FC Chess Tournament: Final Round!

[homelycooking]

I'll help you out, Yelnoc, and hopefully do better justice than you did to your own game.

Yelnoc responded, as he said, to e4 with the French defense. He advanced his king's knight, queen's pawn and QBP to contest the center. My bishop then pinned his knight, also under threat from e5, to his queen. Be7 closed off the pin, exf6 captures Yelnoc's knight, KNP captures pawn, threatening my bishop, which advances to h6. I thus gained a small advantage early on.

Yelnoc's e5, d4, f5 set up a minefield in the center of the board, endangering my knights. At this point I considered Nxe5 rather than Bg7, which would have set up a back-row queen-castle fork at f7 had I protected the knight against capture by the king. I decided instead on Bg7, which did nothing to improve my position and, after the necessary parries and sacrifices, left Yelnoc, playing skillfully to seize the offensive initiative, with a situational advantage: queen and rook brought out to the fore with only a knight to defend a few tenuous squares. By move 15 I thought that Bg7 had lost me the game.  

Maneuvering to Nxe5 enabled capture of Yelnoc's castle when the queen threatened along the diagonal from c7. Yelnoc's bishop retaliated with Bxg4. I castled on the queen's side, though I didn't have a good chance at that point of moving my castle into play. After Yelnoc advanced his other knight from the back row, Qg3 forced his queen to retreat and set up a pin of his knight to the king at b5. Ke7 ended the pin, and a6 forced an exchange of knight for bishop. My advance of pawns to e5 and f4 set up encouraging lines of attack for both castles, and I switched permanently to offense with a pin at f6 of a pawn to his king. After my advancing pawns moved to columns f and g, castle pins bishop to king at e4, Qxh7+ dooms the bishop as king must move to endanger it, and the game draws to a close as the remaining castle moves in for the kill at f1, with Yelnoc's queen and remaining castle unable to come to the king's aid.

Yelnoc succeeded in prolonging the game, playing with persistence and efficiency. I failed to move more quickly toward a checkmate with my Bg7 blunder and my decisions to engage Yelnoc's defensive game. I was saved only by Yelnoc's inability to gain offensive momentum. It surely would have had a different result had he found a way to make an unexpected move toward my king and its defenders.

[homelycooking]

Thanks for your analysis, anvi. This was my first chess game in five or so years, so there's clearly a lot to learn!

On the Bg5 blunder: I guess it was better to just strike with the pawn straight away. My fear at the time was a subsequent Qxf6, opening up wide lanes of attack on the diagonal with few material pieces of my own advanced to contest it.

And Bg7... yeah, I knew that was a mistake as soon as I pressed "Submit"

[anvi]

Sure thing, homelycooking!

After 5. ef Qxf6, you really have nothing to worry about.  You are up a piece for a pawn and Black can't do anything to your position with just his Queen.  Your b2 pawn is defended by the c1 Bishop at the moment, and if you wanted to close off the a1-h8 diagonal, you could do it with, for example, 6. Nc3 and if Black wants to push your Knight off with 6...d4, you can not only immediately attack his queen again with tempo by 7. Ne4, but his own d4 advance has blocked off his own Queen from influencing the diagonal.  Or you could just develop 6. Be2 and castle and continue your development as above.  You just won a piece in this continuation; you have plenty of resources to fend off whatever Black does from there out.

[Yelnoc]

Thanks for your input guys.  I'll go ahead and put up the board and move log for Gustaf vs. Anvikshiki but since I can't visualize the board I won't have much to add, so Anvi/Gustaf, feel free to add your own analysis.

[Yelnoc]

Gustaf vs. Anvikshiki

Gustaf also opened with the King's pawn, and Anvi responded with the Sicilian defense.  There was an immediate exchange of pawns in the center, allowing Anvi to complete his goal of retaining a central pawn majority by capturing with a flank pawn.  Gustaf immediately developed his queen, which Anvi brought under attack with a knight.  Not quite sure what all of the mid-game notation signifies, though by the end Anvi had backed Gus into a corner, which is what we seen on the board snapshot below.



