IM Daniel Gurevich Second Place Tie at the St Louis Invitational

IM Daniel Gurevich “cut his eye teeth,” as we say in the South, at the Atlanta Chess & Game Center, aka, the House of Pain.

I made a point to be near the first board game of the last round of the K-6 section when Daniel took clear first in the Supernationals at Opryland in Nashville back in 2009 and I was the first one to congratulate him. He was beaming and his face broke into a big smile as he took my proffered hand. His score of six and a half out of seven games raised his rating from 2075 to 2104, and it has not stopped rising. His FIDE page shows his current FIDE rating as 2471. It will continuing heading upward after his second place finish, tied with four others, in the GM section of the recently concluded St. Louis Invitational, with a undefeated score of plus two, both wins coming with the black pieces. The final crosstable shown at the website of the STLCC ( shows Daniel with the second highest performance rating (2563) behind only that of tournament winner IM John Burke (2606).

I would like to present all of Daniel’s games at the tournament, some of which I was fortunate enough to watch (“You GOTTA pull for somebody, man!” – David Spinks); all of which I have played over.

Two games annotated by his opponents follow below the games. The first game, which I enjoyed immensely, could be called a “real barn burner!” The ChessBomb shows a plethora of “red moves,” but then most fighting games are repleat with “off-color” moves, are they not?

IM Daniel Gurevich (2471) v IM Aman Hambleton (2484)

Rd 1

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. c4 d5 4. Nc3 Bb4 5. cxd5 exd5 6. Bg5 h6 7. Bh4 O-O 8. e3
Bf5 9. Bd3 Bxd3 10. Qxd3 c6 11. a3 Be7 12. Bxf6 Bxf6 13. h4 g6 14. h5 g5 15.
Ne2 Nd7 16. Ng3 Bg7 17. Nf5 a5 18. Nd2 Re8 19. f3 c5 20. O-O Qb6 21. f4 g4 22.
dxc5 Nxc5 23. Qe2 Qxb2 24. Qxg4 Kh8 25. Rab1 Qf6 26. Rb5 Bf8 27. Rf3 Ne4 28.
Nxe4 dxe4 29. Rg3 Bxa3 30. Rb6 Re6 31. Rxb7 a4 32. Ra7 Ree8 33. Rc7 Bb2 34. Nd6
Qxd6 35. Rxf7 Rg8 36. Qf5 Bg7 37. Rg6 Qxg6 38. hxg6 a3 39. Qh5 Rge8 40. Rxg7
Kxg7 41. Qd5 Kxg6 42. Qd6+ Kf7 43. Qd7+ Kf6 44. Qd4+ Kf7 45. Qd7+ Kf6 46. Qd4+

White: IM Raven Sturt (2449)

Rd 2

1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. e4 Nf6 4. e5 Nd5 5. Bxc4 Nc6 6. Ne2 Nb6 7. Bb3 Bf5 8.
Nbc3 e6 9. O-O Qd7 10. Be3 O-O-O 11. a3 f6 12. exf6 gxf6 13. Ng3 Bg6 14. Qf3
Be7 15. Rfd1 Na5 16. Ba2 Nac4 17. d5 e5 18. Bxb6 Nxb6 19. a4 a5 20. Bb1 Rhg8
21. Bf5 Bxf5 22. Nxf5 Rg5 23. Nxe7+ Qxe7 24. Ne4 Rg6 25. d6 cxd6 26. Qc3+ Kb8
27. Qxa5 f5 28. Ng3 d5 29. Nxf5 Qg5 30. Ng3 h5 31. Qb5 h4 32. a5 hxg3 33. hxg3
Nc8 34. Rxd5 Rxd5 35. Qxd5 Rh6 36. Re1 Rh5 37. Qe6 Qg7 38. Rc1 Qh8 39. Rxc8+
Qxc8 40. Qd6+ Ka8 41. Qd2 Qh8 42. f3 Rh1+ 43. Kf2 Qc8 44. g4 Qc5+ 45. Kg3 Qd4
46. Qg5 Ka7 47. b4 Qc3 0-1

Black: GM Julio Catalino Sadorra (2554)

Rd 3

1. Nf3 d5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 e6 4. O-O c5 5. c4 Nc6 6. cxd5 exd5 7. d4 Be7 8.
dxc5 Bxc5 9. a3 O-O 10. b4 Bb6 11. Bb2 Ne4 12. Nc3 Nxc3 13. Bxc3 Bg4 14. e3 d4
15. exd4 Nxd4 16. Bxd4 Bxf3 17. Qxf3 Bxd4 18. Rad1 Qb6 19. Qxb7 Rad8 20. Qxb6
axb6 21. Rfe1 Bb2 22. a4 Bc3 23. Rxd8 Rxd8 24. Re4 g6 25. Bf1 Rd1 26. Kg2 Kg7
27. Rc4 Be1 28. Re4 Bc3 29. Bc4 Re1 30. Rxe1 Bxe1 31. b5 f5 32. f4 Kf6 33. Kf3
Bb4 34. h3 h5 35. g4 hxg4+ 36. hxg4 fxg4+ 37. Kxg4 Bd6 1/2-1/2

White: IM John Bartholomew (2442)

Rd 4

1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 e6 5. Bxc4 c5 6. O-O Nc6 7. a3 a6 8. dxc5
Qxd1 9. Rxd1 Bxc5 10. b4 Be7 11. Bb2 O-O 12. Nbd2 b5 13. Be2 Bb7 14. Nb3 Rfd8
15. Nfd2 Nd7 16. Bf3 Rab8 17. Rac1 Nde5 18. Bxe5 Nxe5 19. Bxb7 Rxb7 20. Ne4
Rxd1+ 21. Rxd1 Nc4 22. Nec5 Ra7 23. g3 g5 24. Rd7 Rxd7 25. Nxd7 Nxa3 26. Ndc5
Nc2 27. Nxa6 Bd6 28. Nd4 Nxd4 29. exd4 g4 30. f4 Kf8 31. Kf2 Ke7 32. Nc5 Kd8
33. Ke3 Kc7 34. Ke4 Kc6 35. Na6 f5+ 36. Kd3 Kd5 37. Nc5 h5 38. Ke3 Be7 39. Kd3
Bf6 40. Na6 Bd8 41. Ke3 Kd6 42. Nc5 Bf6 43. Na6 h4 44. Kd3 h3 45. Ke3 Kc6 46.
Nc5 Kd5 47. Kd3 Bh4 48. gxh4 0-1

Black: GM Ioan-Cristian Chirila (2557)

