B12 Caro-Kann Defense, Advance Variation, Botvinnik-Carls Defense

If a player decides to defend the Caro Kann with 3…c5, the so called BotvinniKann, he should be prepared for an early Nf3 from the player in charge of the white army because many players are reluctant to move the Queen early in the opening of the game regardless of what the computer programs compute.

Emil Sutovsky (2651)

vs Jonathan S Speelman (2603)

North Sea Cup 16th 07/11/2001 Rd 6

B12 Caro-Kann, advance variation

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Bb5 cxd4 6.Nxd4 Bd7 7.Nxc6 Bxc6 8.Bxc6+ bxc6 (All best according to SF)

9.O-O (The best move according to SF & Komodo is 9 c4, a move yet to be played in practice) e6 10.c4 Ne7 11.Qa4 Qd7 12.Nd2 Rb8 13.b3 Nc8 14.Rd1 Nb6 15.Qa5 dxc4 16.Bb2 cxb3 17.axb3 Nd5 18.Ne4 Be7 19.Rd3 Rb4 20.Nd6+ Bxd6 21.exd6 Re4 22.Rg3 e5 23.Rxg7 Kf8 24.Rg3 Re2 25.h3 Rg8 26.Qxa7 Qxa7 27.Rxa7 Rxg3 28.Ra8+ Kg7 29.d7 Nf4 30.Rg8+ 1-0

Nf3 has also been played after 4 dxc5 e6:

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. dxc5 e6 5. Nf3 Bxc5 6. Bd3 Ne7 7. O-O Nbc6 8. Nbd2

(Although 8…Ng6 has almost invariably been played Stockfish gives 8…Nb4, a move yet to be attempted in practice, best)

Komodo prefers 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. dxc5 e6 5. Nf3 Bxc5 6. Bd3 Ne7 7. O-O Nbc6 8. a3. The following game transposes into the 8 a3 line and follows the computer programs best play until 12…Kf7, when black should simply castle, a move that will become a theoretical novelty once played by a top GM.

Andrey Zhigalko (2576) vs Pavel Lomako (2385)

78th ch-BLR 2012 01/20/2012 Rd 9

B12 Caro-Kann, advance variation

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.dxc5 e6 5.Nf3 Bxc5 6.a3 Ne7 7.Bd3 Ng6 8.O-O Nc6 9.b4 Be7 10.Re1 f6 11.Bxg6+ hxg6 12.Qd3

Kf7 (12…0-0 Komodo) 13.Bb2 b6 14.c4 Bb7 15.Qe2 dxc4 16.exf6 Bxf6 17.Qxe6+ Kf8 18.Bc3 Rh5 19.Qxc4 Qd5 20.Qg4 Ne5 21.Bxe5 Bxe5 22.Rxe5 Rxe5 23.Nc3 Qe6 24.Nxe5 Qxe5 25.Qg3 Re8 26.Qxe5 Rxe5 27.Rd1 Ke7 28.h3 Rg5 29.Re1+ Kd6 30.Ne4+ Bxe4 31.Rxe4 a5 32.Kf1 Kd5 33.f3 Re5 34.bxa5 bxa5 35.Rg4 g5 36.Kf2 Kc5 37.a4 Kd5 38.Kg3 Rf5 39.Re4 Kc5 40.Kg4 Rd5 41.Kh5 Rd2 42.Rg4 Rd4 43.Rxg5+ Kb4 44.Rxg7 Kxa4 45.g4 Rf4 46.g5 Rxf3 47.h4 Kb3 48.Rb7+ Kc4 49.Ra7 Kb4 50.g6 Rg3 51.Kh6 a4 52.h5 a3 53.g7 1-0

The following game is the first game found in the database in which black played 3…c5. Chess Tempo gives Carl J M Carls his due.

Caro-Kann Defense, Advance Variation, Botvinnik-Carls Defense (B12)
https://chesstempo.com/gamedb/opening/247

CARL JOHAN MARGOT CARLS

(born Sep-16-1880, died Sep-11-1958, 77 years old) Germany
Carl Johan Margot Carls was born in Varel. Awarded the IM title in 1950, he was German champion in 1934.