1.   e4   c5
2.   d4   cxd4
3.   Qxd4   Nc6
4.   Qe3   Nf6
5.   Be2   g6
6.   c3   d6
7.   Nf3   Bg7
8.   h3   O-O
9.   O-O   a6
10.   Rd1   Qc7
11.   Qd3   b5
12.   Bf4   Bb7
13.   e5   dxe5
14.   Bg3   Rad8
15.   Qe3   Rxd1+
16.   Bxd1   Nd5
17.   Qe4   Nf4
18.   Bxf4   exf4
19.   Nbd2   Ne5
20.   Qe2   Rd8
21.   Nxe5   Bxe5
22.   Nf3   Bxf3
23.   Qxf3   Rd2
24.   Rb1   Qd7
25.   Qa8+   Kg7
26.   Bf3   Qd3
27.   Be4   Rd1+
28.   Rxd1   Qxd1+
29.   Kh2   f3+
30.   g3   Qf1
31.   Bxf3   Qxf2+
32.   Bg2   Bxg3+
33.   Kh1   Qe1+
34.   Bf1   Qxf1#
CHECKMATE

[minionofmidas]

I ignored this thread so far, and now I don't know why. I'm hopelessly out of practice myself, of course.

[anvi]

Thanks for posting our game, Yelnoc!

I sent a much longer analysis to Gusaf yesterday than I will post here.  But a few notes.

After Gustaf's 2. d4, I was expecting White to play the aggressive Smith-Morra gambit, with 2...cd 3. c3 dc 4. Nxc3, which sacrifices a pawn in exchange for quick attacking chances for White.  White's middlegame becomes somewhat plagued by keeping his Queen in the center of the board, which allowed me to develop pieces with tempo by attacking her and consolidate my position.

With 7...d6, I decide to restrain White from playing a future pawn advance to e5.  I also decide to play using a "hyper-modern" approach--still called that even though it was invented in the '30's--attack White's central pawn position from long range with two "fianchettoed" Bishops on g7 and b7.

Gustaf's sequence 12. Bf4? and 13 e5? was unfortunate, as the e5 square has been intentionally controlled by Black and White's advance there simply loses a pawn for no compensation.  A better developing idea for White would have been either 12. Bg5 or 12. Be3, with the possibility of following up with Qd2 and then Bh6, in an attempt to trade off Black's useful g7 Bishop.

After winning the e-pawn, for the next dozen moves, I tried to force tradeoffs to reach a winning endgame.  If I can get all the pieces traded off the board equally, all I have to do is march my King to his queenside and gobble up his pawns so I can advance my own queenside pawns, and he won't be able to prevent this because his King would have to stay on the kingside just to liquidate my majority there.  So, my moves 15...Rxd1, 16...Nd5, 17...Nf4, 19...Ne5, 20...Rd8  and 22...Bxf3 were all designed primarily to force White to trade down.  I must say, to his great credit, Gustaf found his way through all these sequences perfectly, and despite the fact that he was forced into trading pieces, his position was structurally sound enough to maintain excellent drawing chances all the way through the game!  Beware of Gustaf, guys--can can play very accurately!!  

With my 26...Qd3, I was trying to force a trade of Queens so that I could engineer the winning of a second pawn on White's queenside.  I am still not convinced that I can win the game with this continuation, but it's my best chance.  With best play, Gustaf can, I think, still draw in the long run after the forced 26, Qe4 Qxe4 Bxe4 and I really can't see a way to keep at least one of my own queenside pawns on the board, which is my only chance to win since I've allowed opposite colored Bishops in the endgame.  Gustaf has the right defensive idea, but unfortunately, he chooses the wrong tactic with 27. Be4??, which relinquishes sufficient protection of the d1 square.  His allowing me to penetrate there right away gave me several immediately forced wins, the longest one of which was played out on the board.

Despite a few mistakes, Gustaf played superbly for most of the game, and in the end, I got lucky.  I probably, in hindsight, tried to go for the endgame a little too quickly after winning the first pawn, before I had a clearly advantageous endgame scenario on the board.  The game was competitive and entertaining!  

[minionofmidas]

Oh, and that Optima stuff is some crazy shinks. Quite interesting.

[Oakvale]

Posting it here too in case he doesn't see my PM - Napoleon needs to move pretty much now or else he'll run out of time in our game.

[Yelnoc]

The fourth and final game of the round has finished, with Oakvale victorious.  Now it is time for round 2.  Below are the two matches, which I will update with links once the games have begun.  As it happened, white won M1 and M3 while black won M2 and M4, so the same people will have the first move advantage.  I thought about intervening, but on balance I think this setup works.  