Rd 5

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. e4 Nxc3 6. dxc3 Qxd1+ 7. Kxd1 f6
8. Be3 e5 9. Nd2 Be6 10. Bc4 Kf7 11. Kc2 Nd7 12. Rad1 Nb6 13. Bxe6+ Kxe6 14. b3
Nc8 15. f3 Nd6 16. c4 b6 17. Nb1 Nb7 18. Nc3 c6 19. g3 Bb4 20. Kb2 Rad8 21. a3
Bc5 22. Bxc5 Nxc5 23. b4 Nd3+ 24. Kc2 Nf2 25. Rxd8 Rxd8 26. Rf1 Nh3 27. Nd1 f5
28. exf5+ gxf5 29. Ne3 f4 30. gxf4 exf4 31. Ng4 h5 32. Nf2 Ng5 33. h4 Nxf3 34.
Nh3 Nd4+ 35. Kb2 f3 36. Ng5+ Kf5 37. Nxf3 Kg4 38. Ne5+ Kg3 39. Rg1+ Kh3 40.
Rh1+ Kg3 41. Rg1+ Kh3 42. Rh1+ Kg2 43. Rd1 Ne6 44. Re1 Nf4 45. Re4 Re8 46. Rxf4
Rxe5 47. Rf7 a5 48. Rf6 axb4 49. axb4 c5 50. Rxb6 cxb4 51. Rxb4 Re4 52. Kc3
Rxh4 53. Rb2+ Kg3 54. c5 Ra4 55. Rb3 h4 56. c6 Ra8 57. Kd4+ Kg2 58. Rb2+ Kg3
59. Rb3+ Kg2 60. Rb2+ 1/2-1/2

White: IM Atulya Shetty (2403)

Rd 6

1. c4 e5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. Nc3 Nb6 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. O-O Be7 8.
b3 O-O 9. Bb2 Re8 10. Rc1 Bg4 11. d3 Qd7 12. Ne4 f6 13. Nc5 Bxc5 14. Rxc5 Bh3
15. Bxh3 Qxh3 16. b4 a6 17. a4 Qe6 18. a5 Nd5 19. Ba3 b6 20. Rc1 Rad8 21. Qb3
Nd4 22. Nxd4 exd4 23. Bb2 bxa5 24. bxa5 Kh8 25. Bxd4 Qxe2 26. Qd1 Qe6 27. Re1
Qxe1+ 28. Qxe1 Rxe1+ 29. Rxe1 Kg8 30. Bc5 Rb8 31. Be3 Rb3 32. Rc1 Rxd3 33. Rc6
Nxe3 34. fxe3 Rd6 35. Rxc7 Rd5 36. Kg2 Rxa5 37. Ra7 h5 38. h4 Kh7 39. e4 Kg6
40. Kf3 Ra1 41. Kf2 a5 42. Kf3 a4 43. Kf2 a3 44. Kg2 a2 45. Kh2 Kh7 46. Ra8 g6
47. Ra7+ Kg8 48. Kg2 Kf8 49. Kh2 Ke8 50. Kg2 Kd8 51. Kh2 Kc8 52. Kg2 Kb8 53.
Ra3 Kb7 54. Ra4 Kb6 55. Ra8 Kb5 56. Rb8+ Kc4 57. Rc8+ Kd3 58. Rd8+ Ke3 59. Ra8
Rd1 60. Rxa2 Rd2+ 61. Rxd2 Kxd2 62. Kf2 Kd1 63. Kf1 1/2-1/2

Black: IM Steven Zierk (2493)

Rd 7

1. Nf3 c5 2. c4 Nf6 3. Nc3 Nc6 4. g3 g6 5. Bg2 Bg7 6. d4 cxd4 7. Nxd4 O-O 8.
O-O Nxd4 9. Qxd4 d6 10. Qd3 Rb8 11. Bg5 Be6 12. Rac1 a6 13. b3 Re8 14. Rfd1 Qa5
15. Bd2 Qh5 16. a4 Nd7 17. Nd5 Ne5 18. Qe4 Bf5 19. Nf4 Bxe4 20. Nxh5 Bxg2 21.
Nxg7 Kxg7 22. Kxg2 Nd7 23. Be3 Rbc8 24. Rd5 Rc6 25. Rcd1 Rec8 26. f4 f5 27. Kf3
Kf7 28. a5 Nf6 29. R5d3 Ne4 30. Bb6 Nf6 31. h3 Nd7 32. Be3 Nc5 33. Bxc5 Rxc5
34. Rd5 R8c6 35. e4 Rxd5 36. Rxd5 e6 37. Rd4 Ke7 38. g4 fxe4+ 39. Kxe4 b6 40.
axb6 Rxb6 41. Rd3 Rb8 42. f5 Rf8 43. Rf3 gxf5+ 44. gxf5 Rg8 45. fxe6 Kxe6 46.
Kd4 a5 47. Re3+ Kd7 48. Kc3 Rg2 49. Rd3 Kc6 50. Rd5 Rg3+ 51. Kb2 a4 52. bxa4
Rxh3 53. a5 Re3 54. Rh5 Re5 55. Rxh7 Rxa5 56. Kc3 1/2-1/2

White: IM John M Burke (2502)

Rd 8

1. e4 c6 2. Nc3 d5 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e5 Ne4 5. Ne2 Qb6 6. d4 e6 7. Ng3 c5 8. Bd3
Nxg3 9. fxg3 c4 10. Be2 Be7 11. O-O Nc6 12. g4 Bd7 13. c3 f6 14. exf6 gxf6 15.
g5 O-O-O 16. gxf6 Bxf6 17. Kh1 Rhg8 18. b3 cxb3 19. axb3 e5 20. dxe5 Nxe5 21.
Nxe5 Bxe5 22. Qxd5 Qg6 23. Bf3 Bc6 24. Qc4 Rdf8 25. Bxc6 Qxc6 26. Qxc6+ bxc6
27. Be3 Bxc3 28. Rxf8+ Rxf8 29. Rc1 Bb2 30. Rb1 Re8 31. Bxa7 Re2 32. g3 Kb7 33.
Bg1 Kc7 34. Rf1 Kd6 35. Rf7 h6 36. Bf2 Bc1 37. Kg2 Rb2 38. Rf3 Ke5 39. h4 Ke4
40. g4 Bf4 41. Rh3 Be5 42. g5 hxg5 43. hxg5 Kf5 44. Rd3 1/2-1/2

Black: GM Jayaram Ashwin (2474)

Rd 9

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. g3 d5 3. Bg2 c6 4. O-O Bg4 5. h3 Bh5 6. c4 e6 7. d4 Be7 8. cxd5 cxd5 9. Qb3 Qb6 10. Qxb6 axb6 11. Nc3 Nc6 12. Be3 Nd7 13. Nb5 O-O 14. Rfc1 Rfc8 15. a3 Na5 16. Rxc8+ Rxc8 17. Rc1 Rc6 18. Rc3 Kf8 19. g4 Bg6 20. Nd2 Bc2 21. b4 Rxc3 22. Nxc3 Nc6 23. f4 Nf6 24. Kf2 Ne8 25. Nf3 Nd6 26. Bc1 Ne4+ 27. Nxe4 dxe4 28. Ne5 Nxd4 29. Ke3 Nb3 30. Bb2 f5 31. g5 b5 32. Bc3 Bd6 33. Bf1 Bxe5 34. Bxe5 g6 35. Bb2 Ke7 36. h4 Kd6 37. Bh3 Kd5 38. Bg2 Bb1 39. Bh3 Kc4 40. Bf1 Bc2 41. Bg2 b6 42. Bf1 Bb1 43. Bg2 Ba2 44. Bf1 Kd5 45. Bg2 Kc6 46. Bh3 Kd6 47. Bg2 Kd5 48. Bh3 Bb1 49. Bg2 Kc4 50. Bf1 Ba2 51. Bg2 Bb1 52. Bf1 Bc2 53. Bg2 Bb1 ½-½

IM Daniel Gurevich vs. IM Aman Hambleton [Round 1]

IM Bartholomew vs. IM Daniel Gurevich [Round 2]

The Upsetting NM Michael Corallo

Georgian NM Michael Corallo continues to show good form and is off to an excellent start at the 2015 Philadelphia Open playing upsetting chess! He has won his first three games and is tied for first place with three other players. Michael dispatched IM Esserman’s ( Najdorf in the second round and then beat fellow Atlantan, FM Daniel Gurevich in the third round using the dreaded Berlin defense. As I write Michael has Black against IM Akshat Chandra of New Jersey in a Nimzo-Indian, Qc2 variation. The games can be found at and Monroi.

