points): FM Oleg Zaikov (CAR) vs SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) 1/2-1/2 Article Elimination Article
20th Place (18 Points): GM Jaan Ehlvest (TEN) vs IM Rogelio Barcenilla (ARZ) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Game of the Year -- 7th Place
This is the fourteenth part in a series of articles which will count down to revealing what game was voted as the 2008 USCL Game of the Year. For more information on exactly how this process works and the prize information, please refer to: Game of the Year Contest.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7th Place: IM Alex Lenderman (QNS) vs IM Dean Ippolito (NJ) 1-0
In the midst of a tactical melee, Lenderman got the best of the complications with 28. Qxf7!, forcing liquidation into a winning endgame.
Below are the comments from the judges on why they ranked the game where they did and in parentheses is the ranking given by that judge and the number of points awarded for that ranking.
FM Ron Young (3rd Place, 18 points): White made a number of nice moves to reach a winning ending, but Black's inspired King charge made for one of the more exciting mopping-ups since the enchanted mop in Disney's Fantasia. And that one was really more scary than entertaining.
FM Ingvar Johannesson (5th Place, 16 points): A nice tactical game by Lenderman. Black seems to be ok with the two Bishops vs a Rook, but he has some big time coordination problems, and after some nice tactics White ends up in a winning rook endgame. The stalemate attempt 40... Rxc4 was nice although it fell short, but it was somehow a nice cherry on top of a pretty good cake.
GM Jan Gustafsson (10th Place, 11 points): Creative stuff from Lenderman, but I'm not a huge fan of the position he got out of the opening. Black's plan with 16... e5 looks wrong though, giving squares to the White pieces; I'd prefer something less committal such as 16... Qc7. Later on 19. Bxd6 is flashy, but I can't believe that it's the best move; 19. Qf3 instead looks like a huge edge while in the game Black should be ok with the two Bishops for Rook + Pawns. Lenderman came up with the creative 24. h3 25. g4 plan though, applying pressure and provoking Black's mistakes. 28. Qxf7 is a nice if obvious shot, and I'd guess Black is beyond salvation for the rest of the game. Pluses for creativity, but I'm just not buying his concept so not higher on my list.
FM Daniel Ludwig (11th Place, 10 points): Pretty cool game. I enjoyed watching this one, from beginning to end. Ippolito had a nice game going, but got out of control with 16... e5, 17... exf4. One thing that impressed me by about this game was how Lenderman kept the initiative going, even with a Rook against two Bishops. 24. h3, 25. g4 was a nice plan that pretty much sealed the deal. In general this was a great game, but there was nothing deeper than one or two move shots.
IM Ben Finegold (14th Place, 7 points): Lenderman played well (albeit, a bit over the top), but Ippy spoils the game with four consecutive mistakes from moves twenty two through twenty five. A nice tactical win though.
Total Score of Lenderman vs Ippolito: (7th Place, 62 Points)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stay tuned for five more such articles as the field shrinks by one game every couple of days to see which of the following games will be the 2008 Game of the Year!
Week 5: SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) vs IM David Pruess (SF) 1-0 Article
Week 8: GM Sergey Erenburg (BAL) vs SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) 1-0 Article
Week 10: GM Jaan Ehlvest (TEN) vs GM Sergey Erenburg (BAL) 1/2-1/2 Article
Quarterfinals: IM Davorin Kuljasevic (DAL) vs GM Vinay Bhat (SF) 1-0 Article
Championship: GM Larry Christiansen (BOS) vs IM Marko Zivanic (DAL) 1-0 Article
Wildcard #2: GM Joel Benjamin (NJ) vs GM Sergey Erenburg (BAL) 0-1 Article
Eliminated:
7th Place (62 Points): IM Alex Lenderman (QNS) vs IM Dean Ippolito (NJ) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
8th Place (60 Points): GM Vinay Bhat (SF) vs IM Emory Tate (CHC) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
9th Place (59 Points): GM Alex Shabalov (NY) vs SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) 0-1 Article Elimination Article
10th Place (54 Points): IM Alex Lenderman (QNS) vs FM Oleg Zaikov (CAR) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
11th Place (51 Points): IM Lev Milman (CAR) vs GM Alex Shabalov (NY) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
12th Place (46 Points): GM Sergey Kudrin (PHI) vs GM Larry Christiansen (BOS) 1/2-1/2 Article Elimination Article
13th Place (44 Points): IM Alex Lenderman (QNS) vs IM Emory Tate (CHC) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
14th Place (42 Points): GM Pascal Charbonneau (NY) vs GM Sergey Kudrin (PHI) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
15th Place (35 Points): FM Bruci Lopez (MIA) vs GM Gregory Serper (SEA) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
16th Place (34 Points): IM Davorin Kuljasevic (DAL) vs GM Julio Becerra (MIA) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
17th Place (32 Points): GM Patrick Wolff (SF) vs IM Marko Zivanic (DAL) 1/2-1/2 Article Elimination Article
18th Place (27 Points): IM Dmitry Schneider (QNS) vs GM Eugene Perelshteyn (BOS) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
19th Place (22 Points): FM Oleg Zaikov (CAR) vs SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) 1/2-1/2 Article Elimination Article
20th Place (18 Points): GM Jaan Ehlvest (TEN) vs IM Rogelio Barcenilla (ARZ) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Game of the Year -- 8th Place
This is the thirteenth part in a series of articles which will count down to revealing what game was voted as the 2008 USCL Game of the Year. For more information on exactly how this process works and the prize information, please refer to: Game of the Year Contest.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8th Place: GM Vinay Bhat (SF) vs IM Emory Tate (CHC) 1-0
With a tenuous King position and facing two dangerous passed Pawns, Bhat played the nice 40. Rf4!, simultaneously safeguarding his own King and opening up an attack on the opposing King.