Franzl vs Oakvale
Homelycooking vs Anvikshiki

PMs are sent, so get playing!

EDIT: About the analyses, I had meant to cover the Franzl vs. Mikado game but never got around to it, and I don't think I will be doing Napoleon vs. Oakvale.  But if you want to post your own, feel free to!

[homelycooking]

Homelycooking vs Anvikshiki

Oh happy day. Well, at least I'll learn something.

[anvi]

Homelycooking vs Anvikshiki

Oh happy day. Well, at least I'll learn something.

Hey, don't think like that!  You never know! 

[Oakvale]

I won't attempt a proper analysis since I don't know enough theory at all, but here's the game between Napoleon and me. He was white and I was black.

Napoleon v. Oakvale



1. d4 Nf6
2. a4 c6
3. Nf3 e6
4. g3 Qc7
5. Bd2 c5
6. Bh3 cxd4
7. Nxd4 Qe5
8. c3 Nc6
9. Nf3 Qe4
10. Ra3 Ne5
11. Bg2 Nfg4
12. h3 Bc5
13. Rb3 Nxf2
14. O-O Nxd1+
15. e3 b6
16. Nxe5 Bxe3+
17. Bxe3 Qxe3+
18. Kh2 Qe2
19. Rxd1 Bb7
20. Rd2 Qa6
21. Bxb7 Qxb7
22. Nxd7 O-O-O
23. Nxb6+ axb6
24. c4 Qe4
25. Nc3 Rxd2+
26. Kg1 Qg2#

[anvi]

I will attempt to provide some insight into the Napoleon-Oakvale game above.  My notes might not be as extensive this time, and I haven't spent lots of time looking at the position so may have missed something or other, but a few points are worth making.

It's not clear what Black's opening sequence 2...c6 and 3...e6 is about, partly because on move 5., he strikes the center with c5 anyway, but there is a more important reason the above sequence is puzzling.  One of the goals of the opening in chess is quick development of one's pieces in an attempt to control or influence the center of the board.  This is done so pieces can gain avenues into the opponent's position.  But the sequence 2...c6 and 3...e6 bottles in Black's queenside Bishop unnecessarily, a Bishop which, in Queen's Pawn openings like this one, can take a while to develop even with standard play.  In classical opening play, pawns go to the center and pieces are developed as rapidly as is coherently possible.

White's 10th move Ra3?? is, unfortunately, just a blunder, as it should lose the exchange immediately to 10...Bxa3--a Rook is more powerful and generally a more valuable piece than a Bishop, so Black should jump at this chance.  Instead, Black returns the favor with Ne5?, which doesn't do anything objectively to improve his position.

Black's attacking foray 11...Ng4? is dubious, since after White's 12. h3, it is best simply to withdraw the horse back to f6.  Black overestimates his attack wildly with 12...Bc5??, which with proper play simply evens out the game after 13. hg Nxg4 14. e3 Bxa3 15. Nxa3 and Black has a Rook and a pawn for his own Knight and Bishop, an equal trade.  Black can still simply gobble up the White Rook with 11...Bxa3 and be up an exchange (worth two pawns in value).

Instead of taking advantage of Black's overly aggressive play, White missteps again with 12. Rb3??, which allows Black to win the other Rook immediately and outright with 12...Nxf2, forking Queen and Rook, and after the best retort 13. Qc1 Nxh1 leaves White a whole Rook down and his position in tatters.  But, instead of saving his most valuable attacking piece, White plays 13 O-O?? and his Queen falls to 13...Nxd1.  If I were White, I'd probably resign the position even if I'd only given away the Rook as above.

But, sometimes in chess, hope springs eternal.  Black gives back some of his material.  After White's 14. e3?, Black could simply scoop up more material still, with, for example, 14...Nxe3 15. Bxe3 Bxe3+ 16. Kh1 and Black should win easily.  If White tries to get tricky in this line with, for example 15. Re1 with the intention of pinning Black's Knight against his Queen, Black's discovered check 15...Nxc2+, delivering check with the c5 Bishop, one way or another picks up the reckless e1 Rook.  

A better alternative to Black's 18...Qe2 is the simple 18...Rb8, taking his own a8 Rook off the long diagonal and leaving him almost a Queen up in material with no complications on the board.