Michael Corallo 2290 vs IM Marc Esserman 2427

Rd 2

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 Nbd7 7.Bc4 Qb6 8.Bb3 e6 9.Qd2 Be7 10.O-O-O Nc5 11.Rhe1 h6 12.Bxf6 Bxf6 13.Kb1 O-O 14.f4 Qc7 15.g4 b5 16.g5 hxg5 17.fxg5 Be5 18.g6 fxg6 19.Qg2 Nxb3 20.axb3 Rf6 21.Nf3 Bf4 22.e5 dxe5 23.Ne4 Rf8 24.Nfg5 Qe7 25.Rg1 Rf5 26.Qg4 Kf8 27.Qh4 Bxg5 28.Rxg5 Bb7 29.Nd6 Qf6 30.Nxf5 exf5 31.Rd7 1-0

FM Daniel Gurevich 2373 vs Michael Corallo 2290

Rd 3

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.O-O Nxe4 5.Re1 Nd6 6.Nxe5 Be7 7.Bf1 Nxe5 8.Rxe5 O-O 9.d4 Bf6 10.Re1 Nf5 11.c3 d5 12.Nd2 Re8 13.Rxe8 Qxe8 14.Nf3 Nh4 15.Nxh4 Bxh4 16.Bf4 c6 17.Bd3 Bf6 18.Qc2 g6 19.Qd2 Be6 20.Re1 Qd7 21.Bg5 Bg7 22.h4 Re8 23.h5 Bg4 24.Rxe8 Qxe8 25.h6 Bf8 26.f3 Bd7 27.Kf2 Qe6 28.Qf4 Bd6 29.Qh4 Bf8 30.g4 c5 31.Bd8 cxd4 32.cxd4 Bb4 33.Qg5 Qe1 34.Kg2 Bd6 35.Qf6 Qd2 36.Kg1 Bf8 37.Bf1 Bxh6 38.Bc7 Bg5 0-1

UT Dallas Fall FIDE Open: It Don’t Come Easy

FM Daniel Gurevich continue to impress the chess world not only with his results, but also with his stellar play. He finished +1, with a score of 5-4, leaving him in a tie for 14th place. Daniel exited the tournament on a winning note by playing this spectacular game:

FM Daniel Gurevich vs IM Keaton F Kiewra
UT Dallas Fall Fide 2014
Rd 9

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. Nc3 Nc6 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 Qc7 6.
g3 a6 7. Bg2 Nf6 8. O-O Bc5 9. Nxc6 dxc6 10. e5 Qxe5 11. Bf4 Qd4 12. Qe2 Be7
13. Rfd1 Qc5 14. Na4 Qa5 15. b3 O-O 16. Bd2 Qc7 17. Bf4 Qa5 18. Bd2 Bb4 19. c3
Be7 20. c4 Bb4 21. Be3 Nd7 22. Qc2 Be7 23. c5 Qc7 24. Nb6 Nxb6 25. cxb6 Qe5 26.
Bd4 Qa5 27. a3 Qh5 28. Qc3 f6 29. b4 e5 30. Bc5 Bxc5 31. Qc4+ Kh8 32. Qxc5 Bg4
33. Rd6 Rae8 34. a4 Qf7 35. h3 Bc8 36. b5 cxb5 37. axb5 axb5 38. Bd5 Qh5 39.
Bg2 f5 40. Ra8 f4 41. g4 Qh4 Stop!

However you intend on reviewing this game, take a moment to cogitate on White’s next move. As a hint let me say that after teaching budding chess Spuds to ask and answer three questions (1 “Why did my opponent make that move?” 2 “What move do I want, or need, to make, and why?” & 3 “Am I leaving anything en prise?”), the next thing I teach is to, “Examine all checks!” The remaining moves are given at the end of the article.

IM Denis Kadric vs FM Daniel Gurevich
UT Dallas Fall Fide 2014
Rd 6

1.d3 g6 2.g3 Bg7 3.Bg2 c5 4.e4 Nc6 5.f4 d6 6.Nf3 Bg4 7.h3 Bxf3 8.Qxf3 e6 9.c3 Nge7 10.O-O O-O 11.Be3 Qd7 12.Rd1 Rac8 13.Na3 f5 14.Qe2 Kh8 15.Nc2 Qc7 16.Bf2 Rce8 17.d4 cxd4 18.Nxd4 Nxd4 19.cxd4 fxe4 20.Qxe4 Nd5 21.h4 Qf7 22.Rac1 Re7 23.a3 Rfe8 24.Qe2 Qf5 25.Be4 Qf7 26.Bf3 Rf8 27.Rd3 Bh6 28.Re1 Rfe8 29.Qf1 Bg7 30.Qg2 Nb6 31.Rd2 Nc4 32.Rde2 d5 33.h5 Nd6 34.hxg6 hxg6 35.Qh2 Kg8 36.g4 g5 37.f5 Ne4 38.Bxe4 dxe4 39.Rxe4 exf5 40.Rxe7 Rxe7 41.Rxe7 Qxe7 42.Qb8 Kh7 43.gxf5 Qe4 44.Qh2 Kg8 45.Qd6 Qg4 46.Kf1 1/2-1/2

FM Daniel Gurevich vs IM Kacper Drozdowski
UT Dallas Fall Fide 2014
Rd 7

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.Nc3 a6 4.g3 b5 5.Bg2 Bb7 6.d4 cxd4 7.Nxd4 b4 8.Na4 Nf6 9.O-O Bxe4 10.Bxe4 Nxe4 11.Re1 Nf6 12.c4 bxc3 13.Qb3 Nc6 14.Nxc6 dxc6 15.Qxc3 Rc8 16.Be3 Nd5 17.Qc4 Qa5 18.Bc5 Qb5 19.Rac1 Be7 20.Bxe7 Qxc4 21.Rxc4 Kxe7 22.Rec1 Kd6 23.Nc5 Rb8 24.b3 Rhc8 25.Ne4 Kd7 26.Nc5 Ke7 27.Nxa6 Ra8 28.Nb4 Nxb4 29.Rxb4 Rxa2 30.Rb7 Kf6 31.Rd1 Rc2 32.Rdd7 Rf8 33.h4 Kg6 34.Rdc7 h5 1/2-1/2