A successful banker in Bremen with little time for tournament play or study, Carls specialized in the English Opening to help neutralize his relative lack of opening knowledge. Several variations bear his name or that of his city; for example, English, Bremen System, Keres Variation (A23) and English, Bremen System with …g6 (A24).
http://www.chessgames.com/player/carl_johan_margot_carls.html

Karel Treybal vs Carl Johan Margot Carls

Breslau 1912

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. dxc5 e6 5. Be3 Qc7 6. Qd4 Bd7 7. Nc3 Ne7 8. Bd3
Ng6 9. Nf3 Nc6 10. Nb5 Qb8 11. Qc3 Ncxe5 12. Bxg6 Nxf3+ 13. gxf3 hxg6 14. Qa5
Bxb5 15. Qxb5+ Kd8 16. O-O-O Qc7 17. c4 Rh5 18. cxd5 exd5 19. Rhe1 Qc6 20. Qc4
Be7 21. b4 Ke8 22. Qc3 Kf8 23. Bd4 Bf6 24. Bxf6 gxf6 25. Rd2 Kg7 26. f4 a5 27.
a3 axb4 28. axb4 Ra4 29. Rb2 Rxh2 30. Ree2 Qb5 31. Qd4 Ra1+ 32. Kd2 Rhh1 33.
Kc3 Rhc1+ 34. Rec2 Ra3+ 35. Rb3 Rxc2+ 36. Kxc2 Qe2+ 37. Kc3 Qf3+ 38. Qe3 d4+
0-1

Advertisements

The Wesley So Forfeit

The St. Louis Chess Club AND Scholastic Center was in its infancy when I played in the St. Louis Open there in the spring of 2009. In the second round I faced a young boy, Kevin Cao, who was an expert at the start of the tourney. Playing my favorite Bishop’s opening the boy did not take advantage of the opportunities my play afforded, putting him in a difficult position. My opponent had been keeping score on a gizmo called “Monroi.” When the going got tough my opponent pulled the hood of his jacket over his head and placed his gizmo on the table, eschewing the actual chessboard in order to focus only on the chessboard on his gizmo. Since this violated the rules of chess, I lodged a protest with the TD’s. The rule is simple and clear: 11.3 a) During play the players are forbidden to use any notes, sources of information or advice, or analyse any game on another chessboard. (https://chess24.com/en/read/news/us-champs-r9-so-forfeited-amid-family-turmoil)

The tournament director’s did not see it that way. Since the Monroi was a USCF “approved” gizmo they had trouble ruling the only way they should under rule 11.3. They decided to “compromise” by asking my opponents father have his son not use the gizmo as a chessboard the rest of the game. I agreed to this, and so did the father, albeit reluctantly. This was done because I was playing a child. If my opponent had been an adult I would not have agreed, but insisted he be forfeited because the rule is clear. Things change dramatically when a child is involved.

After a few more moves my opponent’s position deteriorated, and he was in also in time pressure which happens with a G/2 time control. His father, seeing this while constantly hovering over the board, told his son to do go back to using his gizmo. The boy then pulled his hood over his head and placed his gizmo on the table and again eschewed the actual chessboard. I protested, the clocks were stopped and into the TD room we went. This time things became, shall we say, heated. Actually, the father went ballistic. Some time later the USCF issued a ruling castigating the father for “reprehensible behaviour.” The father took his son home and when his time ran out, I was declared the “winner.” The young boy dropped back into the “A” class because of the loss. He is now rated 2300+.

This was written about and discussed on the forum of the St. Louis Chess Club AND Scholastic Center, which no longer exists, and some have said it is no longer in existence was because of what was written on it, none of it positive toward me. Simply put, I was vilified. Much was written on the USCF forum at the time, where I was also excoriated unmercifully.

I closely followed the recent US Championship tournament, the one now called the “Open” tournament, as opposed to the one called the “Women’s” tournament. GM Wesley So is obviously a supremely talented chess player. I found the interviews with him intriguing, to say the least. After the interview early in the tournament,maybe the very first round, the one in which he mentions playing weakly in the middle game after not seeing his foster mother for some time, (She had been with Jeanne Sinquefield he said) I told the Legendary Georgia Ironman something was obviously “not right” about Mr. So. I could not put my finger on it, but knew something was wrong.

Much has been written about Wesley being forfeited, and I have read everything found on the interweb. I would like to share some of it with you, then share a few comments of my own.