Below are the comments from the judges on why they ranked the game where they did and in parentheses is the ranking given by that judge and the number of points awarded for that ranking.
FM Daniel Ludwig (4th Place, 17 points): The situation that Bhat had is almost my worst chess nightmare. Move thirty five, deep in time pressure, gut tells you that your position is almost winning, but it is so unclear with a Knight for two connected passers and both Kings wide open. To make matters worse, Tate, who is always looking to complicate matters, decides to play 35... Kc6, 36... Kc5, and 37... Kb4, really putting the pressure on White to do something before the pawns start pushing. Let's also not forget that Bhat had to win this game just to tie the match! The entire game was quite good though, even on the side of Tate! Emory's opening choice was fun, and while it was off beat, it certainly wasn't against opening principles. I really like Bhat’s idea of pushing the Pawn all the way down to h6, to punch some holes in the Kingside. There was one point when Bhat could have seized a more serious advantage, but it's hardly clear, and for the most part, both sides were playing great moves. Interestingly enough, the piece sacrifice, 25... Nfxd4 was also strongest. Perhaps Bhat could have saved himself some trouble by not playing 31. f4, weakening his own King, but regardless he recovered excellently to pick up the full point. My favorite point in the game was when Vinay correctly moved his rook back and forth along the f-file forcing Black to give up some coordination. 40. Rf4! was a particularly strong computer like move, that cut off the Queen, while at the same time opening up his own Queen to harass the nomadic King. It's not very often that you find a game that is so fun to watch, with many exciting elements, that is also well played.
IM Ben Finegold (6th Place, 15 points): Now THIS is a USCL GOTW! White obtains a winning position without any trouble against Black's terrible play. Then, *no technique* sets in, and Black is fine. Then, Black goes WAY too far, and White cannot help but win. A very entertaining game for the spectators as it reminds me of two players rated under 1000 in a scholastic tournament. 39... d4?? is funny. Great fun, no quality! Awesome!
GM Jan Gustafsson (7th Place, 14 points): Fun stuff. Having fallen victim to Tate myself I'm well aware of his skills to mix it up even when things might look grim. Not a huge fan of the offbeat French he played and the early strategic decisions like 10... c4 and 12... b4 though, which left his King without a place to go. Bhat did a good job of getting an edge and after say 18. Ng5, I can't see Black surviving.
Later on we get a phase of crazy complications starting with 25... Nxd4 which both sides seem to manage well until the Black King starts a suicide mission with 36... Kc5 and 37... Kb4. Nice finish by Bhat. Being a bit of an opening freak I don't rate this game higher because of Black's strange play in that phase and the fact he didn't get punished appropriately for it. It seemed like Tate was making the key decisions in which direction the game should go but became too creative, and Bhat merely had to cash in later. Still, good entertainment for sure!
FM Ron Young (12th Place, 9 points): This was almost an epic, but it's easier to get the bards on board when the rampaging King prevails over the extra material rather than the opposite.
FM Ingvar Johannesson (16th Place, 5 points): Tate plays a rare opening line that somehow ends up in a French like structure. In the middle game Tate is kind of forced into a piece sacrifice, but we know he doesn't mind it as he likes complicated games with imbalances. It seemed to have the potential to be interesting with connected passed Pawns vs a Knight, but ultimately the King march by Tate proved suicidal.