GM Nadezhda Kosintseva vs FM Daniel Gurevich
UT Dallas Fall Fide 2014
Rd 8

1.e4 c5 2.c3 Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.d4 cxd4 6.cxd4 d6 7.Bc4 Nb6 8.Bb5 dxe5 9.Nxe5 Bd7 10.Nxd7 Qxd7 11.O-O e6 12.Nc3 Rd8 13.Qb3 Be7 14.Be3 O-O 15.Rfd1 a6 16.Bxa6 bxa6 17.Qxb6 Nb4 18.Rac1 Rb8 19.Qa5 Rfd8 20.Rd2 Qb7 21.h3 Rbc8 22.a3 Nd5 23.Rdc2 Nb6 24.Na4 Rxc2 25.Rxc2 Nxa4 26.Qxa4 Bf6 27.Qc6 Qb3 28.Qc3 Qd5 29.Qc5 Qe4 30.Qc6 Qd3 31.Rd2 Qb5 32.Qxb5 axb5 33.Kf1 Kf8 34.Ke2 Ke7 35.Kd3 h5 36.b3 Ra8 37.Ra2 Rd8 38.Ke4 Kd6 39.a4 bxa4 40.Rxa4 Kc6 41.Ra7 h4 42.Rxf7 Rb8 43.Bf4 Rxb3 44.Be5 Rb2 45.Bxf6 Rxf2 46.Rxg7 Rxf6 47.Rg4 Rf2 48.Ke3 Ra2 49.Kf3 Ra3 50.Kf2 Ra2 51.Kg1 Kd5 52.Rxh4 Ra4 53.Rg4 Ra1 54.Kh2 Ra4 55.Kg3 Ra3 56.Kh4 e5 57.dxe5 Kxe5 58.Rg6 Kf4 59.Rf6 Ke5 60.Rf8 Ra4 61.g4 1-0

NM Michael Corallo, who has been playing excellent chess recently, finished with an even score, a half point behind Daniel.

NM Daniel Gater vs NM Michael Corallo
UT Dallas Fall Fide 2014
Rd 6

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 Nbd7 7.f4 Qc7 8.Qf3 h6 9.Bxf6 Nxf6 10.f5 Qc5 11.O-O-O g5 12.fxg6 Bg4 13.gxf7 Kxf7 14.Qd3 Bxd1 15.Nxd1 h5 16.Qb3 d5 17.Nf5 Nxe4 18.Bd3 Nf6 19.Re1 b5 20.Nh4 Bh6 21.Kb1 e6 22.Bg6 Ke7 23.Bf5 Qd4 24.Qg3 Ne4 25.Qc7 Kf6 26.Bxe4 1-0

FM Alex Getz vs NM Michael Corallo
UT Dallas Fall Fide 2014
Rd 8

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be2 e6 7.O-O Be7 8.f4 O-O 9.Kh1 Qc7 10.a4 Nc6 11.Be3 Re8 12.Bf3 Na5 13.Nde2 e5 14.f5 Nc4 15.Bc1 d5 16.exd5 Bxf5 17.Ng3 Bg6 18.Nge4 Nd6 19.Re1 Rac8 20.Nxf6 Bxf6 21.Bg4 Rcd8 22.a5 Nc4 23.Ne4 Bh4 24.g3 Be7 25.Qf3 Nxa5 26.Bd2 Nc4 27.Bc3 Bf8 28.Rad1 Nd6 29.Nxd6 Bxd6 30.Bf5 b5 31.Ra1 b4 32.Bd2 Qc4 33.Bxg6 hxg6 34.Qd3 Qxd3 35.cxd3 Bf8 36.Ra5 f6 37.Re4 Rb8 38.Rxa6 Rb5 39.d6 Rd5 40.Bxb4 Rxd3 41.Rc4 e4 42.Rac6 e3 43.Rc8 Rxc8 44.Rxc8 Kf7 45.Kg2 Bxd6 46.Bxd6 Rxd6 47.Kf3 Rd2 48.Rc7 Kg8 49.Kxe3 Rxh2 50.b4 Rb2 51.Rc4 Rb3 52.Kd4 Rxg3 53.b5 Rb3 54.Kc5 Kf7 55.b6 Ke6 56.Re4 Kd7 57.Rd4 Kc8 58.Re4 Rc3 59.Kb5 Rb3 60.Kc6 Rc3 61.Kb5 1/2-1/2

Michael defeated IM Justin Sarkar in the last round.

NM Damir Studen finished on -2, with a score of 3 1/2-5 1/2.

NM Damir Studen vs GM Kayden W Troff
UT Dallas Fall Fide 2014
Rd 7

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 O-O 5. Nc3 Nc6 6.
Nf3 d5 7. cxd5 Nxd5 8. e4 Nxc3 9. bxc3 Na5 10. O-O c5 11. e5 cxd4 12. cxd4 Be6
13. Ng5 Bd5 14. Ne4 Rc8 15. Be3 b6 16. Qd2 Rc4 17. f3 Qd7 18. Qb2 Rfc8 19. Rfc1
Rxc1+ 20. Bxc1 Qa4 21. Bd2 Rc2 22. Qb4 Qxb4 23. Bxb4 Nc6 24. Be1 Bxe4 25. fxe4
Nxd4 26. Rd1 Bxe5 27. Bf2 Ne2+ 28. Kf1 Nc3 29. Rd7 Rxa2 30. Bf3 Kf8 31. h4 Ke8
32. Rb7 Kd8 33. Bg4 Bc7 34. e5 e6 35. Bf3 Nd5 0-1

WIM Mariam Danelia vs NM Damir Studen
UT Dallas Fall Fide 2014
Rd 7

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Nf3 Be7 5.Bf4 0-0 6.e3 a6 7.Qc2 Nbd7 8.h3 dxc4 9.Bxc4 b5 10.Be2 c5 11.dxc5 Nxc5 12.O-O Bb7 13.Rfd1 Qb6 14.Be5 Rac8 15.Bd4 Qa5 16.a3 Nce4 17.Bd3 h6 18.Qe2 Nxc3 19.Bxc3 Qc7 20.e4 Rfd8 1/2-1/2

Damir lost to NM Jarod John M Pamatmat his last round game, thus violating LM Brian McCarthy’s rule of “Never leave the gym on a missed hoop!”

NM Sanjay Ghatti found that it don’t come easy in Dallas, scoring only 3 points, but hit nothing but net with his last round win over NM Abhishek Reddy Obili.

