NY Knights vs Manhattan Applesauce

GM Tamaz Gelashvili

GM Alex Lenderman

Michael Bodek

Nicolas Checa

Many thanks to our sponsor, Chess NYC

Michael Bodek. Alex Lenderman's computer is in the background; he is momentarily away making tea.

time trouble 

2011 New York Knights Season Recap

Destiny and anti-climax are rarely seen together, the latter usually paired with a dominant performer, but they made a joint appearance at the USCL final. For the second straight year, the closing minutes of the USCL Championship were devoid of risk for the victors. Giorgi Kacheishvili had effectively clinched the match for the New York Knights on the 57th move of his game against the Chicago Blaze’s Mesgen Amanov, with his extra piece and chromatically correct bishop/rook-pawn, though Amanov’s resignation would not come for another 40 moves.

New York sailed through the first eight weeks of the regular season and backed into the second seed after consecutive 2.5-1.5 defeats in weeks 9 and 10. Kacheishvili’s incredible 5/5 with black on board 1 (spurring him to his first league MVP award) and John Fedorowicz’s ultra-solid play on board 2, with pinch-hitters Irina Krush and Pascal Charbonneau delivering critical wins, anchored the top half for New York.

During the championship run of 2009, US #54 Yaacov Norowitz held board 4 and Matt Herman contributed a solid 50% on board 3 (and yet the Knights finished only 5-5!). The 2011 Knights fielded a patchwork team on the bottom boards, rotating Herman (who played quite erratic chess during the regular season) and Leif Pressman on 3 and the three juniors Michael Bodek, Justus Williams and Ben Gershenov on 4.

Chicago began the season 8-0, utilizing the “GGGg” strategy of three strong grandmasters on boards 1-3 and an underrated junior on board 4. An incredible 14/16 on boards 3 and 4 made them nearly impossible to beat. With draw odds/colors clinched, Miami and Chicago nicked them before the playoffs.

The Boston Blitz quickly revealed the Knights’ flaws in their quarterfinal match – an identical rematch of their week 2 tilt. Kacheishvili hung an exchange against Jorge Sammour-Hasbun and Fedorowicz’s Sveshnikov was demolished by a Marc Esserman novelty. Herman was unable to consolidate an extra pawn, hung a piece and then was forced to “sacrifice” another to keep the game going against his USCL nemesis, Vadim Martirosov. Michael Bodek, who had managed to beat Ilya Krasik from a completely lost position in their first encounter, looked to hold New York’s only chance to avoid an embarrassing 4-0 whitewash. There was no question, however, that New York was going home and that Boston would face Philadelphia or Manhattan in their quest to reach a 3rd USCL final.

Fabled “curses” in sports are often the product of a “narrative fallacy”, the desire to fit facts into a neatly packaged story, constructed with hindsight and strengthened by “confirmation bias”. Much like the stunning reversal in baseball’s AL East this September, however, it was impossible to avoid the real-time sense that this was not Boston’s year. As documented by Marc Esserman, Martirosov mis-evaluated a sacrifice that would have forced mate in 3


Herman-Maritrosov, after 43. Kh4

and within a half-dozen moves was staring down the barrel of mate and resigned. That Bodek and Krasik traded errors and Krasik had, first, successfully prevented black’s pawns from advancing and, at the brink, could have been rescued by a shocking stalemate trick


Bodek-Krasik, after 78. ... e2??

was irrelevant. The crowd felt the shift in momentum and, in a cruel twist, Krasik saw the stalemate idea one move too late and when Bodek recaptured correctly on d3 it was over.

Manhattan shocked Philadelphia in the other quarterfinal, overcoming the 3/4 All-Star duo of Jay Bonin and William Fisher.

The Boston match proved two things: anything is possible till the clocks are stopped and the tremendous advantage of draw odds. The Knights made the finals in 2006 and 2009 without that edge but in 2011 it provided a comfortable margin in the Eastern Finals against the Applesauce. New York played for two results on boards 1, 2 and 4. After Irina Krush converted against John Bartholomew on board 2 and Justus Williams overcame a few hiccups to beat James Black on board 4, with Leif pulling yet another rabbit from his hat against Farai Mandizha on board 3, not even Kacheishvili’s fatigue-induced blunder on board 1 could prevent New York from returning to the Finals.

Chicago’s also got through their toughest test in the quarterfinals, advancing 2-2 against a very strong Dallas team. The critical game was Sam Schmakel overcoming Jeffrey Xiong’s preparation in a Bg5 Najdorf Sicilian and the resulting hour time deficit. Xiong missed at least one clear win and eventually blundered a rook. In the West Finals, Chicago dispatched a gritty Los Angeles Vibe team, despite a loss on board 4 and getting nothing with white on board 1. Josh Friedel’s GOTW-winning effort on board 2 against Zhanibek Amanov gave Chicago their first Finals appearance.