Total Score of Bhat vs Tate: (8th Place, 60 Points)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stay tuned for six more such articles as the field shrinks by one game every couple of days to see which of the following games will be the 2008 Game of the Year!
Week 5: SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) vs IM David Pruess (SF) 1-0 Article
Week 7: IM Alex Lenderman (QNS) vs IM Dean Ippolito (NJ) 1-0 Article
Week 8: GM Sergey Erenburg (BAL) vs SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) 1-0 Article
Week 10: GM Jaan Ehlvest (TEN) vs GM Sergey Erenburg (BAL) 1/2-1/2 Article
Quarterfinals: IM Davorin Kuljasevic (DAL) vs GM Vinay Bhat (SF) 1-0 Article
Championship: GM Larry Christiansen (BOS) vs IM Marko Zivanic (DAL) 1-0 Article
Wildcard #2: GM Joel Benjamin (NJ) vs GM Sergey Erenburg (BAL) 0-1 Article
Eliminated:
8th Place (60 Points): GM Vinay Bhat (SF) vs IM Emory Tate (CHC) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
9th Place (59 Points): GM Alex Shabalov (NY) vs SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) 0-1 Article Elimination Article
10th Place (54 Points): IM Alex Lenderman (QNS) vs FM Oleg Zaikov (CAR) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
11th Place (51 Points): IM Lev Milman (CAR) vs GM Alex Shabalov (NY) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
12th Place (46 Points): GM Sergey Kudrin (PHI) vs GM Larry Christiansen (BOS) 1/2-1/2 Article Elimination Article
13th Place (44 Points): IM Alex Lenderman (QNS) vs IM Emory Tate (CHC) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
14th Place (42 Points): GM Pascal Charbonneau (NY) vs GM Sergey Kudrin (PHI) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
15th Place (35 Points): FM Bruci Lopez (MIA) vs GM Gregory Serper (SEA) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
16th Place (34 Points): IM Davorin Kuljasevic (DAL) vs GM Julio Becerra (MIA) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
17th Place (32 Points): GM Patrick Wolff (SF) vs IM Marko Zivanic (DAL) 1/2-1/2 Article Elimination Article
18th Place (27 Points): IM Dmitry Schneider (QNS) vs GM Eugene Perelshteyn (BOS) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
19th Place (22 Points): FM Oleg Zaikov (CAR) vs SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) 1/2-1/2 Article Elimination Article
20th Place (18 Points): GM Jaan Ehlvest (TEN) vs IM Rogelio Barcenilla (ARZ) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Game of the Year -- 9th Place
This is the twelfth part in a series of articles which will count down to revealing what game was voted as the 2008 USCL Game of the Year. For more information on exactly how this process works and the prize information, please refer to: Game of the Year Contest.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9th Place: GM Alex Shabalov (NY) vs SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) 0-1
How many players would put their King smack in the middle of the board with all the major pieces still on for a bit of extra material against a player like Shabalov? Not many probably, but Sammour-Hasbun defended the position flawlessly and went on to win.
Below are the comments from the judges on why they ranked the game where they did and in parentheses is the ranking given by that judge and the number of points awarded for that ranking.
GM Jan Gustafsson (1st Place, 20 points): My favorite! Shabalov introduces a novelty in a topical opening with 16. Qc2 instead of following in Topalov's footsteps with 16. Bg4. In my experience, being surprised by a new move in a super sharp line like this one is one of the toughest situations there are in chess. Sammour-Hasbun deserves a lot of credit for his, as far as I can see, flawless reaction and handling of the complications, which might just refute Shabalov's novelty. 16... Qxd4 is already a committal and strong decision, and 19... Nf8! seems the only way to keep an edge as the tempting 19... Kd6 only leads to equality according to my helpers. Over the next couple moves I'm also unable to find even the slightest flaw in Black's play; the cold-blooded 30... Rxa2 especially impressed me. Ok, later he might have had some options to finish the game off quicker, but a great tactician like Shabalov still never got a chance to fight back. This game has a lot going for it:
- A fashionable opening, leading to crazy positions with a strange material balance.
- A novelty by Shabalov, making the game an important contribution to the development of this line.
- Almost perfect high-quality play from the winner, rightly judging he is better after returning the Rook with 19... Nf8!
- A win with the Black pieces against a very strong opponent, adding some upset value to the game.
I'm aware this was round one, and that Shabalov always loses in round one, but that doesn't diminish the achievement of the winner and the quality of his play.