NM Sanjay Ghatti vs WFM Patrycja Labedz
UT Dallas Fall Fide 2014
Rd 8

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 a6 3.c4 e6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Qc7 6.Nc3 Nf6 7.Bd3 Bb4 8.O-O Nc6 9.Be3 Ne5 10.Rc1 Neg4 11.g3 Nxe3 12.fxe3 b6 13.a3 Bd6 14.Qe2 Bb7 15.b4 h5 16.c5 bxc5 17.bxc5 Be5 18.Na4 h4 19.g4 h3 20.c6 dxc6 21.Kh1 Rh4 22.g5 Nxe4 23.Bxe4 Rxe4 24.Nc5 Rxd4 25.exd4 Bxd4 26.g6 Bxc5 27.gxf7 Ke7 28.Rxc5 Qd6 29.Qf2 Rf8 30.Kg1 e5 31.Rxe5 Qxe5 32.Re1 Qxe1 33.Qxe1 Kxf7 34.Qb4 Bc8 35.Qc4 Kg6 36.Qxc6 Kh7 37.Qc5 Kg8 38.Qd5 Kh8 39.a4 Bf5 40.Qc5 Rf6 41.a5 Kh7 42.Kf2 Be4 43.Kg3 Bg2 44.Qc2 Kg8 45.Qc8 Kh7 1/2-1/2

The fact that three of the four Georgia players faced off against women in round eight illustrates the rise in the number of women players. The total score of the men vs women battle in the penultimate round went to the men, 2-1.

Since there were nine rounds the tale of the tournament can be told by breaking down the results into thirds:

1st 2nd 3rd
Gurevich 1 1/2 2 1 1/2
Corallo 1 1/2 1/2 2 1/2
Studen 1 2 1/2
Ghatti 1 1/2 1 1/2

Now for the conclusion of the FM Daniel Gurevich vs IM Keaton F Kiewra game:

42. Rc6 bxc6 43. b7 Qd8 44. b8=Q f3 45. Bf1 Rf6
46. Qcxe5 Rff8 47. Qc5 h6 48. Ra1 Qf6 49. Qba7 Re4 50. Bd3 Rf4 51. Qce7 Qc3 52.
Bf5 Rg8 53. Qee3 Qb4 54. Qc7 Rxf5 55. gxf5 Bxf5 56. Qcf4 Qb2 57. Qee5 1-0

Were you able to find a better move without checking with your “engine” of choice? Did you “examine all checks?”

Draw Eliminates Kings from Playoffs

The Atlanta Kings season ended last night when, needing a win, they could only manage a draw with the Sharks of Miami. The Kings were eliminated from the playoffs.

Week 10: Miami Sharks (MIA 2406) vs Atlanta Kings (ATL 2405)

​Tuesday, October 28, 7:40pm

1. GM Julio Becerra (MIA 2626) – Deepak Aaron (ATL 2446) 1/2

2. ​FM Kazim Gulamali (ATL 2397) – FM Marcel Martinez (MIA 2474) 0-1

3. Federico Gonzalez (MIA 2315) – FM Daniel Gurevich (ATL 2393) 1/2

​4. Richard Francisco ​(ATL 2382) – Oscar Maldonado (MIA 2209) ​1-0

Match Tied 2-2

Becerra,Julio (2626) – Aaron,Deepak (2446) [C78]
USCL Week 10 Internet Chess Club, 28.10.2014

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 Bc5 7.a4 Rb8 8.axb5 axb5 9.c3 d6 10.d4 Bb6 11.Na3 Bg4 12.Nxb5 0-0 13.Be3 d5 14.exd5 Nxd5 15.Bg5 Bxf3 16.Qxf3 Qxg5 17.Bxd5 Ne7 18.Bc4 exd4 19.Nxd4 Ng6 20.Nc6 Rbe8 21.Rfe1 Nh4 22.Qd5 Qf6 23.Kh1 g6 24.f4 Rxe1+ 25.Rxe1 Nf5 26.g3 Ne3 27.Qe4 Ng4 28.Kg2 Qd6 29.Ne7+ Kg7 30.Nd5 Nf6 31.Nxf6 Qxf6 32.Rd1 Rd8 33.Rxd8 Qxd8 34.Bd5 c5 35.Qe5+ Qf6 36.Kf3 Qxe5 37.fxe5 f5 38.Ke2 Bc7 39.e6 Kf6 40.Kd3 Ke7 41.Kc4 Bd6 42.Kb5 h5 43.Kc4 g5 44.Kd3 h4 45.gxh4 gxh4 46.h3 Kf6 47.Kc4 Ke7 48.Kb5 Kf6 49.Kc6 Be7 50.Bc4 Bf8 51.Kd7 Be7 52.Be2 Bf8 53.Bd3 f4 54.Be2 Be7 55.Bg4 Bf8 56.Bf3 Be7 57.Bd5 Bf8 58.Bf3 Be7 59.Bd5 1/2-1/2

Gulamali,Kazim (2397) – Martinez,Marcel (2474) [D18]
USCL Week 10 Internet Chess Club, 28.10.2014

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 c6 3.d4 d5 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.a4 Bf5 6.e3 e6 7.Bxc4 Bb4 8.0-0 0-0 9.Ne5 Nbd7 10.Qb3 a5 11.Nxd7 Qxd7 12.Rd1 Qe7 13.f3 e5 14.e4 Bg6 15.Be3 Rfd8 16.d5 Bc5 17.Bxc5 Qxc5+ 18.Kh1 h5 19.Rd3 h4 20.Rf1 Rac8 21.Qa2 Qb4 22.b3 Nh5 23.Qf2 Nf4 24.Re3 Qc5 25.g3 Nh5 26.Kg2 Qe7 27.Kh1 Rd6 28.Ree1 hxg3 29.hxg3 Bh7 30.Rg1 Qg5 31.Rg2 Rg6 32.Reg1 Qh6 33.Rh2 Qg5 34.Rh3 Rh6 35.Kh2 Rd8 36.f4 Qe7 37.f5 Qg5 38.Kg2 Nf4+ 0-1

Gonzalez,Federico (2315) – Gurevich,Daniel (2393) [B30]
USCL Week 10 Internet Chess Club, 28.10.2014

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3 Nf6 4.e5 Nd5 5.d4 cxd4 6.cxd4 d6 7.Nc3 dxe5 8.Nxe5 Nxc3 9.Nxc6 Nxd1 10.Nxd8 Kxd8 11.Kxd1 Be6 12.Bd3 Bd5 13.f3 e6 14.Bf4 Rc8 15.Ke2 Kd7 16.Rhc1 Bd6 17.Bxd6 Kxd6 18.a3 h6 19.Ke3 g5 20.Rc3 Rxc3 21.bxc3 Rc8 22.Kd2 f5 23.h4 f4 24.hxg5 hxg5 25.Rh1 g4 26.Be4 gxf3 27.gxf3 Bxe4 28.fxe4 Rg8 29.Rh6 Rg2+ 30.Kd3 Rg3+ 31.Kc4 b5+ 32.Kxb5 Re3 33.e5+ Kd5 34.Kb4 f3 35.Rf6 Ke4 36.Kc4 a6 37.Rf8 Re1 38.d5 exd5+ 39.Kc5 f2 40.e6 Kd3 41.Rxf2 Rxe6 42.Kxd5 Re8 43.Rf3+ Kc2 44.c4 Rd8+ 45.Kc5 Rc8+ 46.Kb4 Rb8+ 47.Ka5 Rc8 48.Rf4 Rc6 49.Kb4 Rb6+ 50.Kc5 Rb8 51.Kd6 Kb3 52.c5 Kxa3 53.c6 a5 54.c7 Rc8 55.Kd7 Rh8 56.c8Q Rxc8 57.Kxc8 a4 58.Kb7 Kb3 59.Kb6 a3 60.Kb5 a2 61.Rf1 Kb2 62.Kb4 a1Q 63.Rf2+ Kc1 64.Rf1+ Kb2 65.Rxa1 Kxa1 1/2-1/2

