skip to main |
skip to sidebar
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
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
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
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
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