One of the dangers of fielding a team full of rising young stars is that they happen to find themselves competing for national and international titles. The weekend of the USCL Final provided a double whammy, where 5 of the 10 Knights were called away, with Justus and Michael in Brazil, coached by Fed, and Ben was competing in the nationals in Dallas, where Pascal would also be coaching. Chicago also had some significant challenges, as Schmakel was in Dallas (where he won the 10th grade title), and Eric Rosen on his way to an IM norm at the World Youth. The effects on both teams were significant – Chicago couldn’t bring out the GGGg lineup that had served them so well, and the Knights, well, we had some more pressing lineup challenges.

One of the great things about a 10 player roster is you can always find a way to field a legal lineup. Well, maybe not. Our 10th player, John Fernandez, who hasn’t played in the USCL since 2005, was there to allow us to have the very frightening Kacheishvili/Charbonneau/Herman/Fernandez lineup (Average 2400.75!), but with the performance of the youngsters, the captain had decided not to field him this season. That left a lineup of Kacheishvili/Krush/Herman/Pressman, which would have been wonderful except for the fact that it wasn’t legal. After a protracted discussion, we ended up with the most equitable outcome, playing Fernandez on board 4.

With both teams fielding sub-optimal lineups, the Final was always going to be interesting, but perhaps the Knights had not intended for it to be as interesting as things turned out. A bit of a digression about the Marshall Chess Club, the home of the Knights for all seven seasons: it is always a hotbed of chess activity. You can count on a tournament going on every day, with lectures, folks hanging out, studying, playing blitz, wheeling and dealing, and everything else that makes it great. That often, however, means that setting up proves a challenge, especially with WiFi in a very old building, or the occasional disruption from one of the many members. Lo and behold, at 2:57PM, the WiFi went down for all four players. After many minutes of rebooting routers, re-pairing wireless connections, and rebooting machines, nothing would work. In a panic, the team decided to head to the nearest place with reliable Internet for 4 – Fernandez’s home office. Now, his place is no stranger to US Championship team play, having hosted the US Amateur Team East Champs in 2005 when Eli Vovsha, Sam Benen, Evan Rosenberg and Josh Bromberg competed in the US Amateur Team Playoffs, but this time, Fernandez was both hosting and playing. Finally, with almost a half hour off their clocks, the Knights began play.

Fernandez chose a very solid positional line against Gopal Menon’s Philidor on board 4, doing everything he could to keep moving quickly and overcome the time disadvantage. Fernandez was incredibly rusty, having not played a USCL game for 2,224 days (certainly a record), and only played one tournament (Bermuda this year) since the summer of 2004. The rust showed as things got a bit out of hand as he pushed for a win.


Fernandez-Menon, after 24. ... Qd6

While Fernandez had seen 25. f5!, the move necessary to keep everything together, he couldn’t find a clear continuation after 25. … e5 26. Bc5 Rxc5 27. Bxc5 Qxc5+ 28. Kh1 d4 29. Ne4 Qxa5 with moves like b5 coming for Black, and panicked with 25. Rg3?, and then further compounded the error with 27. Qf3?. Menon converted quite easily.

Herman got into his usual time trouble against Angelo Young on board 3, in a game where both players maintained a high degree of tension for 30 moves. Black sacrificed his c6 pawn with 24. ..d4 (instead of the "safer" 24. ..f5), looking to sharpen the struggle and bury the a1 Bishop. Young, who at one point was ahead a full 45 minutes on the clock, drifted into time trouble and had only 54 seconds remaining after 29. ..Nc5.


Young-Herman, after 29. ... Nc5

He responded 30. Qf3 and after 30. ..e4 31. Qg2 ed 32. cd Nd3 33. Rd1 de 34. fe


Young-Herman, after 34. fxe3

Herman had regained the pawn with a close to winning advantage. Choosing to keep queens on in Young's time pressure, he played 34. ..Ba7 instead of 34. ..Qe4 which would have led to a favorable ending. Young tried to save his position with a tactical blow, the stunning 35. Bf6 (35. Bd4 would have been better, though white was still defending after 35. ..Bd4 36. Rd3 Ba7 37. Rd8 Rd8 38. Qf3 g6), but after 35. ..Be3 he erred with the mouseslip Qg2-f2. The league rejected the takeback request given the time situation and Young allowed his time to run out. If he had instead chosen 36. Kh1, black had an easy win after 36. ..Nf2 37. Qf2 Bf2 38. Be7 Rd1 39. Rd1 Re7, as the h4/g5 pawns fall quickly and a2 is permanently weak.