“Akobian complained that this distracted him”!? What is the motive behind this statement? To me it looks like a “sucker punch” from Akopian to get an easy win. Chess referees should according to the rules always apply common sense. And the nature of this incident considering the actual writing of So does not by any means amount to such a serious offence that So should forfeit his game against Akopian.” – thomas.dyhr (Thomas Dyhr, Denmark)

“This decision is absolutely ridiculous I take it So has been writing on his scoresheet sometimes which would show on his copy handed in and is against Fide rules ok and Rich told him this.
He gets a blank piece of paper instead to write some thought positives and Akobian complains to Rich who forfeits So.
Akobian if he was distracted by So’s actions should have asked him to stop first.
Rich should have seen that this was not writing on a scoresheet which he warned him about and if he was not allowing So to write on blank paper as well told him to stop immediately and if So complied let the game continue.
Akobian and Rich do not come out of this with any credit and Akobian should be ashamed of himself as a man of integrity.” – Gilshie (Thomas Gilmore, United Kingdom)

“I guess they wanted to guarantee that an American wins the US Championship…” – Shtick (Nick Daniels, Canada)
(All of the about quotes from: https://chess24.com/en/read/news/us-champs-r9-so-forfeited-amid-family-turmoil)

“PS: editorial comment to myself

Many chess writers and commentators seem to have little better to do this weekend than to talk about a silly forfeit incident in the US championship, so I will throw in a few of my own observations.
The first is that even though some tournament rule might give the tournament arbiter, Tony Rich, the POWER or the AUTHORITY to forfeit Wesley So , no rule –just because it is written–gave Tony Rich the RIGHT to forfeit Wesley So for doing what he did. So offended no one nor did he disrespect his opponent; he caused no disturbence, nor did he cheat. Wesley So’s actions were not designed to give him anything other than peace of mind and a calm spirit.
Please understand that I am not saying that Akobian–who is a perfect gentleman– acted wrongly when he drew to the arbiter’s attention So’s actions. Nor am I saying that Tony Rich acted incorrectly when he decided to act according to the written rules. And especially I am not saying that So was right when he lashed out when interviewed afterwards…there were CLEARLY better ways to have handled the situation.
What I am trying to say is that once more the game of chess DESERVES to be belittled because of this incident. ONCE MORE, mainstream media will target and make fun of us. Chess LOST some prestige on that day. When Jon Stewart recently did a humorous skit on the USCF trying to recruit F.Caruana for the national team, many–including ChessBase–thought it was also a bit insulting to the game of chess. Perhaps it was a bit insulting, even though it might not have been intended to be insulting…
But until the day we (the chess community) STOP allowing silly and poorly written rules to hurt and denigrate the noble game of chess in the eyes of normal and intelligent onlookers (and let us not forget about potential sponsors and patrons), then we deserve to be insulted a little bit more each time…” – Grandmaster Kevin Spraggett
(https://kevinspraggettonchess.wordpress.com/2015/04/12/it-took-a-really-long-time-but/)

“Guess my point is – even if he warned So, forfeiting is a staggering over-reaction. Threaten with forfeit = fine. Actually doing it = insane” – GM Jon Ludvig Hammer (Also from the aforementioned chess24 article, and if you click on this, you will find more comments, including this one by IM Mark Ginsburg, “Correct. Time penalty first. This action was wildly disproportionate as GM Hammer points out. Bad call.”)

GM Emil Sutovsky, President at Association of Chess Professionals, wrote this on his Facebook page (taken from the aforementioned chess24 article) “The arbiter’s decision to forfeit Wesley So for writing down irrelevant notes on his scoresheet during the game seems weird to me. Indeed, that can be seen as a violation of rules: ” 8.1 b. The scoresheet shall be used only for recording the moves, the times of the clocks, offers of a draw, matters relating to a claim and other relevant data.” And arbiter has repeatedly urged Wesley to stop it. But awarding a loss is way too harsh a punishment for such a minor sin. Yes, it can be disturbing for the opponent, and the arbiter could and should have deducted the time on Wesley’s clock for disturbing the opponent. And to keep deducting it (2 minutes each time), if needed after each move (warning Wesley, that a forfeit will come after 2nd or 3rd deduction). That was the most painless and logical decision. Unfortunately, the arbiter has preferred the most brutal solution. These things should not happen.”

It should be obvious from the above that the TD, Tony Rich, and the St. Louis Chess Club AND Scholastic Center have not come out of this sordid incident in a favorable light. As GM Spraggett says, once again chess has suffered a black eye. I agree with Kevin when he writes, “…no rule –just because it is written–gave Tony Rich the RIGHT to forfeit Wesley So for doing what he did.” The reputation of the St. Louis Chess Club AND Scholastic Center has been sullied.

The punishment should fit the crime. As GM Kevin Spraggett writes, “So offended no one nor did he disrespect his opponent; he caused no disturbence, nor did he cheat. Wesley So’s actions were not designed to give him anything other than peace of mind and a calm spirit.”