One final note for the game.  Even though White's position is for all intents and purposes lost at this point, his move 21. Bxb7 simply makes it all the more easy for Black to prevail.  When you are significantly behind in material, as White is here by the value of a whole Rook, you should keep as much material on the board as you possibly can to create threats and complicate the situation for the opponent.  Going for equal tradeoffs as this move does enables White's opponent to steer the game toward an endgame where he will be able to convert his material advantage into a full point without any difficulties.  Better for White here may be something like 21. Rf1, threatening Black's vulnerable f7 pawn, and after Black defends himself with 21...O-O, White can continue with 22. Bf1!, avoiding an equal trade-off and attacking Black's Queen.  If Black responds with the careless 22...Qxa4?, then 23. Ra3! 24. Qe4 Nxd7! and White is still fighting!  Nothing is forced about Black's 22...Qxa4? and White is probably still objectively lost, but the continuation just goes to demonstrate that a player behind in material should keep as many of his own pieces remaining on the board as possible and set some nasty traps.    

[Oakvale]

Anvi, that's fantastic analysis. Thank you. Most of my many mistakes can be put down to the fact that I'm, er, not especially good, not that I'm attempting some strange tactic.

[anvi]

Glad to, oakvale!  Hey, you guys did play an entertaining game, that had lots of back and forth!  There are always at least a few instructive moments in every game, so it's a good idea to go over games with someone afterward and seek them out.  I guess one takeaway for you in your last game is that, when an opponent offers material to you, don't refuse his generosity!...chess is for greedy people!   The only qualification to this rule is if the material being offered is bait in a trap the opponent has set, then it's best not to take it, of course.

[anvi]

I should perhaps add a few notes for Napoleon to balance the analysis.

2. a4 doesn't do anything to advance White's given advantage of the first move.  The fact that White gets to start every game leaves White up a half-move on Black in terms of time, and so White, in most openings, tries to capitalize on this rule-given advantage with quick control of the center and development.  Standard second moves for White in this position would be 2. c4 or 2. Nf3 or 2. Bg5 or even 2. g3, preparing the "fianchetto" of the White Bishop to the long diagonal on g2.  Notice how each of these moves either controls the center (2. c4 stakes a claim to the d5 square) or develops a piece in such a way as to influence the center (2. Nf3 controls the d4 and e5 squares, 2.Bg5 puts pressure on Black's f6-Knight which was developed to claim territory on d5 and e4 and 2. g3 prepares the development of what may well become a very powerful long-range attacker in White's King's Bishop).  In the opening, the onus is on White to prove that his half-move advantage means something, and this is best done with play in the center and quick piece development.  2. a4 does not help achieve either of these goals and so allows Black to catch up in development with ease.

As noted about, Black's moves 2...c6 and 3...e6 do White a favor inasmuch as they bottle up Black's own Queen's Bishop, which means that Black will require longer to develop his own pieces.  A playable opening sequence for White would go something like 2 c4...3. Nc3...4. Bg5...5. e3...6. Bd3 or Be2 and White's position is powerful and he is ready to castle and bring his own King to safety. Given Black's slow play on moves 2. and 3., there is little he can do to effectively counter this.  I want to make one note here having to do also with opening play.  Notice in the recommendations I'm making here that I have White move his c-pawn up two squares before he develops the Queen's Knight to c3.  This kind of strategy, moving a flank pawn that controls the center and then backing up the same square controlled by the pawn with the Queen's Knight really gives White a lot more development bang for the buck than he would have had if he had left his c-pawn on c2 and developed the Knight in front of it.  If Black ever decides to break in the center with ...d5, White can immediately play cxd5 and give himself either a half-open or fully open c-file, and now White can plop his own Rook quickly on c-1 and suddenly he has an advantage on the Queenside too!  This is very standard Queen's Pawn opening opening strategy for White, and foregoing it usually ends up giving White problems down the road.

6. Bh3 doesn't do anything; the Bishop's natural opening home in this formation is on g2 where, notice, it controls the central squares e4 and d5 and overlooks the longest diagonal it can have on the board, 8 squares worth, and indirectly attacks Black's Queen's rook, which will make Black's development even more tricky.  The Bishop on g2 also acts as an important defensive piece after White castles Kingside, since his move g3 has given up pawn control of the f3 and h3 squares.