Board 2 was a sharp melee in the Queen’s Gambit Declined, where after some amazing Bishop tactics (Bc1-f4xe5xg7xf8xa3 for Irina, and Bc8-f5-e6xd5xg2xf1-h3 for Gurevich), Black ended up with a slight advantage. Fortunately, Bishops of Opposite Colors endgames have tendencies to be drawish, even with rooks on the board, and Irina kept a cool head and hauled in the half point.

On board 1, Giorgi began an early fight for the initiative in the Grunfeld against Amanov's g3, though Amanov missed his best chance on move 22


Amanov-Kacheishvili, after 21. ... Rc2

When Bg2-f1 would have challenged the integrity of black's queenside and led to a comfortable game. Instead, Amanov sought refuge in a minor-piece endgame, trading off rooks and queens over the following 5 moves. On move 29, Kacheishvili could have gone after white's a2 pawn with Nb6-a4/Bc3-b4/Na4-c3, but chose to create a passed d-pawn with f7-f5!?. Four moves later, instead of Nd2-f1, Amanov should have restrained the d-pawn with Nd2-f3, meeting d6-d5 with Bc1-e3 and asking black how he intends to make progress. The last chance for an "easy" defense was with 36. Bc6 (instead of 36. f3). Amanov took his knight on a deadly tour and after 38. ..Bf7


Amanov-Kacheishvili, after 38. ... Bf7

His pieces could not coordinate to stop the d-pawn. The doomed knight was finally trapped with 44. ..Be6, and concurrent with Irina's draw on board 2 made the rest a mop up.


The 2011 United States Chess League Champion New York Knights: GM Giorgi Kacheishvili, Matthew Herman, IM Irina Krush, John Fernandez

Week 1: On the scoreboard

We defeated the Baltimore Kingfishers 2.5-1.5, led by victories on boards 1 and 4 from Giorgi and Justus. Fed was pressing all game against Enkhbat but took a draw on board 2 to clinch the match. Baltimore's lone win was scored against me on board 3, a smooth performance from Defibaugh. During last year's regular season, we lost so many close matches that getting one by a narrow margin was a good reminder that we can still be clutch.

Justus was first to finish, collecting a piece against Balasubramanian in a Philidor. Giorgi followed with a nice mating attack against Margvelashvili. Fed grabbed a space advantage in the opening and was always for choice until his pragmatic decision to draw. I was soundly outplayed by Defibaugh on board 3, who took control of a queenless middlegame and swapped to a rook and knight endgame that he converted without giving me any chances.

It's great to be bailed out by teammates but I'm still looking for my first win since the 2009 Finals!

We face the defending champion Nor'Easters on Tuesday. New England knocked us out of the playoffs last year but was nicked for its first ever loss by the Boston Blitz this week. Our match with them should be a dogfight.

Let the games begin!

Very excited about the new USCL season. We are bringing back the core of our team (Giorgi, Pascal, Irina and Fed) on the top boards and going with some fresh faces on 3 and 4.

The New Knights

NM Leif Pressman (2232 USCL / 2381 USCF / 2301 FIDE) and I will be sharing time on board 3 for the Knights. Leif has been a very active player at the Marshall Chess Club, having notched over 1200 games as a NM. He recently tied for 6th at the World Open U2400 (won by former Knight FM Alex Ostrovskiy) and notched a solid 50% at the New York International. The last 9 months have seen him gain 160 FIDE points and he'll be a formidable weapon for New York.

NM Justus Williams (2165 USCL / 2265 USCF / 2172 FIDE) returns to the Knights after a short, though impressive debut season in 2010. Since then, he's won the National K-8 Championship and shared the NY State High School Championship (along with teammate Ben Gershenov, winning their individual encounter). His crushing performance (13.5/14) at the blitz championship of the latest running of the US Chess School (http://main.uschess.org/content/view/11362/639/) should put everyone on notice!

NM Michael Bodek (2199 USCL / 2334 USCF / 2207 FIDE) is the 2011 US Cadet Champion, having scorched the field with a 5.5/7 score, losing only to co-Champ New Jersey's FM Arthur Shen. He continued his hot streak during the first half of the recently completed Metropolitan Chess International, scoring +2 =4 -0 against IM-level opposition, before losing some steam at the end. He's gained a remarkable 1005 USCF rating points (1329 -> 2334) since January 2008.

NM Ben Gershenov (2072 USCL / 2279 USCF / 2168 FIDE) is the lowest rated member of the Knights...as of last September. He's gained over 200 USCF points in the last 12 months and, like Leif, scored 50% at the New York International. His recent trip to Europe alone netted him 61 FIDE points and we look for this reigning NY State High School co-Champion to be a dangerous board 4.

Last but not least is John Fernandez (2134 USCL / 2129 USCF / 2156 FIDE), an original Knight (his scrappy draw against Ilya Krasik was a critical part of the Week 1 draw against Boston back in 2005, the Knights' first-ever match!) who returns after a 5 year hiatus. John co-organized the successful and long-running New York Masters tournaments with league president Greg Shahade.

