2018 US Chess Open Rumors

Although I liked the DGT board used by the USCF in the recent US Open festival of sorts, there were myriad problems. Some rounds had only three of the six boards displayed, with nary a move having been played in the others. There were times when a result was given as the moves continued. Because of the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the last round I will say nothing concerning the last round. I will, though, say I found it very strange USCF posted nothing on the US Open for days, and when something was published it concerned “…our new National Girls Tournament of Champions winner.” Since I am putting this together Thursday afternoon I simply cannot recall the order in which the articles that followed appeared. After surfing on over to the website I noticed the order may be different because of some new articles. What I recall is a very short report on who won the tournament, followed by yet another article on girls, then an article written by GM Michael Rhode, which I intended to read but time did not permit, and it was taken down and is not currently on the main USCF webpage. Nothing can be found as to how to find it on the website. The fact that the USCF chose to publish articles on girls Chess before publishing anything on who actually won the event speaks loudly to what has happened to the USCF now that women are in charge. If girls Chess is the future of Chess, then Chess is dead, because the vast majority of girls stop playing the game around puberty, and there has been absolutely no evidence this will change in the future.

I liked the DGT board because it has no digital clanking monster analysis displayed. I do not like the fact that one cannot download the game(s). I obtained the moves of the game below the old fashioned way, writing them on a piece of paper. I have no idea if the moves given are correct, and there is no way of knowing from the information at hand. Such is Chess with the USCF…

A new article appeared today, Thursday, on the USCF webpage this morning four days after the conclusion of the event, by Al Lawrence. It is written, “The sudden death of one of the participants required the complete evacuation of the tournament hall for a 3 ½ -hour delay of all games in the ninth and final round. Read the US Chess statement posted that night here. Everyone showed respect for this necessity, as one of our own had ended life at the board. Liang-Gareyev was on Move 15 at the time all clocks stopped.” (https://new.uschess.org/news/eyes-wide-open-gareyev-wins-2018-u-s-open/)
One must wonder why the above could not have been published on the USCF website many days earlier. For example, I was elated upon learning the last round would begin at three pm in lieu of seven pm, which meant I could watch the whole round. Seven pm in Madison, Wisconsin is eight pm in Georgia, and I hit the rack before midnight. That afternoon I watched the opening part of the games before taking a nap, and shower, then having dinner. Upon springing Toby, the ‘puter, back to life to watch the action, the DGT board was, shall we say, a mess. I had no clue as to why, other than the problems finally overwhelmed the technology used by the USCF.

I have received emails concerning the unfortunate death at the board during the last round of the USO. My reply has been, “I am as in the dark as are you.” I am still in the dark, and flummoxed as to what occurred at the US Open. I have intentionally not written anything on this blog because I do not need to feed fuel to the rumors fire burning brightly on the internet. Maybe we will learn why the USCF stayed quiet about the situation so long; then again, maybe not…As of this writing there is still nothing written about the death during the last round…

I cannot say the following game was the best game played at the US Open, but it the best fighting game I saw on the DGT display. I ran the opening through the ChessBaseDataBase, and 365Chess. What was found follows. The only comment I will make concerning the rest of the game is that I cringed when Mr. Dean played his forty third move. It looks as though black had an advantage, albeit a small one, but nevertheless, an advantage. GMs wait for their opponent to play a weakening move such as the ill-fated weakening of his structure when playing 43…g5. That said, FM Jim Dean certainly made his GM opponent sweat bullets!

GM Jimenez Corrales 2635 vs FM Jim Dean 2249

2018 US Open rd 7

1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 e5 c5 (SF at a depth of 49 considers this the best move while Komodo at a depth of 37 would play the the move played ten times more frequently than the game move, the usual, and standard 3…Bf5. I preferred the game move)

4 dxc5 (Komodo prefers 4 Nf3) 4…e6 (I vaguely recall an article in one of the New In Chess Yearbooks in which the author advocated playing 4…Nc6, which is the most played move. I also recall a GM writing he did not like this move because of the reply 5 Be3. The only one of the Big Three shown at the CBDB is Stockfish, and it plays the game move)

5 a3 (SF at a depth of 38 plays 5 Nf3, but changes it’s…what exactly does Stockfish change? If it were human I could write “mind,” but it’s a machine, so let us just say SF changes it changes it’s “crunching” and leave it at that for the time being because at depth 39 it would play 5 Bd3)