Francisco,Richard (2382) – Maldonado,Oscar (2209) [B30]
USCL Week 10 Internet Chess Club, 28.10.2014

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.d3 Bg4 6.Be3 e5 7.h3 Bxf3 8.Qxf3 Nf6 9.Nd2 Nd7 10.Qg3 Qf6 11.0-0 Qg6 12.Qh2 Be7 13.Nc4 Qe6 14.f4 exf4 15.Bxf4 0-0 16.a4 b5 17.Ne3 c4 18.Nf5 Bf6 19.Qg3 Ne5 20.Nd4 Qe7 21.Nf5 Qe6 22.Bg5 Bxg5 23.Qxg5 Ng6 24.h4 Qd7 25.Qg4 Qa7+ 26.d4 f6 27.Kh1 Rad8 28.h5 Kf7 29.c3 Ne7 30.Qxg7+ Ke8 31.axb5 cxb5 32.Rxa6 Qb7 33.Nd6+ Rxd6 34.Rxd6 Qxe4 35.Rd8+ Kxd8 36.Qxf8+ Kd7 37.Qxf6 Qe2 38.Qf3 Qxb2 39.Qb7+ Ke8 40.Re1 Qa3 41.Qxb5+ Kf7 42.Qxc4+ Kg7 43.Qb4 Qxb4 44.cxb4 Nd5 45.b5 Kf6 46.Re5 Nb6 47.Rc5 Ke7 48.Rc6 Nd5 49.b6 Kd7 50.b7 Kxc6 51.b8Q Nb6 52.Qe5 Nd5 53.Qe6+ Kc7 54.Qxd5 Kc8 55.Qf7 Kb8 56.Qxh7 Kc8 57.Qg7 Kb8 58.h6 Ka8 59.h7 1-0

Because of the rating cap it is difficult to take the USCL seriously. Each team must have an average rating of 2400 except when, “3. Any player rated above 2600 will count as only 2600 when determining whether a lineup has a legal average; this is done to reward teams for using the strongest players in the country on their rosters.” Or when, “4. Any player rated below 2000 will count as 2000 when determining whether a lineup has a legal average; this is done to keep lineups reasonably balanced.” (

This makes no sense whatsoever. When the Kings played the St. Louis Arch Bishops GM Wesley So, the number ten player in the world, was rated 2751, yet for USCL purposes his rating was considered to be 2600. Theoretically, a team could field three 2700 players and an 1800 on last board under USCL rules. If the 2700 rated players were actually considered to be 2700, then the last board would have to be manned by a player rated 1500. This obviously greatly favors teams fortunate enough to have players rated over 2600, lessening the chance an underdog team has of making the playoffs. Like the tax laws in this country favoring the wealthy and corporations, now considered “people” under the law ( & (, USCL rules favor the teams rich in higher rated players. Unless and until the rules are changed the USCL has little credibility.

The Kings were led this season by NM Richard Francisco, who scored an amazing 7 1/2 out of 9 games. The Frisco Kid played 3 games more than any other player, and scored an astounding 4 1/2 more points than the second highest scoring player, NM Damir Studen. He also had the highest PR. If a team MVP is chosen, Mr. Francisco is the man.

1. GM Alonso Zapata 2555 – 1.0/3 (2518 PR)

2. Deepak Aaron 2446 – 1.5/5 (2309 PR)

​3. IM Carlos Perdomo 2400 – 1.5/3​ (2524 PR)

4. FM Kazim Gulamali 2397 – 0.5/4​ (2172 PR)

​5. FM Daniel Gurevich 2393 – 1.5/3 (2412 PR)

​6. Richard Francisco 2382 – 7.5/9​ (2531 PR)​

​7. Damir Studen 2372 – 3.0/6 (2439 PR)

8. Michael Corallo 2284 – 1.0/2 (2115 PR)

9. Leonardo Martinez 2266 – 2.0/3 (2395 PR)

​10. Sanjay Ghatti 2245 – 0.0/1 (1870 PR)

11. Lawrence White 2179 – 0.5/1 (2074 PR)

Get Smart: Missed it by that much

FM Daniel Gurevich Adds Spice to Cup

FM Daniel Gurevich vs GM Illia Nyzhnyk
2014 Spice Cup Rd 1

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Qb6 5. Nb3 Nf6 6.
Nc3 e6 7. Bd3 d6 8. O-O Be7 9. Kh1 Qc7 10. f4 a6 11. Qf3 h5 12. a4 h4 13. Be3
Bd7 14. a5 Nb4 15. Bb6 Qc8 16. e5 Bc6 17. Qh3 dxe5 18. fxe5 Nh5 19. Nd4 Nxd3
20. cxd3 Rh6 21. Nxc6 Qxc6 22. Be3 Rh7 23. Ne4 Qb5 (Stop! Take time to answer the question of, “What move do I want, or need, to play?” The answer is from GM Kevin Spraggett. (

“SPICE Cup Open Saint Louis USA 2014.10.21 Position after 23 moves. A quick glance at the position of Black’s pieces on the Kingside indicates that the higher rated player (Nyzhnyk) has taken some liberties. Clearly Black’s game lacks cohesion and harmony. Even so, one feels almost sorry for Black for the BRUTAL finish that White has in store…

“SPICE Cup Open Saint Louis USA 2014.10.21 Gurevich, Daniel–Nyzhnyk, Illya: 24.Rxf7!! A brilliant move that exposes the lack of harmony in Black’s game 24…Kxf7 ( 24…Qxe5 25.Raf1 paralyzes Black and is not better than the move played in the game ) 25.Rf1+ Nf6 ( Relatively best. If instead 25…Kg8 26.Qxe6+ Kh8 27.Qxe7 Qe8 28.Qxe8+ Rxe8 29.Nd6 Rb8 30.e6 and the pawn must win: 30…g6 31.Bg5 etc or if instead 25…Ke8 26.Qxe6 with multiple threats) 26.exf6 Qxd3 ( 26…gxf6 27.Ng5+ ) And now the simplest is 27.Ng5+ Kg6 28.Qf3 gxf6 29.Nxe6 and Black is defenceless ) The game continuation was a bit imprecise, but good enough to win: 27.Qf3 gxf6 28.Nxf6 Bxf6 29.Qxf6+ Ke8 30.Qxe6+ Re7 31.Qg8+ Kd7 32.Qg4+ Kc6 33.Rc1+ Kd5 34.Qh5+ Ke6 35.Re1 Rae8 36.Bc5+ Kd7 37.Bxe7 Rxe7 38.Rd1 Kc7 39.Qc5+ 1-0 A pretty attacking game.” (

Daniel has found the going rough since the opening round with three draws and three losses after round seven. His PR, including the first round stands at 2285 (

Expert and Atlanta King member Sanjay Ghatti is also playing in the Spice Cup. He has also found tough going, having drawn three games in addition to four losses, which translates to a PR of only 1966. (

Will It Pumpkin Spice?