Contrast this with how I was treated at the St. Louis Chess Club AND Scholastic Center. My opponent violated the rule in order to gain an ADVANTAGE! GM Wesley So did no such thing. He is one of the elite chess players in the world and has no need to gain an advantage against any other player in the world.

If one closely examines the rule, “11.3 a) During play the players are forbidden to use any notes, sources of information or advice, or analyse any game on another chessboard,” it is clear the meaning is that a player cannot use any “NOTES, sources of information or advice,” to help, or assist him in regard to making his MOVES. A player cannot utilize a book, or gizmo containing chess information, or any “advice” from another person. There is no ambiguity here.

I was not there and do not know EXACTLY what Tony Rich said to Wesley, but from what I heard on the broadcast, and have now read, GM So was under the impression he could not write on his scoresheet, so he wrote on another piece of paper. How culpable is Tony Rich in this matter? Did he make himself COMPLETELY understood? Besides, as “Najdork” (Miguel Najdork, from Nepal) commented, “Also I would like to point out how from rule 8.1 you are allowed to write on the scoresheet any “relevant data”, and that is so vague that I guess you could write almost anything.” Who defines what is “relevant?” Your relevant may differ from what I consider “relevant.” For example, what if your opponent in a Senior event wrote on his scoresheet, “Take heart medication at 3 PM.” Who, other than GM Varuzhan Akobian, would complain? And who, other than Tony Rich would forfeit the man? I know Tony Rich. As Tony reminded me in 2009, I won our game at the Missouri State Championship in 2002 in Rollo. He was nice to me then, and has been every time I have encountered him, such as at the US Open in Indiana a few years ago. I liked Tony until he lost his mind. What could possibly have motivated the man to issue this stupid ruling, which will have lasting repercussions? If you were Wesley So would you join the American team at the Olympiad?

“In love with this rule: “12.2 The arbiter shall: b. act in the best interest of the competition.” Common sense.” – GM Jon Ludvig Hammer.

The forfeit defies common sense. “Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rule; they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire.” – John Roberts, Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court to the Senate Judiciary Committee in September 2005. (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/when-the-umpire-is-playing-for-the-other-team/262429/)
No one watches a chess tournament to see the TD. In lieu of watching Wesley So play GM Akobian, the world was instead subjected to a TD try and explain his “logic.” As many a TD has proven over the years, the less involved they are, the better the outcome.

None of this made any sense to me until reading this, “In the final reckoning Wesley So’s forfeit had no effect on the top three standings. Even a win against Akobian would only have tied So with Ray Robson on 7.5/11, and since he lost against Robson he would still have finished third. The person who has a real cause for complaint seems to be Gata Kamsky, who was edged out of 5th place – his goal in order to qualify for the World Cup later this year – by Akobian.” (https://chess24.com/en/read/news/nakamura-and-krush-are-2015-us-champions)

There it is, the reason for this whole debacle. It always comes down to “Who profits?”

The whole affair is disgusting, and sickening. It proves only that a TD has only one rule by witch to abide: Do What Thy Wilt! There should be some kind of punishment for a TD who oversteps his bounds. I have seen far too many tournament director’s puff out their chest while strutting around singing, “I’ve got the power,” such as Richard Crespo, the former TD spending his days in prison after abducting a woman and shooting it out with police in San Antonio, Texas a decade ago.
I am embarrassed, and ashamed, to be an American involved with chess. This putrid affair rivals anything I have written about FIDE and the nefarious Russians. United States chess has reached a new low. Tony Rich has now made everyone forget about L. Walter Stephens, the TD who awarded Sammy Reshevsky a win against Arnold Denker in the 1942 US Championship even though it was Sammy who lost on time. The game will die before the shock waves emanating from this debacle subside. The St. Louis Chess Club AND Scholastic Center touts itself as the US Capital of Chess. Knowledgable players and fans know that three of the players in the Championship, Sam Shankland, Sam Sevian, and Daniel Naroditsky, cut their chess teeth in the San Francisco Bay area, home of the oldest chess club in America, the venerable Mechanic’s Insitute Chess Room. If any area should be acknowledged as the “Capital of US Chess,” it is San Francisco, in lieu of the neuveau rich, faux chess club AND scholastic center in St. Louis, which has now been tarnished. No longer can it be considered a “leading light,” or “shining example.”

I can only hope this affair does not dessiccate Wesley So’s desire. If one watches the interviews with Mr. So during the US Chess Championship he will see a dramatic change in Wesley as the tournament progressed. Hopefully, this will fire him up and prod Wesley to play the kind of chess of which he is capable culminating in a match for the World Chess Championship.