Eastern Semifinals: Spectacular Frustration

There will be a new USCL champion. Monday night marked the end of a terribly disappointing season for the New York Knights (5-6), as we lost 2.5-1.5 to the incredibly consistent New England Nor'Easters, who at 10.5-0.5 are smashing every USCL team record.

After a 4-1 start to the season, we backed into the playoffs with a +0 -3 =2 finish, losing each match by the 2.5-1.5 margin that was emblematic of missed opportunities this year.

I was unfortunately unable to watch the match, given wifi problems (thanks, Telecom Italia) while in Rome, but managed to connect shortly after New England had advanced, so these impressions will perhaps lack some chronological flavor. It was a match where NY was better for most of the game on boards 2 and 3, equal on 1 and while worse, had compensation on 4. In short, the sort of match that we won last year en route to the championship and that New England has made a habit of winning this year.

IM Sam Shankland won a topsy-turvy game on board 1 against GM Alex Lenderman, a fourth straight victory for Shankland and another difficult result on top for the Knights.

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Ne4 4. g3 d5 5. Bg2 Be7 6. O-O O-O 7. Qc2 Nd6 8. Nbd2 Nc6 9. b3 b6 10. Ba3 Bb7 11. Rac1 a5 12. cd ed 13. e3 Nb5 14. Be7 Qe7 15. a4 Nb4 16. Qb1 Nd6 17. Rc3 Rac8 18. Rfc1 Ne4 19. Ne4 de 20. Nd2 f5 21. Bf1 Kh8 22. Nc4 Nd5 23. R3c2 Rf6 24. Ne5 Nb4 25. Rd2 Rd8 26. Bc4 g6 27. Qb2 Bd5 28. Rdd1 Kg7 29. Rc3 c5 30. Rdc1 cd 31. ed Rc8 32. Bd5 Rc3 33. Qc3 Nd5 34. Qc8

Lenderman can hold easy equality with 34. ..Rf8! 35. Qc6 Rd8 but, perhaps influenced by the match situation, plays for a win.

34. ..f4?! 35. Qa8! Rd6 36. Rc8 Nf6 37. Qb8 Rd4 38. gf!

38. Rc7? Rd1! 39. Kg2 f3 40. Kh3 Rd7! (if 41. Nd7 Qe6 is mate in 2) and black is better.

38. ..Nd5?!

Allowing white a spectacular sequence, but it is hard to improve. If 38. ..e3 39. fe Qb4 40. Qc7 Kh6 41. Nf7 Kg7 42. Ng5 Rd7 43. Qc3 +/-

39. Rg8 Kh6 40. Rg6! Kh5

A supremely critical moment. White has only one move that wins and four that draw.

41. Nc6?!

This is not it! 41. Rg4! was the only winning move (h3, Rg5 and Qf8!? also draw) with the idea Qc8-f5.

41. ..Rd1!?

Also drawing was 41. ..Qc5! 42. Rg5 Kh4 43. h3 Rd3 44. Kg2 Ne3 45. Kh2 Rd2!! (diagram) 46. Rc5 Rf2 with perpetual.

42. Kg2 Qc5??

Losing! Forced was 42. ..Ne3! 43. fe Rd2 44. Kf1 Qa3 and white has no better than perpetual after 45. Qe5.

43. Qe5 Kg6 44. Qg5 Kf7 45. Ne5 Ke8 46. Qh5 Kd8 47. Qd1! Kc7 48. Qg4 Kb7 49. Qf5 e3 50. Qh7 Ka6 51. Qd3 Kb7 52. fe Ne3 53. Kf3 Nd5 54. h4 Nf6 55. Kg2 Qc1 56. Qf3 Kc7 57. h5 Qc2 58. Kh3 Qf5 59. Kh4 Ne4 60. Ng4 Kd6 61. Qe3 Kc6 62. h6 Kb7 63. Qc1?

63. ..Qg6?

Lenderman's last chance to resist was 63. ..Nf6! after which there is no clear win for white!

64. Qb2 Ka6 65. Qg7 Qd6 66. Qg8 Qe7 67. Kh3 Qb7 68. h7 Nd2 69. h8Q Qf3 70. Kh4 Qh1 71. Kg5 Nf3 72. Kf6 Qa1 73. Ne5 1:0

On board 2, GM Pascal Charbonneau overpressed a slightly better endgame and, having to play for a win while worse, hung a piece (see diagram: Ne6??) and lost a difficult game to IM Robert Hungaski.

On board 3, FM Alec Getz was better from almost the outset with the black pieces, but allowed FM Christopher Chase to escape into a slightly worse endgame. Getz looked well on his way to victory when disaster nearly struck on move 38.