St. Louis Leaves Atlanta Singing the Blues

The St. Louis Arch Bishops defeated the Atlanta Kings by a score of 3-1 in USCL action last night. Richard Francisco scored the Kings lone point with a win over FM Doug Eckert on board three. St. Louis was led by the $100,000 chess man, GM Wesley So, playing only a couple of nights after winning the Millionaire Open, who defeated GM Alonso Zapata on first board. GM Ben Finegold, with the Black pieces, defeated FM Daniel Gurevich. NM Matthew Larson also won with the Black pieces, besting the Kings NM Leo Martinez on fourth board.
Statistics on the Southeast Chess website show the Arch Bishops with an average rating of 2469, which is 69 points over the 2400 limit. How is this possible? I cannot explain this anomaly. If anyone can explain why one side is allowed to field a team 69 points over the limit, please leave a comment, or email me at:

Week 8: St. Louis Arch Bishops (STL 2469) vs Atlanta Kings (ATL 2399)
Wednesday, October 15, 8:00pm
1. GM Wesley So (STL 2751) – GM Alonso Zapata (ATL 2555) 1-0
2. FM Daniel Gurevich (ATL 2393) – GM Ben Finegold (STL 2591) 0-1
3. FM Doug Eckert (STL 2281) – Richard Francisco (ATL 2382) 0-1
4. Leo Martinez (ATL 2266) – Matthew Larson (STL 2251) 0-1
​St. Louis Wins 3-1 (

The Frisco Kid has now scored 5 1/2 out of 7 games and has a 2532 performance rating.

Eckert,Doug (2281) – Francisco,Richard (2382) [A15]
USCL Week 8 Internet Chess Club, 15.10.2014

1.c4 Nf6 2.g3 e5 3.Bg2 c6 4.d4 exd4 5.Qxd4 d5 6.cxd5 cxd5 7.Nf3 Nc6 8.Qd1 Be7 9.0-0 0-0 10.Nbd2 Re8 11.Nb3 Ne4 12.Be3 Bf6 13.Nbd4 Bg4 14.Rc1 Rc8 15.Qa4 Qd7 16.Nxc6 bxc6 17.Bd4 c5 18.Qxd7 Bxd7 19.Bxf6 Nxf6 20.e3 Bf5 21.Rfd1 Red8 22.Ne5 c4 23.g4 Nxg4 24.Nxg4 Bxg4 25.Rxd5 Be6 26.Rxd8+ Rxd8 27.Bf1 Rc8 28.Rc3 Kf8 29.b3 cxb3 30.Rxc8+ Bxc8 31.axb3 Ke7 32.Bd3 a5 33.Bc4 f6 34.Kf1 Kd6 35.Ke2 Kc5 36.Kd3 Kb4 37.f3 g5 38.Kd4 Bh3 39.Bg8 h5 40.Ke4 Kc3 41.Bf7 h4 42.f4 g4 43.Be6 Bg2+ 44.Kf5 g3 45.hxg3 h3 0-1
The Kings are in third place in the Southern division, with a record of 3 1/2-4 1/2, two points behind the Archies, but only one point behind the Sharks of Miami. Next week the Sharks face-off with the Dallas Destiny, while the Kings battle the Rio Grande Ospreys in the penultimate round of the regular season. The finale has the Kings facing the Sharks, a match which could determine a spot in the playoffs.

Daughter Maitland – St. Louis Blues (Boardwalk Empire)

Youth Served At US Masters

Damir Studen and Daniel Gurevich, two young players from Atlanta, Georgia, USA, both scored 5.5 points out of 9 rounds at the recent US Masters in Greensboro, North Carolina. That put both of them in the fourth score group, in a tie for 12-21 out of 79 players. They were the lowest rated, by far, players in the score group. For both of these young men (Damir was born in 1989 and Daniel in 1997) this can be considered a breakout event. Damir has previously won the state championship of Georgia, while Daniel won the top section of the 2009 Super Nationals in Nashville, so both have known success. Both would agree the US Masters is on another level entirely.
Damir won 3, drew 5, and lost one. Daniel won 5, drew one, and lost 3. Damir had a performance rating of 2560, while Daniel’s PR was 2544. Damir faced four GM’s, with two wins and two draws. Daniel played five GM’s, winning two, while losing three. Damir played his usual solid, steady game and was consistent throughout the event, with draws interspersed with wins until winning back to back in rounds seven and eight. Daniel lost two of his first three, won four of the next five, with the other game being drawn. He won three in a row in rounds 6-8. Damir earned 48 rating points to move to 2384. Daniel garnered 51 rating points, with his rating increasing to 2344. The two had three common opponents. They both drew with IM John Cox of England. Damir drew with GM Alex Fishbein while Daniel won. Damir also drew with GM Georg Meier, while Daniel lost his game with Meier in the last round.
What I want to do is contrast the performance of these two young turks with that of some of the older players, the wily ol’ veterans. I have read analytical books on baseball by writers such as Bill James and his Baseball Abstracts over the last thirty plus years. The study of baseball statistics is called “sabermetrics.” One of the things I have learned is the smaller the sample size, the less trustworthy the results. With that caveat I can tell you this sample size would be considered small in any study, but it is all I have with which to work. To make it even smaller, I will throw out one of the games. I do that because organizers continue the nonsensical practice of having an odd number of rounds, which puts one half of the field at a disadvantage by having to play the Black pieces an extra time. Both Damir and Daniel each played White four times while having the Black pieces five times, which makes their individual results even more spectacular!
I wanted to know if their success can be attributed to youthful exuberance, and if so, to what extent. For this study I decided to contrast the performance rating of the first four rounds with that of the last four rounds. To do so I would have to eliminate the 5th round entirely, which would leave each player with an equal number of times playing the White and Black pieces. I also needed to use only those who played all nine games, for obvious reasons. GM Larry Kaufman had a good result considering he is older than me by a few years. It boggles my mind how he can play at such a level. But Larry did take two half-point byes, which would skew the results to a point of being meaningless.
I decided to find matching pairs, like Damir and Daniel in order to increase the sample size. The two players I found to contrast with D & D were GM Alonso Zapata, now living in Atlanta, and GM Michael Rohde, who used to visit and play when his parents lived in Atlanta. Alonso was born in 1958 and Michael 1959, making both of them eligible to play in the US Senior. Because they are several decades older I believe it makes for a fine contrast of youth versus age.
This is the PR for all nine rounds for each of them, with all numbers rounded off:
Zapata 2619
Studen 2560
Gurevich 2544
Rohde 2467
Added together and averaged we have a PR for Zapata & Rohde of 2543, and for D&D it is 2552, which is close.
Now let us look at the PR for each for only the first four rounds:
Zapata 2789
Studen 2683
Gurevich 2395
Rhode 2320
And for the last four rounds:
Gurevich 2712
Studen 2576
Rohde 2543
Zapata 2444
Combine each of the two sets and average them for the first four rounds and we get:
D & D 2539
Z & R 2555
This means they played about the same chess during the first four rounds. Now we look at the last four rounds:
D&D 2644
Z & R 2494
The two young men obviously played much stronger chess in the later stages of the long tournament.
I considered using GM John Federowicz as he was also born in 1958, like GM Zapata, but rejected him because he had taken a half point bye in the fifth round. Since he did play the first, and last, four rounds, I would like to mention his tournament. John, one of the most gracious players I have encountered through the years, won his first two games, but those were the only games he won. He drew his next two, took a half point bye, lost in round 6 to GM Meier, drew in round seven, lost again in the penultimate round, and finally drew in the last round. This adds up to an even tournament. The Fed’s PR for the tournament was 2451. For the first four rounds was 2663; for the last four, 2239. If John were combined with either Alonso or Michael it would have been an even more dramatic decline. Combined, The Fed and The Zap would have had a PR of 2726 for the first four rounds. It would have dropped precipitously to only 2342 for the last four rounds. Rohde and the Fed would be 2491 for the first four rounds, and 2391 for the last four.
I stand in awe while applauding these two young men from my home city, Damir Studen, who earned an IM norm, and Daniel Gurevich, on such an excellent tournament.

