Mechanics' Institute Chess Club Newsletter #554
(October 6)
The first is that a player takes hold of one piece, then puts it back down and takes another. There the "touch-move" rule naturally comes into play. In that case I'd even force my grandmother to make a move.
The second version is when someone clearly intended to pick up one piece but accidently touched another. But everything's also clear there: there can't possibly be any "touch-move".
And the third version - if a player picks up two pieces at the same time. That would no doubt be an issue, but I've never seen anything like that. So then, it seems that with Navara and Moiseenko it was the second case. There shouldn't be any issue.It's simply that in time trouble Moiseenko, in a bad position, realised that he was losing the match and emotionally said that his opponent had picked up the piece. But then he realised there was no violation and that should have been the end of the incident. Navara decided to punish himself for who knows what by offering a draw in an absolutely won position. It's good that he was the only one to suffer - he had to play a tiebreak, but what if it was a different format and the result affected the placings?
Alexander Grischuk
|
1) Mechanics' Institute Chess Club News
1. GM Patrick Wolff (SF) vs GM Alex Stripunsky (MAN) 1-0 2. IM Lev Milman (MAN) vs IM Dmitry Zilberstein (SF) 1/2-1/2 3. IM David Pruess (SF) vs FM Andrei Zaremba (MAN) 1/2-1/2 4. NM Matan Prilleltensky (MAN) vs NM Samuel Sevian (SF) 1-0 This was a tough match and the play on boards two and three was very solid throughout. Only on board three did we have a chance to win, and only but for one move. Caro Kann B19 Pruess- Zaremba 25...Rd8 was necessary and equal. 26.c5?? White misses his one chance in the game. Daniel Naroditsky, who was watching this game as it was played instantly found 26.Rd6! and indeed it wins. For example: a) 26...Qb7 27.c5 27...Rd8 28.Qd4 Rxd6 29.Qxd6 bxc5 30.Qf8+ Kd7 31.Qxf7+ or 27...f6 28.cxb6 fxe5 29.bxa7 b) 26...Qa8 27.Qa3 Qb7 28.c5 Rd8 29.c6 c) 26... Qxc4 27.b3 Qf1+ 28.Kb2 Re7 29.Qe4 Qf2+ 30.Ka3 Qc5+ 31.b4 26...Rd8! David gets no second chance. 27.Rxd8+ Kxd8 28.cxb6 axb6 29.Qd4+ Ke8 30.Bxg7 Nxg7 31.Qxg7 Qc4 32.a3 h5 33.Qg8+ Ke7 34.Qg5+ Ke8 35.Qg8+ Ke7 36.Qg5+ Ke8 37.Qxh5 Qf1+ 38.Ka2 Qc4+ 39.Kb1 Qf1+ 40.Ka2 Qc4+ 41.Kb1 ½-½ Patrick Wolff played a very impressive game against one of the best players in the United States.
Wolff- Stripunsky 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.c3 Nf6 4.e5 Nd5 5.d4 cxd4 6.cxd4 d6 7.a3 Bd7 8.Bd3 Bc6 9.0-0 Nd7 10.b4 This is primarily played to stop ...Nc5. 10...a6 11.Re1 Rc8 11...Be7 is a safer way but less ambitious way to handle this variation. With the text Black can sometimes save a tempo by meeting exd6 with ...Bxd6 without losing a tempo with the bishop (...Be7, ...Bxd6). 12.Ng5 12.Bg5 is also possible but the text is much more direct and aims for Nxe6 and/or the queen's transfer to f3 or g4. 12...g6? 12...dxe5 is one way to handle the position meeting 13.Nxe6 with 13...Qf6. 12...Be7 13.Qh5 g6 14.Qh6 Bf8 15.Qh3 dxe5 16.dxe5 Bg7 17.Nf3 Qc7 18.Qg3 Nxb4 19.axb4 Bxf3 20.Bb2 Bc6 21.Nd2 0-0 22.Nc4 Rcd8 was equal in D.Milovanovic-Stripunsky, Parsippany 2005, but Black later won. 13.Qf3! Patrick was on his own here but quickly oriented himself. 13...Qe7 14.exd6 Qf6 15.Qg4 This is quite strong but Houdini prefers: 15.Nxe6! Bxd6 (15...fxe6 16.Qg4 Kf7 17.Bg5; 15...Qxf3 16.Nc7+ Kd8 17.Re8#) 16.Qh3 Be7 17.Bg5 Nf4 18.Qh6 with decisive threats. It appears 12...g6? should not be tried again for multiple reasons. 15...Bh6 15...Bxd6 16.Nxe6 fxe6 17.Rxe6+ Kf7 18.Rxf6+ N7xf6 19.Qd1 Ba4 20.Qf1 Kg7 21.g3 Bb8 22.Nd2 Ba7 23.Nf3 Rhf8 24.Qh3 h5 25.Qh4 Ng4 26.Bxg6 Kxg6 27.Qg5+ Kf7 28.Qxd5+ 1-0 Ulibin-Brandenburg, Hoogeveen 2008. 16.Bd2 Both players seemed to hallucinate here as 16.Nxf7! was pretty much winning on the spot. White is a little better after 16.Nxe6 Bxc1 (16...fxe6 17.Bxh6) 17.Nc5+ Kf8 18.Rxc1 Kg7 19.Nd2 but Patrick's is also quite strong if not immediately decisive. 16...0-0 17.Qh4 Qg7 18.Nf3 During the game Dmitry Zilberstein (who had drawn his game earlier) and I thought 18.Nxe6! Bxd2 19.Nxg7 Bxe1 20.Nh5 Rfe8 was Black's idea but we missed Houdini's idea of 21.Qg5! preparing Qh6 and Nd2. Black has still not solved his problems after the text which has the advantage of leading to very easy play for White. Patrick was way ahead on the clock at this point. 