Getz played 38. ..Kf5?? (38. ..Kg6 was the only move and then 39. Rb8 Bd4 and black should eventually win as in the game) 39. Nh6 Kf6 and Chase, looking to repeat the position, played 40. Ng4?? overlooking a forced win after 40. Ng8!! as 40. ..Kg7 41. Rb7 Kg8 42. Re8 is mate and other continuations allow a deadly knight fork on e7. Getz found 40. ..Kg6! and forced resignation a few moves later.

NM Alex Ostrovskiy fought hard for a win against NM Alex Cherniack's Winawer French, but had at best a perpetual and was in fact losing in the final position where Cherniack forced perpetual.

Spectacular drawing tries could be found early

22. Bf5 Nf5 23. Nh4 Ra6 24. Qg2 g5 25. Rg5 hg 26. Qg5 Ng7 27. Ng6 Qc2! 28. Qh6 Qd3 with perpetual or

25. Qh3 Ng6 26. Ng5 hg 27. Qh5 Nh4 28. Rf4 gf 29. Bf5 ef 30. Qh8 Ke7 31. Qh4 with perpetual

In the final diagram, 38. ..Rb6! 39. Rd7 Kb8 wins for black as his king is perfectly safe and white's will perish.

In the other Eastern semifinal, Boston made quick work of Baltimore, seizing a quick 2-0 lead with the white pieces on boards 2 and 4 that, coupled with draw odds, sufficed to advance (Baltimore's GM Sergey Erenburg, one of the top performers in the league this year, won in "garbage time" on board 1 and Zimmer-Martirosov was drawn on board 3).

On board 4, Boston veteran NM Ilya Krasik won a very clean game as white against Baltimore's NM Adithya Balasubramanian. Krasik tells it best as he used some of Erenburg's analysis in ChessBase Magazine to achieve a winning position from the opening and converted it with precise technique.

Board 2 was the early front-runner for game of the week (and another contender for Game of the Year, though we shall have to see what transpires tonight) as IM Marc Esserman demolished IM Tsegshuren Enkhbat in 22 moves!

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. g4!? Bd7!

The main line. Having provoked g2-g4, black retreats his bishop away from white's advancing pawns and retains control of the e6 square.

5. c4 e6!?

Enkhbat deviates from his 2009 game against Charbonneau where he played 5. ..Na6 and after 6. cd!? should have played 6. ..Nb4! but instead was worse after 6. ..cd and lost in 45 moves.

6. Nc3 Ne7 7. Nf3 Ng6?!

Enkhbat has an ambitious positional plan to enact a blockade on the dark squares with Bf8-e7, Ng6-h4 and h7-h6, but he presumably he did not see far enough ahead when playing Ng8-e7.

8. h4 Be7 9. h5!

9. ..Nf8

Condemned by commentators as too passive, but Esserman's point is revealed after 9. ..Nh4 10. Rh4!! Bh4 11. g5 h6 12. Nh4 hg 13. Qg4!! gh 14. Qg7 Rh5 15. Be2 Rf5 16. Bg4 when black can safely resign. White now has a very pleasant space advantage.

10. g5 Na6 11. c5!

Nine of the first eleven moves are with pawns!

11. ..Nc7 12. Be3 b6 13. b4 bc 14. bc Rb8 15. Rc1!

Prophylaxis against Nc7-b5.

15. ..Rb2 16. Bd3 Qb8 17. Nd2 f5

Enkhbat lashes out, forcing Esserman to immediately decide whether he wants to risk his space advantage by opening up the game with an exchange on f6.

18. gf!

18. 0-0 would have sufficed for a stable advantage, but black can definitely fight on.

18. ..gf 19. Qg4 Kf7

Enkhbat envisaged a harmonious rearrangement of his pieces with this king move and Nc7-e8, covering the entry squares on the g-file...

20. Rg1 Ne8

All that remains is for black to play Be7-d8 and f6-f5 and, though worse, he is still kicking.

21. Bh7!

Shattering black's illusions.

21. ..Bd8

Either capture on h7 leads to mate (21. ..Nh7 22. Qg6 Kf8 23. Bh6 or 21. ..Rh7 22. Qg8)

22. Bg8!

and Enkhbat resigned, denying viewers the spectacular finish of

22. ..Ke7 23. Qg7!! (23. ef is a quicker mate, but this is most picturesque) Ng7 24. Rg7 Ke8 25. Bf7 Ke7 26. Bg6 and the bishop completes the h7-g8-f7-g6 diamond, giving mate.

In a bit of chess irony, the Bh7-g8 maneuver (with the black bishop!) in the Caro-Kann was pioneered by David Bronstein (Porreca-Bronstein, Belgrade 1954) who also championed the g4/c4 assault in the Advance Variation.