As above, 10. Ra3?? should give away the exchange for no reason, and it's hard to recommend good moves for White after this.  Best is the simple 10. O-O and White is doing fine and should plan to continue his development by bringing out the Queen's Knight with, for instance, 11. Bg5 and 12. Nbd2 and White has good play.  

The lessons: make moves in the opening that contribute directly to the goals of the opening in chess, and avoid giving away material for no compensation.  The opening has been thoroughly studied and theorized in chess for a reason; good play in the opening can lead quickly to a winning plan, so if you have the advantage of being the "first player" (White), grab that center, develop the pieces to optimum squares, and go get 'em!  

[anvi]

Yelnoc,

Could you post the links for all the second round games, so everyone can follow them? 

Thanks!

[Yelnoc]

Yelnoc,

Could you post the links for all the second round games, so everyone can follow them? 

Thanks!

Sorry about that, here you are.

Franzl vs Oakvale
homelycooking vs. anikshiki

[Napoleon]

Weed and chess don't mix who would've thought

We should have a second one after anvi wins with 16 people.

[minionofmidas]

Weed and chess don't mix who would've thought

We should have a second one after anvi wins with 16 people.

The winner of that should play against Anvi for the championship title. Like they used to do with Chess world championships.

[anvi]

I'm not guaranteed to win anything.  Last year, I was playing a game with a student of mine online, and I was all set up to delver checkmate to him on the next move.  But, as I was about to do this, I got a call, picked up the phone with one hand, and as I did this, in a classic "Fingerfehler," I accidentally entered the wrong move, lost my queen and then lost the game immediately.  Like I said above, you never know! 

By the way, in the future, might I suggest that, whoever is in these tournaments, they not be made round-by-round elimination, but instead should match up competitors in every round?  Even if a player loses their first game, they might still win the tournament if the rack up enough wins in succeeding rounds to overtake the next player.  That keeps things competitive and lets everyone continue enjoying to play.  For instance, I mistakenly thought that this 8-man tourney was not going to be single-elimination, but that winners would play winners and losers losers, and then another pairing would be done in the next round based on points scored, so that the tournament would only end when everyone had played everyone, the player with the most points winning, the next-highest taking second, and so on.  Based on my game with him, for instance, I know that Gustaf would be very competitive in such a tournament, and others surely would too, and it's just more fun for all.  Just a thought. 

[homelycooking]

I'm not guaranteed to win anything.  Last year, I was playing a game with a student of mine online, and I was all set up to delver checkmate to him on the next move.  But, as I was about to do this, I got a call, picked up the phone with one hand, and as I did this, in a classic "Fingerfehler," I accidentally entered the wrong move, lost my queen and then lost the game immediately.  Like I said above, you never know! 

What's your phone number, Anvi?

[anvi]

What's your phone number, Anvi?

  I'm doomed. 

[minionofmidas]

I'm not guaranteed to win anything.  Last year, I was playing a game with a student of mine online, and I was all set up to delver checkmate to him on the next move.  But, as I was about to do this, I got a call, picked up the phone with one hand, and as I did this, in a classic "Fingerfehler," I accidentally entered the wrong move, lost my queen and then lost the game immediately.  Like I said above, you never know! 

By the way, in the future, might I suggest that, whoever is in these tournaments, they not be made round-by-round elimination, but instead should match up competitors in every round?  Even if a player loses their first game, they might still win the tournament if the rack up enough wins in succeeding rounds to overtake the next player.  That keeps things competitive and lets everyone continue enjoying to play.  For instance, I mistakenly thought that this 8-man tourney was not going to be single-elimination, but that winners would play winners and losers losers, and then another pairing would be done in the next round based on points scored, so that the tournament would only end when everyone had played everyone, the player with the most points winning, the next-highest taking second, and so on.  Based on my game with him, for instance, I know that Gustaf would be very competitive in such a tournament, and others surely would too, and it's just more fun for all.  Just a thought. 

Have you ever heard of a type of  tournament known as the "Swiss System"? That's basically what you described, except it ends (if you have 8, 16, 32 etc participants and no withdrawals) at the point where only one player is left with a spotless record (and only one unlucky & incompetent sod has lost all his games, natch), so 3, 4, 5 etc rounds. So it's effectively elimination-based as far as *winning* the tournament is concerned, but the tournament still lasts the same length for everybody else, and you can still come 2nd (with tiebreakers. In chess which has no reasonable tiebreaking methods, shared 2nd) if you lose your first game and win all the others.