18...Bxd2 19.Nbxd2 Rfd8 20.Ne5 Qf6 This does not work out well nor does 20...N7f6 21.Rac1 Rxd6 22.Ndc4 Rdd8 23.Na5 Perhaps best was Houdini's 20...g5 21.Qg3 Nf4. 21.Qg3 Qf4 22.Ne4 Qxg3 23.hxg3 Nb8 24.Rac1 Kg7 25.Ng5! Like a master alchemist Patrick effortlessly trades one advantage for another. Just as his d-pawn looks ripe for the plucking he finds a weak point in Black's camp to attack. 25...Be8 26.Be4! Preparing to take on d5 and setup a good knight versus bad bishop scenario. 26...Rxc1 27.Rxc1 Nc6 28.d7! Bxd7 29.Ngxf7 Rf8 30.Bxd5 exd5 31.Nxc6 Bxc6 32.Ne5 The rest is a simple matter of technique for a player of Patrick's caliber. 32...a5 33.bxa5 Ra8 34.Rc5 Kf6 35.f3 Ra6 36.Nd3 Ra8 37.Nb4 Ke7 38.a6 Kd6 39.a4 Bxa4 40.axb7 Rb8 41.Rxd5+ Ke6 42.Ra5 Bd7 43.Na6 1-0 |
|
|
WESTERN DIVISION W L Game Points Opps Avg Rating Opps Record Chicago6.0 0.0 18.5/24 (77%) 2367 14.0 - 16.0 (47%) San Francisco3.5 2.5 13.0/24 (54%) 2402 13.5 - 16.5 (45%) Los Angeles3.5 2.5 12.5/24 (52%) 2413 15.5 - 12.5 (55%) Dallas3.5 2.5 12.5/24 (52%) 2378 12.0 - 16.0 (43%) Arizona2.5 3.5 11.5/24 (48%) 2399 13.5 - 14.5 (48%) Miami2.5 3.5 11.5/24 (48%) 2398 13.0 - 15.0 (46%) Seattle2.0 4.0 9.5/24 (40%) 2409 18.5 - 11.5 (62%) St. Louis1.0 5.0 8.0/24 (33%) 2426 18.5 - 11.5 (62%) |
|
|
2) Jay Whitehead (1961-2011) Born in New York City, Jay was raised in San Francisco and is the strongest player this town has ever produced. Among his accomplishments were twice playing in the US Championship (1983 and 1987), twice a member of the US team in World Student Team Championships (1980 and 1983), US Junior Closed Champion (1981), US Junior Open Champion (1979) and 1987 US Grand Prix Champion. Perhaps Jay's most unique distinction was that he was the only American born player to finish above Garry Kasparov in a tournament. Competing in the World Championship for players under 17 in Cagnes-sur-Mer, France, in September of 1977, Jay finished second behind Jon Arnason of Iceland (Kasparov was third). Here is the game: Queen Pawn D02 Garry Kasparov – Jay Whitehead Cagnes sur Mer, 1977 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 b6 3.Bf4 Bb7 4.e3 e6 5.Nbd2 c5 6.c3 Be7 7.Bd3 0-0 8.h3 d5 9.0-0 Nbd7 10.a4 a6 11.Qb1 Rc8 12.b4 cxd4 13.cxd4 Rc3 14.b5 a5 15.Rc1 Rxc1+ 16.Qxc1 Qa8 17.Ra2 Bb4 18.Ne5 Nxe5 19.Bxe5 Rc8 20.Rc2 Rxc2 21.Qxc2 Qc8 22.Nf3 Qxc2 23.Bxc2 Ne8 24.g4 f6 25.Bb8 Bd6 26.Bxd6 Nxd6 27.h4 Bc8 28.Kg2 Bd7 ½-½ Jay was a classical player (Nimzo and Queen's Indian and the Classical Sicilian as Black and 1.d4 as White) who was noted for having excellent concentration and tremendous fighting spirit. Lone Pine 1980 was a good example of his uncompromising style. Rated near the bottom of the field going in he was leading after four rounds (wins over Bisguier, Gligoric and Wilder and a draw with Geller) but then lost three in a row before bouncing back to score 1 1/2 points in his last two games. One of Jay's favorite games, a hard fought draw against Korchnoi at Lugano 1984, appears to have been lost forever. It's not in Mega, nor Player's Chess News, Chess Life, Chess Informant, Europe Echecs, British Chess Magazine, Chess, Tournament Chess, the Lugano 1984 tournament bulletin or the Olms CD that goes with the three volumes on Korchnoi's career which is supposedly complete (it isn't). Recollections of the game by someone he showed it to are that Jay was White in a Queen's Indian and was pressing almost the entire game. This was only a few years after Korchnoi's last World Championship match. The past twenty years Jay played very infrequently and dedicated himself to learning more about chess in the 1800s. He "re-discovered" thousands of games (not to be found in any data base) in old chess columns during his visits to libraries in North America, Europe and South America. This research led him to question the established canon for many of the old masters. He was particularly convinced that the historical ratings for players before 1900 were often wildly inaccurate due to the lack of reliable data.
|
|
3) Art Wang Former MI Chess Director Jim Eade writes: Art Wang might be losing his last endgame, but he is putting up an heroic fight. He is too ill to welcome visitors, but he would appreciate calls from the chess community. Be aware that his family might be screening the calls, if Art is not up to talking, so don't be offended, if you don't get through to him. His number is 650-494-1859. |