MVP Race - Redux

The current MVP system is easy to understand/follow, with points being given for wins, deducted for losses, bonuses for scoring with black and benefits to playing (and winning) on higher boards.

Given that the USCL is a team "tournament" and that match points are what counts, I propose a different system.

Plus Score + Number of Match Points "Contributed"

How does this work in practice? If the other three players on your team score either 0, 0.5, 2.5 or 3, your game has no theoretical bearing on the match outcome (though this doesn't quite reflect reality). You should still get the benefit, however, of winning and be penalized for losing, but all boards should be treated equally as should the piece colors. In the "central" cases, however, your game is a key determinant of the match's outcome.

If your teammates score 1.0/3, -1/3 if you lose or draw and +2/3 if you win

If your teammates score 1.5/3, -1 if you lose, 0 if you draw and +1 if you win

If your teammates score 2.0/3, -2/3 if you lose, +1/3 if you draw or win

This has the advantage of the aggregate score being zero-sum across the league, also allowing us to measure "LVP" and use the maximum gain from one season to the next to measure "most improved".

All numbers are scaled 3x to remove the fractions.

Maximum score over the course of a year is +60, minimum is -60.

League Leaders

+13: David Vigorito, Craig Jones

+12: Robert Hungaski, Eugene Perelshteyn, Daniel Naroditsky, Daniel Rensch

+11: Hikaru Nakamura

+10: Pascal Charbonneau, Alex Ostrovskiy, Joel Benjamin

-15: Jonathan Schroer, Slava Mihailuk, Eric Rodriguez

-13: Bryan Smith, Arthur Shen, Robert Perez

-11: Denys Shmelov, Spencer Finegold

-10: Carlito Agner, Angelo Young

Week 5: Happy Birthday!

Wednesday night got off to a celebratory start, as GM Pascal Charbonneau and super Knights fan Beth Windsor had organized a surprise birthday party for GM Alex Lenderman (who turns 21 on Thursday!), FM Alec Getz (who unfortunately could not be there, but turned 17!) and Mrs. Ostrovskiy (Alex Ostrovskiy's mom). Sandwiches from Lenny's, birthday cake and champagne provided by Marshall Chess Club manager Marcus Fenner set the tone for a great night.

The Knights have followed a very simple formula en route to a 4-1 record, with 15/20 game points: win with white and draw with black. After tonight's match, the Knights are a staggering 9.5/10 with the white pieces and a very respectable 5.5/10 with black.

I took a short hiatus from blogging this week, as work and preparing for my first USCL match this year (with the black pieces against an IM, no less!) provided a full plate.

The match flowed well, with Pascal quickly achieving a winning position against GM Larry Kaufman on board 2, while Alex Lenderman, though overlooking a pin tactic, seemed to fully neutralize GM Sergey Erenburg's white pieces on board 1. On board 4, NM Alex Ostrovskiy (New York State Champion!) was establishing a considerable space advantage on the white side of an Alekhine against NM Ian Schoch who had scored two crazy victories in his first two outings this season. Meanwhile, on board 3, IM Tegshsuren Enkhbat and I were battling it out in a very strategically complex Slav/Grunfeld.

As the match wore on, Pascal demonstrated highly accurate technique against Kaufman and though his game was technically the last to finish, its result was never in doubt. Alex Lenderman traded down into a bishops-of-opposite-colors endgame and played precisely to establish an unbreakable blockade. On board 4, Schoch missed a few critical moments and put his queenside knight into a self-pin, immediately resigning with Ostrovskiy on the verge of an extra piece with no compensation. These positive results lifted some of the pressure from what I felt to be an enormously intense battle, with both Enkhbat and myself drifting into deep time pressure. With the tension reaching its apex, a more-or-less forced liquidation appeared on the board and, like Lenderman, I had reached a BOOC ending. When the smoke cleared, I had a nominal edge but with the match nearly in hand and the clock nearing midnight, I offered Enkhbat a draw which he graciously accepted.

On to the games!

Erenburg-Lenderman

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. Nd2 e6 5. Nb3 Nd7 6. Nf3 Qc7 7. Be2 f6 8. 0-0 fe

This natural move appears to be a novelty.

9. de 0-0-0 10. Nbd4 Ne5 11. Re1 Nf3!?

Also possible was 11. ..Bd6!? 12. Ng5 Re8 13. f4 Nf7 14. Nge6 Re6 15. Nf5 Nf6 16. Nd6 Qd6 17. Bg4 Ng4 18. Qg4 Rhe8 19. Bd2 h6 with near equality.

12. Bf3 Qd7

Not a bad move - in fact it may be black's best. Fortunately black's position is solid enough that the following pin tactic only regains white's lost pawn.