5…Nc6 (In another case of “let it run a little longer” SF would play 5…a6 at depth 41, but at the next level it would play the seldom played 5…Qc7. 5…Bxc5 is the most often played move with the game move a close second. Thirteen games have been played using 5…Qc7)

6 Nf3 Bxc5 7 b4 Bb6 8 Bd3 (Houdini plays 8 Bb2) 8…Nge7 (SF’s move, but Komodo prefers 8…a5)

9 O-O (SF plays 0 Bb3) 9…Ng6 10 Re1 (SF and Komodo play 10 Bb2) 10…0-0 (SF plays 10…a5, while Houdini plays 10…f6)

11 Bb2 f6 12 exf6 gxf6 13 Bxg6 (SF would play 13 c4. The game move is not shown at the CBDB, or 365Chess, so this move is a TN and the game has been taken into the street)

Here is the full game as given:

1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 e5 c5 4 dxc5 e6 5 a3 Nc6 6 Nf3 Bxc5 7 b4 Bb6 8 Bd3 Nge7 9 O-O Ng6 10 Re1 O-O 11 Bb2 f6 12 exf6 gxf6 13 Bxg6 hxg6 14 Qd3 Kg7 15 c4 dxc4 16 Qxc4 e5 17 Nc3 Nd4 18 Nxd4 Qxd4 19 Qe2 Bg4 20 Qf1 Qd2 21 Na4 Qc2 22 Nxb6 axb6 23 Bc1 Qc3 24 Be3 Rxa3 25 Rxa3 Qxa3 26 Qc4 Bf5 27 h3 Qd3 28 Qc7+ Qd7 29 Qxb6 Rc8 30 Qa5 Rc3 31 Kh2 Qc7 32 Qa4 Qd7 33 b5 Bc2 34 Qh4 Qxb5 35 Qh6+ Kf7 36 Qh7+ Ke6 37 Qg8+ Ke7 38 f4 Qb3 39 Qh7+ Qf7 40 Qh4 e4 41 Qf2 Qd5 42 Bd4 Rc4 43 Bb2 g5 44 fxg5 Qxg5 45 Qb6 Qf4+ 46 Kh1 Bd3 47 Qxb7+ Ke6 48 Ba3 Qc7 49 Qb5 Qg3 50 Qe8+ Kf5 51 Rg1 Rc2 52 Qd7+ Kg6 53 Bf8 Qc7 54 Qg4+ Kf7 55 Bh6 Qc8 56 Qg7+ Ke6 57 Ra1 Qc7 58 Qg4+ Kd5 59 Bf4 Qc3 60 Qd7+ Kc4 61 Qc6+ Kb3 1-0

Volokitin, Andrei (2674) vs Grishchenko, Sergey (2431)
Event: 15th ch-EUR Indiv 2014
Site: Yerevan ARM Date: 03/05/2014
Round: 3.49 Score: 0-1
ECO: B12 Caro-Kann, advance variation

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. dxc5 e6 5. Bd3 Nd7 6. Nf3 Ne7 7. O-O Nc6 8. c4 dxc4 9. Bxc4 Ndxe5 10. Nxe5 Qxd1 11. Rxd1 Nxe5 12. Bb5+ Bd7 13. Nc3 Bxc5 14. Bf4 Nc6 15. Ne4 Be7 16. Bd6 a6 17. Ba4 b5 18. Nc5 Rd8 19. Bb3 Bc8 20. Bxe7 Kxe7 21. a4 Rxd1+ 22. Bxd1 Rd8 23. axb5 axb5 24. Bf3 Nd4 25. Ra7+ Kf6 26. Ra8 Nxf3+ 27. gxf3 Rd1+ 28. Kg2 Bd7 29. Rb8 Bc6 30. Rb6 Be8 31. Rb8 Ke7 32. Rb7+ Kf8 33. Rb6 Rd2 34. b3 Rd5 35. Ne4 h6 36. Rb8 f5 37. Nc3 Rd3 38. Rc8 Ke7 39. Rc5 b4 40. Na2 Rxb3 41. Rc4 Bh5 42. Rxb4 Bxf3+ 43. Kf1 Rxb4 44. Nxb4 Kf6 45. h4 f4 46. Nd3 Kf5 47. Kg1 Be4 48. Nc5 Bd5 49. Kh2 Kg4 50. Nd3 Be4 51. Nc5 Bf5 0-1

Zaleski, Lukasz (2220) vs Kaczmarek, Aleksander (2380)