Damir Studen Earns IM Norm at US Masters

GM Rauf Mamedov sat down to play GM Bartlomiej Macieja on board one in the last round of the US Masters trailing by half a point. To win the tournament Rauf would have to win the game, which is exactly what happened. Three other players had a chance to finish with seven points. GM’s Alejandro Ramirez and Yuniesky Quesada Perez drew their game, thus finishing with 6 ½, while GM Alojzije Jankovic, with a chance to finish first, took a HALF POINT BYE in the last round, the second half point bye he had taken in the tournament. Jankovic lost to Macieja in the penultimate round.
The official website tried to broadcast three games, but usually there were only two, or one, game live, because of “tech issues.” I followed the last game, which could have been drawn with better play from the loser. One game never made it to the web. The game in which I had the most interest, the board three game between GM Georg Meier and NM Daniel Gurevich, of Atlanta, was being broadcast until it, too, had “tech issues.” After losing two of his first three games, NM Gurevich won in the fourth round, followed by a draw with IM John Cox. Daniel then ripped off three wins in a row, including GM Alex Fishbein in round seven and GM Alex Shabalov in the penultimate round. Reeling with the feeling and playing Black versus GM Meier, Gurevich played like a wild man swinging wildly by pushing his g-pawn and thereby weakening his position. It was the kind of impetuous move a chess teacher would advise a student against playing. A few moves later the game disappeared and I regretted not copying the moves that had been displayed.
The big news locally is that LM Damir Studen, who literally grew up at the House of Pain, earned an IM norm with his 5 ½ points with his last round draw with the aforementioned IM John Cox. His tournament included three wins, five draws, and only one loss, that a round five loss to LSM Denys Shmelov. He drew with GM’s Alex Fishbein and Georg Meier, and defeated GM John Federowicz. Damir and Daniel finished in the fourth score group, tying for twelfth place with many others. Years ago when both of these young men were up and comers I showed there was still life left in this old dog by defeating both of them in a nightly quick-play event at the Atlanta Chess Center. I mention this because I have read many times that one should “get them on the way up,” and have always wanted to put it into print. The game with Damir was particularly exciting because I had to play many moves with only one second left on my clock. Fortunately there was a five second delay. Both would, no doubt, eat me alive now. I congratulate both of these players for their outstanding result. Damir gained 48 rating points to move close to Senior Master level at 2384. Daniel increased his rating 51 points to move to 2344.
When the tournament first began there were updates often, and the pictures were like being onsite. I have not seen many of the players, like GM Michael Rohde, in years, so the pictures on the website were nice to see. Someone was taking a picture of the results page every “15-20 minutes.” That stopped, unfortunately. Combine that with the myriad technical problems and general lack of games, and I quickly lost interest. The internet was down most of the final day and I did not seem to mind because the results were not forthcoming, often for far too long. To a chess fan the coverage showed much promise initially, but sputtered and ground to a halt. In chess terms it would be like a player winning his first round and then losing all of his next games.
Since there have been so few games from the US Masters I would like to present a game given by Olimpiu Urcan & Other Epistolarians from, Chess: A Singapore Column of September 1, 2013. ( This one is for you, future IM Studen!
A Scandinavian Crash
Along with his brief annotations and comments, Napoleon Recososa submits the interesting game below, played in the fourth round of the Inaugural Teck Ghee CSC Community Chess Championship (August 25, 2013):
Napoleon Recososa – Kanagenthiran Premnath [B01]
Inaugural Teck Ghee CSC Community Chess, Round 4, 25 August 2013
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Bc4 c6 6.Nf3 Bg4 7.h3 Bh5 8.Be3 e6 9.g4 Bg6 10.Ne5 Nbd7 11.Nxg6 hxg6 12.Qe2 b5 13.Bd3 Qb4?! A waste of time since White, with his next move, castles queenside anyway. Perhaps 13…Be7 was better. 14.0–0–0 a5? Premature activity. He failed to consider the king’s safety. Maybe he underestimated the lurking dangers in the center as his c6 and e6-pawns controlled the d5 square and, furthermore, White’s bishop on e3 covered the e-file. 15.g5 Nh5 [see diagram] If 15…Nd5 White planned 16.Nxd5 exd5 17.Bf4+ Qe7 (17…Be7 18.c3; 17…Kd8 18.Rhe1) 18.Qf3 and now if 18…0–0–0 then 19.Bxb5! cxb5 20.Qxd5 looks strong. 16.d5! Nf4 After 16…cxd5 17.Nxd5 Qd6 (17…exd5 allows 18.Bc5+) 18.Nb6 (18.Bxb5 was interesting too but I had doubts about 18…exd5 19.Bc5+ Qe6) 18…Nf4 19.Qf3 White’s just winning. 17.Bxf4 Qxf4+ 18.Kb1 Nc5 If 18…Ne5 then White had a pleasant choice between 19.dxe6 fxe6 20.Bxg6+ or the more crude 19.dxc6 b4 20.Nb5. 19.Bxb5 Rc8 19…cxb5 loses to 20.Qxb5+ Kd8 (20…Ke7 21.d6+ Kd8 22.Qxc5) 21.dxe6+ Kc8 (21…Kc7 is met by the simple 22.Nd5+ or 22.Rd7+) 22.Qc6+. 20.Bxc6+ Rxc6 21.dxc6 Qc7 21…Qxg5 fails because of 22.c7! 22.Qg4? Better was 22.Qb5 followed by 23.Na4. I was distracted by my opponent’s time trouble. 22…Qxc6 23.f3 Be7 24.h4 a4 25.Ne4 a3 26.Nxc5 Bxc5 27.h5 Qb5 28.b3 gxh5 29.Qe4! Call it a sense of danger or pure luck but I noticed that after 29.Rxh5 Rxh5 30.Qxh5 there is the sneaky 30…Qe2! 31.Qh8+ Bf8 32.Qh1 Qe5. 29…Ke7 29…0–0 30.Rxh5 is losing too. 30.g6 f6 30…f5 leads to a forced mate after 31.Qh4+. 31.Rhe1 Qb6 3. Qd5 and with just six seconds left, my opponent resigned in this hopeless position. 1–0