13. Ne6 Be6 14. Re6! Nf6 15. Qe2 Bd6 16. Bg5 Rde8 17. Re1 Re6 18. Qe6 Qe6 19. Re6 Kd7 20. Re1 Re8 21. Re8 Ke8 22. Be3 Be5

Erenburg begins to make some progress, but Alex comfortably holds the draw.

23. c3 a6 24. Be2 Kf7 25. h3 Ne4 26. Bd3 Nd6 27. f4 Bf6 28. Bc5 Be7 29. Bh7!? g6 30. Bd6 Bd6 31. f5 g5

Alex was banking on this blockade when he "sacrificed" the h7 pawn.

32. Kf2 Bf4 33. Ke2 Kf6 34. Bg6 Be5 35. Kf3 a5 36. Ke3 Bg3 37. b3 Bh2 38. Kd3 Bd6 39. c4 dc 40. Kc4 Ke5 41. a4 Bb4 42. g3 Be1 43. g4 Kf6 44. Kc5 Bf2 45. Kd6 b5!

White's 2nd extra pawn is as meaningless as the first.

46. Kc6 ba 47. ba Be1 48. Kd5 Bf2 49. Be8 Be1 50. Bb5 Bf2 51. Be8 Be1 52. Bb5 Bf2 53. Be8 0.5:0.5

Charbonneau-Kaufman

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. Nf3 e6 5. Be2 c5 6. Be3 Qb6 7. c4!?

Rare. More popular is 7. Nc3 and either 7. ..Nc6 8. 0-0 or 7. ..Qb2 8. Qb1! with sharp play.

7. .. Qb2 8. Nbd2 Nc6 9. cd cd??

9. ..ed! was forced. 10. dc would follow with an interesting game ahead.

10. Nc4 Qc2 11. dc!?

White is winning in all of these lines, but Pascal's first chance to quickly end the game was 11. Qc2! Bc2 12. dc de 13. cb Rb8 14. Rc1 Bb4 15. Kf1 Ba4 16. Nb6!! (diagram) Rb7 17. Na4.

11. ..Qd1 12. Rd1!?

Again, Pascal had an opportunity to win in style with 12. Bd1 de 13. cb Bb4 14. Ke2 Rb8 15. Ba4 Kf8 16. Rhc1 Rb7 17. Na5!! (diagram).

12. ..de 13. Nd6 Bd6 14. ed bc 15. d7 Kd8 16. Ne5 Nh6 17. Nc6 Kc7 18. d8Q Rhd8 19. Nd8 Rd8 20. Rd8 ef 21. Kf2 Kd8 22. Rc1!

Cutting off the king. The rest is a matter of Pascal's precise technique.

22. ..Ng8 23. Rc4 Ne7 24. Bf3 Nc8 25. Rb4 Nb6 26. a4 Kc7 27. a5 Nd5 28. Bd5 ed 29. Ke3 Bc8 30. Kd4

30. ..Kc6 31. Rb8 Kc7 32. Rb3 Be6 33. Kc5 g6 34. Rb4 h5 35. g3! d4 36. Rd4 Bd7 37. Rf4 Be6 38. Rb4 Bc8 39. Kd5 Be6 40. Ke5 Kc6 41. a6 Kc5 42. Rb7 Bc4 43. Ra7 Kb6 44. Re7 Ka6 45. Rf7 Bf7 46. Kf7 g5 48. Kg6 h4 49. g4! 1:0

Ostrovskiy-Schoch

1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. d4 d6 3. c4 Nb6 5. ed cd 6. Nc3 g6 7. Be3 Bg7 8. Rc1 0-0 9. b3 N6d7?!

Not bad, but 9. ..e5 and 9. ..a5 are more popular.

10. Nf3 Nf6 11. h3 d5 12. Bd3 Nc6 13. 0-0 Bf5 14. Be2 Qa5 15. Qd2 Rfd8 16. g4!?

Ostrovskiy goes for it with this risky/aggressive move.

16. ..Bc8 17. Rfd1 dc 18. bc!?

18. Bc4! looked to put more pressure on black

18. ..h5!

Schoch is up to the task and challenges white's kingside pawn spike.

19. g5 Ne8 20. Bf1 Qf5?! 21. Qe2 Nd6?

Black had to go for the complications starting with 21. ..Bd4!? 22. Nd5 e5! 23. Bg2! Be3 24. Qe3 Bd7, though white has massive compensation for the pawn.

22. Bg2!?

22. d5! Na5 23. Nh4 Qd7 24. c5 Nf5 25. c6! and black gets overrun or 22. ..Ne5 23. Nh4 Qd7 24. c5 Nf5 25. Nf5 Qf5 26. f4! Nd7 27. Nb5 Nf8 28. Bg2 and white controls the entire board.

22. ..Qa5 23. Nb5

23. ..Nb5??