FM Ingvar Johannesson (2nd Place, 19 points): Fascinated by this game for some reason. The material balance throughout is very weird and the relative King safety with the King on e5 in the middle of the game makes a nice aesthetic impression. Sammour-Hasbun's tactical talent simply shines through in this very inventive game, both nice defense and then a nice finish after the momentum went over to Black. I gave this second place as it is probably the most interesting game of the lot. I had places two through four pretty evenly matched, but I'll give second to Sammour-Hasbun, no matter whether he wins or loses, his games are very entertaining and interesting!
IM Ben Finegold (10th Place, 11 points): An interesting theoretical line. Black slowly takes over the game, as White never seems to have enough compensation for his material deficit. Shabalov wins and loses a lot of games like this.
FM Ron Young (15th Place, 6 points): Tal used to own the f7 square, and there seem to be more claimants to its inheritance than there were to Howard Hughes's fortune. We can look forward to seeing still more pretenders to the legacy crawl out from the woodwork.
FM Daniel Ludwig (18th Place, 3 points): There seems to be something about Botvinnik's and Moscow's winning game prizes. Don't believe me? Take a look at Nunn/Emms/Burgess's mammoth book of greatest games. Of all the great games they list after 1990 or so, half of them seem to be Botvinnik's, and I disagree with this. I don't think a game should be ranked any higher simply because of the sharp looking opening theory. Already at move fifteen the crowd is probably on the edge of their seats wondering if 12. Nxf7 was come up with over the board, but this is nothing new so let's not credit the players and this game for the false excitement. The point where the game left theoretical paths was at 16. Qc2, the first move that the players actually came up with themselves, which was already a big mistake, and so hardly a good game thus far. After 16. Qc2 Sammour-Hasbun had to simply play a series of greedy captures to reach a winning position which he easily converted. So while Sammour-Hasbun played well, I felt that having to only play a few good moves, capitalizing on poor play by White, did not warrant a higher ranking.
Total Score of Shabalov vs Sammour-Hasbun: (9th Place, 59 Points)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stay tuned for seven more such articles as the field shrinks by one game every couple of days to see which of the following games will be the 2008 Game of the Year!
Week 2: GM Vinay Bhat (SF) vs IM Emory Tate (CHC) 1-0 Article
Week 5: SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) vs IM David Pruess (SF) 1-0 Article
Week 7: IM Alex Lenderman (QNS) vs IM Dean Ippolito (NJ) 1-0 Article
Week 8: GM Sergey Erenburg (BAL) vs SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) 1-0 Article
Week 10: GM Jaan Ehlvest (TEN) vs GM Sergey Erenburg (BAL) 1/2-1/2 Article
Quarterfinals: IM Davorin Kuljasevic (DAL) vs GM Vinay Bhat (SF) 1-0 Article
Championship: GM Larry Christiansen (BOS) vs IM Marko Zivanic (DAL) 1-0 Article
Wildcard #2: GM Joel Benjamin (NJ) vs GM Sergey Erenburg (BAL) 0-1 Article
Eliminated:
9th Place (59 Points): GM Alex Shabalov (NY) vs SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) 0-1 Article Elimination Article
10th Place (54 Points): IM Alex Lenderman (QNS) vs FM Oleg Zaikov (CAR) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
11th Place (51 Points): IM Lev Milman (CAR) vs GM Alex Shabalov (NY) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
12th Place (46 Points): GM Sergey Kudrin (PHI) vs GM Larry Christiansen (BOS) 1/2-1/2 Article Elimination Article
13th Place (44 Points): IM Alex Lenderman (QNS) vs IM Emory Tate (CHC) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
14th Place (42 Points): GM Pascal Charbonneau (NY) vs GM Sergey Kudrin (PHI) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
15th Place (35 Points): FM Bruci Lopez (MIA) vs GM Gregory Serper (SEA) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
16th Place (34 Points): IM Davorin Kuljasevic (DAL) vs GM Julio Becerra (MIA) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
17th Place (32 Points): GM Patrick Wolff (SF) vs IM Marko Zivanic (DAL) 1/2-1/2 Article Elimination Article
18th Place (27 Points): IM Dmitry Schneider (QNS) vs GM Eugene Perelshteyn (BOS) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
19th Place (22 Points): FM Oleg Zaikov (CAR) vs SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS) 1/2-1/2 Article Elimination Article
20th Place (18 Points): GM Jaan Ehlvest (TEN) vs IM Rogelio Barcenilla (ARZ) 1-0 Article Elimination Article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