Najdorf Mem Open A 2017
Warsaw POL 07/13/2017

ECO: B12 Caro-Kann, advance variation

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. dxc5 e6 5. a3 Qc7 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. Bb5 Bxc5 8. b4 Bb6 9. Bb2 Ne7 10. O-O O-O 11. Bd3 Ng6 12. Re1 a5 13. b5 Nce7 14. a4 Bc5 15. g3 f5 16. h4 Bd7 17. Nbd2 Nh8 18. Nb3 b6 19. Nbd4 Nf7 20. Kg2 Rae8 21. Qe2 Nh6 22. Ng5 Ng6 23. f4 Nh8 24. c4 dxc4 25. Bxc4 Qc8 26. Nb3 Bb4 27. Red1 Ng4 28. Bd4 Qb7+ 29. Qf3 Qa7 30. Kg1 h6 31. Nh3 Bc8 32. Qc6 Qf7 33. Qxb6 g5 34. fxg5 f4 35. gxf4 Qh5 36. Bd3 Qxh4 37. Kg2 Re7 38. Be4 Ng6 39. Bf2 Nxf4+ 40. Nxf4 Qh2+ 41. Kf1 Qxf4 42. Rd8 Rf7 43. Ra2 Qxe4 44. Rxf8+ Rxf8 0-1

Dochev, Dimitar (2387) vsManagadze, Nikoloz (2419)
Halkida op 5th
Halkida Date: 11/20/2001

ECO: B12 Caro-Kann, advance variation

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. dxc5 e6 5. a3 Qc7 6. Nf3 Bxc5 7. b4 Bb6 8. Bb2 Ne7 9. Nbd2 Nbc6 10. c4 dxc4 11. Nxc4 O-O 12. Bd3 Ng6 13. O-O Qd8 14. Nxb6 Qxb6 15. Qb1 Rd8 16. h4 Nf8 17. Ng5 g6 18. Ne4 Ne7 19. Bc1 Nf5 20. Bg5 Bd7 21. Bxd8 Rxd8 22. Nf6+ Kg7 23. Bxf5 exf5 24. Rd1 Ba4 25. Rxd8 Qxd8 26. Qb2 a6 27. Qc3 h5 28. Qg3 Qd4 29. Rc1 Ne6 30. Nxh5+ Kh6 31. Rc8 1-0

Pavel Smirnov (2621) vs Alexandr Kharitonov (2503)

2007 Moscow Open

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. dxc5 e6 5. a3 Nc6 6. Nf3 Bxc5 7. b4 Bb6 8. Bd3 Nge7 9. Bb2 Ng6 10. O-O Nf4 11. c4 O-O 12. Nc3 Ne7 13. Qd2 Nxd3
14. Qxd3 dxc4 15. Qxc4 Qc7 16. Qg4 Bd7 17. Ne4 Bc6 18. Rac1 Qb8 19. Rxc6 bxc6 20. Nf6+ Kh8 21. Nxh7 Nf5 22. Nf6 Nh6 23. Qh3 Bd8 24. Bc1 gxf6 25. Bxh6 Re8 26. exf6 Bxf6
27. Bg5+ 1-0

Konstantin Landa (2570) vs Sergey Kalinitschew

Bundesliga 0607 2006.10.28

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. dxc5 e6 5. a3 Nc6 6. Nf3 Bxc5 7. b4 Bb6
8. Bd3 Nge7 9. O-O Ng6 10. Bb2 O-O 11. Nbd2 f5 12. Nb3 a6 13. Re1 Qe7 14. c4 dxc4 15. Bxc4 Nh4 16. Rc1 Nxf3+ 17. Qxf3 Bd7 18. Rcd1 Rad8 19. Rd6 Bc8 20. Nc5 Bxc5 21.bxc5 Rde8 22. Bxa6 bxa6 23. Qxc6 Bb7 24. Qd7 Qxd7 25. Rxd7 Bd5 26. Rd6 Rb8 27.Bd4 Rb3 28. Rc1 Rd3 29. Bc3 Rc8 30. Be1 Rxa3 31. c6 Rb3 32. c7 Kf7 33. Rxa6 f4 34. Rd6 Kg6 35. Rd7 h6 36. f3 Rb2 37. h4 h5 38. Bc3 Rb3 39. Bd2 Kf5 40. Rxg7 Kxe5 41. Rg5+ Kd4 42. Bxf4 Kd3 43. Rxh5 Rb4 44. Bd6 Rb6 45. Bg3 Rb2 46. Rg5 1-0


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.