Shoch cracks under the pressure. Better was 23. ..Bd7!, waiting for white to show his hand.

24. cb Nb4?

Immediately losing a piece, but 24. ..Nb8 was depressing.

25. Bd2 Bf5 26. Qc4 1:0

Enkhbat-Herman

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Qc2 dc 5. Qc4 g6 6. Nc3 Bg7 7. e4 0-0 8. Be2 b5 9. Qb3 Qa5 10. Bd2 b4 11. Na4 Ne4 12. Bb4 Qc7 13. 0-0

13. ..Bg4N

A novelty! This tabiya was quite popular in the 60s and 70s, with luminaries such as Petrosian, Portisch and Simagin taking the white pieces and Hort and Larsen playing black. Portisch-Hort went 13. ..Na6 14. Ba6 Ba6 15. Rfe1 Nd6 16. Rac1 (Epishin played 16. Qa3 against Romanishin in 2000) Rab8 17. Ne5 (Petrosian played 17. Qc3 and won against "not-David" Bronstein at the Rio de Janeiro Interzonal in 1979) Bb5 18. Nc5 Nf5 with an eventual draw after 34 moves in 1966. More recently, players such as Mamedyarov have chosen 13. ..Be6 for black, following Suetin's play in 1968 against Antoshin. The idea of Bg4 is simply to maximize black's activity, while keeping pressure on white's center and hoping to disrupt white's development with the pin on the e2 bishop. I wasn't thrilled with 13. ..Be6 14. Bc4 Bc4 15. Qc4 when 15. ..Rd8 is met by 16. d5!, though of course black has other choices. Probably best is 15. ..Nd6, but I wanted to keep the N on e4.

14. Rad1 Nd7!

Played after a 30-minute think. My original intention was 14. ..Qb7 15. Rfe1 a5 16. Ba3 Qb3 17. ab Nd6 18. Nb6 Ra7, but I saw an interesting possibility to keep queens on and solve some of black's problems (primarily what to do with the b8 knight and the e7 pawn) with one move.

15. Qc2!?

A pragmatic choice from Enkhbat. If 15. Be7!? Rfe8 16. Bh4 g5!! 17. Ng5! Be2 18. Qf7 Kh8 19. Ne6 Re6 20. Qe6 Bd1 21. Rd1 Ndf6 (diagram) =/+ . Alternatively, 16. Ba3 Rab8 gives black tremendous activity for the pawn, with potential for the d7 N to hop f6-d5-f4 or to b6, forcing white to fix black's pawn structure, while harassing the queen.

15. ..Nd6 16. h3 Bf5 17. Qc1 Qb7!?

Also playable was 17. ..Nb6 18. Nc5 Nd5, but I wanted to keep the N stuck on a4 for a while and keep the white bishop out of a6.

18. Ba3 Rfd8 19. Rfe1 Rab8 20. b3! Be4!

Trying to regroup by putting the B on d5 and the Nd6 on f5.

21. Ne5! Bd5! 22. Bf1 Nf5 23. Nc5

Also possible was 23. Nd7 Qd7 24. Nc5 Qe8!

23. ..Nc5 24. Bc5 a5!

Preventing white from going Qc1-a3, Bf1-a6 and squeezing the life out of black and also preparing an eventual a5-a4, cracking open white's queenside.

25. Qc3 Ra8! 26. Nc4 Bc4!

It looks counterintuitive to trade the monster bishop on d5, but white's N was a great piece and this allows black to gang up on d4. The prior three exclaims refer to near-only moves for black. White did a fantastic job in building pressure on black's position.

27. bc!?

Or 27. Bc4 e6!

27. ..e6!

28. Rd3!?

Possible is the crazy-looking 28. g4! Nh4 29. Qg3 g5 30. Bd3 Ng6 31. a3! when tactical means justify white's seemingly antipositional play. One line runs 31. ..Rd7 32. Qe3 Rad8 33. Qg5 Bd4 34. Bd4 Rd4 35. Bg6 hg 36. Qd8 Rd8 37. Rd8 Kg7 with a double-edged endgame.

28. ..Rd7 29. Red1 a4 30. Qe1 Rad8 31. Qe4 Nd6 32. Bd6?!

Objectively best is 32. Qe1, when black can do no better than to repeat the position with 32. ..Nf5. If 32. ..Nc4 33. Rb1 Qa8 34. Rb4 Nd6 35. Ra3 and white can fight on, as dictated by the match situation.

32. ..Rd6 33. d5 cd

It was possible to keep the position unbalanced with 33. ..c5!?

34. cd Rd5 35. Rd5 Rd5 36. Qa4 Rd1 37. Qd1 Qb4

Black can still squeeze by pressuring the f2 point, but with the match in hand (Pascal was easily winning), I offered a draw and this was accepted by IM Enkhbat.

0.5:0.5